marklemcd wrote:
Given that power correlates to vO2, and in running it’s easy to run by feel or pace depending on course and conditions, what’s the gain in having a power meter? In cycling it’s obvious. What is it in running? I can go to a track and do intervals off pace perfectly. And in a race I am RACING, not trying to hit some power number. If I need to cover a surge, I will cover the surge if I feel I can. Or I can sit on a certain power and lose contact? WTF, no way. I train completely by power on a bike. It works. In running no one has convinced me there is any benefit, and every single person I know who tried quit it fairly quickly for that reason.
First off, sure I could go to the track and do intervals off pace. What if I don't want to do my intervals at the track? What if I want to do my mile repeats on the creek trail around here instead? The closest track is the local high school, which I only have access to late evenings (after all the teams have finished their practices), or weekends.
You say that you train with power on the bike and it works, but then you throw out a comletely different scenario for why it wouldn't work when running. Whether you're on the bike or running, you're either racing in a pack (with all that entails) or you're not. If keeping contact with a pack is important, then holding a steady power is not - whether on the bike or the run. If it's a long event, and/or you're an average AG'er, and keeping contact with a pack is not important and you're looking for optimal pacing, then power is equally applicable in either scenario.
All of these arguments for why power will never work for running sound EXACTLY like the arguments that everyone was throwing out for why power would never work on the bike 15-20 years ago.