What's The Point?

After several weeks of graduate school, the Socratic definition of wisdom that "the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing," could not be more aptly applied. Although an incredibly rich and comprehensive undergraduate education coupled with my personal research and educational interests have prepared me quite well for the academic rigors of the master's program, I must readily admit that the more I learn, the more questions I have.

One question that I have always asked, but seems to be increasingly relevant, is: "from a practical standpoint, why are we collecting physiological data?"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Socrates_Louvre.jpg

There are obvious answers to this question, such as "to track progress" or "to prescribe exercise," and whilst those answers are correct, they are missing the nuances of the question. For the sake of this argument, I will be considering data collection in the context of heart rate, but it could be just as easily applied to any biomarker.

We use data in sport all the time. You can't turn on the television without being bombarded by statistics of your favorite sports stars or teams. You can't go to a live game without overhearing the person behind you talking about pass completion percentages or some other measure of physical performance. Even from a basic level, keeping score in any game or sport is the crux of competition. We are applying mathematics to physical performances to determine whether one person or team is 'better' than another.

But what would happen if say, our ability to determine a high-jumpers 'score' had extreme levels of error associated with it. Instead of measuring a successfully cleared height of 180.1 cm, we instead measured it at 178 cm ± 4 cm. The next jumper then jumped an actual height of 179 cm, but we were only able to record it as 176.8 ± 5 cm. How would we ever determine who jumped higher? The precision of measurement is necessary to make these distinctions.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62214000/jpg/_62214065_chicherovaa.jpg

Then consider a situation where we are unable to directly measure the jumped height, and instead are going to approximate the height they jumped based on the magnitude of force we recorded on a force plate from their take-off leg. Now, we have some mathematical models that can calculate the height cleared, but must make some assumptions such as direction of force, speed of approach, air resistance  temperature, distance from the bar, neural coordination, force transfer, technical ability of the jumper etc. Once all of these variable have been normalized, we use that formula to calculate the winner. This method would be rightly rejected by the competitive community and be labeled as 'only an estimation.'

This situation is obviously hyperbole, but it goes to illustrate my point. Measurement in exercise science must be precise, as well as recognize the limitations of the measurement based on the assumptions being made.

So what about heart rate (HR)? Well, most HR monitors are considered to have a relatively high level of accuracy in detecting the actual rate of cardiac contractility. However only yesterday I read an article of a high-profile coach using HR data to monitor athletes and was using age-predicted maximum HR to determine relative training zones. Furthermore, I doubt they carefully controlled the method of measuring resting HR, adding further error to the calculation. Or are they using basal HR? How many times are they measuring HR? What is their criteria for accepting to rejecting recorded measurements? What is the criteria for ensuring a normalized state for the subject when taking measurements? How are they measuring maximum HR? Is it equation derived or testing derived? If derived from a maximal test, how do they know it was maximal? Perhaps it was only peak HR and under different conditions or stimulus, the heart is actually capable of a higher rate of contractility?

http://cf.ltkcdn.net/exercise/images/std/118921-400x300-Heart_rate.jpg

We also need to address whether the thing we are measuring is the variable of interest. As with our high jump example above, we were measuring force generation, when what we were really interested in was the height that was jumped. Why are we measuring HR? Is it because we are interested in how many times the heart is beating in any given minute of training? Perhaps, but more likely, we are interested in aerobic workload (VO2). Assuming this, we are now trying to predict VO2 based on HR responses. In most situations, we assume a linear response between VO2 and HR with an increasing workload, but is this actually the case? For everyone? Regardless of training status or development? Is this a reasonable assumption or are there caveats that need to be considered?

Why does this matter? Well, most coaches or staff are interested in biomarkers or physiological measuring as a method of improving training or periodization strategies. Often this step forward in training is made with elite athletes, where even small physical improvements can be significant for performances.

When we are working with such small margins, every source of error we introduce into the measurement, or every assumption we make regarding our method of measurement makes our conclusions about the data less and less meaningful. There comes a point where we are willing to accept a certain degree of error so we can utilize the data and improve our training strategies, but everyone involved needs to be made aware of the limitations of every measurement so concrete decisions or opinions aren't made based on unreliable data.

I am urging coaches and athletes who are using data to track physical performance to become intimately familiar with the sources of error and assumptions made with every mode of measurement, and consider all of those aspects before making training recommendations. Training recommendations based on poor data could be less than optimal or even worse, dangerous for an athlete. This is something we should all do our best to avoid.

Are You At Risk Of Over-Training?

In the last post we discussed intra-session recovery and the reasons for paying close attention to this detail. During that post I mentioned a concept known as 'over-training' which may or may not be a familiar term. I wanted to take a brief moment to explain over-training, how we might know that we're over-trained, populations at risk for it, and how we can avoid it.
In essence, over-training is the result of the summation of over-reaching efforts over time without adequate recovery periods. Over-reaching is of course necessary (overload principle) to induce training adaptations, but when applied too frequently, or at an intensity that exceeds the body's ability to reach homeostasis, or both, we can reach an over-trained state. There are several proposed mechanisms for why this occurs, including muscular micro-traumas, elvated stress hormone levels (cortisone), calorie (energy) deficiencies, negative nitrogen balance, excessive neural strain, and others.

The symptoms of over-training are numerous, non-concurant, and perhaps some may not occur at all. For most athletes, understanding over-training can be difficult, since the symptoms seem to be standard effects of over-reaching. However it is important to note that these symtoms are persistant and more severe than typical training effects. It can often take an athlete experiencing these symptoms to truely understand how debilitating over-training can be (as was in my case) although this is something we should try to avoid.

Symptoms to watch for include muslce soreness, general fatigue, decreased training capacity, elevated resting heart rate, decreased heart rate variability, increased perpensity for injuries and illness, decreased immune responses, emotional imbalances, depression, irritability, inability to concentrate, sudden and seemingly irreversible weight loss, amennohrea or dismenorhea, disrupted sleep, and many others. If you're experiencing any of these symptoms, there is a chance you are over-trained.

Typically, athletes who engage in significant training protocols will be most at risk for over-training, especially if their periodization models do not allow for adequate recovery time. However, it may be more accurate to say that any indivudal who engages in training protocols that are relatively volminous are at the greatest risk. This can include any period in the training cycle for an individual, since the athletic capacity or fatigue resistance of an athlete can vary significantly through mesocycles.

As previously mentioned, it can be difficult to understand what being over-trained feels like unless you have experienced it. It is tempting then to suggest that every athlete should experience over-training syndrome at least once so they understand the debilitating effects and can therefore work more intelligently to avoid it in the future. However, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend that any person should be irresponsible in their training and partake in a schedule that will lead to the damaging effects that over-training brings forth.

To avoid over-training then, I believe I will almost always advocate a conservative approach to loading an athlete. This may result in a slower rate of improvement, but this just means that as professionals, we should be planning on a longer timeline to peak an athlete. With this conservative approach, we are in essence weighing the pros and cons of over-loading and over-training and proclaiming that we would rather improve an athlete at a slower rate and avoid the debilitating effects of over-training, rather than gamble with an athlete's health by fast-tracking them to a higher level of fitness.

As always, please share and repost this with anyone and everyone!

Learn everything you can, train hard, repeat.

Posted with Blogsy

Be The Funnel - You Are The Funnel.

This is the second part of two posts. In the first post, we discussed the importance of transient recovery, aka the recovery you take whilst engaging in the activity. In Part 2, we will start looking at the bigger picture - more specifically, the recovery between exercise sessions.

http://graemethomasonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/exercise-recovery.jpg

As discussed in the previous post regarding recovery time between sets or reps in any given session, recovery is based on the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS). This model consists of an initial alarm phase, resistance phase and finally an exhaustion phase. In simple terms, if a particular stressor that causes a physiological response that cannot be completely mediated is applied for too long, the body will no longer be able to deal with the stressor and will shut down.

http://organlessons.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/funnel_pic.jpg?w=241

Consider by analogy, a funnel with only a small spout. If we pour water into the funnel at a rate that the spout releasing the water cannot match, eventually the funnel will overflow.

Our bodies work in a similar manner. Our training stimulus induces fatigue (pouring water in) and then attempts to repair itself (funneling water out of the spout). The analogy somewhat breaks down however, since our bodies are a dynamic organism, capable of what is known as "super-compensation." Analogously, this means we are able to both increase the volume of the funnel and the size of the spout so we can deal with a greater stimulus and increase the rate of removal.

Returning to the GAS principle, periodization methodologies aim to induce an alarm in the body, remove the stressor, allow the body to repair and super-compensate and then apply another stressor before detraining can occur. This timing is critical in order to induce an optimal response, and can therefore be difficult to administer when attempting to control all of the given variables.

http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/devel/ibank/image/0143.jpg

The primary concern when periodizing a program in regards to recovery intervals between sessions is the direct relationship between the physiological load and duration of recovery period. If, for example, a stress of size "x" is applied to an athlete, time to return to baseline may be 12 hours and time to reach peak super-compensation may be 24 hours. However, if load "2x" is applied, the athlete may require up to 48-72 hours to return to baseline. This is often neglected due to a misunderstanding of this relationship, lack of or poor load monitoring, lack of or poor recovery monitoring or a multitude of other reasons.

This then results in athletes applying loads when still fatigued (increasing injury risk) and leads to overtraining syndrome. Once an athlete is overtrained, not only are they at risk of many illnesses and injuries due to reduce immune functional and biomechanical control, but there is no capacity left for supercompensation, stunting their athletic progress and disabling future performances.

An individual's periodization program must account for the size of the stressor (volume of water in jug), the rate of administration (how fast we pour the water into the funnel), the training capacity of the athlete (funnel volume), and the physiological capacity of the athlete to recover from the stimulus (size of spout). To increase the complexity of this situation, all of these components have dynamic sub-components to consider that will alter or affect each at a fundamental level e.g. hormonal profile of athlete, psychological stress, environmental factors, nutritional habits etc.

So we now understand the importance of suffienecent recovery both during the session and between sessions. Next we will look at the SPORT principle, on which all periodization methodologies are based.

Please use the subscribe button at the top of the page to receive notifications when new blogs are posted, and make sure to share to anyone you think may be interested!

Posted with Blogsy

Music Is The Space Between The Notes

Continuing from the discussion on periodization, and before we dive into the realm of various systems that have been used in the past and the direction of modern systems, it is imperative that everyone has a thorough understanding on the importance of rest and recovery during training.

http://sbrsport.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/recovery-run-rest.png

In the interest of keeping these posts as manageable as possible for readers, as well as preventing myself from chasing bunnies down all sorts of rabbit-holes, I will be dividing the conversation of recovery into two (at a minimum) separate posts.

When investigating recovery mechanisms, it is near impossible to separate them from the fatigue mechanisms from which we are recovering. For that purpose, we will split the concept of recovery along the dividing lines of fatigue, into two separate but not so distinct parts. On one side of the dividing line we have what we will call session recovery, that is, the recovery after and between training sessions, in which we are recovering from fatigue developed in the preceding training session. The second recovery component is deemed transient recovery and is the recovery between intervals within the session. The term is derived from the concept of transient fatigue which is fatigue that is attenuated within the course of the particular training or competition session.

http://www.ivillage.com/tips-avoid-muscle-fatigue-when-exercising/4-a-552455

This post will focus primarily on the concept of transient recovery. One may be inclined to believe that this concept does not apply to them or their particular sport. However, there are very few sports that do not have some intermittent nature, with perhaps the exception of sporting competitions in which only a single effort is required. However even those sports contain elements of transient recovery since there are usually 'heats' in a single athletic competition (think: 100m sprint) or repeated efforts during training regimens. Also consider long duration events in which heart rate plateaus and the athlete is in an aerobic steady-state. These events still require periods of higher and lower intensities, since a 200km cycling event may consist of multiple attacks and chases and climbs and descents, pushing athletes into their red-zones before returning closer to the session average. There is also some evidence to suggest that these endurance and ultra-endurance events consist of periods of lower intensities in which athletes attempt to rebuild energy stores and remove metabolic byproducts before returning to average race intensity. Therefore, the ability to recover from this fatigue accumulated during the event is a necessary component to consider for all athletes.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site21/2013/0706/20130706__07dcscycw_500.jpg

When determining the transient recovery periods during your training, you must have a specific training session goal. This is coupled with the proportional relationship between intensity and recovery. This relationship, simply, shows that as desired intensity of an action increases, the necessary time to recover from said activity also increases. For example, a 1-repetition maximum snatch requires a larger amount of recovery time relative to activity time than a 50% of 1-RM would require in order to reproduce similar results.

http://www.olympic.org/results?q=weightlifting

Therefore, if your goal is to increase maximal power output, your recovery periods should be timed so that each set or repetition sees you close to fully recovered before attempting another repetition, most likely in excess of 3 minutes so that you are able to produce maximal power per rep. If however, your goal is to increase aerobic capacity at sub-threshold intensities, the ratio of work to rest can be significantly higher due to the differences in the stresses applied to the body. As mentioned previously, this is related to various fatigue mechanisms - a discussion for another post.

The understanding of this relationship also gives us a powerful tool in periodizing work outs. Repeated Sprint Ability is, as the name suggests, the ability to produce high intensity efforts at maximum frequency. The recovery period between bouts can be manipulated to illicit specific training responses, within physiological limits, that would allow athletes to reproduce a higher number of high intensity bouts in a given time period, with a limited loss of action quality.

http://www.unchainedfitness.com/blog/targeted-speed-endurance-training-in-season-improves-repeated-high-intensity-performance-ability-in-soccer-players

A common activity I have seen in many sports, particularly team sports, is a partnering of athletes during workouts: one athlete completes a particular number of repetitions or travels a particular distance while their counterpart recovers, then they switch places and repeat. Related to our discussion, the issue here is quite evident. As intensity of activity is increased (e.g. running faster) the athlete returns to their partner in a shorter amount of time, thereby decreasing recovery time and vice versa. As we can see, this violates our general relationship between recovery and intensity. We can then expect the quality of the action to be compromised and subsequently reducing the potential gains from the session.

As the old adage goes, "train smarter, not harder." Preferably we want to do both, but misunderstandings about recovery periods during intermittent training activities tends to lead to a reduction in the overall quality and potential of the session.

Please share, tweet, like, subscribe, subtweet, instagram, hashtag, retweet, post, vine, snapchat and whatever else the youth of today do, and stay tuned for Part 2!

Please enter your email address to subscribe!

Bonking

After working on several iterations of posts to carry on the discussion of periodization and it's essential components, the explanations became too extensive for a single post so I will split those into several posts over the next few weeks.

In the interim however, I wanted to discuss a brief issue I encountered yesterday. I made a terrible mistake that jeopardized my training session and unfortunately meant I decreased my value of training by a significant margin. How significant is difficult to quantify, but on future rides I hope to extract at least a slightly significant estimate of lost potential.

My mistake yesterday: underestimating the need for fuel. My training consisted of an extended distance ride, my training goal being 100km in 'x' amount of time. Since I had not previously completed the course I was riding, the time and subsequent velocity were unknown and therefore not terribly valuable metrics.

http://www.strava.com/activities/110479030

During endurance activities of durations greater than 90 minutes (or relative time, based on session intensities) the body will have exhausted it's available glycogen stores in the liver and muscle tissue. Glycogen is the storage form of glucose in the body and it's levels are constantly fluctuating based on the energy needs in the body. Since at any particular, instantaneous moment, various glycogen stores may be in an anabolic or catabolic state, it is the net loss or gain of these stores that we concern ourselves with.

It is true that trained athletes can increase their ability to store glycogen, allowing them to work at a given intensity for a longer period without exhausting their energy stores. Additionally, aerobically trained athletes are able to utilize fat stores at a given oxygen uptake more efficiently to stave off glycogen usage. Even so, the exhaustion of these glycogen stores is still a significant issue for all athletes, trained or not, if sufficient intensity or duration of activity is completed.

http://www.pattersonfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/insulin-and-glucagon.jpg

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/fat-burning-using-body-fat-instead-of-carbohydrates-as-fuel-40844

As a rookie mistake, I did not take any fuel with me on my ride. As such, at approximately the 3 hour mark, I felt my body hitting the wall, also known as "bonking." I had depleted my energy reserves and was relying on the oxidation of fat stores for energy and the production of ketones to keep my central nervous system functioning. Due to this, my heart rate monitor became incredibly valuable. Knowing my various thresholds, I was able to keep my HR low enough to keep me in an aerobic state to maximize my ability to utilize as much fat as possible, whilst still keeping my power output high enough to get me through the last 10 miles and get me home quickly where I had water and sugar waiting for me.

Lesson for the day: regardless of how long you 'think' you will be out riding, running or training, take some glucose replacements with you. Whether this is a sports drink, gel or a banana, you will be able to keep the intensity of your session at the desired level and get more out of your sessions. Then call me and thank me for making the mistake for you. You're welcome.

Please enter your email address to subscribe!

Making A Plan

This will only be a short post, but hopefully will provide a springboard for many more in-depth discussions in the future. I wanted to introduce the concept of periodization and explain why the concepts should be applied to any physical endeavor, whether you're a powerlifter, cyclist, soccer player, gymnast or a recreational athlete.

http://training-periodization.com/what-will-you-find/what-will-you-find/examples/sword-fencing-champion-periodization/

Periodization in it's most basic form is simply a plan. In search of a more encompassing description, after discussions with friends and a lot of reading, I believe periodization can most aptly be described as a systematic and deliberate structure of training over an extended period of time with the intention to progress athletic ability in one or more areas. Please keep in mind that through this definition, periodization can be just as easily applied to improving technique in a chosen sport as it can to developing the physiological profile of that athlete.

Some individuals, and indeed many champions of various sporting arenas have managed to reach the pinnacle of sporting success in their chosen discipline without the formal concept of periodization. Since 'periodization' only began coming into it's own during the early 1960's with Eastern European Olympians, one could be mistaken in thinking that athletes before this period were simply training chaotically. This may be true relative to athletes in the modern era, but even ancient Olympians recognized they required a resting period prior to their race. The planning of these periods is essential to reaching athletic goals, whether that is health, personal satisfaction or performing well in an organized event.

http://www.city-connect.org/sporting-in-the-olympic-theatre/

Hans Selye first introduced the concept of what he called the General Adaptation Syndrome and it's effect on physical and mental health. In his book "The Stress of Life" he explains how this concept can be used to become healthier.

http://bretcontreras.com/the-paradox-of-the-strength-and-conditioning-professional/

As you can see from the above graph, the initial stressor creates a negative trend, below homeostasis. The body then resists this stress and brings the body back into homeostasis. However, the body, being the incredible organism it is, overcompensates for the stress, strengthening the body beyond the original homeostatic point in order to protect the body from future stresses of similar magnitude. This is what Selye labelled the 'supercompensation phase.' You will also note that the final area of the graph sees another negative trend. This is what Selye described as the 'exhaustion phase' and is the result of a prolonged, unchanging stressor, or the removal of the stressor for too long.

So what does this have to periodization? Everything! This same model has been adapted by several scientists and coaches, including the 'Father of Periodization,' Tudor Bompa. This concept makes up the basis of all training plans. An initial stress (training) is applied to the body, to which the body responds to by resisting this kind of training in the future and reaching a super compensation point. The main purpose of periodization is to time the next stress to the body appropriately. If applied too early (say, in the alarm phase), the subsequent stress will keep the athlete on a negative trend and eventually lead to severe deterioration of performance (over-training). However, if applied too late, the body will not take full advantage of it's supercompensation point and training will not be maximized.

This basic understanding of the stress-response curve is essential when trying to plan training sessions in any activity. In future posts, I will dive further into how to use and apply this curve in many different aspects.

Please enter your email address to subscribe!

It's All In The Hips

Happy New Year! After a very enjoyable holiday season with family and friends, we've arrived in 2014. For me, that also means another birthday. I was fortunate enough to spend the day with some great people and Skype my family from Australia. It was a great day! I also received some unbelievable gifts, one of which I wanted to make the focus of this post.

The weather this season is truly embracing the quintessential meaning of winter; below freezing temperatures, icicles hanging from the roof, and snow covered roads. One morning, my stubbornness got me into some trouble when I was adamant about doing my usual ride. Unfortunately, I didn't have any of the appropriate attire, nor the necessary experience to protect myself on such a ride. Without going into too many details, I decided that the experience wasn't one I should repeat on a daily basis if I put any value in my health.

The solution, therefore, was to either use better equipment for outdoor rides or find a way to continue to train indoors during the winter. Luckily for me, my family was on the same wavelength! I received some amazing gifts, including a winter bib and riding jacket. I also received a set of rollers from my family in Australia and I absolutely love them.

The rollers are reasonably self-explanatory - the bike sits on top of the aluminum drums and as you pedal, the rollers provide the counter-rotation to the angular velocity of the wheel. Therefore, you are able to ride the bike without (too much) linear displacement. This is in contrast to other indoor trainers, which elevate and stabilize the rear wheel and provide the resistance to overcome. The two principal differences between these two systems of indoor training is that rollers provide no additional resistance (negligible friction and roller belts excluded) and require that the increase in intensity come from a combination gearing and cadence increases, whereas the trainers can provide significant resistance through magnetic forces, hydraulics etc. Secondly, since trainers stabilize the rider, the athlete can concentrate solely on applying power to the cranks, as opposed to the rollers where the rider must contend with balance issues and pedaling efficiency.

Prior to using my rollers, I had read many articles and reviews in which the authors expressed sincere disdain for training on rollers, simply because the learning curve was so steep and they were unable to cycle at an adequate intensity to make significant gains. And then there was this girl:

Always lean to the side you unclip.

So I began to wonder, "why are these experienced cyclists having such a difficult time riding on rollers when they can control a bike so well on the road?"
It turns out I am not the first person to ask this question. As far back as 1942, Arthur Jones began investigating the physics of bicycles and subsequent investigations revealed a great deal about the relationships between gyroscopic forces and 'trail' as well as stabilizing centrifugal forces. The physics of this is well understood, but the differences between riding a bike on the ground and riding on rollers remained in question.

Patricia Cleary and Pirooz Mohazzabi from the University of Wisconsin-Parkside investigated this topic in their article, On the stability of a bicycle on rollers (2011). A discussion of gyroscopic stabilizing effects, 'trail' and centrifugal forces are explained and I suggest you read it if this is of any interest to you. The following explanations can be found in their paper in far more detail.
A centrifugal force is essentially a reactionary force to the centripetal or 'center seeking' force. Therefore the centrifugal force is pushing an object in rotation away from the center of rotation. Consider a bicycle cornering: the rider leans into the corner, inducing a 'trail' and the resulting torque turning the wheel towards the center of the turn, thus beginning the bicycles curved path. As this happens, however, the centrifugal force acts to push the bicycle out of this path or pushes the bike to an upright position.

Now consider the same motion occurring on rollers, where a lean will not result in a rotational curvature and subsequent centrifugal force, since the drums do not permit any actual turning to occur. In this case, the trail is not counteracted by the centrifugal force and therefore will result in either falling off the rollers due to the wheel no longer being perpendicular to the rollers and simply riding off the side, or a counter-lean/steer by the rider to maintain the center of gravity above the contact points. This results in a lot of counter-leaning or counter-steering by the rider and can have the appearance and feeling of being far less stable.

An additional subtle difference on rollers is the exaggeration of the pneumatic tail, a result of the asymmetrical forces on the tire during turning. Because the rollers are a curved surface, this contact area is not necessarily always perpendicular to the wheel, thus creating additional torque to overcome.

So what does this mean for riding on rollers compared to the road? At a very basic level, it means that in order to remain stable on the bike while on the rollers, a rider must limit the amount of leaning and steering done. This seems an intuitive and a simple solution, but consider the causes of unwanted or accidental steering and leaning. Applying too much force to the handle bars, an uneven pedal stroke, tight back musculature causing a natural lean, an asymmetrical force generation between each leg, poor core control that results in a 'rocking' of the hips during the pedal stroke... all of these issues can easily cause a rider to feel extremely unstable when riding on rollers.

From my experience, the greatest benefit I have found from riding on rollers is the significant core control required. The most stable I feel when on the rollers is sitting upright, riding 'no-hands.' This eliminates accidental steering and allows me to control the bike through my core stabilizers. Unfortunately, this also puts me in a disadvantageous position for generating large power outputs, and so my training sees a majority of my time on the handlebars, always concentrating on a perfectly even and smooth pedal stroke with minimal hip imbalances by controlling my core musculature.
I believe this will help a great deal in making me a better cyclist when I am able to get back out on the road in a couple of months. I think everyone, whether you're a cyclist or not, could benefit from this kind of training if for no other reason than it forces core control like no other activity I have experienced...and it's unbelievably fun to ride your bike at 25 mph in your living room.

Please enter your email address to subscribe!

Posted with Blogsy