Moving Average Power



numminummi

New Member
Oct 12, 2010
75
0
0
Hi!

I've attached my power zones for the first race of the season. As you can see the time in the anaerobic and neuromuscular zones are very high because of the many jumps. From that it would be easy to conclude that it was a very high intensity workout. I do, however, remember that BikeScore/TSS uses some kind of moving average (26-30 sec as I think) to smooth out power output and to give a more 'real' picture of how the body actually respond to huge fluctuations in power.

Do you agree that this was not as much a L6/L7 workout as the time in zones suggest?

Is it possible to calculate the time in zones using ome kind of moving average as the TSS equation does?
 

numminummi

New Member
Oct 12, 2010
75
0
0
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

Unless your heart rate was also near max for the L6/L7 time your were never near L6/L7.
That's kind of the point why TSS uses a rolling average
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
18
0
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

Unless your heart rate was also near max for the L6/L7 time your were never near L6/L7.
My training levels are based on the average power for a specified effort/training session.* Ergo, heart rate is irrelevant.

*Note that this does not necessarily mean that a "time in level" analysis is valuable.
 

Alex Simmons

Active Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,471
40
38
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

Since TSS and bikescore have no basis, it is not as much L6/L7 as the numbers suggest. Mr. Coggan is a fraud for presenting TSS as science. A fraud for leading you and others to believe in his religion.

Unless your heart rate was also near max for the L6/L7 time your were never near L6/L7.

He is no fraud. But you are a gutless wonder.
 

numminummi

New Member
Oct 12, 2010
75
0
0
Originally Posted by acoggan .


*Note that this does not necessarily mean that a "time in level" analysis is valuable.

So, what is then the best way to get info on which systems/zones was primarily targeted during a race?

Thanks!
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
I am not a scientist so I will not get involved in the details of this debate, however I do have expertise in other venues . Please refrain from direct attacks on individuals as in character defamantion. Disagreeing with a post is acceptable but calling someone a fraud is not. Please try and keep the debates constructive and amiable.
 

An old Guy

Active Member
Feb 12, 2011
1,380
42
38
Originally Posted by acoggan .


My training levels are based on the average power for a specified effort/training session.* Ergo, heart rate is irrelevant.

*Note that this does not necessarily mean that a "time in level" analysis is valuable.
Since your training zones have the same names as the heart rate training zones, one is led to draw the conclusion that they correspond in training effect. Using science terms in a religion is more than deceitful.

But since neither you nor any one else has tested your religion about training with your power zones or more specifically with TSS, your religion is worthless.

Since you say your religion does not make predictions and cannot be tested, Your comments are worthless.

As a man of science you really need to get off of promoting your religion as science.


---

At least Dr. Bannister has had his theories about training with heart rate zones tested. His theory makes predictions about the outcomes. There are people who have tested his theory and shown it to be reasonable.
 

An old Guy

Active Member
Feb 12, 2011
1,380
42
38
Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .

He is no fraud. But you are a gutless wonder.
Do some science and show that TSS or training according to Mr. Coggan's zones has some real effect. Training with heart rate has some scientific basis. You need to decouple power from heart rate in your science to show it is not heart rate that is causing the effect.

I have told you how 2 ways to decouple TSS from heart rate. - Long rides at easy paces that put up 300TSS; Lots of short intervals that end before the heart rate gets above LT. Show me you get better by any measure doing those or similar.

---

On the other hand do intervals for 2 hours and show Mr. Coggan is wrong. He made the claim that no one can do 2 hours of intervals at any intensity. (It appears someone may have done this already. One of the posts on this site this week was by a guy with a FTP of 320 who was racing and spent a lot of time at L6/L7. His race was over 2 hours long. I don't have his data but it looks like 2 hours of intervals.)

Didn't see it? Didn't make the connection? Must not be much of a science person.
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,098
428
83
Originally Posted by An old Guy .


Quote: Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .

He is no fraud. But you are a gutless wonder.
Do some science and show that TSS or training according to Mr. Coggan's zones has some real effect. Training with heart rate has some scientific basis. You need to decouple power from heart rate in your science to show it is not heart rate that is causing the effect.

I have told you how 2 ways to decouple TSS from heart rate. - Long rides at easy paces that put up 300TSS; Lots of short intervals that end before the heart rate gets above LT. Show me you get better by any measure doing those or similar.

---

On the other hand do intervals for 2 hours and show Mr. Coggan is wrong. He made the claim that no one can do 2 hours of intervals at any intensity. (It appears someone may have done this already. One of the posts on this site this week was by a guy with a FTP of 320 who was racing and spent a lot of time at L6/L7. His race was over 2 hours long. I don't have his data but it looks like 2 hours of intervals.)

Didn't see it? Didn't make the connection? Must not be much of a science person.


You're right on one point there - you don't have the data.

Must not be a science person... LOL... and that coming from a person that seems to have failed basic math? 36 minutes "on" in an event over 2.5 hours long is way off your claims of several hours of efforts of equal periods of effort/rest.

Chop, chop ol' chap, get out there and amaze us all with your feets of wonderous interval escapades. Show us the impossible...
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Originally Posted by An old Guy .


While you are a moderator and have the right to do what moderators do, the facts show Mr. Coggan to be a fraud.

If I fire someone for drinking on the job I fire them for being a drunk. I fire them for drinking on the job. Point counter point can be applied without gerneralizations.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
jhuskey said:
If I fire someone for drinking on the job I fire them for being a drunk. I fire them for drinking on the job. Point counter point can be applied without gerneralizations.
That's right: do nothing. People can now throw around the fraud accusation ***** nilly, and all that will happen will be that a "moderator" will go "Tsk tsk." In fact, as the evidence has shown you can call someone a fraud without a single mote of evidence on this board. Not a single one. Brilliant. The mods really have things in hand.......:rolleyes:
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
18
0
Originally Posted by numminummi .



So, what is then the best way to get info on which systems/zones was primarily targeted during a race?

Thanks!

By use of tools such as normalized power and quadrant analysis.
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
18
0
Originally Posted by An old Guy .



1. Do some science and show that TSS or training according to Mr. Coggan's zones has some real effect. Training with heart rate has some scientific basis. You need to decouple power from heart rate in your science to show it is not heart rate that is causing the effect.

2. I have told you how 2 ways to decouple TSS from heart rate. - Long rides at easy paces that put up 300TSS; Lots of short intervals that end before the heart rate gets above LT. Show me you get better by any measure doing those or similar.

---

3. On the other hand do intervals for 2 hours and show Mr. Coggan is wrong. He made the claim that no one can do 2 hours of intervals at any intensity. (It appears someone may have done this already. One of the posts on this site this week was by a guy with a FTP of 320 who was racing and spent a lot of time at L6/L7. His race was over 2 hours long. I don't have his data but it looks like 2 hours of intervals.)

Didn't see it? Didn't make the connection? Must not be much of a science person.
1. Actually, training with heart rate has no more and no less scientific basis than training with power (or perceived exertion). That is, both approaches are based on generalizable knowlege re. the physiology of exercise, not on a significant body of directly-relevant literature.

2. You seem to have missed one of the key "take home" messages re. TSS/the Performance Manager approach is that the composition of training still matters. Of course, the same is true with respect to heart rate, i.e., since simply elevating your heart rate for prolonged periods of time isn't what leads to the physiological adaptations accounting for improvements in endurance performance ability, you still need to keep in mind training composition/specificity when quantifying training intensity load using heart rate (e.g., via TRIMP).

3. You seem to be confused: the OP accumulated 23% of their time at level 6 and above during their race...this is a far cry from what you have claimed to be capable of doing.
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
18
0
Originally Posted by An old Guy .


Since your training zones have the same names as the heart rate training zones, one is led to draw the conclusion that they correspond in training effect. Using science terms in a religion is more than deceitful.

But since neither you nor any one else has tested your religion about training with your power zones or more specifically with TSS, your religion is worthless.

Since you say your religion does not make predictions and cannot be tested, Your comments are worthless.

As a man of science you really need to get off of promoting your religion as science.


---

At least Dr. Bannister has had his theories about training with heart rate zones tested. His theory makes predictions about the outcomes. There are people who have tested his theory and shown it to be reasonable.

1. I have never defined training zones (or levels) based on heart rate.

2. My ideas lead to a number of predictions, many of which have, in fact, been tested.

For example, the normalized power concept implies that you shouldn't be able to generate an IF of >1.00 for ~1 h, with one corollary being that certain interval training prescriptions are impossible to perform. Both of these predictions have proved to be true, at least somewhere between "more often than not" and "practically all of the time". (It is hard to be more precise than that since quantitative data do not exist.)

The normalized power concept also implies that there should be a good correlation between your "threshold" power determined from your normalized power during an intense, highly variable effort and your blood lactate threshold, a prediction that has been shown to hold:



The TSS concept implies that there should be a significant relationship between TSS and total glycogen utilization, which has also proved to be true (see data posted previously to this thread).

A prediction of the Performance Manager concept is that people should performance better when their TSB is positive vs. negative, something else that has been shown to be true, at least on average (see the last couple of graphs in this presentation: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/media/68517/pmc_summit.pdf).

Etc., etc., etc.

3. Bannister also never defined training zones based on heart rate.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Originally Posted by alienator .


That's right: do nothing. People can now throw around the fraud accusation ***** nilly, and all that will happen will be that a "moderator" will go "Tsk tsk." In fact, as the evidence has shown you can call someone a fraud without a single mote of evidence on this board. Not a single one. Brilliant. The mods really have things in hand......./img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif

You are right we are to forgiving otherwise you would be banned already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyzackery

An old Guy

Active Member
Feb 12, 2011
1,380
42
38
Originally Posted by acoggan .


My training levels are based on the average power for a specified effort/training session.* Ergo, heart rate is irrelevant.

*Note that this does not necessarily mean that a "time in level" analysis is valuable.

The whole idea of measuring power while training is not all about you. Who said anything about your religion? It would help if you kept your religion out of science.

I gave an answer that was helpful. It required reference to heart rate.
 

An old Guy

Active Member
Feb 12, 2011
1,380
42
38
Originally Posted by acoggan .



1. I have never defined training zones (or levels) based on heart rate.

2. My ideas lead to a number of predictions, many of which have, in fact, been tested.

For example, the normalized power concept implies that you shouldn't be able to generate an IF of >1.00 for ~1 h, with one corollary being that certain interval training prescriptions are impossible to perform. Both of these predictions have proved to be true, at least somewhere between "more often than not" and "practically all of the time". (It is hard to be more precise than that since quantitative data do not exist.)

The normalized power concept also implies that there should be a good correlation between your "threshold" power determined from your normalized power during an intense, highly variable effort and your blood lactate threshold, a prediction that has been shown to hold:



The TSS concept implies that there should be a significant relationship between TSS and total glycogen utilization, which has also proved to be true (see data posted previously to this thread).

A prediction of the Performance Manager concept is that people should performance better when their TSB is positive vs. negative, something else that has been shown to be true, at least on average (see the last couple of graphs in this presentation: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/media/68517/pmc_summit.pdf).

Etc., etc., etc.

3. Bannister also never defined training zones based on heart rate.
1) Perhaps you should read more carefully. I said you used the same names for power training zones as those used for heart rate training zones.

2) You have previously said that TSS predicts nothing. And that no papers have been published that test any of its predictions.

I gave a series of intervals that anyone can do that show that IF of 1.20 is easy to maintain for an hour or two. (I guess that deals with normalized power also. I guess that gets rid of that LT relationship.)

I gave an example ( low effort Long time) that showed that glycogen depletion can be 40% (if I recall correctly) different than what TSS "predicts." At that time you disavowed the relationship between TSS and glycogen usage. Simple ride anyone can do.

You made a claim that 1500TSS/week for extended periods of time is impossible. I guess that is one of those "impossible intervals." You made it without proof. I suggested that for $10K/month many people here would prove you wrong. (I don't get paid to prove you wrong, but I am doing ever 1500TSS/week.) I don't know what the other intervals are, but perhaps you could post one and do some "science" to show it is impossible.

3) I used the phrase "heart rate zones" where Dr. Banister and those who tested his theories used "heart rate." Unimportant slip of the tongue.

----

When you write your comments, you should make them consistent with your prior comments. Otherwise you paint yourself as a fraud.

What confounds you is that power can be coupled to or uncoupled from heart rate. While heart rate may be used to make the predictions, you make for power. Your claims are only true when power and heart rate are coupled and you misrepresent the causal factor as power rather than heart rate.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
jhuskey said:
Quote: Originally Posted by alienator .


That's right: do nothing. People can now throw around the fraud accusation ***** nilly, and all that will happen will be that a "moderator" will go "Tsk tsk." In fact, as the evidence has shown you can call someone a fraud without a single mote of evidence on this board. Not a single one. Brilliant. The mods really have things in hand......./img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif


You are right we are to forgiving otherwise you would be banned already.
You show an interesting bias in your forgiveness. You'll notice that the massive weight of your admonition to AOG changed nothing. Very effective.
 

bubsy

New Member
Sep 5, 2004
193
0
0
Originally Posted by An old Guy . You made a claim that 1500TSS/week for extended periods of time is impossible. I guess that is one of those "impossible intervals." You made it without proof. I suggested that for $10K/month many people here would prove you wrong. (I don't get paid to prove you wrong, but I am doing ever 1500TSS/week.) I don't know what the other intervals are, but perhaps you could post one and do some "science" to show it is impossible..
1500TSS/week? me too, been doing this for months now and feeling ok so might start to wind things up a little before I taper off for the Tour,
what do you recommend 1600 - 1800 TSS/week for ~6wks then back off and start to peak?
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Originally Posted by alienator .


You show an interesting bias in your forgiveness. You'll notice that the massive weight of your admonition to AOG changed nothing. Very effective.

No bias, I am guesiing I am just a hell of lot busier than you in my business life. I also try and not shoot from the hip , otherwise myself and others here owe you absolutely nothing. Deal with it!