NP viewable when riding...
- Thread starter tomUK
- Start date
You seem to be confused. I have data that shows I can do what I claim. I did not say I had data acoggan would accept as proof that his claims are false.
Data has to be collected to ensure that there is no doubt that acoggan is wrong. That is going to require paying me or having someone else supply the data. I would rather have someone else supply the data.
Perhaps you should pay more attention.
Andy Coggan has made claims without proof.
I am willing to provide proof that his claims are false, but I expect to be paid for my effort. I would rather others provide the proof, and I have indicated how they could do so. This has caused acoggan to change Andy Coggan's claims.
If you want proof of Andy Coggan's claims, you should ask acoggan not me.
If you want me to prove something, you will need to put up money.
In other words, you have nothing. Coggan has been consistent in his statements and has provided references and support for his claims. He's also pointed out what are not actual claims of his. If you had proof, you would have it in hand, you'd offer it. I'm not sure why anyone should offer you money. It would be really simple for you to provide the data from past rides that proves what you've claimed, yet you still haven't done it. Given as much, there' no reason to believe any of your performance claims. Certainly there is no factual reason to believe such claims.An old Guy said:
I have to admit that when I first considered getting a power meter that it was a step in faith and not totally in science. There were too many cyclist expressing gains in performance in using a power meter and certain training principles and in almost every case the ultimate reference from the beginner to high level coaches was "Racing and Training with a Power Meter" in many discussions. What I read on forum discussions, in the book and other web related material all pointed to science based knowledge and yet to know nothing about it took a step of faith to purchase a rather expensive tool so in a sense for my start it was a putting faith in the testimonies of others. It also helped that these principles pointed by to others like Lydiard and then reading many pub med articles on metabolic adaptations, but it still was faith for me at the start.
Call that a religion if you want, but now that I have enough time using the principles and how the power meter is a tool guiding those particular principles have helped me progress even as a recreational level cyclist no one is going to be able to convince me otherwise. I will admit that I had the power meter for a full year before I really started applying the common training principles, but once I started training and analyzing the data even at the most basic level improvements started to occur. Once a person finds positive results how can one singular voice come here and convince me otherwise? How can a handful of skeptics come here and convince me otherwise? At this point I don't care even if Andy Coggan had a change of heart and tried to tell me it was all a hoax I am not going back now that I have seen results. How many others will step up and make the same claim that these tools and guidelines are helpful?
Training through the winter and spring months my FTP was climbing. I was using realtime TSS on the ride to gauge my training effort. I watched my CTL climb in the PMC and watched the other metrics in WKO+ and though I am still ignorant of how to read much of the data I can see it play out in a positive way.
So I go back to my question regardless of the continued discussion playing out here with one individual attempting to sound smart, do you think I will be convinced by any of those posts attempting to discredit these training guides, tools and the people giving this guidance? Do you think anyone else here is being convinced otherwise?
Call that a religion if you want, but now that I have enough time using the principles and how the power meter is a tool guiding those particular principles have helped me progress even as a recreational level cyclist no one is going to be able to convince me otherwise. I will admit that I had the power meter for a full year before I really started applying the common training principles, but once I started training and analyzing the data even at the most basic level improvements started to occur. Once a person finds positive results how can one singular voice come here and convince me otherwise? How can a handful of skeptics come here and convince me otherwise? At this point I don't care even if Andy Coggan had a change of heart and tried to tell me it was all a hoax I am not going back now that I have seen results. How many others will step up and make the same claim that these tools and guidelines are helpful?
Training through the winter and spring months my FTP was climbing. I was using realtime TSS on the ride to gauge my training effort. I watched my CTL climb in the PMC and watched the other metrics in WKO+ and though I am still ignorant of how to read much of the data I can see it play out in a positive way.
So I go back to my question regardless of the continued discussion playing out here with one individual attempting to sound smart, do you think I will be convinced by any of those posts attempting to discredit these training guides, tools and the people giving this guidance? Do you think anyone else here is being convinced otherwise?
I thought the matter was settled. acoggan said that the inability to do 300TSS/day was not a scientific claim but rather an opinion he had.
There is no need for me to provide proof of a claim that does not exist.
All I can say is that if you look at Andy Coggan's papers you will find that at one time he promoted both traininng using average power and normalized power. An examination of his writings at that time will show that power levels of those two different training plans (both based on FTP) were vastly different.
It is not NP, TSS, ATL, CTL that improve your ability. It is the hard work.
NP, TSS, ATL, CTL are poor measures of that work.
But if you look at yourself and see you cann not do 300TSS everyday for a month, you are not well trained. (You might not want to do that much work, but you should ba able to.)
If a person's opinion that someone is not well trained because they cannot repeat 300 TSS daily then so be it, but this goes back to my own personal reality. I don't care about your opinion of how well trained I am. My reality is that I cannot do back to back 300 TSS and I have not met anyone in my circle that can do this daily for a month.
This is like trusting in somone out of the world's population speaking up to say the law of gravity does not exist and based on what I have witnessed with throwing objects into the air and what I have witnessed by others clues me in enough that I am not going to test out the opinion by jumping off a building.
The only reality that matters to me is that I am personal witness that I cannot repeat 300 TSS back to back muchless for a month and I have not witnessed from anyone in my real world circle that can. People want to see your data for proof. Please point to an example from any world class athlete showing they did 300 TSS daily for 30 days. But then again you don't believe TSS has any validity so why are we even discussing this?
I use it as a guide. It is a fairly consistent guide. I know the results of a 350 TSS ride, which I have plenty displayed on my blog, typically requires me to take the next day off. 9 times out of 10 in my experience. A 300 TSS ride and 9 times out of 10 I can get away with a 250 TSS the following day. After that I need a day of true recovery. That is my reality and your opinion then means very little to me.
Just like comments on the other thread that people need "x" hours / miles to be a Cat something racer.
If a Cat-2 is winning races with as little as 10 hours a week and that is a reality, than what is the value of my opinion to say that it is impossible to be a successful Cat-2?
My opinion holds very little value to that person's reality
This is like trusting in somone out of the world's population speaking up to say the law of gravity does not exist and based on what I have witnessed with throwing objects into the air and what I have witnessed by others clues me in enough that I am not going to test out the opinion by jumping off a building.
The only reality that matters to me is that I am personal witness that I cannot repeat 300 TSS back to back muchless for a month and I have not witnessed from anyone in my real world circle that can. People want to see your data for proof. Please point to an example from any world class athlete showing they did 300 TSS daily for 30 days. But then again you don't believe TSS has any validity so why are we even discussing this?
I use it as a guide. It is a fairly consistent guide. I know the results of a 350 TSS ride, which I have plenty displayed on my blog, typically requires me to take the next day off. 9 times out of 10 in my experience. A 300 TSS ride and 9 times out of 10 I can get away with a 250 TSS the following day. After that I need a day of true recovery. That is my reality and your opinion then means very little to me.
Just like comments on the other thread that people need "x" hours / miles to be a Cat something racer.
If a Cat-2 is winning races with as little as 10 hours a week and that is a reality, than what is the value of my opinion to say that it is impossible to be a successful Cat-2?
My opinion holds very little value to that person's reality
You do understand that is more than anyone will do at the TDF right? Just show us your data that proves you can do it. Otherwise you are just some dillusional person that may or may not even ride a bike and is not even good at making BS up that is remotely believableAn old Guy said:
ding, ding, ding - we have a winner. The question I've been asking myself for quite some time now.
'Mr. Filibuster' will ride again, however...
just for giggles I plugged 300 TSS daily into a PMC Predictor spreadsheet with a starting CTL of 60.
By the end of 30 days one could be up to a 182 CTL. How many have heard of someone with a 182 CTL?
What off the chart CTL would you be the following month (or at the end of the race season) based on the assumption you continue month after month with a 300 TSS effort each day?
ah this is simple folks......as simple as a 400 watt conversation paced stroll up a hill with friends /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif
By the end of 30 days one could be up to a 182 CTL. How many have heard of someone with a 182 CTL?
What off the chart CTL would you be the following month (or at the end of the race season) based on the assumption you continue month after month with a 300 TSS effort each day?
ah this is simple folks......as simple as a 400 watt conversation paced stroll up a hill with friends /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif
A power meter is only a measuring tool, and since it is the only direct measurement of how much work you are doing when riding, It makes complete sense to utilize the data to measure what you are doing. What you do with the information and how you apply it to your training is up to you. What I have discovered after almost a year of collecting data from my power meter is the following:
1. If I ride for long periods of time at steady power output - riding long distances at steady power seems easier.
2. If I ride short hard intervals, hills or hill repeats - I develop more power and can do the above at higher steady power output
3. If I do 1 min max power intervals until I feel like vomiting - sometimes I vomit.
4. If I do more than one 20-30 minute interval at or near threshold - the last few minutes really suck.
5. If I do these things for too many weeks in a row - I feel really tired and have to take it easy for a few days.
The Coggan analytic method provide a framework for me to measure these training effects, compare how I feel my body is reacting to the training with the expectations of the training model judge the benefits of particular routines, and measure progress. In short, it is working for me.
I've come to the conclusion that AOG is a complete shill, someone working for Training Peaks, Saris, or one of the companies selling power products or cycling software. His purpose here is to keep discussion alive, discuss power application to cycling and build loyalty among those that train with power. I say, well done, sir!. On the other hand, he could just be a complete fake or at least a legend in his own mind.
1. If I ride for long periods of time at steady power output - riding long distances at steady power seems easier.
2. If I ride short hard intervals, hills or hill repeats - I develop more power and can do the above at higher steady power output
3. If I do 1 min max power intervals until I feel like vomiting - sometimes I vomit.
4. If I do more than one 20-30 minute interval at or near threshold - the last few minutes really suck.
5. If I do these things for too many weeks in a row - I feel really tired and have to take it easy for a few days.
The Coggan analytic method provide a framework for me to measure these training effects, compare how I feel my body is reacting to the training with the expectations of the training model judge the benefits of particular routines, and measure progress. In short, it is working for me.
I've come to the conclusion that AOG is a complete shill, someone working for Training Peaks, Saris, or one of the companies selling power products or cycling software. His purpose here is to keep discussion alive, discuss power application to cycling and build loyalty among those that train with power. I say, well done, sir!. On the other hand, he could just be a complete fake or at least a legend in his own mind.
It was a moment of weakness. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/redface.gif
I would like to blame it on it being Monday.
Because NP and TSS have no validity.
---
acoggan has said there is no "proof" that NP, TSS or the other terms he made up have have any validity. That is sufficient for me.
