Maintaining form continuosly

Discussion in 'Cycling Training' started by SniperX, Apr 19, 2003.

  1. robuk

    robuk New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    J-Mat, do you believe everything you read on the web?

    Some how i find it hard to believe Chris Carmichael would post his coaching methods of Lance Armstrong on the web for public viewing. Get real!

    At the end of the day no matter how good a coach is, if the rider just doesn't have the genetics, the will power, the dedication etc...there's only so much he can do.

    Rob
     


  2. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    J-Mat wrote, i replied with ">":

    Who cares what a study says in a laboratory??? Races are conducted and won in the real world not the analytical world. Common sense must be applied at some time when figuring out what works and what doesn't.
    >Previously, as mentioned before, you were interetested in scientific rigour, and you read a book 100 times. So, the question is why state that you are interested in science when plainly you're not, or do you only have a selected interest in layman articles (e.g., Cyclesport) that suit your needs? Further on you imply that studies can be "skewed" to suit the needs of funding, but aren't you "skewing" your reading material to suit your needs?

    Sometimes, you have to hang up the lab coat and get in the sunshine and fresh air. I love science. I love math, chemistry, physics, genetics, physiology, nutrition, biochemistry, etc. Research is great, but again, races are not won in the lab.
    >indeed, races aren't won in the lab, but we all confirm to physiology etc. I doubt that you "love" science etc, as expressed by your later ridiculous comments


    Scientists very often produce conflicting results when doing research. Food is a good example. It seems every week, PhD's with millions of dollars in grants tell us what food is bad for us. 6 months later, with the same wasteful expenditures, they tell us it's not bad after all. Average people make jokes about it all the time. So much for studies!!!
    >see, you have no interest in science

    Anyone knows that data collected in a labratory can be skewed to meet the desired outcome. I'm not accusing any cycling studies of this directly, but results can often be swayed to meet the desired outcome. This is often done in academia in order to secure funding from universities or private backers with a self-interest.
    >how can you accuse (ndirectly) the studies of being skewed when you've never read them or take an interest?

    Lab studies are only "good science" when the results can be dupicated easily again and again, preferably by scientists who don't know each other, and separated by geographical distance. If someone in the U.K. does a study and researchers in Japan produce identical results, chances are the science is valid.
    >and lots of studies by different labs in various geographical locations have shown that strength is immaterial to cycling and that the effects of training in one modality are NOT transferred to another modality even when using the same muscles....

    The article appeared in the July 2002 issue of Cycle Sport Magazine, Page 168. The late Dr. Edmund R. Burke had a regular column in the magazine. Regarding the L.A. numbers, the numbers come from Dr. Alejandro Lucia, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Spain: 38 minutes at 475-500 watts in a 39x23 at 100 rpm.
    >i've written for magazines such as Cycle Sport, so either my credibility should be the same, or you need to read peer reviewed scientific journals (of which i also have an article in!)

    Credibility is always an issue. Since the guy who came up with the data is a doctor of some type, I would think he would know how to work the formulas at least as good as anyone on this board.
    >the formulas are well known and can be accessed either by looking at the paper by Jim Martin, Andy Coggan, John Cobb, et al in the Journal of Biomechanics, where an equation for predicting power is presented and validated against a Science SRM. In case you're not aware, JC is LA's aerodynamic/positioning guy -- lots of work in the tunnel, AC is a professor of exercise physiology, was on Olmypic Project (team leader in cycling) and has just written part of the coaching manual for USA Cycling, and JM is a very well respected researcher and is/was a coach too. Their equation is very similar to one used at analytic cycling -- so assuming i'm not wildly out on LA's total mass, i stand by my figures of ~ 415 W.


    So, that's one of my sources. Sounds credible to me. I feel confident he knew at least as much as anybody on this board, don't you??? By the way, he was a big proponent of strength training. I think he had access to at least as many studies as anyone else here don't you??? I mean, he was only the director of exercise science at a major university!!! Anyone here hold that title???
    > you'll find plenty with similar/better qualifications who have the same views as myself. I have plenty of respect for Ed Burke, lest anyone think i'm criticsing him.

    anyway, i thought qualifications meant nothing too you, you were only interested in the "real world". Perhaps you should make up your mind :)

    Anyone else here written a book or have a magazine gig???
    >ABCC Coaching, The Independent, Cycling Weekly, Cyclingnews.com, The Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology...

    2LAP also has similar if i'm not mistaken. Apologies to others on this board who might also have articles in journals that i've missed.


    Additionally, holding high power is dependent on muscular endurance. Dr. Conconi preaches ME (muscular endurance) workouts at 84-86 rpm to load the legs down more and provide the specific strength training to ward off muscular fatigue. He also preaches low cadence big ring efforts uphill for strength.

    >I wouldn't believe much by Dr Conconi. If you do a search on Pub Med, you'll find that little if any of his work holds any scientific credibility. Lots of work refutes his studies, e.g., Jones and Doust

    I doubt anyone suggests that you should ride at 84 - 86 revs/min, because it really isn't viable when riding (especially outdoors) to ride within such a narrow range of cadence.

    You can play with your calculators all you want, but these are highly credible examples of coaching at the highest level. Again, if anyone on this board knows more than the sources I mention, I would like to see what you have produced. My sources produce winners in the real world. They all say you need strength!!!
    >believe what you like!

    Ric
     
  3. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    GearGrinder, thanks for the Alpe info. with the new data it adds a few watts (i think 3 W) to my original post, bringing it to about 418 W average. The extra half km (and therefore increased velocity), is almost cancelled by the slight reduction in grade.

    Cheers
    Ric
     
  4. maarten

    maarten New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some comments on J-Mat's last post.

    On your "I follow proven winners":

    There is much more to winning then just a coach, genetics, team strength, medical follow up, coincidence and pure luck are as important. Its not because someone's results and he's trained by X that X is good. I already caught Ricstern once on the difference between correlation and causality.

    Remind this someone with the best genes(and other factors) and a an average coach will still be very good, Someone with wrong constitution even with the best coach will never come near the top.

    These "top coaches" work with atletes who've already proven themseleves in youth leagues, if you only work with the best your chances on a real winner are higher.


    More in general not only J-Mat

    Other thing we talk that about programs for top atletes. 95% of the people doing sport will never be on top level or near it. There limited capacities(genetic, time, or just ambition) makes that they require other training. I've met Carmichael,he showed some pics and data on training on sub sea-level oxigen standards(the reverse of altitude camp "very very simplified"), It made sense ok but this is financially and pratically only for the happy few Riding a top TT1 or finishing top 5 in Hawaii or so. Many of these programs are only limited transferable to the normal people and normal people is what most coaches work with(this is a point that should also be looked at in trainers courses there is to much focus on top top top).

    I know somenone who has oxygen level regulation in a bed room whie he's only raced with the vets, he'ss just rich he's not the norm.


    This is just comment on what I read not on the fact of strength training because on the strength training side I am mostly on the believers side.
     
  5. tomb

    tomb New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes chris carmichael does post his training regimes for LA. Go to LA.com and look at training archives you are wrong. Don't be so ignorant!
     
  6. 2LAP

    2LAP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    0
    J:MAT -

    Additionally, holding high power is dependent on muscular endurance. Dr. Conconi preaches ME (muscular endurance) workouts at 84-86 rpm to load the legs down more and provide the specific strength training to ward off muscular fatigue. He also preaches low cadence big ring efforts uphill for strength.

    >I have also prescribed similar sessions to riders that I have worked with, but not to improve strength (i.e. the maximum amount of force that can be generated during a single contraction).

    Both sessions described above (i.e. 84 - 86 or uphill) would induce aerobic and anaerobic metabolism, to a submaximal or maximal level. The limiting factor to both the power output and the time to fatigue if the effort is sustained in these sessions are the energy systems (i.e. resynthesis of ATP or accumulation of H+ ions) and not strength. Given this the physiological adaptations that occur are likely not to be increases in strength but improvements in the capacity of energy systems.

    To cause adaptation and improvement in strength a rider would need to produce maximal forces, and in neither session would maximal or near maximal forces be experianced. Hence why strength is usualy developed in a gym.

    I too have respect for all of the names mentioned, but would suggest that the use of 'strength training' like in the example above has been inappropriatly used (perhaps due to the target audience of the source quoted) as strength wouldn't be the primary adaptation occuring from this session!

    Strength rarely limits performance in cycling (examples include elderly, clinical subjects or disability) and very rarely limits performance on the road. Increasing strength might improve performance (significantly) in those areas of cycling that require the rider to produce near maximal forces like in standing starts in sprint based events (e.g. olympic sprint or downhill). Even in these events riders might chose not to produce maximal forces or are not able to produce maximal forces due to constraints upon them, and in these cases the riders wouldn't need a high level of strength to perform well.

    Riders only need enough strength to produce the forces that they experiance during their targeted event. For the endurance cyclist, this level of strength is likely (as Ric pointed out) to be within the limits of a normal human being!
     
  7. 2LAP

    2LAP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robuk: Yes chris carmichael does post his training regimes for LA. Go to LA.com and look at training archives you are wrong. Don't be so ignorant!

    > A good site, but I wouldn't bother following the plans as your are not Lance! You can make use of some sessions in your own plan, but if you want something more personalised do lots of reading or to save yourself time get a coach!!

    Recently heared of a 15 year old female from the track following a program from a respected cycling book aimed at a 30 year old Road Rider! You need your own plan to make the biggest jumps!
     
  8. robuk

    robuk New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not being ignorant...I'm sure most coaches on this forum wouldn't go broadcasting their secrets to everyone else.

    I've been to his site and seen the workouts. I'm sure they are not all of them.
     
  9. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    Exactly! i find that with the riders i coach, i don't specifically have to prescribe moderate cadence (such as that decribed by 2Lap) sessions, because, that's what happens normally out on the road, when going uphill (although i do note that cadences are generally lower than this on most climbs for most people). [Perhaps this might change if i coached anyone that lived in a pan flat area!].

    Because, few of us are as good as the pro's and can't ride uphill for long periods of time at ~ 6 W/kg, and because we generally like to ride close ratio cassettes (e.g., 12 - 21, 12 - 23, etc) like the pro's do, it's impossible to ride at the higher cadences (e.g., 80+) when going up steep inclines!

    For instance on my local mountain pass, at my current climbing power (~4.1 W/kg) my cadence produces pedal forces for each leg of ~ 85 lb. However, at my fittest, my climbing power rises to (~ 4.5 W/kg) and because i'm travelling faster and my cadence is higher the pedal forces drop to ~ 74 lb.

    As 2Lap points out endurance riding isn't limited by strength (unless you have some form of disability).

    Ric
     
  10. 2LAP

    2LAP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    0
    robuk: Not being ignorant...I'm sure most coaches on this forum wouldn't go broadcasting their secrets to everyone else.

    I've been to his site and seen the workouts. I'm sure they are not all of them.

    > Perhaps you are right Robuk and I agree that some don't give their secrets away or 100% of the sessions. As far as I am aware though, apart from drug taking, there are few secrets... just things that work and things that don't.

    Sport science is a funny science, as 90% of the time we already know what works as people have training for a years and years. much of the research into perfromance/training that is done confirms why a particular training works, identifies the adaptations it causes, suggests ways of improving how the training is completed, etc. In the UK there is relativly little funding and hence research into performance, furthermore it would be imposible to study every type of training session or situation. Most coaches now work from a broad range of scienfic principles that are applied individualy to riders, hence why Armstrong's program will have different effects on others!

    A good way to improve performance is to identify your weakness (i.e. J-MAT's 'links') and then do some reading into what session would overcome that weakness best for you and finaly when is it an appropriate time to do the training (given time through season and/or your preperation to date).

    Only secrets I know are.... lots of rest, lots of quality, lots of food, target the right components (physical and metal) and use periodisation to fit them all together! Don't forget common sense!

    Even the 6 zone system from British Cycling has issues from a scientific point of view, but as far as I am aware it was used to help Chris Boardman! Reasons why it works are (particularly for newbies); its easy to apply, gives you some idea about the adaptations that you will get and gets riders to train consistantly & regularly. If you don't have a coach or a deep scientific knowledge (and I accept that I don't know much at all!), I recomend that you take a look at this 6 zone training model or similar from another source.
     
  11. robuk

    robuk New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    2Lap thanks for the info I am aware of the BCF zones and also the power zones Ric Stern uses as I bought a power tap off him and he has helped mw greatly to understand the tool. I also read the info on the wattage list as it's more inclined to the training I use regarding the power meter.

    Rob
     
  12. SniperX

    SniperX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    but from articles nbooks.. many recommends weight training ( even armstrong does them) ... is this just a bluff? i mean of cos itll be great if one can be an elite cyclist without the use of weights hehe
     
  13. 2LAP

    2LAP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sniperx

    but from articles nbooks.. many recommends weight training (even armstrong does them) ... is this just a bluff? i mean of cos itll be great if one can be an elite cyclist without the use of weights hehe

    >Good point! But recognise that 'weight training' and 'strength training' can be different. The strength that we have been discussing here relates mainly to leg strength (i.e. how much force you can produce during extention or flexion of the joints in the leg). You will probably notice the weight training recomended in books focuses on all parts of the body, usualy is done outside the season and includes 'cycling muscles' but primerily focuses upon muscles neglected by cycling.

    Strength athletes (e.g. lifters at the olympics) perform weights exercises that are radicaly different from those recomended to endurance cyclists and it is the goal of 'lifters' to gain 'strength'.

    So all in all strength training is not really needed (unless strength is poor), however weight training can be a good idea to acheive multiple goals for the cyclist! There is always a case for those with limited time spending the time they do in the gym on the bike instead as the performance gains will be bigger!
     
  14. clever_guy

    clever_guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    ricstern;

    After reading this thread I would have to say that there isn't enough evidence (studies, data) to completely discount the benifit of strength training as concerns elite cyclists.

    However, given that there is only so much time in a day to train - I would think that most elite cyclists are better off with variations on specific training rather than developing strength training routines with weights. Not to say that there probably aren't some elitle cyclists that do use strength training in their training regiment.

    Base fitness levels for elite level cycling events (TdF) and the specific training for achieving higher cadiance in high gears, takes years to develop on a strict training regiment. Any strength training would have to be ancillery to specific training.

    -CG
     
  15. steve

    steve Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    5,263
    Likes Received:
    214
    Some people conveniently forget that most of us work 40-50 hours per week, have a family, a social life and other commitments. I'm left with 15-20 hours I can train each week, there is no way I'm wasting 3-4 of those hours in a gym when I could be doing more specific training on the bike.

    Lets face it, how many of the members here have reached their genetic potential through BIKE ONLY training and require gym work to further it?

    Last time I looked at myself in the mirror, I saw a 'chopper' looking back at me……not a Lance Armstrong or Stuart O'Grady.

    Compare apples with apples guys :cool:

    cheers!
     
  16. J-MAT

    J-MAT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings all!!!

    I decided to lay off this one for a while and let others have their say. It's been so long since I've posted anything on this, I'm not sure where to start...

    Maybe its just run its course. Is this one beat to death or what???

    I think people take what I say too literally.

    No one program is going to work for all riders. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses that need to be addressed.

    Books and studies are good starting points. It's only after a period of time that you will find what you need and what works for you.

    Some folks like to get into the science of things. Others are overly simplistic in their approaches. We are all looking for the same answer, and that is how we can get faster on our bikes.

    The fact that we lived through another day out there on our road bikes is what it's really all about.

    If we have the time, energy, and health to bicker about esoteric topics that the average person on the street would have no knowledge of, well that's just gravy on top!!!

    Good Luck and Good Health!!!
     
  17. GearGrinder

    GearGrinder New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    so rick what is a power to weight ratio that most pro climbers have. Just want to see how far i have to improve to be a good climber:D . Im now at 3.7w/kg for a 4.8k climb at 6.5%. The cycle2max site says thats 238 watts. Do you think that the formula they use would be based on the fact the roads are smooth? this climbs surface is roughish bitumen. heres a link to the page with the climb info http://www.cycle2max.com/c2m/climbs.nsf/Vrecent/016F6A59D13E01AD69256D1700243592?
    hrm file at botom. Also my average hr as 185 and my max is 206. Is my threshold pretty much as high as it will get? is it good? If its as high as it gets how will i improve?
     
  18. steve

    steve Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    5,263
    Likes Received:
    214
  19. GearGrinder

    GearGrinder New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. steve

    steve Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    5,263
    Likes Received:
    214
Loading...
Loading...