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
