Em I still allowed to understand what additive versus non-additive means?rmur17 said:well I think that really only a TSS 'issue' and not on the NP topic originally raised. I don't see much point in further arguing about it here.
Em I still allowed to understand what additive versus non-additive means?rmur17 said:well I think that really only a TSS 'issue' and not on the NP topic originally raised. I don't see much point in further arguing about it here.
Sorry, no.SolarEnergy said:Em I still allowed to understand what additive versus non-additive means?
Yes .... and the example I posted ...frenchyge said:Sorry, no.
He means that if you take the TSS of the work segments + the TSS of the rest segments, that sum will not equal the TSS of the entire ride as a whole.
Actually, this statement is true not just for work and rest segments but for any combination of segments in a ride file. The segments are not additive as separate entities.frenchyge said:Sorry, no.
He means that if you take the TSS of the work segments + the TSS of the rest segments, that sum will not equal the TSS of the entire ride as a whole.
acoggan said:I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying, but maybe this will help clarify things: TSS is non-additive even when calculated manually, e.g., using Excel.
beerco said:If I use global IF (i.e. IF for the total ride) to calculate TSS for a single segment, the TSS is indeed additive (I did try with an example).
I understand the non-additive bit of the discussion ... but it did get me wondering (which I have been on and off since I read your and Hunter's book) about how you arrived at NP as being the 4th root of the average of the 4th powers of the ride segments ?acoggan said:Only at speeds << c.
Andy describes the derivation of the 4th power NP algorithm on page 9 of his original paper, "Training and Racing with a Power Meter." There used to be a link to the paper on the Midweek Club site, but I tested that link and it no longer works. I'll try to find a good link to that pdf file.fastcat said:I understand the non-additive bit of the discussion ... but it did get me wondering (which I have been on and off since I read your and Hunter's book) about how you arrived at NP as being the 4th root of the average of the 4th powers of the ride segments ?
Not that I have any issues with it, I'm just curious as to the rationale/background for using the 4th power.
Well I never go out to ride an "NP buster", just train and race. I always reckoned it was NMP that did the NP trick for me as my AC (IYRC from analysing my pursuit data) is/was a weakness - but we're working on that....acoggan said:...which is interesting, since you appear to possess the physical characteristics (i.e., decent neuromuscular power and anaerobic capacity) that seem to favor production of "NP buster" rides.
I don't see how this is a problem for the Performance Manager....doctorSpoc said:i think you may be missing JohnMeyers point.. he's saying that he feels these sub-Thresh NP variable intensity ride have over inflated NP values which get reflected in TSS which get reflected in ATL and CTL.. so if you are using the performance manager to gauge your training strain....
not going to spend too much time on this because as i stated in my post, i think that JohnMeyers' conclusion about NP being wildly inflated is wrong.. and you are probably right that in the larger scheme of things and using the performance manager to see relative trends (as i do myself and the way i think it should be used) even if it was off it wouldn't really make much difference...Alex Simmons said:I don't see how this is a problem for the Performance Manager....
Let's for one moment assume that for these type of rides the NP/TSS are inflated over what they should be.
If these rides are a regular part of training, then CTL etc will simply reflect that - but CTL is all relative to your own data and it is the relative patterns that we look for. How are we travelling compared to last season's CTL ceiling, is my CTL ramp rate optimal, or what taper worked best for that event? Since these "inflated" TSS values are included in the data regularly (remember - they are a regular part of training), then you are comparing apples with apples anyway.
If these rides are not a part of regular training then the difference between 'perceived TSS' and 'recorded TSS' for a few rides would be very small in the big scheme of things and unlikely to generate a perceptable influence on ATL/CTL numbers.
So, it can only be a Performance Manager problem if the NP/TSS from these type of rides was being calculated inconsistently. I don't think anyone has suggested that.
I'm not sure his argument could be addressed head on. His assertion for NP being inflated was based on RPE for a 3.5 hour ride, which included 73 minutes of off-the-bike rest, and almost 19% coasting, which he was then mentally comparing to the RPE of a hypothetical 2.25 hr steady ride at .86 IF. There never really was any argument against the validity of NP which could be objectively addressed.doctorSpoc said:BUT... if NP was really inflated, it's inflated.. i don't know how do you argue with that....
think that's what made him upset.. no one was addressing his arguement directly... just with indirect arguements to comments bordering on personal attacks instead of addressing his arguement head on.
I pointed out to him in post #39 that his RPE was probably affected by all the rest periods, but that didn't go anywhere. Beyond that, the next best thing I could think of was to point out that even if he were correct (that NP was inflated) for *that ride*, it didn't really make much difference in the grand scheme of things.doctorSpoc said:his observations are actually just what one would expect and some were saying they are wrong. if they weren't right then interval training would be useless.. it's just his analyis and conclusions that were wrong
RapDaddyo said:Andy describes the derivation of the 4th power NP algorithm on page 9 of his original paper, "Training and Racing with a Power Meter." There used to be a link to the paper on the Midweek Club site, but I tested that link and it no longer works. I'll try to find a good link to that pdf file.
Here you go http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/Power_Training_Chapter.pdf. But, on this version it's discussed on page 10.
i can see that you tried... but in post #34 he postulates, rightly that one of his assumptions may incorrect and he asks this..frenchyge said:I'm not sure his argument could be addressed head on.
Thanks - I had read most of that paper before - perhaps I 'speed read' that section previously !RapDaddyo said:Andy describes the derivation of the 4th power NP algorithm on page 9 of his original paper, "Training and Racing with a Power Meter." There used to be a link to the paper on the Midweek Club site, but I tested that link and it no longer works. I'll try to find a good link to that pdf file.
Here you go http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/Power_Training_Chapter.pdf. But, on this version it's discussed on page 10.
fastcat said:I understand the non-additive bit of the discussion ... but it did get me wondering (which I have been on and off since I read your and Hunter's book) about how you arrived at NP as being the 4th root of the average of the 4th powers of the ride segments ?
Not that I have any issues with it, I'm just curious as to the rationale/background for using the 4th power.
Mhm, I think Alex's and AC's advice/insight is the most valueable in this case, do the WO's in this manner and see if it's possible to achieve a higher CTL than with more normal WO's. If not, then the TSS ain't to high, if possible, then there might be something to investigate.JohnMeyers said:Has anyone looked at that other file that goofy "JohnMeyers" fellow posted as further evidence to his point?
Seriously though, this is all in good fun--a learning experience (hopefully) for everyone.
Tom Fort said:This reminded me of a question I had from way back when.
Andy-- you mention in the Power Training Chapter that when you derived the formula for TSS and IF, the best fit for the power/lactate relationship was an exponential function, and that a power function using an exponent of 3.9 was nearly as good. You then stated that the exponent was rounded to 4 for simplicity's sake.
I've often wondered if you "un-simplified" the math and used a 3.9th order function rather than a 4th order function (or even the best-fit exponential function), if the NP/TSS algorithms would be even better and there would be fewer NP-busters. How much difference might this make?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.