NP viewable when riding...



I'm hoping one day I can start a thread that doesn't get hijacked by AOG.
 
Originally Posted by acoggan .


The problem is that no one can duplicate your rides, such that your claims have not been verified, but rather, debunked.
Produce a paper with claims about NP, TSS and all of those other terms, as well as proof of the claims. I am looking for something testable from your paper. You know how to do that stuff. You earn your living because of your ability to produce such work.

Than we can discuss if my experiment will disprove your results or not. If we agree on an experiment that will disprove your results, we can do the experiment.

---

It is disingenuous of you to suggest that no one can duplicate my ride without agreeing that is people could that it would disprove your claims.
 
Originally Posted by An old Guy .


Produce a paper with claims about NP, TSS and all of those other terms, as well as proof of the claims. I am looking for something testable from your paper. You know how to do that stuff. You earn your living because of your ability to produce such work.

Than we can discuss if my experiment will disprove your results or not. If we agree on an experiment that will disprove your results, we can do the experiment.

---

It is disingenuous of you to suggest that no one can duplicate my ride without agreeing that is people could that it would disprove your claims.
I'm sorry, I don't follow your "logic". 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.
 
Originally Posted by acoggan .


I'm sorry, I don't follow your "logic". 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.
Average power for the workouts is 75% and 80% of FTP. Seems to be an easy workout.

You make the claim the workouts, NP of 150% and 160% of FTP (I think these are the right percents I am unwilling to check), are impossible. If NP does not enter into your argument, what does?.

---

Your comments here are why you are a fraud. You have said NP much above 105% for an hour is impossible. And now you disavow that position.
 
Originally Posted by An old Guy .


Average power for the workouts is 75% and 80% of FTP. Seems to be an easy workout.

You make the claim the workouts, NP of 150% and 160% of FTP (I think these are the right percents I am unwilling to check), are impossible. If NP does not enter into your argument, what does?.

---

Your comments here are why you are a fraud. You have said NP much above 105% for an hour is impossible. And now you disavow that position.
Only because I enjoy a good debate, I don't think Andy said any such thing. The point he was making above about NP not being directly related, is that NP is the calculated result of your effort, a weighted average if you will where greater "credit" is given for time spent at higher efforts. An hour long workout at a steady 75% of FTP will provide an entirely different training result than will a workout of 1 minute intervals at 175% of FTP with 1 minute rest. Normalized power is simply the mathematical result. The fact that mathematically the average power for the workout is 75% of your FTP, is just math. Also, your workout, at 150 or 160% of FTP is not the same thing as a NP of 150% or 160%. 150% of FTP with the intervals results in a NP of 109%. In order for your interval workout to result in a NP of 150%, you intervals would have to be conducted at double your FTP. If you go back to the definition of FTP, it is the power you can maintain for 1 hour under highly motivated conditions, like race pace or an all out time trial. Any workout where your NP exceeds your FTP is a sure sign that your FTP is set too low. In fact, that is how most know it is time to repeat the FTP test, bump their training levels, etc.
 
Originally Posted by An old Guy .


I guess you will have to tolerate me.
So is this an admission that you are indeed the troll that many of us have thought?
 
Originally Posted by DAL1955 .

Only because I enjoy a good debate, I don't think Andy said any such thing. The point he was making above about NP not being directly related, is that NP is the calculated result of your effort, a weighted average if you will where greater "credit" is given for time spent at higher efforts. An hour long workout at a steady 75% of FTP will provide an entirely different training result than will a workout of 1 minute intervals at 175% of FTP with 1 minute rest. Normalized power is simply the mathematical result. The fact that mathematically the average power for the workout is 75% of your FTP, is just math. Also, your workout, at 150 or 160% of FTP is not the same thing as a NP of 150% or 160%. 150% of FTP with the intervals results in a NP of 109%. In order for your interval workout to result in a NP of 150%, you intervals would have to be conducted at double your FTP. If you go back to the definition of FTP, it is the power you can maintain for 1 hour under highly motivated conditions, like race pace or an all out time trial. Any workout where your NP exceeds your FTP is a sure sign that your FTP is set too low. In fact, that is how most know it is time to repeat the FTP test, bump their training levels, etc.
In post 24 above, aacogan says no one can even come close to doing the workout. He says that with no proof. Which is exactly what he has, no proof. Just his bully personality.

Since anyone can average 100% of FTP for an hour, any comments that averaging 75-80% for one hour is impossible needs proof. acoggan says that NP is not the cause for his comments. That makes your analysis wrong. It also makes any proof based on FTP and power meter data insufficient. acoggan is passing off a religion as science.

---

The problem with your analysis and acoggan's math is that it (or variations) are reasonable for heart rate data. If power output is not correlated to heart rate, your analysis and his math produce incorrect results.

It is not hard to decouple power output from heart rate. Short (45-60 seconds) moderate (150-160% FTP) intervals seem to do a very good job. I bet you could even do it.

---

I just got back from a 31 day vacation. No bicycle. Hawaii was nice.

31 days off and it is going to be difficult to get back into condition. Tried an easy 56 miles today. All sorts of digestive problems after 40 miles.

31 days off my bicycle was ok. 31 days off my bicycling diet seems to be a problem.
 
Originally Posted by Felt_Rider .

So is this an admission that you are indeed the troll that many of us have thought?
No. Just that you are not correct in your claim and that you need to tolerate your errors.
 
[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]"Since anyone can average 100% of FTP for an hour, any comments that averaging 75-80% for one hour is impossible needs proof. acoggan says that NP is not the cause for his comments. That makes your analysis wrong."[/COLOR]

I am not wrong in my analysis. If anyone could average 100% of their true FTP for an hour routinely, in training situations, then their FTP is set too low. If you can do this then yours is in fact set too low, which numerous people have pointed out in many different threads. I repeated the definition of FTP previously I'm not going to do it again. If you want to use a different definition for your own purposes, create your own training methodology and put it out there for the masses to critique. Your comments about heart rate are simply ridiculous. I can ride at 100% FTP and have a HR of 170, or of 135 depending on what I do with cadence. I know I am not unique. Too many things affect heart rate for it to be a reliable tool for advanced training. Muscle tension intervals would be a good example where you are creating high power at very moderate heart rates, similarly, high cadence efforts, will generate very high heart rates at very low to moderate power outputs. Implying that there is a universally definable relationship between power and heart rate just shows how little you really know.

DAL
 
Originally Posted by DAL1955 .

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]"Since anyone can average 100% of FTP for an hour, any comments that averaging 75-80% for one hour is impossible needs proof. acoggan says that NP is not the cause for his comments. That makes your analysis wrong."[/COLOR]

I am not wrong in my analysis. If anyone could average 100% of their true FTP for an hour routinely, in training situations, then their FTP is set too low. If you can do this then yours is in fact set too low, which numerous people have pointed out in many different threads. I repeated the definition of FTP previously I'm not going to do it again. If you want to use a different definition for your own purposes, create your own training methodology and put it out there for the masses to critique. Your comments about heart rate are simply ridiculous. I can ride at 100% FTP and have a HR of 170, or of 135 depending on what I do with cadence. I know I am not unique. Too many things affect heart rate for it to be a reliable tool for advanced training. Muscle tension intervals would be a good example where you are creating high power at very moderate heart rates, similarly, high cadence efforts, will generate very high heart rates at very low to moderate power outputs. Implying that there is a universally definable relationship between power and heart rate just shows how little you really know.

DAL
You are wrong because acoggan has said that NP is not the reason for his comments.

You seem to misunderstand my words. Perhaps it is my fault. I will try to use a few more words and not shout.

There is no claim that one can routinely average 100% of their true FTP. My only claim is that everyone can ride at 75-80% of FTP for an hour. acoggan makes the claim that no one can ride at 75-80% of FTP for an hour.

---

I don't your comment: "I can ride at 100% FTP and have a HR of 170, or of 135 depending on what I do with cadence," means that you can do a FTP test and end up with either a 170 or 135 heart rate. I think it means that if you put out a short effort at 100% FTP that your heart rate might only be 135 but increases the longer you hold your power level.

That is normal and indicates that heart rate is a better indicator of stress than power level. I am sure you can do repeats at 100% (or higher) of FTP where your repeats end when your heart rate reaches 170 and restarts when your heart rate falls to 130.

---

"Implying that there is a universally definable relationship between power and heart rate just shows how little you really know." I said just the opposite. I said that one can decouple power and heart rate.

You need to be very careful here. There are scientific data and papers that show "stress" is correlated to heart rate. The obvious implication of what you are saying is that "stress" is not correlated to power. That would make acoggan wrong and me right.
 
Originally Posted by An old Guy .
There is no claim that one can routinely average 100% of their true FTP. My only claim is that everyone can ride at 75-80% of FTP for an hour. acoggan makes the claim that no one can ride at 75-80% of FTP for an hour.
If you have sufficient motivation and fitness you can do 100% FTP for an hour on consecutive days for an hour...

I don't think that Andy has made the claim that " no one can ride at 75-80% of FTP for an hour."
 
An old Guy said:
You are wrong because acoggan has said that NP is not the reason for his comments. You seem to misunderstand my words. Perhaps it is my fault. I will try to use a few more words and not shout. There is no claim that one can routinely average 100% of their true FTP. My only claim is that everyone can ride at 75-80% of FTP for an hour. acoggan makes the claim that no one can ride at 75-80% of FTP for an hour. --- I don't your comment: "[COLOR=181818]I can ride at 100% FTP and have a HR of 170, or of 135 depending on what I do with cadence, [/COLOR][COLOR=181818]" means that you can do a FTP test and end up with either a 170 or 135 heart rate. I think it means that if you put out a short effort at 100% FTP that your heart rate might only be 135 [/COLOR] but increases the longer you hold your power level. That is normal and indicates that heart rate is a better indicator of stress than power level. I am sure you can do repeats at 100% (or higher) of FTP where your repeats end when your heart rate reaches 170 and restarts when your heart rate falls to 130. --- "[COLOR=181818]Implying that there is a universally definable relationship between power and heart rate just shows how little you really know." I said just the opposite. I said that one can decouple power and heart rate. [/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]You need to be very careful here. There are scientific data and papers that show "stress" is correlated to heart rate. The obvious implication of what you are saying is that "stress" is not [/COLOR] correlated to power. That would make acoggan wrong and me right.
Of course stress is related to heart rate, and training is one form of stress. However, the relationship between training stress and heart rate is dependent on the individual make up. Thus, there is not a universal relationship between heart rate and power. As an example, do an FTP test is a windless room at 90F and then again with fans. Your heart rate will be different because there was an additional stress, the heat that elevated your heart rate to a accomplish cooling. That additional stress or heart rate elevation had no relation to the power you were producing. Similarly, approach a ride all jacked up on caffeine. Your heart rate wil be elevated sitting still. What power are you producing then? The training stress concept takes all the "other factors" that influence heart rate out of the equation and produces a relationship purely dependent on the power you produce relative to your FTp and avoids confusion when you have other factors that affect your heart rate involved. DAL
 
Originally Posted by swampy1970 .


If you have sufficient motivation and fitness you can do 100% FTP for an hour on consecutive days for an hour...
While that is true, I did not make the claim. I was simply trying to stay on track. It turns out that FTP based on a 1 hour test is the power you can routinely do for an hour. That appears in Andy Coggan's Seven Deadly Sins paper. On the other hand in the same paper there is a test that says that NP for a one hour test is also FTP.

No need to say that one of the test methods is in error. (The purpose of FTP testing is to determine LT.) But that seems to be Andy Coggan's problem.

Originally Posted by swampy1970 .

I don't think that Andy has made the claim that " no one can ride at 75-80% of FTP for an hour."
Sure he did. I said I could do the ride listed above - 75-85% of FTP for an hour. He said no one could do the ride.
 
Originally Posted by DAL1955 .


Of course stress is related to heart rate, and training is one form of stress. However, the relationship between training stress and heart rate is dependent on the individual make up. Thus, there is not a universal relationship between heart rate and power. As an example, do an FTP test is a windless room at 90F and then again with fans. Your heart rate will be different because there was an additional stress, the heat that elevated your heart rate to a accomplish cooling. That additional stress or heart rate elevation had no relation to the power you were producing. Similarly, approach a ride all jacked up on caffeine. Your heart rate wil be elevated sitting still. What power are you producing then? The training stress concept takes all the "other factors" that influence heart rate out of the equation and produces a relationship purely dependent on the power you produce relative to your FTp and avoids confusion when you have other factors that affect your heart rate involved.
DAL
Suffice it to say that Andy Coggan in defining his power based stuff referenced a paper by Dr. Banister that would disagree with your comments.

Perhaps you could read Andy Coggan's paper on the Training Peaks site and then discuss your issues with Dr. Banister and Andy Coggan. And then post here so acoggan can disagree with Andy Coggan. (The two seem to disagree a lot.)
 
An old Guy said:
While that is true, I did not make the claim. I was simply trying to stay on track. It turns out that FTP based on a 1 hour test is the power you can routinely do for an hour. That appears in Andy Coggan's Seven Deadly Sins paper. On the other hand in the same paper there is a test that says that NP for a one hour test is also FTP. No need to say that one of the test methods is in error. (The purpose of FTP testing is to determine LT.) But that seems to be Andy Coggan's problem. Sure he did. I said I could do the ride listed above - 75-85% of FTP for an hour. He said no one could do the ride.
From the power 411 article, in order of increasing reliability A good estimate of your functional threshold power can often be obtained by simply uploading all of your training data into TrainingPeaks WKO+, and then examining the power frequency distribution found on your "Athlete Home Page". Because exercising above threshold power is quite strenuous and there is a limit to how long you can do so, there will often be a rather noticeable drop-off above this point in this graph. (This same approach works even better for identifying an individual's spontaneously-achieved maximal heart rate - thus reducing or even eliminating the need for formal testing!) Of course, this method works best if the time period being examined includes some high intensity training and/or racing, which serves to make the distinction between sub-threshold and supra-threshold efforts more distinct. Also, sometimes the drop-off in time spent above threshold power is more apparent when the width of each power "bin" is reduced from the default of 20 W to a smaller value, e.g., 5 or 10 W. TrainingPeaks WKO+ has been specifically designed to allow you to customize graphs, to make such analyses possible. Another way of estimating your threshold power without performing any formal testing is to simply evaluate the steady power that you can routinely produce in training during longer hard efforts, e.g., intervals or repeats aimed at raising LT, or during longer climbs. In TrainingPeaks WKO+, perhaps the easiest way of doing this is to add a horizontal grid line to a "stacked" graph of an appropriately-chosen workout (or race), and looking for places where your power is quasi-constant for some minutes at a time. You can then adjust the gridline up or down as needed to hone in on the best estimate of your threshold power. Perhaps an even more precise way of determining your threshold power, yet one which still doesn't require any formal testing, is to examine your normalized power during hard ~1 hour mass start races. Since TrainingPeaks WKO+ automatically calculates normalized power even if you haven't yet entered a value for your threshold power, using the program to first analyze several race files may be the quickest way to deriving a good estimate of your threshold power. Since by definition the best measure of performance is performance itself, the most direct estimate of your sustainable (threshold) power will be obtained by simply doing a ~1 hour TT. By examining the horizontal graph of the data from such a TT in TrainingPeaks WKO+ (perhaps with a little smoothing applied), you will be able to quickly tell whether your effort was well-paced, or if perhaps you started out too hard and then later faded, resulting in the average power somewhat underestimating your true threshold power. Finally, those who are more mathematically inclined may wish to perform formal testing to determine their "critical power" as described in the scientific literature. Briefly, this approach consists of plotting the total work performed (in joules) during a series of relatively short (i.e., between 3 and perhaps 30 min), all-out efforts against their duration (in seconds), then fitting a straight line to the data points. The slope of this line is critical power, which corresponds quite closely with functional threshold power determined using any of the previously-described methods.
 
Originally Posted by An old Guy .


Suffice it to say that Andy Coggan in defining his power based stuff referenced a paper by Dr. Banister that would disagree with your comments.

Perhaps you could read Andy Coggan's paper on the Training Peaks site and then discuss your issues with Dr. Banister and Andy Coggan. And then post here so acoggan can disagree with Andy Coggan. (The two seem to disagree a lot.)
You mean this one? http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/the-science-of-the-performance-manager.aspx

I don't have issues with Dr Bannister and I don't think he would disagree that many factors affect heart rate other than the imparted daily dose of training stress. He developed a model using what was available at the time, heart rate was easily measured, instantaneous power not so much. Bannisters TRIMPS model and Andy Coggan's model are similar in that they are both impulse/response models devised to simulate and predict athletic training and performance. They are however based on completely different interpretations of the input training impulse. The disadvantages of the earlier model are well documented in the article cited above. The fact remains that a model that utilizes a direct measurement of the work input will necessarily be more reliable with respect to that parameter than one which relies on an inferential relationship such as that between power and heart rate. Quite simply, too many factors affect heart rate and vary from day to day and as a result impart undesirable inaccuracy. If anything, the power based model may understate the training dose compared to a heart rate based model since the HR model will assume an elevated heart rate is the result of more strenuous training, when if fact the elevated heart rate may result because you were hung over, dehydrated or ill, where your power meter only measures what it sees. It doesn't care if you are tired, sick or inebriated.

To quote one source,

"The benefit of Banister’s system is that it takes into consideration the observation that higher workloads are more metabolically taxing (exponentially so, via the weighting factor) than lower workloads of equivalent duration (Bannister 1996). However, it is still dependent upon the measurement of heart rate, which is variable based on factors such as hydration, rest, illness, or cardiac drift. Furthermore, though HR is dependent upon workload, it may take minutes to stabilize when that workload changes. Because of these complicating factors, it would be preferable to measure work rate directly".

DAL
 

Similar threads