#11
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
"I tried a homeopathic injury tablet
and it made me very ill." snip So that's what the kiddies are calling them these days... "No officer, its just a homeopathic injury tablet.." BTW Carl - are you going for the record of world's longest post?? Cheers, Absent Husband ("Theses and references at twenty paces!!") |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
On 10 Apr 2005 22:36:31 -0700, "Absent Husband"
wrote: BTW Carl - are you going for the record of world's longest post?? See a.b.p. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
Carl Brewer wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:15:44 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote: Carl Brewer wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:21:33 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote: snip Wow, my hill climbing got WAY better when I did weights - but it was strength/power only, not endurance weights, and my PT made sure I had PERFECT form for everything... But then weights improved my running heaps too. Maybe I'm just lucky and respond well to weights? I never do heaps long term, mostly enough to build the neural response without building heaps of muscle - and that might be the key. It's also possible that the weight training had little effect on its own, but the rest of your training may have made a more significant contribution than you expected. Not in this case, actually, because when I was on exactly the same program without weights, I did not see the same improvements. My coach wanted me to quit weights and I told him to f$ck off, because after a few weeks of detraining, I slowed down and started getting injuries. Interesting. Were you doing any on the bike strength work or all aerobic stuff on the bike? What sort of intervals were you doing? At the time I was doing things like 2km onn/3 off/3 on/2 off and some hill sprints on base with a mate. Coach didn't want me doing it, but I was getting nothing from the all-aerobic sessions, except the ability to ride slowly for 7 hours. snip My understanding is that weight training is useful if you're deficient in base strength, but, as Rik Stern says, you're probably strong enough anyway, and weight training is then of questionable benefit. Although, if you're stronger, your muscles are working at a lower effort. Yes, but my understanding is that for most riders, the difference between peak power (1000w) and sustainable power is so great that it won't make any significant difference to their sustainable power at or near LT/MSS* (250-400w). Mmmm, I haven't heard that, but fairy nuff. If you're biomechanically gifted, you're probably pretty efficient anyway. If not, your stabilisers could probably do with a tweak. However those programs with leg curls and hammie curls etc will not help because they fatigue major muscles without working the little ones so much. Go free weights, go free weights, go free weights... You're talking about a different thing though, you're talking about injury prevention and management now, not increasing sustainable power output *on a bike*. To be fair, you can't put out much power when you're injured, but that's not what I was talking about Ahhh, but your initial pondering was "is weight training useful for cyclists?" so I was answering that. Injury prevention is definitely a useful thing for all athletes. Also weak stabilisers leads to poor use of muscles leads to inefficient cycling c.f. what you could be doing if you strengthened those muscles. There's a lot of claims and counterclaims made wrt training for sports, and very few proper studies done to confirm or deny most of the claims. It's risky to atribute gains made to a specific drill (eg I climb better because of weight training) when you'll be doing a lot of other training as well, which may or may not have made a difference. To climb better, you need to be able True. However as above the only change was weights. Incl nutrition/sleep etc. I also tried an extra day of cycling instead. to sustain higher wattages, not increase your peak wattage. That's Again, if you increase your peak wattage, you have more to work with. Then it's a matter of increasing the amount of time spent at the high power i.e. interval trg. Well, it's worked wonders for me. My understanding is that the peak is so much higher anyway that it's essentially irrelevant for a trained rider. this may be That may be true. different in other sports and in non-specific sports (ie: tris). The I wouldn't call tri a non-specific sport. It is 3 very specific types of training; the high training load often leads to higher specificity because you've got no time to do anything but those three training sessions. reason I get my riders doing strength work is because road races and crits almost always end in a sprint, so there they need peak power and technique (which is why I do hill sprints and *down* hill sprints in lieu of motorpaced sprints) ignoramusWhat's a motorpaced sprint?/i As for hill sprints... if training specificity is the goal... why hill sprints? Do races normally finish uphills? Hill climbing form is usually different to form on the flat, right? done by teaching your body to metabolise more blood lactate, which is done by longer intervals at high intensity. Climbing is just an ITT where the bad guy is gravity, not drag. When it comes to strength for riding, you hint above at neuromuscular adaptations, which weight training will almost definatly not train for riding - That's not entirely true. Greater muscular innervation will improve response. Which again is why I would not stay on a weights prog during competition but rather use it as an initial build. I'd suggest that perhaps it's not just nerve activation, but also the *right* nerve activation that makes the difference. This is the core of the specific training argument that Rik refers to. We're bogging down in details here, and I'm on shaky ground without re-reading the material so I get it right and give you the right references. When you start training, you increase innervation, right? But you don't have cycling nerves and weight training nerves. They're the same nerves, you just activate them in a different pattern. That can be trained once you have initial gains. unless your weights are set up to exactly mimic riding - which is why I get my riders to do hillsprints as strength training - it's very specific, which is what we want. We want to ride faster! However, if you're not strong enough to move fast up a hill, you teach your body bad habits which become patterns. I know a lot of runners who swear by running up hills but that tends to make me slow, because you can't run with good flat form by running up hills. I'm not training runners, I'm training cyclists, and hill sprints are not about getting up hills faster, they're about building strength so that my riders can sprint quicker. If hill running makes you a faster or slower runner, that's a running-specific problem, and not one I'm terribly interested in, nor one I'm at all qualified to comment on! I don't have my MTB riders doing hillsprints, nor the riders training for TT's, just the roadies who need to burn past everyone at the end in one big peak-power kick. See comment above about specificity and hill sprints versus flat sprints. fairy nuff I'd be worried about rolling an ankle walking on my cleats though. SPD-SLs are very stable to walk on. Aaaah. Cool, I'll start saving up then. Here's a snippet from Rik's article on cyclingnews, which I'd suggest is well worth your reading if you have a spare 10 minutes and a moderatly competant browser. snip cool. I read lots of those sorts of papers because that's my research job. But I still reckon it's what works for the individual. Of course. If training was the same for everyone, there'd be one book and everyone would have it. The art of coaching is and the author would be very very rich. Hmmmm. finding what works best for each athlete you're working with, and then getting them to actually do it! (right Hip? Still reading? ) (Tee hee!) Science hasn't figured out how aromatherapy and accupuncture and homeopathy work but they do work for some people. I tried a homeopathic injury tablet and it made me very ill. But the lotion worked like a charm. Aren't placebos and coincidences wonderful? Yes. So is quantum mechanics. Without weight training, I got injured, I was weak on hills, my running was slow. I added weights, a program that I devised based on a new program some friends were trying, and I solved these problems. Being female, I'm more likely to have weird biomechanics, and I'm a big q-angle female also. I use weights to train my body posture, my stabilising muscles, and to strengthen muscle groups. When I added calf raises to my program, I ceased to get cramped calves when running. Why? The forces involved in running are probably quite a lot closer to peak as opposed to when riding - that's why we can ride for 10 hours, but only run for 2, at any decent kind of intensity. I'm guessing, I don't know running, but when you take a stride, that's a lot of work in catching it. Relative to peak power, Less than you'd think, actually, if you run with good form. And running involves moving your joints through a greater range of motion which has other benefits (that you're not interested in so I'll digress no further ) I'd guess that running was a lot closer, so peak power may be relevant, especially in the smaller muscle groups (calves, hip flexors etc) that just don't matter when riding. Riding works your arse and your thighs, they're big, strong muscles, they're way stronger than they need to be for riding at MSS, and if they're too big and strong, they're taking away energy for no benefit. True, if you're climbing hills, but you've got little muscles in your bum too, and they're the ones that cause all sorts of freaky pathological knee and ankle motion. General concensus from fitness professionals was that I was working them at a lower (relative level) when they were bigger. Sure, but you're talking about running, where calf raises move the calf muscle through a range of motion that's very similar to that which you use when running, and the calf muscle is (I'm guessing, you're talking running ...) probably under-equipt to cope with the stresses involved without structured strength work. I'm guessing again, but I'd have thought that running is something that the body is basically underpowered to do, and you need to strengthen it to make it cope with the loads involved, especially if you're short-changed genetically in the first place. The body is designed for running! Ah, my personal opinion is that the shoes we get put in as kids are what kills us.... but let's not go there or I might get hunted down by Nike or something....maybe Mathers... If you're working fine without weights, then there's no need to add them. But I think an interesting experiment would be to take people who previously had biomechanically based injuries, get them doing a regular weights program (non-isolation exercises, working balance, total power gains), and see how their injury rates go after that. I'm not advocating the total removal of weight training, and it has its place, and in the case of injury rehab etc, sure, the right weight training can no doubt be of benefit. My understanding, however, is that for cyclists (not runners, not powerlifters, not swimmers, not iridologists etc) weight training is on the whole unncessary and possibly counter-productive except in cases where there's some physiological problems - such as low core strength (although I'd rather have my riders go swimming or kayaking to fix thix) or some strength discrepancy brought about by injury or adaptation to other stresses that needs balancing out. See, I have always had great core strength, it's purely biomechanics, my body structure. Swimming has not fixed this. Weights help me though. Without weights, I have poor form. I'm fully in favour of cross-training when there's time to recover from it. Amen to that. In the words of one far greater than any of us, ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike! snip T |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:44:28 +1000, Tamyka Bell
wrote: Carl Brewer wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:15:44 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote: Carl Brewer wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:21:33 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote: snip Wow, my hill climbing got WAY better when I did weights - but it was strength/power only, not endurance weights, and my PT made sure I had PERFECT form for everything... But then weights improved my running heaps too. Maybe I'm just lucky and respond well to weights? I never do heaps long term, mostly enough to build the neural response without building heaps of muscle - and that might be the key. It's also possible that the weight training had little effect on its own, but the rest of your training may have made a more significant contribution than you expected. Not in this case, actually, because when I was on exactly the same program without weights, I did not see the same improvements. My coach wanted me to quit weights and I told him to f$ck off, because after a few weeks of detraining, I slowed down and started getting injuries. Interesting. Were you doing any on the bike strength work or all aerobic stuff on the bike? What sort of intervals were you doing? At the time I was doing things like 2km onn/3 off/3 on/2 off and some hill sprints on base with a mate. Coach didn't want me doing it, but I was getting nothing from the all-aerobic sessions, except the ability to ride slowly for 7 hours. You had a coach telling you not to do overload intervals and all E1 (low intensity aerobic) work? What stage of training was this? snip My understanding is that weight training is useful if you're deficient in base strength, but, as Rik Stern says, you're probably strong enough anyway, and weight training is then of questionable benefit. Although, if you're stronger, your muscles are working at a lower effort. Yes, but my understanding is that for most riders, the difference between peak power (1000w) and sustainable power is so great that it won't make any significant difference to their sustainable power at or near LT/MSS* (250-400w). Mmmm, I haven't heard that, but fairy nuff. That's the gist of Rik Stern's article. Power work also favours fast twitch fibres, which doesn't help sustained output much or at all. Sean Eadie would not do well in a 270km road race, even if it was flat You're talking about a different thing though, you're talking about injury prevention and management now, not increasing sustainable power output *on a bike*. To be fair, you can't put out much power when you're injured, but that's not what I was talking about Ahhh, but your initial pondering was "is weight training useful for cyclists?" so I was answering that. Injury prevention is definitely a useful thing for all athletes. Also weak stabilisers leads to poor use of muscles leads to inefficient cycling c.f. what you could be doing if you strengthened those muscles. Agreed if there's a weakness that needs addressing. I wouldn't call tri a non-specific sport. It is 3 very specific types of training; the high training load often leads to higher specificity because you've got no time to do anything but those three training sessions. Serious roadies have no time to do anything but ride and recover too, you may be interested to know Tri is three sports, not 1, so it's not specific. reason I get my riders doing strength work is because road races and crits almost always end in a sprint, so there they need peak power and technique (which is why I do hill sprints and *down* hill sprints in lieu of motorpaced sprints) ignoramusWhat's a motorpaced sprint?/i when you sit in behind a motorbike, and then sprint past it. It trains the high speed, high power stuff you need to come over the top at the end of a race. You can simulate it by doing downhill sprints, where you use the gradient to get the same effect as the draft from the motorbike. Hill sprints - strength Downhill or motorpaced sprints - power As for hill sprints... if training specificity is the goal... why hill sprints? Do races normally finish uphills? Hill climbing form is usually different to form on the flat, right? Yes, but the body position for a full power sprint is the same, and that's what hill sprints are - they're not on the tops with your arse hanging over the back. Maybe if I removed the word "hill" and replaced it with "accelerate against a heavy load" it would make more intuitive sense, but forgive my shorthand In an ideal world, 'd have my riders bang into a 45kn headwind on the flat, but hills are close enough that I believe (!) that the mechanics are sufficiently close that the adaptation is of benefit. My experience suggests this to be true, but my sample is small and I have no control group to test against. I know when *I* do them, my body is doing the same thing as when I sprint on the flat, upper body is trying to keep the hips stable while legs push down as hard as they can on the pedals, and gravity (apart from providing the extra resistance) is a relatively minor player in the position and muscle recruitment stakes, given the relatively small change in its direction. The slope is around 8%, which isn't much in this context compared to the other forces involved. there may be slighly more buttock involved to keep me from falling off the back, but I doubt it's making a significant or measureable difference. done by teaching your body to metabolise more blood lactate, which is done by longer intervals at high intensity. Climbing is just an ITT where the bad guy is gravity, not drag. When it comes to strength for riding, you hint above at neuromuscular adaptations, which weight training will almost definatly not train for riding - That's not entirely true. Greater muscular innervation will improve response. Which again is why I would not stay on a weights prog during competition but rather use it as an initial build. I'd suggest that perhaps it's not just nerve activation, but also the *right* nerve activation that makes the difference. This is the core of the specific training argument that Rik refers to. We're bogging down in details here, and I'm on shaky ground without re-reading the material so I get it right and give you the right references. When you start training, you increase innervation, right? But you don't have cycling nerves and weight training nerves. They're the same nerves, you just activate them in a different pattern. That can be trained once you have initial gains. Yes, but it's more efficient (time) to train them "right" the first time, ie: strength training on the bike. unless your weights are set up to exactly mimic riding - which is why I get my riders to do hillsprints as strength training - it's very specific, which is what we want. We want to ride faster! However, if you're not strong enough to move fast up a hill, you teach your body bad habits which become patterns. I know a lot of runners who swear by running up hills but that tends to make me slow, because you can't run with good flat form by running up hills. I'm not training runners, I'm training cyclists, and hill sprints are not about getting up hills faster, they're about building strength so that my riders can sprint quicker. If hill running makes you a faster or slower runner, that's a running-specific problem, and not one I'm terribly interested in, nor one I'm at all qualified to comment on! I don't have my MTB riders doing hillsprints, nor the riders training for TT's, just the roadies who need to burn past everyone at the end in one big peak-power kick. See comment above about specificity and hill sprints versus flat sprints. Exactly fairy nuff I'd be worried about rolling an ankle walking on my cleats though. SPD-SLs are very stable to walk on. Aaaah. Cool, I'll start saving up then. They're around $150, that's three cheapo tyres Without weight training, I got injured, I was weak on hills, my running was slow. I added weights, a program that I devised based on a new program some friends were trying, and I solved these problems. Being female, I'm more likely to have weird biomechanics, and I'm a big q-angle female also. I use weights to train my body posture, my stabilising muscles, and to strengthen muscle groups. When I added calf raises to my program, I ceased to get cramped calves when running. Why? The forces involved in running are probably quite a lot closer to peak as opposed to when riding - that's why we can ride for 10 hours, but only run for 2, at any decent kind of intensity. I'm guessing, I don't know running, but when you take a stride, that's a lot of work in catching it. Relative to peak power, Less than you'd think, actually, if you run with good form. And running involves moving your joints through a greater range of motion which has other benefits (that you're not interested in so I'll digress no further ) I'd guess that running was a lot closer, so peak power may be relevant, especially in the smaller muscle groups (calves, hip flexors etc) that just don't matter when riding. Riding works your arse and your thighs, they're big, strong muscles, they're way stronger than they need to be for riding at MSS, and if they're too big and strong, they're taking away energy for no benefit. True, if you're climbing hills, but you've got little muscles in your bum too, and they're the ones that cause all sorts of freaky pathological knee and ankle motion. Again, relevant if there's an existing weakness, but probably not for most riders. General concensus from fitness professionals was that I was working them at a lower (relative level) when they were bigger. Sure, but you're talking about running, where calf raises move the calf muscle through a range of motion that's very similar to that which you use when running, and the calf muscle is (I'm guessing, you're talking running ...) probably under-equipt to cope with the stresses involved without structured strength work. I'm guessing again, but I'd have thought that running is something that the body is basically underpowered to do, and you need to strengthen it to make it cope with the loads involved, especially if you're short-changed genetically in the first place. The body is designed for running! But not for very long, and not very fast. Ah, my personal opinion is that the shoes we get put in as kids are what kills us.... but let's not go there or I might get hunted down by Nike or something....maybe Mathers... Prehistoric man did not have to contend with bitumen roads and broken glass! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 at 07:21 GMT, Carl Brewer (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:44:28 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote: Carl Brewer wrote: reason I get my riders doing strength work is because road races and crits almost always end in a sprint, so there they need peak power and technique (which is why I do hill sprints and *down* hill sprints in lieu of motorpaced sprints) ignoramusWhat's a motorpaced sprint?/i when you sit in behind a motorbike, and then sprint past it. It trains the high speed, high power stuff you need to come over the top at the end of a race. And as hippy would say, the motorcycle fumes are good energy food for you too. You'll never hit that wall! -- TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/ "If you already know what recursion is, just remember the answer. Otherwise, find someone who is standing closer to Douglas Hofstadter than you are; then ask him or her what recursion is." -- Andrew "Zarf" Plotkin |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
Weights are good because:
1. if you are wearing lycra you might as well look as buff as you can 2. that extra upper body size comes in handy for blocking the racing line in the last corner of a crit. 3. intimidation factor comes in handy when P-platers give you a hard time and then you catch up to them at the lights......you know who you are Mr "please don't kick the mirror off my dad's car" (brand new XR8). 4. Can reef on the bars harder when going uphill on the SS. 5. they are fun!!! 6. I would rather spend an hour at the gym after riding to work than start work at 0700h. Don't get HUGE.......Get MASSIVE - (old protein powder label) Gags...........BEEFCAKE!!!!......BEEFCAKE!!!! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Carl Brewer wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:44:28 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote: Carl Brewer wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:15:44 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote: Carl Brewer wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:21:33 +1000, Tamyka Bell wrote: snip At the time I was doing things like 2km onn/3 off/3 on/2 off and some hill sprints on base with a mate. Coach didn't want me doing it, but I was getting nothing from the all-aerobic sessions, except the ability to ride slowly for 7 hours. You had a coach telling you not to do overload intervals and all E1 (low intensity aerobic) work? What stage of training was this? Ummm, preseason? About the same time I was starting to put speedwork into my runs. His philosophy was that seeing as I was such an inexperienced cyclist I should just keep doing the long miles. I was training for half/full ironman. snip That's the gist of Rik Stern's article. Power work also favours fast twitch fibres, which doesn't help sustained output much or at all. Sean Eadie would not do well in a 270km road race, even if it was flat That's true, but I think he'd be doing enough k's to beat most age-grouper triathletes etc., surely. snip I wouldn't call tri a non-specific sport. It is 3 very specific types of training; the high training load often leads to higher specificity because you've got no time to do anything but those three training sessions. Serious roadies have no time to do anything but ride and recover too, you may be interested to know Tri is three sports, not 1, so it's not specific. Hmmm, well I think you'd find something different in any text book written on it. It is one sport, you train specific to triathlon. Training involves cycling, running, swimming and transition. If you skipped out on any of these, you'd suck, therefore it's all specific training. reason I get my riders doing strength work is because road races and crits almost always end in a sprint, so there they need peak power and technique (which is why I do hill sprints and *down* hill sprints in lieu of motorpaced sprints) ignoramusWhat's a motorpaced sprint?/i when you sit in behind a motorbike, and then sprint past it. sounds like fun! It trains the high speed, high power stuff you need to come over the top at the end of a race. You can simulate it by doing downhill sprints, where you use the gradient to get the same effect as the draft from the motorbike. Do you sprint down the hill or once you get to the bottom of the hill or both? Hill sprints - strength Downhill or motorpaced sprints - power obv As for hill sprints... if training specificity is the goal... why hill sprints? Do races normally finish uphills? Hill climbing form is usually different to form on the flat, right? Yes, but the body position for a full power sprint is the same, and that's what hill sprints are - they're not on the tops with your arse hanging over the back. Maybe if I removed the word Ha ha, good point. Didn't think of that. I never sprint on the flat, obv, it's just not worth it over 180 km when you've still gotta do that r thing. "hill" and replaced it with "accelerate against a heavy load" it would make more intuitive sense, but forgive my shorthand In an ideal world, 'd have my riders bang into a 45kn headwind on the flat, but hills are close enough that I believe (!) that the mechanics are sufficiently close that the adaptation is of benefit. My experience suggests this to be true, but my sample is small and I have no control group to test against. I know when *I* do them, my body is doing the same thing as when I sprint on the flat, upper body is trying to keep the hips stable while legs push down as hard as they can on the pedals, and gravity (apart from providing the extra resistance) is a relatively minor player in the position and muscle recruitment stakes, given the relatively small change in its direction. The slope is around 8%, which isn't much in this context compared to the other forces involved. there may be slighly more buttock involved to keep me from falling off the back, but I doubt it's making a significant or measureable difference. Nice description. done by teaching your body to metabolise more blood lactate, which is done by longer intervals at high intensity. Climbing is just an ITT where the bad guy is gravity, not drag. When it comes to strength for riding, you hint above at neuromuscular adaptations, which weight training will almost definatly not train for riding - That's not entirely true. Greater muscular innervation will improve response. Which again is why I would not stay on a weights prog during competition but rather use it as an initial build. I'd suggest that perhaps it's not just nerve activation, but also the *right* nerve activation that makes the difference. This is the core of the specific training argument that Rik refers to. We're bogging down in details here, and I'm on shaky ground without re-reading the material so I get it right and give you the right references. When you start training, you increase innervation, right? But you don't have cycling nerves and weight training nerves. They're the same nerves, you just activate them in a different pattern. That can be trained once you have initial gains. Yes, but it's more efficient (time) to train them "right" the first time, ie: strength training on the bike. Not if it's faster to train them and then convert them. Which is true for me. snip fairy nuff I'd be worried about rolling an ankle walking on my cleats though. SPD-SLs are very stable to walk on. Aaaah. Cool, I'll start saving up then. They're around $150, that's three cheapo tyres that's $66 for me! (Sponsors...) snip about little bum muscles and injury Again, relevant if there's an existing weakness, but probably not for most riders. for most _very very good_ riders. snip Ah, my personal opinion is that the shoes we get put in as kids are what kills us.... but let's not go there or I might get hunted down by Nike or something....maybe Mathers... Prehistoric man did not have to contend with bitumen roads and broken glass! granite is pretty hard too! Tam |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
Gags wrote:
Weights are good because: 1. if you are wearing lycra you might as well look as buff as you can 2. that extra upper body size comes in handy for blocking the racing line in the last corner of a crit. 3. intimidation factor comes in handy when P-platers give you a hard time and then you catch up to them at the lights......you know who you are Mr "please don't kick the mirror off my dad's car" (brand new XR8). 4. Can reef on the bars harder when going uphill on the SS. 5. they are fun!!! 6. I would rather spend an hour at the gym after riding to work than start work at 0700h. Don't get HUGE.......Get MASSIVE - (old protein powder label) Gags...........BEEFCAKE!!!!......BEEFCAKE!!!! LOL Wait, you mean the reason why those men drove around the carpark in circles and wouldn't pull up so I could chat... it WASN'T because they were flabbergasted by my BEAUTY?! Hmmmph! Oh well, you forgot 7. Good excuse to eat yummy protein chocolate bars. 8. I can lift more weight than the boys in the gym, but I can't cycle faster than the roadies! Tam |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:41:53 +1000, Tamyka Bell
wrote: 7. Good excuse to eat yummy protein chocolate bars. mmm, expensive wees |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
%$!#-&*@
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:57:21 +1000, Tamyka Bell
wrote: You had a coach telling you not to do overload intervals and all E1 (low intensity aerobic) work? What stage of training was this? Ummm, preseason? About the same time I was starting to put speedwork into my runs. His philosophy was that seeing as I was such an inexperienced cyclist I should just keep doing the long miles. I was training for half/full ironman. I usually get my riders doing 1-3 months of base, depending on their goals and where they are when I start with them, but the base period includes some intensity work - we don't want to lose -all- our VO2max gains NFI how that would translate to tri training though. snip That's the gist of Rik Stern's article. Power work also favours fast twitch fibres, which doesn't help sustained output much or at all. Sean Eadie would not do well in a 270km road race, even if it was flat That's true, but I think he'd be doing enough k's to beat most age-grouper triathletes etc., surely. I don't know. Probably not though - lots of fast twitch (2b or 2a?) does not an endurance rider make. Serious roadies have no time to do anything but ride and recover too, you may be interested to know Tri is three sports, not 1, so it's not specific. Hmmm, well I think you'd find something different in any text book written on it. It is one sport, you train specific to triathlon. Training involves cycling, running, swimming and transition. If you skipped out on any of these, you'd suck, therefore it's all specific training. Fair enough. By the same token, football (any code) is therefore also specific, you have to train everything. Imagine if you couldn't handpass/tackle/roll a maul. You'd suck I think that runners may suggest that football training is a lot less specific than pure running training though. Reminds me of a sign outside a doctor's surgery "We specialise in mens *and* womens health". Maybe I should rephrase, tri training involves training for more than one macro dicipline, but using the same energy pathways - ie: you don't have to sprint and recover, you just grind away until you get to the end. It trains the high speed, high power stuff you need to come over the top at the end of a race. You can simulate it by doing downhill sprints, where you use the gradient to get the same effect as the draft from the motorbike. Do you sprint down the hill or once you get to the bottom of the hill or both? Both, depending on the hill. I'm mainly working on acceleration into a draft (the downhill simulates this) and top speed, which is the bit once you hit the flat. It's not ideal, but it's a lot easier to organise than a motorbike and a bit of closed road. As for hill sprints... if training specificity is the goal... why hill sprints? Do races normally finish uphills? Hill climbing form is usually different to form on the flat, right? Yes, but the body position for a full power sprint is the same, and that's what hill sprints are - they're not on the tops with your arse hanging over the back. Maybe if I removed the word Ha ha, good point. Didn't think of that. I never sprint on the flat, obv, it's just not worth it over 180 km when you've still gotta do that r thing. Tris only need to work on MSS, obviously. "hill" and replaced it with "accelerate against a heavy load" it would make more intuitive sense, but forgive my shorthand In an ideal world, 'd have my riders bang into a 45kn headwind on the flat, but hills are close enough that I believe (!) that the mechanics are sufficiently close that the adaptation is of benefit. My experience suggests this to be true, but my sample is small and I have no control group to test against. I know when *I* do them, my body is doing the same thing as when I sprint on the flat, upper body is trying to keep the hips stable while legs push down as hard as they can on the pedals, and gravity (apart from providing the extra resistance) is a relatively minor player in the position and muscle recruitment stakes, given the relatively small change in its direction. The slope is around 8%, which isn't much in this context compared to the other forces involved. there may be slighly more buttock involved to keep me from falling off the back, but I doubt it's making a significant or measureable difference. Nice description. I had a closer look at the slope this morning (anyone else still reading this who's been to the Kew crit will know the hill I'm using, riding clockwise around the Studley Park Loop), I think it's closer to 5% or less at the part I use, so the position is pretty close to flat ground. When you start training, you increase innervation, right? But you don't have cycling nerves and weight training nerves. They're the same nerves, you just activate them in a different pattern. That can be trained once you have initial gains. Yes, but it's more efficient (time) to train them "right" the first time, ie: strength training on the bike. Not if it's faster to train them and then convert them. Which is true for me. Again, you're doing a different sport, and I suspect, not doing strength training on your bike much or at all. Have you ever done it? Given that you're also running, which uses the same nerves (or similar) but fires them very differently, perhaps the specific nature of strength on bike training is less useful to you. They're around $150, that's three cheapo tyres that's $66 for me! (Sponsors...) Tyres or SPD-SLs for $66? snip about little bum muscles and injury Again, relevant if there's an existing weakness, but probably not for most riders. for most _very very good_ riders. Not in my experience, and most of my riders are not "very very good"[*], they're late entry (not juniors) adults with backgrounds in other sports. One hesitates to suggest that if you look at triathletes riding, you may think that everyone that rides a bike, can't ride a bike There's also the nature of competitive bike racing, which is to a certain extent self-selecting for people who can pedal well. I suspect this may be less of a factor in triathlete populations, as us roadies are a bunch of elitist snobs and triathletes will take anyone they can get. [*] except for Stu and Jason, they're very very good! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|