my take on strength endurance training

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 [censored] 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.

Andy Coggan said:

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

Andy Coggan said:

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."

Tom Kunich said:

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 [censored] 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.

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.

Andrew F Martin said:

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.

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.

A Sample of one is all it takes to DISPROVE the idea that average power
is greater with lower cadence than higher.

I said that I performed various workouts, not that I trained for an
extended period with SE intervals.

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.

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.)

I hear you on the "hurt yourself" issue. I hear guys doing muscle
tension intervals uphill in 30 degree weather? No thanks.

Robert Chung said:

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

Andy Coggan said:

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...

Andy Coggan said:

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

Mark Fennell said:

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.

Andy Coggan said:

Robert Chung said:

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.

amit said:

Mark Fennell said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

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