What software for power meter?

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by An old Guy

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

My reading comprehension is just fine:


So while suggesting everyone stay away from software that uses these concepts, you use software that uses these concepts. Like I said, you're a hypocrite.

As for there being no science behind the concepts, that's simply false and misleading. Equating the use of such things as religion is ludicrous.

I guess we will have to disagree about your reading ability.

I suggest you ask acoggan (who claims to be Andy Coggan) about the science of NP, TSS and what not. I believe that acoggan's words about those ideas were "it is not science, it is a hooby." I will take his word over yours simply because you are a nobody.

---

Now if you want anyone to take NP, TSS and what not as science, you need to provide a testable definition of what those concepts measure. Andy Coggan gives several definitions that are contradictory and are either not testable or obviously easy to disprove. acoggan claimed the definition of measuring glycogen depletion on TrainingPeaks.com was not the actual definition. And he refused to give the correct definition. Glycogen depletion is easy to disprove which is why acoggan disavowed it.

If you want to offer a definition of what is being measured in sufficient detail to allow testing, I will give you a test that will prove NP, TSS and what not is invalid.

Remember acoggan produced a list of 12 people who have proved these concepts are invalid.

Again you are deliberately obfuscating by suggesting I've claimed something as "science", which neither I, nor Dr Coggan have done. However these are concepts that do use science as the basis of their formulation. That significant difference is either too subtle for you, or you are just being a troll. Please try to avoid nonsense strawman fallacies. I know you can't help it, but please try.

Not that it is relevant to this discussion, I'll just point out it's another fallacy to suggest that just because something might be a hobby to someone does not mean it is, or is not, science. If you had any understanding of the history of science, you'll realise that some of the most important scientific work throughout history was performed by hobbyists. This has been the case in the fields of physics, chemistry, genetics, biology, astronomy, and so on.

As for 12 people who have prove these concepts are invalid, that is, I'm afraid, complete nonsense. There were a dozen or twenty cases of what's known as an "NP buster". Hardly earth shattering, which only demonstrates that an NP buster is rare, but more importantly, there is no scientific claim that has been made to begin with, for which such things prove or disprove. You keep building up these strawmen but they are just more meaningless drivel your part.

Your constant stream of fallacious statements however do prove you are a troll.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by Conan

Originally Posted by swampy1970


Does AOG have two accounts now?

The whole "sweet spot" thing isn't new. If you'd have half an eye on methods used by guys like Peter Keen back from the early 90's with Boardman, you'd find that quality had replaced quantity. Sure there were 6 hour rides on a mountain bike while his team mates rode their road bikes during winter - but during the season, long intervals at 425 watts on the Kingcycle trainer on the TT bike were key. Bang for your buck and all that. Specificity... No wonder he broke the hour record a few times and popped out a 16 minute 10 mile TT on a shitty course. Keen was kind enough to share that info on a few BCF coaching sessions that I attended back in the day. Keen's L2 and L3 (similar to Andy Coggans L3 and L4) was the key.

Maximize the work you can do to raise your threshold - pretty basic stuff really. Massively effective, so much so you really don't need a power meter to see the difference in results.

Prior to that guys like Hinault had mentioned that riding for 3 to 4 hours at a hard pace was much more effective than riding all day in a small gear. DeVlaminck preceded Hinault and used to ride 3 hours hard, stop for a long lunch and the nails another few hours in a 100 inch gear. For guys of his calibre - 52x14 at some good revs for 3 hours = sweet spot.

You may come to realise that some of us are not entirely spring chickens and might have been around the sport for a good few decades...

Thanks for the insult! I said do what works for you!

Re my reference to SST etc: I am referring to the countless posts on this and the google wattage group whereas riders pick up on the concept and ride day after day, month after month doing SST, SST and more SST and wonder why they get stale, sick and often make no progress!

Please direct me to the studies which show the SST/threshold approach superior to a more traditional approach?

I've been watching the forum for over a decade and I wouldn't say there's been a constant stream of such advice.

There have always been discussions on most cycling forums about the interplay between duration and intensity, and ways to quantify workload, and that composition of training does matter.

 

[bing181]

Originally Posted by Conan
Re my reference to SST etc: I am referring to the countless posts on this and the google wattage group whereas riders pick up on the concept and ride day after day, month after month doing SST, SST and more SST and wonder why they get stale, sick and often make no progress!

Nowhere in the programs based on Coggan (and other's) research is it recommended to "ride day after day, month after month doing SST, SST and more SST".

Though I suspect you know that already.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

Again you are deliberately obfuscating by suggesting I've claimed something as "science", which neither I, nor Dr Coggan have done. However these are concepts that do use science as the basis of their formulation. That significant difference is either too subtle for you, or you are just being a troll. Please try to avoid nonsense strawman fallacies. I know you can't help it, but please try.

Not that it is relevant to this discussion, I'll just point out it's another fallacy to suggest that just because something might be a hobby to someone does not mean it is, or is not, science. If you had any understanding of the history of science, you'll realise that some of the most important scientific work throughout history was performed by hobbyists. This has been the case in the fields of physics, chemistry, genetics, biology, astronomy, and so on.

As for 12 people who have prove these concepts are invalid, that is, I'm afraid, complete nonsense. There were a dozen or twenty cases of what's known as an "NP buster". Hardly earth shattering, which only demonstrates that an NP buster is rare, but more importantly, there is no scientific claim that has been made to begin with, for which such things prove or disprove. You keep building up these strawmen but they are just more meaningless drivel your part.

Your constant stream of fallacious statements however do prove you are a troll.

It is good to know that you also regard these concepts as not being science. You might point that out to those who demand proof. If it is not science, there can be no proof.

The fact, that there exists some science formula that involves the fourth power and NP invloves a fourth power does not make the latter a basis for the former. But that does seem to be Andy Coggan's claim. (Technically, Andy Coggan makes a claim tha tsome physical process has an exponential nature and therefore he uses that and approximates it as a fourth power.)

acoggan said it was a hobby not science. I quoted him. If you have an objection, take it up with him. As a person with an advanced degree who does science, Andy Coggan certainly tries to give the impression that NP is science rather than hobby. Don't confuse Andy Coggan's "hobby" with possible science. His "hobby" is marketing for Trainingpeaks.com. There is no possibility for it to have scientific support.

Andy Coggan made many claims about NP and TSS. He also gave the impression that those claims were based on science. In science a single counter example is sufficient to refute a theory. Each of the 12 "NP busters" would pove that NP and TSS have no scientific basis. But as you say there is no science to disprove.

---

I suspect your proof that I am a troll is defective in many ways. I have only shown a few.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider
Why is it necessary for you, AOG or anyone else that does not agree with these metrics (TSS, ATL, CTL, TSB) and with a training principle like SST to interrupt a civil discussion among those who do use these metrics? Why not just ignore the discussion and move on to something you do agree?

Because you treat them like science.

This thread was not about TSS, ATL, CTL ot TSB. Someone asked what we liked and disliked about the software we used. I answered. Someone did not like my answer.

---

I like SST. But there is a lot that moves the sweet spot. Genes move it. Available time moves it. We could have a long civil discussion about SST.

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by An old Guy

In science a single counter example is sufficient to refute a theory. Each of the 12 "NP busters" would pove that NP and TSS have no scientific basis.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." - George Box

 

[flapsupcleanup]

It is good to know that you also regard these concepts as not being science. You might point that out to those who demand proof. If it is not science, there can be no proof. The fact, that there exists some science formula that involves the fourth power and NP invloves a fourth power does not make the latter a basis for the former. But that does seem to be Andy Coggan's claim. (Technically, Andy Coggan makes a claim tha tsome physical process has an exponential nature and therefore he uses that and approximates it as a fourth power.) acoggan said it was a hobby not science. I quoted him. If you have an objection, take it up with him. As a person with an advanced degree who does science, Andy Coggan certainly tries to give the impression that NP is science rather than hobby. Don't confuse Andy Coggan's "hobby" with possible science. His "hobby" is marketing for Trainingpeaks.com. There is no possibility for it to have scientific support. Andy Coggan made many claims about NP and TSS. He also gave the impression that those claims were based on science. In science a single counter example is sufficient to refute a theory. Each of the 12 "NP busters" would pove that NP and TSS have no scientific basis. But as you say there is no science to disprove. --- I suspect your proof that I am a troll is defective in many ways. I have only shown a few.

Wow AOG, Andy really got under your skin, eh? I thought the troll's handbook specifically warned against that. Keep posting though! I like the entertainment.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by An old Guy

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

Again you are deliberately obfuscating by suggesting I've claimed something as "science", which neither I, nor Dr Coggan have done. However these are concepts that do use science as the basis of their formulation. That significant difference is either too subtle for you, or you are just being a troll. Please try to avoid nonsense strawman fallacies. I know you can't help it, but please try.

Not that it is relevant to this discussion, I'll just point out it's another fallacy to suggest that just because something might be a hobby to someone does not mean it is, or is not, science. If you had any understanding of the history of science, you'll realise that some of the most important scientific work throughout history was performed by hobbyists. This has been the case in the fields of physics, chemistry, genetics, biology, astronomy, and so on.

As for 12 people who have prove these concepts are invalid, that is, I'm afraid, complete nonsense. There were a dozen or twenty cases of what's known as an "NP buster". Hardly earth shattering, which only demonstrates that an NP buster is rare, but more importantly, there is no scientific claim that has been made to begin with, for which such things prove or disprove. You keep building up these strawmen but they are just more meaningless drivel your part.

Your constant stream of fallacious statements however do prove you are a troll.

It is good to know that you also regard these concepts as not being science. You might point that out to those who demand proof. If it is not science, there can be no proof.

The fact, that there exists some science formula that involves the fourth power and NP invloves a fourth power does not make the latter a basis for the former. But that does seem to be Andy Coggan's claim. (Technically, Andy Coggan makes a claim tha tsome physical process has an exponential nature and therefore he uses that and approximates it as a fourth power.)

acoggan said it was a hobby not science. I quoted him. If you have an objection, take it up with him. As a person with an advanced degree who does science, Andy Coggan certainly tries to give the impression that NP is science rather than hobby. Don't confuse Andy Coggan's "hobby" with possible science. His "hobby" is marketing for Trainingpeaks.com. There is no possibility for it to have scientific support.

Andy Coggan made many claims about NP and TSS. He also gave the impression that those claims were based on science. In science a single counter example is sufficient to refute a theory. Each of the 12 "NP busters" would pove that NP and TSS have no scientific basis. But as you say there is no science to disprove.

---

I suspect your proof that I am a troll is defective in many ways. I have only shown a few.

The key elements of NP algorithm are indeed based on sound physiological science, relating to both the time course for many key underlying physiological responses to intensity of effort, as well as the curvilinear nature of those responses. The rest is, as Andy has explained over the years, simply applying the principle of parsimony.

Also as Andy has explained, it's a model, and what matters is whether the model is useful, and under what conditions it remains so.

The model has demonstrated to be very useful, and the domain of its validity are well known and have always been acknowledged by Andy. e.g. it's not really intended for sensible assessment of shorter duration efforts, and certain types of (rarer) rider profiles and rides types tend to push the limits of the algorithm. So what? If you understand that, you know what to look for and use some intelligence when interpreting the information.

Indeed in the limited number of situations where it is "stressed" (e.g. as with NP busters), it still does a far better job in the majority of cases in assessing the impact of a ride than does, for instance, average power (arithmetic mean).

As for the hobby v science thing, I'm well aware of what Andy has said. Your argument however is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

Just because something might be a hobby for someone, does not imply it cannot also be a scientific hobby, or that a sound scientific approach cannot also be applied to one's hobby.

 

[Felt_Rider]

Originally Posted by An old Guy

Because you treat them like science.

Actually I treat them like a guide as I clearly stated and trust that the sports scientists have put in the research for me. Fortunately I have found my results and physical reaction so far to coincide very closely with the metrics in WKO+'s PMC and other charts. Therefore, I am encouraged to continue to use the metrics, the power meter and the sound principles based on training with power.

If I didn't than what is the point of even using a power meter? What would I base it on?
Maybe I could just have a broken power meter that gives me delusions of Grandeur and falsely boast of casually passing all the Cat 1's in my area on a six mile climb at over 400 watts like some people do.

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons
Just because something might be a hobby for someone, does not imply it cannot also be a scientific hobby, or that a sound scientific approach cannot also be applied to one's hobby.

"Obsessive-compulsiveness isn't a character flaw, it's a way of life." - Jim Martin

(BTW, I also consider this to be hobby: http://www.tririg.com/docs/CogganLSWT.pdf and http://www.tririg.com/docs/omega_whitepaper.pdf.)

 

[swampy1970]

Very nice Andy. The windtunnel doc was an interesting read and the aero tests of the brakes was very informative - although for some reason I was expecting larger gains for something like a Hooker brake over a modern Dura Ace design. Maybe going bargain hunting on eBay for old dura ace Ax components like brakes and cranks could be a cheap way to get aero parts. Love the fact that your young daughter asked to build the windtunnel with you. "Dad, can we play doll house?" "Dad, can we play make up?" "Dad, can we build a windtunnel?" On a different note - when is WKO+ 4 coming out?