Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 21434313)

You can upload to Strava and then try this. https://statshunters.com/

Haven’t tried it, it it looks like fun.

Originally Posted by Velo Vol (Post 21434084)

I long wished for a map showing all the roads I've ridden on. But not enough to pay for Strava. Plus it would take ages to re-do all those rides again.

Originally Posted by WhyFi (Post 21434368)

Cool - this works. Maps settings/visibility isn't the greatest, though. This is about as good as I could manage (this is the map of my rides from the last 12 months, minus the stuff in VA) -

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4c62aa1caf.jpg

Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 21434355)

Oh, and long-suffering spouse’s PPP loan was approved last night.

Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 21434388)

I like where I live, but it would still be nice to be able to ride in more than essentially one direction without encountering 8-lane-strip mall hell, bad neighborhoods, tedious MUPs, or all three.

Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 21434313)

You can upload to Strava and then try this. https://statshunters.com/

Haven’t tried it, it it looks like fun.

Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 21434355)

Oh, and long-suffering spouse’s PPP loan was approved last night.

Originally Posted by abshipp (Post 21434101)

Actually rode tonight, did a little bit of bike-pathing.

Originally Posted by abshipp (Post 21434381)

If you remember them, you might be able to do something like plot them in Ride WIth GPS, and then export the route file.

I use it for all of my route planning, you can create a route and export it to a bunch of various formats like .fit, .tcx, .gpx, or just print a cue sheet.

Originally Posted by Velo Vol (Post 21434554)

How far does this go?

Originally Posted by Velo Vol (Post 21434560)

It's all in old school spreadsheets and memory, although I'm not seeing 2008 - 2010 in the folder with the others. :foo:

Originally Posted by Heathpack (Post 21432970)

LA County has done a better designed study too, just announced results yesterday. They found greater seroprevalence than expected but not as high as in the NoCal study.

However as I understand it they both used the same test methodology and there are some questions as to its reliability.

Have you read the not-yet-peer-reviewed draft of the NoCal study? I have and I was confused by something in their methods section. In determining specificity of the test, they ran it on three groups of blood samples. Two of these control sample groups were small, in the 30 sample range, and the test had no false negatives. The other sample group was larger, almost 400 samples. These were preCOVID samples (whatever that means, I’d make them define that if I were reviewing the paper! But presumably blood samples collected from a time far enough in the past that the patients from who the samples were taken could not possibly have been infected with this novel corona virus). In this larger sample, they had 4 positives, so a false positive rate of 10.1%. Yet they calculate their test specificity to be something like 97.7%. Seems to me like that’s too high of a specificity for a test that had a 10% false positive rate in the largest control group tested. But I’m bad at stats.

Since their study group was something just under 4000 people, if we apply the 10% false positive rate to that group, you’d get 40 positives. The study subject group had far less positives than that- ie *all* the positives in the study sample could have been false positives. So it’s seems like a hugely flawed study to me, it will be interesting to see if it makes it through review.

Also the interesting thing with their case recruitment being through FB ads. That seems to me like they really could have biased their study sample towards people who thought they’d been sick with COVID but couldn’t get tested. Those would be the people IMO who would be most motivated to seek out testing, and the way FB works it’s easy to be connected to likeminded people in the same boat as you. So I could see that the study participants were skewed towards people who suspected they’d had the disease.

Then did you catch the fact that signing up for the study was first come first served, and if you got in, you were allowed to bring a child from your household. When you look at the number of children in the study, you realize that around 50% of the study samples were from two people in the same household. So if you’d already selected inavertently for COVID suspects, now you’ve just doubled your expected number of positives because you’ve included some many in-contact samples from the same household.

Bottom line: I think that study is such as mess, or at least it is as I can understand it fromhow it’s written now, that it may be impossible to get much of anything out of it. If you haven’t seen the released early draft of the study, I can link to it.

Originally Posted by abshipp (Post 21434101)

Actually rode tonight, did a little bit of bike-pathing.

Things are really starting to get green:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4039e78823.jpg

Originally Posted by abshipp (Post 21434588)

Also, I was significantly quicker back then, when I was still young.

Originally Posted by Bah Humbug (Post 21434617)

Here's a question that's probably better for the 33, but I don't feel like going there.

Coach gave me an FTP test today. Work stress kept me from falling asleep, so I took 5mg Valium as prescribed once it got late enough that I didn't want to be a zombie today. My FTP was likely so out of date that I wanted to run the test anyway and get something at least closer to the truth.

It had been set at 275. My two 20' intervals were 305 and 307. Garmin, taking a value from my threshold HR, says my FTP is now 270. Everyone's a critic. TPKS took 95% of my best 20' (307) and rounded 291.65 up to 292. My preference is to take 95% the lower value of 305 and round 289.75 up to 290.

I'll rerun the test in a few weeks or a month and see what happens, but does anyone know what effect Valium would have on the test? I assume it can't possibly make it inaccurately-high.

Originally Posted by indyfabz (Post 21434621)

Not a well conceived question for a blanket health attestation form related to COVID-19:

"Have at least 3 days (72 hours) passed since recovery defined as resolution of fever without the use of fever-reducing medications and improvement in respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath)? (yes/no)"

Might as well ask me if I have stopped beating my wife yet.

Originally Posted by TassR700 (Post 21434629)

Not in the medical field (engineer) but wanted to give you a heads up on the math. 4/400 is 1%, not 10% so the 97.7% accuracy makes more sense. Completely agree with you on all the other conclusions you have drawn about the questionable value of the study.

Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 21434680)

Benzodiazepines enhance the activity of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) an important inhibitory neurotransmitter in brain and spinal cord and present in many of the reflexes loops that inhibit motor output. That's why it works as a muscle relaxant. As a card carrying neurophysiologist, I would be willing to bet it's bad for your FTP, if anything.

Originally Posted by Bah Humbug (Post 21434696)

Thanks, that’s the direction I figured it would shift things. So I can go with 290 for now as a reasonable floor for reality (more reasonable than 275 at least) and get more accurate TSS. Then hopefully next tine around will be clean. Hadn’t needed it in two months and then it’s the night before the test work kills me.

Thanks again.