Training area to avoid
Comments
-
ACoggan
IMO the improvement in sport performances over the last 25 years can be attirbuted to advances in technology re equipment etc. You may not have noticed that I used the word "relatively" in my earlier post. I also know that exercise physiology has been around a long time. The word "Your" in your science funnily enough referred to you in that you were not there with your % training tables 25 years ago.
Where technology does not have so great an impact is in athletics and apart from where athletes have used performance enhancing drugs, then performances today are more or less unchanged from 25 years ago.
Knowing what happens to the body under training stress is a very interesting science and it must be fascinating to study this. There is an application for such knowledge, and it's perfectly logical to use this knowledge in attempting to define the optimal training routine for a particluar sporting discipline, for a particular athlete.
I certainly cannot compete with you on an intellectual level, but I do know me. I know how my own body reacts under training stress. In training there are situations where I think I've had enough of this and I rationalise whether or not to slow down or even stop. That is where training by figures can take you over the top.
For example I suffered from chest pains doiing interval training at the beginning of June this year and slowed down and rode home easily. My body was telling me that what I was doing was not good; the "feel" factor. As it happened it was an attack of angina and I had a heart attack 3 days later.
For me that "feel" factor also applies to cadence, strength, pedalling technique and cross training. I know for a "fact" that me Mike Willcox performs at his best when due attention is paid to all of those areas. Using RPE and feel is the instinctive way for an athlete to optimise training and recovery to progress and yes to also be pragmatic with regard to lifestyle etc.
After your posts I would\ like to say that I respect you as an exercise physiologist but not as a man.0 -
Toks wrote:
I disagree entirely. I think you have to put Andy's comment in context. What, because you're a highly qualified and knowledgeable Exercise Physiologist means when people start throwing jabs you shouldn't put ya dukes up? And yes a couple of winks and smiles possibly suggests his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek, do you not think? Mate, pay attention to whats important and don't get seduced by flim flamrollerball wrote:[Agree with Mike. Your remarks insult all UK tax payers and show you up to be a an egocentric arrogant tosser. You might be using loads of smileys but you aren't very amusing.
Wrong.
Mike's post was not directed at Coggan. He took it personallly and came back with some quite offensive comments. Unneccesary. Putting a load of smileys at the end of it was sticking it up all of us.0 -
Funny how you never find mike willcox and rollerball in the same room at the same time. Question is which one is Superman and which one is Clark Kent?
And then we have dear old cougar enter the fray, who (from his posting history) seems to post mostly to back up mike, and signed himself off in a cakestop post as "mike". Curiouser and curiouser...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I am sparatcus.I don't know about the other two.
I think you are really Popette0 -
Blimey, I agree with the RST lot !
I've mostly used feel up to now, but started using a HRM over the last week.
Perharps unsurprisingly, the stuff that hurt was around 95% of max and the easy stuff I found to be <75%. I can probably see the benifit of going <75% if you're overweight and/or new to cycling, but for anyone else I can't see the benefit*
*That's not to say I don't cycle at <75%, I enjoy a steady social sunday ride with a cafe stop too much 0 -
Ste_S wrote:Blimey, I agree with the RST lot !
I've mostly used feel up to now, but started using a HRM over the last week.
Perharps unsurprisingly, the stuff that hurt was around 95% of max and the easy stuff I found to be <75%. I can probably see the benifit of going <75% if you're overweight and/or new to cycling, but for anyone else I can't see the benefit*
*That's not to say I don't cycle at <75%, I enjoy a steady social sunday ride with a cafe stop too much
You've just made a case for RPE.0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:I am sparatcus.I don't know about the other two.
I think you are really Popette
eh blimey!! don't bring me into it
:shock: :? 8) :oops: :P :x :evil: 
anyway, reading this thread with great interest (I'm Popette BSc, MSc but I sometimes struggle to keep up, especially when papers start getting referenced etc etc). I've started looking through all my cycling books - just checked 3 of 'em so far - and they are telling me <65% = recovery. I'm normally training about 75-80% at the moment. My lungs fall out if I go any harder than that in this cold air.
peace to all
ps, thanks for giving me a reason to post on this thread, Mike. I would never have dared otherwise. Training forum can sometimes get scary 0 -
This thread is turning out to be quite interesting...
Apart from the specific points raised it reinforces two points re training that I think would be good for all to bear in mind in this and future topics:
> Training is not an end in itself, it is only a means to achieve a goal. Any advice re zones etc only makes sense in the context of that goal. Sometimes it feels that advice suited for those with olympic aims is being given to couch potatoes and vice versa.
> What works/does not work varies very much by individual. One training size does not fit all. Some sad geeks (like me) love figures and cant wait and the end of a ride to get to their PC to download their stats into WKO and look at pretty pictures. For others thats a vision of hell. Doesnt mean one is wrong and the other right. Just that people differ and vive le difference..Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
DaveyL wrote:Funny how you never find mike willcox and rollerball in the same room at the same time. Question is which one is Superman and which one is Clark Kent?
And then we have dear old cougar enter the fray, who (from his posting history) seems to post mostly to back up mike, and signed himself off in a cakestop post as "mike". Curiouser and curiouser...
Hi Mike are you around at all?0 -
rollerball wrote:DaveyL wrote:Funny how you never find mike willcox and rollerball in the same room at the same time. Question is which one is Superman and which one is Clark Kent?
And then we have dear old cougar enter the fray, who (from his posting history) seems to post mostly to back up mike, and signed himself off in a cakestop post as "mike". Curiouser and curiouser...
Hi Mike are you around at all?
I was waiting for you to show up. Are you me or am I me?0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:rollerball wrote:DaveyL wrote:Funny how you never find mike willcox and rollerball in the same room at the same time. Question is which one is Superman and which one is Clark Kent?
And then we have dear old cougar enter the fray, who (from his posting history) seems to post mostly to back up mike, and signed himself off in a cakestop post as "mike". Curiouser and curiouser...
Hi Mike are you around at all?
I was waiting for you to show up. Are you me or am I me?[/quote
Let me look in the mirror. No it's definitely me. The irony is that my real name isn't mike at all.0 -
rollerball wrote:Mike Willcox wrote:rollerball wrote:DaveyL wrote:Funny how you never find mike willcox and rollerball in the same room at the same time. Question is which one is Superman and which one is Clark Kent?
And then we have dear old cougar enter the fray, who (from his posting history) seems to post mostly to back up mike, and signed himself off in a cakestop post as "mike". Curiouser and curiouser...
Hi Mike are you around at all?
I was waiting for you to show up. Are you me or am I me?[/quote
Let me look in the mirror. No it's definitely me. The irony is that my real name isn't mike at all. 0 -
It's cougar who signed off as mike, not rollerball. Perhaps you could have your own forum where you just have a conversation with yourself? I'm envisaging a ventriloquist with a couple of dummies now.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
DaveyL wrote:It's cougar who signed off as mike, not rollerball. Perhaps you could have your own forum where you just have a conversation with yourself? I'm envisaging a ventriloquist with a couple of dummies now.
Who's the dummy? Check my profile0 -
I had no idea what name you were claiming. I repeat, user cougar signed off a post as mike. A post stating his goals for 2007 were to get back into racing after 25 years, and to do a sub-24 '10' and a sub-60 '25'. Sound familiar?
What makes me suspicious about rollerball is that this user seems to appear right after mike, and usually to back him up. These split personalities usually catch themselves out in time, so we'll see.
Rollerball also seems to think I claimed his name was mike, but I didn't. I claimed that cougar said his name was mike.
Ferengi rule of acquisition no. 1 - keep your lies consistent Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:I had no idea what name you were claiming. I repeat, user cougar signed off a post as mike. A post stating his goals for 2007 were to get back into racing after 25 years, and to do a sub-24 '10' and a sub-60 '25'. Sound familiar?
What makes me suspicious about rollerball is that this user seems to appear right after mike, and usually to back him up. These split personalities usually catch themselves out in time, so we'll see.
Rollerball also seems to think I claimed his name was mike, but I didn't. I claimed that cougar said his name was mike.
Ferengi rule of acquisition no. 1 - keep your lies consistent
Yeah alright poirot or is it clouseau?0 -
It's the Sweeney, son, and we haven't had any dinner. So you're nicked...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
0
-
FWIW (getting back on track), I've looked through my training diary for pre-season this year where I was doing 10-14hrs a week consisting of 2 x 4hr(+) rides and some shorter, harder efforts. Over the course of about 7 weeks from mid Feb to end March all my longer rides (either solo or in groups) were done where the average HR for the ride was at 75-82% of my MHR. If I had been forced to limit myself to 75% or less I would have ended up crawling around the countryside doing nothing but being bored senseless.
The shorter stuff was at a higher HR obv.
I had one day off a week and I had one recovery ride a week at somewhere between 65-75%. Any slower and I may as well stay at home tbh.
Now this is purely anecdotal but I can see both sides of the Mike Wilcox / Ric Stern argument. I don't train with a power meter and I go on RPE a lot more than HR as after a decade of cycling I know what various efforts should "feel" like. The HRM is just a reference point for when I get back home, I don't look at it on a ride. IMO as long as I can keep up with those people who are fitter than me on group rides I'm doing ok.
However, what Ric, Coggan, Alex RST say is also right - that anything less than 75% is not going to effect a positive training response in your average clubman / 3rd cat roadie. There is a place for <75% MHR and it's for recovery work IMO.
Now I don't have scientific peer reviewed papers or WKO software or an overpriced chainset on my bike to back up my theory, just a simple diary that I've kept every day for the last 10yrs and the long term knowledge gained from it.
Feel free to bicker amongst yourselves, as you were :roll:0 -
rollerball wrote:acoggan wrote:Mike Willcox wrote:Have you looked at any of the other training forums? The posters have their heads so far up their own backsides with their percentages of MHR. LT, VO2max, 2 x 20, wattage, fast twitch, slow twitch mitochondria that it's not true.
Yes, so far up my own backside that your tax dollars (sorry, pounds!) paid for me to fly over and speak to the folks at UK Sport last spring...so I guess all I have to say to you is "thanks!"
Agree with Mike. Your remarks insult all UK tax payers and show you up to be a an egocentric arrogant tosser.
I have no idea how anyone could construe my comment as an insult to all UK tax payers...0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:ACoggan
IMO the improvement in sport performances over the last 25 years can be attirbuted to advances in technology re equipment etc.
Even in sports such as distance running? Not a lot of technology involved there (although there is a wee bit)...perhaps more importantly, technological advances tend to accelerate over time, whereas world records in most sports are either improving in a linear manner, or showing signs of plateauing.Mike Willcox wrote:Where technology does not have so great an impact is in athletics and apart from where athletes have used performance enhancing drugs, then performances today are more or less unchanged from 25 years ago.
If that were true, then the hour record wouldn't have been taken from a multiple-everything winner (i.e., Eddy Merckx) by a specialist TTer (i.e., Chris Boardman).Mike Willcox wrote:Knowing what happens to the body under training stress is a very interesting science and it must be fascinating to study this. There is an application for such knowledge, and it's perfectly logical to use this knowledge in attempting to define the optimal training routine for a particluar sporting discipline, for a particular athlete.
Agreed.Mike Willcox wrote:I certainly cannot compete with you on an intellectual level
No comment.Mike Willcox wrote:, but I do know me. I know how my own body reacts under training stress. In training there are situations where I think I've had enough of this and I rationalise whether or not to slow down or even stop. That is where training by figures can take you over the top.
For example I suffered from chest pains doiing interval training at the beginning of June this year and slowed down and rode home easily. My body was telling me that what I was doing was not good; the "feel" factor. As it happened it was an attack of angina and I had a heart attack 3 days later.
1. Is that why you appear to be so bitter?
2. Did you see a doctor after the angina attack, and if not, why not?Mike Willcox wrote:, For me that "feel" factor also applies to cadence, strength, pedalling technique and cross training. I know for a "fact" that me Mike Willcox performs at his best when due attention is paid to all of those areas.
Actually, I think you should have put the quotes around "know", but as long as you have them in there somewhere, who am I to argue?Mike Willcox wrote:, Using RPE and feel is the instinctive way for an athlete to optimise training and recovery to progress and yes to also be pragmatic with regard to lifestyle etc.
Again, I agree...but what does this have to do with the question of whether or not riding at <75% of maximal heart rate represents training or active recovery??Mike Willcox wrote:After your posts I would\ like to say that I respect you as an exercise physiologist but not as a man.
This from a guy who likes to call others names, disparage their efforts, etc.!0 -
Getting back to the question at hand, and hopefully allaying some of Klassikers' concerns...
I think that essentially all coaches, sports scientists, etc., would agree with the following statements, at least from a theoretical perspective:
1) it is better to base training intensities on directly measured values than on estimates (e.g., use of someone's true maximal heart rate, vs. 220-age);
2) it is better to base training intensities on relative measures (e.g., express data as a percentage of some maximal value) than on absolute ones (e.g., express data as an absolute difference from some maximal value);
2) since "the best predictor of performance is performance itself", and/or "alls you can do is alls you can do", it is better to base training intensities on some marker for LT (e.g., functional threshold power) than some marker for VO2max (e.g., MAP).
At the same time, however, I believe that essentially all coaches, sports scientists, etc., would also agree with the following pragmatic observations:
4) there is no "magic" to be found in training at a particular intensity, or narrow range of intensities, since the physiological responses to exercise follow a continuum. IOW, the division into zones, levels, etc., is really arbitrary;
5) at least in young individuals, the difference between using a relative vs. an absolute reference is typically rather modest, at least in light of #4 above;
6) while it may be theoretically better to base things on some marker of metabolic fitness (i.e., LT) instead of some marker for cardiovascular fitness (i.e., VO2max), LT tends to fall into a fairly narrow span among trained individuals (i.e., 65-85% of VO2max), which tends to mitigate the difference (again, at least/especially in light of #4 above).
With that by way of background, I think it is clear that the different approaches that have been advocated merely reflect how the individual in question thought it was best to balance the theoretical issues with the practical concerns. In particular, Keen opted for the simplest approach (i.e., defining active recovery as anything elicting a heart rate <50 beats/min below maximal heart rate...IOW, opting for an absolute difference from a marker for cardiovascular fitness/strain), I opted for one that is more theoretically correct (i.e., defining active recovery based on a percentage of the heart rate associated with maximal sustainable power), and Ric Stern going for something somewhere in between (i.e., defining active recovery in a relative sense, but in comparison to maximal heart rate). In truth, though, all of these approaches are esentially equivalent, at least on average/when you consider #4 above. They may, however, seemingly conflict in some cases (e.g., klassiker's), but I believe that reflects more the limitations of trying to develop any sort of rule-of-thumb in the first place, versus a true difference of opinion re. what exercise intensity is/is not likely to induce significant physiological adaptations in an already-training/trained endurance athlete.
When...that ended up more long-winded than I'd hoped!! 0 -
re athletics see below for world records progression.
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_75.pdf
mens 200 metres world records
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_74.pdf
mens 1500 metres world records
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_84.pdf
mens 800 metres world records
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_87.pdf
mens hammer throw workd records
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_86.pdf
mens discus throw world records
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_34.pdf
mens 400 metres world records
and long jump and high jump etc etc.
re Hour world record bike
http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/hourrec.htm
Eddie Merckx was the best rider. Boardman was a specialist pursuiter TT but even then the record is over10 years old. and from what I've read most people believe that Eddie's ride was the definitive one (what with Drugs and all)
Notice the cadence of +100 rpm folks on almost every record. A bit of a red herring that cadence thing.
The 800 metres world record has barely changed from the 80's and then by a fraction of a second 10 years ago.
I stand by my statements.
Actual performances in athletics have barely improved over 25 years if at all.
Relative performances have hardly improved in cycling.0 -
acoggan wrote:Mike Willcox wrote:ACoggan
IMO the improvement in sport performances over the last 25 years can be attirbuted to advances in technology re equipment etc.
Even in sports such as distance running? Not a lot of technology involved there (although there is a wee bit)...perhaps more importantly, technological advances tend to accelerate over time, whereas world records in most sports are either improving in a linear manner, or showing signs of plateauing.Mike Willcox wrote:Where technology does not have so great an impact is in athletics and apart from where athletes have used performance enhancing drugs, then performances today are more or less unchanged from 25 years ago.
If that were true, then the hour record wouldn't have been taken from a multiple-everything winner (i.e., Eddy Merckx) by a specialist TTer (i.e., Chris Boardman).Mike Willcox wrote:Knowing what happens to the body under training stress is a very interesting science and it must be fascinating to study this. There is an application for such knowledge, and it's perfectly logical to use this knowledge in attempting to define the optimal training routine for a particluar sporting discipline, for a particular athlete.
Agreed.Mike Willcox wrote:I certainly cannot compete with you on an intellectual level
No comment.Mike Willcox wrote:, but I do know me. I know how my own body reacts under training stress. In training there are situations where I think I've had enough of this and I rationalise whether or not to slow down or even stop. That is where training by figures can take you over the top.
For example I suffered from chest pains doiing interval training at the beginning of June this year and slowed down and rode home easily. My body was telling me that what I was doing was not good; the "feel" factor. As it happened it was an attack of angina and I had a heart attack 3 days later.
1. Is that why you appear to be so bitter?
2. Did you see a doctor after the angina attack, and if not, why not?Mike Willcox wrote:, For me that "feel" factor also applies to cadence, strength, pedalling technique and cross training. I know for a "fact" that me Mike Willcox performs at his best when due attention is paid to all of those areas.
Actually, I think you should have put the quotes around "know", but as long as you have them in there somewhere, who am I to argue?Mike Willcox wrote:, Using RPE and feel is the instinctive way for an athlete to optimise training and recovery to progress and yes to also be pragmatic with regard to lifestyle etc.
Again, I agree...but what does this have to do with the question of whether or not riding at <75% of maximal heart rate represents training or active recovery??Mike Willcox wrote:After your posts I would\ like to say that I respect you as an exercise physiologist but not as a man.
This from a guy who likes to call others names, disparage their efforts, etc.!
This post says more about you then it does about me.
Nothing in context, putting words into my mouth and no answers to my points. Typical internet poetic licence, which does you no justice. I can't be bothered with you any more. The floor so to speak is yours old chap.0 -
acoggan wrote:rollerball wrote:acoggan wrote:Mike Willcox wrote:Have you looked at any of the other training forums? The posters have their heads so far up their own backsides with their percentages of MHR. LT, VO2max, 2 x 20, wattage, fast twitch, slow twitch mitochondria that it's not true.
Yes, so far up my own backside that your tax dollars (sorry, pounds!) paid for me to fly over and speak to the folks at UK Sport last spring...so I guess all I have to say to you is "thanks!"
Agree with Mike. Your remarks insult all UK tax payers and show you up to be a an egocentric arrogant tosser.
I have no idea how anyone could construe my comment as an insult to all UK tax payers...
Really and for such an intelligent fellow. Let me spell it out for you. The "you" that you aim at Mike Willcox is in reality the collective "you" for all UK tax payers. Are you thick or something? You are bang out of order pal. know what I mean nudge nudge 0 -
There are some interesting questions and ideas being posted by the humble riders on here but most coaches seem to be flaming each other in a odd war, picking up the slightest turn of phrase to be a direct insult or challenge and returning fire.
I know helpful info is emerging too but it feels like it's being crowded out by the ego wars.
Perhaps consider the PM function for your slander, or maybe you're using already for stronger stuff!
Maybe it's just the infancy of sports science, I'm reminded me of the "wars" between mathematicians, chemists etc that took place in previous centuries. There seem to be plenty of theories in sports science but many seem blurred by induction. Karl Popper would have a field day.0 -
Kléber wrote:There are some interesting questions and ideas being posted by the humble riders on here but most coaches seem to be flaming each other in a odd war, picking up the slightest turn of phrase to be a direct insult or challenge and returning fire.
I know helpful info is emerging too but it feels like it's being crowded out by the ego wars.
Perhaps consider the PM function for your slander, or maybe you're using already for stronger stuff!
Maybe it's just the infancy of sports science, I'm reminded me of the "wars" between mathematicians, chemists etc that took place in previous centuries. There seem to be plenty of theories in sports science but many seem blurred by induction. Karl Popper would have a field day.
I wouldn't class the genius and arguments of Gauss, Newton, Hooke etc in the same league as the ones going on in sport science to be honest
No offence to Mr Cogan, but if there was that calliber of sport scientists, then human performance would have improved by a lot more than the examples Mike gives.0 -
rollerball wrote:acoggan wrote:rollerball wrote:acoggan wrote:Mike Willcox wrote:Have you looked at any of the other training forums? The posters have their heads so far up their own backsides with their percentages of MHR. LT, VO2max, 2 x 20, wattage, fast twitch, slow twitch mitochondria that it's not true.
Yes, so far up my own backside that your tax dollars (sorry, pounds!) paid for me to fly over and speak to the folks at UK Sport last spring...so I guess all I have to say to you is "thanks!"
Agree with Mike. Your remarks insult all UK tax payers and show you up to be a an egocentric arrogant tosser.
I have no idea how anyone could construe my comment as an insult to all UK tax payers...
Really and for such an intelligent fellow. Let me spell it out for you. The "you" that you aim at Mike Willcox is in reality the collective "you" for all UK tax payers. Are you thick or something? You are bang out of order pal. know what I mean nudge nudge
You missed my point: how is jokingly pointing out that the powers-that-be in UK Sport apparently disagree with Mr. Wilcox's assessement of yours truly as having his "...head so far up his arse..." an insult to anyone?0 -
Sports Physiologist Dr. Andrew Coggan (is it alright if I call you that? ) wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to put together your reply. I agree with almost everything you say, and that which I'm not qualified to judge seems plausible. The only thing I would take issue with is singling me out as an exception which proves the ruleGetting back to the question at hand, and hopefully allaying some of Klassikers' concerns...
because I don't think I am an unusual case, and even if I am it isn't the reason for my confusion. My own experience only made me initially sceptical of the "75% borderline", but it wasn't until I compared this to your HR zones that I became really confused. I still can't see how your HR zones 1 & 2 match at all with Keen's Zones 1 & 2, despite everything you've said about their arbitrary nature. It all comes down to that in the end, and I think you must be the man to bring this tale of woe to an end. Please have another look at my first post from last Saturday, especiallyThey may, however, seemingly conflict in some cases (e.g., klassiker's),
which I guess must be wrong, but no-one has challenged it yet.the heart rate percentages there are based on the HR at LT, not on max.HR. So active recovery is anything below 68% HR at LT. This would be about 60% MHR, assuming HR at LT is about 90%MHR.
I have a request:
Please could you convert your HR-values for Levels 1 to 5 from % of HR at LT into approximate %MHR and post them here?0 -
DaveyL wrote:I had no idea what name you were claiming. I repeat, user cougar signed off a post as mike. A post stating his goals for 2007 were to get back into racing after 25 years, and to do a sub-24 '10' and a sub-60 '25'. Sound familiar?
What makes me suspicious about rollerball is that this user seems to appear right after mike, and usually to back him up. These split personalities usually catch themselves out in time, so we'll see.
Rollerball also seems to think I claimed his name was mike, but I didn't. I claimed that cougar said his name was mike.
Ferengi rule of acquisition no. 1 - keep your lies consistent
:shock:
Much too fast for me, but thank you for the complement. The men with white coats will be along shortly. There's a good chap0
