You're having a difficult time separating the part of my comment that was serious, and the part that was obviously a joke...
Breathe, then try again :)

CP and W' are not really Skiba, they're old as the hills (Monod and Scherer).

But your Q is a good one, since to establish CP and W' athletes typically test at multiple durations but need to perform multiple tests to ensure they are fresh for each one. A fit is then done to estimate CP and W' parameters. This approach has been peer reviewed and built upon over the last 50 years, so we know the limits to its usefulness.

In 4DP there is a single test, so some of the efforts will be a little down, apparently this is accounted for by their tools. Quite how they determine how down on your best the results are is not known -- it would be really interesting to see that, I guess that is their secret sauce. We have to trust that it works since its not peer reviewed (same with Xert, WKO4 PDC).

Thanks!

Not really...more like I should have replied to Tom A, rather than you. I'm not all outraged or anything...no breathing exercises necessary. I probably should have put more of it in pink....or half-pink.

I just find it silly to suggest TSF should conduct a "study" to convince ST (or the community at-large) of anything. Especially for something that isn't even novel---its just a product based on old ideas with new marketing terms. Reminds me of a story: The Emperor Has No Clothes.

I agree. And I think they also understand when simple comparisons are important.

I'm not asking for a full-blown study though...just a simple comparison. They say they've made an improvement in how their workouts are prescribed based on power-profiling concepts first put in place by others. Logically, that makes some sense. Great...they say that it's "better" and gives more effective training. I'm just asking for some measure of what that improvement is in regards to training effect.

It would be like a bike manufacturer claiming its bike is lower drag than its previous model, but not revealing (or measuring) any drag data...and then saying "that old model is SLOW ("dead"), you can tell this is faster just by looking at it!" ;-)

For all we know, this may be a better way for their workout prescriptions...or, it may just be a bunch of "farting around" that doesn't change much in regards to training response. There's no way of knowing without some sort of comparison. So if they're going to claim one way is "right", then I'm going to ask to see some objective evidence before plopping down my hard-earned cash and investing the training time. That's all...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

My concern would be that a "simple comparison" can be just as misleading/biased as the original marketing claim, however. If you are going to present some analytics demonstrating your method is superior, your analyses better be robust, or they will satisfy no one, especially in the ST circles arguing here. This would be some complex modeling and would likely require more than an ANOVA to adjust for the multitude of likely confounders when looking at real world data.

Thinking completely off the cuff, and a bit too sleep deprived and over caffeinated for this time of day, you might get closest to a trial-style analysis by comparing effects using TSF data collected pre-4DP and post-4DP, not within individual but over time across individuals, potentially utilizing propensity score matching for some subset of collected covariates at baseline (age, baseline metrics, weight) as well as compliance to the prescribed regimen to mimic comparison of like individuals. I struggle more with what the ideal outcome measure would be between the two systems, however.

The requests for peer-reviewed evidence are quite obviously rhetorical. They're merely pointing out that Sufferfest are making some bold claims in their marketing that are categorically not backed up by any evidence and in the eyes of any critical observer could very easily be demonstrated to be false.

To read between the lines for you, the implication is that they should merely stop making these claims until they have at least some form of evidence to back it up.

I don't want to pile on because I have no dog in this fight, but that's just my opinion as a scientist.

Exactly. The answer to "when it is important" is "whenever you want to backup claims you make on a method or product you're trying to sell".
Showing people improving with one method of training only proves that "training" works. And we've known that for millennia.

That's not how marketing works. Backing up a marketing claim with "evidence" only invites argument with the quality/accuracy of the evidence. From TSF's point of view, they have NOTHING to gain by following this line of thought. Its all way to fuzzy to be provably true or false. Customers will have success (because training does that), and their marketing material will be plastered with those "success stories" which swear that they spent years not making any progress, and "only" NOW (using TSF) have they seen major gains.

Besides, the predominant theme in this thread has not been that "it doesn't work", but rather that "its nothing new". Just recognize it for what it is, a new way to market and old idea---aka a Marketing Breakthrough.

I don't have a dog in the fight either...again, I'm not going to spend my winter on the trainer. If I'm going to suffer, I'm going to do it outside.

So, this is just my opinion as an Engineer, and product manager.

Piracy is even only piracy if there is a specific IP law broken (generally copyright). Copyright is out in this case, as the text of SF's material is all new. Trademark? 4DP is new (whether 8DP is trademarked I don't know, nor whether a court would declare that to be confusingly similar). That leaves patent; is SF infringing on a patented procedure? And it has to be very detailed, as different ways of accomplishing the same things are done all the time to get around patents. My suspicion is no, but let's see.

Coggan: You are accusing SF of "piracy". Please specify which IP of yours (you feel) they are infringing in which aspect of IP law. Provide as much detail as possible. It is not illegal to take someone else's idea and run with it if that idea is not covered by actual IP law. If you cannot identify with specificity, it could be argued you are very close to libel. At least, there would be more argument for that than "piracy" because you feel offended.

And repeatedly trying to paint them with the person-non-grata du jour doesn't make you come off as having a valid point.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Hey there Dockt! Sorry for the late reply. We currently offer 14 different training plans in the app. They were designed to get the best improvement possible in various time periods (3-10 weeks) and volumes (Novice to Advanced). Now, with 4DP, each of the Sufferfest workouts we specify in those plans -- whether it's focused on sharpening your climbing, or sprinting or preparing for a gran fondo - will be even more effective than before when they were based only on FTP. (As an aside, we don't have a base/winter plan but will have a different twist on that idea early next year, which brings me to the next point.

At the moment, our plans are very detailed PDFs that you download and follow. In early 2018, we'll release a new training plan functionality in our app. The plans will be fully integrated into the app. This will allow you to choose a duration, volume, goal, etc, but to also have the plan adjust to your specific strengths and weaknesses as well as your rider type. We're working with APEX Coaching on the logic of this right now as it's fairly complicated. We'll also allow you to add our Yoga and Mental Training modules into the plan so you get even more benefit as a complete athlete.

Hope that all makes sense. Drop us a line on theminions@thesufferfest.com if I can help you further.

---

David McQuillen
Founder & CEO of The Sufferfest

Just google metabolic pathways and generality and specificity.

I’m signing up for Sufferfedt as a result of this thread!

You need to work on your reading comprehension. The piracy to which I referred was that of the individual to whom I replied, who stated that they pirated movies (then later said it was just "locker room talk").

You do know that one can (and some have) used statistical methods to identify such inflection points?

naaaaaaah you don’t say. I would have never guessed.

Actually, Tim, I don't. That is why if you go back and re-read any of my comments on iLevels, you will see that I don't take any personal credit, but merely point out that that WKO4 was (and still is) light-years ahead in this regard.

What is interesting (and satisfying) is how close to optimal the original power profiling durations turn out to be *on average.*

(BTW, how's life on soft money treating you these days? Ironically, now that I have moved to a hard money position I am experiencing an embarrassment of riches, and having to adjust my effort to stay under 12 person-months.)

So far so good. As long as my area is “hot” I’m fine. I have to say no to projects so that’s good. Things are brewing though. So we shall see soon.

Thank you!

---

David McQuillen
Founder & CEO of The Sufferfest