So if I, like most triathletes, have a power profile that slopes upward to the right, your recommendation for improving my sustainable power would be to do a lot of sprint training because that's my weak spot?

No, I am referring to the weakest link in your power production chain. When that muscle "fails" you can only go on if other muscles compensate for the weakness. If it is the aerobic (or strength, or whatever) capacity of X muscle then you will get more benefit improving the capacity of that muscle than trying to improve the capacity of other muscles to compensate for that weakness.

---

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

Actually what I think is most relavent is if you take a guy and have him do zero squats in a week but 6 hours on the bike and take that same guy and have him ride 5 hours a week and spend 1 hour doing squats and see who gets faster in the end.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19960350

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19903319

(which appears to be two pubs off the same research).

I believe AC's comment about this was something about a 1.5% increase in the
non-weight group being an issue. I'm not sure how that invalidates the conclusion, but
I'm not an exercise physiology expert.

-Jot

Here was AC's comment. (Post #21 if it doesn't direct link)

-Jot

There is only one accepted definition of strength. Until people understand it, and how it differs from other physiological determinants of performance in various sports, it is really pointless to try to go any further.



No, all I am saying is that, as of today, no published study* has shown that strength training improves endurance cycling performance in trained cyclists (whereas about a half-dozen have reported that it does not). Again, you can only go by the data that are available (wasn't this a point you were harping on previously in this thread?).

*There is one abstract, but until the details become available with publication of the entire paper, it is difficult to say what it really means.




It's not a "stupid argument", but simply a statement of fact: the publication of new data does not necessarily mean that prior data are automatically wrong or obsolete.



Precisely my point - thank you for helping me make it.



No, I'm saying that you need to distinguish between the role of strength, per se, and the putative benefits of strength training - these are two different issues, since strength training can potential impact other aspects of physiological function as well (e.g., improve running economy in runners, presumably by "stiffening their springs").



In science, if it isn't published it is as if it doesn't exist. IOW, publication is how data are "vetted" for mass consumption; failure to publish therefore means that no one wants to accept your results (and they can't cite them even if they wished to).



Yes (especially considering that Carmichael/Armstrong are well-known for their attempts to play head-games with their competition...consider, for example, the report in VeloNews today that Armstrong is as fit now as he was in April of most of his Tour-winning years. Fact, or fiction?).



By "no evidence" I mean "no published papers". IOW, I'm not relying on "the preponderance of the evidence" or even how I interpret, but merely stating a verifiable fact.



I know for a fact some of Armstrong's closest and longest-standing advisors monitor this and/or other groups to which I post (hi Dean!). So, too, does the head physiologist for the AIS (hi Dave!), those who work with the Cervelo TestTeam (hi Damon), one of the leading cycling biomechanists in the world (hi Jim!), etc. As well, a number of my other academic colleagues read lists such as this one, not to mention the myriad number of graduate students out there who are still transitioning in their identify from athlete to scientist. IOW, web forums such as this have far greater reach than you seem to realize.

(And while I was typing the above, who should call me on my cell phone but Dean...how ironic!)

I wonder why they have never published this study?

You seem to be confusing improvements in performance as a result of tapering to get past residual fatigue, and changes in short-term performance that are likely due to reversal of the detrimental effects of endurance training on neuromuscular power.

People trot out this fallacious argument from time to time, but it flawed. For starters, as roady mentioned the forces involved in cycling are so far removed from maximal strength that your analogy is incorrect. More importantly, though, there is essentially no relationship between the fraction or percentage of maximal force and time to fatigue when said forces are so low. Or, to put it another way: dynamic exercise and isometric exercise (which is where the notion of relative forces arises) are two completely different animals.

".....I mean, hey, if its all related, then those 6 hour rides should improve your squat anyway, right? "

Well take a cyclist and a swimmer at roughly the same level in there respective sports. My bet is the swimmer will be able to do a heavier max lat pull down and the cyclist will be able to do a heavier squat, so yes 6 hour rides should improve your squat.

Styrrell

Hello Andrew,
I'm just casually following this thread, can you expand on your reply?

Styrrell

Beats me. But that's not too out of line with what Hickson and Marcinik showed is it?

Wow, so judgemental, as usual.

You should know there are plenty of valid reasons why good studies do not get published (from not adding much new knowledge, losing out to "more compelling" papers, to going against the bias of some editor, etc.). Not being published, in and of itself, is not particularly good evidence that the study wasn't well conducted. Pretty much every journal that I have seen once or twice a year publishes a supplement. In anesthesia it used to be quite thick and would consist of thousands of abstracts of studies that were submitted but didn't make the cut but that the editors thought the membership might want to know about. And, then there are all the poster exhibits at the meetings. They aren't published either. Why does anyone even bother seeing what they say?

Your criticism of papers simply because they have not been published or are not published in the "right" journal doesn't say much for you as a "scientist" I am afraid.

---

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

But if running economy improves, at least teorethically, it would be useful along all durations, in particular when fuel availability is critical such as the marathon.

BTW recently I've read the new book of Dr. Mc Greggor and it proposes hill sprint training even in the marathon program, perhaps Dr Mc Greggor may comment.

---

Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com

The same group also has this one: Maximal Strength Training Improves Cycling Economy in Competitive Cyclists

In both cases I've only read the abstract, perhaps Dr. Coggan can comment.

---

Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com

Oh phoeey. There may only one accepted definition of strength if one is trying to earn one's PhD in exercise physiology, but to everyone else there are lots of definitions of strength and some of them out of the dictionaries that ordinary people use have been copied and pasted into this link. You use this argument to avoid discussing what they are trying to say. As I posted earlier, these people are trying to discuss a concept for which there is no accepted definition because if there were I am sure you would have told us what it was. So, discuss the concept. Forget your anal need to hold on to this definition about which no one is talking.

This says more to me about your "science" skills than a lot you spout here. Scientists are supposed to be observers. They observe the world around them and they listen to others who are observing the world. That is what Darwin did. He observed the world and determined there should be changes in the accepted version of things. He was able to come to this conclusion without the help of a single published study and he went against what "everyone"accepted as being true and having been "proven" in the bible - it is there, it has to be true - sort of like your view of your journals. Scientists use studies to confirm their observations as being valid or to investigate hypotheses that explain mechanisms to explain the observations. Your anal need for everything to be in the journals and if what people are observing ain't there already means cannot possibly be anything to it is beneath a real scientist.

It is a stupid argument because you cannot possibly know what the new study shows. A single study can conclusively show that everything before it was wrong. It has happened many times before. It will happen again.

That was not your point, see above.

Again, you are holding to your anal definition of strength which is not what many here are trying to talk about. Again, they are using the term strength as a substitute for a term that doesn't exist. They are using it in the lay sense. A sense that almost everyone but you seems to understand.

See my earlier reply about the many studies that are not published by made available to the scientific community throug poster board sessions and supplemental publications that only deal with abstracts. Publication is not proof a study is well done and not being published is not proof a study is worthless.

Ugh, if you say so. Remember that real scientist = unbiased observer. Now we know you can't fill the unbiased part of that equation.

I have earlier criticize your reliance on published papers. My criticism stands.

Now, let's see. Above you state you don't believe a thing Lance or Carmichael write and yet you tell us now that you are in contact with some of Lance's closest and longest standing advisors (Hi Dave!). Have you ever thought of simply asking them what the story is? Apparently not. So much for scientific inquisitiveness.

And, did you ask him what the story was on any of those articles?

---

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

Phooey indeed.

Sure there are a lot of definitions of strength. As it pertains to this discussion Andy has the right one.

But keep up the misdirection, we all find it so amusing.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

He may have the right one for him. It has, unfortunately, no relationship to what everyone else is talking about.

---

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

Just duct tape a twinkie atop a sheeps ass, and you wont hear from that guy for a few days.

My wife was trying to get through to Uverse for the second time (after she had been cut off) to "discuss" a billing problem. When the computer asked her why she was calling she yelled into the phone "aggravation". I had just stopped laughting when I read this. Tears are rolling down the cheeks again. Thanks.

---

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

You need to stop arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Adequately defining 'strength' as it relates to exercise is imperative if one wants to discuss 'strength' as it relates to performance. Otherwise, words simply have no meaning. I use 'strength' all the time in the vernacular to describe someone with a high level of fitness--everyone I know does as well. However, in the context of a discussion of how 'strength' affects performance, you have to stick with the accepted definition or the issue becomes confused.

The accepted scientific definition of muscular strength is the maximum amount of force which can be exerted against an object. This is the commonly excepted definition. Pretending otherwise, just because you want to argue with someone, suits no purpose. The definition isn't 'anal', 'overly narrow', and it's completely related to the discussion, whether you like it or not.

Quite frankly, the incorrect use of the terminology is one of the main reasons that people are often confused into believing that strength is an important factor in endurance cycling performance.

If you want to make up your own language, though, that's fine. It's kinda what I expect, anyway.

Misdirection, part of the Snake Oil Salesman's Toolkit.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I doubt Dan wants to restrict this site to those formally trained in exercise science. So, ordinary people using ordinary use of words tend to post. The problem with Coggan is he is not able to enage those who are using the vernacular usage of words. Instead he simply comes here and calls the idiots for their imprecise use of technical jargon and can't engage them in what they were trying to mean.

---

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

I'm not trained in exercise science. I understand the difference between the vernacular use of the word and it's accepted scientific definition. I think if one wants to participate in a discussion regarding 'strength' as it relates to performance, it's incumbent upon them to understand the terms being used. Otherwise, the result is that people think they'll increase their threshold power by lifting weights....

Well thank goodness he does choose one definition or we may never know what we are discussing. At least I know when Andy speaks about strength, it means the maximum one can lift. Otherwise we may never know what someone is going on about. Listing a million different definitions of strength only serves to cloud and confuse the matter. But that is the way Frank likes things.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Here...I'll make it all easy for everyone. Let's redefine "strength" to mean being able to push hard on the pedals for REALLY long periods of time. After all, that's what most people mean when they say someone is a "strong cyclist", right? Great.

The best thing about this is that NOW when the question is asked "Does strength training improve steady-state cycling ability?", the answer can be a resounding "YES!"

Of course, the follow-up question will be "OK then, what kind of 'strength training' is the MOST effective for my cycling, particularly for triathlon bike legs."

Naturally, the best answers will be something like "2 x 20mins at your 1 hour sustainable power." :-/

Are you happy now??

If you redefine "strength" to be something less precise than it actually is, then you also need to redefine "strength training" to be much less precise as well...otherwise everyone is comparing apples to oranges.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/