W
Warren
Guest
Andy Coggan ([email protected]) wrote:> > "warren"
<[email protected]> wrote in message > If your "one-size-fits-all"
approach is truly the best YOU can
> come up with then it's another indication of your lack of ability in
> this area.
>If I'm so lacking in ability in this area, then why is it that I'm the only
one who has formulated a cogent system for classifying workouts based on
power that relies on one simple measurement?
Because that method while that method is simple, it is faulty. It's suitable
for many people who don't have the expertise or resources to get better
information and many people will get suitable results by following your
guidelines. Don't forget that CTS came up with a similar road test about 4
years ago.
I've provided examples in the past demonstrating that changes in LT power
for example do not always change at the same rate (from training) as power
at other intensities. If you derive your all of your training zones from
power at one level (like 60-minute level) then your zones at other
intensities may be wrong because it's very possible that your power at a
different intensity has improved so much that the new zone should be higher
than what you would calculate from your method. Or your power at one
instiensity may not have improved much at all even though your LT power has.
My own tests show these things and this would not be unusual for a person
who is not training all training zones with realtively equal emphasis during
a given period of the season.
>(from training)Similarly, why is it that -
without knowing a single thing else about you - I have previously been able
to predict your OBLA power based on your normalized power from a criterium?
That's not difficult to do because a person will tend to race with
reasonable effort at their "normalized power". IOW, you do what you can do.
There are races where I make more effort or less effort and the normalized
powers from those races are not equal even though my LT power is unchanged.
This is why I don't look at NP (criteriums and track). I look at other, more
useful information about my exertions and responses during races.
>For that matter, what about Per Elmsater's post earlier in this thread, in
which he correctly estimated the average power you sustain during those 30 s
on, 30 s off intervals, simply from knowing your OBLA power?
Actually he was wrong about my numbers by quite a bit. I could also do those
intervals at more effort than what I mentioned. Sometimes I'll aim for the
top of a zone, middle of a zone, or lower part of a zone. It matters.
Here's what he wrote...
>Your Coggan levels would look like this at an LT of 330
>L6 Anaerobic capacity 399 W and up Interrvals of 30 sec to 3 min on.
app. 2 1/2 minute off
399 and up? Way too vague to be useful. At 30 seconds on/off I'm usually
near 500 watts.
>L5 VO2 max 350-398 W 3-8 min on 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably 2 1/2
min off
I don't do any intervals like these. I get lactate tolerance training from
track racing and other intervals that I do that are not similar to these.
> > > > How those zones are used is the training plan.
> > Nonsense. That's like claiming that explaining to a non-English speaker
the
> > difference between "left" and "right" is equivalent to giving them
> > directions to their intended destination.
> Your version of the semantics, nothing more.
>Okay then, wiseguy: without reference to ANYTHING other than the training
levels I've described, tell us in DETAIL how you've been training for
nationals. Again, no cheating by mentioning anything other than the power
level(s) you've been training at.
First, I don't think power zones are more useful than HR zones so I don't
derive my training just from power zones. Second, there is too much detail
needed to be complete in an answer-there are 5-7 different things I do each
week and those aren't even all the same from week to week. Suffice to say,
zones/levels based on HR, PE, and power are used with near equal importance
(though usually not all three together) throughout a week and month. If I
was only training for something like sprints or pursuit then the training
would be more straightforward and simpler to describe. We can chat about my
training details in CO if you like.
> > > Less than
> > > optimal zones leads to less than optimal training plans.
> > I'm afraid you've been hoodwinked, Warren: there is no difference
between
> > training at, say, a few percent below your LT (or OBLA or whatever other
> > metric you care to use) and a few percent above. Those that claim that
> > "there's magic in them zones!" are just making it up.
> Right.... The results, lactate levels, and perceived exertion each show
> that you're wrong.
>And how is that?
Doing an interval at the high end of a zone (defined for example, by a range
of ~20 watts or ~8bpm) feels different than doing the same type of interval
at the low end of that range. Recovery to the next day will often be
different. Ability to do other intervals in different zones or ranges later
that same session or the next day can also be compromised.
> > > His results show that his opinion about this is more accurate than
your
> > > opinion.
> > "His results"? So Max was the one pedaling the bike, was he? ;-)
> Results of his guidance. From Hampsten, Armstrong, and Julich, to some
> Motorola, Mapei and US pros, to most recently Dario Cioni, Christine
> Thorburn, and myself on a lower scale, these are all examples of riders
> who improved significantly while receiving Max's guidance.
>I knew that if I baited you that you would result to name-dropping and
appeals-to-authority, just like many others do when they feel like they are
losing a debate. I don't think, though, that you really deserve to list
yourself in the same company as these other riders. ;-)
These are all clear examples of actual results, including myself, of riders
who have improved significantly. You can postulate all you like but the
results show what the guidance provides.
> I didn't say that 2b or 2a fibers were being recruited
> without any type 1 fibers.
>Then what exactly did you mean by "...a curve that suddenly slopes upward
(sudden increase in blood lactate at a given range of watts) indicates that
type 2b fibers are now being utilized without an appropriate amount of type
2a fibers being used first"?
If the 1 and 2 fibers were able to produce more power the 2b's wouldn't be
needed to produce the power at that power level and lactate levels would
remain lower (until a higher power level was reached). If the ability of the
2a fibers isn't good then there will be a steeper slope of the curve between
when the 1 fibers can do the work and when the 2b fibers are now needed to
produce the (higher)power.
I've seen that people, including myself who have better ability with their
2a fibers produce a more gradual slope of the lactate/power curve in the
range near 2-3.5mMol. My own training has dramatically changed the shape of
this curve. After my very first test with Max he referred to the problem
with the steep slope as a "hole" in my ability that could be expected to
make significant improvement, which it did/has. My power in this range
increased siginificantly more than the amount of the increase in LT power
during a 2-3 month period last year. Similar changes have occured in my
ability between 1 and 2 mMol's earlier this year.
> I said the contribution of 2a was not
> appropriate, or not enough before 2b was recruited. Certain training
> would improve the abilities of 2a fibers so that the use of 2b could be
> delayed or essentially not needed until the power was at a higher
> level.
>"Certain training" would be essentially any endurance training.
If "any endurance training" is good enough for you, fine, but more accurate
training can be used for better results.
> > > > There
> > > > are many, many things other than fitness that influence the absolute
blood
> > > > lactate concentration at a particular exercise intensity, e.g.,
blood
> > > > sampling site/method, glycogen stores, nutritional state, etc.
> > > None of these factors has entered into the results I've been seeing in
> > > my tests. It's quite easy to account for these things anyway.
> > Dream on: even if you have somebody do their last couple of workouts on
an
> > ergometer at controlled intensities and feed them precisely measured
amounts
> > of carbohydrate, you'd be lucky to keep glycogen stores in a +/- 10%
range.
> > To think that you can control them adequately outside of laboratory so
as to
> > be able to draw the sorts of conclusions you wish to draw is
preposterous.
> Again, so easy to see and account for, even for me. The results of the
> tests I've seen don't show the kind of abnormalities you suggest. You
> must be letting all those red herrings get in your way of seeing what's
> easily seen by others. Perhaps you're reading too much (for this
> application) into small increments or small differences in measured
> lactate.
>Au contraire: it is you (and/or your coach) who is apparently reading too
much into small, quite possibly random differences in measured lactate
concentrations, and then using the data to based decisions about training
upon.
The amounts considered are not small. I would say that we look at
differences of .3-.5 mMol. The curve shapes co-oincide with what could
possibly be expected. Again, if there was some small factor that you keep
trying to include that made my lactate levels .1 or.2 higher it wouldn't
really matter because the shape of the curve would still be about the same.
>Me, I say screw the lactate and focus on what really counts: actual
function (performance).
I've seen far more variablity in this method of evaluation than looking at
performance AND lactate.
How do you know when you need more, or less training of your type 1 fibers?
When does this training need to be emphasized and when is maintenance the
appropriate goal? How do you know if more, or less training should be done
near 90% of LT?
> > > Always
> > > the earlobe,
> > Is SaO2 measured to be certain that the degree of hyperemia isn't
> > influencing the results? (Doubtful.)
> No influence, or so small as not to matter.
>Blood lactate concentration varies slightly but significantly between
arterial, venous, and/or arterialized venous blood, even when sampled from
an inactive limb or bodypart.
Nice to know but so what? I already said the blood is always sampled at the
earlobe so the variations you just described don't affect the results.
-WG
<[email protected]> wrote in message > If your "one-size-fits-all"
approach is truly the best YOU can
> come up with then it's another indication of your lack of ability in
> this area.
>If I'm so lacking in ability in this area, then why is it that I'm the only
one who has formulated a cogent system for classifying workouts based on
power that relies on one simple measurement?
Because that method while that method is simple, it is faulty. It's suitable
for many people who don't have the expertise or resources to get better
information and many people will get suitable results by following your
guidelines. Don't forget that CTS came up with a similar road test about 4
years ago.
I've provided examples in the past demonstrating that changes in LT power
for example do not always change at the same rate (from training) as power
at other intensities. If you derive your all of your training zones from
power at one level (like 60-minute level) then your zones at other
intensities may be wrong because it's very possible that your power at a
different intensity has improved so much that the new zone should be higher
than what you would calculate from your method. Or your power at one
instiensity may not have improved much at all even though your LT power has.
My own tests show these things and this would not be unusual for a person
who is not training all training zones with realtively equal emphasis during
a given period of the season.
>(from training)Similarly, why is it that -
without knowing a single thing else about you - I have previously been able
to predict your OBLA power based on your normalized power from a criterium?
That's not difficult to do because a person will tend to race with
reasonable effort at their "normalized power". IOW, you do what you can do.
There are races where I make more effort or less effort and the normalized
powers from those races are not equal even though my LT power is unchanged.
This is why I don't look at NP (criteriums and track). I look at other, more
useful information about my exertions and responses during races.
>For that matter, what about Per Elmsater's post earlier in this thread, in
which he correctly estimated the average power you sustain during those 30 s
on, 30 s off intervals, simply from knowing your OBLA power?
Actually he was wrong about my numbers by quite a bit. I could also do those
intervals at more effort than what I mentioned. Sometimes I'll aim for the
top of a zone, middle of a zone, or lower part of a zone. It matters.
Here's what he wrote...
>Your Coggan levels would look like this at an LT of 330
>L6 Anaerobic capacity 399 W and up Interrvals of 30 sec to 3 min on.
app. 2 1/2 minute off
399 and up? Way too vague to be useful. At 30 seconds on/off I'm usually
near 500 watts.
>L5 VO2 max 350-398 W 3-8 min on 2 1/2 - 5 min off. Preferably 2 1/2
min off
I don't do any intervals like these. I get lactate tolerance training from
track racing and other intervals that I do that are not similar to these.
> > > > How those zones are used is the training plan.
> > Nonsense. That's like claiming that explaining to a non-English speaker
the
> > difference between "left" and "right" is equivalent to giving them
> > directions to their intended destination.
> Your version of the semantics, nothing more.
>Okay then, wiseguy: without reference to ANYTHING other than the training
levels I've described, tell us in DETAIL how you've been training for
nationals. Again, no cheating by mentioning anything other than the power
level(s) you've been training at.
First, I don't think power zones are more useful than HR zones so I don't
derive my training just from power zones. Second, there is too much detail
needed to be complete in an answer-there are 5-7 different things I do each
week and those aren't even all the same from week to week. Suffice to say,
zones/levels based on HR, PE, and power are used with near equal importance
(though usually not all three together) throughout a week and month. If I
was only training for something like sprints or pursuit then the training
would be more straightforward and simpler to describe. We can chat about my
training details in CO if you like.
> > > Less than
> > > optimal zones leads to less than optimal training plans.
> > I'm afraid you've been hoodwinked, Warren: there is no difference
between
> > training at, say, a few percent below your LT (or OBLA or whatever other
> > metric you care to use) and a few percent above. Those that claim that
> > "there's magic in them zones!" are just making it up.
> Right.... The results, lactate levels, and perceived exertion each show
> that you're wrong.
>And how is that?
Doing an interval at the high end of a zone (defined for example, by a range
of ~20 watts or ~8bpm) feels different than doing the same type of interval
at the low end of that range. Recovery to the next day will often be
different. Ability to do other intervals in different zones or ranges later
that same session or the next day can also be compromised.
> > > His results show that his opinion about this is more accurate than
your
> > > opinion.
> > "His results"? So Max was the one pedaling the bike, was he? ;-)
> Results of his guidance. From Hampsten, Armstrong, and Julich, to some
> Motorola, Mapei and US pros, to most recently Dario Cioni, Christine
> Thorburn, and myself on a lower scale, these are all examples of riders
> who improved significantly while receiving Max's guidance.
>I knew that if I baited you that you would result to name-dropping and
appeals-to-authority, just like many others do when they feel like they are
losing a debate. I don't think, though, that you really deserve to list
yourself in the same company as these other riders. ;-)
These are all clear examples of actual results, including myself, of riders
who have improved significantly. You can postulate all you like but the
results show what the guidance provides.
> I didn't say that 2b or 2a fibers were being recruited
> without any type 1 fibers.
>Then what exactly did you mean by "...a curve that suddenly slopes upward
(sudden increase in blood lactate at a given range of watts) indicates that
type 2b fibers are now being utilized without an appropriate amount of type
2a fibers being used first"?
If the 1 and 2 fibers were able to produce more power the 2b's wouldn't be
needed to produce the power at that power level and lactate levels would
remain lower (until a higher power level was reached). If the ability of the
2a fibers isn't good then there will be a steeper slope of the curve between
when the 1 fibers can do the work and when the 2b fibers are now needed to
produce the (higher)power.
I've seen that people, including myself who have better ability with their
2a fibers produce a more gradual slope of the lactate/power curve in the
range near 2-3.5mMol. My own training has dramatically changed the shape of
this curve. After my very first test with Max he referred to the problem
with the steep slope as a "hole" in my ability that could be expected to
make significant improvement, which it did/has. My power in this range
increased siginificantly more than the amount of the increase in LT power
during a 2-3 month period last year. Similar changes have occured in my
ability between 1 and 2 mMol's earlier this year.
> I said the contribution of 2a was not
> appropriate, or not enough before 2b was recruited. Certain training
> would improve the abilities of 2a fibers so that the use of 2b could be
> delayed or essentially not needed until the power was at a higher
> level.
>"Certain training" would be essentially any endurance training.
If "any endurance training" is good enough for you, fine, but more accurate
training can be used for better results.
> > > > There
> > > > are many, many things other than fitness that influence the absolute
blood
> > > > lactate concentration at a particular exercise intensity, e.g.,
blood
> > > > sampling site/method, glycogen stores, nutritional state, etc.
> > > None of these factors has entered into the results I've been seeing in
> > > my tests. It's quite easy to account for these things anyway.
> > Dream on: even if you have somebody do their last couple of workouts on
an
> > ergometer at controlled intensities and feed them precisely measured
amounts
> > of carbohydrate, you'd be lucky to keep glycogen stores in a +/- 10%
range.
> > To think that you can control them adequately outside of laboratory so
as to
> > be able to draw the sorts of conclusions you wish to draw is
preposterous.
> Again, so easy to see and account for, even for me. The results of the
> tests I've seen don't show the kind of abnormalities you suggest. You
> must be letting all those red herrings get in your way of seeing what's
> easily seen by others. Perhaps you're reading too much (for this
> application) into small increments or small differences in measured
> lactate.
>Au contraire: it is you (and/or your coach) who is apparently reading too
much into small, quite possibly random differences in measured lactate
concentrations, and then using the data to based decisions about training
upon.
The amounts considered are not small. I would say that we look at
differences of .3-.5 mMol. The curve shapes co-oincide with what could
possibly be expected. Again, if there was some small factor that you keep
trying to include that made my lactate levels .1 or.2 higher it wouldn't
really matter because the shape of the curve would still be about the same.
>Me, I say screw the lactate and focus on what really counts: actual
function (performance).
I've seen far more variablity in this method of evaluation than looking at
performance AND lactate.
How do you know when you need more, or less training of your type 1 fibers?
When does this training need to be emphasized and when is maintenance the
appropriate goal? How do you know if more, or less training should be done
near 90% of LT?
> > > Always
> > > the earlobe,
> > Is SaO2 measured to be certain that the degree of hyperemia isn't
> > influencing the results? (Doubtful.)
> No influence, or so small as not to matter.
>Blood lactate concentration varies slightly but significantly between
arterial, venous, and/or arterialized venous blood, even when sampled from
an inactive limb or bodypart.
Nice to know but so what? I already said the blood is always sampled at the
earlobe so the variations you just described don't affect the results.
-WG