Originally Posted by
livedarklions
I engage in high-stakes arguments for a living. If I lose the argument, people can lose their freedom and/or their kids.
Fair point. My work is the opposite of that. Every detail in code has to be objectively correct, and corrected when found in a code review or testing. Arguments in code review drive me up the wall.
Well, in that case I'd have to disagree with you, they both could be right if the difference between speed and power is large in bicycling, but closer to rounding error in running. The problem, as I see it, is that's there is such a thing as a high speed, low-effort ride, and there really isn't an equivalent in running.
I personally have no need of either - I'm certainly not going to get stress meter running shoes - for a reason that still needs to be mentioned in this thread. The perhaps most useful result, total training load or total stress, is just about meaningless at my age and level of condition. I have to keep an eye on each system individually, and that's applies even more after my injuries in June
But in theory ...
I don't deny (from the start) that there is greater difference in cycling, from actual power and what you perceive as power, because of the greater impact of wind resistance at higher speeds. Arguments to convince me of that (or instruct me as the case may be) are pointless because it's a fact already assumed. But my premise for the power meter is the need for
precision. I could estimate the power on a bike, and I can estimate the power produced while running, and the accuracy is going to be somewhat different but when you actually do that you see that it's not all that much different. If there is an actual need for say 5% precision (the usual real goal, not accuracy) then you're missing that in estimating running effort by pace.