Brother,
Sorry you feel that way. I’m sure if we sat down and had a beer and talked about it in person we’d get along and understand each other just fine.
I wouldn’t call you fat and you wouldn’t call me skinny.
Sometimes text gets messed up.
I was in the middle of a VO2 workout and wanted to finish before I answered. Glad I did as I wanted to think about my response.
Even if you don’t believe me, I read and enjoy your responses and comments (maybe not the last one)
In certain contexts, all of those things may or may not be considered disordered eating. You have to look at the bigger picture.
No, it really isn’t relevant to this thread. The original poster asked:
"Hi Guys
I’ve watched a few GCN tech videos and they’ve said the following a few times…
‘5 watts gained is better than losing 1kg in weight even on climbs’
I agree, but what is your opinion?"
The OP is just wondering what the ‘tipping point’ is for weight and power. The only thing ‘complex’ about this question is what your weight and power actually is, and in what situation makes the most sense to have more power vs less weight. eg. flats, up hill (and at what gradient), and descending.
Your response is typical with forums where one person wants to place a feeling or issue into a topic for your own reasons. It’s really not needed.
This is like me asking, what is better: Me training 5 hour per week with lots of intensity, or 10 hours with less intensity? And then you introduce an issue where if you train too much you will be putting strain on your family and you may get divorced. Sure, that could happen (and does!), but there is no need for that to be part of the conversation.
This is a forum where debate has been welcomed. The thread has not been moderated with my comments being removed for not being in context. It’s my view that these points are relevant to the thread.
Alright, cool. Carry on then.
Thank you for your approval.
Whilst I disagree with your perspective I absolutely support you continuing to be part of the conversation.
The answer to this question is a math problem. @maxim809 solved it correctly. For riders under 5w/kg, gaining 5w and holding kg constant will increase rider w/kg to a greater extent than losing 1kg body weight and holding watts constant. This holds true for any body weight and power level (obviously because we are talking in w/kg).
It is also true that while holding w/kg constant, the athlete with higher absolute power will always climb faster. For example, the 5w/kg rider at 75 kg will always out climb (at any gradient) the 5w/kg rider at 60 kg. See Climbing and W/Kg
So the interesting (and better) question is: at what absolute power level is it better to either lose 1 kg or add 5w (holding other metric constant) in order to climb faster?
I welcome your discussion here, and I hope I would never tell someone to not post, but I disagree with your assessment here.
The original post asked the question if it really holds true that 5w is better than losing 1kg. Plenty of following math showed that yes, it is true that if you are under 5w/kg then more power is better than a kg of weight loss.
The conversation then veered into weight vs power and all of the discussion and unfortunately arguments that went with it.
But anyway, I just wanted to point out that the original question and answer suggested power OVER weight loss, not the other way around.
If threads were not allowed to naturally go down the path into related topics, there wouldn’t be much discussion on these forums. Like any conversion, things branch off.
While the weight vs. watts topic seems to bring out passion from many parties, it’s pretty core to cycling performance and weight is always a touchy subject for some valid (and not so valid) reasons. My personal opinion is that BF % is a much more relevant/valuable focus area rather than weight, but I think I’m in the minority and it’s probably because you can’t tie BF% directly to w/KG and FTP (the be-all, end-all metric for cycling performance 
).
While the 5w vs. 1Kg discussion is interesting, I think topics like this perpetuate the idea that there is some kind of mutually exclusive decision to be made between the 2. Until you get into extreme ends of the scale, adding or losing power has minimal affect on body weight and adding/losing weight has minimal affect on power. Strive to optimize both aspects of the w/KG equation you’ll be a fast rider and healthy human.
Careful brother, as you noted people get pretty heated regarding body fat percentage as well! 
People seem to take things as a personal attack.
But agreed that it is a great metric to use for optimization of fitness on the bike.
What we’ve seen is sums and “Bro-science”. In the real world, there are so many more variables at play than power and weight. There’s wind resistance, wind direction, aerodynamics, souplesse, height, rolling resistance etc, etc, etc. Even in the world of Zwift, there’s a lot more to winning a race than w/kg. It’s an impossible question to answer with sums.
Yep, and I’d go one further and argue that it’s a very good metric for health (regardless of whether you ride a bike or not). No personal attacks here, we all struggle with lots of stuff and I certainly carry some donuts around the mid section. Everyone picks their battles.
You aren’t wrong, but that wasn’t the original question or answer.
In any case, sometimes it does boil down to the numbers. Ceteris paribus, someone with 5w/kg will smoke someone with 4w/kg in overall cycling. Yes I know that a TT will be different than a hillclimb, I get that pure watts means more on a flat course than w/kg. But overall as a cyclist? Night and day.
Its the basic go-fast recipe in any racing sport. Increase power, decrease weight, profit. Ignore that reality at your own peril.
The argument can be convoluted. We can talk tires or myriad other variables. Doesn’t change the underlying point.
Thanks for the nod! Was really starting to feel like everyone was talking over me even after having laid out the data to address the specific question.
Yeah, I disagree with a lot of what’s been said since you and I went back and forth, but I know I’m not going to change minds and I keep reminding myself that the original question has been clearly answered. Thanks for clearing it up earlier. You taught me something!
I hear you. I probably need to take a step back myself. I thoroughly enjoy the discussion aspect of these things but some people tend to take a lot of this stuff seriously and get offended / take it personal when there are disagreements. I try to stick with facts but I’m only human myself. I don’t want to contribute to negativity if I can help it!
Not always! In a race if the person with 5w/kg can only manage 7.5w/kg for 1 min four or five times, but the person with 4w/kg can do 9w/kg for 1 min 7 or 8 times, the person with 4w/kg will make the break and be able to go with the attacks but the person with 5w/kg won’t…
Well but you’re making my point for me here.
First, I said all things being equal, someone with higher power will smoke someone with lower.
What you are posting is an example of that. The person with the higher level of w/kg, for the durations you listed, will win.
Of course you can come up with a multitude of situations where it might not be the case (a 4w/kg ultra endurance cyclist could beat a 6w/kg pro in a 1000 mile race) but all things being equal, the higher power to weight ration will win. (And really, what is happening is the ultra endurance IS doing the higher w/kg over that 1000 mile race)
You get higher to power weight ratios by increasing your watts and decreasing your weight.
This is my only point. Obviously it’s elementary but I think we get stuck in the weeds sometimes and forget it.
I don’t disagree with you regarding the importance of the other skills, repeatability, etc. All very important!
Let’s just change this to ‘on average’ and it is true. There always some outliers, but I’d put money on someone with a w/kg 25% greater than the other rider as the likely winner