I would say we can still do a decent job at it... the other way around... I don't think so!

I would be willing to bet that the percentage of doctoral candidates capable of passing the qualifying exam in the opposite field would be equally low.

Care to make that bet interesting? I haven't secured funding for 2008 yet ;-)

Well, you just failed the statistics part of the exam, because clearly one cannot determine the percentage of individuals in a population meeting a certain criteria based on n=1.

bastard!

I don't understand why people get soo hung up on the reason WHY things should be named a specific way, epecially when most of the prinicples that are out there have been around well before our time.

We should in most cases be focusing on the HOW TOO to do things because after rerading most of this astonishingly long thread my only conclusion is I DON"T GIVE A TOSS what it's called just explain me how to do and I'll go out and do it.

Call it what YOU want so long as I understand the underlying principle of what it is. I'm happy.

I think I go and ride a for 2 hrs and pick a gear that is 1-2 gears harder then my normal race gear, as I want to train my muscles to be able to ride a bigger gear for longer periods of time and I might just call that ...................... muscular endurance, why? because its user friendly for us people who are not scientists.

I'll then let the scientitsts go about there job spending soo much time proiving me wrong. At least I'll be training

Paul
________________________________

Hey Paul,

Since I began the thread I'll give you *my* answer (and I won't even call you names) : ^ )


I agree with you that for 99% of the athletes out there, it is far more important to know what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and to a lesser extent why it should be done (in terms of performance, not science).

I think Friel does a decent job of answering the first three questions (at least in his cycling book) and then did the best he could answering the 4th question with his triangle and how he ties "force, speed, and endurance to power, anaerobic endurance, and mucular endurance." Some of the terms he made up himself, which I don't really have a problem with. "Muscular Endurance" is certainly easier to remember than Lactate Threshold or MLSS, or BLAO (or whatever it was). Much like Gordo says to ride "steady" or "mod-hard" instead of at "aerobic threshold" or "at 85% of V02max."

However, coming from a running backgorund and being fairly well versed in the terminology and concepts used there, I ran into a lot of confusion trying to understand Friel's deffinitions...mainly because I had no idea if there were differnces between what happens when you ride a bike versus running. After digging around enough, I found discovered that, in fact, cycling and running are not really that different and I would have been a lot less confused if his triangles were not misleading.

The main point of contention is that he shows "muscular endurance" as being a combination of "endurance & Force" and "anaerobic endurance" as being a combination of "endurance and speed." However, as I discovered through his workouts that as you progress through different intensities, you go through different zones that are similar to running. Lets say 15mph is highly aerobic ("endurance"), 19 mph is "muscular endurance", 22 mph is "anaerobic endurance,"........ok, I understand that and am ok with HIS terminology.....however, I got REALLY confused trying to figure out why "force" is important at 19 mph but then it's not important at all at 22 mph......but then the combination of Froce and speed is important at 30 mph......you need force, but then you don't, but then you do again?


So, Paul, that was MY confusion and my beef. In the end, I'm ok with it as well. My entire goal is to be able to understand what the guy who wrote "the bible" means so that I can understand how to communicate with others (every now and then I get a PM from someone using his terms and had no idea what they were talking about).

Fair enough?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I think that could probably be classed as entrapment. You should sue for potential loss of earnings as an exercise physiologist.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

The limitations of my english were apparently shown above, but I'll go for another round. For me, maybe because I am not a native speaker, "Lactate Threshold" is as easy to remember as "Muscular Endurance". I suspect that to Friel it was too, since he decided to use the term "Lactate Threshold" to designate something else.

Paulo, I'd just like to say that if I could write my second language as fluently as you write English I would be a proud and confident person.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

Man, George Brooks would not be happy to hear this!

  

The limitations of my english were apparently shown above, but I'll go for another round. For me, maybe because I am not a native speaker, "Lactate Threshold" is as easy to remember as "Muscular Endurance". I suspect that to Friel it was too, since he decided to use the term "Lactate Threshold" to designate something else.

___________________________

Paulo,

Again I'm not sure the intention of your post, so bear with me. Since Friel is referring to a range between what he calls "force" and "endurance" I was giving examples of different scientific terms used within that range (assuming he really is refering to the gap between really fast speeds and really long efforts.....can only assume here). I understand now that I was perviously using Lactate Threshold when I should have been using MLSS.....however, I DID mean to use all of those terms in the last post to get across the point I intended to.

So that is the response if you were insinuating that *I* missunderstood you.

Now, as to the concept of remmebering/understanding "muscular endurance" vrs "Lactate Threshold" it has more to do with the fact that you are a research scientist than it does with your English (I know you were not serious about your english). Scientific vocubulary (not to mention the concepts) is very confusing for *most* people. Yes, I know, it doesn't make any sense why it should be.....but it is. People have an easier time associating with concepts that they are familiar with (muscles and endurance) than with terms they don't normaly hear or use (lactate ....except refering to breast feeding ....and threshold....except when refering to their honeymoon).


The real art in teaching is to be able to explain new and challenging ideas in a manner that the student can relate to. How you handle this all depends on the level of the student you are dealing with. For example, a 14 year old boy understands why a football player will run through tires in training even though their are no tires on the field during a game. It then helps them to better understand how an education prepares them for later learning rather than merely providing a them with a set of skills that they will use later in life (trust me.....after enough "when will I ever use this" kind of questions, you figure out ways to explain it).

This is where the 5 training zones and Gordos "easy, steady, mod hard, hard, etc." terms have been very helpful for many athletes. I beleive Friel was attmepting the same thing here with "muscular endurance" and....well.....sometimes you hit, and sometimes you don't.


Mi dos pesos.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Man, George Brooks would not be happy to hear this!
____________________________

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please elaborate? or was that a joke for Paulo?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Hehehehehehehe... to me it also causes me some trouble to be talking about lactate and then say it's related to a % of VO2Max.

"The real art in teaching is to be able to explain new and challenging ideas in a manner that the student can relate to"

And let me add "and still use accurate and proper terminology and concepts"

Nobody profits from dumbing down things. Not the teacher and certainly not the student.

And let me add "and still use accurate and proper terminology and concepts"

Nobody profits from dumbing down things. Not the teacher and certainly not the student.
____________________

I'll leave this one alone since I'm sure you are as versed and experienced in pedagogy as you are in physiology.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

 
Nobody profits from dumbing down things. Not the teacher and certainly not the student.

-
Paulo Sousa



Wrong.

Do you need more explanation?? ;-)


paul

Yes, because your use of the word wrong might mean something else ;-)

And this is my last post on the thread, Jonnyo ORDERED me to let this thread die :-)

http://www.sportlegs.com/about/welcome.asp

3 Systems of muscular energy as most of you guys and gal's know. I thought I would throw this out you may already know it exist.

From the no twitch guy.

T

Is this a joke?

There is so much disinformation there just to sell a product.

I suppose 5 hour energy works too.

jaretj

Barry,

AC has a nice graph in one of his power presentations. Maybe he can post it. It won't answer all of your questions, of course, but I suspect it will help you fine-tune the location of different levels of intensity on a scale. It graphs VO2, HR, lactate, RPE vs power and identifies LT and OBLA/MLSS. What you'll see is that LT is at the point where lactate makes its first significant uptick which always occurs around ~2mmol/L. This is relatively low on the HR and RPE scale. Just thought I'd throw that out...

Thanks, Chris