I find the most interesting thing about people on the internet is their intense need to put someone down even for the most nitpicking reasons.


There are over 30 trillion cells in the body. If, muscle cells which make up 40% of body mass accounted for just .1% of total cells that would mean they account for over 30 billion cells. And just taking the muscles used in walking to be no more than 1% of total muscle cells then we are at over 300 million cells. And about half or more of cells in an inactive person are usually fast twitch we are over 150 million cells.

So why make such a ridiculous comment?


I say something is a throw away line and you then must add a disparaging non-sequitur remark. I have since found from other sources that it is highly unlikely that Type IIB fibers will be recruited during low level activity. I will take your reply as the reason why the fibers do not deteoriate from non use.

I always am thankful for your remarks because they often contain contradictions to your other statements which are then useful at getting at the truth.

------------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

Andrew --> ? ? <-- Jerry

You are the one that started the sarcastic and insulting posts. I find your animosity strange. Also strange is you admit that he is correct since you found other sources and then insult him again for being wrong.... By the way, what are your qualifications? There is nothing about you listed on lactate.com that I could find.

Edit - Just blindly guessing at a percentage to get at the number you want is not science...

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

The reason that I frequently correct you is to prevent others from being misled by your inaccurate statements.

Just as an example, consider your theoretical calculation above: the reason it is misleading is because not all cells in the body are the same size. Specifically, human muscle fibers are about the same diameter (i.e., 70-100 um) as a hair, and essentially extend from origin to insertion of a muscle. IOW, a single muscle fiber is clearly visible to the naked eye (I say that as someone who has dissected freeze-dried biopsy samples). By comparison, other cell types, e.g., red blood cells are miniscule. IOW, muscle makes up such a large proportion of our body mass not because we have a lot of muscle fibers, but because individually they are quite large.

As I stated before, there are 500,000-1,000,000 individual muscle fibers in the v. lateralis, of which roughly half are fast-twitch. We also know that the mass of v. lateralis averages 1-2 kg. That means each individual muscle fiber weighs about 1-4 mg. If you then divide that value into a total assumed muscle mass of 28 kg (i.e., 40% of 70kg), you come up with an estimated total fiber number of 3.5-14 million, only about half of which are fast-twitch. Note that this estimate is only 1/20th to 1/80th of what you suggest, but is consistent with my initial statement (i.e., the only way to get to millions of fast-twitch muscle fibers is to count every such cell in the body).

I have read for many years here how weight training has little to no benefit for cycling power improvement.

I was reading an article written by Pavel Tsatsouline about a specific weight training protocol for slow-twitch fiber hypertrophy. It sounds very convincing but I don't really know the science behind it.


If it works, would it have a benefit to a cyclist?

I would think a cage would be appropriate. I wonder how many muscle fibers are being used in the kick.

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

I would re-read the sequence again. And ask why Dr. Coggan objected to an innocuous comment made to another commenter (recruitment of fast twitch fibers in couch potatoes) to tell me I was the one that was more wrong. He addressed me first. I responded.


It is not blindly guessing. There are an 37 trillion cells in the body. I lowered it to 30 trillion to get an easy number to deal with. Muscle cells make up 40% of body mass. Because they are much bigger than normal cells, I lowered the estimate of potential muscle cells from 40% to 1/10 of 1 % to account for this difference in size. That is a factor of 4000 less. Maybe it should be more of a size reduction but I acknowledged the size difference in making this estimate. That got a number of 30 billion muscle cells or just .1% of the body's cells. Then I took 1% of this number as involved in walking which is 300 million. Which or these estimates are unreasonable. They may be wrong, but seem reasonable.

Now what muscles are involved in walking, here is a list:

rectus femoris, vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, sartorius, biceps femoris, semimembranosus, semitendinosus, iliopsoas, tibialis, peroneus longus, gastrocnemius, soleus. pectineus, gluteus medius, gluteus maximus.

Yet, just one of these muscles was used to tell me I was wrong to use the figure of millions. Which is an absurd criticism to use just one of many muscles. Also, why would anyone care if it was millions or just hundreds of thousands. If you don't think so, then I would be interested in why,

And for couch potatoes, there are probably more than 50% fast twitch fibers. And yes, I am grateful for the exchange because I learned a few things, some of it from Dr. Coggan but mainly from others. During this exchange I asked one of the top experts in the world on muscle fibers about this issue and read about 10 journal articles on muscle fibers.

Take what I say as you wish but I do not intend to misinform anyone and have relied on many successful experts in the field of exercise physiology for their opinions.

-------------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

Sounds like you're digging a bigger hole...

If your estimate of relative cell size is wrong, or the number of cells involved in walking, then you numbers are simply useless. Hence the comment about guessing not being a science. You factored things at 1/4000th, what if it was 1/1,000,000 or 1/10,000,000 for the size of a muscle cell to other cells in the body?

What is your education in exercise physiology?

Because you were misleading people with your comments.


Sorry, but here is another example: in untrained individuals, almost all muscles in the human body are, on average, well-mixed, i.e., between 40 and 60% fast-twitch. Exceptions that come to mind are 1) the soleus, with is only 10-20% fast-twitch, and 2) the triceps, which is perhaps up to 70% fast-twitch.

The runners he mentioned were all road ultra runners (like Comrades marathon etc.)

I found the article now (or at least something that references it) here

"No amount of training, dedication or hard work can replace the most important asset, choosing the correct genes. These genes must produce someone who has a good V02 max and strong legs. Over the years I have become convinced that the real secret lies in strong legs and most particularly powerful calf muscles.
This view is in direct contrast to that of Dr. Ross Tucker who has written in Runner’s World that the truly great long-distance runners have very skinny calf muscles. He is, of course refering to the great East African runners whose calf muscles look like two pigeon’s eggs perched on top of a skinny pole. But if we look at Comrades gold medallists such as Andrew Kelehe, Alan Robb, Hoseah Tjale and Leonid Shvetsov, then powerful calf muscles are the dominant feature. Of course, the great Wally Hayward was the calf muscle king. His calves were like great rump steaks, so large and riddled with finger thick veins that they looked like they had their own separate circulatory systems."

---

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |

I'll take that as hope for my improving running economy!

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

That is interesting because the calf muscles contribute little to sustainable power output cycling - see Alex Simmon's comments about his FTP before and after a lower leg amputation.

Running though the calves will be crucially important. I don't think it's all about 'strength' and I'm not sure exactly what definition of strength you are using, but I would think elasticity of the tendons, the amount of energy stored and returned by the tendons, style / technique / economy / efficiency of the calves is more or at least as important as the strength and size of the calves.

Hey we got like the same pace at LT !! My heart rate was like 180 tho I tested with a bsxinsight

Could you please explain main race applications of this testing? Its setting some zones i can see that, but this is also not a problem i have at races so much, is it telling me how many cal in need as well....please explain all that you can. Thanks

---

2024: Bevoman, Galveston, Alcatraz, Marble Falls, Santa Cruz