Training at FTP

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Perhaps I should be more clear. I mean more a matter of neural adaptation, rather than metabolic. Neural adaptation is something that can be trained relatively quickly (and yes there is evidence for that), provided it's the the same muscles in play used in a sufficiently similar manner.

Interesting. Could you provide a few references, or even send me some papers to read if the full-text is not available on-line?

Thanks!

Well it's pretty common in several forms of exercise (e.g. weightlifting) but in cycling significant neural adaptation can occur with as little as 30 seconds of effort, spread over several short range efforts.

There are references I'm sure you can find, but here's one example:
http://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/getfi ... e/3451.pdf

In that example the active but not cycle-trained men could be trained to produce maximal power in less than 3 days and with 36 seconds of total effort time. There were improvement in just one day and a few sprints, which continued for a few days. For the cycle-trained it took a little longer and gains were less.

yes it's sprinting and not TT effort, but it's the same principle (neural firing/coordination/control of muscle contractions).

Such gains can only be neural in nature, and not through metabolic or hypertrophic changes (time frame far too short).

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

... in cycling significant neural adaptation can occur with as little as 30 seconds of effort, spread over several short range efforts... here's one example ...yes it's sprinting and not TT effort, but it's the same principle (neural firing/coordination/control of muscle contractions).

Interesting how that study found the non-cyclists actually produced more maximal power after 2 days cycling for a few minutes per session than the competitive cyclists!

I note that you said earlier that...

Neural adaptation is something that can be trained relatively quickly... provided it's the the same muscles in play used in a sufficiently similar manner.

...however in this study the non-cyclists do not to have previously done anything that could be considered to be 'similar' to cycling at all. The study therefore seems to suggest that, not only can neural changes bring about rapid, activity-specific adaptation, the 'metabolic' component of that activity could be developed in a very general, non-specific manner.

This study suggests that I was perhaps not that far off the mark when I said that I have found that spending the winter significantly stressing my aerobic system for extended periods by ski-touring and cross-country skiing seemed to transfer as well, if not better, to doing long, mountainous rides than spending the winter raising my FTP on the track. It seems as though all that extended non-specific aerobic exercise may have trained my body to tolerate and fuel multiple hours of effort, developed my general aerobic system, mitochondrial density in my legs and so forth, with the minimal amount of cycling I was doing being enough to keep the neural aspects 'firing on all neurons', as it were.

How 'similar' does exercise have to be for the 'metabolic' component to be transferable? When it comes to sprinting this study seems to suggest 'not at all'. But how about endurance cycling? If cross-country skiing is sufficiently 'similar', why not running?

Stalin

I've recently started to add 20 min rowing sessions to my cycle training. All I can tell you is that my 20 min rowing average power is 110 watts lower than my cycling 20 min power.

I have data going back about 15 years when I last rowed. 20 min power is down about 90 watts. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to get near previous best rowing power and if the introduction of rowing improves cycling power or if it detracts from it.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

... in cycling significant neural adaptation can occur with as little as 30 seconds of effort, spread over several short range efforts... here's one example ...yes it's sprinting and not TT effort, but it's the same principle (neural firing/coordination/control of muscle contractions).

Interesting how that study found the non-cyclists actually produced more maximal power after 2 days cycling for a few minutes per session than the competitive cyclists!

I note that you said earlier that...

Neural adaptation is something that can be trained relatively quickly... provided it's the the same muscles in play used in a sufficiently similar manner.

...however in this study the non-cyclists do not to have previously done anything that could be considered to be 'similar' to cycling at all. The study therefore seems to suggest that, not only can neural changes bring about rapid, activity-specific adaptation, the 'metabolic' component of that activity could be developed in a very general, non-specific manner.

I'd be more cautious extrapolating the metabolic component from that. It was improvement in peak power.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

How 'similar' does exercise have to be for the 'metabolic' component to be transferable? When it comes to sprinting this study seems to suggest 'not at all'. But how about endurance cycling? If cross-country skiing is sufficiently 'similar', why not running?

Well there is clearly a lot of metabolic fitness crossover between the sports, but there are significant neural differences, the joint angles and forces differ somewhat, and in particular you don't have eccentric muscles contractions on the bike that you experience when running. Cycling is a concentric muscle contractions only.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12355196

There are some clearly similar events metabolically, e.g. long track speed skating and track kilo/pursuit/team pursuit, and elite rowers will usually be pretty handy on a bike.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I'd be more cautious extrapolating the metabolic component from that. It was improvement in peak power.

I think are views are pretty convergent, but I am a little confused by this. How else would be peak power be produced if not via the functioning of a rider's metabolic system?

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

there is clearly a lot of metabolic fitness crossover between the sports, but there are significant neural differences, the joint angles and forces differ somewhat, and in particular you don't have eccentric muscles contractions on the bike that you experience when running. Cycling is a concentric muscle contractions only.

Yes, but that study you cited suggests that such neural differences are highly responsive to domain-specific training, so much so that, when it comes to peak power 'sprint' efforts, those who don't cycle and instead keep active with racquet sports, weight lifting, running, or American football can put out more peak power (measured in w/kg) after a very minimal amount of training on a cycle ergometer than competitive cyclists.

Similarly, you have mentioned the differences in the torque profiles for riding on the flat with a high crank inertia and riding up a climb with a low crank inertia. I certainly feel that such differences can account, at least to some degree, for the limited transfer I have found between the raised FTP I have developed on the track and riding for an extended period over mountainous roads. However, perhaps I will quickly see the benefit of the metabolic changes that underpin my raised FTP once my neural system adapts to the different demands made by riding on a climb as opposed to the flat. Similarly, it is often argued that one can increase one's ability to tackle Alpine climbs by riding for a similar amount of time and at a similar intensity (and perhaps using a 'heavier' gear than one would normally use) on the flat. Again, it would seem that once such training has developed the 'metabolic' system in an appropriate way the 'neural' differences will rapidly be adapted to.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

There are some clearly similar events metabolically, e.g. long track speed skating and track kilo/pursuit/team pursuit, and elite rowers will usually be pretty handy on a bike.

Exactly! And what you have said makes me lean to the view that it is the development of non-domain specific 'metabolic' functioning, as in the development of mitochondrial density, capilliarisation and so forth, that is key to improving performance, with 'neural' factors being both secondary and highly responsive to a relatively small amount of domain-specific training.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I'd be more cautious extrapolating the metabolic component from that. It was improvement in peak power.

I think are views are pretty convergent, but I am a little confused by this. How else would be peak power be produced if not via the functioning of a rider's metabolic system?

I'm not saying metabolism isn't involved, I'm talking about what's primarily responsible for the initial and shorter term change in performance of peak power output. That's down to improved neural coordination, not improvements in metabolic factors.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I'm not saying metabolism isn't involved, I'm talking about what's primarily responsible for the initial and shorter term change in performance of peak power output. That's down to improved neural coordination, not improvements in metabolic factors.

I fully agree! However, that does nothing to undermine my suggestion that the metabolic factors involved in performance are highly transferable across domains, with the 'neural' factors being largely responsible for specificity. (Factors which it seems, as illustrated by this study, can be 'reprogrammed' with minimal domain specific training.)

birel101

I don't know who bender, stalin, max is but they all seem like the same person to me and it is now getting very boring reading the attacks on Alex. I love reading these forums for all the info and banter but those three people (one) are getting a joke!

BenderRodriguez

birel101 wrote:

I don't know who bender, stalin, max is but they all seem like the same person to me and it is now getting very boring reading the attacks on Alex.

I am clearly not 'Stalin' or 'Max', as I am sure the mods can confirm. For example, another thread has just been locked with the following comment:

Stalin, you know that moderating staff know that you are yet another incarnation of previous characters banned from the forum for various reasons...

No mention is made of me, you will notice.

As for 'attacking' Alex, only someone who sees his word as being unchallengeable 'gospel' could take the points I have raised as 'attacks'. In fact I have started my last two posts in reply to his responses with 'Exactly' and 'I fully agree', hardly the language of an 'attack'. Also, Alex is not above adopting a rather 'combative' stance himself!

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I am clearly not 'Stalin' or 'Max', as I am sure the mods can confirm.

But your tedious over-analysis of every single one of Alex and Xavier's comments is equally as tiresome though. Even if you aren't the same person, you're doing a pretty good job of replicating what Trev/Max/Stalin does on here...

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

your tedious over-analysis of every single one of Alex and Xavier's comments is equally as tiresome though.

I would say that it is not so much as 'over analysis' but rather a dogged attempt to lever a few straight answers out of Alex, which is no easy task! To be honest I can't recall commenting on anything this 'Xavier' you mention has written.

It is all well and good 'experts' contributing here, but all too often it seems that there are much better at telling people that they (in their opinion) are wrong, rather than explaining exactly why. (This seems to be a common trait amongst 'experts' who contribute to forums, especially lawyers for some reason!) I guess the idea is that the learn the 'secrets' you must sign up with them, but to my mind the best sales pitch they could give would be to display their expertise on here more openly and with greater clarity. Assuming that they do know the 'answers' that is!

jane90

Of course you're another of Trev's sock puppets and it's not as if you don't have form denying it vehemently right up to the point where it suits you to admit it was you all along. You must think the mods are idiots if you think connecting through a VPN IP is a credible alibi.

When I was researching which power meter to buy, I had hoped to rely on this forum to help me with my decision but your incessant nonsense made using the search function useless, as every single thread was hijacked by your own personal agenda. Every single one.

My bike has more self-awareness and emotional intelligence than you do - put that in your sig.

I've no idea why the mods keep letting you get away with it, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been put off using this potentially excellent source of information from experienced coaches and athletes by the fact that you enjoy winding people up and being the centre of attention. But, in a perverse way, I suppose I ought to thank you. Deciding this forum wasn't worth the bother was the prompt for me to hire a coach instead and now, six months later just before the start of my first tri season, I've improved my FTP by 50W, so a big ironic thank you to you.

BenderRodriguez

jane90 wrote:

Of course you're another of Trev's sock puppets...

You are clearly not as bright as you seem to like to think you are!

By the way, what's a VPN? I know what a VPL is, but I can't see the connection.

jane90 wrote:

I've no idea why the mods keep letting you get away with it

Mob rule is a universally ugly thing...

Mods, would one of you please put a stop to this sort of nonsense? PM me and we can have a chat via E-mail to confirm I have nothing to do with this 'Trev' / Max' / 'Stalin' person. You can then post a disclaimer or something. Cheers!

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I would say that it is not so much as 'over analysis' but rather a dogged attempt to lever a few straight answers out of Alex, which is no easy task!

Perhaps you could email them directly then - and give us all a break from your trivial attention-seeking. I don't think anyone else cares.

birel101

Imposter wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I would say that it is not so much as 'over analysis' but rather a dogged attempt to lever a few straight answers out of Alex, which is no easy task!

Perhaps you could email them directly then - and give us all a break from your trivial attention-seeking. I don't think anyone else cares.

What he say's, and please do so we can get on and enjoy reading the forums again!

BenderRodriguez

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant - society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

John Stuart Mill. On Liberty. 1859

Hey! Just noticed that this is the 100,000th post to be made in this forum. 8)

ugo.santalucia

Getting a bit fed up of these threads... keep it simple, don't clash with each other, do not point fingers...

In essence stop shredding my balls...