NP viewable when riding...

[DAL1955]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


The whole sales pitch behind TSS, CLT, and ATL is that TSS is TSS regardless of the intensity. NP takes care of that. (For those who have never vistied the TrainingPeaks web site there is an interesting story about NP and TSS. It appears Hunter Allen asked Andy Coggan to come up with a "feature" that could be used to sell their power training plans and software. Andy Coggan came up with a "feature", NP and TSS, in either 2 hours or 2 days. Not important which. Andy Coggan is a shill for Training Peaks. You guys have been taken advantage of. The story was on the TrainingPeaks site at one time.)

---

You seem to miss the fellow from the 70's who did 230 miles a day for a year. 42 years old. No job. Just went out to set the record. Not exceptional. He was riding further each day than the guys who did the first Race Across America. He certainly was close in ability to the racers who rode across the country. I think his daily ride was at least trainning level if not racing level.

I don't know why you are so critical of my training program. You don't even know what it is. If I get paid to train at 75% on some scale, I ride at 75%. Currently I am trying to find out what acoggan wants me to do and how to pick up my pay check. (While I have been riding 4-5 hours in 100+ temperatures, I am cutting back to 2-3 hours. I don't get paid so there is no need to perform.)

In any case if those guys are exceptional. When I can do the 300TSS stuff, you will claim I must be exceptional. Nothing will be proven.

....is that TSS is TSS regardless of the intensity.... did you miss this part??

"While the Performance Manager is an extremely valuable tool for analyzing training on a macro scale, it is important to also consider things on a micro scale as well, i.e., the nature and demands of the individual training sessions that produce the daily TSS values. That is, the “composition” of training is just as important as the overall “dose”, and the usefulness and predictive ability of the Performance Manager obviously depends on the individual workouts being appropriately chosen and executed in light of the individual’s competition goals."

Finally, I'm not at all critical of your training... I am critical of your claims that fly in the face of the experience of the thousands who use the training software, who demonstrate the results through performance with things like world records and things like that. That and solely that is where my criticism is based.

 

[Alex Simmons]

People, trolls don't breathe too well without oxygen...

 

[ric_stern/RST]

was just about to make this point Alex. Everyone, count to 10, breathe, and learn to ignore the idiot. you all have better things to do, chat with a poster who is genuine, ride your bike, or perhaps even watch paint dry. it's more fun.

 

[swampy1970]

To race requires paying for a license and entrance fee. Training is optional. Most training plans include recovery days and recovery weeks - under 55% FTP average power. Under .75 IF. My objection to .75 IF was that it was a NEW requirement. (see post above for a history) --- While I accept your data as something you did, I am not sure that anyone would accept the same type of data as prrof that I can do 300 TTS/day for the required number of days. Just to clesar up a point here. Would you post your weekly totals that cever the 2 rides above? I am interested in the number of rides and your total TSS for the weeks. Might as well include the IF for each ride during the weeks.

The .75 IF wasn't a new requirement - it was just a point at which it was felt that anything under that intensity wasn't really training for racing. This was also the reason why I always used to give data from guys who were racing the Tour de France and not some of my own data - those guys being the best or the best should be ideal candidates for being able to handle endless amounts of 300+ TSS days, which it turns out is not the case. As for the other TSS totals for the weeks of the two rides that I gave they'd be pretty sparse - resting for a couple of days before hand and issues (back problems commencing a couple of hours after the 400km and nerve/numbness issues for a few weeks after the 600km) meant that training after those rides wasn't an option. As for the IF less that 0.1 - how do you manage that? I changed the batteries in my PowerTap hub and CPU, went for a little ride and also zero'd and stomp tested it - tottling around in 34x19 and some 34x32 on a flat road for 6 minutes just basically near zero effort yielded an IF about 0.15 from memory.

 

[DAL1955]

Swampy; I think the 0.10IF comes about if you calculate a 300 TSS day over 24 hours or something ridiculous like that...

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by DAL1955 .

Swampy; I think the 0.10IF comes about if you calculate a 300 TSS day over 24 hours or something ridiculous like that...

300 TSS over 24 hours of continuous riding would still require an IF of a little over 0.35.

 

[fluro2au]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


The whole sales pitch behind TSS, CLT, and ATL is that TSS is TSS regardless of the intensity. NP takes care of that. (For those who have never vistied the TrainingPeaks web site there is an interesting story about NP and TSS. It appears Hunter Allen asked Andy Coggan to come up with a "feature" that could be used to sell their power training plans and software. Andy Coggan came up with a "feature", NP and TSS, in either 2 hours or 2 days. Not important which. Andy Coggan is a shill for Training Peaks. You guys have been taken advantage of. The story was on the TrainingPeaks site at one time.)

---

You seem to miss the fellow from the 70's who did 230 miles a day for a year. 42 years old. No job. Just went out to set the record. Not exceptional. He was riding further each day than the guys who did the first Race Across America. He certainly was close in ability to the racers who rode across the country. I think his daily ride was at least trainning level if not racing level.

I don't know why you are so critical of my training program. You don't even know what it is. If I get paid to train at 75% on some scale, I ride at 75%. Currently I am trying to find out what acoggan wants me to do and how to pick up my pay check. (While I have been riding 4-5 hours in 100+ temperatures, I am cutting back to 2-3 hours. I don't get paid so there is no need to perform.)

In any case if those guys are exceptional. When I can do the 300TSS stuff, you will claim I must be exceptional. Nothing will be proven.


Wow AOG,

People give back to this sport and then there are people like you.....It's such a shame, that people like you have ended up attacking people that try and give back to the sport, improve the sport and so on......the one positive I have taken away from this thread is that AC is a good person doing the right thing for this sport (he certainly has the patience of a saint).....regardless of what you think.

His impact will have a lasting effect on cycling, yours will last as long as this thread keeps going..........Put that into perspective and reflect on that the next time you add to this discussion.

Paul

 

[bgoetz]

You quoted the entire thing including your post. I think from "wow" on should be unquoted. Nice post though and agreed, all AOG is doing is making Coggan look even better

 

[DAL1955]

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .



300 TSS over 24 hours of continuous riding would still require an IF of a little over 0.35.

I'm sure that is right, I was just guessing at what AOG was getting at with his 0.1IF comment.

 

[An old Guy]

Wow AOG,

People give back to this sport and then there are people like you.....It's such a shame, that people like you have ended up attacking people that try and give back to the sport, improve the sport and so on......the one positive I have taken away from this thread is that AC is a good person doing the right thing for this sport (he certainly has the patience of a saint).....regardless of what you think.

His impact will have a lasting effect on cycling, yours will last as long as this thread keeps going..........Put that into perspective and reflect on that the next time you add to this discussion.

Paul

----

I never attacked anyone. On the other hand acoggan has attacked me.

You might recall that acoggan has said that no amount of proof will prove his theory wrong. Yet he insists on me providing proof that his theory is wrong. I am not about to do that for nothing.

I am willing to provide proof as soon as he says what is to be proved and and what type of proof he wants.

But my time is worth something and I have been up front with the cost of providing proof. If you want to do a proof for less, feel free to do so.

 

[acoggan]

I never attacked anyone. On the other hand acoggan has attacked me.

You might recall that acoggan has said that no amount of proof will prove his theory wrong. Yet he insists on me providing proof that his theory is wrong.

You need to stop practicing revisionist history. That is what we have politicians for.

 

[swampy1970]

Wow AOG, People give back to this sport and then there are people like you.....It's such a shame, that people like you have ended up attacking people that try and give back to the sport, improve the sport and so on......the one positive I have taken away from this thread is that AC is a good person doing the right thing for this sport (he certainly has the patience of a saint).....regardless of what you think. His impact will have a lasting effect on cycling, yours will last as long as this thread keeps going..........Put that into perspective and reflect on that the next time you add to this discussion. Paul ---- I never attacked anyone. On the other hand acoggan has attacked me. You might recall that acoggan has said that no amount of proof will prove his theory wrong. Yet he insists on me providing proof that his theory is wrong. I am not about to do that for nothing. I am willing to provide proof as soon as he says what is to be proved and and what type of proof he wants. But my time is worth something and I have been up front with the cost of providing proof. If you want to do a proof for less, feel free to do so.

Your time might be worth something to yourself but it seems your rants have left others thinking that it's worthless. Instead of endless posts about how you think it works and how you can do intervals that everyone else says that are impossible, take time equal to what you've spent already and go out for two hours and during that time do the session you claim is possible 150% FTP on and an equal amount of time resting. Pick a time period for the interval - 1 or more minutes and use the same for the rest period. I predict your session will end a complete failure. Others seem to think so too... Enough people have enough of their own data to have an opinion on this one and the majority says that you're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .

I never attacked anyone. On the other hand acoggan has attacked me.

I would suggest calling someone a fraud without evidence of such is defamatory and constitutes a personal attack. Which is exactly what you have done on this forum.

And doing so pseudonymously is (in my opinion) cowardice.

 

[fluro2au]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


Wow AOG,

People give back to this sport and then there are people like you.....It's such a shame, that people like you have ended up attacking people that try and give back to the sport, improve the sport and so on......the one positive I have taken away from this thread is that AC is a good person doing the right thing for this sport (he certainly has the patience of a saint).....regardless of what you think.

His impact will have a lasting effect on cycling, yours will last as long as this thread keeps going..........Put that into perspective and reflect on that the next time you add to this discussion.

Paul

----

I never attacked anyone. On the other hand acoggan has attacked me.

You might recall that acoggan has said that no amount of proof will prove his theory wrong. Yet he insists on me providing proof that his theory is wrong. I am not about to do that for nothing.

I am willing to provide proof as soon as he says what is to be proved and and what type of proof he wants.

But my time is worth something and I have been up front with the cost of providing proof. If you want to do a proof for less, feel free to do so.

This is where you missing the point....There is no credibility in what you are suggesting...Whereas, there is plenty of available research, evidence, etc to support AC's views. Hence, why I have paid money to test his views (for example, his books)...I'd be more than happy to purchase further publications too. However, you need to have credibility to achieve this standard, which is something you don't have, nor are you willing to share any of your so called evidence in order to establish this baseline.

You keep banging on about having proof, but you not willing to share that proof without paymnt (to establish some credibility). All you are doing is promoting yourself as potential fraudster....That is what people do when they can't support their claims with proof and asking people to pay you for that so called proof is common tactic, followed closely by focusing on just trying to discredit those that are known and respected in their chosen fields.

But, like others have said, you in fact have brought out the best in AC, I've learnt alot more from what HE is provided FREELY throughut this thread and others......respect!

Keep up the good work AC.

Paul

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by fluro2au .


This is where you missing the point....There is no credibility in what you are suggesting...

Paul

Let's see here ...

acoggan said that racers train above .75 IF.

If I go out and train at .75 IF for 3 hours in the morning and at .75 IF for 3 hours in the afternoon, I get about 300TSS. Most importantly I am training like a racer.

On the other hand if I go out and train for 9 hours total - .75 IF for 3 hours; easy spinning for 3 hours; .75 IF for 3 hours, I also get about 300TSS. Important to note that my IF is now a good deal below .75. Most importantly I am NOT training like a racer.

 

[bgoetz]

How is 6hrs the same TSS as 6hrs of the same intensity + 3 more hours of easy spinning?

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by bgoetz .

How is 6hrs the same TSS as 6hrs of the same intensity + 3 more hours of easy spinning?

Stop supplying oxygen. A quick clean death is better for all concerned.
(metaphorically speaking)

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by bgoetz .

How is 6hrs the same TSS as 6hrs of the same intensity + 3 more hours of easy spinning?

Never said they were the same. I said both were about 300TSS.

The point was:

acoggan said that the 3 more hours of easy spinning made the 9 hours not a training ride.

 

[quenya]

The heck you didn't!

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


Let's see here ...

acoggan said that racers train above .75 IF.

If I go out and train at .75 IF for 3 hours in the morning and at .75 IF for 3 hours in the afternoon, I get about 300TSS. Most importantly I am training like a racer.

On the other hand if I go out and train for 9 hours total - .75 IF for 3 hours; easy spinning for 3 hours; .75 IF for 3 hours, I also get about 300TSS. Important to note that my IF is now a good deal below .75. Most importantly I am NOT training like a racer.

See the bold statements above.

On the topic of NP being viewable while riding; on my Joule 2.0 display I have NP showing and use it all the time as a sort of carrot for endurance, tempo/SST, and longer TT rides/intervals. At a recent circuit race, really a long 4 corner crit which was on a slope so that the long straights were about 4% grades down after turn 1 and up after turn 3; I noticed my NP was 358 watts after the first lap, this wasn't really 'NP' since laps were only about 6 minutes but as we went up that climb 2 more times pushing a pretty hard pace, well in excess of my FTP of about 290, I began to wonder if I was fit enough to handle the pace for 50 minutes. Not surprisingly the pace settled a bit and I found myself riding well. So well that I bridged to a solo rider off the front which got brought back, was able to move up at will on the climb, and later attacked on the climb before the bell getting a good gap and blowing up spectacularly on the last climb setting up a counter attack by a teammate who snagged 5th.

So all of these hard efforts up the hill freewheeling down it intervals which left me perfectly taxed at a bit over 50 minutes were good for about 300 watts NP and and an IF of 1.03. Which, while not exactly AOG's suggested (dis)proof of concept experiment, seems to support Andy's metrics. It turns out that even with significant time at zero or very easy (39%) I was able to put out an NP very close to my well established FTP and not significantly more!

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by quenya .

The heck you didn't!
See the bold statements above.

I guess the problem we have is that 3 hours of easy spinning for you produces a signifcant amount of TSS while for me it does not.

---

My power meter records power and heart rate. Since you did not post your heart rate data or average power, it appears you may have done the experiment improperly.