Converting Anaerobic Power to Aerobic Endurance

Alex Simmons

Member
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

I think Alex Simmons made clear that AP and NP should be identical for the issue we seem to be discussing.
No, I outlined the reasons why that is not typical.

I don't expect you to faithfully represent another's statements, it's your modus operandi and I'm pretty sure the majority who could be bothered to read this thread would know that.

alienator

acoggan

Member
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

I guess you are agreeing with me.

If so, you should have the same concerns about the table and chart I have that 67% and 75% are large differences that need an explanation.
The answer has already been provided. It's just that you either can't see it, or refuse to see it.

An old Guy

Member
Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .

The ratio of NP to AP for many non-draft triathlons is typically in the order of 1.01 to 1.05,
I appologize if I misrepresented what you had to say.

An old Guy

Member
Originally Posted by acoggan .

The answer has already been provided. It's just that you either can't see it, or refuse to see it.
I always try to understand. You make it so difficult.

You made some comment that the vertical bars are error bars. The correct term is sample population deviation. Which is what I surmised, but objected to that. But it is a great leap to take sample population derivation and extend it to everyone. It is very easy to do the math and show that power output (work) is maximized when average power is equal to normalized power. A lot of information on the internet disagrees with you. But you are not writing as Andy Coggan.

In any case, peer reviewed papers claim that 5 hour average power output is in the range of 80-95% of 1 hour average power output. Much better resource than some facebook author. The scientific community sees life different than the internet community. Perhaps you should write a peer reviewerd paper on this point.

An old Guy

Member

Only if a course is flat with no wind should AP=NP.
Like Alex Simmons you are agreeing with me. I suppose you will now retreat from this position as it goes against what acoggan is saying.

We still have the problem 67% (acoggan) v. 80% (Friel). Want to weigh in?

acoggan

Member
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

I always try to understand. You make it so difficult.

You made some comment that the vertical bars are error bars. The correct term is sample population deviation. Which is what I surmised, but objected to that. But it is a great leap to take sample population derivation and extend it to everyone. It is very easy to do the math and show that power output (work) is maximized when average power is equal to normalized power. A lot of information on the internet disagrees with you. But you are not writing as Andy Coggan.

In any case, peer reviewed papers claim that 5 hour average power output is in the range of 80-95% of 1 hour average power output. Much better resource than some facebook author. The scientific community sees life different than the internet community. Perhaps you should write a peer reviewerd paper on this point.
Your comments are so disjointed I don't know where to begin. It does seem, though, that the answer should be within your reach...just keeping thinking, and perhaps it will come to you.

Signed,

Andy Coggan

An old Guy

Member

This depends entirely on the course and conditions. Only if a course is flat with no wind should AP=NP. We have the Silverman Triathlon here in Las Vegas, with 10K feet of climbing and winds > 12mph virtually guaranteed. Only a novice would come in with AP=NP. Not only is NP valuable for post-ride analysis purposes, but can be used as one of the key constraints to develop a power management strategy. If you want to assume that AP always equals NP for triathlons, go ahead but it's a naive assumption.
I agree with all you have to say here. Just one question.

10K of climbing takes me about 4 hours. So I climb the 10K at my 4 hour power output. And for that climb NP=AP equals my 4 hour power output (something around either 67% or 80% of my FTP depending on who you believe). Then I descend for a couple hours at 0% FTP.

12mph winds are common here. I ride for 30 minutes into the wind at my 30 minute power output and then ride home at whatever traffic allows - much less than the power I could put out. But I don't count the ride home as anything more than junk miles.

When I am at home, I don't use my couch time as an adjustment to my AP and NP. In an event why would you suggest that I use "couch" time to adjust my AP and NP?

---

Signed

Andy Coggan

----

We can all be andy Coggan.

An old Guy

Member
Originally Posted by acoggan .

Your comments are so disjointed I don't know where to begin. It does seem, though, that the answer should be within your reach...just keeping thinking, and perhaps it will come to you.

Signed,

Andy Coggan
I know the answer. You profit from the promotion of NP and related terms. You abuse anyone who has proven it to be a marketing lie. I guess that says it all.

acoggan

Member
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

I know the answer. You profit from the promotion of NP and related terms. You abuse anyone who has proven it to be a marketing lie. I guess that says it all.
Others profit from my ideas far more than I have (or likely ever will) - heck, some even credit them for helping them win the Tour de France.

As for abuse, that is is being subjected to your endlessly illogical commentary. For example, if I were interested in promoting the normalized power concept, don't you think I'd have emphasized from the outset that looking at that is a better way of defining someone's stamina (since longer rides are where average power tends to be pulled down most by power variability)?

Signed,

Andy Coggan

renderman5000

New Member
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

I know the answer. You profit from the promotion of NP and related terms. You abuse anyone who has proven it to be a marketing lie. I guess that says it all.

fergie

Member
People, report him to the moderators each time he writes a troll post. On CyclingForums we did this to the biggest troll in cycling history Frank Day and have got him to tone it down. What a sad little man, he even started trolling his own thread pretending he knew something about physiology.

BrianMacDonald

New Member
Just ignore him...hover over his username and select "Block Member" ....

Then all of his posts will show up like this....

I haven't read an AOG post in months (though I do see what he writes when other people quote him).

dkrenik

Member
Honestly, I think he's funny. I get a laugh out of his schtick.

Dave
Originally Posted by BrianMacDonald .

Just ignore him...hover over his username and select "Block Member" ....

Then all of his posts will show up like this....

daveryanwyoming

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by dkrenik .

Honestly, I think he's funny. I get a laugh out of his schtick.

Dave
Oh you're a twisted soul Dave

I still think AOG is just one of Frank's sock puppets. His personal war with Andy and his ideas and the nature of his argument seem very similar and Frank has vanished from the various boards where he used to argue his points about the time AOG showed up. Now one or the other or more likely both will probably come back to refute that, but that would hardly be convincing.

alienator

Well-Known Member
daveryanwyoming said:
Oh you're a twisted soul Dave I still think AOG is just one of Frank's sock puppets. His personal war with Andy and his ideas and the nature of his argument seem very similar and Frank has vanished from the various boards where he used to argue his points about the time AOG showed up. Now one or the other or more likely both will probably come back to refute that, but that would hardly be convincing.
Exactly. I knew there had to be a reason that AOG never talked about PowerCranks.

dkrenik

Member
Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming .

Oh you're a twisted soul Dave
You've no idea...

renderman5000

New Member
Blocked! Thanks so much for the simple screen cap!

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
887
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K