CTL for Masters

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo
But, it's such good comic relief.

I do admit that guys like you who claim that they are right without **** or by calling people trolls provide comic relief.

There seem to be lots of people who do that.


Quote: Monod Critical Power Model

While you think the Monod Critical Power Model is only inaccurate for long terms. It produces great errors for the short term (less than 3 minutes) as well. Any time one extends a model outside of the data range the model is wrong outside of the range of data. It is very difficult to get the 2 data points (3 minutes and 12 minutes) for the Monod Critical Power Model accurate enough to make any extension suitable for setting training levels.


Today I worked hard. 3 intervals at 100%. I still have 10 heart beats left. But 3 pounds of fluid loss is a big limiter.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by An old Guy
Any time one extends a model outside of the data range the model is wrong outside of the range of data.

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 **** well within the bounds of data collection.

I doubt you'd understand how to ascertain if there was a difference, let alone why.

 

[An old Guy]

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 **** 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 **** produces results.

Training is tough. I nap between my intervals.

 

[RapDaddyo]

I can't help it. When AOG delves into a complex topic, this video clip comes to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzcE0G_OMDA

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo
I can't help it. When AOG delves into a complex topic, this video clip comes to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzcE0G_OMDA

I point out the obvious flaws in the reasoning of others.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by RapDaddyo

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

Now that it has been established that you think the CP stuff and the IF, NP stuff is valid. even Andy Coggan thinks both are right will simply point out the following.

The CP stuff proves the IF, NP stuff is invalid. The proof goes like this:

The 1 minute CP value is close to 200% of the 20 minute CP value or 210% of FTP.

This shows that 40-45 second repeats at 160% of FTP - about 70% of the 40-45 second CP values with 40-45 seconds of rest between are very easy. As Andy Coggan has said - 70% is not training. As RapDaddyo has said he can do 90% of the CP value.

Of course an hour of this produces an IF and NP much higher than "possible." Showing that either the CP stuff is wrong or the IF/NP stuff is wrong. Since the IF/NP stuff is missing scientifically valid definitions, we are assured the IF/NP stuff is wrong.


But I have been saying this for so long.

 

[quenya]

You having said it doesn't make it true. In fact, on the rare occasions when you've posted something that I've agreed with I've had to reevaluate my position.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by An old Guy

So you just made up your "better" comment.

I expect that type of stuff from guys who accept IF, NP and what not with no proof or even a definition of what is being measured.

---

I have a busy week this week and next. Working up to 4-a-days.

30 minutes at target power/heart rate, shower, eat, nap, and repeat.

My heart rate is down 10bpm and my power is up 30% so far. And each session gets easier. But the first few days are the easy ones

Toughest part is the 3 pounds of weight loss during 30 minutes of training.


So what does my story about my training have to say about this. It means that your ability changes not as you get stronger - I did not get 30% stronger this week, but as a result of other changes in your body. So the Monod Critical Power Model cannot predict anything.

95% is a reasonable starting point.

An Old Guy solves 'merica's obesity problems!

3lbs during a 30 minute session. 4 sessions a day = 12lbs. Add another session per day and you'll be losing over 100lb per week!

Someone call Dr Oz!

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by An old Guy

Now that it has been established that you think the CP stuff and the IF, NP stuff is valid. even Andy Coggan thinks both are right will simply point out the following.

The CP stuff proves the IF, NP stuff is invalid. The proof goes like this:

The 1 minute CP value is close to 200% of the 20 minute CP value or 210% of FTP.

WTF are you on about?

CP is the slope of the maximal energy-duration relationship, and it's usually fairly (but not perfectly) linear between durations of a handful of minutes out to about an hour.

There is only one slope of that line and hence only one CP.

Originally Posted by An old Guy

This shows that 40-45 second repeats at 160% of FTP - about 70% of the 40-45 second CP values with 40-45 seconds of rest between are very easy. As Andy Coggan has said - 70% is not training. As RapDaddyo has said he can do 90% of the CP value.

Of course an hour of this produces an IF and NP much higher than "possible." Showing that either the CP stuff is wrong or the IF/NP stuff is wrong. Since the IF/NP stuff is missing scientifically valid definitions, we are assured the IF/NP stuff is wrong.


But I have been saying this for so long.

Post your files.

 

[fluro2au]

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

WTF are you on about?

CP is the slope of the maximal energy-duration relationship, and it's usually fairly (but not perfectly) linear between durations of a handful of minutes out to about an hour.

There is only one slope of that line and hence only one CP.


Post your files.

Agree....I can't make heads or tails out what he is saying. BUT, if he posted files, like we all have done in the past we may be able to construct a decent discussion. That won't happen though, as those files won't exist and he'll hide behind the banner of "for a fee" excuse...At the end of the day, just accept there will be another excuse for not providing any evidence. He'll even go as far as accusing us for not providing any evidence.......it gets tired after a while.....we can't compete with trolls.

Paul

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

WTF are you on about?

CP is the slope of the maximal energy-duration relationship, and it's usually fairly (but not perfectly) linear between durations of a handful of minutes out to about an hour.

There is only one slope of that line and hence only one CP.


Post your files.

CP stuff = Monod Critical Power Model

Only one slope? Only one CP? Only one FTP?

I think not.

About 30 days ago I did CP and FTP tests. Then I took a vacation. My CP and FTP fell 30% over 10 days. I did 10 days of "training" and could not get my CP or FTP up. I did 10 more days of "training" and my CP and FTP rose to about 20% above of my numbers 30 days ago. If I wanted, I could add considerable to my CP and FTP in a week.

All within a month. Anyone who knows how to train can get whatever power profile they want.


Yesterday and today I did 1 hour ride segments that had IFs of 115% of my FTP test from 30 days ago. And my heart rate never got within 20 beats of LT. I was just taking it easy.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by An old Guy

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

WTF are you on about?

CP is the slope of the maximal energy-duration relationship, and it's usually fairly (but not perfectly) linear between durations of a handful of minutes out to about an hour.

There is only one slope of that line and hence only one CP.


Post your files.

CP stuff = Monod Critical Power Model

Only one slope? Only one CP? Only one FTP?

I think not.

About 30 days ago I did CP and FTP tests. Then I took a vacation. My CP and FTP fell 30% over 10 days. I did 10 days of "training" and could not get my CP or FTP up. I did 10 more days of "training" and my CP and FTP rose to about 20% above of my numbers 30 days ago. If I wanted, I could add considerable to my CP and FTP in a week.

All within a month. Anyone who knows how to train can get whatever power profile they want.


Yesterday and today I did 1 hour ride segments that had IFs of 115% of my FTP test from 30 days ago. And my heart rate never got within 20 beats of LT. I was just taking it easy.

All of which serves to demonstrate, again, that either you are entirely ignorant about these things, or are deliberately obfuscating. Or both.

FTP and CP simply don't change in the manner you claim. Your constant drivel on this does not make it so.

And, no, you can't get whatever power profile you like. Else we'd all win whatever race, at whatever level we chose.

Just more of your nonsense, but then you are an experienced nonsense generator.

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons
you are an experienced nonsense generator.

You mean performance artist.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by acoggan
Quote: Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .
you are an experienced nonsense generator.

You mean performance artist.


Perhaps. I'm undecided on that since unlike some, AOG's posts are rarely entertaining.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by An old Guy
All within a month. Anyone who knows how to train can get whatever power profile they want.

Yeah. I called Sir Chris Hoy, he's going to give me the secret to upping my 5 second power to astronomical levels that belie my slow twitch nature...

...and then morph me into a Kilo monster.

Fool.

My slow twitch is so slow I'm not sure it twitches...

 

[fluro2au]

Originally Posted by An old Guy
Yesterday and today I did 1 hour ride segments that had IFs of 115% of my FTP test from 30 days ago. And my heart rate never got within 20 beats of LT. I was just taking it easy.

Thanks for sharing that. It's now pretty clear what your understanding is about training with a PM


Paul

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons
Perhaps. I'm undecided on that since unlike some, AOG's posts are rarely entertaining.

Neither are Frank Day's or perfection's. AOG seems to be cut from the same deluded cloth.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by acoggan

Neither are Frank Day's or perfection's. AOG seems to be cut from the same deluded cloth.

Delusions seem to be common.

I have several times asked you for a scientically testable definition of IF. The last time you wrote that it was not lactate production - as stated in a paper by you onthe Training Peaks website.

I guess you still don't have an answer. So much for the "science" of the matter.



Someone made a comment about me not being willing to provide my power data. I recall you and I negotiating for my power data - relative to your "claim" that no one could do 200TSS for long periods. (I claimed I could do 300TSS.) Perhaps you could tell that person that I offered to produce data to meet your requirements and you walked away. I guess you were against paying me for 90 days of work that you wanted done.

I remember you backed away from that claim. It suddenly changed from something that IF, NP predicted to just something you "thought."



Maybe you could tell these yahoos how riders used to get back into shape after a winter of relaxing or after a serious injury. A lot of guys knew how to push their CP and FTP around.


Maybe you could even tell them about peaking.


How about something easy. Tell them no one can do 3 minutes to exhaustion in the sense of CP determination. Lots of good papers explaining that. (3 minutes to exhaustion exhausts something other than what CP needs exhausted.)

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by An old Guy

Delusions seem to be common.

I have several times asked you for a scientically testable definition of IF. The last time you wrote that it was not lactate production - as stated in a paper by you onthe Training Peaks website.

I guess you still don't have an answer. So much for the "science" of the matter.



Someone made a comment about me not being willing to provide my power data. I recall you and I negotiating for my power data - relative to your "claim" that no one could do 200TSS for long periods. (I claimed I could do 300TSS.) Perhaps you could tell that person that I offered to produce data to meet your requirements and you walked away. I guess you were against paying me for 90 days of work that you wanted done.

I remember you backed away from that claim. It suddenly changed from something that IF, NP predicted to just something you "thought."



Maybe you could tell these yahoos how riders used to get back into shape after a winter of relaxing or after a serious injury. A lot of guys knew how to push their CP and FTP around.


Maybe you could even tell them about peaking.


How about something easy. Tell them no one can do 3 minutes to exhaustion in the sense of CP determination. Lots of good papers explaining that. (3 minutes to exhaustion exhausts something other than what CP needs exhausted.)

Like I said: cut from the same deluded cloth as Frank Day, right down to making up outright lies thinking that you can fool people...

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by An old Guy

Originally Posted by acoggan

Neither are Frank Day's or perfection's. AOG seems to be cut from the same deluded cloth.

Delusions seem to be common.

I have several times asked you for a scientically testable definition of IF. The last time you wrote that it was not lactate production - as stated in a paper by you onthe Training Peaks website.

I guess you still don't have an answer. So much for the "science" of the matter.



Someone made a comment about me not being willing to provide my power data. I recall you and I negotiating for my power data - relative to your "claim" that no one could do 200TSS for long periods. (I claimed I could do 300TSS.) Perhaps you could tell that person that I offered to produce data to meet your requirements and you walked away. I guess you were against paying me for 90 days of work that you wanted done.

I remember you backed away from that claim. It suddenly changed from something that IF, NP predicted to just something you "thought."



Maybe you could tell these yahoos how riders used to get back into shape after a winter of relaxing or after a serious injury. A lot of guys knew how to push their CP and FTP around.


Maybe you could even tell them about peaking.


How about something easy. Tell them no one can do 3 minutes to exhaustion in the sense of CP determination. Lots of good papers explaining that. (3 minutes to exhaustion exhausts something other than what CP needs exhausted.)

You really have NFI what you're talking about.