Olu wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Perceived exertion. At least in experienced athletes competing under conditions they've been exposed to before, it works just as well any theoretically-optimal pacing strategy (see, e.g., Alex Simmon's "pacing optimization index").That's a lot of assumptions.
Not really - like I said, see Alex's paper.
Olu wrote:
Perceived exertion is probably the worst measure for the less experienced athletes especially in endurance events where the conditions, course or both is not familiar.First, note my caveats above.
Second, ask youself this: are novice runners who can't pace themselves well based on perceived exertion going to benefit more from learning how to do just that, or relying on a device that only provides a crude estimate of the metabolic demands?*
*Note that an important difference between running and cycling is that the economy of movement is much more variable in the former than in the latter. Also, muscle use varies more in the former than in the latter, e.g., even if you keep your estimated power constant when transitioning from the flats to up hill, you will be placing more demand on your quads as a result. So, should you really be aiming for an iso-power effort, or an iso-metabolic one?
Finally, note that entire argument in favor of a running powermeter has now seemingly been reduced to a single application, i.e., as a pacing aid when running in hilly terrain. "Game-changing" indeed...
Last edited by:
Andrew Coggan: Feb 17, 15 9:34