Still no references. People don’t know if what the chart says is true, but they sure like it.
Sure, I have no idea from where Coggan generated it all.
But it sure as hell makes me feel good about my 3hr tempo session this morning
References? The opinion of Dr Andrew Coggan, bio here: Andrew Coggan: Faculty & Staff Experts: News at IU: Indiana University
The oldest version of that table? In my research it first appeared “Training and racing using a power meter: an introduction” from 25 March 2003. Its a chapter he wrote for USA Cycling, and was published before the book. Maybe someone has an older reference?
The table was described this way:
Its primary physiological adaptations expected by Dr Coggan, based on his expertise in the area, and with the usual caveats listed in the screenshot. The chapter has references, but none specifically called out in support of that table.
And this 14 year old Slowtwitch article is worth a read IMHO:
I believe you are mistaking References for Credentials. Such a table should have a plethora of supporting high quality studies, otherwise it’s just a cool story.
Sorry for starting my reply with “References? The opinion” - thought that bit a juxtaposition would add a little humor.
Well I did say this:
The paper is pretty compelling story, as is the book, even without a plethora of references. Like the high quality studies that exist, the paper and the book are good set of guidelines that you need to individualize. Because even in high quality studies you see individual variations. There was a day I naively accepted the table as truth (as well as some studies) without understanding that in exercise physiology there are few absolutes.
This was a cool link you posted. The story of the NP being ^4 makes more sense now. Thanks
This is a common misconception. Folks thinking this is actually science (published, peer-reviewed papers and the proposed models around such published work) as opposed to informed opinion.
It is the type of table that I would have seen in an Ex Phys textbook. And it’s a good one. The fact that it is commonly mistaken for some massive body of data or experimentation that Coggan himself created just underscores the need to inform ppl of how this stuff is done.
It is an aggregate of research, the authors interpretation of such research, and the need to summarize a body of knowledge in a manner that is suitable to a reader not necessarily in the field or all that experienced yet (like, an undergrad…OR most of Coggan’s cycling peers back in the day).
Moreover, other than consulting (presumably with TP/WKO), some lecturing, and publishing his book, cycling isn’t Coggan’s day job. He actually runs a lab that does actual research funded by actual grants with actual subjects, where he has to produce actual results that are peer-reviewed by actual scientists (or, at least he used to).
To be sure, Coggan gets on my nerves as much as any public figure in cycling. I can’t stand that table anymore. That doesn’t take away from his legitimate and helpful contributions to the sport, of which that table was one…over a decade ago.
Exactly. Nor does there need to be. It’s not science. It’s not supposed to be.
Also, if you want your informed opinion (not science though) with copious references, try Skiba’s book. He “shows his work” (like math class), and comes to many of the same conclusions as Coggan.
Aww, that’s a shame. I always liked Joe Friel. Seems like he hasn’t been keeping up.
maybe you can share why’s that?