my take on strength endurance training

[Andy Coggan]

"Warren G" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> 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.

Don't flatter yourself - it was frenchyge's inquiry as to whether I'd gone
any further with this that finally got me off my butt, not any of your
comments.

Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Mark Fennell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0wBxf.7798$eR.6399@fed1read03...
> 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)

The lower the cadence for a given power, the higher the average effective
pedal force, so yes, if you pedaled slower the force requirement would be
higher. The 45 rpm that I used is on the low end of what the vast majority
of individuals performing such training actually use, however, and it is far
easier to increase the force requirement by simply pedaling harder (i.e.,
increase the power output) than it is to pedal even slower than that.

>and the fact that a smaller-than-normal fraction of the pedal stroke is
>under large force.

Whether peak force is more than, or less than, the usual ~2x the average
force will depend on how/if somebody chooses to try to modify their normal
pattern of force application. Specifically, many coaches advocate trying to
do the opposite of what you suggest during such intervals, i.e., that riders
should concentrate on "rounding out" their pedal stroke (me, I just
pedaled).

Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Mark Fennell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hgBxf.7791$eR.7438@fed1read03...
> "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.

When/where (recently) did I ever say that people shouldn't do SE training?

Andy Coggan

 

[Mark Fennell]

"Andy Coggan" wrote:
> "Mark Fennell" wrote:
>> "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.
>
> When/where (recently) did I ever say that people shouldn't do SE training?
>

Of course you didn't say that specifically. But you did say "it seems
unlikely that SE training would result in significant increases in muscle
size, strength, or power" and "there is really no reason to believe that
this form of training would be superior to training at a normal cadence" so
one can reasonably conclude that you don't believe "traditional" SE workouts
have much value. Is that the wrong conclusion? Either way, thanks for the
good work, and for posting something interesting to rbr.

Mark

 

[Phil Holman]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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/
Interesting take. Even for a fairly well conditioned cyclist, one would
expect to see some improvement in the ability to complete SE type
workouts. Over the course of several weeks, the subject would be able to
complete more reps and longer intervals. As sub-optimal as they may be,
there must be some adaptive changes taking place.

Phil H

 

[Robert Chung]

[email protected] 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

My take on high-torque low-cadence training is almost exactly like my take
on high-cadence low-torque training.

--
Lowering the level of discourse nearly every day.

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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).

I think that you are being misled by his poor graph expansions. He said that
dropping power slightly led to greater endurance. And of course some people
can maintain pretty stable high power outputs for a long time.

Consider - crits are the most popular American racing. One of the reasons is
that it is only 1/2 hour of blasting around the course. And THAT is the sort
of thing that turns out to build huge strength and speed and consequently
reduced output endurance. So for relatively small training times your
performance takes HUGE leaps and with the busy American lifestyle that works
out well.

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Mark Fennell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5VFxf.7824$eR.6861@fed1read03...

> I know what it feels like to climb stairs at 90%, and I know what it
> feels like to ride a 53x12 at 30 rpm up a ~6% slope in the saddle, and
> they are a lot different. Each down-stroke is much more forceful than
> simply lifting body weight up the steps. I suppose I should do the physics
> to see if that is true!

You definitely should, as I think you'll be rather surprised at the answer.

Andy Coggan

 

[roadbuzz]

When I do SE training, I'm trying to condition myself for grades steep
enough that it is moderate to high intensity, so much so that my
cadence is reduced to 45-75 RPM.

So, is Dr. Coggan's finding that I would be better served by stomps, in
addition to normal endurance work?

 

[Phil Holman]

"roadbuzz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When I do SE training, I'm trying to condition myself for grades steep
> enough that it is moderate to high intensity, so much so that my
> cadence is reduced to 45-75 RPM.
>
> So, is Dr. Coggan's finding that I would be better served by stomps,
> in
> addition to normal endurance work?
>
Yes, this is my understanding of AC's post. I still see some benefit in
lower rpms especially when I am able to increase the time interval by
100%, 200%, 300% etc over several weeks. It's likely to be the 27th
consecutive day of rain here in the PNW. I rely on the indoor trainer a
lot and have several training phases/routines. I won't be dropping this
one any time soon.
Remember, science is not an accurate or complete model of physical
reality, it's just a good heuristic.

Phil H

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I still see some benefit in lower rpms especially when I am able to
> increase the time interval by 100%, 200%, 300% etc over several weeks.

Just because you can improve at something doesn't mean that it is doing you
any good.

Andy Coggan

 

[Wayne Pein]

Andy Coggan wrote:

> Just because you can improve at something doesn't mean that it is doing you
> any good.
>
> Andy Coggan
>
>

Perhaps a better way to characterize it is, "Just because you can
improve at something doesn't mean that it is doing you optimal good."

I think SE is similar to performing 8-12 reps in weight training. It's a
compromise of strength (1 rep max) and endurance, but not optimal for
either.

Wayne

 

[Donald Munro]

Mark Fennell wrote:
>> I know what it feels like to climb stairs at 90%, and I know what it
>> feels like to ride a 53x12 at 30 rpm up a ~6% slope in the saddle, and
>> they are a lot different. Each down-stroke is much more forceful than
>> simply lifting body weight up the steps. I suppose I should do the physics
>> to see if that is true!

Andy Coggan wrote:
> You definitely should, as I think you'll be rather surprised at the answer.

I hope he's got Perl installed.

 

[Phil Holman]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I still see some benefit in lower rpms especially when I am able to
>> increase the time interval by 100%, 200%, 300% etc over several
>> weeks.
>
> Just because you can improve at something doesn't mean that it is
> doing you any good.
>

Well, what are the likely physiological adaptations that enable
increased time intervals?

Your article debunks strength and maximal power improvements but quite
frankly, I'd be surprised at anyone doing SE for those reasons.

Phil H

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I still see some benefit in lower rpms especially when I am able to
>>> increase the time interval by 100%, 200%, 300% etc over several
>>> weeks.
>>
>> Just because you can improve at something doesn't mean that it is
>> doing you any good.
>>
>
> Well, what are the likely physiological adaptations that enable increased
> time intervals?
>
> Your article debunks strength and maximal power improvements but quite
> frankly, I'd be surprised at anyone doing SE for those reasons.
>
> Phil H

Since you specificaly mention physiological adaptions, don't forget there
are likely to be mental adaptations at the same time.

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> what are the likely physiological adaptations that enable increased time
> intervals?

I could speculate, but ultimately the question is, does it matter? Obviously
it does if for some reason (broken derailleur cable? excessively high
gearing?) you're forced to pedal for extended periods at a markedly
suboptimal cadence, but otherwise, who cares?

Andy Coggan

 

[Phil Holman]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> what are the likely physiological adaptations that enable increased
>> time intervals?
>
> I could speculate, but ultimately the question is, does it matter?
> Obviously it does if for some reason (broken derailleur cable?
> excessively high gearing?) you're forced to pedal for extended periods
> at a markedly suboptimal cadence, but otherwise, who cares?
>
Those climbing at 8 mph with a 39/23 or a 39/25. These are not uncommon
and not everyone does SE at 45rpm. How many of us climb longer grades at
75rpm with a 39/23? Did anyone check the cadences going up Filbert St?

Phil H

 

[Phil Holman]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:22Xyf.115030$oG.41790@dukeread02...
>
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> I still see some benefit in lower rpms especially when I am able to
>>>> increase the time interval by 100%, 200%, 300% etc over several
>>>> weeks.
>>>
>>> Just because you can improve at something doesn't mean that it is
>>> doing you any good.
>>>
>>
>> Well, what are the likely physiological adaptations that enable
>> increased time intervals?
>>
>> Your article debunks strength and maximal power improvements but
>> quite frankly, I'd be surprised at anyone doing SE for those reasons.
>>
>> Phil H
>
> Since you specificaly mention physiological adaptions, don't forget
> there are likely to be mental adaptations at the same time.

Other than the motivation to better the previous workout, what else
could there be?

Phil H

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> what are the likely physiological adaptations that enable increased time
>>> intervals?
>>
>> I could speculate, but ultimately the question is, does it matter?
>> Obviously it does if for some reason (broken derailleur cable?
>> excessively high gearing?) you're forced to pedal for extended periods at
>> a markedly suboptimal cadence, but otherwise, who cares?
>>
> Those climbing at 8 mph with a 39/23 or a 39/25. These are not uncommon
> and not everyone does SE at 45rpm. How many of us climb longer grades at
> 75rpm with a 39/23? Did anyone check the cadences going up Filbert St?

Anybody climbing for *extended* periods at <55 rpm - which is what SE
training prepares you to do - is waaaaaaaaaaaay overgeared.

Andy Coggan

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>
>> Since you specificaly mention physiological adaptions, don't forget there
>> are likely to be mental adaptations at the same time.
>
> Other than the motivation to better the previous workout, what else could
> there be?
>

Learning improvements in pedaling techniques for the specific effort,
understanding the time intervals more precisely for energy expenditure,
learning optimal rpm for the interval, familiarization with the roads used
for the interval (if not on a trainer), learning improvements in
between-interval recovery, learning to use upper body more efficiently, etc.