trail wrote:
a couple of times for 'A' races when my "PMC" told me I was at my fittest with a great "stress balance" I was utterly overtrained and worthless.TSB does NOT equal fitness. IOW, you only have yourself to blame for being "worthless."
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [trail]
[ In reply to ]
TSB does NOT equal fitness. IOW, you only have yourself to blame for being "worthless."
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
Andrew Coggan wrote:
TSB does NOT equal fitness. IOW, you only have yourself to blame for being "worthless."
I never claimed it "equalled fitness."
My claim is that it's commonly advertised that a positive TSB is consistent with a "readiness to race." Not necessarily in isolation, but as a general rule.
E.g. from Trainingpeaks:
"At a certain TSB, your fitness and your fatigue will be in balance so that you are in peak “form” for your event."
That is not a scientifically accurate statement, in my opinion.
If it were worded, "You may find that, under certain conditions, TSB sometimes correlates with peak form. But TSB should never be used in isolation as a reliable indicator of form." Or something to that effect.
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [Rappstar]
[ In reply to ]
Rather than as a predictor, I see value in PMC as a rear view mirror. That assumes the athlete or a trusted advisor knows what to look for in and out of sport.
There are so many issues or circumstances that influence 'stress' outside of training stress.
There are so many issues or circumstances that influence 'stress' outside of training stress.
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [trail]
[ In reply to ]
trail wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
TSB does NOT equal fitness. IOW, you only have yourself to blame for being "worthless."
I never claimed it "equalled fitness."
Uh huh:
"a couple of times for 'A' races when my "PMC" told me I was at my fittest "
Recall what I said about always consulting the original source...
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
Andrew Coggan wrote:
liversedge wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
As discussed on the wattage list about 10 y ago, the data are drawn from the studies we did at UT-Austin while I was working on my PhD.Shame, but helps to explain the very small sample size in the plot you posted.
As usual, your grand claims cannot be scrutinised.
Even n=1 would be higher than, say, BikeScore, which you have endorsed/embraced by implementing in GoldenCheetahR. IOW, it seems that you're rather two-faced about what does/does not meet your standards.
I make no claims or endorse any measure, in fact, I've called out the PMC stuff as bullshit on many, many occasions.
It still remains that TSS is inflated by freewheeling and is not additive due to a dimensionality error in the formulation. For many types of rides (e.g hilly/group rides, stops/traffic signs) this makes TSS unusable as a reasonable measure of stress. This is a provable fact (hence my original post and link to the proof).
That you never mention these facts, although they came to light 10 years ago, shows you have no interest in the pursuit of truth, or even validation of your ideas, its just self promotion.
Mark
Last edited by:
liversedge: May 9, 16 1:36
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [liversedge]
[ In reply to ]
liversedge wrote:
as usual, you are the one making grand claims of "validation" that turn out to be you marking your own homework with data we cannot see.??
The subjects, methods, and group mean data can be found in the original published papers, and the individual data are shown in the plot above. That's more than a peer reviewer would typically see, and as such more than necessary for publication in a scientific journal if that interested me. I know this because I have both reviewed and published my share of scientific papers.
However, since my efforts apparently don't live up to your standards (although it's tough to figure out what those are, since you're quite hypocritical about what you embrace/criticize), just let me know what additional data you'd like to see and I'd be happy to provide it. (Note, however, that privacy laws prohibit disclosure of certain information.)
As for your criticisms of TSS/the PMC that I snipped, you haven't added anything new to the conversation, nor have you (or anyone else) ever offered a demonstrably better/more viable alternative. Perhaps if you did it would be easier to believe that you really wanted to help people, versus simply denigrating the efforts of others.
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
Andrew Coggan wrote:
liversedge wrote:
as usual, you are the one making grand claims of "validation" that turn out to be you marking your own homework with data we cannot see.??
The subjects, methods, and group mean data can be found in the original published papers, and the individual data are shown in the plot above. That's more than a peer reviewer would typically see, and as such more than necessary for publication in a scientific journal if that interested me. I know this because I have both reviewed and published my share of scientific papers.
However, since my efforts apparently don't live up to your standards (although it's tough to figure out what those are, since you're quite hypocritical about what you embrace/criticize), just let me know what additional data you'd like to see and I'd be happy to provide it. (Note, however, that privacy laws prohibit disclosure of certain information.)
As for your criticisms of TSS/the PMC that I snipped, you haven't added anything new to the conversation, nor have you (or anyone else) ever offered a demonstrably better/more viable alternative. Perhaps if you did it would be easier to believe that you really wanted to help people, versus simply denigrating the efforts of others.
Cool.
Details of the cohort, the protocols used, how parameters were estimated and the data and results would be a great start.
I could ask for lots of info, but the basics will do:
- how your protocols accounted for intermittent and steady work across a range of intensities and durations, including periods of recovery and idle time (which is critical given the known problems related to TSS)
- how you calibrated and accounted for measurement variation with such a small sample size, and of course how you controlled the rate at which participants ingested glucose without disturbing measurement
- how you established accurate FTP estimates when it hadn't been invented yet, nor the protocols to establish it. Perhaps you used your time machine (?)
Mark
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [liversedge]
[ In reply to ]
liversedge wrote:
Details of the cohort, the protocols used, how parameters were estimated and the data and results would be a great start.See our published papers.
liversedge wrote:
- how your protocols accounted for intermittent and steady work across a range of intensities and durations, including periods of recovery and idle time (which is critical given the known problems related to TSS)
- how you calibrated and accounted for measurement variation with such a small sample size
All studies have limitations. As I said, however, even n=1 would be more validation than has been done with, say, BikeScore. Yet, I don't see you getting all bent-out-of-shape over it - seems rather hypocritical of you, no?
liversedge wrote:
, and of course how you controlled the rate at which participants ingested glucose without disturbing measurementThese data are from the placebo trials.
liversedge wrote:
- how you established accurate FTP estimates when it hadn't been invented yet, nor the protocols to establish it. Perhaps you used your time machine (?)
People knew what FTP was before the term was ever coined - that's in large part why there's always been a big disconnect between the scientific and sporting communities as to the meaning of word threshold, and why the notion of FTP gained so much traction. But, to answer your question: as I described on the wattage list a decade or so ago, I used Coyle's subsequent "hour-of-power study" to come up with a conversion from his LT to my FTP (not that it changes the correlation of TSS with glycogen utilization any).
Last edited by:
Andrew Coggan: May 9, 16 5:34
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
I thought you were being genuine in offering to share more data, so took time to consider the important questions to ask. You then flip me off with a non-answer and rehash of your insults from above.
I should have known better.
Mark
I should have known better.
Mark
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [liversedge]
[ In reply to ]
liversedge wrote:
I thought you were being genuine in offering to share more data, so took time to consider the important questions to ask. You then flip me off with a non-answer??
I answered all of your questions.
liversedge wrote:
and rehash of your insults from above.Just calling 'em as many see 'em.
liversedge wrote:
I should have known better.You'll never learn - as I said before, you and Trev seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
Andrew Coggan wrote:
liversedge wrote:
I thought you were being genuine in offering to share more data, so took time to consider the important questions to ask. You then flip me off with a non-answerI answered all of your questions.
You responded to them, not answered. It really isn't the same thing.
As ever you resort to hurling insults. That indicates you can't answer.
Mark
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [liversedge]
[ In reply to ]
liversedge wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
liversedge wrote:
I thought you were being genuine in offering to share more data, so took time to consider the important questions to ask. You then flip me off with a non-answerI answered all of your questions.
You responded to them, not answered. It really isn't the same thing.
Let's review, shall we?
1. You asked for details about the subjects, protocols, methods, and results. I told you where to find them. However, now that I'm at work and have ready access and since you seem to being having trouble locating them, here they are:
https://www.academia.edu/...siol_1986_61_165-172
https://www.academia.edu/...ol_1988_64_2622-2630
2. You asked, in essence, about the range of conditions under which the relationship between TSS and glycogen utilization had been evaluated. I acknowledged the fact that only steady-state exercise was performed is a limitation.
3. You asked how I accounted for carbohydrate ingestion. I told you that I used data from only the placebo trials.
4. You asked, in essence, how I knew the subjects' FTP values. I told you that I estimated them from their LT data, by multiplying by the average ratio of hour power to LT power in Colye's 1991 study. (I also pointed out that this does not alter the magnitude of the correlation between TSS and glycogen use.)
Re: Graphical Representation of Training Load & Adaptation. [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
i just finished reading dr coggan book (training and racing with a PM - italian translation)
and i've read this thread (and other) with interest.
i promise i'll read the book other 5 times but at the moment there is something i really don't understand.
in the book in the triathlete chapter is suggested to have 3 PMC graph (1 for bike, 1 for run e 1 combined), friel in his blog suggests to only combine ACL graph and here (and in other thread) dr coggan suggest to NOT combine PMC for bike and run.
but even if i don't combine the charts does the bike PMC still have sense??? i suppose an hard run workout afflicts heavly the bike workout of the next day (maybe it does not afflict so heavly a following swim workout due to different muscles involved ).
i don't want to use CTL/TSS/ATL/TSB to manage the single session (e.g. how many FTP interval i have to do today to reach 150tss) but to manage the training load during weeks/months for at least 2 of the 3 sports.
sure there are a lot of things i don't understand (as u can read i don't speak well your language)
thank you
and i've read this thread (and other) with interest.
i promise i'll read the book other 5 times but at the moment there is something i really don't understand.
in the book in the triathlete chapter is suggested to have 3 PMC graph (1 for bike, 1 for run e 1 combined), friel in his blog suggests to only combine ACL graph and here (and in other thread) dr coggan suggest to NOT combine PMC for bike and run.
but even if i don't combine the charts does the bike PMC still have sense??? i suppose an hard run workout afflicts heavly the bike workout of the next day (maybe it does not afflict so heavly a following swim workout due to different muscles involved ).
i don't want to use CTL/TSS/ATL/TSB to manage the single session (e.g. how many FTP interval i have to do today to reach 150tss) but to manage the training load during weeks/months for at least 2 of the 3 sports.
sure there are a lot of things i don't understand (as u can read i don't speak well your language)
thank you
just an UP to the thread