Got $500...what to spend it on
- Thread starter Walrus
- Start date
Bleve said:Roadie_scum wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > No, not serious problems, understandable and expected variations.
> > It's
> > called a "rough idea", not a precise measurement. I could send him
> > down to Dr Blood at VU and get a VO2max/blood lactate test done, but
> > that's $200 he could spend on something useful instead, like a new
> > pair
> > of shoes or a deposit on an HID light
>
> Yeah I definitely agree that VO2max/blood lactate tests are not a
> useful thing to spend money on for most riders. However, you need to
> control the variation very well to get useful results out of field
> tests.
Of course, and as you mention, there's a lot of variation, and for
elite level riders, it's not good enough. Most of the riders I work
with are sub elite (from rec riders to a couple of A graders, and
everything in between) and this sort of field test is good enough. The
obvious things like wind, temp etc are certainly going to have
significant impact.
> Either use an indoor velodrome (DISC) or a steep (as possible
> without losing cadence - best with a low gear) climb for every field
> test an athlete does. Variability on a flat (and even on some climbs)
> is ridiculously large and it can be depressing, misleading and
> unmotivating to do a field test on a shitty day and think you've got
> worse when the opposite is true. I have done field tests (before I knew
> better) on climbs (the wall in this case) and done poorly due to
> environmental factors and found it hard to deal with in the lead up to
> a race. Conversely, I know one coach whose current PB was set on a very
> (VERY) similar day in terms of wind and weather, in the same position,
> with the same equipment, as his previous PB. Except he rides with a
> powertap so he knew his power was lower by about 10-12 watts.
Remember that powertaps aren't perfect tools either. That said, I will
be getting one as soon as the true wireless one is available - the
distributor in the US reckons a couple more months.
> The problem is, the variability in field tests that you claim to be
> able to 'understand and expect' can be and often is larger than the
> fitness gains you would be looking for in field tests (assuming you are
> dealing with reasonable level athletes - if your athletes come to you
> relatively untrained this wouldn't be true).
I'm glad you pointed it out
> As you say:
>
> > There's a bunch of formulas you can apply to get a rough idea
> > of power from speed, frontal area etc, but they're (by necessity)
> > pretty inacurate.
>
> The truth is, the formulae are very accurate.
As you point out,the variables are so great and difficult that they're
(in most cases) little more than educated guesses. Kinda like a Polar
HRM's guess of VO2max (or wattage)
> The inaccuracies come
> from inputting incorrect data - frontal area, cda, wind speed,
> velocity, rolling resistance, air pressure, etc. As you obviously can
> see, these basically impossible to pin down so you can't get accurate
> replicable data about your power from field tests. But, and this is the
> whole point, it's your power you want to know about to know whether
> you've improved, not how fast you ride the field test. If you can't
> know your power from the test, you can't know if you've got better or
> if it's just a favourable day. In the alternative, where there is a
> massive improvement, you can know you've got better but not by how much
> (because of the magnitude of error inherent in making assumptions about
> environmental factors).
I think for elite level riders, this is relevant, but for the majority,
a field test (with sanity as part of it) is good enough. As you're
no-dount aware, untrained riders go through pretty rapid changes early
on, and field tests show such gross changes (again, the caveats apply)
reasonably clearly. A rider who could do the 1:20 in 22 minutes who
gets it down to 18 after 6 months of solid training has definiatly made
a significant improvement. One who's doing it in 15 mins is going to
know less if they do one in 14:55 and one in 15:30.
The same goes with another test I do regularly, we do downhill sprints
at the Kew loop. It's windy, the weather changes a lot, tyre pressures
... caveat after caveat ontop of another caveat. But - a rider who
could consistantly get down it peaking at 50km/h who after 6 months can
reliably hit 60, has improved. For a lot of my riders, this is good
enough resolution. I'm frustrated by it because I'm making small
improvement (I hope!) but the test is not reliable enough for me to
tell. Thus, the test isn't good enough ...
We do another field test on strength, on the same hill we do almost
standing start big gear sprints, as riders get stronger they can get a
bigger gear up to speed. Again as we know, once you get into reduced
improvements, that's not good enough, and a power meter is required,
but, for most, it's good enough.
> > If you really do want to know, a power meter is
> > required, but they're expensive and on the whole, unnecessary, MO.
>
> I wouldn't recommend a power athlete to anyone without a bit of
> experience, self-knowledge and a willingness to learn but they are not
> particularly expensive when compared to other cycling equipment (though
> I wouldn't call them cheap) and given that they make it drastically
> simpler to track both training load and training response, I think they
> are a very worthwhile investment for any serious or semi-serious
> athlete. The AIS and VIS clearly agree and while that doesn't prove the
> point for amateurs who have to pay for their equipment, it's interesting
> to see how much they've taken off in the US and UK where they have been
> promoted properly (mainly through audience education) as well as how
> well many riders do training on power in terms of realising
> improvements faster for full time/very serious athletes or racing well
> with limited training time for others.
Sure. This is why I will be getting a particular powertap as soon as
it's available. The current ones don't suit my requirements. I'm
quite looking forward to having it
> And on exercise science:
>
> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
> > contradictory and used out of context.
>
> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
> surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
> literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing amateur
> scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
> wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
> science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.
Yes, there has. But, there's a lot of fairly rapid change (the whole
lactate as a fuel/muscle inhibitor/just what exactly does blood lactate
mean anyway?!, and dehydration, and stretching etc etc) in the field.
By rapid change I mean in reasonably fundamental things - this suggests
that the body of knowledge is still pretty shaky, *especially* when it
comes to prediction (ie: applying the science). Compared to physics,
for example, where in most low speed cases F does equal MA and we can
predict a lot based on that (crude .. but you know what I mean I
think). I'd compare it in terms of maturity to subatomic physics. Both
have been around for roughly the same time (within 50 years or so
anyway I think), and both are pretty confused and difficult to study.
It's questionable as to which of the two has more funding these days,
we care more for gold medals and nationalistic fervor than we do for
understanding the nature of the universe....
> This gives the pros plenty of room to reach pretty solid conclusions.
> Whilst their is room for debate in many areas of ex sci (as in all
> sciences - that's how they progress), they tend not to be the ones that
> baffle the layperson. Many of the issues that are claimed to be
> contentious or treated as unknowable by coaches and athletes are
> actually well settled. Ignoring science. I think belittling the science
> by calling it young and waving your hands and claiming that the body is
> not well understood leads to 'belief based' as opposed to 'evidence
> based' coaching.
I'm not belittling it at all, I'm saying it's immature (not in a
pejorative sense). Not that it's useless, but that it's still got a
long way to go before it settles on a lot of reasonably fundamental
issues, and also before it's communicated well to its target. Compare
with physics, as an example. There's a lot going on, but just about
everyone knows that the earth orbits the sun and that light has a
speed, and so on. (ok, bad example, there's a lot of tools that
believe astrology! ... *sigh* the Egyptians knew the world was round
...). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of confused
studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
what?) and so on. The challenge is that isolating variables is close
to impossible for a lot of these types of studies. Take altitude
training as a classic example. To do a valuable study, you'd need a
sufficiently large collection of very similar riders, doing identical
training at low and high altitudes, and then a well designed testing
protocol to determine if there's any significant difference. Where does
the sports scientist find willing people who fit the criteria? It's
easy to do a test for potassium in cells etc and see the results, it's
a very different thing to see what sort of training is optimal for a
rider preparing for the Melb->Warnambool.
Perhaps a better comparison is with economics. At a muscular/cellular
level (cf micro economics) it's pretty well understood. Scale it up
and no-one knows what's going on!
It's nigh-on impossible to isolate variables, everyone's trying to
extrapolate ... and it's a confused mess.
I believe (note!) that at the moment, there's very little in the way of
what you're calling "evidence based coaching" in cycling because, I
suspect (I'm not AIS
working for national squads have vested interests in keeping secrets to
a certain degree. There's a -lot- of material around, and an
incredible amount of exercise physiology data, but little (that I've
found anyway) in the way of a roadmap to what's out of date, what's
current and so on. Cycling's so full of folklore and dinosaurs it's a
joke - US Postal/Discovery still age tyres, Armstrong, with no conflict
of interest (heh ...) rattles on about CTS, but maybe being coached by
Ferrari after all. We're all fed misinformation. A lot of the
coaching methods I've been exposed to came from Charlie Walsh's manual
and Hilton Clarke saying "This is what we did with Frenchy". One
wonders just what exactly he did that he didn't tell us at the course,
and what does go on at Del Monte when no-one (aparently) is looking?
What I think is important is to clearly state and differentiate, when
working with riders, what is an assumtion/belief and what is shown by
real research. Ie: I do the best I can with my riders to explain why
we do things the way we do (and yes, a lot of that is based on gut
feeling for a particular rider, findng ways to apply narrow results to
broad issues is the "art" of coaching, I think). The role of a coach
is one not just (although it's a pretty important part!) to know the
science, but also to understand the people being coached and to help
motivate, support and encourage them, teach them good race smarts and
good sportsmanship and so on.
> If anyone is interested, have a look at this article and see what you
> think...
>
> http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm
That's a very good and interesting article. Thankyou for the
reference. It's a bit of a stretch to apply Heisenberg to coaching,
but all the same, it makes some good points
Thanks Bleve, that's a good response. I may have previously misinterpreted you on a couple of points or had differences of emphasis but I think that's cleared it up. Definitely agree there is some (a lot) of 'art' to coaching and that motivating athletes is important. At the same time, I think working towards evidence based coaching is important - maybe its best to view it as aspirational rather than practical, but I think really well qualified coaches (M Ex Sc and up) tend to be able to follow the practice pretty well. Of course, I also think coaches with less knowledge can help athletes a lot too, but it's important they keep an open mind about what the experts can tell them and realise what they don't know.
A couple of other thoughts:
As far as the reducing gains in power after an athlete becomes well trained, I am interested in when this starts occuring. Now I think about it a bit more, it seems to me likely when an athlete gets close to their genetic ceiling rather than at any absolute point. So an athlete could hit this point in C grade or A grade or the protour. Obviously in each grade, athletes tend to move faster and since at higher speeds it takes drastically more power to increase speed a given amount than at lower speeds there is a further complication (that is - the [absolute] difference in power between 45 and 47 km/h is much greater than the difference in power between 28 and 30km/h).
As far as the Charlie Walsh manual, what I've hears is that he was good in his day (the best - this isn't a negative comment) but things have moved on quite a bit at the AIS from the methods he used (this comes from an AIS strength coach). Probably a good start though and as someone who hasn't personally seen the manual it sounds interesting. I do know one ex physiologist in the US who finds it incredibly frustrating because USAC paid a lot (LOT) of money for Charlie Walsh's programs when the science had already moved on and Walsh was in the twilight of his career.
I agree powertaps aren't perfect tools (mine has had reliability issues), but why do you think there is a problem with them?
B
Bleve
Guest
Roadie_scum wrote:
> Thanks Bleve, that's a good response. I may have previously
> misinterpreted you on a couple of points or had differences of emphasis
> but I think that's cleared it up. Definitely agree there is some (a lot)
> of 'art' to coaching and that motivating athletes is important. At the
> same time, I think working towards evidence based coaching is important
I couldn't agree with you more. The problem is, from where I'm
sitting, is trying to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to
"the evidence". There's a -lot- of studies, practices etc out there,
and a lot of it is highly contradicory. eg: I'm currerntly reading
'Maximum performance for cyclists' by Michael J. Ross, which claims to
be all about evidence based coaching, and it's recent (2003) but it's
full of a mixture of old myths (KOPS, lactic acid causing fatigue etc)
and some considerable emphasis on mostly high intensity training and
gynm strength work. I know of a number of studies that significantly
contradict this stuff.
I'm lucky in that I'm specifically *not* trying to work with elite
riders, and as s result I have a bit of an easy path(!). Pretty-much
anything we do with structure results in significant improvements with
my riders. At the top end of course, that's a different story, but I'd
also have a lot more time to devote to study and colaboration with
exercise physiologists etc if I went that way.
> - maybe its best to view it as aspirational rather than practical, but I
> think really well qualified coaches (M Ex Sc and up) tend to be able to
> follow the practice pretty well. Of course, I also think coaches with
> less knowledge can help athletes a lot too, but it's important they
> keep an open mind about what the experts can tell them and realise what
> they don't know.
Of course. The problem is when the "experts" think they know it all,
when it can be shown that they don't (which is easy ... no-one knows it
all, esp in this field, where even the basics are still pretty shaky)
> A couple of other thoughts:
>
> As far as the reducing gains in power after an athlete becomes well
> trained, I am interested in when this starts occuring. Now I think
> about it a bit more, it seems to me likely when an athlete gets close
> to their genetic ceiling rather than at any absolute point. So an
> athlete could hit this point in C grade or A grade or the protour.
> Obviously in each grade, athletes tend to move faster and since at
> higher speeds it takes drastically more power to increase speed a given
> amount than at lower speeds there is a further complication (that is -
> the [absolute] difference in power between 45 and 47 km/h is much
> greater than the difference in power between 28 and 30km/h).
Yes, that is consistant with my understanding from the material I've
been exposed to.
> As far as the Charlie Walsh manual, what I've hears is that he was good
> in his day (the best - this isn't a negative comment) but things have
> moved on quite a bit at the AIS from the methods he used (this comes
> from an AIS strength coach). Probably a good start though and as
> someone who hasn't personally seen the manual it sounds interesting.
It's just the Australian level 1 coaching manual. You can probably get
it from CA or CSV pretty easily. It's not a bad starting point I
think, but it's quite dated and not very thorough.
> I
> do know one ex physiologist in the US who finds it incredibly
> frustrating because USAC paid a lot (LOT) of money for Charlie Walsh's
> programs when the science had already moved on and Walsh was in the
> twilight of his career.
Heh.
> I agree powertaps aren't perfect tools (mine has had reliability
> issues), but why do you think there is a problem with them?
Reliability issues
The reason I'm waiting for the upcoming fully wireless version is
because I need to hire/lend it to my riders and the current wiring
harness is a bit fragile - if I have to fit it to a dozen bikes a month
that get thrown in people's cars etc, I'll break it pretty soon. The
new one reportedly uses a bluetooth variant (so it won't get munged up
by EMI etc as badly either) and is fully wireless - no harness to worry
about - just a cadence sender and the hub/wheel and the computer.
> Thanks Bleve, that's a good response. I may have previously
> misinterpreted you on a couple of points or had differences of emphasis
> but I think that's cleared it up. Definitely agree there is some (a lot)
> of 'art' to coaching and that motivating athletes is important. At the
> same time, I think working towards evidence based coaching is important
I couldn't agree with you more. The problem is, from where I'm
sitting, is trying to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to
"the evidence". There's a -lot- of studies, practices etc out there,
and a lot of it is highly contradicory. eg: I'm currerntly reading
'Maximum performance for cyclists' by Michael J. Ross, which claims to
be all about evidence based coaching, and it's recent (2003) but it's
full of a mixture of old myths (KOPS, lactic acid causing fatigue etc)
and some considerable emphasis on mostly high intensity training and
gynm strength work. I know of a number of studies that significantly
contradict this stuff.
I'm lucky in that I'm specifically *not* trying to work with elite
riders, and as s result I have a bit of an easy path(!). Pretty-much
anything we do with structure results in significant improvements with
my riders. At the top end of course, that's a different story, but I'd
also have a lot more time to devote to study and colaboration with
exercise physiologists etc if I went that way.
> - maybe its best to view it as aspirational rather than practical, but I
> think really well qualified coaches (M Ex Sc and up) tend to be able to
> follow the practice pretty well. Of course, I also think coaches with
> less knowledge can help athletes a lot too, but it's important they
> keep an open mind about what the experts can tell them and realise what
> they don't know.
Of course. The problem is when the "experts" think they know it all,
when it can be shown that they don't (which is easy ... no-one knows it
all, esp in this field, where even the basics are still pretty shaky)
> A couple of other thoughts:
>
> As far as the reducing gains in power after an athlete becomes well
> trained, I am interested in when this starts occuring. Now I think
> about it a bit more, it seems to me likely when an athlete gets close
> to their genetic ceiling rather than at any absolute point. So an
> athlete could hit this point in C grade or A grade or the protour.
> Obviously in each grade, athletes tend to move faster and since at
> higher speeds it takes drastically more power to increase speed a given
> amount than at lower speeds there is a further complication (that is -
> the [absolute] difference in power between 45 and 47 km/h is much
> greater than the difference in power between 28 and 30km/h).
Yes, that is consistant with my understanding from the material I've
been exposed to.
> As far as the Charlie Walsh manual, what I've hears is that he was good
> in his day (the best - this isn't a negative comment) but things have
> moved on quite a bit at the AIS from the methods he used (this comes
> from an AIS strength coach). Probably a good start though and as
> someone who hasn't personally seen the manual it sounds interesting.
It's just the Australian level 1 coaching manual. You can probably get
it from CA or CSV pretty easily. It's not a bad starting point I
think, but it's quite dated and not very thorough.
> I
> do know one ex physiologist in the US who finds it incredibly
> frustrating because USAC paid a lot (LOT) of money for Charlie Walsh's
> programs when the science had already moved on and Walsh was in the
> twilight of his career.
Heh.
> I agree powertaps aren't perfect tools (mine has had reliability
> issues), but why do you think there is a problem with them?
Reliability issues
The reason I'm waiting for the upcoming fully wireless version is
because I need to hire/lend it to my riders and the current wiring
harness is a bit fragile - if I have to fit it to a dozen bikes a month
that get thrown in people's cars etc, I'll break it pretty soon. The
new one reportedly uses a bluetooth variant (so it won't get munged up
by EMI etc as badly either) and is fully wireless - no harness to worry
about - just a cadence sender and the hub/wheel and the computer.
Bleve said:
Yep, I've seen that. I thought you meant something more like what he prepared for USAC (a complete program and explanation thereof for elite riders).
Reliability issues
The reason I'm waiting for the upcoming fully wireless version is
because I need to hire/lend it to my riders and the current wiring
harness is a bit fragile - if I have to fit it to a dozen bikes a month
that get thrown in people's cars etc, I'll break it pretty soon. The
new one reportedly uses a bluetooth variant (so it won't get munged up
by EMI etc as badly either) and is fully wireless - no harness to worry
about - just a cadence sender and the hub/wheel and the computer.
I haven't had any problems with the harness, but you're right that it is a little flimsy so you might not want to be transferring it constantly. My biggest problem has been with the bearings. I have two hubs and they have both been temperamental. The cup and cone bearings on the drive side are temperamental at best and use very poor components (but can be replaced with a filed down Ultegra or D/A cone which is better), but worse is the sealed cartridge on the non-drive side which can't be serviced or replaced without voiding the warranty so you have to send eveything to the US once it goes.
Do you know what the cost landed in AU will be on the wireless unit (pro version - intervals function and smoothing functions are essential)? British Imports does them, I think, or are you planning to buy from stateside?
B
Bleve
Guest
Roadie_scum wrote:
>
> I haven't had any problems with the harness, but you're right that it
> is a little flimsy so you might not want to be transferring it
> constantly. My biggest problem has been with the bearings. I have two
> hubs and they have both been temperamental. The cup and cone bearings
> on the drive side are temperamental at best and use very poor
> components (but can be replaced with a filed down Ultegra or D/A cone
> which is better), but worse is the sealed cartridge on the non-drive
> side which can't be serviced or replaced without voiding the warranty
> so you have to send eveything to the US once it goes.
>
> Do you know what the cost landed in AU will be on the wireless unit
> (pro version - intervals function and smoothing functions are
> essential)? British Imports does them, I think, or are you planning to
> buy from stateside?
I don't know yet how much it'll be, I think around $1,800 USD, and I'll
be getting it from the US. BI will not have them for a long time, I
suspect. I'm saving my pennies ...
>
> I haven't had any problems with the harness, but you're right that it
> is a little flimsy so you might not want to be transferring it
> constantly. My biggest problem has been with the bearings. I have two
> hubs and they have both been temperamental. The cup and cone bearings
> on the drive side are temperamental at best and use very poor
> components (but can be replaced with a filed down Ultegra or D/A cone
> which is better), but worse is the sealed cartridge on the non-drive
> side which can't be serviced or replaced without voiding the warranty
> so you have to send eveything to the US once it goes.
>
> Do you know what the cost landed in AU will be on the wireless unit
> (pro version - intervals function and smoothing functions are
> essential)? British Imports does them, I think, or are you planning to
> buy from stateside?
I don't know yet how much it'll be, I think around $1,800 USD, and I'll
be getting it from the US. BI will not have them for a long time, I
suspect. I'm saving my pennies ...
Yep, this has been really helpful.a5hi5m said:hopefully the last few (2?) pages have helped you make your decision a little easier, Walrus
Ash
I got excited when I logged on and saw 48 responses. I guess that's what I should expect posting in a "general" forum.Thanks for those who made some suggestions, the HR reading was interesting as well.
Walrus said:Yep, this has been really helpful.
Thanks for those who made some suggestions, the HR reading was interesting as well.
Dragging back on topic, I'm very happy with my compact cranks (FSA Gossamer) however given that I'm on a Tiagra groupset just about anything would have been an upgrade! Here's a post I wrote up about them http://www.cyclingforums.com/t327106.html
Another reason I went for compact cranks is that I injured my left knee about fifteen years ago and it never did heal quite right. Ninety nine percent of the time it doesn't bother me because I've developed a high cadence. Sometimes if I've got a particluarly heavy load to push up Blackburn Road, especially starting from traffic lights, my knee twinges. Lower gears allows me to keep a high cadence up the hills and avoids that problem.
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
Roadie_scum wrote:
>
> Bleve Wrote:
> > Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, because refs I just looked up said there was NO decrease, that
> > you
> > > max cardiac output went huge because max HR was the same but stroke
> > > volume increased, and your resting cardiac output stayed constant
> > > because your resting HR dropped but your stroke volume increased.
> >
> > Remember exercise physiologists are still guessing about this stuff,
> > the tail is very much wagging the dog
>
> What are they guessing about?
>
> Maximal cardiac output = stroke volume X Max HR
>
> Stroke volume increases drastically with training, offsetting a
> decrease in max HR. Common knowledge. Or I thought it was.
<snip>
Not according to any Ex Phys text you care to review. According to them,
that's what happens with resting cardiac output, not max.
Tam
>
> Bleve Wrote:
> > Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, because refs I just looked up said there was NO decrease, that
> > you
> > > max cardiac output went huge because max HR was the same but stroke
> > > volume increased, and your resting cardiac output stayed constant
> > > because your resting HR dropped but your stroke volume increased.
> >
> > Remember exercise physiologists are still guessing about this stuff,
> > the tail is very much wagging the dog
>
> What are they guessing about?
>
> Maximal cardiac output = stroke volume X Max HR
>
> Stroke volume increases drastically with training, offsetting a
> decrease in max HR. Common knowledge. Or I thought it was.
<snip>
Not according to any Ex Phys text you care to review. According to them,
that's what happens with resting cardiac output, not max.
Tam
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
Roadie_scum wrote:
>
> Bleve Wrote:
<snip>
> And on exercise science:
>
> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
> > contradictory and used out of context.
>
> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
> surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
> literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing amateur
> scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
> wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
> science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.
> This gives the pros plenty of room to reach pretty solid conclusions.
> Whilst their is room for debate in many areas of ex sci (as in all
> sciences - that's how they progress), they tend not to be the ones that
> baffle the layperson. Many of the issues that are claimed to be
> contentious or treated as unknowable by coaches and athletes are
> actually well settled. Ignoring science. I think belittling the science
> by calling it young and waving your hands and claiming that the body is
> not well understood leads to 'belief based' as opposed to 'evidence
> based' coaching.
>
> If anyone is interested, have a look at this article and see what you
> think...
>
> http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm
Being someone who reads these research papers every day, and reads how
they consistently contradict each other, how poorly experiments are
controlled and in a large part how appalling their statistics are, I
agree with Bleve's comments. As for old science vs young science...
well... I'd say physics is an old science...
Tam
>
> Bleve Wrote:
<snip>
> And on exercise science:
>
> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
> > contradictory and used out of context.
>
> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
> surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
> literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing amateur
> scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
> wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
> science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.
> This gives the pros plenty of room to reach pretty solid conclusions.
> Whilst their is room for debate in many areas of ex sci (as in all
> sciences - that's how they progress), they tend not to be the ones that
> baffle the layperson. Many of the issues that are claimed to be
> contentious or treated as unknowable by coaches and athletes are
> actually well settled. Ignoring science. I think belittling the science
> by calling it young and waving your hands and claiming that the body is
> not well understood leads to 'belief based' as opposed to 'evidence
> based' coaching.
>
> If anyone is interested, have a look at this article and see what you
> think...
>
> http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm
Being someone who reads these research papers every day, and reads how
they consistently contradict each other, how poorly experiments are
controlled and in a large part how appalling their statistics are, I
agree with Bleve's comments. As for old science vs young science...
well... I'd say physics is an old science...
Tam
T
TimC
Guest
On 2006-04-07, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Roadie_scum wrote:
>>
>> Bleve Wrote:
> <snip>
>> And on exercise science:
>>
>> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
>> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
>> > contradictory and used out of context.
>>
>> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
>> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
....
> Being someone who reads these research papers every day, and reads how
> they consistently contradict each other, how poorly experiments are
> controlled and in a large part how appalling their statistics are, I
> agree with Bleve's comments. As for old science vs young science...
> well... I'd say physics is an old science...
And astronomy is the second oldest profession out there. Just behind
prostitution.
Sometimes siggy tries to convince me he is sentient. Before he has
even seen the contents of my post.
--
TimC
We would be called technicians, not researchers, if we knew
what we were doing
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Roadie_scum wrote:
>>
>> Bleve Wrote:
> <snip>
>> And on exercise science:
>>
>> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
>> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
>> > contradictory and used out of context.
>>
>> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
>> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
....
> Being someone who reads these research papers every day, and reads how
> they consistently contradict each other, how poorly experiments are
> controlled and in a large part how appalling their statistics are, I
> agree with Bleve's comments. As for old science vs young science...
> well... I'd say physics is an old science...
And astronomy is the second oldest profession out there. Just behind
prostitution.
Sometimes siggy tries to convince me he is sentient. Before he has
even seen the contents of my post.
--
TimC
We would be called technicians, not researchers, if we knew
what we were doing
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
TimC wrote:
>
> On 2006-04-07, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Roadie_scum wrote:
> >>
> >> Bleve Wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> And on exercise science:
> >>
> >> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
> >> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
> >> > contradictory and used out of context.
> >>
> >> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
> >> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
> ...
> > Being someone who reads these research papers every day, and reads how
> > they consistently contradict each other, how poorly experiments are
> > controlled and in a large part how appalling their statistics are, I
> > agree with Bleve's comments. As for old science vs young science...
> > well... I'd say physics is an old science...
>
> And astronomy is the second oldest profession out there. Just behind
> prostitution.
>
> Sometimes siggy tries to convince me he is sentient. Before he has
> even seen the contents of my post.
>
> --
> TimC
> We would be called technicians, not researchers, if we knew
> what we were doing
Siggy may even be omniscient...
Tam
>
> On 2006-04-07, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Roadie_scum wrote:
> >>
> >> Bleve Wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> And on exercise science:
> >>
> >> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
> >> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
> >> > contradictory and used out of context.
> >>
> >> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
> >> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
> ...
> > Being someone who reads these research papers every day, and reads how
> > they consistently contradict each other, how poorly experiments are
> > controlled and in a large part how appalling their statistics are, I
> > agree with Bleve's comments. As for old science vs young science...
> > well... I'd say physics is an old science...
>
> And astronomy is the second oldest profession out there. Just behind
> prostitution.
>
> Sometimes siggy tries to convince me he is sentient. Before he has
> even seen the contents of my post.
>
> --
> TimC
> We would be called technicians, not researchers, if we knew
> what we were doing
Siggy may even be omniscient...
Tam
Tamyka Bell said:Roadie_scum wrote:
>
> Bleve Wrote:
> > Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, because refs I just looked up said there was NO decrease, that
> > you
> > > max cardiac output went huge because max HR was the same but stroke
> > > volume increased, and your resting cardiac output stayed constant
> > > because your resting HR dropped but your stroke volume increased.
> >
> > Remember exercise physiologists are still guessing about this stuff,
> > the tail is very much wagging the dog
>
> What are they guessing about?
>
> Maximal cardiac output = stroke volume X Max HR
>
> Stroke volume increases drastically with training, offsetting a
> decrease in max HR. Common knowledge. Or I thought it was.
<snip>
Not according to any Ex Phys text you care to review. According to them,
that's what happens with resting cardiac output, not max.
Tam
[Apologies to OP but I find this stuff interesting and may keep going until told to shut up]
Sorry Tam, I must have written something confusing. I'm not disagreeing with you about RHR dropping - primarily due to an increase in stroke volume (eg, instead of 70 beats of 70ml in a minute, you might do 50 beats of 98ml).
This is assuming no change in metabolic efficiency. Some athletes run a lower metabolic rate/body temp when well trained meaning that they require less blood - [oxygen] - to be delivered than when untrained. This metabolic effect can also be partially responsible for lower resting heart rates although it is likely to be stroke volume that forms the bulk of the change.
Further complications - plasma volume increases with fitness, leading to a drop in haematocrit by volume. Thus more volume may need to be delivered at a given load. However, the increase in plasma changes the dynamics of blood flow in a positive way (more blood can flow more quickly...), more than offsetting the negative of having less oxygen per unit vloume blood.
So there's a lot of fuzziness about resting heart rate and what's responsible for the drop (Stroke volume, stroke volume and stroke volume, followed by a possible increase in metabolic efficiency, offset by a greater demand for blood due to lower 'crit).
Quite apart from that, I know many athletes observe a drop in max HR when they are training hard. When they freshen up it comes back up. I'm pretty sure I have seen refs on this, but I don't have them to hand. I have definitely seen the effect in lots of training partners, athletes whose HR data I've looked at and in myself. If you really want I will try to track refs down, but its certainly observationally true. Note that I think you have to be training at a reasonably high load to see this effect. I also couldn't tell you why it happens, though I'd be interested if anyone knows (CNS activity?).
If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing that requires you to read papers in this area Tam?
T
TimC
Guest
On 2006-04-06, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Roadie_scum wrote:
>> Bleve Wrote:
>> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
>> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
>> > contradictory and used out of context.
>>
>> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
>> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
>> surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
>> literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing amateur
>> scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
>> wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
>> science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.
>
> Yes, there has. But, there's a lot of fairly rapid change (the whole
> lactate as a fuel/muscle inhibitor/just what exactly does blood lactate
> mean anyway?!, and dehydration, and stretching etc etc) in the field.
> By rapid change I mean in reasonably fundamental things - this suggests
> that the body of knowledge is still pretty shaky, *especially* when it
> comes to prediction (ie: applying the science). Compared to physics,
> for example, where in most low speed cases F does equal MA and we can
> predict a lot based on that (crude .. but you know what I mean I
> think). I'd compare it in terms of maturity to subatomic physics. Both
> have been around for roughly the same time (within 50 years or so
> anyway I think), and both are pretty confused and difficult to study.
> It's questionable as to which of the two has more funding these days,
> we care more for gold medals and nationalistic fervor than we do for
> understanding the nature of the universe....
Subatomic physics, confused? Not at all. Subatomic physics seems to
be quite established -- hell, prediciting things like the existance of
the top quark, and then finding it!?. Don't confuse "hard for the
layperson to understand" with "immaturity of the field".
> speed, and so on. (ok, bad example, there's a lot of tools that
> believe astrology! ... *sigh* the Egyptians knew the world was round
Heh.
> I didn't know you can get a PhD in astrology.
You can't.
> But didn't you just say you were doing one?
You can in astronomy.
> Whats the difference?
Le sigh.
> ..). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of confused
> studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
> quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
> performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
> poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
> what?) and so on.
And they wouldn't have been published if random chance showed
impairment instead of improvement -- the authors would not have known
how to explain the unintended results, and so wouldn't have been able
to get it past the peer reviewers.
****. 3ish more days until my reply-to-reviewer is due. Eeeeeeeek!
--
TimC
ATC: Airliner 123, turn right 20 degrees for noise abatement.
A123: Noise abatement? We are at FL310.
ATC: Do you know how much noise it makes when two 737s collide?
A123: Airliner 123 is turning right 20 degrees. -- John Clear in ASR
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Roadie_scum wrote:
>> Bleve Wrote:
>> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
>> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
>> > contradictory and used out of context.
>>
>> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
>> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
>> surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
>> literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing amateur
>> scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
>> wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
>> science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.
>
> Yes, there has. But, there's a lot of fairly rapid change (the whole
> lactate as a fuel/muscle inhibitor/just what exactly does blood lactate
> mean anyway?!, and dehydration, and stretching etc etc) in the field.
> By rapid change I mean in reasonably fundamental things - this suggests
> that the body of knowledge is still pretty shaky, *especially* when it
> comes to prediction (ie: applying the science). Compared to physics,
> for example, where in most low speed cases F does equal MA and we can
> predict a lot based on that (crude .. but you know what I mean I
> think). I'd compare it in terms of maturity to subatomic physics. Both
> have been around for roughly the same time (within 50 years or so
> anyway I think), and both are pretty confused and difficult to study.
> It's questionable as to which of the two has more funding these days,
> we care more for gold medals and nationalistic fervor than we do for
> understanding the nature of the universe....
Subatomic physics, confused? Not at all. Subatomic physics seems to
be quite established -- hell, prediciting things like the existance of
the top quark, and then finding it!?. Don't confuse "hard for the
layperson to understand" with "immaturity of the field".
> speed, and so on. (ok, bad example, there's a lot of tools that
> believe astrology! ... *sigh* the Egyptians knew the world was round
Heh.
> I didn't know you can get a PhD in astrology.
You can't.
> But didn't you just say you were doing one?
You can in astronomy.
> Whats the difference?
Le sigh.
> ..). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of confused
> studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
> quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
> performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
> poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
> what?) and so on.
And they wouldn't have been published if random chance showed
impairment instead of improvement -- the authors would not have known
how to explain the unintended results, and so wouldn't have been able
to get it past the peer reviewers.
****. 3ish more days until my reply-to-reviewer is due. Eeeeeeeek!
--
TimC
ATC: Airliner 123, turn right 20 degrees for noise abatement.
A123: Noise abatement? We are at FL310.
ATC: Do you know how much noise it makes when two 737s collide?
A123: Airliner 123 is turning right 20 degrees. -- John Clear in ASR
> ..). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of confused
> studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
> quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
> performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
> poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
> what?) and so on.
Incidentally:
http://tinyurl.com/q49hk
http://tinyurl.com/ptwqs
http://tinyurl.com/qael5
TimC is right. The things wouldn't get published if they didn't show statistical significance (some of these are in quite good journals too). Further, if it was just random variation there would be as many studies showing a negative effect to altitude training as a positive. A more likely explanation than random variation for equivocal results is the thesis that there are 'responders' and 'non-responders' to altitude in the population, and/or that protocols and modalities studied vary widely and that altitude training is only effective in certain modalities and with the correct protocol.
> studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
> quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
> performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
> poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
> what?) and so on.
Incidentally:
http://tinyurl.com/q49hk
http://tinyurl.com/ptwqs
http://tinyurl.com/qael5
TimC is right. The things wouldn't get published if they didn't show statistical significance (some of these are in quite good journals too). Further, if it was just random variation there would be as many studies showing a negative effect to altitude training as a positive. A more likely explanation than random variation for equivocal results is the thesis that there are 'responders' and 'non-responders' to altitude in the population, and/or that protocols and modalities studied vary widely and that altitude training is only effective in certain modalities and with the correct protocol.
B
Bleve
Guest
Rory Williams wrote:
> Roadie_scum Wrote:
> > [Apologies to OP but I find this stuff interesting and may keep going
> > until told to shut up]
> >
> > Sorry Tam, I must have written something confusing. I'm not disagreeing
> > with you about RHR dropping - primarily due to an increase in stroke
> > volume (eg, instead of 70 beats of 70ml in a minute, you might do 50
> > beats of 98ml).
> >
> > /QUOTE]
> >
> > Many moons ago in my previous life as a biathete we had one of our
> > younger members on the treadmill and his Max HR was up around 212 (he
> > was 16). I was discussing this with my Dad afterwards and his question
> > was: How can the chambers of the heart fill properly if they are
> > contracting so rapidly?
> >
> > Now his speciality is orthopaedics and mine is the physical chemistry
> > of macromolecules so we are a bit out of our fields but I presume the
> > abilty of the body to return the blood to the heart to send it around
> > again must play a part. Does any one know how much the blood return
> > system get influenced by exercise?
Blood returns via both the veins and lymphatic system, the veins under
cardiac pressure, and the lymph system is pumped by muscle action
(remember your snakebike 1st aid?).
Those really high HR's may not necessarily be completely filling the
chambers (I don't know, but it would seem reasonable to suspect that to
be the case). Also, the stroke volume may (must!) be pretty low in
order to pump that fast, again, I suspect, but don't know.
> Roadie_scum Wrote:
> > [Apologies to OP but I find this stuff interesting and may keep going
> > until told to shut up]
> >
> > Sorry Tam, I must have written something confusing. I'm not disagreeing
> > with you about RHR dropping - primarily due to an increase in stroke
> > volume (eg, instead of 70 beats of 70ml in a minute, you might do 50
> > beats of 98ml).
> >
> > /QUOTE]
> >
> > Many moons ago in my previous life as a biathete we had one of our
> > younger members on the treadmill and his Max HR was up around 212 (he
> > was 16). I was discussing this with my Dad afterwards and his question
> > was: How can the chambers of the heart fill properly if they are
> > contracting so rapidly?
> >
> > Now his speciality is orthopaedics and mine is the physical chemistry
> > of macromolecules so we are a bit out of our fields but I presume the
> > abilty of the body to return the blood to the heart to send it around
> > again must play a part. Does any one know how much the blood return
> > system get influenced by exercise?
Blood returns via both the veins and lymphatic system, the veins under
cardiac pressure, and the lymph system is pumped by muscle action
(remember your snakebike 1st aid?).
Those really high HR's may not necessarily be completely filling the
chambers (I don't know, but it would seem reasonable to suspect that to
be the case). Also, the stroke volume may (must!) be pretty low in
order to pump that fast, again, I suspect, but don't know.
B
Bleve
Guest
TimC wrote:
> Subatomic physics, confused? Not at all. Subatomic physics seems to
> be quite established -- hell, prediciting things like the existance of
> the top quark, and then finding it!?. Don't confuse "hard for the
> layperson to understand" with "immaturity of the field".
I'm not, but AFAIK there's still considerable debate and no-one really
knows if string theory, super strings etc are good models, and how to
combine subatomic stuff with general relativity. At least, when I was
paying attention to it it wasn't clear.
> > speed, and so on. (ok, bad example, there's a lot of tools that
> > believe astrology! ... *sigh* the Egyptians knew the world was round
>
> Heh.
>
> > I didn't know you can get a PhD in astrology.
> You can't.
You probably can, somewhere in the world. Maybe Frankston?
> > But didn't you just say you were doing one?
> You can in astronomy.
> > Whats the difference?
> Le sigh.
>
> > ..). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of confused
> > studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
> > quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
> > performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
> > poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
> > what?) and so on.
>
> And they wouldn't have been published if random chance showed
> impairment instead of improvement -- the authors would not have known
> how to explain the unintended results, and so wouldn't have been able
> to get it past the peer reviewers.
You're assuming ex phys is as rigourous as physics. From what I've
read, I would not make that assumption.
> Subatomic physics, confused? Not at all. Subatomic physics seems to
> be quite established -- hell, prediciting things like the existance of
> the top quark, and then finding it!?. Don't confuse "hard for the
> layperson to understand" with "immaturity of the field".
I'm not, but AFAIK there's still considerable debate and no-one really
knows if string theory, super strings etc are good models, and how to
combine subatomic stuff with general relativity. At least, when I was
paying attention to it it wasn't clear.
> > speed, and so on. (ok, bad example, there's a lot of tools that
> > believe astrology! ... *sigh* the Egyptians knew the world was round
>
> Heh.
>
> > I didn't know you can get a PhD in astrology.
> You can't.
You probably can, somewhere in the world. Maybe Frankston?
> > But didn't you just say you were doing one?
> You can in astronomy.
> > Whats the difference?
> Le sigh.
>
> > ..). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of confused
> > studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
> > quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
> > performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
> > poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
> > what?) and so on.
>
> And they wouldn't have been published if random chance showed
> impairment instead of improvement -- the authors would not have known
> how to explain the unintended results, and so wouldn't have been able
> to get it past the peer reviewers.
You're assuming ex phys is as rigourous as physics. From what I've
read, I would not make that assumption.
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
Roadie_scum wrote:
<snip>
> Quite apart from that, I know many athletes observe a drop in max HR
> when they are training hard. When they freshen up it comes back up. I'm
> pretty sure I have seen refs on this, but I don't have them to hand. I
> have definitely seen the effect in lots of training partners, athletes
> whose HR data I've looked at and in myself. If you really want I will
> try to track refs down, but its certainly observationally true. Note
> that I think you have to be training at a reasonably high load to see
> this effect. I also couldn't tell you why it happens, though I'd be
> interested if anyone knows (CNS activity?).
This is also something that has been studied in athletes DURING ultra
endurance events, although, like you, I'd have to go track refs down...
> If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing that requires you to
> read papers in this area Tam?
A PhD in human movement studies.
Participation in ultra marathons.
I actually think that when it comes to inspiring me to read papers, the
latter is more important - it could be life/death!
Tam
<snip>
> Quite apart from that, I know many athletes observe a drop in max HR
> when they are training hard. When they freshen up it comes back up. I'm
> pretty sure I have seen refs on this, but I don't have them to hand. I
> have definitely seen the effect in lots of training partners, athletes
> whose HR data I've looked at and in myself. If you really want I will
> try to track refs down, but its certainly observationally true. Note
> that I think you have to be training at a reasonably high load to see
> this effect. I also couldn't tell you why it happens, though I'd be
> interested if anyone knows (CNS activity?).
This is also something that has been studied in athletes DURING ultra
endurance events, although, like you, I'd have to go track refs down...
> If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing that requires you to
> read papers in this area Tam?
A PhD in human movement studies.
Participation in ultra marathons.
I actually think that when it comes to inspiring me to read papers, the
latter is more important - it could be life/death!
Tam
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
Roadie_scum wrote:
<snip>
> TimC is right. The things wouldn't get published if they didn't show
> statistical significance (some of these are in quite good journals
> too). Further, if it was just random variation there would be as many
<snip>
Er, think "peer review" and tell me who your friends are...
If you know someone in high places, your papers may get published, even
if they're full of sh!t, unfortunately.
About 1 in 10 papers I scan over is scientifically and statistically
sound.
Tam
<snip>
> TimC is right. The things wouldn't get published if they didn't show
> statistical significance (some of these are in quite good journals
> too). Further, if it was just random variation there would be as many
<snip>
Er, think "peer review" and tell me who your friends are...
If you know someone in high places, your papers may get published, even
if they're full of sh!t, unfortunately.
About 1 in 10 papers I scan over is scientifically and statistically
sound.
Tam
Similar threads
