You contradict yourself.Originally Posted by An old Guy .
My point was that my FTP was accurate. Yet I was able to accumulate 120 TSS points in an hour.
You contradict yourself.Originally Posted by An old Guy .
My point was that my FTP was accurate. Yet I was able to accumulate 120 TSS points in an hour.
An old Guy said:My point was that my FTP was accurate. Yet I was able to accumulate 120 TSS points in an hour. The problem is that TSS rates certain 80% FTP rides above a standard 100% FTP ride.
Â
You may or may not be able to do the 80% FTP ride I described, but with your background and a spreadsheet program you can do the math that shows that TSS has problems.
Â
Your two statements are mutually exclusive, by definition. Either you've intentionally misstated the TSS you accumulated, or your FTP is too low. Only one of your statements can be true. DALacoggan said:You contradict yourself.
Â
Originally Posted by DAL1955 .
Your two statements are mutually exclusive, by definition. Either you've intentionally misstated the TSS you accumulated, or your FTP is too low. Only one of your statements can be true.
DAL
Originally Posted by An old Guy .
3) Alternate 0% and 150% intervals for an hour yields a TSS of 120 or so. (The length of the intervals don't matter in the computation
Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .
They both can true if and only if AOG can prove he is capable of 1 hour of cycling with an IF of 1.095
Originally Posted by doctorSpoc .
that being said it's a very useful tool and works pretty well as long as you don't get too caught up with the specifics of the numbers too much, don't read too much into it and more look to it for trends and use it for what it's intended for.. managing training volume.. helps you decide "when to train next" ..the output of the power manager is TSB not CTL or ATL, but I know many people don't even look at TSB at all..
You seem to use a different set of glycogen usage percentages than I do. I have no problem with that. I think you can use your table of glycogen usage percentages to come up with an example that illustrates my point. (You might read the fine print under the figure. It is very important.)Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .
No you didn't. I've already demonstrated you misunderstood some basic physiology when making up your numbers:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/488594/sequencing-workouts-intensity/120#post_4027994
1) I am not obligated to provide data to refute a religion. The data and claims I have provided are unbelievable only to those who believe in your religion. I would provide better data but your religion appears to have no testable basis. You are obligated to collect data that supports your scientific claims.Originally Posted by acoggan .
1. You have never provided any data, only conjecture and unbelievable claims.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by "sampling bias" (a polarized sample?), but yes, it is a retrospective analysis of data collected for another purpose - I've never claimed it to be more than that.
3. I owe no one any apologies for sharing my ideas.
As a practising aethiest I don't think that we're discussing religion here. You've managed to turn this thread into a series of claims which you can't prove. At least I believe that Andy's claims for TSS, ATL, CTL etc etc come from observations from data that has been presented.Originally Posted by An old Guy .
You seem to use a different set of glycogen usage percentages than I do. I have no problem with that. I think you can use your table of glycogen usage percentages to come up with an example that illustrates my point. (You might read the fine print under the figure. It is very important.)
1) I am not obligated to provide data to refute a religion. The data and claims I have provided are unbelievable only to those who believe in your religion. I would provide better data but your religion appears to have no testable basis. You are obligated to collect data that supports your scientific claims.
2) Your samples come from a group who share your religion.
3) You have used your "Dr" title and a lot of scientific words to promote a religion. A religion for which you have said there is no scientific basis. A religion for which you did no testing. A religion for which you insist other support their objections with proof. You are a fraud.
No sense in arguing with true believers. You appear to be one.Originally Posted by tonyzackery .
^ This sitcom is getting stale already. You've made your point - now you're simply belaboring.
Lastly, you have presented no empirical data to support what you claim to be true, unlike your opposition.
Mr. Coggan has admitted that he has no data to support his religion. The only data is a coorelation to glycogen utilization which he disavows.Originally Posted by swampy1970 .
As a practising aethiest I don't think that we're discussing religion here. You've managed to turn this thread into a series of claims which you can't prove. At least I believe that Andy's claims for TSS, ATL, CTL etc etc come from observations from data that has been presented.
If you have a case that shows that TSS is incorrect or has flaws then post the data. Im sure that if there are a large number of people that can show that they have a threshold set pretty well correctly AND they can pull silly big TSS numbers that don't jibe with the current methodology of how TSS (along with NP and IF) are supposed to work....
... but if you won't post the data then there's not much of a discussion is there. It's almost like you just like slinging **** and lack the ability or knowhow to wash your hands afterwards.
Originally Posted by An old Guy .
No sense in arguing with true believers. You appear to be one.
1) No, they are unbelievable based on actual data.Originally Posted by An old Guy .
1) The data and claims I have provided are unbelievable only to those who believe in your religion.
2) Your samples come from a group who share your religion.
3) You have used your "Dr" title and a lot of scientific words to promote a religion. A religion for which you have said there is no scientific basis. A religion for which you did no testing. A religion for which you insist other support their objections with proof. You are a fraud.
you understand that Banister's impulse-response model... from which the Dr. Coggan's Performance Manager is based, HAS actually been scientifically verified? It absolutely works, and can accurately predict performance... but, it requires just too much constant user input to be useful as an everyday tool. The performance manager uses the same basic model, but just simplifies it, setting some variables to constants etc to make it more usable.. but the same underlying model/theory remains. this is why one can safely say that you can look to the performance manage for trends, and look at things in a relative sense, but not absolute.. it's not a religion.. it's a simplification of a theory that HAS actually been scientifically verified.. so as such it does have limitations and you need to understand how you can use it... but dismissing it out of hand shows that once AGAIN that you simply don't understand what the hell you are talking about.. i understand that you are just chomping at the and salivating for something to 'get' Dr. Coggan with.. but AGAIN your reading of this and conclusions are all wrong and shows YOUR ignorance and make YOU look rather foolish because it demonstrates ONCE AGAIN.. that you are clueless!Originally Posted by An old Guy .
Mr. Coggan has admitted that he has no data to support his religion. The only data is a coorelation to glycogen utilization which he disavows.
Mr. Coggan did ask why no one has put forth a better concept. I can explain that. His religion is untestable.
If you want data that shows TSS and those related concepts are defective, you need to tell me what I am testing, and tell me what results will prove to you that the religion is wrong. (That brings the religion into the relm of science.) Lacking that I have presented enough information that proves to me that Mr. Coggan is a fraud. And you can continue with whatever religion you want.
After stumbling on ride data that indicated that TSS was not valid - doing 120TSS in an easy hour. I spent some time verifying that TSS is not valid. I have given Mr. Coggan and everyone else here test data and simple methods to verify that TSS is not valid.Originally Posted by doctorSpoc .
you understand that Banister's impulse-response model... from which the Dr. Coggan's Performance Manager is based, HAS actually been scientifically verified? It absolutely works, and can accurately predict performance... but, it requires just too much constant user input to be useful as an everyday tool. The performance manager uses the same basic model, but just simplifies it, setting some variables to constants etc to make it more usable.. but the same underlying model/theory remains. this is why one can safely say that you can look to the performance manage for trends, and look at things in a relative sense, but not absolute.. it's not a religion.. it's a simplification of a theory that HAS actually been scientifically verified.. so as such it does have limitations and you need to understand how you can use it... but dismissing it out of hand shows that once AGAIN that you simply don't understand what the hell you are talking about.. i understand that you are just chomping at the and salivating for something to 'get' Dr. Coggan with.. but AGAIN your reading of this and conclusions are all wrong and shows YOUR ignorance and make YOU look rather foolish because it demonstrates ONCE AGAIN.. that you are clueless!
Originally Posted by An old Guy .
I have given Mr. Coggan and everyone else here test data and simple methods to verify that TSS is not valid.
Originally Posted by acoggan .
All you have provided are outlandish claims (e.g., that you can do 2-3 hours of short intervals at a very high intensity)
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.