"Starting with occupation-relevant interests, by far the largest sex difference was that for interest in things (i.e. objects, machines or abstract rules) vs. interest in people. Members of both sexes can be found at every point on the things vs. people continuum; however, more men than women exhibit a stronger interest in things, whereas more women than men exhibit a stronger interest in people. Averaging across studies, Su et al. (2009) found an effect size of d = 0.93 for the people vs. things sex difference. This is notably larger than most human sex differences (Hyde, 2005; Lippa, 2010; Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013a, 2013b), and indeed than most effects in psychology (Eagly, 1995). To get an intuitive sense of the magnitude of the difference, if one were to pick pairs of people at random, one man and one woman, the man would be more things-oriented than the woman around 75% of the time."
https://journals.sagepub.com/...%20the%20people%20vs

Take that last sentence and apply it to men who are more interested in things 75% of the time and it would explain why we buy more things for our bikes.

At a quick glance, it sure looks like there's some kind of major screwup with this part of the count. The power meter count significantly underrepresents what they show in the pedal count.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Good catch, also some may have PM’s on their smart trainer/other bike etc.

I will say that with the advent of smart trainers power penetration has increased as people also would like a PM outside.

I will also say that *generally* my observation is that a lot of new users have a limited understanding of general training concepts and are just setting it up and letting Zwift/TP etc dictate their FTP, then picking a canned program….I’m not sure how a PM is more beneficial in these cases.

Maurice

Hypothesis:
Would it be fair to say (reading the article, not just the numbers) that for a race taking place in Europe (Nice), more Europeans participate and hence more European bike brands (Canyon) will prevail? While for a North American (NA) race (Kona) and NA racers, will prefer a NA (Cervelo) based brand?

For me, living in Spain, I wouldn´t even know where to buy a Cervelo in a local bike shop in the larger cities (Madrid, Barcelona e.g.)

I wouldn't say NA athletes "prefer" Cervelo more as you say, but it's more the availability of them vs. say Euro where Canyon is available or others. Cervelo is a solid bike but they have stock and are in lots of shops, not so with horrible/low inventory even from Canyon USA. I think while the opp is there, Canyon is losing a lot of business here just due to poor inventories. I'd just opt for a Cervelo or Trek because you can actually get one faster.

I use your answer, as I am from Spain, and I ride a Cervelo :P

I think that this year the stadistics changed, as many athletes participate in a Worldchampionship (both Nice and Kona) only by finishing (by a large roll down).

A simple search in Google say that:
https://www.google.com/...25B1a,trex_id:J2GWpc

---

Sorry if my english is pretty bad, I am not english native

Now, if you look at those links that the google search render, they are all webshops, mostly with no stock (the make an order, if you order), you really cannot find much Cervelo stock (especially not the P3 or the P5) anywhere in Spain... that is a fact.

Yes, this is what I think, too. But does this mis-categorization account for 50% of the 58% of the non-power meter crowd? That's still a lot of women not using power data.

And if the power meter count is wrong, what other data points in that count are inaccurate?

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

Having watched a few mins of the power meter count this year (like, 4 bikes worth), it was super easy to see how this count is going to be very rough. I don't know how previous years worked, but essentially, there's no slowing down of athletes as they pass by. And I watched it just 15 mins before bike check closed, with just a drip-drip trickle of athletes.

Essentially the people doing the counting have to do so from a distance, outside of a chute (on just one side). Thus, the athletes simply walk by inside the chute, and then you have to count. That's silly-easy for bikes or wheels, but incredibly difficult for power meters. An athlete can walk by with their bike blocking the entire crankset area. Or 3-5 athletes walk by together in a cluster, not stopping. Or, an athlete has a left-only power meter by 4iiii/Stages/etc, and that crank arm is simply not visible from the right side due to the random position it was in (since, the counters were on the right side).

I don't really blame the counters per se here, they're in a spot where Ironman hasn't given them access to do the count properly. This isn't hard, all it would have taken was proper access on the other side of the barrier, and simply asking the athlete to pause for 3 seconds. I feel like when I saw Kona counts in the past (photos of it), the people checking were allowed to actually inspect the bike up-close.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

Wow, that's surprising. My only experience with the bike count was in St. George last spring, and I had someone shadow me through the chute holding an ipad and going through their list of questions. They were even ready to bend down to look at components if I didn't know the answer. :( I wonder why the access was so different.

---

KJ
Swim and Triathlon Coach
AllTerrainEndurance.com
KJ@allterrainendurance.com

What he said is correct. Saddles, wheels etc are very easy to see but power meters very difficult because of visual limitations. So surely bunches were missed

I did 80% of the power meter count... the other 20% was done by a very trusted source. ( I had to go count all the pro bikes)

I was a little shocked at watching all the athletes walk by me without power. ( Which included both sides and pedals) I give myself at most a 2% error because of the groups. I will have my own write up on this subject this week.

---

E-DUB
Chief Janitor @Slowtwitch
Life is short. Dont be mad all the time.

In my decades coaching the power meter use among my athletes has always been >90% of the men and a lessor % of the women, probably in that 30-40% range in the beginning of PM's say 15yr ago to 75% now.

While I'm surprised it was ~ 55% iirc from the article I wouldn't be surprised if that actual number was 40% raced without a PM

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Something is off somewhere, because not only is the power meter count showing almost 100 fewer power meters from one brand alone relative to the pedal count, it also appears to have a sample size that includes well over 100 more bikes - 1997 - than are represented in the pedal tally -1889 - neither of which square with the 1756 in the bike brand count.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

I have power meters on both the road and TT bike and used to closely train by power, but now I wish I didn't have power. I've had so many issues this year with power and HR reading inconsistent, unrealistic, dropping out, etc. that I can't reliably gain much useful data anyhow. I never race off hard metrics like that, always by feel and would look back at the data afterwards. But I don't even think there's much upside to doing that. It's too easy to get caught chasing power numbers and forget that what wins (non-Zwift) races is how fast you go, not what power you do or what your heart rate is.

For training, I've largely moved to a zone-feel-duration approach- e.g. pick a time, effort level, and try to keep that effort level consistent. Especially for race pace intervals, don't worry about numbers jumping and just try to keep the speed high. On the bike in particular, the power meters are reading lower than they have for the last 2 years on both bikes, yet I am riding faster on flat and rolling terrain than ever (worked on aero position and efficiency on both, but I don't think to the point of going faster on 30W fewer).

Point being, I'm absolutely a numbers person who does a lot of structured training (especially running, less so cycling) and I wouldn't hesitate to drop my power meter. And I'm routinely putting down fastest bike split to top 5 at worst amongst amateurs in big events. Don't think a power meter makes me any faster in training or race day, just added angst and frustration when numbers don't line up with feelings in training.

Right?!

I think the 50% power meter adoption rate--by that count--at the world championships should have been enough for CF to review and question the numbers.

I think it was a disservice to the industry and consumers to publish that article without a note indicating the counts were best-guess/estimates.

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

lol, you'd do well on Reddit.

Your experience at St George wasn't the count that gets populated in triathlete mag. That was an Ironman specific survey where athletes are chosen at random.

IIRC, there was a count in triathlete mag for st george and it was similar to how its done in Kona. It's a very manual process with lots of opportunities for human error. The folks who do it are industry folks who volunteer their time. Imagine standing out in that Kona sun for the entire time bike check in is open.

---

blog

Hey not arguing with you, but they were walking with every athlete that walked in when I was there. It's my only IM WC experience, so I don't know - just sharing my experience.

(PS - STG was pretty hot, too. Bike computer data shows 84F right before drop off. But it's a dry heat ;) so it can't be as bad)

---

KJ
Swim and Triathlon Coach
AllTerrainEndurance.com
KJ@allterrainendurance.com

Yeah when I checked in at St George, they weren't walking with everyone.

St George was definitely hot too. I remember being there saying we need to get the hell out of here as soon as I racked my bike.

---

blog

Ventum may want to just bag it and spend their advertising dollars elsewhere. There’s no way they’re getting back their ROI with only 24 bikes in the field. 1% is simply sad.

You sound a lot like my ex wife. Based on what you actually do, you are not a numbers person but a feelings person. You basically said that right in your post. That's okay, brother, stay out there and ride your feelings, just don't come around and tell me it is science!

I mean that I'm a numbers person in every aspect of my life otherwise- work, finance, how I approach problems, etc. I applied the same logic to training when I really committed to structure during covid, and it would drive me nuts and give me so much frustration that my training numbers weren't as pretty. Sometimes tech issues especially with HR all over the place, some days I would push hard and be 20W+ lower or 10s+ per mile slower. It was taking away my enjoyment of the sport, and I was losing focus on the broader stimulus from training trying to chase specific numbers.

At the end of the day, I love cycling and running (definitely not adding swimming to the love, tolerate it by swimming only when I have to), I love competing, and I love getting better in that order. To maintain my love of the first 2 and not drive unnecessary frustration over the 1%, I try not to focus on the exact numbers. On raceday, it doesn't matter what the power meter reads or your heart rate says (or even what pace is), you can do what you can from an effort standpoint and that's what you've got. I'd like to look back at the data afterwards to see what I was able to do and compare that to how the same effort felt in training, but that's about my only use of power/HR during most races.

Same logic for why I refuse to track food- I'm worried I'll go too far down the rabbit hole, add a lot of stress and binge/guilt and no longer enjoy food (and I love food, always have, never had a problem with not eating enough). The way I look at it you only have so many discipline/motivation bullets, and I rather focus those into executing the work than waste being too preoccupied digging into numbers. A happy and balanced athlete is going to progress further than one who may tehcnically do better training but gets too wrapped up in trying to be "perfect," and the former athlete will have a longer career with more lifestyle enjoyment for the sport.