"Just because someone writes a book does not mean that they are correct or that the book should be followed. Mein Kampf comes to mind as an example. "
Um...isn't it called the Training Bible?
Um...isn't it called the Training Bible?
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [ttracer]
[ In reply to ]
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [ttracer]
[ In reply to ]
Yes, Friel could best be described as the Adolf Hitler of triathlon.
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [saltman]
[ In reply to ]
WOW, it only took 5 pages...
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [ttracer]
[ In reply to ]
Exactly, just as if someone writes a blurb on a message board!
Friel isn't an innovator, he was simply copying the work on the Theory of Methodoloy of Training (Bompa). Heavily documented (and disputed, of course)
But since you are such an expert, please tell me where he is wrong and what methodology produces the greatest gains.
Friel isn't an innovator, he was simply copying the work on the Theory of Methodoloy of Training (Bompa). Heavily documented (and disputed, of course)
But since you are such an expert, please tell me where he is wrong and what methodology produces the greatest gains.
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Diesel]
[ In reply to ]
Where did I say I was an expert? I was mearly responding to your comment above. All I said was that because someone writes a book does not mean they are correct.
The experts are on this thread and are posting, the fact that you are not listening to them is your choice.
Ric
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [ttracer]
[ In reply to ]
All I said was that because someone writes a book does not mean they are correct.
You read incorrectly as Paula didn't write a book. Therefore, not writing a book doesn't mean you are any more correct or incorrect. There is no correlation. However, there are many sources of information (Friel, for example) which is based upon published evidence.
But, I do love Paulo and was sincerely asking him a question. Of course, he didn't really answer it. Well...he did answer it in his fashion, but there's still a gap between Force and Endurance which needs some sort of definition. IMO, he's just upset about the terminology and definitions, not the theory.
You read incorrectly as Paula didn't write a book. Therefore, not writing a book doesn't mean you are any more correct or incorrect. There is no correlation. However, there are many sources of information (Friel, for example) which is based upon published evidence.
But, I do love Paulo and was sincerely asking him a question. Of course, he didn't really answer it. Well...he did answer it in his fashion, but there's still a gap between Force and Endurance which needs some sort of definition. IMO, he's just upset about the terminology and definitions, not the theory.
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [BarryP]
[ In reply to ]
OK, we've hit 100 posts on what was a very simple question. I pretty much knew already what the answer was, but I wanted to throw it out there to see how people felt.
The answer is - it is terminology made popular by Friel that probably meant to simplify a training concept, but instead seems to have made it more confusing.
Many people have said that they know what "muscular endurance" is.....yet many of these answers are contradicting. Others have tried to define it more scientifcaly only to get jumped on by the scientists.
I don't think people here are lacking intelligence, knowlege, or experience....or at least not lacking it to the degree that you'd *expect* them to misunderstand a simple concept written in a book called The Bible (hmmmm....maybe he was trying to emulate the actual Bible? ; ^ ).
I'd like to take a moment to address some issues on this thread and how they relate to running:
There are many factors that directly relate to performance. Some are more important for certain distances while others are more important to other distances (Note: these are very generic...feel free to pick apart).
* Aerobic Development - your body's ability to turn oxygen and other fuel into motion
This is very important for all events lasting longer than 2 minutes. The longer the event, the more important this becomes.
Comparing two individuals, one might get tired after 10 miles of easy running when the other doesn't. It is likely he is not as aerobicaly developed
* Lactate Threshold - the point at which your body produces lactate quicker than it can be removed
This is also very important for events longer than 2 minutes. However, the closer one is to a race near this velocity, the more important training this aspect becomes.
One might get exhausted after an hour or hard running at 6 minutes a mile when the other one isn't. It is likely his lactate threshold is lower.
* V02max - the point at whoch your body is using the maximum amount of oxygen possible for the activity.
Also very important for races longer than 2 minutes. The closer one is to a race at this velocity the more important it becomes.
One might get exhausted racing for 11 minutes when the other isn't. His velocity at V02max is lower.
* The neuro muscular component - this includes coordination, economy, the body's ability to "spring" off of each step, good form (some of these terms are redundant).
Important for all distances, however, the *shorter* the event the more important it becomes.
* The ability to run hills - in many ways this is similar to the neuro muscular component. The only reason why I include it is because slightly different muscles ARE used when running up a hill. You want to train these muscles if you intend to run up a hill in a race.
* Weight - big people are slow for a reason.
* "Force" - important only in the respect that if you apply ZERO force, you cannot move forward. However, the ability to apply a lot of force regardless of how fast it is applied is important for weight lifting competetions, not endurance running.
* "power" - this is F*d/t ...or how quickly you can move a weight (your body...the weight of your limbs..etc). When we talk about this is running terms we are referring to power over a short period of time. Technicaly a marathoner who can put out 100 watts for 3 hours will beat one who weighs the same that can only put out 50 watts......but that isn't what runners mean. They're talking about the amount of power Ben Johnson can push versus Carl Lewis. The longer the distance is the more irrelevant it becomes with the possible exception of the final 50 meters or a race.
* others - flexibility, mental, nutrition, length of legs, etc.
With regard to running, each of these can be considered an attribute or a limiter and they are specific not only to the individual but also to the event that he runs. More often than not, the 1st 4 are very closely related. Being good in one generaly means that you will be good in the others. However, there are minor differences between individuals which is why some people tend to do better at shorter events (quick teenagers in the 800) than in the longer distances (a middle aged marathoner with an aerobic base developed over 40,000 miles of running).
Each one of these components is a contributor at all race distances with different priorities associated to each relative to each distance (Pfitzinger has some good tables) and relative to long term training goals. Each is specific to a certain process that happens in the body and there is pleanty of information on how and when to train each.
The term "Muscular Endurance" IMO is very confusing and, especialy when refering to cycling, leads someone to believe that there is some radicaly different process that relates muscles to endurance that is different from other aspects of endurance....as if it was related to strength...or strength over time...or something. The process that occurs in the body has been completely ignored...or at least not explained very well.
In Going Long I believe Gordo explained it as, "1 st you want to work on your endurance. Then your muscular endurance. This is the ability to push a really big gear for a long time." What does he mean by "big gear" and "long time?" That was all he said! It's the #2 priority and that was the explanation he gave! (...don't want to be too critical...it was a pretty good book).
The best I can tell, when they say ME they really mean Lactate Threshold. It has nothing to do with force, power, big gears, etc.....it directly corresponds to your CP60 and it is the point where your body produces more lactate than it can remove and, yes, there is a certain "feeling" associated with it, yes it is imporatant, yes it can limit you in a race.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
The answer is - it is terminology made popular by Friel that probably meant to simplify a training concept, but instead seems to have made it more confusing.
Many people have said that they know what "muscular endurance" is.....yet many of these answers are contradicting. Others have tried to define it more scientifcaly only to get jumped on by the scientists.
I don't think people here are lacking intelligence, knowlege, or experience....or at least not lacking it to the degree that you'd *expect* them to misunderstand a simple concept written in a book called The Bible (hmmmm....maybe he was trying to emulate the actual Bible? ; ^ ).
I'd like to take a moment to address some issues on this thread and how they relate to running:
There are many factors that directly relate to performance. Some are more important for certain distances while others are more important to other distances (Note: these are very generic...feel free to pick apart).
* Aerobic Development - your body's ability to turn oxygen and other fuel into motion
This is very important for all events lasting longer than 2 minutes. The longer the event, the more important this becomes.
Comparing two individuals, one might get tired after 10 miles of easy running when the other doesn't. It is likely he is not as aerobicaly developed
* Lactate Threshold - the point at which your body produces lactate quicker than it can be removed
This is also very important for events longer than 2 minutes. However, the closer one is to a race near this velocity, the more important training this aspect becomes.
One might get exhausted after an hour or hard running at 6 minutes a mile when the other one isn't. It is likely his lactate threshold is lower.
* V02max - the point at whoch your body is using the maximum amount of oxygen possible for the activity.
Also very important for races longer than 2 minutes. The closer one is to a race at this velocity the more important it becomes.
One might get exhausted racing for 11 minutes when the other isn't. His velocity at V02max is lower.
* The neuro muscular component - this includes coordination, economy, the body's ability to "spring" off of each step, good form (some of these terms are redundant).
Important for all distances, however, the *shorter* the event the more important it becomes.
* The ability to run hills - in many ways this is similar to the neuro muscular component. The only reason why I include it is because slightly different muscles ARE used when running up a hill. You want to train these muscles if you intend to run up a hill in a race.
* Weight - big people are slow for a reason.
* "Force" - important only in the respect that if you apply ZERO force, you cannot move forward. However, the ability to apply a lot of force regardless of how fast it is applied is important for weight lifting competetions, not endurance running.
* "power" - this is F*d/t ...or how quickly you can move a weight (your body...the weight of your limbs..etc). When we talk about this is running terms we are referring to power over a short period of time. Technicaly a marathoner who can put out 100 watts for 3 hours will beat one who weighs the same that can only put out 50 watts......but that isn't what runners mean. They're talking about the amount of power Ben Johnson can push versus Carl Lewis. The longer the distance is the more irrelevant it becomes with the possible exception of the final 50 meters or a race.
* others - flexibility, mental, nutrition, length of legs, etc.
With regard to running, each of these can be considered an attribute or a limiter and they are specific not only to the individual but also to the event that he runs. More often than not, the 1st 4 are very closely related. Being good in one generaly means that you will be good in the others. However, there are minor differences between individuals which is why some people tend to do better at shorter events (quick teenagers in the 800) than in the longer distances (a middle aged marathoner with an aerobic base developed over 40,000 miles of running).
Each one of these components is a contributor at all race distances with different priorities associated to each relative to each distance (Pfitzinger has some good tables) and relative to long term training goals. Each is specific to a certain process that happens in the body and there is pleanty of information on how and when to train each.
The term "Muscular Endurance" IMO is very confusing and, especialy when refering to cycling, leads someone to believe that there is some radicaly different process that relates muscles to endurance that is different from other aspects of endurance....as if it was related to strength...or strength over time...or something. The process that occurs in the body has been completely ignored...or at least not explained very well.
In Going Long I believe Gordo explained it as, "1 st you want to work on your endurance. Then your muscular endurance. This is the ability to push a really big gear for a long time." What does he mean by "big gear" and "long time?" That was all he said! It's the #2 priority and that was the explanation he gave! (...don't want to be too critical...it was a pretty good book).
The best I can tell, when they say ME they really mean Lactate Threshold. It has nothing to do with force, power, big gears, etc.....it directly corresponds to your CP60 and it is the point where your body produces more lactate than it can remove and, yes, there is a certain "feeling" associated with it, yes it is imporatant, yes it can limit you in a race.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [fredly]
[ In reply to ]
i humbly suggest to you sir fredly: if you were an older, somewhat heavier rider who spent most of your time training for 3-18 mile tt's and crits, squeezing in the occasional sub-55/60 min 40km as your longest distance event, that the moment your IM/ultra friends took you out for a century on mixed (not particularly hilly, but not totally flat) terrain, you might also find it a challenge to finish. maybe a sports pyschologist could help, but then we'd be talking about CNS effects on endurance, which was PRECISELY my point when i started participating in this wretched thread.
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
I was always under the impression that the use of terms aerobic endurance (AE) and muscular endurance (ME) was an attempt to apply a descriptor (for a layman's purpose) to the type of training one can do to improve muscular vs cardiovascular fatigue. Yes, I'm sure he realizes those two go hand in hand (not either/or) but there are many ways to improve your endurance and I believe Friel was just using a specific term to help the athlete associate the use of turning a bigger gear for a long(er) period of time via a specific workout which just so happens to make the muscles feel like they're working harder than than the lungs.
Sometimes it actually works much better for an athlete when a coach uses layman-like terms even at the expense of deluding the scientific or real definition. Although, it is amazing how many people think they have an ME limiter simply because of how much their muscles (and not their lungs) hurt by mile 18 of the run.
Thanks, Chris
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [saltman]
[ In reply to ]
Forgive me, but I am still confused, if I can run 26 miles at a 9 minute pace, but only 4 miles at a 7 minute pace. Am I lacking speed or endurance? Ignoring the nuerological component.
______________________
If these are both race paces, then you are probably lacking endurance. Someone who his well trainined for a marathon who can run 4 miles in 28 minutes should be able to run a marathon @ 8 minutes/mile.
Use this calculator for other references:
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/...unningcalculator.htm
If you get the chance to read through my long ass post, note that "speed" (which usualy either refers to "spritning power"....the ability to cover 100 meters really fast, or (incorrectly) the neuro-muscular component that combines with all other endurance elements to allow you to run the middle distances well (800-1600 meters)) is a low priority for any distance above 4 miles, and only of small significance for races between 3 and 4 miles (if refering to middle distance "speed"...if sprinting speed then almost no significance).
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
______________________
If these are both race paces, then you are probably lacking endurance. Someone who his well trainined for a marathon who can run 4 miles in 28 minutes should be able to run a marathon @ 8 minutes/mile.
Use this calculator for other references:
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/...unningcalculator.htm
If you get the chance to read through my long ass post, note that "speed" (which usualy either refers to "spritning power"....the ability to cover 100 meters really fast, or (incorrectly) the neuro-muscular component that combines with all other endurance elements to allow you to run the middle distances well (800-1600 meters)) is a low priority for any distance above 4 miles, and only of small significance for races between 3 and 4 miles (if refering to middle distance "speed"...if sprinting speed then almost no significance).
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Diesel]
[ In reply to ]
But, I do love Paulo and was sincerely asking him a question. Of course, he didn't really answer it. Well...he did answer it in his fashion, but there's still a gap between Force and Endurance which needs some sort of definition. IMO, he's just upset about the terminology and definitions, not the theory.
___________________
Some one who can apply a lot of Force can lift a lot of weight (like squat 500 lbs) once in a very slow manner. This is unrelated to "endurance."
Did you mean something else? Comparing force to endurance is like comparing color to endurance.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
___________________
Some one who can apply a lot of Force can lift a lot of weight (like squat 500 lbs) once in a very slow manner. This is unrelated to "endurance."
Did you mean something else? Comparing force to endurance is like comparing color to endurance.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [BarryP]
[ In reply to ]
"The best I can tell, when they say ME they really mean Lactate Threshold. It has nothing to do with force, power, big gears, etc.....it directly corresponds to your CP60 and it is the point where your body produces more lactate than it can remove and, yes, there is a certain "feeling" associated with it, yes it is imporatant, yes it can limit you in a race. "
So it has nothing to do with force or power, but is directly corresponds to CP60. Now we only need to figure out what the "C" and the "P" in CP60 stand for and we'll be all set. Can we then bring this thread to a close?
:)
JFT.
�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo
MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.
So it has nothing to do with force or power, but is directly corresponds to CP60. Now we only need to figure out what the "C" and the "P" in CP60 stand for and we'll be all set. Can we then bring this thread to a close?
:)
JFT.
�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo
MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
What I mean is, when we call it a "power-duration curve", I expect it to be a curve where power decays as some relatively simple function of time. But looking at it a little more closely, it seems that many people have what appears to be an unexplained "sweet spot" where the curve flattens out unexpectedly, or a "dead spot", where the curve drops off unexpectedly.
So I understand two equivalent 5k runners whose abilities diverge at 10k - one has more endurance. But I do not understand what could make their abilities converge again at 20k or a marathon.
So I understand two equivalent 5k runners whose abilities diverge at 10k - one has more endurance. But I do not understand what could make their abilities converge again at 20k or a marathon.
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [BarryP]
[ In reply to ]
I appreciate the 5 pages, but it seems rather trivial. I've given examples before and there are all sorts of "real world" examples at every bike race (seems easier to pick on cyclists than runners)...
I'll try my question one more time:
What is the gap or reason between a region I and region II cyclist?
I know these guys...they exist. They are all over the place. Two guys, simliar size, simliar age, etc...one can ride flat TT / the other can kick ass on the hills. Of course there are numerous factors involved, but up until your "LT" post, it hasn't been discussed.
While you guys are harping on Friel, he still seems to be the only one making sense.
I'll try my question one more time:
What is the gap or reason between a region I and region II cyclist?
I know these guys...they exist. They are all over the place. Two guys, simliar size, simliar age, etc...one can ride flat TT / the other can kick ass on the hills. Of course there are numerous factors involved, but up until your "LT" post, it hasn't been discussed.
While you guys are harping on Friel, he still seems to be the only one making sense.
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [lakerfan]
[ In reply to ]
I was always under the impression that the use of terms aerobic endurance (AE) and muscular endurance (ME) was an attempt to apply a descriptor (for a layman's purpose) to the type of training one can do to improve muscular vs cardiovascular fatigue. Yes, I'm sure he realizes those two go hand in hand (not either/or) but there are many ways to improve your endurance and I believe Friel was just using a specific term to help the athlete associate the use of turning a bigger gear for a long(er) period of time via a specific workout which just so happens to make the muscles feel like they're working harder than than the lungs.
Sometimes it actually works much better for an athlete when a coach uses layman-like terms even at the expense of deluding the scientific or real definition. Although, it is amazing how many people think they have an ME limiter simply because of how much their muscles (and not their lungs) hurt by mile 18 of the run.
____________________________________________________________
I think you hit it here. What I don't understand is just how dumb he thinks the layman is. By this I mean, in order to read his book and get anything out of it, you must be reasonably intelligent. Trust me, I've looked through about 15 tri and cycling books recently and his is one of the more advanced. A term like "muscular endurance" and his lack of a *reasonable* definition for it is the kind of answer you give an audience that you don't expect to really learn anything, but you need to give them a reason for doing the day's workout. This is completely inconsitent with everything else he writes in his book. It's like going to calculus class and having the teacher telling you to just start moving numbers around and making up a name for the process like "equation enhancing."
______
"of turning a bigger gear for a long(er) period of time via a specific workout which just so happens to make the muscles feel like they're working harder than than the lungs. "
_____
The biggest problem (and confusion) I had coming into triathlon was that he carried this term over into running and you simply don't have that sensation (at least none of the runners *I* know do...maybe thick legged bikers do). Why couldn't he take it one step further and say, "I define this term to mean (what you just said). This typiclay happens around CP60. There is a change that occurs in your body that is beyond the scope of this book, but it is important to work on. Don't confuse this with the feeling you get in your legs after 6 hours of riding or hammering up and down hills. That is different."......if in fact he IS talking about LT (we still aren;t sure).
_____
Although, it is amazing how many people think they have an ME limiter simply because of how much their muscles (and not their lungs) hurt by mile 18 of the run.
_____
And that is my beef. Either these people are stupid, or it is a poorly described concept. I'll go with #2 (though his book is better than most).
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Sometimes it actually works much better for an athlete when a coach uses layman-like terms even at the expense of deluding the scientific or real definition. Although, it is amazing how many people think they have an ME limiter simply because of how much their muscles (and not their lungs) hurt by mile 18 of the run.
____________________________________________________________
I think you hit it here. What I don't understand is just how dumb he thinks the layman is. By this I mean, in order to read his book and get anything out of it, you must be reasonably intelligent. Trust me, I've looked through about 15 tri and cycling books recently and his is one of the more advanced. A term like "muscular endurance" and his lack of a *reasonable* definition for it is the kind of answer you give an audience that you don't expect to really learn anything, but you need to give them a reason for doing the day's workout. This is completely inconsitent with everything else he writes in his book. It's like going to calculus class and having the teacher telling you to just start moving numbers around and making up a name for the process like "equation enhancing."
______
"of turning a bigger gear for a long(er) period of time via a specific workout which just so happens to make the muscles feel like they're working harder than than the lungs. "
_____
The biggest problem (and confusion) I had coming into triathlon was that he carried this term over into running and you simply don't have that sensation (at least none of the runners *I* know do...maybe thick legged bikers do). Why couldn't he take it one step further and say, "I define this term to mean (what you just said). This typiclay happens around CP60. There is a change that occurs in your body that is beyond the scope of this book, but it is important to work on. Don't confuse this with the feeling you get in your legs after 6 hours of riding or hammering up and down hills. That is different."......if in fact he IS talking about LT (we still aren;t sure).
_____
Although, it is amazing how many people think they have an ME limiter simply because of how much their muscles (and not their lungs) hurt by mile 18 of the run.
_____
And that is my beef. Either these people are stupid, or it is a poorly described concept. I'll go with #2 (though his book is better than most).
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Mito Chondria]
[ In reply to ]
I just learned the term yesterday ; ^ )
Sustainabel power for 60 minutes.....or 60 minute race pace. I think the P stands for Power. C...probably for ....uh.....cookies?
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Sustainabel power for 60 minutes.....or 60 minute race pace. I think the P stands for Power. C...probably for ....uh.....cookies?
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Diesel]
[ In reply to ]
I know these guys...they exist. They are all over the place. Two guys, simliar size, simliar age, etc...one can ride flat TT / the other can kick ass on the hills. Of course there are numerous factors involved, but up until your "LT" post, it hasn't been discussed.
While you guys are harping on Friel, he still seems to be the only one making sense.
_______________________________
Ahhhhh....ok. I remember the question. Paulo answered the flat vrs hill question. Light guys vs aerodynamic guys.
I'm going to assume a deeper meaning relating "guys who can 40K TT well versus guys who can do the long stage." Like Paulo and AC said, it's ALL endurance and that endurance is ALL (mostly) related to the muscles. The difference that I posted about running should still apply to cycling - different levels of aerobic development, different LT, different V02max......like I said, I *think* Friel is really referring to LT (I have to infer this becasue the workouts that I've seen prescribed to work on ME are LT workouts.....though I'm getting that from different sources. I'm only 60 pages into his cycling book).
Friel makes sense if you understand him (and if you are right in thinking that you understand him). ; ^ )
The problem that some of us have is that we learned what is going on in the muscles when you train a long time ago and his terminology and explanations lead to a lot of confusion (ie 5 pages of arguing over what he means ; ^ ).
Paulo and AC make sense. You just have to speak Phd ( I speak conversational Phd.....but my grammar is poor ; ^ )
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
While you guys are harping on Friel, he still seems to be the only one making sense.
_______________________________
Ahhhhh....ok. I remember the question. Paulo answered the flat vrs hill question. Light guys vs aerodynamic guys.
I'm going to assume a deeper meaning relating "guys who can 40K TT well versus guys who can do the long stage." Like Paulo and AC said, it's ALL endurance and that endurance is ALL (mostly) related to the muscles. The difference that I posted about running should still apply to cycling - different levels of aerobic development, different LT, different V02max......like I said, I *think* Friel is really referring to LT (I have to infer this becasue the workouts that I've seen prescribed to work on ME are LT workouts.....though I'm getting that from different sources. I'm only 60 pages into his cycling book).
Friel makes sense if you understand him (and if you are right in thinking that you understand him). ; ^ )
The problem that some of us have is that we learned what is going on in the muscles when you train a long time ago and his terminology and explanations lead to a lot of confusion (ie 5 pages of arguing over what he means ; ^ ).
Paulo and AC make sense. You just have to speak Phd ( I speak conversational Phd.....but my grammar is poor ; ^ )
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Diesel]
[ In reply to ]
While you guys are harping on Friel, he still seems to be the only one making sense.
_______________
PS - I'm harping on him, but there IS a reason I bought his cycling book. It's not bad. It just seems IMO that running books have been much better about attacking these issues. But I am biased! ; )
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
_______________
PS - I'm harping on him, but there IS a reason I bought his cycling book. It's not bad. It just seems IMO that running books have been much better about attacking these issues. But I am biased! ; )
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [BarryP]
[ In reply to ]
Might as well string this out to 10 to 15 pages...
Why stop at ME; what about power and Anaerobic endurance?
Why stop at ME; what about power and Anaerobic endurance?
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [dawhead]
[ In reply to ]
"i humbly suggest to you sir fredly: if you were an older, somewhat heavier rider who spent most of your time training for 3-18 mile tt's and crits, squeezing in the occasional sub-55/60 min 40km as your longest distance event, that the moment your IM/ultra friends took you out for a century on mixed (not particularly hilly, but not totally flat) terrain, you might also find it a challenge to finish. maybe a sports pyschologist could help, but then we'd be talking about CNS effects on endurance..."
A fine suggestion, but not what was stated in the post I responded to.
Funny how this started at "52 minute 40k" and is now up to an hour. If you keep lowering the number, eventually no one will be able to argue the validity of your point.
.
Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/
A fine suggestion, but not what was stated in the post I responded to.
Funny how this started at "52 minute 40k" and is now up to an hour. If you keep lowering the number, eventually no one will be able to argue the validity of your point.
.
Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Diesel]
[ In reply to ]
Paula did write a book, I forget what's the name. But you're on amazon often, I'm sure you'll find it.
There is a large gap between Force and Endurance because they're two distinct things. If you're so fond of the triangle, it is important that you understand it well. For an example of something that is halfway between Force and Endurance, let's think of doing squats at say 80% of your maximum load. If you want to mantain this exercise for a long time, then you will need to have endurance specific to that exercise, because it's an exercise where both Force and Endurance are important. However, even though that is somewhat halfway between Force and Endurance, I wouldn't call it muscular endurance either, because it would be a term that it wouldn't make any sense.
Bottom line here is, the term muscular endurance never makes much sense.
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Paulo]
[ In reply to ]
Post deleted by dennis
[ In reply to ]
Re: The Official "Muscular Endurance" thread [Paulo]
[ In reply to ]
Who knew?
Fernanda Paula Sousa Maia DID write a book!!!
Congrats....
Fernanda Paula Sousa Maia DID write a book!!!
Congrats....
I actually meant PNF ;-)