NP and TSS

Hmmm...

Alex Simmons said:

NZAP is a pretty meaningless number.

I'd suggest changing your PT CPU to read the true average. That's what the software is showing anyway after you download.

daveryanwyoming said:

Re: NP and TSS
Quote:
...If one were to use NAZP for IF and calc. TSS using such, then surely the numbers are of use, assuming one sticks with this method across the board....
Only if your ride characteristics in terms of time spent coasting and duration of coasting intervals stays constant in all riding situations. Non Zero Average Power has no basis in physiology, it just bumps the average up by a random amount depending on how much coasting you did or didn't do during a ride.

The NP algorithm models metabolic processes from the 30 second averaging that tracks physiological response times to the 4th power averaging that tracks blood lactate responses. You can debate the validity of that modeling approach (and folks do) but it's based on something.

NZAP in contrast isn't based on anything other than the observation that the average increases if you ignore rests and as frenchyge points out when NP and NZAP agree or come close to agreeing it's coincidence.

-Dave

frenchyge said:

Re: NP and TSS
I you swear off coasting, then you can just use AP in place of NZAP. That still wouldn't be the same as NP, but at least there wouldn't be the feeling that the zeroes were somehow skewing the ride picture.

Yes yes I am green as heck in this power stuff. Got to say though after reading these comments from you more veteran power trainers I wonder: should I ignore the Power AVG from long bicycle rides and use Power NORMAL instead? I kinda think that's what you are telling mr. TomUk here right? THe math of it all sounds a little obscure but you also suggests it actually measures soemthing. Kind of how without calculus, you can figure out average speed all you want, but you have problems figuring out what is happening at a specific instant.

Since I am doing my bike rides on bicycle paths, there are plenty of times when I have to coast (walkers, dogs, drunks, you name it on the trail) or sort of easy pedal, not for long but enough that you notice you are not sitting in some tuck position and pedalling away for a steady 60 minutes. Anyhow, after these little coasting or easy pedal moments, and to make up for having done nothing for 15 seconds I like to stand up on the pedals and go faster for about 15 seconds as if I were going to beat a light or sprint. Then I settle back into the steady level 3 sweet training pace.

Anyway, the Power NORMAL number for my bicycle rides is always higher than the Power AVG for me. Sometimes it is more than 10 numbers bigger such as 145 power avg and 155 power normal.

DancenMacabre said:

Hmmm...

Yes yes I am green as heck in this power stuff. Got to say though after reading these comments from you more veteran power trainers I wonder: should I ignore the Power AVG from long bicycle rides and use Power NORMAL instead? I kinda think that's what you are telling mr. TomUk here right? THe math of it all sounds a little obscure but you also suggests it actually measures soemthing. Kind of how without calculus, you can figure out average speed all you want, but you have problems figuring out what is happening at a specific instant.

Since I am doing my bike rides on bicycle paths, there are plenty of times when I have to coast (walkers, dogs, drunks, you name it on the trail) or sort of easy pedal, not for long but enough that you notice you are not sitting in some tuck position and pedalling away for a steady 60 minutes. Anyhow, after these little coasting or easy pedal moments, and to make up for having done nothing for 15 seconds I like to stand up on the pedals and go faster for about 15 seconds as if I were going to beat a light or sprint. Then I settle back into the steady level 3 sweet training pace.

Anyway, the Power NORMAL number for my bicycle rides is always higher than the Power AVG for me. Sometimes it is more than 10 numbers bigger such as 145 power avg and 155 power normal.

NP is of little use to when you ride as most power metres don't measure it while riding. It is only of use to calc. IF and TSS from what I see.

DancenMacabre said:

Anyway, the Power NORMAL number for my bicycle rides is always higher than the Power AVG for me. Sometimes it is more than 10 numbers bigger such as 145 power avg and 155 power normal.

NP is always >= AP
with some minor exceptions where a mathematical artefact in the way the smoothing calculations are done over shorter duration can see NP calculated to be slightly less than AP.

I notice that on page 14 of this link it denotes a point on the graph that says 'impending overtraining'. Why is this? or more to the point, what makes overtraining impending at this point? Would it not be more likely to occur if one pushed though the very low TSB - the point where it seems to get to -30?

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/media/...pmc_summit.pdf

The comments were added later, based upon notes and feelings taken during the season. Impending overtraining was probably based upon the feelings and motivation of the rider during that period, rather than the numbers on the graph.

As to why those feelings weren't present earlier in the season, I would guess it had to do with the lower intensity of the early build periods vs the pursuit-specific training later in the year. The earlier periods had steeper builds which ultimately led to illness, whereas the slightly lower volume but much higher intensity put the rider on the verge of overtraining before illness occurred.

FYI, I believe the rider for that chart is Dr. Coggan's wife.

frenchyge said:

The comments were added later, based upon notes and feelings taken during the season. Impending overtraining was probably based upon the feelings and motivation of the rider during that period, rather than the numbers on the graph.

As to why those feelings weren't present earlier in the season, I would guess it had to do with the lower intensity of the early build periods vs the pursuit-specific training later in the year. The earlier periods had steeper builds which ultimately led to illness, whereas the slightly lower volume but much higher intensity put the rider on the verge of overtraining before illness occurred.

FYI, I believe the rider for that chart is Dr. Coggan's wife.

OK, this makes sense. i.e. when you start to dread getting on the bike, or you just can't get that same wattage for the same P.E (even after a day or two's rest) then it is time to cut back and let recovery happen.

I therefore assume that his wife is a master cat. cyclist? Seems like Dr Coggan has a real grip on wattage and how to use it effectively. My only grip with him is his lack of speaking out against doping. I guess if he did then some of his business would disappear, or book commision fees, etc.

tomUK said:

OK, this makes sense. i.e. when you start to dread getting on the bike, or you just can't get that same wattage for the same P.E (even after a day or two's rest) then it is time to cut back and let recovery happen.

I therefore assume that his wife is a master cat. cyclist? Seems like Dr Coggan has a real grip on wattage and how to use it effectively. My only grip with him is his lack of speaking out against doping. I guess if he did then some of his business would disappear, or book commision fees, etc.

1. I labeled it impending overtraining because although my wife showed all the classic signs and symptoms of "sympathetic overtraining" (e.g., mood disturbances, severe insomnia, etc.), her actual performance ability never fell, and she rapidly recovered when the training load was markedly reduced. Her experience therefore does not meet the definition of true overtraining, which is a long-term reduction in performance ability.

2. My wife was an elite track cyclist (pursuiter).

3. I am 100% against the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs in sport.

4. I make my living as a scientist; that which I do with/for cycling is really just a hobby, and I don't make any significant money from such endeavors.

tomUK said:

Seems like Dr Coggan has a real grip on wattage and how to use it effectively.

Well he "wrote the book" both figuratively and literally.

tomUK said:

My only grip with him is his lack of speaking out against doping. I guess if he did then some of his business would disappear, or book commision fees, etc.

😕
Well I sure have never read anything suggesting he condones it!!

I think all forms of cheating in cycling/sport is wrong but I can't say I go out of my way to speak out against it or many other actions/activities that would properly be considered wrong. Are you disappointed in all of us?

Edit: actually now I think about it, this is really a compliment to Dr Coggan and your view on his standing in matters of cycling performance.

acoggan said:

2. My wife was an elite track cyclist (pursuiter).

An elite National Champion no less.

acoggan said:

4. I make my living as a scientist; that which I do with/for cycling is really just a hobby, and I don't make any significant money from such endeavors.

For which many of us are most grateful.

Guess my point was in regards to the latest Lemond/Coggan banter, or call it what you will. I didn't see any part on Coggan to re-calc Lemonds theory but from what I saw it was in Contador's defense.

Also, in the book there is talk about how Armstrong can do 300+ TSS daily for 21 days in a row and get stronger. This is somewhat a useless quote in light of what appears obvious in regard to the circumstantial evidence in the face of the 7 time tour winner. Sure, you are free to disagree.

tomUK said:

Guess my point was in regards to the latest Lemond/Coggan banter, or call it what you will. I didn't see any part on Coggan to re-calc Lemonds theory but from what I saw it was in Contador's defense.

Also, in the book there is talk about how Armstrong can do 300+ TSS daily for 21 days in a row and get stronger. This is somewhat a useless quote in light of what appears obvious in regard to the circumstantial evidence in the face of the 7 time tour winner. Sure, you are free to disagree.

1. I did not defend Contador, merely expressed my (educated) opinion as to the veracity of Vayer's calculations and their relevance to doping/anti-doping when requested to do so.

2. I did not write all of the book (and the speculation you cite is entirely meaningless in the context of doping/anti-doping efforts anyway).

tomUK said:

I therefore assume that his wife is a master cat. cyclist? Seems like Dr Coggan has a real grip on wattage and how to use it effectively. My only grip with him is his lack of speaking out against doping. I guess if he did then some of his business would disappear, or book commision fees, etc.

Why does everyone need to speak out about doping? It's not like we've got nearly every Tom, **** and Harry yabbering on about the damned subject nearly everytime cycling is on TV on in the news...

We might as well rename the sport Doping and intersperse injections of EPO with the odd bit of cycling as far as the press and TV are concerned. Next we'll see the guys holding onto team cars for 20 minutes while Fuentes pumps in a bag or two of 'the good stuff' :p

My real problem with Dr Coggan is that he doesn't speak out enough about the problem of AAA rated tranches from large pools of securitized sub prime mortgages:p

Jono L said:

My real problem with Dr Coggan is that he doesn't speak out enough about the problem of AAA rated tranches from large pools of securitized sub prime mortgages:p

I would definately add Kennedy assassination on this list. What is he trying to hide, why is he deceitfully protecting his "businesses", why doesn't he speak about Kennedy 🙄

frost said:

I would definately add Kennedy assassination on this list. What is he trying to hide, why is he deceitfully protecting his "businesses", why doesn't he speak about Kennedy 🙄

Because Andy was hiding in the grassy knoll.

acoggan said:

1. I did not defend Contador, merely expressed my (educated) opinion as to the veracity of Vayer's calculations and their relevance to doping/anti-doping when requested to do so.

2. I did not write all of the book (and the speculation you cite is entirely meaningless in the context of doping/anti-doping efforts anyway).

I'm entitled to my opinion. As I say - from what I read you shot down Vayer's calcuations. It would have been nice to have seen you re-work the figures, esp. in light of the education/information you have.

I know many people get upset with all the doping talk; however, it is ruining our sport and I personally would love to see a TdF where we see the riders struggling to finish. Instead we see shows up Mt Ventoux that superman would be proud of. What upsets me most is those who give it there all and never cheat, yet seldom see lime-light.

I'm not sure how my comment is meaningless? When you have someone such as Lance Armstrong (who's FTP is in the region of 450W??) putting out a 300TSS daily and getting stronger. Surely, anyone with a reasonable mind knows this is not natually possible. I couldn't imagine watching Paula Radcliff run a marathon every day for 21 days and see her times get faster and faster. It is a joke.

Alex Simmons said:

Because Andy was hiding in the grassy knoll.

I suppose I could post my birth certificate showing that I was only 4 y old when Kennedy was shot, but we all saw how well that worked for Obama, huh?

tomUK said:

from what I read you shot down Vayer's calcuations.

That I did, because they are nonsensical.

tomUK said:

It would have been nice to have seen you re-work the figures

I did that as well (cf. the Cyclingnews.com article).

tomUK said:

I'm not sure how my comment is meaningless? When you have someone such as Lance Armstrong

Because it has nothing to do with me.

acoggan said:

That I did, because they are nonsensical.

I did that as well (cf. the Cyclingnews.com article).

Because it has nothing to do with me.

Sure, I read the cyclingnews article. The point in question is there seems to be rather a lot of speculation about density altitude, drag, temp, etc. All these figures are somewhat easily obtained. Also slop gradient is availble via garmin gps data files. Again, let me reiterate - I got the feeling from reading the article that your estimate - 450W - was based on very lean estimates of data. But then as many have stated; who really cares about doping and what relevance is it?

tomUK said:

Sure, I read the cyclingnews article.

Then I suggest that you read it again, because you clearly have missed the points I attempted to make.

tomUK said:

The point in question is there seems to be rather a lot of speculation about density altitude, drag, temp, etc. All these figures are somewhat easily obtained. Also slop gradient is availble via garmin gps data files. Again, let me reiterate - I got the feeling from reading the article that your estimate - 450W - was based on very lean estimates of data.

I hate to disappoint you, but it is even worse than that: I'd categorize it as a wild-ass guess (based, BTW, on the same 70 kg body mass assumption that Vayer used).

tomUK said:

But then as many have stated; who really cares about doping and what relevance is it?

It certainly has no relevance with respect to MY involvement in cycling.

acoggan said:

Then I suggest that you read it again, because you clearly have missed the points I attempted to make.

I hate to disappoint you, but it is even worse than that: I'd categorize it as a wild-ass guess (based, BTW, on the same 70 kg body mass assumption that Vayer used).

It certainly has no relevance with respect to MY involvement in cycling.

Getting down to brass tacks, you do have some knowledge that would help in the fight against doping. I appreciate that you don't want to go down that road, hence I see no mileage in pursing such.

I just don't see the worth in stating that Armstrong could recover from a 300+ TSS in a day(esp. in light of a 450FTP) and get strong over 21 days, when you and I know that this is highly unlikely without the use of some questionable substance.

Maybe you are able to see the point i'm making, maybe not.