Benefits of muscle tension intervals? - Page 2

After reading this article it appears that the physical benefits are not that much different from that doing a normal cadence. What about the mental benefits. i did a hundred mile ride late summer and trained mostly on flat roads. This ride had a lot of hills. I think the benefit of low cadence training would have more of a mental benefit. I am definitely doing some low cadence training this spring so that when I do this 100 mile ride again(Philly Schuylkill 100) I will be better able to handle the Hillls.

This study's flaw is that there is no control of training load. Therefore, the increased power probably came from an "inadvertent taper" due to part of the normal training load being replaced by weight training.
[/QUOTE]

Looking at the expanded information in the links which further describe the method and intervention principals used it would appear the subjects that undertook the high resistance intervals would likely have equalled or increased their training load during the trial.

There is no weight training going on in this study - the high resistance intervals are all done on the bike.

I'm not sure how you would truly quantify training loads in different groups to arrive at an exact comparison but regardless it would appear that in this case a clear benefit was gained through the use of these intervals.

Looking at the expanded information in the links which further describe the method and intervention principals used it would appear the subjects that undertook the high resistance intervals would likely have equalled or increased their training load during the trial.

There is no weight training going on in this study - the high resistance intervals are all done on the bike.

I'm not sure how you would truly quantify training loads in different groups to arrive at an exact comparison but regardless it would appear that in this case a clear benefit was gained through the use of these intervals.[/QUOTE]
I missed the link! Upon reading the text the interventions seems to be a mix of low-candence L5 and L4 intervals:

"Sessions consisted of 5-6 intervals of 3 to 22 minutes, and the total interval duration per session increased steadily from 25 min in Week 1 through 55 min in Week 8. Rest periods in between work intervals ranged from 1 to 5 minutes."

Still, one cannot draw any conclusion. regarding low cadence intervals The training load of both groups is not quantified and other studies have shown normal cadence intervals produce a similar effect.

How to quantify training loads: Cycling Peaks Software, since this is all on-bike exercise.

Still, one cannot draw any conclusion. regarding low cadence intervals The training load of both groups is not quantified and other studies have shown normal cadence intervals produce a similar effect.[/size][/size][/size]

How to quantify training loads: Cycling Peaks Software, since this is all on-bike exercise.


[/QUOTE]

I agree that you can't compare the training loads with the information given, at the least you would need the training diaries that the riders kept for that comparison.

The aim of the study was to compare these riders normal training routines to one which was modified by the use of high-resistance intervals, as such they have shown that an increase in power/decrease in TT time was attained in this case. It may be that this was achieved simply by adding L4/5 intervals to the training but this can't be proven without including another experimental group in the study.

Do you know of any studies that have compared normal cadence and low cadence intervals directly?

About a year ago this was a topic of discussion on the Wattage Forum. I do not believe anyone could provide reference to a well-designed study proving any additional benefit to muscle tension intervals. IMHO, I believe proving efficacy would be quite difficult, given that any benefit over normal-cadence intervals if it existed would be small, on the order of a couple percent.

I pretty quickly glossed over the study, and don't really have the energy nor the attention span to pick throught its details after long day, a big dinner, and a generous glass of wine. One thing I did immediately notice, however, was that the study seemed to be designed to answer assertions about low cadence work that no one to my knowledge has really made. It seems like a lot of effort to design and carry out a study simply to knock down a straw man.

If I remember correctly, the study sought to test whether low cadence intervals caused hypertrophy and were superior to other forms of endurance interval training. I don't think any proponent of low cadence work would make either of those claims. That's not what they're intended to do as part of a well designed training regime. According to my understanding, low cadence intervals are meant to be used in a strictly transitional training period and are intended to increase somewhat the endurance qualities of fast twitch fibers. I don't think anyone thinks they're going to cause hypertrophy, and they're not intended to replace other forms of interval training. In fact, you should be done with them by late winter.

I've had them prescribed to me, as I said, during a transitional stage from weight training and sprint training to strength endurance work to provide a sort of continuum to strictly aerobic systems. Are they useful? I guess it depends; not only on a person's individual fiber makeup, but also on their racing speciality. For a crit racer spinning 110 rpms, probably not all that useful. For a mountain biker such as me, where quickly varying terrain and short steep climbs that dictate you grind and mash over them and keep going at your redline for two hours, I find there's some theoretical utility in considering them.

__________________

I assume that you're referring to the web-published-only study by Mason et al.? If so, it strikes me as not being intended to "knock down" any hypotheses, but instead to provide support for the idea of "on-the-bike resistance training". I say that, though, having the benefit of reading other things she's written, which you may not have seen.

Actually, some have done precisely that, which is why 1) Mason et al. included such measurements as part of their experiment, and 2) I discussed the absolute forces in my article.

Again, please see the article that I wrote: there appears to be no concensus over just what such training is intended to accomplish, and it isn't clear that such training actually results in greater recruitment of type II motor units.