So the facts are:
1. Both groups did improve. The improvement was "similar", but not "identical".
2. Single legged cycling may provider greater enhancement of certain measures of the muscular potential
Did you read the part about how power output for the individual legs exceeded that of half the power of both legs?
Why do you think this is?
Note that it does not say that asymmetry cannot be improved upon, and that it would not improve power. Nor did they really study asymmetry at all.
I didn't say they did. But you did understand the parts about training the leg in isolation, yes? So, once again, how would you train one leg to balance the power, what would be the ramifications to other leg you don't train and how would that compare to the above study in terms of absolute power output?
But there was simply no study of how improving the symmetry of the power production would effect overall power in any way. All your assumptions are merely projections of your opinion.
No, they are based on the facts presented and the data gained from the study. Not assumptions.
Which leads me to ask (quite sincerely) again: is this the most convincing study that you are basing all your assertions on ?!?!?
That seems like very flimsey evidence.
Only if you don't understand the mechanisms. And no, its not the only study.
And considering that I have been personally insulted numerous times in this thread for my ignorance and lack of intellectual ability....and told there were many studies proving that asymmetry makes NO difference, aren't I entitled to at least see some credible evidence ?
At this point, I don't even really care. I am having fun pointing out how "experts" on the internet are often just arrogant assholes completely fill of $hit.
You've also done a good job of demonstrating that ignorance is not a blessing.
Another question. Why do you think I give the advice I do and assert the things I do on this forum? (this
is a rhetorical question BTW, laager). Is it because I like being "right"? That I spend all this time tapping away to prove a point? Or is it that I actually like helping people? Think about it. What am I advocating? That people focus on a good fitting and training hard with a structured plan? Or that they need a new power meter and need to focus on power balance and smooth peddling with special cranks and "suppleness" blah blah blah.
Cycling is a great sport but far too many want to think that there are magic pills, secret training methods or yet undiscovered techniques which will yield a power boost. I am quite passionate about sport science and the one thing which is a common and proven theme is that what works is a shite load of hard work in the chosen sport. In this case, cycling. A lot. Now you can claim there are no direct studies looking at correcting power balance between the legs, true enough. But there is enough data surrounding the mechanisms in the body which allow this to be explained as to why or why not it would improve overall power output (we agree this is the general goal behind training I assume?).
It is good that you question. But you question without basis. It seems
like a good idea, and you've quoted two Drs who think it's a good idea as well. But none have come up with any feasible reason WHY. A few of us here have explained why it won't make a difference. I am not sure whether you chose to ignore the evidence or don't understand it.
But keep at it. Who knows, as per my sig line this could all be undone with the next study around the corner....