An Old Guy

[geneseo]

Hi,

I just went through yet another thread where "An Old Guy" has hijacked the thread and derailed the topic. It is getting pretty old. I'm definitely getting sick of wading through a bunch of useless rants and arguments that are more or less completely unrelated to the topic/question at hand.

I'm sure "An Old Guy" will keep chiming in, so I just ask that other people ignore him.

To all the rest of you, I appreciate your thoughts and insights, which is precisely why I continue to read through 6 pages of responses within a topic to get to the good information.

Thanks

geneseo

ps. An Old Guy, feel free to reply, but I am saying no more about this.

 

[Felt_Rider]

.....and my thanks to probably the best in the world for cycling training to show up and add some great information to dispel all of the ignorance displayed by this one person who has continued to be a troll to this forum for months.

 

[lanierb]

Just block him and then his posts won't even show up for you. I did it months ago and it makes reading the threads here much less irritating.

 

[awilki01]

You think he's trolling or really believes the things he says?

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by geneseo .

ps. An Old Guy, feel free to reply, but I am saying no more about this.

I guess your post was inspired by ACoggan's attack on me.

I will simply ask you to do 3 1 hour rides in any order you want.

steady pace: 75% FTP (TSS 56, IF .75)
steady pace: 100% FTP (TSS 100, IF 1.00)
hill repeats: 150% FTP up, 0% FTP down (about 1 minute of each) (TSS 120, IF 1.1)

I find the last to be as easy as the first and the second to be hard. Seems TSS and IF don't quite capture what is claimed. (Most coaches seem to regard the hill repeats the same as the 75% FTP steady pace ride.)

---

I guess your thread makes you a troll, but ...


http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/Archivedarticles/Power_Training_Chapter.pdf

Pages 10-11 make interesting reading in light of my above claim. Note the author. I guess by next weekend everyone will have done the 3 rides and TSS will become a victim of the progress of science.

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


I guess your post was inspired by ACoggan's attack on me.

I will simply ask you to do 3 1 hour rides in any order you want.

steady pace: 75% FTP (TSS 56, IF .75)
steady pace: 100% FTP (TSS 100, IF 1.00)
hill repeats: 150% FTP up, 0% FTP down (about 1 minute of each) (TSS 120, IF 1.1)

I find the last to be as easy as the first and the second to be hard. Seems TSS and IF don't quite capture what is claimed. (Most coaches seem to regard the hill repeats the same as the 75% FTP steady pace ride.)

---

I guess your thread makes you a troll, but ...


http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/Archivedarticles/Power_Training_Chapter.pdf

Pages 10-11 make interesting reading in light of my above claim. Note the author. I guess by next weekend everyone will have done the 3 rides and TSS will become a victim of the progress of science.

You are the only person who has ever claimed that 30 x 1 min @150% of FTP, 1 min rest is "easy". For the vast majority of people, not only is such a session very hard, but downright impossible ( (I can only manage about 10 x 1 min @ 150% of FTP, and that's w/ 4 min of rest).

You are therefore either making this claim up, have your FTP set too low (but that wouldn't explain workout #2), or have a physiology like no other person...I'll leave it to others to decide which they believe to be true.

 

[Felt_Rider]

Originally Posted by acoggan .

I'll leave it to others to decide which they believe to be true.

That was a super easy choice to make many months ago......
Some of the claims go well beyond delusions of grandeur. Plus the math work is horrendous.

I am also baffled at the claims of doing back to back to back 5 hours days and yet be here posting all day as well. And yet those of us that train the way we do on limited time are unmovitated and train too easy (no doubt if we were sponsored cyclists maybe we could train more). Of course it is always expressed in a condescending way.

Edit: the only reason why I am commenting is that I am somewhat ticked because of OG played a major role (I know because of an email that I received) in a long time major contributor and someone that has play an intergral role in my training left this forum because he was tired of the misinformation that OG is posting.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


I guess your post was inspired by ACoggan's attack on me.

I will simply ask you to do 3 1 hour rides in any order you want.

steady pace: 75% FTP (TSS 56, IF .75)
steady pace: 100% FTP (TSS 100, IF 1.00)
hill repeats: 150% FTP up, 0% FTP down (about 1 minute of each) (TSS 120, IF 1.1)

I find the last to be as easy as the first and the second to be hard. Seems TSS and IF don't quite capture what is claimed. (Most coaches seem to regard the hill repeats the same as the 75% FTP steady pace ride.)

Hill repeats are the work of the devil and hurt like a MF, especially when ridden mostly out of the saddle. You need to press on the pedals harder, especially as half of the posts that you make about riding in hills include quotes like "I climbed at 250w and some guy in tennis shoes and toestraps passed me. At the top he was cooked."

I still don't get how you manage to do long rides when you down a quart of chocolate milk every hour or so. I'd be puking brown cottage cheese at the end of the ride...

I don't think Andy's post was an attack - just a blunt, too the point accurate response to one of your prior posts.

 

[2011 SWORKS]

Sorry Old Guy,

I would visit this place much more frequently if it weren't for you.
So many good folks out there that it is a shame some may not chime in because of you.

Take care.

 

[dkrenik]

Originally Posted by 2011 SWORKS .

Sorry Old Guy,

I would visit this place much more frequently if it weren't for you.
So many good folks out there that it is a shame some may not chime in because of you.

Take care.

See lanierb's post re: filtering. You and some other folks are giving AOG way too much control over yourselves. Personally, I find his posts amusing.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by dkrenik .

See lanierb's post re: filtering. You and some other folks are giving AOG way too much control over yourselves. Personally, I find his posts amusing.

Indeed, they can be good opportunities to learn some stuff. Although I must admit there are probably more efficient ways.

 

[bgoetz]

Originally Posted by lanierb .

Just block him and then his posts won't even show up for you. I did it months ago and it makes reading the threads here much less irritating.

Sweet!! I had no idea or I would have done that months ago to avoid listening to his ****.

 

[hrumpole]

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .


Indeed, they can be good opportunities to learn some stuff. Although I must admit there are probably more efficient ways.

Indeed. Some live their lives as a warning to others.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by hrumpole .



Indeed. Some live their lives as a warning to others.

 

[ambal]

Old guy gets my vote for being awesome at being direct with his responses. He doesn't let facts get in the way of a good argument, every forum needs an old guy. Lay off him fellas, he obviously loves bikes, does anything else really matter?

 

[awilki01]

I think he may know exactly what he's talking about, but he puts things up just to get under our skin. A true troll! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif

 

[Froze]

I haven't read all of OG's posts but I haven't noticed anything particularly annoying about his posts or I would have been getting into arguments with him too. But we all have opinions that we hold to be true though they may not be as true as we think. That's what these forums are all about, a lot of opinion and some facts. Then we read these opinions and see if we agree and accept or we disagree and reject. In some cases a person's opinion may be entirely wrong with no one agreeing, in these case the person has a choice to accept the common opinion of others and change their way of thinking, or reject it and do their own thing. We have that right. The sport of cycling has a lot of opinions, some are proven to be correct only later to be disproven, some have been correct for eons, and others are new that haven't stood the test of time, and still others there is no right or wrong just personality convictions.

Sometimes I play the devils advocate just to get a wider thought pattern, or a variety of responses. Nothing wrong with that because it stimulates deeper thinking.

What bugs me is when other people check other peoples grammar or spelling, I could care less about proper grammar or spelling as long as it's not text messaging shorthand because I can't read that stuff, but as long as I know what their saying then I don't care how well it's written, this isn't a college paper being graded. I know personally I bang out these responses as fast as I can due to time constraints so I don't want to be bothered with all the correct grammar and spelling so I know errors will fly out of what I write.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Originally Posted by Froze .

I haven't read all of OG's posts but I haven't noticed anything particularly annoying about his posts or I would have been getting into arguments with him too. But we all have opinions that we hold to be true though they may not be as true as we think. That's what these forums are all about, a lot of opinion and some facts. Then we read these opinions and see if we agree and accept or we disagree and reject. In some cases a person's opinion may be entirely wrong with no one agreeing, in these case the person has a choice to accept the common opinion of others and change their way of thinking, or reject it and do their own thing. We have that right. The sport of cycling has a lot of opinions, some are proven to be correct only later to be disproven, some have been correct for eons, and others are new that haven't stood the test of time, and still others there is no right or wrong just personality convictions.

Sometimes I play the devils advocate just to get a wider thought pattern, or a variety of responses. Nothing wrong with that because it stimulates deeper thinking.

What bugs me is when other people check other peoples grammar or spelling, I could care less about proper grammar or spelling as long as it's not text messaging shorthand because I can't read that stuff, but as long as I know what their saying then I don't care how well it's written, this isn't a college paper being graded. I know personally I bang out these responses as fast as I can due to time constraints so I don't want to be bothered with all the correct grammar and spelling so I know errors will fly out of what I write.

I don't care about grammar or spelling either... i don't make much effort at it myself.. i just hammer out my posts as fast as possible.. posting here is pretty damn low on my list of priorities..
but I'm guessing you haven't read his posts where he describes a workout... that he does regularly of course.. lol.. that is humanly impossible.. or where he argues against straight up facts and calculations.. everyone has opinions.. and we can discuss and argue about those.. but one needs to understand the difference between facts and opinion.. and let's face it.. the guy just straight up lies a lot..

i don't have a problem with much about what he's saying in terms of his philosophy and his suggested workouts and such in general.. yeah sure if you have the time it IS best to spend that time on the road.. but many here DON'T have the time and so a lot of the discussion is about efficient workouts and use of time.. every coach knows that one of the first things you get from your athlete is how much time do you have to devote to this... and to some spending twice as much time on the bike to eke out that last 5% or performance is not important and/or a possibility (there are some serious diminishing returns in term of training volume over about 15-20hr per week).. but, it's when he tries to defend his opinions with pseudo science and BS and straight up lying that I have a problem with (and I think many do as well).. one and one is still two... if someone comes on here and says it's three, they are going to get an earful...

again, i actually agree with a lot of his OPINION.. it's the BS, pseudo science, WRONG science and straight up lies that I have a problem with..

 

[doctorSpoc]

Originally Posted by awilki01 .

I think he may know exactly what he's talking about, but he puts things up just to get under our skin. A true troll! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif

i tend to think so.. I do think he IS clueless about science though, but he seems to know a little about training.. he should just leave science out of it and just talk about his experience.. coaching has moved forward in the face of just plain wrong science handed to them by the physiologist and science in general.. e.g. lactic acid threshold.. we now know it's complete and utter bs.. doesn't exist.. can't exist.. and just by simple inspection it's easy to disprove.. some are even still hang on to it to this day.. and yet in spite of this wrong info from the scientist coaches still manage to come to the right conclusions about prescribing workouts for their athletes.. trial and error works, experience does count for something.. if there is a theory and it isn't borne out in observation then it's the theory that is wrong.. not your eyes..

i hope he's trolling.. i want to have faith in the human animal.. hopefully someone can't be THAT stupid /img/vbsmilies/smilies/eek.gif.. I tend to think that a lot of it is willful...

 

[jsirabella]

I have been reading all the posts and wanted to not chime in but since a whole thread is dedicated to it I think it is pretty simple why people do not care for OG posts.

1) His attitude. He talks down with comments like "lack motivation" and such knowing it will **** people off.

2) Not willing to learn, just wanting to spout his thoughts as correct.

3) His workouts and posts do not seem possible. Actually this is the point that kind of got me to post in that we had someone else who I thought made claims that made no sense for his age and for his years of riding but yet everyone in that case followed it as a scripture. Men of science who needed no proof cause the claims were outcomes they wanted. 300 watts in 1 hour with only a couple years of training, well in your later years. Than asked for one graph, one report to show it, no need and "how could you even ask for proof?"

So I would give OG the same due I tried to give the other poster, just post something that proves your workouts. The other guy was not exactly the easiest to get along with when you questioned him so maybe these guys are more alike than not.

So OG post the proof of these rides and numbers and more than happy to give your due about your claims.

-js