What determines efficiency ??? - Page 5

Here is an interesting study that goes to the controversy.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/7076784371652757/

There is apparently more research on this than is being referenced here. Coyles is not the only study on training and efficiency. From the article quoted previously

"An intriguing question, which has been addressed in many studies, is whether cycling efficiency can be increased by training. The topic has been addressed in a number of cross-sectional studies. However, the results are inconclusive in that studies have shown higher (Kunstlinger et al. 1985; Gardner et al. 1989; Gissane et al. 1991), lower (Mallory et al. 2002) or similar (Boning et al. 1984; Nickleberry & Brooks, 1996; Marsh et al. 2000; Moseley & Jeukendrup, 2001) cycling efficiency in endurance trained subjects. Cycling efficiency has in some (Coyle et al. 1992; Horowitz et al. 1994) but not all studies (Medbøx, 1990; Pedersen et al. 2002) been shown to correlate to the relative muscle composition of type I fibres. There are some data, which indicate that endurance trained subjects have a higher proportion of type I fibres than untrained subjects (Fitzsimons et al. 1990; Putman et al. 2004). The higher cycling efficiency in endurance trained subjects, observed in some studies, may therefore be a consequence of fibre type differences between the groups. This possibility has not been adequately addressed in previous studies and further studies are therefore required.

The trouble with any new you-beaut thing that comes along is … using it will produce new training stimulus and this may very well produce improvement. So it becomes a … whether it was the thing or the variation in the training that caused the improvement ? maybe it doesn't matter as if there was no thing there may have been no variation ??

just a thought …

says who ?

I had a friend back in the 70s who designed a bike that had hydraulic gearing in the hub and double crank wheels that made the pedals go up and down 310 mm but only back and fourth 100mm … because he believed this was more biomechanical efficient, I thought he was a nutter.

The infinitely variable gearing was interesting though .

Science.

__________________

no … Paul Mahoney, PhD said it.

Thanks, I'll check him out

I am not sure this is correct.

I don't argee with the idea of varied training leading to greater stimulus. You hear this stuff all the time from people trying to sell gym memberships by pushing crosstraining on the same principle.

If you are getting 'used' to your training then you are not properly increasing your workload. You don't ever 'get used' to interval training etc if it is done at sufficient intensity.

Granted, you may just get bored with a workout routine, but then this is a psychological argument not a physiological on.

Well designed studies should ensure that workloads are similar between control and study groups in a way that makes them resistant to this psychological effect.

There is a very interesting relationship between specificity and variation.

Don't confuse variation with change. It is my experience that crosstraining is a complex and not entirely useful idea.

Constant yet very minor variations to a routine can stimulate ongoing adaptation. If we just back away from the science for second and take a hard look at the obvious. Things often appear a little clearer.

If you do the same thing over and over again you don't get better at it ! you get more biomechanically efficient at it. To get better at it one must have (in theoretical terms) additional stimulus.

In various sports, training is periodised on a four week cycle of increased volume/intensity and a recovery week, saw toothing upwards to peak for a specific event.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that variation ?

You need to untangle changes in workload and changes in the type of activity. Otherwise you can't determine which is responsible for the adaptions you are or not seeing.

What I was saying is that i don't think changes in the type of activity lead to any added training effect when the metabolic work rate is held constant. (power output is a different story, as less efficient tasks (as unfamiliar ones would tend to be) require greater metabolic work for the same external work).

If we are talking about increases or variations in workload such as the pattern of block training you discussed, then this will have an effect, but why would anyone design a study where the control and non control groups had differing workloads- as this is so obvious I could only assume that you were making the classic cross training argument.

To reply to your original hypothesis why would the group using powercranks in the study have a greater workload- and if not then what would be the nature of the additional stimulus.

If the study used comparable external work (as in watts at crank) then there may well be an increased metabolic workload experienced by the PC users, but then Luttrel is a moron.

Are you speaking in the context of powercranks only or in general?

Okay …

1) Changes in activity can result in non specific adaptation that adds no real advantage to the prime activity, ie: bicycle racing. However if excessive stimulus at a specific discipline results in injury, irritation, boredom, Change to some small percentage of a training stimulus may prove advantages.

2) Increases, decreases, in work volume and intensity and difference in training terrain will continually add subtle variations and stimulus to training.

Power cranks, which I know little about, would fall into both categories I guess ? So tangled they remain.

I think that we all shoud be open to new ideas and give them sometime to see if they work. That is a key factor for the evolution of any field of knowledge.
I remember when LeMond came out with the TT bars and helmet in Tour de France 89 and everyone thought he was crazy....then he won the Tour and ever since then everyone started using the TT bars and the Helmet..

You are right...I am sure you have had to deal with so much crap and stupid things from some pros. It is very hard to work with most pros...I don´t say all, but MOST pros. We have to think that most pros behave and have many similar characteristics of children. They are highly usecure and very fragil and on top of lucking the knowledge of how their body works, most luck the priciple of objectivity and when things are not going as they wish or thought they start looking for ghost where they do not exist instead of analyzing situations objectively. Of course that is a major part that makes big champions outstand from the rest..not only their physiolgy but also their psychology.

Cheers

Good point. If you were trying to study the effect of say, increasing workload, then you would obviously need differing workloads on the control and non-control.

But in the context of trying to demonstrate a beneficial effect from a particular product or training program, you should try and keep total workloads as similar as possible, so as you don't get what appears to be a positive efffect from your changes when all you are really doing is getting the athlete to train harder.

Say you want to test the hypothesis that intervals are a "better' form of training than steady state. You can't just take a control doing say 3,2hr L3 rides a week, and then get the intervals group to do this then an extra 2, 1 hour intervals sessions. When the intervals group outperforms your control group you won't know if it is from the extra hours of training or the inclusion of intervals per se.

In any case this is all a rather non interesting diversion from the main topic.

You need to untangle the two to conduct a scientific test.

Why would you let your non control increase or decrease their work volume or intensity or let them ride on different terrain to the control.

As stated earlier, you can keep workloads identical through measuring metabolic work rates, such as through measuring 02 consumption in an aerobic state.