too many words

here is the cliff notes version for anyone interested:

Chapter 1

STFUAR

FIN

I'm sorry, have I been talking over your head? My 3 y old complains about the same thing...

I rode my bicycle today. It was windy.

not over my head whatsoever.

I forgot more about the endocrine system and aerobic power, than most will ever learn or know.
...

I just have way too much time on my hands, so i write stupid replies. that is all.
I crunch numbers at work, and for me, BF is the opposite of both work and thinking.

Looks like we've found the antithesis of RyanF and the twin at the same time.

I....see.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...5&postcount=11

Oh snap! Welcome to BF Mr. Power.

Man... you can tell it's the off season. Pissy-ness abounds.

I'm going to ride Z3 for 3 hours, cause THAT is what you're supposed to do during base season.

We'll know for sure in March at Jefferson Cup.

Welcome to the BF sir. I enjoy your posts at FixedGearFever.Hope you can shed some light on the roadies too.

Well I drew up the corrected plots using these equations





Yielding





I must admit that the plots now assume the correct shape. The criticism remains, however, that the application does not follow the referenced research used to support his product. However, I do believe his argument that the differences between his approximation and the original equation are insignificant when used as intended.

Thank you Andrew Coggan for pointing out my mistake.

hah it is funny (no, predictable) that you use my creatine post as a way to slam me.

go ahead use whatever study, or internet search, to refute what I wrote regarding creatine and cycling. my own real world testing shows me that I had more sprint wattage past 3 hours on a loop I do, than without the creatine type in revenge. it helps with ---sprinting---, which is sub 1 minute effort. it doesn't do a whole hell of a lot for the whole ride, but I can spit out more watts a bit faster, giving me a better jump, [than with revenge where I let the creatine settle out and then skimmed off the fluid, leaving most of the creatine behind]. so yeah whatever. it all depends on the type of creatine, what it is bound to, moment of ingestion, stomach acid specific gravity...I could go on and on and on. anyhow....keep digging i am sure you will be able to blame me for the mpls bridge collapse if you dig deep enough because I used to breed pigeonz.

I have done 2 solid years of intense study with endocrinologists, sport physiologists, and the like. so go ahead and slam me while I do the actual real testing. your mileage may vary.

and I am still gonna jump into wordy threads and say STFUAR because that is what about 99.99999% of the people
on BF really need to get through their heads. you geeks keep on geekin...I think it's overkill on a public forum where knuckleheads like me are allowed to register.

First, it's not "my product" - I am not a partner in Peaksware LLC (formerly TrainingPeaks LLC, formerly TrainingBible LLC), nor am I involved in any of their business decisions. I do receive a $1/copy licensing fee for their use of my ideas, but I only entered into that arrangement after several years of publically sharing them, when one of your countrymen decided to try to make a quick buck off of someone else's intellectual creations. Now I don't have to worry about that anymore, as Peaksware LLC does it for me.

Second, the references are included in the article simply so that interested parties can educate themselves if they so desire, and I explain in detail how the Performance Manager concept, although inspired by Banister's impulse-response model, differs in a number of way. Apaprently you would prefer that I pretended that I can up with the idea in a total vacuum, and not reference prior studies at all?

Sweet, another BF cat fight. Welcome Andrew you will fit in great

No, on the contrary I applaud you for the transparency and thank you for pointing out both of yours interesting research. Heck, if you hadn't given me the equations and references I wouldn't have read up on him and gone through the bother of entering my training log data (and the examples) into both models. You really did help those interested learn more about the topic.

I hope your other related business ventures are prospering due to this work… there is nothing wrong with making money; especially when it’s just money coming from those too lazy/stupid to use the available equations themselves.

Cheers

I have no related business ventures - essentially everything I do w/ respect to cycling is just my way of paying back the sport for what it has given me.

I must say, you have quite the way with words.

Anyway, just out of curiousity: how do you overcome the fact that a stable solution to Banister's equations requires 20-200 measurements of maximal performance every few months?

So you wrote your own operating system, web browser, e-mail tool, word processor? If not are you lazy, stupid, or both?

I use it incorrectly.

I know I don't have enough points to make the model really work, nor do I have sophisticated enough software that can take a data set and an equation and spit out error-minimized coefficients and decay constants. Someday I will break and pay for a license for something like this https://www.graphpad.com/prism/Prism.htm . At least I have an ergometer now to obtain some “real” performance measures.

I have played around with some of these values from the literature (see below) but mostly still use the values I posted in the OP so long ago, but they are not perfect by any means. Specifically they either underestimate the effect of fatigue or overestimate how quickly fitness drops off. This is definitely a work in progress that may yield nothing more than entertainment or at best constants that work for me and nobody else.



Chart taken from
https://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...gerscience.asp

Entering a few equations into my training log spreadsheet was easier than you are making it out to be.

Especially in light of this.

The definition of stupid is taking the time to write your own training assessment package when Cycling Peaks gives you the whole shebang for $ 99. I think I'd rather train than spend my time developing software that's available and that is proven to work.

gene r

Seriously.

You're stupid. No you are!

Are you implying that you are using the TSB model "correctly" and that what you are doing somehow has greater scientific validity? You somehow know that the arbitrary time constants for CTL and ACL fits your responsiveness to training and your rate of recovery?

Only if you don't enjoy learning.

Sure I am going to get "geek" comments etc by those who don't need anything more cerebral than reality tv to entertain them. I'm not like other people, and I am fine with that.

More like assumed to work, show me the evidence.

I am fairly certain that I'm using the TSB model correctly in the sense for which it was developed. I'm also saying that by using the TSB model, I'm using something which, while sacrificing some rigor, has the benefit of much greater simplicity and ease of use without losing the basic benefits of an impulse/response model. Further, I know the model has been validated against a large volume of data from many riders of different abilities and interests. Further, the sensitivity of the model to the parameters has been explored and quantified, and a method for improving the model to fit my personal data has been described. So yes, I know exactly how well the model fits me. (as an aside, there's nothing arbitrary about the constants. How they were chosen is well documented and anyone is free to customize them as they see fit.)

Ask her
https://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.ph...m077/7_JLL4880
https://www.amberneben.com/index.php?...=111&Itemid=49