Basic errors in Dr. Coggans book?

NomadVW said:

Pictures say a thousand words, right? Here's my similar NMP Microburst workout from the 27th. (Parsed and all)

[img]cycleiwakuni.comtom thumb microintervals.jpgOpen ↗[/img]
Edited to add that the sum total of L7 time was 9.8 minutes over three 10 minute intervals.

that's a very pretty graph... only problem is the same one as the one as in the "L7" workout in question.. and that is this... Dr. Coggan doesn't define L7 as a percentage of FTP.. is doesn't have a power associated with it at all, and this makes all kinds of sense... completely different energy system and this power will not be related to FTP... L7 should be based on whatever that "maximal" power is... some it will be 300% some 600%.. that's the problem with becoming myopic and not using common sense... you can make huge and fundemental errors like this...

frenchyge said:

Looks like an L7 workout with crit-specific pre-fatiguing to me. 🙂

Me too.😉

doctorSpoc said:

that's a very pretty graph... only problem is the same one as the one as in the "L7" workout in question.. and that is this... Dr. Coggan doesn't define L7 as a percentage of FTP.. is doesn't have a power associated with it at all, and this makes all kinds of sense... completely different energy system and this power will not be related to FTP... L7 should be based on whatever that "maximal" power is... some it will be 300% some 600%.. that's the problem with becoming myopic and not using common sense... you can make huge and fundemental errors like this...

I think the myopic view is that you have to be IN NMP to do get NMP adaptation. Maybe we should call it SST NMP? My cut off for L7 on the chart - the range in which NMP is going to adapt - is arbitrarily 150%, just for the sake of the pretty lines. Coggan book identifies the top of AC as 150%, so the L7 begins really simply where L6 ends. That's the only basis for the cut-off. But, putting the crayons away....

Folks are ready to latch on that you can do sub-L4 work and still be in the SST area for threshold adaptation - why? Cause you can get more of it in a session with decreased fatigue, right?

So here's a method being presented by one of the leaders in training with a powermeter which involves "Sub-NMP" efforts. Can you get nearly 10 minutes at 300% FTP in a workout, full rest between? Good on ya, not I.

You can debate all day whether or not the workout would be effective for you or whether you like the workout, but the fact is you can't just come out and say it doesn't cause NMP adaptation.

My guess is Hunter Allen didn't include it in the L7 workout sections of the book for kicks, but has found over his coached athletes that it does cause NMP adaptation.

When someone shows that the only way to get L7 adaptation is to be at maximal power, I'll suggest we all go back to doing our 2x20's at 100% FTP.

Quadsweep said:

This means that you need at least a 3 to 1 recovery to work ratio with L6 workouts in order to work ones anaerobic work capacity most effectively.

Not necessarily. It takes ~3min or more to empty the tank. If the work intervals don't fully deplete the tank, then only the fast-responding portion of AC needs to be replenished between reps.

Quadsweep said:

In the last level 6 workout example the rest periods are only 50% and 100% of the interval themselves.

Check that again (ie, read the text, since the summary boxes are terrible). The rest periods are 50%, 100%, and 200% of the work periods, with greater rest later in the workout as the tank is emptied, and as the power level gets much higher. Also, don't lose track of the 5-min of rest that the rider gets between each set, to replenish his energy stores.

Basically, the first set is 6min 'on', with 7min rest. The second set is 3min 'on' with 7min rest, and finish with 1.5min 'on' before the cooldown.

Quadsweep said:

Why the heck is this workout includied in L7 examples?

Because of the ten 10sec max (300-350% FTP) sprints with 2 min recovery in between which happens just before the end of the workout.

It wouldn't hurt to re-read the text a couple times before calling out the authors on their expertise.

doctorSpoc said:

that's a very pretty graph... only problem is the same one as the one as in the "L7" workout in question.. and that is this... Dr. Coggan doesn't define L7 as a percentage of FTP.. is doesn't have a power associated with it at all, and this makes all kinds of sense... completely different energy system and this power will not be related to FTP... L7 should be based on whatever that "maximal" power is... some it will be 300% some 600%.. that's the problem with becoming myopic and not using common sense... you can make huge and fundemental errors like this...

My "common sense" says that some of the neuromuscular adaptations one attempts to elicit by workouts that I would classify as level 7 (e.g., increased rate of force development) really have nothing to do with any particular energy system, and thus aren't strictly dependent on the absolute power output.

doctorSpoc said:

ok forget optimal.... i'd settle for even targeted... these workouts are not even targeted for the adaptations related to the prescibed zones..

No? Then what adaptations do you suppose might be elicited by performing microintervals if not those that are neuromuscular in nature?

frenchyge said:

Coming late into a discussion provides an interesting and humorous perspective.

Not weighing into the issues here, but isn't the 2-hr workout in question REALLY:

20min warmup,
10min of 15/15 microbursts at 150/50% FTP,
20min rest,
10min of 15/15 microbursts at 150/50% FTP,
20min rest,
10 x 10sec max sprints (~300-350% FTP) with 2 min rest in between,
15min cooldown.

as described more clearly in the middle paragraph text on p.93?

Looks like an L7 workout with crit-specific pre-fatiguing to me. 🙂

that's sounding more like an L7 workout to me too... although i don't really ascribe to "pre-fatiguing" since from my understanding NMP is going to be pretty much genetically set and what you are really doing when doing an L7 workout is primarily practicing technique and hard wiring the co-ordination of muscles etc... so IMO the pre-fatiguing is a good test of NMP under reall world conditions but not really optimal conditions for addaptation... i.e. IMO minimal fatigue and full rest between intervals is best during addaptation and then on race day you're legs just go on auto-pilot and do what they did during practice...

doctorSpoc said:

my understanding NMP is going to be pretty much genetically set and what you are really doing when doing an L7 workout is primarily practicing technique and hard wiring the co-ordination of muscles etc...

While the degree to which one can increase neuromuscular power is probably smaller than the degree to which one can, e.g., increase endurance, it is a complete misconception to think that it cannot be improved at all.

rmur17 said:

okay my pet peeve is Workout 8.2 "Level 5, Vo2max Efforts" on page 148

15 warmup
Repeat x 6
{ ON: 6-min @96-102% FTP
OFF: 6-8min < 55% FTP
}
15 cooldown

Now I don't know what exactly to call that but L5 or Vo2max isn't one of them. Probably I'd call that a varied tempo workout or a 'break-in' workout before starting longer L4 work?

I think I'd call it a typo.

acoggan said:

No? Then what adaptations do you suppose might be elicited by performing microintervals if not those that are neuromuscular in nature?

VO2max/Thesh

and in reference to your other comment..

acoggan said:

My "common sense" says that some of the neuromuscular adaptations one attempts to elicit by workouts that I would classify as level 7 (e.g., increased rate of force development) really have nothing to do with any particular energy system, and thus aren't strictly dependent on the absolute power output.

this might be these interval's only saving grace as it relates to NMP, in that they may allow you to pratice technique although as i said in my other post IMO technique is much better particed under controled, unfatigued, fully rested conditions...

acoggan said:

While the degree to which one can increase neuromuscular power is probably smaller than the degree to which one can, e.g., increase endurance, it is a complete misconception to think that it cannot be improved at all.

but who said that...? when since does "primarily" translate to all?

doctorSpoc said:

funny thing is that I would say the same of the responce of Dr. Coggan... where is his evidence? instead of presenting a well thought out rebutt he proceeded in a credential pissing match... but it's Dr. Coggan that is responcible for this exchange since he initially asked for TiMan's credential and without even to this point presenting even the slightest of resonable defences for his position...

i will listen to anyone reguardless of credentials, who has resonable arguments, but have no time for my momma's stronger than your momma and i'm right because i have a piece of paper an you don't defences of one's opinions as Dr. Coggan has presented here... surely that Phd has given one the tools to put a few words together for a reasonable well thought out argument..

Apparently you grossly misinterpreted my pithy "says who". What I meant by that was that it really isn't possible to say with absolutely certainty what is or is not optimal with respect to various interval workouts. Very few scientific studies have been done examining this sort of issue, for the very good reason that it's difficult to detect small differences between very similar training programs, especially given limitations on sample size, etc. OTOH, the empirical approach doesn't work very well either, simply because few coaches have the analytical tools, etc., required to really address the question. This is why my own workouts tend to be very "plain vanilla" in nature: I don't feel that any particular complexity can be justified, and I personally don't need much variety to maintain my interest/motivation. On the flip side, though, the fact that I recognize that few if any definitive answers are available here means that I generally don't question what others do, except when they claim some special magic to their approach (e.g., Warren G's championing of 30 s on/off intervals), or when their ideas just don't stand up to scrutiny (e.g., "strength endurance" training, use of relatively small differences in gearing when performing standing start training).

doctorSpoc said:

VO2max/Thesh

I meant in comparison to isopower efforts performed at the same average power.

doctorSpoc said:

this might be these interval's only saving grace as it relates to NMP, in that they may allow you to pratice technique

Increasing the rate of force development is not about "technique" (that is, unless you think that there's much technique involved in performing, say, single leg knee extensions).

doctorSpoc said:

but who said that...? when since does "primarily" translate to all?

You didn't say "primarily", you said "pretty much genetically set". To me that implied that you think/thought that maximal power wasn't very trainable, when in fact it is.

frenchyge said:

Because of the ten 10sec max (300-350% FTP) sprints with 2 min recovery in between which happens just before the end of the workout.

It wouldn't hurt to re-read the text a couple times before calling out the authors on their expertise.

The dude wasn't talking about that.......he was talking about the 15 sec bursts done with a 1:1 work rest ratio for 10 minutes non stop.

doctorSpoc said:

this is funny.. that simply because someone identified and created a label for something pre-existing they are necessarily the expert on that thing... those levels are labels for kinds of addaptations that existed for 100,000 of millions of years before Dr. Coggan labeled them... and they are merely a model for the real world. if on closer scrutiny the model doesn't fit with reality or if the creator's own interpretation of his own model is wrong then those errors need to be identified and adjusted...

So what aspect of the classification system that I've put forth do you believe "doesn't fit with reality", and what is your evidence of this fact?

TiMan said:

The dude wasn't talking about that.......he was talking about the 15 sec bursts done with a 1:1 work rest ratio for 10 minutes non stop.

The dude totally missed the sprints because they weren't clearly called out in the summary box. That's why he didn't get the point of the workout.

TiMan said:

The dude wasn't talking about that.......he was talking about the 15 sec bursts done with a 1:1 work rest ratio for 10 minutes non stop.

But how does "the dude" (Quadsweep) know that the workout in question wasn't presented under level 7 due to the other aspects to it? (Answer: he doesn't.)

acoggan said:

But how does "the dude" (Quadsweep) know that the workout in question wasn't presented under level 7 due to the other aspects to it? (Answer: he doesn't.)

THE DUDE didn't miss it.[img]cyclingforums.comredface.gifOpen ↗[/img] I was referring to the 15 second micro jams with 15 seconds off and for 10 minutes straight. [img]cyclingforums.comcool.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Of course I know that 10 second sprints with at least 2 minutes to rest between are nueromuscular in nature.

acoggan said:

Apparently you grossly misinterpreted my pithy "says who". What I meant by that was that it really isn't possible to say with absolutely certainty what is or is not optimal with respect to various interval workouts. Very few scientific studies have been done examining this sort of issue, for the very good reason that it's difficult to detect small differences between very similar training programs, especially given limitations on sample size, etc. OTOH, the empirical approach doesn't work very well either, simply because few coaches have the analytical tools, etc., required to really address the question. This is why my own workouts tend to be very "plain vanilla" in nature: I don't feel that any particular complexity can be justified, and I personally don't need much variety to maintain my interest/motivation. On the flip side, though, the fact that I recognize that few if any definitive answers are available here means that I generally don't question what others do, except when they claim some special magic to their approach (e.g., Warren G's championing of 30 s on/off intervals), or when their ideas just don't stand up to scrutiny (e.g., "strength endurance" training, use of relatively small differences in gearing when performing standing start training).

this actually fundamentally changes my view of your responses.

doctorSpoc said:

so IMO the pre-fatiguing is a good test of NMP under reall world conditions but not really optimal conditions for addaptation...

Part of the NMP adaptations involve changing recruitment patterns, which I also understand are different under varying degrees of fatigue. So, maybe there is a sound rationale for pre-fatiguing. I don't know -- that's coachy stuff. 😉

Personally, I prefer to do the bulk of my sprints while fresh, with maybe 2-3 at the end for the fun.

Quadsweep said:

Of course I know that 10 second sprints with at least 2 minutes to rest between is nueromuscular in nature.

Ok, well that's why the workout is included with the L7 workouts. 🙄

Quadsweep said:

The last L7 workout is this.

After warm up do 15 seconds efforts followed by 15 seconds rest for two sets of 10 minutes each. Take 20 minutes recovery between sets.
For the "on" segment try for 150% of FTP and then rest at 50%.
Try to reach 300-350% of FTP as your max wattage!
NOT!..at least not after you have done several.

Don't forget those 10 sprints at the end.