Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 11:51

Post #226 of 361 (10140 views)

In Reply To:

The SIMPLEST beginnings to a study that had the actual intentions of discerning whether or not, (and then eventually HOW) RT improves performance in endurance sport, would be to apply a scientific model that would allow the benefits of RT to appear, vs. squelching any possible benefit with a model that gives it NO chance. The model that exists in all the (exhaustively) aforementioned studies follows the model that everyone here worthy of calling themselves coaches, scientists, etc KNOWS wont allow for the benefit (possible or not), to appear.

That applies to all studies, including those on PowerCranks that last 5 weeks that people point to as "proof" the cranks don't work as advertised.

There are a lot of variables at work here. A good study on athletic performance is extremely difficult to perform and there are not very many of them out there such that these controversies continue to rage despite the work that has been done, despite the very vocal musings of some here that these studies are definitive.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [BarryP] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 11:53

Post #227 of 361 (10136 views)

In Reply To:

Quote:

More than a minute and you are talking "endurance"? Really? I think one could talk about 50 rep strength, or 100 rep strength, or 1000 rep strength without needing to call it 1000 rep endurance. Strength does not have a single definition. There is no "redefining" strength. One must define what they are talking about each time one talks about "strength" or people are going to be confuse.

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. The problem is, people do get confused, which is why they go to the gym to work on their "muscular endurance."

Quote:

Coggan's definitions are so narrow they are essentially irrelevant to what the poster is talking about.

But no one knows what the hell he is talking about. That's the problem.

Quote:

Not necessarily. If one has a 50 hp car and the same car with a 51 hp engine there will be essentially zero difference in gas mileage when cruising but one will climb better. Which engine would race better? Aren't we talking about race performance and not just "gas mileage". It is not clear that the analogy works in humans but I think that is the appropriate analogy.

Are you trying to argue that in human endurance racing that max rep strength is relavent? If so, then you are wrong no matter how much you twist my analogy around to suit your argument.

Quote:

Of course Lance has a huge aerobic engine. But, what of all those videos of Lance doing strength training using those weight things?

Because Lance needs the ability to sprint. If triathlons start allowing drafting causing breakaway speed to be a critical factor in triathlon performance, then leg strength will actually become quite important.................so that they can SPRINT.

Lance needs the ability to sprint? News to me. In what way does he need this ability?

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:03

Post #228 of 361 (10131 views)

In Reply To:

In Reply To:

The SIMPLEST beginnings to a study that had the actual intentions of discerning whether or not, (and then eventually HOW) RT improves performance in endurance sport, would be to apply a scientific model that would allow the benefits of RT to appear, vs. squelching any possible benefit with a model that gives it NO chance. The model that exists in all the (exhaustively) aforementioned studies follows the model that everyone here worthy of calling themselves coaches, scientists, etc KNOWS wont allow for the benefit (possible or not), to appear.

That applies to all studies, including those on PowerCranks that last 5 weeks that people point to as "proof" the cranks don't work as advertised.

There are a lot of variables at work here. A good study on athletic performance is extremely difficult to perform and there are not very many of them out there such that these controversies continue to rage despite the work that has been done, despite the very vocal musings of some here that these studies are definitive.

I honestly DO NOT believe that there is any controversy, other than the manufactured-controversy here on ST. And yes, there are MANY discrepancies(you said variables, but we are talking about the same thing) in the model. I just focused on two that are glaringly obvious, so that anyone reading beyond an elementary school level could breeze thru this thread and easily grasp the gist.

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [BarryP] [ In reply to ]

JimmyRiccitello

Jan 20, 10 12:04

Post #229 of 361 (10128 views)

However, when people hear that they often think that being "strong" is good for running and conclude that they should go to the weight room and get "stronger." When getting "stronger" in the weight room, they do so by trying to increase their one rep (or low rep) maximum strength. This is completely different than the ability to run hills at 5-7 minutes a mile.

But running hills also helps you run better on the flats. Hill repeats is not strength work - really?

Maybe the Mammoth Track Team avoids the hills up there, but you may want to tell Coach Terrance (coach of Mammoth Track Club - Meb, Hall, others) that he is confusing lots of people, and that he really means something else when he says that strength training plays a part in the team's program:

You began coaching the team in 2005, after Joe Vigil retired. What was that transition like? I imagine that you and Vigil have many similarities in terms of coaching styles, but also some differences.
As an exercise physiologist, coach Vigil taught me all of that stuff and that�s still what we use to this day. What I brought to the table was that at that time I was doing a lot of strength and conditioning and sports therapy, so I started to integrate that more into the system than we had in the past. Then over the past couple of years I have started to bring biomechanics into the mix.
Right now the big difference with us is that I integrate all of that into the program, whereas it was sort of contracted out in the past�Deena had her own personal trainer, Meb had his own personal trainer, and so forth. It�s much easier for me to oversee everything because I know what�s going on and how to cycle all those different components from a stress standpoint.

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:23

Post #230 of 361 (10106 views)

In Reply To:

Two critical points that the strength training advocates are aware exists in every piece of published research, that the anti-strength training group puts forth to bolster their argument is:
Every study.
1. when RT (resistance training) is added to one control group, that group is not provided with a program that is going to be of any real benefit in terms of rep scheme or exercise choice. (there are other factors, but these two are key, IMHO).
2. when RT is added to one control group, their is no modification to the training schedule that would allow for recovery from the RT sessions, so at BEST the control group is going to suffer from insufficient recovery and therefore beginning and overreaching and eventually an over-training incident.

Your claims are patently NOT true (as anyone who has read the scientific literature knows). Bastiaans et al., for example, had their resistance-training subjects replace a portion of their on-bike training with "explosive" weight training that was specifically designed to attempt to improve cycling performance. Yet, they found no significant improvements, even in a 30 s Wingate test conducted at a ridiculously-low 50 rpm.

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:25

Post #231 of 361 (10099 views)

But Andy, the Internet said he was right and some coaches who wrote books. You can't argue with that sort of evidence!!!

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:26

Post #232 of 361 (10099 views)

In Reply To:

I honestly DO NOT believe that there is any controversy, other than the manufactured-controversy here on ST.

You're right, there isn't: exercise physiologists and sports scientists recognize that there is neither direct research support for the notion that competitive endurance cyclists can improve their performance via lifting weights to increase their strength, nor is there really any logical reason why they should. OTOH, coaches and athletes have come to believe that it does, even though 1) objective evidence is lacking (see above), and 2) 20 y ago they believed exactly the opposite (again in the absence of any direct data).

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Kiwicoach] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:27

Post #233 of 361 (10098 views)

In Reply To:

But Andy, the Internet said he was right and some coaches who wrote books. You can't argue with that sort of evidence!!!

:-)

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:31

Post #234 of 361 (10094 views)

In Reply To:

In Reply To:

Two critical points that the strength training advocates are aware exists in every piece of published research, that the anti-strength training group puts forth to bolster their argument is:
Every study.
1. when RT (resistance training) is added to one control group, that group is not provided with a program that is going to be of any real benefit in terms of rep scheme or exercise choice. (there are other factors, but these two are key, IMHO).
2. when RT is added to one control group, their is no modification to the training schedule that would allow for recovery from the RT sessions, so at BEST the control group is going to suffer from insufficient recovery and therefore beginning and overreaching and eventually an over-training incident.

Your claims are patently NOT true (as anyone who has read the scientific literature knows). Bastiaans et al., for example, had their resistance-training subjects replace a portion of their on-bike training with "explosive" weight training that was specifically designed to attempt to improve cycling performance. Yet, they found no significant improvements, even in a 30 s Wingate test conducted at a ridiculously-low 50 rpm.

PRECISELY what I am talking about Andy, look at your last few posts. 240 and on.
1. you start your DODGE by going to explosive training, then you go further in your next post and hedge the subject by going strictly to cycling.

My only question for you would be: do you think you are fooling anyone?

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:32

Post #235 of 361 (10088 views)

In Reply To:

In Reply To:

In Reply To:

There is nothing wrong with saying, "I want to become a stronger cyclist." There is nothing wrong with referring to "Big Gear Intervals" as strength training. There is nothing wrong with referring to running hill repeats, as strength training.

Except, of course, for the fact that it confuses people, and in particular leads them to believe that strength is a determinant of endurance cycling performance (which it is not).

No, it only seems to confuse you. You are, seemingly, so anal that you cannot understand this use of the term strength, as found in the ordinary dictionary and not in your technical jargon dictionary and as trying to be discussed by them. You are technically correct, according to your definition. But, your input adds essentially zero to this conversation which is about something entirely different that happens to be using the ordinary dictionary definition of strength.

Precise communication of precise ideas requires precise use of precise terminology. Or IOW...

...get w/ the program, or continue to wallow in ignorance. ;-)

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:33

Post #236 of 361 (10086 views)

Well, me for a start, probably Alex and Ric. But then Andy does write a lot of stuff on the net and has written a book on training with a power meter so perhaps I shouldn't trust him so much.

Dodge? Isn't that Frank's last name?

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:34

Post #237 of 361 (10086 views)

In Reply To:

In Reply To:

In Reply To:

Two critical points that the strength training advocates are aware exists in every piece of published research, that the anti-strength training group puts forth to bolster their argument is:
Every study.
1. when RT (resistance training) is added to one control group, that group is not provided with a program that is going to be of any real benefit in terms of rep scheme or exercise choice. (there are other factors, but these two are key, IMHO).
2. when RT is added to one control group, their is no modification to the training schedule that would allow for recovery from the RT sessions, so at BEST the control group is going to suffer from insufficient recovery and therefore beginning and overreaching and eventually an over-training incident.

Your claims are patently NOT true (as anyone who has read the scientific literature knows). Bastiaans et al., for example, had their resistance-training subjects replace a portion of their on-bike training with "explosive" weight training that was specifically designed to attempt to improve cycling performance. Yet, they found no significant improvements, even in a 30 s Wingate test conducted at a ridiculously-low 50 rpm.

PRECISELY what I am talking about Andy, look at your last few posts. 240 and on.
1. you start your DODGE by going to explosive training, then you go further in your next post and hedge the subject by going strictly to cycling.

Pardon my French, but WTF are you talking about?!? You claimed that no study has been designed to 1) control for the potential increase in overall training load, and the resultant fatigue, and 2) w/ recognition of the specific demands of cycling. All I did was point out that you are wrong (and provided the reference to prove it).

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:40

Post #238 of 361 (10075 views)

In Reply To:

Two critical points that the strength training advocates are aware exists in every piece of published research, that the anti-strength training group puts forth to bolster their argument is:
Every study.
1. when RT (resistance training) is added to one control group, that group is not provided with a program that is going to be of any real benefit in terms of rep scheme or exercise choice. (there are other factors, but these two are key, IMHO).
2. when RT is added to one control group, their is no modification to the training schedule that would allow for recovery from the RT sessions, so at BEST the control group is going to suffer from insufficient recovery and therefore beginning and overreaching and eventually an over-training incident.

Utter crap. Costill study (emphasis added):

Quote:

To determine the value of dry-land resistance training on front crawl swimming performance, two groups of 12 intercollegiate male swimmers were equated based upon preswimming performance, swim power values, and stroke specialties. Throughout the 14 wk of their competitive swimming season, both swim training group (SWIM, N = 12) and combined swim and resistance training group (COMBO, N = 12) swam together 6 d a week. In addition, the COMBO engaged in a 8-wk resistance training program 3 d a week. The resistance training was intended to simulate the muscle and swimming actions employed during front crawl swimming. Both COMBO and SWIM had significant (P < 0.05) but similar power gains as measured on the biokinetic swim bench and during a tethered swim over the 14-wk period. No change in distance per stroke was observed throughout the course of this investigation. No significant differences were found between the groups in any of the swim power and swimming performance tests. In this investigation, dry-land resistance training did not improve swimming performance despite the fact that the COMBO was able to increase the resistance used during strength training by 25-35%. The lack of a positive transfer between dry-land strength gains and swimming propulsive force may be due to the specificity of training.

They got stronger doing swim-specific resistance training. Their swimming didn't improve one iota, even though they got stronger. They weren't fatigued, either (dps didn't change compared to control, swimming speed didn't change compared to control). Costill was their coach, and I suspect he knew what he was doing.

Nice try.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 12:49

Post #239 of 361 (10058 views)

have a break in the weather that looks like its going to close soon, so going to hit my run now. I'll reply tonite after dinner.

cheers,

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 13:48

Post #240 of 361 (10029 views)

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrkk Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

1. There is no confusion whatsoever amongst the exercise science and highly educated coaching community as to the role strength has and strength training has on endurance performance. There are a few outliers amongst this group who keep trying to convince everyone else otherwise, but the fact remains as has been stated numerous times by Andrew Coggan and others in this thread. Why are there some coaches who think strength is so important to endurance performance? I don't know, you'd have to ask them, they've all got their own reasons, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with who taught them during their whole 8 hours of education to get their coaching qualifications and their own personal beliefs and interests. Any of the "evidence based coaches" around are in no way confused though. That isn't to say they don't program strength training for other reasons.

2. The definitions used are not technical jargon used to just confuse the matter. It is an agreed definition in the world of exercise and exercise science. It doesn't matter what dictionary definitions you can bring up. Strength is tested with 1RM because that is the test for the strength as it is defined. You just can't keep extending strength to 10 reps, 100 reps etc... It is imperative we all talk about exercise in the same language so that across borders, continents and worlds apart we have a common language that we all understand and that is accurate and precise. Of all people Frank, you should have a basic understanding of this requirement coming from a medical background, yet you continue to argue using incorrect terminology and refuse the accepted definitions that we are talk with. Unbelievable.

3. I find it amazing that people are arguing with some truly world renowned experts in the field. These people do this for a living, it is what they eat for breakfast lunch and tea, they are professionals of the highest standing in their fields yet some people here with an interest in the field think they know better. Andrew Coggan is one of the worlds leading experts on exercise physiology and specifically as it's his interest how it pertains to cycling. Alex Simmons is a professional coach and rapidly building a reputation as one of Australia's best cycling coaches. Coaches a current World Masters 1 Hour Record Holder. So one from the "science" world and one from the "coaching" world and they are in total agreeance.

4. Seriously this thread just amazes me. Frank Day you come across as an absolute moron. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about. You just must like the sound of your own fingers typing because nothing you type makes any sense to anybody else and I'm yet to read a worthwhile contribution from you to this forum with the exception of your recommendation to use Maxis Refuse as a tyre. You have an extremely poor understanding of exercise physiology and absolutely no capacity to learn from others. If you are here to teach - give up because you've clearly held on to the "50% wrong" material you learnt in college and forgotten the 50% right. If you are here to learn the for christs sake you will need to leave your previous brain at the door because it simply isn't absorbing any of what anyone is trying to teach you.

5. There is no correlation between strength and endurance cycling performance.

6. That doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't strength train - there are definate benefits of strength training, the benefits just don't connect with your triathlon cycling performance, but rather general health.

Perhaps some of you need to train more because you clearly aren't learning as fast as you should. http://www.smh.com.au/...d-20100119-mj77.html

I do mean to be harsh, because seriously, this thread has demonstrated the softly educative approach just isn't working for some people.

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 13:51

Post #241 of 361 (10270 views)

Quote:

Lance needs the ability to sprint? News to me. In what way does he need this ability?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQDjqAkLUB0

18 seconds in: "The big thing about Armstrong, he has the acceleration when he needs it."

Gee, Frank, what do you think that means? Now here's a challenge for you, find one video or article where anyone talks about a triathlete "needing acceleration" on a bike.

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

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Dynamic Du] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 14:37

Post #242 of 361 (10362 views)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but still going to argue. If ANYTHING, most of what you said only further supports the claim that true research is needed. (yeah, weather came in sooner than hoped so.........I'm back!).

I'll dissect what's been said and clearly illustrate the errors in a bit.

cheers,

but just off the cuff, before I go grab a shower and while garmin is uploading,

1. FACT is, that research that has been done, does indicate what people like coggan support, nobody disputes that. what is definitely under dispute is the fact that none of these studies was conducted in a fashion that could allow resistance training to produce a result other than "NO result".

2. definitions are definitions, but if someone tries to defend their position within the argument by commencing a shell-game with those definitions, then they are doing so for a purpose. The reader can decide what that purpose may be.

3. Gore is a world renowned expert too. So, I'd skip on this argument if I were you; it wont help.

4. I agree that the futility of the opposing view does tend to vex, when its so clear that they are wrong. the really great thing is that time will bear me out to be right, its just a matter of time till those same periodicals print peer reviewed data to support claims contrary to yours. Your world is not flat, you just haven't sailed far enough yet.

5. Sure their is, you just are clearly unwilling to accept that you might be wrong, and you are unwilling to open your mind to the possibilities that entails.

6. non issue

7. You aren't harsh.

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 14:46

Post #243 of 361 (10348 views)

In other words......people should lift to improve their cycling because we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't? In that case, I'm going to skip my lifting sessions and masturbate to improve MY cycling because we can't prove that that won't help either.....and its a hell of a lot more fun.

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

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 14:54

Post #244 of 361 (10343 views)

Thanks for the update on the weather and your grooming habits. I'll breathlessly wait to hear your further analysis on the assignment of "blame" regarding definition "shell games", semantics, and poor study design after your post workout shower, snack and ... bm?

sincerely,

interested thread observer.

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [BarryP] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 14:54

Post #245 of 361 (10343 views)

Interesting training method as you say science hasn't disproved it. Maybe for the first time I will get someone to give me a hand.

NURSE!!!

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Dynamic Du] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 14:56

Post #246 of 361 (10342 views)

In Reply To:

3. I find it amazing that people are arguing with some truly world renowned experts in the field. These people do this for a living, it is what they eat for breakfast lunch and tea, they are professionals of the highest standing in their fields yet some people here with an interest in the field think they know better. Andrew Coggan is one of the worlds leading experts on exercise physiology and specifically as it's his interest how it pertains to cycling. Alex Simmons is a professional coach and rapidly building a reputation as one of Australia's best cycling coaches. Coaches a current World Masters 1 Hour Record Holder. So one from the "science" world and one from the "coaching" world and they are in total agreeance.

LOL. I remember a thread around the time of this particular Hour Record where FD argued that he was doing it all wrong... just think how much more efficient and faster he could have been with a lower cadence!

But back to this strength thing... I'd like to be a stronger cyclist. According to Websters,
strength: 8 : maintenance of or a rising tendency in a price level : firmness of prices <the strength of the dollar>

This is AS VALID a definition as Coggan's silly TECHNICAL JARGON definition (elitist snob I'm sure).

If I invest my monies in a fashion so as to strengthen my financial position, will I become a stronger cyclist? or do I have that wrong... If I lift weights, the strength of the dollar will increase? Help me Frank!

Erik
Strava

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 15:06

Post #247 of 361 (10330 views)

In Reply To:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but still going to argue. If ANYTHING, most of what you said only further supports the claim that true research is needed. (yeah, weather came in sooner than hoped so.........I'm back!).

I'll dissect what's been said and clearly illustrate the errors in a bit.

cheers,

but just off the cuff, before I go grab a shower and while garmin is uploading,

1. FACT is, that research that has been done, does indicate what people like coggan support, nobody disputes that. what is definitely under dispute is the fact that none of these studies was conducted in a fashion that could allow resistance training to produce a result other than "NO result".

2. definitions are definitions, but if someone tries to defend their position within the argument by commencing a shell-game with those definitions, then they are doing so for a purpose. The reader can decide what that purpose may be.

3. Gore is a world renowned expert too. So, I'd skip on this argument if I were you; it wont help.

4. I agree that the futility of the opposing view does tend to vex, when its so clear that they are wrong. the really great thing is that time will bear me out to be right, its just a matter of time till those same periodicals print peer reviewed data to support claims contrary to yours. Your world is not flat, you just haven't sailed far enough yet.

5. Sure their is, you just are clearly unwilling to accept that you might be wrong, and you are unwilling to open your mind to the possibilities that entails.

6. non issue

7. You aren't harsh.

Two comments:

1) I don't think anyone here - not even Frank - can be accussed of playing a "shell game" with definitions.

2) While it certainly possible that future studies might demonstrate a beneficial effect of weight training on endurance cycling performance in competitive cyclists*, that would not:

A) change the fact that no such studies have been published* as of today;

B) necessarily mean that these putative newer studies are correct and older studies are wrong, and/or;

C) prove that strength, per se, plays a role in determining endurance cycling performance.

*As the saying goes in science, if it isn't published, it doesn't exist (which is just pithy way of saying that the onus is upon generating the data to share it with the world if they hope to convince people that it/they is/are correct).

**And if you go read the hundreds of posts I've made on the topic, I almost always state it that "There is no evidence that...".*** IOW, all I can do is summarize/attempt to explain the existent research literature; I don't have a crystal ball to see into the future.

***One of the reasons that I'm always so vociferous about this topic is in hopes of stimulating someone, somewhere, to try to prove me wrong. After nearly two decades of posting such comments to the web, though, it still hasn't happened.

Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jan 20, 10 15:12

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [mcdoublee] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 15:08

Post #248 of 361 (10329 views)

In Reply To:

If I invest my monies in a fashion so as to strengthen my financial position, will I become a stronger cyclist? or do I have that wrong... If I lift weights, the strength of the dollar will increase? Help me Frank!

hahaha, classic.

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [E_moto] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 15:08

Post #249 of 361 (10329 views)

In Reply To:

FACT is, that research that has been done, does indicate what people like coggan support, nobody disputes that.

You have.

In Reply To:

what is definitely under dispute is the fact that none of these studies was conducted in a fashion that could allow resistance training to produce a result other than "NO result".

What don't you like about Bastiaan et al.'s study?

Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [BarryP] [ In reply to ]

Jan 20, 10 15:29

Post #250 of 361 (10303 views)

In Reply To:

Quote:

Lance needs the ability to sprint? News to me. In what way does he need this ability?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQDjqAkLUB0

18 seconds in: "The big thing about Armstrong, he has the acceleration when he needs it."

Gee, Frank, what do you think that means? Now here's a challenge for you, find one video or article where anyone talks about a triathlete "needing acceleration" on a bike.

My friend, acceleration is not sprinting.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.