Sky - what training are they really doing?

shockedsoshocked

If we're talking about a sport that is practically completely ignorant to modern sports science/training practices then that is swimming. If the same principles were applied in swimming as they were through BC on the track I personally would expect results immediately.

Trev The Rev

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

If we're talking about a sport that is practically completely ignorant to modern sports science/training practices then that is swimming. If the same principles were applied in swimming as they were through BC on the track I personally would expect results immediately.

What sports was it Tim Kerrison came from before he took over at Sky? Rowing & Swimming.

bahzob

Again I ask. Please cite what achievement or contribution to cycling you have made that makes your opinions any more valid than a nutter on the bus.

bahzob

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

If we're talking about a sport that is practically completely ignorant to modern sports science/training practices then that is swimming. If the same principles were applied in swimming as they were through BC on the track I personally would expect results immediately.

Welcome. You have just joined Trev the Rev on the list of people who clearly don't have a clue.

In many ways swimming is far ahead from cycling in terms of training techniques. It has to be because it is far more dependent on technique so participants need not only to work on endurance but also much more on skill.

There is an abundance of excellent training and trainers in swimming and Tim Kerrison's success at Sky is an example of how cycling could learn from the sport. This only makes the failure of British swimming all the more stark.

shockedsoshocked

bahzob wrote:

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

If we're talking about a sport that is practically completely ignorant to modern sports science/training practices then that is swimming. If the same principles were applied in swimming as they were through BC on the track I personally would expect results immediately.

Welcome. You have just joined Trev the Rev on the list of people who clearly don't have a clue.

In many ways swimming is far ahead from cycling in terms of training techniques. It has to be because it is far more dependent on technique so participants need not only to work on endurance but also much more on skill.

There is an abundance of excellent training and trainers in swimming and Tim Kerrison's success at Sky is an example of how cycling could learn from the sport. This only makes the failure of British swimming all the more stark.

Apologies, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply to entire sport, but clubs (amatuer, obviously) I have spoken to still have their swimmers (regardless of the event they compete in) training 2 hours morning and evening doing things that aren't remotely relevant to competing in a 50 or 100m event. Even your average club level cyclist will more than likely have a better grasp of training techniques.

Trev The Rev

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

bahzob wrote:

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

If we're talking about a sport that is practically completely ignorant to modern sports science/training practices then that is swimming. If the same principles were applied in swimming as they were through BC on the track I personally would expect results immediately.

Welcome. You have just joined Trev the Rev on the list of people who clearly don't have a clue.

In many ways swimming is far ahead from cycling in terms of training techniques. It has to be because it is far more dependent on technique so participants need not only to work on endurance but also much more on skill.

There is an abundance of excellent training and trainers in swimming and Tim Kerrison's success at Sky is an example of how cycling could learn from the sport. This only makes the failure of British swimming all the more stark.

Apologies, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply to entire sport, but clubs (amatuer, obviously) I have spoken to still have their swimmers (regardless of the event they compete in) training 2 hours morning and evening doing things that aren't remotely relevant to competing in a 50 or 100m event. Even your average club level cyclist will more than likely have a better grasp of training techniques.

Trev The Rev

Trev The Rev wrote:

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

bahzob wrote:

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

If we're talking about a sport that is practically completely ignorant to modern sports science/training practices then that is swimming. If the same principles were applied in swimming as they were through BC on the track I personally would expect results immediately.

Welcome. You have just joined Trev the Rev on the list of people who clearly don't have a clue.

In many ways swimming is far ahead from cycling in terms of training techniques. It has to be because it is far more dependent on technique so participants need not only to work on endurance but also much more on skill.

There is an abundance of excellent training and trainers in swimming and Tim Kerrison's success at Sky is an example of how cycling could learn from the sport. This only makes the failure of British swimming all the more stark.

Apologies, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply to entire sport, but clubs (amatuer, obviously) I have spoken to still have their swimmers (regardless of the event they compete in) training 2 hours morning and evening doing things that aren't remotely relevant to competing in a 50 or 100m event. Even your average club level cyclist will more than likely have a better grasp of training techniques.

The average club cyclist might, a lot of coaches will, and a lot of coaches won't.

bahzob

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Apologies, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply to entire sport, but clubs (amatuer, obviously) I have spoken to still have their swimmers (regardless of the event they compete in) training 2 hours morning and evening doing things that aren't remotely relevant to competing in a 50 or 100m event. Even your average club level cyclist will more than likely have a better grasp of training techniques.

KK fair enough. It's sad to hear that's the case. I used to do a huge amount of swimming as a teenager following a routine very much like the above training every day with 5.a.m. starts and racing every weekend. It's depressing when I realise now how wasteful/stupid a lot of this was.

That's part of my reason for wanting to get better through the intelligent use of training, exemplified by BC/Sky rather than the neolithic "it worked for my father and his father so it's good enough for me" approach the OP seems to follow.

bahzob

Trev The Rev wrote:

The average club cyclist might, a lot of coaches will, and a lot of coaches won't.

Still waiting to hear what makes you qualified to have an opinion on this subject.

Trev The Rev

bahzob wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The average club cyclist might, a lot of coaches will, and a lot of coaches won't.

Still waiting to hear what makes you qualified to have an opinion on this subject.

I answered you in a question on another thread.

Murr X

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

If we're talking about a sport that is practically completely ignorant to modern sports science/training practices then that is swimming.

This has always been my experience when it comes to the majority of competitive swimmers and coaches I know and have spoken with, it is a culture within the sport to knock up high volumes without apparent reason. Cycling is still like that for many but the advent of powermeters which encouraged critical thinking and more specific methods changed this notion completely for many.

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

training 2 hours morning and evening doing things that aren't remotely relevant to competing in a 50 or 100m event. Even your average club level cyclist will more than likely have a better grasp of training techniques.

Yes, spot on. I will add what you are probably aware of which is the habit of swimmers to get up out of their beds very early in the morning to train when restful sleep at that time is probably the better option for performance.

Murr X

Herbsman

okgo wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Murr X wrote:

it does not take long to find out that old traditions are seldom the most effective.

For example?

Have a read of the Tom Simpson book, some of the stuff they did because they thought it was right was totally mental. And I don't just mean the boozing and drugs etc.

Which one?

okgo

Put me back on my bike

Herbsman

I've read that. All I can remember is eating steak, and not drinking water.

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The average club cyclist might, a lot of coaches will, and a lot of coaches won't.

Still waiting to hear what makes you qualified to have an opinion on this subject.

Just a comment in general and not directed specifically at anyone here because this crops up every so often.

While qualifications/experience certainly have their place in assessing the credibility of someone's opinion or statements, it can be a slippery surface to argue from*. It's generally far more "powerful" to focus on the validity or otherwise of the content of what one says/writes. Certainly that's a debating position that will hold one in good stead most of the time.

That's not to say that some don't have a track record of quality contributions (and hence we tend to be more favourably disposed to listen to them and not question their validity), or of frequently writing nonsense (and so we tend over time to apply a strong filter to their latest contributions), but even so, each statement/claim does need to be considered on its individual merits. Removing our biases when debating isn't easy. And if someone rubs you the wrong way (legitimately or not), then we lose sight of the purpose of the debate^.


* known as argumentum ad verecundiam

^ which clearly is to prove I'm right and you're wrong, so there :P

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The average club cyclist might, a lot of coaches will, and a lot of coaches won't.

Still waiting to hear what makes you qualified to have an opinion on this subject.

Just a comment in general and not directed specifically at anyone here because this crops up every so often.

While qualifications/experience certainly have their place in assessing the credibility of someone's opinion or statements, it can be a slippery surface to argue from*. It's generally far more "powerful" to focus on the validity or otherwise of the content of what one says/writes. Certainly that's a debating position that will hold one in good stead most of the time.

That's not to say that some don't have a track record of quality contributions (and hence we tend to be more favourably disposed to listen to them and not question their validity), or of frequently writing nonsense (and so we tend over time to apply a strong filter to their latest contributions), but even so, each statement/claim does need to be considered on its individual merits. Removing our biases when debating isn't easy. And if someone rubs you the wrong way (legitimately or not), then we lose sight of the purpose of the debate^.


* known as argumentum ad verecundiam

^ which clearly is to prove I'm right and you're wrong, so there :P

Well said. I'm sure most readers on here if not most posters can easily work out the difference between a serious post and a deliberate bit of nonsense.

NewTTer

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The average club cyclist might, a lot of coaches will, and a lot of coaches won't.

Still waiting to hear what makes you qualified to have an opinion on this subject.

Just a comment in general and not directed specifically at anyone here because this crops up every so often.

While qualifications/experience certainly have their place in assessing the credibility of someone's opinion or statements, it can be a slippery surface to argue from*. It's generally far more "powerful" to focus on the validity or otherwise of the content of what one says/writes. Certainly that's a debating position that will hold one in good stead most of the time.

That's not to say that some don't have a track record of quality contributions (and hence we tend to be more favourably disposed to listen to them and not question their validity), or of frequently writing nonsense (and so we tend over time to apply a strong filter to their latest contributions), but even so, each statement/claim does need to be considered on its individual merits. Removing our biases when debating isn't easy. And if someone rubs you the wrong way (legitimately or not), then we lose sight of the purpose of the debate^.


* known as argumentum ad verecundiam

^ which clearly is to prove I'm right and you're wrong, so there :P

Well said. I'm sure most readers on here if not most posters can easily work out the difference between a serious post and a deliberate bit of nonsense.

Of course they can Trev, otherwise everyone would believe the utter tripe that you are constantly posting, as it is we are all more than aware that you are just a twisted sociopath

Herbsman

Give it a rest. You come across as worse than he pretends to be.

Trev The Rev

Does anyone here know what training Sky really do then?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Does anyone here know what training Sky really do then?

Hunter Allen has been spending time with them on training camp over the past week or so, bringing their knowledge of training with power up a notch or two.

NewTTer

Herbsman wrote:

Give it a rest. You come across as worse than he pretends to be.

Ergo you too by posting this, so "give it a rest"

Maglia

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Does anyone here know what training Sky really do then?

Hunter Allen has been spending time with them on training camp over the past week or so, bringing their knowledge of training with power up a notch or two.

I'm not sure that's entirely true Alex, wasn't he mainly there due to his role as Ian Boswell's coach?

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Does anyone here know what training Sky really do then?

Hunter Allen has been spending time with them on training camp over the past week or so, bringing their knowledge of training with power up a notch or two.

And helping them understand how to use heart rate and cadence data as well as power and quadrant analysis.

Asker Juekendrup has also been working with them this year, no doubt passing on all he knows about the goings on at Rabobank. Seeing as Asker was at Rabobank with the doctor, Geert Leinders (who Brailsford now admits should never have been taken on) and wrote a book with him, should Sky be working with Juekendrup?

No doubt Asker's vast knowledge of exactly what endurance athletes should be putting into their bodies, and when, is invaluable. Since Asker became Global Senior Director of the Gatorade Sports Science Institute (GSSI) at PepsiCo, he has been very busy working on changing the formula of Gatorade products. I am not sure what changes have been made though.

http://www.cyclingne...rabobank-doping


Sky really should not have touched anyone with links to Rabobank with a barge pole.

Team4Luke

Scrumple wrote:

Heart rate zones change slightly due to loads of factors - food / coffee / weather...

Power is a constant.

no they don't. These factors would have to be very extreme to have any noticeable change in beat ratio. And they affect power too. :roll:

Alex_Simmons/RST

Maglia wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Does anyone here know what training Sky really do then?

Hunter Allen has been spending time with them on training camp over the past week or so, bringing their knowledge of training with power up a notch or two.

I'm not sure that's entirely true Alex, wasn't he mainly there due to his role as Ian Boswell's coach?

Well we'd have to ask Hunter of course but he did put up some pics of him round a table talking with Sky riders and demonstrating stuff in a presentation with WKO+. Hunter say's he's doing an article for ROAD magazine about it. So I guess we can read about it there (not that I get that mag).

gavbarron

Team4Luke wrote:

Scrumple wrote:

Heart rate zones change slightly due to loads of factors - food / coffee / weather...

Power is a constant.

no they don't. These factors would have to be very extreme to have any noticeable change in beat ratio. And they affect power too. :roll:

Well, actually they can, food eaten too close to exercise can affect hr as blood is diverted to digestion whereas it would not be if eaten earlier, weather not so much although extreme heat can raise hr, working in the Middle East I notice a considerable difference in hr/pace when training early hours compared to mid day sun. The biggest affect on hr though (other than fatigue or illness) would probably be level of hydration though, as we dehydrate we begin to see cardiac drift which can affect the quality of your session if you train off hr and don't hydrate properly

Trev The Rev

Paying attention to your breathing will tell you more about your 'effort' than heart rate. You are always aware of your breathing but heart rate is something you can't 'feel' whilst riding. Well you might feel it sometimes when you stop or start coasting after a very hard effort.

lawrences

^What a load of total BS.

Your whole theory turns to shit at altitude... I really do wonder where you pull some of the stuff you say in your posts from.

Trev The Rev

lawrences wrote:

^What a load of total BS.

Your whole theory turns to shoot at altitude... I really do wonder where you pull some of the stuff you say in your posts from.

Not trained at altitude since 1987. Don't remember feeling my heart whilst running, but do remember heart rate taking longer to drop to normal when I stopped. Also remember being surprised how little altitude affected me. I expected to find it more difficult.

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

Paying attention to your breathing will tell you more about your 'effort' than heart rate. You are always aware of your breathing but heart rate is something you can't 'feel' whilst riding. Well you might feel it sometimes when you stop or start coasting after a very hard effort.

True, up to a certain point. I don't feel any significantly forced increase in breath rate until I reach a certain level of effort, around FTP. I knew I was working hard during a 15 minute effort that was supposed to be slightly above threshold, as after 5 minutes I was breathing uncomfortably hard. This really should have given me a clue that I was working too hard but I carried on through the first and blew up halfway into the second interval. Little did I know (until I looked at the power graph afterwards) I was actually in zone 5 all the time, about 110% FTP.

Maybe useful for pacing during zone 3 and zone 4. I wouldn't rely on breath rate for pacing hard intervals though.

Then again I wouldn't use heart rate either: