Longer crankarms
Jiyang Chen
seems like it would produce more torque since there's more leverage.
Jiyang
Stewart Fleming
No.
We go through this exercise once a year or so. It should be in the FAQ now.
Actually, regardimg the FAQ, it was last updated last April. Surely we
have generated some new FAQs since then?
warren
Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic...
Rick Onanian
wrote:
>Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic...
>http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40
That site requires a login. What conclusions does that article draw?
I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able to
increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences more
smoothly.
--
Rick Onanian
warren
<spam...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:50:33 GMT, warren <war...@usvhremove.com>
> wrote:
> >Some info about the problem with lab studies WRT this topic...
> >http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=40
>
> That site requires a login.
Only if you care to read the whole article.
> What conclusions does that article draw?
...That lab tests on crank lengths should (but usually don't) consider
the value of longer cranks during times when you're out of the saddle
at lower than average rpm's.
Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with this little
needle, "Only when physiologists get out of their laboratories and
dedicate themselves to the study of top-level cyclists, will
information be applicable to athletes..."
> I've recently went to shorter cranks, figuring I may be able to
> increase my top cadence, or at least pedal fast cadences more
> smoothly.
I suggest you read some of the other articles at that site about
increasing pedal cadence. Your objective may be better achieved with
training. Try slightly rolling terrain in the same gear. Allow your
cadence to flucuate from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short
periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about lifting your
knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes long at 110+ rpm's. Then
in a few weeks you can try 120+ rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while
riding uphill. BTW, uphill at high cadences provides some good
cardiovascular training while putting less strain on the muscles (less
accumulated fatigue?).
It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer cranks for more
leverage when you accelerate out of the saddle and you'll still have
the high cadence when you need it.
-WG
GoCycle
chris
went to shorter cranks on my TT bike and found it far easier to turn
over the pedals in an aerob position. I think the affect of length is
overestimated.
I caught Ferrari's comment and I wrote him (haven't heard from him,
though, and don't expect to). I both agree and challenge his
comments. He clearly has spent little time researching anything.
Itherwise he would realize what I made note of to him. Its easy for
people to criticize the lack of real world research, but few realize
the logistics of such research. Take it from someone who has spent
the last 3 years trying to get 2 studies funded with the help of a
collegue. It sucks. If anyone out there want to make a donation to
the cause, let me know!
CH
warren <war...@usvhremove.com> wrote in message news:<060320042036503442%war...@usvhremove.com>...
warren
<excel_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I caught Ferrari's comment and I wrote him (haven't heard from him,
> though, and don't expect to). I both agree and challenge his
> comments. He clearly has spent little time researching anything.
> Itherwise he would realize what I made note of to him. Its easy for
> people to criticize the lack of real world research, but few realize
> the logistics of such research.
What makes you think he hasn't done some research with the riders he
has worked with?
-WG
Robert Chung
> Ferrari offers some other reasons and then concludes with this little
> needle, "Only when physiologists get out of their laboratories and
> dedicate themselves to the study of top-level cyclists, will
> information be applicable to athletes..."
What an odd and revealing thing to say.
DirtRoadie
> Are there any evidence that longer crankarms are more efficient? It
> seems like it would produce more torque since there's more leverage.
More torque, yes. More power, not necessarily. Just looking at the
basic physics and ignoring the relative complexity of the
physiological considerations, keep in mind that to increase speed on a
bicycle, *power* (i.e. rpm x torque) must be increased. And to
increase power you can increase either torque or rpm. Formula 1 race
cars (and some guy named Lance) generate large amounts of power with
engines that turn at very high rpm. Diesel trucks and diesel/electric
locomotives get their power mostly from high torque at low rpms.
And then, of course, you have to define what you mean by "more
efficient."
DR
chris
his research from his own stash of cash. He clearly doesn't get it,
though. If he did, he would understand how hard it is to get anything
funded, let alone the logistics of field testing. Case in point:
I'll leave out much of detail here, and just touch on the cost and
logistics of looking at data collection for an 8 day stage race. Nor
will I include payment for services rendered.
Pre and post (simple) lactate testing (5 riders) - $300
power meters for all (assuming they'll all ride a power tap & you get
a deal on them) - $2500
Hct samples (~80 samples) - $30
Airfare to get your personnel there - $600
Accommodations (with luck)- $900
Plus a bunch of stuff I missed and a boat load of time plus finding
riders to do this...THEN ALL THE DATA ANALYSIS.
~$4500.00
Please remit payment to me or forward bill to Ferrari and I'll get
started!
CH
news:<080320041514128753%war...@usvhremove.com>...
Robert Chung
> Formula 1 race cars (and some guy named Lance) generate large
> amounts of power with engines that turn at very high rpm.
I'm not so sure that's a fair characterization of Armstrong. During his
climb of Alpe d'Huez a couple of years ago I estimated he was averaging
in the ballpark of 425W at perhaps 100-105rpm or so. That means his rpm's
were slightly higher than most of us but he was producing *lots* more
power, i.e., his torque was pretty high.
Lindsay
wrote:
F1 race cars generate much more HP than Torque, especially at the high
RPM's. If LANCE is in F1 race car mode, he's generating more
LANCEpower at the high RPM's going up the hills, not utilizing torque.
Jan would be utilizing more torque at his lower RPM attack on the
mountains.
Dan Connelly
weight with a longer lever, but you need to push it through a longer distance,
so it's a tradeoff.
In any case, crank arm length is just part of the story. The mechanical
system extends up through at least your hip. The trajectory of the knee
isn't necessarily strongly affected by crank arm length. So longer cranks only
clearly reduce the force load though a part of the system.
Dan
warren
> His comments make me believe that; unless of course he has funded all
> his research from his own stash of cash. He clearly doesn't get it,
> though. If he did, he would understand how hard it is to get anything
> funded, let alone the logistics of field testing. Case in point:
>
> I'll leave out much of detail here, and just touch on the cost and
> logistics of looking at data collection for an 8 day stage race. Nor
> will I include payment for services rendered.
>
> Pre and post (simple) lactate testing (5 riders) - $300
> power meters for all (assuming they'll all ride a power tap & you get
> a deal on them) - $2500
> Hct samples (~80 samples) - $30
> Airfare to get your personnel there - $600
> Accommodations (with luck)- $900
> Plus a bunch of stuff I missed and a boat load of time plus finding
> riders to do this...THEN ALL THE DATA ANALYSIS.
>
> ~$4500.00
That's a small amount of money for a star rider or a rider on a big
team. Not an obstacle. The actual testing would likely be done for an
individual rider or just a few from the team, and a team like Mapei was
doing frequent testing with most of their riders already. Adding in the
question of whether or not Bartoli needed 175's or 172.5's wouldn't be
much of a burden or obstacle.
-WG
Bob Schwartz
> I'll leave out much of detail here, and just touch on the cost and
> logistics of looking at data collection for an 8 day stage race. Nor
> will I include payment for services rendered.
> Pre and post (simple) lactate testing (5 riders) - $300
> power meters for all (assuming they'll all ride a power tap & you get
> a deal on them) - $2500
> Hct samples (~80 samples) - $30
> Airfare to get your personnel there - $600
> Accommodations (with luck)- $900
> Plus a bunch of stuff I missed and a boat load of time plus finding
> riders to do this...THEN ALL THE DATA ANALYSIS.
> ~$4500.00
> Please remit payment to me or forward bill to Ferrari and I'll get
> started!
Rominger was handing over 10% of his salary at a time when he was the
world's #1 ranked rider. Other clients are probably paying something
similar. I don't believe cost is the barrier you think it is.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
chris
that you haven't any idea how little money there is, because nobody
give a hoot (at least in the U.S.). Do you honestly think we just sit
around in our labs coming up with the least applicable studies because
its fun? Besides, I didn't say it was a problem for them, its a
problem for us scientists; you know, the guys Ferrari is criticizing.
I should also add that Dr. Ferrari has no human subjects restraints
placed on him either. Anything the scientific community does must
pass some Board's approval. A pro team has none of these constraints.
Regarding Warren's Mapei comment, I can say (from second hand
knowledge) that what they were doing was either not well controlled,
or the sample size was far to small to make actual statistical
assessments.
I would, however, contend that most riders would be reluctant to make
major changes.
CH
Bob Schwartz <cv...@shell.core.com> wrote in message news:<104s6f3...@corp.supernews.com>...
DirtRoadie
I didn't intend to suggest that he doesn't produce any torque or that
he revs like a F1 car (but he certainly does turn those cranks over
compared to most cyclists). My only point was that the post-cancer
Lance discovered that his best power was at higher rpm than what he
had commonly used earlier and he has used his high rpm style quite
well, i.e. generates lots of power.
The basic point is that power can be increased by using higher rpm at
the same torque. For that matter power can be increased even with
lower torque *IF* the rpm is increased enough.
DR
warren
> Bob, have you done any human performance research? I can tell you
> that you haven't any idea how little money there is, because nobody
> give a hoot (at least in the U.S.). Do you honestly think we just sit
> around in our labs coming up with the least applicable studies because
> its fun? Besides, I didn't say it was a problem for them, its a
> problem for us scientists; you know, the guys Ferrari is criticizing.
Ferarri's point was that guys like him learn more (or learn things with
more relevance) because they don't have the constraints that you've
mentioned, and they get to work with actual athletes for all of their
testing.
> I should also add that Dr. Ferrari has no human subjects restraints
> placed on him either. Anything the scientific community does must
> pass some Board's approval. A pro team has none of these constraints.
> Regarding Warren's Mapei comment, I can say (from second hand
> knowledge) that what they were doing was either not well controlled,
> or the sample size was far to small to make actual statistical
> assessments.
Ferrari and Mapei, et al, don't need to worry about statistical
assessments, large sample sizes, etc. because they're only concerned
with what works or doesn't work for the people they are working with,
and among those few people there will be various responses that can be
relevant for their needs. Just as you, a coach, offer an educated guess
or suggestion for your athletes and then you "test" to see how well it
works for that person.
-WG
Robert Chung
>
> Ferrari and Mapei, et al, don't need to worry about statistical
> assessments, large sample sizes, etc. because they're only concerned
> with what works or doesn't work for the people they are working with,
Sort of like the guy who came up with the idea of gastric-freezing was
only concerned with what worked or didn't for the patients he was working
with.
Ewoud Dronkert
> the idea of gastric-freezing
Should I google, or is that subject better left er.. untouched?
jim gravity
> training. Try slightly rolling terrain in the same gear. Allow your
> cadence to flucuate from an average of about 90-95 up to 120 for short
> periods. At the high rpm's it may help you to think about lifting your
> knees. You can also do intervals 1-10 minutes long at 110+ rpm's. Then
> in a few weeks you can try 120+ rpm's. Try maintaining 90+ rpm's while
> riding uphill. BTW, uphill at high cadences provides some good
> cardiovascular training while putting less strain on the muscles (less
> accumulated fatigue?).
>
> It's not easy to learn but then you can use the longer cranks for more
> leverage when you accelerate out of the saddle and you'll still have
> the high cadence when you need it.
>
> -WG
Or ride a single speed mountain bike for a season.
Robert Chung
That's not an either/or. By rbr standards the things that are best left
untouched are probably the most frequently googled.
Gastric freezing was a technique proposed to treat gastric ulcers.
Patients swallowed a balloon, a refrigerant was pumped into the balloon,
and this stopped all digestive processes for the length of the treatment
(an hour or so), plus a bit longer. The idea was that this would give the
ulcer a chance to heal and the patient would have this treatment a couple
of times a week. The method was tried on a few dozen patients, *all* of
whom improved. You couldn't ask for better results. It became pretty
popular and soon every hospital got or had plans to get gastric freezing
equipment.
You can guess what happened next.
Medicine is full of treatments and procedures where guys didn't think they
needed "to worry about statistical assessments, large sample sizes, etc.
because they're only concerned with what works or doesn't work for the
people they are working with." Hormone replacement therapy is the latest
example.
Ewoud Dronkert
> You can guess what happened next.
I can imagine all sorts of horror scenarios (balloon bursts, refrigerant
comes out, completely destroys intestines) but I guess you were thinking
from a statistician's point of view; for some or even most people
outside the initial sample it didn't work.
Robert Chung
Well, if it only didn't work that wouldn't have been so bad. When they
finally got around to doing an actual randomized controlled blinded trial
(after a couple thousand gastric freeze machines had been sold) it turned
out that the reason they got such good results is that in the short run
*everyone* got better, whether they were given real gastric freezing or
fake gastric freezing. However, the long-term follow-up under gastric
freezing was actually worse: there were more complications in the gastric
freezing group than in the control group.
Hormone replacement therapy is the latest example, but there's a long
history of things that intelligent, well-meaning, dedicated, caring people
thought would be good for the people they were working with but weren't,
mostly because they were so sure that it would work that they didn't think
that tests and experiments were needed. In some ways, it's not that
surprising that Ferrari was trained as a physician. Fred Mosteller, the
deservedly reknowned statistician at the Harvard School of Public Health,
used to tell his students, "Doctors know so much," he'd say. "They know
*so* much," he'd continue, shaking his head in wonderment and awe, "that
just isn't so."
chris
really works. I test people all the time and I control by doing roll
out tests before each test to match the resistance on the wheel to
what was dones previously.
However, you failed to address the real argument I raised regarding
Dr. Ferrari's call for scientists to get out of the lab. Nor have you
shown how scientists *can* get out of the lab. My argument was that
Ferrari can't criticize scientists when he doesn't understand and/or
feel the constraints scientists do.
Now can somebody argue that a scientist can do all this research
without funding?
CH
Phillip
Leonard Zinn has done alot of research on this subject. He is 6'7" I
believe and rides 210mm cranks. He recommends 190-195mm for a 6'3"
rider like myself.
Possibly the studies previously cited are studying the average height
cyclist 5'8"-5'11" 135-165 lbs. Crank size may not improve their
performance in moving from 175 to 177mm or even 180mm.
But when the leg length discrepancies of the average rider height to a
taller rider's height are 3-6 inches. How can you expect the same
muscular efficiencies in a reduced range of motion for a taller rider
using shorter cranks? I believe the longer leg lengths will benefit
from a longer crank length.
I think the reason we don't see multiple longer crank sizes with the
major equipment companies is demand. There aren't alot of 6'5"
competitive roadies.
Velonews had a huge writeup on this subject- probably like rbr's
annual discussion and it had alot of interesting facts.
Good Luck
Phillip
Ronaldo Jeremiah
> Well, if it only didn't work that wouldn't have been so bad. When they
> finally got around to doing an actual randomized controlled blinded trial
> (after a couple thousand gastric freeze machines had been sold) it turned
> out that the reason they got such good results is that in the short run
> *everyone* got better, whether they were given real gastric freezing or
> fake gastric freezing.
Were they able to convert these machines into something useful?
Just how DO they make sno-cones, anyway?
-RJ
Jim Martin
"chris" <excel_...@hotmail.com> wrote in.
> Now can somebody argue that a scientist can do all this research without
funding?
Well, I've done a few studies in which we used crank length as our
intervention. All of those have been published in reasonably good journals
and none were funded. They may not count as real "cycling" studies within
the context of this thread but they might be interesting or helpful to
cyclists nonetheless.
McDaniel J. J.L. Durstine, G.A. Hand, and J.C. Martin. Determinants of the
metabolic cost of submaximal cycling. Journal of Applied Physiology, 93:
823-828, 2002.
Martin, J.C., N.A. Brown, F.C. Anderson, and W.W. Spirduso. A governing
relationship for repetitive muscular contraction. Journal of Biomechanics
33(8) 969-974, 2000
Martin, J.C. and W.W. Spirduso. Determinants of maximal cycling power: Crank
length, pedaling rate, and pedal speed. European Journal of Applied
Physiology 84 (5): 413-418, 2001.
Martin, J.C. R. M. Malina, and W.W. Spirduso. The effects of cycle crank
length on maximum power and optimal pedaling rate of boys 8-11 years of age.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 86 (3): 215-217, 2002.
Cheers,
Jim
warren
<excel_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not true. Without practical controls, its impossible to know what
> really works.
There can be good controls/testing with low cost and only a few
subjects. Don't you know what is really working for each of your
clients?
> However, you failed to address the real argument I raised regarding
> Dr. Ferrari's call for scientists to get out of the lab. Nor have you
> shown how scientists *can* get out of the lab.
I think Ferrari would say that to really learn about cyclists
"scientists" should seek ways to work more directly with them, instead
of studying people that don't have the same conditioning and abilities
as good cyclists.
I don't know how lab scientists can get out of the lab unless they want
to work more directly with cyclists and wean themselves away from
grants as their source of income. I don't really care if they get out
of the lab or not, but if they want to make their studies more
applicable for cyclists they need to spend more time studying them. If
they can't get funding for that... so be it. The information is
available from people who do in fact get paid for learning about what
works for cyclists.
Today at UC Davis's "lab" I overheard some people talking about
compiling data from all (?) of the people who come in for
testing-hundreds of cyclists per year. Could be some useful information
there. "Scientists" could also focus their studies on _applied_
physiology instead of other aspects of physiology.
> Ferrari can't criticize scientists when he doesn't understand and/or
> feel the constraints scientists do.
He's fully aware of their limitations and how that affects their
ability to help cyclists. You can ask Max about the scientists in Italy
and all about their constraints, and how and why they can be
criticized.
> Now can somebody argue that a scientist can do all this research
> without funding?
You make the point. Can't get funding, then no research. Ferrari has
plenty of funding so he does the research.
-WG
Kyle Legate
>
>
> I don't know how lab scientists can get out of the lab unless they
> want to work more directly with cyclists and wean themselves away from
> grants as their source of income.
>
research". Ecologists spend time in the field gathering samples, and spend
the rest of the time in the lab, analysing the results. Why not
physiologists?
chris
studies (one is being submitted shortly), but I think what Ferrari was
implying is that we all just sit in the lab without bothering to apply
research to the real world.
Apparently the point I was trying to make was only picked up by a few.
CH
Andy Coggan
news:bddd0d5c.04031...@posting.google.com...
> Leonard Zinn has done alot of research on this subject.
I like Lennard, but I don't think you can characterize his efforts as "a lot
of research on this subject".
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
> Today at UC Davis's "lab" I overheard some people talking about
> compiling data from all (?) of the people who come in for
> testing-hundreds of cyclists per year. Could be some useful information
> there. "Scientists" could also focus their studies on _applied_
> physiology instead of other aspects of physiology.
I hate to break this to you, but the USOC lab in CS has been doing this kind
of thing for years...about all that has been learned as a result is that the
Conconi test (proposed/developed/popularized by somebody with a background
very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is total crap.
> Ferrari has plenty of funding so he does the research.
There's a saying in science: the project isn't complete until the data are
submitted for publication. Ergo, since Ferrari doesn't publish, he doesn't
do research in the usual sense.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
news:914dc41d90b41467...@news.teranews.com...
They can, but (as you know) the topic has to be of sufficient interest to
the funding agency that they're willing to give away their money. At one
time the USOC had a little money for research, and through/with the support
of USATF they gave it to Ben Levine and Jim Stray-Gundersen to do field
studies of "live high, train low". For the most part, though, there is no
money to support applied physiology research, in the field or in the lab.
Andy Coggan
chris
it published. Now I'm not comparing ANYTHING Ferrari does to Nazi
science, but how can we really know what his methodolgy and controls
were if he doesn't publish anything? Carmichael likes to note all
sorts of data he's seen in the lab, but he won't let anyone else look
at it; top secret! But not to be biased, I've seen plenty of
unpublished data, but alas, it is unpublished. Who's to say they
didn't add some other "treatment"? Conconi comes to mind, but a
better, more provable example is East Germany.
The Eastern Block "published" tons of research and touted all sorts of
training programs but never got around to mentioning their systematic
drug program. Was there success due to training or drugs?
CH
warren
Andy Coggan <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "warren" <war...@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
> news:100320042110415326%war...@usvhremove.com...
>
> > Today at UC Davis's "lab" I overheard some people talking about
> > compiling data from all (?) of the people who come in for
> > testing-hundreds of cyclists per year. Could be some useful information
> > there. "Scientists" could also focus their studies on _applied_
> > physiology instead of other aspects of physiology.
>
> I hate to break this to you, but the USOC lab in CS has been doing this kind
> of thing for years...about all that has been learned as a result is that the
> Conconi test (proposed/developed/popularized by somebody with a background
> very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is total crap.
I hate to break this to you but Max doesn't use the Conconi test except
as a slightly helpful piece of information along with several other
more meaningful tests and data points.
But speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today and Max showed
me the compilation report of data recorded during many, many lactate
tests (they do about 50 per month) and they had categorized the results
(power vs. lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol) based on the racing
category of the riders being tested. Sound familiar? Except they
weren't just guessing or trying to assign a racing category based on an
opinion based derived from the results of the best in the world. They
have actual data from actual racers in those categories.
> > Ferrari has plenty of funding so he does the research.
>
> There's a saying in science: the project isn't complete until the data are
> submitted for publication. Ergo, since Ferrari doesn't publish, he doesn't
> do research in the usual sense.
Let's not confuse "the usual sense" with the useful sense.
-WG
Kraig Willett
>andy coggan wrote:
>> I hate to break this to you, but the USOC lab in CS has been doing
>> this kind of thing for years...about all that has been learned as a
>> result is that the Conconi test (proposed/developed/popularized by
>> somebody with a background very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is
>> total crap.
>I hate to break this to you but Max doesn't use the Conconi test except
>as a slightly helpful piece of information along with several other
>more meaningful tests and data points.
So, Max (who is this "Max", anyway?) uses the Conconi test or
doesn't use it?
Max wouldn't be conducting extraneous tests to just pad the bill a
bit, would he?
>But speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today and Max showed
>me the compilation report of data recorded during many, many lactate
>tests (they do about 50 per month) and they had categorized the results
>(power vs. lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol) based on the racing
>category of the riders being tested. Sound familiar?
Pony up the data/results/methodology, Warren.
Until then, I have to keep asking myself - "what is Warren's motivation
for his obtuse commentary?".
====================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
====================
--
chris
> of thing for years...about all that has been learned as a result is that the
> Conconi test (proposed/developed/popularized by somebody with a background
> very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is total crap.
Well I guess some of the coaches in NE haven't gotten wind of this yet! ;~`)
Steven L. Sheffield
bOF4c.32000$B54....@fe28.usenetserver.com, "Kraig Willett"
<usenet...@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> warren wrote:
>> andy coggan wrote:
>>> I hate to break this to you, but the USOC lab in CS has been doing
>>> this kind of thing for years...about all that has been learned as a
>>> result is that the Conconi test (proposed/developed/popularized by
>>> somebody with a background very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is
>>> total crap.
>
>> I hate to break this to you but Max doesn't use the Conconi test except
>> as a slightly helpful piece of information along with several other
>> more meaningful tests and data points.
>
> So, Max (who is this "Max", anyway?) uses the Conconi test or
> doesn't use it?
Max Testa
> Max wouldn't be conducting extraneous tests to just pad the bill a
> bit, would he?
>
>> But speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today and Max showed
>> me the compilation report of data recorded during many, many lactate
>> tests (they do about 50 per month) and they had categorized the results
>> (power vs. lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol) based on the racing
>> category of the riders being tested. Sound familiar?
>
> Pony up the data/results/methodology, Warren.
>
> Until then, I have to keep asking myself - "what is Warren's motivation
> for his obtuse commentary?".
>
>
> ====================
> Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
> ====================
>
>
> --
>
>
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash
chris
pretty well, and in fact, I just spoke to him 3 days ago, so I have a
good idea of what research he's doing right now at Davis. While I
think its inappropriate to discuss specifics, I will say that the
study is applied and is "out of pocket". Specifically, Max is
technically not part of any department at Davis and therefore can't
get any money to the work; they can't even test during the weekly
clinic hours. They (everyone involved with the study) work after
hours and on the weekends and pay for the supplies themselves. So yes,
Max is aware of research costs. I doubt, however, Ferrari is, because
if he was he wouldn't have made such a stupid comment.
There are a lot of studies many of us scientists would love to do, but
they're not realistic to do because of time and money constraints.
For those of you not familiar with the field of exercise physiology,
most of the money is in health related areas, like heart disease
prevention, not in performance. Even in an Olympic year there's very
little money. Now may be Ferrari can do all sorts of little projects
and this and that, but it ain't research because its not peer
reviewed. None of us have any idea what his methods were, or his
sample sizes. I have plenty of data on clients, and even more on
myself, and yes that influences my coaching methodology, but I can't
publish it because the "project" wasn't cleared with a Human Subject's
board and the clients didn't agree to it. I'm sure I could wrangle
this, but without some kind of formal backing, its hard to get it
published.
BTW: I contacted Ferrari about his blurb, but I guess he's been too
busy doing his research to get back to me.
CH
Kraig Willett <usenet...@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:<bOF4c.32000$B54....@fe28.usenetserver.com>...
warren
> I doubt, however, Ferrari is (familiar with research constraints), because
> if he was he wouldn't have made such a stupid comment.
I don't think his comment was stupid or ignorant. I think it was simply
a mean little swipe. That's why I called it a "little needle"-to put it
in terms he's very familiar with.
> BTW: I contacted Ferrari about his blurb, but I guess he's been too
> busy doing his research to get back to me.
He's probably too busy taking calls and emails from CC asking, "So what
do you think? What should we do?"
-WG
chris
Lance last year when Lance was in the dumps? "Uh, you know 5 in a row
is tough, Lance has peaked, we just can't predict, there are a lot
more guys who can win, he didn't drink enough..."
A few days later it was, "Lance is a champion, I know he's the best,
he's shown it, he'll with that TT..."
Keep up the good work, Chris, but don't put the life jacket on too
soon this year!
CH
Andy Coggan
> speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today and Max showed
> me the compilation report of data recorded during many, many lactate
> tests (they do about 50 per month) and they had categorized the results
> (power vs. lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol) based on the racing
> category of the riders being tested. Sound familiar? Except they
> weren't just guessing or trying to assign a racing category based on an
> opinion based derived from the results of the best in the world. They
> have actual data from actual racers in those categories.
That's great - with that information he can predict their 20 min and, with
somewhat less accuracy, their 5 min power. Now he just needs to study a
bunch of match sprinters and kilo riders to get a handle on what constitutes
average vs. good vs. excellent vs. world class 5 s and 1 min power, and do
it all over again for women, and he'll have something comparable to the
"power profiling" tables that I put together in one afternoon. Sometimes
"quick and dirty" is the best way to go.
> > There's a saying in science: the project isn't complete until the data
are
> > submitted for publication. Ergo, since Ferrari doesn't publish, he
doesn't
> > do research in the usual sense.
>
> Let's not confuse "the usual sense" with the useful sense.
Data that aren't shared aren't very useful.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
news:a7157f5e.04031...@posting.google.com...
Are you referring to Cycle-Smart? I thought that they had given up on that
approach.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
> Carmichael likes to note all
> sorts of data he's seen in the lab, but he won't let anyone else look
> at it; top secret!
Not to pick on Carmichael in particular, but what's funny to me is how
people just eat this stuff up, when many times it is not something new at
all. Take, for example, the whole notion that by pedaling faster you reduce
recruitment of fast twitch fibers: Carmichael mentions it, and people treat
it like some new discovery, when in fact the issue has been studied by
exercise physiologists for nearly three decades (with somewhat equivocal
results, I might add).
Andy Coggan
warren
Andy Coggan <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "warren" <war...@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
> news:120320042127537229%war...@usvhremove.com...
> > speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today and Max showed
> > me the compilation report of data recorded during many, many lactate
> > tests (they do about 50 per month) and they had categorized the results
> > (power vs. lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol) based on the racing
> > category of the riders being tested. Sound familiar? Except they
> > weren't just guessing or trying to assign a racing category based on an
> > opinion based derived from the results of the best in the world. They
> > have actual data from actual racers in those categories.
>
> That's great - with that information he can predict their 20 min and, with
> somewhat less accuracy, their 5 min power.
Heh, he can predict far more than that with that data.
-WG
jim gravity
> >
> > Let's not confuse "the usual sense" with the useful sense.
> Data that aren't shared aren't very useful.
> Andy Coggan
The academic stench is overwhelming in here. "publish, publish, publish,
wah wah wah."
Do you want funding to make the fastest people, faster; or the not-so-
fast, faster; or the not-so-fit, fitter? It's a good thing that there
isn't public funding readily available for the first two cases.
Frivolous. Training fatty masters and cat 3 schmoes isn't going to do
the world any good. And the third case, the one that probably does see a
fair amount of public funding, produces regurgitated 3times a week, 20
minutes a day kind of results...and do we really need a warming over of
that concept?
Funding for making the fasest people faster is limited to national team
interests, and beyond that, maybe the military.
The guys that are doing the job for the pros in Europe have no interest
in making their data useful to you or me. And they sure aren't doing it
for the laudation or criticism of "the academic community".
Helping riders win races is what matters, and if they are using drugs to
do that, well that's even more reason not to publish.
--
Andy Coggan
news:jFk5c.73095$Yn1....@fe14.usenetserver.com...
> Andy Coggan wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's not confuse "the usual sense" with the useful sense.
> > Data that aren't shared aren't very useful.
> > Andy Coggan
>
>
>
> The academic stench is overwhelming in here. "publish, publish, publish,
> wah wah wah."
>
> Do you want funding to make the fastest people, faster; or the not-so-
> fast, faster; or the not-so-fit, fitter? It's a good thing that there
> isn't public funding readily available for the first two cases.
> Frivolous. Training fatty masters and cat 3 schmoes isn't going to do
> the world any good.
I didn't call for public funding of performance research (and in fact
personally don't believe that tax money should really be spent that way).
Like Chris, I merely pointed out *why* what Ferrari calls for isn't
possible.
> And the third case, the one that probably does see a
> fair amount of public funding, produces regurgitated 3times a week, 20
> minutes a day kind of results...and do we really need a warming over of
> that concept?
Actually, the programs recommended for making "the not-so-fit, fitter" have
changed considerably from what you seem to be familiar with, in part due to
publically-funded research.
> Funding for making the fasest people faster is limited to national team
> interests, and beyond that, maybe the military.
Agreed. That's why sports-crazy countries like Australia are where the best
such research is done, at least when it comes to "amateur" sports (i.e.,
those without a large professional side, e.g., swimming).
> The guys that are doing the job for the pros in Europe have no interest
> in making their data useful to you or me. And they sure aren't doing it
> for the laudation or criticism of "the academic community".
> Helping riders win races is what matters, and if they are using drugs to
> do that, well that's even more reason not to publish.
Yet, ironically, people like Ferrari seem to think that people like me
should be performing and publishing research that serves *their* needs. Me,
I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander: if people like
Ferrari want to see more data published that has direct application, then
they need to publish their own.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
So could anyone with basic knowledge of exercise physiology and an
understanding of statistics. But as the (my) saying goes, "the best
predictor of performance is performance itself." So, why jack around
measuring lactate levels, when you can measure performance power directly?
Andy Coggan
chris
Carmichael is, if nothing else, very lucky, but also very astute to
capitalize on his luck. For that he deserves praise. Others have
come and gone with the Champions they built, but Carmichael
revolutionized coaching to the masses; for better or for worse.
However, a close look at nearly everything Carmichael endorses has
been used for decades; aerobic base training, the need to add speed
work to you early season training, and my favorite, field testing.
Someone forgot to tell him this has been used "forever", yet now
everyone needs to do it.
The real question is how long will it take for him to cash out after
Lance retires? Can he leave the limelight behind? Will he make any
more "advancements" in training and coaching, or will he push the same
old same old?
CH
"Andy Coggan" <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Pcj5c.41305$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
warren
> Ah yes, BUT those studies never had Lance as a poster child.
> Carmichael is, if nothing else, very lucky, but also very astute to
> capitalize on his luck. For that he deserves praise. Others have
> come and gone with the Champions they built, but Carmichael
> revolutionized coaching to the masses; for better or for worse.
>
> However, a close look at nearly everything Carmichael endorses has
> been used for decades; aerobic base training, the need to add speed
> work to you early season training, and my favorite, field testing.
> Someone forgot to tell him this has been used "forever", yet now
> everyone needs to do it.
>
> The real question is how long will it take for him to cash out after
> Lance retires? Can he leave the limelight behind? Will he make any
> more "advancements" in training and coaching, or will he push the same
> old same old?
A sound marketing strategy and good consultants can carry him far
beyond what he actually knows about training-even without the help of
his friend Lance.
-WG
warren
Coggan <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Measuring lactate allows for objective, useful measurements not
obtainable with 5 minute, 20-minute, etc., road tests. But then you
(should) already know this.
-WG
Andy Coggan
There is more variability involved in measuring power at fixed blood lactate
concentrations (e.g., 2 or 4 mmol/L) than there is in measuring performance
power (e.g., 5 or 20 min)...but I don't expect you to know this.
Andy Coggan
Jim Martin
"Jiyang Chen" <n...@no.no> wrote
> Are there any evidence that longer crankarms are more efficient?
My earlier post seems to have been lost in the peripheral discussion, so
I'll try again to answer the original question. My colleagues and I have
done several studies in which we used crank length as our intervention.
Abstracts for the two most applicable to cyclists are below. The first one,
by McDaniel et al., showed that there was no effect of crank length (145,
170, 195mm) on efficiency, suggesting that crank length will not help or
hinder endurance performance. The second one shows that maximal sprinting
power is not altered by crank lengths of 145-195mm but that 120 and 220mm
cranks compromise power by a few percent. Bottom line, ride the length you
like to ride and be confident that you are not hurting your power. Or the
flip side, feel free to change cranks anytime, it won't hurt your
performance but it won't help either.
McDaniel J. J.L. Durstine, G.A. Hand, and J.C. Martin. Determinants of the
metabolic cost of submaximal cycling. Journal of Applied Physiology, 93:
823-828, 2002.
The metabolic cost of producing submaximal cycling power has been reported
to vary with pedaling rate. Pedaling rate, however, governs two
physiological phenomena known to influence metabolic cost and efficiency:
muscle shortening velocity and the frequency of muscle activation and
relaxation. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relative
influence of those two phenomena on metabolic cost during submaximal
cycling. Nine trained male cyclists performed submaximal cycling at power
outputs intended to elicit 30, 60, and 90% of their individual lactate
threshold at four pedaling rates (40, 60, 80, 100 rpm) with three different
crank lengths (145, 170, and 195 mm). The combination of four pedaling rates
and three crank lengths produced 12 pedal speeds ranging from 0.61 to 2.04
m/s. Metabolic cost was determined by indirect calorimetery, and power
output and pedaling rate were recorded. A stepwise multiple linear
regression procedure selected mechanical power output, pedal speed, and
pedal speed squared as the main determinants of metabolic cost (R(2) = 0.99
+/- 0.01). Neither pedaling rate nor crank length significantly contributed
to the regression model. The cost of unloaded cycling and delta efficiency
were 150 metabolic watts and 24.7%, respectively, when data from all crank
lengths and pedal speeds were included in a regression. Those values
increased with increasing pedal speed and ranged from a low of 73 +/- 7
metabolic watts and 22.1 +/- 0.3% (145-mm cranks, 40 rpm) to a high of 297
+/- 23 metabolic watts and 26.6 +/- 0.7% (195-mm cranks, 100 rpm). These
results suggest that mechanical power output and pedal speed, a marker for
muscle shortening velocity, are the main determinants of metabolic cost
during submaximal cycling, whereas pedaling rate (i.e.,
activation-relaxation rate) does not significantly contribute to metabolic
cost.
Martin, J.C. and W.W. Spirduso. Determinants of maximal cycling power: Crank
length, pedaling rate, and pedal speed. European Journal of Applied
Physiology 84 (5): 413-418, 2001.
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of cycle
crank length on maximum cycling power, optimal pedaling rate, and optimal
pedal speed, and to determine the optimal crank length to leg length ratio
for maximal power production. Trained cyclists (n = 16) performed maximal
inertial load cycle ergometry using crank lengths of 120, 145, 170, 195, and
220 mm. Maximum power ranged from a low of 1149 (20) W for the 220-mm cranks
to a high of 1194 (21) W for the 145-mm cranks. Power produced with the 145-
and 170-mm cranks was significantly (P < 0.05) greater than that produced
with the 120- and 220-mm cranks. The optimal pedaling rate decreased
significantly with increasing crank length, from 136 rpm for the 120-mm
cranks to 110 rpm for the 220-mm cranks. Conversely, optimal pedal speed
increased significantly with increasing crank length, from 1.71 m/s for the
120-mm cranks to 2.53 m/s for the 220-mm cranks. The crank length to leg
length and crank length to tibia length ratios accounted for 20.5% and 21.1%
of the variability in maximum power, respectively. The optimal crank length
was 20% of leg length or 41% of tibia length. These data suggest that pedal
speed (which constrains muscle shortening velocity) and pedaling rate (which
affects muscle excitation state) exert distinct effects that influence
muscular power during cycling. Even though maximum cycling power was
significantly affected by crank length, use of the standard 170-mm length
cranks should not substantially compromise maximum power in most adults.
Cheers,
Jim
warren
Andy Coggan <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "warren" <war...@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
> news:150320041536461677%war...@usvhremove.com...
> > Measuring lactate allows for objective, useful measurements not
> > obtainable with 5 minute, 20-minute, etc., road tests. But then you
> > (should) already know this.
>
> There is more variability involved in measuring power at fixed blood lactate
> concentrations (e.g., 2 or 4 mmol/L) than there is in measuring performance
> power (e.g., 5 or 20 min)...but I don't expect you to know this.
I guess if you're not an expert at conducting and interpreting the
tests you would tend to think that way. Your personal bias restricts
your ability to learn. Ask a good coach for advice. They can help you
learn from tests that provide information not found in your 1, 5, 10,
20, 40, 60 minute road tests and in a more objective and repeatable
manner.
What is my power output at 1m/Mol? 1 m/Mol vs. 2 m/Mol? 2 vs. 4? Is it
changing? How much? What is the shape of the curve between 1 and 2, 2
and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5,? How long can I sustain power at 4, 5, 6+? How
can I use all of this information to guide my training?
-WG
warren
<jmar...@SPAMxmission.com> wrote:
> "Jiyang Chen" <n...@no.no> wrote
> > Are there any evidence that longer crankarms are more efficient?
>
> My earlier post seems to have been lost in the peripheral discussion, so
> I'll try again to answer the original question. My colleagues and I have
> done several studies in which we used crank length as our intervention.
> Abstracts for the two most applicable to cyclists are below. The first one,
> by McDaniel et al., showed that there was no effect of crank length (145,
> 170, 195mm) on efficiency, suggesting that crank length will not help or
> hinder endurance performance. The second one shows that maximal sprinting
> power is not altered by crank lengths of 145-195mm but that 120 and 220mm
> cranks compromise power by a few percent. Bottom line, ride the length you
> like to ride and be confident that you are not hurting your power. Or the
> flip side, feel free to change cranks anytime, it won't hurt your
> performance but it won't help either.
Was any of the testing conducted while the rider was rocking the bike,
out of the saddle at high power (eg. 1000+ watts), and at medium power
(eg. 400+ watts) ? Were the riders given a week or two to acclimate to
each new crankarm length and each new pedaling cadence? Were there any
repeated accelerations during the testing like that found in racing?
-WG
Jim Martin
"warren" <war...@usvhremove.com> wrote
> Was any of the testing conducted while the rider was rocking the bike,
> out of the saddle
No, all seated.
>at high power (eg. 1000+ watts),
All of the subjects in the maximal power study produced well over 1000
watts.
> and at medium power (eg. 400+ watts) ?
No, all data was either maximum muscular power or submaximal, below lactate
threshold, power.
>Were the riders given a week or two to acclimate to each new crankarm
length and each new pedaling cadence?
Only a day of practice on each length. In my opinion, that is one of the
strenghts of the study with regard to cycling: Even when the cranks are
nearly new to the rider they still do not alter power or efficiency.
>Were there any repeated accelerations during the testing like that found in
racing?
Nope. We were not trying to evaluate fatigue but that is a topic for future
study in my lab. If is possible that one crank length may be better than
another for certain fatiguing situations but no one has looked at that yet.
Cheers,
Jim
Andy Coggan
> In article <q_t5c.42305$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Andy Coggan <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <war...@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
> > news:150320041536461677%war...@usvhremove.com...
>
> > > Measuring lactate allows for objective, useful measurements not
> > > obtainable with 5 minute, 20-minute, etc., road tests. But then you
> > > (should) already know this.
> >
> > There is more variability involved in measuring power at fixed blood
lactate
> > concentrations (e.g., 2 or 4 mmol/L) than there is in measuring
performance
> > power (e.g., 5 or 20 min)...but I don't expect you to know this.
>
> I guess if you're not an expert at conducting and interpreting the
> tests you would tend to think that way.
You don't have a clue what I'm talking about, do you? Go read these
abstracts, and then you'll better understand:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3410624
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1459746
> Your personal bias restricts
> your ability to learn. Ask a good coach for advice. They can help you
> learn from tests that provide information not found in your 1, 5, 10,
> 20, 40, 60 minute road tests and in a more objective and repeatable
> manner.
Rrrrrrrrriiigggghhhhttttt.
(BTW, I don't recommend 10 or 40 min tests...for that matter, I really don't
recommend doing much formal testing at all, since by merely training and
racing regularly with a powermeter you can gather essentially the same
information, but in a much less disruptive manner.)
> What is my power output at 1m/Mol? 1 m/Mol vs. 2 m/Mol? 2 vs. 4? Is it
> changing? How much? What is the shape of the curve between 1 and 2, 2
> and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5,?
I don't know and I don't care, but I can tell you this: all of the various
power values are highly intercorrelated, with R values > 0.9:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7136774
As a result, a single blood lactate measurement at a fixed power output is
just as predictive of performance ability as assessing the entire curve:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6683159
Similarly, we were able to predict time to fatigue at ~90% of VO2max with
equal accuracy (R=0.90) using either the initial breakpoint in blood lactate
or as a 1 mmol/L increase in blood lactate over "exercise baseline":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3403447
Andy Coggan
chris
but I've seen the term "Conconi test" batted around by a few coaches
and on some websites. It is possible these sites are out of date.
CH
"Andy Coggan" <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<z9j5c.41301$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
warren
Andy Coggan <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "warren" <war...@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
> news:160320040910349878%war...@usvhremove.com...
> > What is my power output at 1m/Mol? 1 m/Mol vs. 2 m/Mol? 2 vs. 4? Is it
> > changing? How much? What is the shape of the curve between 1 and 2, 2
> > and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5,?
>
> I don't know and I don't care, but I can tell you this: all of the various
> power values are highly intercorrelated, with R values > 0.9:
I've seen the tests that show otherwise. Some were my own. The
different segments indicate certain ability and also response to
certain types of training intended to address specific aspects of race
fitness. This is seen by examining certain parts of the curve and power
ranges near certain lactate levels.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abst
> ract&list_uids=7136774
>
> As a result, a single blood lactate measurement at a fixed power output is
> just as predictive of performance ability as assessing the entire curve:
I've seen otherwise. Max and Mike Carter (he's now at UC Davis Sports
Performance) could tell you far more than I can about this but they
have specifically addressed this topic with me and you are quite
simply, wrong.
-WG
chris
I would like to add that Andy has brought up some very good points
here, which is why one needs to be cautious when utilizing testing.
I, however, still use lactate testing and do find it very useful, but
I no longer use LT testing because of the aformentioned problems. In
fact, I use only a handful of samples, one submax (~4 mM +/-) and one
max. In my experience, I've been able to control training and
"predict" performance rather well from this method. HOWEVER, the
biggest help I've seen has come from continuous use of a power meter.
Overall, I would contend that riders don't use the thing properly at
all. Always afraid its too heavy, or they don't know what to do with
the data. I have an SRM that makes my bike 0.1 lbs heavier, which is
nothing compared to the data it provides me. So taken as a whole, I
think the argument for or against lactate testing is moot if you don't
know how to utilize what you have. I'm sure you'll find many who
agree with Andy, many who don't, but few who can argue why?
CH
"Andy Coggan" <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<AwI5c.24527$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Andy Coggan
> "Andy Coggan" <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<z9j5c.41301$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "chris" <excel_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a7157f5e.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > > > I hate to break this to you, but the USOC lab in CS has been doing
this
> > kind
> > > > of thing for years...about all that has been learned as a result is
that
> > the
> > > > Conconi test (proposed/developed/popularized by somebody with a
> > background
> > > > very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is total crap.
> > >
> > > Well I guess some of the coaches in NE haven't gotten wind of this
yet!
> > ;~`)
> >
> > Are you referring to Cycle-Smart? I thought that they had given up on
that
> > approach.
> In all fairness, I was not not specifically pointing to any one group,
> but I've seen the term "Conconi test" batted around by a few coaches
> and on some websites. It is possible these sites are out of date.
It's also possible that by 'Conconi test' these coaches/websites simply
meant an incremental exercise test to fatigue. Many people seem to confused
the two.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
No, I'm not - and rather than having to rely on my own unpublished
observations, or, worse still, just what others have told me, I can point to
peer-reviewed articles supporting my position (as I did).
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
>
> I would like to add that Andy has brought up some very good points
> here, which is why one needs to be cautious when utilizing testing.
> I, however, still use lactate testing and do find it very useful, but
> I no longer use LT testing because of the aformentioned problems. In
> fact, I use only a handful of samples, one submax (~4 mM +/-) and one
> max. In my experience, I've been able to control training and
> "predict" performance rather well from this method. HOWEVER, the
> biggest help I've seen has come from continuous use of a power meter.
>
> Overall, I would contend that riders don't use the thing properly at
> all. Always afraid its too heavy, or they don't know what to do with
> the data. I have an SRM that makes my bike 0.1 lbs heavier, which is
> nothing compared to the data it provides me. So taken as a whole, I
> think the argument for or against lactate testing is moot if you don't
> know how to utilize what you have. I'm sure you'll find many who
> agree with Andy, many who don't, but few who can argue why?
Don't get me wrong...despite certain limitations I do think that there are
times when measuring blood lactate (or other physiological parameters, e.g.,
VO2max, efficiency) can provide additional insight into the factors
determining a person's performance, and hence can be useful in planning
training. It's just that I (like you, apparently) don't think there's
anything to be gained from obsessing over the exact shape of the
lactate-power curve, esp. since lactate concentration can vary significantly
due to extraneous factors (e.g., muscle glycogen stores).
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the best predictor of performance
is performance itself.
Andy Coggan
Kyle Legate
> In article <AwI5c.24527$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Andy Coggan <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <war...@usvhremove.com> wrote in message
> > news:160320040910349878%war...@usvhremove.com...
>
> > > What is my power output at 1m/Mol? 1 m/Mol vs. 2 m/Mol? 2 vs. 4? Is it
> > > changing? How much? What is the shape of the curve between 1 and 2, 2
> > > and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5,?
> >
> > I don't know and I don't care, but I can tell you this: all of the
various
> > power values are highly intercorrelated, with R values > 0.9:
>
> I've seen the tests that show otherwise. Some were my own.
>
chris
avoid using their power meters at all costs in a race.
CH