@empiricalcycling is this the “dFRC Cycling” chart? I searched for “Glycolytic Capacity” and variants. No search results. Then I visually scanned all the charts. Same for dashboards.
dFRC is not related.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zRWjFRr_7VIXPRJKJhAwZtLCWWx4Ipx6
So let’s make some money with your model 
yes, was grasping at straws. Apologies I did have the chart. Have been cooking, talking to my mom, and chasing away ducks that are trying to setup house in our pool. A little distracted, sorry for wasting your time.
Really appreciate the reply.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahags
Gotta love the internet
2 Likes
Would you point me to an improved version of the Mader & Heck model? I am in the process of trying to understand the original article (it’s written in a slightly obscure way for my taste hence my snail pace at reading it) and if there is a more precise understanding and/or better description I would be glad to look at it. Thanks!
It was made for people like @empiricalcycling
There aren’t any better models currently available, at least not with numbers attached to them. The reason is that in the subsequent 35 years it’s become increasingly apparent that the metabolic dynamics in a cell vs the blood lactate appearance and disappearance are more complicated and have less direct correlation than anyone thought in 1986.
Trying to create a model now you run the risk of making too many assumptions. Every time you make one you add error, and there’s a lot in the body that we cannot measure from power output. We can make these assumptions, but will end up being outside the acceptable error about 60% of the time or more. Whatever 5w ends up being, which is what I consider acceptable error.
1 Like
Sure there are assumptions. And a lot of constants which look like they fell from the sky. But if you have the data (which I don’t have but INSCYD does) you can fine tune the constants and verify that your model fits the data (not only the means but also that the individual errors are small). I am sure that this is the know how that you pay for with the INSCYD testing. Every physiology model will be just that, a model. Although you can describe one or a couple of processes in the cell precisely, their interference will be impossible to model until we can model the weather (well the weather might be harder).
1 Like
Inscyd does not have the data, or if they do they’re ignoring it. They have this paper and some simple tests. Here are the problems with the paper that the Inscyd model does not take into account, which greatly affects the model parameters:
- The mechanism that reduces fat oxidation at higher intensities is wrong.
- Substrate use at threshold is not 100% carbohydrates.
- VLamax can’t be measured by power output.
- Not every athlete starts carbohydrate oxidation at 0w.
- Power above threshold is not entirely related to power below threshold.
This means you’re not paying for any know-how with their tests, just a 35 year old, incorrect paper that’s been turned into a chart on wko4/5. If you want to program it yourself, I can show you the equations from the paper and save everyone a lot of money.
2 Likes
I’m a mathematician myself, so my problem is not with mathematical modelling per se. It just makes me wary when I see big promises and not much concrete information. Which doesn’t mean that they are on to something (I bet they are).
What would be interesting is e.g. why you can’t use the standard CP curve (i.e. all-out tests for e.g. 5", 5’, 20’ etc.) to deduce those physiological metrics. But I really have to do more reading about all this! So I’ll keep quiet for the time being 
Perhaps, I didn’t pay them so I don’t know how well it fits at least my data. And I am not sure what says that you are right and they are wrong. You would have to have all the athletes data, real parameters, fitted parameters by INSCYD and then you could say they are doing it wrong. But that is near impossible.
That part I want to do on my own including the equations. I am half way through but lazy because Mader could have done a better job describing the model and notation-wise.
@empiricalcycling yes please show me / point me to the equations. Very interested and have the modeling skills from another field (engineering). I’ll make time to go thru the exercise at some point this year.
You are listed as a key contributor to WKO5 and some of what you wrote comes across as competitor FUD. However I do share some of your concerns.
The problem is not the amount of data, it’s which way you look at it. The data I draw on is a large set from a physiologist who’s been doing his job for decades. If you start with the data itself and work backwards you’ll get a different result than starting with assumptions and then only looking at things that confirm your assumptions.
Here’s an example. If a large data set was all it took to be correct, a ramp test would be accurate in assessing someone’s threshold 100% of the time, instead of the what, 40-50% of the time that it’s pretty close.
Here’s one more: the population average of blood lactate at threshold is 4mmol. However, if we look at people individually we’ll see the range is about 2.5-8mmol or more.
Obviously, this is what I alluded to when I said that you can look not only on the mean but also deviation from the mean. It is the same thing you write below with blood lactate. Doesn’t mean that if you have the data and model you can’t say the model is wrong
I don’t have the data and no one is sharing, so…
WKO5 is not a competitor per se since it does not attempt to model the things that we don’t think can be done accurately for everyone. I was hired to help with some modeling along with the others listed. I was part of the vo2max modeling thing, then helped with aerobic/anaerobic training impact scores and created the impact score for pmax which isn’t out yet. So there’s no overlap with what inscyd does.
Send me an email, I’ll send you a screenshot of my notes from the Mader & Heck paper and how to translate it into a chart.
2 Likes
We’re on the same page with deviation from the mean, but the model doesn’t even get the mean correct. You can have the all the data in the world but you can’t assume it’s been utilized correctly.
1 Like
Kolie and others – any experience with the PNOE system?
A friend with a hobby coaching business (*) is thinking of adding this to his tool kit and offered to let me be part of his learning set. We are wondering if it’s worth the effort.
-Mark
By Hobby Coaching, I mean he only helps close friends and doesn’t charge. He’s just interested in this stuff and has time and means to make it part of his cycling hobby time.
You consider this test simple, @empiricalcycling ? In comparison to what? They are not only measuring power there. If I remember correctly you favor a 40-70min TT (with a negative split) as your gold standard to test for FTP (no question this always was the best way), but how do you achieve a deeper insight (pun intended) into the metabolics of your athletes?
To your experience, what are your 2-3 go-to suggestions to achieve (peripheral or central) adaptations which raise VO2max? Block periodisation, SIT? And in what situations these did not work?
Yes that’s a very simple test and still only measuring blood lactate in very, very short stages. My deeper insight is based on different stuff than inscyd uses which I’ll be doing podcasts on eventually, and also gathering data as I get equipment or find people with the right equipment.
My FTP tests are my personal gold standard because I put the phenomenology before the physiology, and then work in that direction. Unless a physiological descriptor is 100% correct at all times in describing each individual athlete, it needs to be scrapped and re-thought. What we’re looking for is extremely simple: the power output over which you fatigue more quickly, and below which you fatigue much more slowly. A ramp test with blood lactate measurements will not find it for you. Nor will that protocol, particularly with those lactate guidelines.
You’re asking about various parts of the Fick equation. So, to achieve peripheral adaptations for vo2max, ride a lot at and below threshold, which will increase utilization. For central adaptations to enhance delivery, do vo2max intervals at 100% uptake (which is not the same as “power at vo2max”). Obviously both types of training are necessary but at a certain point of trainedness, we’re after only increasing stroke volume to increase vo2max.
5 Likes