Homebrewed "TSTWKT"

[WarrenG]

But the thing about a "tool" is that you can make copies of it, give them to other people, and those copies will do something for them, too. Even if it isn't the best that it can be, if it does something useful for one person, it'll do the same for *everyone* that uses it that way. If it's not perfect, then the next guy can help build on it to improve it.

Then why don't you try to improve on it? Make it better. If tools like that are of interest to you then use what you can to make it better than it is, because it could sure use that.

Don't you have some ideas about what additional things beyond just TSS and NP should be included in such a tool? Along the lines of what RDO mentioned?

For all your experience and access to top-notch coaching, people are never going to fully appreciate your contributions here because it's easy to think that your experiences are specific to you.

Experiences specific to me? Are you forgetting all the other people who have been coached to top performance by my coach? And all the people racing really well who have worked with other coaches using similar methods?

Talk to some of the thousands and thousands of people who race better than you about how they evaluate and plan their training. Talk to some really good coaches about how they do this. You won't learn from all of them, but you could still learn a lot
that you can use for yourself, and share with other people. What you can share doesn't have to be in software, eh?

OTOH, Andy has created a tool which many people are now using, and so whenever he says something there are 10 other people that chime in with "yep, thats how it worked for me" and even "here's how I found a new use for the tool."

And there are also 10 other people who don't bother to read or respond to the stuff here who have found that this or that tool didn't work well for them, or they have found methods that worked better than those "tools". I can think of some who went to his seminars. But that isn't important really. What is worth considering is that what you read here, and in some similar places is not necessarily representative of the real world. It's just one perspective, sometimes based too often on data and overanalyzing, at the expense of real understanding about "training principles". Ask yourself, honestly, how are all those other people (who don't use TSS or similar) figuring out how to race better than me?

As a person relatively new to bike training and racing, do you spend at least a few hours each week learning about exercise physiology and training methodology? (not including power and data discussions)

There's so much more power in dealing with principles than in experiences because principles can be universally applied.

Training "principles" can be (almost) universally applied on an individual basis. What I do is not unique to me. I see other people who have done similar, and it has worked really well for them. The principles I employ are mostly available in publications, but some are not. Perhaps you can find places to read about them. What exercise physiology texts have you read?

Some of the principles are a little unique in part because of who has figured them out, their access to athletes on a daily basis for many years, and the simple fact that you don't have access to that group of experts who have developed or learned those principles.

Just because I suggest something, or employ a method or idea that you have only heard from me doesn't make it unique to me. Not even close. I doubt that there is anything I do that isn't used by many (but not all) really good coaches who work with professional teams.

Simple example, I am one of the first track-oriented riders my coach has worked with out of hundreds of riders he's worked with. He had almost no "experiences" with track training to guide my training. He went with principles of training and exercise physiology that he has learned over many years and applied them to my needs.

Do you think Ric Stern shares all that he knows about training, in this forum? No, and he's under no obligation to do so. Like any professional coach, people pay him for what he knows, and how he can help them. I share a lot of stuff that people pay for, mainly because my coach doesn't make his living from coaching and he wants to improve education about training.

 

[Tom Anhalt]

Like the tens of thousands of people who race their bikes better than you, and don't use TSS at all?

Aahh...ya gotta love the ad hominem attack. The true sign of someone on the losing end of a discussion...

And what about the growing number of people who have tried TSS and then abandoned it for something better?

...And these people determined that this "something" was better using what metric again?

C'mon smart guy. Answer the question using your software, and then I'll tell you specific answers to the question based on real world experience. Stop dodging the question. Answer with specifics.

Umm....Excuse me? If you look above, you'll see that your "question" was a dodge you put forth after the following exchange:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenG
Do you need a long list of examples of training with similar TSS and NP but different types and amounts of stress, and that might vary among individuals, and could also depend on what was done previously?



Sure...and while your at it, can you provide details of exactly how the stress is measured and exactly how that stress measurement technique is superior? Of course, no "micro-interval" examples please.

Don't go calling me out saying I'm "dodging your question" when you put the question forth as a dodge to get out of answering my original question!

Listen...it's very easy to calculate the TSS for the workout example you've given. But, what you've failed to realize is that the TSS value of that 1 workout taken in isolation doesn't buy much. It needs to be taken in CONTEXT...and that's exactly what the PMC does; it provides a contextual overview based on the very simple concept that "form = fitness - fatigue".

BTW, I won't hold my breath waiting for the "details" of you stress measurement techniques...

 

[acoggan]

So what?

The "so what" is that her results disprove your assertion that you can't get top-level results using TSS, the Performance Manager, etc.

 

[acoggan]

that offer from Jay was because at that time I didn't have a PM capable of showing my 5spower and the decline in power in 1s increments as Andy Coggan predicted. He said it would be only 25-50% of peak power near the end of a 200mTT or sprint. I have since been using a PT and I've seen dozens of examples in training with the PT where his prediction is wrong

Please post one of your PowerTap files from a flying 200 m. No holding back, either...I want to see one w/in a couple tenth's of what you do at master nationals.

 

[acoggan]

I am one of the first track-oriented riders my coach has worked with out of hundreds of riders he's worked with. He had almost no "experiences" with track training to guide my training.

So, I guess that tells us what your priorities are when selecting a coach...

 

[acoggan]

What exercise physiology texts have you read?

Me? Probably 90% of those ever written...but of course you do realize that what you find in textbooks is usually a watered-down and/or outdated version of current scientific thought, don't you?

 

[WarrenG]

Please post one of your PowerTap files from a flying 200 m. No holding back, either...I want to see one w/in a couple tenth's of what you do at master nationals.

Other sprinters with power devices already laugh at you about this because they too have seen how wrong you can be about your assertion that power drops to only 25-50% of peak, especially the ones who use an approach to their 200mTT's that has an even flatter power profile than me. I can think of two friends who have been top 2 at the masters world championships in recent years who hardly even get out of the saddle during their approach to the 200mTT.

As someone who competes for national championships and at world championships in the event, tell me why would I want to divulge the specifics of my ability in a public place like this? Where can I see power profiles for anyone else in my position, especially ones who I may be racing with?

For a 200mTT, my power at the finish is typically 50-70% of peak power during that effort, depending on conditions and some other things. For a sprint against someone else the finish power can be lower or higher than that.

 

[whoawhoa]

Warren, if you're going to sit and bash tss, np, etc, it would help if you brought some evidence to the table. For one, why does NP not work? Andy has freely published the principles behind it, and you are free to dispute it at that level. Post some evidence showing two workouts of the same tss don't really have the same stress.

And you continue to suggest you and your coach have a better way? What is it? All I hear is continued reference to a good coach being able to measure stress. How? I don't want to hear "years of experience working with pros." Specifics. Do you walk down the stairs in front of him? Drop and do 10 pushups after a workout? Does he actually measure anything? And how does he account for all the other stresses you mention? Does he know how long you slept for each day, how long you were at work, how dehydrated you were when you returned from training, the quality of roads you trained on, etc, etc? And he comes up with a nifty little number to quantify this? And writes it down, so you can look a week or month from now and say, "okay, maybe this is why I'm tired, I've been at 68 Warren Points for the last month?"

 

[acoggan]

Other sprinters with power devices already laugh at you about this

Uh-huh.

because they too have seen how wrong you can be about your assertion that power drops to only 25-50% of peak, especially the ones who use an approach to their 200mTT's that has an even flatter power profile than me. I can think of two friends who have been top 2 at the masters world championships in recent years who hardly even get out of the saddle during their approach to the 200mTT.

First, until you post the data I'm going to just assume that you're making this up. Second, even if you can provide data showing that you, or others, are in fact are approaching your flying 200 m TTs this way, I say that you're doing it wrong (and I've got a wealth of both scientific data and practical knowledge to back me up on this).

As someone who competes for national championships and at world championships in the event, tell me why would I want to divulge the specifics of my ability in a public place like this?

Nice attempt to dodge the request.

Where can I see power profiles for anyone else in my position, especially ones who I may be racing with?

I dunno...maybe from the "...the ones who use an approach to their 200mTT's that has an even flatter power profile than me."?

For a 200mTT, my power at the finish is typically 50-70% of peak power during that effort, depending on conditions and some other things.

If that's truly the case - and until you post a powermeter file, I don't see any reason why anyone should believe you - then you're simply not accelerating hard enough when you jump, and/or wasting too much time and energy winding it up before you jump.

For a sprint against someone else the finish power can be lower or higher than that.

We're talking about a flying 200 m TT here, nothing else.

 

[Tom Anhalt]

The "so what" is that her results disprove your assertion that you can't get top-level results using TSS, the Performance Manager, etc.

Hmmm...I guess that must be one coach that Warren forgot to sit down with to ask questions of...oh well.

 

[Tom Anhalt]

As someone who competes for national championships and at world championships in the event, tell me why would I want to divulge the specifics of my ability in a public place like this? Where can I see power profiles for anyone else in my position, especially ones who I may be racing with?

Oh please...do you mean to say that your power files are more valuable than Jens Voigt's or Christian Vandevelde's??

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/2006tourdata.asp

Heck, even Floyd is more forthcoming with his power data...just go to www.bicycling.com

You know, you don't even have to show the absolute power levels. All you need to show is that the profile of your power output does what you say...

 

[acoggan]

As someone who competes for national championships and at world championships in the event, tell me why would I want to divulge the specifics of my ability in a public place like this? Where can I see power profiles for anyone else in my position

Check out the 4th slide here:

http://www.endurancesportscience.com/files06/files/08-Dave Martin.pdf

(and note the >50% decrease in power for both the man and the woman.)

 

[WarrenG]

Listen...it's very easy to calculate the TSS for the workout example you've given. But, what you've failed to realize is that the TSS value of that 1 workout taken in isolation doesn't buy much. It needs to be taken in CONTEXT...and that's exactly what the PMC does; it provides a contextual overview based on the very simple concept that "form = fitness - fatigue".

One incomplete measurement for the day, combined with similarly incomplete measurements from many days together still results in incomplete measurements.

Since you are unwilling, and/or unable to answer my questions about the various training stresses from the one simple training session example I provided I'll do it for you. My answers are not complete since I don't want to take more time.

I'll use two different riders to illustrate. One called "S" who is a good sprinter, does lots of criteriums and that's the focus of his training. Another called "E" does mostly road races of around 2-3 hours. Wants to be in the winning break, and then be able to win most sprints from the break. Their respective physiology is at least reasonably well-suited for those differering objectives.

I don't use a numerical scale but since y'all like numbers I'll use a 1 to 10 scale. 1=no effort, could be repeated daily. 3= some effort could be done 4-6 times a week. 5= moderate effort, could be done 3-5 times a week. 7= difficult, probably can't be repeated for several days. 10=impossible to even complete, or nearly impossible. May need 5+ days for recovery before repeating.

One session. Use 4' at 60% of FTP for the rest periods.

1x20' warmup, np= ~`70% of FTP
Stress is mostly aerobic, level of 2-3 for both riders.

3x6' at 90% of FTP
For E, this is usually level 2-3, for S it's usually 3-5. If cadence is set for 100 rpm's and there has been little previous volume at that cadence the stress level will be slightly higher, probably less of an impact for S than for E. If cadence is 80-90, probably the reverse. If done on a hill the stress will be slightly higher for S, little to no difference for E. After sufficient training time at 100 rpm's, little to no increase in stress for S. Might remain more difficult for E. Cadences can be used to place slightly more emphasis (stress) on aerobic system relative to nm system. E could probably skip the rest periods without penalty or make them only 0-2'. S benefits from the rest periods.

1x12' at 100% of FTP
Easier for E than for S. More neuromuscular stress for S than E. Less recovery time needed for E than S. More recruitment of fatigue-able fast fibers for S than for E. S would probably benefit moreso than E from a rest period longer than 4'. Doing this effort on a hill could change the stress types and level slightly, probably moreso for S than for E.

4x4' at 120% of FTP
For S, this is 7-10, depending on prior training, that week, that season. Doing this block when fresh is probably more important for S than for E. For S there is significant recruitment of fast fibers for these efforts and the last repetition may induce level 9 or 10. Rest periods between repetitions longer than 4' could allow for lower stress and exertion level for S, not much benefit for E. For E, these are lower level, closer to 6-8. If the structure was changed to 5x3' the stress for S would be lower than during 4x4'. If the structure was 3x5' the level could be near 10 for S. Significant training of this type of effort would be needed for S to reduce the stress to a level near the stress level for E. 4x4' may induce more stress for S than is optimal. Might benefit more with 5x3' or other. Cadence, and hill vs. flat can have impact on the type of stress and the amount of stress for each rider.

3x12" efforts at AP =400-500+% of FTP
For S this is near level 6-7 and can still be performed well at the end of the workout. If performed at the beginning of the session it could be even lower level for nm stress, but this could increase the stress level for S during the subsequent efforts above FTP. For E this could be level 9-10. E may need to perform these near the beginning of the session to allow for them to be completed at all. Not as much impact on later supra FTP efforts though. If performed on a hill, the nm stress level would be higher for S, but may not matter for E (already near 10).

In summary, even though NP and TSS for each person could be identical the stress levels may be quite different in total for the day, and within the various types of effort.

I would suggest that training (and racing) efforts be examined not as a whole for a session, or week of sessions, etc. but broken into to at least 4-6 types of effort with consideration given for their related types and amounts of stress for the individual athlete. Examples could be "tempo" or medium endurance, a level of intensity below that like low endurance, recovery pace, sprints of 10-12", sprints of 15+ seconds, threshold, VO2max, above VO2max, etc., or something similar that differentiates the various types of metabolic (and mental) stresses encountered by the athlete.

There should also be allowance for the individual user to utilize their personal, relative stress level for each of those types of efforts, since we know that there are differences. Examples would be as illustrated for the 12" sprints and 4x4' at 120% of FTP.

There should also be consideration for the frequency of each type of training. As an example, for E, repeating the 12" efforts 2-3 days in a row would result in very high accumulated stress for that ability, while for S the accumulated stress in that area would be somewhat lower. Near peaking, S might do the 12" sprints at lower power levels and not every day before the race, while S might need to do them 3 days in a row just to remain at peak.

Conversely, 4x4' at 120% could be done by E very close to the day of the peak race, while S would probably need to do this block at least several days prior to enable sufficient recovery time. Perhaps S would benefit from using higher cadence during these efforts to reduce the nm stress slightly while inducing slightly higher aerobic stress.

Again, my answers are not meant to be complete, just illustrating some of the relevant factors.

 

[WarrenG]

The "so what" is that her results disprove your assertion that you can't get top-level results using TSS, the Performance Manager, etc.

I'm sure the coach is smart enough to use other methods, experience, etc. as well.

Or would you like us to believe that all the coach uses is TSS and the perf mgr?

 

[acoggan]

One incomplete measurement for the day, combined with similarly incomplete measurements from many days together still results in incomplete measurements.

Since you are unwilling, and/or unable to answer my questions about the various training stresses from the one simple training session example I provided I'll do it for you. My answers are not complete since I don't want to take more time.

I'll use two different riders to illustrate. One called "S" who is a good sprinter, does lots of criteriums and that's the focus of his training. Another called "E" does mostly road races of around 2-3 hours. Wants to be in the winning break, and then be able to win most sprints from the break. Their respective physiology is at least reasonably well-suited for those differering objectives.

I don't use a numerical scale but since y'all like numbers I'll use a 1 to 10 scale. 1=no effort, could be repeated daily. 3= some effort could be done 4-6 times a week. 5= moderate effort, could be done 3-5 times a week. 7= difficult, probably can't be repeated for several days. 10=impossible to even complete, or nearly impossible. May need 5+ days for recovery before repeating.

One session. Use 4' at 60% of FTP for the rest periods.

1x20' warmup, np= ~`70% of FTP
Stress is mostly aerobic, level of 2-3 for both riders.

3x6' at 90% of FTP
For E, this is usually level 2-3, for S it's usually 3-5. If cadence is set for 100 rpm's and there has been little previous volume at that cadence the stress level will be slightly higher, probably less of an impact for S than for E. If cadence is 80-90, probably the reverse. If done on a hill the stress will be slightly higher for S, little to no difference for E. After sufficient training time at 100 rpm's, little to no increase in stress for S. Might remain more difficult for E. Cadences can be used to place slightly more emphasis (stress) on aerobic system relative to nm system. E could probably skip the rest periods without penalty or make them only 0-2'. S benefits from the rest periods.

1x12' at 100% of FTP
Easier for E than for S. More neuromuscular stress for S than E. Less recovery time needed for E than S. More recruitment of fatigue-able fast fibers for S than for E. S would probably benefit moreso than E from a rest period longer than 4'. Doing this effort on a hill could change the stress types and level slightly, probably moreso for S than for E.

4x4' at 120% of FTP
For S, this is 7-10, depending on prior training, that week, that season. Doing this block when fresh is probably more important for S than for E. For S there is significant recruitment of fast fibers for these efforts and the last repetition may induce level 9 or 10. Rest periods between repetitions longer than 4' could allow for lower stress and exertion level for S, not much benefit for E. For E, these are lower level, closer to 6-8. If the structure was changed to 5x3' the stress for S would be lower than during 4x4'. If the structure was 3x5' the level could be near 10 for S. Significant training of this type of effort would be needed for S to reduce the stress to a level near the stress level for E. 4x4' may induce more stress for S than is optimal. Might benefit more with 5x3' or other. Cadence, and hill vs. flat can have impact on the type of stress and the amount of stress for each rider.

3x12" efforts at AP =400-500+% of FTP
For S this is near level 6-7 and can still be performed well at the end of the workout. If performed at the beginning of the session it could be even lower level for nm stress, but this could increase the stress level for S during the subsequent efforts above FTP. For E this could be level 9-10. E may need to perform these near the beginning of the session to allow for them to be completed at all. Not as much impact on later supra FTP efforts though. If performed on a hill, the nm stress level would be higher for S, but may not matter for E (already near 10).

In summary, even though NP and TSS for each person could be identical the stress levels may be quite different in total for the day, and within the various types of effort.

I would suggest that training (and racing) efforts be examined not as a whole for a session, or week of sessions, etc. but broken into to at least 4-6 types of effort with consideration given for their related types and amounts of stress for the individual athlete. Examples could be "tempo" or medium endurance, a level of intensity below that like low endurance, recovery pace, sprints of 10-12", sprints of 15+ seconds, threshold, VO2max, above VO2max, etc., or something similar that differentiates the various types of metabolic (and mental) stresses encountered by the athlete.

There should also be allowance for the individual user to utilize their personal, relative stress level for each of those types of efforts, since we know that there are differences. Examples would be as illustrated for the 12" sprints and 4x4' at 120% of FTP.

There should also be consideration for the frequency of each type of training. As an example, for E, repeating the 12" efforts 2-3 days in a row would result in very high accumulated stress for that ability, while for S the accumulated stress in that area would be somewhat lower. Near peaking, S might do the 12" sprints at lower power levels and not every day before the race, while S might need to do them 3 days in a row just to remain at peak.

Conversely, 4x4' at 120% could be done by E very close to the day of the peak race, while S would probably need to do this block at least several days prior to enable sufficient recovery time. Perhaps S would benefit from using higher cadence during these efforts to reduce the nm stress slightly while inducing slightly higher aerobic stress.

Again, my answers are not meant to be complete, just illustrating some of the relevant factors.

Why does this post reminds me the saying "the plural of anecdote is not data"?

Evidence, Warren, people want evidence - not just more assertions. Or to put it another way: just because you repeat something a million times doesn't mean that it is correct.

 

[WarrenG]

Me? Probably 90% of those ever written...but of course you do realize that what you find in textbooks is usually a watered-down and/or outdated version of current scientific thought, don't you?

I asked the question of Frenchgye. Since he apparently does not have access to a top-level coach nor that insight a textbook would be a useful aid for learning. Even for a person with that access I find the texts useful. An example would be Physiology of Sport and Exercise. Another would be Theory and Methodology of Training.

 

[acoggan]

I'm sure the coach is smart enough to use other methods, experience, etc. as well.

Or would you like us to believe that all the coach uses is TSS and the perf mgr?

He relies extensitvely, even exclusively, on TSS and the Performance Manager for the purposes for which they are intended: to quantify, and thus regulate, the overall training load so as to have athletes at their best when they need to be. As for what other information he uses, and in particular the details of the workouts he prescribes, I've only seen a few examples, but they are far, far less complicated than the scenarios you just described. Yet, his athletes still get stellar results...go figure!

 

[WarrenG]

First, until you post the data I'm going to just assume that you're making this up.

I have no need to make something up, and I don't. The gaphs and numbers sustantiate what I've said about the approach that works best for me.

Second, even if you can provide data showing that you, or others, are in fact are approaching your flying 200 m TTs this way, I say that you're doing it wrong (and I've got a wealth of both scientific data and practical knowledge to back me up on this).

...until you post a powermeter file, I don't see any reason why anyone should believe you - then you're simply not accelerating hard enough when you jump, and/or wasting too much time and energy winding it up before you jump.

We have tried many various ways through experimentation of getting our fastest 200m time. We eventually settle on the method that produces the fastest time for each of us. For you to say that people who are among the very fastest in the world for their age are doing it wrong is funny, and they do laugh at you for this. You are just that ridiculous.

And, IME the approach can change slightly as various aspects of the fitness related to the 200mTT are also changing. That you think there is only one,, best approach for all is ridiculous and if people believe that they will be distracted from what could help them. ANY good sprinter will tell you to experiment to see which approach works best for you (an individual), at the time.

So far all you've provided for an answer as to why I should divulge my files in public is because you, a person who has never even done the event thinks I'm making stuff up. Sorry, but you'll have to do much better than that.

 

[WarrenG]

Check out the 4th slide here:

http://www.endurancesportscience.com/files06/files/08-Dave Martin.pdf

(and note the >50% decrease in power for both the man and the woman.)

I don't doubt that you have evidence that the profile you believe is best has worked best for some riders, but that profile is not one that works best for all riders. Riders need to experiment to find what type of power profile (if you want to describe it that way) will produce the fastest time for themselves. For a given rider it might be like you advocate, or it might not be.

A problem with aiming at the profile you advocate is that training to do that profile really well is often sub-optimal for the somewhat different shaped power profile that one needs to be really good at in order to win the match sprints (in recent years) that follow the 200mTT. The 200mTT is important, but not as important as the sprints themselves.

 

[acoggan]

We have tried many various ways through experimentation of getting our fastest 200m time. We eventually settle on the method that produces the fastest time for each of us. For you to say that people who are among the very fastest in the world for their age are doing it wrong is funny, and they do laugh at you for this. You are just that ridiculous.

Maybe if you'd experiment some more, and listen to those who understand both the physics and the physiology of what it takes to do the fastest possible flying 200 m TT, you and your friends wouldn't just be "...among the fastest in the world...", you'd be the fastest.

That you think there is only one,, best approach for all is ridiculous

I never said that there was only one, best approach. However, unless you're really not a sprinter at all but just somebody pretending to be one, the fastest flying 200 m TT time will result from a power profile that entails a 50% or greater fall-off in power from peak to finish line.