Sequencing Workouts/Intensity

You contradict yourself.

 

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

 

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

IF is a function of both Normalised and Functional Threshold Power.

Since there is no verified data of either number from AOG, then his claim is, well, bunkum.

 

Post some freakin data AOG /img/vbsmilies/smilies/mad.gif

 

Based on this comment, I'm wondering if your clear-cut lack of understanding is because you don't understand how normalized power (and by extension, TSS), is calculated.

 

FWIW, among my collection of NP busters the highest believable IF is 1.083.

 

I agree and it has worked well for me on managing weekly load. Or at least attempting to help me manage weekly load. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif

I guess for those like OG that believe Dr. Coggan and others mixed up a bunch of useless religious hocus pocus, the folks at Garmin and Cycleops are guilty for adding the magical TSS into the Joule and the Edge 800/500 so that we can now take a look at TSS during the training session. Since it is available I use my Garmin 800 and will gauge my ride based on the reported TSS. It seems to work well for what I want to achieve.

I know that when I do a ride that equates to something over ~320 TSS it will impact my following training days. This RIDE I watched the TSS during the ride and tried to keep my intensity lower to keep the TSS down some, but I still accumulated 383 TSS and as predicted based on past experience of the same stress load it impacted my following training days.

At this point I could careless if 10 more OG's popped up and went negative. It works for me in my little world. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif
Thanks to Garmin for adding it to the device.

 

First, thank you Dr Coggan for sharing your thoughts and experience regarding training stress/load and the adaptations that can result because of that. This information has helped many people begin better quantify how to structure a training plan that incorporates stressing specific energy systems and recovering from that stress. Though not exactly brand new, I believe the way they have been packaged and presented in this (and other) forum(s), plus the book has helped people process through what it means to quantify and target certain energy systems during a training cycle to attempt to meet a specific goal.

It seems reasonable to me that if one trains with a program (call it a paradigm if you'd like), sticks with it, sees results, and becomes motivated to work harder - that program has achieved it's goal. Science, religion, whatever....if it works for you then it works for you.

I imagine that AOG has played devil's advocate for many years in a serious effort to flip things on end and get under people's skin. He sits down to respond to these threads while chuckling and hatching an answer/response that ultimately is sure to rankle somebody. Careful selection of word and tone is poured into each reply so as best to maximize the groaning and irritation. I, for one, find it absolutely hilarious, as there can be no greater show of stubborness than his without obvious intent or lack of lucidity.

Thanks Andy for the idea sharing! Thanks AOG for making my morning cup of coffee enjoyable. I imagine I chuckle just as much upon reading your responses as you do in writing them.

T

 

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.

 

^ This sitcom is getting stale already. You've made your point - now you're simply belaboring.

The TOOLS provided by way of Dr. Coggan have no utility for YOU because you are old, don't race, and are not necessarily tracking your fitness for a particular purpose. As such, you are not obligated to believe and/or have faith in their usefulness to YOU. This makes it most convenient for you to continue in your current course. For many others, there is utility in the TOOLS, irrespective of the laser precision you seem to require for their usefulness to YOU.

Rudimentary example: I can use an adjustable crescent wrench to remove a nut - albeit not as precise as a socket wrench, but it will get the done more than adequately, especially if I don't have a socket wrench at my immediate disposal. Point taken? Yes? No?

TSS, TSB, NP, IF, ATL, CTL, etc... are TOOLS. I repeat: they are TOOLS. Arguably, the best tools available to perform the requested task they are called on to perform.

Lastly, you have presented no empirical data to support what you claim to be true, unlike your opposition.

 

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 shit and lack the ability or knowhow to wash your hands afterwards.

 

No sense in arguing with true believers. You appear to be one.

 

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.

---

I could provide my FTP test and my 120 TSS in 1 hour result. But you would find fault with that.

I could provide glycogen utilization data for the 1 hour hard ride and several hour easy ride with the same TSS. But Mr. Coggan objects. So that seems like the wrong test.

It is really hard to test against general processes. I am sure that there would be a mixed bag of results.

Find a test. Get Mr. Coggan and every one else to agree to accept the results.

 

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif Contradiction number (fill in the blank)?? Pal, you've been filibustering since the beginning of the thread. Suppose you forgot - that goes along with old age, I'm told.

I believe in the tools Dr. Coggan has provided - yep. Not emotionally invested in a particular position though, so you won't draw me into your quagmire. Sorry.

edit: Point not taken, apparently. And let me know when you can provide that socket wrench - I got a nut that needs loosening. LOL!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy .

I could provide my FTP test and my 120 TSS in 1 hour result. But you would find fault with that.



If it's actual data and not some hacked up stuff doctored in excel (or similar) then what reason would we have to object?

 

1) No, they are unbelievable based on actual data.

2) No, the glycogen utilization data were collected as part of studies performed (and published in the peer-reviewed literature) long before TSS was conceived.

3) On the contrary, only very rarely do I mention my terminal degree, and if I use words commonly found in the scientific literature that is simply because of my background. I have also never claimed that any of my ideas have been formally tested in experimental studies (although other scientists have been known to cite them anyway), and the reason(s) you are being asked to provide evidence to support your claims (not only by me, but by many others) is because they are contrary to what others have found. Or to quote Marcello Truzzi: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

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!

 

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.

As I said before one cannot prove that Mr. Coggan's methods are valid. One can only disprove them. I have disproven Mr. Coggan's TSS.

Your refusal to either accept my results or perform your own experiments as I outlined them indicate that TSS is a religion to you.

---

I am not going to address Dr. Banister's work. I am sure you are reading into it much more than he intended.

 

No, you have not. All you have provided are outlandish claims (e.g., that you can do 2-3 hours of short intervals at a very high intensity) and flawed thought experiments.

At least Kraig Willett had the guts (after several years of people badgering him) to post a screenshot of a workout he did that might (or might not, since the raw data weren't provided to verify matters) qualify as an "NP buster". (Not that a single exception - or even multiple exceptions - can disprove the conclusion that the normalized power algorithm is generally accurate to w/in ~5%.)

 

Just for posterity, here's what you claimed up-thread:

"My implementation gives 100TSS for 150%/0% intervals. And 120TSS for 160%/0% intervals. I can do those intervals for 2-3 hours."