Quoted post said:Originally Posted by acoggan [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
1. I have never defined training zones (or levels) based on heart rate.
2. My ideas lead to a number of predictions, many of which have, in fact, been tested.
For example, the normalized power concept implies that you shouldn't be able to generate an IF of >1.00 for ~1 h, with one corollary being that certain interval training prescriptions are impossible to perform. Both of these predictions have proved to be true, at least somewhere between "more often than not" and "practically all of the time". (It is hard to be more precise than that since quantitative data do not exist.)
The normalized power concept also implies that there should be a good correlation between your "threshold" power determined from your normalized power during an intense, highly variable effort and your blood lactate threshold, a prediction that has been shown to hold:
[IMG]cyclingforums.com254Open ↗[/IMG]
The TSS concept implies that there should be a significant relationship between TSS and total glycogen utilization, which has also proved to be true (see data posted previously to this thread).
A prediction of the Performance Manager concept is that people should performance better when their TSB is positive vs. negative, something else that has been shown to be true, at least on average (see the last couple of graphs in this presentation: home.trainingpeaks.compmc summit.pdfOpen ↗).
Etc., etc., etc.
3. Bannister also never defined training zones based on heart rate.
1) Perhaps you should read more carefully. I said you used the same names for power training zones as those used for heart rate training zones.
2) You have previously said that TSS predicts nothing. And that no papers have been published that test any of its predictions.
I gave a series of intervals that anyone can do that show that IF of 1.20 is easy to maintain for an hour or two. (I guess that deals with normalized power also. I guess that gets rid of that LT relationship.)
I gave an example ( low effort Long time) that showed that glycogen depletion can be 40% (if I recall correctly) different than what TSS "predicts." At that time you disavowed the relationship between TSS and glycogen usage. Simple ride anyone can do.
You made a claim that 1500TSS/week for extended periods of time is impossible. I guess that is one of those "impossible intervals." You made it without proof. I suggested that for $10K/month many people here would prove you wrong. (I don't get paid to prove you wrong, but I am doing ever 1500TSS/week.) I don't know what the other intervals are, but perhaps you could post one and do some "science" to show it is impossible.
3) I used the phrase "heart rate zones" where Dr. Banister and those who tested his theories used "heart rate." Unimportant slip of the tongue.
----
When you write your comments, you should make them consistent with your prior comments. Otherwise you paint yourself as a fraud.
What confounds you is that power can be coupled to or uncoupled from heart rate. While heart rate may be used to make the predictions, you make for power. Your claims are only true when power and heart rate are coupled and you misrepresent the causal factor as power rather than heart rate.
