Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Sufferfest 4DP
 
So I was surprised by Sufferfest unveiling their 4DP testing concept, which they want to use to replace the FTP. I've been a long-time TrainerRoad user/fan/advocate. But I think the 4DP concept is brilliant, and probably far more useful than TFP (I'll confess, I'm considering making a switch to only cycling, so see that there will likely be a greater benefit for cyclists over triathletes to analyze the power profile more thoroughly).

Any thoughts?
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [gantaliano] [ In reply to ]
 
I'm excited by this concept and looking forward to giving Full Frontal a go after NOLA 70.3. I think the multi-dimensional analysis is really going to be useful to me in identifying where my strengths and weaknesses are on the bike and figuring out what to do about them to get faster.
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [maxgaines] [ In reply to ]
 
If I tell someone I signed up for a 'full frontal' cycling profile, power numbers is not what will come to mind.

Reminds me of that Froome pic...
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [gantaliano] [ In reply to ]
 
4dp is nothing new...back in 1999, Friel proposed essentially the same approach, but with (IIRC) eight "dimensions" (i.e., reference durations), spanning from just a few seconds out to many hours.

The problem with Friel's approach is that it is too cumbersome, and fails to recognize that muscular metabolic fitness (for which FTP is a surrogate) is the single most important physiological determinant of performance over any duration longer than a few minutes.

Because of the above, in 2000 I described training LEVELS that use FTP as an anchor point. As I emphasized at the time, and have pointed out numerous times since, such LEVELS (not zones) are meant to be primarily descriptive, not prescriptive.

Despite my efforts, many (including Sufferfest, at least up until now) have naively and mistakenly used my system to PRESCRIBE training, often via "canned" programs/workouts that don't entail direct input from a coach/direct interaction with the athlete.

Since FTP is a surrogate for the single most important physiological determinant of performance, this last approach still actually works, at least across most intensities/durations. However, issues can arise during supra-FTP efforts, since individuals can and do differ in their resistance to fatigue under such conditions.

To try to fix the problems created by their own initial, naive mistake, the folks at Sufferfest now claim that "FTP is dead" and that they have invented a novel approach that is better. In reality, however, all they have done is wind the clock back to the end of the previous century, prescribing workouts based on reference maximal efforts of the same durations I originally used to construct the power profiling tables. Not only is this a step backwards, it fails to fully recognize that, e.g., a maximal 1 min effort does not represent the same physiological strain for all individuals. (This is why iLevels, which provide individually-optimized targets for both power AND duration, were invented).
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
 
Andrew Coggan wrote:
4dp is nothing new...back in 1999, Friel proposed essentially the same approach, but with (IIRC) eight "dimensions" (i.e., reference durations), spanning from just a few seconds out to many hours.

The problem with Friel's approach is that it is too cumbersome, and fails to recognize that muscular metabolic fitness (for which FTP is a surrogate) is the single most important physiological determinant of performance over any duration longer than a few minutes.

Because of the above, in 2000 I described training LEVELS that use FTP as an anchor point. As I emphasized at the time, and have pointed out numerous times since, such LEVELS (not zones) are meant to be primarily descriptive, not prescriptive.

Despite my efforts, many (including Sufferfest, at least up until now) have naively and mistakenly used my system to PRESCRIBE training, often via "canned" programs/workouts that don't entail direct input from a coach/direct interaction with the athlete.

Since FTP is a surrogate for the single most important physiological determinant of performance, this last approach still actually works, at least across most intensities/durations. However, issues can arise during supra-FTP efforts, since individuals can and do differ in their resistance to fatigue under such conditions.

To try to fix the problems created by their own initial, naive mistake, the folks at Sufferfest now claim that "FTP is dead" and that they have invented a novel approach that is better. In reality, however, all they have done is wind the clock back to the end of the previous century, prescribing workouts based on reference maximal efforts of the same durations I originally used to construct the power profiling tables. Not only is this a step backwards, it fails to fully recognize that, e.g., a maximal 1 min effort does not represent the same physiological strain for all individuals. (This is why iLevels, which provide individually-optimized targets for both power AND duration, were invented).


So...... Sufferfest people are just better at marketing than you?

Alex Arman

Strava
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
 
Andrew Coggan wrote:
4dp is nothing new...back in 1999, Friel proposed essentially the same approach, but with (IIRC) eight "dimensions" (i.e., reference durations), spanning from just a few seconds out to many hours.

The problem with Friel's approach is that it is too cumbersome, and fails to recognize that muscular metabolic fitness (for which FTP is a surrogate) is the single most important physiological determinant of performance over any duration longer than a few minutes.

Because of the above, in 2000 I described training LEVELS that use FTP as an anchor point. As I emphasized at the time, and have pointed out numerous times since, such LEVELS (not zones) are meant to be primarily descriptive, not prescriptive.

Despite my efforts, many (including Sufferfest, at least up until now) have naively and mistakenly used my system to PRESCRIBE training, often via "canned" programs/workouts that don't entail direct input from a coach/direct interaction with the athlete.

Since FTP is a surrogate for the single most important physiological determinant of performance, this last approach still actually works, at least across most intensities/durations. However, issues can arise during supra-FTP efforts, since individuals can and do differ in their resistance to fatigue under such conditions.

To try to fix the problems created by their own initial, naive mistake, the folks at Sufferfest now claim that "FTP is dead" and that they have invented a novel approach that is better. In reality, however, all they have done is wind the clock back to the end of the previous century, prescribing workouts based on reference maximal efforts of the same durations I originally used to construct the power profiling tables. Not only is this a step backwards, it fails to fully recognize that, e.g., a maximal 1 min effort does not represent the same physiological strain for all individuals. (This is why iLevels, which provide individually-optimized targets for both power AND duration, were invented).

It seems like part of their effort with this is to help their users identify the style of rider they currently are, to determine how resistant to fatigue they are, for instance? At the very least it would be nice to have a better sense of how many matches you have to burn under certain conditions.
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [PigBodine] [ In reply to ]
 
PigBodine wrote:
It seems like part of their effort with this is to help their users identify the style of rider they currently are, to determine how resistant to fatigue they are, for instance?

<sarcasm mode on>

Wow, now there's another novel idea. What *will* they come up with next?

<sarcasm mode off>
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Oct 17, 17 15:27
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [doublea334] [ In reply to ]
 
Marketing is for schmucks who care about money, and who lack the brains to come up with ideas that will stand on their own.
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
 
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Marketing is for schmucks who care about money, and who lack the brains to come up with ideas that will stand on their own.

The next time you write a book, you should just release it and let it sit on the shelf with all the other books; no store appearances, no media junket, nothing on the internet. Nothing. Just let that book stand on its own.

https://reluctantmultisport.wordpress.com
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [marklemcd] [ In reply to ]
 
That pretty well describes how much effort I ever put into writing and promoting our book. Yet, it is now available in (IIRC) eight languages, and is approaching close to 100,000 copies sold (thus making the publisher a bunch of money...the authors, not so much).

I suppose you could also look to the PMC as an example of how a good idea will always find a niche...there must be dozens of programs and training platform out there that have implemented it (and the applied sports science field has now belatedly "discovered" it), even though I only do this sort of shit for a hobby.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Oct 17, 17 16:31
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
 
BTW, for anyone who naively believes Sufferfest's false claim that they have developed a novel approach, here is a link to Joe Friel's booklet from 1999, in which he proposed '8dp':

https://www.google.com/...dSWqCs3x9F0Zjftz3h1U
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
 
Andrew Coggan wrote:
4dp is nothing new...back in 1999, Friel proposed essentially the same approach, but with (IIRC) eight "dimensions" (i.e., reference durations), spanning from just a few seconds out to many hours.

The problem with Friel's approach is that it is too cumbersome, and fails to recognize that muscular metabolic fitness (for which FTP is a surrogate) is the single most important physiological determinant of performance over any duration longer than a few minutes.

Because of the above, in 2000 I described training LEVELS that use FTP as an anchor point. As I emphasized at the time, and have pointed out numerous times since, such LEVELS (not zones) are meant to be primarily descriptive, not prescriptive.

Despite my efforts, many (including Sufferfest, at least up until now) have naively and mistakenly used my system to PRESCRIBE training, often via "canned" programs/workouts that don't entail direct input from a coach/direct interaction with the athlete.

Since FTP is a surrogate for the single most important physiological determinant of performance, this last approach still actually works, at least across most intensities/durations. However, issues can arise during supra-FTP efforts, since individuals can and do differ in their resistance to fatigue under such conditions.

To try to fix the problems created by their own initial, naive mistake, the folks at Sufferfest now claim that "FTP is dead" and that they have invented a novel approach that is better. In reality, however, all they have done is wind the clock back to the end of the previous century, prescribing workouts based on reference maximal efforts of the same durations I originally used to construct the power profiling tables. Not only is this a step backwards, it fails to fully recognize that, e.g., a maximal 1 min effort does not represent the same physiological strain for all individuals. (This is why iLevels, which provide individually-optimized targets for both power AND duration, were invented).

"It's an aerobic sport, dammit!" :-)

Yeah, the tagline "FTP is dead" had me literally LOL'ing...



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
 
It had (and has) me questioning just how well Henderson actually understands exercise physiology. Saying "FTP is dead" makes about as much sense as saying "VO2max is dead." Yeah, you can choose to change how you describe/prescribe training, but that doesn't change how the body works.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Oct 17, 17 17:30
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [marklemcd] [ In reply to ]
 
marklemcd wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Marketing is for schmucks who care about money, and who lack the brains to come up with ideas that will stand on their own.

The next time you write a book, you should just release it and let it sit on the shelf with all the other books; no store appearances, no media junket, nothing on the internet. Nothing. Just let that book stand on its own.

I like where you’re going with this—but let’s suggest taking it one step further: don’t even write the book, right?. Rather than face publication issues and editing and all those appearances with people, a guy could just get angry, and then come online and write the same number of words needed for a book, but not worry about how shrill his responses would look on the printed page.
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [PigBodine] [ In reply to ]
 
I take it that you haven't actually read the book? The parts that I contributed are practically all things that I had previously posted online, just polished up a bit (mostly by the editor) to create a better "flow" to the entire book. That's why Hunter gets much more of the authors' (minimal) share of the profits, and why there will never be another edition (i.e., I wasn't really that interested in writing the original, and am definitely not interested in doing even more work to produce an updated version).
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
 
Andrew Coggan wrote:
I take it that you haven't actually read the book? The parts that I contributed are practically all things that I had previously posted online, just polished up a bit (mostly by the editor) to create a better "flow" to the entire book. That's why Hunter gets much more of the authors' (minimal) share of the profits, and why there will never be another edition (i.e., I wasn't really that interested in writing the original, and am definitely not interested in doing even more work to produce an updated version).




I've got a copy within arm's reach of my desk, along with a couple from Friel. There's the real old Jeff Galloway book in there somewhere too.

I have a lot of respect for your work, especially as it's your hobby. Except maybe this recent paragraph:

Quote:
Despite my efforts, many (including Sufferfest, at least up until now) have naively and mistakenly used my system to PRESCRIBE training, often via "canned" programs/workouts that don't entail direct input from a coach/direct interaction with the athlete.


My earlier point about discovering how many matches one has is this: A lot of us do endurance sport as our hobby. We get to 'race' a handful of times a year, without the kind of direct coaching that would help us know whether we're puncheurs, or just freds with too much cash and tummy and bike. We often don't have access to coaches with whom we can directly interact [whether a result of time, cash, or geography]---we have resources like your book, online articles, friends, and we have apps.

What Sufferfest is working at here is putting a system into the hands of the athletes a means by which to understand themselves as riders. Is 4DP a novel idea? Is FTP dead??! Nah, but the presentation in an easily accessible application is still potentially empowering. Might help users avoid some of the pitfalls of the canned workouts you mention.
Last edited by: PigBodine: Oct 17, 17 19:28
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [maxgaines] [ In reply to ]
 
Hi Everyone. David from The Sufferfest here. Thanks for your interest in what we're doing with 4DP. I hope you give it a go and, if you do, please let me know what you think. Happy to answer questions here, on our FB pages or via email on david@thesufferfest.com. IWBMATTKYT, David
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [The Sufferfest] [ In reply to ]
 
The Sufferfest wrote:
Hi Everyone. David from The Sufferfest here. Thanks for your interest in what we're doing with 4DP. I hope you give it a go and, if you do, please let me know what you think. Happy to answer questions here, on our FB pages or via email on david@thesufferfest.com. IWBMATTKYT, David


I just did full frontal. Why are you such a sadist? That hurt more than any FTP test ever could.
Last edited by: timbasile: Oct 17, 17 19:35
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [timbasile] [ In reply to ]
 
Tim, We are not sadists. We're HEALERS. We just heal through Suffering. PS. FF is so, so tough. I've done it three times and I think I'm scarred for life now. ;)
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [The Sufferfest] [ In reply to ]
 
The Sufferfest wrote:
Tim, We are not sadists. We're HEALERS. We just heal through Suffering. PS. FF is so, so tough. I've done it three times and I think I'm scarred for life now. ;)


I jest! That hurt more than any FTP test ever could.

Looking forward to ever-more-specific suffering.
Last edited by: timbasile: Oct 17, 17 19:41
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [PigBodine] [ In reply to ]
 
PigBodine wrote:
What Sufferfest is working at here is putting a system into the hands of the athletes a means by which to understand themselves as riders. .

What Sufferfest is "working at" is separating you from your money, by presenting the work of others (Friel's "8dp", my power profiling) as if it were their own. It is your money, so spend it as you see fit... just realize that you are as culpable of supporting unscrupulous behavior as someone who pays to watch a Harvey Weinstein movie.
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [The Sufferfest] [ In reply to ]
 
The Sufferfest wrote:
Tim, We are not sadists. We're HEALERS. We just heal through Suffering. PS. FF is so, so tough. I've done it three times and I think I'm scarred for life now. ;)

Hello David. I have told you via email, Twitter and now I'll use ST: I hate you. And I hate you more everytime I complete any workout from The Sufferfest. If I ever see you I will whip you like a Sufferlandrian wildebeest. IWBMATTKYT.
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [timbasile] [ In reply to ]
 
Yes, it is pretty special. As a bit of background, and since you mentioned Full Frontal, you might be interested in Mac Cassin's (Coach and Physiologist at APEX Coaching) comment about Full Frontal on another forum: "The specific (FF) protocol created for the app is one that Neal spent years tweaking until the results from each specific effort match up with lab based results he carried out on thousands of different athletes of different abilities during his time as Director of Sports Science at the Boulder Center for Sports Medicine. Over the last 8 years Neal (and the other coaches at APEX) continued to utilize this specific testing protocol. Only after collecting an incredibly large amount of data correlating a riders results with their abilities in training were we able to determine how a riders results from this protocol correlate with what they are actually able to do in day to day training. This is why you cannot simply put in your best 5sec/1min/5min/20min values from different training days into the Sufferfest App. If you did that, many of the workouts would not be physically possible. This is also why we do not allow App users to access 4DP training until they have completed the FF fitness test. So while you are absolutely correct your 1min power at the end of our test will be lower than your fresh 1 min, that is very much intentional. For some individuals the difference is as little as 8%, for others it can be over 25%, which has a profound impact on their ability to carry out certain short high intensity efforts."
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [dprocket] [ In reply to ]
 
Thank you. When you do see me, you'll have to get in the queue to do that...the line is rather long of those with the same intention.
 
Re: Sufferfest 4DP [The Sufferfest] [ In reply to ]
 
The Sufferfest wrote:
Hi Everyone. David from The Sufferfest here. Thanks for your interest in what we're doing with 4DP. I hope you give it a go and, if you do, please let me know what you think. Happy to answer questions here, on our FB pages or via email on david@thesufferfest.com. IWBMATTKYT, David

I have a question: please explain how your approach is novel, as you have explicitly claimed.

In particular, please explain why you believe it is ethical to use tests of 5 s, 1 min, 5 min, and 20 min power to determine what "type" of rider an athlete is, without acknowledging the original source of the idea.
 

Prev Next