Sequencing Workouts/Intensity

I find this this exchange eerily similar. Does anyone else?

http://now.msn.com/entertainment/0319-funny-mph-video.aspx

TSS of 120 in an hour. I wonder how many times his tire turns over. I think you just need to whack it in half. ;-)

 

A hobby. You have a PhD in the field. You publish in the field. Your job is in the field. You present it as science. Now you make a claim of its only a "hobby." And use that as an excuse for your lack of integrity.

You a pathetic fraud.

 

... the canine equivalent of A.O.G.

 

Well, since his work period is only 30 min per hour, cutting it in half seems about right

 

Do you have the gumption to identify yourself?

Pretty gutless making such accusations using a pseudonym.

 

I agree, this is getting out of hand and bordering on a personal attack. It's one thing to disagree, but when you have to resort to name calling, one can only conclude that the strength of your argument is suspect....Somebody smart said that but I can't remember who.

DAL

 

I guess this is all way over your head, and you've dug yourself in such a deep hole with claims, all you can do now is just beat around the bush..........all too common with people like yourself

paul

 

I knew he would eventually pick and argument with people who'd kick his butt.

 

It's not about "kicking his butt" - we just want to see the impossible become possible...

 

I've just had a thought as to how he might find it easy to generate 120 TSS for an hour. If you use a Quarq, and stop when you get to the top of the hill after your minute on, it will go to null power pretty quickly. If you then freewheel back down the hill, without pedalling at all, it can stay at null power all the way down. I've had this happen myself and got a pretty whacky mean max power figure as a result, because WKO+ treats the period of null power as not having happened, so the next interval gets bolted straight onto the end of the one before. This wouldn't need to happen all that many times in the hour for it to dramatically inflate NP / TSS.

 

It is one thing for someone to be mistaken with information or with equipment, but since AOG has been on this forum the manner represented by him repeatedly has been intentionally disrespectful or belittling to others while boasting about his endeavors.

I am grateful that a number of folk (coaches and veterans of the sport) that could have simply kept quiet or ignored him did indeed call him out on false information. I hope people continue confronting the false information even if these discussions continue in a circle for many pages more.

If I post something false I hope someone points it to me because I want to learn and not act like a know it all. When I first started training with a PM a number of people seeing my data pointed out that I potentially had my FTP set too low. I appreciated the veterans of power pointing out the error. I am sure I am still making many errors and why I am here and lurking on wattage hoping to continue to learn.

 

I'm not sure that having a really poor FTP relative to what he can do for shorter durations is anything to boast about /img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

 

You get the same with Track Racing but it's not a real number.

 

That's not a problem with TSS per se, but rather how it (or more to the point, Normalised Power) is calculated by soft/hard ware.

 

What happens when you break those days up into separate files, with ride breaks being the file break points? (I tend not to of course for practical reasons, but I think that would likely change the daily total a bit)

 

1. No question, the impulse-response paradigm (which, as applied to modeling the relationship between training and performance, is inseparable from Banister) has some significant limitations, some of which are practical and some of which are related to the structure of the model itself (e.g., the prediction that you should stop training entirely when tapering for an important competition). I discussed many of these in my article; others can be found in the literature (e.g., the Fitz-Clarke paper does a good job of illustrating the implications of the time constants). Nonetheless, it is the most studied model, works rather well in laboratory-based studies, and has significantly advanced our understanding of how the body responds to training even if it has limited use outside the laboratory.

2. You are confusing the input function (e.g., TRIMP, TSS) with the structure of the model (e.g., Banister's impulse-response, my Performance Manager).

3. The reason that people keep asking you to post some data is because your claims are simply unbelievable, something that would be true even if I had never developed the normalized power algorithm. The only way forward in this discussion, then, is for you to prove that you're just making things up.

4. In fact, on the wattage list I've previously compared the use of TSS vs. total work as the input to the Performance Manager, and the former outperformed the latter for the case study I examined. Of course, that is entirely logical, since only TSS and not total work takes into consideration the intensity of training. It would be nice if somebody did a formal scientific study, but that's neither my interest nor my concern.

 

FWIW, I think this happens a lot these days, i.e., people blame the normalized power algorithm when in fact they should be blaming their hardware/software (and/or how they use it, e.g., downsampling the data stream by setting their PowerTap to record only every Nth data point).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by An old Guy .


A hobby. You have a PhD in the field. You publish in the field. Your job is in the field. You present it as science. Now you make a claim of its only a "hobby." And use that as an excuse for your lack of integrity.

You a pathetic fraud.





Indeed, my PhD is in exercise physiology, but my BS is in biology/chemistry and my MS is in human bioenergetics. Perhaps more to the point, I've never been particularly interested in the applied sports science end of things, as evidenced by the fact that the last research I did in which performance was an outcome variable was my dissertation, now almost 30 y ago. Even then, this project:

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/175638/Coggan_AR_Coyle_EF._Reversal_of_fatigue_during_prolonged_exercise_by_carbohydrate_infusion_or_ingestion._J_Appl_Physiol_1987_63_2388-2395

and this part of the review of literature:

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/177979/Coggan_AR._Plasma_glucose_metabolism_during_exercise_in_humans._Sports_Med_1991_11_102-124

were much more interesting to me than these other studies:

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/175645/Coggan_AR_Coyle_EF._Effect_of_carbohydrate_feedings_during_high-intensity_exercise._J_Appl_Physiol_1988_65_1703-1709

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/175648/Coggan_AR_Coyle_EF._Metabolism_and_performance_following_carbohydrate_ingestion_late_in_exercise._Med_Sci_Sports_Exerc_1989_21_59-65

or this part of the review of literature:

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/177997/Coggan_AR_Coyle_EF._Carbohydrate_ingestion_during_prolonged_exercise_effects_on_metabolism_and_performance._In_Holloszy_JO_ed._Exercise_and_Sports_Sciences_Reviews_Vol._19._Baltimore_Williams_and_Wilkins_1991_1-40

Studies such as this one:

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/177034/Coggan_AR_Raguso_CA_Gastaldelli_A_Williams_BD_Wolfe_RR._Regulation_of_glucose_production_during_exercise_at_80_of_VO2peak_in_untrained_humans._Am_J_Physiol_1997_273_E348-E354

are actually of much more interest to me, but living on soft money means that I've had to pursue more clinically-relevant lines of research for the past decade plus, which has led to papers such as this one:

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/177067/Coggan_AR_Kisrieva-Ware_Z_Dence_CS_Eisenbeis_P_Gropler_RJ_Herrero_P._Measurement_of_myocardial_fatty_acid_esterification_using_1-11C_palmitate_and_PET_Comparison_with_direct_measurements_of_myocardial_triglyceride_synthesis._J_Nucl_Cardiol_2009_16_562-570

or this one:

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/Papers/544112/McGill_JB_Peterson_LR_Herrero_MS_Saeed_IM_Recklein_C_Coggan_AR_DeMoss_AJ_Schechtman_KB_Dence_CS_Gropler_RJ._Potentiation_of_the_abnormalities_in_myocardial_metabolism_with_the_development_of_diabetes_in_women_with_obesity_and_insulin_resistance._J_Nucl_Cardiol_2011_18_421-429

neither one of which have anything to do with exercise at all. So, when you say that "your job is in the field", you are incorrect...as I tell people, while I might bleed exercise physiology if you cut me, the hat I wear at work these days is that of a metabolic physiologist/tracer "guru".

As for presenting any of my applied ideas as peer-reviewed science, you are once again barking up the wrong tree, as I have never done so. That is because I have never attempted to publish any of it in the scientific literature, nor am I interested in doing so, as this sideline is, indeed, just a hobby. The same is true of the wind tunnel I built in my basement and the brake testing I've done using it, either one of which would probably qualify as a senior honors project/master thesis if I were pursuing an engineering degree.

 

Freudian. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif

 

So if the windtunnel is in the basement - where's the hypobaric chamber?