...the precise communication of precise ideas requires the precise use of precise terminology, and all that...

... their anaerobic WORK capacity increased (which is not quite the same as saying that their anaerobic capacity increased, or that they produced more energy anaerobically...but you'd have to really understand the Monod model to grasp such nuances).

Not so. I used it to describe the maximal force-generating capacity of her muscles (in the cycling position).

.

By screwing it up again, darn it! IOW, you're right; I don't know why I keep making that mistake (which Robert Chung has flagged me on before).



More like ~110 kg, as you pointed out. As for how they avoid popping out of the saddle, that is what handlebars are for (ever tried doing a standing start in a big gear w/o holding on tightly?).

In a word, yes. That is, such efforts are long enough to fulfill the assumption that all of anaerobic work capacity will be utilized (which isn't true at durations shorter than perhaps 3 min).



Based on the data, you don't - that is why I said anaerobic WORK capacity and not anaerobic capacity (the precise communication of precise ideas requires the precise use of precise terminology, and all that). In the Monod paradigm, what the former really represents is "resistance to fatigue during very high intensity, i.e., non-sustainable, exercise" - which is precisely what the study measured.

Could you point me to some reading to elucidate this distinction?

I assumed that anaerobic capacity = maximal production of energy anaerobically, but no eh?

Could you please tell me how "strength (average effective pedal force)" refers to the "maximal force-generating capacity of her muscles"?

Is this an argument for upper body strength training in cyclists?

Further, you didn't address the issue that the applied pedal forces are even greater than the calculated forces coming from average or even instantaneous torques.

Are you saying that "anaerobic work capacity" describes a limit as related to the cycling motion, whereas "anaerobic capacity" is a general limit for any motion?

What is it that you do not understand? All measures of strength are movement/condition specific, so the maximal AEPF someone can generate when pedaling a bicycle is indeed a measure of their strength.



Most non-endurance track cyclists do indeed lift weights. Still, when you consider that performance in a standing start is only moderately correlated with strength (no matter how you measure it), I wouldn't advocate that anyone spend a lot of time trying to develop large upper-body muscles to counteract the forces that their legs can generate.



I'm not sure I understand what you mean...the fact that some of the points measured during the race were above the line formed by the data measured (using exactly the same equipment) in testing? As I said, that is probably due to 1) standing during the race (which has been shown to increase maximal power by ~10%), 2) greater motivation during the race, and/or 3) measurement error (no instrument is perfect, and the way that the SRM - or Quarq, etc. - measure power means that some bias in the data is possible).

I use anaerobic work capacity to refer to the y-intercept of the work-duration relationship determined using the Monod approach. I do so to constantly remind myself that the measurement is based on physical data, and not physiological data (i.e., based on such data alone you never really know precisely what accounts for any changes in this intercept, despite plenty of data showing that the y-intercept is responsive to interventions - such as weight training! - that would be expected to affect anaerobic capacity).

according to you all measures of strength are 1 rep max measures.

So, according to you, strength measurements cannot be movement/condition specific

or are you changing the definition of strength that you insist everyone else use

You did not measure the AEPF for your wife for one rep so, according to your definition, you did not measure her strength, as you have previously defined the term, the only acceptable definition of the term, according to you. Isn't that correct.

What I mean is, since applied pedal forces are almost never tangential to the pedaling circle the actual applied pedal forces are usually substantially above those that would be calculated from measuring torque (the only thing that can be measured if one does not have actual pedal force measurements), especially average torque for two reasons. Peak torque will always be greater than average torque and actual force is always greater than the tangential force unless the direction of the force is parallel to the pedaling circle where the force is applied. Hence, any statement that these calculated forces represent actual forces are a substantial underestimation.

Here is the flaws in your argument that I see.

First, we know the Monod model breaks down at short duration efforts. Because of this breakdown it is not clear the Y intercept means anything in this regards.

Second, you make the assumption that the demonstrated effects of weight training (without defining exactly what kind of weight training you are talking about) only affect anaerobic capacity without any proof such an assumption is true.

No, per the ACSM (among many others), 1 RM is an acceptable measure of strength. There are, however, other acceptable measures, e.g., isometric force production.



This doesn't logically follow from what I have said in the least.



Nope: strength is the maximal force generating capacity of a muscle of muscle group. The fact that it can be measured different ways (e.g., 1 RM while squatting, vs. throwing some force transducers on a fixed bar and having a person perform an isometric movement at the mid-range of the squat position) in no way changes this fact.



No, it is not correct. I measured the maximal force generating capacity of her muscles during the cycling movement. Since measurements of strength are always condition-specific (e.g., your isometric strength with a 90 deg bend of the elbow is different than with a 150 deg bend), this wouldn't necessarily be exactly the same value as you would obtain using a different approach. Unless something goes awry, though, you would expect various measures of strength to be correlated (and they are, c.f. Stone's standing start study).



The calculated forces ARE the actual average effective pedal force - no ifs, ands, or buts.

(BTW, I find it ironic that you threw up that picture of Broker's TOTAL force data to talk about muscular forces.)

As roady said, you are clearly unfamiliar with the Monod approach, and in particular the data validating its interpretation. Specifically with respect to the y-intercept, it has been shown to be unaffected by hypoxia/hyperoxia (therefore must be independent of aerobic processes), but is affected by things such as very high intensity ("anaerobic") interval training or creatine loading. Thus, there is very good reason to view it as a measure of anaerobic capacity. Ultimately, though, it is based on physical, not physiological, measurements, which is why I try to consistently refer to it as anaerobic work capacity.

(BTW, the cause of the breakdown is clear: it is a result of both the model being too simple and the assumptions of the model being violated.)



No, precisely (ha!) the opposite is true: because I am very much a stickler for correct use of terminology to avoid blurring of concepts, I make it a point to refer to the y intercept as anaerobic WORK capacity.

Ok, Strength can be measured as a 1 rep max or as an isometric max (one static, one dynamic). I still don't see how you get from that to strength = (average effective pedal force) is an equivalent use of the word strength.

Could you direct me to the literature showing that Monod is "unaffected" by hyperoxia or hypoxia.

I find it interesting that you try to use a term (anaerobic work capacity) that, it seems, only you understand and have defined in your own mind. When someone asked you for a literature reference you said it didn't exist, as I understood it.

Of course, the breakdown of any model to predict outcome is a result of the model not being adequate for the conditions ("both the model being too simple and the assumptions of the model being violated") How can anyone say the model means anything under conditions where it is known to break down and keep a straight face?

some of the points measured during the race were above the line formed by the data measured (using exactly the same equipment) in testing? As I said, that is probably due to 1) standing during the race (which has been shown to increase maximal power by ~10%

Are you two billing anybody or their healthcare provider for any of this :)

I suspect Andy may have been done for speeding or something and is performing community service

No, believe it or not I do all of this of my own free will, and simply for the intellectual stimulation and entertainment value it provides me. Crazy, huh?

To be honest no.

To sum: Frank misunderstands something again and stubbornly digs his heels in and makes himself look even more stupid.