Triathlete's training bible and power requirements

[Burak Ilter]

I do not have the book with me right now but I re-skimmed the weight
training part a few weeks ago. There are goal weights to be reached for
some exercises, like bench press, leg press, etc.

As far as I remember, the numbers are given as a coefficient of body
weight. For example the target for leg press was 2.5-2.9 times body
weight(BW) (correct me if I am wrong), with men aiming for the upper
limit.

Here are the questions: 1) How can such a target be defined? By
calculating the loads to the knee or such during main tri-activities
maybe. 2) Can anyone here really do this much? 2.9 BW seems to be pretty
high for me right now. Or am I missing something?

Thanks for ideas.
--
Burak
please remove Dot NOREPLY Dot to reply

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:25:43 +0300, Burak Ilter
<[email protected]> wrote:

> the target for leg press was 2.5-2.9 times body
> weight(BW) (correct me if I am wrong), with men
> aiming for the upper
>limit.
>
>Here are the questions: 1) How can such a target be defined?

By looking at the strength of a sample of succesful athletes.

> 2) Can anyone here really do this much?

I'm not a triathlete but another endurance athlete, and I used hit
over 3.5 times my weight for reps on a 45 degree sled a few times each
winter. I'd assume others can do it.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[metallifried]

Your leg muscles strengthen incredibly quickly. With proper training,
you can squat your body weight in less than a couple months. Since leg
press is a significantly easier exercise, you can go much higher much
more quickly.

That said, as an endurance athlete I don't know that I'd be interested
in putting on the kind of muscle mass required to do that. That seems
like a very odd thing to target, even if the weight is in the legs.

 

[Amie]

It would also depend on the type of race one was training for. If it
was mountainous or hilly, your strength would need to be higher.

I can do 2.9x my bodyweight but I think part of that depends on
genetics. I've not been able to transfer that strength to biking hills
very well (from a powerful leg press), so I'm going to try step ups or
another exercise to see if that transfers better.

 

[Amie]

Here's an article I got from a friend that has to do with the power
ratio in cycling. Also notes on diet.

Innovative diet keeps Armstrong lean and powerful

By CHRIS CARMICHAEL, For The Associated Press
July 8, 2005
Nature plays a cruel joke on professional cyclists. Though they spend
up to 30 hours a week on their bikes, they still have to watch their
weight to be successful at the Tour de France. After developing new
nutrition techniques, Lance Armstrong and I have been able to optimize
his race weight without sacrificing performance.

The Stakes: Two pounds can mean the difference between raising your
arms in victory and losing 30 seconds on a mountain summit finish. When
you're pedaling up a mountain pass, you're propelling your bicycle
upward, against gravity, as well as forward. Since your legs have a
finite amount of power, the amount of weight they have to push uphill
makes a big difference.

In cycling, we use a measure called power-to-weight-ratio to compare
the climbing strength of one rider against another. Lance's chief
rival, Jan Ullrich, can generate more power, in watts, than Lance can
because he is significantly bigger than Lance. However, when you divide
their sustainable power outputs by their respective weights, you see
that Lance can produce more power, per pound of body weight, than
Ullrich can.



To put this in perspective, consider Lance a new Subaru WRX STI and
Ullrich an Audi A8. The Audi has more horsepower (335), but that
horsepower has to pull a bigger mass (4,300 pounds). The Subaru has a
little less horsepower (300), but since it has to move less weight
(3,300 pounds), it's much more nimble and can accelerate like a bullet.


The Problem: A cyclist's life revolves around food, and he is always
hungry. It takes a lot of calories to supply the energy needed for
training rides that sometimes last upward of six hours, and no one
blames him for wanting to put his feet up with a massive bowl of pasta
once he's done. Yet, at the top level of the sport, all that training
could be for naught if you get to the race 5 pounds heavier than your
competition.

To make positive adaptations to training, your body needs a slight
surplus of energy. To lose weight, you need a slight energy deficit.
Trying to lose significant amounts of weight while training hard can do
more harm than good because it robs the body of its ability to recover,
which in turn reduces the positive impact of workouts.

We have seen examples of this from Jan Ullrich. Earlier in his career,
he would gain more than 20 pounds during the winter, slim down slightly
in the spring, then lose the final dozen pounds within a month before
the start of the Tour de France. The problem, however, was his power
output suffered from the combination of caloric restriction and
increased training. He arrived at the Tour de France lean and mean, but
without the power to challenge Lance in the mountains.

The Plan: No professional cyclists, not even Lance, stay at their Tour
de France weight all year. They aim to be as light and as powerful as
possible for three weeks in July, and after that they move back up to a
healthier and more sustainable weight. What Lance and I wanted to
avoid, however, was the big weight fluctuation (18-26 pounds) typical
of pro cyclists. I wanted his training efforts to improve his power
output and make his aerobic engine stronger. Using training hours to
merely burn calories and lose weight is a waste of valuable time.

I looked at the ways Lance's training changed during the year, and then
designed a nutrition program that matched the calorie, nutrient, and
training demands of each segment of the year. The results were
dramatic. Between 2002 and 2005, his weight has fluctuated only about 9
pounds up and down, yet he has not had to go to the extremes of
weighing his food or depriving himself of meals or snacks. We have not
had to spend time thinking about weight loss, either. That has provided
more time to concentrate on performance.

The plan is relatively simple, and works for any active individual.
During the fall and winter, the intensity and weekly duration of
Lance's training are relatively low. He is exercising, but it's mostly
moderate-intensity aerobic conditioning. To fuel this level of
training, he doesn't need as many calories as he does at the height of
the racing season.

Not only does he consume less food during this period, he also alters
the nutrient balance. During the height of the season, more than 70
percent of his calories may come from carbohydrates because he needs
the fast-burning fuel to power his aerobic and anaerobic energy
systems. During the fall and winter, we increase the percentage of
protein in his nutrition program and reduce the carbohydrate
contribution to 60 percent to 65 percent. This may seem minor, but when
it's combined with the overall caloric reduction, the two make a big
difference in calories and body weight.

As his training intensity and volume increase through the spring, we
increase his caloric intake and the percentage of calories coming from
carbohydrate. The aerobic engine can burn a mixture of carbohydrate,
protein, and fat, but the anaerobic system that kicks in to contribute
additional energy for high-intensity efforts burns only carbohydrate.

My first priority is to make sure Lance has the fuel and nutrients he
needs to perform. I look at the demands of his training and lifestyle
and use that information to design his nutrition program. It's an idea
with a lot of potential. You'd be shocked to discover how much more you
can accomplish when you don't have to spend time thinking about body
weight.



Updated on Friday, Jul 8, 2005 5:01 pm ED

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 9 Jul 2005 12:22:53 -0700, "Amie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Here's an article I got from a friend that has to do with the power
>ratio in cycling. Also notes on diet.

It's not right to post copyrighted material like this w/o permission
of the copyright holder. Did you get permission? If not, it's bad.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Amie]

Well, excuse me, but I was just trying to help and provide relevant
information. For one, I attributed the author and the source - it
CLEARLY states in the opening lines, "By CHRIS CARMICHAEL, for the
Associated Press" as well as the publishing date. It was published on
Yahoo! News, as well as multiple news sites worldwide (being that it
was distributed as stated, by the Associated Press). I am not selling
or claiming to have authored the information; I am not violating any
copyright laws here, as I was just trying to provide informational
material to a relevant audience - please review your notes on copyright
law, specifically, "Fair Use."

If you want a direct link to the article word for word, here it is:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-tour-armstrongcoach&prov=ap&type=lgns

You will see I did not doctor any of the information, either.

I should know. I have an Master's degree in Journalism.

Thanks for the concern, but it's not needed here.
Amie

 

[trimark]

The orginal article is posted on the Sports Illustrated web site where
it is copyright.

Strictly speaking it is not sufficient to just include the authors name
and then post the whole article, if Carmichael and SI decided to pursue
you for copyright infringement they'd likely be successful.

What you can do is to write a small summary and post a link and even
post a small part of the article under "fair use".
http://www.cnnsi.com/2005/more/wires/07/08/2080.ap.cyc.tour.armstrong.coach.0976/

On the contents of the article, do we think its righ though? I know
lots of amatuer cyclists who don't really change weight significantly
over the winter. Do we feel Carmichael is just using an extreme to make
a point or is the logica flawed?

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 9 Jul 2005 20:05:20 -0700, "Amie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Well, excuse me, but I was just trying to help and provide relevant
>information.

That doesn't make it right.

> For one, I attributed the author and the source - it
>CLEARLY states in the opening lines, "By CHRIS CARMICHAEL, for the
>Associated Press" as well as the publishing date.

That doesn't make it right and that doesn't make it legal.

> It was published on
>Yahoo! News, as well as multiple news sites worldwide (being that it
>was distributed as stated, by the Associated Press).

That doesn't make it legal for you to do it. And from a practical
standpoint, on those sites it was displayed with advertising that
probably benefits AP or Carmichael or Yahoo whereas here it was not
-- that's one reason it's wrong.

>I am not selling
>or claiming to have authored the information; I am not violating any
>copyright laws here,

Yes you were violating copyright laws.

Please don't do it again -- it's not right and its illegal in most
countries. If you're going to repost something like that, *ask* the
copyright holder for permission. Or just post a short excerpt and a
link -- most people here can follow links to the web.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Amie]

As per the first part of your messge, see my other post.

The second part, that's probably why they are still amateur. I don't
think Carmichael is using an extreme at all. To be competitive your
strength to weight ratio must be high. You *could* get stronger, but
that could also mean getting bigger, which would slow you down. Being
at an optimal weight for racing may not be a healthy weight to engender
on a more permanent basis, therefore an 'off-season' weight and
'in-season' weight. It's actually the same in many sports.

I agree though that I don't think extremes of weight changes are
physiologically going to benefit the athlete, from a metabolic or
competitive standpoint.

--Amie

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 10 Jul 2005 05:40:03 -0700, "Amie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> It may have been
>printed in SI, but it was distributed by the author through The
>Associated Press, as I posted, a worldwide news distributing agency -
>so sourcing the AP is fine. In fact, if you look at that SI link posted
>- it says "For the Associated Press," and even in the http it clearly
>states "wires", which in the j-world indicates it was picked up by a
>newswire/feed - the AP, in this case. It is NOT copyright there, that
>doesn't make sense, it is copyright by the distributing author,
>Carmichael.

Please learn to read. I have never said who the copyright holder is
because I don't actually know. Instead I have said you shoudl get
the permission of the copyright holder.

It is probably Carmichael as you have said. That is an important
detail if you actually try to contact the copyright holder to get
permission. Knowing would save you time in asking permission.

But without taking the time to do that, the point is moot about
whether it is Carmichael, the AP, Yahoo, SI or whoever -- you still do
not have permission to repost the article as copyright is held by
someone else. So don't do it.

>I think you should at least look up Fair Use laws as far as copyright

You clearly don't know what you are talking about regarding fair use
and copyright -- just give it up and before posting any other such
nonsense. And take a look at some proper information such as at
www.loc.gov/copyright

Fair use allows the use of excerpts for criticism or parody or to get
someone to read the rest. It does not allow reposting something in
it's entirety like that.

>I doubt Lance Armstrong's coach would pursue me for copyright
>violations on this issue; and further, I doubt he'd win, if you need a
>study on this:

Please stop embarrassing yourself. If you stole a small piece of
fruit from a supermarket and then drove away before I told them about
it, I doubt they would sue you. It still doesn't make it legal.

> I should know. I have an Master's degree in Journalism.

??!!!!! Wow.

You should be embarassed to have such a flawed understanding of
copyright after having studied journalism. Please, go back to one of
your professors and ask "Is it OK to republish an article by someone
else, without their permission, in its entirety, that has an 'all
rights reserved statement' as long as I cite the source and don't make
a profit from it? Would that be legal?" Or check one of your
textbooks again.

JT

PS -- I have had dealings with both Carmichael (riding with him and
one email I think) and the AP (in licensing copyrighted material
produced by someone else that they redistributed). Both entities are
easy enough to contact. I don't know about SI, but the AP material I
used appeared in Time magazine, which is part of the same company as
SI, so I assume it would be easy enough to get permission the same
way. Note -- I had to pay to use the material AP was distributing.....

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Amie]

> Please learn to read. I have never said who the copyright holder is
because I don't actually know.

"Please learn to read?" Why don't you please learn to have a civil
discussion. It's obvious of YOUR lack of knowledge because the
copyright owner is the AUTHOR of the piece, unless otherwise expressly
stated.

The SI comment was for the information of the other poster, as I was
trying to respond to both posts with one response, rather than filling
up the triathlon boards with such clutter.

>You clearly don't know what you are talking about regarding fair use
and copyright -- just give it up and before posting any other such
nonsense. And take a look at some proper information such as at
www.loc.gov/copyright

I think you clearly don't know. I printed the Fair Use Doctrine word
for word, FROM the copyright law.

>Fair use allows the use of excerpts for criticism or parody or to get
someone to read the rest. It does not allow reposting something in
it's entirety like that.


Oh, ok, then anytime we reproduce works to use at the University or
post on course websites to educate others, we are criticising or
ridiculing the work. Please get serious.

>Please stop embarrassing yourself. If you stole a small piece of
fruit from a supermarket and then drove away before I told them about
it, I doubt they would sue you. It still doesn't make it legal.

I think you should stop embarrassing yourself.
Comparing stealing fruit from the supermarket and the Fair Use Doctrine
is opening yourself up to ridicule.


> You should be embarassed to have such a flawed understanding of
copyright after having studied journalism.

Ummmm... excuse me? I do not have a flawed understanding. Maybe you
should study it in the first place!

I don't have to go back and 'ask my professors' anything, as I teach
for the Journalism School as well. Aside from an email to Carmicheal
and contacting the AP once, I believe my credentials and study in this
area are a *bit* more extensive than yours.

Listen, I think we all get the points made here and I don't really feel
it pertinent to triathlon, or even fair to the original poster of this
thread, to continue. This debate has been reproduced in the courts and
judicial system enough over history and doesn't need to be belabored
here. Thanks for your thoughts over the possibilty of my being sued,
but frankly, i'm not concerned. If nothing else, let's just agree to
disagree. I wish to enjoy my weekend, and certainly have other things
to do, as I'm sure you do.

Take care.
Amie

 

[Amie]

It somewhat depends on the way you train as well as your response to
weight training. One can be strong but not big. There was a female
powerlifter in the area who competed in the 124 lb weight class, and
she could squat almost 400 lbs. Training for strength is different
than training for hypertrophy (size).

 

[Melinda Shore]

In article <[email protected]>,
Amie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>You clearly don't know what you are talking about regarding fair use
>and copyright -- just give it up and before posting any other such
>nonsense. And take a look at some proper information such as at
>www.loc.gov/copyright

No, he's actually correct about the Fair Use Doctrine and
what constitutes fair use. At any rate, 1) the AP charges a
lot of money for their service, and 2) their clients need to
recoup the money somehow. Typically that's done through
selling advertising, and for online sources, aside from
questions about legality it's courteous to provide URLs
rather than quoting an entire article verbatim because it
allows the entity that bought the story from AP to get
credit for ad views. So, in this case, although it's almost
certainly AP that owns the copyright on the article it's
Yahoo and whoever else ran the wire story who are facing the
revenue loss when you post an entire article rather than a
pointer.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - [email protected]

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

 

[Amie]

ok. you're totally right. I'm totally wrong (that's why there have
NEVER been any legal disputes over copyright and fair use - though your
rendition of parody and criticism is not complete). CAN THIS BE DROPPED
NOW?

jeez louise...

 

[Roger Cortesi]

I enjoy a lively debate as much as the next person...

but do you think you could take this to rec.copyright.flame or something?

Because this has rapidly degenerated into the sort of nonsence that
occures in rec.running
(checkout the latest gatoraid thread on rec.running for some oldschool flaming)


--
To email me, remove the greeting from my email address.

(for athletes) The Digital Athletic Log http://rogercortesi.com/athleticlog/

(for nerds) The Online Equation Editor http://rogercortesi.com/eqn/

 

[Amie]

THANK YOU. Exactly what I was trying to say in my previous posts.

Again, THANKS - Amie

 

[Amie]

On that note - I just subscribed to rec.running. Can one get useful
training information there? I found a lot of ridiculous flaming on
runner's world.com forums as well, and so stopped visiting there.

thanks,
Amie

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 10 Jul 2005 07:35:25 -0700, "Amie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Please learn to read. I have never said who the copyright holder is
>because I don't actually know.
>
>"Please learn to read?" Why don't you please learn to have a civil
>discussion.

My first post and second posts in this thread were very civil. My
first one in response to your posting material you did not have the
right to post said "It's not right to post copyrighted material like
this w/o permission. of the copyright holder. Did you get permission?
If not, it's bad."


> It's obvious of YOUR lack of knowledge because the
>copyright owner is the AUTHOR of the piece, unless otherwise expressly
>stated.

First, that is not always the case. When someone rights something
that another person or entity pays for, the copyright is often held by
the person paying. In this case, neither of us actually knows who
holds the copyright. I agree with you about it -- it's probably the
author. But neither of us knows for sure. And since most webpages
with material from the AP say "copright AP all rights reserved" it's
possible the copyright is held by the AP. It's also possible the
copyright is held by Time Warner. Neither of us know for sure.
You're probably right in guessing it's held by Carmichael, and I agree
with that guess. But neither of us know for sure

Second, it doesn't matter if the copyright is held by Carmichael, the
AP or the Pope. It's not held by you and unless you get permission,
what you did was wrong.


>
>>You clearly don't know what you are talking about regarding fair use
>and copyright -- just give it up and before posting any other such
>nonsense. And take a look at some proper information such as at
>www.loc.gov/copyright
>
>I think you clearly don't know. I printed the Fair Use Doctrine word
>for word, FROM the copyright law.


Take another look at point 3 in what you printed. It is almost never
that reprinting something in it's entirety is fair use. That is why
the amount of material reproduced relative to the length of the
original text is discused in the material you printed.
>
>>Fair use allows the use of excerpts for criticism or parody or to get
>someone to read the rest. It does not allow reposting something in
>it's entirety like that.
>
>
>Oh, ok, then anytime we reproduce works to use at the University or
>post on course websites to educate others, we are criticising or
>ridiculing the work. Please get serious.

I should have included "educating" along with criticism. Yes,
reproducing a portion of material for education, criticism, etc is
fair use. But not reproducing the entire text Ask your university's
legal counsel about that.


>>Please stop embarrassing yourself. If you stole a small piece of
>fruit from a supermarket and then drove away before I told them about
>it, I doubt they would sue you. It still doesn't make it legal.
>
>I think you should stop embarrassing yourself.
>Comparing stealing fruit from the supermarket and the Fair Use Doctrine
>is opening yourself up to ridicule.
>
>> You should be embarassed to have such a flawed understanding of
>copyright after having studied journalism.
>
>Ummmm... excuse me? I do not have a flawed understanding. Maybe you
>should study it in the first place!
>
>I don't have to go back and 'ask my professors' anything, as I teach
>for the Journalism School as well. Aside from an email to Carmicheal
>and contacting the AP once, I believe my credentials and study in this
>area are a *bit* more extensive than yours.

What is your name? What are your credentials? What school? If you
want to start talking credential, please back them up.

I note your email address has the word "journalist" in it. If you are
a journalist, ass the corporate counsel where you work the same
question I suggested you ask your journalism professor. You can't
post copyrighted material in it's entirety like that without
permission. It's illegal and wrong.

>Listen, I think we all get the points made here and I don't really feel
>it pertinent to triathlon, or even fair to the original poster of this
>thread, to continue.

It is fundemental that when someone breaks the law it shoudl be
pointed out to them. It's unfortunate that you take umbrage to that.

> Thanks for your thoughts over the possibilty of my being sued,
>but frankly, i'm not concerned.

I never suggested you would get sued. I just pointed out what you
did was wrong and illegal. It's a small thing and the odds of a
lawsuit are remote. But that doesn't make what you did right.. Your
spouting nonsense about copyright is actual far more more harmful
insofare as other people might believe you.

For their benefit, here is some information about copyright. The
first link is from the US goverment -- I'm not sure what country you
are in but the general principles are similar in over 100 countries
around the world.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 10 Jul 2005 10:59:34 -0400, [email protected] (Melinda Shore) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Amie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>You clearly don't know what you are talking about regarding fair use
>>and copyright -- just give it up and before posting any other such
>>nonsense. And take a look at some proper information such as at
>>www.loc.gov/copyright
>
>No, he's actually correct about the Fair Use Doctrine and
>what constitutes fair use.

Not reproducing an article like that in its *entirety*. A paragraph
or two would probably be fine. A few sentences for sure OK. Maybe even
most of the text woudl be OK since the whole thing is so short --
there is no simple formula about what portion is OK.

But reproducing the whole thing is not OK.

> At any rate, 1) the AP charges a
>lot of money for their service, and 2) their clients need to
>recoup the money somehow. Typically that's done through
>selling advertising, and for online sources, aside from
>questions about legality it's courteous to provide URLs
>rather than quoting an entire article verbatim because it
>allows the entity that bought the story from AP to get
>credit for ad views. So, in this case, although it's almost
>certainly AP that owns the copyright on the article it's
>Yahoo and whoever else ran the wire story who are facing the
>revenue loss when you post an entire article rather than a
>pointer.

Yes.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************