Ge, take a pill dude.. The increase is not in the 300 watt range (actually I improved much more in the anaerobic zone this time- 308 to 330) the data I refer to is from 239 watts to 251 watts, which represents a 5% improvement.. and YES, for all I know the margin or error for the device and for the variables you list could very well be 5% +/- However, I believe that the factors affecting output are MINIMIZED in a controlled environment like my dining room. (No wind, no hills, steady temperature, not propelling my own weight, bike has been inside for a week and is completely acclimated, torque zeroed etc)
But I'm optimistic about these matters, and I also know my legs and body very well. I know what speeds I can hold on the trainer, and what cadence is required and in what gears. Compared against the test I took a month ago, consider this additional data:
CP20 on 1/9: 239 watts, 21.8 mph, 7.273 miles covered
CP20 on 2/12: 251 watts, 24.5 mph, 8.191 miles covered
No it's not as scientific as you want it to be, but it's evidence that the numbers are compatible with and proportionate to, the output.
Is it my improved form which you're disputing? or the accuracy of the PT? or the necessity of the device? It's working for me.. Not the PT, the training program WITH the PT is working for me. No need to take the wind out of my sails, I do enough of that on my own, to myself, thank you very much.
As a matter of fact, dinner sat in my gut like a brick during last night's test. Conditions weren't optimal. I almost puked.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in indoctrinating you- that's a lost cause. I'm just engaging you on this topic because you're my friend. That and the readers here deserve to be entertained..
gewilli wrote:
gewilli has left a new comment on your post "Field Test "Do-Over" result":
what is your margin of error?
statistically what does 12 watts mean?
what is the variance?
you want science?
you can't HANDLE science.
You want to USE science?
USE science, don't just use numbers.
Is 12 a meaningful difference indoors?
IS it from a 1-2 PSI difference in your tires on the trainer?
Is it from a 2-4°F difference in ambient temperature?
Is it from a 1-2 hour extra sleep differential over the last 3 days?
Is it due to eating better the 24 hours leading up to the test?
Is it due to being better hydrated?
better music?
better mentality?
or
is it the legs...
12 watts.
out of something around 300.
what % increase is that?
You say you want to use the science. But. Are you actually using science?
(hard tough questions - you may know the answers to them all - i'm still just trying to help you understand why i feel these are rather pointless toys)