That exact table was created by me, Patrick, Rick Asburn, Chris Whyte, and Jason Digman in January of 2008 for our Power Webinar. Not only is Joe over four years late to this conversation, but I'm not quite sure how I feel about him stealing our stuff.
Rick created the table, with our collaborative input, and if he reached out directly to Rick to ask for his permission then I'm a little more cool with it, but I honestly don't think I've ever been this plagarized by a coach before. Just sayin'
The fine print below the table mentions copyright 2008 Rick Ashburn, so I'd have to assume that he got Rick's permission to use it. Or, maybe not - maybe just saying that it was created by a person is enough. But even I'm a little miffed that the blatant stealing, especially if it came from data from EN folks. Seems like he should have at least mentioned that.
I guess this is the price of leading the pack. Get dissed on by conventional wisdom one year, get copied off of four years later with barely a 'how do you do'.
Knowing WHAT to do is one thing. Knowing HOW to do it is quite another.
The TSS table is just one piece of an entire system of training and race execution strategy. That point is implicit in Friel's critique of the AG'er he examples, whose VI sucked, apparently. I'm not sure if Friel quite gets that to the point of being able to use it as a coach.
The other thing that is missing is something that I struggle with, even with the power webinar - that it's not just saying 'ok, I want to do a split of X, so I do an IF of Y' - because it's going to be different for different FTP's. The piece that is missing is the determination as to whether someone's FTP is sufficient to produce the desired bike split.
For example, if someone has an FTP of 100, and they want to do a 6:00 bike split, this would tell them they have to do between 67 and 69% intensity. Obviously noone is going to do the LP bike course in 6 hours with an output of 67 to 69 watts.
In fact, even now I'm pretty confused about that - and he makes absolutely no mention as to that caveat when using the table. Now I have to go back to the power webinar and get my head on straight to figure that out.
EDIT: To Al's point - he does mention surging to 200W on the hills, and coasting on the steep downhills. Oops!
I've been looking for the opportunity to thank RnP for the great intro to power I got during that time. I signed up for IMLou '08 with a couple sprints under my belt. I joined EN on the last day of '07. I absorbed the info on power and it really made sense. I got a powertap that spring and had a great first IM that August. So what I am saying is that I started in triathlon ahead of some smartguys at least in training/racing with power. Kinda like rescueing the cat in Chutes and Ladders, remember that game? EN gave me a huge headstart.
I didnn't read the whole thing - but doesn't he know about copywrignt - at least didn't see my favorite line from the power webinar - "if you ride too hard for too long, you get too tired to run a marathon".
It was odd that given all of the other terms that he defined that he did not directly refer to VI. He talked around it but never named it.
As a MOP age grouper, I am only looking at keeping avg power close to the target power that I tested and trained to. I dont have speed as a field on my screen. Certainly not goal split time. I am not to the point where I am racing with any other strategy. I am not trying to beat people, pass folks in my AG, get a cusion on anyone who might be a faster runner. Just running the engine at the target power output with as little variation as possible. And not running off the road or into another rider because I have my eyes on my meter too much.
@ Ryan...yes what you WANT to do and what you CAN do are two different things. The race rehearsal is used to sort that out...another example of EN being an integrated training and race strategy system.
Yeah this was really bad to see...as in bad for him....but as others have noted, there is so much MORE than what he put out there to the whole thing...RnI have talked about a more comprehensive product to sell for power athletes, but the bottom line is the learning curve/experience is such that nothing beats being inside here. Case in point, no mention of VI, but rather some new arcane metric / ratio of power...guaranteed he'll start touting that as a new must learn thing in a book...
Aside, I saw Joe's son Dirk at Kona (same hotel) and made a sarcastic comment about his dad (even his son calls him Joe) having some interesting thoughts on power for triathletes....this must be karma coming to get me!
Comments
Huh...
That exact table was created by me, Patrick, Rick Asburn, Chris Whyte, and Jason Digman in January of 2008 for our Power Webinar. Not only is Joe over four years late to this conversation, but I'm not quite sure how I feel about him stealing our stuff.
Rick created the table, with our collaborative input, and if he reached out directly to Rick to ask for his permission then I'm a little more cool with it, but I honestly don't think I've ever been this plagarized by a coach before. Just sayin'
The fine print below the table mentions copyright 2008 Rick Ashburn, so I'd have to assume that he got Rick's permission to use it. Or, maybe not - maybe just saying that it was created by a person is enough. But even I'm a little miffed that the blatant stealing, especially if it came from data from EN folks. Seems like he should have at least mentioned that.
I guess this is the price of leading the pack. Get dissed on by conventional wisdom one year, get copied off of four years later with barely a 'how do you do'.
Funny how they consider Joel Friel, Hunter Allen, and Andrew Coggan the "gurus" of power. Coach R and P are years ahead of them!!
The other thing that is missing is something that I struggle with, even with the power webinar - that it's not just saying 'ok, I want to do a split of X, so I do an IF of Y' - because it's going to be different for different FTP's. The piece that is missing is the determination as to whether someone's FTP is sufficient to produce the desired bike split.
For example, if someone has an FTP of 100, and they want to do a 6:00 bike split, this would tell them they have to do between 67 and 69% intensity. Obviously noone is going to do the LP bike course in 6 hours with an output of 67 to 69 watts.
In fact, even now I'm pretty confused about that - and he makes absolutely no mention as to that caveat when using the table. Now I have to go back to the power webinar and get my head on straight to figure that out.
EDIT: To Al's point - he does mention surging to 200W on the hills, and coasting on the steep downhills. Oops!
As a MOP age grouper, I am only looking at keeping avg power close to the target power that I tested and trained to. I dont have speed as a field on my screen. Certainly not goal split time. I am not to the point where I am racing with any other strategy. I am not trying to beat people, pass folks in my AG, get a cusion on anyone who might be a faster runner. Just running the engine at the target power output with as little variation as possible. And not running off the road or into another rider because I have my eyes on my meter too much.
@ Ryan...yes what you WANT to do and what you CAN do are two different things. The race rehearsal is used to sort that out...another example of EN being an integrated training and race strategy system.
Aside, I saw Joe's son Dirk at Kona (same hotel) and made a sarcastic comment about his dad (even his son calls him Joe) having some interesting thoughts on power for triathletes....this must be karma coming to get me!