A
Andy Coggan
Guest
"Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I understand what you intended. I simply expanded the analysis in what I thought was a logical
> extension
Not logical from where I sit, as it is far too incomplete.
> and found, what I believed to be an illogical conclusion. How does your analysis look at strength
> when being used submaximally?
It doesn't, in any way, shape, or form.
> Would your model predict that strength training would be beneficial for improving aerobic
> (submaximal) performance? How does that analysis work using the model you used?
Since this means of data presentation completely ignores metabolism, it can't make any such
predictions, except to demonstrate that strength is not a limiting factor. To understand why
strength *training* doesn't improve aerobic performance requires additional knowledge.
> In your paper you do mention optimum cadence for maximum power so my bringing up what the model
> predicts for cadence at submaximal power is not beyond the pale.
You're right, I do mention that the point at which the isopower curve and straight line relationship
between AEPF and CPV meet is the optimum cadence for maximal power development. But that's only in
passing...
Andy Coggan
news:[email protected]...
> I understand what you intended. I simply expanded the analysis in what I thought was a logical
> extension
Not logical from where I sit, as it is far too incomplete.
> and found, what I believed to be an illogical conclusion. How does your analysis look at strength
> when being used submaximally?
It doesn't, in any way, shape, or form.
> Would your model predict that strength training would be beneficial for improving aerobic
> (submaximal) performance? How does that analysis work using the model you used?
Since this means of data presentation completely ignores metabolism, it can't make any such
predictions, except to demonstrate that strength is not a limiting factor. To understand why
strength *training* doesn't improve aerobic performance requires additional knowledge.
> In your paper you do mention optimum cadence for maximum power so my bringing up what the model
> predicts for cadence at submaximal power is not beyond the pale.
You're right, I do mention that the point at which the isopower curve and straight line relationship
between AEPF and CPV meet is the optimum cadence for maximal power development. But that's only in
passing...
Andy Coggan