I listened to the podcasts with Andrea and found it interesting how the modelling was working. I completely agree with the scientific principles being used and then combining it with the modelling to create profiles for individual athletes. However, I am unsure about the quality of the data used in the model’s construction when the training plan doesn’t inherently produce the desired data.
I had a more detailed look at my power profile and I can see where see how it has fitted the critical model the critical power model and how it asymptotes to give a predicted critical power. But I believe my critical power is too high. I think my critical power model should be more like the red line below.
I know I don’t have data in the 30s - 8mins range to support this curve which is why the it is modelled as such. I think the curve is modelled well given the available data and doesn’t have the wider context of myself as an athlete being a twitchy hybrid. Given my phenotype, I assume my curve should be steeper than that of a more diesel phenotype.
I believe this has come about as I fail to see where in my training plan there is the opportunity to set these maximal single efforts, in the range which I am lacking, when I am prescribed a high quantity of intervals. I know I could do more testing, but then these efforts will expire after 6 weeks and I would need to repeat the testing. This then invalidates the whole principal of continuous monitoring and then how these zones can be fed seamlessly back into the plan.