or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Power Training › Homebrewed "TSTWKT"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Homebrewed "TSTWKT" - Page 7

post #91 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
The training that would result in a profile more like what you advocate
There you go trying to confuse things by talking about training again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
How DO they manage to peak at just the right time year after year without your "tools"? Must be magic...
How do we know that they actually do manage to peak?
post #92 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan
How do we know that they actually do manage to peak?
Just for fun, let's pretend that winning a masters world championship, especially more than one, in different years, along with many nat's championships happens at, or close enough to their peaks.
post #93 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Anhalt
Hmm...I guess all the above means that your "superior stress measurement" technique is really just good ol' RPE, right? I see....
No. It is with a good understanding of exercise physiology and differences among individuals demonstrated by, and as a result of their differing physiological abilities. Then you can look at what they can actually do, and/or tolerate during racing and training.

You can look at power data over time to see what they can actually do within each of several areas of ability, to learn more about their ability to recover from each of several types of training, their rate of improvement in those areas, and how much training in each area is needed to achieve the objectives for each area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Anhalt
I'm able to estimate that the IF of the 118 minute workout is ~.9 with a TSS of ~150. In short, that's a relatively tough workout, .
The actual metabolic stress would different for each of the riders I described, and their stresses would be different from each other within certain parts of that session.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Anhalt
There will be some residual feelings of fatigue on the following day and if a rest is taken, those feelings of fatigue should be gone by day 2. If the rider wishes to repeat it on a following day, it's very possible..
Rider S would find it impossible or nearly so to repeat the 4x4' the following day at something close to the previous level of power, and rider E would find it nearly impossible to repeat the 12" sprints in similar fashion. Rider S would need relatively little time before their next block of NM training, especially for efforts near his peak power because of their relatively better peak power ability. Rider E would need relatively less time before repeating the 4x4' block and maybe the interval at FTP because of his relatively better aerobic development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Anhalt
But, that doesn't mean that the general metabolic stress resulting from these differing plans can't be evaluated using a common metric like TSS entered into an impulse-response model like the PMC.
So you're only interested in the "general metabolic stress"? What about the stresses to the various energy systems, various muscle fiber types, CNS, etc?
post #94 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
No. It is with a good understanding of exercise physiology and differences among individuals demonstrated by, and as a result of their differing physiological abilities.
Having spent >30 y studying exercise physiology, I have to say that it seems to me that your knowledge of the subject is actually rather superficial.
post #95 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
Just for fun, let's pretend that winning a masters world championship, especially more than one, in different years, along with many nat's championships happens at, or close enough to their peaks.
Okay, just for fun let's pretend that's true...it still doesn't mean that others, or even the riders of whom you speak, can't benefit from quantitative tools that should aid them in "nailing their peak".
post #96 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
Ask Billsworld if I need to make stuff up about my power profiles. Or "BillyT". I share power information with them what I would not share here. They are now learning why the flatter curve (than what you describe) is often a better approach, especially for some people.
Interesting that you should bring up a couple of former weightlifters...you are aware, aren't you, that extreme muscular hypertrophy is actually accompanied by a slowing of muscle contractile properties?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
I know what he wrote to me, and when he wrote it. You were going off OLD information
I was going off of what Rich told me <9 months ago...are you saying that his 5 s power has declined significantly in that time? (Given that we actually talked about this a couple of months ago, it's hard to understand why you'd make that claim, since clearly he wouldn't have peaked for the year yet.)
post #97 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Not to interrupt... but a question for Andy: What's your timeline for getting TSTWKT into Cyclingpeaks (if at all)?
post #98 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanierb
Not to interrupt... but a question for Andy: What's your timeline for getting TSTWKT into Cyclingpeaks (if at all)?
Well, here's a hint:

http://www.jeff-mbh.blogspot.com/
post #99 of 221
Thread Starter 

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan
As a professional software type of guy, I'm aware that being able to demo software doesn't necessarily mean you're that close to shipping it.

Perhaps Andy is hinting that we should construct some sort of impulse/response model, applying the principles of TSTWKT to the software development cycle? Let's see; we'd have to weigh the positive effects of writing code (new features! shipping! cashing customers' checks!) against the negative ones (bugs! documentation to write! more time to QA the stupid thing!)... Hmmm. Nope. Still need more data.
post #100 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
Just for fun, let's pretend that winning a masters world championship, especially more than one, in different years, along with many nat's championships happens at, or close enough to their peaks.
Hmm...why am I reminded of the old adage "You never know if a champion is a champion because of, or in spite of, his training"?

In my limited experience with it, IMHO the PMC is going a long way towards solving that problem...
post #101 of 221
Thread Starter 

Dragging this hilarious Warren/Andy slapfight back on topic...

So, I read the Busso paper, and feel as though I can grasp the idea of interactively changing the "alpha" parameters of the CTL/ATL exponential moving averages to fit new data. But what do we use to guide this rejiggering of the CTL/ATL window? With what are we trying to make TSB correlate? I.e., how does the algorithm "learn" what my own personal weight ought to be?

You could do something arbitrary, like, say, pick 3 minute max power each day and try to slowly perturb the ATL/CTL decay factors so that daily TSB has high correlation well with it, but that feels "broken" to me. Not every ride will include a 3 minute effort (or 1 minute, or 20 minute...) of significance. Do you simply start with some reasonable guess (the Busso paper hints at 1/60th and 1/4th as reasonable alphas for CTL and ATL, respectively), and then use periodic fitness tests to reweight?
post #102 of 221

Re: Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
No. It is with a good understanding of exercise physiology and differences among individuals demonstrated by, and as a result of their differing physiological abilities. Then you can look at what they can actually do, and/or tolerate during racing and training.

You can look at power data over time to see what they can actually do within each of several areas of ability, to learn more about their ability to recover from each of several types of training, their rate of improvement in those areas, and how much training in each area is needed to achieve the objectives for each area.

The actual metabolic stress would different for each of the riders I described, and their stresses would be different from each other within certain parts of that session.
Can you explain to me again exactly how you're measuring this actual metabolic stress?...For some reason, I keep missing that part...



Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
Rider S would find it impossible or nearly so to repeat the 4x4' the following day at something close to the previous level of power, and rider E would find it nearly impossible to repeat the 12" sprints in similar fashion. Rider S would need relatively little time before their next block of NM training, especially for efforts near his peak power because of their relatively better peak power ability. Rider E would need relatively less time before repeating the 4x4' block and maybe the interval at FTP because of his relatively better aerobic development.
What do you mean by "relatively better aerobic development"? FTP is FTP...or, perhaps the whole basis of your misunderstanding of NP and TSS is that you define FTP differently than the rest of the world?


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
So you're only interested in the "general metabolic stress"? What about the stresses to the various energy systems, various muscle fiber types, CNS, etc?
Yep...I'm a "Pareto Principle" kind of guy.

Heck, even though the PMC only takes into account my CTL and ATL (based off of TSS) and doesn't take into account the 2 other highest stressors in my life, namely my CFL (that's Chronic Family Load) and my CWL (Chronic Wife Load)*, it still does a damned good job of helping me manage my training load and tapers to events.

On top of that, it's one heck of a lot cheaper than paying a coach to get similar or worse answers...

*Props to Chris Cleeland for coining those terms!
post #103 of 221

Re: Dragging this hilarious Warren/Andy slapfight back on topic...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmavm
So, I read the Busso paper, and feel as though I can grasp the idea of interactively changing the "alpha" parameters of the CTL/ATL exponential moving averages to fit new data. But what do we use to guide this rejiggering of the CTL/ATL window? With what are we trying to make TSB correlate? I.e., how does the algorithm "learn" what my own personal weight ought to be?

You could do something arbitrary, like, say, pick 3 minute max power each day and try to slowly perturb the ATL/CTL decay factors so that daily TSB has high correlation well with it, but that feels "broken" to me. Not every ride will include a 3 minute effort (or 1 minute, or 20 minute...) of significance. Do you simply start with some reasonable guess (the Busso paper hints at 1/60th and 1/4th as reasonable alphas for CTL and ATL, respectively), and then use periodic fitness tests to reweight?
Remember what I said earlier...the Busso approach ain't it.

Think simpler.
post #104 of 221
Thread Starter 

Re: Dragging this hilarious Warren/Andy slapfight back on topic...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Anhalt
Remember what I said earlier...the Busso approach ain't it.

Think simpler.
Well, I'm not diddling those goofy gain parameters. So, I'm at least a little bit simpler. If it isn't just exponential moving averages, and diddling the alphas to fit some fitness tests or something, then I guess I'm stumped. It seems like you'd have to change the weighting of previous data over time; the Busso folks found that it drifted varied across individuals, and within an individual for different training types and states.
post #105 of 221

Re: Dragging this hilarious Warren/Andy slapfight back on topic...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmavm
Well, I'm not diddling those goofy gain parameters. So, I'm at least a little bit simpler. If it isn't just exponential moving averages, and diddling the alphas to fit some fitness tests or something, then I guess I'm stumped. It seems like you'd have to change the weighting of previous data over time; the Busso folks found that it drifted varied across individuals, and within an individual for different training types and states.
Oh...you're soooo close.

I need to shut up now
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Power Training
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Power Training › Homebrewed "TSTWKT"