Got $500...what to spend it on

[Walrus]

I have a gift voucher for $500 at my local LBS. It's a nice dilemma to
have, but I don't know what to spend it on. My roadbike has Shimano 105
9spd, carbon bars/seatpost/cages, new saddle, new wheels & Shimano 105
pedals.



Here’s what I’m considering:

Compact: I’m heading to France next year and will consider going
Compact. I can get FSA Gossamer compact setup for $420 including new
BB. Alternatively, I can just get a new 27 cassette for $150 (Ultegra)
and switch it when I leave. The Shimano compact setup is about $575 and
is equivalent to 105 level.

Pedals: I am planning on getting new pedals, I would go for LOOK Keo
Carbon’s are $299

Shoes: My Carnacs are 3 or 4 years old now, still in good nick, but
they’ve either stretched or my feet have shrunk, cause they’re a little
loose. New nice shoes of various brands for $300’ish.

Clothes: Could always use a new set of full length knicks and jersey
for winter (and those Alps I’ll be hitting next year).

Groupset: I guess I could get a Dura Ace component or two (deraileurs,
crankset, brakes, BB).

New lights for winter.



What would you do given my situation and current setup?


--
Walrus

[artemidorus]

Walrus Wrote:
> I have a gift voucher for $500 at my local LBS. It's a nice dilemma to
> have, but I don't know what to spend it on. My roadbike has Shimano 105
> 9spd, carbon bars/seatpost/cages, new saddle, new wheels & Shimano 105
> pedals.
>
>
>
> Here’s what I’m considering:
>
> Compact: I’m heading to France next year and will consider going
> Compact. I can get FSA Gossamer compact setup for $420 including new
> BB. Alternatively, I can just get a new 27 cassette for $150 (Ultegra)
> and switch it when I leave. The Shimano compact setup is about $575 and
> is equivalent to 105 level.
>
> Pedals: I am planning on getting new pedals, I would go for LOOK Keo
> Carbon’s are $299
>
> Shoes: My Carnacs are 3 or 4 years old now, still in good nick, but
> they’ve either stretched or my feet have shrunk, cause they’re a little
> loose. New nice shoes of various brands for $300’ish.
>
> Clothes: Could always use a new set of full length knicks and jersey
> for winter (and those Alps I’ll be hitting next year).
>
> Groupset: I guess I could get a Dura Ace component or two (deraileurs,
> crankset, brakes, BB).
>
> New lights for winter.
>
>
>
> What would you do given my situation and current setup?
Lights and clothes - your bike sounds fine. Worry about gearing for
France next year.


--
artemidorus

[Bleve]

artemidorus wrote:
>
> > What would you do given my situation and current setup?
> Lights and clothes - your bike sounds fine. Worry about gearing for
> France next year.

Agreed. A 12:27 will get you up anything and you'll wear it out if you
buy it now and a compact crank is for people with broken collarbones
and other people's blood! For $500 you'll get most of an HID light or
a good halogen lightset.

[petulance]

Walrus wrote:
> I have a gift voucher for $500 at my local LBS. It's a nice dilemma to
> have, but I don't know what to spend it on. My roadbike has Shimano 105
> 9spd, carbon bars/seatpost/cages, new saddle, new wheels & Shimano 105
> pedals.
>
>
>
> Here's what I'm considering:
>
> Compact: I'm heading to France next year and will consider going
> Compact. I can get FSA Gossamer compact setup for $420 including new
> BB. Alternatively, I can just get a new 27 cassette for $150 (Ultegra)
> and switch it when I leave. The Shimano compact setup is about $575 and
> is equivalent to 105 level.

<snip>

Were you referring to the new Shimano R700 compact crank? I thought it
was meant to be specced somewhere between Ultegra and DuraAcel

[petulance]

Bleve wrote:
> artemidorus wrote:
> >
> > > What would you do given my situation and current setup?
> > Lights and clothes - your bike sounds fine. Worry about gearing for
> > France next year.
>
> Agreed. A 12:27 will get you up anything and you'll wear it out if you
> buy it now and a compact crank is for people with broken collarbones
> and other people's blood!

Surely you don't mean that only Tyler Hamilton can use a compact crank!

;)

[Tamyka Bell]

Bleve wrote:
>
> artemidorus wrote:
> >
> > > What would you do given my situation and current setup?
> > Lights and clothes - your bike sounds fine. Worry about gearing for
> > France next year.
>
> Agreed. A 12:27 will get you up anything and you'll wear it out if you
> buy it now and a compact crank is for people with broken collarbones
> and other people's blood! For $500 you'll get most of an HID light or
> a good halogen lightset.

I don't think a 12:27 would get me up 35km of 10% grade, unless it had a
motor!

Tam

[Walrus]

petulance Wrote:
>
> Were you referring to the new Shimano R700 compact crank? I thought it
> was meant to be specced somewhere between Ultegra and DuraAcelYep, I apoke to the LBS and they said it was "around 105 level". If you
look at the Shimano site, they list it under "High Grade Components".
So not really sure on that one.


--
Walrus

[Bleve]

EuanB wrote:

> Depends on the use of the bike. Trust me when I say that my compact
> set up (FSA Gossamer btw) has made the hills of Blackurn Road a lot
> easier with 10-15kgs of stuff in the panniers.

Or, get fit and ditch the panniers full of rocks :)

[EuanB]

Bleve Wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
>
> > Depends on the use of the bike. Trust me when I say that my compact
> > set up (FSA Gossamer btw) has made the hills of Blackurn Road a lot
> > easier with 10-15kgs of stuff in the panniers.
>
> Or, get fit and ditch the panniers full of rocks :)

Telecoms and radio don't lend themselves to light tools. I've pushed
(and mainly gotten) for a complete set of tools in each centre but
there are some things I still have to carry.

I could lose two kilos, but with a resting HR of 42 and recovery of 90
beats in a minute after an hour at 85% max HR, I reckon I'm fit enough
for most purposes :-)


--
EuanB

[Bleve]

EuanB wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> > EuanB wrote:
> >
> > > Depends on the use of the bike. Trust me when I say that my compact
> > > set up (FSA Gossamer btw) has made the hills of Blackurn Road a lot
> > > easier with 10-15kgs of stuff in the panniers.
> >
> > Or, get fit and ditch the panniers full of rocks :)
>
> Telecoms and radio don't lend themselves to light tools. I've pushed
> (and mainly gotten) for a complete set of tools in each centre but
> there are some things I still have to carry.

But this is your daily commute, right?

> I could lose two kilos, but with a resting HR of 42 and recovery of 90
> beats in a minute after an hour at 85% max HR, I reckon I'm fit enough
> for most purposes :-)

Fit's a funny thing, and difficult to really compare. What's your best
time up the 1:20? What do you weigh? How tall are you? What's your
max steady state power output over 20 minutes etc?

[flyingdutch]

Lights, clothes, compact/etc in that order

PS hillbrick do a compact for $400


--
flyingdutch

[petulance]

Walrus wrote:
> petulance Wrote:
> >
> > Were you referring to the new Shimano R700 compact crank? I thought it
> > was meant to be specced somewhere between Ultegra and DuraAcelYep, I apoke to the LBS and they said it was "around 105 level". If you
> look at the Shimano site, they list it under "High Grade Components".
> So not really sure on that one.
>
>
> --
> Walrus

from Cycling News

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2005/newarrivals/11-17

[EuanB]

Bleve Wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
> > Bleve Wrote:
> > > EuanB wrote:
> > >
> > > > Depends on the use of the bike. Trust me when I say that my
> compact
> > > > set up (FSA Gossamer btw) has made the hills of Blackurn Road a
> lot
> > > > easier with 10-15kgs of stuff in the panniers.
> > >
> > > Or, get fit and ditch the panniers full of rocks :)
> >
> > Telecoms and radio don't lend themselves to light tools. I've
> pushed
> > (and mainly gotten) for a complete set of tools in each centre but
> > there are some things I still have to carry.
>
> But this is your daily commute, right?
Three centres to support, two in the CBD and one in East Burwood.
Some days I get to go to all three in one day.

> > I could lose two kilos, but with a resting HR of 42 and recovery of 90
> > beats in a minute after an hour at 85% max HR, I reckon I'm fit
> enough
> > for most purposes :-)
>
> Fit's a funny thing, and difficult to really compare. What's your
> best
> time up the 1:20?
I've done it once and didn't time it, will remember to time it this
Sunday.

> What do you weigh? How tall are you?
83kgs, 175cm

> What's your
> max steady state power output over 20 minutes etc?
No idea, don't have a power tap. The most I recall pushing in recent
times though is about 170. The maximum heart rate I've recorded
recently is 185 but that was mountain biking. On a road bike the
maximum I've recorded is 180.

My legs generally give out way before my cardio does. 160 I can
maintain for extended periods of time, but I need a good reason to do
that because I'm basically lazy :-)


--
EuanB

[flyingdutch]

EuanB Wrote:
>
> No idea, don't have a power tap. The most I recall pushing in recent
> times though is about 170. The maximum heart rate I've recorded
> recently is 185 but that was mountain biking. On a road bike the
> maximum I've recorded is 180.
>
> My legs generally give out way before my cardio does. 160 I can
> maintain for extended periods of time, but I need a good reason to do
> that because I'm basically lazy :-)

go to the dentist to do a REAL MaxHRTest™ :eek: :eek: :eek:


--
flyingdutch

[JayWoo]

petulance Wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
>
> > Agreed. A 12:27 will get you up anything and you'll wear it out if
> you
> > buy it now and a compact crank is for people with broken collarbones
> > and other people's blood!
>
> Surely you don't mean that only Tyler Hamilton can use a compact crank!
>
> ;)
Basso's an advocate too;

*http://tinyurl.com/nd57s*


Jay "Old-School-27-12" Woo


--
JayWoo

[Bleve]

EuanB wrote:

> > But this is your daily commute, right?
> Three centres to support, two in the CBD and one in East Burwood.
> Some days I get to go to all three in one day.

Telco in east Burwood? At the tower on Canterbury Rd? Downhill all
the way home .... w00t!

> > > I could lose two kilos, but with a resting HR of 42 and recovery of 90
> > > beats in a minute after an hour at 85% max HR, I reckon I'm fit
> > enough
> > > for most purposes :-)
> >
> > Fit's a funny thing, and difficult to really compare. What's your
> > best
> > time up the 1:20?
> I've done it once and didn't time it, will remember to time it this
> Sunday.

The weather will be awful again. I have to do the ******* thing twice
this Sunday .. my coach is a *******!

> > What do you weigh? How tall are you?
> 83kgs, 175cm

Ok, not too heavy.

> > What's your
> > max steady state power output over 20 minutes etc?
> No idea, don't have a power tap.


You don't need one. Try doing a 20 minute ITT (flat) and see what
speed you can maintain. Velodrones are good for this.

Speaking of which, the 3 monkeys that sucked my wheel at Hawthorn on
Tues arvo, you're not getting quality miles by just drafting me .... I
don't mind you mob doing it, but at least say thankyou or something.


> The most I recall pushing in recent
> times though is about 170. The maximum heart rate I've recorded
> recently is 185 but that was mountain biking. On a road bike the
> maximum I've recorded is 180.

HRmax and fitness have very little relation. HRmax is just a
genetic/age thing.

> My legs generally give out way before my cardio does. 160 I can
> maintain for extended periods of time, but I need a good reason to do
> that because I'm basically lazy :-)

Yes, but what can you maintain speed-wise at that HR? :) For you,
160-bpm is E3, I'd be quite interested to see what speed you can push
at that workrate for 20 mins.

[Tamyka Bell]

Bleve wrote:
<snip>
> HRmax and fitness have very little relation. HRmax is just a
> genetic/age thing.

*frown*

I know that's supposed to be the case, and many refs will agree with
you, but since I took up training, my HR_max dropped from being approx
equal to the age-predicted max, to being well below the age-predicted
value.

Tam

[TimC]

On 2006-04-06, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Bleve wrote:
> <snip>
>> HRmax and fitness have very little relation. HRmax is just a
>> genetic/age thing.
>
> *frown*
>
> I know that's supposed to be the case, and many refs will agree with
> you, but since I took up training, my HR_max dropped from being approx
> equal to the age-predicted max, to being well below the age-predicted
> value.

You're better off with a larger difference between resting HR and
maxHR though. More clearance to go harder.

--
TimC
"Some people think that noise abatement should be a higher priority for ATC. I
say safety is noise abatement. You have no idea how much noise it makes to have
a 737 fall out of the sky after an accident." -- anon. air traffic controller

[Tamyka Bell]

TimC wrote:
>
> On 2006-04-06, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Bleve wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> HRmax and fitness have very little relation. HRmax is just a
> >> genetic/age thing.
> >
> > *frown*
> >
> > I know that's supposed to be the case, and many refs will agree with
> > you, but since I took up training, my HR_max dropped from being approx
> > equal to the age-predicted max, to being well below the age-predicted
> > value.
>
> You're better off with a larger difference between resting HR and
> maxHR though. More clearance to go harder.

Noice.

You could lower both you max and min HR, just get your min down to about
20bpm...

Tam

[Bleve]

TimC wrote:
> On 2006-04-06, Bleve (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> >
> > EuanB wrote:
> >> Bleve
> >> > Fit's a funny thing, and difficult to really compare. What's your
> >> > best
> >> > time up the 1:20?
> >> I've done it once and didn't time it, will remember to time it this
> >> Sunday.
> >
> > The weather will be awful again. I have to do the ******* thing twice
> > this Sunday .. my coach is a *******!
>
> Sunday Becoming fine. Min 11 Max 18
> ?
>
> Should sack 'im :)

I'll belt the turd tonight on a spin trainer, make him have the "fun"
:)

[Bleve]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> <snip>
> > HRmax and fitness have very little relation. HRmax is just a
> > genetic/age thing.
>
> *frown*
>
> I know that's supposed to be the case, and many refs will agree with
> you, but since I took up training, my HR_max dropped from being approx
> equal to the age-predicted max, to being well below the age-predicted
> value.

I wasn't going to confuse the matter, but since you are, I'll play :)

My understanding is that it can decrease as you increase stroke volume
etc through aerobic training, but not by a lot, and it's still mainly a
genetic thing. There's riders who are amazingly fast with relatively
high RHR and low HRmax, and slow riders with high HRmax and low RHR
values. They don't really mean much in absolute terms, they're just
interesting numbers to look at as a relative thing for each individual.
Will Walker has a higher VO2max (reportedly something like 92) than
Lance Armstrong did when he won any of his 7 TdFs, as another example
of how not to use these values in isolation to compare between people.

[Tamyka Bell]

Bleve wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > Bleve wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > HRmax and fitness have very little relation. HRmax is just a
> > > genetic/age thing.
> >
> > *frown*
> >
> > I know that's supposed to be the case, and many refs will agree with
> > you, but since I took up training, my HR_max dropped from being approx
> > equal to the age-predicted max, to being well below the age-predicted
> > value.
>
> I wasn't going to confuse the matter, but since you are, I'll play :)
>
> My understanding is that it can decrease as you increase stroke volume
> etc through aerobic training, but not by a lot, and it's still mainly a
> genetic thing. There's riders who are amazingly fast with relatively
> high RHR and low HRmax, and slow riders with high HRmax and low RHR
> values. They don't really mean much in absolute terms, they're just
> interesting numbers to look at as a relative thing for each individual.
> Will Walker has a higher VO2max (reportedly something like 92) than
> Lance Armstrong did when he won any of his 7 TdFs, as another example
> of how not to use these values in isolation to compare between people.

Okay, because refs I just looked up said there was NO decrease, that you
max cardiac output went huge because max HR was the same but stroke
volume increased, and your resting cardiac output stayed constant
because your resting HR dropped but your stroke volume increased.

Interesting.

T

[EuanB]

Bleve Wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
>
> > > But this is your daily commute, right?
> > Three centres to support, two in the CBD and one in East Burwood.
> > Some days I get to go to all three in one day.
>
> Telco in east Burwood? At the tower on Canterbury Rd? Downhill all
> the way home .... w00t!
>
>

No, the CFA Building in Lakeside Drive. I generally use Toorak Road
from St Kilda Road.
>
> > I've done it once and didn't time it, will remember
> to time it this
> > Sunday.
>
> The weather will be awful again. I have to do the ******* thing twice
> this Sunday .. my coach is a *******!
>

Looks like 1/20's shaping up to be the warm up the way things are
panning out. Got a local taking me up around the observatory (?) an
extra hour and half or so. Should be fun :-)


> > > What's your
> > > max steady state power output over 20 minutes etc?
> > No idea, don't have a power tap.
>
>
> You don't need one. Try doing a 20 minute ITT (flat) and see what
> speed you can maintain. Velodrones are good for this.

Hmm. Might have to look in to that. How about a fluid trainer? Got
one of those.

>
> > The most I recall pushing in recent
> > times though is about 170. The maximum heart rate I've recorded
> > recently is 185 but that was mountain biking. On a road bike the
> > maximum I've recorded is 180.
>
> HRmax and fitness have very little relation. HRmax is just a
> genetic/age thing.
>
Yeah I know, I included it for HR max, HR reserve reasons.


> My legs generally give out way before my cardio does. 160 I can
> maintain for extended periods of time, but I need a good reason to do
> that because I'm basically lazy :-)

Yes, but what can you maintain speed-wise at that HR? :) For you,
160-bpm is E3, I'd be quite interested to see what speed you can push
at that workrate for 20 mins.
Dunno. I don't really go that hard very often 'cause most of the time
I'm commuting which precludes that sort of thing (traffic, panniers etc).
Last week I went on a ride with a couple of colleagues and we averaged
about 38 to Frankston but only 32 back to the city, guess there was a
wind. We were pulling turns as well so that's not much of an indicator.


--
EuanB

[Bleve]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

> Okay, because refs I just looked up said there was NO decrease, that you
> max cardiac output went huge because max HR was the same but stroke
> volume increased, and your resting cardiac output stayed constant
> because your resting HR dropped but your stroke volume increased.

Remember exercise physiologists are still guessing about this stuff,
the tail is very much wagging the dog :)

[EuanB]

Bleve Wrote:
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > Bleve wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > HRmax and fitness have very little relation. HRmax is just a
> > > genetic/age thing.
> >
> > *frown*
> >
> > I know that's supposed to be the case, and many refs will agree with
> > you, but since I took up training, my HR_max dropped from being
> approx
> > equal to the age-predicted max, to being well below the age-predicted
> > value.
>
> I wasn't going to confuse the matter, but since you are, I'll play :)
>
> My understanding is that it can decrease as you increase stroke volume
> etc through aerobic training, but not by a lot, and it's still mainly a
> genetic thing. There's riders who are amazingly fast with relatively
> high RHR and low HRmax, and slow riders with high HRmax and low RHR
> values. They don't really mean much in absolute terms, they're just
> interesting numbers to look at as a relative thing for each individual.
> Will Walker has a higher VO2max (reportedly something like 92) than
> Lance Armstrong did when he won any of his 7 TdFs, as another example
> of how not to use these values in isolation to compare between people.

Could it also be that the more you do a particular activity, the more
`tuned' you are to it so you have to push yourself percievedly much
harder to achieve the same max HR?

My experience on the mountain bike suggests this, although that could
also be a position thing, more upright, more muscles recruited 'cause
of terrain etc.


--
EuanB

[Bikesoiler]

EuanB Wrote:
> Could it also be that the more you do a particular activity, the more
> `tuned' you are to it so you have to push yourself percievedly much
> harder to achieve the same max HR?
>
> My experience on the mountain bike suggests this, although that could
> also be a position thing, more upright, more muscles recruited 'cause
> of terrain etc.


In this case it may also be caused by trail hazards ie, logs across
your path!


--
Bikesoiler

[Rhubarb]

"EuanB" > wrote in message
...
>

<Snip>

> Looks like 1/20's shaping up to be the warm up the way things are
> panning out. Got a local taking me up around the observatory (?) an
> extra hour and half or so. Should be fun :-)

<Snip>

Depending on which way you are going up to the Observatory it could be a
good place to see how high you can get your HR up to. If heading up from the
Silvan dam lookout and you have already done a climb or two it's a bloody
good workout.

Work hard getting to it and the give it everything you've got going up.
Hopefully you will at least get very close to your MTB max HR.

[Rhubarb]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
<Snip>

> You don't need one. Try doing a 20 minute ITT (flat) and see what
> speed you can maintain. Velodrones are good for this.

So how do you work out your power from that?

[Roadie_scum]

Bleve Wrote:
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> > Okay, because refs I just looked up said there was NO decrease, that
> you
> > max cardiac output went huge because max HR was the same but stroke
> > volume increased, and your resting cardiac output stayed constant
> > because your resting HR dropped but your stroke volume increased.
>
> Remember exercise physiologists are still guessing about this stuff,
> the tail is very much wagging the dog :)

What are they guessing about?

Maximal cardiac output = stroke volume X Max HR

Stroke volume increases drastically with training, offsetting a
decrease in max HR. Common knowledge. Or I thought it was.

Tam - HR max is just a genetic/age thing across the population (it
drops with age and genetic variability is large - the std deviation of
HRmax in a given age bracket is huge) but for a given individual HR max
will tend to drop as they become increasingly well trained and then rise
with rest and/or detraining (so you will sometimes see your highest HR
in months just following a taper).

As far as the ~20 minute efforts you (Bleve) are talking about,
mitochondrial density and capillarisation will play a huge role over
and above cardiac output, which is more likely to limit efforts around
VO2max (~3-10 minutes). (Though both cardiac output and metabolism at
muscular sites are obviously important).

Also, you are going to have serious problems using the speed/given HR
test (how fast are you at 160bpm) to assess fitness for many, many
reasons.

1. Environmental factors play far too big a role. If you don't believe
me, try riding on a velodrome on different days at the same speed with
a powermeter. Or ask someone who has done (me) about the
variability...

2. Even if power could be held constant (eg environmental factors were
well controlled, like at DISC on a day with similar
temperature/pressure, or riding a very steep climb protected from the
wind) HR varies too much person to person and day to day to make the
data particularly useful. If you could control environmental factors
enough to use speed as a proxy for power, you'd be better off using
speed over a given time as your metric for performance and forgetting
about heart rate all together.

3. Possibly some other things, but I have to go ride now.


--
Roadie_scum

[a5hi5m]

hopefully the last few (2?) pages have helped you make your decision a
little easier, Walrus ;)


Ash


--
a5hi5m

[TimC]

On 2006-04-06, Roadie_scum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> 1. Environmental factors play far too big a role. If you don't believe
> me, try riding on a velodrome on different days at the same speed with
> a powermeter. Or ask someone who has done (me) about the
> variability...

OK, so I'll bite. Tell us about the variability :)

> 2. Even if power could be held constant (eg environmental factors were
> well controlled, like at DISC on a day with similar
> temperature/pressure,

In particular, how do things vary within DISC, depending on
temp/pressure and presumably humidity even (density of the air?)?

> or riding a very steep climb protected from the
> wind)

Which is why I think it is valid to time a PB up a big hillclimb
(maybe not kangaroo gnd :) drafting someone. Although the
psychological advantage is probably unfair...

--
TimC
#define FUZZ 0.0001 /*author: Marc Goodman in ARK*/
float BogoSqrt(float in) { float out;
do { out=(rand()/(float)0x7fff)-0x8000;
} while((out*out)<in-FUZZ || (out*out)>in+FUZZ); return(out); }

[Bleve]

Roadie_scum wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> > Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, because refs I just looked up said there was NO decrease, that
> > you
> > > max cardiac output went huge because max HR was the same but stroke
> > > volume increased, and your resting cardiac output stayed constant
> > > because your resting HR dropped but your stroke volume increased.
> >
> > Remember exercise physiologists are still guessing about this stuff,
> > the tail is very much wagging the dog :)
>
> What are they guessing about?

It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
contradictory and used out of context.

> Maximal cardiac output = stroke volume X Max HR

Uhuh.

> Stroke volume increases drastically with training, offsetting a
> decrease in max HR. Common knowledge. Or I thought it was.

Uhuh.

> Tam - HR max is just a genetic/age thing across the population (it
> drops with age and genetic variability is large - the std deviation of
> HRmax in a given age bracket is huge) but for a given individual HR max
> will tend to drop as they become increasingly well trained and then rise
> with rest and/or detraining (so you will sometimes see your highest HR
> in months just following a taper).
>
> As far as the ~20 minute efforts you (Bleve) are talking about,
> mitochondrial density and capillarisation will play a huge role over
> and above cardiac output, which is more likely to limit efforts around
> VO2max (~3-10 minutes). (Though both cardiac output and metabolism at
> muscular sites are obviously important).

Of course. Which is why specific intensity training is much more
useful than the average punter thinks and why when a lay person says
"you're fit" when you can ride the 1:20 in 16 minutes and you can't
walk up 3 flights of stairs without being rooted they don't understand.
I'm not talking about VO2max work, in fact, I specifically mentioned
that VO2max is a reasonably poor predictor of cycling performance in
real racing conditions. Will Walker won't win the TdF this year :)

> Also, you are going to have serious problems using the speed/given HR
> test (how fast are you at 160bpm) to assess fitness for many, many
> reasons.

No, not serious problems, understandable and expected variations. It's
called a "rough idea", not a precise measurement. I could send him
down to Dr Blood at VU and get a VO2max/blood lactate test done, but
that's $200 he could spend on something useful instead, like a new pair
of shoes or a deposit on an HID light :)

[Bleve]

EuanB wrote:

> Could it also be that the more you do a particular activity, the more
> `tuned' you are to it so you have to push yourself percievedly much
> harder to achieve the same max HR?

Your body adapts to your training (duh!). Percieved effort is quite
closely related to breathing rates and HR in most ranges of activity
(I'm not trying to be vague ...). So you'll usually feel roughly the
same at 170bpm no matter how trained you are, what you will be able to
do is generate more power at that workload, and sustain it for longer
(depending on the training and your individual genetics). There's a
lot of environmental factors too, stress, temperature etc alter HR, so
it's not an absolute indicator of effort, but it's pretty good most of
the time.

> My experience on the mountain bike suggests this, although that could
> also be a position thing, more upright, more muscles recruited 'cause
> of terrain etc.

What you do more of, you get better at, in general.

[gplama]

Bleve Wrote:
> So you'll usually feel roughly the same at 170bpm no matter how trained
> you are,

aint that the truth....

"it never gets easier, you just get faster" - LeMond (?)


--
gplama

[TimC]

On 2006-04-06, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Rhubarb wrote:
>> "Bleve" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > You don't need one. Try doing a 20 minute ITT (flat) and see what
>> > speed you can maintain. Velodrones are good for this.
>>
>> So how do you work out your power from that?
>
> You don't really need to, it's just an interesting thing to know. And
> then, a few months later you try again, and see if you can do it
> faster* There's a bunch of formulas you can apply to get a rough idea
> of power from speed, frontal area etc, but they're (by necessity)
> pretty inacurate. If you really do want to know, a power meter is
> required, but they're expensive and on the whole, unnecessary, IMO.
>
> * yes, pedant ... but it's still a reasonably good test for the average
> punter if they exercise common sense when they do it.

You mean I haven't become magically more fit over the past couple of
nights (but really really really unfit this morning!)?

--
TimC
you are WRONG. QED -- George Hammond

[Roadie_scum]

Bleve Wrote:
>
> No, not serious problems, understandable and expected variations.
> It's
> called a "rough idea", not a precise measurement. I could send him
> down to Dr Blood at VU and get a VO2max/blood lactate test done, but
> that's $200 he could spend on something useful instead, like a new
> pair
> of shoes or a deposit on an HID light :)

Yeah I definitely agree that VO2max/blood lactate tests are not a
useful thing to spend money on for most riders. However, you need to
control the variation very well to get useful results out of field
tests. Either use an indoor velodrome (DISC) or a steep (as possible
without losing cadence - best with a low gear) climb for every field
test an athlete does. Variability on a flat (and even on some climbs)
is ridiculously large and it can be depressing, misleading and
unmotivating to do a field test on a ****ty day and think you've got
worse when the opposite is true. I have done field tests (before I knew
better) on climbs (the wall in this case) and done poorly due to
environmental factors and found it hard to deal with in the lead up to
a race. Conversely, I know one coach whose current PB was set on a very
(VERY) similar day in terms of wind and weather, in the same position,
with the same equipment, as his previous PB. Except he rides with a
powertap so he knew his power was lower by about 10-12 watts.

The problem is, the variability in field tests that you claim to be
able to 'understand and expect' can be and often is larger than the
fitness gains you would be looking for in field tests (assuming you are
dealing with reasonable level athletes - if your athletes come to you
relatively untrained this wouldn't be true).

As you say:

> There's a bunch of formulas you can apply to get a rough idea
> of power from speed, frontal area etc, but they're (by necessity)
> pretty inacurate.

The truth is, the formulae are very accurate. The inaccuracies come
from inputting incorrect data - frontal area, cda, wind speed,
velocity, rolling resistance, air pressure, etc. As you obviously can
see, these basically impossible to pin down so you can't get accurate
replicable data about your power from field tests. But, and this is the
whole point, it's your power you want to know about to know whether
you've improved, not how fast you ride the field test. If you can't
know your power from the test, you can't know if you've got better or
if it's just a favourable day. In the alternative, where there is a
massive improvement, you can know you've got better but not by how much
(because of the magnitude of error inherent in making assumptions about
environmental factors).

> If you really do want to know, a power meter is
> required, but they're expensive and on the whole, unnecessary, IMO.

I wouldn't recommend a power athlete to anyone without a bit of
experience, self-knowledge and a willingness to learn but they are not
particularly expensive when compared to other cycling equipment (though
I wouldn't call them cheap) and given that they make it drastically
simpler to track both training load and training response, I think they
are a very worthwhile investment for any serious or semi-serious
athlete. The AIS and VIS clearly agree and while that doesn't prove the
point for amateurs who have to pay for their equipment, it's interesting
to see how much they've taken off in the US and UK where they have been
promoted properly (mainly through audience education) as well as how
well many riders do training on power in terms of realising
improvements faster for full time/very serious athletes or racing well
with limited training time for others.

And on exercise science:

> It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
> clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
> contradictory and used out of context.

'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing amateur
scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.
This gives the pros plenty of room to reach pretty solid conclusions.
Whilst their is room for debate in many areas of ex sci (as in all
sciences - that's how they progress), they tend not to be the ones that
baffle the layperson. Many of the issues that are claimed to be
contentious or treated as unknowable by coaches and athletes are
actually well settled. Ignoring science. I think belittling the science
by calling it young and waving your hands and claiming that the body is
not well understood leads to 'belief based' as opposed to 'evidence
based' coaching.

If anyone is interested, have a look at this article and see what you
think...

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm


--
Roadie_scum

[Bleve]

Roadie_scum wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > No, not serious problems, understandable and expected variations.
> > It's
> > called a "rough idea", not a precise measurement. I could send him
> > down to Dr Blood at VU and get a VO2max/blood lactate test done, but
> > that's $200 he could spend on something useful instead, like a new
> > pair
> > of shoes or a deposit on an HID light :)
>
> Yeah I definitely agree that VO2max/blood lactate tests are not a
> useful thing to spend money on for most riders. However, you need to
> control the variation very well to get useful results out of field
> tests.

Of course, and as you mention, there's a lot of variation, and for
elite level riders, it's not good enough. Most of the riders I work
with are sub elite (from rec riders to a couple of A graders, and
everything in between) and this sort of field test is good enough. The
obvious things like wind, temp etc are certainly going to have
significant impact.


> Either use an indoor velodrome (DISC) or a steep (as possible
> without losing cadence - best with a low gear) climb for every field
> test an athlete does. Variability on a flat (and even on some climbs)
> is ridiculously large and it can be depressing, misleading and
> unmotivating to do a field test on a ****ty day and think you've got
> worse when the opposite is true. I have done field tests (before I knew
> better) on climbs (the wall in this case) and done poorly due to
> environmental factors and found it hard to deal with in the lead up to
> a race. Conversely, I know one coach whose current PB was set on a very
> (VERY) similar day in terms of wind and weather, in the same position,
> with the same equipment, as his previous PB. Except he rides with a
> powertap so he knew his power was lower by about 10-12 watts.

Remember that powertaps aren't perfect tools either. That said, I will
be getting one as soon as the true wireless one is available - the
distributor in the US reckons a couple more months.

> The problem is, the variability in field tests that you claim to be
> able to 'understand and expect' can be and often is larger than the
> fitness gains you would be looking for in field tests (assuming you are
> dealing with reasonable level athletes - if your athletes come to you
> relatively untrained this wouldn't be true).

I'm glad you pointed it out :)

> As you say:
>
> > There's a bunch of formulas you can apply to get a rough idea
> > of power from speed, frontal area etc, but they're (by necessity)
> > pretty inacurate.
>
> The truth is, the formulae are very accurate.

As you point out,the variables are so great and difficult that they're
(in most cases) little more than educated guesses. Kinda like a Polar
HRM's guess of VO2max (or wattage :) )

> The inaccuracies come
> from inputting incorrect data - frontal area, cda, wind speed,
> velocity, rolling resistance, air pressure, etc. As you obviously can
> see, these basically impossible to pin down so you can't get accurate
> replicable data about your power from field tests. But, and this is the
> whole point, it's your power you want to know about to know whether
> you've improved, not how fast you ride the field test. If you can't
> know your power from the test, you can't know if you've got better or
> if it's just a favourable day. In the alternative, where there is a
> massive improvement, you can know you've got better but not by how much
> (because of the magnitude of error inherent in making assumptions about
> environmental factors).

I think for elite level riders, this is relevant, but for the majority,
a field test (with sanity as part of it) is good enough. As you're
no-dount aware, untrained riders go through pretty rapid changes early
on, and field tests show such gross changes (again, the caveats apply)
reasonably clearly. A rider who could do the 1:20 in 22 minutes who
gets it down to 18 after 6 months of solid training has definiatly made
a significant improvement. One who's doing it in 15 mins is going to
know less if they do one in 14:55 and one in 15:30.

The same goes with another test I do regularly, we do downhill sprints
at the Kew loop. It's windy, the weather changes a lot, tyre pressures
... caveat after caveat ontop of another caveat. But - a rider who
could consistantly get down it peaking at 50km/h who after 6 months can
reliably hit 60, has improved. For a lot of my riders, this is good
enough resolution. I'm frustrated by it because I'm making small
improvement (I hope!) but the test is not reliable enough for me to
tell. Thus, the test isn't good enough ...
We do another field test on strength, on the same hill we do almost
standing start big gear sprints, as riders get stronger they can get a
bigger gear up to speed. Again as we know, once you get into reduced
improvements, that's not good enough, and a power meter is required,
but, for most, it's good enough.

> > If you really do want to know, a power meter is
> > required, but they're expensive and on the whole, unnecessary, IMO.
>
> I wouldn't recommend a power athlete to anyone without a bit of
> experience, self-knowledge and a willingness to learn but they are not
> particularly expensive when compared to other cycling equipment (though
> I wouldn't call them cheap) and given that they make it drastically
> simpler to track both training load and training response, I think they
> are a very worthwhile investment for any serious or semi-serious
> athlete. The AIS and VIS clearly agree and while that doesn't prove the
> point for amateurs who have to pay for their equipment, it's interesting
> to see how much they've taken off in the US and UK where they have been
> promoted properly (mainly through audience education) as well as how
> well many riders do training on power in terms of realising
> improvements faster for full time/very serious athletes or racing well
> with limited training time for others.

Sure. This is why I will be getting a particular powertap as soon as
it's available. The current ones don't suit my requirements. I'm
quite looking forward to having it :)

> And on exercise science:
>
> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
> > contradictory and used out of context.
>
> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
> surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
> literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing amateur
> scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
> wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
> science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.

Yes, there has. But, there's a lot of fairly rapid change (the whole
lactate as a fuel/muscle inhibitor/just what exactly does blood lactate
mean anyway?!, and dehydration, and stretching etc etc) in the field.
By rapid change I mean in reasonably fundamental things - this suggests
that the body of knowledge is still pretty shaky, *especially* when it
comes to prediction (ie: applying the science). Compared to physics,
for example, where in most low speed cases F does equal MA and we can
predict a lot based on that (crude .. but you know what I mean I
think). I'd compare it in terms of maturity to subatomic physics. Both
have been around for roughly the same time (within 50 years or so
anyway I think), and both are pretty confused and difficult to study.
It's questionable as to which of the two has more funding these days,
we care more for gold medals and nationalistic fervor than we do for
understanding the nature of the universe....

> This gives the pros plenty of room to reach pretty solid conclusions.
> Whilst their is room for debate in many areas of ex sci (as in all
> sciences - that's how they progress), they tend not to be the ones that
> baffle the layperson. Many of the issues that are claimed to be
> contentious or treated as unknowable by coaches and athletes are
> actually well settled. Ignoring science. I think belittling the science
> by calling it young and waving your hands and claiming that the body is
> not well understood leads to 'belief based' as opposed to 'evidence
> based' coaching.

I'm not belittling it at all, I'm saying it's immature (not in a
pejorative sense). Not that it's useless, but that it's still got a
long way to go before it settles on a lot of reasonably fundamental
issues, and also before it's communicated well to its target. Compare
with physics, as an example. There's a lot going on, but just about
everyone knows that the earth orbits the sun and that light has a
speed, and so on. (ok, bad example, there's a lot of tools that
believe astrology! ... *sigh* the Egyptians knew the world was round
...). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of confused
studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
what?) and so on. The challenge is that isolating variables is close
to impossible for a lot of these types of studies. Take altitude
training as a classic example. To do a valuable study, you'd need a
sufficiently large collection of very similar riders, doing identical
training at low and high altitudes, and then a well designed testing
protocol to determine if there's any significant difference. Where does
the sports scientist find willing people who fit the criteria? It's
easy to do a test for potassium in cells etc and see the results, it's
a very different thing to see what sort of training is optimal for a
rider preparing for the Melb->Warnambool.

Perhaps a better comparison is with economics. At a muscular/cellular
level (cf micro economics) it's pretty well understood. Scale it up
and no-one knows what's going on!
It's nigh-on impossible to isolate variables, everyone's trying to
extrapolate ... and it's a confused mess.

I believe (note!) that at the moment, there's very little in the way of
what you're calling "evidence based coaching" in cycling because, I
suspect (I'm not AIS :) ) the vast majority of elite level coaches
working for national squads have vested interests in keeping secrets to
a certain degree. There's a -lot- of material around, and an
incredible amount of exercise physiology data, but little (that I've
found anyway) in the way of a roadmap to what's out of date, what's
current and so on. Cycling's so full of folklore and dinosaurs it's a
joke - US Postal/Discovery still age tyres, Armstrong, with no conflict
of interest (heh ...) rattles on about CTS, but maybe being coached by
Ferrari after all. We're all fed misinformation. A lot of the
coaching methods I've been exposed to came from Charlie Walsh's manual
and Hilton Clarke saying "This is what we did with Frenchy". One
wonders just what exactly he did that he didn't tell us at the course,
and what does go on at Del Monte when no-one (aparently) is looking?

What I think is important is to clearly state and differentiate, when
working with riders, what is an assumtion/belief and what is shown by
real research. Ie: I do the best I can with my riders to explain why
we do things the way we do (and yes, a lot of that is based on gut
feeling for a particular rider, findng ways to apply narrow results to
broad issues is the "art" of coaching, I think). The role of a coach
is one not just (although it's a pretty important part!) to know the
science, but also to understand the people being coached and to help
motivate, support and encourage them, teach them good race smarts and
good sportsmanship and so on.

> If anyone is interested, have a look at this article and see what you
> think...
>
> http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm

That's a very good and interesting article. Thankyou for the
reference. It's a bit of a stretch to apply Heisenberg to coaching,
but all the same, it makes some good points :)

[cameron41]

$500, treat yourself to a meal at the Flower Drum then go for a ride the
next morning.


--
cameron41

[Roadie_scum]

Bleve Wrote:
> Roadie_scum wrote:
> > Bleve Wrote:
> > >
> > > No, not serious problems, understandable and expected variations.
> > > It's
> > > called a "rough idea", not a precise measurement. I could send
> him
> > > down to Dr Blood at VU and get a VO2max/blood lactate test done,
> but
> > > that's $200 he could spend on something useful instead, like a new
> > > pair
> > > of shoes or a deposit on an HID light :)
> >
> > Yeah I definitely agree that VO2max/blood lactate tests are not a
> > useful thing to spend money on for most riders. However, you need to
> > control the variation very well to get useful results out of field
> > tests.
>
> Of course, and as you mention, there's a lot of variation, and for
> elite level riders, it's not good enough. Most of the riders I work
> with are sub elite (from rec riders to a couple of A graders, and
> everything in between) and this sort of field test is good enough.
> The
> obvious things like wind, temp etc are certainly going to have
> significant impact.
>
>
> > Either use an indoor velodrome (DISC) or a steep (as possible
> > without losing cadence - best with a low gear) climb for every field
> > test an athlete does. Variability on a flat (and even on some
> climbs)
> > is ridiculously large and it can be depressing, misleading and
> > unmotivating to do a field test on a ****ty day and think you've got
> > worse when the opposite is true. I have done field tests (before I
> knew
> > better) on climbs (the wall in this case) and done poorly due to
> > environmental factors and found it hard to deal with in the lead up
> to
> > a race. Conversely, I know one coach whose current PB was set on a
> very
> > (VERY) similar day in terms of wind and weather, in the same
> position,
> > with the same equipment, as his previous PB. Except he rides with a
> > powertap so he knew his power was lower by about 10-12 watts.
>
> Remember that powertaps aren't perfect tools either. That said, I
> will
> be getting one as soon as the true wireless one is available - the
> distributor in the US reckons a couple more months.
>
> > The problem is, the variability in field tests that you claim to be
> > able to 'understand and expect' can be and often is larger than the
> > fitness gains you would be looking for in field tests (assuming you
> are
> > dealing with reasonable level athletes - if your athletes come to
> you
> > relatively untrained this wouldn't be true).
>
> I'm glad you pointed it out :)
>
> > As you say:
> >
> > > There's a bunch of formulas you can apply to get a rough idea
> > > of power from speed, frontal area etc, but they're (by necessity)
> > > pretty inacurate.
> >
> > The truth is, the formulae are very accurate.
>
> As you point out,the variables are so great and difficult that they're
> (in most cases) little more than educated guesses. Kinda like a Polar
> HRM's guess of VO2max (or wattage :) )
>
> > The inaccuracies come
> > from inputting incorrect data - frontal area, cda, wind speed,
> > velocity, rolling resistance, air pressure, etc. As you obviously
> can
> > see, these basically impossible to pin down so you can't get
> accurate
> > replicable data about your power from field tests. But, and this is
> the
> > whole point, it's your power you want to know about to know whether
> > you've improved, not how fast you ride the field test. If you can't
> > know your power from the test, you can't know if you've got better
> or
> > if it's just a favourable day. In the alternative, where there is a
> > massive improvement, you can know you've got better but not by how
> much
> > (because of the magnitude of error inherent in making assumptions
> about
> > environmental factors).
>
> I think for elite level riders, this is relevant, but for the
> majority,
> a field test (with sanity as part of it) is good enough. As you're
> no-dount aware, untrained riders go through pretty rapid changes early
> on, and field tests show such gross changes (again, the caveats apply)
> reasonably clearly. A rider who could do the 1:20 in 22 minutes who
> gets it down to 18 after 6 months of solid training has definiatly
> made
> a significant improvement. One who's doing it in 15 mins is going to
> know less if they do one in 14:55 and one in 15:30.
>
> The same goes with another test I do regularly, we do downhill sprints
> at the Kew loop. It's windy, the weather changes a lot, tyre
> pressures
> ... caveat after caveat ontop of another caveat. But - a rider who
> could consistantly get down it peaking at 50km/h who after 6 months
> can
> reliably hit 60, has improved. For a lot of my riders, this is good
> enough resolution. I'm frustrated by it because I'm making small
> improvement (I hope!) but the test is not reliable enough for me to
> tell. Thus, the test isn't good enough ...
> We do another field test on strength, on the same hill we do almost
> standing start big gear sprints, as riders get stronger they can get a
> bigger gear up to speed. Again as we know, once you get into reduced
> improvements, that's not good enough, and a power meter is required,
> but, for most, it's good enough.
>
> > > If you really do want to know, a power meter is
> > > required, but they're expensive and on the whole, unnecessary, MO.
> >
> > I wouldn't recommend a power athlete to anyone without a bit of
> > experience, self-knowledge and a willingness to learn but they are
> not
> > particularly expensive when compared to other cycling equipment
> (though
> > I wouldn't call them cheap) and given that they make it drastically
> > simpler to track both training load and training response, I think
> they
> > are a very worthwhile investment for any serious or semi-serious
> > athlete. The AIS and VIS clearly agree and while that doesn't prove
> the
> > point for amateurs who have to pay for their equipment, it's
> interesting
> > to see how much they've taken off in the US and UK where they have
> been
> > promoted properly (mainly through audience education) as well as how
> > well many riders do training on power in terms of realising
> > improvements faster for full time/very serious athletes or racing
> well
> > with limited training time for others.
>
> Sure. This is why I will be getting a particular powertap as soon as
> it's available. The current ones don't suit my requirements. I'm
> quite looking forward to having it :)
>
> > And on exercise science:
> >
> > > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still
> not
> > > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers
> are
> > > contradictory and used out of context.
> >
> > 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not
> comfortable
> > agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
> > surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
> > literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing
> amateur
> > scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
> > wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
> > science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.
>
> Yes, there has. But, there's a lot of fairly rapid change (the whole
> lactate as a fuel/muscle inhibitor/just what exactly does blood
> lactate
> mean anyway?!, and dehydration, and stretching etc etc) in the field.
> By rapid change I mean in reasonably fundamental things - this
> suggests
> that the body of knowledge is still pretty shaky, *especially* when it
> comes to prediction (ie: applying the science). Compared to physics,
> for example, where in most low speed cases F does equal MA and we can
> predict a lot based on that (crude .. but you know what I mean I
> think). I'd compare it in terms of maturity to subatomic physics. Both
> have been around for roughly the same time (within 50 years or so
> anyway I think), and both are pretty confused and difficult to study.
> It's questionable as to which of the two has more funding these days,
> we care more for gold medals and nationalistic fervor than we do for
> understanding the nature of the universe....
>
> > This gives the pros plenty of room to reach pretty solid
> conclusions.
> > Whilst their is room for debate in many areas of ex sci (as in all
> > sciences - that's how they progress), they tend not to be the ones
> that
> > baffle the layperson. Many of the issues that are claimed to be
> > contentious or treated as unknowable by coaches and athletes are
> > actually well settled. Ignoring science. I think belittling the
> science
> > by calling it young and waving your hands and claiming that the body
> is
> > not well understood leads to 'belief based' as opposed to 'evidence
> > based' coaching.
>
> I'm not belittling it at all, I'm saying it's immature (not in a
> pejorative sense). Not that it's useless, but that it's still got a
> long way to go before it settles on a lot of reasonably fundamental
> issues, and also before it's communicated well to its target. Compare
> with physics, as an example. There's a lot going on, but just about
> everyone knows that the earth orbits the sun and that light has a
> speed, and so on. (ok, bad example, there's a lot of tools that
> believe astrology! ... *sigh* the Egyptians knew the world was round
> ...). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of
> confused
> studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find
> a
> quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
> performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
> poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
> what?) and so on. The challenge is that isolating variables is close
> to impossible for a lot of these types of studies. Take altitude
> training as a classic example. To do a valuable study, you'd need a
> sufficiently large collection of very similar riders, doing identical
> training at low and high altitudes, and then a well designed testing
> protocol to determine if there's any significant difference. Where
> does
> the sports scientist find willing people who fit the criteria? It's
> easy to do a test for potassium in cells etc and see the results, it's
> a very different thing to see what sort of training is optimal for a
> rider preparing for the Melb->Warnambool.
>
> Perhaps a better comparison is with economics. At a muscular/cellular
> level (cf micro economics) it's pretty well understood. Scale it up
> and no-one knows what's going on!
> It's nigh-on impossible to isolate variables, everyone's trying to
> extrapolate ... and it's a confused mess.
>
> I believe (note!) that at the moment, there's very little in the way
> of
> what you're calling "evidence based coaching" in cycling because, I
> suspect (I'm not AIS :) ) the vast majority of elite level coaches
> working for national squads have vested interests in keeping secrets
> to
> a certain degree. There's a -lot- of material around, and an
> incredible amount of exercise physiology data, but little (that I've
> found anyway) in the way of a roadmap to what's out of date, what's
> current and so on. Cycling's so full of folklore and dinosaurs it's a
> joke - US Postal/Discovery still age tyres, Armstrong, with no
> conflict
> of interest (heh ...) rattles on about CTS, but maybe being coached by
> Ferrari after all. We're all fed misinformation. A lot of the
> coaching methods I've been exposed to came from Charlie Walsh's manual
> and Hilton Clarke saying "This is what we did with Frenchy". One
> wonders just what exactly he did that he didn't tell us at the course,
> and what does go on at Del Monte when no-one (aparently) is looking?
>
> What I think is important is to clearly state and differentiate, when
> working with riders, what is an assumtion/belief and what is shown by
> real research. Ie: I do the best I can with my riders to explain why
> we do things the way we do (and yes, a lot of that is based on gut
> feeling for a particular rider, findng ways to apply narrow results to
> broad issues is the "art" of coaching, I think). The role of a coach
> is one not just (although it's a pretty important part!) to know the
> science, but also to understand the people being coached and to help
> motivate, support and encourage them, teach them good race smarts and
> good sportsmanship and so on.
>
> > If anyone is interested, have a look at this article and see what
> you
> > think...
> >
> > http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm
>
> That's a very good and interesting article. Thankyou for the
> reference. It's a bit of a stretch to apply Heisenberg to coaching,
> but all the same, it makes some good points :)

Thanks Bleve, that's a good response. I may have previously
misinterpreted you on a couple of points or had differences of emphasis
but I think that's cleared it up. Definitely agree there is some (a lot)
of 'art' to coaching and that motivating athletes is important. At the
same time, I think working towards evidence based coaching is important
- maybe its best to view it as aspirational rather than practical, but I
think really well qualified coaches (M Ex Sc and up) tend to be able to
follow the practice pretty well. Of course, I also think coaches with
less knowledge can help athletes a lot too, but it's important they
keep an open mind about what the experts can tell them and realise what
they don't know.

A couple of other thoughts:

As far as the reducing gains in power after an athlete becomes well
trained, I am interested in when this starts occuring. Now I think
about it a bit more, it seems to me likely when an athlete gets close
to their genetic ceiling rather than at any absolute point. So an
athlete could hit this point in C grade or A grade or the protour.
Obviously in each grade, athletes tend to move faster and since at
higher speeds it takes drastically more power to increase speed a given
amount than at lower speeds there is a further complication (that is -
the [absolute] difference in power between 45 and 47 km/h is much
greater than the difference in power between 28 and 30km/h).

As far as the Charlie Walsh manual, what I've hears is that he was good
in his day (the best - this isn't a negative comment) but things have
moved on quite a bit at the AIS from the methods he used (this comes
from an AIS strength coach). Probably a good start though and as
someone who hasn't personally seen the manual it sounds interesting. I
do know one ex physiologist in the US who finds it incredibly
frustrating because USAC paid a lot (LOT) of money for Charlie Walsh's
programs when the science had already moved on and Walsh was in the
twilight of his career.

I agree powertaps aren't perfect tools (mine has had reliability
issues), but why do you think there is a problem with them?


--
Roadie_scum

[Roadie_scum]

Bleve Wrote:
>
> It's just the Australian level 1 coaching manual. You can probably
> get
> it from CA or CSV pretty easily. It's not a bad starting point I
> think, but it's quite dated and not very thorough.

Yep, I've seen that. I thought you meant something more like what he
prepared for USAC (a complete program and explanation thereof for elite
riders).


> Reliability issues :)
>
> The reason I'm waiting for the upcoming fully wireless version is
> because I need to hire/lend it to my riders and the current wiring
> harness is a bit fragile - if I have to fit it to a dozen bikes a
> month
> that get thrown in people's cars etc, I'll break it pretty soon. The
> new one reportedly uses a bluetooth variant (so it won't get munged up
> by EMI etc as badly either) and is fully wireless - no harness to
> worry
> about - just a cadence sender and the hub/wheel and the computer.

I haven't had any problems with the harness, but you're right that it
is a little flimsy so you might not want to be transferring it
constantly. My biggest problem has been with the bearings. I have two
hubs and they have both been temperamental. The cup and cone bearings
on the drive side are temperamental at best and use very poor
components (but can be replaced with a filed down Ultegra or D/A cone
which is better), but worse is the sealed cartridge on the non-drive
side which can't be serviced or replaced without voiding the warranty
so you have to send eveything to the US once it goes.

Do you know what the cost landed in AU will be on the wireless unit
(pro version - intervals function and smoothing functions are
essential)? British Imports does them, I think, or are you planning to
buy from stateside?


--
Roadie_scum

[EuanB]

Walrus Wrote:
> Yep, this has been really helpful. :D I got excited when I logged on
> and saw 48 responses. I guess that's what I should expect posting in a
> "general" forum.
>
> Thanks for those who made some suggestions, the HR reading was
> interesting as well.

Dragging back on topic, I'm very happy with my compact cranks (FSA
Gossamer) however given that I'm on a Tiagra groupset just about
anything would have been an upgrade! Here's a post I wrote up about
them http://www.cyclingforums.com/t327106.html

Another reason I went for compact cranks is that I injured my left
knee about fifteen years ago and it never did heal quite right. Ninety
nine percent of the time it doesn't bother me because I've developed a
high cadence. Sometimes if I've got a particluarly heavy load to push
up Blackburn Road, especially starting from traffic lights, my knee
twinges. Lower gears allows me to keep a high cadence up the hills and
avoids that problem.


--
EuanB

[Tamyka Bell]

Roadie_scum wrote:
>
> Bleve Wrote:
> > Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, because refs I just looked up said there was NO decrease, that
> > you
> > > max cardiac output went huge because max HR was the same but stroke
> > > volume increased, and your resting cardiac output stayed constant
> > > because your resting HR dropped but your stroke volume increased.
> >
> > Remember exercise physiologists are still guessing about this stuff,
> > the tail is very much wagging the dog :)
>
> What are they guessing about?
>
> Maximal cardiac output = stroke volume X Max HR
>
> Stroke volume increases drastically with training, offsetting a
> decrease in max HR. Common knowledge. Or I thought it was.
<snip>

Not according to any Ex Phys text you care to review. According to them,
that's what happens with resting cardiac output, not max.

Tam

[Tamyka Bell]

Roadie_scum wrote:
>
> Bleve Wrote:
<snip>
> And on exercise science:
>
> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
> > contradictory and used out of context.
>
> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
> surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
> literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing amateur
> scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
> wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
> science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.
> This gives the pros plenty of room to reach pretty solid conclusions.
> Whilst their is room for debate in many areas of ex sci (as in all
> sciences - that's how they progress), they tend not to be the ones that
> baffle the layperson. Many of the issues that are claimed to be
> contentious or treated as unknowable by coaches and athletes are
> actually well settled. Ignoring science. I think belittling the science
> by calling it young and waving your hands and claiming that the body is
> not well understood leads to 'belief based' as opposed to 'evidence
> based' coaching.
>
> If anyone is interested, have a look at this article and see what you
> think...
>
> http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/thermo/thermo.htm

Being someone who reads these research papers every day, and reads how
they consistently contradict each other, how poorly experiments are
controlled and in a large part how appalling their statistics are, I
agree with Bleve's comments. As for old science vs young science...
well... I'd say physics is an old science...

Tam

[TimC]

On 2006-04-07, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Roadie_scum wrote:
>>
>> Bleve Wrote:
> <snip>
>> And on exercise science:
>>
>> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
>> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
>> > contradictory and used out of context.
>>
>> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
>> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
....
> Being someone who reads these research papers every day, and reads how
> they consistently contradict each other, how poorly experiments are
> controlled and in a large part how appalling their statistics are, I
> agree with Bleve's comments. As for old science vs young science...
> well... I'd say physics is an old science...

And astronomy is the second oldest profession out there. Just behind
prostitution.

Sometimes siggy tries to convince me he is sentient. Before he has
even seen the contents of my post.

--
TimC
We would be called technicians, not researchers, if we knew
what we were doing

[Tamyka Bell]

TimC wrote:
>
> On 2006-04-07, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Roadie_scum wrote:
> >>
> >> Bleve Wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> And on exercise science:
> >>
> >> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
> >> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
> >> > contradictory and used out of context.
> >>
> >> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
> >> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
> ...
> > Being someone who reads these research papers every day, and reads how
> > they consistently contradict each other, how poorly experiments are
> > controlled and in a large part how appalling their statistics are, I
> > agree with Bleve's comments. As for old science vs young science...
> > well... I'd say physics is an old science...
>
> And astronomy is the second oldest profession out there. Just behind
> prostitution.
>
> Sometimes siggy tries to convince me he is sentient. Before he has
> even seen the contents of my post.
>
> --
> TimC
> We would be called technicians, not researchers, if we knew
> what we were doing

Siggy may even be omniscient...

Tam

[Roadie_scum]

Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> Roadie_scum wrote:
> >
> > Bleve Wrote:
> > > Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, because refs I just looked up said there was NO decrease,
> that
> > > you
> > > > max cardiac output went huge because max HR was the same but
> stroke
> > > > volume increased, and your resting cardiac output stayed
> constant
> > > > because your resting HR dropped but your stroke volume
> increased.
> > >
> > > Remember exercise physiologists are still guessing about this
> stuff,
> > > the tail is very much wagging the dog :)
> >
> > What are they guessing about?
> >
> > Maximal cardiac output = stroke volume X Max HR
> >
> > Stroke volume increases drastically with training, offsetting a
> > decrease in max HR. Common knowledge. Or I thought it was.
> <snip>
>
> Not according to any Ex Phys text you care to review. According to
> them,
> that's what happens with resting cardiac output, not max.
>
> Tam

[Apologies to OP but I find this stuff interesting and may keep going
until told to shut up]

Sorry Tam, I must have written something confusing. I'm not disagreeing
with you about RHR dropping - primarily due to an increase in stroke
volume (eg, instead of 70 beats of 70ml in a minute, you might do 50
beats of 98ml).

This is assuming no change in metabolic efficiency. Some athletes run a
lower metabolic rate/body temp when well trained meaning that they
require less blood - [oxygen] - to be delivered than when untrained.
This metabolic effect can also be partially responsible for lower
resting heart rates although it is likely to be stroke volume that
forms the bulk of the change.

Further complications - plasma volume increases with fitness, leading
to a drop in haematocrit by volume. Thus more volume may need to be
delivered at a given load. However, the increase in plasma changes the
dynamics of blood flow in a positive way (more blood can flow more
quickly...), more than offsetting the negative of having less oxygen
per unit vloume blood.

So there's a lot of fuzziness about resting heart rate and what's
responsible for the drop (Stroke volume, stroke volume and stroke
volume, followed by a possible increase in metabolic efficiency, offset
by a greater demand for blood due to lower 'crit).

Quite apart from that, I know many athletes observe a drop in max HR
when they are training hard. When they freshen up it comes back up. I'm
pretty sure I have seen refs on this, but I don't have them to hand. I
have definitely seen the effect in lots of training partners, athletes
whose HR data I've looked at and in myself. If you really want I will
try to track refs down, but its certainly observationally true. Note
that I think you have to be training at a reasonably high load to see
this effect. I also couldn't tell you why it happens, though I'd be
interested if anyone knows (CNS activity?).

If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing that requires you to
read papers in this area Tam?


--
Roadie_scum

[TimC]

On 2006-04-06, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Roadie_scum wrote:
>> Bleve Wrote:
>> > It's a young science, a lot of what goes on inside people is still not
>> > clearly understood, and an awful lot of available research papers are
>> > contradictory and used out of context.
>>
>> 'Young science' is a relatively subjective term so I'm not comfortable
>> agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. However, I've been
>> surprised how much scientists with a relatively complete view of the
>> literature do know about goings on in the body. Sure, playing amateur
>> scientist, you or I can pull out a couple of references and reach a
>> wrong conclusion, but there has been good work going on in exercise
>> science since just after the turn of the 20th century at the latest.
>
> Yes, there has. But, there's a lot of fairly rapid change (the whole
> lactate as a fuel/muscle inhibitor/just what exactly does blood lactate
> mean anyway?!, and dehydration, and stretching etc etc) in the field.
> By rapid change I mean in reasonably fundamental things - this suggests
> that the body of knowledge is still pretty shaky, *especially* when it
> comes to prediction (ie: applying the science). Compared to physics,
> for example, where in most low speed cases F does equal MA and we can
> predict a lot based on that (crude .. but you know what I mean I
> think). I'd compare it in terms of maturity to subatomic physics. Both
> have been around for roughly the same time (within 50 years or so
> anyway I think), and both are pretty confused and difficult to study.
> It's questionable as to which of the two has more funding these days,
> we care more for gold medals and nationalistic fervor than we do for
> understanding the nature of the universe....

Subatomic physics, confused? Not at all. Subatomic physics seems to
be quite established -- hell, prediciting things like the existance of
the top quark, and then finding it!?. Don't confuse "hard for the
layperson to understand" with "immaturity of the field".

> speed, and so on. (ok, bad example, there's a lot of tools that
> believe astrology! ... *sigh* the Egyptians knew the world was round

Heh.

> I didn't know you can get a PhD in astrology.
You can't.
> But didn't you just say you were doing one?
You can in astronomy.
> Whats the difference?
Le sigh.

> ..). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of confused
> studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
> quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
> performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
> poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
> what?) and so on.

And they wouldn't have been published if random chance showed
impairment instead of improvement -- the authors would not have known
how to explain the unintended results, and so wouldn't have been able
to get it past the peer reviewers.

****. 3ish more days until my reply-to-reviewer is due. Eeeeeeeek!

--
TimC
ATC: Airliner 123, turn right 20 degrees for noise abatement.
A123: Noise abatement? We are at FL310.
ATC: Do you know how much noise it makes when two 737s collide?
A123: Airliner 123 is turning right 20 degrees. -- John Clear in ASR

[Roadie_scum]

TimC Wrote:
>
> Subatomic physics, confused? Not at all. Subatomic physics seems to
> be quite established -- hell, prediciting things like the existance of
> the top quark, and then finding it!?. Don't confuse "hard for the
> layperson to understand" with "immaturity of the field".

Quite! And I think that's what people do with ex sci too.


--
Roadie_scum

[Bleve]

Rory Williams wrote:
> Roadie_scum Wrote:
> > [Apologies to OP but I find this stuff interesting and may keep going
> > until told to shut up]
> >
> > Sorry Tam, I must have written something confusing. I'm not disagreeing
> > with you about RHR dropping - primarily due to an increase in stroke
> > volume (eg, instead of 70 beats of 70ml in a minute, you might do 50
> > beats of 98ml).
> >
> > /QUOTE]
> >
> > Many moons ago in my previous life as a biathete we had one of our
> > younger members on the treadmill and his Max HR was up around 212 (he
> > was 16). I was discussing this with my Dad afterwards and his question
> > was: How can the chambers of the heart fill properly if they are
> > contracting so rapidly?
> >
> > Now his speciality is orthopaedics and mine is the physical chemistry
> > of macromolecules so we are a bit out of our fields but I presume the
> > abilty of the body to return the blood to the heart to send it around
> > again must play a part. Does any one know how much the blood return
> > system get influenced by exercise?

Blood returns via both the veins and lymphatic system, the veins under
cardiac pressure, and the lymph system is pumped by muscle action
(remember your snakebike 1st aid?).

Those really high HR's may not necessarily be completely filling the
chambers (I don't know, but it would seem reasonable to suspect that to
be the case). Also, the stroke volume may (must!) be pretty low in
order to pump that fast, again, I suspect, but don't know.

[Bleve]

TimC wrote:

> Subatomic physics, confused? Not at all. Subatomic physics seems to
> be quite established -- hell, prediciting things like the existance of
> the top quark, and then finding it!?. Don't confuse "hard for the
> layperson to understand" with "immaturity of the field".

I'm not, but AFAIK there's still considerable debate and no-one really
knows if string theory, super strings etc are good models, and how to
combine subatomic stuff with general relativity. At least, when I was
paying attention to it it wasn't clear.

> > speed, and so on. (ok, bad example, there's a lot of tools that
> > believe astrology! ... *sigh* the Egyptians knew the world was round
>
> Heh.
>
> > I didn't know you can get a PhD in astrology.
> You can't.

You probably can, somewhere in the world. Maybe Frankston?

> > But didn't you just say you were doing one?
> You can in astronomy.
> > Whats the difference?
> Le sigh.
>
> > ..). Take altitude training as another example of a bunch of confused
> > studies with poor controls and inconclusive results. I'm yet to find a
> > quality study that shows that it makes any real difference to
> > performance in trained riders. A lot of folklore ... and a lot of
> > poorly controlled studies, some showing improvement (but compared to
> > what?) and so on.
>
> And they wouldn't have been published if random chance showed
> impairment instead of improvement -- the authors would not have known
> how to explain the unintended results, and so wouldn't have been able
> to get it past the peer reviewers.

You're assuming ex phys is as rigourous as physics. From what I've
read, I would not make that assumption.

[Tamyka Bell]

Roadie_scum wrote:
<snip>

> Quite apart from that, I know many athletes observe a drop in max HR
> when they are training hard. When they freshen up it comes back up. I'm
> pretty sure I have seen refs on this, but I don't have them to hand. I
> have definitely seen the effect in lots of training partners, athletes
> whose HR data I've looked at and in myself. If you really want I will
> try to track refs down, but its certainly observationally true. Note
> that I think you have to be training at a reasonably high load to see
> this effect. I also couldn't tell you why it happens, though I'd be
> interested if anyone knows (CNS activity?).

This is also something that has been studied in athletes DURING ultra
endurance events, although, like you, I'd have to go track refs down...

> If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing that requires you to
> read papers in this area Tam?

A PhD in human movement studies.

Participation in ultra marathons.

I actually think that when it comes to inspiring me to read papers, the
latter is more important - it could be life/death!

Tam

[Tamyka Bell]

Roadie_scum wrote:
<snip>
> TimC is right. The things wouldn't get published if they didn't show
> statistical significance (some of these are in quite good journals
> too). Further, if it was just random variation there would be as many
<snip>

Er, think "peer review" and tell me who your friends are...

If you know someone in high places, your papers may get published, even
if they're full of sh!t, unfortunately.

About 1 in 10 papers I scan over is scientifically and statistically
sound.

Tam

[Tamyka Bell]

Rory Williams wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> > Roadie_scum wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > TimC is right. The things wouldn't get published if they didn't show
> > > statistical significance (some of these are in quite good journals
> > > too). Further, if it was just random variation there would be as
> > many
> > <snip>
> >
> > Er, think "peer review" and tell me who your friends are...
> >
> > If you know someone in high places, your papers may get published,
> > even
> > if they're full of sh!t, unfortunately.
> >
> > About 1 in 10 papers I scan over is scientifically and statistically
> > sound.
> >
> > Tam
>
> While I suspect some people do have a right to feel cynical about the
> publishing game, I would also think that it is more about the

Damn straight we do! Same paper - submitted with and without an
"important person" in the author list - to the same journal. Which
version got accepted without revision, and which version got rejected
completely?

> difficulties of trying to deal with a complete complex system like
> human beings with a reductionist or semi-reductionist approach. Most
> papers aren't going to be perfect, they just add a few pieces to the
> puzzle.
>
> As an example, looking at something as well studied as child-birth, it
> seemed to me (from the male parent's point of view) that there could be
> so much variation in so many different aspects that really nobody
> experienced what the average told them they should. There are always
> going to be so many interactions and confounding factors.
>
> From another view at a recent seminar I was at looking at milk
> production characteristics (in cows) using the whole New Zealand herd
> (4 million odd cows) their cut off point for something interesting is
> going to be 7 standard deviations from the mean, because of the
> variability of expression of the functional attributes- really just
> milk composition.

Ah, but they can look at the variations in different regions, etc,
instead of averaging over the entire population... and so on.
Variability is more interesting than means anyway!

The problem is with papers when it is blatantly obvious that they
haven't actually studied something they can measure. Not in a
performance field, where they do case studies and acknowledge they can't
control everything, and draw appropriate conclusions and made inferences
for future studies wrt that.

What annoys me is when they claim they have proven something and they
haven't controlled their experiment. Or they have said something is not
important when they have not shown that. Etc. Huge in the field of Ex
Phys, especially with Australian PhD students who have not been taught
any mathematics or statistics! *cringe*

> When things are getting this complicated, or this rare, do you have to
> start treating each case as an individual, and test the response of
> that person to each set of circumstances or treatments.
>
> Perhaps the best coaching is that individually tailored approach. But
> then the thing (it seems to me) is to have an accurate measure of how
> the recipient responds.
>
> RoryW

I would agree entirely on the coaching. And if you get a coach that
listens to you and watches your progress and modifies your program
accordingly, and you give your coach good feedback, then I think you
will be much more successful than if you're just on a group program.

[Bleve]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

> What annoys me is when they claim they have proven something and they
> haven't controlled their experiment. Or they have said something is not
> important when they have not shown that. Etc. Huge in the field of Ex
> Phys, especially with Australian PhD students who have not been taught
> any mathematics or statistics! *cringe*

Gross generalisation time. Apart from rare exceptions (Tam is very
rare :) ) the dept of human movement at most universitites are refered
to as the sheltered workshops by the the
science/engineering/mathematics university population. This is for a
reason, alas. There are some smart ones who get what rigourous
research actually means, but they're not the rule.

> > When things are getting this complicated, or this rare, do you have to
> > start treating each case as an individual, and test the response of
> > that person to each set of circumstances or treatments.
> >
> > Perhaps the best coaching is that individually tailored approach. But
> > then the thing (it seems to me) is to have an accurate measure of how
> > the recipient responds.
> >
> > RoryW
>
> I would agree entirely on the coaching. And if you get a coach that
> listens to you and watches your progress and modifies your program
> accordingly, and you give your coach good feedback, then I think you
> will be much more successful than if you're just on a group program.

That's the whole reason for why there are coaches :) roady_scum
refered to a few obvious cases when I cited altitude training and he
mentioned (I assume a he ... one wonders about pseudonyms) responders &
non-responders. Just what exactly does that mean and how do you tell
with an individual when you have little/nothing to compare to? You
can't, unless you have a clone doing the same training at low altitude.
Coaching's not (unless and until ex phys has another 100 years under
its belt and actually has some answers!) able to be fully "evidence
based" because there's so much contradictory and incomplete evidence.
About the only thing you can do is train & test & repeat and if you
don't see an improvement, try something else. Even in my limited
experience I've come across riders with all sorts of very odd responses
to training and exercise intensity, and I only have about 25 riders
that I've worked closely with.

[Tamyka Bell]

Bleve wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> > What annoys me is when they claim they have proven something and they
> > haven't controlled their experiment. Or they have said something is not
> > important when they have not shown that. Etc. Huge in the field of Ex
> > Phys, especially with Australian PhD students who have not been taught
> > any mathematics or statistics! *cringe*
>
> Gross generalisation time. Apart from rare exceptions (Tam is very
> rare :) ) the dept of human movement at most universitites are refered
> to as the sheltered workshops by the the
> science/engineering/mathematics university population. This is for a
> reason, alas. There are some smart ones who get what rigourous
> research actually means, but they're not the rule.

Well, I was a physicist before I moved in here - and most of my research
group came from other fields. One of the reasons we are the outcasts of
the department! ;-)

> > > When things are getting this complicated, or this rare, do you have to
> > > start treating each case as an individual, and test the response of
> > > that person to each set of circumstances or treatments.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the best coaching is that individually tailored approach. But
> > > then the thing (it seems to me) is to have an accurate measure of how
> > > the recipient responds.
> > >
> > > RoryW
> >
> > I would agree entirely on the coaching. And if you get a coach that
> > listens to you and watches your progress and modifies your program
> > accordingly, and you give your coach good feedback, then I think you
> > will be much more successful than if you're just on a group program.
>
> That's the whole reason for why there are coaches :) roady_scum
> refered to a few obvious cases when I cited altitude training and he
> mentioned (I assume a he ... one wonders about pseudonyms) responders &
> non-responders. Just what exactly does that mean and how do you tell
> with an individual when you have little/nothing to compare to? You
> can't, unless you have a clone doing the same training at low altitude.
> Coaching's not (unless and until ex phys has another 100 years under
> its belt and actually has some answers!) able to be fully "evidence
> based" because there's so much contradictory and incomplete evidence.
> About the only thing you can do is train & test & repeat and if you
> don't see an improvement, try something else. Even in my limited
> experience I've come across riders with all sorts of very odd responses
> to training and exercise intensity, and I only have about 25 riders
> that I've worked closely with.

I'm one of those odd responders. I don't respond to standard training
protocols. I have a little theory about people who have previously been
very fit needing an extraordinarily large training stimulus to get back
there, compared to people doing it for the first time. Bigger efforts
and longer recoveries and they get back there. Based on me.

I write my own programs because I'm a FREAK when it comes to training.
But it obviously works okay for me, because I ran 100km in one night
after doing a 75km week, a 50km week, and a whole lot of weeks where I
only ran once per week, and that run was 30km.

I should do some cycle training sometime...

;-)

Tam

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 10 Apr 2006 00:42:32 -0700
Bleve > wrote:
> rare :) ) the dept of human movement at most universitites are refered
> to as the sheltered workshops by the the
> science/engineering/mathematics university population. This is for a
> reason, alas. There are some smart ones who get what rigourous
> research actually means, but they're not the rule.

because the only ones who are interested are the ones who like lots of
physical exercise. There are people who combine academic excellence
and physical excellence, but they aren't anywhere near as common as
those who have just one.

And they seldom make the physical bit their life's work.

Most fields that aren't 'standard' could do with an injection of solid
academic rigour but don't get it because they don't get the people who
get taught that way. Because the ones who start it don't want to
frighten their hopefuls away and correctly or not think that it will
do so.

Hard enough to get decent scientific rigour in the 'standard' fields,
according to Dad anyway who views a lot of his research field as
populated by idiots but that's probably because he views most of the
world as idiots.


Zebee

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:53:18 +1000
Tamyka Bell > wrote:
>
> Well, I was a physicist before I moved in here - and most of my research
> group came from other fields. One of the reasons we are the outcasts of
> the department! ;-)

Escaped physicists! They are everywhere!

(both my parents are escaped physicists.)

I'm going to be very interested to see how I respond to this cycling
game. I didn't notice much difference in weight when I was cycling a
much shorter distance to work, nor when I was doing gym work every day
for a year, so I suspect it might take a fair bit to budge me.

Zebee

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:46:51 +1000
SuzieB > wrote:
> on my body doesn't go anywhere if I only change the amount of exercise
> I do. For years I have been going to the gym and seeing very little
> reward for my effort. Sure, I got a lot fitter but I wanted to lose
> weight. Well, actually, I wanted to keep eating and still lose weight
> but I finally came to the conclusion that it was only going to happen
> if I changed my diet.

I changed mine to high fibre low fat, and didn't make any difference
either.

I figure I'm just a good doer, so come the collapse of civilisation
I'll be fine!

I think I'll just have to settle for being fitter. After all, there
is some compensation in being built like a masonry convenience and
watching the skinny ones collapse from exhaustion.

Zebee

[Tamyka Bell]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> In aus.bicycle on 10 Apr 2006 00:42:32 -0700
> Bleve > wrote:
> > rare :) ) the dept of human movement at most universitites are refered
> > to as the sheltered workshops by the the
> > science/engineering/mathematics university population. This is for a
> > reason, alas. There are some smart ones who get what rigourous
> > research actually means, but they're not the rule.
>
> because the only ones who are interested are the ones who like lots of
> physical exercise. There are people who combine academic excellence
> and physical excellence, but they aren't anywhere near as common as
> those who have just one.
>
> And they seldom make the physical bit their life's work.

Hehehe, I'd agree except make one bit possibly more accurate by saying
it's not necessarily physical excellence vs academic excellence, just
physical enthusiasm ;-)

> Most fields that aren't 'standard' could do with an injection of solid
> academic rigour but don't get it because they don't get the people who
> get taught that way. Because the ones who start it don't want to
> frighten their hopefuls away and correctly or not think that it will
> do so.

Our department pretty much advertises postgrad research
degrees/positions only to HM students, rather than students from other
fields. Unfortunately the courses they have created are not suitable
for high level, scientific research, so the students have the background
knowledge, but more suitable a clinical setting, rather than having
acquired research skills.

I see HM graduates as being the ones who should lead research groups
with people of all knowledge areas, as the degree is focussed on general
knowledge - they know some exercise metabolism information, but a
biochemist would be able to provide more information when necessary -
they understand biomechanics but a physicist, engineer or applied
mathemetician would be able to do their calculations for more complex
geometries - they know how the brain is involved in physical activity
but a neuroscientist and psychologist could provide more info, and so
on. The individual field experts could answer back to this person who
has general knowledge in all the fields and could determine what made
sense, and what was incorrect in the context of the human body.

Ahhhh, but I'm just dreaming of interdisciplinary science...

Most groups are too busy playing "I'm better than you" games.

> Hard enough to get decent scientific rigour in the 'standard' fields,
> according to Dad anyway who views a lot of his research field as
> populated by idiots but that's probably because he views most of the
> world as idiots.

Hehehehe, that might just be because he's a smart man ;-)

Tam

[Tamyka Bell]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:46:51 +1000
> SuzieB > wrote:
> > on my body doesn't go anywhere if I only change the amount of exercise
> > I do. For years I have been going to the gym and seeing very little
> > reward for my effort. Sure, I got a lot fitter but I wanted to lose
> > weight. Well, actually, I wanted to keep eating and still lose weight
> > but I finally came to the conclusion that it was only going to happen
> > if I changed my diet.
>
> I changed mine to high fibre low fat, and didn't make any difference
> either.
>
> I figure I'm just a good doer, so come the collapse of civilisation
> I'll be fine!
>
> I think I'll just have to settle for being fitter. After all, there
> is some compensation in being built like a masonry convenience and
> watching the skinny ones collapse from exhaustion.
>
> Zebee

I'm one of the larger ultra runners in the community, but I seem to
recover better than the skinny ones, even if I can't catch them on the
course. (Oh yeah, and I'm the only female one with ANY boobs at all. I
may look little to you cyclists (especially any lurking track cyclists),
but compared to other ultra runner chicks, I'm HUGE!)

Tam

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:53:09 +1000
Tamyka Bell > wrote:
> I'm one of the larger ultra runners in the community, but I seem to
> recover better than the skinny ones, even if I can't catch them on the
> course. (Oh yeah, and I'm the only female one with ANY boobs at all. I
> may look little to you cyclists (especially any lurking track cyclists),
> but compared to other ultra runner chicks, I'm HUGE!)

Heh. I was looking at online sites for clothing, thinking "well, they
seem to think these fancy jerseys are worth getting so lets have a
look".

Seems size "large" for a female cyclist is a size 12 with a B cup....

Zebee

[Tamyka Bell]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:53:09 +1000
> Tamyka Bell > wrote:
> > I'm one of the larger ultra runners in the community, but I seem to
> > recover better than the skinny ones, even if I can't catch them on the
> > course. (Oh yeah, and I'm the only female one with ANY boobs at all. I
> > may look little to you cyclists (especially any lurking track cyclists),
> > but compared to other ultra runner chicks, I'm HUGE!)
>
> Heh. I was looking at online sites for clothing, thinking "well, they
> seem to think these fancy jerseys are worth getting so lets have a
> look".
>
> Seems size "large" for a female cyclist is a size 12 with a B cup....
>
> Zebee

See, you think that counters my statement, but large for an ultra runner
is an 10A. Average would be about an 8AA. I believe they call them
"training bras" and they are marketed at the smaller girls in about
grade 5 at school!

I have a hard time fitting into female cycling jerseys, but it tends to
be bicep related, and I'm not even huge anymore!

Tam

[Tamyka Bell]

SuzieB wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> >
> > I'm one of the larger ultra runners in the community, but I seem to
> > recover better than the skinny ones, even if I can't catch them on the
> > course. (Oh yeah, and I'm the only female one with ANY boobs at all. I
> > may look little to you cyclists (especially any lurking track
> > cyclists),
> > but compared to other ultra runner chicks, I'm HUGE!)
> >
> > Tam
> I was standing near Cathy Freeman on Sunday at the Run for the Kids
> event and I gotta say, she is tiny! So was Sue Stanley although she is
> never going to look really slim in photos just because of her overall
> shape but she was far smaller than I thought she would be.
>
> I believe there is a fine line with athletes where a lack of weight can
> make them more susceptable to illness but what do I know, I validate
> equipment for a living! :)

It's not such a fine line, especially for female athletes on big
programs. Pretty much the first sign a female gets, before the injuries
and the fatigue you just can't explain any more, is your period gets
really light, or might vanish. I was horrified when an ultra runner told
me she thought it was amazing that I still get my period. She didn't
seem worried at all that she hadn't had one for years (not because of
contraceptive pill/implant). I saw lots of skinny triathletes who were
permanently sick.

Now here's the big question... do you know at what weight _you_ will
start getting sick?

I figured it out a couple of weeks ago. If I slip below 61kg, I have to
stop everything, and eat lots! 60kg is my line.

Tam

[SuzieB]

Tamyka Bell Wrote:
>
> Now here's the big question... do you know at what weight _you_ will
> start getting sick?
>
> I figured it out a couple of weeks ago. If I slip below 61kg, I have to
> stop everything, and eat lots! 60kg is my line.
>
> Tam
I'd just like to get close enough to my ideal weight to find out! LOL

It's good that you are aware of your body. :)


--
SuzieB

[Bleve]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> SuzieB wrote:
> >
> > Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm one of the larger ultra runners in the community, but I seem to
> > > recover better than the skinny ones, even if I can't catch them on the
> > > course. (Oh yeah, and I'm the only female one with ANY boobs at all. I
> > > may look little to you cyclists (especially any lurking track
> > > cyclists),
> > > but compared to other ultra runner chicks, I'm HUGE!)
> > >
> > > Tam
> > I was standing near Cathy Freeman on Sunday at the Run for the Kids
> > event and I gotta say, she is tiny! So was Sue Stanley although she is
> > never going to look really slim in photos just because of her overall
> > shape but she was far smaller than I thought she would be.
> >
> > I believe there is a fine line with athletes where a lack of weight can
> > make them more susceptable to illness but what do I know, I validate
> > equipment for a living! :)
>
> It's not such a fine line, especially for female athletes on big
> programs. Pretty much the first sign a female gets, before the injuries
> and the fatigue you just can't explain any more, is your period gets
> really light, or might vanish. I was horrified when an ultra runner told
> me she thought it was amazing that I still get my period. She didn't
> seem worried at all that she hadn't had one for years (not because of
> contraceptive pill/implant). I saw lots of skinny triathletes who were
> permanently sick.
>
> Now here's the big question... do you know at what weight _you_ will
> start getting sick?

Weight, or body composition? Excessively low body fat is a hit on the
immune system, as is a lot of intense exercise. Combine the two ...

[Tamyka Bell]

Bleve wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > SuzieB wrote:
> > >
> > > Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm one of the larger ultra runners in the community, but I seem to
> > > > recover better than the skinny ones, even if I can't catch them on the
> > > > course. (Oh yeah, and I'm the only female one with ANY boobs at all. I
> > > > may look little to you cyclists (especially any lurking track
> > > > cyclists),
> > > > but compared to other ultra runner chicks, I'm HUGE!)
> > > >
> > > > Tam
> > > I was standing near Cathy Freeman on Sunday at the Run for the Kids
> > > event and I gotta say, she is tiny! So was Sue Stanley although she is
> > > never going to look really slim in photos just because of her overall
> > > shape but she was far smaller than I thought she would be.
> > >
> > > I believe there is a fine line with athletes where a lack of weight can
> > > make them more susceptable to illness but what do I know, I validate
> > > equipment for a living! :)
> >
> > It's not such a fine line, especially for female athletes on big
> > programs. Pretty much the first sign a female gets, before the injuries
> > and the fatigue you just can't explain any more, is your period gets
> > really light, or might vanish. I was horrified when an ultra runner told
> > me she thought it was amazing that I still get my period. She didn't
> > seem worried at all that she hadn't had one for years (not because of
> > contraceptive pill/implant). I saw lots of skinny triathletes who were
> > permanently sick.
> >
> > Now here's the big question... do you know at what weight _you_ will
> > start getting sick?
>
> Weight, or body composition? Excessively low body fat is a hit on the
> immune system, as is a lot of intense exercise. Combine the two ...

Excessively low body fat is something I don't have to worry about any
more, now that I pre-race fat load instead of carb loading, etc ;-)

I'm generally more worried about weight loss due to muscle wastage,
which means I'm not getting enough in to replace what I take out. But
usually both happen concurrently. I only shape-shift when I change
sports.

T

[Theo Bekkers]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

> I only shape-shift when I change sports.

You morph? :-)

Theo

[Tamyka Bell]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> > I only shape-shift when I change sports.
>
> You morph? :-)
>
> Theo

Pretty much.

Tam

[Rory Williams]

Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> I'm generally more worried about weight loss due to muscle wastage,
> which means I'm not getting enough in to replace what I take out. But
> usually both happen concurrently. I only shape-shift when I change
> sports.
>
> T

Very much agree that once well conditioned there are problems with
being underweight.

Two examples of mine - came back from three weeks bushwalking in Tas
and came back ~4kg lighter than when I went. Tried to do a 5000m on
the track (running) and couldn't finish. But 3 days later back up to
weight put in a then PB for a 3000m steeple. - at the time assumed the
issue was water as the weight came back on so quickly.

Went into Russia for a Biathlon race after about 2 months training and
feeding myself in Europe. Weighed ~ 61 kg on the airport scales, about
the lightest I had been for 7-8 years and had the worst race of my
season. Probaly under-doing the nutritional quality for too long.

In both cases the races were under difficult conditions - too hot in
Melbourne, very slow snow in Minsk. You can probably fudge your way
(or kid yourself that you have done OK) when the conditions are good
but a bit of extra stress sorts you out if you havent the reserves.

RoryW


--
Rory Williams