Originally Posted by
Doge
The Why has not really be defined. I can think of three whys.
-To train
-To perform
-To see numbers.
I think the latter is what most have a PM for. You can train with cadence, HR, Power - weights and different methods in each. I think the weights and miles on the bike give the best results per time spent. If the goal is to perform, there is a lot more than power involved.
Cadence and HR can't tell you how much work you've actually done. The only really reliable way for most of us, including pros, to track progress is through a PM. Improving your power is the reason why people train. Sure it's not the only factor, but it is the biggest. Does it not make sense to actually track your progress?
Originally Posted by
Doge
This guy below trains a lot of cyclists to get faster. His speed training is with weights, not on the bike. HE told my kid he needed about an hour a week on the bike if he wanted to do pursuit. Our '84 Olympic Gold Pursuit winner did the same (train with weights).
Originally Posted by
Doge
I think the weights and miles on the bike give the best results per time spent.
And what's foolish is that you've taken advice given to someone coming from an endurance background and transitioning to a short event that has a large glycolitic component and thinking this applies to the general cycling population. It's also pretty foolish to use training advice from the 1980s. The vast, vast majority of cyclists, even those doing events as short as a 4km pursuit are spending far more than one hour a week on their bike. Yes, I'm sure just about every pursuit rider is also lifting weights, but I'm equally confident that if they had to choose between dropping workouts on the bike or workouts in the gym, the vast majority would drop the latter without hesitation.