my take on strength endurance training

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Andy Coggan, Jan 12, 2006.

  1. Andy Coggan

    Andy Coggan Guest

    Tags:


  2. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    Andy, surely it is interesting that you seem to have disproven SE
    methods as effective training. But then it doesn't stand to reason that
    the idea of strength-endurance training is also incorrect - only that
    the present methods used are ineffective.

    I just read an article about 20 minute power production being a key. I
    thought it was on this group but there is now so much crap on it that I
    can't find it if this were the case. Anyway the writer's position was
    that you should train to maximize your 20 Minute Power (20 MP) which
    essentially just means that your training should revolve around getting
    that 20 MP as high as possible and then everything else will pretty
    much follow.

    The thing that struck me about that was that American criteriums
    present exactly that sort of training.
     
  3. yeahyeah

    yeahyeah Guest

    Andy Coggan wrote:
    > Many of you may have seen this already, but I'm posting it anyway to try to
    > raise the level of discourse around here...
    >
    > http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/


    Hey Andy - Thanks! I really hated doing those intervals.
    I've heard other justifications for doing big gear stuff, like
    "strengthening connective tissues".
    Is that total B.S.?

    Glad to see someone is trying to improve the content here, maybe this
    will bring warren back - ha ha ha.

    Laura
     
  4. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Andy Coggan wrote:
    > Many of you may have seen this already, but I'm posting it anyway to
    > try to raise the level of discourse around here...
    >
    > http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/


    You'd get more discourse, though perhaps at a lower level, if you'd've
    used the subject line: "cadence is a red herring."
     
  5. Tom Kunich wrote:
    > I just read an article about 20 minute power production being a key. I
    > thought it was on this group but there is now so much crap on it that I
    > can't find it if this were the case. Anyway the writer's position was
    > that you should train to maximize your 20 Minute Power (20 MP) which
    > essentially just means that your training should revolve around getting
    > that 20 MP as high as possible and then everything else will pretty
    > much follow.


    I believe you're referring to the Kirk Willett article. What struck me
    regarding the power-duration graph he posted is that the slope of the
    curve was essentially unchanged from about 10 minutes (or even less)
    out to about 2.5 hours. I couldn't figure out what was special about
    20 minutes? Why not 10 minutes? Why not 1 hour? If I understood his
    arguement, raising the power one can sustain over a given duration in
    that part of the curve would essentially raise the power one could
    generate for any duration from 10 minutes to 2.5 hours which makes
    sense as the same physiologic factors probably dominate performance for
    all of those durations (i.e. oxidative capacity).

    Then he goes on to say that to do that to increase mean 20 minute power
    you have to ride hard for relatively long periods but didn't define
    what that meant.
     
  6. I'm not sure Andy is actually following the thread - more likely just a
    drop a link and run sort of discussion.

    Maybe I missed something here, but didn't he say that, "I performed"
    various training methods? What was his sample size? What was the
    effect on people from various muscle-make ups? I like to hear that
    Stomps are good for you, but I'm not sure I can discount the value of
    SE Muscle Tension workouts for ME.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Guest

    Andrew F Martin wrote:
    > I'm not sure Andy is actually following the thread - more likely just a
    > drop a link and run sort of discussion.
    >
    > Maybe I missed something here, but didn't he say that, "I performed"
    > various training methods? What was his sample size? What was the
    > effect on people from various muscle-make ups? I like to hear that
    > Stomps are good for you, but I'm not sure I can discount the value of
    > SE Muscle Tension workouts for ME.


    I thought maybe I was the only one who noticed the 'sample of one'
    error in Dr. Coggan's article. hmmmm... regardless of how well
    written, isn't a study based on a sample of one still anecdotal???

    Anyway, I know from my own sample of one I find that I race much better
    after a few weeks of twice-a-week SE workouts. I've also heard Danny
    Pate speak very highly of SE workouts. He said he got the idea from
    Colby Pearce. While neither of them may have any idea why they work
    (or don't) they both are very successful and something must be working
    for them.
     
  8. For someone who often refutes lifting as a valid bicycle training
    activity by saying things like, "show me one valid study where it shows
    the benefit" (not a literal quote) I'm a little puzzled by his
    protocols. I usually listen to what he has to say, and I appreciate
    what he was trying to show here - I just have to discount it somewhat
    due to poor science.
     
  9. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    A Sample of one is all it takes to DISPROVE the idea that average power
    is greater with lower cadence than higher.
     
  10. I said that I performed various workouts, not that I trained for an
    extended period with SE intervals.
     
  11. You seem to be missing the point: the question I wanted to address is,
    just how much force do you actually have to produce when pedaling at a
    relatively high (for me, anyway) power but a very low cadence, and is
    it high enough to expect 1) an increase in muscular size, strength,
    and/or power, and/or 2) an increased recruitment of type II (fast
    twitch) motor units? I actually could have addressed this question
    without doing a single workout AT ALL - the only reason that I actually
    went ahead and did a couple of SE sessions was to have some data to
    illustrate my points (since a picture is often worth a thousand words).

    As for the notion that because elite athletes use such intervals, they
    must work, I think you (and anyone else who thinks the same way) need
    to read (and reread, if necessary) reference #1 in the article I
    posted.
     
  12. To quote Szent-Gyorgi "living systems are worn out by inactivity but
    developed by use" - IOW, just like any other tissue connective tissue
    will adapt to the stresses placed upon it (but no more). The question
    is, just how much strengthening of your connective tissues do you need
    to ride a bike *at a normal cadence* (one of the most least
    injury-inducing activities that exists, at least 1) compared to
    something like running, swimming, or weight lifting, and 2) as long as
    you don't fall off)? Moreover, what are the odds that you're going to
    hurt yourself by doing SE intervals, versus get hurt by *not* doing
    them? (I'd say that they're at least 50/50.)
     
  13. I hear you on the "hurt yourself" issue. I hear guys doing muscle
    tension intervals uphill in 30 degree weather? No thanks.
     
  14. Mark Fennell

    Mark Fennell Guest

    "Andy Coggan" wrote:
    > Many of you may have seen this already, but I'm posting it anyway to try
    > to raise the level of discourse around here...
    >
    > http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/


    Good job Andy! Convince people not to do these kind of efforts. Please.

    psst... your check is in the mail...
     
  15. Mark Fennell

    Mark Fennell Guest

    "Andy Coggan" wrote:
    > The question
    > is, just how much strengthening of your connective tissues do you need
    > to ride a bike *at a normal cadence* (one of the most least
    > injury-inducing activities that exists, at least 1) compared to
    > something like running...


    A tangential questions for Andy: Do you believe that there is some risk of
    over-use type of injuries from cycling based on the following line of
    reasoning... Humans did not evolve to pedal 172.5 mm circles. Rather, we
    evolved to walk and run, and so our natural biomechanics are geared for
    those activities. If one does a lot of riding--and not much else--various
    leg muscles might be strengthened in an unbalanced manner, resulting in
    forces being applied to connective tissues (e.g., cartilage under the knee
    cap) in ways they are not meant to handle.

    All I have is empirical evidence that there may be some truth in the above
    reasoning. I used to have significant pain under my kneecaps and this year
    so far I do not. The only difference in my training is that I did a lot of
    running over the last year, which may have brought some muscle strength back
    into balance.

    Mark
     
  16. amit

    amit Guest

    Mark Fennell wrote:

    > A tangential questions for Andy: Do you believe that there is some risk of
    > over-use type of injuries from cycling based on the following line of
    > reasoning... Humans did not evolve to pedal 172.5 mm circles. Rather, we
    > evolved to walk and run, and so our natural biomechanics are geared for
    > those activities.


    well you could argue that humans aren't evolved to stand upright based
    on the number of people that suffer lower back pain; and the restricted
    movement of cycling does make certain types of injuries unlikely.

    cycling is almost magical in the way in which it relies almost
    exclusively on concentric contractions (fixed gear and mtb excepted),
    which makes it's less damaging and more sustainable than running. so
    you could argue that a bike is a very good "interface" between the body
    and the ground.
     
  17. Mark Fennell

    Mark Fennell Guest

    Andy Coggan wrote:
    > Robert Chung wrote:
    >
    >> You'd get more discourse, though perhaps at a lower level, if you'd've
    >> used the subject line: "cadence is a red herring."

    >
    > Let's find out!
    >
    > http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rechung/wattage/components/components.html
    >


    btw Andy, would your SE conclusions (or lets call them "deductions") change
    at all if you considered lower rpms (like 30-35) and the fact that a
    smaller-than-normal fraction of the pedal stroke is under large force.
     
  18. Mark Fennell

    Mark Fennell Guest

    "amit" wrote:
    >
    > Mark Fennell wrote:
    >
    >> A tangential questions for Andy: Do you believe that there is some risk
    >> of
    >> over-use type of injuries from cycling based on the following line of
    >> reasoning... Humans did not evolve to pedal 172.5 mm circles. Rather, we
    >> evolved to walk and run, and so our natural biomechanics are geared for
    >> those activities.

    >
    > well you could argue that humans aren't evolved to stand upright based
    > on the number of people that suffer lower back pain; and the restricted
    > movement of cycling does make certain types of injuries unlikely.


    Well you could argue that, but you'd be wrong. imho, *most* people's lower
    back pain is a direct result of inactivity and spending too much time
    slouching in chairs or car seats. Or being overweight. Or both.

    > cycling is almost magical in the way in which it relies almost
    > exclusively on concentric contractions (fixed gear and mtb excepted),
    > which makes it's less damaging and more sustainable than running. so
    > you could argue that a bike is a very good "interface" between the body
    > and the ground.


    I agree completely with that logic when applied to muscle injuries, but I'm
    more curious about cartilage and tendon problems. Specifically, as you've
    probably heard lots of times, the cartilage under the kneecap gets ground
    away when the kneecap is pulled across it in a direction slightly off of its
    intended path. What causes that? I keep hearing people say that it is
    because the IT band gets too tight or too strong relative to the muscle(s)
    that oppose and/or support it. I don't know if that makes sense or not.

    Mark
     
  19. Warren G

    Warren G Guest

    Glad to see someone is trying to improve the content here, maybe this
    will bring warren back - ha ha ha.

    Laura

    And wouldn't you just love that?!

    Andy and I were "discussing" this topic in another forum just
    yesterday-kind of what prompted him to finish writing up his latest
    thoughts on the subject.

    He's missed or glossed over several areas I think are important and he
    was mainly concerned with a different format of the training than what
    I do, and why I do it. And he didn't do it for weeks to really test it,
    nor did he test it's effectivness during the types of efforts I use it
    for, so I'm not surprised his point of view is different.

    I believe it would accomplish next to nothing for a person's
    sustainable power for efforts longer than a minute or so, or unless
    they needed to do long climbs when 70+ rpm's aren't available.

    I do think it's helped me for high power accelerations in the saddle,
    lower trunk strength/stability, prepared connective tissues for the
    training I do in hard uphill sprints, and relatively short efforts in
    the 600+ watt range.

    There's a long list of successful pros who choose to do this training.
    The ones I know specifically are all excellent during the last 20K's of
    a single day race.

    -WG
     
Loading...
Loading...