Quoted post said:Originally Posted by Alex Simmons
All models are wrong, but not for the reason you think (or rather don't think).
What's important is whether a model is useful, and under what circumstances is it useful. Some models can be predictively very accurate well beyond the points of data collection, and some models can be total [censored] well within the bounds of data collection.
I doubt you'd understand how to ascertain if there was a difference, let alone why.
I don't recall your skill set but, RapDaddyo mentioned recovery. He has some insite.
Neither the Monod Critical Power Model nor the IF, NPstuff of Coggan have been shown to be predictively accurate even within their rages of data collection.
The Monoid model at best predicts the peak that is achievable with full Glycogen stores. After 1 repeat at peak power, stores are no longer full - in fact they are empty. In theory at 50% of peak power one could do 2 repeats. Plus a little bit to account for recovery. (This must show that recovery is really fast.) 2 repeats at 90% is simply impossible under the theory - unless recovery is really fast.
Coggan's model at best predicts steady state performance. Once heart rate starts to fall recovery takes place. Many people have produced results that shows the IF concept is wrong by producing greater than 100% IF for hours. But you might recall that acoggan (Andy Coggan) wrote that the IF- NP model predicts nothing. You should not use the concept of "prediction" in conjunction with If, NP.
For decades people trained using heart rate. Now people are training with power and ridiculing heart rate. I guess sthat shows even total [censored] produces results.
Training is tough. I nap between my intervals.
