|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Training volumes (was LA ...)
"Shayne Wissler" wrote in message
news:HA18b.420434$uu5.75447@sccrnsc04... "Andy Coggan" wrote in message nk.net... Yes, we should never take the word of a very successful expert in the field of training cyclists at the highest level. Just because somebody good at the art of coaching doesn't necessarily mean that they know doodly-squat about the science of exercise. At the level of a coach/doctor for the best team in the world??? Doesn't matter. Success at the art of coaching - no matter what the level - is not proof that somebody understands the science of exercise. If the best coach in the world can be the best without understanding the science of exercise, then I have to wonder about the value/correctness of the science. It's kind of like saying that someone can be the best aeronautical engineer without understanding the science of mathematics and physics. It is the value that you should wonder about, not the correctness. As Kurgan pointed out, the skill set required to be a good coach (not trainer) is quite large, such that you can be quite successful even if you are weak in one particular if you are excellent in others. Thus, being good at the art of coaching does not prove that you know much if anything about the science of exercise - just like knowing a lot about the science of exercise doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be any good at the art of coaching. (I once sat in a meeting with Steve Johnson - who has a Ph.D. in exercise physiology, BTW - in which described someone else as "oh great - another exercise physiologist who thinks he knows how to coach.") Regarding LT, isn't there an actual threshold defined by the sustainability of the activity? There is a threshold, above which the athlete must slow down after some time due to the lactic acid buildup. Obviously one cannot pursue a "purely aerobic" activity indefinitely due to various factors (e.g., you need sleep, muscles break down in other ways), but leaving aside those factors, there's a threshold below which the athlete can continue indefinitely, and above which the athlete must slow down due to the aerobic/anaerobic issue. The relationship between exercise intensity and duration is continuously curvilinear, so identifying any specific intensity as a "threshold" of one sort or another requires taking at least a minor liberty. Nonetheless, you can describe exercise performance quite well based on a quite simple model of some critical power plus an anaerobic work capacity. Moreover, critical power determined on the basis of such functional testing correlates quite highly with more invasive/"scientific" measurements of threshold, e.g., based on blood lactate measurements. (This is why I've advocated functional field testing over lab testing for individuals who own powermeters - see the chapter I wrote for USAC.) So I would agree with everything you've written above, except for one very important aspect: fatigue during exercise is multifactorial, i.e., cannot be blamed on lactate accumulation alone (if at all). Furthermore, lactate production is a sign of anaerobiosis - in fact, the only time muscle is really anaerobic (i.e., metabolism is limited by - vs. regulated by - the availability of O2) is at or above 100% of VO2max. Andy Coggan |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Training volumes (was LA ...)
"Shayne Wissler" wrote in message
et... Andy Coggan wrote: If the best coach in the world can be the best without understanding the science of exercise, then I have to wonder about the value/correctness of the science. It's kind of like saying that someone can be the best aeronautical engineer without understanding the science of mathematics and physics. It is the value that you should wonder about, not the correctness. As Since the purpose of sport science is to understand in order to maximize athletic performance, I'd wonder about both at the same time and for the same reasons. First, who said that that was the purpose of sports science? Second, as we seem to agree upon (below), the level of knowledge that a good coach must have about the science of exercise is probably smaller than most people think. Kurgan pointed out, the skill set required to be a good coach (not trainer) is quite large, such that you can be quite successful even if you are weak in one particular if you are excellent in others. Thus, being Agreed--but I would expect that a good coach would need to know some minimum of sports science or his other good qualities wouldn't do much good. I don't disagree with that statement - it's just that the minimum is sufficiently low that you can't claim on the basis of someone's success as a coach that that necessarily means that they know a lot about exercise science (as Warren implied). The relationship between exercise intensity and duration is continuously curvilinear, so identifying any specific intensity as a "threshold" of one sort or another requires taking at least a minor liberty. Nonetheless, you It's a matter of definition, not liberty. The point is that identifying a specific "threshold" on a continuously curvilinear plot is or can be rather subjective. can describe exercise performance quite well based on a quite simple model of some critical power plus an anaerobic work capacity. Moreover, critical power determined on the basis of such functional testing correlates quite highly with more invasive/"scientific" measurements of threshold, e.g., based on blood lactate measurements. (This is why I've advocated According to my definition of "threshold", there would be no direct way to measure it. It certainly wouldn't be measured by some lab result (everyone can tolerate different levels). I take it you're not familiar with critical power testing, or the ideas I've put forth for establishing "functional threshold power"? functional field testing over lab testing for individuals who own powermeters - see the chapter I wrote for USAC.) So I would agree with everything you've written above, except for one very important aspect: fatigue during exercise is multifactorial, i.e., cannot be blamed on lactate accumulation alone (if at all). I never said it wasn't multifactorial. On the contrary, I specifically implied that it was. The point is that we can define terms that isolate single factors, ignoring others, even if those terms are not found in "pure" form in the subject. LT is a perfectly reasonable term, properly defined. And it's also not directly measurable. Au contraire - LT *is* directly measurable, at least once you have an agreed-upon definition. For example, if you define LT as the exercise intensity corresponding to a blood lactate concentration of 2.5 mmol/L as measured during an incremental exercise test, then determining the precise power output, VO2 etc., at LT is quite easy. The hard part is in interpreting/applying that data (well, not *that* hard - you just have to understand all the ins and outs). Indeed, one of the major purposes of a science is to isolate factors for study. Do you think there's any object in the universe that perfectly adheres to "F=ma"? No--but that doesn't make it "false". It's a true description of an aspect of the object's behavior. That truth isn't undermined by the fact that when applying the formula to a specific object, we must bear in mind that there are other factors effecting it--after isolating all of the factors, we must re-integrate them for application to a particular subject. The fact that any one of them alone isn't good enough to "perfectly" predict behavior is irrelevant. The problem isn't that you isolated one causal factor (i.e., lack of O2), but that the factor you suggested doesn't even make the list. Andy Coggan |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Training volumes (was LA ...)
Andy Coggan wrote:
Since the purpose of sport science is to understand in order to maximize athletic performance, I'd wonder about both at the same time and for the same reasons. First, who said that that was the purpose of sports science? Did you want to argue for a different purpose? can describe exercise performance quite well based on a quite simple model of some critical power plus an anaerobic work capacity. Moreover, critical power determined on the basis of such functional testing correlates quite highly with more invasive/"scientific" measurements of threshold, e.g., based on blood lactate measurements. (This is why I've advocated According to my definition of "threshold", there would be no direct way to measure it. It certainly wouldn't be measured by some lab result (everyone can tolerate different levels). I take it you're not familiar with critical power testing, or the ideas I've put forth for establishing "functional threshold power"? I'm not as expert as you, but I am familiar with critical power. I don't remember whether I read about your specific your ideas or not. If they're available on the web I'd appreciate it if you'd post the URL. In any case, I think you've misunderstood me. My point is that there is no single measurement that gives you LT (vs. directly being able to measure blood lactate)--it must be inferred using various testing methods. I'm not telling you anything you don't know (of course), the point is that just because it's not a directly measurable physical quantity doesn't mean it's not a valid concept. functional field testing over lab testing for individuals who own powermeters - see the chapter I wrote for USAC.) So I would agree with everything you've written above, except for one very important aspect: fatigue during exercise is multifactorial, i.e., cannot be blamed on lactate accumulation alone (if at all). I never said it wasn't multifactorial. On the contrary, I specifically implied that it was. The point is that we can define terms that isolate single factors, ignoring others, even if those terms are not found in "pure" form in the subject. LT is a perfectly reasonable term, properly defined. And it's also not directly measurable. Au contraire - LT *is* directly measurable, at least once you have an agreed-upon definition. For example, if you define LT as the exercise intensity corresponding to a blood lactate concentration of 2.5 mmol/L as If that's how you define LT then it's a useless concept, or at least substantially weaker than a valid definition of LT would be. measured during an incremental exercise test, then determining the precise power output, VO2 etc., at LT is quite easy. The hard part is in interpreting/applying that data (well, not *that* hard - you just have to understand all the ins and outs). The whole point of the threshold is to be able to relate performance limitations to a causal factor. By identifying this factor, you can predict and possibly enhance performance. But if, in the attempt to make LT more "empirical", you tie it down to a specific measurement (like 2.5mmol/L), surely you're making it easier to do the "measurement", but then you switch the focus from the causal factor to some statistical average across various athletes, and lose precision in making performance predictions for the specific athlete. Wouldn't you agree that different athletes have different measurements of blood lactate at LT? Or is there some physical basis in assuming that each and every athlete responds the same way at the 2.5mmol/L? Indeed, one of the major purposes of a science is to isolate factors for study. Do you think there's any object in the universe that perfectly adheres to "F=ma"? No--but that doesn't make it "false". It's a true description of an aspect of the object's behavior. That truth isn't undermined by the fact that when applying the formula to a specific object, we must bear in mind that there are other factors effecting it--after isolating all of the factors, we must re-integrate them for application to a particular subject. The fact that any one of them alone isn't good enough to "perfectly" predict behavior is irrelevant. The problem isn't that you isolated one causal factor (i.e., lack of O2), but that the factor you suggested doesn't even make the list. Where did I say that lack of O2 was a causal factor? Shayne Wissler |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Training volumes (was LA ...)
In article et, Andy
Coggan wrote: "Shayne Wissler" wrote in message et... Andy Coggan wrote: If the best coach in the world can be the best without understanding the science of exercise, then I have to wonder about the value/correctness of the science. It's kind of like saying that someone can be the best aeronautical engineer without understanding the science of mathematics and physics. It is the value that you should wonder about, not the correctness. As Since the purpose of sport science is to understand in order to maximize athletic performance, I'd wonder about both at the same time and for the same reasons. First, who said that that was the purpose of sports science? Second, as we seem to agree upon (below), the level of knowledge that a good coach must have about the science of exercise is probably smaller than most people think. Kurgan pointed out, the skill set required to be a good coach (not trainer) is quite large, such that you can be quite successful even if you are weak in one particular if you are excellent in others. Thus, being Agreed--but I would expect that a good coach would need to know some minimum of sports science or his other good qualities wouldn't do much good. I don't disagree with that statement - it's just that the minimum is sufficiently low that you can't claim on the basis of someone's success as a coach that that necessarily means that they know a lot about exercise science (as Warren implied). What you (Andy) fail to recognize or understand is that the doctors/coaches/trainers, call them what ever you want, on a top-level pro team are not really coaches in the classic sense. They don't advise riders on strategy and tactics or advise them on which races they should focus on. That sort of advise is provided by the director sportif or team director. The duty of someone like a Mapei doctor/trainer is to advise the riders on their daily training prescriptions and any medical issues. I believe that all (3?) of the Mapei doctors spent alot of time at the Mapei Cycling Center in Italy testing and monitoring all of the Mapei riders-pro, amateur and juniors, as well as thousands of cyclists each year who continue to come to the center for testing and advise. I think it's silly to imply that a Mapei doctor would not know ALOT about the real world applications of exercise physiology as it pertains to cyclists. -WG |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Training volumes (was LA ...)
Just look at Erin Hartwell. No management experience, no real
coaching experience, no science background (not even a college degree) and barely anytime as a pro road rider and yet he landed the Head Coach position for the Welsh Elite Cycling program. I should also add that he lasted less than 6 months in the position and left under a cloud inappropriate behaviors. CH Are we talking specifics, or are we talking logic? Allow me to repeat myself: just because somebody is a good (or even great) coach doesn't necessarily prove that they know diddly-squat about the science of exercise. Now perhaps one or more Mapei coaches/trainers/doctors/medicos/whathaveyou actually do*...for example, I've periodically corresponded with one of the physiologists who works with ONCE, and he clearly knows his stuff...as does my friend and colleague Asker Jeukendrup, who has acted as a nutritional advisor to Rabobank. However, such individual cases in no way make a rule. *Then again, if they really believe that there's truly a difference between "aerobic threshold" and "anaerobic threshold", I have my doubts. Andy Coggan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Austin, TX bike shops - opinions? | Dhananjay Adhikari | General | 4 | April 2nd 04 12:13 AM |