Got $500...what to spend it on

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by Walrus, Apr 5, 2006.

  1. cameron41

    cameron41 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    $500, treat yourself to a meal at the Flower Drum then go for a ride the next morning.
     


  2. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  3. Bleve

    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.
     
  4. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).


    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?
     
  5. Bleve

    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 ...
     
  6. Walrus

    Walrus New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yep, this has been really helpful. :D 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.
     
  7. EuanB

    EuanB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Tamyka Bell

    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
     
  9. Tamyka Bell

    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
     
  10. TimC

    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
     
  11. Tamyka Bell

    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
     
  12. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    [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?
     
  13. TimC

    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.

    Shit. 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
     
  14. Rory Williams

    Rory Williams New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quite! And I think that's what people do with ex sci too.
     
  16. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    > ..). 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.
     
  17. Bleve

    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.
     
  18. Bleve

    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.
     
  19. Tamyka Bell

    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
     
  20. Tamyka Bell

    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
     
Loading...
Loading...