Cycling and bicycle racing discussion forums.   View New Forum Topics
Today's Forum Topics

Set as homepage


Go Back   Cycling Forums > Tech Corner > Power Training
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to CyclingForums.com

You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread.

By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds.


Critical Power-10 minute and 20 minute discrepancy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-02.-2008, 10:43 AM   #16
RChung
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 192
Default Re: Critical Power-10 minute and 20 minute discrepancy

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming
Yes, but as it's difficult to differentiate between a "carefully collected" point and a "dubious point" wouldn't a third "carefully collected point" add to the accuracy? I don't see how a third point implies sloppy protocols but two points doesn't.
It may not. However, in your original suggestion to collect a third point, I didn't see anything that warned that collection protocols are critical. In my field, collecting good data is both hard and expensive so we do everything possible to make sure that the few data we do collect are collected consistently (even if "consistently" doesn't always mean the same thing as "carefully"). In essence, collecting more data is something you do when you're worried about sampling error. However, in a case like this I'd be a lot more concerned about non-sampling error. Consistency of collection means that even if the estimate is biased, you hope that you can make it biased in the same direction each time so you can still detect changes in the estimate. In a numerical estimation sense, the increase from two observations to three does almost nothing to reduce sampling error (you'd probably need an order of magnitude more observations to do anything about that) so you're better off putting that effort into better collection.
RChung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02.-2008, 10:55 AM   #17
daveryanwyoming
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,378
Default Re: Critical Power-10 minute and 20 minute discrepancy

Quote:
Originally Posted by RChung
... the increase from two observations to three does almost nothing to reduce sampling error (you'd probably need an order of magnitude more observations to do anything about that) so you're better off putting that effort into better collection.
Great answer, thanks. Your explanation was really helpful, n = 3 isn't appreciably better than n = 2 and you might as well put your efforts into collecting good data. That still remains problematic as it's hard to know if you've really put out your "best" effort for a given duration or just lost focus or couldn't push yourself to the end. I guess I see why you're not a big fan of the Monod approach.

Thanks,
Dave
daveryanwyoming is offline  
Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 10:16 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001 - 2006 cyclingforums.com

Links to websites we like:
Pezcyclingnews | Cyclingnews.com | Wine Zone | iinet