Coggans power table a poor guess?

[Quadsweep]

URL just filled me in on the quote below. I found it quite disturbing actually. I thought the power table had the data from plenty of riders?
So is it worth a damn at all then when trying to figure where you fall for various powers? I mean how accurate can interpolation really be? My 300 watts at 156 pounds may not put me in mid Cat 3 at all for FTP. Also, I wonder who the top men were in each power range ?

Originally Posted by acoggan
First, I think you misunderstand how the tables were created. There are only two "anchor" values for each column, i.e., the very highest value and the mid-point of the untrained range. Everything else has been filled in simply by interpolation.

 

[whoawhoa]

URL just filled me in on the quote below. I found it quite disturbing actually. I thought the power table had the data from plenty of riders?
So is it worth a damn at all then when trying to figure where you fall for various powers? I mean how accurate can interpolation really be?

Originally Posted by acoggan
First, I think you misunderstand how the tables were created. There are only two "anchor" values for each column, i.e., the very highest value and the mid-point of the untrained range. Everything else has been filled in simply by interpolation.

This is a very thick wall you keep banging your head against....

Anyway, I think you're missing the purpose of the power profile, which is to compare your own strengths and weaknesses, not decide what category you are in (you figure that out by racing). Interpolation hardly seems like a "poor guess" to me anyway. Besides that, I think the chart has verified itself with the number of people who have used it.

 

[whoawhoa]

My 300 watts at 156 pounds may not put me in mid Cat 3 at all for FTP.

I suspect it would. My 300 watts at 140ish pounds put me exactly where the chart said I would finish in the one cat 1/2 climbing race I did, that is, ahead of the majority of cat 2's and plenty of 1s, but behind the true cat 1 climbers and domestic pros.

 

[Quadsweep]

This is a very thick wall you keep banging your head against....

Anyway, I think you're missing the purpose of the power profile, which is to compare your own strengths and weaknesses, not decide what category you are in (you figure that out by racing). Interpolation hardly seems like a "poor guess" to me anyway. Besides that, I think the chart has verified itself with the number of people who have used it.

Do you think I am stupid young man?

 

[whoawhoa]

Do you think I am stupid young man?

Nope.

I do suspect the guy who created the table knows a bit more about this particular field, and has access to a variety of other very smart, informed people.

 

[acoggan]

URL just filled me in on the quote below. I found it quite disturbing actually. I thought the power table had the data from plenty of riders?

Nope. But, since the purpose isn't to assign race categories - that is, after all, why they actually hold races - it doesn't matter: if you're halfway between average untrained and the best in the world for, say, 5 s power and also halfway between average untrained and the best in the world for functional threshold power, then it's fair to say that those two abilities are equivalent.

So is it worth a damn at all then when trying to figure where you fall for various powers?

Of course - you do realize, don't you, that one or more versions of the tables didn't even include category assignments...and even the current version 1) uses them only as examples (that's what "e.g." means) and 2) shows overlapping brackets to indicate that they aren't discrete.

I mean how accurate can interpolation really be? My 300 watts at 156 pounds may not put me in mid Cat 3 at all for FTP.

Since that's not the purpose of the tables, your questions are irrelevant.

Also, I wonder who the top men were in each power range ?

My lips are sealed.

 

[frenchyge]

Do you think I am stupid young man?

LOL. I'm not sure about that, but your recent questions do seem to be easily answered by simply reading the available background information on the topic at hand. To wit: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp

 

[acoggan]

your recent questions do seem to be easily answered by simply reading the available background information on the topic at hand. To wit: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp

Or to use an acronym that I picked up from jbv many years ago: RTFM.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Or to use an acronym that I picked up from jbv many years ago: RTFM.

Or in this case, RTFS
Standard terminology for help desks....

 

[frenchyge]

Or to use an acronym that I picked up from jbv many years ago: RTFM.

That term gets quite a lot of mileage in the military as well.

 

[fergie]

The definition of stupidity is making the same mistake over and over again. This is what, the third or fourth swipe at Andy about stuff you clearly don't understand but possibly could if you did a bit of homework. Can't help people for drawing conclusions.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

ps. Fair to Untrained, damn you Andy!!!!

 

[RapDaddyo]

ps. Fair to Untrained, damn you Andy!!!!

You would prefer slow to very slow?

 

[Alex Simmons]

ps. Fair to Untrained, damn you Andy!!!!

Well it has been referred to as the "Ego Crusher".

Just go back to that well used phrase:

"The older I get, the better I was"

 

[fergie]

Well it has been referred to as the "Ego Crusher".

Just go back to that well used phrase:

"The older I get, the better I was"

Yeah, even in my dreams I can't get that Bettini p***k to take a turn and he rolls me at the finish

 

[NomadVW]

Yeah, even in my dreams I can't get that Bettini p***k to take a turn and he rolls me at the finish

You need to dream bigger. Last night I dreamt I interpolated myself off the top of the profile charts and had to email Andy to update them with new racing categories because I was no longer "Eg. World Class." Bettini was asking me for my signature,

Of course.. well...

Then I realized I was in the aforementioned "Slower than most/slower than most of those who are slower than most" category.

 

[fergie]

It's better than the one where team Discovery work me over before the climb even starts...

 

[TiMan]

Quad old boy.....ignore the "power trippers" that posted here(not all were). Your question was legit, even though your ways are rather "blunt"

I, and others I know, were surprised when we found out the way the chart was formulated too. That said, it is somewhat accurate I think. The most accurate column, in my opinion is the FTP. The most inaccurate is probably L7......but that's just my opinion.

Perhaps the chart should have had labels such as untrained, beginner, intermediate, advanced intermediate, advanced, and expert.

 

[acoggan]

I, and others I know, were surprised when we found out the way the chart was formulated too.

Why, since I've been completely clear about the approach that I used to develop the tables since day 1?

(BTW, you and Quadsweep do realize that for decades similar tables have been around for running, with the only difference being that they use only one "anchor point", i.e., the current world record?)

The most accurate column, in my opinion is the FTP. The most inaccurate is probably L7......but that's just my opinion.

What is the basis for this opinion? That is, why you do you accept that the approach is logically defensible when considering functional threshold power, but not logically defensible when considering maximal neuroumuscular power?

(If it is because the top of the 5 s column is based on data from a world champion match sprinter, then clearly you haven't read/don't understand everything I've written here: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp)

Perhaps the chart should have had labels such as untrained, beginner, intermediate, advanced intermediate, advanced, and expert.

As opposed to the terms "untrained, fair, moderate, good, very good, etc." that are used?

 

[TiMan]

What is the basis for this opinion? That is, why you do you accept that the approach is logically defensible when considering functional threshold power, but not logically defensible when considering maximal neuroumuscular power?
(

For goodness sake Andy, I didn't accept FTP as "logically defensible" and I didn't say that the maximal neuromuscular power column was not.

My "opinion", Andy, is based on 30 years experience as a competitive cyclist, 13 years Cat 1, many of which were at the national level and included two national level titles, and 10 years of professional coaching all levels of competitors including a few pro's. I think that's worth something, don't you?

Looking at the chart I have found that FTP is the most accurate in regards to power at Categories and L7 is the least....this is deducted from YEAR of practical experience. ......and here is a small example....Several of my Cat4/5 rides have high end L7 power( but don't yet have the experience to do well sprinting against many Cat 1 riders)...... Also, I have a couple VERY good Cat 1 riders and one pro that have quite poor L7 power. I attribute this to the fact that neuromuscular power is the most "genetic" of the "powers" and this is why your L7 column is the least accurate in my opinion.

 

[joemw]

Why, since I've been completely clear about the approach that I used to develop the tables since day 1?

(BTW, you and Quadsweep do realize that for decades similar tables have been around for running, with the only difference being that they use only one "anchor point", i.e., the current world record?)



What is the basis for this opinion? That is, why you do you accept that the approach is logically defensible when considering functional threshold power, but not logically defensible when considering maximal neuroumuscular power?

(If it is because the top of the 5 s column is based on data from a world champion match sprinter, then clearly you haven't read/don't understand everything I've written here: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp)



As opposed to the terms "untrained, fair, moderate, good, very good, etc." that are used?

I think the table does what it's intended to quite well, which as far as I'm concerned, lets you know your strengths and weaknesses relative to others.