For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[CoachFergie]

I didn't say it was the best measure of performance. Holman reported he increased his HR at AT from the low 150's to 160 (his previous max HR before the PowerCranks). How is that possible? I know to you that ignorance is bliss but I find this an interesting change that needs to be explained.

Who cares, heart rate is not a measure of performance. Did any performance measure actually increase more than it would from normal training.

 

[FrankDay]

Who cares, heart rate is not a measure of performance. Did any performance measure actually increase more than it would from normal training.

Ignorance is bliss.

The role of a scientist is to be a good observer. When you notice something you cannot explain then that is when a scientist needs to get to work. That is how knowledge advances, explaining the unknown. Applying what is already known is what technicians do. Asking questions to advance knowledge is what scientists do.

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL. You heard it here folks. Fergie wants to reduce the amount of muscle he trains in his athletes and he apparently thinks that that this lesser amount of muscle can do the same work more muscle can do and he somehow thinks this lesser muscle mass can do this same amount of work at a lower energy cost.

So you mean to say a muscle can not become stronger?

So you mean to say that muscle recruitment can not be improved?

So you mean to say that a muscle can not become more efficient?

So you mean a muscle can not be trained to store more energy?

Fergie, regardless of whether what you say is possible or not (I submit it is not) I would have thought you would be looking to increase the work your athletes can do, but what would I know?

Will be a stronger muscle increase work capacity?

Will improved recruitment increase work capacity?

Will increased efficiency increase work capacity?

Will increased intramuscular energy stores increase work capacity?

All without having to recruit extra muscle?

Because it would strike me as counter-intuitive to think the small handful of normalcrankers left in the world (that you haven't claimed as Gimmickcrankers) would be able to make any gains from just pushing on the pedals and the only way to work harder was to use more muscle.

 

[CoachFergie]

Ignorance is bliss.

The role of a scientist is to be a good observer. When you notice something you cannot explain then that is when a scientist needs to get to work. That is how knowledge advances, explaining the unknown. Applying what is already known is what technicians do. Asking questions to advance knowledge is what scientists do.

Been observing heart rates for the last 26 years as a rider and a coach and it tells you very little about cycling performance.

Now wattage. Whole different story. If you could tell me that a group of cyclists trained with a Gimmickcrank and improved their power beyond a group who performed a similar training programme using normal cranks then woah, whole new ball game. Don't let the fact that all the previous studies haven't found any increase deter your quest

 

[FrankDay]

So you mean to say a muscle can not become stronger?

no

So you mean to say that muscle recruitment can not be improved?

no

So you mean to say that a muscle can not become more efficient?

no

So you mean a muscle can not be trained to store more energy?

yes, at least it can't at the same time it is getting stronger. If you have a reference to the contrary I would love to see it.

Will be a stronger muscle increase work capacity?

depends upon how you define work capacity. Weight lifters have great one rep work capacity. They don't do well in cycling races usually. So, if we are talking aerobic capacity, probably not

Will improved recruitment increase work capacity?

depends upon how you define work capacity. If we are talking aerobic capacity, probably not because increased recruitment probably means recruiting less efficient fibers

Will increased efficiency increase work capacity?

yes, it should, if we are talking aerobic endeavors

Will increased intramuscular energy stores increase work capacity?

not particularly, especially if we are talking primarily aerobic endeavors. As mentioned above, I would like to see some evidence that intramuscular energy stores can be increased, especially that this can be done at the same time one is making a stronger muscle. A muscle cell has only so much room to hold things you know. An athlete generally has to pick and choose what qualities they want their muscles to have. I guess you don't worry about this stuff.

All without having to recruit extra muscle?

But, why on earth would you choose to not recruit additional muscles if they could be helpful to the task?

Because it would strike me as counter-intuitive to think the small handful of normalcrankers left in the world (that you haven't claimed as Gimmickcrankers) would be able to make any gains from just pushing on the pedals and the only way to work harder was to use more muscle.

Not sure what you said there but look, do whatever you want to make those muscles you use now as strong and efficient as you want (although efficiency and strength usually don't go well together). But, once you have achieved that goal and can't go any further, the only other way left to you to increase your cherished power is to add more muscle into the mix, if possible. Now, you can ignore that potential to improve further, if you want, which you seem to want to do. No sweat off my back. Good luck to your athletes at the Olympics.

 

[CoachFergie]

no no no

There goes the gym industry. Frank Day says a muscle can not become stronger.

Boy, those exercise physiology texts were a waste as well. All those acute and chronic adaptations like increased mitochondria and increased aerobic and anaerobic enzymes were just a myth.

yes, at least it can't at the same time it is getting stronger. If you have a reference to the contrary I would love to see it.

But you just said a muscle can't get stronger Frank.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2291032

Responses to endurance training include ST hypertrophy (what does a bigger muscle mean for strength Frank?) and there are increases in intramuscular glycogen and triglyceride stores in the muscle.

depends upon how you define work capacity. Weight lifters have great one rep work capacity. They don't do well in cycling races usually. So, if we are talking aerobic capacity, probably not

Work capacity = the capacity to do work Frank. HTH. Actually in terms of cycling people are well aware of my view on the role of strength. But glad you get my point that an increase in strength = a capacity to do more work.

depends upon how you define work capacity. If we are talking aerobic capacity, probably not because increased recruitment probably means recruiting less efficient fibers

Talking about the signal from the brain to the muscle to contract.

yes, it should, if we are talking aerobic endeavors

Thought you would agree on that one but I don't see how efficiency doesn't also apply to anaerobic exercise.

not particularly, especially if we are talking primarily aerobic endeavors. As mentioned above, I would like to see some evidence that intramuscular energy stores can be increased, especially that this can be done at the same time one is making a stronger muscle.

Did I say this all happens at the same time and from the same training stimulus? Although Abernethy and company's review seem to indicate that there is physiological evidence for a ST hypertrophy and increased intramuscular fuel stores.

Now of course we also know that strength increase's from improved nervous system function as well.

A muscle cell has only so much room to hold things you know. An athlete generally has to pick and choose what qualities they want their muscles to have. I guess you don't worry about this stuff.

Well I do as a matter of fact. If these gains did not happen from my riders improving their performance (as measured by an increase in power) from doing specific training at a controlled level of overload (reminds me, must share my wonderful experiences with the Performance Manager in WKO+) then I would have to start believing in the Performance Fairy.

But, why on earth would you choose to not recruit additional muscles if they could be helpful to the task?

Why because of Bohm 2008 and Fernandez-Pena et al 2009 which showed that recruitment of extra muscle did not lead to an increase in performance Frank.

Not sure what you said there but look, do whatever you want to make those muscles you use now as strong and efficient as you want (although efficiency and strength usually don't go well together).

I hear ya Frank, although I hear the sobs of a thousand strength and conditioning coaches and Oldborn.

You can mix specific hypertrophy and improved cycling performance. I had a road cyclist switch to Teams Pursuit and the increase in intensity saw a 5kg increase in lean body mass in his thighs over a 6 month period (skinfold testing and body girth measurements are done regularly in NZ track team) while his 5min power and 60min power increased at the same time.

I was observing his heart rate but not much of interest was happening

But, once you have achieved that goal and can't go any further, the only other way left to you to increase your cherished power is to add more muscle into the mix, if possible. Now, you can ignore that potential to improve further, if you want, which you seem to want to do. No sweat off my back. Good luck to your athletes at the Olympics.

Yes, I can ignore it Frank, because the science tells me it isn't real. I will stick to the tried and tested "work with what I have" because the power just keeps on increasing from specific training. Not one of my guys but a Pro Tour Rider who has been tested since 1993 keeps making small gains in power each year and his training has not changed one bit since then.

 

[FrankDay]

There goes the gym industry. Frank Day says a muscle can not become stronger.

Fergie, read the questions and the answers. I did not mean to say a muscle could not become stronger. No is the correct answer because you asked me if I meant to say that. No is the answer because muscles can become stronger. I will let you go back and read what I said in context to what you asked then you can come back.

 

[CoachFergie]

So I am right that all the gains in cycling performance over the last 100 years have come from riders getting better and working with the muscle they have rather than trying to use different muscles in the body.

Because the studies where they try and manipulate the muscle groups used (like using Gimmickcranks recruiting the psoas) have not been all that successful.

 

[CoachFergie]

For those who simply don't believe that physiological and performance gains are possible from a very small amount of training check this out...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16825308

One group performs two weeks of training for 90-120min at 65% of VO2max.

One group performs two weeks of training three times a week. They perform 4-6 x 30sec at 250% of VO2max with 4min recovery in between.

Given the large difference in training volume, these data demonstrate that SIT is a time-efficient strategy to induce rapid adaptations in skeletal muscle and exercise performance that are comparable to ET in young active men.

I simply can't believe that the 5-6 weeks any Gimmickcrank study has been conducted over has failed to find a performance improvement when a 2 week study where one group exercised an massive 12-18mins and saw "rapid" adaptations.

 

[CoachFergie]

I would like to see some evidence that intramuscular energy stores can be increased

Ask and ye will recieve...

Muscle glycogen content
Resting muscle glycogen content increased after training by 28 and 17% for the SIT and ET groups, respectively, with no difference between groups (main effect for time, P = 0.006) (Fig. 5).

You think a former Physician would know that

 

[oldborn]

Strength plays very little, if any, role in determining performance in most forms of cycling. Indeed, even in the case of a standing start performed on the track strength accounts for only ~25% of the variation between individuals in the time required to cover the first 25 m (i.e., about 3 pedal strokes).

It would be a miracle that cycling is only sport where weights and strenght could not benefit.

If you are talking about definition of strenght as our maximal effort, i agree. But IMHO that definition is not worlwide accept, and strenght is not our maximal effort. Off course this is off topic

Show me a evidence that weights and strenght hurts cycling

I only beleive in two things; first we are breathing O2, and second US are Free World Leader

Just for not scientific approach i reach first book on the shell and found this,

[/url][/IMG]

Sven Nys doing weights, it is not evidence but Dude, World Cyclocross Champion is doing squats and his sport has nothing to do with strenght alone

 

[oldborn]

Not a study, but I used a power meter to help my client make sound equipment choices for an attempt to set a new world masters hour record.

The difference between helmet, wheels (all aero) and a few mm of saddle height gained him about another 1.5km.

On the basis of should I use a front disk or the 808?
Which aero helmet should I use - I have 3 to choose from?
What happens if we modify saddle height a little?

All answered with the smart use of a power meter and directly resulting in superior performance.

Always interesting posts from you Alex, real world data which i like most.
You use a PM as PM shold be use, and i agree Alex.
You are having a same track, same conditions, to compare results.

I only have two or three chances to compare results on same track in prety much same conditions through year out, same as 90% Joe Cyclist.

In crits, or circuit races how we compare and measure our progress?

Average Joe have not a chance to choose 808, tri spoke, or Sub 9.
I do not have 3 aero helmet.
All i have is time to compare my results, and it is not a rocket science that i discovered that just from clip on aerobars i gain 2-3 sec on 6,3 km course which i use for training and most races.

Yes you use PM as a tool, same way as i use my HR and computer.

 

[Polyarmour]

When I train with a bundle of cat whiskers in my pocket, I see a considerable increase in performance. I guess some of the gains could come from training and not the cat whiskers. In fact, I would be surprised if that was not so. But it is impossible to separate the training effects from the cat whisker effects, so I simply include the total improvements that I typically see. Although the improvements include some normal training benefit, it is difficult to explain some of these results on training effect alone.

In light of this less than peer reviewed research, I am now offering bundles of cat whiskers for the very reasonable price of $1000. Many--dare I say most--of our users experience power increases of 40% or more. Bengal cat whiskers are $200 extra but are said to provide an extra 10% improvement. Money back guarantee for 90 days; whiskers must be carried at all times for nine months to see a benefit. Order now and we will throw in not one but two Ginzu chef's knives.

My Cat is getting a shave when I get home.

 

[acoggan]

It would be a miracle that cycling is only sport where weights and strenght could not benefit.

1. Cycling is not the only such sport.

2. You're confusing strength and weight training.

If you are talking about definition of strenght as our maximal effort, i agree.

Since that is the only valid definition in this context, then why are you arguing?

But IMHO that definition is not worlwide accept, and strenght is not our maximal effort.

But your opinion is of no relevance here - what is relevant is scientific convention.

Show me a evidence that weights and strenght hurts cycling

I only beleive in two things; first we are breathing O2, and second US are Free World Leader

Sven Nys doing weights, it is not evidence but Dude, World Cyclocross Champion is doing squats

1. Never copy the training program of a champion, as you don't know if they are a champion because of, or in spite of, their training program.

2. Lifting weights could potentially improve the performance of a cyclocross racer even if strength did not change (i.e., see point #2 above).

 

[oldborn]

For those who simply don't believe that physiological and performance gains are possible from a very small amount of training check this out...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16825308

One group performs two weeks of training for 90-120min at 65% of VO2max.

One group performs two weeks of training three times a week. They perform 4-6 x 30sec at 250% of VO2max with 4min recovery in between.

I simply can't believe that the 5-6 weeks any Gimmickcrank study has been conducted over has failed to find a performance improvement when a 2 week study where one group exercised an massive 12-18mins and saw "rapid" adaptations.

More Tabata style perfomance workouts
What this study tell us?

"Given the large difference in training volume, these data demonstrate that SIT is a time-efficient strategy to induce rapid adaptations in skeletal muscle and exercise performance that are comparable to ET in young active men"

So 10, 5 h for Endurance Training, and 2,5 h for Sprint interval vomiting training at 250%Vo2

Even my late grandmother would benefit from that!

Do we train like this, if we are endurance cyclist? No
Could we cut endurance part? No

What other benefits SIT did reveal? None
What are numbers of SIT group before and after?
What are numbers of ET group before and after?

Why we are so stupid and doing long steady rides?

This study is proving only that we can save time, nothing else.
With only SIT we would be at zero state of fitness for endurance cycling.

 

[acoggan]

I might question your contention that lap times are not as sensitive since 0.1 second on a 20 second lap is a 0.5% difference.

You're ignoring two things:

1) hand-timing is rarely accurate to 0.1 s, and

2) even if it were, or an athlete routinely had access to electronic timing (which few do), environmental conditions and hence air density can change significantly from one session to another, even on an indoor track.

All I asked for is some proof that using a PM for this purpose gives a better ultimate result for what was being attempted.

Well, since in your world anecdotes apparently qualify as proof, I will merely point out that Sarah Hammer only broke the world record in the pursuit after she started using a powermeter.

 

[acoggan]

\The BCF and Kiwis even overlay the power data with video data to ensure the application of power is technically sound.

So does the US.

 

[CoachFergie]

So does the US.

So why doesn't Hammer hold a better line in the turns

 

[oldborn]

1. Cycling is not the only such sport.
2. You're confusing strength and weight training.

Cycling is not the only such sport, but cyclist could not benefit from it cos "nothing tell us different".
Weights could improve strenght, what is so magical about it? And on bike we can not train for general strenght, only for specific.

Since that is the only valid definition in this context, then why are you arguing?

Not sure if understanding?

But your opinion is of no relevance here - what is relevant is scientific convention.

Give me a break, what scientific convention? Did Chineese uses that definiton?
I spoked with dozens of coaches an doctors, everyone has a different opinion on strenght definition.

Show me a evidence that weights and strenght hurts cycling
I only beleive in two things; first we are breathing O2, and second US are Free World Leader

Hey those are mine words

1. Never copy the training program of a champion, as you don't know if they are a champion because of, or in spite of, their training program.

As i said before this is pure no-scientific approach to the subject. If you can not prove that weights and strenght can not hurts cycling and power, i can copy Champion photos

2. Lifting weights could potentially improve the performance of a cyclocross racer even if strength did not change (i.e., see point #2 above).

Strange, how weights can improve power but not strenght?

 

[acoggan]

So why doesn't Hammer hold a better line in the turns

Based on the videos I've seen, I think it might be because her saddle is too high. W/o better data, though, that's only a hypothesis (although one I think might be worth exploring).

 

[acoggan]

Cycling is not the only such sport, but cyclist could not benefit from it cos "nothing tell us different".
Weights could improve strenght, what is so magical about it? And on bike we can not train for general strenght, only for specific.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean by the above.

Not sure if understanding?

Same here, unfortunately.

Give me a break, what scientific convention?

That of the exercise physiology community, as exemplified by, e.g., official publications of the American College of Sports Medicine (as I've pointed out to Frank before).

I spoked with dozens of coaches an doctors, everyone has a different opinion on strenght definition.

No surprise there, as coaches and doctors are not scientists, and often have a very poor grasp of basic scientific definitions and principles.

how weights can improve power but not strenght?

Like all forms of exercise, the adaptations to weight (resistance) training are quite specific to how such training is performed. Thus, it is quite possible to use resistance training to achieve significant increases in power with minimal increases in strength, as they represent two different muscular properties.

 

[FrankDay]

So I am right that all the gains in cycling performance over the last 100 years have come from riders getting better and working with the muscle they have rather than trying to use different muscles in the body.

Because the studies where they try and manipulate the muscle groups used (like using Gimmickcranks recruiting the psoas) have not been all that successful.

What gains in cycling performance in the last 100 years? Are you trying to tell me that the current crop are better than LeMond or Merckx or Hinault? (And, to them a PM was just a dream.) I guess one might make that argument but then you have the issue of PED's raising its ugly head. Now, I think we can agree that PED's is a way that riders can get more out of their body with needing to invoke new muscles.

 

[FrankDay]

Ask and ye will recieve...



You think a former Physician would know that

how about a link to the actual paper. While glycogen stores can be changed in muscle I would think it not likely that they increase at the same time one is primarily strengthening the muscle. I believe that is what I said or, at least, implied. Either way, glycogen stores have little effect on performance for events lasting much more than an hour or two.

 

[FrankDay]

You're ignoring two things:

1) hand-timing is rarely accurate to 0.1 s, and

the accuracy of hand timing doesn't change with the interval being timed. If necessary one could time two or three laps and assure and accuracy greater than a power meter.

2) even if it were, or an athlete routinely had access to electronic timing (which few do), environmental conditions and hence air density can change significantly from one session to another, even on an indoor track.

Environmental conditions are easily accounted for by simply using a barometer and a hygrometer.

Well, since in your world anecdotes apparently qualify as proof, I will merely point out that Sarah Hammer only broke the world record in the pursuit after she started using a powermeter.

Anecdotes do not qualify as proof in my world.

 

[FrankDay]

Not sure if understanding?…
Strange, how weights can improve power but not strenght?

What you don't understand Mr. old is Dr. Coggan is an exercise physiologist and cannot bring himself to talk about strength in any manner other than the technical jargon of an exercise physiologist even when talking to someone with another background who might use the term differently. Give it up, he is totally incapable of seeing any other viewpoint here. To Dr. Coggan strength is one rep maximum force and nothing else.