Originally Posted by
asgelle
The first should be divided in two. To design training and to perform training according to plan.
No disagreement. And if you do that you need a PM.
The next Why that falls from that is why a PM training program was chosen over another one.
I assume because folks think the time spend in a PM training is as effective as time spent with the correct weight program,
OR because they'd rather be on the bike than in a gym.
The latter makes the most sense to me as I think the gym is more efficient.
Some use PM to perform - ie adjust their effort based upon what the numbers say. If the idea is to hold back for another day as in a grand tour rider, that works.
I agree most pros ride with PMs, but how they use them, or not is different. On track you are not allow to see the power, but you can record it. So they are not performing to a PM, but may be training to one. Even so, on track the time will be used with the PM. If power went up and time didn't go down, there is an issue to adjust.
For a single day race, I think looking at PM numbers mid-race is more a crutch and will tell the racer what they can't do, or blow them up. RPE is a better judge for that day, and most good racers learn theri ability at least as close as what a PM will say.
If while in competition they like to record the numbers as a point to train to, that is a good use - if they use a PM to train to.
But toss in a serious gym program and you have messed with the PM training program, which explains to me why some very fast racers don't use them to train, or to perform.