Sequencing Workouts/Intensity

[doctorSpoc]

has AOG ever even stated what his actual FTP is? don't think I've ever seen that... what's your FTP AOG? ...do I hear crickets? ..what's your weight and height AOG? crickets... where's your file showing one of your impossible workouts AOG.. crickets again... not too swift and pretty full of it, but smart enough to not reveal the info that could show unequivocally just how full of it he is..

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by doctorSpoc .

has AOG ever even stated what his actual FTP is? don't think I've ever seen that... what's your FTP AOG? ...do I hear crickets? ..what's your weight and height AOG? crickets... where's your file showing one of your impossible workouts AOG.. crickets again... not too swift and pretty full of it, but smart enough to not reveal the info that could show unequivocally just how full of it he is..

I have given my FTP. No secret about it. I am a bit over weight. Maybe 8 pounds. But since I am old it aids in recovery if a hoispital stay is required.

But FTP is not a big deal. I recover from efforts quickly - from max heart rate to recovery heart rate in 60 seconds most of the time. I know what effort I can do from a given heart rate until I reach my max.

In any case I don't chase high FTP numbers. Some would say I underestimate my FTP by 50w, but that seems unlikely.

---

If you want to discuss the false doctorine of that fake Dr. Coggan, you will have to supply the supporting science for it. I don't think it is fruitful to discuss a religion that neither you nor its founder has the ability to state its foundation.

 

[fluro2au]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .



I have given my FTP. No secret about it. I am a bit over weight. Maybe 8 pounds. But since I am old it aids in recovery if a hoispital stay is required.

But FTP is not a big deal. I recover from efforts quickly - from max heart rate to recovery heart rate in 60 seconds most of the time. I know what effort I can do from a given heart rate until I reach my max.

In any case I don't chase high FTP numbers. Some would say I underestimate my FTP by 50w, but that seems unlikely.

---

If you want to discuss the false doctorine of that fake Dr. Coggan, you will have to supply the supporting science for it. I don't think it is fruitful to discuss a religion that neither you nor its founder has the ability to state its foundation.

G'day TOG,

So what is your FTP?

I'm keen to know as I'm quite new to power and have been curious to know what sort of numbers people throw out?

Not sure how to search or where I could possibly find your FTP number

Paul

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by fluro2au .


G'day TOG,

So what is your FTP?

I'm keen to know as I'm quite new to power and have been curious to know what sort of numbers people throw out?

Not sure how to search or where I could possibly find your FTP number

Paul

I don't ride with you so my FPT should not be important to you. Some people here report FPT well above 300. When I was young, mine was well above 300.

 

[fluro2au]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


I don't ride with you so my FPT should not be important to you. Some people here report FPT well above 300. When I was young, mine was well above 300.

So what is your FTP then?

Paul

 

[Felt_Rider]

......plus OG when you say when you was young it was above 300? What year was that?
You mention on a different thread that your stronger days most were using toe clips. Was talk about Functional Threshold a big topic back in the toe clip era?

Something about that time line isn't quite adding up, but then again most of what I have seen written from OG doesn't add up.

 

[hrumpole]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .




I did a 1 hour ride that had a 120 TSS. While most people would feel that is a hard ride, it was not. At the end of a 1 hour FTP test my heart rate is at its max (184), my breathing is ragged, and it is a struggle to hold my power output. But for this ride my my heart rate never got above 164, my breathing was never difficult, my power at the end was close to my power at the start. In fact, I was able to talk for the entire ride.

And now I think, we finally have all of the ******** in one shovel--it's like saying you have a four-foot yardstick. Since it's a rolling average, not sure what the effect would be vis a vis FTP measurement (e.g., would it actually be 20 percent high?).

So here's a thought: whatever your FTP is, raise it 20 percent. Then do 60x1 at 150 or whatever it is you claim can be done. Then post a file. I think we should start a pool as to when the drop off starts.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider .

......plus OG when you say when you was young it was above 300? What year was that?
You mention on a different thread that your stronger days most were using toe clips. Was talk about Functional Threshold a big topic back in the toe clip era?

Something about that time line isn't quite adding up, but then again most of what I have seen written from OG doesn't add up.

1 hour climb. Compute the average power from the vertical feet of climb. Not quite rocket science.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .



I have given my FTP. No secret about it. I am a bit over weight. Maybe 8 pounds. But since I am old it aids in recovery if a hoispital stay is required.

But FTP is not a big deal. I recover from efforts quickly - from max heart rate to recovery heart rate in 60 seconds most of the time. I know what effort I can do from a given heart rate until I reach my max.

In any case I don't chase high FTP numbers. Some would say I underestimate my FTP by 50w, but that seems unlikely.

---

If you want to discuss the false doctorine of that fake Dr. Coggan, you will have to supply the supporting science for it. I don't think it is fruitful to discuss a religion that neither you nor its founder has the ability to state its foundation.

"I have given my FTP. No secret about it."

...so what is your FTP then? you say it's no secret... so why can't/don't you reveal what it is? same with your weight.. what's the big deal?


given the battles I've had with Dr. Coggan on this very forum it's kind of hilarious to hear someone think of me as one of his acolytes or something.. lol.. a few years ago it was all the vogue to dismiss people for using faith based vs.. science based belief systems.. until I pointed out that the performance manager model has never been scientifically verified and as such was essentially a faith based system as well.. that was something like 3-4years ago.. so I think you are a little late in discovering that.. lol... 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..

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by hrumpole .



And now I think, we finally have all of the ******** in one shovel--it's like saying you have a four-foot yardstick. Since it's a rolling average, not sure what the effect would be vis a vis FTP measurement (e.g., would it actually be 20 percent high?).

So here's a thought: whatever your FTP is, raise it 20 percent. Then do 60x1 at 150 or whatever it is you claim can be done. Then post a file. I think we should start a pool as to when the drop off starts.

Your problem is that you assume that TSS is correct. My data shows TSS is not correct.

When I do a FTP test, I hold the same power (+/- 10w) from 30 seconds in the test until the finish. My heart rate rises quickly to 75% of max. Then my heart rate increase slows to a leisurely pace. Reaching max within a couple minutes of the end. At that point it is very difficult to maintain my power out.

Your suggestion of falsifying my FTP to make TSS work for this instance, seems wrong..

---

If you want me to do more formal tests and publish the results, you will need to get a statement of what TSS measures. I have been unable to get such a statement. The only statements Mr. Coggan seems to make are: 1) that it measures glycogen depletion and 2) that it does not measure glycogen depletion.

Somehow CTL and ATL which are defined in terms of TSS and nothing else magically measure something. Perhaps you could provide sufficient information to test those also.

As I said before you are practicing a religion. Your attempts to apply science to it require you provide the scientific basis for your religion.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by doctorSpoc .



"I have given my FTP. No secret about it."

...so what is your FTP then? you say it's no secret... so why can't/don't you reveal what it is? same with your weight.. what's the big deal?


given the battles I've had with Dr. Coggan on this very forum it's kind of hilarious to hear someone think of me as one of his acolytes or something.. lol.. a few years ago it was all the vogue to dismiss people for using faith based vs.. science based belief systems.. until I pointed out that the performance manager model has never been scientifically verified and as such was essentially a faith based system as well.. that was something like 3-4years ago.. so I think you are a little late in discovering that.. lol... 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..

At least we agree that it is all religion. I see you are a acolyte of a related religion. So be it.

I ride with my power meter. I can tell by looking at the average power if I am doing well or not. When I get home I look and see what my 10 best 10 minute intervals are. I can tell if I did well or not. Looking at my average power for several weeks, I can tell how I am progressing. But I am not preaching.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


At least we agree that it is all religion. I see you are a acolyte of a related religion. So be it.

I ride with my power meter. I can tell by looking at the average power if I am doing well or not. When I get home I look and see what my 10 best 10 minute intervals are. I can tell if I did well or not. Looking at my average power for several weeks, I can tell how I am progressing. But I am not preaching.

so in the past year, what are you best 10min and 20min intervals? if you operate as you say, it should take you literally seconds to find out, if you don't already know off the top of your head.

 

[DAL1955]

Your problem is that you assume that TSS is correct. My data shows TSS is not correct.

When I do a FTP test, I hold the same power (+/- 10w) from 30 seconds in the test until the finish. My heart rate rises quickly to 75% of max. Then my heart rate increase slows to a leisurely pace. Reaching max within a couple minutes of the end. At that point it is very difficult to maintain my power out.

I think you are missing the point... TSS is not a measurement of anything, any more term "hard" a measurement of anything. It is an attempt to quantify "hard" or "easy" with workout quantifiers that are not individual specific. My easy might be your hard or vice versa. TSS does nothing more than attempt to categorize workouts with a scale that is universal. If you have your FTP set correctly, your 80 TSS ride will compare relatively well to my 80 TSS ride in terms of the training adaptations made as a result of that effort.

Now, FTP is defined as the result of a specific test protocol which results in a measured result known as FTP. TSS is an arbitrary term defined as 100 TSS = a 1 hour effort at your individual FTP power. Thus, if your FTP is correctly determined, it is impossible to have a 1 hour ride accumulate 120 TSS points since by definition, FTP is the max power you can sustain for 1 hour. 120 points means you rode above your previously determined FTP for 1 hour, thus, that would be your new FTP, and you would have accumulated 100 TSS, not 120.

I am not an acolyte of Dr Coggin or anyone else, I am however an engineer with a reasonably good understanding of science, power, work and related concepts.

DAL

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .

that fake Dr. Coggan

Darn, you've outed me! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/CurriculumVitae

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


If you want me to do more formal tests and publish the results, you will need to get a statement of what TSS measures. I have been unable to get such a statement. The only statements Mr. Coggan seems to make are: 1) that it measures glycogen depletion and 2) that it does not measure glycogen depletion.

Again, you misunderstand (or you are deliberately obfuscating). To repeat myself: TSS is an attempt to quantify - with a single number derived from power data - the global physiological strain resulting from the interaction of the intensity and duration of exercise. As such, it would be expected to be predictive of not only muscle glycogen utilization, but also other markers of overall physiological strain, e.g., liver glycogen utilization or total carbohydrate oxidation during exercise, or post-exercise urinary catecholamine and/or cortisol excretion. However, it was not designed to predict any of these things specifically, and with the exception of muscle glycogen utilization, these remain untested hypotheses.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by acoggan .


Again, you misunderstand (or you are deliberately obfuscating). To repeat myself: TSS is an attempt to quantify - with a single number derived from power data - the global physiological strain resulting from the interaction of the intensity and duration of exercise. As such, it would be expected to be predictive of not only muscle glycogen utilization, but also other markers of overall physiological strain, e.g., liver glycogen utilization or total carbohydrate oxidation during exercise, or post-exercise urinary catecholamine and/or cortisol excretion. However, it was not designed to predict any of these things specifically, and with the exception of muscle glycogen utilization, these remain untested hypotheses.

Predictions are the way one tests a scientific theory. I have shown that TSS does not predict glycogen utilization by comparing high intensity short duration rides to low intensity long duration rides with the same TSS. You did make a claim of correlation between the TSS and glycogen utilization, but the correlation is due to sampling bias more than anything else.

We agree you have tested nothing else. It is not even clear what you would test. Yet you continue to make claims.

You have a religion not a scientific result.

You owe people an apology.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by DAL1955 .


I think you are missing the point... TSS is not a measurement of anything, any more term "hard" a measurement of anything. It is an attempt to quantify "hard" or "easy" with workout quantifiers that are not individual specific. My easy might be your hard or vice versa. TSS does nothing more than attempt to categorize workouts with a scale that is universal. If you have your FTP set correctly, your 80 TSS ride will compare relatively well to my 80 TSS ride in terms of the training adaptations made as a result of that effort.

Now, FTP is defined as the result of a specific test protocol which results in a measured result known as FTP. TSS is an arbitrary term defined as 100 TSS = a 1 hour effort at your individual FTP power. Thus, if your FTP is correctly determined, it is impossible to have a 1 hour ride accumulate 120 TSS points since by definition, FTP is the max power you can sustain for 1 hour. 120 points means you rode above your previously determined FTP for 1 hour, thus, that would be your new FTP, and you would have accumulated 100 TSS, not 120.

I am not an acolyte of Dr Coggin or anyone else, I am however an engineer with a reasonably good understanding of science, power, work and related concepts.

DAL

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.

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.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


Predictions are the way one tests a scientific theory. I have shown that TSS does not predict glycogen utilization by comparing high intensity short duration rides to low intensity long duration rides with the same TSS.

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

 

[swampy1970]

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.
 
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.
 

Post the data for the ride where you "accumulated" 120 TSS point in an hour. I'd really like to see that. In the meantime I'm off to finalize my working model of the Spartacus perpetual motion bottom bracket...

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by An old Guy .


Predictions are the way one tests a scientific theory. I have shown that TSS does not predict glycogen utilization by comparing high intensity short duration rides to low intensity long duration rides with the same TSS. You did make a claim of correlation between the TSS and glycogen utilization, but the correlation is due to sampling bias more than anything else.

We agree you have tested nothing else. It is not even clear what you would test. Yet you continue to make claims.

You have a religion not a scientific result.

You owe people an apology.

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.