ECSS - Congress

[fergie]

fergs, listen to what I'm saying. Twin #2 trains on regular cranks & supplements with GimmickCranks.

Hes supplementing GimmickCranks year round.

So he is training non specifically all year round.

Again, Why wouldn't those fibers be used in competition?. Twin #2 has used them in training, and neural adaptation has been accomplished?. Hes supplementing GimmickCranks year round?.

See above.

There both racing & training with normal cranks?.

Whether its a Gimmickcrank, weights, running, cross country, skiing or tiddlywinks it all non specific training.

But training volume isn't held constant. Twin #2 has trained the highest volume of trained muscle over Twin #1 (training the same distance)?.

Muscle trained for cycling with normal cranks is different to muscle trained to use a Gimickcrank (Bohm, 2008). Mixed training = mixed results.

So, the Cross country Skiers have higher VO2max's via the useage of using more muscle... GimmickCranks are implemented in training for the useage of using more muscle.

No, cross country skiers use more muscle than cyclists. Both groups use the correct amount of muscle for their event.

 

[Chapeau!]

So he is training non specifically all year round.

No! There both training on regular cranks & do the same mileages. Twin #2 is specific to normals cranks as Twin #1.

But Twin #2 is also training & activating the hamstrings, hip flexors & too a greater extent than regular cranks alone, calves & shins, over Twin #1.

Why wouldn't those fibers Twin #2 has used in training, NOT be used in competition?. Twin #2 has used them in training, and neural adaptation has been accomplished?.

Whether its a Gimmickcrank, weights, running, cross country, skiing or tiddlywinks it all non specific training.

Which the likes of Armstrong, Hoy, Pendleton, LeMond, Shanaze Reade, Cancellara, Meares etc etc etc know all about.

All non specific training, but hey?.... Yeah! they did oh'right hey fergs.

Muscle trained for cycling with normal cranks is different to muscle trained to use a Gimickcrank (Bohm, 2008). Mixed training = mixed results.

Right, But Twin #1 & #2 (put in the same mileages in training) on regular cranks but Twin #2 also supplements with PowerCranks.

Mixed results?. Seems to go in favour of Twin #2. They did the same amount of mileage on normal cranks.

No, cross country skiers use more muscle than cyclists. Both groups use the correct amount of muscle for their event.

No, GimmickCranks use more muscle than regular cranks, GimmickCranks activate a greater amount of muscle. The higher useage of using more muscle, the higher VO2max's.

Wheres the burden?.

 

[fergie]

No! There both training on regular cranks & do the same mileages. Twin #2 is specific to normals cranks as Twin #1.

Yes!

Twin 1 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks.
Twin 2 does 8 hrs on NCs and 2 hrs on GCs.

Twin 1 does 2 hours more specific training than Twin 2.

But Twin #2 is also training & activating the hamstrings, hip flexors & too a greater extent than regular cranks alone, calves & shins, over Twin #1.

Good for Twin 2.

Why wouldn't those fibers Twin #2 has used in training, NOT be used in competition?. Twin #2 has used them in training, and neural adaptation has been accomplished?.

Because Bohm 2008 and Fernandez-Pena 2009 have shown using a GC is a different training stimulus than NCs. As long as 10 hrs hasn't led to overtraining then Twin 1 has a greater volume of training (holding intensity constant between both twins) relative to how he intends to perform.

Which the likes of Armstrong, Hoy, Pendleton, LeMond, Shanaze Reade, Cancellara, Meares etc etc etc know all about.

Appeals to authority when these people don't know you from a bar of soap and you have no real idea of how they train do your argument little good.

Right, But Twin #1 & #2 (put in the same mileages in training) on regular cranks but Twin #2 also supplements with PowerCranks.

Ah so now the goal posts have shifted. Twin 2 is training more than Twin 1.

Mixed results?. Seems to go in favour of Twin #2. They did the same amount of mileage on normal cranks.

Well seeing twin 1 is training less than twin 2 you can't make a comparison. Could go either way. The extra training could lower twin 2's fat mass and improve power to weight but then could also mean they are overtraining if we assume that twin 1 is making the most of their 10 hours.

Mixed results. Check the rather large volume of studies that compare cross training with sports specific training.

No, GimmickCranks use more muscle than regular cranks, GimmickCranks activate a greater amount of muscle. The higher useage of using more muscle, the higher VO2max's.

Then a cross country skier could hop on a bike and beat a trained cyclist because of their higher VO2max? Hasn't happened yet, but I guess if you have a little faith it just might.

 

[Chapeau!]

Yes!

Twin 1 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks.
Twin 2 does 8 hrs on NCs and 2 hrs on GCs.

Twin 1 does 2 hours more specific training than Twin 2.
Good for Twin 2.

No!. Both twins put in the same amount of specific training.

Twin #1 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks.
Twin #2 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks w/ an addtional 2 hrs on GimmickCranks.

Why wouldn't those fibers Twin #2 has used in training, NOT be used in competition?. Twin #2 has used them in training, and neural adaptation has been accomplished?.

Good for Twin 2.

Huh?.

Well it is actually.

The higher useage of using more muscle, the higher VO2max's.

So that got you! (unless you reply with something a little more substantial)?.

Because Bohm 2008 and Fernandez-Pena 2009 have shown using a GC is a different training stimulus than NCs. As long as 10 hrs hasn't led to overtraining then Twin 1 has a greater volume of training (holding intensity constant between both twins) relative to how he intends to perform.

Twin #1 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....
Twin #2 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranks, which also trains & activates the hamstrings, hip flexors & too a greater extent than regular cranks alone, calves & shins, over Twin #1, accomplishing a higher VO2 max (More muscle) over normal cranks.

Appeals to authority when these people don't know you from a bar of soap and you have no real idea of how they train do your argument little good.

Coincidence of the cross training effect & all riders achieving greater realms?. Unlikely.

Ah so now the goal posts have shifted. Twin 2 is training more than Twin 1.

Twin #1 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....
Twin #2 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranks, which also trains & activates the hamstrings, hip flexors & too a greater extent than regular cranks alone, calves & shins, over Twin #1, accomplishing a higher VO2 max (More muscle) over normal cranks.

Who's in the lead?. Twin #1? or Twin #2?.

How? & Why?.

Well seeing twin 1 is training less than twin 2 you can't make a comparison. Could go either way. The extra training could lower twin 2's fat mass and improve power to weight but then could also mean they are overtraining if we assume that twin 1 is making the most of their 10 hours.

No!. Both Twin #1 & Twin #2 have identical bodyweight. Neither are in a fatigued, over-trained state. Both twins are very closely monitored by there coach & neither are fatigued for the 10,000m race.

Then a cross country skier could hop on a bike and beat a trained cyclist because of their higher VO2max? Hasn't happened yet, but I guess if you have a little faith it just might.

Point missed.

Twin #1 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....
Twin #2 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranks & has accomplished a greater/higher VO2max because of the higher useage of using more muscle, GimmickCranking.

Wheres the burden?.

 

[fergie]

No!. Both twins put in the same amount of specific training.

Twin #1 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks.
Twin #2 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks w/ an addtional 2 hrs on GimmickCranks.

Then you are not comparing apples with apples. If twin 1 has the same VO2 as twin 1 on less training than twin 2 then I know who I would be backing.

Why wouldn't those fibers Twin #2 has used in training, NOT be used in competition?. Twin #2 has used them in training, and neural adaptation has been accomplished?.

Read the crosstraining section of Ex Phys for Dummies and see why mixed training = mixed results.

The higher useage of using more muscle, the higher VO2max's.

Yes the more muscle you use the more oxygen is used. We have established that.

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranks, which also trains & activates the hamstrings, hip flexors & too a greater extent than regular cranks alone, calves & shins, over Twin #1, accomplishing a higher VO2 max (More muscle) over normal cranks.

Yes, we have established that twin 2 does a lot of non specific training in addition to training on normal cranks.

Coincidence of the cross training effect & all riders achieving greater realms?. Unlikely.

Well you post a copy of any of their training programmes so we can see just how much cross training they actually do. Not a video clip snap shot for the media but the actual programme they follow.

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranks, which also trains & activates the hamstrings, hip flexors & too a greater extent than regular cranks alone, calves & shins, over Twin #1, accomplishing a higher VO2 max (More muscle) over normal cranks.

Your assuming that one can't attain a higher VO2max on normal cranks by just riding at a higher intensity and training their sport specific ability.

No!. Both Twin #1 & Twin #2 have identical bodyweight. Neither are in a fatigued, over-trained state. Both twins are very closely monitored by there coach & neither are fatigued for the 10,000m race.

This would then assume that twin 1 performed more work in his 10 hours on normal cranks to match the work that twin 2 does on normal cranks and Gimmickcranks to achieve a similar body weight and training stress balance on race day. Then definitely twin 1 having performed even more specific work at a higher intensity.

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranks & has accomplished a greater/higher VO2max because of the higher useage of using more muscle, GimmickCranking.

Wheres the burden?.

Again assuming that twin 1 can't work at a higher VO2 in a specific manner by training at a higher intensity which he must be if they hit the race line at the same body weight and training stress balance (fatigue level).

 

[Chapeau!]

Then you are not comparing apples with apples. If twin 1 has the same VO2 as twin 1 on less training than twin 2 then I know who I would be backing.

Don't keep us in suspense?.

Neither twin are in a fatigued, over-trained state. Both twins are very closely monitored by there coach & neither are fatigued for the 10,000m race.

Read the crosstraining section of Ex Phys for Dummies and see why mixed training = mixed results.

Mixed training = GimmickCranking!. More muscle useage.

"Mixed results" = (For the better).

Fine.

Yes the more muscle you use the more oxygen is used. We have established that.

Great. GimmickCranking is a benefit via the useage of using more muscle. GimmickCranks are implemented in training for the useage of using more muscle.

GimmickCranking = More muscle useage (Higher VO2max).

Fine.

Well you post a copy of any of their training programmes so we can see just how much cross training they actually do.

Far more it would seem than guys who are less successful.

Your assuming that one can't attain a higher VO2max on normal cranks by just riding at a higher intensity and training their sport specific ability.

I'm just trying to work out which twin has the greater chance for success.

Twin #1 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....
Twin #2 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranks & has accomplished a greater/higher VO2max because of the higher useage of using more muscle, GimmickCranking.

This would then assume that twin 1 performed more work in his 10 hours on normal cranks to match the work that twin 2 does on normal cranks and Gimmickcranks to achieve a similar body weight and training stress balance on race day. Then definitely twin 1 having performed even more specific work at a higher intensity.

No!. Both twins put in the same mileage at the same intensity levels on normals cranks. There twins. There identical.

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranking (the useage of using more muscle).

Again assuming that twin 1 can't work at a higher VO2 in a specific manner by training at a higher intensity which he must be if they hit the race line at the same body weight and training stress balance (fatigue level).

There twins.

Both twins put in the same mileage at the same intensity levels on normals cranks.

Only...

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranking (the useage of using more muscle).

Who's in the lead?. Twin #1? or Twin #2?.

How? & Why?.

 

[fergie]

Don't keep us in suspense?.

Neither twin are in a fatigued, over-trained state. Both twins are very closely monitored by there coach & neither are fatigued for the 10,000m race.

Twin 1 has performed more specific training relative to the overall training load.

Mixed training = GimmickCranking!. More muscle useage.

"Mixed results" = (For the better).

More muscle usage = more energy cost. Competing over 10,000 you are talking seriously finite energy levels and ever increasing inability to resupply energy.

Great. GimmickCranking is a benefit via the useage of using more muscle. GimmickCranks are implemented in training for the useage of using more muscle.

GimmickCranking = More muscle useage (Higher VO2max).

Over 10,000metres the ability to supply O2 is one of the limiting factors so I wouldn't be so casual with my O2 use.

Far more it would seem than guys who are less successful.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for a specific programme.

No!. Both twins put in the same mileage at the same intensity levels on normals cranks. There twins. There identical.

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranking (the useage of using more muscle).

So Twin 2 is doing more work than Twin 1. How do you propose they have a similar fatigue level on race day. They are twins of course. Twin 1 would then have to be undertraining.

 

[fergie]

Can you ask some harder questions. I have been asked this stuff for the last 18 years and it's pretty basic. Toss me a bone Chapps.

 

[Chapeau!]

Twin 1 has performed more specific training relative to the overall training load.

Again!. No!.

Twin #1 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....
Twin #2 does 10 hours a week on normal cranks....

Both twins have performed the same amount of specific training (10 hours) a week on normal cranks.

More muscle usage = more energy cost. Competing over 10,000 you are talking seriously finite energy levels and ever increasing inability to resupply energy.

No!.

Twin #2 trains on regular cranks & supplements with PowerCranks & has become very efficient on both the downstroke & upstroke portion of the pedal stroke through neural adaptation.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for a specific programme.

The fact of the matter is, there programmes include a lot cross training & them riders are achieving greater realms?. Coincidence. No!.

So Twin 2 is doing more work than Twin 1.

Correct, cross training.

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranks & has accomplished a greater/higher VO2max because of the higher useage of using more muscle, GimmickCranking.

Who's in the lead?. Twin #1? or Twin #2?.

How? & Why?.

How do you propose they have a similar fatigue level on race day. They are twins of course. Twin 1 would then have to be undertraining.

Both Twin #1 & Twin #2 have been well rested before the race & both feel fresh to give it there all.

 

[Chapeau!]

fergs,

Twin #1? or Twin #2?.

How? & Why?.

 

[fergie]

Both twins have performed the same amount of specific training (10 hours) a week on normal cranks.

Twin #2 trains on regular cranks & supplements with PowerCranks & has become very efficient on both the downstroke & upstroke portion of the pedal stroke through neural adaptation.

Well while you delude yourself that the hip flexor is a prime mover in cycling we are at an impass. I await for your science based evidence that the hip flexor plays a significant role in pedalling. Now being a Post Grad Student of Sports and Exercise Medicine I expect no less peer review high impact sports, physiology or medicine journals with good impact factors. If I can't submit any old sh1t off the net why should you.

The fact of the matter is, there programmes include a lot cross training & them riders are achieving greater realms?. Coincidence. No!.

So how do you explain the greater number of riders that just just ride the bike?

Twin #2 also supplements GimmickCranks & has accomplished a greater/higher VO2max because of the higher useage of using more muscle, GimmickCranking.

No you said both have the same VO2max. Hardly fair to keep shifting the goal posts. The aim of training is to reduce the amount of Oxygen you need to to sustain a given pace or for a given O2 uptake increase the power one can sustain.

How do you explain Luttrell and Poteinger (2003), Burns (2008), Bohm (2008) and Fernandez-Pena (2009) who all found that the increase in muscle use didn't lead to an increase in performance measures?

Who's in the lead?. Twin #1? or Twin #2?.

Twin 1 has the specific training and has no negative transfer effects (Magill, 2006) from trying to use two different training stimuli and expecting the same result.

Both Twin #1 & Twin #2 have been well rested before the race & both feel fresh to give it there all.

Which one is wearing lucky red socks?

Again this is all a bit easy, a first year sport science student with no idea about cycling could answer these questions. Cmon Chapps, challenge me!!!