Noticing a pattern....

Ric_Stern/RST

binlinus wrote:

I'm all for the development of sports science and I agree with much of what the lads from RST say. But the UK example is a bad one to illustrate it because the UK example is a disgrace.

Bin

You're confusing two seperate issues.

Ric

ut_och_cykla

[

quote="lateralus"]

Matchstick Man wrote:

I think you've answered your own question there lateralus. If you're only doing 55 miles a week of flat commuting then how did you expect to feel climbing up a monster such as Mont Ventoux? The pros will do thousands of km training and racing a year yet won't be muscle bound gym bunnies yet will still fly up Ventoux. It's the size of their cardiovascular engines that are the main difference between you, me and them.
It's your aerobic capacity to keep the pressure on that is the biggest differential between us and them.
If you rode for 200miles a week for say 3 months (structured training with rest periods) and re-tried the climb you'd find out just what difference it makes.

SNIPHowever, bear with me -everyone's still saying that the determinants are cardiovascular and metabolic.

Not me!
Yes endurance cycling is chiefly to do with your CV engine - i can buy that- but by the same comparison weak motor parts will fatigue/break sooner than stronger ones - the moving parts need to strong enough - up to a point where thier weight slows the engine down.
Also - and I must be really thick - but for instance for my first bicep curl I might lift 5 kgs 10 times. If I carry on over a few weeks I can either lift 10kgs 10 times or 5kgs 50 times - either way I increase the amount of work I can do. Neither will make my bicep much bigger but its blood supply etc will improve. (AND before anyone points it out I know you don't use biceps for cycling!)
So......more work, better blood supply, little muscle increase... sounds useful to me. And to go back to my 'broken leg' your heart/lungs /other leg might be fantastic engines but without the full sized muscle your output will be at best very unbalanced surely?

[sits back and waits......] :?

Ric_Stern/RST

ut_och_cykla wrote:

[

quote="lateralus"]

Matchstick Man wrote:

I think you've answered your own question there lateralus. If you're only doing 55 miles a week of flat commuting then how did you expect to feel climbing up a monster such as Mont Ventoux? The pros will do thousands of km training and racing a year yet won't be muscle bound gym bunnies yet will still fly up Ventoux. It's the size of their cardiovascular engines that are the main difference between you, me and them.
It's your aerobic capacity to keep the pressure on that is the biggest differential between us and them.
If you rode for 200miles a week for say 3 months (structured training with rest periods) and re-tried the climb you'd find out just what difference it makes.

SNIPHowever, bear with me -everyone's still saying that the determinants are cardiovascular and metabolic.

Not me!
Yes endurance cycling is chiefly to do with your CV engine - i can buy that- but by the same comparison weak motor parts will fatigue/break sooner than stronger ones - the moving parts need to strong enough - up to a point where thier weight slows the engine down.
Also - and I must be really thick - but for instance for my first bicep curl I might lift 5 kgs 10 times. If I carry on over a few weeks I can either lift 10kgs 10 times or 5kgs 50 times - either way I increase the amount of work I can do. Neither will make my bicep much bigger but its blood supply etc will improve. (AND before anyone points it out I know you don't use biceps for cycling!)
So......more work, better blood supply, little muscle increase... sounds useful to me. And to go back to my 'broken leg' your heart/lungs /other leg might be fantastic engines but without the full sized muscle your output will be at best very unbalanced surely?

[sits back and waits......] :?

so, what muscles aren't strong enough?

ric

skavanagh.bikeradar

Last year I was forced into changing from a bike with a triple chain ring (30/39/52) to a bike with a 53/42, and doing much the same rides, distances, time on bike etc but in bigger gears i.e. there was no 30 tooth to spin up hills in (to my shame I used to use that a lot on hills). I got stronger on hills. I've not got numbers to back this up, but i was definitely stronger on hills no doubt about it. I went low cadence and bigger gears - I used to always do 100 rpm on all terrain and pick a gear that let me do it, often on hills this was in the 30 tooth, but changed to as low as 50 rpm and grinding it out - on hills and I got stronger going up hill.

Was this a cardio-vascular/metabolic change or a strength change? I've been assuming it was strength as I was stronger on hills?

Matchstick Man

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Last year I was forced into changing from a bike with a triple chain ring (30/39/52) to a bike with a 53/42, and doing much the same rides, distances, time on bike etc but in bigger gears i.e. there was no 30 tooth to spin up hills in (to my shame I used to use that a lot on hills). I got stronger on hills. I've not got numbers to back this up, but i was definitely stronger on hills no doubt about it. I went low cadence and bigger gears - I used to always do 100 rpm on all terrain and pick a gear that let me do it, often on hills this was in the 30 tooth, but changed to as low as 50 rpm and grinding it out - on hills and I got stronger going up hill.

Was this a cardio-vascular/metabolic change or a strength change? I've been assuming it was strength as I was stronger on hills?

Your power has increased. The amount of watts you use to get the work done.
You've got fitter on a bike by.... riding a bike.

top_bhoy

Of course the power has increased, that is not in dispute. The fact that the bike, being ridden in a higher gear, was part of this increased power/fitness is not in dispute either (I would hope not anyway). The argument is what caused the increased power - an improvement in the CV system or a strengthening of the muscle by using the higher gear? A combination?

Ric_Stern/RST

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Of course the power has increased, that is not in dispute. The fact that the bike, being ridden in a higher gear, was part of this increased power/fitness is not in dispute either (I would hope not anyway). The argument is what caused the increased power - an improvement in the CV system or a strengthening of the muscle by using the higher gear? A combination?

If sustainable power has increased, then by definition it's an improvement by the CV system, or the metabolic system, or a combination of those two.

Ric

binlinus

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

it is hard to argue against the impact the scientific approach has had on all Australia sport. In the mid 1970s (Montreal '76) Australia managed one Silver and four Bronze medals (32nd nation on medal tally). Not long after, the AIS was established. Australia is now in the top 5 Nations at the Olympics. (Atlanta 5th, Sydney 4th, Athens 4th).

Hi Alex

The medals are there to see. But what about the full story behind the medals? You are ignoring that. You are exagerating the impact of the scientific approach because you are not comparing like with like. All things are not equal.

As you know -- but for the benefit of others I'll state it here -- the Australia Institute of Sport (AIS) was created in 1981 in direct response to the lack of success at the Montreal Olympics. This has been well documented elsewhere and there was even a BBC documentary about it some years ago. This "gold medal factory" as it was dubbed was aimed at developing elite sport and winning medals.

Then in 1983 the new Australian government _doubled_ the funding for elite sport and it created a government Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and also set up the Australian Sports Commission (ASC). This committment in funding for elite sport was reflected in Australia's successful 1993 bid to stage the 2000 Olympic games in Sydney. As a result of this success the Australian government further increased the funding for elite sport.

To put it bluntly, a lot of money was being thrown at elite sport in effort to promote national prestige. Government was directly intervening in the process of winning medals just like the Eastern Bloc countries were doing in the 1970s and 1980s. Australia was hailed as the Western model of sporting exellence.

On the other side of the globe both John Major and later Tony Blair's governments followed suit. The National Lottery was created to fund, among other causes, sport. But then policy was changed to support elite participation as opposed to mass participation. And following Australia, New Labour created its own Department of Media, Culture and Sport in 1997 showing its full financial committment to sporting achievement. But at an elite level.

Tony Blair was directly involved in securing London's 2012 bid to hold the Olympics. The UK government was showing its committment to elite sport like never before. There are direct parallels between Australia and the UK.

So when Ric says the following:

if the old school style coaches were so great, then why the hell was the GB team, in general, such a terrible player on the world stage? Why, now that BC have introduced evidence based coaching do we have so much success? We have more success than any other UK sport (i think that's correct based on Worlds and Olympics). It's quality scientific training that has bought the best out of the riders, just as it has for the AIS. Why are other countries now following those two models?

it's not the whole picture. Yes he's right about science does improve performance, but sporting policy has radically changed in the last few decades. Sport is now very specialised and in the UK we are concentrating on track cycling because money is being put into one specific area of the sport. See here for GB team successes:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/gbr/gbteam_about.asp

Why do you think many roadies are pissed off with British Cycling? The Eastway saga was an example.

You could call it the "political economy of sport" if you like. Practised by Austrailia and the UK and now other countries are following suit.

So Alex and Ric despite their science background are not comparing like with like. The political and historical context is missing. Can you compare the funding certain sports got 20 or 30 years ago to what is happening now? I don't think so. Tell me I'm wrong.

Bin

Alex_Simmons/RST

I have no argument with that, a good summary. In my mind, the extra funding has enabled sports science to be applied and contribute in a positive way to the success of these nations. No one can really know the relative impact of all the factors.

Perhaps if the UK allowed road racing on its roads then it might do better in attracting more talent in the first place.

nolf

Where's Ruth?!?!

Now I'm only half right....

Still though it is nice to see a debate about various things!

And if i recall someone said something about increasing the speed at which lactic acid accumulates. This is called the lactate threshold- a level at which the lactic acid is appearing quicker than your muscles can get rid of it. If you up the lactic threshold then you can go faster before lactic acid builds up. Pushing out the lactate threshold is a useful part of training.

Johnpsanderson

Perhaps if the UK allowed road racing on its roads then it might do better in attracting more talent in the first place.

Erm... It does.

cervelorider

nolf wrote:

Where's Ruth?!?!

.

Getting ready to ride tandem .........

BeaconRuth

nolf wrote:

Where's Ruth?!?!

Now I'm only half right....

Sorry Nolf! I don't think I'm a particularly argumentative soul so I thought it worth ducking out and proving that it's not me who causes arguments. I think my point was proved admirably.

Ruth

BeaconRuth

cervelorider wrote:

nolf wrote:

Where's Ruth?!?!
.

Getting ready to ride tandem .........

Indeed. Maybe we'll get a chance to say hello tomorrow, Andy? Always nice to put a face to a name.

Ruth

cervelorider

BeaconRuth wrote:

cervelorider wrote:

nolf wrote:

Where's Ruth?!?!
.

Getting ready to ride tandem .........

Indeed. Maybe we'll get a chance to say hello tomorrow, Andy? Always nice to put a face to a name.

Ruth

Looking forward to it.

SteveR_100Milers

Interesting to note the responses of what are effectively commercial organisations touting for your business. Take you choice.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Johnpsanderson wrote:

Perhaps if the UK allowed road racing on its roads then it might do better in attracting more talent in the first place.

Erm... It does.

My bad :oops:

liversedge

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

nolf wrote:

Ok so it's a slight exaggeration....

And with regard to powermeters I was just suggesting that sometimes you go slightly OTT on the advantages of a powermeter when most people will never spend £2000 on all their bikes together let alone £2k on a single part (approx. cost of SRM Powermeter).

I believe that "slight" would be an under estimation.

I'm not certain of the demographic of people visiting these forums. I turn up at bike races (in the UK) and for your average 2nd or 3rd cat race i typically see bikes that are more expensive than what you suggest. I rode one sportif this year and the bikes ranged from super bling (at many, many £Ks) to very modest bikes at < £1K. I wouldn't be so presumptious to presume what people do or don't earn in order to have free funds available for coaching and similar.

On the other hand, as i pointed to in another thread, there is research available by Jeukendrup et al showing where money (actually, what equipment or training is best) should be spent to get the best returns on your performance. Unless, you are right at the top, have been training for numerous years at the highest level and are genetically peaked out, it always comes down to training. Training is simply better (whether Ruth wants to believe it or not) with a power meter (i've been saying that since 1993; which predates me selling power meters by about 7 years).

If i was given a choice between some bling kit or a regular racing bike plus a power meter, the power meter would win hands down.

Lastly, decent power meters can be had for one quarter of the price you suggest.

Ric

Much as I hate to agree. I agree. In my case I've got a bling bike AND a power meter hired from powermeters.com. If I had my time over I'd downgrade my ride and buy a powermeter with the savings. Mind you, I'd also shell out a lot more for a decent turbo (like the computrainer).

The power meter / gps / hrm interoperability issue is coming to a head right now with new entrants etc. Might be worth waiting 6 months before laying out the cash...

blackhands

I have been involved with coaching since 1975 and hands on with exercise physiology at research level for the past 11 years. There is no doubt in my mind that advances in scientific knowledge (brought about by advances in the equipment available for testing and measuring) have enabled us both to understand what is happening and to isolate those aspects we would like to cencentrate on in training or racing. In other words w ecan train and race much smarter.

Saying that improvements are just due to throwing money at the problem shows an ignorance of what is going on. Of course a lot of that money has been spent on non-scientific matters - but also a lot has been spent on a scientific approach to training.

liversedge

blackhands wrote:

I have been involved with coaching since 1975 and hands on with exercise physiology at research level for the past 11 years. There is no doubt in my mind that advances in scientific knowledge (brought about by advances in the equipment available for testing and measuring) have enabled us both to understand what is happening and to isolate those aspects we would like to cencentrate on in training or racing. In other words w ecan train and race much smarter.

I don't think anyone could possibly argue with that?

blackhands wrote:

Saying that improvements are just due to throwing money at the problem shows an ignorance of what is going on.

Who is saying that ?

blackhands wrote:

Of course a lot of that money has been spent on non-scientific matters - but also a lot has been spent on a scientific approach to training.

Of course. What is your point?

cervelorider

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Johnpsanderson wrote:

Perhaps if the UK allowed road racing on its roads then it might do better in attracting more talent in the first place.

Erm... It does.

My bad :oops:

Even though johnpsanderson is right that road racing does happen in this country(on the roads), it does not happen at the same extent that it does on european roads.
Road racing in this country is not embraced by the general public unless they are pro-cycling. For most, it is an inconvenience that stops them from getting down to the DIY store(or whatever) in the time that they had allotted for this purpose.

blackhands

blackhands wrote:

Saying that improvements are just due to throwing money at the problem shows an ignorance of what is going on.

Who is saying that ?

"Yes he's right about science does improve performance, but sporting policy has radically changed in the last few decades. Sport is now very specialised and in the UK we are concentrating on track cycling because money is being put into one specific area of the sport. See here for GB team successes:"

I was referring to this comment which seems to distinguish "science" from policy. What I am saying is that the policy is to spend lots of money on scientific preparation - and I don't just mean sticking a set of SRMs on a bike.

blackhands

blackhands wrote:

blackhands wrote:

Saying that improvements are just due to throwing money at the problem shows an ignorance of what is going on.

Who is saying that ?

"Yes he's right about science does improve performance, but sporting policy has radically changed in the last few decades. Sport is now very specialised and in the UK we are concentrating on track cycling because money is being put into one specific area of the sport. See here for GB team successes:"

I was referring to this comment which seems to distinguish "science" from policy. What I am saying is that the policy is to spend lots of money on scientific preparation - and I don't just mean sticking a set of SRMs on a bike.

Perhaps an interesting debate would be whether or not the BC approach to track cycling has anything to do with sport rather than a self perpetuating system to ensure continual funding. This system increasingly reminds me of the East German model (excluding the drugs of course) where medals were the only goal and a lot of resources were devoted to the "appliance of science"..

binlinus

blackhands wrote:

Perhaps an interesting debate would be whether or not the BC approach to track cycling has anything to do with sport rather than a self perpetuating system to ensure continual funding. This system increasingly reminds me of the East German model (excluding the drugs of course) where medals were the only goal and a lot of resources were devoted to the "appliance of science"..

Yes, you are on the money here, Blackhands. Continued government funding on sport is dependent on results. Sport and politics are entwined.

Bin

Johnpsanderson

Even though johnpsanderson is right that road racing does happen in this country(on the roads), it does not happen at the same extent that it does on european roads.
Road racing in this country is not embraced by the general public unless they are pro-cycling. For most, it is an inconvenience that stops them from getting down to the DIY store(or whatever) in the time that they had allotted for this purpose.

Don't doubt you there - although I haven't been to mainland Europe since starting cycling so do wonder if the chaps at the cafe who go all bleary eyed when they start talking about cycling in France are actually looking through rose tinted glasses?

Anyway - it's pretty clear cycling is a marginal sport in the UK and as such we probably won't be turning out any Tour champions anytime soon. Shame, but then we have got the best football league in the world, so I suppose you can't have it all....

ut_och_cykla

Johnpsanderson wrote:

Even though johnpsanderson is right that road racing does happen in this country(on the roads), it does not happen at the same extent that it does on european roads.
Road racing in this country is not embraced by the general public unless they are pro-cycling. For most, it is an inconvenience that stops them from getting down to the DIY store(or whatever) in the time that they had allotted for this purpose.

Don't doubt you there - although I haven't been to mainland Europe since starting cycling so do wonder if the chaps at the cafe who go all bleary eyed when they start talking about cycling in France are actually looking through rose tinted glasses?

Anyway - it's pretty clear cycling is a marginal sport in the UK and as such we probably won't be turning out any Tour champions anytime soon. Shame, but then we have got the best football league in the world, so I suppose you can't have it all....

Don't know about racing itself but certainly my understanding of how people on bicycles are viewed in France/Spain is that they are not freaks who are in the way! Stopping at a bar/cafe in cycling kit is not jeered/laughed/banned! And for cycling accidents in France teh onus of blame is ALWAYS on teh car driver I believe...

skavanagh.bikeradar

Going back a few posts.........I'm was so sure I'd increased my strength on the bike rather than CV/Metabolic fitness. Everyday is a school day and I've learned that this isn't strictly so.

And to the twerp who suggested it was no surprise that I got fitter by riding my bike - the whole point was that I didn't do anything differently except push bigger gears on hills as I had no choice in the matter any longer. The amount of bike riding was roughly constant. My question was, given all things being equal (except gearing), what has made me feel stronger? And you don't need to answer, because I'm satisfied that the question has been addressed already.

cervelorider

Johnpsanderson wrote:

Shame, but then we have got the best football league in the world, so I suppose you can't have it all....

Pity we dont have a national team to match the league, and why if it's 'the beautiful game', is womens football sooooo low profile? I know that the quarter final was shown at the weekend, but I reckon cyclesport gets more TV coverage generally!

That said, let's not start a footbal thing eh?