http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/
(Thanks to those who gave me the inspiration to finish this blog entry.)
(Thanks to those who gave me the inspiration to finish this blog entry.)
my take on "strength endurance" training
- Thread starter acoggan
- Start date
I really didn't read your blog all that closely but I didn't notice any reference to several things that people have said are useful about the big gear, low cadence, on a hill (or against other high loads) training. Focus on pedaling motion, time in tension, training some of the supporting muscles and ligaments/tendons, and that even though other training may produce similar results this type of training could shorten the amount of time and energy needed to produce those same results. And I didn't notice where you had tested the training's effectiveness with an appropriate test, one that measured ability during relatively short, high power efforts, e.g. rapid accelerations for 5-20 seconds at 400-800 watts, or on long climbs where 70+ rpm's may not be available.acoggan said:
I think you mentioned how there was lots of anecdotal support for this training but no formal testing of its effectiveness. Maybe you can get some Euro-pro coaches to share their test results with you.
-Warren
WarrenG said:
You're right, I didn't mention them, largely because they aren't plausible physiological mechanisms by which such training would directly improve performance. But thank you for bringing them up, as it gives me an excuse to address those notions as well.
1. SE training to improve pedaling skill
Given that A) adaptations in motor control are highly velocity specific, and B) there is no good evidence that pedaling skill plays a significant role in performance, I don't see how practicing one's pedaling while turning a very low cadence would be useful except, well, when pedaling at a very low cadence.
2. Time in tension
The metabolic adaptations to endurance training are dependent on the metabolic demands, not the forces that are generated. The neuromuscular adaptations to resistance training, OTOH, may be influenced by the speed of movement, but this is largely due to adaptations in neurological function, which don't transfer well to pedaling at normal velocities. Only at velocities much slower than even those encountered during SE training would you possibly see a difference in the muscular adaptations themselves.
3. SE training to strengthen supporting tissues
This idea has merit only if you plan to pedal at such slow cadences when, e.g., racing, or if you're using SE training as a "bridge" to, e.g., lifting weights (rather than the opposite, which is bass-ackwards when you consider the forces involved). If these considerations don't apply, however, then SE training is simply a solution aimed at a non-problem. A perfect example of this is my own experience following the workouts I described: my ankle joints felt quite "worked" the day after I did them, especially following the 5 x 5 min session. You could argue that that reflects some problem with my biomechanics, but since I never experience such problems when pedaling at normal cadences (even at comparable forces), why should I be concerned about it?
WarrenG said:
No, I didn't, because I don't see any reason why you would expect there to be such an effect. Moreover, Scott Thor has tested this idea, and found exactly the opposite of what you claim, i.e., he made greater gains in functional threshold power by training at a normal cadence than he did by doing so-called SE intervals.
WarrenG said:
No, I didn't, but again you wouldn't expect any benefit from SE training* on this ability, because the forces generated are too low to represent a significant overload. Indeed, even "explosive weight training" (where the forces are presumably much higher) failed to improve maximal power under conditions almost exactly as you describe:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=11820327&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum
*By SE training I mean pedaling for extended periods at an abnormally low cadence, i.e., I distinguish this form of training from brief, high power efforts at the same velocity of muscle contraction.
WarrenG said:
Yeah, while I'm at it I'll also ask them for the data showing how smoking a cigarette before a major climb helps "open up the lungs".
Once again you choose to restrict your ideas to a very narrow area, then say that anything you don't agree with doesn't need improvement, say your ankles are sore and that that isn't beneficial (as if one little part means the whole idea is bad-horrible evaluation on your part), mischaracteize my commments about the use of the training I described (not simply SE) saying YOU don't believe there would be any benefit for the attributes that I, and people far better at this sport than I, have seen, and then in reply to a suggestion of from whom you might find more information you reply with another of your stupid comments that would characterize some very well-respected people with far more success in this area than you as some quacks from long ago who would also suggest smoking.acoggan said:You're right, I didn't mention them, largely because they aren't plausible physiological mechanisms by which such training would directly improve performance. But thank you for bringing them up, as it gives me an excuse to address those notions as well.
1. SE training to improve pedaling skill
Given that A) adaptations in motor control are highly velocity specific, and B) there is no good evidence that pedaling skill plays a significant role in performance, I don't see how practicing one's pedaling while turning a very low cadence would be useful except, well, when pedaling at a very low cadence.
2. Time in tension
The metabolic adaptations to endurance training are dependent on the metabolic demands, not the forces that are generated. The neuromuscular adaptations to resistance training, OTOH, may be influenced by the speed of movement, but this is largely due to adaptations in neurological function, which don't transfer well to pedaling at normal velocities. Only at velocities much slower than even those encountered during SE training would you possibly see a difference in the muscular adaptations themselves.
3. SE training to strengthen supporting tissues
This idea has merit only if you plan to pedal at such slow cadences when, e.g., racing, or if you're using SE training as a "bridge" to, e.g., lifting weights (rather than the opposite, which is bass-ackwards when you consider the forces involved). If these considerations don't apply, however, then SE training is simply a solution aimed at a non-problem. A perfect example of this is my own experience following the workouts I described: my ankle joints felt quite "worked" the day after I did them, especially following the 5 x 5 min session. You could argue that that reflects some problem with my biomechanics, but since I never experience such problems when pedaling at normal cadences (even at comparable forces), why should I be concerned about it?
No, I didn't, because I don't see any reason why you would expect there to be such an effect. Moreover, Scott Thor has tested this idea, and found exactly the opposite of what you claim, i.e., he made greater gains in functional threshold power by training at a normal cadence than he did by doing so-called SE intervals.
No, I didn't, but again you wouldn't expect any benefit from SE training* on this ability, because the forces generated are too low to represent a significant overload. Indeed, even "explosive weight training" (where the forces are presumably much higher) failed to improve maximal power under conditions almost exactly as you describe:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=11820327&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum
*By SE training I mean pedaling for extended periods at an abnormally low cadence, i.e., I distinguish this form of training from brief, high power efforts at the same velocity of muscle contraction.
Yeah, while I'm at it I'll also ask them for the data showing how smoking a cigarette before a major climb helps "open up the lungs".
You go beyond reasoned, respectful discussion and debate. Hence, the ever-growing reputation you have among these people. If in fact you do want to learn more, then it's your loss Andy.
-Warren
WarrenG said:
Wow...for a minute there I thought your period key was broken.
WarrenG said:
Since when is simply saying "I don't see the logic of something" going beyond reasoned, respectful discussion and debate?
WarrenG said:
Who do you mean by "these people"? Guys like Asker Jeukendrup (long-time advisor to Rabobank), Inigio Mujika (worked extensively with Indurain and Banesto, and now works with Euskatel), Dave Martin (of AIS fame), or Peter Hespel (one of Quickstep's "go to" physiologist)? Oh wait, you can't mean them, Asker's just invited me to speak at a conference with them...
frenchyge said:
I'd say that would depend on:
1) whether they conciously tried to stomp harder during the SE efforts, as the low inertial load would encourage them to do, or whether they conciously tried to round out their pedal stroke, as coaches often use such training to try to encourage them to do, and
2) whether you think stomping is inherently better or worse than pedaling in circles (me, I think there are times when you should stomp and times when you should try to pedal more in circles, and our bodies know best when to do either).
acoggan said:
Great! Then you can ask Peter Hespel why Boonen and his coach like doing the big gear, low cadence training like _I_ described it (not you and others here), and in combination with the uphill sprints and hi rpm sprints like I've mentioned.
-Warren
WarrenG said:
Aside from the sprints, what would you do/do you do differently?
FWIW, as Fergie alluded to I modeled the SE workouts that I did on the way that Charlie Walsh has long prescribed them. I don't know if he deserves credit for inventing them or not, but he appears to be largely (albeit indirectly) responsible for their popularity in North America (via a training plan allegedly purchased for a five figure sum by USA Cycling back in the Carmichael era).
I should not have been so specific about Boonen's training. Perhaps he doesn't want it shared. Some people don't mind sharing but others do not want to share too much. I know the specifics of the session he does and what time(s) of the season he does it but I don't have his permission to share it so I should not say anything about it.acoggan said:
If you ask Peter at Quick-Step about this type of training, commonly called "SFR" among the riders and coaches who work(ed) at Mapei, then Quick-Step and elsewhere, please be general. Thanks.
-Warren
Not sure this adds much to the discussion, other than another pro cyclist who may or may not be well informed about his training. In the current CycleSport article on Magnus Backstedt, there is a quote attributed to Magnus himself: "After Christmas I will start my strength endurance work. ... What I do is ride seven or eight minute intervals in 53x13 or 14 up the long hills around here, pedaling at 40 to 45 rpm, and I'll do six to 10 intervals as part of a six hour ride."WarrenG said:
Magnus is certainly one of those statistical anomalies due to his colossus stature compared to that of most elite tour riders. I would have loved to see him win more than a single stage in last year's TdF.palewin said:
Perhaps he was engaging in a campaign of misinformation to throw off Andy Coggan and the rest of the cycling world? Kind of like the government does with Area 51 and Roswell, NM.frenchyge said:Well, he'll never do any better if he keeps blabbing his training secrets to anybody with a press badge and a notebook.
This is why I have to do all of my SFR training on a deserted part of the bike trail at night, on a hill across the river from the famous Folsom Prison (true). If I see someone approaching I change to a smaller gear and ride at 80 rpm's until they are out of sight.Doctor Morbius said:Perhaps he was engaging in a campaign of misinformation to throw off Andy Coggan and the rest of the cycling world? Kind of like the government does with Area 51 and Roswell, NM.
WarrenG said:
There are 2 possibilities:
1. You are not privy to how Boonen trains. Ergo, you are a liar.
2. You are privy too how Boonen trains. You posted infomation about said training on a public forum before realising that he might not want this. Ergo, you are an idiot.
I'm thinking 1, but feel free to provide some evidence for 2 if you want.
If you knew the first thing about sports science you could do a search for Dr Coggan under author name and find many papers published in respectable journals. I count myself lucky that he spends any of his time on this forum giving out some of his hard earned knowledge for free.
Oh, and I know some pro's who do SE/SFR/whatever you want to call it, one of whom rides for Rabo (don't know if he has spoken to Asker about it - think he is coached by someone local and a little more old school). However, that doesn't make it a good idea. It just means some people with supreme genetic talent (VO2max=91) have chosen to train a certain way.
Well, that's much better than doing your secret training inside of Folsom!WarrenG said:
You must ride along the American River. For a couple of years I've read multiple threads on the benefits of spinning. Of course Lance was all the rage and everyone wanted to emulate his fast RPM pedaling technique. I had always thought that if Jan Ullrich would win a couple Tours de France then people would be talking about mashing as being the chichi way to ride. I never expected the ultra low 53x13 45 RPM thing. It seems the pendulum keeps on swinging.
Personally, I've found that lower cadences (<80) seem to benefit my riding style the most in 30 minute time trials. I've tried the high RPM cadence and all it did for me was cause fatigue. I'm not much of a cyclist by nature though.
WarrenG said:
I realise that that was more directed to the posters denigrating your
low cadence training, but since the average cyclist rolls around at 50-60 rpm
you shouldn't find yourself alone in this cadence range.
I would like to say that I get a good low rpm workout for a few seconds when I ride up the 35 meter long 10 % hill close to my home, but with the snow and ice and my 28 mm tires, my rear wheel spins and brings me down to about 20-30 rpm or even zero if I can't make it up. I hate it when that happens, because it means the hill beat me. I'm not attempting any low rpms on purpose, but it just happens sometimes. I'm not sure if it has had any effect on my max aerobic power or 1 hr more. Probably hasn't. BUT IT DOES HAVE AN EFFECT ON MY MORALE, DAMN IT!!!
-Bikeguy
WarrenG said:
I realise that that was more directed to the posters denigrating your
low cadence training, but since the average cyclist rolls around at 50-60 rpm
you shouldn't find yourself alone in this cadence range.
I would like to say that I get a good low rpm workout for a few seconds when I ride up the 35 meter long 10 % hill close to my home, but with the snow and ice and my 28 mm tires, my rear wheel spins and brings me down to about 20-30 rpm or even zero if I can't make it up. I hate it when that happens, because it means the hill beat me. I'm not attempting any low rpms on purpose, but it just happens sometimes. I'm not sure if it has had any effect on my max aerobic power or 1 hr more. Probably hasn't. BUT IT DOES HAVE AN EFFECT ON MY MORALE, DAMN IT!!!
-Bikeguy
Similar threads
