Fergie wrote:*snip*
-Power cranks do not improve performance
*snip*

That surprises me a bit. They make great sense to me from an improving efficiency point of view but I don't see them being of any other benefit. For high level athletes I'm sure there would be a decent return on improving efficiency especially in long tours

that entire efficiency arguement for powercranks is a crock. the purpose is to teach you to pedal circles? there have been a few studies that show that even the highest level athletes do not pedals circles, the power is in the down stroke, not the upstroke.

so take that out of the equation, and not sure what they achieve, other than getting good at riding cranks that are independant. i have read reports where they have actually had a negative effect!

Interesting concept none the less and there are are few pros who use them, guess they didn't catch on for a reason

My experience (vicarious) is that they aren't much of a benefit. One experienced rider I know reckons he got a bigger effect on his pedaling from riding his $400 fixie through winter than he ever got from his $2k + Power Cranks.

scatter wrote:There's a journal for everything

Yup, found a study on the incidence of injuries from Bull riding.

Fergie wrote:-For long distance events aim to eat/drink 90gr carbohydrate per hour (1440kJ)

The warm up guidelines comes from research done by Craig Palmer (Otago/Bike NZ) and post exercise feeding from David Rowlands (Massey). Great to see Kiwi Sport Scientists doing such excellent work.

What was the basis for the 90g of carb? That's a lot more than typically held as maximum absorption rate. Please say it wasn't based on what pro triathletes do...

I'm not sure it counts as excellent work if it's stuff that's been known for a long time.

Had to think where I saw that. Was in Sportscience in Will Hopkins report on ACSM last year. Asker Jeukendrup's presentation on what Ironman triathletes did when competing.

The Analysis and Utilization of Cycling Training Data

Authors: Jobson, Simon A.1; Passfield, Louis1; Atkinson, Greg2; Barton, Gabor2; Scarf, Philip3

Source: Sports Medicine, Volume 39, Number 10, 1 October 2009 , pp. 833-844(12)

Abstract:
Most mathematical models of athletic training require the quantification of training intensity and quantity or `dose'. We aim to summarize both the methods available for such quantification, particularly in relation to cycle sport, and the mathematical techniques that may be used to model the relationship between training and performance.

Endurance athletes have used training volume (kilometres per week and/or hours per week) as an index of training dose with some success. However, such methods usually fail to accommodate the potentially important influence of training intensity. The scientific literature has provided some support for alternative methods such as the session rating of perceived exertion, which provides a subjective quantification of the intensity of exercise; and the heart rate-derived training impulse (TRIMP) method, which quantifies the training stimulus as a composite of external loading and physiological response, multiplying the training load (stress) by the training intensity (strain). Other methods described in the scientific literature include `ordinal categorization' and a heart rate-based excess post-exercise oxygen consumption method.

In cycle sport, mobile cycle ergometers (e.g. SRM™ and PowerTap™) are now widely available. These devices allow the continuous measurement of the cyclists' work rate (power output) when riding their own bicycles during training and competition. However, the inherent variability in power output when cycling poses several challenges in attempting to evaluate the exact nature of a session. Such variability means that average power output is incommensurate with the cyclist's physiological strain. A useful alternative may be the use of an exponentially weighted averaging process to represent the data as a `normalized power'.

Several research groups have applied systems theory to analyse the responses to physical training. Impulse-response models aim to relate training loads to performance, taking into account the dynamic and temporal characteristics of training and, therefore, the effects of load sequences over time. Despite the successes of this approach it has some significant limitations, e.g. an excessive number of performance tests to determine model parameters. Non-linear artificial neural networks may provide a more accurate description of the complex non-linear biological adaptation process. However, such models may also be constrained by the large number of datasets required to `train' the model.

A number of alternative mathematical approaches such as the Performance-Potential-Metamodel (PerPot), mixed linear modelling, cluster analysis and chaos theory display conceptual richness. However, much further research is required before such approaches can be considered as viable alternatives to traditional impulse-response models. Some of these methods may not provide useful information about the relationship between training and performance. However, they may help describe the complex physiological training response phenomenon.

Aldo Sassi is well known as coach to many top Professionals inc World Champion Cadel Evans and Ivan Basso.


Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:
April 2010 - Volume 42 - Issue 4 - pp 805-812
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ba99bc
Applied Sciences
Aerobic Fitness Variables Do Not Predict the Professional Career of Young Cyclists
MENASPÀ, PAOLO; SASSI, ALDO; IMPELLIZZERI, FRANCO M.
Collapse Box
Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the discriminant ability of aerobic fitness measures among junior cyclists of different competitive levels and to examine whether these variables were able to predict the cyclists who reached the professional level.

Methods: A total of 309 young cyclists (mean ± SD, age = 17.5 ± 0.5 yr, height = 178 ± 6 cm, weight = 66 ± 7 kg) performed an incremental maximal test to determine peak oxygen uptake (V˙O2peak) and respiratory compensation point. To examine the discriminant and predictive ability of these parameters, the cyclists were classified according to their competitive level and specialty: 1) national team (NAT) and nonnational team (non-NAT); 2) nonprofessionals (NP), and professional flat specialists and professional climbers; and 3) nonprofessionals (NP), professional continental, and ProTour. A logistic regression was used to test the accuracy of models generated using as predictors the laboratory measures of aerobic fitness and anthropometric data.

Results: The mean absolute and relative V˙O2peak were 4.7 ± 0.6 L·min−1 and 71 ± 7 mL·kg−1·min−1, respectively. NAT displayed higher V˙O2 values than non-NAT. Professional flat specialists showed higher absolute V˙O2 values than NP. Professional climbers showed higher relative V˙O2 values than NP. ProTour showed higher aerobic fitness measures than NP. Using the receiver operating characteristic curve, body mass, absolute V˙O2peak, and V˙O2 at respiratory compensation point were found to discriminate NAT from non-NAT. Although some of these variables influenced the odds of becoming professionals (odds ratios from 1.10 to 2.86), no models were able to correctly identify the cyclists who became professionals.

Conclusions: Traditional physiological measures of aerobic fitness are useful to identify junior cyclists who can excel in their category. However, these variables cannot be used for talent identification, if "talent" is interpreted as a young cyclist who will succeed in becoming a professional.

so the hot juniors are not necessarily going to be the hot elite riders.....but still we tend to pump resourses in to those that show well at junior level. (yes fergie we all have stories to support this finding)

so begs the question what is appropriate talent ID? where is that meter that measures desire and guts and work ethic (the "gordy meter")

Question it begs is are we developing them as personal coaches, parents (not that I am), squad coaches, cycling federations or would they make the same amount of progress over a several years if left to their own devices. I like to think my riders benefited from my coaching at Age Group Nats. Certainly making meals and getting them away from those energy drinks and the mental prep for what they were in for helped but would they have been better served if I let them make those mistakes that others did to further fuel their motivation for future events where the stakes get higher and demands increase. What is better: rider saying no thanks to a can of Red Bull because "coach said not to" or "yeah that time I had Red Bull I was hyper and ran out of gas as I went to the line and then couldn't sleep that night so next mornings sessions was a write off"?

My background is Psychology so I will always look to the behavioural aspects of the rider. Give me the rider who works hard, listens, asks questions, takes constructive feedback, handles victory and defeat well over the kid who turns up and wins everything. To be honest I will work with both because I know I can help both

Track does lend itself to being right there and able to give feedback. But then I saw a lot of overcoaching. Giving riders too much information or getting them to try things in racing when they hadn't been practised in training. That's were I took it upon myself with my riders to dictate terms on many things. Question is: is this right in the long term or are they better to trip up as juniors to mentally prepare them for future efforts. In Australia they train archers to perform under extreme conditions including sprayed with fire hoses to prepare them for the demands of intense conditions and all extremes of weather.

That's were we need to weigh up what is to be gained from giving these young riders experience. What is the ideal level? Tomorrow when I catch up with Dylan we will pick the week to pieces as I saw a lot of room for improvement.

Lindford Christie spoke to his coach on the phone after the 1988 100m final and his coach went through all the things he could have improved on. In Christie's book he said that had his coach called it a perfect run he would have retired (with Bronze, soon to become Silver) there and then but on realising he could improve he committed to the next 4 years and won Gold in Barcelona.

Dylan had an outstanding week, going close to 2 records and getting the 500m shows there is talent and hard yards had been done but if he wants to progress in U19s he needs to look forward and upward. I see a lot of room for improvement in a lot of his competitors too. Sure at the end of 2009 Nats Alex Frame never thought he would turn up 12 months later and outperform Pieter Bulling. I think Alex found his mojo in the TeA, CRI and Taranaki Tours where every time he ventured further into the red zone and by Taranaki had transformed from where he was at at Track Nationals and carried this through to Invercargill this year. Kudos to him and Coach Risdon.

Hmmm, seems I was talking to myself