@JeroenSwart Do you differentiate between rider types (depending on their role in the race/ contender type) on the Fatigued MMP values and are they also extracted from index sessions you describe?
@SeanSeale@EliasLehtonen Thank you for answering my question in your podcast! Very nice it got mentioned. I should have added context though “age grouper, gran fondo cycling events (duration 4-6h)” Sorry for that
@SeanSeale@EliasLehtonen What would be good training interventions for people who’s LT1 is relatively close to LT2 (LT1 power is at 90% of LT2 power) and power around LT2 is at 89% of 6 min MMP (“VO2max power”)? So the range “on the right” seems “small”? Note LT1 is already rather well developed
@EliasLehtonen Nice to see the alignment. One question. Isn’t a timpoint of approx 20 min to estimate CP a bit too long? I see it is rowing (I come from cycling), so don’t know if that’s common
@timpodlogar@Spragg_Perform@peter__leo@UBSportExR@spragg247@japplphysiol CP and W’ yes. Think this also resonates more into rider type typologies (sprinter, etc.) / fiber type relations which I find effects of training modalities to be very interesting (coz they usually lead to different effects).
@akreutzer82 My 2 cents. When looking at modelling these kinds of relations you can also look into Structural Equation models. The age, sex kind of variables would according to me be more different versions for the same structural model but with different parameter values.
@abhi1thakur Today. It’s almost inevitable if you want to keep progress on a project since most people see it as a burden. To me it’s valueable and in the end rewarding if you see it bumps performance more than tuning parameters on a smaller dataset