Andrew Coggan wrote:
davearm wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
davearm wrote:
It's crazy to me that you think perceived exertion is the best solution to the running scenario, given what a radical departure it is from your position on cycling.Not a radical departure in the least.
Consider, for example, the possibility of pacing by power...despite exploring the idea of calculating a theoretically-optimal strategy based on the physics and physiology of cycling long before, e.g., bestbikesplit.com, my advice to people on this matter has always been to simply use their powermeter to make sure they "don't go out too hard".
Similarly, a couple of my PPPs have always been:
"If you know your power, then at best knowing your heart rate is redundant, but at worst it is misleading"
and
"If it feels hard, then it is hard"
with the point being that along side power (pace for a runner), perceived exertion is a highly valuable tool.
The radical departure I was alluding to is that training and racing with a powermeter is quantified, precise, accurate, and backed by loads of science.
Perceived exertion is basically the opposite of all these things.
So you can imagine how odd it seems when the same expert advocates one approach for one discipline, and the complete opposite approach for the other.
I advocate that all endurance athletes calibrate their perceived exertion against a reasonable surrogate for their metabolic rate, especially when the latter is also an absolute reflection/critical determinant of their actual performance ability. So, pace for runners, but power for cyclists.
http://www.uta.edu/...rior%20statement.pdf
It would be unscientific to ignore RPE.