For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

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

I would submit that what they have a very poor grasp of is the jargon of the official publications of the American College of sports medicine. That does not mean coaches and doctors cannot be scientists as being a scientist involves a certain way of thinking not being a member of a certain club.

 

[acoggan]

glycogen stores have little effect on performance for events lasting much more than an hour or two.

Say what?!? Those are precisely the conditions under which initial glycogen stores would be most important.

 

[FrankDay]

I would submit that what they have a very poor grasp of is the jargon of the official publications of the American College of sports medicine. That does not mean coaches and doctors cannot be scientists as being a scientist involves a certain way of thinking not being a member of a certain club.

I might add, Dr. Coggan and I have had this conversation before. The problem is his jargon does not have a term that allows someone to talk about the maximum force a muscle can provide for 2 repetitions , 100 repetitions, or 10,000 repetitions. What kind of scientist doesn't allow such discussion because his organization doesn't have a proper term to use in such discussions? I don't know but that's Dr. Coggan.

 

[FrankDay]

Say what?!? Those are precisely the conditions under which initial glycogen stores would be most important.

Explain to me the total amount of calories that can be manipulated here and then explain to me how this difference is critical to events lasting 4-6 hours. I know everyone does "carbohydrate loading" for these events but I am not aware that such manipulations have ever been shown to affect outcome.

 

[acoggan]

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.

Ironically, just yesterday I was reading an account of the Wright brothers' use of a wind tunnel to determine the precise relationships between wing shape, chord, and length on drag and lift. Along with their novel wing-warping control mechanism, it was their in-depth understanding of these factors that enabled them to succeed in developing a heavier-than-air aircraft when so many others before them had failed. A good part of the reason that they got their first, though, was the lack of widely-agreed-upon terminology (what you call "jargon") in this new field.

 

[FrankDay]

Ironically, just yesterday I was reading an account of the Wright brothers' use of a wind tunnel to determine the precise relationships between wing shape, chord, and length on drag and lift. Along with their novel wing-warping control mechanism, it was their in-depth understanding of these factors that enabled them to succeed in developing a heavier-than-air aircraft when so many others before them had failed. A good part of the reason that they got their first, though, was the lack of widely-agreed-upon terminology (what you call "jargon") in this new field.

A lack of agreed upon terminology is understandable in a new field. After all, it is new. However, and "old field" restricting discussion of concepts simply because there is not a jargon definition of the concept can be just as stifling I would submit.

And, jargon correctly describes what your are using, see def #3

jar·gon (järgn)
n.
1. Nonsensical, incoherent, or meaningless talk.
2. A hybrid language or dialect; a pidgin.
3. The specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group. See Synonyms at dialect.
4. Speech or writing having unusual or pretentious vocabulary, convoluted phrasing, and vague meaning.
intr.v. jar·goned, jar·gon·ing, jar·gons
To speak in or use jargon.

 

[acoggan]

Explain to me the total amount of calories that can be manipulated here and then explain to me how this difference is critical to events lasting 4-6 hours. I know everyone does "carbohydrate loading" for these events but I am not aware that such manipulations have ever been shown to affect outcome.

Frank, people have been manipulating dietary carbohydrate intake and examining the effects on metabolism and performance since before 1900. Much of that early literature is hard to access, though, so I suggest that you start your reading with Benedict and Cathcart (1913) or Krogh and Lindhard (1920), work your way forward to Christensen and Hansen (1939), then progress to Bergstrom and Hultman (1967) and Coggan and Coyle (1991).

 

[acoggan]

jargon correctly describes what your are using, see def #3

jar·gon (järgn)
n.

3. The specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group.

Agreed. However, since we are discussing a particular specialized field here, it only makes sense to insist upon proper use of the correct terminology. To do otherwise only leads to confusion (as, e.g., oldborn's comments demonstrate).

 

[acoggan]

I might add, Dr. Coggan and I have had this conversation before. The problem is his jargon does not have a term that allows someone to talk about the maximum force a muscle can provide for 2 repetitions , 100 repetitions, or 10,000 repetitions.

Sure it does: fatigability (or fatigue resistance).

 

[acoggan]

Frank, people have been manipulating dietary carbohydrate intake and examining the effects on metabolism and performance since before 1900. Much of that early literature is hard to access, though, so I suggest that you start your reading with Benedict and Cathcart (1913) or Krogh and Lindhard (1920), work your way forward to Christensen and Hansen (1939), then progress to Bergstrom and Hultman (1967) and Coggan and Coyle (1991).

EDIT: Or, you could just read the chapter that I wrote on substrate metabolism for History of Exercise Physiology, which is to be published by Human Kinetics later this year (Charles M. Tipton is the editor).

 

[acoggan]

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

That approach may suffice when evaluating iso-speed performances. However, many track events entail marked changes in kinetic and potential energy, which makes interpretation of time, per se, difficult. OTOH, a powermeter can record an athlete's actual performance as an engine with high accuracy, precision, and temporal resolution, making it much easier to determine what is happening.

Anecdotes do not qualify as proof in my world.

Then why do you persist in repeatedly sharing them??

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, people have been manipulating dietary carbohydrate intake and examining the effects on metabolism and performance since before 1900. Much of that early literature is hard to access, though, so I suggest that you start your reading with Benedict and Cathcart (1913) or Krogh and Lindhard (1920), work your way forward to Christensen and Hansen (1939), then progress to Bergstrom and Hultman (1967) and Coggan and Coyle (1991).

We are not talking about manipulating dietary carbohydrate intake. Manipulating metabolism could have a huge affect on endurance as that is how most of the energy during an endurance performance is obtained. Instead, the question was about manipulating muscle energy stores and that affect on endurance performance, especially long endurance performance. Here is something about this that I pulled off the web

"For example, the energy needed to maintain an average sprinting speed of 22 mph for 200 m or less and an average running speed of 12.1 mph for the marathon are acquired by two very different systems (the predominant energy systems required for running at different speeds are shown in the first figure). The primary energy source for sprinting distances up to 400 m is PCr. From 400 m to 1,500 m, anaerobic glycolysis is the primary energy source. For distances longer than 1,500 m, athletes rely primarily on aerobic metabolism.

The rate of glycogen and fat utilization will vary according to the relative running speed. Although the rate of glycogen utilization is low while running a marathon, the duration of the event increases the possibility of depleting glycogen stores. In contrast, the rate of glycogen utilization is substantially higher during a 5,000 m run, but glycogen depletion is not a concern because of the short duration of the event. "

 

[FrankDay]

That approach may suffice when evaluating iso-speed performances. However, many track events entail marked changes in kinetic and potential energy, which makes interpretation of time, per se, difficult. OTOH, a powermeter can record an athlete's actual performance as an engine with high accuracy, precision, and temporal resolution, making it much easier to determine what is happening.

The comment was directed to someone trying to do aerodynamic testing, something well suited to an iso-speed performance. I simply asked for evidence that what he was trying to do could not be done as well using another technique that did not involve a PM.

Then why do you persist in repeatedly sharing them??

Anecdotes are interesting and can help demonstrate a point one may want to make. Anecdotes are also observations that sometimes lead to studies by the curious to explain the mechanism of what was observed. They do not constitute proof. You, who claim to be a scientist, should understand this difference.

 

[JayKosta]

My understanding of some terms...

STRENGTH - how much 'force' can be applied, similar to 'torque'.

POWER - how much 'work' can be done in a period of time, similar to 'horsepower'.

CARBOHYDRATE LOADING - having the maximum amount of glycogen available in the body for use during the early hours of a strenuous long event. Using the available glycogen is more efficient (uses less internal body energy) so more power can be done moving the bike. This might help to establish an early breakaway that is successful. After the available glycogen is depleted, the body uses its store of fat to produce fuel for the muscles.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[acoggan]

We are not talking about manipulating dietary carbohydrate intake.

So carbohydrate loading does not constitute manipulating dietary carbohydrate intake??

Here is something about this that I pulled off the web

"For example, the energy needed to maintain an average sprinting speed of 22 mph for 200 m or less and an average running speed of 12.1 mph for the marathon are acquired by two very different systems (the predominant energy systems required for running at different speeds are shown in the first figure). The primary energy source for sprinting distances up to 400 m is PCr.

Wrong.

From 400 m to 1,500 m, anaerobic glycolysis is the primary energy source.

Wrong.

For distances longer than 1,500 m, athletes rely primarily on aerobic metabolism.

Well, finally they got something right...but while batting 0.333 might make you an outstanding hitter in baseball, it rates a grade of F in any class I ever took.

The rate of glycogen and fat utilization will vary according to the relative running speed. Although the rate of glycogen utilization is low while running a marathon, the duration of the event increases the possibility of depleting glycogen stores. In contrast, the rate of glycogen utilization is substantially higher during a 5,000 m run, but glycogen depletion is not a concern because of the short duration of the event. "

So what does this have to do with your claim that glycogen storage is not important in events lasting more than 1-2 h??

 

[acoggan]

The comment was directed to someone trying to do aerodynamic testing, something well suited to an iso-speed performance.

And my comment was directed towards the general misconception that track cyclists cannot benefit from using a powermeter.

Anecdotes are interesting and can help demonstrate a point one may want to make. Anecdotes are also observations that sometimes lead to studies by the curious to explain the mechanism of what was observed. They do not constitute proof. You, who claim to be a scientist, should understand this difference.

As a scientist, I do understand the difference - that's why I only offer anecdotes to poke fun at yours, and frequently cite W. Edwards Deming ("In God we trust - everyone else bring data").

 

[FrankDay]

And my comment was directed towards the general misconception that track cyclists cannot benefit from using a powermeter.

Where is the proof that this is a misconception? If you say it is a misconception you must have proof. An anecdote that a track cyclist improved after using a PM is not proof that the improvement came about as a result of the PM.

As a scientist, I do understand the difference - that's why I only offer anecdotes to poke fun at yours, and frequently cite W. Edwards Deming ("In God we trust - everyone else bring data").

It is my impression that rather than "poking fun" your intent is to belittle others. That seems particularly immature for someone in your position. If the sole purpose really is "poking fun", that doesn't seem much better.

 

[oldborn]

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

This is off topic for sure, and i do not want to diverse thread. So some quick simple basics.

From McArdle, Katch, and Katch definition of strenght:
Strength is the maximum force that a muscle or muscle group can generate or you can lift for any given exercise.

I and others scientists, coaches do not agree on that definition, cos it is more a definition of maximum strenght, and we agree that we are not even close to our maximum effort or force on bike.

More apropriate definition would be: "Strenght is generally defined as the ability to generate force at a given velocity of movement, or force in a short period of time"

If we are speaking of max strenght it should be means of the max resistance which can be overcome in one rep by developing max muscle tension in fibres, and therefore close to definition i do not agree.

I beleive that cyclist can benefits from developing strenght endurance in dynamic pattern.
That is pretty much everything, i am sure that is to easy for you to understand.

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)..

Andrew, as a US non resident/scientist i would choose to not beleive/obay in your association, without any disregards to the club.

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

Uh, that gonna hurt someone
Vanity fair, all is vanity

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.

Cos i am slow thinking, weights can significant increases power but not strenght?

Do not need to answer, cos it is off topic, but it pretty much tell me everything.

Let s move to the PC

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

Ahhhh yes if only we had power meter data could we really answer that question.

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

It was to the paper on SIT I had linked above.

Strawman Frank, I didn't suggest that all four factors had to happen at the same time although that being said I have seen increases in hypertrophy occur as aerobic performance has increased at the same time.

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

Again wrong as most hand timing does not come close to the accuracy of electronic timing and you also only get 1-2 data points per lap while the powermeter gives you data points every .1 - 1sec.

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

Naive, Frank, had you got that Muppet aiming for the Hour Record down to the track on the stupid big gear you would have noticed that even indoors the environment is constantly changing. On an outdoor track it's virtually impossible to control for conditions unless you are recording temp, wind speed, wind direction every manually every time you record a lap split.

Anecdotes do not qualify as proof in my world.

Yet it appears you claim Nick Nuyens as a Gimmickcranker with no real information provided as to what influence they have been on his career. Isn't that an anecdote Frank?

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

To what purpose would trying to manage several different definitions in one debate serve Frank. Especially when the other definitions for strength already have adequate names like strength endurance = medium or long term power.

 

[FrankDay]

Wrong.

Wouldn't it be more helpful to those who are following this thread for you to volunteer why it was wrong, rather than make people drag it out of you?

Wrong.

Wouldn't it be more helpful to those who are following this thread for you to volunteer why it was wrong, rather than make people drag it out of you?

Well, finally they got something right...but while batting 0.333 might make you an outstanding hitter in baseball, it rates a grade of F in any class I ever took.

But, it is the part that is germane to this discussion.

So what does this have to do with your claim that glycogen storage is not important in events lasting more than 1-2 h??

Well, if the vast majority of muscle energy during aerobic events derives from sources other than stored carbohydrates it seems that stored carbohydrates can have little effect on performance. In an ultra endurance event like the TDF or the Ironman, or RAAM it would seem the ability to use other energy sources would be more determinative to success than what carbs are stored at the start of the event.

Besides that, we are talking the effect of manipulating muscle (and, perhaps, liver) glycogen stores I asked you before how much this store can be manipulated? It is that difference we are talking about. How big is it in calories? And, how much does this change affect performance?

Here is some stuff I picked up off the web that goes to this a bit that goes to my argument.

"In the unloaded/non-carbohydrate saturated state, an untrained individual consuming an average diet (45% carbohydrate) is able to store approximately 100 grams (g) of glycogen in the liver, whereas muscle is able to store about 280g. … The amount of additional carbohydrate that is able to be stored in the body is dependent on diet and athlete conditioning level. For an untrained individual consuming a high carbohydrate (75%) diet, glycogen stores may increase up to 130g and 360g for liver and muscle respectively for a total storage of 490g. For an athlete training on a daily basis consuming a normal diet (45% carbohydrate), glycogen levels approximate 55g and 280g for liver and muscle respectively yielding a total of 330g. However, should this same well-conditioned athlete consume a high diet (75% carbohydrate), their total carbohydrate reserves may soar up to 880g with approximately 160g stored in the liver and 720g in the muscle. Clearly the conditioned athlete’s muscles are much more efficient at storing carbohydrates than those of his or her unconditioned competitor."

The fact that a conditioned aerobic athlete conditions the body to store more glycogen than an unconditioned person is not manipulation, but simply training effect. It is simply one way the body responds to the repeated training stress. Most of those calories are going to get into those muscles with a normal diet during a normal taper (rest) preceding the event without need of any special diet.

Manipulation involves making the body do more than it would normally do. Carbohydrate loading, as I learned it, is not just eating a large carbohydrate meal but involves carb depletion followed by a high carb period hoping for a "rebound" effect. My personal experience with such manipulation resulted in my muscles "not working properly" until they had enough miles in them to use up the extra carbs. Without such manipulation excess carbs are probably going to fat stores. My own experience with "manipulation loading" is it causes performance to deteriorate (at least at the beginning - the reference discusses this) and so has little effect on performance overall even though it might slightly delay "bonking" due to low carb stores.

My own thoughts are that "bonking" would be better handled by training the body to better metabolize fat stores than by trying to delay depletion of carbohydrate stores, especially for the ultra-endurance events.

I doubt that anyone has scientifically proven that carbohydrate loading as I refer to it improves performance. (despite what the article I referenced says - "therefore carbohydrate loading is a proven form of boosting running endurance in prolonged events lasting more than two hours in duration" - as they are really talking carb replenishment, not carb loading.) That puts it in the same camp as almost everything else in sports (like the PM), people arguing theoretical advantages without any real proof to support their view.

So, sure, one needs the carbs tanked up to perform well. But, one also needs the muscles to be in tip-top repair also. This doesn't require much beyond eating well (including protein) during the taper period.

 

[FrankDay]

To what purpose would trying to manage several different definitions in one debate serve Frank. Especially when the other definitions for strength already have adequate names like strength endurance = medium or long term power.

The advantage of several different definitions is it allows people to discuss different nuanced topics and understand each other. Jargon is helpful for professionals to discuss things amongst themselveswithout need to define every word. Jargon is not helpful when it is used against those not familiar with the special use.

In the past I have pushed Dr. Coggan to give a term that allows people to discuss "strength" as they are using it. He simple cannot do so. Increased force for a prolonged period. At least you are trying to come up with something even though it is not in the official compendium of the sports medicine scientist, although I like my idea better, because it is more specific.
Strength-1 is the accepted jargon definition of strength, max force for one rep.
Strength-100x60 would be max force repeatable for 100 reps at 60 reps per second.
Strength-10,000x90 would be max force repeatable for 10,000 reps at 90 reps per second.

Those would be useful definitions to facilitate cycling and running science, I would think.

 

[CoachFergie]

Where is the proof that this is a misconception? If you say it is a misconception you must have proof. An anecdote that a track cyclist improved after using a PM is not proof that the improvement came about as a result of the PM.

Recently had a cyclist at Nationals who had the misguided belief that she needed to ride a certain gear. With the powermeter data I was able to show her that on the smaller gear she managed her power better over the standing lap and had an higher ave power for the 20sec. So from the power meter I had 20 wattage data points, 20 cadence data points while the stopwatch could only tell me her half lap split and final lap time and there is no simple way to measure conditions inside the track for each ride although the SRM does record temperature.

We used this information to make a better gear choice for the standing lap and to provide her with information about the effects of different pacing strategies for the standing lap. That in conjunction with good aerodynamics, bike set up, gate start technique, holding the measurement line in the bends etc led to a better result.