Weight Training to On the Bike Strength.

[Wayne]

warren <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<050520031613021280%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by efficient? Pros aren't anymore efficient at burning fat
> > > > > > (they don't harvest more ATP per gram of lipid than you or I). They have a greater
> > > > > > oxidative capacity, so at any given power output, they are doing more of that work by
> > > > > > oxidating fats or oxidizing the products of glycolysis resulting in glycogen sparing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that is being efficient.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not. I think you just redefined the word efficient.
> > >
> > > What is the word you would use in place of efficient?
> >
> > I would use the word capacity. Pros have a greater capacity to oxidize (they can oxidize more
> > fat per unit of time). Efficiency implies getting more out of the same amount or doing more
> > with less.
>
> They can produce more watts of power per gram of fat. That is efficiency, right?

I don' think so, that would be more efficient, in a sense, but I don't think it's accurate. When
people speak about a rider being more efficient, they usually mean that at a given speed they
are producing less watts than another rider to achieve that speed (getting the same speed for
less power).

You could in some sense (although not the typically used one) say that pro's are more efficient at
producing energy in that a fitter person at any given submaximal power output will derive more of
their energy from fat oxidation (which yields more ATP per gram than carbs) and oxidizing the
products of glycolysis (which yields more ATP per molecule of carb than if it was not oxidized and
ended up dumped into the blood as lactic acid) than a less fit person who produces a greater
percentage of their energy from carbs rather than fat, and a greater percentage of the carbs would
not be oxidized.

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (remove the polite word to reply) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > I don't mean to mindlessly bend to authority, but doesn't the fact that at least Armstrong
> > (based on Carmichael interview) and I assume many other top level pro's lift weights regularly?
>
> They don't do it regularly, the ones that do it, I believe, only do it for a few months during the
> off-season. You'll also notice that often they, or coaches recommendations, are doing high-reps
> (>12 or so) that have been shown to produce almost no muscle hypertrophy.
>
>
>
> > As someone who has published research using quantitative methods, I am aware that it is
> > _extremely_ hard to truly and totally isolate variables so you know what is causing what in an
> > extremely complex system like a self-aware athlete subject to a huge number ( 1000s? tens of
> > 1000s?) of virtually untrackable variables AND THEIR INTERACTIONS - like variations in ambient
> > temperature over the courses of the training days, psychological stressors, precise times of day
> > when specific nutrients are ingested .
> >
> > One thing I've found interesting re: weight lifting is that a study I read of that claimed that
> > weight lifting alone beats aerobics plus weight lifting for losing body fat. If anybody knows
> > exact citation I would appreciate it.
> >
> > IN it they reported that weight lifting alone built muscle mass and caused a lot of fat loss.
> > The aerobics plus weight lifting group actually lost a bit of musscle mass and lost a _smaller_
> > amount of fat.
> >
> > Of course, pro bike racers couldn't take a whole lot of time off from aerobic training just to
> > lose fat( even if they needed to).
>
> Don't need to, I assure you you can lose fat by riding more and restricting calorie intake.
> >
> > Right now i'm on a program to lose lard: low calories, high protein, weight s 2x /week; hard
> > riding only 1x / week.
> >
> > I'm afraid there's no way to lose 15- 20 lbs without losing _some_strength ( maybe it's
> > possible, I just don't know how). My hope is to lose the lard, then build strength back up
> > without adding lard.
>
> Here's some anecdotal evidence. We regularly test maximum quadriceps strength in the lab I work
> in. Since the beginning of the year I've loss about 15 pounds, yet my maximum quadriceps strength
> has actually increased by about 5 or 10%. I haven't touched a weight in years. I'd suspect if we
> were testing some muscle that I don't stress highly on a regular basis it's probably gotten
> weaker. The human body is amazingly adaptive as is muscle, don't use it, it will atrophy, use it
> and it will be maintained, maybe even increase in size. Clearly I've been running a negative
> calorie balance for several months, but the (limited) muscles I use regularly appear to not
> atrophied.

To add to this, the ability to do most things on a bike that require "strength" also require a solid
aerobic ability and often, the ability to work anaerobically. I doubt there are many (road) pros who
do any strength training for their legs that is not done while riding. This ensures that the aerobic
and anaerobic support mechanisms are in place to help with efforts that require "strength".

-WG

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:

> Don't they typically switch to pure carbs for the latter part of races when one would suspect
> intensities are going to be high, compromising digestion, and placing a premium on off-setting
> glycogen loss through exogenous carbs?

I mentioned earlier about using gels later in races if they get a chance to eat them but otherwise
they have to rely on fat.

-WG

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> So what's the most complete, ultimate source of training physiology knowledge? If there ever can
> be any single body of knowledge that is supreme...
>
> warren <[email protected]> wrote:
> : This topic is not too complex, but the best cycling coaches/doctors know things about the
> : physiology of bike racing that aren't in books. I
>
> Do you mean that coaches or doctors have more detailed and accurate knowledge in this matter than
> researchers? Can you get better information by asking a coach than by reading research journals?
> If the coaches know something, maybe researchers don't put that to journals because every coach
> knows it already...

To sum up... Most "coaches" don't know everything researchers do. Researchers don't know things that
coaches know. The very best coaches know virtually all of the relevant research and they know more
than that as a result of their own experience and "research" with their riders. People who are
researchers rarely work with top-level athletes.

I asked Max Testa about this topic a month ago. In the old days the pro team doctors were family
doctors who became "coaches" of teams because they loved cycling, but they were not uniquely
qualified to be cycling coaches/doctors. Max's generation (I think he is referring to his fellow
coaches with pro teams) of team doctors/coaches are educated as medical doctors and in sports
medicine. This generation has very good knowledge of research procedures. Coaches are doing plenty
of "research" that is not made public. Alot of this research is daily feedback from riders and
sometimes the riders will all say that something works for them even though there is no public
information supporting their experience and the coach is not exactly sure why it works. Some coaches
have taken this knowledge into the realm of what many would call unethical (my word) forms of
performance enhancing, and this is disappointing for coaches like him who do not agree with those
methods but it can be hard to convince a rider about ethics who would otherwise be working in a
factory or driving a truck.

He said that a coach isn't going to publish or otherwise make public everything they know about
training bike racers. (Max, for one, shares alot of knowledge with the public here in NorCal at
various seminars and via the Sports Performance Program at UC Davis Med Center.) A coach is paid for
what they know and if they know something that others don't, and it can help the teams' riders then
the coach is more valuable. He doesn't want a team or rider he's coaching to say, we don't need you
because we can just go read it in a research paper or a book. You'll also find that his riders don't
feel compelled to divulge much of the training knowledge they've learned from him because they won't
give away what they, and others have to pay for, and it protects the coach's value.

-WG

 

[Wayne]

> He said that a coach isn't going to publish or otherwise make public everything they know about
> training bike racers. (Max, for one, shares alot of knowledge with the public here in NorCal at
> various seminars and via the Sports Performance Program at UC Davis Med Center.) A coach is paid
> for what they know and if they know something that others don't, and it can help the teams'
> riders then the coach is more valuable. He doesn't want a team or rider he's coaching to say, we
> don't need you because we can just go read it in a research paper or a book. You'll also find
> that his riders don't feel compelled to divulge much of the training knowledge they've learned
> from him because they won't give away what they, and others have to pay for, and it protects the
> coach's value.

Not to mention any good scientific journal isn't going to publish some coaches anecdotes about the
success he's had using this or that method with athletes. Coaching knowledge, while valuable and
maybe even valid, hardly falls under the auspices of science. Simply because it lacks any control.

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:

> > He said that a coach isn't going to publish or otherwise make public everything they know about
> > training bike racers. (Max, for one, shares alot of knowledge with the public here in NorCal at
> > various seminars and via the Sports Performance Program at UC Davis Med Center.) A coach is paid
> > for what they know and if they know something that others don't, and it can help the teams'
> > riders then the coach is more valuable. He doesn't want a team or rider he's coaching to say, we
> > don't need you because we can just go read it in a research paper or a book. You'll also find
> > that his riders don't feel compelled to divulge much of the training knowledge they've learned
> > from him because they won't give away what they, and others have to pay for, and it protects the
> > coach's value.
>
> Not to mention any good scientific journal isn't going to publish some coaches anecdotes about the
> success he's had using this or that method with athletes. Coaching knowledge, while valuable and
> maybe even valid, hardly falls under the auspices of science.

"maybe even valid"...? How about, often valid. A good coach will know as much about the science as a
researcher.

> Simply because it lacks any control.

How about years of trial and error with athletes and experiences that the researchers can not
replicate in a formal study?

I agree the coach's ability is not all science. An important part of what is useful is sometimes
more art than science.

BTW, Max played a large part in developing the Mapei Cycling Center in Italy where there is plenty
of athlete testing and research going on, and he and Eric Heiden are now beginning to do the same
thing at the UC-Davis Medical Center in Sacramento.

-WG

 

[Wayne]

> > Not to mention any good scientific journal isn't going to publish some coaches anecdotes about
> > the success he's had using this or that method with athletes. Coaching knowledge, while valuable
> > and maybe even valid, hardly falls under the auspices of science.
>
> "maybe even valid"...? How about, often valid. A good coach will know as much about the science as
> a researcher.

Well, when I say "valid" I mean a coach may have a hypothesis as to what the physiologic basis of a
technique that he thinks is successful with his riders yet unless it is put to the test under some
kind of controlled situation it remains a hypothesis and shouldn't be put forth as fact. The
technique may work, the underlying basis still may remain a mystery.

> > Simply because it lacks any control.
>
> How about years of trial and error with athletes and experiences that the researchers can not
> replicate in a formal study?

That may give the coach great insight into how to train athletes, that doesn't make it science.

> I agree the coach's ability is not all science. An important part of what is useful is sometimes
> more art than science.
>
> BTW, Max played a large part in developing the Mapei Cycling Center in Italy where there is plenty
> of athlete testing and research going on, and he and Eric Heiden are now beginning to do the same
> thing at the UC-Davis Medical Center in Sacramento.

I, in no way, am trying to impeach the reputation of Dr. Testa. He could be right about a millions
things, and still wrong about what we've been discussing in this thread all along. If his thoughts
were as you represented them early in this thread, I think the physiologic literature shows that it
is highly unlikely to be accurate.

Wayne

 

[Risto Varanka]

Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:
: Given that it's been shown that high-fat meals can shift the carbs/fats ratio of energy use
: towards fats (at sub-maximal exercise intensities) thus resulting in a glycogen sparing effect
: wouldn't that make a much more plausible explanation (given that it's known that glycogen
: depletion, not fat depletion is a primary source of fatigue) as to why pro cyclists find it
: advantageous to eat fatty foods early in races?

I gather "all the pro guys" are professionals, but can you try this at home?

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/ varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Risto Varanka]

warren <[email protected]> wrote:
: He said that a coach isn't going to publish or otherwise make public everything they know about
: training bike racers. (Max, for one, shares alot of knowledge with the public here in NorCal at
: various seminars and via the Sports Performance Program at UC Davis Med Center.) A coach is paid
: for what they know and if they know something that others don't, and it can help the teams'
: riders then the coach is more valuable. He doesn't want a team or rider he's coaching to say, we
: don't need you because we can just go read it in a research paper or a book. You'll also find
: that his riders don't feel compelled to divulge much of the training knowledge they've learned
: from him because they won't give away what they, and others have to pay for, and it protects the
: coach's value.

So in the end the publicly available body of research knowledge is the best information source for
us weekend warriors. The coaches we can afford would mostly replicate this information, and if we
could use the real pro coaches, they wouldn't be much use in Usenet discussions anyway...

Though... research can be many kinds. Maybe research that is based largely on participant
observation and tagging along coached teams would result in anecdotal personal knowledge, quite
similar to that a coach has.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/ varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> warren <[email protected]> wrote:
> : He said that a coach isn't going to publish or otherwise make public everything they know about
> : training bike racers. (Max, for one, shares alot of knowledge with the public here in NorCal at
> : various seminars and via the Sports Performance Program at UC Davis Med Center.) A coach is paid
> : for what they know and if they know something that others don't, and it can help the teams'
> : riders then the coach is more valuable. He doesn't want a team or rider he's coaching to say, we
> : don't need you because we can just go read it in a research paper or a book. You'll also find
> : that his riders don't feel compelled to divulge much of the training knowledge they've learned
> : from him because they won't give away what they, and others have to pay for, and it protects the
> : coach's value.
>
> So in the end the publicly available body of research knowledge is the best information source for
> us weekend warriors. The coaches we can afford would mostly replicate this information, and if we
> could use the real pro coaches, they wouldn't be much use in Usenet discussions anyway...

I think you'd find some of the better, and affordable coaches will provide useful information that
is not publicly available and in Max's case he is available to many people through the Sports
Performance Program at UC Davis (very far from Finland). One of the main benefits of a good coach,
including those who are not "pro" caliber, is their ability to interpret your abilities, history and
objectives along with the publicly available knowledge and their own personal experience, and apply
it correctly to help you meet your goals and then use feedback to determine how the training plan
should proceed during the future.

One example, everyone knows about doing 4-5 minute intervals near LT with 4-5 minutes rest, repeat
4-8 times. But the coach should know how often to do these, how long the work and rest intervals
should be, how many should be done, and when they should be done on hills. The coach should also
know what types of training can be done on the same ride as these intervals and what types of
training are best done during the day before and the day after this training.

Here is a good website about exercise physiology, especially the link called "The Big Picture".
http://home.hia.no/~stephens/

-WG

 

[Robert Chung]

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote
> The author is [an] advisor of the Rabobank team and British Cycling fed.

Um, did you mean that as an endorsement?

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Thu, 15 May 2003 07:25:21 +0200, Robert Chung wrote:
>> The author is [an] advisor of the Rabobank team and British Cycling fed.
>
>Um, did you mean that as an endorsement?

You may base your own opinion on these facts. They're fairly well respected cycling organizations
with some results to show for, aren't they? (track for the Brits). More so than Brioches la
Boulangère and Honduras anyway.

 

[Risto Varanka]

Ewoud Dronkert <[email protected]> wrote:
: On 14 May 2003 23:57:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
:>Typically fat metabolism is dominant only on the lower intensities:
:>http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/esource.htm

: Here's a graph with references: http://www.triton.studver.uu.nl/img/vetverbr.gif

We'd still need a carbohydrate burning graph to go with it.

: It says the fat burning rate has a maximum at 73% of MHR, but drops less than 10% in the range 66%
: - 78% of MHR.

Is there much racing done below 80% of MHR? AFAIK that counts as the "tempo" pace - it's for going
fast for a few hours.

What we learn from the graph is that one could train fat burning at the normal aerobic pace - 70% to
80% of MHR, if one rides long enough.

Zones: http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/train_types.html

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/ varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote
> > The author is [an] advisor of the Rabobank team and British Cycling fed.
>
> Um, did you mean that as an endorsement?

I would say that Asker's scientific credentials say far more about his qualifications in this
context than any charity work he's done for Rabobank and the BCF. (Having said that, though, I still
can't believe he got that study published - the fact that fat oxidation rises and then falls with
increasing exercise intensity, reaching a maximum around 50-60% of maximal O2 uptake, has been known
since at least the 1930's.)

Andy Coggan