Coggin, et. al. have a ton of published articles on power and what it is and how to use it. So does Neal Henderson. The point is that Coggin uses Total Time to Exhaustion and Henderson uses the four data Points (4DP). Both are correct when their methods are CORRECTLY implemented. Wahoo/SYSTM implemented 4DP and other training programs use Coggin. Neither is correct or incorrect. It’s what you want get out of your training. What has come up lately is the 80/20 rule as applied to progressive training and how much time we should be spending in what zone. Sadly that rule applies to more than training.
4 Likes
There are some interesting comments about lower zone, base training vs more intervals in this podcast episode on Bikeradar Base training vs intervals – how to balance your training for maximum results - The BikeRadar Podcast | Podcast on Spotify
2 Likes
Plus you can “tone down” any workout using ERG mode by just reducing the intensity, even whilst you are riding if you notice your HR (I use HR as my Zone 2 measure) creeping up near the top of the zone.
3 Likes
Please direct me to the “ton of published articles” you refer to.
The 4DP training is in direct opposition to Coggan’s FTP based training, so they are not all the same.
In some sense, any training method that varies the stimulus appropriately will achieve results, the issue what is the most efficient way to achieve improvement. Efficiency is important whether you train 4 hours or 40 hours a week.
Maybe with the advent of portable, and easy to use Lactate monitoring we will be able to individualize training to a much greater degree, but right now the best training is the one that is based on exactly how the body’s metabolism works.
Of course, at some point, if you have an event you have to train for that event specifically.
Iñigo San Millán’s 80/20 rule is quite specific, and not related to the other rule of thumb 80/20 rules,
Also, the name is spelled “Coggan”, at least on my copy of “Training and Racing with a Power Meter”.
I regret getting involved in this discussion, but if you listen to the bike radar podcast from October 26 Matt Cassin says that the DP4 was a result of Coggan’s work. Note table 4.1 in Training and Racing with a Power Meter has the power profile chart, which I believe was developed by Coggan and Allen. Coggan is an exercise physiologist with 106 articles in PubMed. San Millan is both a coach and a faculty member at University of Colorado with 22 papers in PubMed ( he is much younger so you can’t compare their CVs).
3 Likes
What’s DP4?
Google is your friend. Both Coggan and Henderson have written articles and just to throw in another name Joe Friel has written several books on training. The point is that FTP is a 'point in time’s measurement and so is 4DP. Both serve well for training in different manners.
2 Likes
Don’t regret getting involved in the discussion. A vigorous discussion is how learning and education for all of us happens. I never expect anything I say (or anyone says) is immune from challenge.
It is interesting that Cassin said 4DP was based on Coggan’s work. If I remember correctly there was very public, and bitter dispute about that.
That chart you refer to (and the entire book for that matter) has no footnotes or references, so I do not know what it is based on. I assume it is a regression analysis of who they coached, but how representative or scientifically meaningful it is I cannot know.
I looked at Coggan’s papers for the past 5 years and he does not seem to be doing any research in exercise metabolics. In none of the books he has written that I have read has he scientifically explained the basis for his charts.
1 Like
I own, and have read almost all of Friel’s books. He is a coach, not a researcher. It is based on his experience, not empirical science.
Neil Henderson has no published papers in PubMed. His bio on Apex coaching does not indicate that he has done any research. He has a list of 9 papers on Research Gate, none of which are in metabolism.
DP4 are the 4 metrics that the full frontal test generates (FTP, MAP, AC and NM).
1 Like
Just to circle back around, the real intent of my question was if structured workouts were worthwhile in todays age vs. adaptive training following HR guidelines, TSS, AI, past calcs, etc.
I personally think all the “train with power” has really messed up a lot of people I meet in the racing scene. They are so watt oriented, yet more watts done less efficiently isn’t faster. Nobody coasts. I beat people that don’t do intervals. Its crazy to watch their consistency as if thats what matters. I watch my race partners worry about their wattage zones instead of going as hard as they can - seeming actually fearful of numbers on their screen during races. I don’t think this was ever the intention of “training with power and stats”. Many racers train with meters, and turn them off during the race just for this freedom.
I downloaded the new version of “The Breakaway” app - and I am blown away by its simplicity of incremental training increases, review of past rides, the circle of power to show weak spots, and recommendations for workouts - all without actual stale structured workouts based on power - or letting “the algorithm choose”. The first version was a massive fail last year.
To be honest, this is what I’ve been looking for so I have freedom to listen to my body talk, work with my schedule and ride how I want to depending on weather, etc. All without ERG mode and a calendar. Discussion?
1 Like
Very much this. Training /= racing!
2 Likes
I would take the word of a coach with known results over that of any research scientist. That means I would listen to Neal over Andy. And that should end this battle of wits.
3 Likes
I agree with you about taking Neal over Andy (which is why I have a FF scheduled for today), but Iñigo San Millán is a coach as well as a researcher.
4 Likes
I’ve never, ever, heard of the individual you refer to. BTW, I have over 40 years of training experience being a retired military NCO and having to lead physical training. The point here is why I don’t always listen the te research as it, many times, isn’t based on real world situations. Kinda like the battle over tire pressures. Whatever works. Some people are way outside the mold…(I’m one of them, I’m constantly in recovery from some sort of incident).
2 Likes
So you remember about where in the podcast he discusses this? I’m working my way through but if you recall, do tell
I do not recall. I think it is where he discusses mitochondrial efficiency.
Do you find the podcast interesting?
It is specific to the person. If you are able to train using the feedback of your body and how it is responding to training, go for it. Many people need/want a structured workout so they know what they are doing and what to expect.
As far as developing a 1200w sprint my suggestion (as a rider who has turned 1000w-1300 watt seated sprints on the 4DP test) is weight lifting. Heavy one leg presses, heavy squats and heavy deadlifts. The creatine phosphate energy system is unique in that it give about a 8-10 seconds of maximum muscle contraction. That power coupled with the ability to turn a high cadence (115-120 rpm) becomes a devastating sprint.
5 Likes
There is a saying that power meters are useful for training your RPE.
Adaptive training is based on how your abilities compare with the rider data they are using for comparisons. Machine learning, while perhaps better than regression analysis, is just very sophisticated statistics. How useful is it for you depends on how well you correspond to the riders in their data set.
1 Like
+1 for Squats and deadlifts but make sure you have strict form before you add weight. It didn’t do Quadzilla Robert Foerstemann any harm. Look up his one legged squats. Seriously though, leg work with weights works. Just have good form or you really will screw up your back.
2 Likes