low cadence, big gear training (was share your sprint)

[acoggan]

No. I'm sure Coggan has already addressed why. Forces aren't high enough.

Actually, they can be, provided one is doing maximal efforts of very short duration (such as one does when lifting weights), not prolonged, low cadence training at a submaximal effort. It's the latter that I see as having limited benefit except in rather special situations.

 

[acoggan]

What of the study that showed that results in World level Semi Final and Final rides were decided by ave power more than peak power (not significantly).

Are you sure about that? My recollection is that what was observed was that peak power tended to be lower in competition than in training, which is not the same thing as saying that competition results were more dependent on average than peak power.

The Aussie post does say that they try and build to a peak power then try and add speed endurance.

Right: raw power is the primary focus, at least more than it used to be.

 

[bikeguy]

Actually, they can be, provided one is doing maximal efforts of very short duration (such as one does when lifting weights), not prolonged, low cadence training at a submaximal effort. It's the latter that I see as having limited benefit except in rather special situations.

I don't think so, if your idea is to vertical jump off the pedals (the only way to get significant force) the fact the heel is floating in the air just isn't conducive to a lot of peak force production (like trying to vertical jump with your heel off the ground). The heel will collapse from the much stronger power and force the quadriceps, hamstrings and glutes can produce. This would lead to a rather bizarre movement on the bike, and possibly get a calf strain in the process. I'm not surprised pro bikers have such developed calves and that's just from normal riding.

If you tied your ass to the saddle you could get (significantly) more force production but the pedals (and thus the bike) would always accelerate away from you ( up to peak power), so force would be more limited. A very steep gradient would the only way to make this work, and you'd actually have to start on the hill with a high gear. That's the closest "simulation" of weight training on the bike I can think of. Of course that heel floating in the air thing might strain the calf again, so you'd have to move the cleat to the heel. Then you would have to replace yer chain every 3 times you do this, because it'll get stretched fast if it doesn't snap off completely. Might be the same for the rest of the bike.

-Bikeguy

 

[WarrenG]

I'm not talking about how people race, but how they (the highly successful Australians, anyway) train. As I said, the move has been away from focussing so much on "speed endurance" or whatever you want to call it and towards focussing on more pure speed (power).

Training prepares a person for how the race actually occurs. It is simple to see that the sprints are longer than in the past and the quickness of the jump is far less significant.

Training should be appropriate for that-at least in the weeks and months before that. Now, earlier in the season, yes peak power training would be important to encourage the Type 2b fibers to retain their ability to produce their very high power rather than becoming, or acting more like, the more endurance-like 2a fibers.

 

[Billsworld]

Training prepares a person for how the race actually occurs. It is simple to see that the sprints are longer than in the past and the quickness of the jump is far less significant.

Training should be appropriate for that-at least in the weeks and months before that. Now, earlier in the season, yes peak power training would be important to encourage the Type 2b fibers to retain their ability to produce their very high power rather than becoming, or acting more like, the more endurance-like 2a fibers.

I think AC got to settle this . Open the vault and let us see some of those elite SRM files

 

[velomanct]

I think AC got to settle this . Open the vault and let us see some of those elite SRM files

Don't count on it. That type of info is highly guarded.

Remember, they must keep it to themselves. If any of us amauters were to view a 200m power profile of the elites......we might solve the mystery of how to become an elite.


(note the SLIGHT sarcasm) lol

 

[acoggan]

Training prepares a person for how the race actually occurs. It is simple to see that the sprints are longer than in the past and the quickness of the jump is far less significant.

<sarcasm mode on>

Gee, I guess that explains why Aussies like Eadie and Dajka (who last year trained specifically and successfully to be able to beat Bos...then ran into an on-fire Wolfe) have been such miserable failures.

<sarcasm mode off>

Training should be appropriate for that-at least in the weeks and months before that. Now, earlier in the season, yes peak power training would be important to encourage the Type 2b fibers to retain their ability to produce their very high power rather than becoming, or acting more like, the more endurance-like 2a fibers.

The type IIx fibers can't retain their maximal power since they've been converted to type IIa, i.e., they now express a slower form of myosin.

 

[acoggan]

I think AC got to settle this . Open the vault and let us see some of those elite SRM files

No need for that - courtesy of sports scientists with the AIS, examples have already been presented in the scientific literature, and more data will be appearing in Med Sci Sports Exerc soon. (What they show is that during a flying 200 m, power is highest before timing ever begins, and even World Champions doing 10.3 times are producing <1000 W when the cross the line, due to the tremendous amount of fatigue that occurs in even 20-25 s of all-out exercise.

 

[acoggan]

Don't count on it. That type of info is highly guarded.

Remember, they must keep it to themselves. If any of us amauters were to view a 200m power profile of the elites......we might solve the mystery of how to become an elite.


(note the SLIGHT sarcasm) lol

I'd share the data I've seen if I had explicit permission to...but I don't, so I can't. It doesn't really matter, though, as comparable data are already available in the public domain, at least to those willing to do a little digging through the scientific literature.

 

[WarrenG]

<sarcasm mode on>

Gee, I guess that explains why Aussies like Eadie and Dajka (who last year trained specifically and successfully to be able to beat Bos...then ran into an on-fire Wolfe) have been such miserable failures.

<sarcasm mode off>

And your point is? That the sprints are not longer than they used to be and that the jump is not as important as it used to be? Watch a bunch of races and then get back to us.

The type IIx fibers can't retain their maximal power since they've been converted to type IIa, i.e., they now express a slower form of myosin.

I don't think that is likely to be a permanent change. I read some stuff awhile back that says after some period of detraining it's possible for them to go back to what they once were, 2b/x.

I did a quick Google tonight and an interesting article turned up. http://www.runnersweb.com/running/r...ng/news/rw_news_20050325_RRN_Fibre_Types.html

One of the quotes...

"The evidence suggests that regular, fairly heavy training seems to reduce the expression of MHC 2X, the most-powerful form of myosin (12). This appears to be true even when a training protocol consists of very short (three-second), very high-speed running intervals (13). In contrast, reductions in the amount of training performed seem to increase MHC 2X content (14). Sprinters seem to sense this, which is one reason why distance runners often complain about the light training loads enjoyed by sprint athletes. At any rate, this kind of transformation might account for some of the increases in footspeed enjoyed by runners after the completion of a tapering period. What is particularly exciting is that there is evidence that when runners drive down MHC 2X by undergoing a period of heavy resistance training, combined with their regular run training, and then embark on a period of lighter overall training, MHC 2X levels do more than return to normal during the lighter phase - they may rise to concentrations which are greater than those observed before the heavy-training period (15)."

The article also mentions that athletes with relatively high original amounts of 2x tend to respond better to attempts to regain it.

I essentially found this out late last year. My peak speed had dropped during the summer and I wanted to bring it back up for Worlds. With barely three weeks of adjustment to certain training my peak speed for sprinting increased significantly.

 

[Iktome]

Isn't this post becoming almost mind-numbingly esoteric?

Over 99% of cyclists only sprint while out on a little spin with their buddies, or if they race, at the end of a minimum of 60 minutes of steady to wildly stochastic efforts. In either case, those sprints -- and those athletes -- have as much in common with elite track racers (who make up maybe .01% of cyclists) as they do with God (assuming God rides a bike, which he obviously must).

So my question is: why can't 'we' argue about what's useful for most cyclists (and most racers), rather than what might be useful for the absolutely smallest sub-culture of cycling? And if it's already been decided that the only arena in which to argue about this stuff is elite track sprinting, then maybe we should be clear about that fact and not suggest implicitely to the innocent readers of this post that any of it has anything to to with 'real' bike riding.

 

[Billsworld]

Isn't this post becoming almost mind-numbingly esoteric?

Over 99% of cyclists only sprint while out on a little spin with their buddies, or if they race, at the end of a minimum of 60 minutes of steady to wildly stochastic efforts. In either case, those sprints -- and those athletes -- have as much in common with elite track racers (who make up maybe .01% of cyclists) as they do with God (assuming God rides a bike, which he obviously must).

So my question is: why can't 'we' argue about what's useful for most cyclists (and most racers), rather than what might be useful for the absolutely smallest sub-culture of cycling? And if it's already been decided that the only arena in which to argue about this stuff is elite track sprinting, then maybe we should be clear about that fact and not suggest implicitely to the innocent readers of this post that any of it has anything to to with 'real' bike riding.

Hey I spend alot of time trying to twist these threads in my favor..buzz off

 

[whoawhoa]

And your point is? That the sprints are not longer than they used to be and that the jump is not as important as it used to be? Watch a bunch of races and then get back to us.

I have very little understanding of track tactics, but I think it's wrong to assume that just because a sprint appears "longer" means that you should train for that. What if it just means they sprint from further out and hold speed to the end, as power drops?

 

[acoggan]

And your point is? That the sprints are not longer than they used to be and that the jump is not as important as it used to be? Watch a bunch of races and then get back to us.

Can't you stay on point? We're talking about how training for sprinting has evolved of late, not about how people race. Specifically, you made the assertion that people were training more for "speed endurance" than they used to, when it is crystal clear that it isn't true, at in The Land Down Under.

I don't think that is likely to be a permanent change. I read some stuff awhile back that says after some period of detraining it's possible for them to go back to what they once were, 2b/x.

Of course - but what does this have to do with the fact that you keep mistakenly making statements about what happens to IIx fibers in athletes *while they are training*?

I did a quick Google tonight and an interesting article turned up. http://www.runnersweb.com/running/r...ng/news/rw_news_20050325_RRN_Fibre_Types.html

One of the quotes...

"The evidence suggests that regular, fairly heavy training seems to reduce the expression of MHC 2X, the most-powerful form of myosin (12). This appears to be true even when a training protocol consists of very short (three-second), very high-speed running intervals (13). In contrast, reductions in the amount of training performed seem to increase MHC 2X content (14). Sprinters seem to sense this, which is one reason why distance runners often complain about the light training loads enjoyed by sprint athletes. At any rate, this kind of transformation might account for some of the increases in footspeed enjoyed by runners after the completion of a tapering period. What is particularly exciting is that there is evidence that when runners drive down MHC 2X by undergoing a period of heavy resistance training, combined with their regular run training, and then embark on a period of lighter overall training, MHC 2X levels do more than return to normal during the lighter phase - they may rise to concentrations which are greater than those observed before the heavy-training period (15)."

If you bothered to read the last citation, you'll see that the rebound of IIx myosin content (which did not significantly exceed that originally measured) occurred only after a marked and prolonged decrease in training load, far greater than any athlete would ever experience while tapering.

Anyway, there are numerous studies to back up my original statement, which is that even sprinters have very few, if any, type IIx (IIb) fibers remaining, because they've all been converted to IIa. Here is one example (although you'll have to read the entire paper and not just the abstract to learn the actual fiber type percentages):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=3793340&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

The article also mentions that athletes with relatively high original amounts of 2x tend to respond better to attempts to regain it.

I essentially found this out late last year. My peak speed had dropped during the summer and I wanted to bring it back up for Worlds. With barely three weeks of adjustment to certain training my peak speed for sprinting increased significantly.

First, your peak speed when sprinting is related to the maximal power that your muscles can generate, which is not the same thing as their maximal shortening velocity. Second, unless you layed off from training completely for those three weeks, there wouldn't have been enough time or enough of a decline in the training stimulus for changes in your fast-twitch fiber sub-population to have occurred.

 

[WarrenG]

Can't you stay on point? We're talking about how training for sprinting has evolved of late, not about how people race.

Ah, so you think that how a person does their sprint in competition (and I'm not talking about the different event called the 200mTT-requires some different abilities) does not require training to improve one's ability for the longer sprints we see in competition. Interesting idea you have there.

First, your peak speed when sprinting is related to the maximal power that your muscles can generate, which is not the same thing as their maximal shortening velocity. Second, unless you layed off from training completely for those three weeks, there wouldn't have been enough time or enough of a decline in the training stimulus for changes in your fast-twitch fiber sub-population to have occurred.

My training during that period didn't change significantly except for how long my sprints were (shortened to almost never longer than 10-12"), and I added some max effort 100m standing starts. 200mTT time went down .2, which was a significant difference for one of the races I was preparing for.

 

[acoggan]

Ah, so you think that how a person does their sprint in competition (and I'm not talking about the different event called the 200mTT-requires some different abilities) does not require training to improve one's ability for the longer sprints we see in competition. Interesting idea you have there.

Please, don't try to put words in my mouth: I never said anything one way or the other about how I thought people should train, only commented on how they (the Aussies, anyway) actually do train.

 

[fergie]

Did my first decent ride on the hills since 1991 (when my knees gave out) and aside from getting the knee pain back had the following observation...

I made sure that I had a gear that allowed me to keep above 75rpm for the climbs but still found on some really steep hills it dropped lower to 55-65 and watched the powermeter as the power shot well above my threshold and it became blindingly obvious that slogging along at a lower cadence just makes you work harder.

Will it make you a better cyclist than the guy working harder at a higher cadence is the real question.

Didn't some guy named Lance spend his early season spinning fast up hills for 4-9 hours a day? Also the same guy who for the first time trained to win the Tour de France when we all assumed that one had to race into that type of form!

Food for thought

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

 

[WarrenG]

Didn't some guy named Lance spend his early season spinning fast up hills for 4-9 hours a day? Also the same guy who for the first time trained to win the Tour de France when we all assumed that one had to race into that type of form!

Food for thought

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

Lance did lots of SFR training just as I described it. So does Ullrich and many, many others.

 

[MY02_STi]

Will it make you a better cyclist than the guy working harder at a higher cadence is the real question.

Not sure if I follow you here - who is going to 'work'' harder, the rider in a lower gear (presumably at a 'higher' power output but at a 'lower' heart rate ?) or the rider in a higher gear (presumably at a 'lower' power output but at a 'higher' heart rate)

 

[velomanct]

Not sure if I follow you here - who is going to 'work'' harder, the rider in a lower gear (presumably at a 'higher' power output but at a 'lower' heart rate ?) or the rider in a higher gear (presumably at a 'lower' power output but at a 'higher' heart rate)

Cadence has nothing to do with power output if the rider is going the same speed. Same speed = same work. However, it may be more ecomical to ride at a certain cadence. Cadence deals with efficency, that is all.