This would have also been an appropriate response…
This would have also been an appropriate response…
Love that movie!
Andrew, it has your name on it. No mention of Chales Howe.
Andrew, it has your name on it. No mention of Chales Howe.
http://freewebs.com/velodynamics2/traininglevels.pdf
Velodynamics is* Charles’ coaching company’s site:
http://velodynamics2.webs.com/about.htm
*Although “was” might be a better descriptor, since I believe that he is concentrating on running/runners now.
Andrew, it has your name on it. No mention of Chales Howe.
http://freewebs.com/...2/traininglevels.pdf
Velodynamics is* Charles’ coaching company’s site:
http://velodynamics2.webs.com/about.htm
*Although “was” might be a better descriptor, since I believe that he is concentrating on running/runners now.
In your book you say FTP is the power you can maintain in a quasi steady state for approx 1 hour, or did Hunter write that bit?
It also says in your book the best estimate of FTP is a 1 hour time trial.
Andrew, it has your name on it. No mention of Chales Howe.
http://freewebs.com/...2/traininglevels.pdf
Velodynamics is* Charles’ coaching company’s site:
http://velodynamics2.webs.com/about.htm
*Although “was” might be a better descriptor, since I believe that he is concentrating on running/runners now.
In your book you say FTP is the power you can maintain in a quasi steady state for approx 1 hour, or did Hunter write that bit?
It also says in your book the best estimate of FTP is a 1 hour time trial.
-
“approximately”
-
“estimate”
-
Based on the WKO4 modeling approach, FTP is an intensity that can be maintained for 3548 +/- 796 s, with the wide SD being due to the flatness of the power-duration relationship in this region (hence partially the reason you’re making a fool of yourself…again).
So FTP has moved from the power you can maintain in a semi quasi steady state for approx 60 minutes to an incredibly vague duration of anywhere between 46 minutes to 72 minutes.
Now you have come up with mFTP which is another vague approximate estimation of an estimation.
The whole point of using a power meter is to obtain precise reliable repeatable data. Your methods rely on nothing but rough estimates of rough estimates.
Normalized Power is an estimate of what someone might have done in a steady state effort.
TSS uses those estimates, but does not take into account eg, the first 20 minutes at 300 watts is far easier than the last 20 minutes at 300 watts of a 3x 20 min session or a continuous 60 minute effort at 300 watts.
If you have precise reliable repeatable data like average power over an exact duration or distance, why on earth muddy the waters and base your training and quantify your training by using imprecise estimates of rough approximations?
Furthermore, the word threshold means, the magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result or condition to be manifested. If you look at power duration curves there is no threshold. The longer the duration the lower the power. There is no functional threshold power.
So FTP has moved from the power you can maintain in a semi quasi steady state for approx 60 minutes to an incredibly vague duration of anywhere between 46 minutes to 72 minutes.
Now you have come up with mFTP which is another vague approximate estimation of an estimation.
The whole point of using a power meter is to obtain precise reliable repeatable data. Your methods rely on nothing but rough estimates of rough estimates.
Normalized Power is an estimate of what someone might have done in a steady state effort using an estimate of FTP.
TSS uses those estimates, but does not take into account eg, the first 20 minutes at 300 watts is far easier than the last 20 minutes at 300 watts of a 3x 20 min session or a continuous 60 minute effort at 300 watts.
If you have precise reliable repeatable data like average power over an exact duration or distance, why on earth muddy the waters and base your training and quantify your training by using imprecise estimates of rough approximations?
Furthermore, the word threshold means, the magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result or condition to be manifested. If you look at power duration curves there is no threshold. The longer the duration the lower the power. There is no functional threshold power.
Bill of Ockham, can you please start a thread to discuss your views on training with power. The wko4 discussion topic really isn’t the right place. Your constant badgering is really tiresome here. Also, best to stick to things you understand instead of making up useless posts with numerous errors. NP is a straight calculation from ride data, it doesn’t use FTP for anything…just to point out one inaccuracy.
Andrew, one of the wko3 features I used frequently was the multi-ride/segment analysis. I can’t seem to find a similar feature in wko4, any tips on what charts or tools I could use?
Thanks, I’ve corrected my post. NP is an estimate using an algorithm - the point is it’s an estimate.
Thanks, I’ve corrected my post. NP is an estimate using an algorithm - the point is it’s an estimate.
Looking forward to your thread on training with power. Would love to be able to discuss your insights n the topic 
So FTP has moved from the power you can maintain in a semi quasi steady state for approx 60 minutes to an incredibly vague duration of anywhere between 46 minutes to 72 minutes.
Considering the flatness of the power-duration relationship, 46-72 min is approximately 60 min.
Now you have come up with mFTP which is another vague approximate estimation of an estimation.
Yes, it is an estimate, as all such statistical calculations are properly described. Hardly vague or approximate, though - for example, the standard error of the estimate when predicting ~1 h TT power from mFTP is <2%.
Normalized Power is an estimate of what someone might have done in a steady state effort.
TSS uses those estimates, but does not take into account eg, the first 20 minutes at 300 watts is far easier than the last 20 minutes at 300 watts of a 3x 20 min session or a continuous 60 minute effort at 300 watts.
No question, there are lots of limitations to TSS. That’s why I wrote this when I introduced the idea:
“A greater limitation to the entire concept, though, is that the
basic premise – i.e., that you can adequately describe the training load
and the stress it imposes on an individual based on just one number
(TSS), completely ignoring how that “score” is achieved and other
factors (e.g., diet, rest) – is, on its face, ridiculous. Nonetheless, I believe
that TSS (and IF) should prove useful to coaches and athletes for
evaluating/managing training.”
Consider how popular TSS has become, I would submit that I was correct in the latter assertion.
If you have precise reliable repeatable data like average power over an exact duration or distance, why on earth muddy the waters and base your training and quantify your training by using imprecise estimates of rough approximations?
Because it ends up confusing people by implying a false sense of precision. For example, there are those who naively and mistakenly believe that CP is invariably 5% higher than FTP. In reality, however, that is because those who do so have insisted upon an exact (and incorrect) definition of CP.
Furthermore, the word threshold means, the magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result or condition to be manifested. If you look at power duration curves there is no threshold. The longer the duration the lower the power. There is no functional threshold power.
There is also no lactate threshold or ventilatory threshold either. Yet, viewing things that way helps people understand the phenomena and better communicate with each other, just the notion of FTP does.
Thanks, I’ve corrected my post. NP is an estimate using an algorithm - the point is it’s an estimate.
Welcome to 2003, Trev.
Andrew, one of the wko3 features I used frequently was the multi-ride/segment analysis. I can’t seem to find a similar feature in wko4, any tips on what charts or tools I could use?
I was wondering that as well. (I think I am thinking of the same thing - MFRA multi file range analysis)
My trial period has run out for 4.0 and could not find a similar solution in that short time. I will continue to use 3.0 for now, but I do use MFRA when comparing my power meters against either the Kickr or E-Motion rollers wireless controller just to see the wattage difference.
I am curious if there was a 4.0 comparison feature.
Side note: It was not too big of a deal because using PerfPro does this comparison while training showing the Kickr’s power and the Quarq’s power while controlling the ERG effort in the post training results.
Has anyone had issues getting credit for their WKO+ 3.0 serial number when trying to purchase 4.0? I have been a WKO+ user since 2.0 (bought 2.5 too) and I think it would be a bit nice to get the discount. But the online tool complained so I placed a tech support case 4 days ago and haven’t had a even an acknowledgement.
Is this typical of current Training Peaks support?
Thanks!
Sorry for the dumb question, but I’m relatively new to using expressions. If I want to add a horizontal average line to a chart, what would the expression be? For example, if I am looking at a chart of run distance by week for the last 90 days it would be helpful to see what is my average weekly run distance for that same time period, show as a horizontal line so that I can quickly see which weeks are above my average and which weeks are below.
EDIT - Should have spent longer playing before posting - figured it. Apologies.
Quido,
These questions usually get answered the day you ask. Sorry for the hassle of having to enter the code, has to be linked to your account.
I just logged into the help desk tickets and only see two open from overnight, think something might have gone wrong. Can you check your SPAM or other options as I see a few answered requests that might be you.
Email me your account name for TrainingPeaks (the one you used for ticket) at tim@wko4.com and I will see if we can figure out what happened.
Tim - Has the data conversion formatting issue of “post-activity comments”, where carriage returns are ignored, been resolved?
So FTP has moved from the power you can maintain in a semi quasi steady state for approx 60 minutes to an incredibly vague duration of anywhere between 46 minutes to 72 minutes.
Considering the flatness of the power-duration relationship, 46-72 min is approximately 60 min.
Now you have come up with mFTP which is another vague approximate estimation of an estimation.
Yes, it is an estimate, as all such statistical calculations are properly described. Hardly vague or approximate, though - for example, the standard error of the estimate when predicting ~1 h TT power from mFTP is <2%.
Normalized Power is an estimate of what someone might have done in a steady state effort.
TSS uses those estimates, but does not take into account eg, the first 20 minutes at 300 watts is far easier than the last 20 minutes at 300 watts of a 3x 20 min session or a continuous 60 minute effort at 300 watts.
No question, there are lots of limitations to TSS. That’s why I wrote this when I introduced the idea:
“A greater limitation to the entire concept, though, is that the
basic premise – i.e., that you can adequately describe the training load
and the stress it imposes on an individual based on just one number
(TSS), completely ignoring how that “score” is achieved and other
factors (e.g., diet, rest) – is, on its face, ridiculous. Nonetheless, I believe
that TSS (and IF) should prove useful to coaches and athletes for
evaluating/managing training.”
Consider how popular TSS has become, I would submit that I was correct in the latter assertion.
If you have precise reliable repeatable data like average power over an exact duration or distance, why on earth muddy the waters and base your training and quantify your training by using imprecise estimates of rough approximations?
Because it ends up confusing people by implying a false sense of precision. For example, there are those who naively and mistakenly believe that CP is invariably 5% higher than FTP. In reality, however, that is because those who do so have insisted upon an exact (and incorrect) definition of CP.
Furthermore, the word threshold means, the magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result or condition to be manifested. If you look at power duration curves there is no threshold. The longer the duration the lower the power. There is no functional threshold power.
There is also no lactate threshold or ventilatory threshold either. Yet, viewing things that way helps people understand the phenomena and better communicate with each other, just the notion of FTP does.
Recently you have written on another forum,
“FTP is a functional estimate of the highest exercise intensity at which you can maintain metabolic control. The maximum duration that individuals can maintain that intensity differs, but it is generally in the 30-60 min range. IOW, you shouldn’t view FTP as being tied to a specific duration.”
30 to 60 minutes is very different to approx 60 minutes or 40k TT power.
1/10 Trev. Very poor attempt at trolling. Asked and answered in the text you quote. Back under your bridge…