The Fundamental Principle of Specificity...

P_Tucker

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

What? The fundamental principle of specificty alone should be sufficient, but if you truly believe cycling performance is best improved by not riding a bike, but rather by doing something else, then I'm afraid I'm lost for words.

So, is this principle one of those things that is taken to be self-evidently true, without exception? Or is there some concrete evidence?

One does wonder why no coach would advocate riding for 12 hours at a time repeatedly as the best training for a 12 hour TT.

jgsi

I am going to wade in here 'cos I do have a passing interest in the matter and I dont know if you are being a little frivolous.. or actually being serious...
you made me get my 'big book' out anyways....as obviously you are seeking citations..
Wilmore and Costill
Physiology of Sport and Medicine 3rd ed
in my edition pp 297 and I quote
"the concept of specificity of training is very important for cardiorespiratory adaptations... this concept is also important when testing athletes.
...
Consider one study of highly trained rowers,cyclists and cross country skiers. Their vo2 max values were tested while they peformed 2 types of work: uphill running on a treadmill and maximal performance of their specific sport activity.... The important finding... was that the vo2 max values attained by the athletes during their sport specific activity were as high as or higher than the values obtained on the treadmill... for many of the athletes, vo2 max values were substantially higher during their sport specific activity."

cheers .... revision is always good

chrisw12

P_Tucker wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

What? The fundamental principle of specificty alone should be sufficient, but if you truly believe cycling performance is best improved by not riding a bike, but rather by doing something else, then I'm afraid I'm lost for words.

So, is this principle one of those things that is taken to be self-evidently true, without exception? Or is there some concrete evidence?

One does wonder why no coach would advocate riding for 12 hours at a time repeatedly as the best training for a 12 hour TT.

It's a good question and I suppose in an ideal world, to train for a 12 you would do some 12hr rides, but the 12 is at an extreme end of the spectrum like a marathon is for runners (isn't the advice to train up to 80% or some other number up to the distance?)

Take it down one notch, for me the best way to train for 100's is to go out and do hard 4 hour rides i.e. keep it specific. The hated n=1 study, I did a poor 100 this year off a max training ride time of 3 hours and guess where the performance dropped.

It'll be interesting what Sbezza and Dr. Jones have to say on the training for 12's by doing very long training rides.

CoachFerg

For a 12 hour TT, or 12 hour MTB race or Ironman I would definitely include some race duration training. Probably once a month and otherwise how will one be prepared for race day. The ideal would be some low key events to build up to the goal event.

It's coming up 4 weeks to NZ track cycling champs. I expect all my riders to be in good health and to have trained hard to have good condition and good cycling fitness and now they will train specifically for their events.

At the International level this would be on the track they will race on, in race kit, on race wheels, on race gears and trying to create the environment in which they will race.

One of the biggest issues I see is that we are not specific enough. Too much time spent chasing trying to tick fitness boxes (weight lifted in gym or riding 500miles a week) without really addressing what we are trying to do in competition.