I'm trying really hard not to mention your spelling but it really is quite funny, especially for someone "with a phd."

I'm pretty rusty on this- but I believe osteoclasts produce free radicals. I don't think free radicals stimulate osteoclasts to break down bone?

-Physiojoe

---

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels

Fair point. Never been a strong point of mine. Plus I am horrible on the key board and never spell check. I respond in a hurry. I will link the research tonight!

False you say?

http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/...amp;context=bmed_fac

And everyone can access PubMed....

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

Let me also reiterate, I am not saying CFE is for everybody, but I also don't think it is bad for people. I care more about overall fitness than just tri fitness. I am not certain how my training would change if my goals changed, so I can't speak to that. I just don't view CFE as voodoo either.

I can appreciate what you have to say and I do try to read it to understand it, but I don't think you offer the same courtesy. It seems you are talking in circles, disregarding the parts you choose, while arguing the incorrect points. you quoted,

"You say training precisely and scientifically has made you faster on less training, that is what the CFE WOD is my man. Focused, intense, concentrated drills and workouts specifically geared for ones specific sport.

Cool, so why do the strength part?

You seem to have an issue with strength training as a whole, which is cool with me, but you seem to gloss over HALF of the program that you appear to have no disagreement with?

I have a balanced workout with a mixture or Running, biking, strength training, MTBiking (swimming is folded in later). If somebody wants to disregard the strength training in favor of more tri stuff, that is their goal. If you read my points, my second point was understanding ones goals. Your goals are likely different than mine, so why do you want to argue about that. I have never said what you are doing is wrong, but in all your responses, you have tried to say that what I do is incorrect. It seems a professional (or somebody with your experience) would understand that people train differently and should train to their goals. If you read what I have written, all of it, you would see that. I have no problem with the traditional SBR training, I have friends it has worked for and I appreciate the efforts of those who go that path. It seems ignorant though to disregard something that has worked for others, whether it be called CFE or something else. Triathlons are fun for most people, the training should be fun too. If CFE gets people training, excited about training and triathlons, then what is wrong with it? Again, why are people afraid of?

As for all the science you say I never acknowledge, you conveniently leave all of that unaddressed as well. From many racers I have seen, a smooth stroke engages the full range of muscles, efficient and smooth spinning especially for rollers and hills. Mashing is what folks in spin class do, that is not cycling my friend. At 24, you might be able to mash, eventually you have to learn to ride.

With all of that, this conversation is less about training and helping triathletes in training, but about protecting turf. It is important to offer helpful criticism of a program, but intellectually dishonest to continue the way you and others have, addressing only the part of the program that you want, ignoring the parts you don't want to discuss, and name dropping science that you have yet to produce.


What would be helpful is if folks with your training would be able to properly break down CFE, pros and cons, parts worthwhile, parts not worthy. Additions to the programs etc. Instead, it is much easier to do the opposite. Disappointing and a waste.

Three starting points for reading about a smooth pedal stroke...google is your friend. I must say, I have never had a discussion with somebody who argued against a smooth pedal stroke. What an odd thing to be against. The joke about triathletes being crappy cyclists, I think you are proving that.

http://www.bicycling.com/...ur-best-pedal-stroke

http://sweatscience.com/...ly-dead-centre-size/

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/...ullstory&id=5440


So, you are just against strength training, regardless of whether it is CFE or something else. That is a conversation for a different time.


This conversation with you now has context. I feel much better now.

Except for that whole Coyle study showing that national-class cyclists had "less smooth" pedal strokes than less prolific regional class cyclists...

Where is the link? Interesting how people will cling to one thing and be stubborn to new info, or even old info applied now. Triathletes are a stubborn bunch.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
When your first URL starts with "http://www.bicycling.com/beginners" I almost didn't read the second link. Good thing I did, as it backs up what I was saying! Maybe you should have read more carefullier (that word is a joke, by the way).

"Well, it’s consistent with the idea that you shouldn’t worry too much about trying to generate power on the upstroke, since that’s a hopeless task."

It also made me chuckle that my science-based views are proof of triathletes being bad cyclists, since I actually do not race triathlon, I raced Expert MTB as a teen and now am Cat 3 on the road, with some upgrade points toward my 2 upgrade.

-Physiojoe

---

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels

I think you found your calling with physiology as reading comprehension is not your strong suit, and I quote:
Conclusion#1
While the study shows there may not be a pedaling ideal, the research doesn't mean you should forget about your form and start mashing away. Working on establishing a smooth and comfortable pedal stroke will still improve your speed by optimizing the muscle coordination, Hug found in his study. If you want to start developing your stroke or just refine it a bit, check out our ideal pedal stroke developed by cycling biomechanics experts.

Conclusion #2 Well, it’s consistent with the idea that you shouldn’t worry too much about trying to generate power on the upstroke, since that’s a hopeless task. Instead, focus on keeping the whole cycle smooth, not letting power dip too far at the top and bottom.



From the third, well riders such as Davis Phinney have ridden fixed gear in the off-season for a better, smoother pedal stroke. Just a great training tool.

Again, provide me links if I am wrong. (crickets...)

Also, I am interested in any articles that say strength training is bad for triathletes. That is new to me, but I am open minded enough to be enlightened.







[/quote][/quote][/quote]

When your first URL starts with "http://www.bicycling.com/beginners" I almost didn't read the second link. Good thing I did, as it backs up what I was saying! Maybe you should have read more carefullier (that word is a joke, by the way).

"Well, it’s consistent with the idea that you shouldn’t worry too much about trying to generate power on the upstroke, since that’s a hopeless task."

It also made me chuckle that my science-based views are proof of triathletes being bad cyclists, since I actually do not race triathlon, I raced Expert MTB as a teen and now am Cat 3 on the road, with some upgrade points toward my 2 upgrade.

-Physiojoe[/quote]

I don't know about CFE and mashing and whatever. What I do know is y'all need to learn to use the quote and reply features properly. This is getting worse than a Frank Day post here, what with the bolding and the underlining.

right now doing traditional WODs and will change to CFE WODs early April... so far much stronger with peak power:)

Thanks for contributing something worthwile (and do the point of the OP)...keep us posted how your season is! I am a CrossFitt'er turned triathlete. Raced the past 2 seasons, with my first Half-IM last spring. Strictly CF at this point, will switch to CF/CFE at some point (depending on what happens with our affiliate team, etc).

Which I draw the conclusion that you have a power meter? If so how has the FTP improved? ( Given that peak power for a triathlete is about as useful as increasing your 1RM on the bench press.)

What we have in this thread... is a failure... to communicate.

I agree with the CFers. And I feel compelled to say, all age-group athletes in the 20-29 age bracket must train with CFE. I repeat, all age-group triathletes in the 20-29 age range should add CFE to their training starting yesterday. Especially those racing in the Pacific NW.

---

-------
http://www.y-rocket.blogspot.com/

lol.. plus a lot of failed quoted responses up there.. I saw many a[/quote] ... oops?

I just want to know how he is a "Pro" when he runs a 42:30 10k, rides a 1:18 40k and follows it up with a blazing 22:30 5k at 2008 Duathlon Nationals in the age group category. 11th/24 in his AG also
I was a 2:00-2:10 Oly guy last year depending on course and i would NEVER classify myself as a pro.
This guy is a MOP age grouper.

Sorry to go OT, but those times surprise me. Was it a tough course (or much older AG)? Surprised that those times would get MOP.

Here is the study title: Coyle, E.F., et al. Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 23(1):93-107, January 1991.


The really interesting thing is how fast most triathletes will leap to some new idea, especially if it's shown to work. What's amusing is how so many Xfitters just drink the Kool Aid based on what they think they know.

Classic quote by Brett Sutton-'Kieran Perkins wa so weak he couldn't carry his own swim bag'.
He is obviously not a believer

This discussion is like chinese finger cuffs, the more you fight the less room you have. I said Triathletes are stubburn and cling to traditional views and are afraid to look at new information or methods, you then trot out a 20 year old study of questionable value based on a number of factors authored and conducted by a researcher who is professionally tainted by other studies and known to have doctored (or at the least erred ) data in his work. If that is your benchmark, then this discusion proves my point exactly. Eyes closed, ears plugged, marching forward.

This pedalling tangent was just an example of the stubborn triathlete and I appreciate you helping to make my point. Apply that to the integration of a CFE workout (or anything else outside of the tri norm) and any intellectually honest person would admit that triathletes are resistant to change. I don't see this as a problem for them because I am glad their programs work for them, but I am confused why they not only disagree, but seem to take offense at anything new. It is just a dumb thing to feel vested in.

Secondly, the argument that strength training is bad for triathletes is just not sound. Cite or quote a study that says this? I can understand why somebody would disagree with CFE being appropriate, but it seems that many are against strength training as a whole...just not smart.

CFE is an experiment for me, I am not sold on it but it makes enough sense and jives with my goals that it is worth a shot. If it doesn't mesh with your goals and pushes your comfort zone, then don't do it, but why get so entrenched about it?

I have been doing it for a month consistently. I had a strong base (strength and aerobic) going in to the process, so I hit the ground running. Pull ups, push ups, Kettle bell cleans, snatches, swings, box jumps, medicine ball work, jump rope, multiple core exercises etc...all great and functional strength training exercises, they are also incorporated into CFE.

Whether it is called CFE or not, incorporating strength training and core workouts into your routine should be a must. I can't see how it would hinder you, it might even make you great triathletes better.

Precisely! To me, this article (the one that started the thread) does more to discredit CF/CFE. Once you look at the facts, it just does not add up. As always, if your product is solid, you do not need to fluff the evidence, it stands on its own (see Infinit).

Based on some of the links throughout this topic, there are some legit Agr's using CF/CFE with good results (not world class results but good). I'd rather use those as my metrics on the system than the nonsensical Triathlete Mag. piece (Triathlete should be ashamed of its journalistic quality on that piece- and yes I understand it is a Tri magazine but it is still a legit publication and should adhear to minimum journalistic standards).