I got my blood test results today, of interest is cholesterol levels.  Eating HFLC, pretty-much all the time for the last two months after being inspired to be more serious about it by Cereal Killers Movie and meeting Dr Bruckner et al.  All units in mmol/L
Total : 6.3
Triglycerides : 1.5
HDL : 1.4
LDL : 4.2
Chol/HDL ratio : 4.5.

From this calculator : http://www.hughcalc.org/chol2013.php it states :

Your Total Cholesterol of 6.3 is DESIRABLE
Your LDL of 4.2 is OPTIMAL
Your HDL of 1.4 is HIGH RISK
Your Triglyceride level of 1.5 is NORMAL

RATIOS:
Your Total Cholesterol/HDL ratio is: 4.50 - (preferably under 5.0, ideally under 3.5) GOOD
Your LDL/HDL ratio is: 3.000 - (preferably under 5.0, ideally under 2.0) GOOD
Your triglycerides/HDL ratio is: 1.071 - (preferably under 4, ideally under 2) IDEAL

The report from Dorevitch states  :
"In this patient the cholesterol level and ratio suggest low CHD risk".

So although the HDL pops up as an alert, it's the ratio that seems to be more important, and we didn't get a particle size test done on the LDL, despite asking Dorevitch for it.  Might have to further investigate out of curiosity. Tim Noakes makes the point that the particle size is all important, and I don't have that data.

http://lowcarbdownunder.com.au/cereal_killers/

Get on it!  Ironically, it's at the Jam Factory!

http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2013/08/15/cargo-cult-administration/

http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

Interesting, it applies to a lot of fields (all of them?!) - People do things because they've seen them done, not necessarily becaise they understand the reasons why or how they work.

As a coach, it's important not just to "do" but also to understand why we do what we do.  It's ok to copy/learn from other programs, disciplines and coaches, but ONLY if we know why and how - or at least, have some understanding of the method.  Not everything in coaching is clear cut and often the "evidence base" is pretty flimsy, but we must strive towards greater understanding of what we do, why and how it works (or doesn't!).

Coaches are not scientists, we're engineers.  We apply the best available science, mix in some gut feeling and experience where the science is lacking, and run with it to build bridges.  We need to understand science much as an engineer does, we have to be able to speak the langauage and ask the right questions (see this : http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/exercise_science_presentation_2013_part_i as an example of how to read and question ex phys papers).  We're not scientists, but we have to think like them sometimes, and call them if they're making mistakes.  It happens, a lot.  A lot more than we'd like!

(I'm a big Feynman fan, I have a few of his books, the guy was a once in a lifetime genius)

Everyone wants to go faster, either in sprints, or boost their thresholds for those long, tedious bits before a sprint finish in an endurance race. One way to do this is to cheat, doping works.  It's a fact.  It works. 

Culturally, how do we try and prevent it?  For starters, we don't do what the Peaks coaching group have just done, they're now loudly flogging some magic concentrated beet juice as a miracle performance enhancer, but it's ok because it's natural or something.  It's a supplement and it's not banned (yet, who knows if, like caffeine, it'll be a threshold thing, too much NO and you're busted), that's true,  but it's the wrong thing to be doing (hey, I guess they want to make a buck, and they are the exclusive US distributor of one particular blend, all's fair, right?).  No.  Wrong.  Wrong message. 

"The nitrates in Beet It beet concentrate offer the athlete a competitive advantage, some studies showing up to 16% improvement in endurance! I noticed the difference with Beet It shots after my first use! It's a subtle ability to push harder for longer. Who doesn't want this!?!"

This is right when the fuss about Lance and doping is front page news.  Seriously?!

From http://www.jissn.com/content/9/1/34

:

Results

No significant differences were detected between VLCKD and WD in all strength tests. Significant differences were found in body weight and body composition: after VLCKD there was a decrease in body weight (from 69.6 ± 7.3 Kg to 68.0 ± 7.5 Kg) and fat mass (from 5.3 ± 1.3 Kg to 3.4 ± 0.8 Kg p < 0.001) with a non-significant increase in muscle mass.

Conclusions

Despite concerns of coaches and doctors about the possible detrimental effects of low carbohydrate diets on athletic performance and the well known importance of carbohydrates there are no data about VLCKD and strength performance. The undeniable and sudden effect of VLCKD on fat loss may be useful for those athletes who compete in sports based on weight class. We have demonstrated that using VLCKD for a relatively short time period (i.e. 30 days) can decrease body weight and body fat without negative effects on strength performance in high level athletes.

Ok, many of you have heard the story by now, train/practice for 10,000 hours and you will be the best in the world, a champion, an outlier etc.  It's the stuff of dreams, you can be the best if you just work hard enough.  That's an idea that sells a lot of books.

Unfortunately, it's wrong. Or to be generous, it's incomplete.

I first read about this 10,000 hour thing in Dan Coyle's "The Talent Code".  A good book, with lots of things to learn from from a coaching perspective.  I've adopted a lot of what Coyle wrote about in my coaching practice, it's good stuff, but it's missing something fundamental.  It's also the fundamental argument made by Mathew Syed in "Bounce".  Notably, Syed is a table tennis player, perhaps not the most physical of sports.  In the recently published "The Secret Olympian" (anon, but it's a British rower, a bit of googling will tell you who wrote it), "anon" writes :

Syed's argument in Bounce - train enough and you'll be excellent at whatever you choose - is seductive.  It's probably true for table tennis.  But in general, it's wrong.  As Bas van de Goor neatly states, 'You can learn to play volleyball; you can't learn to be tall.  Genetics count'.

These guys are not going to be successful volleyballers, not if they spend 20,000 hours of practice in the best hotbed in the world.  Genetics matter.  You can't be an elite athlete in most sports without winning the genetic lottery at birth.  Sure, if you train you will improve, but how good can you get?  Can you be the best at the world at whatever you choose to?  Only if you've got the right genes.  If you want to sprint, and you don't have working ACTN3, forget being elite.  It just won't happen.

A good article on some of the basic genetics behind sprint performance states :

ACTN3 is just one of many factors influencing athletic performance
At the highest levels of performance ACTN3 genotype certainly make a big difference: among Olympic-level sprinters the frequency of individuals carrying two disrupted ACTN3 copies is vanishingly low (less than 3%, compared to ~18% in the general population). However, this large effect is due to the exceptionally strong selection that occurs during the slow climb to the Olympic level. The vast majority of athletes who start that climb will never make it to the top; those who do will be the tiny minority who have nearly everything in their favour, including the right genes.

So super-elite athletes need to have the right ACTN3 combination, but they also have to have a whole host of other factors working in their favour – this one gene is just a minor ingredient in a large and complex recipe. In fact, most studies performed so far suggest that ACTN3 explains just 2-3% of the variation in muscle function in the general population. The rest of the variation is determined by a wide range of genetic and environmental factors, most of which (particularly the genetic factors) are very poorly understood.

 So what does that mean?

You can train your backside off, but unless you're gifted with the right genes, you're not going to be an Olympian.  You will improve, but your upper limits are genetic.  Having the right genes is not enough, not by a long shot, the world is littered with people with the genes to be superb who for whatever reason ended up couch potatoes, but it is a very important part of mix if you want to be an elite athlete.

Well worth the 20 minutes it will take to watch :

Is it possible to be too strong?

No.

Is it possible to spend so much time training for strength that it impedes your ability to train on the bike? Ie: can you over-do strength to the detriment of your sprint cycling?

Yes.

Is the balance a tricky thing to find?

Yes!

Pictures vs words again ...

LSD is "Long, Slow Distance", or long rides at moderate to high (aerobic, E3) intensity, not high intensity short intervals (like Tabatas).

As sprinters, we need strength (and power) in spades, and some high intensity endurance, but not much (arguably not any) LSD work.  Hopefully that chart (borrowed from FIT, by Dr Lon Kilgore et al) helps explain that a little.

When we think of endurance, we usually think of long things, long rides, long efforts on the track, long runs (urgh!) etc.  That's part of it, sure.  In the context of sprint training, endurance is two things - the ability to produce power over the duration of our races (short times, not a lot of endurance required and it's very specific) AND, importantly, repeatability.

It's not enough to be able to ride a flying 200, you have to be able to repeat the effort, over and over.

So how do we train for that?  In the gym?  Yes, you can, we do multiple sets, anyone who'se trained with me in the 'Haus, knows we do 3x3 and 5x5 etc rep ranges, why?  The intensity comes from the first couple of sets, the last set is strength endurance, in a useful context. 

On the track?  Repeating efforts, not making them longer.

Rant ends here!

July 2011, it's going to be busy.  I'm going to Adelaide with the NTID and VIS kids on the 22nd for a sprint race meeting for J17's and J19's and then staying on for a week to assist/learn/get in the way with the pre Junior Worlds camp.  The camp is three weeks long and takes the kids going to Moscow from the race meeting on the 23rd and 24th through 'til their departure to Moscow.  I've been given the opportunity to stay with them for the first week and assist Sean Eadie.  Along the way hopefully I'll get a lot of learning done.  I'm looking forward to it, but I will be away from home for a week and will miss a couple of our winter DISC sessions. 

In actual fact, I'm probably going to miss almost all the DISC sessions through July, on the 16th and 17th I'm (assuming it goes ahead) doing a whitewater rescue course.  So I will probably miss that weekend also, and this coming Sunday I can't make it either.  I've written a program that the guys can do without needing much guidance.  Nathan's going to run this Sunday, I'll work something out for the others that I can't make.  Ergo anyone?!  Nah ... I didn't think so!  Anyway, it's going to be hectic, this July.

I do have heaps of reading to do.  I believe that any good coach needs to read widely and understand a lot of "stuff", so one of my current reads is a textbook on exercise physiology.  Things are going well in the 'Haus, I lifted an equal PB deadlift yesterday (and can feel it today .. stairs .. urgh!), power's been down a bit on the bike for the last couple of sessions, but I think that'll come good soon. the other sprint squad people and assorted ring ins are all lifting well and their numbers are getting better on the track too.  It's all good!

Oh, and we now have aboc Sprint Squad ploarfleece beanies.  Perfect to keep your bonce warm at DISC or spin this winter.  All the cool kids have one ..

$20 and you can have one too!

Back in the old days of sprinting, everyone rode tiny gears and span like the clappers.  It's reported that Gary Neiwand rode 92" at the Sydney Olympics (old days? That's only 11 years ago!).  Rev rev rev, that's what the coaches of the time drummed into everyone who was sprinting.  But now, everyone's (the ones who are winning, anyway) pushing bigger gears.  MUCH bigger gears.  I've personally seen 10.1 flying 200's ridden on gears in excess of 106" by riders far from peaking for their best performances. I've seen the 50 metre splits for their efforts.  The guys recording the fastest times are not necessarly the ones with the quickest individual splits (although they can be!) - but their drop off in the last 50 metres is less.  This is partially a pacing strategy - watch a modern flying 200 and you'll see the jump happening later than you'd expect, and partially a result of using bigger gears.

Big gears mean more strength is required to get going in the first place, but also, less fatigue per meter ridden.  The flying 200, for example, is a speed-endurance event that has a maximal exertion time of around 14-16 seconds from the kick to the finish line.  According to a recent study[1] fatigue is brought about by the number of maximal contractions, not so much the speed of them.  If you can use less pedal strokes to cover a set distance by making the gear bigger, you will fatigue less PER METER and thus, probably have a greater average speed over the distance.  You need the torque to accelerate that big gear though, which is why riders like Shane Perkins, Chris Hoy and Anna Meares have huge legs and backsides and like to lift heavy things in the gym.  This applies to sprinters, not enduros.  Lance was superb at 120rpm spinning away up hills winning the Tour, but we're talking about short term sprint efforts where, literraly, every fraction of a second counts and we're not running aerobically.  Different animals ...

So, mash big gears with pride, but make sure you're strong enough to get them going in the first place!

I wrote more on this in the book :

http://upupup.aboc.com.au/the-book/07-racing/flying-200/choice-of-gears

[1] Fatigue during Maximal Sprint Cycling: Unique Role of Cumulative Contraction Cycles, ALEKSANDAR TOMAS, EMMA Z. ROSS, and JAMES C. MARTIN, MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE 2009

Here's why :

  That's one of my favorite charts.  It tells us much about adaptation as a function of intensity.

Lift heavy, get strong ... Repeat!

Here's Sir Chris Hoy, talking about his favorite gym lift, the squat.  He's doing high bar, where we do low-bar in the 'Haus, but we'll let him get away with it this time .. If youtube is being consistent, the girl he's talking to is picking her nose in the sample shot below, heh!

Here's a diagram showing the different squat variants, stolen from Starting Strength, Basic Barbell Training, 2nd Ed.

For a long time I've been uneasy about the warmup generally recommended for sprint events.  Tradition states that the shorter the race, the longer the warmup. I've seen some VERY silly long warmups, one particular one at the Oceanias last year, this one bloke must have done a 4 hour warmup for a kilo, every time I walked by, he was on the rollers, or doing efforts on the track or an ergo etc ... by the time he started, he was knackered ... but OCD sillyness aside, the warmup for a sprint event is one that I think we can optimise and there's much room for variation and experimentation.  Some recent research from the University of Calgary cropped up this week that is of interest.

I don't have access to the published paper yet, so can't comment on the method or the quality of the research, so take this as unqualified conjecture from a reading of the abstract :

Shorter, less intense warmups seem to be producing better performances in sprint events.

This makes intuitive sense to me.  I don't really buy into the whole "you need a big warmup to prime the aerobic system", yes, you need to get your muscles and joints warm and some activation to turn on your nerves, but how much?  I think there's a lot of room here for individual sprinters to experiment with their warmups prior to competition, I don't think one size fits all here, not one bit.  Watching elite sprinters warm up, they all do it differently, and many of them do not do very much at all.

There's an age-old question in track sprint, and it's this : "How strong do you have to be?" or variations on that. Why do we care?  Because, unlike our roadie and to a lesser extent track enduro cousins, we have to push very hard indeed for a few pedal strokes to get up to speed, on what may be a pretty large gear.

No commercially available power meters give the full picture.  Powertap, SRM etc do not report peak torque in a useful way - they report averages (but measure everything, if you know how to ask them the right questions).  Averages for torque are  nice to know, but don't really answer the question.  Peak torque is how strong you are, and that's a very interesting figure to know.

I've been lucky enough to be involved in assisting a study being done around these parts which is looking deeply into the torque requirements of sprint cycling.  It's been very interesting so far and we're lucky to have some very fancy torque measurement equipment available to test some of the squad riders on.  I might even get a go on the thing myself if I'm lucky and they want to get some junk data from an old guy who's broken at the moment!  But anyway, it's proving to be very interesting indeed.  We might even be able to answer the question at the end of it.

Interesting times!

Pictures tell a thousand words .. (Thank you Dino for the photos, Emily & James for braving it)

As sprinters, we risk getting fat a lot more than our chronically undernourished enduro cousins. I've banged on about this a lot over the last few months and have some success at dropping weight (fat!) over the last 12 months.  As I've mentioned, I did it by basically following the logical conclusion of reading Gary Taube's Good Calories Bad Calories (ie: ditch the simple carbs).

Gary's just written a new blog entry that I enjoyed (thankyou Lisa for the heads up!).  The vacuously true 'we get fat because we overeat' observation (true, but useless!) gets looked at in the article.  Have a read, it's good stuff.

Some simple maths today.

A 500m ITT, on a 6.5m rollout (J17 gearing) is 77 revolutions, or about 39 pedal presses per leg.  On a 6m rollout (J15), it's 83 revs, 42 per leg.   Not much difference!

If the 500m is ridden in, for example, 39.8 seconds on a J15 gear, the average time per revolution is 0.48s, or 0.24s per each leg stroke. The average cadence is ~118rpm.  These averages are nonsense, the rider accelerates from a standing start which totally blows the average cadence calculation.

So, how about the flying 200, where the rider will mostly maintain speed for the distance (with some losses in the last 50m or so).  Let's take our J15 rider, and a sample time of 13.455 seconds.  200 metres at a 6m rollout is 33.3 revolutions, or about 17 pedal strokes per leg.  In 13.455 seconds that's 0.4s per rev, or 0.2s per pedal stroke.  If you consider that the leg only produces useful power in a short range of the pedal stroke, let's say about a 60 degree arc, that's two thirds of the pedal stroke that contributes useful power, so our J15 has about 0.13s to push as hard as they can per leg, 34 times (not including the windup, of course).  It's even less time if the rider's going faster, of course.  The Australian JW15 record for the F200 is 13.310s (Imogen Jelbart) and for JM15 it's 11.968s (Mitch Docker), Immy was spinning at around 150rpm, Mitch at close to 166rpm.  At those cadences each leg has around 0.1s to produce power and about 0.15s to recover before doing it again.  That's less than the blink of an eye.

I wonder how close the girls can go to the boys as juniors? If the female talent pool was larger would we see JW's keeping up with JM's, at least in the J15 and J17 groups? At these cadences on little gears it's not a strength game, it's how fast you can fire your triple extension and recover to repeat it.

Got to get 'em spinning when they're young ...  The game changes in J19 and above, but we've already discussed that here!