Sequencing Workouts/Intensity

Quoted post said:

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

TSS has nothing to do with how hard a ride is, how much training stress you are subjected to, or how much effort is expended. TSS (and those related concepts - CTL, ATL and TSB) has everything to do with recovery period.

So Training Stress Score has nothing to do with training stress?

Next in the book of revelations, bicycle wheels have nothing to do with bicycles.

Quoted post said:

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

You seem to miss the point of the quotes. The point of the quotes was to compare your use of TSS to the correct use of TSS. TSS has nothing to do with how hard a ride is, how much training stress you are subjected to, or how much effort is expended. TSS (and those related concepts - CTL, ATL and TSB) has everything to do with recovery period.

It only has to do with how much glycogen has to be replaced and the time frame necessary to replace it.

---

TSS is a poor measure of the recovery period because it does not include a number of other factors such as muscle fiber damage but it does not claim to include those factors.

---

I gave you Dr. Coggan's definition you should be able to determine that all I have said is consistent with that definition and what you have said is not.

---

I am still waiting for you to produce a 10 year old who can produce the torque necessary to produce 500w.

---

If I wanted to be rude to you, I would point out that a .75 IF is top of recovery/bottom of endurance and walk away. (That fact is from a paper by Dr. Coogan.)

But IF was not a good measure of how hard the 5 hour ride was for you. I will accept that the ride was hard for you. It is easy to beat yourself up in ways not accounted for in TSS or IF.

This whole concept seems to be just sailing over your head..

1st of all this is not Coggan's concept at it's heart.. it's a model that Eric Banister came up with and Coggan cooped and dumbed down considerably so it would be easier to manage and calculate...

and 2nd of all.. that is NOT the definition of TSS.. TSS IS the input of training stress into Dr. Coggan's simplified version of an impulse-response model.. hence the name.. "TRAINING STRESS score".. in your quote is Dr. Coggan is making an inference (an educated guess really) about what causes the resulting fatigue (the strain) caused by that stress.. but TSS is not fatigue.. TSS cause both -VE fatigue and +VE adaptations.. but knowing what causes the fatigue or adaptations is actually not necessary in order to make the model work since it's based on empirical study.. well Bannister's anyway.. Coggan's model takes a bunch of shortcuts and makes things constant that aren't etc making it just a relative predictor of performance rather than a absolute one.. but, still the concept is sound and it works reasonably well enough to be very useful in a way that Bannister's couldn't in the real world as a tool like performance manager is..

3rdly... you are correct, TSS is not how hard you ride.. well it's not JUST how hard you ride... it's how hard your ride and for how long based on your current ability.. the input into the impulse response model always includes intensity and duration..

4thly... these models are not about recovery.. the are about prediction performance.. that's their reason for existing.. TO PREDICT PERFORMANCE... how can you not understand that?? the damn this is called "The Performance Manager".. didn't that give you a clue?? not the RECOVERY manager.. you can make inferences and generalization about why things are the way they are like Dr. Coggan has done here, but that doesn't mean that it's the model showing that.. cause it isn't..

if you want to understand the Performance Manager read the link below.. for you, I'd say read it 10-15 times.. lol.. if you can understand this, then you know how principles behind the performance manager.. you're still clueless about it.. I think you're just too concerned with getting me.. just read that and really try to understand it and I then you won't be on here making these ill informed posts.. i think the other forum members would really appreciate that.. lol..

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/the-science-of-the-performance-manager.aspx

----------------------
Power = Torque * angular velocity

95RPMs = 9.42rad/s (just used a conversion tool)
500W = Torque * 9.42rad/s
Torque = 53 N.m

53N.m = Force * .175m (175 cranks)
Force = 53N.m/.175m = 303N

mass = weight/g
303N/9.81m.s^-2 = 30.9kg = 66lbs.. so the child needs to be able to exert 66lbs of force to pedal a bike at 500W with a cadence of 95RPMs with 175mm cranks..

a 50th percentile, 10yr old child weighs about 75-80lbs.. if that child that can walk up stairs, then they can lift their weight with one leg in a motion that closely matches pedalling a bicycle.. then they can exert more than enough force than is required to pedal a bicycle at 500W (95rpms, 175mm cranks).. in fact at 75lbs, they possess the power strength to pedal a bicycle at minimum, 550W (95rpms, 175mm cranks).. and 50 percent of the population of those ten yr old could minimally exert even more force than that..

http://pediatrics.about.com/library/growth_charts/nboystwo.htm

[FONT= calibri]I have to admit that I still have a lot to learn and because I do not fully understand all the finer details at this point when I look at the PMC I am using ride TSS to help govern upcoming training sessions. I have read plenty, but it is still not sinking in to the point where I understand the how to look at ATL and TSB and use them to shape the schedule. [/FONT]

[FONT= calibri]At the moment by experience or application it is easy for me to look at CTL and TSS and by those two I am able to roughly set my schedule and I seem to be progressing okay with this limited knowledge. At my level maybe that is good enough and the other metrics will come or there will be that moment of “By George I think I’ve got it” when it all clicks and all of the metrics make full sense to me.[/FONT] I know the definitions, but have not put knowledge and application together.

[FONT= calibri]Based on the guide I posted earlier from Dr. Coggan and I can say that by experience of something like 8 out of 10 rides on a particular 70 mile course I have found that at > 320 TSS I would probably not be able to do the scheduled L3 training session the following day and many times would struggle even on the day after. Not until about 3 days following that type of ride can I get back to training with decent intensity. If I keep it below 300 TSS or lower I can typically train the following day with decent results. Also what happens during that ride makes a difference like a steady solo pace or if it is a group ride with a lot of burned matches in the surges makes a difference and something I have to keep in mind when looking at the TSS number. Of course my legs remind me what type of day it was when I set out on the next training session and that will override the value of the TSS. Perhaps this is where understanding TSB when I view the PMC would help.[/FONT]
[FONT= calibri] [/FONT]
[FONT= calibri]So in a crude way I am able to look at TSS and adjust my training on the longer endurance training day (Saturday) so that it is beneficial to me and yet not disruptive to the following training days. By doing this my CTL then continues on a steady climb, whereas, if I overreach (> 320 TSS) I miss a day or two and my CTL goes flat or drops. I am finding that in order to keep my CTL on an upward trend that consistency of training is vital to my goal. I suppose I just need to focus on looking at TSB and get the same sort of relationship to know cause and effect by application.[/FONT]
[FONT= calibri]I understand all these metrics and application are individual to me and perhaps next year I can complete this 70 mile course at a fairly good intensity level. Of course my hope is to remain progressive so whatever fitness level I reach I hope to keep raising the bar. Have no desire to race and my focus is only endurance events to my own entertainment. [/FONT]

[FONT= calibri]As a side note with my fitness improving I am now doing that 70 mile course at the same speed and ending with a ~250 TSS instead of 300+ with about the same IF. So it seems that I am improving on that particular course. Edit: Oops...that was probably a mistatement. I forget the last time I was on that course the weather and fatigue had an impact that lowered my IF and also lowered the ride TSS. Ride Info[/FONT]

[FONT= calibri]Again, I am really trying to get a grasp on all these things that we have available to use as training guides. I could careless if others think I am overthinking all of this. All my cycling friends think I am. I am the only one in my group using a power meter and I am probably not using it in best manner, but I am grateful to be here and try to learn.[/FONT]

[FONT= calibri]Thank goodness I am able to discern the good information sources from the one bad on this forum though.....sigh.[/FONT]

Quoted post said:

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

[FONT= calibri]Based on the guide I posted earlier from Dr. Coggan and I can say that by experience of something like 8 out of 10 rides on a particular 70 mile course I have found that at > 320 TSS I would probably not be able to do the scheduled L3 training session the following day and many times would struggle even on the day after. Not until about 3 days following that type of ride can I get back to training with decent intensity. If I keep it below 300 TSS or lower I can typically train the following day with decent results. Also what happens during that ride makes a difference like a steady solo pace or if it is a group ride with a lot of burned matches in the surges makes a difference and something I have to keep in mind when looking at the TSS number. Of course my legs remind me what type of day it was when I set out on the next training session and that will override the value of the TSS. Perhaps this is where understanding TSB when I view the PMC would help.[/FONT]
[FONT= calibri] [/FONT]

Do you have any training sessions that have short periods of high L4 or L5? You're becoming accustomed to the solo rides with a big TSS because you spend more time training like that - one hopes that you get better at what you train at and it seems as though this is the case with your solo rides but if you don't chuck in some shorter harder efforts during training then the shorter harder efforts will knock the snot out of you during the club ride.

You don't need to have a full serving of 8 minutes of L5 (or high L4) pain per interval but throwing in some efforts above threshold will reap fairly quick rewards. If you have "the book" there are a few ways to throw in some higher effort intervals that'll help make the group rides easier on the legs. If you're on the trainer intersperse them by time - say 5 or 10 minutes apart. If you're out on the road you can do it that way too but you can use landmarks - if you have an prominent sign on the way back home, solo TT it on the rivet from approx 3 to 5 minutes out, hit it hard up a small hill or nail it a few minutes from the top of a big hill. Keep it fun.

Thanks Swampy

As a goal I am getting 3 to 4 days of 3 x 20's in L4 if work allows. Reality I have been 2x20 @ L4 and the last one at L3.
I have dropped out of group rides because I am too fatigued to ride with them because of the weekday L4 sessions. So it suits me best to go on a long solo Saturday ride with big blocks of L3 and by watching my ride TSS on the Garmin I will back down to L2 when I start approaching 300 and save my legs a little because I try to do a 2 x 60 on Sunday's at L3.

Once in a while I join back in the group just to see if I lost any of the spark in the legs when they are sprinting those short steep rollers.

My goals are kind more like the type you stated on another thread. I would eventually like to be in good enough condition to roll at a good speed on long distance events so AWC is not as much a focus in my current goal.

Quoted post said:

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

Power = Torque * angular velocity

95RPMs = 9.42rad/s (just used a conversion tool)
500W = Torque * 9.42rad/s
Torque = 53 N.m

53N.m = Force * .175m (175 cranks)
Force = 53N.m/.175m = 303N

mass = weight/g
303N/9.81m.s^-2 = 30.9kg = 66lbs.. so the child needs to be able to exert 66lbs of force to pedal a bike at 500W with a cadence of 95RPMs with 175mm cranks..

a 50th percentile, 10yr old child weighs about 75-80lbs.. if that child that can walk up stairs, then they can lift their weight with one leg in a motion that closely matches pedalling a bicycle.. then they can exert more than enough force than is required to pedal a bicycle at 500W (95rpms, 175mm cranks).. in fact at 75lbs, they possess the power strength to pedal a bicycle at minimum, 550W (95rpms, 175mm cranks).. and 50 percent of the population of those ten yr old could minimally exert even more force than that..

http://pediatrics.about.com/library/growth_charts/nboystwo.htm

A lot is over my head. (You say tomato I say tomato and we never agree.)

I was going to explain why your 5 hour; .75IF ride (.75IF is high L1 or low L2) felt so hard (more like a high L3 or low L4). But you seem to know so much more than I do. I will let it go.

---

So a child's weight falling 12" (close enough for me) will turn the cranks at 95rpm. Amazing.

My weight (and I weight a bit more than 2 kids worth) should allow me to produce 1000w.

I put my bike in the lowest gear (34/30). I stand on the pedals. (The second time I remembered to apply the brakes. Balance and then release the brakes.) I don't think I got up to 95 rmps. I don't think I got up to 500w.

(took a shower and redid the following)

8" cranks; mgh = 1/2mv^2

Seems the speed of the crank as it passes the bottom is about 32"/sec. One revolution is 2*pi*r is 48". RPMs is under 60. Certainly not 95.

---

But like most people who attempt this type of problem - you cheat. You forgot to account for the change in potential energy of the child. I would have simply converted the kid's mass into energy. That produces a much more impressive display. The kid could not only win the TdF. The kid could move most of her mass into orbit. Probably only a small amount of her body weight (a bit of water) would be necessary to move her body and support gear into orbit.

In reality gravity exerted the torque not the child.

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

A lot is over my head. (You say tomato I say tomato and we never agree.)

I was going to explain why your 5 hour; .75IF ride (.75IF is high L1 or low L2) felt so hard (more like a high L3 or low L4). But you seem to know so much more than I do. I will let it go.

---

So a child's weight falling 12" (close enough for me) will turn the cranks at 95rpm. Amazing.

My weight (and I weight a bit more than 2 kids worth) should allow me to produce 1000w.

I put my bike in the lowest gear (34/30). I stand on the pedals. (The second time I remembered to apply the brakes. Balance and then release the brakes.) I don't think I got up to 95 rmps. I don't think I got up to 500w.

(took a shower and redid the following)

8" cranks; mgh = 1/2mv^2

Seems the speed of the crank as it passes the bottom is about 32"/sec. One revolution is 2*pi*r is 48". RPMs is under 60. Certainly not 95.

---

But like most people who attempt this type of problem - you cheat. You forgot to account for the change in potential energy of the child. I would have simply converted the kid's mass into energy. That produces a much more impressive display. The kid could not only win the TdF. The kid could move most of her mass into orbit. Probably only a small amount of her body weight (a bit of water) would be necessary to move her body and support gear into orbit.

In reality gravity exerted the torque not the child.

Old Guy.. Please just give it up.. Every time you write something you just embarrass yourself even more.. You want to talk Physics but you don't know something as basic as the difference between mass and weight.. This is is grade 9 science.. You don't know physics from a grade nine level and you want to talk to me about physics? SERIOUSLY?

This is my last physics lesson for you unless you start paying.. Lol..

Mass (lbs, kg) is not weight.. mass is just an intrinsic property of matter that makes it attract and be attracted to other chunks of matter.. W is the FORCE of gravity on an object.. This is measired in Newtons In layman terms they are used interchangeably but in science they are two different things.

In our case we want to know the magnitude of the force of the child's weight.. This has nothing to do with the child falling.. In order to calculate the child's weight we multiply their mass times the acceleration of gravity.. If you'd gone to more of your grade nine science classes you'd of know that.. Maybe you were sick that day.. Lol..

How strong are the legs of a 10yr old... Well obviously if a child can walk up step then they have enough strength to lift their weight with one leg.. As you go up each step you lift your entire weight up to the height of the step.. Right? So minimally a child has the leg strength to lift their weigh in .. I.e. their mass opposition to gravity

The rest of the stuff you've written is complete nonsense so I'm not going to address it.. I suggest you go take grade nine science class at a minimum before you respond again.. And embarrass yourself.. AGAIN!

Edit - I'll add again I hope you don't think I'm saying a 10 year old can ride at 500 W it's just that strength is not preventing them from doing it.. Their muscles are plenty strong enough.. It's their cardiovascular and intra-cellular metabolic system that aren't up to it..

for sports like shot put, javelin, hammer throw, 100m dash, match sprint etc.. Your muscles need to put out huge amounts of force.. This is just not the case with cycling.. We have gears..

You have not shown that they can exert the force you claim at 95rpm.

That is the hard part. If they can only exert the force you claim at 45rpm, their power drops to 250w.

I tried to help you with my understanding of what you were doing, but I must have misunderstood some of the details.

---

Aside from the rpm issue, you need to show that the kinematics of walking are transferable to those of bicycling. I am not sure they are.

---

I am not limited by power. I can put out 650w on hills. I can certainly put out 500w after several hours of riding. But ...

My high power outputs, above 500w, are either on hills at low cadence (below 60rpm) or on the flats at high cadence (above 110rpm). In either case the torque is more bothersome than the power output. And with my weight I should be able to put out the torque necessary for 1000w at 95rpm.

I think your kinematic model is wrong.

---

Perhaps you could produce a kid spinning at 95rpm with the torque you claim. A power meter output would be sufficient for me. Some might want to see a video.

----

Professional bicyclists have a great deal of power. More power than they need most of the time. Yet they tend to change gears. Changing gears changes the torque necessary. Even with changing gears they tend to slow down toward the top of long climbs. Often because they lack the torque. It is tough spinning at 30-40rpm on those steep climbs when the guy next to you who has the same power is spinning at 50-60 in a lower gear. Same power different torque. If only they were stronger they would not be whishing for a lower gear.

Quoted post said:

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

You have not shown that they can exert the force you claim at 95rpm.

That is the hard part. If they can only exert the force you claim at 45rpm, their power drops to 250w.

I tried to help you with my understanding of what you were doing, but I must have misunderstood some of the details.

---

Aside from the rpm issue, you need to show that the kinematics of walking are transferable to those of bicycling. I am not sure they are.

---

I am not limited by power. I can put out 650w on hills. I can certainly put out 500w after several hours of riding. But ...

My high power outputs, above 500w, are either on hills at low cadence (below 60rpm) or on the flats at high cadence (above 110rpm). In either case the torque is more bothersome than the power output. And with my weight I should be able to put out the torque necessary for 1000w at 95rpm.

I think your kinematic model is wrong.

---

Perhaps you could produce a kid spinning at 95rpm with the torque you claim. A power meter output would be sufficient for me. Some might want to see a video.

----

Professional bicyclists have a great deal of power. More power than they need most of the time. Yet they tend to change gears. Changing gears changes the torque necessary. Even with changing gears they tend to slow down toward the top of long climbs. Often because they lack the torque. It is tough spinning at 30-40rpm on those steep climbs when the guy next to you who has the same power is spinning at 50-60 in a lower gear. Same power different torque. If only they were stronger they would not be whishing for a lower gear.

last time you showed you didn't know the difference between weight and mass.. this time you show you don't know the meaning of "=".. LMAO... Un-F'n-Believable! lol.. I give up.. there is just no hope for you!

Power = torque x angular velocity.. period.. full stop!

if the child can torque the pedal with that force and they can pedal at 95rpms they can do 500W.. they might not even be able to accelerate to that power by themselves.. they will certainly not be able to do it for very long, but they can do it.. if you understand what "=" means you understand that..

the point is that.. the strength of the muscles is irrelevant, because anyone's muscles are strong enough.. little kid's muscles are strong enough.. sustainable power is not limited by muscle strength..

ok, so you're obviously have too little understanding of math or physic or physiology to get it.. let's try a different tact..
I'll ask you a few questions.. of the riders A and B below..

1. who has stronger muscles?
   
2. who's the better time trialist.. let's say anything over ~4km... and why?
   
3. who's would you expect to be the better overall road cyclist.. and why?
   

A) World Champion Match Sprint and Team Sprint Gérgory Baugé
[IMG]cyclingforums.com512Open ↗[/IMG]

B) Janez Brajkovič - 1st, Critérium du Dauphiné (2010), 1st Tour de Georgia (2007), World U-23 Time Trial Champion (2004), Slovenia National Time Trial Champion (2009, 2011)
[IMG]cyclingforums.com234Open ↗[/IMG]

"My high power outputs, above 500w, are either on hills at low cadence (below 60rpm) or on the flats at high cadence (above 110rpm). In either case the torque is more bothersome than the power output. And with my weight I should be able to put out the torque necessary for 1000w at 95rpm."

I'm not even sure what your point is here but.. my highest power outputs are all on the flat.. very short duration sprints.. i'm all of 122-125lbs at race weight and regularly put out ~1150W.. record is 1190W.. at about 105-125rpm, crank torque of in the region of 105N.m to ~180N.m.. are you trying to say that 1000W would be extraordinary for someone of your weight? do you weight under 122lbs? I have a good sprint (over 21W/kg would predict that.. ), but I don't think i'm particularly extraordinary in that regard..

Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorSpoc [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

the point is that.. the strength of the muscles is irrelevant, because anyone's muscles are strong enough.. little kid's muscles are strong enough.. sustainable power is not limited by muscle strength..

A.O.G. - this statement here is the crux of the matter. If you can possibly do a little bit of research around this statement, you will have an "Ah ha!" moment and the light will turn on. Please compare and contrast aerobic power and anaerobic power.

Quoted post said:

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

"My high power outputs, above 500w, are either on hills at low cadence (below 60rpm) or on the flats at high cadence (above 110rpm). In either case the torque is more bothersome than the power output. And with my weight I should be able to put out the torque necessary for 1000w at 95rpm."

I'm not even sure what your point is here but.. my highest power outputs are all on the flat.. very short duration sprints.. i'm all of 122-125lbs at race weight and regularly put out ~1150W.. record is 1190W.. at about 105-125rpm, crank torque of in the region of 105N.m to ~180N.m.. are you trying to say that 1000W would be extraordinary for someone of your weight? do you weight under 122lbs? I have a good sprint (over 21W/kg would predict that.. ), but I don't think i'm particularly extraordinary in that regard..

My point was that I cannot put out the power your model suggests. And I am in pretty good shape - that is: I can walk up stairs. In fact, after my accident I could walk up stairs and only put out 50w on by trainer and almost no torque. Based on that your comments about 10 year olds and 500w seem foolish.

That you can put out the necessary torque shows you are strong enough to put out a certain amount of power. It does not show that if you were stronger you could not put out more power for the same time periods. Of course, the drag on your body might be higher ...

You need to show the 10 year old can put out the torque at 95rpm not at 0 rpm.

If you want to ignore the RPM than a feather exerts enough torque to produce 500w (I am being nice here.) We just need to figure out the proper rpm. Your statement about the 10 year old is foolish.

---

Do I weight under 122 pounds. No. I weight a bit more than 2 10 year olds - that is how I got the idea that I should be able to provide the torque at 95rpm necessary to produce 1000w.

---

As an aside you need to add the gear ratio to your formula. Someting like: Power = Torque*rpm*chainring/cog

---

That you keep saying "sustainable power is not limited by muscle strength" does not make it true. And your examples don't do much to help. Certainly one needs less muscle mass to produce lower power over a long time period than to produce high power over a short time period.

But it is not clear that the muscle mass of a 10 year old (you know the 500w output) is enough to compete against the pros (who produce only 400w) with much more muscle mass. But then you have not shown that the muscel mass of a 10 year old is sufficient to produe the 500w you claim.

Quoted post said:

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

That you keep saying "sustainable power is not limited by muscle strength" does not make it true.

It's true that saying something is true does not make it true, however in this case he is saying it is true because it is true.

Strength is the maximal force generation ability of a muscle/group of muscles (that is its definition in exercise physiology). The forces we produce when riding sustainably are way less than maximal, like nearly an order of magnitude less. We are not limited by our ability to generate maximal force (i.e. strength), but rather our aerobic capacity to sustain the production of significantly sub-maximal forces frequently (i.e. sustainable aerobic power).

A child might be able to produce 500W for a very brief period but of course they could not sustain it.

An old Guy said:

That you keep saying "sustainable power is not limited by muscle strength" does not make it true. And your examples don't do much to help. Certainly one needs less muscle mass to produce lower power over a long time period than to produce high power over a short time period.

No, saying it doesn't make it true, but physics does. Do you need a refresher on the basic laws of physics? I'll help: P=F∙dr/dt Don't forget the bold font indicates a vector quantity, and the pretty dot isn't a multiplication symbol but indicates a dot product. Of course you knew that. You'll note that for P to increase, F (uhm, force applied) doesn't have to increase, nor does it have to be maximum. The change in the position vector can increase. If you'd like, I can restate the definition in terms of angular velocity (i.e., cadence) to show you that again, power can increase with cadence, too. It's just that simple science stuff, but with your background, you already knew that.

Quoted post said:

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

It's true that saying something is true does not make it true, however in this case he is saying it is true because it is true.

Strength is the maximal force generation ability of a muscle/group of muscles (that is its definition in exercise physiology). The forces we produce when riding sustainably are way less than maximal, like nearly an order of magnitude less. We are not limited by our ability to generate maximal force (i.e. strength), but rather our aerobic capacity to sustain the production of significantly sub-maximal forces frequently (i.e. sustainable aerobic power).

A child might be able to produce 500W for a very brief period but of course they could not sustain it.

You missed the point. Power output requires both the torque and the rpm. You need to have both concurrently. Even if the climbing stairs model is correct one needs to show that the torque can be performed at 95rpm

According to the climbing stairs model you should be able to generate over 1000w at 95. (I assume you weight about 2 10 year old's worth.) I don't think you can. If you can, it is not easy. Even for 5 seconds. For 5 seconds you don't even need to breathe.

---

Maximal strength is misdirection. If I were to increase my maximal strength by 10% - less then 1 pound of weight gain, most likely I could increase my long term power output perhaps by even 10%. I don't use any of my other systems to their limit.

Certainly there are limits as to how much fuel one can ingest, how much oxygen one can ingest, and how much fuel and oxygen can be transported. (I could go on and on.) But unless one is a professional no one is near those limits.

In the past few months I have become somewhat stronger - my FTP is higher. Yet my heart rate is lower. And my breathing is slower. I have a long ways to go in gaining strength before I hit other limits. (FTP seems to be the proper measure of strength, but I would guess my maximal strength is higher also.)

Quoted post said:

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

No, saying it doesn't make it true, but physics does. Do you need a refresher on the basic laws of physics? I'll help:
P=F∙dr/dt
Don't forget the bold font indicates a vector quantity, and the pretty dot isn't a multiplication symbol but indicates a dot product. Of course you knew that. You'll note that for P to increase, F (uhm, force applied) doesn't have to increase, nor does it have to be maximum. The change in the position vector can increase. If you'd like, I can restate the definition in terms of angular velocity (i.e., cadence) to show you that again, power can increase with cadence, too. It's just that simple science stuff, but with your background, you already knew that.

While I understand the physics and the math (I think your notation is beyond 9th grade physics), what you are saying does not demonstrate that a 10 year old can produce the torque that is needed to generate 500w. I only used the 95rpm because that is what the claimed torque that a 10 year old could generate required.

doctorSpoc claims he can produce 1000w at 120rpm. From that we can deduce he could produce 500w at 60rpm. I suppose one could do some math indicating that a 10 year old could produce 500w at 60rpm. But that does not demonstrate that the model is correct and that the feat is possible.

I have already said that for any torque we can compute an rpm that will produce 500w. The problem is putting them together.

Quoted post said:

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

You missed the point. Power output requires both the torque and the rpm. You need to have both concurrently. Even if the climbing stairs model is correct one needs to show that the torque can be performed at 95rpm

According to the climbing stairs model you should be able to generate over 1000w at 95. (I assume you weight about 2 10 year old's worth.) I don't think you can. If you can, it is not easy. Even for 5 seconds. For 5 seconds you don't even need to breathe.

---

Maximal strength is misdirection. If I were to increase my maximal strength by 10% - less then 1 pound of weight gain, most likely I could increase my long term power output perhaps by even 10%. I don't use any of my other systems to their limit.

Certainly there are limits as to how much fuel one can ingest, how much oxygen one can ingest, and how much fuel and oxygen can be transported. (I could go on and on.) But unless one is a professional no one is near those limits.

In the past few months I have become somewhat stronger - my FTP is higher. Yet my heart rate is lower. And my breathing is slower. I have a long ways to go in gaining strength before I hit other limits. (FTP seems to be the proper measure of strength, but I would guess my maximal strength is higher also.)

While I understand the physics and the math (I think your notation is beyond 9th grade physics), what you are saying does not demonstrate that a 10 year old can produce the torque that is needed to generate 500w. I only used the 95rpm because that is what the claimed torque that a 10 year old could generate required.

doctorSpoc claims he can produce 1000w at 120rpm. From that we can deduce he could produce 500w at 60rpm. I suppose one could do some math indicating that a 10 year old could produce 500w at 60rpm. But that does not demonstrate that the model is correct and that the feat is possible.

I have already said that for any torque we can compute an rpm that will produce 500w. The problem is putting them together.

SERIOUSLY OG? ... SERIOUSLY? like i said.. you ACTUALLY don't understand the meaning of "="... you also apparently don't know the meaning of "strength" either.. which by definition is the maximal force.. this is why i asked.. WAY back.. TWICE in fact.. what is your definition of strength and you still have not give an answer.. apparently you don't understand the meaning of "sustainable" either.. since i use that in my explanation as well.. you don't seem to have a good grasp of most things apparently..

what is the maximum cadence that you can produce? let's say going downhill, with 60km/h tailwind, in your smallest gear.. ?

i haven't actually tested this on myself, so i'm not sure.. i think i looked down once i saw 145rpms when i'd really spun out a gear.... i'm pretty sure i could do a higher cadence than that if i put my mind to it though.. so that's basically with no resistance at all.. just a bit of wind resistance maybe from your feet whirling around..

so what prevents me from doing that kind of cadence in other situations.. say on the flat, in a higher gear, maybe even going up hill?

it's the torque.. the torque is what prevents us from doing this high cadence in other situations.. but in the example i give.. i SPECIFICALLY stipulate a torque that the person CAN do.. did you catch that? ..it's a torque that the person CAN DO.. so as long as they can also spin the cranks at 95rpms.. they absolutely can do 500W.. that's why I say you don't understand the meaning of "=".. that angular velocity (that the person CAN DO), times that torque (that the person CAN DO) "=" 550W (not even 500W)

An old Guy said:

While I understand the physics and the math (I think your notation is beyond 9th grade physics)....

Then hopefully you'll find someone to explain it to you. With help, you might just be able to grasp the idea.

Quoted post said:

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

While I understand the physics and the math (I think your notation is beyond 9th grade physics).... Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Then hopefully you'll find someone to explain it to you. With help, you might just be able to grasp the idea.

I laughed when I saw that.. NO YOU DON'T!

Quoted post said:

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

iit's a torque that the person CAN DO.. so as long as they can also spin the cranks at 95rpms.. they absolutely can do 500W.

We are so close. They just need to do them both at the same time.

---

As to how fast I can spin. At one time I wanted to avoid a school bus. (I was old then - 55+.) Somewhere around 140rpm in a 50/16 on the flat without a wind. The 50/16 was and still is my biggest gear. (34mph is about 750w. I can still hit that power output in most of my gears. The lower gears need a hill or a headwind to get the impedence correct.

I can spin at 140rpm. I have a lot of torque in my 50/16. Guess how much more power I can put out in my 53/11. No more. I just cannot put thattorque and that rpm together in that gear.

---

"TWICE in fact.. what is your definition of strength and you still have not give an answer."

Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully. Your quote of my words "FTP seems to be the proper measure of strength" But I have no objection to your definition. It just seems foolish to apply it to bicycling.

---

Still waiting to see this 10 year old perform. You say that an average kid is sufficient. Hire one. Pay him $100 to do this simple task.

Quoted post said:

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

Then hopefully you'll find someone to explain it to you. With help, you might just be able to grasp the idea.

It took me a while to figure out some of this stuff.

I took the formula p=torque*rpm and applied it to my PowerAgent files (PowerTap software.) I did not get the power listed.

Clearly there was a conversion factor of 10, but I was still off. So I took the ratio of what the software claimed my power was and what I thought my power was. The ratios were around 2.5.

2.5 is the same as 50/20. And 50/20 is a gear I often ride in.

Low and behold using p=torque*rpm(chainring/cog) gave me the same answer as the software. (There is the factor of 10 in there somewhere.)

I think I grasp the idea well enough to answer my own questions. That is good enough for me.

More important it does illustrate that p=torque*rpm is wrong in the context of the software I use.