NP viewable when riding...

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

My only claim is that everyone can ride at 75-80% of FTP for an hour.

Your claim is incorrect. For example, neither you nor anyone else can average 75-80% of their functional threshold power by exercising for 5 min @ 150-160%, then resting for 5 min, and repeating this 12 times. This is obvious from the fact that no one can sustain 150-160% of their functional threshold power for 5 min even once.

From the above, it logically follows that other workouts can also be recognized as impossible, prima facie. This includes the workout you originally claimed to have completed.

Importantly, note that none of the above statements are based on the normalized power algorithm, i.e., they could be made, and would be equally true, even if I'd never developed the algorithm.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by acoggan [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Your claim is incorrect. For example, neither you nor anyone else can average 75-80% of their functional threshold power by exercising for 5 min @ 150-160%, then resting for 5 min, and repeating this 12 times. This is obvious from the fact that no one can sustain 150-160% of their functional threshold power for 5 min even once.

From the above, it logically follows that other workouts can also be recognized as impossible, prima facie. This includes the workout you originally claimed to have completed.

Importantly, note that none of the above statements are based on the normalized power algorithm, i.e., they could be made, and would be equally true, even if I'd never developed the algorithm.

Perhaps you could use the time frame I used - 45-60 seconds at 150-160% then the same at 0%. That time frame works for me. The goal is to keep heart rate below LT.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by DAL1955 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

You mean this one? home.trainingpeaks.comthe science of the performance manager.aspxOpen ↗

I don't have issues with Dr Bannister and I don't think he would disagree that many factors affect heart rate other than the imparted daily dose of training stress. He developed a model using what was available at the time, heart rate was easily measured, instantaneous power not so much. Bannisters TRIMPS model and Andy Coggan's model are similar in that they are both impulse/response models devised to simulate and predict athletic training and performance. They are however based on completely different interpretations of the input training impulse. The disadvantages of the earlier model are well documented in the article cited above. The fact remains that a model that utilizes a direct measurement of the work input will necessarily be more reliable with respect to that parameter than one which relies on an inferential relationship such as that between power and heart rate. Quite simply, too many factors affect heart rate and vary from day to day and as a result impart undesirable inaccuracy. If anything, the power based model may understate the training dose compared to a heart rate based model since the HR model will assume an elevated heart rate is the result of more strenuous training, when if fact the elevated heart rate may result because you were hung over, dehydrated or ill, where your power meter only measures what it sees. It doesn't care if you are tired, sick or inebriated.

To quote one source,

"The benefit of Banister’s system is that it takes into consideration the observation that higher workloads are more metabolically taxing (exponentially so, via the weighting factor) than lower workloads of equivalent duration (Bannister 1996). However, it is still dependent upon the measurement of heart rate, which is variable based on factors such as hydration, rest, illness, or cardiac drift. Furthermore, though HR is dependent upon workload, it may take minutes to stabilize when that workload changes. Because of these complicating factors, it would be preferable to measure work rate directly".

DAL

"The disadvantages of the earlier model are well documented in the article cited above." The article refereence is simply a sales brochure for whatever Andy Coggan was selling at the time - his model.

While you seem to get Andy Coggan's argument correct, you fail to apply his objections to his training model. Do any of the factors that he states also confound his training model? I think they do.

Since there are no peer reviewed papers of Andy Coggan's model, you should ask why not. I would suggest that is because there is no benefit of to using Andy Coggan's model over any other model.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

"The disadvantages of the earlier model are well documented in the article cited above." The article refereence is simply a sales brochure for whatever Andy Coggan was selling at the time - his model.

While you seem to get Andy Coggan's argument correct, you fail to apply his objections to his training model. Do any of the factors that he states also confound his training model? I think they do.

Since there are no peer reviewed papers of Andy Coggan's model, you should ask why not. I would suggest that is because there is no benefit of to using Andy Coggan's model over any other model.

Then what you are arguing is that an Impulse/response model is not the correct manner in which to model cycling performance. All (and I mean this with the understanding that this was no small feat) Andy did was to alter the input impulse to one directly applicable to cycling; power to the rear wheel as opposed to another inferential input like heart rate. You suggest that his model has not been peer reviewed, and I fully understand what this means in the scientific community, but I would suggest that perhaps the reason no one has taken the time to do such a review is that the validity of the model is obvious to those that have used and tested it in the real world. I would suggest that these are the only peers that matter.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by DAL1955 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Then what you are arguing is that an Impulse/response model is not the correct manner in which to model cycling performance. All (and I mean this with the understanding that this was no small feat) Andy did was to alter the input impulse to one directly applicable to cycling; power to the rear wheel as opposed to another inferential input like heart rate. You suggest that his model has not been peer reviewed, and I fully understand what this means in the scientific community, but I would suggest that perhaps the reason no one has taken the time to do such a review is that the validity of the model is obvious to those that have used and tested it in the real world. I would suggest that these are the only peers that matter.

No. Impulse/response is reasonable. But I know that using NP, TSS, or the long term averages of TSS are not correct measures.

There is a saying that the plural of anecdote is not data. acoggan provides anecdotes - predictions of his model. (At one time acoggan made the statement that his model makes no prediction, but it seems that he now claims it does. I can tolerate that.) We know he simply makes up stuff to make himself appear correct. So far acoggan has made the following predictions: 1) no one can do 75%/0% repeats for an hour, 2) no one can do 300TSS eveyday for a substantional length of time; 3) No one can do 150-160% FTP for 5 minutes. Pay me enough I will disprove them all.

I expect those who train using Andy Coggan's model improve over time, but no more than if they trained using heart rate or just training time.

What those who train using Andy Coggan's methods is a false measure of their workload and their ability.

---

I have to go out and ride.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Do any of the factors that he states also confound his training model?

Since there are no peer reviewed papers of Andy Coggan's model, you should ask why not.

1. The answer to the first question would be no. That is, as an abstract version of Bannister's impulse-response model you no longer have to worry about details such as whether the model is over-parameterized. The disadvantage, of course, is that the approach is no longer purely quantitative, i.e., applying the Performance Manager is as much art as it is science.

2. Actually, TSS has been used to quantify training load in at least one peer-reviewed scientific paper, and the Performance Manager approach has been used in another. Now what is true is that I haven't published anything on it in scientific journals...but that's simply because I consider the applied cycling work I do to be strictly a hobby, and thus have never bothered to write any of this up and submit it somewhere. If I did, I'm sure I could get it published, as only once have I had a paper rejected. 🙂 (It helps if you don't try to publish every scrap of data you collect just to pad your CV, but instead focus on higher quality, more definitive studies and then target the right journals, vs. journal-shopping based simply on some politically-inflated impact factor.)

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

(At one time acoggan made the statement that his model makes no prediction, but it seems that he now claims it does. I can tolerate that.) We know he simply makes up stuff to make himself appear correct. So far acoggan has made the following predictions: 1) no one can do 75%/0% repeats for an hour, 2) no one can do 300TSS eveyday for a substantional length of time; 3) No one can do 150-160% FTP for 5 minutes.

Boy, you're so confused I'm not sure where to begin...

0) It appears that you're conflating the normalized power algorithm with the Performance Manager. The former wasn't explicitly designed to predict any one particular physiological response (though it predicts many), whereas the latter was explicitly designed to predict when you would ride well, or poorly.

1) ??

2) That is really an anecdotal observation, not a prediction...but in any case, I have never seen anyone pull it off. Heck, I've never seen any racing cyclist achieve a CTL of >200 TSS/d (and few, even pros riding in one of the Grand Tours, get to over 150).

3) Yep, that is what I would predict. However, that prediction is based more on an understanding of exercise physiology (including the maximum value you can expect for anaerobic work capacity) than anything else.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by acoggan [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Boy, you're so confused I'm not sure where to begin...

I have never been confused. We seem to be talking about NP and how it was not valid and now you are talking about performance manager. Try to stay on topic.

1) I am sorry for the typo. 150%/0 FTP repeats. 75% FTP average. I do them. Remember you claim I cannot do them.

2) You posted it as a prediction. After 5 weeks off, I am doing 200+TSS everyday. It only took my one bad ride to get up to 70+% FTP for 4+ hours. And I am not up to either my usual power output or my usual time yet. I don't think you know any bicyclists..

3) I guess you don't understand exercise physiology. It is easy to build up one's 5 minute ability at the expense of longer term abilities.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I have never been confused. We seem to be talking about NP and how it was not valid and now you are talking about performance manager. Try to stay on topic.

1) I am sorry for the typo. 150%/0 FTP repeats. 75% FTP average. I do them. Remember you claim I cannot do them.

2) You posted it as a prediction. After 5 weeks off, I am doing 200+TSS everyday. It only took my one bad ride to get up to 70+% FTP for 4+ hours. And I am not up to either my usual power output or my usual time yet. I don't think you know any bicyclists..

3) I guess you don't understand exercise physiology. It is easy to build up one's 5 minute ability at the expense of longer term abilities.

Stay on topic? You're the one who wrote "acoggan has made the following predictions...2) no one can do 300TSS everyday for a substantial length of time". Obviously you're not sharp enough to realize it, but that anecdotal observation is based upon analyzing data using the Performance Manager approach.

As for your other points:

1) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Marcello Truzzi

2) Keep that routine up every day for the next ~3 mo, then get back to us. While doing so, however, be sure to maintain an average of IF of >0.75, as a cycling training for competition would.

3) No doubt. However, both a 5 min effort and a 1 h effort are predominantly aerobic in nature, such that performance at both durations is inextricably linked. That is, e.g., why even world class pursuiters with phenomenal anaerobic capacities cannot sustain 150% of their functional threshold power for 5 min (indeed, most are down around the ~125% mark).

I still like this classic "extraordinary claim" of all that I have seen posted by AOG.

cyclingforums.com630Open ↗

Maybe we should take up a collection so he can send in his power meter for repair?

What I don't get is AOG seems to hate everything about using power for training and always seems to promote HR as the true parameter for training. Yet he himself claims to using this much "flawed" system by stating his own power information and TSS. I don't beleive for a second that he as much as owns a power meter and am certain that all of his numbers and information of what he does or can do, is him guessing based off if his PE and HR. Which is why his claims are unrealistic. He throws the term "fraud" around a lot not because others are a fraud, it is because he himself is a fraud and he knows it.

"As we rode up the steeper section side by side at 400w, we had a nice conversation"... only if 400W is the rating on his electric motor!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by acoggan [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Stay on topic? You're the one who wrote "acoggan has made the following predictions...2) no one can do 300TSS everyday for a substantial length of time". Obviously you're not sharp enough to realize it, but that anecdotal observation is based upon analyzing data using the Performance Manager approach.

As for your other points:

1) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Marcello Truzzi

2) Keep that routine up every day for the next ~3 mo, then get back to us. While doing so, however, be sure to maintain an average of IF of >0.75, as a cycling training for competition would.

3) No doubt. However, both a 5 min effort and a 1 h effort are predominantly aerobic in nature, such that performance at both durations is inextricably linked. That is, e.g., why even world class pursuiters with phenomenal anaerobic capacities cannot sustain 150% of their functional threshold power for 5 min (indeed, most are down around the ~125% mark).

This thread went off track when you made the statement that my ride was impossible. Anecdotal observations made by you are not data.

1)You have made extraordinary claims, I agree you need to provide extraordinary proof. Simply saying that there is some physical process involved in support of your claim is not sufficient. Anecdotal observation is no more valid for you than for me.

2) My per diem is $1000/day. I get paid up front. Tell me where to pick up the check for $90K. You seem to have changed the terms. The terms I read were "no one can do 300TSS everyday for a substantial length of time." Perhaps you could point to a training plan description that requires one to be above 75% every day.

3) Perhaps your pursuiters are too good. Perhaps you should look at a different class of riders. If I were to do 150% of FTP, it would take 5 minutes to reach my max heart rate.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by bgoetz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

What I don't get is AOG seems to hate everything about using power for training and always seems to promote HR as the true parameter for training. Yet he himself claims to using this much "flawed" system by stating his own power information and TSS. I don't beleive for a second that he as much as owns a power meter and am certain that all of his numbers and information of what he does or can do, is him guessing based off if his PE and HR. Which is why his claims are unrealistic. He throws the term "fraud" around a lot not because others are a fraud, it is because he himself is a fraud and he knows it.

I use my TSS, NP ,and IF in discussions here to show how they are defective.

I use power all the time on my training rides. I find average power, peak power, and average power for intervals - 20 minute, 45 seconds, to be useful goals.

I also find it useful to know how my power output affects my heart rate.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by DAL1955 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

"As we rode up the steeper section side by side at 400w, we had a nice conversation"... only if 400W is the rating on his electric motor!

I am sure you can ride at 400w. I am sure you can talk with people while doing so.

A lot of guys here claim to be able to do over 350w for an hour. I bet they can have a nice conversation for the first 50 minutes.

There was a guy who was doing 700+w repeats during a crit. I am sure he would have thought that 400w repeats were easy.

You lack of knowledge of what the guys on this site claim to do is surprising.

An old Guy said:

This thread went off track when you made the statement that my ride was impossible. Anecdotal observations made by you are not data. 1)You have made extraordinary claims, I agree you need to provide extraordinary proof. Simply saying that there is some physical process involved in support of your claim is not sufficient. Anecdotal observation is no more valid for you than for me. 2) My per diem is $1000/day. I get paid up front. Tell me where to pick up the check for $90K. You seem to have changed the terms. The terms I read were "no one can do 300TSS everyday for a substantial length of time." Perhaps you could point to a training plan description that requires one to be above 75% every day.  3) Perhaps your pursuiters are too good. Perhaps you should look at a different class of riders. If I were to do 150% of FTP, it would take 5 minutes to reach my max heart rate.

$1000 per day? I thought trolls worked just for the beauty of the craft.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by DAL1955 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

"As we rode up the steeper section side by side at 400w, we had a nice conversation"... only if 400W is the rating on his electric motor!

That 400W was where his chain slipped into a bigger gear because his push rod actuated 1940's hand made Campag gears, which are more worn than his ancient bones, don't quite work as Tulio intented. A brief 3 second spike... A quick reach back to the chainstay and a pull of a lever got him back down to his 125W FTP.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I am sure you can ride at 400w. I am sure you can talk with people while doing so.

A lot of guys here claim to be able to do over 350w for an hour. I bet they can have a nice conversation for the first 50 minutes.

There was a guy who was doing 700+w repeats during a crit. I am sure he would have thought that 400w repeats were easy.

You lack of knowledge of what the guys on this site claim to do is surprising.

There are were couple of folks that I actually believe that could do 350W or higher that have posted on this board over the past few years. I haven't seen too many of them posting recently.

I highly doubt that folks that are riding at, or very near their FTP, are having a nice conversation for 50 minutes when riding at FTP for an hour. That statement in itself singularly demonstrates that you way off the mark.

At 400W I'm in the "no conversation zone" within the first minute. It's been over a decade since I managed 400W for 5 minutes. High 380s in recent years for 5 minutes is bordering on bringing up Campbels chunky soup territory. 310 to 320 FTP is about all I can muster these days when fit. I'm sure I could nudge the power for shorter durations up a bit with some very focused training. As with the 350W statement above, I don't know of too many folks on here that are sub 154lb and putting out over 400watts for 5+ minutes. Some of the bigger guys can but not too many that are up there with a stellar power/weight ratio to match.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
3) Perhaps your pursuiters are too good. Perhaps you should look at a different class of riders. If I were to do 150% of FTP, it would take 5 minutes to reach my max heart rate.

What class of rider would that be? One that lies constantly? One that lives and rides in la-la land?

If you can do 150% FTP for 5 minutes then your FTP is too low.

FWIW, the last couple of years my 5 minutes has been between 123 and 119% of FTP.

If I could have mystically made my 5 minute power to be 150% of my FTP, I would have been representing Great Britain in the 1996 Olympics alongside Chris Boardman - FTP ~340 Watts, theoretical AOG 5 minute nuclear reactor demolition power would have been north of 500 Watts... Needless to say I've never represented my country on the track, never even got close. 550Watts for someone my build (well, when I was 145lb racing fit) with an exceptional understanding of aero would be world record pace for just over 4 minutes and change. Even Wiggo couldn't manage the 500 to 560 watts that it was calculated he'd need to beat Boardmans' old pursuit record.
Alas,back in the real world, these days 550watts for 1 minute is a bit feckin' hard. After the recent long rides I don't even think I could do that right now. [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif[/IMG]

i forgot to buy doughnuts. anyway, they make me fat. i would love a thread that had Frank, Warren, Noel, the old guy in. It'd be great. Like a super cycling comedy show. I miss Frank, does anyone know where he hangs out these days? It's been a while since i've had a laugh with him.

Anyway, CB at WR pace managed a "paltry" ~118% of his FTP for his pursuit effort. He wasn't too shabby.