or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Power Training › Sequencing Workouts/Intensity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sequencing Workouts/Intensity - Page 16

post #226 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Simmons View Post


Do you have the gumption to identify yourself?

 

Pretty gutless making such accusations using a pseudonym.

 

I agree, this is getting out of hand and bordering on a personal attack. It's one thing to disagree, but when you have to resort to name calling, one can only conclude that the strength of your argument is suspect....Somebody smart said that but I can't remember who. 

 

DAL 

post #227 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post


So I post my FTP. You ask for poof that it is actually my FTP. I have no way to prove that.

 

So I post the files from my rides. You say that I must have my FTP too low.

 

Then Mr. Coggan chimes in with "Not that a single exception - or even multiple exceptions - can disprove the conclusion that the normalized power algorithm is generally accurate to w/in ~5%."

 

As long as TSS remains a religion there is no value in producing what you ask for.



I guess this is all way over your head, and you've dug yourself in such a deep hole with claims, all you can do now is just beat around the bush..........all too common with people like yourself

 

paul

 

post #228 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Simmons View Post


Do you have the gumption to identify yourself?

 

Pretty gutless making such accusations using a pseudonym.



I knew he would eventually pick and argument with people who'd kick his butt.

post #229 of 279
It's not about "kicking his butt" - we just want to see the impossible become possible...
post #230 of 279

I've just had a thought as to how he might find it easy to generate 120 TSS for an hour. If you use a Quarq, and stop when you get to the top of the hill after your minute on, it will go to null power pretty quickly. If you then freewheel back down the hill, without pedalling at all, it can stay at null power all the way down. I've had this happen myself and got a pretty whacky mean max power figure as a result, because WKO+ treats the period of null power as not having happened, so the next interval gets bolted straight onto the end of the one before. This wouldn't need to happen all that many times in the hour for it to dramatically inflate NP / TSS.

post #231 of 279

It is one thing for someone to be mistaken with information or with equipment, but since AOG has been on this forum the manner represented by him repeatedly has been intentionally disrespectful or belittling to others while boasting about his endeavors.

 

I am grateful that a number of folk (coaches and veterans of the sport) that could have simply kept quiet or ignored him did indeed call him out on false information. I hope people continue confronting the false information even if these discussions continue in a circle for many pages more.

 

If I post something false I hope someone points it to me because I want to learn and not act like a know it all. When I first started training with a PM a number of people seeing my data pointed out that I potentially had my FTP set too low. I appreciated the veterans of power pointing out the error. I am sure I am still making many errors and why I am here and lurking on wattage hoping to continue to learn.

 

 

post #232 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felt_Rider View Post

while boasting about his endeavors.

 

I'm not sure that having a really poor FTP relative to what he can do for shorter durations is anything to boast about wink.gif

post #233 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveI View Post

I've just had a thought as to how he might find it easy to generate 120 TSS for an hour. If you use a Quarq, and stop when you get to the top of the hill after your minute on, it will go to null power pretty quickly. If you then freewheel back down the hill, without pedalling at all, it can stay at null power all the way down. I've had this happen myself and got a pretty whacky mean max power figure as a result, because WKO+ treats the period of null power as not having happened, so the next interval gets bolted straight onto the end of the one before. This wouldn't need to happen all that many times in the hour for it to dramatically inflate NP / TSS.


You get the same with Track Racing but it's not a real number. 

 

post #234 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveI View Post

I've just had a thought as to how he might find it easy to generate 120 TSS for an hour. If you use a Quarq, and stop when you get to the top of the hill after your minute on, it will go to null power pretty quickly. If you then freewheel back down the hill, without pedalling at all, it can stay at null power all the way down. I've had this happen myself and got a pretty whacky mean max power figure as a result, because WKO+ treats the period of null power as not having happened, so the next interval gets bolted straight onto the end of the one before. This wouldn't need to happen all that many times in the hour for it to dramatically inflate NP / TSS.



That's not a problem with TSS per se, but rather how it (or more to the point, Normalised Power) is calculated by soft/hard ware.

post #235 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by fergie View Post


You get the same with Track Racing but it's not a real number. 

 

 

What happens when you break those days up into separate files, with ride breaks being the file break points?  (I tend not to of course for practical reasons, but I think that would likely change the daily total a bit)

post #236 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post

You really have to stay on point here. I made no comments on the idea of impulse-response. I made comments on Dr. Banister's model of impulse-response. His model is defective. The fact that you can list a series of papers is not remarkable. What is remarkable is that you cannot find a paper that points out that Dr. Banister's model make outrageous predictions. That is an important paper. As I said before one cannot prove a theory; one can only disprove it.

 

---

 

I find impulse-response to be a reasonable idea. Dr. Banister's model has problems. Your model of it, TSS, has serious problems.

 

Let me recap what you have said here and in the past.

 

You have said: TSS is best thought of as a indicator of glycogen depletion. You have also said: not so. But you have not indicated any other "better thought."

 

The basic idea of TSS is an implementable model of impulse-response. You have no data to show it models anything.

 

You say that TSS does not predict performance. My understanding is that Dr. Banister's model is good enough to compare proposed training schedules and determine if one is superior to another. True or false does not matter here. The importance here is that one cannot use TSS in that manner.

 

You say that no amount of proof a single person could amass would disprove TSS (actually you switched words and used NP.) But you keep asking for my numbers. As though you would accept my numbers as a valid disproof.

 

I have provided you with workouts that shoudl cause you to doubt TSS, but you dismiss them.

 

You claim TSS is better than any other easily implemented method but you provide no proof. It should be easy to compare TSS averages (CTL; ATL) to something like boxcar averages of daily work or even riding time and show that TSS is better. But since TSS is not predictive, what doe better mean?

 

---

 

I just don't know how to deal with a religious zealot like you.

I\

 

 

 

1. No question, the impulse-response paradigm (which, as applied to modeling the relationship between training and performance, is inseparable from Banister) has some significant limitations, some of which are practical and some of which are related to the structure of the model itself (e.g., the prediction that you should stop training entirely when tapering for an important competition). I discussed many of these in my article; others can be found in the literature (e.g., the Fitz-Clarke paper does a good job of illustrating the implications of the time constants). Nonetheless, it is the most studied model, works rather well in laboratory-based studies, and has significantly advanced our understanding of how the body responds to training even if it has limited use outside the laboratory.

 

2. You are confusing the input function (e.g., TRIMP, TSS) with the structure of the model (e.g., Banister's impulse-response, my Performance Manager).

 

3. The reason that people keep asking you to post some data is because your claims are simply unbelievable, something that would be true even if I had never developed the normalized power algorithm. The only way forward in this discussion, then, is for you to prove that you're just making things up. 

 

4. In fact, on the wattage list I've previously compared the use of TSS vs. total work as the input to the Performance Manager, and the former outperformed the latter for the case study I examined. Of course, that is entirely logical, since only TSS and not total work takes into consideration the intensity of training. It would be nice if somebody did a formal scientific study, but that's neither my interest nor my concern.

 

post #237 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Simmons View Post



That's not a problem with TSS per se, but rather how it (or more to the point, Normalised Power) is calculated by soft/hard ware.



FWIW, I think this happens a lot these days, i.e., people blame the normalized power algorithm when in fact they should be blaming their hardware/software (and/or how they use it, e.g., downsampling the data stream by setting their PowerTap to record only every Nth data point). 

post #238 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post


A hobby. You have a PhD in the field. You publish in the field. Your job is in the field. You present it as science. Now you make a claim of its only a "hobby." And use that as an excuse for your lack of integrity.

 

You a pathetic fraud.

 

 



Indeed, my PhD is in exercise physiology, but my BS is in biology/chemistry and my MS is in human bioenergetics. Perhaps more to the point, I've never been particularly interested in the applied sports science end of things, as evidenced by the fact that the last research I did in which performance was an outcome variable was my dissertation, now almost 30 y ago. Even then, this project:

 

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/175638/Coggan_AR_Coyle_EF._Reversal_of_fatigue_during_prolonged_exercise_by_carbohydrate_infusion_or_ingestion._J_Appl_Physiol_1987_63_2388-2395

 

and this part of the review of literature:

 

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/177979/Coggan_AR._Plasma_glucose_metabolism_during_exercise_in_humans._Sports_Med_1991_11_102-124

 

were much more interesting to me than these other studies:

 

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/175645/Coggan_AR_Coyle_EF._Effect_of_carbohydrate_feedings_during_high-intensity_exercise._J_Appl_Physiol_1988_65_1703-1709

 

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/175648/Coggan_AR_Coyle_EF._Metabolism_and_performance_following_carbohydrate_ingestion_late_in_exercise._Med_Sci_Sports_Exerc_1989_21_59-65

 

or this part of the review of literature:

 

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/177997/Coggan_AR_Coyle_EF._Carbohydrate_ingestion_during_prolonged_exercise_effects_on_metabolism_and_performance._In_Holloszy_JO_ed._Exercise_and_Sports_Sciences_Reviews_Vol._19._Baltimore_Williams_and_Wilkins_1991_1-40

 

Studies such as this one:

 

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/177034/Coggan_AR_Raguso_CA_Gastaldelli_A_Williams_BD_Wolfe_RR._Regulation_of_glucose_production_during_exercise_at_80_of_VO2peak_in_untrained_humans._Am_J_Physiol_1997_273_E348-E354

 

are actually of much more interest to me, but living on soft money means that I've had to pursue more clinically-relevant lines of research for the past decade plus, which has led to papers such as this one:

 

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/177067/Coggan_AR_Kisrieva-Ware_Z_Dence_CS_Eisenbeis_P_Gropler_RJ_Herrero_P._Measurement_of_myocardial_fatty_acid_esterification_using_1-11C_palmitate_and_PET_Comparison_with_direct_measurements_of_myocardial_triglyceride_synthesis._J_Nucl_Cardiol_2009_16_562-570

 

or this one:

 

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/544112/McGill_JB_Peterson_LR_Herrero_MS_Saeed_IM_Recklein_C_Coggan_AR_DeMoss_AJ_Schechtman_KB_Dence_CS_Gropler_RJ._Potentiation_of_the_abnormalities_in_myocardial_metabolism_with_the_development_of_diabetes_in_women_with_obesity_and_insulin_resistance._J_Nucl_Cardiol_2011_18_421-429

 

neither one of which have anything to do with exercise at all. So, when you say that "your job is in the field", you are incorrect...as I tell people, while I might bleed exercise physiology if you cut me, the hat I wear at work these days is that of a metabolic physiologist/tracer "guru".

 

As for presenting any of my applied ideas as peer-reviewed science, you are once again barking up the wrong tree, as I have never done so. That is because I have never attempted to publish any of it in the scientific literature, nor am I interested in doing so, as this sideline is, indeed, just a hobby. The same is true of the wind tunnel I built in my basement and the brake testing I've done using it, either one of which would probably qualify as a senior honors project/master thesis if I were pursuing an engineering degree.

 

 

 

 

post #239 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan View Post

 

The only way forward in this discussion, then, is for you to prove that you're just making things up.

 



Freudian. smile.gif

post #240 of 279

So if the windtunnel is in the basement - where's the hypobaric chamber?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Power Training
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Power Training › Sequencing Workouts/Intensity