improving AT

2LAP

Thanks Sanmi, good response.

I feel too that the MLSS is a very important marker for both performance and laboratory conditions, I have no doubt that its use will become more wide spread.

My point is that LT already had a set definition, making it one of a number of points are used to describe 'AT'. OBLA and MLSS are not measures of LT; rather they are measures of OBLA and MLSS which both have a definition of their own.

Far from being 'wrong' as you have put it perhaps we should say it it less 'useful'; OBLA is the point where 4 mmol La is measured and you have shown that it is not a good indicator of a number of physiological events (particularly what is happening in the muscle).

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com

sanmi

2lap,

Completly Agree. Good response.

J-MAT

Sanmi:

Thank God for George Brooks. He is what you have put all your faith in. Who will it be in ten years from now when George Brooks is "obsolete" and "wrong." Will your beliefs today be wrong in ten years when a new guru hits the scene with a new book??? George Brooks might have also said the world was flat many centuries ago. A lot of "experts" at the time bought that idea hook, line, and sinker also.

If you will be wrong in ten years that also means you are wrong today. You can't be right now and wrong in the future.

Unfortunately, human physiology has not changed in 10 years, 30 years, or 100 years. "Outdated" concepts like AT, 4mM, etc., produced many fine champions, champions that stand every bit as tall, maybe even taller, when compared to riders of today.

Personally, I could care less what you want to call things. We have to give things names in order to communicate. I suppose that since physiologists can't improve human perfomance over 30 years, they have to do something with their time. Creating new definitions might give them something to do.

Sport science, powermeters, portable lactate analysers, etc. have not made any difference in cycling performance in 30 years. Neither will insisting that only LT is correct. I am hardly insecure about my beliefs. To the contrary, you have gone out of your way to try to convince me you are right.

Don't like my tone??? It's not my style to criticize others telling them they are wrong, but it seems to be yours. Unfortunately, you opened the door to this line of debate and don't like what walked through.

Guys like you always pop up and try to force your will on others telling them what is "correct as of today." How do you know you or George Brooks are right??? Can you prove it??? If not, perhaps you might want to open your mind a little and grant others some latitude, especially when nobody can agree on what terms mean. Perhaps you should lighten up.

If you or George Brooks could make riders dramatically faster with your "current" thoughts on physiology, that would be one thing, but you can't. Since you can't, why waste time with the tediousness of academia??? The riders on the board just want to go faster. What are you doing to make riders faster???

__________________
Send comments, praise, or flames to:
jm_560@Hotmail.com

sanmi

Dear J-Mat.

I won´t waste my time with you anymore for 3 reasons:

1. Your tone is unrespectful.
2. Your are not Knownledgabe about lactate and don´t even provide me with any scientific data (research studies) when you "argue".
3. About me not helping cyclists with my "Tediousness Academia", I would tell you that I have worked for six years now with Three Division I Teams. (In case you don´t know, Division 1 teams are world´s top Cycling pro Teams) and next year I will be involved still. In these years I have worked with Tour de France, Giro and Vuelta contenders, some of them Podiums in these events, so I think that I have helped some....

J-MAT

Sanmi:

I thought a few posts ago you promised not to argue with me anymore. Oh well, so much for promises...

About being "unrespectful," you have to earn respect first before you can command it.

I can see that you are a "study" person. You should know that studies can't tell you how to win a race or the best way to train. So, why waste your time (and other peoples money) with them???

Why should I provide you with studies??? You already know everything, and would tell me my sources were wrong and you were right. After all, you have done your study, and determined that many other scientists were wrong, they were chasing something that didn't exist.

Sounds like the hallmark of an objective scientist doesn't it??? How do we know that your science is any good??? Should we just take your word for it???

Perhaps you don't like my tone because I quickly cut to the heart of the matter. Perhaps you don't like it when I ask you who determines what and you are unable to answer. Or that all the years and thousands of dollars spent obtaining a certain degree can't make a rider any faster.

The truth is the truth, and the truth is degrees, titles, and studies aren't worth a few drops of lube on a worn-out chain when it comes to getting a rider on the podium.

Cyrille Guimard is the most successful professional cycling coach in history. He is also a high-school dropout. What would your studies teach him about getting a rider on the podium???

You claim you worked for three division 1 teams in 6 years. People who empty the garbage for a team help the team. What exactly did you do to get a rider on the podium???

__________________
Send comments, praise, or flames to:
jm_560@Hotmail.com

2LAP

I agree they can't help you win races, but they do provide you with pointers and contain a lot of information about training.

I think there is scope for both approaches. The GB squad is doing OK under the guidance of Peter Keen and the GB coaches (most of which have degrees; Peter Keen having a Masters, honerary PHD and a lot of talent as a coach/performance director). I hope that Gb keeps the success going now Keen has left GB in his full time role.

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com

TTer

This guy's apparent lack of qualification is always thrown around.

You have to take into account he rode as a professional though, which although it's not the most scientific way to learn about training, is an excellent opportunity for many years of trial and error. But who's to say he didn't read the science on training and exercise physiology while riding, or once he quit and started coaching? Many ex-riders that become coaches start to study the science behind training. All this combined makes the guy very well qualified, maybe not to an academic standard such as BSc or MSc level, but certainly not the 'high school drop-out' he is forever classed as!

I'm sure many of us weren't too hot at school (Ric, 2LAP? ) but have gone on to learn so much most since leaving school or going to uni.

PS: J-MAT, I wish you would get to the point sometimes! Your posts are quite long Maybe you're scarred like me by an old english teacher that insisted an essay had to be 200 words and you struggled to pad it out to that size?

2LAP

School, oh yes, that was the place I used to go to on days I wasn't training. Never much good at that. Nice view out the window though!

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com