Yes (except for Alex's personal data).



Actually, we do (have some idea):

1) Alex is a coach who has access to power data from his clients, and

2) he stated (paraphrasing) "here's some data from a group of riders of mixed abilities targeting track endurance events".

So, while we don't know how the data were collected, logic dictates that it is (largely) cross-sectional in nature.



Aye, but that wasn't the data that yielded the R^2 to which Steve referred.

While logic may dictate that we still really do not know anything about the data. Perhaps it was taken at different times of the year and/or different periods of the training cycle. We don't know if his n=26 equals 26 different individuals or 26 different tests. We also don't know if he calibrated his equipment before each test. etc. etc. Unless he cares to tell us his protocol (and give us the raw data) I think we are all guessing as to what it all might mean.

---

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

1. Andy is correct in that they are my personal data.

2. I didn't post them for the inspiring part, but agree they are quite compelling and IMO highly relevant to this discussion.

3. As an N=1 case, I think this demonstrates quite clearly the lack of a relationship between neuromuscular power (and one's ability to generate force at speed) and long endurance aerobic power (FTP).

For the rest that may not be aware (although it's not like I haven't shared before):

The two data points represent my own data for the years 2006 and 2009. The point on the right is my data from 2006.

I am a Masters track enduro/crit rider mostly (scratch, points, pursuit, team pursuit), although I also do TT, TTT and road racing. In 2006 I had an excellent season, followed up by podium results at Masters nationals in April 2007 (points race) and PBs in pursuit.

In May 2007 I had a leg amputation (trans tibial) as a result of a training accident in April 07 just after Nats.

I made a comeback to cycling, riding with a prosthetic. The point on the left is my 2009 post amputation data. As you can see, I managed to equal (actually fractionally better) my pre-amputation TT power but I have lost a lot of my ability to produce sprint power. In fact even my 5-min power is on a par with pre amputation levels.

The point being that the significant reduction in my leg strength, force generation ability and neuromuscular power (down ~ 25%) has had no impact on my ability to generate sustainable aerobic power.

Why? Well, quite simply, we are just not force limited when riding at threshold/aerobic power levels. The forces involved are only a fraction of what we can produce. Even with such a drastic reduction in my peak power.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Of the original N=26, that was from 25 athletes, for whom I chose because their data is readily accessible and not archived, and for whom I knew the data would provide both 5-sec and TT power info. They represent male, female, masters, elite, track, road, TT and even triathlon athletes.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

I see your point. "Difference in" would have been a better choice of words.

My point, though, is that if you remove all confounding variables, which strictly speaking, all training adaptations are, what are you left with? It isn't the 59 minute power that causes the 60 minute power, they are both caused by the common set of training adaptations.

I should say at this point, I don't think strength training is going to make a big difference to FTP, if indeed it makes any difference at all. It's just that many of the arguments as to why it doesn't, I don't find all that compelling. The most common argument I've seen is that the forces involved are much less than maximal, but it isn't intuitively obvious why someone with a greater maximal strength wouldn't find it much easier to repeatedly exert the same smaller force than someone with lower maximal strength. Our intuition doesn't remove bodyweight from this. When I encounter people in everyday life who are really strong, and apparently also have a greater ease of lifting lighter weights, I don't start asking them their bodyweight, work out their power to weight ratio and become less impressed. Instead, I just mentally register that they can outperform me for both heavy weights and light weights, and that there seems to be a link between the two things.

Another argument is that we understand the training adaptations that lead to improved FTP, and we understand the training adaptations arising from strength training, and there is no commonality. However there must be some commonality, because I've seen studies mentioned where untrained subjects have improved their FTP through strength training. It may well be the case, though, that the return on training is so small that it is swamped by the effects of more appropriate training in trained subjects, but this isn't an argument I've seen made against strength training.

I'm also not convinced that studies are sensitive enough to find any possible link if the potential increase in FTP is small, e.g. <1%. This problem is discussed in chapter 16.4 here, particularly 16.4.3.1:
http://www.ausport.gov.au/...46539/16Complete.pdf

"In effect, most intervention studies are able to detect only large differences in performance outcomes. Changes that are smaller than this large effect are declared to be ‘not statistically significant’ and are dismissed."

"Even though ‘worthwhile’ performance differences are larger than the tiny margins considered important by athletes, these changes are still outside the realms of detection for many of the studies commonly published in scientific journals."

While your data is interesting I would suggest it hardly means anything to the ordinary cyclist who has not had an amputation except for, perhaps, this. It certainly suggest to me that you are riding quite well for long periods of time at forces substantially closer to your maximum without any difficulty (it would be interesting to know your r/l ratio). Therefore, it says to me is the body eventually adapts to the stresses it regularly sees and "able bodied" folks can "easily" adapt to big ring/low cadence riding despite the "increased" pedal forces. Either way, congratulations to you on your accomplishment.

---

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

Frank would you please learn how to use the quote functions correctly and use your delete button to get rid of the information we don't need.

You posts in long threads end up being a whole page long because you are too lazy or don't know what you are doing. It takes up too much space and makes for quite difficult reading.

Unless you really need to, don't quote at all. When anyone makes a post it quite clearly indicates what the post is in reply to.

Which bit?

The fact that a 25% reduction in strength/maximal force generation ability has had no impact on ability to generate sustainable aerobic power?

I would have thought that was entirely relevant, even compelling, information for the ordinary cyclist (considering it's N=1).

Besides, I consider myself to be an ordinary cyclist.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

I use the quote so people know exactly what I am responding to. My mouse has a wheel that helps me scroll down quite quickly if I want to skip something. If you don't have one of those I would suggest you get one. I prefer posts that use the quote feature to those that don't because it doesn't mean trying to figure out what the person is responding to. Sometimes it requires going back several pages t figure it out. Now that is a time waster.

---

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

Because, most people haven't lost that ability and we don't know how you have compensated for your loss. Without pedal force data we know nothing of what you were doing before and now. It would suggest that you were easily underachieving 25% before your amputation. Do you believe that? If true, makes my 40% improvement claim easily believable don't you think?

---

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

To your post:

"I should say at this point, I don't think strength training is going to make a big difference to FTP, if indeed it makes any difference at all. It's just that many of the arguments as to why it doesn't, I don't find all that compelling. The most common argument I've seen is that the forces involved are much less than maximal, but it isn't intuitively obvious why someone with a greater maximal strength wouldn't find it much easier to repeatedly exert the same smaller force than someone with lower maximal strength. Our intuition doesn't remove bodyweight from this. When I encounter people in everyday life who are really strong, and apparently also have a greater ease of lifting lighter weights, I don't start asking them their bodyweight, work out their power to weight ratio and become less impressed. Instead, I just mentally register that they can outperform me for both heavy weights and light weights, and that there seems to be a link between the two things. "


I had the same question earlier in the thread and I thought about it over the last few days and noticed that AC replied today. It makes sense to me to think that the maximal power is not a limiting factor. I think, though I'm not sure - so someone correct me if I'm wrong, our threshold power is not related to our maximal power (and if you believe Alex's data, that seems like it could be the case). Our energy system is what limits our threshold, not our maximal power. That's what I deduced from this thread - but like I said in my original question, I'm just trying to learn.

Your weakest link is what limits your power. The part of the power chain that reaches its maximum potential first is what stops you from improving. It will vary from person to person. If your weakest link is one small muscle in the chain, so be it. If it is a large muscle group, so be it. You will have achieved "perfect balance" when all the parts of the system "fail" at the same time. Train your weaknesses if you want to improve.

---

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

Having followed Alex's return to cycling from his accident I have also wondered if he was below his potential before the amputation. His return to pretty much post accident levels is pretty remarkable. I wonder in Alex's case that the accident and the lifestyle changes he has made and has had to make have meant a larger focus on cycling. This may end as his National Federation for Para-Cycling put up some rather high (and stupid) barriers to him competing. But rather than to suggest that using Gimmickcranks is behind the average 40% gain I would speculate that any progress is due to a greater commitment to cycling because one thing is sure that there is no scientific proof in the several studies done on them so far.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Well, unless you have data you are simply guessing. Something has to account for it. he was either way under his potential before his amputation or he has developed some compensatory changes that has allowed him to improve. We will never know what those changes were, if any, because it is impossible to go back and get the baseline data.

---

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

It's fairly clear from this post that you have not comprehended a word written in this entire thread.

Seeing the word "wonder/ed" was there twice it is highly probable I was guessing or speculating.

With a lack of data I "wonder" is Alex is more focussed on cycling and this "may" explain his excellent comeback.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I think Frank understands all too well. It's not in his interests to admit it. Hence he falls back to Snake Oil Salesman tips and tricks to confuse the matter.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I keep thinking Mr Frank Day can't possibly outdo himself with some of his stupid comments and sheer lack of understanding in so many areas. But he is a source of constant amazement. I've never known somone so willing to display their stupidity for all to see so regularly.

??? Might I suggest you hit quote instead of reply. :-)

---

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

Or, as he himself has suggested, his experience simply demonstrates that neither lower leg muscle mass nor strength limit sustainable power output. As anyone who understands exercise physiology recognizes, that is an entirely plausible explanation.

(BTW, although I didn't lose my lower leg like Alex did, I also have personal experience with a significant loss of muscle mass - in my case, due to two highly-invasive hip surgeries - resulting in absolutely no dimunition in my aerobic power.)

Ugh, it may be a plausible explanation but without the data, it is a guess.

And, I would love to know what procedure you had done on your hips that resulted in a "significant loss of muscle mass". Of all the hip surgeries (other than trauma debridement) I have been a part of I can't remember seeing a single muscle cell leave the patient.

---

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

me thinks some of you have a real problem with someone with, sometimes, a contrary view who happens to point out your conjectures lack supportive data.

---

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

Placement and then subsequent removal of a Richard's compression screw to repair a broken femoral neck:

http://ortho.smith-nephew.com/...egory.asp?NodeId=345

The incisions extended approx. 1/2 way down my thigh, apparently impinging upon the motor endplate and resulting in almost complete atrophy of the v. intermedius and replacement of much of the upper portion of the v. lateralis with scar/connective/fatty tissue (based on MRI scans). My right thigh is therefore ~10% smaller than my left (even though I'm right-handed), and 5-10% weaker (vs. being 5-10% stronger prior to the surgeries, measured using isokinetic dynamometry). Yet, my highest VO2max and LT after the two surgeries were the same as before.

Well, I would also be interested in seeing your emg and pressure plate data before and after to see how you compensated for your loss. Of course, such is not available I suspect. VO2 max is a pseudomeasure (as you know) of the size of the exercising muscle mass. If your VO2 max hasn't changed then the effective size of the exercising muscle mass hasn't changed. Since you are telling us the actual size of your available muscle mass has changed then you must be using muscles you were not using before to compensate, wouldn't you say?

People do not lose important muscle mass or nerves and then simply return to doing things the same old way at the same level. The body must learn to compensate for those losses and do things in a different way. Such losses do not mean, necessarily that performance will be greatly compromised if the compensation is adequate. Professional football player Rocky Bleier is a good example I am surprised, as a scientist, you do not understand this and are, seemingly, not the least bit interested in exploring how that compensation occurred in either Alex or yourself.

---

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

And what other data beside my maximal capability over 5 seconds would you think we'd need? Maybe I could grow my leg back and do some testing LOL?

Remember that I was not an untrained rider at time of the 2006 data and a super trained one in 2009 (I pointed that out already*). I'll agree that there was potential for me to improve from where I was. Just like there is potential for me to improve from where I am now.

But that's not the point.

The point is simply that the large loss of neuromuscular power due to my amputation has had no or an insignificant impact on my ability to generate sustainable aerobic power. But that's not surprising really, since the two (NMP and FTP) are not related.

* In 2006 I was member of a winning team pursuit sqaud (setting a new record time), won open criteriums, a regular Div 1 track racer and performed maximal efforts at the track on a regular basis. I am very lucky in that I train with half a dozen world masters champion sprinters in my local squad. These are best and maximal efforts (in fact the 2006 5-sec MMP best came from a crit I won). I still get to train with these guys.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio