Power stats Armstrong & McGee

[Witrot]

 

my max HR is 210 so it is possible' date=' something to do with low blood pressure makes you have a higher max. But my threshold is about 193, so 195 to 205 seems high

[/quote']

 

how old are you?

 

ZippIt is around 23 or 24 years old!

[BikeMax]

 

Bike Max: If you read what I said you will see that I am pretty sure( medals)' date=' but if we have to go into what other guys have established( eg Coggen et al at Cycling Peaks), then do yourself a favour and look at the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on the dynamics of psychology in sport and the effect on performance. You quickly start realizing all the aspects of what creates a great athlete of performance of one.

I respect all the work these great guys have done and then try through my own trial and error create a workable solution for my athletes. Many dont like it that way, but many of those who do have found results. Work with  international athletes on my own unestablished methods and have got some good international results.

Many of the current established methods had to also be "unestablished at some point" An as you said science is evolving and what is seen as established today, may not be tomorrow.

Have fun! I am....

[/quote']

 

I am a coach who uses scientific principles - if you are going to post information about power and rider statistics and your methods of testing power then I believe that you should be willing and able to explain why you do what you do and not hide behind "what works for me works for me"

 

Just saying " look at the results" is not good enough in my opinion.

 

I am aware of the role that psychology plays in ahtletic performance but this is muddying the waters as far as your "science" is concerned - I have not challenged your coaching methods or your results, I have only challenged your science in measuring performance.

 

By all means establish your own workable solution, but be prepared to explain the science or logic behind it as all the others have done and defend that position if asked reasonable questions instead of hiding behind anecdotal evidence.

 

[Austin]

Boet, you asked for the method. The stats I posted. He does 5.4 at a usual 60min test, but I test otherwise because of the psycology of exertion perception.

 

Results are what any top athlete is after, achieving them is  good enough for me. Getting caught up on the protocol, accepted methods thing just does not cut it for me. Results were given as you questioned the method and doubted. Winning two stages of TransAlp, SA and a KOM jersey in Europe could surely have provided a clue that the stats are close to okay as those kind of wattages are required to achieve those results. Going into a may way, your way method would just be stupid. I know your methods or Coggans methods work, never said that it did not.

 

All humans differ and in our attemps to make measurable explanations we have devised these protocols and methods. If you coach someone, scientific principals is only one of many, many tools you use. If you write a training schedule it may be one of two or three. If you write a test results sheet, then it is the only method.

 

It is all about feel and understanding, no science in that.

 

We both love the sport and want to help others in our own ways. Going on about my ways as you did will not make me change them, especially if they have produced the results and continue to evolve as I learn more about cyclists and cycling as a whole. I have not once tried to change yours.....

 

For me performance and the desire to better it is like a living organism growing in many different ways at different times. I for one, am fascinated that it has so many aspects.

[Chunky]

Bikemax, perhaps you need to be a little more adaptable.

Austin has managed to produce top results at elite level. I know a few guys that are coached by you, but none at Elite Level. (Dont use David George as he in all honesty does his own thing).

Perhaps being able to deviate from the scientific approach is the next step. I have seen many people stick to the book per say. But when they deviate just a little and find what actually works for them they really step it up a notch or two.

[BikeMax]

 

Boet' date=' you asked for the method. The stats I posted. He does 5.4 at a usual 60min test, but I test otherwise because of the psycology of exertion perception.

 

Results are what any top athlete is after, achieving them is  good enough for me. Getting caught up on the protocol, accepted methods thing just does not cut it for me. Results were given as you questioned the method and doubted. Winning two stages of TransAlp, SA and a KOM jersey in Europe could surely have provided a clue that the stats are close to okay as those kind of wattages are required to achieve those results. Going into a may way, your way method would just be stupid. I know your methods or Coggans methods work, never said that it did not.

 

All humans differ and in our attemps to make measurable explanations we have devised these protocols and methods. If you coach someone, scientific principals is only one of many, many tools you use. If you write a training schedule it may be one of two or three. If you write a test results sheet, then it is the only method.

 

It is all about feel and understanding, no science in that.

 

We both love the sport and want to help others in our own ways. Going on about my ways as you did will not make me change them, especially if they have produced the results and continue to evolve as I learn more about cyclists and cycling as a whole. I have not once tried to change yours.....

 

For me performance and the desire to better it is like a living organism growing in many different ways at different times. I for one, am fascinated that it has so many aspects.

[/quote']

 

I have not questioned your methods nor have I sought to change them - lets get that straight.

 

You posted some figures that you claimed as threshold power - when I asked how you measured this you said you used 45 min TT + MAP at the end. You now say that you also use 60 min TT - why use both ??

 

FTP is by definition 60 min power

 

There are several ways to estimate FTP and one way to measure it accurately - 45 min TT followed by MAP is not one of them.

 

There are established norms in any sport - they allow objective comparison between athletes. So, yes, I do have a problem if you claim a figure for FTP and then explain that you have used a home grown approach to measure it. By all means use whatever performance testing you feel works but do not then go on to claim the results are an accurate measure of FTP (not without at least an attempt to back up your thinking)

 

I am in full agreement that there are many ways to achieve results and that scientific measurement is only a small part of that - but it is an important one because if guys like you start to change the established norms then the data we discuss becomes meaningless and comparison between athletes is impossible.

 

So please do not take this as an attack on your coaching - because it is not in any way. I will continue to question however when new methods are used for performance testing with no apparent scientific back up to them.

 

 

 

[Cois]

It seems that Cycling isn't a sport (or fun past time) any more. You make it a science project with weird names and all that stuff, but in the end "what works for you, works for you"

 

Every one has his own way of doing a thing. Respect the other views...

[BikeMax]

 

It seems that Cycling isn't a sport (or fun past time) any more. You make it a science project with weird names and all that stuff' date=' but in the end "what works for you, works for you"

 

Every one has his own way of doing a thing. Respect the other views...[/quote']

 

That's a very strange assumption

 

Cycling is more fun (for me anyway) than it has ever been - I love being able to accurately measure performance and help others improve - why should being able to analyse something make it less enjoyable ?

 

What works for you is fine but if somebody can help or advise and you can improve then surely that is a good thing

 

[fatcyclist]

BikeMax clearly didn't ride hard enough at the Cobra this morning if he can still fool around online. I'm dead...thank the stars for couches and laptops...

[BikeMax]

 

Bikemax' date=' perhaps you need to be a little more adaptable.

Austin has managed to produce top results at elite level. I know a few guys that are coached by you, but none at Elite Level. (Dont use David George as he in all honesty does his own thing).

Perhaps being able to deviate from the scientific approach is the next step. I have seen many people stick to the book per say. But when they deviate just a little and find what actually works for them they really step it up a notch or two.

[/quote']

 

This is not a "who's the best coach competition"

 

There are many reasons why a coach might deviate from "the book" - but to deviate from proven scientific principles is foolhardy IMO. To use them creatively is clever.

 

I was not challenging (or even commenting on) Austin's coaching methods but I was questioning his methods for measuring performance. Like in most fields, there are methods for measuring performance in cycling that are well established and I was interested to hear his reasoning behind the test he said he uses for establishing FTP - instead I got a lot of bluster about "wacky methods" and "what works for me" etc etc

 

[BikeMax]

 

BikeMax clearly didn't ride hard enough at the Cobra this morning if he can still fool around online. I'm dead...thank the stars for couches and laptops...

 

I rode hard as hell for 2 hours then left it to Doug (who won)

 

Now my kids want me to play running and jumping games and I am not enjoying them...

 

[ZippIt]

 

my max HR is 210 so it is possible' date=' something to do with low blood pressure makes you have a higher max. But my threshold is about 193, so 195 to 205 seems high

[/quote']

 

how old are you?

 

immature (in terms of body development) 23 year old..I'm told I look more like 18

[peloton]

From an outsider's view I must agree that it would surely make sense to compare apples with apples.  In discussing / talking facts it's usefull to have a basis/definition for what is being discussed.

 

Different training mthods is simply a new topic, it still does not define what is being discussed.

 

Talking results is another new topic, the proof of having added value to an individual as a result of applying innovative training methods, justifying 'wacky training'. For instance, we know very well that Kamp Staaldraad did not work.  But it would have been interesting if Kamp Staaldraad participants could have been tested based on standardised tests to see what the actual effect was! Similarly, and clearly on the opposite of the specturm - with Austin's innovative approach it would make interesting reading to evaluate such prepared riders on standardised tests, therby convincingly endorsing the method.

 

At the same time resultsmedals/winns also justify training methods, but perhaps in more layman's terms?

 

Am i getting it wrong?

 

[BikeMax]

 

From an outsider's view I must agree that it would surely make sense to compare apples with apples.  In discussing / talking facts it's usefull to have a basis/definition for what is being discussed.

 

Different training mthods is simply a new topic' date=' it still does not define what is being discussed.

 

Talking results is another new topic, the proof of having added value to an individual as a result of applying innovative training methods, justifying 'wacky training'. For instance, we know very well that Kamp Staaldraad did not work.  But it would have been interesting if Kamp Staaldraad participants could have been tested based on standardised tests to see what the actual effect was! Similarly, and clearly on the opposite of the specturm - with Austin's innovative approach it would make interesting reading to evaluate such prepared riders on standardised tests, therby convincingly endorsing the method.

 

At the same time resultsmedals/winns also justify training methods, but perhaps in more layman's terms?

 

Am i getting it wrong?

 

[/quote']

 

No - I think you are getting it right.

 

This is the point I have been trying to make - it is also fine to redefine the tests if that is what you want to do, but then you have to be prepared to go into bat and explain and justify your reasoning (and have it subjected to questioning)

 

[Austin]

Well, as I did say before. Because of what I read form guys like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi . (The studies of the kopdokters say that Elite level athletes perfom way different in competition than in training. Yet, you must not try to always duplicate his actual race psycology when training. These Elite guys actually switch like this to protect themselves from burning out.Training= goal awareness; racing= immediate activity awereness) and what I learnt as the norm I took results from actual competition where I saw the riders do the values. I then with trail and error used certain creteria to determine what would work best to test the guys I am involved with to get a results that would reflect competition standards( 60 mins effort perception in training is much more than same perception in racing and because goals and efforts are racing related, that for me must be the determining factor).

I also found out that some guys can do a normal FT test with way to much anaerobic activity or muscle fibre usage, while other salthough also at maximum effort for a FT test can be much more aerobic and therefore their FT would actually be a higher platform to race from as they are more areobic on their FT value.

 

Le Peleton: I agree in princaple what you say. If these guys progress one day to the top level they will be measured by higher authorities( maybe their will be a new Coggan who will be the authority, maybe not). Testing will also still then vairy as equipment used, in or out competition becomes a factor, etc.

As I said, I am trying something new, it has been working quite well.

I gave a simple example on the start topic that even if someone has a 5.5W/kg like Brad at Threshold, he can still be far away from a good TT finish( As Epoh questioned and understood.)

 

Again Bikemax came out to say how I do it is not right:

"There are several ways to estimate FTP and one way to measure it accurately - 45 min TT followed by MAP is not one of them."

I never explained how and why it is used and am not going to as that is my own methods. I did say that he has done in competition on 60mins at the same values. Never slated Bikemax for any of his methods, yet I must hear this....

 

Maybe my methods die out or maybe get popular, so dont sweat it to much. Just trying to be innovative. Will not carry on with this unless the results were forthcoming too.

 

Untill then will carry on in my "Laymans ways"....(I train this way= I better my results or win) Layman's yet empowering to the athlete too...

 

[Austin]

Here a scenraio: If at the end of the day( even though I was just trying to comment on the fact that W/kg doesnt mean that if you are equal to another, your performance will be the same) my guy might be 5.2 to 5.6 or somewhere in that region( if my method are so "Out" of touch, he did manage to win races/titles that could require such efforts to win.

 

Now I would have read it like this:

KOM Europe title win= 5.4W/kg ( That could actually be possible...)

Maybe this guy is doing something right, albeit not the norm. Good, at least he is trying something and also adding his part to advance the sport, just as I am trying.

 

 Not just: That not right!!( I am not here to eplain everthing, unless it was a panel asking me out in order to implement my methods in any organisation. Would then gladly go through all the steps)

 

I am an advocate for training with power, but it is still relatively new and in the last year many things have been discovered in terms of actual practical application thereof. So am glad that you offer that service to the SA cyclists. The more guys that do, the more we all will learn and grow.

 

 

[BikeMax]

 

Well' date=' as I did say before. Because of what I read form guys like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi . (The studies of the kopdokters say that Elite level athletes perfom way different in competition than in training. Yet, you must not try to always duplicate his actual race psycology when training. These Elite guys actually switch like this to protect themselves from burning out.Training= goal awareness; racing= immediate activity awereness) and what I learnt as the norm I took results from actual competition where I saw the riders do the values. I then with trail and error used certain creteria to determine what would work best to test the guys I am involved with to get a results that would reflect competition standards( 60 mins effort perception in training is much more than same perception in racing and because goals and efforts are racing related, that for me must be the determining factor).

I also found out that some guys can do a normal FT test with way to much anaerobic activity or muscle fibre usage, while other salthough also at maximum effort for a FT test can be much more aerobic and therefore their FT would actually be a higher platform to race from as they are more areobic on their FT value.

 

Le Peleton: I agree in princaple what you say. If these guys progress one day to the top level they will be measured by higher authorities( maybe their will be a new Coggan who will be the authority, maybe not). Testing will also still then vairy as equipment used, in or out competition becomes a factor, etc.

As I said, I am trying something new, it has been working quite well.

I gave a simple example on the start topic that even if someone has a 5.5W/kg like Brad at Threshold, he can still be far away from a good TT finish( As Epoh questioned and understood.)

 

Again Bikemax came out to say how I do it is not right:

"There are several ways to estimate FTP and one way to measure it accurately - 45 min TT followed by MAP is not one of them."

I never explained how and why it is used and am not going to as that is my own methods. I did say that he has done in competition on 60mins at the same values. Never slated Bikemax for any of his methods, yet I must hear this....

 

Maybe my methods die out or maybe get popular, so dont sweat it to much. Just trying to be innovative. Will not carry on with this unless the results were forthcoming too.

 

Untill then will carry on in my "Laymans ways"....(I train this way= I better my results or win) Layman's yet empowering to the athlete too...

 

[/quote']

 

Ok - here is what doesn't stack up for me..

 

1. You are replacing a direct measure of performance (60 min TT) with an estimate based on a 45 min TT plus MAP.

 

2. Are you really telling us that an elite athlete will be daunted by a 60 min TT test and may not perform to his potential (which I understand) but that the same athlete will not be daunted by a 45 min TT and then a MAP ? (Many coaches use shorter TT's for the reason you cite - but these are nearer 20 minute and are more manageable)

 

3. The problem to which you allude with the 60 min TT is well discussed - that is why we have other methods such as Monod and Scherrer CP model that can predict (pretty accurately) 60 min power from shorter test results. In this way you can benchmark the 60 min TT against a second method and if it looks low due to poor motivation, then the number can be ammended.

 

4. You are correct that a rider with a higher anaerobic capacity will draw on this during a 60 min TT to a certain degree - but that is still the case during your 45 min TT (But more pronounced due to the shorter duration of the ride)