Swim Bike Run
Slowtwitch.com
  • Login >
Slowtwitch.com
Search menu
Hot Forum Topics

Poll

Comfort While Cycling
How much does comfort while cycling influence your overall race performance?
View Results


Home > Forum > Triathlon Forum > Strength Training, Science vs N=1

Triathlon Forum

Back To ForumPrint Thread

Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Tri
Classifieds
Lavender
Jobs
Notices
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ale Martinez
Jan 22, 10 14:44
Post #351 of 361 (10023 views)
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

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.


Interesting... that one also shows an increase in the time to exhaustion.


...at "maximal aerobic power", and in the absence of any increase in VO2max. IOW, the improvement (if real, and due to whatever was responsible for the unexpected increase in efficiency in the control group) is due to an increase in ANaerobic work capacity. Depending on how you look at it, this may or may not be surprising (although it does make me wonder just how many short intervals the subjects wree doing on the bike, and/or the time of year it was conducted), but it does not provide evidence of an improvement in endurance cycling performance.


That would explain the improvement in TlimVO2max, but what about the improvement in cycling economy / work efficiency the reported ?

In absence of any variation in VO2max, an improvement in Cycling Economy / Work Efficiency nearby to 5% wouldn't be associated to a corresponding improvement in the power-duration curve at all durations and then in endurance cycling performance ?
Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com
Last edited by: Ale Martinez: Jan 22, 10 14:58
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Kiwicoach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
way U-23
Jan 22, 10 14:52
Post #352 of 361 (10016 views)
easy there, "Igor".
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Ale Martinez] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan
Jan 22, 10 15:00
Post #353 of 361 (10009 views)
In Reply To:
what about the improvente in cycling economy / work efficiency ?


Dunno. Could be due to the changes in contractile protein expression (as reported in the other paper, IIRC), or it could be a type I error.

In Reply To:
In absence of any variation in VO2max, an improvement in Cycling Economy / Work Efficiency nearby to 5% wouldn't be associated to a corresponding improvement in the power-duration curve at all durations and then in endurance cycling performance ?


Unfortunately, in this study they didn't measure performance over a longer duration, so we will never know. Again IIRC, though, in the apparently related paper there was no improvement.
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Frank Day
Jan 22, 10 15:45
Post #354 of 361 (9987 views)
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
what about the improvente in cycling economy / work efficiency ?


Dunno. Could be due to the changes in contractile protein expression (as reported in the other paper, IIRC), or it could be a type I error.
Can't you think of some other possible explanations for that data beyond those two?
--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JustCurious
Jan 22, 10 15:51
Post #355 of 361 (9982 views)
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
what about the improvente in cycling economy / work efficiency ?


Dunno. Could be due to the changes in contractile protein expression (as reported in the other paper, IIRC), or it could be a type I error.

Can't you think of some other possible explanations for that data beyond those two?


Stealth Powercrank usage right Frank?
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alex Simmons
Jan 22, 10 17:10
Post #356 of 361 (9959 views)
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
what about the improvente in cycling economy / work efficiency ?


Dunno. Could be due to the changes in contractile protein expression (as reported in the other paper, IIRC), or it could be a type I error.

In Reply To:
In absence of any variation in VO2max, an improvement in Cycling Economy / Work Efficiency nearby to 5% wouldn't be associated to a corresponding improvement in the power-duration curve at all durations and then in endurance cycling performance ?


Unfortunately, in this study they didn't measure performance over a longer duration, so we will never know. Again IIRC, though, in the apparently related paper there was no improvement.

This line caught my eye:

As in Støren et al. (29), no changes were found in the present study regarding body weight, _VO2max, or wattage at lactate threshold (LTw).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [JustCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Frank Day
Jan 22, 10 17:12
Post #357 of 361 (9953 views)
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
what about the improvente in cycling economy / work efficiency ?


Dunno. Could be due to the changes in contractile protein expression (as reported in the other paper, IIRC), or it could be a type I error.

Can't you think of some other possible explanations for that data beyond those two?


Stealth Powercrank usage right Frank?
I can think of a potential mechanism that doesn't involve that. There are probably others
--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
pacificfit
Jan 22, 10 17:52
Post #358 of 361 (9945 views)
Rebecca,

I think this is a very important question that pretty much defines any athlete. How much can you benchpress?
Ben Greenfield

Nutrition & Human Performance Advice
http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [pacificfit] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fleck
Jan 23, 10 6:19
Post #359 of 361 (9908 views)
I think this is a very important question that pretty much defines any athlete. How much can you benchpress?

How much can I bench-press? Barely anything. I have toothpicks for arms and have about zero-fast twitch muscles. I am the classic skinny geek ectomorph. But I was a pretty good triathlete and runner in my time. It was never my lack of bench-press skill/strength that was holding me back.

Your mileage may vary.

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [RebeccaCreekKid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nealhe
Jan 23, 10 15:48
Post #360 of 361 (9838 views)
Hello RebeccaCreekKid and All,

Dave Christen writes in current issue of USAT magazine pp 80-81:

He is making the transition from runner to triathlete planning to complete IM LP on 25 July 2010. His blog is at http://ironrookiedave.wordpress.com

"The purpose of this project is really to show you the value of using a USA Triathlon Certified Coach. Working with Ken (Ken Axford - www.fast-tri.com) has really been changing the way I train. Each day has a purpose now and each day's training is far more efficient than it was before. For example, we are starting to lift weights, and in the past I would spend an hour and a half to two hours in the gym. With a plan I am in there and out of there in less than an hour."
Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Alex Simmons] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ale Martinez
Jan 24, 10 16:38
Post #361 of 361 (9784 views)
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
what about the improvente in cycling economy / work efficiency ?


Dunno. Could be due to the changes in contractile protein expression (as reported in the other paper, IIRC), or it could be a type I error.

In Reply To:
In absence of any variation in VO2max, an improvement in Cycling Economy / Work Efficiency nearby to 5% wouldn't be associated to a corresponding improvement in the power-duration curve at all durations and then in endurance cycling performance ?


Unfortunately, in this study they didn't measure performance over a longer duration, so we will never know. Again IIRC, though, in the apparently related paper there was no improvement.


This line caught my eye:

As in Støren et al. (29), no changes were found in the present study regarding body weight, _VO2max, or wattage at lactate threshold (LTw).


So, they report:

a) No change in VO2max
b) 4.7% improvement in Cycling Economy at 70% VO2max

a) & b) => 4.7% improvement in wattage at 70% VO2max, AFAIK

But also say there was no change in wattage at lactate threshold.

Seems to me something is rotten in the state of Denmark...
Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com
Last edited by: Ale Martinez: Jan 25, 10 4:21
Quote Reply
Prev Next
Back To ForumPrint Thread

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.