NP viewable when riding...
- Thread starter tomUK
- Start date
I make comments about acoggan and Andy Coggan. Both have made it clear that CTL and ATL are not derived from NP and IF. NP and IF are derived from some unnamed processes with 30 second half lives. CTL, and ATL are derived from unnamed processes with half lives measured in days. There is good scientific evidence that glycogen is restored in 24 hours - half life of restoration is under 7 hours. It is very hard to keep glycogen below 90%. So there is a big problem in using NP, IF, or daily TSS in the computation of ATL and CTL.
Dr. Bannister (sp) claimed a correlation between heart rate and glycogen depletion. There is experimental support for that claim. Despite the fact that power and heart rate are not correlated, Andy Coggan claimed a correlation and from that NP was born. There is no experimental support for that claim. Perhaps you know of some experimental support.
I never made a claim I could go much harder than FTP for an hour. I made the claim I could get NP well above 100% of FTP (average power 75-80% of FTP) by riding at an irregular pace for an hour. For most that would be proof the NP is invalid.
You might have missed acoggan's claim that NP, IF ... are just a hobby. With the implication that he can represent his hobby as science without the need to provide scientific proof on his part, but with the demand of scientific proof from those who disagree.
I sorry. I must have missed your question.
I have a PowerTap that I use on my trainer - 1980's Vitus on a Kirk Kinetic. I have a PowerTap I use on my road bike - cheap Motobecane; a replacement for my Orbea that was destroyed in a car/bicycle accident.
I have crank sets - 54,39 and 50,34. And cassettes from 16-30 to 11-23. I have 3 spare wheels (with tires and tubes), 10 spare tubes, 2 spare tires, 2 spare chains, spare bottom bracket and crank set.
I use Golden Cheetah (this produces "bike score" which for all purposes is the same as TSS) and Power Agent software.
I would suggest that you go into your nearest bike shop and tell them that they need to do what you ask of them without an expectation of payment. Maybe they will give you a bicycle. Maybe they will kick you out on your ass.
Let us know how it goes.
There are appropriate places to do advertising and self-promotion. If you want to place an ad for your services, I'm sure you could buy ad space on this website or anywhere else. But, I don't think the purpose of these forum threads is advertising and self-promotion. Take out an ad and stop contaminating these threads with your self-promotion.
[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]"I never made a claim I could go much harder than FTP for an hour. I made the claim I could get NP well above 100% of FTP (average power 75-80% of FTP) by riding at an irregular pace for an hour. For most that would be proof the NP is invalid."[/COLOR]
[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]Actually, this is what convinces me that you don't know what your real FTP is.....[/COLOR]
[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]Actually, this is what convinces me that you don't know what your real FTP is.....[/COLOR]
Well, let's examine this statement. You're saying that you can do a 1hr variable power ride that results in an NP significantly higher than your maximum 1hr constant power effort? First, I don't find that statement plausible because I have done many such experiments and I can't reproduce this claim. And, of course, this is not provable because you can rig the results to be anything you want. But, let's assume your statement is correct. Now, here's the part that has me rolling on the floor with laughter -- you say that for most that would be proof that NP is invalid. A sample size of one invalidates a well-formulated relationship based on the observed relationship between blood lactate and intensity of effort. AOG, you've got to get a job writing for one of the late-night comedy shows. This is too good -- as comedy./img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif
No one has said that, least of all Dr Coggan.
I consider this libelous, and offensive. Typical of a coward to do so under a pseudonym.
From Wikipedia: "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.." AOG is nothing more than this. He doesn't ride or own a power meter. Based on the number of posts of his that are truly incoherent, I believe he frequently drinks before posting. For a while there he provided some entertainment value but has become a bit repetitive. Carry on.
Just finished reading the entire thread. I am convinced that either AOG is just some loser troll, or a friend of Dr. Coggan that is used to fish out very useful information from Coggan and the other knowledgeable coaches on here.
Regardless, this thread has many solid gems of info. Thank you to those who posted in response to AOG (Dr. Coggan, Alex Simmons, Felt, RDO, etc.).
Regardless, this thread has many solid gems of info. Thank you to those who posted in response to AOG (Dr. Coggan, Alex Simmons, Felt, RDO, etc.).
I am not sure how I got added into that group of gurus, but thanks /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif
I agree and have thought the same on your theory at times. But I am leaning toward troll rather than friend.
Some of the stuff posted by AOG is so crazy how can a smart guy make up such craziness without having some intelligence shine through once in a while exposing the plot?
But if AOG leaves our community that bumps me back in to the number one spot as village idiot so I am hoping he sticks around. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif
I was asked to provide information. I told those who asked for it what it would cost. I suggested that they get the information from others. Yet they insist that I provide the information to them for free.
While I agree with you, it seems that Andy Coggan disagrees with you. My comments in the post you quoted seem to represent Andy Coggan's view.
---
"Derived" is perhaps the wrong word. There was no derivation, no scientific thought process, in the creation of CTL or ATL. Andy Coggan just proclaimed that there must be some process with a given half life and ...
You might find Andy Coggan's paragraph on the creation of these concepts worthwhile reading. At one time I posted a link. I have no interest in finding the link. But the paragraph was on the Training Peaks site last year.
AAARGH! Seriously if you don't know what a word means just don't use it. Derived is perfectly acceptable in the context I used it in.
As I said before, CTL and ATL are both functions of TSS, that is to say they are derived from TSS; TSS is derived from IF; IF is derived from NP...
This is simple math and definition, it is not debatable. You are free to use any metric you like to qualify/quantify your workouts, but to remark upon the validity of one which you have ZERO understanding is dishonest. To call Andy fraud is ironic and unethical.
I said perhaps because I would not use derived to describe the relationship. (I don't use the word "derived" in this context because I don't have a meaning for "derived" that fits this context.)
NP is based on glycogen usage. Glycogen recovery is +90% complete within 24 hours. NP is based on processes with a 30 second half life.
ATL and CTL are based on processes with half lives measured in days.
Anyone can write a formula for ATL or CTL in terms of NP. Showing that there is a valid connection is much more difficult.
I don't see a derivation.
---
ATL and CTL are simply moving weighted averages. They are most likely as accurate and useful as moving weighted averages of work done, heart beats during exercise, average speed, average power, average power while pedaling, average time riding.
I am sure if one used average miles most people would think that 250-500 miles a week was better than 50-100 for a racer training. Most might think if the average was above 1000 miles a week, a day off from time to time might be reasonable.
Just like ATL and CTL.
----
Seems my wife wants to vacation more. Looking forward at my calendar. I don't see how I could take a job that required 90 consecutive days of effort.
As usual, you have it wrong - NP is not based on glycogen usage - NP is not based on any process that has a half life of 30 sec. How quickly glycogen is replentished is completely irrelevant to the calculations. 30 sec is simply utilized to smooth out the variations inherent in the power meter. As Bannister determined, exercise intensity and blood lactate are related through a 4th order relationship, and thus it is reasonable to weight 30 average power pursuant to this relationship. Certainly you would agree that the higher your intensity, the greater the "stress" of that exercise, and the greater the adaptation from that stress will be. Given Bannister's relationship, which is largely uncontested and as AC has pointed out repeatedly, NP, IF, and TSS are indicative of glycogen utilization, but do not define or calculate glycogen utilization. In simple terms, this means that you likely utilized more glycogen if your IF was high than if it were low. It does not mean that an IF 20% higher than another utilizes 20% more glycogen. The CTL,ATL and TSB rolling averages are just that, simple rolling averages, with 42 and 7 day periods. AC and others advise that an individual should monitor their own performance and adjust these periods to those appropriate for the individual based on how they respond and recover to their own training program.
Finally, I don't know why you keep beating this issue to death. You say you have invested in 2 power meters and the software to utilize them and manage your training. If the methodology is so fraught with error, why do you bother? I said this before - train how you like, measure whatever is important and meaningful to you and stop trying to belittle an approach that works for thousands.
Andy Coggan has an article on the TrainingPeaks site. That article says that NP is best understood as glycogen utilization. Further he bases it on a 30 second half life of some undisclosed process. His words.
---
As for beating this issue. Andy Coggan makes the following comment about a one hour ride at 75-80% FTP.
"The only issue at hand is whether you can complete the workout you have described at the relative power outputs you have claimed (note that this has nothing directly to do with normalized power...that is, your claim would be equally questionable even if I'd never come up with the idea). No one else can even come close, so the onus is on you to prove that you can."
If you believe that you can ride for an hour at 100%FTP, tehn you should be beating on acoggan.
---
I use power a lot during training. But NP, TSS, CTL and what not are pure hokum.
Similar threads
