Is trev trying to bash Coggan's model because of errors in testing protocol? I dont really know of any people who base there entire training off of one indoor power test. Sure, the indoor test is great for getting you in the right area but i was under the assumption that you need to look at a few races and a few tests to see if you are in the right place.
Like data points on a graph.

I feel that is the second ownage in this thread. Keep them coming.

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

Everyone uses feel."If it feels hard it is hard." Who said that?

Only a complete fool would disregard feel or RPE.

You know, between our wives and Sarah Haskins-Kortuem's burgeoning comeback, there seems to be a trend here...

Me.

Trev is a well-known troll who has been banned from many a fora. I expect that it will only be a matter of time until he outwears his welcome here.

Wrong. A complete fool would disparage the use of estimated (non-factual and non-precision) techniques, then suggest that adherence to the most subjective variable known to mankind (i.e. feeling) is of utmost import.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

I disparage techniques which claim to be scientific but are not.

Normalised power is a good example, it is merely an estimate of the power one might have produced if the effort were steady state.

The whole point of feel or RPE is that it is subjective.

As usual, you try to avoid answering valid questions and can't accept criticism so make personal attacks. At least on this occasion you have not resorted to abusive language. Do your worst Andrew, try to get me banned.

That something is an estimate does not make it unscientific.

Science is full of estimates.

Estimates are very useful!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Estimates are not as useful as facts. You don't go with the estimate when you have the fact.

Correct!
But, for example, you might have a fact like "miles" or "hours". Now I could be pedantic and point out that you are just estimating those things too, since no measurement tool is perfect. But for sake of argument, let us call those facts.

But we don't want to know how many hours of miles we biked. That doesn't tell us much about training load. As a proxy for training load, "hours" or "miles" and even "heart rate" and "rep" are all *estimates* of training load, or training stress.

So, if you wanted to try to track training stress, or load, for whatever reason. You can't really get away from estimates. At least for now. Perhaps realtime tracking of lactate and other physiological markers might get you there (remembering of course that all measurements are also estimates!)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Trev The Rev wrote:

Estimates are not as useful as facts. You don't go with the estimate when you have the fact.

The Troll Stress Score^TM on this thread is increasing by the post, more so with such short sharp forays into nonsense that goes well beyond one's Functional Trolling Power^TM, that tends to result in a thread with a high Troll Factor^TM.

I'm sorry - is there a question of yours that I overlooked?


You seem to take great offense at being called a troll...a case of "if the shoe fits", eh?


No need - you have repeatedly proven yourself capable of it all by yourself.

Whomever claimed that normalized power is "scientific"?

You should really think about copyrighting that shit. Its really pretty funny. I can see the e-book now. "Trolling and Raging with a Sarcasmeter".

I'm pleased to see you agree normalized power is unscientific.

You certainly dress it up as being scientific.

To quote you
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...ctor-training-stress
Quote
Normalized Power, Intensity Factor and Training Stress Score
Sunday, August 10, 2008 | By Andy R. Coggan, Ph.D.


Normalized Power (NP)
To account for this variability, TrainingPeaks uses a special algorithm to calculate an adjusted or normalized power for each ride or segment of a ride (longer than 30 seconds) that you analyze. This algorithm is somewhat complicated, but importantly it incorporates two key pieces of information: 1) the physiological responses to rapid changes in exercise intensity are not instantaneous, but follow a predictable time course, and 2) many critical physiological responses (e.g., glycogen utilization, lactate production, stress hormone levels) are curvilinearly, rather than linearly, related to exercise intensity.

By taking these factors into account, normalized power provides a better measure of the true physiological demands of a given training session - in essence, it is an estimate of the power that you could have maintained for the same physiological "cost" if your power output had been perfectly constant (e.g., as on a stationary cycle ergometer), rather than variable. Keeping track of normalized power is therefore a more accurate way of quantifying the actual intensity of training sessions, or even races. For example, it is common for average power to be lower during criteriums than during equally-difficult road races, simply because of the time spent soft-pedaling or coasting through sharp turns during a criterium. Assuming that they are about the same duration, however, the normalized power for both types of events will generally be very similar, reflecting their equivalent intensity. In fact, normalized power during a hard ~1 hour long criterium or road race will often be similar to what a rider can average when pedaling continuously during flat 40k time trial - the normalized power from mass start races can therefore often be used to provide an initial estimate of a rider's threshold power (see below). End quote.

Interesting how you like to use PhD when you are selling things.

Sure, I'll add a chapter to my book, "Things You Wouldn't Read About".

Uh, Trev? I don't work for TrainingPeaks (and never have), don't receive any money for their use of my ideas (except in WKO+, for which I receive a licensing fee of $1/copy), and never sign my name "Andy Coggan, PhD".

Now the fact that I speak/write like a scientist, well, that is on me...

Actually, I don't agree. That is, while it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed paper, it was invented by an internationally-recognized scientist, is based on scientific knowledge, and has been presented at scientific meetings. It is therefore probably best described as "semi-scientific".

Andrew, Trainingpeaks do here,

Our Trademarks
By introducing scientific tools and methods that have become the industry standard, TrainingPeaks has revolutionized the way that coaches and athletes track, analyze and plan endurance training. Our registered trademarks include TrainingPeaks®, TSS®, Training Stress Score®, IF®, Intensity Factor®, NP®, Normalized Power® and VirtualCoach®.
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/about-us

Normalized Power is clearly sold as a scientific tool or method. So it is most interesting you claim it isn't scientific.

1. Bully for them.

2, Interesting in what way?

...which, if you think about it, makes it closer to being "scientific" than, say, the methods of Jack Daniels, Fritz Hagerman, Doc Councilman, Peter Coe, etc. Not that that is necessarily a good thing, however!

For someone who expects such a high degree of rigor from other, you certainly don't apply it to yourself. In the quoted text, TP claims some of their tools and methods are scientific. They then list a number of registered trademarks. At no time do they associate these trademarks with tools or methods much less those that they consider scientific. To say (based on the text) that TP is identified as scientific is fantasy.