Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #1 
You know  how , when you work  on your own  sometimes  you feel out of this world.
 This for sure, when I  get involved in some very  interesting discussions. This forum opened  a whole new world  of  super interesting people  to  have discussions.
 So when we  ask critical questions  than it is not  an attack to any body=y  but it is  what it is a  simple  critical question  , whether  we sometimes have to accept, that what we found great  and   the best  has to be    reviewed  to find  out  that we can at least improve upon the ideas.
 One of this ideas  is  with  change in technology the  way we assess and we  produce train plan's.
 The regular reader may have  found out in the mean time, that we  do not believe that much in  non  responder  and res ponder but rather in inability of  us  as coaches    to find a proper stimulus  for each individual athlete.
 As  such classical ideas  with cook books  and    zoning  with  any calculator   may have to be reviewed  to say it  nicely.
 The fact , that I  can produce  a training plan based on  a  %  of wattage or  % of HR  for all  my athletes  is  great  but  is  it good ?
 Here  a nice  feedback  and he wrote>
 
From: 
Sent:January-01-15 2:19:35 PM
To: 
 
 
Tnx!
 
By the way. The editorial of the latest
Journal of Science in cycling may sound a (tiny bit?) like music to your ears?;

 Here a short  part of it

Is it time to re-evaluate the training study?

James G Hopker

 

1

and Louis Passfield 1

Prescribing training involves the manipulation of intensity, duration and frequency of the sessions to improve cycling performance. As sports scientists our ideal is to help provide an objective scientific basis for this training prescription. But whilst we have developed an intimate knowledge of training adaptations and their regulating molecular signals (Stepto et al., 2009), we do not appear to be moving closer to providing a scientific basis from which to design effective training programmes (Borreson and Lambert, 2009). Below we post 3 questions for future training related research studies to consider. 1) Are training studies using appropriate indices for specifying training intensity? 2) Should training studies take more account of individual variation? 3) Are training studies examining the right question?

There appears to be increasing agreement that the response to a standardised training programme can be remarkably diverse (Mann et al., 2014). This has lead some to examine these training "responders" and "non-responders" and its genetic basis (Ehlert et al. 2013). Surprisingly, the alternative hypothesis that training has not been standardised appropriately appears to have been little considered (Mann et al. 2014). From this perspective the issue becomes not whether a cyclist is a responder or a non-responder, but rather what is his or her optimal training intensity. For example, it has long been established that cyclists’ time to exhaustion at the same relative intensity can vary hugely. Coyle et al. (1988) found that at 88% VO

 

2max cyclists’ time to exhaustion varied from 12 min to 75 min. However, the method for prescribing training in most studies remains standardised as a percentage of maximum. Consequently, it seems unsurprising that the training response differs between two cyclists training at a standardised intensity that yields such a diverse response to even a single bout of exercise. Even where the ability to sustain a standardised training intensity is more carefully controlled, the underlying assumption that this is linked to a training response remains unproven.

  and here thefull article sent to me  by Ruud
http://www.jsc-journal.com/ojs/index.php?journal=JSC&page=article&op=download&path%5B%5D=170&path%5B%5D=239


Juerg Feldmann

Fortiori Design LLC
Registered:
Posts: 1,530
 #2 
Thanks for all the positive mail concerning some of our  loud  critical questions concerning the "classical " coaching and testing ideas  from Zoning to periodization. Here  where we seem to get some support on what we try to do with MOXY :
 1

 

James G Hopker 1and Louis Passfield 1

Prescribing training involves the

 

 

James G Hopker 1and Louis Passfield 1

 

 

 

Prescribing training involves the manipulation of intensity, duration and frequency of the sessions to improve cycling performance.

 

 

I like their straignt forward  wording : Manipulation as we completely agree, that  what ever we currently use is a manipulation . We  take a  calculator and  get a zoning  which is a calculation based on many manipulations. LT is one of the best current  ideas of  how we manipulate a  point , called threshold  and how we manipulate the point  due to step length  and what ever it needs  to find a  mythical lactae sudden increase.

 This is what we think BIO markers  will change as we have live real time feedbacks.

 The second part  from the nice  paper is :


1) Are training studies using appropriate indices for specifying training intensity?

Calculator % versus live  physiological feedbacks ?

2) Should training studies take more account of individual variation?

That is really all and the only  thing we look at in a 5/1/5 assessment and therefor the training ideas built on this findings.


3) Are training studies examining the right question?

Looking for a maximal performance  versus looking for limiter and compensator

 An interesting 2015 is  just ahead of us.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

HTML hit counter - Quick-counter.net