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

Sequencing Workouts/Intensity - Page 6

post #76 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post

Your link is to an abstract. From the abstract it is impossible to make the comments you make, but I'm going to make judgements based on nothing other than my imagination


It's interesting that you chastise Mr. Coggan for his comments when in fact you have no idea if those comments were only based on the abstract. Hmm. Mr. Coggan did provide a data plot that is not in the abstract. It's entirely possible he read the paper and as such his comments would be perfectly applicable. Even more hilarious is your attempt to use an abstract to do the very same thing. Pot, meet kettle. Have you read the the paper by Martin, Farrar, Wagner, and Spirduso? If not, how are you able to comment on their results and/or their methods? In fact, how are you able to comment on Coggan's reference when you have no knowledge of whether Coggan read the paper or just the abstract?

I wonder......where did Mr. Coggan find that plot......hmmm. I wonder if it's in the referenced paper.......hmmm.
post #77 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post

Your link is to an abstract. From the abstract it is impossible to make the comments you make.

 

But I have no reason to doubt the result.

 

---

 

The abstract indicates that maximum cycling power is related to lean thigh volume (muscle mass?) times optimal pedaling rate (optimal cadence).

 

Seems to support my points.

 

---

 

For those who are not bored with this discussion:

 

The above abstract obtained the results using inertial load cycle ergometry. This is  a 3-4 second power number. It is hard to compare to the standard 5 second number.

 

From http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/

 

Critical 'taper' program for peak competition promote increases in 'neuromuscular-power' ... Using a special power ergometer ... During the tapers maximal power increased 10-12%.

 

Ignoring the possible equipment problems it appears one train to the test and produce non-typical results.

 

These are just my observations based on trying to understand the abstract.


 

Considering that I was on Jim's dissertation committee, you'd better not doubt the results.

 

As for your other comments:

 

1) of course maximal neuromuscular power is related to lean thigh volume - it would be surprising if it were not. Your claim, however, seems to be that sustained aerobic power is a function of strength/muscle mass, which is an entirely different question. In any case, these data clearly demonstrate that even young boys have sufficient strength/can generate sufficient power to, say, set the world hour record - they just can't sustain it. (A point, BTW, that Dean Golich, Lance Armstrong's go-to exercise physiologist for the last couple of decades, made repeatedly at the 1st power-based training seminar in Philadelphia back in 2001 or 2002.);

 

2) the data presented are actually power for a single pedal revolution - however, not much fatigue occurs in the first 5 s of exercise, such that the data are in fact quite comparable (and not "hard to compare" as you incorrectly claim); 

 

3) the effects of tapering have nothing at all to do with the question at hand, so please don't attempt to obfuscate the issue by bringing it up; and

 

4) in another study, Jim (working with the sports scientists at the Australian Institute of Sport) has demonstrated that maximal neuromuscular power as measured using his (not! Coyle's) inertial load method is essentially identical to that athletes can generate when pedaling their own bikes.

 

These are just my observations based on 35+ y of trying to understand the functioning of the human body during exercise...

 

post #78 of 279


Quote:

Originally Posted by acoggan View Post

Considering that I was on Jim's dissertation committee



Come to think of it, I was also a subject in that particular study...

post #79 of 279

My criticism was that he posted a link to support his point and the link did not.

 

---

 

It appears that what I wrote about the abstract reflects the content of the abstract. It took me a while to parse out the acronyms in the abstract and I thought I would save others from that task. It appears you found fault with my parsing.

 

It took a google search to determine the time period used in the paper, but I found it. It appears to be non-standard, but I cannot tell without the paper.

 

---

 

I believe Mr. Coggan's post is reasonable.

post #80 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post

My criticism was that he posted a link to support his point and the link did not.



No, I cited a scientific study to support my point. If you are unwilling to then properly educate yourself based on such guidance, that is your failing, not mine.

post #81 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan View Post



No, I cited a scientific study to support my point. If you are unwilling to then properly educate yourself based on such guidance, that is your failing, not mine.



Perhaps the link takes you to a study. The link takes me to an abstract of the study.

 

If you want me to properly educate myself, you need to point ot the study. I cannot access it from your link. (You would be amazed how many scientific papers exist only as abstracts.)

 

---

 

Your recent posts make you seem to be a person with very poor self control. I accept your point and you insist on beating me with a stick. There are others here who show the same lack of self control. If you want someone to take you seriously, you might want to change that behavior.

post #82 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post



Perhaps the link takes you to a study. The link takes me to an abstract of the study.

 

If you want me to properly educate myself, you need to point ot the study. I cannot access it from your link. (You would be amazed how many scientific papers exist only as abstracts.)

 

---

 

Your recent posts make you seem to be a person with very poor self control. I accept your point and you insist on beating me with a stick. There are others here who show the same lack of self control. If you want someone to take you seriously, you might want to change that behavior.


You asked for evidence that a 10 y old boy could produce 500 W. I pointed you to such evidence, in a peer-reviewed article no less, and even provided a link to the abstract rather than simply writing "Martin et al,, J Geront 2000". I then went even further by showing you the relevant figure from the paper. If you are then too lazy to go a library to read the actual study, that is your problem, not mine..

 

Your posts, both recent and past, make you seem to be a person who often disagrees with known facts just because they don't fit with your own mistaken ideas. I and others will therefore undoubtedly keep beating you over the head with such facts. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to change your behavior, or just go away.

 

post #83 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post. (You would be amazed how many scientific papers exist only as abstracts.)


By definition, no scientific papers exist only as abstracts.

post #84 of 279


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan View Post


You asked for evidence that a 10 y old boy could produce 500 W. I pointed you to such evidence, in a peer-reviewed article no less, and even provided a link to the abstract rather than simply writing "Martin et al,, J Geront 2000". I then went even further by showing you the relevant figure from the paper. If you are then too lazy to go a library to read the actual study, that is your problem, not mine..

 

Your posts, both recent and past, make you seem to be a person who often disagrees with known facts just because they don't fit with your own mistaken ideas. I and others will therefore undoubtedly keep beating you over the head with such facts. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to change your behavior, or just go away.

 


Laziness has nothing to do with this.

 

I accepted your evidence. I told you what I found lacking in the abstract. Then you beat with with a stick.

 

It appears that the article will cost me $32/day from an on line source. There is no benefit to me in paying for the on line copy or going out to get a copy.

 

---

 

 

I can only assume you have access to the article. From what you have written about my comments on the abstract it seems likely that the paper contains questionable content. But that is not enough for me to feel compelled to obtain a copy. I have to much on my plate to fix all that is wrong on the internet.

 

---

 

Earlier you wrote "Considering that I was on Jim's dissertation committee, you'd better not doubt the results."

 

Men much smarter than I or even you have done research, published in peer reviewed journals, received accolades - including Nobel Prizes. Only to have their work discredited later. Real embarrassment not only to those who did the research, but also to those who reviewed and praised the work. But that is science.

 

---

 

Buy the way. I do science. Part of my job is "to be a person who often disagrees with known facts just because they don't fit with your own ideas."

 

----

 

I just realized why you are being so rude: TSS and IF. You got them wrong...

 

I did a 120TSS a couple days ago. It beat me up a lot more than my 300TSS days. I could give you similar problems with IF, but you are a smart guy. You will figure these things out. (TSS and IF were computed by PowerAgent)


Edited by An old Guy - 2/3/12 at 6:34am
post #85 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post


 


Laziness has nothing to do with this.

 

I accepted your evidence. I told you what I found lacking in the abstract. Then you beat with with a stick.

 

It appears that the article will cost me $32/day from an on line source. There is no benefit to me in paying for the on line copy or going out to get a copy.

 

---

 

 

I can only assume you have access to the article. From what you have written about my comments on the abstract it seems likely that the paper contains questionable content. But that is not enough for me to feel compelled to obtain a copy. I have to much on my plate to fix all that is wrong on the internet.

 

---

 

Earlier you wrote "Considering that I was on Jim's dissertation committee, you'd better not doubt the results."

 

Men much smarter than I or even you have done research, published in peer reviewed journals, received accolades - including Nobel Prizes. Only to have their work discredited later. Real embarrassment not only to those who did the research, but also to those who reviewed and praised the work. But that is science.

 

---

 

Buy the way. I do science. Part of my job is "to be a person who often disagrees with known facts just because they don't fit with your own ideas."

 

----

 

I just realized why you are being so rude: TSS and IF. You got them wrong...

 

I did a 120TSS a couple days ago. It beat me up a lot more than my 300TSS days. I could give you similar problems with IF, but you are a smart guy. You will figure these things out. (TSS and IF were computed by PowerAgent)



You say you are a scientist, yet you can't even bother to read a paper to see what it contains, instead choosing to dispute the relevance of the findings and/or quality of the study based simply on reading the abstract? That is more than lazy, that is unprofessional.

 

...

 

Of course I have read the full article (and the dissertation upon which it was based, as well as participating as a subject in the study). I never cite a paper that I have not read.

 

...

 

I am being rude to you because of your constant instrasingence, on the present topic as well as many others. If you think I'm bad, though, just wait until Robert Chung comes along and directs his aphorism "You can lead a horse's ass to water, but you can't make him think" at you.

 

...

 

You should be cautious about interpreting any NP/IF/TSS values provided by PowerAgent. They implemented the algorithm without consulting me, and I am not entirely convinced that they have it completely correct (they did not at first).

post #86 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post I don't use metric [. . .] much.


In what field of science do people not use the SI (not metric) system?

 

Perhaps when you claimed to be a scientist you really meant you were a scl scntst?

post #87 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy View Post



Perhaps the link takes you to a study. The link takes me to an abstract of the study.

 

If you want me to properly educate myself, you need to point ot the study. I cannot access it from your link. (You would be amazed how many scientific papers exist only as abstracts.)

 

---

 

Your recent posts make you seem to be a person with very poor self control. I accept your point and you insist on beating me with a stick. There are others here who show the same lack of self control. If you want someone to take you seriously, you might want to change that behavior.


The paper is obviously available for a small fee. Both of the links at which I find the abstract made that patently clear. Someone with a real science or engineering background would have found as much.
post #88 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy 
From what you have written about my comments on the abstract it seems likely that the paper contains questionable content. But that is not enough for me to feel compelled to obtain a copy. I have to much on my plate to fix all that is wrong on the internet.

Really? You're going to critique a paper that you haven't read? Better yet, you're going to critique a paper based on your interpretation of third party comments about your uninformed comments about an abstract for that paper? You're going to do those things; yet, you think you have some credibility to offer? If you're going to critique a paper you better damn well read it first. Critique generated without reading a paper is critique not worth reading.
post #89 of 279

Wow, just wow nonono2.gif

 

We are fortunate enough to have some of the most respected individuals in sports science chime in on our forum and provide us with great insight and guidance and then there is this "Old Guy" on here acting like a complete idiot and totally mucking up threads where they are trying to help.  This is really going beyond just being an annoyance, it is messing up the forum as a whole and is a perfect example of why someone who can, needs to end his account. 

 

post #90 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by acoggan View Post



You say you are a scientist, yet you can't even bother to read a paper to see what it contains, instead choosing to dispute the relevance of the findings and/or quality of the study based simply on reading the abstract? That is more than lazy, that is unprofessional.

 

...

 

You should be cautious about interpreting any NP/IF/TSS values provided by PowerAgent. They implemented the algorithm without consulting me, and I am not entirely convinced that they have it completely correct (they did not at first).


I don't consider Internet bulletin boards to be science. I made no comments about the content of the paper. I limited my comments to the abstract. That seems to be proper.

 

(Actually, I said I accepted the figure you posted from the paper as proof of whatever.)

 

---

 

I did not know people had to consult you before implementing your algorithm. I implemented your model on a spread sheet. I must have it just as wrong as the implementers of PowerAgent.

 

I had values for 3 rides actual rides and also math models of the rides. The actual numbers agreed with the model:

 

1) 75% FPT for an hour yields TSS of 56 or so.

 

2) 100% FTP for 1 hour yields TSS of 100. (By definition I believe.)

 

3) Alternate 0% and 150% intervals for an hour yields a TSS of 120 or so. (The length of the intervals don't matter in the computation so 30 or 60 seconds (for each of the 0% and 150%) gives the same results.)

 

The results of those 3 rides should demonstrate that your TSS concept has errors.

 

I think you or Allen Hunter wrote a paper indicating that the first and third rides above were very similar in demands - both have average 75% FTP for the same period. Yet they have vastly different TSSs.

 

---

 

It is amazing that you have the "right" model. There are a large number of other models that make claims similar to your claims. I am sure that they are claimed to be correct, but in the end they have flaws just as serious are your model.

 

I am not the first person to point out that your model is wrong. Other people have given examples.

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