Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product.JamesCun said:Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
FrankDay said:Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product.JamesCun said:Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
If you say so.JamesCun said:FrankDay said:Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product.JamesCun said:Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
Frank, power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen. They were obviously not measure max power in an all out sprint, otherwise he has the worst max power of any rider in the world.
FrankDay said:If you say so.JamesCun said:FrankDay said:Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product.JamesCun said:Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
Frank, power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen. They were obviously not measure max power in an all out sprint, otherwise he has the worst max power of any rider in the world.
-----------------------------------JamesCun said:...
power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen.
...
JayKosta said:-----------------------------------JamesCun said:...
power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen.
...
Do you think that there is a 'time duration' associated with the the vo2max measurement?
E.g. does the vo2max number have to be maintained for some amount of time, or is it the max vo2 usage number achieved during some test session.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
I disagree with thatJamesCun said:FrankDay said:If you say so.JamesCun said:FrankDay said:Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product.JamesCun said:Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
Frank, power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen. They were obviously not measure max power in an all out sprint, otherwise he has the worst max power of any rider in the world.
What part do you disagree with?
Vo2max is a measure of maximum aerobic power.
In a sense, yes but the definition of FTP does not include a measurement of aerobic capacity. FTP gives a power number. So, again, I disagree with this.FTP is a measure of aerobic capacity.
What has this to do with this discussion?Wingate tests are good for anaerobic capacity.
I don't disagree with this but, again, no wingate testing was done here so what does this have to do with anything regarding this thread?The max power recorded in a wingate is massively higher than in a vo2max test.
JayKosta said:-----------------------------------JamesCun said:...
power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen.
...
Do you think that there is a 'time duration' associated with the the vo2max measurement?
E.g. does the vo2max number have to be maintained for some amount of time, or is it the max vo2 usage number achieved during some test session.
FrankDay said:sciguy said:I guess that is up to you. Of course, that "made up power file" has nothing to do with these results and the current discussion, or even with what was going on then. But, it is up to you (or Fergie, as I suspect he won't be able to let it go).Frank,
Are we back to the BS of 2007 again with Joaquнn of made up power file fame?????????????????????????
Please tell me it isn't so.
Hugh
If you say so. LOLJamesCun said:Ok Frank. Not goin to waste my time with someone who doesn't understand basic exercise physiology.
Thanks for that effort but I think I will stay with what I know as opposed to what you "know."Edit: I think it is fairly clear the relevance of mentioning the wingate test. I was trying to educate you since you don't understand these concepts. The max number they reported (451 in the final test) is a reflection of the riders max aerobic power, not an anaerobic number as you suggested. A wingate would've given that anaerobic number.
The max power number given did not come from a wingate test, which requires specialized equipment. I, actually, have done a wingate test, have you? Wingate testing has zero relevance to this thread or to this testing."The Wingate test is believed to show two things: all-out peak anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity.[1] These two values have been reported as important factors in sports with quick, all-out efforts. Short sprinting events rely heavily upon the anaerobic energy pathways during execution[2] which leads to the theories that greater performance in a Wingate test can predict success in these events. This has not been proven, and the more applicable theory would be that improvements in Wingate scores could predict improvements in sprinting times."
LOL. If you say so.CoachFergie said:FrankDay said:sciguy said:I guess that is up to you. Of course, that "made up power file" has nothing to do with these results and the current discussion, or even with what was going on then. But, it is up to you (or Fergie, as I suspect he won't be able to let it go).Frank,
Are we back to the BS of 2007 again with Joaquнn of made up power file fame?????????????????????????
Please tell me it isn't so.
Hugh
Love it, Frank Day has admitted that the files were somehow doctored, if you know what I mean, is not prepared to say how they came to be doctored, and is still using them as evidence!
LOL, rather than address the issues here you, again, resort to personal attacks, a sign of weakness in your argument I would say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemCoachFergie said:Yes, but when were you last licenced or registered to practice as an anesthesiologist and because you did that 20 or so years ago does it mean you have kept up with the numerous findings in the field of exercise physiology?
Till then you are just another quack hiding behind a, now irrelevant, piece of paper.
So when the statement is, "trust me I'm a Doctor"(or was a Doctor), the answer is no!
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.
Yes, I have noticed that. You, Coggan, and others of your ilk never really tell people what you think is correct, all you do is tell others they are wrong, and let it go at that. That sure makes "debating" (if one can call it that) easy. LOLCoachFergie said:Not our jobs to enlighten the unenlightened
FrankDay said:Yes, I have noticed that. You, Coggan, and others of your ilk never really tell people what you think is correct, all you do is tell others they are wrong, and let it go at that. That sure makes "debating" (if one can call it that) easy. LOLCoachFergie said:Not our jobs to enlighten the unenlightened
Actually that study would do well here as it deals with pedaling technique. And, as I posted in that new thread you started, that study, I believe, actually supports my current view that a better balanced muscle use is more efficient.sciguy said:
FrankDay said:Actually that study would do well here as it deals with pedaling technique. And, as I posted in that new thread you started, that study, I believe, actually supports my current view that a better balanced muscle use is more efficient.sciguy said:
Nope, when riding PowerCranks the opposite leg acts as the counterweight. PowerCranks is nothing more than counterweighted single legged pedaling both legs at the same time. Since that was the best outcome in this experiment it supports my theory. Your problem is you don't seem to have a clue what the PC's do or don't do but are shouting very loud here pretending you do.sciguy said:FrankDay said:Actually that study would do well here as it deals with pedaling technique. And, as I posted in that new thread you started, that study, I believe, actually supports my current view that a better balanced muscle use is more efficient.sciguy said:
and how might that be? The use of the counterweight forces a much less balanced use of leg flexors versus extensors and yet improved the athletes efficiency substantially. How do you reconcile that?
With counterweight the work done on the down stroke is increased while that done on the upstroke is decreased. It certainly sounds counter to your conception of the ideal use of muscles.
Hugh