Dr. Coggan- physiology

frenchyge said:

Keep in mind that anaerobic energy supplements aerobic energy as needed, so aerobic energy is always fully contributing to the effort. It's not a switchover situation between the two.

Wait a minute. I think your statement is not correct.. It is true that the energy systems do not work independantly of each other and all three systems make a contribution but one or at most two will be responsible for most of the energy production at any given time. So no, the aerobic energy system is definately not always fully contributing to the effort. Lets take a 2 minute interval for example. If the effort is really intense the ATP-PCR system is almost totally (maybe near 100%) predominant and aerobic system is not doing much and is certainly nowhere near 100% or probbaly not even at 10%.. As the effort goes past 15 seconds then the anaerobic system does most of the work. As the effort goes past 45 seconds then the aerobic system starts to do a lot more of the energy production.

The graphs here show what I am talking about.
http://freewebs.com/velodynamics2/LTtest.pdf

Hockey-cyclist said:

It's not pacing that makes the difference it's anaerobic power in my opinion. "If most energy for a single maximal effort over 70 seconds, starting from a rested state, comes from aerobic sources" then the rest has to come anaerobically. These trackies(and hockey players) must have incredible abilty to generate power via anaerobic glycolysis so that their inferior aerobic power, compared to a TT specialist(or a long distance speed skater), is offset by huge anaerobic power.

I still have a hard time with this statement. "Most energy for a single maximal effort over 70 seconds, starting from a rested state, comes from aerobic sources ". I can see this happening for an effort over 2 minutes but not 70 seconds to 2 minutes. Yet I see that graphs of the study from Gastin, 2001 saying otherwise and that surely must have been from a scientific study.

Pacing is critical in pursuiting.

Here are two references of presentation by Dr Coggan which discuss the topic:
http://www.fixedgearfever.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=17
http://www.fixedgearfever.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=18

and a couple by me:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2006/11/in-pursuit-of-perfect-pacing.html
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2007/02/darth-vader-rides-teams-pursuit.html

and on pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10668763&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1428374&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

This last one goes some way to giving you the answer to the kilo energy souces:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15088244&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

In it, it quotes (for 1000m test) that the total energy for a group of well trained racing cyclists was 34.14 +/- 6.37 kJ and of that 18.68 +/- 8.51 kJ (~55%) was from anaerobic sources.

I used to have a really cool chart that showed the relative energy contribution of aerobic/anaerobic energy sources vs duration of event. Can't for the life of me recall where it is.

Here is an extract from a metapaper:

"The energy systems do not function like a set of lights switching from one to the other as the duration of exercise gets longer. The three energy systems are all turned on at the beginning of exercise. However, because the breakdown of PC to form ATP is a simple fast process, this energy store produces maximal power in the first few seconds of exercise and is fully dissipated in 10–20 seconds. The more intense the exercise the faster it is used up. Also at the beginning of intense exercise anaerobic glycolysis is turned on with large amounts of lactic acid being produced in the first 10 seconds. Up to 40–45% of ATP can be produced from this energy source in a 100 m sprint. Peak anaerobic power from this energy source is generally reached in 5–15 seconds. Recent evidence from a number of laboratories around the world suggests that the aerobic system also turns on quickly during high intense exercise and plays a significant role in sprint and high-intensity endurance performances. In cycling, for example, almost 50% of the energy required for a 60 second exhaustive effort comes from the aerobic system. After only 30 seconds of exercise, the oxygen uptake can be as high as 70–90% of the athlete’s maximum aerobic power and very close to maximal power after a minute of intense exercise."

The following is data extracted from a graph in the paper:

Duration of Exhaustive Exercise, % Anaerobic, % Aerobic
15 s, 88, 12
30 s, 73, 27
45 s, 63, 37
60 s, 55, 45
90 s, 44, 56
120 s, 37, 63
180 s, 27, 73
240 s, 21, 79

You see that the aerobic system rapidly kicks in and by 60 seconds most of the energy required is produced aerobically. However, this is an average over each duration, and in the case of a 60 second all-out effort, by even 30 seconds 1/2 of the energy requirements are produced aerobically.

I have the full paper and one of its main sources. PM me with your email.

So, there is no question increased aerobic fitness will provide an edge for your players, which will most likely be seen toward the end of each period.

The real question is time, how much time do they have to train, what do they do now and what will benefit them the most.

Time is important. In my, and others, ongoing crusade to refine "base" training, a point lost many including several prominent books, is that a training approach taken when an athlete has unlimited time to train will and should be different from those with limited or little time to train.

Quoted post said:

I used to have a really cool chart that showed the relative energy contribution of aerobic/anaerobic energy sources vs duration of event. Can't for the life of me recall where it is.

Table 1 from this document has a nice breakout of aerobic/anaerobic contributions from various events. This is a very interesting read.

http://www.lephe-sport.net/PDF/Articles%20publications/2001/34.2001-Billat-intervaltraining1-SportMed.pdf

This is also a good read:

http://www.lephe-sport.net/PDF/Articles%20publications/2001/35.2001-Billat-intervaltraining2-SportMed.pdf
greg

john979 said:

So, there is no question increased aerobic fitness will provide an edge for your players, which will most likely be seen toward the end of each period.

The real question is time, how much time do they have to train, what do they do now and what will benefit them the most.

Time is important. In my, and others, ongoing crusade to refine "base" training, a point lost many including several prominent books, is that a training approach taken when an athlete has unlimited time to train will and should be different from those with limited or little time to train.

Thank you for all your input, and for the input other too.
Now Dr. Coggan doesn't have to come out from lurking except to say good job!

Josh

Hockey-cyclist said:

Wait a minute. I think your statement is not correct.. It is true that the energy systems do not work independantly of each other and all three systems make a contribution but one or at most two will be responsible for most of the energy production at any given time. So no, the aerobic energy system is definately not always fully contributing to the effort. Lets take a 2 minute interval for example. If the effort is really intense the ATP-PCR system is almost totally (maybe near 100%) predominant and aerobic system is not doing much and is certainly nowhere near 100% or probbaly not even at 10%.. As the effort goes past 15 seconds then the anaerobic system does most of the work. As the effort goes past 45 seconds then the aerobic system starts to do a lot more of the energy production.

The graphs here show what I am talking about.
freewebs.comLTtest.pdfOpen ↗

A 2 minute effort has shown to be 50-50 aerobic/an-aerobic energy contribution.

NJK said:

A 2 minute effort has shown to be 50-50 aerobic/an-aerobic energy contribution.

Not in any test data I have seen. Its more like 60/40 to 70/30 aerobic.

john979 said:

Not in any test data I have seen. Its more like 60/40 to 70/30 aerobic.

From McArdle et al 1996. Although other earlier studies showed that a 50/50 between aerobic and anaerobic may occur around 60-70 seconds.

NJK said:

From McArdle et al 1996. Although other earlier studies showed that a 50/50 between aerobic and anaerobic may occur around 60-70 seconds.

and just for interest, analysis of 4 of my 3km pursuits last year showed an average energy contribution ratio of 77% aerobic : 23% anaerobic.

Alex Simmons said:

and just for interest, analysis of 4 of my 3km pursuits last year showed an average energy contribution ratio of 77% aerobic : 23% anaerobic.

How long does it take you to do a 3K?

Hockey-cyclist said:

How long does it take you to do a 3K?

Too bloody long!:eek:

I did 2 x 3:47 earlier this year.

Alex Simmons said:

Too bloody long!:eek:

I did 2 x 3:47 earlier this year.

Ya right🙄 .Thats bloody fast

Billsworld said:

Ya right🙄 .Thats bloody fast

Yes it is. Alex, what was your average wattage?

John

Alex Simmons said:

Too bloody long!:eek:

I did 2 x 3:47 earlier this year.

That's a good time. But you must e "old" like me or you would have been doing the 4000. Why can't masters do the 4000 anyway? That's discrimination.[img]cyclingforums.comcool.gifOpen ↗[/img]
But we can see wahy your effort was 77% aerobic. It was a VO2 max like interval ,just like anyone that does the 3000. You probably hit 95%-100% VO2 max at 3 minutes.

Billsworld said:

Ya right🙄 .Thats bloody fast

Fast enough for a podium at Australian masters nationals. I'm sure he would've liked to tell you himself, but I'm in a competitive spirit right now. 🙂

Piotr said:

Fast enough for a podium at Australian masters nationals. I'm sure he would've liked to tell you himself, but I'm in a competitive spirit right now. 🙂

Actually no. I was 3rd in the national masters points race, which suits my riding capabilities better. As for competitiveness, 18 riders did sub 3:45 in my age division at the recent world master track champs, with podium times in the low 3:30s, so I'm a long way off the pace. The same applies in my State & National championships with winning times in the low 3:30s and even sub 3:30 times.

Here's one pursuit: 3:47.x, 385W avg.
For the other 3:47 IP the powermeter was not working properly (bugger).

Hockey-cyclist said:

That's a good time. But you must e "old" like me or you would have been doing the 4000. Why can't masters do the 4000 anyway? That's discrimination.[img]cyclingforums.comcool.gifOpen ↗[/img]
But we can see wahy your effort was 77% aerobic. It was a VO2 max like interval ,just like anyone that does the 3000. You probably hit 95%-100% VO2 max at 3 minutes.

That's right, my AWC is a weak point, hence I rely more on aerobic condition. A great pursuiter needs both excellent AWC and aerobic condition.

Alex Simmons said:

Actually no. I was 3rd in the national masters points race, which suits my riding capabilities better. As for competitiveness, 18 riders did sub 3:45 in my age division at the recent world master track champs, with podium times in the low 3:30s, so I'm a long way off the pace. The same applies in my State & National championships with winning times in the low 3:30s and even sub 3:30 times.

Here's one pursuit: 3:47.x, 385W avg.
For the other 3:47 IP the powermeter was not working properly (bugger).

I don't know too much about racing on track, I've never done it, but that looks like some great pacing.

Piotr said:

I don't know too much about racing on track, I've never done it, but that looks like some great pacing.

Slightly less than ideal, as you can see I went faster in last km than the middle km. In an ideal paced effort, you go from between a flat line effort to losing about 0.2 sec/lap (250m track) after the starting effort. There was maybe another second in me that day if I got the pacing better.