I opened up my copy of the UKSCA journal this weekend and read with great interest an article by Dr James Morton reviewing the literature surrounding some new training methodology for endurance athletes. It surrounds gaining specific endurance performance adaptation by altering your pre-training nutritional status.
One of the major physiological adaptations we try to get from endurance training is an increase in cell mitochondrial mass that, without going into great detail, allows you to perform at higher intensities for longer. The research area reviewed is finding some data to suggest that the best way to increase your mitochondrial mass is to train with reduced carbohydrate stores. One recommendation is to utilise a training block where instead of training daily, you train twice every second day and allow the second session to be the one with reduced carbohydrate stores; perhaps using a high intensity interval session to target that adaptation.
Before you start applying this to your own sessions there are a couple of considerations. There is no evidence to suggest that this works with resistance training. A prolonged period of exercising with low carbohydrate stores may lead to reduced immune function and increased risk of illness and as such may require an increased intake of certain vitamins and minerals, namely vitamin C, vitamin A and zinc, to reduce this risk. Finally, it is difficult to directly measure an increase in mitochondrial mass without removing some of your muscle, so careful thought needs to go into your testing protocol for the block. Aside from these issues, it could add a little more variety to your training during the off season and give you great level of base conditioning on which to build towards your competitive season.
This purpose of this post is to give a brief overview, not a critique, of a piece of recent research that you might find relevant to your sport. I’ve tried to translate it as neatly as possible and explain any technical phrases. On this occasion, the paper is a piece by Paton, Hopkins & Cook (full reference below) on the effects of low v high cadence interval training on cycling performance.
Eighteen male cyclists with at least 3 years competitive experience participated in the study. It took place during the competitive season during which all cyclists were racing at least once a week in endurance road or mountain biking events lasting longer than an hour.
The training sessions undertaken by the cyclists ran parallel to their normal training and consisted of 30 minutes of supervised intervals in the lab; sessions were arranged for similar times during the day to prevent diurnal variation, cyclists maintained their normal diets and didn’t take any performance enhancing supplements during the 4 weeks (e.g. caffeine). Training sessions were made up of 3 sets of 20 single leg jumps alternated with 3 sets of 5×30 second maximal sprints on the bike with 30 seconds recovery between each repetition. Depending on the training group, the intervals were done at cadences of either 60-70 per minute or 110-120 per minute. Rest between each jump and bike set were 2 minutes and the training, of course, came after a thorough warm up.
The main finding from the study was a 6-11% increase in performance by the low cadence group compared with the 2-3% increase in the high cadence group. The ranges are dependent upon the test variable. The testing showed that interval training at a low cadence produces greater gains than similar intervals at a higher cadence in cycling endurance performance tests. The low cadence improvements were put down to the higher pedal forces that look to be linked to testosterone increases and maybe better maximal oxygen uptake.
Paton, C.D., Hopkins, W.G. & Cook, C. (2009). The effect of low vs high cadence interval training on cycling performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(6) pp. 1758-1763.
This years Tour de France is almost at the end of its’ second week. From a British point of view first of all; great riding Mark Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins, hopefully they’ll come out with that green sprinters jersey and a high placed finish respectively. While tempting, I’m not going to spend this blog lauding British cycling, it’s had quite enough of that in recent times. Instead I’m intrigued by the goings on in the Astana team.
I don’t know whose decision it was to place two former tour winners in the same team and to position the junior, certainly in terms of past accomplishments, as the lead rider. Lance Armstrong has won seven tours, had a bestselling book, brings a strong media and fan following wherever he goes and is arguably the most well known cyclist…ever. Do you think that it would be an easy transition for him to drop down the pecking order to team rider regardless of current form? I don’t. And so it is proving to be.
Fair play to Contador, he’s coping admirably with the demands and trying to let his riding do the talking, which the mountains will almost certainly allow him to do. But criticism about his tactics and experience from Armstrong, his ‘team’mate, don’t make the task any easier. I don’t place much blame on Armstrong, I can’t imagine Michael Schumacher going back into formula 1 and playing second fiddle to Sebastian Vettel, but the difference is that none of the F1 team principals would allow that. The head of the Astana team should be reviewing his/her decision to recruit both riders.
Who knows, it may turn out to be positive with the competition pushing Contador to better performance…or it may prove to be a massive distraction, time will tell. I know that I’d want my rider free to concentrate 100% on his own performance supported by his team instead of on one of the most prolific tour riders ever and his teammate trying to usurp him.
