Hi Solar,
I agree that it's pretty unlikely I'm going to trip up any heavy duty physiology researchers and that's not my goal. The two more probable scenarios are a) that I have a misunderstanding and that in the process of questioning I'll figure out and correct it, or b) that the model is valid within the domain it was developed for but perhaps the domain we're talking about is different enough that it violates some of the model's assumptions.
Already I see that as others have pointed out a component of this is training to enable you to do the training that will improve performance rather than training to directly improve performance.
I still have a suspicion that the models might work better in the domain of endurance events (e.g. 5k, 10k, etc.) than in sprint events. Typical training sessions of course fall into these longer durations but I am still curious if it is possible to first determine what sort of training is optimal for 30s and 60s events, and then figure out what training is necessary to be able to do that training. Perhaps it will end up in the same place, but at least I'll understand and have confidence in it.
All in all, I don't mind being wrong, I just want to know what exactly I'm wrong about so I can be right next time. And just accepting that people who are smarter and more knowledgeable than I am think I'm wrong doesn't move my understanding forward.
Btw, thanks to both you and Steve for your explanations of these models, it really did make it all a lot clearer.
@Lindsay, here's what an exercise physiologist has to go through in creating a model. We like to think that well, they overlook things etc, but I do not think it is the case.
Just about anything you and I can think of in term of caveat etc, they can find out too. This post can be found somewhere on cyclingforums. It is not an attempt at demonstrating his skills etc, or to do any bling-bling. And of course, it is far from being exhaustive. Exercise physiology is a very complex matter that would require a full book.
It probably took him a full decade to complete his works, lots of lab testing, and several hundreds of file analysis, married to a trackie, himself a top level time trialist etc etc etc etc. Also let us not forget that this model is kind of based on Timp somehow, which also took more than a decade to elaborate. All this work done by extremely smart people, Banister already has some entries in sports history literature, and Coggan, obviously it's just a matter of time. They both focused solely on one thing: achieving a model that respects the principles of exercise physiology as they learned it during the course of their PhD.
Hi Solar,
I agree that it's pretty unlikely I'm going to trip up any heavy duty physiology researchers and that's not my goal. The two more probable scenarios are a) that I have a misunderstanding and that in the process of questioning I'll figure out and correct it, or b) that the model is valid within the domain it was developed for but perhaps the domain we're talking about is different enough that it violates some of the model's assumptions.
Already I see that as others have pointed out a component of this is training to enable you to do the training that will improve performance rather than training to directly improve performance.
I still have a suspicion that the models might work better in the domain of endurance events (e.g. 5k, 10k, etc.) than in sprint events. Typical training sessions of course fall into these longer durations but I am still curious if it is possible to first determine what sort of training is optimal for 30s and 60s events, and then figure out what training is necessary to be able to do that training. Perhaps it will end up in the same place, but at least I'll understand and have confidence in it.
All in all, I don't mind being wrong, I just want to know what exactly I'm wrong about so I can be right next time. And just accepting that people who are smarter and more knowledgeable than I am think I'm wrong doesn't move my understanding forward.
Btw, thanks to both you and Steve for your explanations of these models, it really did make it all a lot clearer.
@Lindsay, here's what an exercise physiologist has to go through in creating a model. We like to think that well, they overlook things etc, but I do not think it is the case.
Just about anything you and I can think of in term of caveat etc, they can find out too. This post can be found somewhere on cyclingforums. It is not an attempt at demonstrating his skills etc, or to do any bling-bling. And of course, it is far from being exhaustive. Exercise physiology is a very complex matter that would require a full book.
It probably took him a full decade to complete his works, lots of lab testing, and several hundreds of file analysis, married to a trackie, himself a top level time trialist etc etc etc etc. Also let us not forget that this model is kind of based on Timp somehow, which also took more than a decade to elaborate. All this work done by extremely smart people, Banister already has some entries in sports history literature, and Coggan, obviously it's just a matter of time. They both focused solely on one thing: achieving a model that respects the principles of exercise physiology as they learned it during the course of their PhD.
