|   research backing up conventional wisdom about training | rpironcladracer
Dec 27, 2002 4:00 PM | | There is a lot of banter and debate about this training method versus that, periodization and how strict it should be, etc. My main questions regarding training for cycling are these:
1) How important is building "base" in the off-season and can "base" be built while still enjoying some intensity?
2) Should weightlifting be a component of training for cycling, when, and how?
3) Is the concept of building one "system" at a time a valid one? (base versus power at LT, versus muscular endurance, etc).
4) Can one really build a pyramid in one's body, when the body is constantly adapting and the building blocks inevitably erode if not used?
5) What contributes to mental burnout? Are some people more resistant and others more susceptible?
6) How helpful are "for the masses" systems of training when we all know that there is tremendous variation in people's responses to stress, ability to adapt quickly, etc?
My credentials: I do science for a living- am on the faculty at a major medical school. I publish or perish and my competitors decide whether or not my research is good enough to warrant publication or funding. That's the way the system works in "real science" (not science sponsored by nutritional supplement companies and reviewed by "friendlies" if at all)
I continue to search the literature for good studies that test the current conventional wisdom in these areas.
I will say this: I have not found much good research that applies directly to these questions.
Why? The studies that need to be done are too expensive and would be logistical and statistical nightmares. Instead, trainers and writers like Friel and others have to extrapolate from their own experiences in racing and training racers, reinforced with the addition of some hints and clues from the scientific literature.
For example: In a search of peer-reviewed (non-advertising)medical literature, I could not find ONE statistically valid study that tested periodization versus a non-periodized training format in adult male or female cyclists over the course of a competitive year. Yet periodization is a basic principle "everyone" believes in. So- periodization may and probably does have great benefits- but it has not been rigorously tested in a scientific way. "Periodization" could never pass the test, for example, that common drugs need to pass for safety and effectiveness.
The same deficiencies in real scientific testing are found for many other commonly-held training principles that are re-phrased endlessly as wisdom or fact. So it's all open for debate- and I am sorely tempted to try a second career in real scientific research about some of these "facts". But the cost is prohibitive:
We'd need at least 40 cyclists per exercise regimen to achieve any statistical significance, and would need to do monthly power and endurance testing and have actual races between randomly assigned study subjects (if it doesn't help you place, what good is it?).
We'd probably have a failure rate of at least 25% (folks dropping out or moving or not folowing their regimen carefully) and we'd obviously run into great challenges recruiting subjects (do you want to put your racing season on the line for science?). I'd choose to study recreational competitors in Sport and Expert classes with local success, 25-40 years old with about 12 hours a week MAX to train. To me, these are the bread and butter local "wannabees" like me. When we were done, the best we could say is: These types of subjects do or do not do better or worse on regimen A versus regimen B over the course of a year in parameters x, y, and z. Change ANYTHING in the regimen and all bets are off as to how the outcome would be.
Such a study could perhaps be done for around $200,000-$300,000 with some sacrifice(salaries, equipment, testing, etc.)
I don't think the NIH will go for it. USACycling doesn't have the money either. |
| re: research backing up conventional wisdom about training | Radar MCM #35
Dec 27, 2002 9:30 PM | | I'll try to give my opinions on a few of these questions...
1) How important is building "base" in the off-season and can "base" be built while still enjoying some intensity?- I think this subject has been a little overworked on this board, everyone should know where I stand...
2) Should weightlifting be a component of training for cycling, when, and how? I have not researched this hardly because it doesn't relate to me. I'm taking Friel's advice of only doing AA since I'm under 17. (even though I have done alot of lower reps before). They said the more lower rep workouts I do, the greater the possibility of ligament and joint damage.
3) Is the concept of building one "system" at a time a valid one? (base versus power at LT, versus muscular endurance, etc). I
4) Can one really build a pyramid in one's body, when the body is constantly adapting and the building blocks inevitably erode if not used? building blocks eroding if not used...see, the system that Friel (and so many others) use is to train your "lower abilities" first. The lower the ability (muscular endurance and endurance mainly) the farther away from your A race it is built up. This is because you maintain those abilities for longer, even with minimal endurance rides closer to the A race. The higher abilities like anaerobic endurance and power are trained mostly close to your A race(s). Force falls somewhere inbetween.
5) What contributes to mental burnout? Are some people more resistant and others more susceptible? Overtraining, stress, lack of energy from poor diet, lack of initial motivation, etc. I'm pretty resistant compared to others I think. I know there were at least 3 times in the last season where I was at least slightly burned out but I pushed through it and got stronger and I'm super motivated right now.
6) How helpful are "for the masses" systems of training when we all know that there is tremendous variation in people's responses to stress, ability to adapt quickly, etc? I think Friel has a thing going with his limiters. It really isn't a "for the masses" approach. I printed out a list of workouts from his site the other day (trainingbible.com subscribers only) and there were well over 400 swim, bike, and run workouts. Considering I'll only be using around 20-30 workouts total in the next year (2-6 for each ability ie force, power etc) that's alot of induviduality depending on how I pick my workouts.
I agree that a study would be great. but training is an art, not a science. you ultimately have to figure out what's best for you, and that even changes from year to year. I don't think a study could accurately determine accurate training methods for anyone...but it could establish some more specific and helpful principals, maybe some results that would even contradict the things most of us on this board think.
Radar MCM #35 |
| re: research backing up conventional wisdom about training | JMAC
Dec 28, 2002 7:46 AM | | I have to agree with radar mcm i'm also under 17 and use friels book for training. I personnaly think weights will help anyone if done right. I know about the AA phase but i had a personnal trainer at the gym i go to make me a weight plan that best for me and will not screw me up. I think freils weight plan is good but you need a more individualized program made for you.
I'm using the Base and Build idea this winter for training this is my first yaer training. I find that even with the book you have to figure out what works best for you it's different for everyone. You can't make one plan that everyone uses.
Like freils year training hours suggestions don't really work for me. I do the max that he suggest for somebody under 18 and has been racing for 5 year. I'm 15, been racing for 1 year and i'm doing 500 hours a year right now. I'm perfectly fine with that. |
| re: research backing up conventional wisdom about training | Radar MCM #35
Dec 28, 2002 11:24 AM | | Yes I agree that some people need a more induvidualized weight program. However just doing straight AA (almost to failure on the last set of each exercize) is actually GIVING ME GAINS!! I've never had much luck with any other weight programs and I am actually increasing the amount of weight that I can lift 20-25 times for each exercise. I'm a pretty skinny guy (5'11" 148lbs around 5-7% bf) but I am actually getting more ab definition now and my quads are a little more defined. Cool! :-D
I've been racing for around 4 years but I've ridden a bike ALOT almost all my life...I'm doing 550 hours but I'm going to see how I handle that amount and might up it a little depending on how I'm recovering.
Radar MCM #35 |
| I'll be the first to admit... | free-agent
Dec 28, 2002 7:42 AM | | that I am over my head when it comes to medical research related to various aspects of cycling, but I have to assume that it does exist in some capacity and simply needs to be found (or maybe not). Have you tried contacting major training institutes in Europe and ask what they base their training princples on? What about medical journals/studies from other countries?
As far as money for a study is concerned, have you considered writing a grant or finding private funding sources? I'm sure you are very busy already but it may be worth checking into. Also, I'm sure you could get local racers involved in a study if there was a stipend involved.
I would like to read about any data you discover. |
| i want real science | ~ScaryFast~
Dec 28, 2002 1:39 PM | | "training is an art, not a science. ... I don't think a study could accurately determine accurate training methods for anyone"
I think that it is that traditional thinking that rpironcladracer is trying to break through. When I was 17 I read a book or two about training and I had a coach and everything...one thing I found was that pretty much no matter how you train you will improve.
Why? You're like at the peak of puberty. Everything is growing, so pretty much any stimulus (ie. exercise) easily helps to put on muscle, build strength and endurance.
Books and training will help to maximize your gains, but I must agree with rpironcladracer regarding his comments about training "studies". I've been in university for a few years now, and now that I know about statistical significance in peer-reviewed studies and such, I don't think any regular academic setting would be able to conduct proper studies on training plans with elite athletes as you suggest, simply because it would be too hard to recruit enough athletes who can dedicate the time to the study. Maybe in Europe.
I'll definitely have to take another look at some of the journals when I get back to school after the holidays.
PS-I'm a newcomer to this particular messageboard, but I post regularly on the trials board. |
| "medical journals" | rpironcladracer
Dec 29, 2002 6:21 AM | | The data is simply not there to fully support the things Friel and others present as "facts". That does not mean Friel is wrong or that the principles are wrong. It just means they ARE WRONG TO PRESENT THESE THEORIES AS FACTS. You can go "research" it yourself- the NIH website has a search engine that is easy to use and you can access thousands of medical and scientific journals.
For most of the studies addressing training regimens and performance outsomes, basically someone takes 40 "trained athletes" and randomly puts them on training regiman A versus training regimen B and measures Vo2 max and has them do an individual time trial at the beginning and the end of the short (often 6 weeks) study. Then one method is determined to be more effective than another. That's fine and good, but until that regimen is put into the context of a year-long training preogram, I am not sure what it means. Also, it's easy for the "scientist" to pre-determine the outcome.
For example, I assign Radar MCM to training regimen A. i know for sure he's a gung-ho dude who will just about kill himself to prove that this option is better than the other. I know on the Vo2 max study he will go all out. I know he will do a killer time trial.
OK, so we randomly assign racers to training regimens. If I want to "prove" that "my" training regimen is better than another, I make the other training regimen ridiculous. For example, lets say I want to test whether or not Tmax/Vmax intervals are "the only way to train". Obviously I need to set up the study so that both groups do the same amount of "work" to be valid. But I can "doctor" the "other method" so it can't help racers get stronger. Then I'm guaranteed to prove my point, eh? So I have the one group (winners) do Vmax/Tmax intervals with adequate rest in between. The other group does sub-Vmax efforts (I stick them in zone 4 and pretend THAT's going to help develop their power). Guess which group does better?
OK, I'm not saying all the research in exercise physiology is schlock but it generally does not rise to the level that is found in medical research, where it MATTERS whether it is valid or not.
Then popular training bible writers build very understandable and effective training plans built upon these types of research articles. And because they are experts and they cite literature, many folks quote their principles as though they came from the very mouth of God Himself.
That's my only beef.
One more thing: I don't consider "searching the literature" to be "research". To me, research is doing scientific studies to test hypotheses. The rest of it, such as what Friel does, is scholarship and study.
Maybe this is all semantics to many of you, but it annoys scientists when theory is presented as fact. |
| The argument is rediculous and flawed to start with | tankhead10
Dec 29, 2002 7:47 AM | | Exercise physiology is based on specific principles that are tested time and time again. For instance, energy production and utilization. Glycolysis, gluconeogenisis, atp-cp, fatty acid oxidation, and methods at which improve these that have been tested many times. For instance, "specific training for a sprinter would involve running at high intensity dashes. Similarly, specific training for a marathoner would involve long, slow-paced, runs in which virtually all of the ATP needed by the working muscles would be derived from aerobic metabolism."(Powers, Howley "Exercise Physiology" pg 458). You have interval training to increase performance for any of the energy production methods. You have recovery time based on energy uptake in the muscle and the liver, (ATP-cp 1-5 seconds, ATP-cp and Glycolosis, and aerobic metabolism) A program that doesn't not meet the needs for post-season, pre-season, and in-season based on the specific principles would be a failure of planning not on what works and does not work scientifically. The argument for who's program works and who's doesn't is not based on principles but on proper planning. That is why testing of the athlete continuously (once a month) is crucial to see if what method they are using needs to be tweeked as the athlete gets more fit. With mountain biking, so much of all of these principles are used and also skill based fitness also comes into play. Whereas a marathon runner is bascially skilled to run forwards without changing his biomechanics frequently. Mountain biking has the athlete manuevering over obstacles pushing and pulling with pectoralis major and latissimus dorsi muscles. The best thing to do is to work on the principles and be the best that you can be at all of them. If you lack something work to become better at it. There is no right and wrong if you are trying to better you energy production at all of the mechanisms of the above said methods of energy production and utilization. |
| Makes sense.... | free-agent
Dec 29, 2002 7:51 AM | | and I see that very same thing in education. One person finds a strategy for teaching math to a student with ADHD, they write a book and proclaim it as the be all end all for "helping" all students with ADHD. The problem is that there are so many variables to the equation that it is not even funny. Good luck finding longitudinal studies-please post any findings you come across. |
| before/after tests | Radar MCM #35
Dec 29, 2002 11:38 AM | | I totally agree with you on this. Even if there were 2 training programs considered very good by most of the cycling community, there would still be so many variables in a before/after test (even if it was on a stationary bike in a lab):
Bike setup ie fit, tires, psi, position on bike
food consumed 1-2 hours prior to the test
food consumed during 48 hours prior to test
hydration level
temperature
wind (if outside)
clothing worn (ie heat retention by cotton or other non-wicking materials could elevate hr)
stress level in days prior to the test
time of day test was performed
and simply good day/bad day
Also, there are many times good points and bad points about a training program. Say a test subject improved their power output at LT. Maybe this was because the training schedule they were on calling for more stretching than they had been doing, yet without the improved flexibility they would have merely maintained fitness. Just some thoughts...
Radar MCM #35 |
| Try using your medical school's library or media center | tankhead10
Dec 29, 2002 6:05 AM | | and find journals such as Journal of Applied Physiology, Journal of Exercise Science, Sports Medicine, American Journal of Health Promotion, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, The Sport Psychologist,Sports Physiology, Strength and Power in Sport, Prolonged Exercise (author D. Lamb Benchmark Press.), European Journal of Applied Physiology, Medicine and Science in Sports, research quarterly from E. Burk and B.D. Franks, Archives of Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine, Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, Physician and Sports Medicine, Training for Sport and Activity, American College of Sprots Medicine's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, Exercise and Sport Science Review, American College of Cardiology, I think this should be enough information to forever learn about any of the questions you have because they all have been addressed many times, you just need to know where to look. Have fun researching at your medical school. ;) |
| done that, extensively, let's talk specifics | rpironcladracer
Dec 29, 2002 9:34 AM | | I'm not making myself clear. I don't need to "try using my medical school's library". I am a scientist. I use those tools all the time. If you read my original post there are still a number of questions that I listed that are not answered to my satisfaction by any research I can find including every single article from each of those journals for the past 25 years.
Yes, there is evidence supporting many to most of the current "conventional wisdom" principles in exercise physiology. No, there are not many if any quality longitudinal studies that strongly support the principles that are accepted as fact here.
Example: There is a lot of dogmatic chat on some training websites about things like "capillary density" for example. The studies on developing and maintaining capillary density by specific training phases are in my estimation very weak. None of the currently available molecular biology tools have been used in such studies. Some scientists exercise rats or mice and study capillary density in different muscle types. This data is then used to develop principles for competitive cyclists. These species do very little endurance work normally but primarily "sprint" or "scurry". Dogs would be a better choice, as they have a high aerobic capacity that makes them capable of endurance work like running down deer for example. I am willing to bet that when most of you read that "following this regimen will build your capillary density" you are not thinking, "yeah, if I was a rat".
I'd be delighted to do a journal club online, where once a month we critique a specific scientific article that addresses some of these training decision issues. That's what I'm talking about- not a textbook, not a guide book or taining manual- but scientific studies, raw data, that writers of training bibles use to support their programs. You all should know that the studies that are used to support their programs have weaknesses and limitations. Guys like friel and others acknowledge this. But racers without much scientific research training quote these principles (theories) as though they were actual facts, proven to everyone's satisfaction, and anyone who doesn't agree is either uninformed or lacks the intelligence to grasp the knowledge. That's my beef. If you want to discuss any single aspect of any training program and the scientific research that is used to support the theory behind that aspect or phase of training, let's do it.
I am not interested in being directed to more conventional wisdom sources that have simply synthesized data from a number of studies. So please do not direct me to textbooks, the names of medical and exercise physiology journals, etc. If you want to discuss a specific scientific study (journal article, authors, title, issue, date and pages) and how it supports so and so's training program, that's what i am looking for. |
| With all do respect people...... | Flat top
Dec 29, 2002 11:21 AM | | Go for a ride! |
| Here ya go..... | tankhead10
Dec 29, 2002 11:54 AM | | Let's discuss these articles all of which were done on humans not rats that you speak of "Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise" journal "Mitochondrial DNA sequence polmorphism, VO2 max, and response to endurance training." Dionne, Turcotte, Thibault, Boulay, Skinner, and Bouchard, 1989 23:177-85 or how about this one, again on humans, Early muscular and metabolic adaptations to prolonged exercise training in humans" from the "Journal of Applied Physiology" written by Green, Jones, Ball-Burnet, and Smith, 1991 70:2032-38 or how about this one again on humans, Endurance exercise training reduces lactate production Journal of Applied Physiology Favier et al 1986 61:885-89 now go to your medical library, pull one of these up on the computer, read through it, give us your synopsis and then we will have something to SPECIFICALLY talk about. But for now we can agree that these journal that you have mentioned do not do their research on rats but on humans. This is real science using the research methods supervised by professors from various universities and the like. Let us know how you do. ;o) |
| I'm done, not communicating effectively I guess. | rpironcladracer
Dec 30, 2002 9:16 AM | | I guess this is my last post because it's clear I am not effectively communicating my "issues". I like the J.A.P. article by Green et al. (1991). I believe in the genral principle of exercise physiology. I have never said there is no good research out there. I have said there are no long-term longitudinal studies of specific periodization modalities in cyclists that I find compelling.
I do not believe it when John Doe who has never done any actual research states, "any effort above zone 4 in the base period will destroy any gains in capillary density". I do not believe any research sources you noted address such questions.
So, to summarize: I believe periodization "works". I believe that specific training regimens as advocated by Friel and others "work". I do not believe that many of the "facts" that some cyclists and even some online trainers cite have actually been proven. Among the "facts" I am unable to embrace as facts:
1) Any intensity (5a and above)during base destroys the foundation you must have for maximal peak potential. Corollary: this is due to loss of any gains in capillary density.
2) "Base" training must be done in blocks totalling 12-16 weeks, every year, without end, regardless of the history of the racer.
3) The periodized weightlifting approach encouraged by Friel and others is "the way" to go. It may be so, just have not seen studies that compare different approaches and their effects on a racing season.
These are just a few of the little details that bug me when people spout stuff as though it is proven.
It's been good but I gotta go train. My way.
Over and out-
rpierce@im.wustl.edu |
| re: research backing up conventional wisdom about training | Kleinadian
Dec 30, 2002 7:39 AM | | I remember reading a newspaper clipping someone kept for me because it talked about cycling and creatine. It was the 'Dear Abby' version of a newspaper doctor. This guy was talking about how there was absolutely no evidence that creatine helped a cyclist in any way. Then I read Burke's book 'Smart Cycling' and it mentioned how creatine did infact help certain athletes including cyclists. I have experimented with creatine, and found it to help in certain instances. What really bothered me was this newspaper doctor who spoke like he was the authority on creatine and cyclists. He infact had no clue what he was talking about. Same beef that rpcladracer seems to have with books for training. But I wouldn't attack Friel too much since he does speak with experience.
The way I see it, if a cyclist (mtb or otherwise) uses the techniques in Friel's book, they will have a very solid training program. They may not however have the best program available to that specific rider. 90% of the content in Freil's book will apply to any training program. It is the last 10% that we may not get by a book.
Let's imagine you're Freil. You're going to write a book for the masses. That goes from a top mid pack elite to a beginner. I think he did a good job accomodating all those riders. True, there are top level racers that need a more detailed program, but those people will get a personal coach - not a book. |
| re: I like Friel and own every book, some autographed | rpironcladracer
Dec 30, 2002 9:21 AM | | No beef with Friel- think he's done an outstanding job of making exercise physiology available and accessible to the masses. of course he has to "dummy it down" to the audience which may not be educated about these things. My only beef is with online trainers and cyclists who read this stuff, which Friel often qualifies in his books, and tell me, "IT MUST BE DONE EXACTLY THIS WAY OR YOU WILL SUCK FOREVER". |
| Don't feel so threatened......... | tankhead10
Dec 30, 2002 4:44 PM | | You seem educated in the basics of Exercise Physiology so incorporate these principles into what works. You have also read Freil and understand his methods. Put some of this and some of that together and ride. Record your training in a log and review it weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly. Make adjustments. When I worked as an exercise physiologist for an outpatient cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation hospital, I used the principles in exercise physiology and guidlines from the American College of Sports Medicine and created exercise programs based on the persantine stress test, Graded exercise stress test and or thallium stress test. I had to "customize" each aspect of the patients program based on their post op abilities but still used the fundamentals of exercise physiology. I had to re-evaluate by hospital policy at the end of the twelve week program. There was no exact science to how hard we could push them, we used the Borg scale (rating of percieved exertion) and if they tolerated it well we uped their work load the next week. I think you are getting trapped in the who is right who is wrong thing. Freil knows what works for most of the athletes because he works with them and re-evaluates them constantly. We do not have that luxury. But I would take someones advice who see these principles at work day after day, month after month, year after year. I don't want to come across as arrogant. I hate pretensious people, however I really do think you should worry about what works for you and you only. Have a great New "Training " Year! ;) |
| I'll go along with Tank on this one. | Patchito
Dec 31, 2002 8:30 AM | | As a scientist R-Racer, I think you run the risk of basing the ultimate legitimacy of any training system "modality" on clinical data, hence, this endless and ultimately fruitless debate on physiological esoterica. Bicycle training is as much an art as it is a science, and coaches such as Friel base their authority, not on peer reviewed studies, but on years of experience with what works and what doesn't. An understanding of the physiological mechanisms behind a training effect is useful, but an aspiring racer should be focusing his or her energy on organizing their training plans and using tried and true methods that work, not on necessarily trying to understanding why they work on a cellular level. Read Friel and other sources, keep a journal, and get off yer arse and ride.
BTW - don't get defensive. I actually agree with you mostly, particularly with regards to the Waldron school that insists that any hard effort will fry your little developing capillaries in base period, which I think is nonsense. I would also encourage you to post or discuss studies or research you come across. That would be useful, starting an argument over it is not. |
| Okey-dokey, another year older.... | seriesracer
Dec 31, 2002 1:21 PM | | Done talking- done thinking-off riding! have a happy new year and remember in USACycling's eyes, you're a year older tomorrow! |
| And the same should go for you... | PT
Jan 1, 2003 10:01 PM | | It's a pretty wide held opinion in the biomedical research community that "exercise physiology" is the "special olympics" of biology. I'm with the ironclad guy on this -- the standard of proof in exercise physiology is pretty meager when measured against other biological disciplines. To a certain degree, that's because it's an extremely difficult field to work in, and to a certain degree, that's because a lot of exercise physiology departments are populated by meatheads... If NIH supported this sort of research it might attract the people with the talent and knowledge to do it, but mostly you get this sort of research supported by grants from gatoraide/powerbar/vitamin cottage/dunkin donuts -- consequently you get half-assed efforts.
But I also agree, that 80 to 90% of the standard friel type program is going to be a positive experience for 9 out of 10 cyclists. But closer examination of some long-held assumptions might open a few eyes and lead to some significant advancements.
Well, I'm off to the gym tomorrow to start a new weight lifting program -- super slow motion lifting. I'm just sure it will put me under 8 hours for Leadville next summer... |
| grants from gatorade/powerbar/vitamin cottage that is funny | tankhead10
Jan 2, 2003 6:36 AM | | Yeah OK if you say so it must be true. You supplied so much evidence to support these claims(?). You should start using kettlebells also. |
| Thanks, but here's an example... | PT
Jan 2, 2003 8:16 AM | | I picked one of your cited articles from above, in a topic area I know something about.
Mitochondrial DNA sequence polymorphism, VO2max, and response to endurance training.
Dionne FT, Turcotte L, Thibault MC, Boulay MR, Skinner JS, Bouchard C.
Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada
"These results suggest that sequence variation in mitochondrial DNA may contribute to individual difference in VO2max and its response to training." This is the grand conclusion of their effort, which I suspect would be taken as gospel by virtually any bachelor of science holding physical therapist. But this "conclusion" was based on the analysis of three mitochondrial DNA morphs. No genetic linkage was established between initial and final VO2max readings and the mtDNA morphs, and the numbers of individuals examined would be insufficient to support their conclusion. From a "proof of premise" standpoint, their "suggestion" amounts to no more than an anecdotal observation. Linkage could be established by sampling a larger group or through a controlled breeding program (difficult). I didn't say this stuff was easy, but I will say that most of it is lame. I rest my case... |
| This is fun.....You still haven't provided any evidence | tankhead10
Jan 2, 2003 10:11 AM | | about your spewing the sponsering of these studies by gatorade, vitamin cottage, and the like. As for you latest argument, Science is based on hypothisizing to find out if something could be true and thus begins the scientific model of begining to do research to prove your case. The study that you pointed out has concluded that it MAY be possible because of this or that. That is the begining of possible more studies on this. It is not fact until the same results can be reproduced over and over again and at your own admittance it is such a huge task to continue to do the same studies over and over it would not be logical. Maybe you and ironclad can fund the money (you do not have a relationship to gatorade do you) and begin the process to test some of these studies to reproduce the same results. Let me know when you find the evidence of ALL studies in Physiology are funded by various companies ,,,,oh and also conducted by MEATHEADS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA |
| Okay... | PT
Jan 2, 2003 12:44 PM | | There is evidence within the articles themselves that they were done by meatheads. My contention is that theaverage -- actually probably in excess of 90% of all peer reviewed exercise physiology publications is junk and wouldn't stand a chance of publication if they were held to the same standards as other disciplines in the biological sciences. As to the funding of current studies -- you're right, I don't have any examples/evidence to support my claim. But I do know it is true and it's always worth checking out the funding sources for any purported scientific study. Don't be so defensive -- if you're so all on top of the literature, tell me why that article even deserved to be published. There's probably $20,000 in resources that lead to a anecdotal finding. Heck, they probably went in with the same idea as they claimed to conclude. As science, it sucks... They didn't test any hypothesis. That article, and I be any of the others you mentioned are perfect examples of why exercise physiologist are recognized as meatheads by the biomedical research community.
YMMV |
| This has been fun......Oh and don't take me so seriously | tankhead10
Jan 3, 2003 4:30 AM | | I actually am not up on the research. I just opened one of my old Exercise Physiology Texts from when I was in college, picked a random chapter, went to the end of the chapter where the references were and listed a bunch of Journal names and then later listed some of the random articles in some of the journals. It got you going though. However it is getting old and tired. I now have to go and loose some of this weight I put on so take it easy and nice debate. Enjoy yourself and train hard bro. Have a good 2003 ;-) |
| YES THERE IS REVIEWED RESEARCH! | fast
Jan 2, 2003 3:48 PM | | As a certified strength and conditioning specialist and having a M.S in Kinesiology, I have based most of my education on reviewed literature. My favorite book on training in general is:
'Essentials for Strength Training and Conditioning'
Thomas R. Baechle (Editor), Shirl J. Hoffman, Richard W. (Ed.) Earle, NSCA Staff, Roger W. Earle (Editor)
This book is not written specifically for cyclists, but it is written for physiological responses to various forms of training. AND, it is based on extensive literature. Every 'statement' is quoted with a peer reviewed article. It has an entire chapter on periodization!
I did a lit search on MEDLINE and came accross a few articles on periodization. Not with cyclists, but other endurance athletes. The 'science' IS out there and there are reasons why periodization is so popular. |
| Go get 'em FAST..........You tell 'em.........'at a boy (nm) | tankhead10
Jan 3, 2003 4:32 AM | | |
| re: research backing up conventional wisdom about training | FasCat
Jan 6, 2003 7:39 PM | | Hello Dr:
I too am a scientist althougth not medical; molecualar biologist in biotech. I am also a cycling coach and professional cyclist. Puzzled at how I pulled this off--smart training. Very smart traing. And yes Periodization was a key part of it. Base periods were extremely important for teaching my muscle to burn fat in preference to muscle glycogen and to increase muscular mitochondrial density. And yes it is possible to throw in some light intensity during the base period. In fact I do it every year. Weights--YES, YES, YES. How else could you increase your power output to ride faster? As far as different systems, I treat every system together. You are asking really good questions and it would be incredible to participate in the study you are proposing. Unfortunately like you said, unfeasible. USA Cycling (where I have studied) has the biggest knowledge base from training olympic athletes. They have extensive experience in periodization and I believe have published several articles on the subject.
Feel free to visit www.fascatcoaching.com or email me should you have any other questions or opinions.
Cheers-Frank |
| |
