2x20?? and other base trainning ideas

[yzfrr11]

As a scientist, I would prefer to apply training protocols that have been validated scientifically. Unfortunately, and what I think Warren is alluding to, is that much of the knowledge regarding endurance training have not made it into the peer reviewed literature.

Moreover, I'd say that much of the info is closely guarded. I'm sure that Max is not going to publicize Levi's program specifics.

 

[WarrenG]

As a scientist, I would prefer to apply training protocols that have been validated scientifically. Unfortunately, and what I think Warren is alluding to, is that much of the knowledge regarding endurance training have not made it into the peer reviewed literature.

Moreover, I'd say that much of the info is closely guarded. I'm sure that Max is not going to publicize Levi's program specifics.

I will address this based on conversations I have had with Max about these topics. In this context, his comments about coaches mostly refers to coaches/doctors employed by pro teams and pro riders.

Coaches get paid to coach the riders/teams who pay them. If a coach makes public, all of the details of the training plans then people could just read a book and they would not need coaches. (Yes, this is oversimplified.)

Teams and riders want to retain the knowledge they have so they can win races. Some teams and riders spend lots of money and time testing and evaluating training methods so they don't want to give that away to their competition. What information you do see out in the public is so widely known amongst the top riders or unimportant from a competitive standpoint that no one cares that the information is made public.

Coaches do not get paid to go to the trouble of conducting formal studies. It's time consuming and can be expensive. As Max said to me recently, I don't need a study to tell me something I already know from working with the riders for 20 years. Another issue is that formal studies evaluate the group of subjects as a whole and for training to be optimal each individual must be their own study. N=1.

Part of the reason we don't see more studies about training is because there are virtually no funds available to do the study. Somebody with money has to want to have the study done.

Max is employed by UC Davis Sportsmedicine as a M.D. and UC Davis (I think) is funding some studies that he and some colleagues are doing.

Max coaches a few riders because he likes to help people and he enjoys coaching. He receives very little money for the time and energy he puts into coaching. Currently he coaches Levi, Christine Thorburn, Chris Baldwin, Taylor Tolleson, Aaron Olson (I think), and lucky me. I honestly don't know where he finds the time to coach all of us.

I have also asked Max about what I could, should share in public forums about my own training. Some coaches forbid the sharing of information and I have also heard some riders say that they won't share what they have paid to learn.

Max is in favor of sharing information about training. He says the more education there is, the better, so I try to help that. He is especially willing to help other coaches and he does presentations and talks for groups of athletes every month (for free) as his schedule allows.

 

[frenchyge]

As in any field, there is science and there is application (ie, coaching, in our context). Observations may initially be made in either branch, but they are typically still viewed with skepticism until they are validated by the other. In the field of cycling performance, it seems that much more work has always been done in the application branch than in the science branch, for the financial reasons Warren points out. In some ways science is probably lagging behind the discoveries made by applications, and in many ways applications has probably over-applied concepts which lack factual basis (ie, training myths) or developed pseudo-science to help explain observations which have not been properly validated by scientific testing.

I have also asked Max about what I could, should share in public forums about my own training. Some coaches forbid the sharing of information and I have also heard some riders say that they won't share what they have paid to learn.

Max is in favor of sharing information about training. He says the more education there is, the better, so I try to help that. He is especially willing to help other coaches and he does presentations and talks for groups of athletes every month (for free) as his schedule allows.

I am incredibly grateful for the amount of information that Andy and others share in this free forum. I know that the knowledge I have gained will help me in competition (well, already has) and because I have gained it freely, I feel obligated to pass it along rather than keeping it.

No offense to Warren, Ric, or others, but personally, I would rather gain information from the science branch rather than the coaching branch, if for no other reason than the fact that applications is more specific to the individual, and science is more universal. I'm more comfortable applying scientific principles to my own application, but maybe that's just the engineer in me talking.

 

[acoggan]

As a scientist, I would prefer to apply training protocols that have been validated scientifically. Unfortunately, and what I think Warren is alluding to, is that much of the knowledge regarding endurance training have not made it into the peer reviewed literature.

"The accumulated knowledge of belief-based coaching is subjective, biased, unstructured, and mostly lacking in accountability." - Rushall, 2003.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

No offense to Warren, Ric, or others, but personally, I would rather gain information from the science branch rather than the coaching branch, if for no other reason than the fact that applications is more specific to the individual, and science is more universal. I'm more comfortable applying scientific principles to my own application, but maybe that's just the engineer in me talking.

Ummm, I am from the science branch...

Ric

 

[acoggan]

I would rather gain information from the science branch rather than the coaching branch, if for no other reason than the fact that applications is more specific to the individual, and science is more universal.

"Evidence-based coaches have fewer guides for practices, but what are included are highly predictive for accomplishing particular training effects." - Rushall, 2003.

 

[frenchyge]

Ummm, I am from the science branch...

From? Or in?

I knew you were a coach, but didn't know whether your main emphasis was in experimentation and study, or application of principles to athletes. Sorry to presume the latter.

 

[doctorSpoc]

...I would rather gain information from the science branch rather than the coaching branch, if for no other reason than the fact that applications is more specific to the individual, and science is more universal. I'm more comfortable applying scientific principles to my own application...

this is a very interesting conversation...

i think the science is nice to know but i think i'd really be more compelled to go with what DOES work... rather than what SHOULD work or works for 75% of individuals 9 times out of ten...

newton's laws served us quite well (and still server us quite well) for a few hundred years and it took Einstein and others to show us that Newton Laws were only an approximation of the 'truth' (pusedo science?)... science depends on direct observation and modeling.. the thing is that that model can be based on complete garbage (part truths, psuedo science, voodoo etc.) but as long as i have a model that acurately predicts outcomes, in terms of practical application, is it really of any more use to me than 'truth'?

 

[frenchyge]

i think the science is nice to know but i think i'd really be more compelled to go with what DOES work... rather than what SHOULD work or works for 75% of individuals 9 times out of ten...

<snip>

....but as long as i have a model that acurately predicts outcomes, in terms of practical application, is it really of any more use to me than 'truth'?

The problem with taking a single positive result and then trying to 'reverse engineer' it to discover the principles that produced it, is that sometimes you don't get it right or your conclusions contradict previously determined fundamental principles. See: "pedalling in circles", or "weight training for endurance cycling performance," or "Ptolemaic Astronomy" for more details.

 

[acoggan]

i think the science is nice to know but i think i'd really be more compelled to go with what DOES work... rather than what SHOULD work or works for 75% of individuals 9 times out of ten...

"Evidence-based coaches have fewer guides for practices, but what are included are highly predictive for accomplishing particular training effects." - Rushall, 2003.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

From? Or in?

I knew you were a coach, but didn't know whether your main emphasis was in experimentation and study, or application of principles to athletes. Sorry to presume the latter.

At RST we're all sports scientists/exercise physiologists as well as coaches. I'm a full time coach, but am grounded in sports science principles. The others at RST are full time sports scientists as well as coaches.

Ric

 

[WarrenG]

No offense to Warren, Ric, or others, but personally, I would rather gain information from the science branch rather than the coaching branch, if for no other reason than the fact that applications is more specific to the individual, and science is more universal. I'm more comfortable applying scientific principles to my own application, but maybe that's just the engineer in me talking.

Two things, Max has a degree in Sportsmedicine along with his M.D. followed by 20+ years of real-world application. He collects data from testing, and is involved in some formal studies, and ALL of his colleagues at UC Davis and most at Mapei have formal education and degrees in Sportsmedicine, Kinesiology, Bioengineering, etc.. I know there are lots of coaches without this formal training so maybe you were referring more to them.

Second, you say you want to apply "scientific principles" to your training rather than applications that are more specific. You are relatively new to bike racing and just about any decent approach to training will help you improve. As you strive to get closer and closer to your full potential you will benefit more and more from the advice given to you by people with specific, real-world experience that relates to your objectives. I think you will be learning more from people you talk to, rather than what you can read.

Frenchgye, I've employed about a dozen Engineering majors and grad students at my company over the last 8 years, and there are engineers among my immediate family. Would you agree that sometimes what they think they know from school does not always carry over perfectly to real-world applications, and that real-world applications are ultimately needed to verify what they think they know from school or what they calculate to be the right answer? Do you ever do real-world testing to verify or dispute what you think you know?

Real-world verification of "scientific principles" is best, eh?

 

[acoggan]

Frenchgye, I've employed about a dozen Engineering majors and grad students at my company over the last 8 years, and there are engineers among my immediate family. Would you agree that sometimes what they think they know from school does not always carry over perfectly to real-world applications, and that real-world applications are ultimately needed to verify what they think they know from school or what they calculate to be the right answer?

Funnily enough, Jim Martin, who was an engineer before he was a scientist, once told me a joke about the difference between the two: engineers are trained to believe that there's nothing that they don't know, whereas scientists are trained to believe that there's nothing that they really do know.

I don't really know - he, he - how the above relates to what you wrote, but it reminded me of Jim's joke, so I just thought I'd share it...

 

[WarrenG]

The mechanical engineer says, "This design will work if manufactured correctly."


Mechanical engineers make weapon systems. Civil engineers make targets.

 

[frenchyge]

I know there are lots of coaches without this formal training so maybe you were referring more to them.

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, so like I said, no offense intended to anyone. Towards your comment: even engineers are trained in the sciences of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. That's done so that the engineers understand the principles that they'll be applying, even though the sciences aren't their primary focus beyond the initial training and occasional refreshers. My comments were directed more towards a person's focus in their professions as opposed to something they received exposure to during education and training. Our day-to-day experiences are going to override our background if we concentrate on one side or the other.

Second, you say you want to apply "scientific principles" to your training rather than applications that are more specific. You are relatively new to bike racing and just about any decent approach to training will help you improve. As you strive to get closer and closer to your full potential you will benefit more and more from the advice given to you by people with specific, real-world experience that relates to your objectives. I think you will be learning more from people you talk to, rather than what you can read.

But what I read not only gives me the "what" but also the "why". The benefit there is that if trying a technique doesn't seem to work, I can go back to the "why" and make modifications in a sensible way. Many more experienced racers that I've talked to are very willing to tell me what to do, but upon further questioning it's apparent that they don't understand why, themselves. Some people might be less comfortable tweaking or playing with the things they learn, but for me as an engineer, I'd rather have the "why" than the "what" if I could only have one or the other.

Would you agree that sometimes what they think they know from school does not always carry over perfectly to real-world applications, and that real-world applications are ultimately needed to verify what they think they know from school or what they calculate to be the right answer? Do you ever do real-world testing to verify or dispute what you think you know?

Absolutely, it goes both ways, and I'm hoping that's how my comments read. The point was that you need both checks to keep either side from running too far off base. Unfortunately, since there's so much more effort being placed on the applications side of cycling performance, it's more likely that they'll be the ones taking things too far down a certain path. It's like everyone trying to train the way the fastest guy in town trains just because he seems to be getting the best results. Maybe that'll help the others, and maybe not.

 

[WarrenG]

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, so like I said, no offense intended to anyone. .

Well you did refer specifically to Ric and I. No offense taken.

...but for me as an engineer, I'd rather have the "why" than the "what" if I could only have one or the other..

You don't always have to make that choice. And in this case, what are you basing the "why" on? The opinions of the few people that you can read? Do you only use written opinions for your learning about the "why"? Who do you go to for help, an engineering professor at a nearby university? Somebody who's been in the field for a long time? As we know, if you wait around for somebody to have a clear undertanding of the why, and for them to write it down for you, other people are already benefitting from just knowing the what.

The point was that you need both checks to keep either side from running too far off base. Unfortunately, since there's so much more effort being placed on the applications side of cycling performance, it's more likely that they'll be the ones taking things too far down a certain path. .

Do you think guys like Ric and Max don't read studies every month? I've mentioned certain studies to Max that I've come across and he knew about them just off the top of his head. He has subscriptions, like I expect Ric does, to several scientific publications related to exercise physiology.

As far as taking things too far down a certain path... another thing a really good coach will do is to continue to assess progress, or lack of progress in some areas to ensure that the training is still optimal.

Consider this, what training ideas (the "what") have I advocated, are clearly contraindicated by what you have read in a formal study?

It's like everyone trying to train the way the fastest guy in town trains just because he seems to be getting the best results. Maybe that'll help the others, and maybe not.

I doubt that you'd find really good coaches using this criteria for what will work for an individual, especially those coaches with a good background in exercise physiology and understand individual differerences. At most they might try/experiment with something because it's worked for some fast guy but then they/we try to figure out whether it's worth continuing.

 

[acoggan]

what training ideas (the "what") have I advocated, are clearly contraindicated by what you have read in a formal study?

Well for starters, how about:

1) your claim that "strength endurance" training is a good way to improve your sprint, and

http://sportsci.org/jour/05/amt-m.pdf

(Note: peak torque at a specified velocity = power, with the lack of improvement at the higher velocities being particularly relevant to the question at hand.)

2) your claim that lactate testing is a more precise/accurate means of prescribing training intensities:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=7658957&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[frenchyge]

Well you did refer specifically to Ric and I.

Since I was expressing a preference for information from the science, rather than coaching, perspective in general, I didn't want anyone here to feel that I didn't value their input.

As we know, if you wait around for somebody to have a clear undertanding of the why, and for them to write it down for you, other people are already benefitting from just knowing the what.

Sure, and others are paying the price for mis-applying technology that worked fine in another instance. I agree that it works both ways and that neither side can succeed without the other.

Do you think guys like Ric and Max don't read studies every month? I've mentioned certain studies to Max that I've come across and he knew about them just off the top of his head. He has subscriptions, like I expect Ric does, to several scientific publications related to exercise physiology.

Along with being able to draw upon a network of highly knowledgeable people like Andy, et. al., sure. I would expect that quality professionals would keep up with things and use their resources to the fullest extent.

I'm not trying to settle the "battle of the scientists vs the coaches" in a general sense here. I'm really just talking about what is the most help to me, a budding, amateur, self-coached, competitive athlete. In that sense, I'd rather read posts and studies about physiology and relevant "scienc-y" stuff than quips about how Lance does this or Floyd does that, or a certain coach prescribes something for their particular athletes. I still read the others, mind you, to get ideas or find variety, but I usually run those ideas through my understanding of why things work before trying them. It seems (IMO) like there's a lot of **** circulating out there.

I understand that having a quality coach tailoring a program for me personally would get me the benefits of both the "what" and the "why," but I don't think that'd be feasible for me. I'm okay experimenting with the "what" for myself if I can get a decent comfort level with the "why."

I doubt that you'd find really good coaches using this criteria for what will work for an individual, especially those coaches with a good background in exercise physiology and understand individual differerences. At most they might try/experiment with something because it's worked for some fast guy but then they/we try to figure out whether it's worth continuing.

I'm just speaking from a self-coached perspective, and I'm still trying to build my background physiology knowledge so I can do a better job with that. Spending my time unproductively is more costly than doing sub-optimal training, at my level.

 

[WarrenG]

Well for starters, how about:

1) your claim that "strength endurance" training is a good way to improve your sprint, and

2) your claim that lactate testing is a more precise/accurate means of prescribing training intensities.

For #1, I have described what I do as PART of improving my sprint and I have not described it as strength endurance. What I have described as SFR training would help with the efforts immediately preceding a sprint at the end of a mass start race, as well as some other specific racing and training efforts like in-the-saddle accelerations, and I've described SFR training as also useful to prepare oneself for the more specific training intended to improve one's sprint.

Where is your study that shows tha SFR training is not useful?

For #2, this is just more of your mischaracterizations and poor summarizing of what I've actually said and written.

 

[acoggan]

I've mentioned certain studies to Max that I've come across and he knew about them just off the top of his head. He has subscriptions, like I expect Ric does, to several scientific publications related to exercise physiology.

You might tell him that he could save significant $$ off those subscriptions if he joined the American College of Sports Medicine, The American Physiological Society, and/or the Federation of Societies of Experimental Biology.