More on Vino

For the record, Vinokourov won the 21st Vuelta a Castilla y Leon overall, reports Cyclingnews.com

Interesting to see young Aussie Trent Lowe (Discovery) just 26 secs back from Vino at the end of a very mountainous stage. Between Lowe and Vinokourov were riders of the caliber of Haimar Zubeldia, Luis Leon Sanchez, Egoi Martinez, José Azevedo, José Luis Rubiera and Yaroslav Popovych (the last 4 seemingly comprising most of the available Discovery Channel climbers!). Excellent result for Lowe.

Latest Euro race musings

Cyclingnews reported an interesting result from stage 3 of the 6th Settimana Ciclistica Internazionale Coppi-Bartali in Italy. Cunego grabbed the 165km stage and leads overall. What I found interesting was Mario Aerts (Bel) Davitamon-Lotto in 6th place on that stage, with Michael Rogers (Aus) T-Mobile Team not far back in 9th, all with Cunego. Cunego has a bit of a sprint for such a good stage race climber. Cadel Evans (Aus) Davitamon-Lotto was 23rd and Gene Bates (Aus) Team L.P.R. 25th. The top 11 places are within a minute of Cunego, including Aerts, Rogers and Evans.

So we have some good form on display to match what we have seen with Boonen, Bettini and Pettachi. Let's not ignore Vino either. Hmmmm. April, May, June and then Le Tour.

The Commonwealth Games - part 2

So how does it feel to be beaten? I guess we all know that feeling as competitors - at least I hope all of my readers race, have raced, or hope to! The Commonwealth Games in Melbourne has given some hope and a little success to some competitors; and ground them down in others. Years of goal-setting, training and racing come down to your event and - unlike club racing where you get another crack at it maybe next week - then it's over. How does that feel, to miss a medal in a really big event? Is it OK to set a PB? Is it OK to simply do your best? The reporting on RoadCycling UK has been very personal and very British in orientation. It's worth a read.

All results are here, by the way, searchable by sport.

The poor poor car

I have to respond to this Sydney Morning Herald editorial titled "Something in the air", Friday March 17 2006. Whilst it's not specifically about bikes or bike-bashing (something the Herald is recently familiar with!) it reflects a pro-car media bias that not only reinforces the naive view that cars (and their drivers) are somehow "innocent" of environmental harm but does nothing to address the pollution and general bike-unfriendliness that comes with increasing traffic. The article begins with the sub-heading "Cars are demonised as the primary cause of pollution but are such claims true? JOHN CADOGAN dispels some myths". It's a good article in that it brings many interesting and useful pieces of information together, but it's thrust is biased - possibly by ignorance or simple laziness rather than intent - and consequently weak in its analysis. It's to be expected that journalists with an interest of any sort will find it easy to succumb to subjectivity but sad nonetheless that the "Drive" section of a popular Australian newspaper can only reinforce the current state of mind and cannot think beyond the short term.

OK, I like (and drive) cars. But we should also consider the crisis in species extinctions (including our own if we don't do something!), much but not all of it due to global warming; and the enormous damage that cars do to our local environment and our social structures (as in no-one walks any more, making our streets 'unsafe' and so on). To just blankly write off criticism is silly and impedes reasoned thought and action. To rebut the claim (whether it be true or not) that "Cars are demonised as the primary cause of pollution" with shallow analysis of just one aspect of a car's environmental footprint is overwhelmingly weak.

OK, I'll get to my point. This editorial makes a case for comparing the gross output volume of pollutants by cars with such things as energy generation and distribution. It (rightly)paints a bleak picture of Australia's greenhouse-unfriendly coal-fired power stations and draws the conclusion that the blame lies more fairly there, rather than with cars. Well, yes, we must do something about reducing all forms of greenhouse gas emission, but to compare power station gross output with the gases pumped out of cars is misleading. Cars do not just appear as if by magic. They are elaborately transformed by the application of energy to raw materials. They are shipped around as material, as parts and as final product. They are serviced and repaired, recycled and discarded. They also demand roads (with signage and policing), parking lots, fuel distribution and garaging. These are not inconsequential matters, in fact the fuel burn is likely to be just (grant me some license here) 30-60% of the total energy budget for each car (dependent on size and use). So the greenhouse emissions are likely be be up to 70% higher than what is quoted in the Herald editorial. It may be less, but not by much.

You could argue that we don't need to garage cars, but we do. When we had no cars we had stables and we had trams and trains - houses did not need 1, 2 or 3 car garages and we didn't build them. We also built narrower streets. Houses could be closer together, footpaths wider. Shops were closer to us and obesity rates were lower. We exercised more and shared more community resources, like transport. It's true that we'd still need roads for buses and trucks, and bike paths for cycles, but higher-standard roads and freeways would be much reduced in number and 'urban sprawl' much reduced. Don't think it'd work? How does New York City work? I'm not saying NYC is an ideal of any sort but they do manage quite nicely with low rates of car ownership.

Bottom line? You must factor in the whole footprint. We haven't even looked at death and injury and the resources needed to address these car-related 'aftershocks'. Cars "own" that footprint - something not reflected in this Herald editorial or in new car prices for that matter. Don't look at just one statistic and tell me that it proves anything. Proper analysis means doing some hard work. Do that analysis and write that article, it'd be very interesting to read.

Meanwhile, get on your bike!

The Commonwealth Games - part 1

My opinion only, but the track events were great to watch. Shame our local free-to-air TV broadcaster is so swimming-focussed, but that's my fault for not paying the extra for cable, isn't it? Finning taking an extraordinary 5 laps in the points race is a highlight, as were the sprint competitions. Cyclingnews covers the points race nicely.

The amazing thing (to me) about the Commonwealth Games is the all-inclusive nature. I like to see the times of the so-called 'also-rans'. Firstly it's great to see other nations encouraged to ride and secondly the times are realistically achievable by most of us in club-cycling. I find that reassuring!

For example the Fijian male sprinters recorded 200m times in the range 13.5-14.8 seconds. Now they had reportedly never seen the inside of a indoor velodrome before and probably have limited facilities back home, but it's still reassuring to see times that many of us could reasonably hope to achieve, too.

Milano-San Remo

OK, so Filippo Pozzato won. Cyclingnews says so.

Well we didn't pick that, but our earlier speculation about Boonen, Petacchi, Bettini and McEwen wasn't too far off. Sounds like McEwen got dropped on a climb, but it's a bit unclear yet. He does have a brokem rib, so that would make climbing a bit harder. Bettini had also suffered a fall in his previous race, so he may have been off form, too.

The upshot was that Alessandro Petacchi was 2nd, followed by Paolini and Boonen. Then Napolitano, Freire and Garzelli in that order. Thor Hushovd was 13th, Allan Davis 19th and Zabel 21st. Conclusions? Well Boonen wouldn't have been trying to pull back teammate Pozzato, so it's hard to draw an absolute conclusion about Boonen's vs Petacchi's form. Boonen had to protect Pozzato, not just win for himself. It gets complicated sometimes, doesn't it?

Peak capacity an indicator for longevity

Interesting article that suggests that a higher peak exercise capacity is an indicator for longevity. Good news for the active masters racers, eh?

The Stanford scientists involved followed up with each subject (all male, btw) up to 6 years later and found that after adjustment for age each man's individual exercise capacity was the best indication of longevity. The men with the lowest peak exercise capacities had almost 4 times the risk of death of men with the highest exercise capacities (and those men were rated with the equivalent of regular runners or fast cyclists with an aerobic capacity "better than jogging"). More here.

Stephen Roche interview at Pez

Folks, don't miss the Stephen Roche interview at Pez Cycling's website.

Meanwhile in other races

Let's wrap up with a few other results...

In Paris Nice we saw the continuing success of sprinter Tom Boonen. He looks unbeatable. So it'll be interesting to see how Tom goes against Petacchi, down the track. Robbie McEwen seems close to form, if his team can get him up front when it matters, too. Thor Hushovd and Oscar Freire are also on form. Milano-San Remo will be a real test. Just four days away!

In GC terms Floyd Landis went very well in Paris-Nice. Cyclingnews wrapped it up well. So Landis is hot. Too hot for March, perhaps? He clearly will have a peak, hold it, then rest prior to July. Note that PN was bitterly cold in parts and perhaps this race isn't as indicative as TA. Basso (raced the TA) has the greater problem of holding form for both the Giro and Le Tour, so it'll be interesting. Perhaps someone else (let's say Cadel Evans)will be cagier and stay out of harm's way for a few more months and peak later?

So what would Armstrong have been doing? Everyone's different in their goals and physiological adaptation, but a quiet Armstrong at this stage would not have surprised. Certainly Jan Ullrich isn't in a hurry to get back to the fray, despite the top GC riders already 'out there'.

Note also that until he crashed in stage 3 of TA, Bettini was also unstoppable in the uphill sprints.

It's worth looking at the top 10

It's interesting to see who was where at Tirreno Adriatico in the final General Classification.

Thomas Dekker (Ned) Rabobank was first, a great ride by the youngster. 2nd was Jorg Jaksche (Ger) Liberty Seguros-Wurth Team, just 14secs off the pace and yet more proof of Jorg's stage-race abilities. Alessandro Ballan (Ita) Lampre-Fondital was 3rd and Paolo Savoldelli (Ita) Discovery Channel was 4th. Interesting to see Paolo doing well at this stage of the year. Then Michael Boogerd, Rabobank, Bertagnolli of Cofidis and Ivan Basso Team CSC. Basso is clearly aiming at the Giro for 2006, so we expect to see him.

Seventh place was George Hincapie for Discovery Channel, then Karsten Kroon (Ned) Team CSC and Tom Danielson also Discovery Channel. Whilst we expect to see Hincapie getting stuck into the early season classics, Tom's also looking the goods for the bigger stage races. The top 10 were all within one minute of the leader.

Tirreno Adriatico

Seems like a good time to take a look at recent race results. We are poised at the beginning of the Commonwealth Games, of course, but also now well into the European pro season.

Alessandro Petacchi has won the last stage of Tirreno Adriatico with 'Dekker the younger' (ie Thomas!) taking the overall GC. Petacchi has taken a swag of firsts in this race, with his teammate Erik Zabel picking up many of the 2nd places (but not this time). Zabel seems to be Petacchi's prime lead out man - and perfectly positioned to mop up one of the remaining podium places for Team Milram. So we can say that both Petacchi and Zabel have some good tactics, form and confidence early in the season. With Classicissima Milano-Sanremo coming up fast that's important.

We should mention that Robbie McEwen (Davitamon-Lotto) and Paride Grillo (Ceramica Panaria-Navigare) got second and third on the line in this stage - an indication in Robbie's case that his form is OK. Rabobank's Thomas Dekker won overall with Liberty Seguros's Jörg Jaksche missing out by only 14 seconds. So it's a good start for the young guys, too.

Factors to consider: it's been cold, not everyone rides well in the cold! It's early in the season: not everyone is at 100% and some teams are still discovering how new riders fit in. Shows how important the pre-season team building is, and how early-season prep can pay off. But will the hot guys last the season, or will they go off the boil in a month or 2?

Mustn't forget that until he crashed in stage 3 of TA, Bettini was also unstoppable in the uphill sprints. It would have been a different race if the Cricket had raced to the end.

Pez has a good rave about the TA here and Cyclingnews covers the race as well.

Chicken soup and colds

Ok, a short tip - Chicken soup actually works in relieving the inflammation that chokes you up when you have a cold. It's reported to contain a mild anti-inflammatory.

But wait, there's more!

For the disbelievers, here's more on the role Lactic acid plays as fuel in our bodies. In short, as we exercise so the lactic levels rise simply because it's a top fuel for our fast-burning energy needs. I can recall all of those hideous ear-prick tests that measured lactate levels. Now I wonder why - what were they thinking?

Check out http://www.cytosport.com/science/lacticacid.html and this nice overview.

Lactic Acid and other cycling myths

Righto, we've probably all read this before - I can recall reading a bit last year - but here's a bit more on the subject of Lactic Acid and other cycling myths.

The authors present a wide-ranging review of research, including the conclusion that "the positive facets of lactate metabolism dispel the ‘lactic acid myth’. Lactate is shown to lower hydrogen ion concentrations rather than raise them, thereby retarding acidosis. Every aspect of lactate production is shown to be advantageous to cycling performance." Whilst that's a surprise in the sense that everyone historically blames lactic acid for that fall off in performance at or near maximum aerobic effort, it's not a surprise that we are blaming the wrong process or substance. That's almost inevitable. As we dig below the surface of past research we often find a new, better and more precise understanding is uncovered.

As well they state that "to minimise the effects of muscle fatigue, the efficacy of employing a combination of different high cycling cadences is evident". No surprises there, is there Lance?

From: The Science of Cycling: Physiology and Training – Part 1.
Authors: Faria, Parker and Faria
Source: Sports Medicine; 2005, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p285-312

Crank lengths at length

Folks, I've just spent a bit of time looking at crank lengths. I won't pass judgement, but I will say from my experience a longer crank works better for me, especially on the road, unless clearance is a factor. I currently use 172.5mm cranks on my crit and road bikes and 165.o on my track bike. Most 'crank length calculators' tell me that I should use 165mm cranks all of the time, but it doesn't seem to matter that much in practice. Unless of course you are using long cranks on a steep velodrome or in a tight-cornered crit - then you risk bottoming-out a pedal. Or if you swap bikes a lot (I once crashed spectacularly at a road circuit in Warriewood, Sydney, when I was balked by a car mid corner. I forgot I was on my Colnago with 175mm cranks and hit a pedal at bottom dead centre. I was too used to using my 'crit bike' with 170mm cranks at Heffron Park and simply forgot to stop pedalling around the only sharp corner that mattered). It can get dicey.

Anyway, some resources for you:
Cranklength.info
Bicyclesource.com
Sheldon on cranks
Netally goes into detail on research

I enjoyed the read and I think I've decided I'll stay with what I've got, thanks. 172.5 isn't causing me any pain, so I'll stick with it for now. However I may drop from 53 to 50 teeth on my big ring... hmmm.

Creatine Supplementation Reduces Muscle Inosine Monophosphate during Endurance Exercise in Humans

Does Creatine supplementation work?

Firstly it has been shown in past studies that Creatine supplementation will attenuate increases in plasma ammonia and hypoxanthine during intense endurance exercise lasting 1 hour. So it seems reasonable to suggest that Creatine supplementation may indeed improve muscle energy balance during such exercise - it's worth testing.

The authors report that Creatine supplementation significantly increased muscle total Creatine, however no difference was seen between treatments after the first 45 min of exercise. They conclude that "raising muscle
total Creatine content before exercise appears to improve the ability of the muscle to maintain energy balance during intense aerobic exercise, but not during more moderate exercise intensities".

Title:Creatine Supplementation Reduces Muscle Inosine Monophosphate during Endurance Exercise in Humans.
Authors: McConell, Shinewell, Stephens, Stathis, Canny and Snow
From: Department of Physiology, Monash University; Department of Physiology, University of Melbourne;
Exercise Metabolism Unit, Centre for Rehabilitation, Exercise and Sport Science, Victoria University of Technology; School of Health Sciences, Deakin University.
Source: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise; Dec2005, Vol. 37
Issue 12, p2054-2061

My take on this is that Creatine supplementation appears to work in maintaining a balance in the ATP cycle during the intense 1 hour efforts that have been tested. This sounds like an A or B grader may benefit in a 1 hour criterium, for example. They may have more energy freely available at the end of the race and secondly (my guess!) may recharge quicker afterwards. However there's no benefit below one hour or at moderate rather than intense efforts. As always, tread carefully if you try any supplementation - and seek a wide range of advice beforehand.

Leg muscle recruitment in highly trained cyclists.

Sounds like a cool study. The authors examined "patterns of leg muscle recruitment and co-activation, and the relationship between muscle recruitment and cadence, in highly trained cyclists". They tested at "individual preferred cadence, 57.5, 77.5 and 92.5 revs min" using (one
hopes) carefully placed electrodes. Sounds cool as well. And the findings? Well the authors say that "muscle recruitment patterns varied from those previously reported, but there was little variation in muscle recruitment between these highly trained cyclists". Specifically the "tibialis posterior, peroneus longus and soleus were recruited in a single, short burst of activity during the downstroke" and that "the tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius lateralis were recruited in a biphasic and alternating manner". They found that "contrary to existing hypotheses, our results indicate little co-activation between the tibialis posterior and peroneus longus".

So far so good. Muscle recruitment is important from many angles, not simply as an academic pursuit but as an aid to understanding how it is we can generate the power that we do and applying that understanding in coaching athletes in optimal patterns of training. Such understanding would also help avoid injury as well as assist in faster healing after injury.

Anyway, the authors found that "peak EMG amplitude increased linearly with cadence and did not decrease at individual preferred cadence. There was little variation in patterns of muscle recruitment or co-activation with changes in cadence". I take this to mean that most elite cyclists use the same muscles and that varying cadence does not significantly change the pattern of recruitment. In other words you are still using the same muscles, irrespective of the tested cadences.

Reference: Leg muscle recruitment in highly trained cyclists.
Authors: Chapman, Vicenzino, Blanch, Knox and Hodges from the Division of Physiotherapy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia and the Department of Physical Therapies, Australian Institute of Sport, Bruce, ACT, Australia.
Source: Journal of Sports Sciences; Feb2006, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p115-124

My view: For me this means that Lance Armstrong spinning at 110 revs/minute is probably using the same muscles as Jan Ullrich at 90 revs/minute. It's important to pin that down. Higher cadences do not necessarily mean a different arrangement of muscles doing the work.
Beyond that important point, there are neuromuscular factors involved as well as the lower per-rev power output at higher revs, so a comparison and conclusion Lance vs Jan isn't going to happen here. However I think it's interesting to note that seating position could affect the outcome. To me Jan looks cramped on the bike. Highly effective but a little less comfy than Lance. Perhaps (this is me postulating, not the authors above!) position will be a defining factor and possibly cadence is less important to the ultimate outcome than we have imagined. Any professional opinions on this out there?

Disclaimer

Folks, please tread warily whilst travelling the Internet. It's hard to
separate truth from fiction or opinion from science wherever you are -
but it's worth getting a second opinion, irrespective. When you chance
upon an impressive website "in print" (as it were) it can easily seem
like the last word on a subject. In fact we have no final judgement on
anything, anywhere - only fallible human opinions. And this blog is all
about sharing those opinions.

I will quote published research that seems relevant (to me) on
particular subjects. You can then read my opinion, my take on the matter
presented. I don't always have a relevant degree in the field - my
degrees are in business administration and human resource management -
but I do often have relevant experience and I will share that experience
with you. It's not prescriptive, it's not advice. Hopefully, though,
it's interesting and thought-provoking. Please read widely and examine
claims critically. And don't forget to comment.

Effect of posture on high-intensity constant-load cycling performance

Well it's nice to see it proven.

At least in one experiment, anyway. My take on this is that an upright cycling posture is better than a supine one, if only when looking at a lab test of endurance.

I once 'raced' a recumbent with full aero fairings along a freeway from Bargo to Picton in NSW, Australia. I (on my 'real' bike) had more power up the hills but he certainly had the top speed advantage! So there is certainly an aero advantage to 'lying down on the job' but from a physical endurance perspective there's a decided disadvantage of some 10%. Anyway...

From the European Journal of Applied Physiology; Jan2006, Vol. 96 Issue 1, p1-9. Authors: Egaña, Green, Garrigan and Warmington, from the Department of Physiology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the School of Biological, Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, University of New England, NSW, Australia.

To quote from the abstract, "The time sustained during a graded cycle exercise is ~10% longer in an upright compared with a supine posture. However, during constant-load cycling this effect is unknown. Therefore, we tested the postural effect on the performance of
high-intensity constant-load cycling." So they tested constant-load and found that "there is a very large postural effect on performance during constant-load cycling exercise and this effect is significantly larger in men than women". So upright beats supine, particularly for men. Not sure what this means to the crazy racing folk who sit on an 'upright' bike but bend down so far that they are almost parallel to the ground but I suspect they are successfully adapting the efficient upright style to gain an aero advantage. The racing tuck is a compromise,
and of course we can always sit up and stretch.

Other compromises made for racing include the need to 'pull up' on the bars when climbing or sprinting, so the bars have to be close enough to do so comfortably whilst being low enough to gain an aero advantage. Anyway, I suspect it still beats lying down!

Aside from all that, recumbents are almost invisible and need a flag on
a pole to be seen. They are pretty cool devices though.

L-Arginine infusion increases glucose clearance during prolonged effort

Not entirely sure what to make of this one.

But for the record, from the American Journal of Physiology: Endocrinology & Metabolism, Jan2006, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p60-66, authors McConell, Huynh, Lee-Young, Canny and Wadley (from the Unis of Melbourne and Monash, btw) concluded that "L-Arg infusion had no effect on cycling exercise performance. In conclusion, L-Arg infusion during exercise significantly increases skeletal muscle glucose clearance in humans. Because plasma insulin concentration was unaffected by L-Arg infusion, greater NO production may have been responsible for this effect."

My personal conclusion would be that if you were thinking of 'infusing' yourself with L-Arginine for a specific performance boost, think again. Mind you, the test was only for a 15 minute 'all-out' effort and there may be benefits outside of that scope.

Why are we even thinking about Arginine? Well if you take a protein supplement you are probably already adding Arginine to your diet. It is an amino acid, one of the building blocks of protein and a known precursor of the gas nitric oxide. Arginine is a necessary part of the human diet and you could have a deficiency - but I can't tell and presumably nor can you without a blood test (unless you are displaying some clear signs of immune failure perhaps). It is implicated in hormone secretion, including a probable increase in growth hormone output (a good thing) and the removal of toxic waste products from the body (another good thing). It may have a role in boosting the immune system as well. Indeed, as a precursor of nitric oxide, a trigger for vasodilation, it plays a role in healthy sexual function and general circulation. That can't be bad for a cyclist, can it?

You'll find L-Arginine as a dietary supplement for the above reasons, plus its link to the regulation of salt levels in the body (and thus controlling blood pressure). So if you have a deficiency it may be worthwhile taking some - but don't expect miracles, don't take it unless you get good advice from someone other than me and don't take too much. Too much of anything is too much for me. Please remember I'm not medically qualified, I just bring things to your attention. And I race a bike.