by Gino | Aug 26, 2012 | Master Instructor Blog
It’s like herding cats, only the cats are on bikes.
You know, the internet is a wonderful thing. As the thought of herding cats came to mind, I subsequently embellished it mentally with our mode of delivery. I thought to my self…”hmmm I wonder if there are any pictures of cats riding bikes on the internet.” Silly me to even wonder if the absurd would not be just a google away. Indeed it was — just google “images of cats riding bikes” and behold, you even have choices. Gotta love it!
Anyway, yes, the “E” in Evidence Based Cycling is currently being collected by 10 or 11 volunteers, subjects, guinea pigs extraordinaire – call them what you like – but in my opinion, we are all self appointed researchers on a mighty quest for a peak into ourselves, our training and our sport. OK, maybe not so mighty, but a quest nonetheless.
A variety of things have already come up in our first week of gathering data. This is always the case — it’s the “you don’t know what you don’t know” factor that makes this (and frankly all of life) so much more interesting. You can plan for as many variables and issues of concern, but until you get in there and start DOING it — well, it’s all pretty academic. In the section below, I’ve listed just some of the issues that I have come across being both a participant, and as the contact person for my fellow researchers (this is the most appropriate moniker for everyone involved, just less fun than calling them guinea pigs).
Since these issues trickled in throughout the week, this communication will actually be the first everyone as a group will get of said adjustments. So to those of you reading but not participating… you’re seeing us learn and conduct the research in very real time.
Data Collection Adjustments
- The Baseline Test. It turned out to be a little too aggressive at 25 Watt increases every 2 minutes, so we backed it down to 20 Watts. We don’t want our performance to be impacted by the element of change itself, and if the change comes too quickly, our response to it may mask the other effects we are measuring (HR, fatigue, etc)
- Warm-up Protocol. In most of our baseline tests that involve power, we warm-up, then reset the bike, and start the test. However, in the process the heart rate drops — which is not a problem when the test includes a progressive ramp up. However, in our test, the test begins in mid Zone 3, at a specific cadence, with unspecified power. This means one must “dial it in” to establish a rhythm at that cadence and intensity level.
Consequently, the easiest way to do this was to work your warm-up to that level, and once comfortable (at least 15 minutes in) you would only need to reset a watch or anything with time in order to conduct the stages as originally instructed. There isn’t a need for any averages, so there was no need to reset to zero. We only want to find the muscle/fatigue failure point as it now stands.
Sitting or Standing. I got at least 1 question, and it became apparent to me while riding, that standing would be necessary for some people, despite the fact that most people know that we do almost 100% of our tests in the saddle to control variability introduced with this position.
The problem is exacerbated in this research also because both heart rate and cadence are typically impacted by standing. However, the need to stretch your legs varies by each individual, and truth be told, if the cadence and heart rate combination is what is going to produce the training effect we are looking for (improved muscular endurance), then if we can maintain those parameters out of the saddle, then position should not present a problem. Given the above, here are additional guidelines for doing your 15 or 30 minute M.E. drills out of the saddle:
- If you can maintain a cadence between 73 and 77 and keep your heart rate between mid zone 3 and low zone 4, you can do as much out of the saddle as you like. Just keep track of the approximate % of time you spend out of the saddle, in the event there are patterns unanticipated that we might learn from.
- If you only need short bouts out of the saddle to stretch, keep them to only 10 to 20 seconds at a time. Don’t worry about either cadence or heart rate, as they will likely not be impacted by such a short period of time.
- Zone 3 or Zone 4? In our research protocols I noted that the less advanced or competitive cyclists should stay in Zone 3, while those presumably more accustomed to Zone 4 should target that zone. What I was looking for was really just some consistency in the execution of the weekly regiment of M.E. drills. However, the hypothesis is that the improvements in muscular endurance will occur if you can spend time within a given range of HR/RPM value pairs.
To be more precise, I believe low zone 3 to mid zone 4 is the breadth of the heart rate parameters, and 65 to 85 is the breadth of cadence ranges. However, there was no mechanical device measuring the improvements at 65 vs 85 RPM, nor at a heart rate of low zone 3 vs. mid 4. Yet, we know that the difference in how the legs feel between these bookend cadence and heart rates is absolutely undeniable. Consequently, we need to try and execute our work in a consistent and similar fashion for all data collected if we are going to draw conclusions from the result of our work.
Therefore, it is imperative for everyone involved in the research to be diligent in sticking within the following ranges:
- Heart Zones® – 3 BPM below mid zone 3 up to 3 BPM below mid zone 4. That means when you fall outside of these heart rate parameters, you must adjust the tension to get the HR back on track.
- Cadences — as listed above — outside of 10 — 20 seconds of stretching every 5 minutes, maintain an average between 73 and 77 RPM for every 15 or 30 minute drill.
Well, that’s our first week’s update. In the next week or two, I’ll begin to receive everyone’s data and I’m sure we will learn even more of what we didn’t know or couldn’t know, or maybe what we should have known… it’s hard to know, you know.
by Gino | Aug 7, 2012 | Instructor Training, Master Instructor Blog
Every Adventure Starts A Little Scary
Maybe a better title for this blog would have been “The Devil’s In The Details”. Fortunately I did receive some offers from some real suckers… er… I mean some really nice riders who want to help me out as we take our walk in the enchanted forest of Muscular Endurance. But as any adventure worth taking goes, there is the planning and paperwork that must go along with it.
First there’s the inevitable “If you die it’s not my fault” waiver — every fitness facility and cycling studio has to have one, and if you do metabolic testing or mad scientist stuff like we are want to do, then you have to have a really BIG one.
Next you need some basic instructions to give to your test subjects unless you plan on supervising every minute of every trial. Don’t really have the time for that? I didn’t think so. No one does, but yet it is imperative that we keep everyone on the “same page”. What better way than to copy that page and give it to each one of them — we call that our data collection protocols (see how scientific sounding we make things). It’s really just instructions. it’s not rocket science, but it’s these little things that when missed, is like catching you napping in the poppy fields.
Data Integrity & Consistency
If we want to draw any sort of conclusions at all about our results, we need to make sure that we both execute the drill in a consistent manner, and collect or document each trial (the specific drills assigned to the study participants) accurately. Aside from being detailed in our instructions, we also should provide a spreadsheet or at least a paper form that will somewhat “force” each rider to speak the same language.
This not only helps with the consistency of reporting, but it will also make aggregating the data across each of the subjects easier to complete. I have therefore prepared a spreadsheet that has tables for recording both the Baseline (Pre-research or “before”) test and the Performance (the after-research) test. In addition, I have prepared 1 table for each of the 4 weeks in our study.
Oh My!
Finally, the “Oh My!” part of this adventure is here as I assumed that our subjects would want to print out the spreadsheet to help them record their numbers soon after their workouts since there is that risk of memory leakage (some of us more than others J ). Anyway, I looked at the “print view” and yep — that’s when I said “Oh My!” as I had to scrap 3 of the 4 tables and reformat the first one so it could be more easily printed — and then of course export them for both Mac and Windows versions. So you see, it really was a dark and scary forest with flying monkeys after all.
Any last minute volunteers are still welcome. I still don’t have 10 volunteers, but I must get started. Please comment on this post if you are going to participate, and you can find the forms and spreadsheets at this dropbox link. I have several versions of the spreadsheet so hopefully it will work for most participants: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6bugjlb8wtew1iy/HdspfwB7D_
We start collecting data on Saturday 8/11, so please email me your waivers and any questions you might have. See you in OZ!
by Gino | Jul 28, 2012 | Training With Power
Getting Started
Recruitment is never easy, and it seems we never get quite as many subjects as we like. This is the big advantage of a University setting, it’s a veritable gaggle of guinea pigs. No offense to the college student, but they’ll participate in just about anything — believe me, I know — having participated in just about everything myself (back in the day).
While I understand this fact, there is still a point where too few participants makes it hardly worth doing, and right now that is sort of where I am with the project. I do not have enough volunteers to really get started. Our Indoor Cycling classes are down to a few digital offerings through the weekdays only, and a few outdoor rides. It’s how we like to do it in the summer; taking advantage of as much outdoor riding as we can.
Consequently, I think this study is going to be more easily conducted with volunteers from around the country, than by the usual lot I find in Pittsburgh. So, this is my official plea to all you fine would-be researchers and guinea pig hopefuls. Please send a message right on this blog post if you want to participate in the study.
What Will We Be Doing?
I can already hear the questions, starting with this one being top of mind. I will ask each participant to conduct a baseline test (specifics laid out in Blog Post #10 with a few tweaks — which will be communicated via email). After our baseline, I would like to conduct a 4 week study whereby each participant fits in Muscular Endurance work (specifics below) at least 3 times per week, and for the durations specified.
This work can be done inside or out, and can be fairly easily incorporated within any indoor “spin” session and any outdoor ride.
Here are the requirements:
- After a suitable warm-up, attempt to pedal consistently at 75RPM while in mid zone 3 for riders who consider themselves beginners or intermediates, or mid zone 4 for those who race or who consider themselves advanced to expert level. As far as possible, make this drill last contiguously for a duration of 15 minutes to 30 minutes. Beginners & Intermediates do 15 min segments while the competitive or advanced rider will do 30.
Once the 15 or 30 minutes is completed, make sure to write down:
- Total time (should be 15 or 30 min)
- Was it conducted on an indoor cycle or a outdoor bike
- Average cadence
- Average heart rate
- Average power
- How you felt — on an RPE scale
If you did 15 minutes, try to do some recovery, or at least ride with less resistance if possible for 5 minutes, then repeat. If you did the 30 minutes, you are done with the M.E. requirements for the day.
Repeat this a total of 3 times each week, ideally with a day separating each one. However if your schedule doesn’t allow a day to separate each episode, it’s still fine to do them on back to back days.
At the end of each week, the information noted above for each 15 or 30 minute segment should be put into a spreadsheet and sent to yours truly; gene at cycling fusion dot com.
Do I need Power?
You will only need access to a power bike (hopefully the SAME bike) before and after the initial baseline testing and the subsequent performance test. Once you do your baseline, it will be strictly cadence and heart rate that will be used. So yes, you will need each of those two training tools, on either your indoor bike or your outdoor ride.
Thus, a minimum requirement for participation is a heart monitor and a cadence meter on all the equipment where you do your Muscular Endurance work.
The Benefits of Being A Guinea Pig
In the event you are reading this and thinking of joining our band of merry men and researchers, I applaud and encourage you for that. In fact, there are certain benefits for you in forging new ground like this:
1. The satisfaction that you are doing something few others may have done — trust me, it’s a good feeling.
2. You gain the “inside track” at Cycling Fusion® as a study participant. Future studies (even if you don’t participate) benefits all of our study participants & Cycling Fusion® members.
3. Analysis of your training as it relates to the subject matter being studied — it’s like getting free coaching.
4. Advanced copies of all literature related to our research and Evidence Based Cycling efforts.
So there you have it — no reason to hold back now. Let me know what you think, and/or use my email address listed cryptically above.
by Gino | Jul 19, 2012 | Master Instructor Blog
Subject’s Composition
The next facet of preparing to launch our study is the issue of sample size & composition. We need a suitable sample size (the number of test subjects or participants) and composition (the demographics and/or physical attributes or “profile”) of the subjects involved in the test to represent a cross section of the population with which you hope to apply these results.
In academia, the university environment and access to talent can often give them pro or elite athletes to work with as subjects of the study. When this is the case, I must confess to wondering if their results and conclusions are more a factor of “good genetics” or of the principles being studied. In other words, would the same sort of results be rendered, perhaps differing in only the degree or amount of the effect, if it had been conducted with subjects that would fall under the average individual type profile.
Subjects Size
While having 10 subjects is one of those nice round numbers that would also help us achieve a cross section within the “normal people” population, we don’t always have the luxury of that many participants, and so rather than linger in the “no-mans land” of inaction, you take what you can get in order to get the study off the ground. However, that being said, the results will also have to then be taken with a grain of salt. Those scrutinizing the end results or findings will examine not only the assumptions and methodologies the study has employed, but the composition and size of the subject group conducting the trials.
Impact on Interpretation
We not only must be cognizant of the subject’s profile, but also how homogeneous that sample group is within itself. We don’t want to miss this detail since we can expect our conclusions ultimately rendered to be interpreted in the light of who completed our trials. This is the test bed of our study.
Sometimes the emphasis on this fact is disproportionate to its impact on the overall results, and can be offered up to explain away unexpected results. In other instances, this impact is clearer and even profound, and consequently may be the most salient insight gained as a result of the research. When either of these positions are offered as qualifying factors of interpretation, I believe the research group is then compelled to repeat the research with a distinctly different, yet also homogenous group; at least once or even twice. These repeated trials should serve to validate or invalidate the relative impact of the subject’s profile and/or sample size on the final results.
In some cases, this repeating and more detailed analysis of the subject group can lead to more accuracy overall to the concepts and principles involved in the research; which is of course one of the best outcomes any researcher can hope for anyway. Better yet, when this repeating of the research is done by a completely different research group, say at another university, the full picture and analysis of the results can become more and more robust.
Start Recruiting!
Getting back to our own “backyard research” (hey, I like that phrase — what think ye — maybe this is the less pretentious way of saying “Evidence Based Cycling”). But yet again I digress…
In our situation today, we will endeavor to use real, ordinary people in our study, and thus we should ultimately be able to establish real, ordinary comparisons and conclusions. While we can debate the word “ordinary” for more time and paper than the subject is worth, we can also just trust our good judgment to recruit and include those subjects whom seem to make up what most people would consider the “general population”.
Bottom line though at this point is that we must recruit individuals willing to be included in the study, and perform the trials we ask them to do, in the frequency and specificity as we dictate. This is no small task, so we better get busy. Once I wrangle enough participants, I’ll return with the next steps to take.
[plulz_social_like width=”350″ send=”false” font=”arial” action=”like” layout=”standard” faces=”false” ]
by Gino | Jun 30, 2012 | Master Instructor Blog
Study Controls
One of the next most important aspect of executing your research is having a way to accurately and consistently conduct the prescribed drills and record their results. This is the proverbial “before and after”; also commonly referred to as “baseline” and “performance testing”. This is so important that we researcher types typically like to be physically present for all Baseline tests, as well as final and/or intermittent performance tests.
The training that takes place between these before and after events can be conducted without this type of close oversight, provided the subjects have a clear understanding of exactly how the training is to be conducted. If all of the subjects performed the drills in different ways, they couldn’t realistically be compared to each other. Likewise if they performed the drill in nearly the same manner, but then recorded the results differently, we would likewise have a significant problem comparing results.
Consequently, researchers must emphasize how important it is to be true to the method of the training drills as well as the “before and after” measurements. The tools and techniques we use for gathering the results must be defined and assigned clearly.
Indoors vs Outdoors
Fortunately for those of us who are enlightened as to the power and benefit of Indoor Cycling, this is one of the times where the indoor environment really shines. We can control so many extraneous factors, that we are virtually guaranteed solid repeatability in not only baselining and performance testing afterwards, but also the day to day training if it is done indoors.
When working on a bike that doesn’t move, where there are no “imminent dangers” as there are on the road and trail, and where we can control both temperature and airflow, we have a typical “laboratory environment”. Some argue that this makes it also unrealistic, and thus brings any conclusions from the study under question. While there is merit to that argument, it can be put to rest by including outdoor baselines and performance tests along with the indoor protocols if that criticism seems to be worth addressing.
The advantages of the indoor environment doesn’t mean that we can’t conduct any of these experiments or trials outside, it just means we do have an ideal environment inside if and when we need it. If weather or traffic disrupt our consistency or flow in executing the drills prescribed for the study, we simply move operations inside and resume.
Muscular Endurance Baseline Test
Given the fact that we are studying muscular endurance (not muscular strength), we know that we want to have our test be one with a significant time duration. In addition, university researchers use “the point of failure” as an measurement indicator when researching Muscular Endurance, so will also incorporate this into our baseline protocol. Finally we have already defined the parameters of muscular endurance training to fall within a certain cadence range and at a heart zone of no less than zone 3. Thus we have enough details to create our specific Muscular Endurance Baseline Test Protocol.
Protocol Details:
- Subjects will be instructed to warm up for 15 to 25 minutes before the test begins
- Subjects will hold a steady pedaling cadence at an average of 75 RPM as far as possible
- Subjects will find a resistance or gear level that will bring their heart rate into the middle of their zone 3 (using Heart Zones® methodology of zone determination)
- The subject will increase their effort by 25 watts every 2 minutes and maintain the new wattage level without more than a 5 watt fluctuation
- The test continues until the subject can not maintain the current watt level without fluctuating more than 5 watts, or they feel physically unable to continue increasing wattage.
Data Collected:
- Date, time, location, and type of bike used in the test
- Subject name, age, gender and self described fitness level
- From minute 00:00 the following parameters are recorded precisely as they read on the bike console:
- Time the readings were taken (00:00, 1:00, 2:00, etc)
- Heart rate
- Power Level
- Cadence Level
This is starting to look like a real project now. In the next post we will discuss Sample size for the study, and recruiting those squealers, er… guinea pigs…. I mean volunteer subjects 🙂
