Training & Nutrition - Why Monitor Anything?

Let's see, first we had those odometers with the spiked wheel that clicked your miles away. Then with electronics we had speedometers that were small enough for a bike. Add rpm, average speed, fastest speed, total and trip miles and time; then add heart rate monitoring. Now add power generator/output monitors.
My question, is all this monitoring really giving a rider the feedback he needs, or is there something that isn't being monitored (or can't be) that is more vital, or more useful?
With all the research into the brain/body connection, should a rider go more by 'feeling' than what some numbers are showing him? Are these instruments really advancing a rider's training, or putting them more out-of-touch? Can they take the place of experience?

Experience and feeling are important. For instance, sometimes I'll head out for a ride intending to do a series of hard intervals. But, if I feel sluggish or like I'm overdoing it, I'll back off and do an easier ride instead. Likewise, sometimes I'll plan on doing an easy ride, but feel like Superman and just put the hammer down.

Pro riders use wattage, heart rate, etc. to plan their training, and analyze their performance. This is no different than other sports - you wouldn't expect a baseball manager to select his batting lineup based only on how he "feels" about the players. But, there are times when the numbers can be a distraction and pro riders often don't race with digital feedback. In the last long time trial of this year's Tour de France, Lance Armstrong rode without a computer because he was feeling strong and didn't want to be distracted by it. Of course, he rides so much, at such a high level, that his "feelings" are probably a lot more refined than most of us.

That said, I think the numbers are important too and, for me, they're fun to track (plus, I have a "professional" interest as you can see from my sig :D). I like knowing that so far this year I've ridden nearly 4,000 miles, that I've averaged over 16 mph for the year, that I've climbed nearly 175,000 vertical feet, and that I've burned over 153,000 calories on my bikes. Not everyone needs or wants to know these things, but there's no harm in it, as far as I can see.

A lot of the time, the only way you can see if your performance improved is by using a machine to monitor what you're doing.

Of course, if you're just messing around, there's no point to it. Just ride and forgeddaboudit.

Koffee

If I remember correctlly Pantani relied on feeling alone with out the gadgets. I think that for a lot of people it is simply fun to keep stats. I use an HRM mostly on recovery days where I can see if I am going too hard. On hard days I don't really need it because during Intervals I just go till I drop regardless of stats. For fun I like to see my max speed and current speed.

I love Pantani, but at the same time... I wouldn't rely on the training habits of a doper.

Koffee

Here's my two cents:

Speedometers are just plain fun. I got a cheap Wal-Mart (gasp!) one just to see how fast I'm going. I love to try to break records down hills. It's just another way to keep things interesting.

Heart rate monitors are great for (a) base training and (b) warning you about overtraining. Gut feelings are important, but how can you tell if you're going at 70% or 80% without a HRM? You can, but it's harder. As you may know, you can have trouble getting your heart rate up when you're overtrained. Again, a gut feeling that you are overtraining should be listened to, but I've always been the type to feel that and think, "stop being a wimp! Go out and train hard today." My HRM was under $20, and it works just fine.

Power monitors are really expensive. I'm in college. I can't afford one.

Now....I think the number one thing is that none of these toys are perfect in and of themselves, and above all you should always listen to your body if it is trying to tell you something. Then again, they can tell you useful information that your body just can't tell you. They motivate me to push myself harder. I want to break speeds, get my resting heart rate down, and so on.

So all in all I think the best approach is to use all the information you can, and never buy expensive toys when the cheaper versions will do.

Speedometers are extreemly usefull, they are definatley not for cheap fun, and they are a must for training. Heart rate monitors and that i dont know about, but meausuring speed, distance, time, length of trip and average speeds are extreemly usefull:
-For Training
- For Fun ( lets beat my top speed!)
- On those long rides where the 'trip distance' can come in handy when working out how far to go, how far is left.
- So you dont go over the speed limit. lol
- Great to keep a tally of how far you've ridden.

Many reasons and yes they're worth it :)

I mainly use my HR monitor for recovery rides. On hard rides I find it distracting. Its hard enough forcing yourself to suffer. Seeing my HR going nuts is just another thing my mind wants to use as an excuse to back off. This year was more getting back into shape and putting in time in the saddle. Next year on hard days I may wear the monitor, but keep the display in my back pocket then review after the ride.

I just started using one, and it helped me a lot, it told me I was going to hard. I'm glad that I have it, otherwise, I might've screwed up my base training, which i wouldn't have noticed until it was too late 4-5 months afterwords.

Cyclometers are very useful if you are using a cue sheet-- you can check if you missed a turn by looking at distance travelled.

I just started using one, and it helped me a lot, it told me I was going to hard. I'm glad that I have it, otherwise, I might've screwed up my base training, which i wouldn't have noticed until it was too late 4-5 months afterwords.

I sort of find it hard to believe that your heartrate going too high would screw up your base training. And yet I keep hearing people talk like this. Could someone link me to something that explains where you guys get these ideas from? I find them confusing.

Read Tudor O. Bompa's book "Periodization". Actually, read any of his books.

Koffee

I'm familiar with periodization in boxing... but isn't that only for very serious competition so that your conditioning peaks for a brief period during which occurs the competition? As in, you won't benefit unless you are already in very good shape?

No.

Periodization is now recommended for any type of training you do, whether for professional or recreational purposes. The idea behind periodization is always to schedule your training so you can see results.

USA Cycling not only sanctions periodization, they recommend all coaches to use Bompa's training, advocate it, and if you can, go to see Bompa lecturing so you can gain a deeper understanding of periodization training.

See also Chris Carmichael's books- he totally has down periodization training to a T. (for lack of a better analogy)

Koffee

See also books by Sally Edwards. She also has a very deep knowledge of periodization training, and advocates it for anyone who wants to look at their exercise as a lifestyle incorporation. If you need some additional information, I would recommend you drop her an email- she always answers and is willing to sit down and go into further detail. If you go to the www.heartzones.com website, you'll find her email address.

Koffee

Hmmmm... I shall have to do some reading.

Tudor O. Bompa is known as the grandfather of periodization training. He trained the East Germans back when they were formidable in the Olympics. Later, he moved to Canada, where he revolutionized the fitness industry with his concepts in periodization training. It was slow to pick up, but now, in the last 15- 20 years, it's become an accepted means of training, and for a lot of coaches, it's considered the most superior way of training your clients to excel at whatever they're doing, whether it's for recreational or professional. The great thing about periodization training is that it can be adapted or modified for whatever you're doing. You can use it to track your training and tweak it so that as your body adapts (and adjusts) to your training, you can "shock" the body with your periodization training and continue to progress.

The USA Cycling endorses Bompa, and they also recommend a pretty basic schedule to follow. They also give seminars for their coaches on periodization. And if you read the books they recommend by Bompa, you'll find a four year periodization plan at the back of his books you can use for your clients.

He is also big on the weights too- he has a book dedicated to periodization and weight training, I believe.

All the major players endorse periodization training- from Carmichael to Friel to Burke, they're all using this premise for training.

Koffee

Hi Steve,
You can go by feel. I have been doing that this year.
One winter I followed a periodisaton chart faithfully, it was like magic. It was also one of the most boring things I have ever done.
You ought to try it sometime.

From late: Hi Steve,
You can go by feel. I have been doing that this year.


Wouldn't keeping track of mileage, speed, wattage be like someone trying to lose weight writing their weight down each morning? I never weigh myself, but may go by how I look in the mirror or photos...I may keep track of how much time I spend on the road, but otherwise ride each day by how I feel.

What I am getting at is that through experience, one can listen to the body and know what is needed, from intensity to time. Even diet, what your body needs at the time, depends on what it tells you.
And none of this is told through an instrument.

Is it possible then for one to become dependent on them and never learn to 'hear' their body?

If you're using your hrm, power meter, etc. correctly, you would know that you would not be comparing overall results every single day. You plan your training, then use the stuff you've got to make sure you are following the plan. Over time, you view the results of your data, and after some time has passed (like say... every 6 weeks) you tweak your training based on the results you got- for instance, if you started training tomorrow with all your stuff, then you would go through that data in 6 weeks and check to see that you are making the progress you're supposed to be making. If you're not, you'd go back and change up your training so that you can hammer out the weaknesses. If you see you're progressing, then you can also progress your training and move to the next phase of your periodization training.

This is why every person needs either a coach (if they're serious and want to take the investment in their training) or at least a trainer who can take them through a training program that can come back every 6- 8 weeks and digest all the information and analize and recommend how your training is to proceed. If you don't know how to properly use your technology, you will never be able to reach your full potential.

Koffee

Remember the 'cycle theory' back when? You had physical, mental, and emotional cycles you kept track of, and whenever they converged you would have an ultimate peak performance day. Otherwise you would have individual peak days. I don't know what happened to it.
Again, my question is how much bio-feedback is necessary and is it the right kind that we are obtaining to reach our full potential? Is the technology necessary for us to do our best?
Or can one learn from oneself how to reach that state?

This is more than a theory- it's a practice that's tried, tested, and works. Ask any professional athlete. Ask anyone who's used this to monitor their progress- it need not be a professional. Just anyone who's done it. It works.

You can go by feel, but feel is subjective and does very little to confirm how much progress you made. So if you want to just go by feel, do it. But if you want that edge, you'll go for the technology. My interpretation of technology is that there will never be enough of it to help you out, and the more you use, the better advantage you'll have over the novice who chooses to use less or go by "feel" when training.

Can you learn how to get to the state of someone like... say... Lance? No. Lance got so far on his own, but recognized quickly that technology was necessary to track progress. I think it was New Leaf who first began using their technology with Lance to track his training progress at age 19. Now, he's a technology junkie (see the Lance Chronicles for further elaboration), and he's better for it, and definitely, he has a better handle on his training and progression (I only use him as an example since everyone knows him).

If you're serious about training, you know what you need to do.

Koffee

This is more than a theory- it's a practice that's tried, tested, and works. Ask any professional athlete. Ask anyone who's used this to monitor their progress- it need not be a professional. Just anyone who's done it. It works.


If you're serious about training, you know what you need to do.

Koffee


Theory is supported by known facts. It is a principle that we can accept because it is generally agreed to be true. Therefore all the things of which we have spoken can be theories. You can put them into practice, and get others to follow, but they aren't law (ref. the law of gravity). Theory can change, and will, with new facts, new interpretations, and advancing knowledge. That's good.
In the meantime, we all accept what we want to, and are free to reject what we don't want.
Science has found a profound connection between the body and mind; the 'soul', or mind, and our physical bodies. It is through this connection that I feel we will find our own capabilities.
And it will be available to all.

Very true. Every theory will have its own set of answers, and even then, there will always be challenges to the answers.

Putting aside all the gobbledygook, you've got numbers you can go by if you use technology, or you can go by feel, which is definitely less quantifiable, less reliable, and less sensitive to tracking changes. Pick whichever one works for you, but know which one will give you a better idea of how your training will go.

Koffee

I can forsee my fixed and SS friends making serious fun of me if I start agreeing with you and wearing a HRM :(

Oh boy,
what a mess. Science doesn't really have laws. Everything is subject to change. In that vein, while exercise science is sure to improve; it is incredibly good nowadays. Scientists also don't feel comfortabe with profound spiritual connections.

Having said all that, the choice is yours. It's not a big deal, at least to me if you're training at a sub-optimal pace. As I pointed out, so am I. I am trying to work up the intestinal fortitude to do base training, followed by periodised aerobic training, again this winter. Btw, the short answer to your question
about needing technology to acheive maximal output is yes.

Monitoring has another important benefit. If you are careful in your monitoring, if your performance starts dropping off at a given perceived level of exertion, then you might be developing an injury or illness, or overtraining. Knowing that something is going wrong is a prerequisite to doing something aobut it.

Oh boy,
what a mess. Science doesn't really have laws. Everything is subject to change...


Science does have certain 'laws' and so does mathematics. They are accepted as such because all evidence and experience has shown them to be true. These 'laws' help one to form theories, which are based on observation and experimentation and explain why certain things happen, and can predict other actions and results.
They have usually been around for a long time, whereas theories can be new, can be changed, and can be discarded by science while the 'laws' remain.
These 'laws' are not based on some spiritual feeling or beliefs, so they are not speculation.
The whole point of this thread was not to put anyone or any idea down, but to make one think. To have a few minds share ideas and what works for them.

i get distracted looking at my computer all the time, so sometimes i just leave it at home if i'm going to do my usual route (which i know by heart what my average speed will likely be, the distance, etc.). if I'm going someplace new i'll bring it along mostly so i know the distance.

i've had BY FAR the best workouts trying to catch up or pass other riders versus beating a pervious time recorded on my computer. the way i see it is, unless you are doing some serious training or time trialing, the data on the computer isn't really necessary.

Steve,
two different ball games. Best thing I have seen on the subject is 'Explaining Science A cognitive approach' by Ronald Giere University of Chicago Press 1988.

Steve,
two different ball games. Best thing I have seen on the subject is 'Explaining Science A cognitive approach' by Ronald Giere University of Chicago Press 1988.


Still there is a possibility: "Is there something we are not monitoring, or can't monitor, that would affect a person's quest to improve and obtain a higher, or highest level of fitness even more?" What better monitor than the brain...

Does one pay attention to these datum in leiu of what his unique body is telling them; does the monitoring break a connection one could attain without it? Is the monitoring complete and necessary, or down the road does someone with experience realize they didn't need it after all?
Coaches and trainers base their advise on what they have seen and experienced. They can use the scientific method, or be very opinionated, and still they will get others to follow them.

Oh boy, what a mess. Science doesn't really have laws. Everything is subject to change. In that vein, while exercise science is sure to improve; it is incredibly good nowadays. Scientists also don't feel comfortabe with profound spiritual connections.
There are laws of physics, and there are also laws of metaphysics. The difference is laws of physics you can demonstrate and prove to another; whereas laws of metaphysics you can only prove to yourself. This is why some scientists stay clear of anything metaphysical or spiritual. But many doctors are embracing the mind/body connection because they see results. Personally I always listen to my intuition in anything I do.

One thing overlooked but implied in this thread thus far is the role that goal setting plays in training. All of the coaches mentioned by the apparently very knowledgeable K. Brown are very insistent on formulating a training plan that incorporates very specific goals. Only by having metrics with which to monitor your goals can you know whether or not you are making progress toward them.

It is my belief that riders that aspire to the very highest levels of cycling will, in consultation with a qualified coach, formulate a training plan that incorporates performance goals and metrics with which to measure progress. Today's technology provides with (as Friel describes it), a three-dimensional view of performance (power, heart-rate, and cadence) rather than just a one- or two-dimensional view.

A major objective of developing a plan and measuring the various aspects of performance is to identify those areas in which performance is lacking and is not up to the level that will get your performance to the level to which you aspire. By observing the appropriate metrics and designing or modifying your training program, you are (hopefully) better able to bring those 'limiters' up to snuff. Very difficult for most and iimpossible for many to do this by feel.

If you are more relaxed about your cycling, and don't necessarily need or want the info or benchmarks that the setting of performance goals and progress measurement thereof provides, then by all means go by feel.

... Only by having metrics with which to monitor your goals can you know whether or not you are making progress toward them.

It is my belief that riders that aspire to the very highest levels of cycling will, in consultation with a qualified coach, formulate a training plan that incorporates performance goals and metrics with which to measure progress. Today's technology provides with (as Friel describes it), a three-dimensional view of performance (power, heart-rate, and cadence) rather than just a one- or two-dimensional view.

... Very difficult for most and iimpossible for many to do this by feel.

If you are more relaxed about your cycling, and don't necessarily need or want the info or benchmarks that the setting of performance goals and progress measurement thereof provides, then by all means go by feel.


Doesn't a person develop this feel for their body through experience? How can they develop that if they are wired into a system?
Are there perhaps too many variables to consider, ones not monitored or that are ignored by programs and machinery/computers, and the resulting possibilities too numerous to reduce to a system suitable for everyone?

I think it is like getting a computer to drive an F1 around the different circuits faster than a human. Not possible now, maybe someday, but would involve intelligence.

Doesn't a person develop this feel for their body through experience?.

Of course...through experience we can get a better idea of where we are in our training. But, at the highest levels, it's about things like "power to weight ratio", "aerodynamic drag", and other factors. Performance differences between the top riders are so small that anyone who ignores the science is probably doomed to failure (unless they are incredibly gifted).



How can they develop that if they are wired into a system?.

What a silly question! It's really not that hard to feel how you're doing, whether or not you're riding with a HRM, power meter, or whatever.

FWIW, Lance Armstrong is one of the most "wired" pro riders today (training with HRM's, power meters, in wind tunnels for aerodynamic drag analysis, etc.). And, yet, he sometimes races without any monitoring gear, and other times uses it for what it can provide.

From my experience as a racer, I know there are certain rides I go on that bring me into shape. These rides get me to a level that I wasn't at before them, so when race day comes I am as close to peak condition as I can expect with the time I can spend training.
Lance apparently does the same thing, knowing he needs to ride certain routes before the tour.
I wonder, does he get into and stay in shape because of the monitoring, or in spite of it?

From my experience as a racer, I know there are certain rides I go on that bring me into shape. These rides get me to a level that I wasn't at before them, so when race day comes I am as close to peak condition as I can expect with the time I can spend training.
Lance apparently does the same thing, knowing he needs to ride certain routes before the tour.
I wonder, does he get into and stay in shape because of the monitoring, or in spite of it?

Because of it. Why would he waste his time if it wasn't helping him?

Sigh,
this is an intellectual wading pool. The book is the real thing, written by a good physicist, at the post doc level, as the opening volley of a serious review of the way scientists think about science. I spent a good chunk of the Seventies on the subject, and now I'm bored with it. Google the book (include Giere's name) and it will take you to his website, an Amazon.com listing,
but nothing that really does it justice. To be honest, it is so far above most people's heads it might as well be in orbit.

Wading pool? Perfect lead in! I have just jumped into this and have just - within the last year - rejoined cycling after, well my last bike was a Windsor (new). Anyhow, speaking of wading pools, it sounds like VintageSteve has an established mindset of "listening" to himself in a deeper way than the rest of us can or want to. He's probably the guy who refuses to buy the SUV with the damn DVD for the kids. Why: Because he has the ability to interact with himself, and others. Thats not to say none of the rest of us can, but it shows deeper ability and desire to communicate at a different level.

Grandma: "So little Johnny and little Suzie" what did you see on the way to granny's house?"
Kids: "We watched Nemo, and Spiderman, and......."

Compare that to "Honey, how was your ride?". "I averaged 18.4 mph, while maintaining a cadence of 95 rpm, with a maximum of 37.2 mph, BLA BLA BLA BLA Freaking BLA"

"Did you see the God Damned sunrise?"

What do you people want?

Doug,
the batteries died last year on my HRM; I keep meaning to replace them. Until late June I wasn't using a speedo, I start riding in March so that' nearly 3 months.
And yes, I did see the sunrise. That happens a lot when you leave at 6 AM every day.

I'm going to be really picky here.

"Science has found a profound connection between the body and mind; the 'soul', or mind, and our physical bodies. It is through this connection that I feel we will find our own capabilities."

That's fine, but please don't throw the word "soul" in there. "Soul" is not mind. It's completely different, and may not even exist. The idea of a "soul" suggests that there's something in the brain that can exist on its own when the brain has stopped functioning, an idea that is, to me, absurd. Who put it there? How does it travel from your brain to heaven? If it's so moblie, why doesn't it jump from brain to brain, or from one dead person to a newborn? If you cut the corpus calossum (the fibers that connect the two hemispheres), the two hemispheres, located just centimeters away from each other in the same skull, can't even communicate. How would a soul be able to break these rules? Keep in mind that we have just begun the task of understanding how consciousness arises from brain activity and we have no idea how it works, but even the elusive concept of consciousness cannot exist without a functioning brain. Just something picky from a neuroscientist.

Also, please don't throw around the word "prove" when talking about science. We can support ideas millions of times, but we can never prove them. This all comes down to that boring stats class we all had. Even when you support a theory (which we usually do at a probability level of .05), there is still a 5% chance that our results are due to chance. You can support a theory until you're blue in the face, but there is still a small percentage of room for a chance result with each support. Granted, when you support a theory 500 times that risk becomes extremely small, but it's still there. And that says nothing about research methods, which come with their own problems many times. You can never "prove," only "support." Yes, another picky thing.

I don't want to lose sight of the main idea here. Are these gadgets useful? I think so. I love the brain more than anyone, and the brain can do amazing things. For just one example, the seemingly simple task of language, which we all pretty much take for granted, is extremely complex. Read a book by Noam Chomsky and you might want to bash your head against a table when you realize how complex language can be. However, the brain is not without its flaws. A simple example here is distance perception. If you ask a bunch of people how far it is from a certain point to the wall, you get answers all over the board. We're just not good at judging distance on an individual level. So maybe you can listen to your body and it can give you the best advice, but maybe not. Our senses can be fooled.

I'm going to be really picky here.

"Science has found a profound connection between the body and mind; the 'soul', or mind, and our physical bodies. It is through this connection that I feel we will find our own capabilities."

That's fine, but please don't throw the word "soul" in there. "Soul" is not mind. It's completely different, and may not even exist. The idea of a "soul" suggests that there's something in the brain that can exist on its own when the brain has stopped functioning, an idea that is, to me, absurd.

Also, please don't throw around the word "prove" when talking about science. ... You can never "prove," only "support." Yes, another picky thing.

...


Actually what I wrote doesn't suggest something seperate, but a part of the brain. The "soul" is your thoughts, dreams and ideas with the brain as its' source. Neuroscince has shown that the soul is the acitivity of the brain. All thoughts and feelings originate in the brain. You can't seperate some "soul" from the brain. The soul is the brain and all that it does and gives you a unique personality.
As for the word "prove", that may only exist for me, or you, and be enough. In other words, what works for me, what I feel is true, may not be for you. We are all unique beings, and as such I don't feel you can come up with a program, or regiment that people need to follow to become better. If they do get better, it is not because of the routine, but because of themselves, whether they were controlled by someone else or on their own.
And there are things in science that can be "proved". Otherwise how could we design and make things that we know will work?

As far as soul goes, here are some definitions:

Soul-
1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

Consciousness
1. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group

In neuroscience we steer clear of using the word "soul" because of its religious connotation. If you tell the average person that his soul is a product of his brain, he's going to tell you his soul is a product of god. I think when you're talking about soul you're really talking about what we would call a person's conscious experience.

Of course these things are constructs, and what "love" means to one person might mean something else to another person. The thing is that if we studied "soul" instead of consciousness, there would be huge misunderstandings.

Once again, you can never "prove" anything in science. How can we design things and know they will work? How often do the things we design fail for unknown reasons? Nothing is ever proven, only supported. It's a basic fact of science. We can only prove things wrong and show support for what we think is right. Tomorrow someone could discover something new that could turn our view of the world on its head. That's just the way it goes. Science is an ongoing process and anything could be proven wrong at any time.

This is not to say that science is useless. I'm a scientist, so I'd never suggest that. It's just that we're always going with the best available facts, and future generations will always laugh at us for not knowing some of the things they'll discover.

You can have lots of support for something and be 99% sure that something is true, but you'll never be 100% sure. I believe in a lot of the "facts" of science, but none of them have been "proven" to be true.

So then the phrase "it's not an exact science" is redundant?

Saying the soul is the brain doesn't preclude the metaphysical aspect of experience either, and I think there is so much about our brains that science has yet to examine and study.
How does one monitor that?

Back to the point about monitors...
Intuition or feelings many times cannot be put into so many words, or reduced to numbers to fill a chart or graph. That's what monitors give you, numbers. Feelings are just as valid as quantified data, in fact they have the potential to be more accurate than any numbers or programs run through a computer. They come from the brain's interaction and reaction with our bodies. Experience will determine how you use those.
It's just that data is easier to convey, to put into a pie chart or show on a bar graph, to track and enter into a computer program.
I continue to be facinated with technology and science, but I also think there is so much we don't know that experience and intuition does.

VintageSteve,
you're absolutely right. or at least that's to say i agree with you. a number such as average speed represents a basic calculation of time over distance. that's all it means. however, the reality is that that number actually represents an infinite background of possibilities on how you produced that number. headwinds, pedaling technique, temperature, diet, strength, equipment, mental toughness, hydration, etc... are all factors in arriving at that particular average speed. none of those are accounted for on the computer but are extremely important things to pay attention to. the computer can only monitor what the bike does, not what the engine is doing (except of course a HRM to some extent). The engine is by far the most important thing to worry about and pay attention to, the bike is just a tool.

the computer can only monitor what the bike does, not what the engine is doing (except of course a HRM to some extent). The engine is by far the most important thing to worry about and pay attention to, the bike is just a tool.

The reason most pros train with HRM's and power meters is precisely so that they can know "what the engine is doing" (with a high degree of precision, and with other variables filtered out).

The reason most pros train with HRM's and power meters is precisely so that they can know "what the engine is doing" (with a high degree of precision, and with other variables filtered out).

yep. i agree. it's essential at a pro level to use all the tools available. however, i think the vast majority of riders would become better riders by paying more attention to their bodies (and understanding all the variables that are filtered out by the computer) rather than their bikes. don't get me wrong, i think you can dial in performance to a great degree by focusing on data gathered by computers, but i don't see most people doing that in real life. at least not when i look around. most are concerned with average speed and distance over things like muscle development, endurance, and basic general health.

DXchulo,
now you know why I didn't bother with a long careful explanation.

Oh boy,
what a mess. Science doesn't really have laws. Everything is subject to change. . .
Einstein once said, "God does not play dice with the universe!" Thus, there would be laws of governance.

Of course, Thomas Dolby once said, "She blinded me with science!"

Who is right? ;)

Neither