Warming up for elite athletes
Chris Renard
the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
From what I see and hear, it seems like this message is not well-
regarded by anyone who will talk about it. There are so many stupid
people who think that by talking only about power, or metrics that can
be specified or measured very precisely that this is "more scientific"
if one ignored other crucial factors that can't be measured as
precisely. Knowing power is enough, especially if you have the same
brand of power meter as your top heroes.
I just can't find any evidence that in-depth scientific investigation
has been published, but I might be looking in the wrong places.
Who what and where can I look for such enlightenment? Use as troll-
bait if you wish, as long as someone comes up with any clues
whatsoever, I am thrilled to be used as bait for any kind of abuse:>)
But seriously, it really seems that with delusional idiots like Greg
Lemond are so emotionally attached to thinking that he really was the
best cyclist for all time, have invested in the idea that performance
above a given limit is humanly impossible. The consequences of this
belief include the implication that optimal training methods are
already known, and therefore a given athlete must merely dial-in your
performance according to unadulterated power metrics protocols, and
some day you can be sure that you are moving towards that peak DNA
limited performance without any additional need for scientific
investigation.
This is naturally absurd, yet you'd never know it according to what is
published (in my experiences)...but I have been immersed on
nonathletic endeavors for the past several years, but hearing excuses
from the mouth of Lance Armstrong for his last two Tour performances
makes me think that either he is a liar (hiding all of his insight in
to the subject) or even he has just accepted that Chris Carmichael
knows and publishes all that there is to know about science-guided
athletic conditioning protocols.
Phil H
Here is a good start to athletic performance research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Start off with something easy like crank arm length until you get the
feel for the search capabilities.
This is a study on warm-up from the same link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21129035
Good luck with your search.
Phil H
Anton Berlin
spend much of their time on rollers or other ergs.
Most time trialists like to show up with a dewey sweat before a 40k
Some ride the entire course -
Kurgan Gringioni
"Chris Renard" <constructive....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:281e480c-e5ad-4f09...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
:
: But seriously, it really seems that with delusional idiots like Greg
: Lemond are so emotionally attached to thinking that he really was the
: best cyclist for all time, have invested in the idea that performance
: above a given limit is humanly impossible.
Dumbass -
While you are correct that Lemond is a delusional idiot, I do not think that
most cyclists are as closed to new ideas as he is.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Steve Freides
> I'm convinced that warming up with precision becomes more crucial as
> the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
> mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
> and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
> to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
There will probably never be a definitive answer to this one, the reason
being that doing what one expects to do in the way of "pre-competition
warm-up protocol" is as important and maybe more important than the
actual protocol.
There have been quite a few studies done of this in areas other than
bicycling, and the all reached the same conclusion - you can't just
change what you're used to doing before a competition, or even before a
training session, without adverse consequences, but you can get _used_
to doing different things. The only real experiment worth performing is
getting used to one warm-up protocol and using it enough to establish
how well it works for you, then change and keep the new protocol for
long enough to get used to it and judge its results.
The one that sticks in my mind is baseball players and swinging a
heavier bat before they're up at the plate. The research (don't ask me
how or what research, I don't remember) showed that it makes almost
everyone hit worse, not better, but the players are all so used to it
that taking it away just wasn't going to happen because they all
_thought_ they'd hit worse without it.
-S-
RicodJour
> Chris Renard wrote:
> > I'm convinced that warming up with precision becomes more crucial as
> > the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
> > mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
> > and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
> > to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
>
> There will probably never be a definitive answer to this one, the reason
> being that doing what one expects to do in the way of "pre-competition
> warm-up protocol" is as important and maybe more important than the
> actual protocol.
Substitute believes for expects, and I'd agree with you.
> There have been quite a few studies done of this in areas other than
> bicycling, and the all reached the same conclusion - you can't just
> change what you're used to doing before a competition, or even before a
> training session, without adverse consequences, but you can get _used_
> to doing different things. The only real experiment worth performing is
> getting used to one warm-up protocol and using it enough to establish
> how well it works for you, then change and keep the new protocol for
> long enough to get used to it and judge its results.
>
> The one that sticks in my mind is baseball players and swinging a
> heavier bat before they're up at the plate. The research (don't ask me
> how or what research, I don't remember) showed that it makes almost
> everyone hit worse, not better, but the players are all so used to it
> that taking it away just wasn't going to happen because they all
> _thought_ they'd hit worse without it.
In this instance thought = believes.
Life is funny like that. If someone believes something strongly
enough, and they're not an asshole about it, they can frequently get
other people to believe as well.
I find it curious that the OP mentions he's interested in "warming up
with precision" and then says the stuff that's probably the most
important can't be measured precisely. Precision is the wrong word
and not what he's looking for. If you couch your search in, um,
imprecise terms your results will be not meaningful.
R
Anton Berlin
People do warm up with precision - using HR or power levels there are
protocols that one can try and through experimentation know what's
best for them.
It's a lot like bread or pizza - the ingredient list is short - flour
water salt and yeast or culture. But the humidity is a little
different, the oven off a little, the flour is different in a hundred
different ways but the expert knows how to adjust and end up with a
great result.
This is why the old guys win every now and then against younger ones -
they know how to plan and adjust for all of these 'unknowns' - which
they aren't really unknowns - just expereince.
RicodJour
Back into the world of semantics... People attempt to warm up with
precision. Using a particular metric it's easy to improve that
metric. When the metric is speed there are so many factors involved
that improving what you are analyzing may or may not be the reason for
the increase in speed. If someone believes that they have found the
key 'ingredient' and are on to something, then they most likely will
improve. It's the belief that matters as much as anything else.
How often have we seen a rider that has tremendous potential not live
up to that potential? Usually it's the rider's mind(set) getting in
the way. If the rider believes they can do something, as opposed to
trying to convince themselves they can do it, then they will more
likely be able to push themselves that much further.
> It's a lot like bread or pizza - the ingredient list is short - flour
> water salt and yeast or culture. But the humidity is a little
> different, the oven off a little, the flour is different in a hundred
> different ways but the expert knows how to adjust and end up with a
> great result.
Your pizza experience is entirely imaginary as far as I can tell.
There has been no proof whatsoever of whether you know what you're
talking about or you just read some magazine article. For all anyone
on RBR knows your pizza could be a DiGiorno with some Stop & Shop
grated cheese thrown on it. It's put up or shut up time, mofo. FedEX
your best shot forthwith!
> This is why the old guys win every now and then against younger ones -
> they know how to plan and adjust for all of these 'unknowns' - which
> they aren't really unknowns - just expereince.
Agreed that there's no replacing experience...unless someone has
amazing luck. Like knowing when to attack when your primary opponent
drops his chain because you're really just a doping sheepherder
falsely accusing the Spanish meat industry. I'm not accusing anyone -
that was just a generality.
R
Steve Freides
> How often have we seen a rider that has tremendous potential not live
> up to that potential? Usually it's the rider's mind(set) getting in
> the way. If the rider believes they can do something, as opposed to
> trying to convince themselves they can do it, then they will more
> likely be able to push themselves that much further.
It's not even just that - how many times have we seen any rider, even a
Fattie Master, go faster when they can see someone up ahead? Even
without tremendous potential, there are just so many variables that go
into successful performance.
-S-
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:05c6a536-493d-44f6...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
I think TT and Track work are slightly-different animals, because you've got
to be ready to go at 100% effort right at the start. Few road races have a
bat-out-of-hellish start; it happens, but it's not the norm.
Topography is probably going to help determine the extent of the warm-up; if
you've got a course where you're facing a gnarly climb shortly after the
start, you need to be ready to go 100% on it if need be, so I'd guess the
individual needs to figure how far out into a training ride he goes before
he feels up to speed, and make sure you've covered that much ground by then.
If you're one of those crazy guys who tries for a 220k breakaway in a 223k
race, those ridiculously-large early leads are probably a result of the pack
warming up on the course (while you were presumably warmed up before the
gun).
Maybe. Just thinkin' out loud here. The only race I probably adequately
warmed up for was when I showed up for my first road race in 23 years or so,
and I think it helped greatly, because I really did feel more confident and
stronger when the pace quickly went up to something greatly in excess of
what I normally had trained. When I raced "seriously" so many years ago, I
was known for not warming up, not stretching, just figuring that I'd work
the kinks out as I rode, which kinda sorta worked.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
RicodJour
Agreed. That is a wonderful training technique by the way. Make sure
that the end of your training ride goes by a college, park or other
hottie hangout and watch the effect. You'll ride faster when pooped,
grimace less, suck in the gut and still be able to smile and act
nonchalant.
R
Chris M
> Chris Renard wrote:
> > I'm convinced that warming up with precision becomes more crucial as
> > the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
> > mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
> > and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
> > to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
>
> There will probably never be a definitive answer to this one, the reason
> being that doing what one expects to do in the way of "pre-competition
> warm-up protocol" is as important and maybe more important than the
> actual protocol.
You're only giving me more poor reasons to stop research. Research
determines directions more than some binary fix. I don't need THE
ultimate answer, while searching for it. I gain from any improvement
in that direction.
>
> There have been quite a few studies done of this in areas other than
> bicycling, and the all reached the same conclusion - you can't just
> change what you're used to doing before a competition
That is irrelevant, and misleading. All we really know is that using
an athlete for research while also expecting top results, is risky.
THerefore research should probably be done indpendantly with subjects
who accept this as part of their contribution to an improved
understanding, and perhaps even useable ideas for later stages (of
research, not the final TT).
, or even before a
> training session, without adverse consequences, but you can get _used_
> to doing different things.
Right. One thing we know, that warming up seems to be best
accomplished by replicating the competition effort, some times scaled
down, some times not. Some times intensity or duration patterns
etc...The best traditional way to derive ultimate warmup is to look at
longer competitions to see when you performed best, and you can draw
your expectationd by observing your workload in the hour before you
attacked and dropped Fausto Coppi on the Tour of the Moon, or
whatever.
I already know the quasi-scientific answers. I just want to confirm
that the use of power meters have failed to lead to any real research.
These (above and below) are excuses for using customs rather than
investing in science.
The only real experiment worth performing is
> getting used to one warm-up protocol and using it enough to establish
> how well it works for you, then change and keep the new protocol for
> long enough to get used to it and judge its results.
>
> The one that sticks in my mind is baseball players and swinging a
> heavier bat before they're up at the plate. The research (don't ask me
> how or what research, I don't remember) showed that it makes almost
> everyone hit worse, not better, but the players are all so used to it
> that taking it away just wasn't going to happen because they all
> _thought_ they'd hit worse without it.
>
> -S-
I appreciate your effort, it's not bad advice. I am sure you hear
everyone claim they want to use science, but I'm not joking.
Chris M
I am expecting to use more than just a power meter.
"Precision is the wrong word
and not what he's looking for."
Which word is 'better" than precision? How about precise
specialization? Context-driven? 'really good and exact?"...the good
way depending on....etc.
"If you couch your search in, um,
imprecise terms your results will be not meaningful."
To you perhaps. You just don't understanding the scope of my purposes.
Here is a huge clue. Power is derived from what? Why is power
(metrics) used (by athletes) not merely as a common denominator but
rather an ultimate product? To make it easy, not to make it precise.
RicodJour
Effective is the word you are grasping for, along with those straws of
diminishing returns.
You would have made a good Jesuit.
R
Zenon
What the fuck is wrong with you? Just sit in your car until seconds
before the start of your next race. But seriously (as you say), be
prepared for the guy who launches off the front immediately and then
try to hang on. What the fuck is a "science-guided athletic
conditioning protocol"? Please know that everyone in here uses
science-guided athletic conditioning protocols before training rides
and races. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
thirty-six
<constructive.reconciliat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm convinced that warming up with precision becomes more crucial as
> the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
> mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
> and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
> to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
Shove a electronic thermometer probe up your backside and ride a 65"
gear lightly until your rpm and temp jumps up. You can record your
temp, time and rpm if you like, but all you really need to know is how
long, which was about 20 minutes for me. The effort is minimal and I
can't see it making much difference for what type of race. Any
amateur race may rush from the start and being warmed prevents injury
during that first effort.
thirty-six
> On Mar 14, 11:11 pm, Chris Renard
>
> <constructive.reconciliat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm convinced that warming up with precision becomes more crucial as
> > the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
> > mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
> > and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
> > to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
>
> Shove a electronic thermometer probe up your backside and ride a 65"
> gear lightly until your rpm and temp jumps up. You can record your
> temp, time and rpm if you like, but all you really need to know is how
> long, which was about 20 minutes for me. The effort is minimal and I
> can't see it making much difference for what type of race. Any
> amateur race may rush from the start and being warmed prevents injury
> during that first effort.
Before all this precision monitoring equipment I had been advised to
warm up for 20 minutes before hard training efforts or racing. One
further thing I found during these investigations is once warmed the
body draws fluid from the tissue to fill the enlarged vascular system,
now is the time to take on fluid, usually about two pints with salt
and sugar.