Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [jjh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jjh wrote:
If you read any mainstream article or book on a subject you are an expert in you will find blatant errors usually.

The LA book "Wheelmen" had numerous factual errors and that was by a big legit publishing house.

I work for one of the biggest brands in the world and it is rare that there are not errors when journos write about us.

Training Peaks is killer btw.

Ironic.
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How does a user know when they have enough data for accurate iLevels to be determined? I think we have seen from user examples what WKO4 falls over a bit when it doesn't have enough data to work with. In fact sometimes the model, without enough data, gives absurd results.

I just see the possibility that a if the model (mFTP and ilevels) are poorly determined this leads a user to train at the poor levels... and a wierd loop occurs that may or may not be self correcting.
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [nstearns] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nstearns wrote:
Craig P wrote:
The misattribution should be hung on Fitzgerald, who for a journalist by training has a pretty bad history of misattribution, short quoting and pick and choose for his "references". So I am not surprised. On another note from this book, much of the premise is garbage anyways. He seems to think he is an expert on nutrition (with a weekend nutrition cert) and sport psychology, oddly both of those things generally require advanced degrees to be an expert. Much of his premises are a joke and his Race weight calculator will always tell you to lose more weight no matter what variables you change. Additionally, there is NO metric to nail down someone's "race weight" I've kept a pretty solid database on athlete weights an performances and it is not a linear model. So Fitzgerald is not so much for the real science thing.

What this book does do though, is trigger athletes with eating disorders, make suggestions about unhealthy habits to those who do not have ED's but are looking for any way healthy or not to improve. Its pretty much crap. So a misattribution is a "are you friggin kidding me" that pretty much anyone who pays attention knows are Andy's models and academic/practical work means Fitzgerald sat through a talk where Steve presented this stuff (most likely from Coggan and Allen referenced work) and didn't know it was not McGregor's work. So pretty much par for the course from Fitzgerald.


I've never been a fan of this guy because of what you said above and the "Iron War" controversy. When the two subjects of your book refuse to be interviewed by you and plead with the public to not purchase the book, it's a good sign you're doing something really fucking wrong.

x2

The license he takes with recreating historical events smacks of Ben Mezrich (The Social Network)...in other words, utterly fabricated.
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [Pantelones] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pantelones wrote:
How does a user know when they have enough data for accurate iLevels to be determined? I think we have seen from user examples what WKO4 falls over a bit when it doesn't have enough data to work with. In fact sometimes the model, without enough data, gives absurd results.

I just see the possibility that a if the model (mFTP and ilevels) are poorly determined this leads a user to train at the poor levels... and a wierd loop occurs that may or may not be self correcting.

PPP #1: They're called levels and not zones for a reason.

PPP #2: Alls you can do is alls you can do.

PPP: The best predictor of performance is performance itself.
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
#1: Doesn't matter if it is Zones with defined boundaries or fuzzy iLevels. If they are defined incorrectly from a poor or incomplete data set they are wrong. iLevels aren't magic.

#2: Not really sure how this applies to my question.

#3: Not sure how this applies either. It is well seen that the WKO model when given a limited number of performances can't accurately or logically determine performance possibilities.
Last edited by: Pantelones: May 26, 16 2:55
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [chriselam] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chriselam wrote:
Did I miss anything?

Yes.

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [BikeTechReview] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BikeTechReview wrote:
chriselam wrote:
Did I miss anything?

Yes.

That article is about as accurate as some of Fitzgerald's work.

Here's another case of a university behaving badly, with a very similar outcome (scroll down to the section headed "UIUC hiring controversy"):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Salaita
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: May 26, 16 5:06
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [Pantelones] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pantelones wrote:
#1: Doesn't matter if it is Zones with defined boundaries or fuzzy iLevels. If they are defined incorrectly from a poor or incomplete data set they are wrong. iLevels aren't magic.

#2: Not really sure how this applies to my question.

#3: Not sure how this applies either. It is well seen that the WKO model when given a limited number of performances can't accurately or logically determine performance possibilities.

The points are that:

1) if you're overly-constraining the intensity of your efforts based on either my original leves or the new iLevels, you;re doing it wrong (PPP: "they're called levels and not zones for a reason"); and

2) if you don't make that mistake, the P=D model quickly auto-adjusts the iLevels to reflect your true abilities. Although any model can be fooled by truly junk data (e.g., artifactual high power spikes of a few seconds due to powermeter limitations, or a long string of zero power at the end of your mean maximal power curve due to forgetting to turn off your recording device), the WKO4 model simply doesn't need that much data to get a decent read on things.
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [nstearns] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nstearns wrote:
Craig P wrote:
The misattribution should be hung on Fitzgerald, who for a journalist by training has a pretty bad history of misattribution, short quoting and pick and choose for his "references". So I am not surprised. On another note from this book, much of the premise is garbage anyways. He seems to think he is an expert on nutrition (with a weekend nutrition cert) and sport psychology, oddly both of those things generally require advanced degrees to be an expert. Much of his premises are a joke and his Race weight calculator will always tell you to lose more weight no matter what variables you change. Additionally, there is NO metric to nail down someone's "race weight" I've kept a pretty solid database on athlete weights an performances and it is not a linear model. So Fitzgerald is not so much for the real science thing.

What this book does do though, is trigger athletes with eating disorders, make suggestions about unhealthy habits to those who do not have ED's but are looking for any way healthy or not to improve. Its pretty much crap. So a misattribution is a "are you friggin kidding me" that pretty much anyone who pays attention knows are Andy's models and academic/practical work means Fitzgerald sat through a talk where Steve presented this stuff (most likely from Coggan and Allen referenced work) and didn't know it was not McGregor's work. So pretty much par for the course from Fitzgerald.


I've never been a fan of this guy because of what you said above and the "Iron War" controversy. When the two subjects of your book refuse to be interviewed by you and plead with the public to not purchase the book, it's a good sign you're doing something really fucking wrong.

I'm curious as to what the controversy was over "Iron War"? I read the book and enjoyed it but had no idea that Mark and Dave were so unhappy with it.
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [Toefuzz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Toefuzz wrote:
nstearns wrote:
Craig P wrote:
The misattribution should be hung on Fitzgerald, who for a journalist by training has a pretty bad history of misattribution, short quoting and pick and choose for his "references". So I am not surprised. On another note from this book, much of the premise is garbage anyways. He seems to think he is an expert on nutrition (with a weekend nutrition cert) and sport psychology, oddly both of those things generally require advanced degrees to be an expert. Much of his premises are a joke and his Race weight calculator will always tell you to lose more weight no matter what variables you change. Additionally, there is NO metric to nail down someone's "race weight" I've kept a pretty solid database on athlete weights an performances and it is not a linear model. So Fitzgerald is not so much for the real science thing.


What this book does do though, is trigger athletes with eating disorders, make suggestions about unhealthy habits to those who do not have ED's but are looking for any way healthy or not to improve. Its pretty much crap. So a misattribution is a "are you friggin kidding me" that pretty much anyone who pays attention knows are Andy's models and academic/practical work means Fitzgerald sat through a talk where Steve presented this stuff (most likely from Coggan and Allen referenced work) and didn't know it was not McGregor's work. So pretty much par for the course from Fitzgerald.


I've never been a fan of this guy because of what you said above and the "Iron War" controversy. When the two subjects of your book refuse to be interviewed by you and plead with the public to not purchase the book, it's a good sign you're doing something really fucking wrong.


I'm curious as to what the controversy was over "Iron War"? I read the book and enjoyed it but had no idea that Mark and Dave were so unhappy with it.


I didn't know there was a controversy either. Like you, I enjoyed the book and had no idea. I did google it though and found this:

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_19015053


Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [Toefuzz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Toefuzz wrote:
nstearns wrote:
Craig P wrote:
The misattribution should be hung on Fitzgerald, who for a journalist by training has a pretty bad history of misattribution, short quoting and pick and choose for his "references". So I am not surprised. On another note from this book, much of the premise is garbage anyways. He seems to think he is an expert on nutrition (with a weekend nutrition cert) and sport psychology, oddly both of those things generally require advanced degrees to be an expert. Much of his premises are a joke and his Race weight calculator will always tell you to lose more weight no matter what variables you change. Additionally, there is NO metric to nail down someone's "race weight" I've kept a pretty solid database on athlete weights an performances and it is not a linear model. So Fitzgerald is not so much for the real science thing.

What this book does do though, is trigger athletes with eating disorders, make suggestions about unhealthy habits to those who do not have ED's but are looking for any way healthy or not to improve. Its pretty much crap. So a misattribution is a "are you friggin kidding me" that pretty much anyone who pays attention knows are Andy's models and academic/practical work means Fitzgerald sat through a talk where Steve presented this stuff (most likely from Coggan and Allen referenced work) and didn't know it was not McGregor's work. So pretty much par for the course from Fitzgerald.


I've never been a fan of this guy because of what you said above and the "Iron War" controversy. When the two subjects of your book refuse to be interviewed by you and plead with the public to not purchase the book, it's a good sign you're doing something really fucking wrong.

I'm curious as to what the controversy was over "Iron War"? I read the book and enjoyed it but had no idea that Mark and Dave were so unhappy with it.
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [nstearns] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I recall the controversy before getting the book and reading it anyway. Like you, I also enjoyed it and didn't think that anything in it was a big deal or particularly damaging to their well established legacies. If I recall they didn't like the premise that their greatness stemmed from psychological holes in their childhood or whatever psychobabble was used. What I don't recall getting from the controversy or from this thread, is a specific list of the outright fabrications attributed to Matt Fitzgerald. While Matt may have many flaws as an author, I certainly don't give credence to objections by the subject(s) of a book - in this one or any other - because few people want to see their idiosyncrasies in print.
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Yes: the new "iLevels":


Whoa! Is Apple employing you now?

(Sorry to hear you didn't get credit for your work.)

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [tigerchik] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tigerchik wrote:
Quote:
Yes: the new "iLevels":


Whoa! Is Apple employing you now?

The "i" is short for "individualized."
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [MI_Mumps] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MI_Mumps wrote:
J_R wrote:
From Run with Power, also by VeloPress, "Now we can begin to measure economy and efficiency, two essential training concepts that will greatly improve your training. Briefly, economy is a measure of oxygen usage—how many meters of distance you are getting from each milliliter of oxygen. Efficiency is a measure of how much speed you are getting for the watts you are producing." *sigh*

Not arguing, just curious - what are the issues with this segment?

J_R was objecting to the stated definition of efficiency, which is incorrect (which Jim acknowledges in his book).
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [nstearns] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mark Allen essentially called it fiction.
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've heard a few interviews with Vance about the running "power meter" things. Is it that his definitions are wrong, or just that he is creating something specific to these products?

While I have no interest in these products at this point, I can see the potential value of maximizing the speed relative to effort. Not sure these products can do this, and I know there is much disagreement on how much changing running form can impact performance, but I'll be interested in the results

Aaron Bales
Lansing Triathlon Team
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We're also not robots: Different editors on staff have different knowledge about our books. (I'm the only one on staff who reads almost every book.)


Ultimately, the author is responsible for what's in the book. We do fact check as much as we can given the often short timeframes our authors allow. And our authors will testify that we push back.

I will mention the CTL note to the editors in consideration of a reprint correction.

Dave Trendler
VeloPress

See what's new: http://www.velopress.com/new
And what's coming: http://www.velopress.com/upcoming

Dave Trendler
VeloPress
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [Timtek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Emphasis on "racing weight estimator". As Fitzgerald says repeatedly in Racing Weight, only race performances can dial in your numbers.

Dave Trendler
VeloPress

What's new: http://www.velopress.com/new
What's coming: http://www.velopress.com/upcoming

Dave Trendler
VeloPress
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Vance explains his vocabulary choice in the book, if I recall.

Dave Trendler
VeloPress

What's new: http://www.velopress.com/new
What's coming: http://www.velopress.com/upcoming

Dave Trendler
VeloPress
Quote Reply
Re: Matt Fitzgerald's "Racing Weight" [DBF] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trust me, the little endemic publishers do a lot more fact-checking than the big houses!

Dave Trendler
VeloPress

What's new: http://www.velopress.com/new
What's coming: http://www.velopress.com/upcoming

Dave Trendler
VeloPress
Quote Reply

Prev Next