Pics?
Pics?
Reboot runner wrote:
Non-scientific thought...
Don't cyclists usually measure it going up a hill.
Thinking about going up a hill, and this is where it gets embarrassing, my two teenage daughters absolutely destroy me going up hills, yet I am faster on the flats.
So, measuring over a mile, if it's flat doesn't seem like a true measure of power. Or, perhaps we have similar power, but because they are lighter it is easier for them to move their mass up and over the hill. I guess that makes sense.
In cycling:
Up a hill, it's about power/weight
On an flat road, it's about air resistance/power
In running:
Always about power/weight
Ho Hum wrote:
Running power output is higher than cycling because you can use more muscle groups more effectively. I would guess nordic skiers might get even higher.
For endurance events he cardiovascular system is the bottleneck. The ability do deliver oxygen to muscles. That's why there really isn't that much difference even if you use more muscle groups.
"Biological" watts are simply mechanical power + heat. The heat must be about the same in both activities at the same mechanical effort.
wisdom of the past wrote:
Just going by time solves all of those problems for either event. Who cares if you're working harder and going slower?
There are no watts and HR medals.
With power you get more accurate information about your effort.
Power is the real work you are doing. Faster time might just mean you lost some weight or had a tailwind. Slower athlete might have higher performing cardiovascular system. A truck can have more horsepower than a sports car
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!