pyrahna wrote:
liversedge wrote:
pyrahna wrote:
Everyone knows that Dr. Coggan does not need someone to come to his defense....but I think if you read the intended use case (i.e. a road racing cyclist) that you will see that your assertion that >90% of the data being sub-maximal would become false.
I refer you to the curve in the OP.
And I refer you to the part of the OP where he says it's only about 60 or so workouts (that appear to be after his season end, and are therefore not racing, but training workouts).
See, I kind sound unpleasant as well.
Sure, a more comprehensive dataset with more maximal efforts at a greater variety of durations would be a lot closer to one's (theoretical) physiological power-duration capabilities, but I'd argue that it would also obfuscate identification of those areas of the PD-curve that are being modelled on, and confounded by, sub-maximal data.
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Furthermore, you need to recognize that just because a model predicts that you can do something, doesn't mean that you actually can. IOW, just because your actual data fall below (or above) the fitted curve doesn't necessarily mean that isn't a valid measure of your maximal performance at that duration.I appreciate that technological and biological variability play a role here, but is this not a contradiction of your "performance is the best predictor of performance" mantra?