Sequencing Workouts/Intensity
- Thread starter LT Intolerant
- Start date
Yeah, true, I only did a bit of university maths on orbital stage rockets and some astrophysics, was great prep for becoming a cycling coach
Rocket science would have been cool to do though.
I've always liked this item:
Speaking of rocket science... or thermonuclear weapons science, when is some weight weenie gonna build a bike from beryllium? McLaren/Illmore made F1 engine bits from the stuff a while back so it has to be time for a bike frame. Uber light and the prospect of power by fusion all in one frame... 100 million kelvins might require a little bit of a heat shield under the saddle though to prevent ones walnuts getting slightly roasted.
The reason for saying I can do 160%/0% intervals for an hour or more is to give you an experiment that will show you are wrong. I am not going to ask you to believe my power file. You can produce your own. After all we should all do our own scientific experiments.
As I understand this stuff:Originally Posted by acoggan .
Not true (on either point):
Both a 1 hour 100% FTP ride and a 2 hour 70% FTP ride yield 100 TSS.
Let's say that the first ride requires 100 units of energy. 66 units (66% of 100) are produced from glycogen. The the second ride requires 140 units (2*100) of energy. 47 units (33% of 140) are produced from glycogen. (How about that not Joules just unidentified units of energy. That is how people do science.) The 66% and 33% come from studies where glycogen and fat metabolism during exercise has been studied.
If TSS has any meaning then we would expect 66 to be near 47. The error (1-47/66) is about 30%. Seems to support my point that TSS is not what you claim.
---
You own me an apology. Not just for being abusive but for making me do the work you should have done when you came up with TSS. More importantly you should apologize to those you have misled for so long.
You are an unpleasant s o b.
You've piqued my interest Old Guy...
60 x 30 second sprints with 30 second rest. Post it up along with the raw data.
I know I couldn't do it, even when I was racing as a 1st Cat - even after 8+ weeks of the short "intervals from hell" training that we used to go through at the end of winter/early spring.
On another note, it never ceases to amaze me how much better I go after a long hard ride. This past weekend saw a nice 130mile fairly well paced effort in the hills and despite the legs feeling dead for a few days they were flying today. More of the same next weekend - same roads but with an extra 55miles and a 2500ft climb at the far turn. Engage afterburners the week after that one...
... but why does this happen?
60 x 30 second sprints with 30 second rest. Post it up along with the raw data.
I know I couldn't do it, even when I was racing as a 1st Cat - even after 8+ weeks of the short "intervals from hell" training that we used to go through at the end of winter/early spring.
On another note, it never ceases to amaze me how much better I go after a long hard ride. This past weekend saw a nice 130mile fairly well paced effort in the hills and despite the legs feeling dead for a few days they were flying today. More of the same next weekend - same roads but with an extra 55miles and a 2500ft climb at the far turn. Engage afterburners the week after that one...
... but why does this happen?
Quote: Originally Posted by swampy1970 .
60 x 30 second sprints with 30 second rest. Post it up along with the raw data.
I know I couldn't do it
+1, I certainly can't do that. 8x(1,1) with the on minutes at average 140% FTP and the off minutes at average 23% FTP is an absolute max effort for me, totally finished after the last rep. That's 15 mins at an NP of 113% FTP, so not surprising that I can't keep going any longer.
Phil Skiba's latest research on expenditure and reconstitution of W' is quite relevant to the question of whether anyone could keep that up for an hour or longer:
http://physfarm.com/new/?page_id=563
60 x 30 second sprints with 30 second rest. Post it up along with the raw data.
I know I couldn't do it
+1, I certainly can't do that. 8x(1,1) with the on minutes at average 140% FTP and the off minutes at average 23% FTP is an absolute max effort for me, totally finished after the last rep. That's 15 mins at an NP of 113% FTP, so not surprising that I can't keep going any longer.
Phil Skiba's latest research on expenditure and reconstitution of W' is quite relevant to the question of whether anyone could keep that up for an hour or longer:
http://physfarm.com/new/?page_id=563
Put up or shut up. You made the claim, now back it up with data.
You obfuscate because you can't do it.
You have clearly demonstrated in the above that you don't understand it.
1 hour at FTP = 100 TSS
2 hours at 70% of FTP = 98 TSS, so close enough.
A 1-hour ride ride at FTP will be nearly all fueled by glycogen metabolism. Refer to the fuel substrate utilisation chart below.
We'd TT typically at say 80-90% of VO2max, which gives a glycogen utilisation of around 90-100% of total energy metabolism but let's say 90-95%.
So, at FTP, 90-95% of energy demand would be met by glycogen metabolism.
Let's say 1 hour at 100% FTP = 1 unit of energy, of which 0.90 - 0.95 energy units are met by glycogen metabolism.
A steady paced ride at 70% of FTP for 2 hours = 2 hours x 0.7 = 1.4 units of energy
But glycogen utlilisation (as a ratio of glycogen to total fuel substrate utilisation) for such a ride would be in the 65-70% range, give or take depending on fitness. 60-70% of 1.4 = 0.84 - 0.98 units met by glycogen metabolism.
The fact that the amounts of glycogen metabolised for each ride are very similar is actually not that remarkable (it just demonstrates you haven't understood some basic exercise physiology).
What is remarkable is the correlation between TSS and glycogen utilisation for rides of quite different types - something that's actually been studied and published.
That's how people do science.
I quit reading at this point. Let me explain science to you.
Over the past couple weeks I have posted several experiments that disprove this TSS stuff. You might not like the experiments that I give. That is fine. My suggested experiments are persuasive to me. Fell free to alter them to suit your resources or to lead you toward more persuasive results.
I am sure that if you look at the figure you posted (I have a different data set I am working from) you could produce an experiment that had very high glycogen depletion according to TSS but had very low glycogen depletion according to your figure. Then you could do the experiment and see which is correct. (I would suggest you use 13C-NMR spectroscopy rather than biopsy.)
An experiment cannot prove a correct concept. It can only disprove an incorrect idea.
---
While you are at it, you might read about glycogen restoration. It appears some people have a nutrient schedule that produces a 50% recovery in 7 hours - 87% recovery by the start of the next day's work out. 99% (complete) after a single day off. It is really hard to deplete glycogen. Hard to keep it below 90%.
Any concept based on 42 or even 6 day TSS functions - CTL and ATL, is more likely due factors other than glycogen depletion.
All you have done is post comments. Even if you had posted some data it still would have likely been a comment with added data rather than "several experiments"
All we're asking is for you to verify that you can actually do 1 hour of 30 seconds at 150% FTP with 30 seconds coasting back down to the start point on your chosen hill. You claim that this is easy - we all claim that it is beyond difficult. If it is as easy as you claim, you'll have no problems whatsoever heading out to your favorite hill interval spot and tootling up the hill sixty times, because 30 seconds at 150% FTP is just a cakewalk and then posting the data when you get home...
Then again, if it's so easy, you'll likely need to get a few hours extra in on the way back home just to make the training session worthwhile.
You're actually in luck - the clocks go forward tonight so you'll have an extra hour rest and be able to surprise us all tommorrow and maybe even do the last 30 at 160% FTP.
That hole you are digging for yourself just keeps getting deeper.
Your middle name is "obfuscation".
Now post some data.
I made my claims. I supported them with mathematical models that are reasonably well accepted. I have set out experiments that you should be able to replicate. You can believe what you want.
(I think the time periods I gave were 1 minute not 30 seconds. But ... )
I believe that you can't do either the 30 seconds intervals or the 1 minute intervals at 150FTP with a rest period of the same duration, repeated for an hour. You can claim all you want with math models but at the end of the day you still need to be able to produce the effort on the bike.
Maybe instead of pounding out L3 rides for 4+ hours every day you could just do an hour of training. As you put it "An hour settles the whole matter."
I don't think you have the legs to back up your claims.
See, that's just the thing: nobody has been able to replicate your results. In real science, that is what often leads to accusations of fraud, etc.
As an example, see the comment by Booker at the end of this article:
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/spanish-veterinary-researcher-under-suspicion-of-creating-ghost-author-fabricating-data/
If I'm reading the 3rd paragraph right you say you "can do those intervals for 2-3 hours."
WOW! just Wow!
I bet it's the water from those magical fountains and waterfalls you drink from.
"And this one time..... at band camp"...... "I'll have what she's having"
We all need a little of what OG is having!
You seem to be confused on several fronts.
First, TSS was not designed to be a predictor of glycogen utilization - rather, it was designed to be a stress-based predictor of physiological strain. I only brought up glycogen utilization when you claimed that TSS wasn't predictive of anything.
Second, the time constants of 42 and 7 d for CTL and ATL, respectively, have nothing at all to do with glycogen metabolism.
You claim it measures glycogen depletion. I gave a link to your paper in a previous post. I don't have the desire to look up the link again as you no longer making the claim. As such TL and ATL are as defective as TSS.
---
If TSS predicts physiological strain, you should have some statement of that that we can test. I cannot find any such statement. I could only find your statement that TSS measures glycogen depletion. You made a statement about TSS not being related to performance recently. So I guess that performance based tests positive or negative are out.
---
I will try to help here.I have been unable to determine how the following 2 rides are similar with respect to TSS:
1hr; IF .90 (constant power 90% of FTP) with TSS of 81
1.92hr; IF .65 (constant power 65% of FTP) with a TSS of 81
(I would have made both rides 3 times as long, but I think this length shows the issues TSS has.)
The first ride is much harder than the second but you claim they produce the same predictions. (It is certainly hard for me to make the wording of your claims for TSS fit. But you get the idea.)
I don't think the people on this board have any interest in replicating my results. But their failure was in their ability to carry out the experiments not that the results were inconsistent with my claims.
But here is an experiment (copied from my above reply) that those who are interested should be able to perform.
1hr; IF .90 (constant power 90% of FTP) with TSS of 81
1.92hr; IF .65 (constant power 65% of FTP) with a TSS of 81
Perhaps you could share with us what they should be looking for.
Similar threads
