Dr Coggan appears not to be a fan of the Veloclinic plot

[Tony]

from his FB page:

Insensitive, in that the plot looks pretty much the same despite significant variations in the ass u me d critical power.

Arbitrary, in that when the plot "looks right" (beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess?) is primarily driven by only a handful of data points/efforts, i.e., by the "extremes of the extremes."

[Mark Liversedge]

Mike P (veloclinic) is writing up the purpose and some advice on how to use the plot to educate and inform those that don't understand it. Should be ready when 3.2 is released.

Mark

[Tony]

I have found it to be very useful. It suggested my FTP was higher than I thought and this was confirmed on formal testing. W'bal now seems appropriate.

[Rob Manning]

Seems to me that Coggan is quite easily incensed when someone raises a question WRT his techniques.  

Doesn't seem to be collaborative and is more interested in selling than increasing understanding.  

But that's just the impression I get having watched him interact with others online as opposed to in person.

[Mark Van Akkeren]

the question isn't "what coggan isn't a fan of" but "what is he a fan of"..... not counting his own work. 

[Chris Cleeland]

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Rob Manning <robda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Seems to me that Coggan is quite easily incensed when someone raises a question WRT his techniques.  

Doesn't seem to be collaborative and is more interested in selling than increasing understanding.  

What does he sell?

--

Chris Cleeland

[Rob Manning]

I believe he has a stake in TrainingPeaks, and of course, his own work is the basis of TARWAPM.

And I think Mark kind of hit it on the head.  Pretty self-aggrandizing.  I've found more interesting discussion on these forums with Dr. Skiba and a variety of other folks who are very willing to discuss ideas rather than simply say "you're wrong."

Again, my impression alone....

[Nathan Townsend]

Himself.  

Real experts have little need to sell themselves on social media in such a desperate manner because their work speaks for itself.  If the work is published and it is good, then it is much harder to fault.  Coggan's work is easy to fault because almost none of it matches what we're seeing published in proper scientific journals. So why doesn't Coggan publish his so called "work" in a proper scientific journal and challenge the studies that are?  Most likely because his FB psuedoscience does not stand up to proper scientific scrutiny and so it would never get past peer-review anyway.  

How is it possible that good researchers whom design and execute proper research studies just cannot seem to ever replicate Coggan's unpublished and of unknown origin data?  You're a smart guy Chris, doesn't that ever strike you as unusual?   On several topics Coggan appears at odds with the scientific establishment, and many of those scientists he is at odds with also work directly with coaches and athletes, so it isn't as if they're out of touch with how real athletes are training and the methods they use to monitor and prescribe training.

 

[Jens]

He tells just his opinion. Why is this a problem? There is mostly some truth in his points. You don't need to share his opinion. But for me his statements are always worth to think them through.

[Mark Liversedge]

Mike has updated his explainer, its really good: http://veloclinic.com/veloclinic-plot-w-cp-subtraction-plot/

Mark

[Chris Cleeland]

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Rob Manning <robda...@gmail.com> wrote:

I believe he has a stake in TrainingPeaks, and of course, his own work is the basis of TARWAPM.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a stake in TP. That's Hunter Allen, Gear Fisher, and Dirk Friel.  Do you have some sort of proof otherwise, or is this speculation?

I believe I've heard him say that he gets a stake in book sales.  Of course that's shared, and if it's anything like what you get from other niche books (my experience is with technical books) it amounts to pennies per hour spent creating the tome, and that's if the thing really takes off.

--

Chris Cleeland

[Rob Manning]

Purely speculation on my part.

Doesn't change the fact that he's kind of an asshole.  And I'm not interested in listening to someone who will regularly engage in petty combat on twitter because he doesn't want to see anything other than his version of reality.

There's no room for ego in science.  At least that's how I see it (clearly science is full of ego.)

[Chris Cleeland]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Nathan Townsend <nathant...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 27 April 2015 06:04:13 UTC+3, Chris Cleeland wrote:

What does he sell?

Himself.  

Don't we all at some level?

 

Real experts have little need to sell themselves on social media in such a desperate manner because their work speaks for itself.  If the work is published and it is good, then it is much harder to fault.  Coggan's work is easy to fault because almost none of it matches what we're seeing published in proper scientific journals. So why doesn't Coggan publish his so called "work" in a proper scientific journal and challenge the studies that are?  Most likely because his FB psuedoscience does not stand up to proper scientific scrutiny and so it would never get past peer-review anyway.  

How is it possible that good researchers whom design and execute proper research studies just cannot seem to ever replicate Coggan's unpublished and of unknown origin data?  You're a smart guy Chris, doesn't that ever strike you as unusual?

I'm not particularly smart, and I'm definitely not an exphys; I don't know who these other people are against whom Coggan bucks (or, if I do, I don't know that I know).  Even if I did, I'm not sure I'd have enough knowledge to compare between the "them" and "him".

Suppose, for the moment, that Coggan is wrong.  What does that imply?

[Alex Simmons]

This thread is deliciously ironic. People using the very same methods for which they criticise others for using.

e.g. use of social media to communicate ideas and debate with people.

People speculate about intent without checking their facts.

People making ad hominem attacks or focussing on personality and not on the content of what is said.

No one here yet has actually discussed the content of a legitimate criticism made.

[Alex Simmons]

So as a coach, what am I to make of this plot?

I see from the chart confirmation the model has a narrow domain of validity. We already knew that but another means to illustrate this is helpful. Perhaps it helps to define that range for individuals.

A 5% error in CP estimate shows up with visual cues. OK but that's not exactly tightening the exiting estimate precision.

I do wonder about how all these models and charts manage the sizeable variability in the quality of the data. MMP data is notorious for anomalies in the real world of power meter users, the variety of devices in use and the variety of environments, terrain, bikes and other factors influencing it. That is mentioned - consistent quality data is needed. It's a real practical issue - and why I value means to extract good information from imperfect data.

At present there is still, IME, a higher degree of interpretation and filtering needed when examining a rider's data.

Can someone explain the practical use of this plot?

Is it revealing something I wouldn't already know? 

Will it help me ascertain what changes in training I should consider and why?

[Mark Liversedge]

Mike has already explained the chart, there is a link in an earlier post, here it is again: http://veloclinic.com/veloclinic-plot-w-cp-subtraction-plot/

The validity of W' or CP concepts and validity of any given PD model that uses a CP and W' concept are totally separate to this; it is a tool to validate and review your estimates by plotting PD data in a novel way. 

As mentioned previously, we will put an explainer up on the GC website when we release 3.2 as part of Nathan's advice on estimating CP and W'.

WRT the discussions, I am strangely reminded of two quotes (1) from Dalai Lama: "When you Talk you are only Repeating what you know; but when Listen, you may Learn something new" and (2) from Frank Zappa "The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open".

I like to think GC reflects a lot of people's ideas and we certainly listen here. We make mistakes, we try new things and we keep on learning.

Mark

[Tony]

Indeed. The "Veloclinic" or critical power substraction plot should be neither better nor worse than the standard power duration plot. It is after all the same data. It is however a different and useful way to view the data. If one is a CP / W' sort of guy then the plot does seem to be more intuitive.

[Alex Simmons]

I read the link already. My questions were posed after reading it.

My other comments related to the ad hom attacks as these are not a valid way of listening or responding to valid criticism of content, nor of learning.

I was hoping for responses to be focussed on the content and its practical implementation.

Dalai Lama quotes aren't really helping, but just for fun:

"In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher." - Dalai Lama

[Mark Liversedge]

On Friday, 1 May 2015 00:00:45 UTC+1, Alex Simmons wrote:

I read the link already. My questions were posed after reading it.

Oh. Its primarily a chart to help validate CP and W' estimates as well as the likely quality of the TTE data. I don't think there is really much more to add that isn't already in Mike's article.

 

My other comments related to the ad hom attacks as these are not a valid way of listening or responding to valid criticism of content, nor of learning.

I would stick to discussing the substance then. You might want to start by justifying the claim that the criticism is valid.

I was hoping for responses to be focussed on the content and its practical implementation.

We will be publishing advice on estimating CP and W' and this will include using veloclinic plot. We'll do that alongside the v3.2 release. I think I said that already.

Mark 

[Nathan Townsend]

On Friday, 1 May 2015 02:00:45 UTC+3, Alex Simmons wrote:

I read the link already. My questions were posed after reading it.

My other comments related to the ad hom attacks as these are not a valid way of listening or responding to valid criticism of content, nor of learning.

I was hoping for responses to be focussed on the content and its practical implementation.

AC has a long history of online ad hominen attacks, petty strawman arguments, and passive aggressive condescending behaviour towards anyone who disagrees with him.  These are not valid ways of listening and responding to valid criticism of content.  So why is it that you bring this up now, but for example over the past couple of years I have donated large amounts of my time to these forums with no agenda except to educate and then repeatedly been the recipient of ACs distasteful behaviour and found myself in a position having to defend against petty arguments, but I do not recall you coming to my defence once?  I've spent plenty of time sticking to the substance and you know this very well, so I'd call that deliciously ironic also Alex.

Lets not also forget we're talking about the guy who cried to youtube to take down Mike's critique of the the WKO4 model and he has a vested interest in discrediting the CP concept.  His criticisms might have a little more credibility if there weren't such a conflict of interest, so forgive me if I seem wary these criticisms are merely the same egotistical chest beating that we've all had to put up with for years, rather than genuine scientific inquiry.

Lastly, would you mind explaining what you mean by "speculation of intent without checking facts" ?  Are you referring to Rob's comment about "selling"?  If there is, or was, any form of financial agreement between two parties regarding use of intellectual property then a conflict of interest exists from a scientific perspective.  If there is genuine scientific criticism of the CP concept and this criticism were to be published in the form of an original investigation, review article, short communication, or letter to the editor of a reputable scientific journal, then any conflict of interest would be required to be declared.  Of course, when its just a facebook page we don't need to bother with all that proper sciencey stuff do we?

[ccro...@gmail.com]

Mmm.. IMHO it seems to me that it could be useful to know at what wattages (over CP) you can use more energy.

For example I could apply it to know how far and at what intensity should I sprint at the end of a TT or when reaching the submit of a climb.

Carlos CR

[ccro...@gmail.com]

And after reading the veloclinic post that Mark linked to, it seems it could be a really useful tool to derive the power vs duration of training intervals to make sure you fatigue all motor units! A third dimension to the plot showing the time to deplete W' at a given wattage would be a wonderful addition for that purpose. Or just a box with the time to deplete following the mouse cursor in GC... Mark, are you reading?  :D :D  ;-)

Carlos CR

[Alex Simmons]

My comments apply equally to all my friends be it you, Andy or anyone else in this and related forums. I just occasionally call them out when I see them (and like you, I don't see all discussions everywhere). I let many pass, usually hopeful that most people recognise when to let a bouncer though to the keeper and to instead play the next delivery on its merits. And sometimes I've succumbed and have been called on it too (a fair call usually).

Speculating about someone's integrity due to any commercial interest though deserves one be asked to get their facts straight, which Rob had not done AFAICT. Such information is in the public domain, or better still, ask the source before speculating. I'm sure Andy would clarify, he has in the past. Is that not a reasonable thing to expect? (my questions are rhetorical, I don't expect responses).

It distracts attention from discussion of valid questions. The validity of a question isn't a function of its source. If it has logical flaws, then it will stand or fall on the basis of those.

As for the video thing, I thought it was simply one person asking another not to show a copyrighted video without the owner's permission. Is that not reasonable? (again I don't think we need to rehash that one, I expect people will believe what they want and are unlikely to change their personal views).

As for debating the merits or otherwise of the ideas, concepts, science, and so on - go for it. I'm kind of less concerned about where the science appears and more interested in its validity and applicability. Published journals are pretty frustrating for those of us not in academia as they are often behind multiple pay walls. It's also hard sometimes to assess the quality of the journal, I read some stuff and wonder HTF someone calls them self a scientist or indeed how this got published at all. :)

Fortunately there are good people such as yourself that help make access easier and I for one am very grateful. Equally, when something has not been vetted/published in such a formal manner, I recognise that and assess how much appropriate rigour has been applied for the intended purpose.

It's clear that some things have more solid claims of effectiveness/usefulness than others. So I am also grateful when ideas, concepts and science is presented and discussed via less formal channels (be it someone's facebook page or this forum). There is some very useful science communication via many social media forums, blogs, FB, twitter, forums. There's also lots of nonsense.

Us plebs in the peanut gallery learn when such debates happen in public (we tend not to go to science conventions to view such debates live), but it does seem to me that most of the scientists that participate in these public forums agree on vast swaths of the important stuff and it's really only at the edges when the action happens.

[Alex Simmons]

That's interesting. Can you perhaps elaborate on this?

[mike veloclinic]

Carlos,

Interesting idea, to plot W' versus time. Good way to visualize minimum time needed to deplete W' as well as how long before they fall off the CP curve.

mike

[Nathan Townsend]

On Saturday, 9 May 2015 00:06:16 UTC+3, Alex Simmons wrote:

My comments apply equally to all my friends be it you, Andy or anyone else in this and related forums. I just occasionally call them out when I see them (and like you, I don't see all discussions everywhere). I let many pass, usually hopeful that most people recognise when to let a bouncer though to the keeper and to instead play the next delivery on its merits. And sometimes I've succumbed and have been called on it too (a fair call usually).

Speculating about someone's integrity due to any commercial interest though deserves one be asked to get their facts straight, which Rob had not done AFAICT. Such information is in the public domain, or better still, ask the source before speculating. I'm sure Andy would clarify, he has in the past. Is that not a reasonable thing to expect? (my questions are rhetorical, I don't expect responses).

 

It distracts attention from discussion of valid questions. The validity of a question isn't a function of its source. If it has logical flaws, then it will stand or fall on the basis of those. 

As an example of how serious a conflict on interest is considered within the scientific community see below....

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/05/07/bjsports-2015-094911.short?g=w_bjsm_ahead_tab

Look at the footnotes in particular and note the large section under "competing interests".  This editorial was originally published about 2 weeks ago without the statements regarding competing interests.  The editors to the journal subsequently received a large number of complaints and the article was temporarily taken down from the website until the conflict of interest was declared.  

What this illustrates is that a conflict of interest is definitely considered a distraction in the scientific world because people understand that the information of views contained within could be biased, but furthermore, they become an even bigger distraction when they are not declared. The distraction is that the agenda is moved away from the search for scientific "truth" and towards something that has a financial consequence.  Science must not be dictated to by buisiness interests.  I know with 100% certainty that AC has a conflict of interest concerning the critical power concept ie: he has received income for his "ideas", some of which have been shown to be inconsistent with the large body of peer-reviewed published science surrounding the CP concept. The fact that AC does not publicly declare this conflict of interest simply would not fly in the scientific community. So why should it be acceptable on social media? 

I agree with your sentiment about the "validity of a question" however when someone makes a critique, this is different. Then the expertise and agenda of the person making the critique most certainly becomes relevant to the discussion.  Would you trust the executive of a coal mining company who claims that global warming is a hoax? 

As for debating the merits or otherwise of the ideas, concepts, science, and so on - go for it. I'm kind of less concerned about where the science appears and more interested in its validity and applicability. Published journals are pretty frustrating for those of us not in academia as they are often behind multiple pay walls. It's also hard sometimes to assess the quality of the journal, I read some stuff and wonder HTF someone calls them self a scientist or indeed how this got published at all. :)

This is a massively important point Alex and it is something that I agree with 100%.  IMO this is one of the great paradoxes of the internet age..... information is more widely available now that it ever was in human history, yet people are more misinformed than ever before.  Previously, they were just uninformed, but now people with absolutely no clue whatsoever, have beliefs and opinions about a range of issues from medicine to nutrition to climate change.  Why do people "believe" internet blogs or things that they're been taught to believe for years, but when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary, they have a hard time accepting those facts?  Just because scientific knowledge is less accessible to the general public does not mean that the more easily accessible information is correct though.  

Regarding bad science that gets published in scientific journals, I also agree 100% with this.  I see some abysmal stuff, however I recognise very clearly this is a strawman argument against the validity and/or applicability of ALL science that gets published.  I also understand that sometimes (as long as there isn't a critical flaw in the research), simple applied studies are not such a bad thing to have in print in a proper journal. Usually these types of studies are conducted by junior scientists doing their first project and they're learning the scientific method rather than trying to do some groundbreaking mechanistic study. It might not change anything, but still it serves a purpose which is to colour in a tiny piece of a much bigger picture.  Properly controlled and carefully collected raw data is always useful no matter how basic it is.

Fortunately there are good people such as yourself that help make access easier and I for one am very grateful. Equally, when something has not been vetted/published in such a formal manner, I recognise that and assess how much appropriate rigour has been applied for the intended purpose.

It's clear that some things have more solid claims of effectiveness/usefulness than others. So I am also grateful when ideas, concepts and science is presented and discussed via less formal channels (be it someone's facebook page or this forum). There is some very useful science communication via many social media forums, blogs, FB, twitter, forums. There's also lots of nonsense.

 

Us plebs in the peanut gallery learn when such debates happen in public (we tend not to go to science conventions to view such debates live), but it does seem to me that most of the scientists that participate in these public forums agree on vast swaths of the important stuff and it's really only at the edges when the action happens.

People probably think that I am "harsh" or critical of AC.  This has less to do with science and more to do with the fact I've been the recipient of his condescending style of discourse on various occasions, and I've seen him try to domineer and bully others whom are not as well versed in exercise physiology.  It's just not a very nice way to go about treating those whom ultimately have similar interests. There is no need to get so aggro at people who disgree with you and IMO everyone is better served if those with opposing views, respect each other's views.  I've tried to show my respect many times, but this is never reciprocated.

Back on topic, go and check what I wrote in another thread regarding Mike's velocinic plot.  In late 2013 when AC first presented his new made up "metric" FRC^(tm), I immediately identified an underlying problem with this which stems from the fact that FTP is below CP.  What this means is that if you exercise just above FTP (but below CP), then according to Coggan you should be depleting FRC.  But what does that mean physiologically?  The consensus is that W' represents a combination of depleting high energy stores and accumulation of fatigue inducing metabolites, and Coggan claims his FRC is supposed to be conceptually similar to W'.  But for the power zone FTP -> CP it is simply incorrect to ass u me that  you will be rapidly depleting high energy phosphate stores, accumulating fatigue inducing metabolites, and inducing a progressive increase in MU recruitment, despite the fact Coggan's "model" predicts you will be depleting FRC.  Consequently, if you exercise just above FTP then you will generate a massively high FRC value because task failure is not closely related to peripheral fatigue.  I realised straight away the value of FRC would change depending on whether you exercised above or below CP to the point of task failure.  This is precisely what Mike's plot shows in the event that you underestimate CP (ie: you assume the FTP = CP).  It might be an arbitrary "shape" that reveals this effect, but it is a shape that is predicted from the underlying physiological mechanisms.  

Anyway, long post again from me, and I need to get back to work.  Thanks for your considered response.

[ccro...@gmail.com]

Hello Alex,

not much more to say.. you just look at the range of wattages that allows you to fully deplete W' and calculate minimum time to deplete W' for the wattage that most interest you.

That seems more specific than just saying do X %FTP watts for 5'

It's also interesting when planing races or TTs because assuming you have been under CP you know the wattage that you shouldn't go over if you want to have all of your W' energy available.

Carlos CR

[ccro...@gmail.com]

Hi Mike,

thanks. Just my two cents  :)   Keep on the good work.


Carlos CR

[mike veloclinic]

Carlos,

Pretty effing cool ...

I'm guessing for most peopel it will be more intuitive if you add the W' plot az a Z axis to the regular Power Duration curve. Note that the spread created by the W' axis lets you visualize the detail of the PD curve at the short durations without resorting to a log scale. The W' time plot may have some diagnostic utility in that W' should be fully developed by the time you hit the inflection point in the curve. 

mike

[ccro...@gmail.com]

Hi Mike,

thanks for posting back. Interesting graphs, but I find them difficult to read for "practical" purposes. I mean, if I want to know what wattage to go for a 3' interval or what duration for an average power of 350w it's really complicated to do that in a 3D graph.

:(

Carlos CR

[mike veloclinic]

Carlos,

Getting a bit off topic here but for planning interval workouts you would be working off of a fitted curve:

In this case the Ward Smith model will work well for planning intervals less than 30-40 min in length (note some people may find a 2D just heated with by W' easier to see versus having to hover over points to see the numeric valuses). So now if you want to target excitation-contraction uncoupling you need to stay in the red shaded region of the power range. If peripheral fatigue is the target then stay in the black. Then hover over the points in the range to get the PDW values. The real fun then begins when we use Skiba's Wbal model to make this chart dynamic. For example, if you are working on EC uncoupling, then be mindful of how you deplete W' since this will shrink the red (hold Pmax in the WS model static there was a recent paper that suggests that this is the case). From the dynamic chart you could see how long the rest intervals need to be so that W'bal is being sufficiently restored to maintain enough EC limited power range. If the goal is deep cycling W'bal then you want the highest power where W' is fully available and recovery long enough to fully reconstitute it. If the goal is to maximize time at a low W'bal then plan step down intervals that Nathan has been discussing lately. Start with a relatively high power until block to deplete a desired amount W' is then look at the new curve to see how far you have to step the power down to sustain the interval for the desired length. Just a few examples here of possible uses.

m