Lyle and I are a Little Different

I've always wobbled in the saddle.  Always.  I've been riding a bike for 25 years and I've always been told that I need to lower my saddle or do this or do that to correct my wobble.

Well I have tried.  Many times.  To no avail.  I studied the issue quite a bit a couple of years ago.  You can read about my ponderings in my 2006 posts: Saddle Height and at Saddle Height/Q-Rings.

A friend graciously reopened that conversation for me the other day.  This time I thought about it some more and decided to check LLD - leg length discrepancy.  I carefully measured my trochanter heights - the height from the floor to the tip of the little bony protrusion on your hip bone.  It's the most lateral protrusion of the greater trochanter in this image:

One trochanter is 35” from the floor. The other is 34.25” from the floor. Hmmmm.  It seems that in LLD speak that's about a mile.

I did some Google work and found lots of people rushing to their doctors and trashing all thier shoes because they had a leg length discrepancy of ¼” or ½”.

I seem to have a ¾” LLD goin’ on.

I’m leaning towards the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it approach; but we’ll see.  I'd like to fix the wobble; and I think the LLD is the likely cause.  But I suspect there's a good chance I'd screw something else up if I started adding shims, et cetera.  And all that would be a pain in the arse, even if only figuratively.

And I haven't had any pain or discomfort, just an occasional snickering teammate.  I can live with that.  Lyle and I don't want to be like the rest of you anyway.

Decoupling Test

Either Friel's decoupling theory* is bogus, or I'm definately ready for the transition to more intense work.

The results of my 2-hour decoupling test at high L2 today: -2.88% decoupling. Yes, that's a negative sign. I guess maybe I warmed up and became more efficient as the ride went on?

*Friel's decoupling theory: if heartrate to power ratio increases (drifts) more than 5% over a long ride, then you need more aerobic development prior to moving out of the base periods and on to more intense training.

Winter Weights and Cycling

Every year this time (base period/off season for most cyclists in North America), there begins a flurry of on-line discussion and argument about the benefits and risks of strength training for cyclists. It's not hard to find well-known coaches and physiologists to argue either side of the issue. Coggan thinks weights are useless and that the fatigue generated by strength workouts can be harmful to endurance athletes because time is taken away from productive training; Friel has always (at least since the '80s) been a proponent of strength training in the base training periods.


I have a lot of respect for some of the folks on Google Wattage (where many of the heated discussions occur) who dismiss the use of weights and/or strength training because “the research does not show that it helps; therefore it’s a waste of time so it hurts.” Research and real scientific results are crucial to learning how to use your training time most efficiently. It’s perilous to ignore the results of multiple legitimate scientific studies. But I think the anti-weights voices are a little too stubborn in their narrow, but very consistent, response: “the research does not show that weights make you faster.”

Maybe they don’t make you faster. But I can tell you from n=1 that they make you feel faster. That’s worth something. They make you feel more confident. That’s worth something. They might make your bones healthier and more dense. That’s worth something. They make you less prone to injury. That’s worth something. They make you look and feel better. That’s worth something. They make winter training less monotonous. That's worth something. And a whole big bunch of very successful cyclists and coaches have reached the conclusion, for a variety of reasons, that weights are worth the time. That’s worth something.

For me, all those minor ‘somethings’ add up to a lot. So I’m sticking with the weights for a few decades until the researchers get it sorted out.

Trainer vs. Road

Ok - this is a work in progress. I don't have as much data as I'd like to have, but the general trend is clear. The problem with collecting additional data is that my aerobic system is improving, which makes establishing a true best-fit line a little like trying to hit a moving target. But you'll get the gist of it. The magenta line is a best fit for trainer data. The red line is a best fit for road data.


The not-so-surprising result: it's harder to ride the trainer than to ride on the road at the same power (all the power data was collected using my Power Tap). For now I'll target my training zones on the trainer using a target heartrate along with the trainer curve to get a target power range. Later I'll do a CP30 test on the trainer, set up power zones from that and see how they compare to the first method. I find it interesting that the difference in NP vs AHR is lower close to threshold than at lower efforts. I would have expected the opposite effect.


Gotta do something to keep the trainer workouts interesting, right? But I have discovered a new indoor toy for indoor rides: I downloaded the new Computrainer scenery pack. Now I can ride cyclocross trails through downtown Atlanta scenery. That's different.

Negative Decoupling at 175 Watts

My 225-watt test showed 8% decoupling in a 30-min test. (later determined that it wasn't really 8%, more like 3-5% if I used the correct calculation method). I wanted to see the results of a lower wattage test, so I did an 80-min decoupling test at 175 watts.

Not only did I not find any evidence at all of decoupling, the result was NEGATIVE 2%. First 37 min: 176w at 123 bpm; Second 37 min: 177w at 122 bpm. Go figure.

I'll do the 225w test again to see if I can repeat the 8% decoupling result. If I can, then the next step will be to see at what wattage the decoupling effect starts to occur. Will it be at an abrupt wattage or will it gradually decouple?

If I find that it's an abrupt point, will additional aerobic system training raise the 'decoupling point?' Will additional aerobic training lower the 8% decoupling I see at 225 watts? Lots to investigate; but that's ok - I have until Spring.

Decoupling

Joe Friel has written lately about decoupling. That's when you're exercising aerobically (at sub-threshold) and your heartrate is not consistent with your power output. I used to use a coupling test when I was training for triathlon. I'd hold my heartrate constant while running on a track. The further I had run after 20 minutes, the more aerobically fit I was. I was amazed at the variation throught the trainign season back then (2001).

So I decided to do a coupling test on the bike yesterday. I put on the heartrate monitor, warmed up, and did 30 minutes at tempo (225 watts for me). I felt nice and steady for the whole interval and was on Hwy 11, which is flat. Wind was minimal.

The ride felt very consistent, so I was surprised to see later that my heartrate gradually rose during the interval, starting in the low 140s and finishing around 150. My threshold HR is about 160. I sort of had a plateau in the middle, but it didn't last.

Supposedly this means that my aerobic system is not well-developed at the moment. I look forward to doing more aerobic work during the fall and winter to see if I get a more coupled 30-min tempo result. If that does happen, maybe I can use this very easy test throughout the season to monitor my aerobic fitness and do more aerobic work when I see things start to "come apart."

The Black Box

In the process of researching how to calculate one's highest possible FTP from VO2max, I've investigated the relationship of many different physiological variables. I didn't want the work to go to waste, so I've taken many of the relationships and built them into a spreadsheet that links them together. Here's a screen view of the spreadsheet with my numbers intered into it:



Here's a link to the spreadsheet in Google Docs (click on "edit this page" at the bottom of the sheet to enter your own numbers in the green boxes):
The Black Box

I haven't locked any of the cells, so the Google Docs spreadsheet might get screwed up. If that happens, you can download a copy of the spreadsheet in Excel format at FTP from Calculate VO2 from FTP.

And finally, I've created the ultimate black box. This spreadsheet pushes each of the physiological variables to the limit. It assumes that you have excellent genetics and that you are training to the absolute max with the best available techniques and coaches. If all of that were true, this spreadsheet would tell you your FTP. If you produced above that number for an extended period in the Tour, you'd get a one-way ticket home. Here's that Pro max spreadsheet with Lance's numbers entered:



Here's a link to the Google Docs Pro max sheet (click on "edit this page" at the bottom of the page to enter your own numbers in the green boxes:
Pro Max spreadsheet

Here's the Excel version for download:
Theoretical max FTP from VO2max

I think drug testing based on power is a crazy and unworkable idea, but it's interesting to ponder.

Heartrate and VO2max Predicts Cycling FTP

In my research of the relationship of VO2max and max potential FTP, I stumbled on this calculator: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm.

I've seen lots of littel cutesy calculators like this; but for fun I input my data: male, 150 lbs, age 40, ave HR (at FTP) 162 bpm, VO2max = 70 ml/kg/min. I was quite amazed to find that it predicted my power output at FTP (based on average heartrate) to be 290.46 watts. My last two FTP test results are 290 watts and 292 watts.

Either this is a really cool coincidence, or there is some good science in the paper on which the calculator is based, found at http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf. I haven't read it yet, but I will.

This is the formula used in the calculator:
kCal/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight(kg) + 0.404 x VO2max(ml/kg/min) + 0.634 x HR(bpm)))/4.184

I don't know what each factor means yet, but I probably will after I go through the research paper.

Calories burned vs oxygen intake is relatively well understood. Oxygen intake is commonly measured (it's VO2max). And I know that the calculator assumes a 24% efficiency from chemical to mechanical work for cycling, which is a commonly-used and accepted factor (it usually ranges from 20% to 25%).

Now if I can find good data relating FTP and % VO2 max for elite cyclists, I should be able to set up a direct relationship between VO2max and FTP in well-trained cyclists. This would be the relationship that LeMond is proposing to use in evaluating power output of riders in the pro peloton to test for doping.

Bike Food

It's obvious that if you do long rides you have to eat and drink or you will endure much suffering.

When my wife's legs stopped working at mile 48 of our 76-mile group ride yesterday, I asked her what was wrong. She said, "I don't know, but I can barely turn the pedals." After she'd struggled to the finish, I asked her what she'd had to eat and drink, and it became obvious that she'd staged her own littel hunger strike in the Peach Peloton.

My rule of thumb is that for rides over about 30 miles, I make sure to consume at least 200 calories per hour even if I have to choke it down. That's usually in the form of a Hammer gel or half a Hammer bar along with one bottle of Heed per hour. I noticed one rider in our group yesterday drank two large bottles of energy drink every hour. Everybody's different, and I guess he prefers liquid calories. If I tried that I'd be chasing back on from lots of one-man nature breaks.

If you're so inclined, enter your preferenced in the poll to the right.

Poll results:
Calories per hour on the bike:
Random - 16%
100 - 0%
200 - 8%
300 - 16%
>300 - 58%

Type of food:
Energy Drink - 66%
Energy Bars - 75%
Gels - 66%
Fruit - 25%
Store stop food - 50%
Salty foods - 33%

6789 SST

I 'invented' a new trainer FTP-build workout last night (boredom is the mother of many new workouts). I’ll call it 6789 STT. (SST is sweet spot training – 90% of FTP - not a new idea, but probably a pretty good one). It goes like this:

Begin riding at L2 effort. At 14 min, do 6 min of SST. At 23 min, do 7 minutes of SST. At 32 min, do 8 min of SST. And at 41min, do 9 min of SST. L2 effort between sets and for the last 10 minutes to make an hour-long workout.

Figure by Andy Coggan, PhD

Six Cramp

2008 Six Gap Century: I felt pretty good early on. The Black Mountain rollers and the Neels climb went fine. I caught up with some Macon riders somewhere near the Apple store. I stayed within sight of them up Jacks even though they pulled away a little bit. I started to feel an unusual twinge in my hamstrings at the bottom of the climb, but it went away pretty quickly so I forgot about it.

I was out of water already at the top of Jack's (unusual for me), so I stopped quickly to fill up both bottles. I jumped in a fast little group and caught the Macon group on the long, gradual descent. As we turned the corner and started climbing Unicoi, I got sudden painful cramps in both hamstrings. I’ve never had cramps, so I didn’t know how to handle the situation. I mentioned it to Drew and he just said "wine" (I had done a bike tour of wineries on Saturday).

I stayed on the bike, standing and sitting until the pain eased a little. The Macon guys pulled away up the climb. Once I worked out the cramps and got back into my rhythm I felt fine. I passed a few folks on the climb and felt good by the time I reached the top. I caught Drew at the bottom of the Unicoi descent and we rode in a group of 6 or 8 to the Hogpen turn. As I approached the right turn to Hogpen my hammies locked up completely. It was both strange and intense. I've had cramps off the bike sitting on the sofa, but not on the bike. I couldn’t turn the pedals - now I know what people mean when they say "my legs locked up." If we’d been on a climb I guess I’d have fallen off the bike. I worked it out again and caught back to Drew’s group just as they crossed the timing wire to start Hogpen.

I had very little power climbing Hogpen - on a few sections I was climbing just fast enough to stay upright and was kicking myself for not putting on the 12-29 pansy cassette (I rode a 12-26). Just after the first ‘false downhill’ on Hogpen, my hamstrings locked up again. It hit me fast and I yelled so loud that I scared the crap out of two guys riding beside me who had entered a silent Zen state. This time I couldn’t coast, so I laid down in the grass on my back and massaged the knots out. The pain stopped after a minute or two. The rest of the climb hurt some, but the cramps did not come back. At the top of Hogpen I took an Advil, two race caps, drank about a gallon of water, refilled my bottles, and scarfed down a bunch of PB&Js and apples. I cramped some on the descent, but they gradually went away by the time I reached the base of the Wolfpen climb. I climbed it pretty slowly but faster then Hogpen. I felt better by the time I got to Woody, and then limped home solo on rollers that felt much bigger than they really were; finishing time 6:07.

Next year I’ll chase every glass of wine on Saturday with a glass of water. It had to be the dehydration. I ate and drank everything in sight for the next 12 hours and still only weighed 147 pounds the next morning (after weighing about 150 on Friday). I’d bet I weighed just barely over 140 at the top of Hogpen. I drank 8 bottles on my bike plus several cupfuls of Gatorade at the Hogpen stop and didn’t stop for a single nature break. Live and learn.

A Good Omen

There's an effect that obvious to anyone who rides with a power meter, but it's a pure truth, so I'll describe it anyway.

Trey's mention of it on "The Other Woman" made me think of it again. I’ve read it elsewhere and I’ve noticed it many times myself: A surefire signal that your form is good is when you look down when warming up or riding and you are surprise by how high the power number is for a given effort. It seems basic and overly simplistic, but that relationship between your perceived exertion and your power output reading can provide tremendous insight regarding your form if you’ll pay attention to it. If you ride a lot with your meter, then you have probably developed a very good feel for the power/perceived exertion relationship. When that ratio goes up, it's a very good omen.

But I'm still surprised every time that it happens.

Alex Simmons' Coggan Levels graphic

You might have already run across this at Google Wattage, but I thought I'd post it here because it's such a great graphic representation of the Coggan Power Levels and their physiological responses. The graphic was created by Alex Simmons from down under. His blog can be found at Alex's Cycle Blog.

Double Plays and "Flipping the Switch"

Ok, forgive me for a few minutes while I try to sound authoritative on a subject where I'm not. (I could have shortened this post and made my point quickly, but I've decided on a longer version, so bear with me.)

I used to play baseball. From age 5 to age 13 or 14 (when I discovered golf), baseball was a big deal. I was pretty good at fielding ground balls, but didn't have a strong arm - that meant I played 2nd base instead of shortstop, where I wanted to be... but I digress.

In baseball practice, we would often work on a very specific single task for a while, like fielding ground balls, or "taking grounders". Then after a while, we'd move on to work on another task, like "throwing it around," which involved moving the ball around the infield in a circle as quickly as possible. Later in practice, we'd put it all together and practice fielding ground balls, then 'turning two' for a double play. You had to successfully combine the two skills to get the job done.

Winter bike training is like that. In November and December, I put in hours on the trainer or the road attempting to target and improve specific energy systems. I do long L2/L3 rides to teach my body to burn glycogen and fat efficiently. I endure 45-minute steady L4 intervals to increase my capillary density, to improve my cardiac output, and to grow more efficient mitochondria. This week (early January), I'll start doing 5-minute VO2max intervals to try and raise my FTP 'ceiling' and teach my muscles cells to buffer lactic acid. Soon I'll be doing 1-minute hard efforts to try and teach my body to better use the pure anaerobic system. For the most part, those goals are targeted in separate workouts on separate days.

But yesterday in the three 15- to 30-minute Attack Zones that were part of our 5-hour group ride, I was reminded how important it is to be able to shift from one energy system to the next and then recover and go back again. Rarely in competition are we able to stay powered by one energy system for an extended time (time trials and sitting in the back of a large peloton are the most obvious exeptions). Racing often requires attacking off the front, bridging to another group, following a surge, or pulling a teammate, followed by sitting in and trying to recharge for another effort. And as I was reminded yesterday, the difference between being able to semi-recover in 10 seconds instead of 15 can sometimes make all the difference.

Each of those mini-efforts could be thown into it's appropriate bin labelled L3, L4, L5, L6, or L7. But put them together in a 30-minute race effort, and the sum of the parts becomes a different thing. It's like turning a double play when you've been taking grounders all winter. There is obviously skill involved in the double play, and likewise, practicing racing has it's obvious benefits, tactical and otherwise. But (here's where I'm going out on a limb) I'm guessing that there are physiological mechanisms of some sort involved in the quick switch from one energy source to another and then back again; and that the transition can be improved by training it.

So here's my thesis: Training each energy system alone isn't enough to maximize your ability. You need to specifically target and train the transition mechanisms also.

You need to prepare for the trip from L3 across your threshold to put in a large L6 effort, then sit on a wheel for 15 seconds at L3/L4 to clear the lactate, then bridge for 2 minutes at L5, then hang on at L3/L4 to rest for 60 seconds, then sit in on a short climb at L5, then hang on at L4 for 90 seconds before sprinting at L7 to follow an attack and then do it all again.

Yesterday's efforts reminded me of a workout that Tony Myers of ATS prescribed for me a couple of years ago. He called it "Flipping the Switch." I wasn't training with power then. The workout consisted of taking my heartrate from my aerobic threshold (115 bpm for me) to 5 beats above my LT, then back to aerobic threshold as quickly as possible. I'd repeat the process as many times as I could in a 30-minute session using repeats on a short hill or a hill-repeat loop on the computrainer. It's a brutal workout physically and psycologically. As Tony told me: "Your body doesn't like to switch energy systems." He's right. I guess switching systems is probably an inefficient use of the body's energy, and evolution has resulted in us not liking it very much.

So after you've trained each system through the winter, make sure to Flip the Switch through practice racing, or interval sessions, to be ready for race conditions.

I think I was wrong

My last post praised an article in Pez that basically said: Don't do too much L3 (tempo) riding. Try to ride more L2, L4, L5, et cetera.

Although the article was not completely off base - some people, mostly those who don't structure their training, get in a rut and do L3 ALL the time. That can cause problems. First, it might keep you so fatigued and mentally fried that you can't do your higher-intensity workouts properly so you don't get the full benefit. Second, riding L3 all the time, day after day, might put you in the position of not getting enough recovery time and then you can't get the periodization effect working in your favor. So there was some merit in the article.

But then I studied this chart again:

If you take a good look at all the aerobic training zones, L1 through L4, they all impact the same metabolic systems. As you increase intensity from L1 to L4, you get more training effect per minute of workout for every aerobic adaptation (except you get more muscle glycogen storage response at L3 than at L4), but the effects are the same for all of those levels. There are limits to how long you can train at L4 (probably more mental than physical), so you have to throw some lower level (L2 and L3) workouts in your plan to stress your aerobic systems adequately for base training adaptations to occur.

L1 training days are better than taking an off day because they increase blood flow to the legs and accelerate your recovery process without adding additional fatigue. But why is it important to train at L2? Don't we get the same metabolic benefits by training at L3 in a shorter period? Wouldn't that allow us to stay mentally fresher for those dark basement trainer rides? Why not do all aerobic base training at L1, L3, and L4?

I have posed that question on Google Wattage, and so far, no one has really answered the question. I'm beginning to think that there is no specific reason to do L2 work instead of L3 work as long as you carefully track ATL, CTL, and TSS and include proper recovery.

I guess people ride L2 because it's harder to maintain L3 effort for long periods. But unless any of you haven't noticed, bike racing is hard.

I'm still looking for answers. And if I find any, I'll update this post.

It's the TSB, stupid

I last posted wondering why my performance had improved in the last month and provided a few possible theories. Then I received a comment on my post from Stuart Lynn (http://tt-training.blogspot.com/). He suggested that the increases in performance may be due to a positive Total Stress Balance (TSB). One glance at my TSB trend over the summer (see my recent "2007 Training Load" post) almost proves that he's right. My TSB hovered around or below zero from March to mid-August, but has been between 5 and 15 for much of late August and September. That's mainly due to the ATL/CTL spike I got at RAGBRAI.

If I put any faith in Andrew Coggan's Performance Manger, then the the obvious answer is that the RAGBRAI effort has indeed paid dividends 4 to 8 weeks later. That means I'm crazy if I don't try to repeat that type of effort a few times a year at the appropriate times.

Thanks, Stuart, for helping me to see the obvious.

RR power and Crit power

Sometimes the more charts I have to study, the less each of them means to me. If I wanted to boil my long-term cycling training progress down to two numbers, they would be:

1. Functional Threshold Power (FTP) - sustainable power for an hour

2. Crit Normalized Power (CNP) - sustainable power for 35 minutes

The first is well-known. I just invented the second one.

Those two numbers are indicative of my sustainable power in road racing (FTP) and criterium racing (CNP). Here's a chart of how those numbers have increased for me over the past season:

Both numbers showed substantial improvement through the winter and early spring, then plateaued through the summer, and have started trending upwards again. My FTP is now at 280 and my CNP is at about 292. Why the late season increases? Here are some theories as to why the numbers might be going up again:

1. Cumulative effect of entire year of hard training (this one may be the most likely explanation)

2. Delayed effect of huge weekly effort at RAGBRAI in late July (8 weeks, that seems reasonable for adaptation to the effort?)

3. Effect of sprint training that I started in mid-August (unlikely, I think, but possibly a contributor).


Keeping the numbers headed northward is one thing. Next and just as importantly, I have to learn how to use the power more efficiently in races - staying at the front of crits, attacking at the right time in road races, working effectively for teammates, etc.

Strange Days Indeed

Most Peculiar.

It's been almost 2 weeks since I returned from RAGBRAI and 500 hard miles in 7 days. I still have not recovered. The best word to describe the past 2 weeks might be 'strange'. For the first week or so, I could tell that my body was working hard to repair itself because I'd wake up in the middle of the night with a noticeably higher heartrate than normal, and I was always hot and sweaty - both during the day and when sleeping. I had the familiar deep muscle fatigue that I feel when I wake up the day after hard ride, but it never went away throughout the day.

As the first recovery week progressed, I continued to ride, but shorter and mostly easier than normal. I'd feel great on the road one minute and like I wanted to climb off the bike the next. Steady tempo efforts were sometimes very difficult, but then I'd try a short hard effort or do a hard climb and feel much better.

Then 7 days into recovery, I made the brilliant decision to ride a century in 98 degree heat. I felt ok, but I'm sure it set back my rebound by a week or two.

I have a hypothesis that the long steady Iowa rides heavily stressed my slow twitch muscle fibers and sub-threshold energy systems, but had little effect on my fast-twitch muscle fibers (yes, I do have a few) and superthreshold energy systems. That's why I'd feel fine powering up a hill on a group ride, then think I was about to die when we eased into a tempo paceline.

I went out today and did a few hill repeats on my normal training hill to loosen up my legs and I set a new time and wattage record without even going all out. I climbed my little training hill in 44 seconds and averaged about 510 watts -- about 16 seconds faster than in April. But my legs felt horrible the entire time - go figure.

I'm not sure what it all means for the Dahlonega race this weekend, but I'll know pretty soon.

Pedal force & muscle fatigue

Past testing has shown me that I achieve my highest power for a constant heart rate (150 bpm) at 65 rpm. My power is significantly higher at that cadence than at 55 rpm or 75 rpm. That's a lot lower (about 20 rpm lower) than my normal cadence. I've more or less ignored the heart rate/cadence data due to two assumptions that I've held:

1. The goal is not to achieve the lowest heart rate, it's to put out the maximum wattage.
2. The higher muscle force required to hold the lower cadence at a given wattage would result in power fade on longer rides more than would a higher cadence with lower muscle force.

This past week's experiments with higher pedal force (a low-cadence hill repeat session last week and last night's group ride) revealed an interesting new wrinkle: My perceived exertion is significantly less when climbing at high power and low cadence than it has been with higher cadence. I guess that's to be expected because the higher cadence climbing is putting a larger share of the physiological load on oxygen transfer (aerobic system). The higher force, lower cadence approach is much more anaerobic. My average pedal force for the 1-minute interstate hill climb on Pate was about 600 lb-in (that's equivalent to alternating 90-lb one-leg squats). That's a lot higher than my typical pedal force of around 450 lb-in.

So the question boils down to this: Can I reduce my cadence when climbing hard and still have the same amount of gas left at the end of a 2 to 4 hour ride. If so, I think I can climb faster with less pain -- and those are both good things.

Switching back to strength

So the cycling tripod is skills, VO2, and strength.

For me, skills work is the most difficult to improve because I don't enjoy doing cornering drills and one-leg intervals and because skills improvement is difficult to quantify, so I can't easily see improvement. Also, I think skills are determined for a large part by genetics. My brother-in-law was a much better athlete in high school than I was; but 20 years later, I can easily best him in any type of speed or endurance sport. However, I never have stood, still don't stand, and never will stand a chance against him in any skills test. He's better at golf, tennis, darts, horseshoes, skeet, bowling, Frisbee, basketball.... you get the picture. I think skills are inborn and you can only do so much to improve them.

Oxygen transfer can be greatly improved with training. Lots of that improvement comes from losing body fat and some of it comes from getting more efficient at processing oxygen. But after a decade of training, increasing oxygen transfer even a little bit gets very difficult. My oxygen transfer genetics are pretty good (VO2max=67 ml/kg/min - most people who like to ride bikes, swim, and run for fun have pretty good oxygen transfer, otherwise they'd be miserable and probably would spend more time golfing and writing). This is the leg that I lean on the most by far for my current cycling ability. If I had been born with a VO2max of 45, I likely wouldn't have become a cyclist.

Strength is the one leg of the tripod where I might have room for some significant gains. The next phase of my training will include lots of pedal force work such as low cadence intervals and more sprint work. I'll see if I can make improvements in FTP through muscle strength and increase maximum power output with neuromuscular training. The key is to add this additional training while still doing enough of the stuff I've already been doing so that my oxygen transfer doesn't suffer.

As a side note: There has been enough written on strength training (particularly on off-season weight training) for cycling to fill lots of books; but I tried weight training last winter and I'm not convinced that it was helpful for me - particularly if you consider that I could have spent that time doing low cadence work on the bike. I guess if I skip the squats this winter and suffer next spring I'll be changing my tune.