by Gino | May 26, 2012 | Master Instructor Blog
[plulz_social_like width=”350″ send=”false” font=”arial” action=”like” layout=”standard” faces=”false” ]
Long climbs of modest grades are the ideal terrain for Muscular Endurance
There are really two types of research available on virtually any topic related to cycling performance or physiology. There’s the research regarding what people are doing or what they think about a topic. These are people from many different perspectives; coaches, authors, bloggers, and we know that last category can include as many levels of proficiency that exist. A google search with the key terms will deliver plenty of results.
Then there is research regarding what the “Science” says. This research is found in medical and educational journals. Most often you must be a member of one of the governing bodies such as the ACSM (American College of Sports Medicine). While you might get some of the highlights in Google searches, the full studies are usually only able to be read by those who are members to the organization and have paid for access to said journals.
While you can simply use the free resources available, there is a distinct risk of basing your own work or conclusions on opinions or popular trends instead of hard science. However, that being said, this is part of the rationale for why Evidence Based Medicine is the only approach that makes sense for coming to conclusions that you will use for your own training or for that of your students. At the end of the day, EBC will be your own personal “proof in the pudding” as they say.
Muscular Endurance — Some Of The Science
I like to start with the science perspective — university, medical community, etc. I like to read the journals that the professional researchers read to get a solid foundation before I begin to let Mr. Google tell me he (and all of his many followers) think.
The first place I started was a position statement by the ACSM:
“Muscular strength and endurance are developed by the progressive overload principle, i.e., by increasing more than normal the resistance to movement or frequency and duration of activity. Muscular strength is best developed by using heavier weights (that require maximum or near maximum tension development) with few repetitions, and muscular endurance is best developed by using lighter weights with a greater number of repetitions (1).”
While this is clearly directed towards weight training, the application to cycling is also pretty obvious — the additional weight is represented by heavier gears (or steeper hills) and the greater number of repititions is represented by increasing cadence ranges.
In another article from the Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise it says:
“…the extent of neuromuscular fatigue during pedaling exercise varies among different cadences and minimal fatigue is obtained at a considerably higher cadence (2).”
So from the above two statements we see the standard stress and adaptation principle being referenced and that there are cadence levels that result in lower muscular fatigue. Therefore this allows us to infer that there are cadence levels that encounter greater muscular fatigue, and hence it will be those levels that will promote the “progressive overload” we will need to force the adaptation or improvements in our muscular performance — either strength or endurance.
Muscular Endurance — Some Of The Practice
Here it is super easy to find out what so many coaches and instructors are doing to work on Muscular Endurance (ME). We see cadence guidelines that range between 65 RPM and 85 RPM across may different coaches, where the sweet spot is probably 70 to 80 RPM. However, when it comes to intensity or heart rate, there is considerable variation. The range typically starts at a low of T1 or Low Zone 3 (based on a 5 zone system with bottom of zone 5 your High Threshold), and goes to High zone 4. If we also throw out the lowest low and the highest high, we have an intensity level “sweet spot” that puts us between the middle of Zone 3 and the middle of Zone 4.
So in summary, the science confirms that we can create or promote the improvements in muscular endurance by specifying training rides within a cadence range of 70 to 80 RPM while working at an intensity level of Mid Zone 3 to Mid Zone 4.
The next question to look at is duration of the training, the amount of recovery between ME drills, and the number of ME workouts in a given week. Also, this begs the question if we workout at the low ends of both Cadence and Heart rate, would it take longer to see the training effects than if we worked at the high ends of both. In other words, if we do two weeks of 80 rpm (actually the higher RPM represents lower muscle fatigue) and mid Zone 3 work, will this produce less of an improvement than working at 70 rpm while in mid Zone 4.
If that would be true, then we can use this information to prescribe varying levels of ME work based on the fitness level or the time frame a coach and student are working with. Even more interesting would be the possibility of creating a numeric scale that we could use to “measure” the amount of ME work a student has been doing over a given period of time.
The next post will discuss how we can set up a study to do just that.
by Gino | May 12, 2012 | Master Instructor Blog
So, my little ploy to try and get you to help me write this blog, and do some of this research has fallen flat — no response, no takers L Not to worry, we intrepid pioneers are used to surprises good and bad, obstacles and nay sayers. Heck, I no sooner had the first few blog posts up and the criticisms in the forums started.
Undaunted we press on. However, in the face of apathy or opposition, I find that you must have a very compelling and even personal stake in the subject at hand. Without that, your will and motivation to continue against a cowardly cloud of negativity will wane, and the lack of resolve will be your undoing; the study will end up incomplete or poorly executed.
Solve a Problem or Just Learn & Discover
Last post we talked about using some test subjects to help us form a statement of the problem we wish to solve or learning objective we hope to accomplish (yes, sometimes research is just meant to satisfy curiosity and the often insatiable desire to learn). In lieu of a group consensus, we will pursue something recent and applicable to some of the training we are working with at Cycling Fusionâ„¢. We (my partner Tom Scotto and I) have been trying to establish cadence and Heart Zone guidelines for Muscular Endurance and Tempo rides.
It is our contention, based on our collective experience in training for our own races, and training others for varying degrees of cycling, that these two components (heart rate and cadence) can be combined to insure a greater degree of training specificity, and that some of the specific training adaptations can be targeted by prescribing clear ranges for these parameters.
KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)
While this acronym can apply to most of life, it is even more important in the field of science and scientific research. Its application here is fairly clear right from the start. To wit: since Muscular Endurance and Tempo rides target different adaptations, we will simplify our study by selecting Muscular Endurance alone as the subject of inquiry. This is the second step in setting up a research study after selecting a topic that is to simplify your subject of inquiry before going any further.
The next tangible step is to come up with a clear statement or working hypothesis (more on that in the next post). However, first we must do a relatively thorough review of the literature to see how much has already been done on the topic, and if that work is directly or indirectly pertinent. Armed with that information, we will be in a better position to form our guiding statement or hypothesis.
The Process So Far
- Select a topic of study
- Simplify the topic
- Conduct a review of the literature
You are welcome to join me by independently researching “Muscular Endurance for Cycling” and specifically its relationship to cadence and heart rate. We will report our findings in the next blog post.
by Gino | May 3, 2012 | Master Instructor Blog
If you’ve read the prior blogs (my hats off to you — I couldn’t get through them without nodding off), you know that the first place to start is with a review of the existing literature. Whatever you can find on the internet and/or conversations with other experienced cycling instructors and coaches should be thoroughly reviewed before beginning your first project.
Solve a Problem, Meet an Objective, But Be Specific
However, even the literature review is jumping the gun a bit. First and foremost you need to state the problem or objective you are trying to solve or achieve. For example, some of your students want to overcome a specific problem or limitation, or achieve a specific objective. You’ll have to dig deep to define exactly what to target in your Evidence Based Cycling (EBC) research.
For example, they might be complaining that the hills are always their “nemesis”, and that they must find a way to get better at handling the hills.
As stated, this problem is still so broad, it would not lend itself to any scientific process of investigation or discovery, so this is where you can begin using one of several types of research methodology — that of simple Exploration. Those students who are interested in taking the EBC journey with you will need to make their own observations and report them back to you. This process of reporting will do two things, it will help them begin to articulate more clearly what their perception of the problem is, and as these self reports are compared from one rider to another, patterns or common elements will begin to emerge.
The long and short of this step is to arrive at a statement of that is clear and specific enough that it can be applied to the basic steps of the scientific method of research. Here are those basic steps compliments of The Science Buddies:
Source: The Science Buddies - http://www.sciencebuddies.org
Rather than continue with a hypothetical example, let’s turn this blog into a collaborative EBC project. For those of you reading along, you are obviously already interested and are thus the most likely to be willing to participate and provide useful information. So this is what we are going to do:
- Select/recruit 2 to 4 Complete Riders (those who ride inside and out and value the benefits of both environments) who wish to improve their outdoor climbing
- Ask them to select one of their most variable climbing routes (the route with the most variety of climbs) and to collect both objective and subjective data for each significant climb on that route. A significant climb is any that is at least 4% grade or more, and lasts 1 minute or more)
- Ask them to ride the route making sure to lap their heart monitor at the beginning and end of each hill.
- In addition, they should make subjective observations or notes at the end of each route — yes that means stopping after completing each ascent and writing or if they have a smartphone they can simply voice record their thoughts and transcribe them later.
- Once collected, send the objective data to me, and we will look for the most common themes, and create our initial first step for an EBC project — an articulation of our question, or a definition of our problem that we can get started with. Email your questions as well to gene at cyclingfusion dot com.
by Gino | Apr 20, 2012 | Master Instructor Blog
Gil our guinea pig is training for our next EBC (Evidence Based Cycling) project. The problem is his bike is in the shop, so he might just have to sit this one out.
Unless you have a whole team of guinea pigs as talented as Gil, you will have to recruit students or fellow riding buddies to participate in your quest for Evidence Based answers as it relates to cycling and cycling training. Naturally, fellow “data geeks” will be your low hanging fruit. However, since any over-concentration on one type of cycling demographic may skew results to just that population group, you will want to get as broad a representation of your cycling group as possible.
That being said, you can also do EBC that purposefully only applies to a given type or group of riders. For example, you may want to investigate the best ways to get a brand new rider used to the dreaded bike saddle. While opinions and experiences vary, the fact that this is an initial obstacle or deterrent to newbies would be something worth studying. This topic would easily be pertinent to just that type of rider (what we may refer to in the future as a demographic or population group).
Outside of those students that have a penchant for data and understanding the What, Where and Why of their cycling performance, you will need them to have training tools for measurement. While we do not pooh pooh subjective comments and the ever-popular RPE scale (well, maybe a little pooh pooh is justified at times), ultimately we will want to quantify our results. This in turn should lead us to a method of arriving at a more objective conclusion and testable recommendations.
Assuming you’ve identified the glorious geeks among us, you’ve confirmed that they own or have access to training tools, and you’ve got a good cross section represented in your EBC team, you’re ready to get started.
The next step is to select a topic of investigation; an initial project that will get your feet wet and help you and the group begin to learn about and experience the basic Scientific Method. Those fundamentals will be covered in the next post.
by Gino | Apr 5, 2012 | Master Instructor Blog
Until I took the red pill (see initial post), I spent 95% of my working life in healthcare; specifically workflow methods and technology. As I got more and more involved on the clinical side of the equation, I began to learn about a distinct approach to the real life practice of delivering care to the patient called Evidence Based Medicine. In some ways, it looked to put to bed some of the same issues I feel burdened with as I continue to teach Indoor Cycling Instructors and coach competitive riders; that of competing opinions or treatment protocols for the same set of symptoms or circumstances.
In the case of practicing medicine, researchers and physicians in the day to day work of caring for patients were trying to answer the question “Is there a best practice here?” Instead of going with the status quo, or citing the research material that best support a given physician’s personal preferences, those who ascribed to tenants of Evidence Based medicine would often conduct their own research. This was often coupled with retrospectively looking at a lot of data from patients treated at their specific facility in order to uncover the patterns or practice protocols that yielded the best outcomes.
Perhaps this is why I started down this path early in my initial days after opening my own cycling studio in the suburbs of Pittsburgh. I started the studio from day 1 as a facility for mountain bikers, road cyclists & rails to trails recreational riders; to produce better fitness, better results, and more enjoyable riding.
Little did I know that there were entire groups of indoor riders who didn’t even ride outside. Little did I know that there were seasoned outdoor riders that would never ride inside if their life depended on it. Little did I know that there were techniques of riding inside that seemed to have nothing to do with how actual bikes are ridden. Little did I know that outdoor riders would actually trade good training and a comfortable environment for the status or challenge of enduring all manner of horrendous weather conditions, as a sort of “badge of honor” among the super dedicated.
Consequently, I was faced with groups that already had clear lines of demarcation and identification, and the harmonious “blending” of activities and venues I had a vision for was proving to be a bigger pipe dream than I had anticipated. The harmonizing I was looking for was much closer to dissonant jazz than a crooning quartet, and if I were to make any progress, it was clear that I was going to have to “prove my case”.
Now almost 5 years later, after pirating the practice methods, I’m borrowing the term and calling it Evidence Based Cycling.
