Benefits of muscle tension intervals?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Hi,

Does anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or empirical, on the results of doing the Carmichael style muscle tension intervals?

At 40 years young, I believe my body comes slowly to form after a gradual build up with 2Xweekly SST and 3Xweekly upper end aerobic, but LT intensity delaying to the spring. Yes, I am a trainer fiend.

What benefits will grinding out 55rpm do for a reasonable Cat 4 who loves climbing
(140lb) and would like to match some of his chunkier team mates on the club 10k TT?

Thanks for any input,

Gazzz

There's a good article here:


http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/

Hi,

Does anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or empirical, on the results of doing the Carmichael style muscle tension intervals?

At 40 years young, I believe my body comes slowly to form after a gradual build up with 2Xweekly SST and 3Xweekly upper end aerobic, but LT intensity delaying to the spring. Yes, I am a trainer fiend.

What benefits will grinding out 55rpm do for a reasonable Cat 4 who loves climbing
(140lb) and would like to match some of his chunkier team mates on the club 10k TT?

Thanks for any input,

Gazzzwell IMHO:

One Effect will likely be sore knees.
A second will be significantly reduced HR during such intervals.
A third will be excitement based on #2 but tempered by #1.
A fourth will be 'sad realization' once you return to normal cadences at normal power. IOW, that drop in HR (or increase in working Power/HR ratio) was meaningless.
I tried some 70 rpm work one winter at only tempo power and still got sore knees (plus the other symptoms :D ). I will admit I 'felt' a bit 'stronger' pushing over some short hills/grades w/o changing gear but I quickly reverted to using my gears again!

There's a good article here:


http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/

disregard this article or anything rick stern says on this forum. with all the different modes of training, a guy has to keep some variety in training (most of the so called experts havent seen a 300-400 mile bike week ever)....do some big gear work, but dont over do it and get sore knees like the one guy said. i mix it in with the rest of workouts and the quads usually acknowledge it the next day.

disregard this article or anything rick stern says on this forum.

Only at your peril! ;)

with all the different modes of training, a guy has to keep some variety in training

Wouldn't the fact that there are so many different ways to train mean that it's easier to eliminate one, and still have plenty of variety?

(most of the so called experts havent seen a 300-400 mile bike week ever).

Just an FYI: back when I was a cat. 1 - in fact, even back when I was a junior - I would routinely train >300 mi/wk, and 400+ mi weeks weren't uncommon. Of course, that was back before I discovered that there are far more time-efficient (albeit less fun) ways of achieving the same goals.

...do some big gear work, but dont over do it and get sore knees like the one guy said. i mix it in with the rest of workouts and the quads usually acknowledge it the next day.

So if it hurts it must be good for you, eh? ;)

disregard this article or anything rick stern


Well, if you ignore article's by Andy C, you're obviously more moronic than you look.

Anyway, it's "Ric" not "Rick", so i suggest some adult spelling and reading classes for you.


says on this forum. with all the different modes of training, a guy has to keep some variety in training (most of the so called experts havent seen a 300-400 mile bike week ever)....do some big gear work, but dont over do it and get sore knees like the one guy said. i mix it in with the rest of workouts and the quads usually acknowledge it the next day.

Well, if i'm one of your "so called experts", then again, as you were with Andy, you're wrong. I've had plenty of > 600 km weeks (especially when i raced in France).

Ric

What benefits will grinding out 55rpm do for a reasonable Cat 4 who loves climbingYou'll probably get better at doing climbs at 55rpm.;)

So unless that's a requirement due to the nature of the hills you intend to climb and your bike's gearing, then there really isn't any point in doing them at such low revs. Just climb the hill.

If you have some belief that it will make you "stronger", then forget it, it won't.

I would imagine ignoring a professional and experienced coach like Ric Stern and instead listening to somebody, err, less knowledgeable is highly unwise.

Just as we don't wrap tubular tyres round our shoulders, flip a wheel around to change to the other gear or strap our feet to pedals, so too don't we ride a bike 8 hours a day, 6 days a week. It would seem training methods have moved on from that, particularly for the time-conscious amateurs.

You'll probably get better at doing climbs at 55rpm.;)

So unless that's a requirement due to the nature of the hills you intend to climb and your bike's gearing, then there really isn't any point in doing them at such low revs. Just climb the hill.

If you have some belief that it will make you "stronger", then forget it, it won't.
I normally like to ride at about 90 rpm. My local "climb" (actually, I have to ride ~60km to get there) is only 850m long with 4 switchbacks (at least I think it's 4 - it's all a blurr). ;) 6 w/kg will get you up it in ~3.5 min. In my easiest gears, alternating between 39/23 and 39/25, my average cadence is around 70 rpm.

Although I finished in 2nd place at this year's race,:) I am on the fence about whether to put a 27 on the next time I race there. I guess the alternative is to do some L5 training at 70 rpm. :(

Thanks for all the input.

Here in Utah, there are lots of long climbs that reduce me a low cadence, but not 50-55rpm - usually!

A lot of this is psychological for me, The muscle tension intervals "feel" like winter work. And then there's the mystique from their being associated with Lance...

From what I read, the benefits I am seeking would be better pursued from longer intervals at or just below threshold and more intense over geared shrt intervals.

Fair summary?

Thanks for all the input.

And then there's the mystique from their being associated with Lance...

But Carmichael wasn't Lance's trainer. Dr. Ferrari was...

If you google for these kind of intervals you will find plenty of people claiming success with them. There was a study carried out at the University of Auckland (in 2006 I think) that pointed quite strongly to an improvement in 40km TT time when using this type of training over an 8 week period, I found the article on the Peak Performance website but couldn't see it when I had a quick look to find the link. They used cadence of between 40 and 80 rpm to get their results showing an improvement of 6.4 +/- 7.7% in 40Km TT mean power and a reduction in 40Km TT time of 2.3 +/- 2.9%.

I thought they helped me in my TT training last season but there seems to be many ways to end up at the same place.

If you google for these kind of intervals you will find plenty of people claiming success with them. There was a study carried out at the University of Auckland (in 2006 I think) that pointed quite strongly to an improvement in 40km TT time when using this type of training over an 8 week period, I found the article on the Peak Performance website but couldn't see it when I had a quick look to find the link. They used cadence of between 40 and 80 rpm to get their results showing an improvement of 6.4 +/- 7.7% in 40Km TT mean power and a reduction in 40Km TT time of 2.3 +/- 2.9%.

I thought they helped me in my TT training last season but there seems to be many ways to end up at the same place.

if it's the study i'm thinking of, it wasn't a well controlled study...

ric

if it's the study i'm thinking of, it wasn't a well controlled study...

ric


I found a link to a summary of results. The study was by Amy M. Taylor-Mason

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/05/amt-m.htm

There are links to the full article there.

Ric - is this the study you are referring to?

"METHODS. In a randomized controlled trial, 10 cyclists in a control group maintained usual training and competing while 12 cyclists in an experimental group replaced part of their usual training with high resistance interval training twice weekly for 8 wk. Mean power in a 40-km simulated time trial, maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), incremental peak power, body composition, and leg strength were measured before and after training."

This study's flaw is that there is no control of training load. Therefore, the increased power probably came from an "inadvertent taper" due to part of the normal training load being replaced by weight training.

After reading this article it appears that the physical benefits are not that much different from that doing a normal cadence. What about the mental benefits. i did a hundred mile ride late summer and trained mostly on flat roads. This ride had a lot of hills. I think the benefit of low cadence training would have more of a mental benefit. I am definitely doing some low cadence training this spring so that when I do this 100 mile ride again(Philly Schuylkill 100) I will be better able to handle the Hillls.
There's a good article here:


http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/

This study's flaw is that there is no control of training load. Therefore, the increased power probably came from an "inadvertent taper" due to part of the normal training load being replaced by weight training.
[/QUOTE]

Looking at the expanded information in the links which further describe the method and intervention principals used it would appear the subjects that undertook the high resistance intervals would likely have equalled or increased their training load during the trial.

There is no weight training going on in this study - the high resistance intervals are all done on the bike.

I'm not sure how you would truly quantify training loads in different groups to arrive at an exact comparison but regardless it would appear that in this case a clear benefit was gained through the use of these intervals.

This study's flaw is that there is no control of training load. Therefore, the increased power probably came from an "inadvertent taper" due to part of the normal training load being replaced by weight training.

Looking at the expanded information in the links which further describe the method and intervention principals used it would appear the subjects that undertook the high resistance intervals would likely have equalled or increased their training load during the trial.

There is no weight training going on in this study - the high resistance intervals are all done on the bike.

I'm not sure how you would truly quantify training loads in different groups to arrive at an exact comparison but regardless it would appear that in this case a clear benefit was gained through the use of these intervals.[/QUOTE]
I missed the link! Upon reading the text the interventions seems to be a mix of low-candence L5 and L4 intervals:

"Sessions consisted of 5-6 intervals of 3 to 22 minutes, and the total interval duration per session increased steadily from 25 min in Week 1 through 55 min in Week 8. Rest periods in between work intervals ranged from 1 to 5 minutes."

Still, one cannot draw any conclusion. regarding low cadence intervals The training load of both groups is not quantified and other studies have shown normal cadence intervals produce a similar effect.

How to quantify training loads: Cycling Peaks Software, since this is all on-bike exercise.

Still, one cannot draw any conclusion. regarding low cadence intervals The training load of both groups is not quantified and other studies have shown normal cadence intervals produce a similar effect.[/size][/size][/size]

How to quantify training loads: Cycling Peaks Software, since this is all on-bike exercise.


[/QUOTE]

I agree that you can't compare the training loads with the information given, at the least you would need the training diaries that the riders kept for that comparison.

The aim of the study was to compare these riders normal training routines to one which was modified by the use of high-resistance intervals, as such they have shown that an increase in power/decrease in TT time was attained in this case. It may be that this was achieved simply by adding L4/5 intervals to the training but this can't be proven without including another experimental group in the study.

Do you know of any studies that have compared normal cadence and low cadence intervals directly?

About a year ago this was a topic of discussion on the Wattage Forum. I do not believe anyone could provide reference to a well-designed study proving any additional benefit to muscle tension intervals. IMHO, I believe proving efficacy would be quite difficult, given that any benefit over normal-cadence intervals if it existed would be small, on the order of a couple percent.