Quantcast
Channel: Alan Couzens
Viewing all 52 articles
Browse latest View live

Run Power Calculator

$
0
0
Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)

You'll find below a calculator that will give you an equivalent bike power (in watts) for a given running pace.

To use it, simply enter your weight (in lbs) in the first white cell then a given (flat) run pace (in the format h:m:ss) in the cell below. E.g. for 8:30/mi, enter "0:8:30".  It will the spit out an equivalent energy output (in watts) on the bike.

A key element in my "energy pacing your ironman" pacing strategy (here and here) is that you negative split the race, i.e. that you're putting out more 'power' in the run portion of the race than you are for the bike portion. This calculator is particularly useful as a 'check in' on how well you accomplished this (or whether you left some time out there on the course).

Ideally, your "run power" should just about always be greater that your normalized power on the bike for any 70.3 or Ironman event.





This calculator is based on average economy numbers of 75W/L on the bike and 210ml/kg/km on the run. Actual equivalencies may vary a little with specific economy differences but this represents a good 'ball park' based on the average of triathletes that I have tested in the lab.

Hopefully, you find it useful & it can help to lead you to a PR in 2014.

Race smart!

AC



Newsflash: You don't need to train at FTP to raise FTP!

$
0
0



Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)

"Ah, push it. Push it real good."
- Salt 'N Pepa

We just wrapped up a fun weekend at Endurance Corner with our Coaches Clinic. We had coaches travel in to a frigid Boulder from all corners of North America to learn about all aspects of coaching, from streamlining business processes to the finer points of applied exercise physiology for endurance athletes. As you might guess, I got pretty excited about some of the discussions that arose from the latter. J

One of our presentations involved a demonstration of how to both perform and analyze a lactate test for an endurance athlete. One of the coaches brought along a (semi) willing guinea pig (in full flight in above pic) and we had a lot of fun chatting through his data. One of the suggestions that I made after looking at his data was that, he was anaerobically very strong and aerobically a little weak for his current category; localCat 3 cyclist (probably equivalent to a Cat 1 anywhere else in the U.S. J )

From this conclusion, I had some great discussions with the various coaches about what this means from a practical (training) perspective. In order to talk “apples and apples” with the field based coaches, one of the aerobic markers that we chatted through was the OBLA and its field equivalent FTP. After identifying FTP as a potential area for improvement, the knee-jerk response seemed to be that this athlete would most benefit from a staple diet of 2x20’s in or around their FTP.

The assumption seemed to be that an athlete would most (only?) benefit from work that is specific to the training intensity that we’re looking to improve. This is simply not the case. In fact, the work rate that we see at this lactate balance point is a function of both the lactate being produced by all muscle fibers up to that point, along with the ability of these muscle fibers to ‘take up’ & use the lactate being produced. The fibers that are best suited to this task are the slow twitch muscle fibers that are best trained with long, voluminous efforts. The ability to train muscle fibers that, by nature want to use carbohydrate as an energy source (& consequently, want to produce lactate) is limited at best.

This discussion reinforced the benefit of blood lactate testing as a comprehensive ‘snapshot’ of all aspects of an athlete’s physiology at a given point in time. In my opinion, for the information they provide, they are significantly under-utilized by current coaches.

A good example of this ‘snapshot’ and the implications on our ‘guinea pig’s’ training prescription can be seen in the example below.



 
This chart shows 2 lactate tests from one of my own guinea pigs Jafter 8 weeks of pretty much exclusive base training. With the exception of some short (30s) efforts at ~vVO2 intensity & a little unstructured intensity in the form of hill work, this period was almost exclusively base focused (less than 80% of max HR). Looking at the athlete’s power histogram from that time period, only 8% of the work was at greater than 275W.

However, despite this low intensity focus, the athlete’s OBLA (& FTP) actually went up by ~25W! (via the modified Dmax method-scroll to bottom) If we drill a little deeper into the 2 curves, we can see why. The ‘fork in the road’ between the early base and late base curves occurs way early (at the 200W point!). In fact, the gradient of both curves beyond the 225W point are very similar in both curves, but the benefit that the athlete gets by flattening out that 200-225W point, gets carried all the way up to FTP!

More good news… these muscle fibers are sustainablytrainable. In other words, the ‘upside’ for mitochondrial proliferation & capillarization in the slow twitch fibers from untrained to well trained is a multi-year proposition! The improvements at this point on the curve can continue for a VERY LONG period of time. For example, Coyle et al. (1990) found 41% greater capillarization in the slow twitch muscle fibers for those athletes who had 10 years of consistent endurance training under their belt vs those who had ‘only’ been endurance training for 5. In fact, most of the difference in aerobic capacity between these 2 groups of athletes, came down to differences in the slow twitch (Type 1) muscle fibers. This would gel with my own experience: While the ‘curvy bit’ of the lactate curve is somewhat malleable, the big difference over the years comes by pushing the whole thing further and further to the right (along the wattage axis). As we do this, year after year, all points of the curve (including FTP) move to the right.

Take home points….
·         Incorporate regular lactate testing into your training to get a comprehensive snapshot of what’s going on (go in on a portable machine with your buddies – it’s money well spent!)

·         Focus your long term training at the ‘fork in the road’. All points north of this will benefit.

·         A little bit of specific work to flatten or raise a specific point on the curve close to your event goes a long way. For most of the year, in the immortal words of Salt & Pepa “Push it” (to the right).

And above all….
Train smart,
AC

Submax FTP Calculator

$
0
0
Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)

As you might have guessed from yesterday's post, I'm, generally, not a big fan of doing a lot of sustained work in or around the athlete's FTP. In relative terms, this is true throughout the year, but it's especially true in the early season, when both overall volume and the fitness base of the athlete is at the lowest point of the build. For most athletes, a 20min max TEST effort at or above FTP in the early season constitutes 'way too much' FTP work in my opinion/experience.

For coaches who use performance modeling software (WKO+, Training Peaks etc.) this represents a problem, as many of the calculated metrics rely on having an accurate, up to date, FTP number entered for the athlete &, at least to this point, the way to produce that number was via a maximal effort of at least 20min duration.

When a major unload is included (as it should be each year), there is a significant drop in the athlete's FTP number. For a good level AG male, this is typically in the range of 30-60 watts! If FTP is not adjusted, the training load (TSS) of each session will be significantly underestimated. This can lead to big problems in terms of over-doing the training load prescription and can even lead to an early season bout of overtraining that can really mess with the upcoming season. Bottom line: You shouldn't use last season's FTP number at the start of a new season.

But... we do need a number and the alternative to using last season's isn't a whole lot better in terms of risk of over-training. Do we really want our athlete to be blasting a "bleed from the eyeballs" 20min max effort coming straight out of a "keep moving but don't do anything structured" off-season prescription? I can attest from experience that we don't! Bad things happen when athletes with no aerobic base start doing maximal anaerobic efforts!

So, what's the solution?

I'll offer one here - a submaximal FTP calculator that uses the relatively linear relationship between HR and power (or pace) within the athlete's aerobic zones to 'project up the line' to what the athlete's FTP would be at threshold heart rate.

What you'll need....

* A true max heart rate value - this could be from any recent season as max HR is a relatively stable number.

* A current resting HR number.

* 2 submax efforts on a flat road/trainer where you lap for power or pace and HR. Ideally you'll come back to the same course for each test. Also, ideally you'll do the test under similar conditions (similar time of day, temp etc). These efforts should be sufficiently long that HR stabilizes for a good period of time but sufficiently short that decoupling isn't significant. Depending on fitness, something in the range of 2x10min to 2x20min works well.

* Do the first as close as possible to (but not exceeding) the top of your Steady heart rate zone (indicated by the HR number next to 65%)

* Rest for a sufficient period of time to bring HR & power back in line.

* Do the second as close as possible to (but not exceeding) the top of your Mod-Hard HR zone (indicated by the HR number next to 75%)

If you know your specific % MaxHR numbers (from a lactate test) for top of steady, mod-hard & threshold heart rates,, you can change the % numbers and enter them in the calculator. If not, use the recommended 65, 75, 85% Karvonen numbers given.

* Enter your average power or pace from the 2 intervals of the test in the white squares.



The calculator will spit out an estimate for your current functional threshold power or pace that you can then plug into Training Peaks or WKO+ to ensure more accurate TSS numbers in the early season.

When fitness improves and training shifts to include some more threshold work in the program, you can shift to the CP5/20 FTP/fatigue curve calculator for a more accurate estimate of FTP and more extensive assessment of strengths and weaknesses. This is a more informative test, but the athlete has to have a certain amount of base fitness to be able to include these tests on a sufficiently regular basis without it negatively affecting their training.

Hope you find it as useful as I have with my own athletes.

Train smart,

AC


Big Steel Ticker

$
0
0
The running total for EC's annual Big Steel Challenge...

The mission is simple: How many lbs can the EC team move over the month of January?#Anabolic Cycle.

>

Training Weight vs Race Weight

$
0
0

Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)



"All we need is just a little patience" - Guns and Roses

As the Summer season is on the horizon, shirts are coming off, 5K’s are being entered and it seems that everyone is feeling ‘a few pounds heavy’. I figured it timely to pen a short piece with some thoughts on the significance of identifying and sticking to your ‘training weight’.

For many, ‘training weight’ is synonomous with ‘out of shape’ weight, i.e. I’m not yet at ‘race weight’ but this diminishes the importance of identifying and holding a good training weight.

There are a couple of studies that come to mind that back up the importance of not being in too much of a hurry to get to race weight. A 1980 study that tracked the British Olympic Road Cycling team over the season found a significant difference in the weight ‘swing’ (high to low) for those who were selected for the team vs those who weren’t. The selected athletes held an ‘off-season’ training weight of ~7% greater than race weight for the first 3 months of the season. This was significantly greater than the non-selected athletes.

A more recent study helps to explain why this difference may have been important. A 2005 study on “The effect of dominant somatotype on aerobic capacity trainability” found a significantly blunted training response in ectomorphs (the skinny group) vs all other groups. The meso-ecto group displayed almost double the improvement in VO2max of the pure ectomorphs over the same period of training. In fact, even the endomorphic group (average 20.6% body fat) exhibited a significantly better training response than the ectomorphs.  I’ve found a similar effect in my own coaching experience…

I track the relationship of fitness improvement versus training load in the form of an ‘F coefficient’ for the athletes that I coach. Without exception, the athletes with the highest F number to date have been of the mesomorphic persuasion (BMI>22). The athlete with the highest F number has a BMI of 24.1! Or, looked at longitudinally, my own highest F coefficient has occurred when my bodyweight was in the range of 176-178lbs (BMI = 21.5-21.7), while my best race performances to date have occurred below a BMI of 20.75.

My larger point is that while there are certainly races in which being light/skinny is desirable (specifically those with an abundance of heat and/or hills), when it comes to getting as generally fit as possible by both handling the most load and getting the most from that load in the early season, it’s important to maintain a little ‘reserve’.

Train Smart,

AC

Dr. Frankenstein's Kona Monster

$
0
0
Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)




At the moment, I only use live subjects for the 'experiments' in my basement exercise physiology lab but just in case I ever lose the plot entirely and decide to put together some hybrid of body parts to construct my ideal triathlete to contend in Kona, here’s what I’ll be on the lookout for…



Skeleton: My Kona monster will have a light, ‘small boned’ skeleton of average proportions. He will be relatively tall (~1.8m) in order to:

a)       Have a sufficiently long vessel & long arms to be relatively hydrodynamic in the water.

b)      Have a sufficiently large surface area:body weight to dissipate large amounts of heat; ~1380W of heat energy on the bike (@290W) and 1180W of heat energy on the run (@2:40 marathon pace).

c)       Have a sufficiently large thorax able to hold the engine capable of powering that 290W on the bike.

However, he will also need to be quite light for this height in order to run that 2:40 pace. Under 70kg total (BMI~21.5). To accommodate the weight of the necessary muscle & organ mass to produce the requisite power numbers, the skeleton would have to weigh only approximately 5.5kg, i.e. a very light frame.

Some distinctive features of this frame:

-          Average to short total leg length with relatively long femurs – lower leg length approx. equal to (not significantly greater than) femur length (=decreased bike frontal area without sacrificing leverage/power)

-          Relatively wide arm span (equal to or greater than standing height) with average shoulder width, i.e. long arms (=smaller frontal area on the bike without affecting swim economy)

-          Small to average size feet (=better run economy & decreased FA  on the bike)
All in all, my monster will need a frontal area at or below 0.39m^2 to put in a competitive bike split at 290W. He will need the bike and body geometry to achieve this.
Muscle:“Konie” will have sufficient leg muscle mass to generate ~290W over the bike course. In normal Kona conditions, this represents about as much power as an athlete of this size can generate without overheating. In this case, more is not better. Assuming that his VO2max power would need to be ~400W/5.4L to do so, at 200ml/kg of muscle this would equate to 27kg of appendicular mass. On normal (triathlete) distribution, ~20 of this 27kg of muscle would be distributed to the legs and ~7kg to the arms.  
Cardiovascular system: To fuel  400W of power at VO2max is going to take a significant amount of O2. Somewhere in the range of 5.4 liters per minute. Assuming an a-VO2 extraction of, 16ml/dL, my Kona monster’s cardiac output is going to need to be 34L/min, or at a max heart rate of 180bpm, a cardiac stroke volume of ~190ml, in other words, ‘a big ticker’.
Bodyfat: Doing the math, Kona Monster is going to need to be pretty lean. At 5.5kg frame mass, 27kg of appendicular muscle and a likely visceral/organ mass of ~33kg (average for someone of this frame), total fat mass can only be ~4.5kg or ~6% bodyfat.
Overall:  Konie’s somatotype will be a small meso-ectomorph (1.4/3.7/3.5)
Other: I will also require a set of jumper cables to get this bad boy started :-)
If you want to see how you stack up compared to “Konie” a DEXA scan coupled with a standard anthropometric assessment (girths and breadths) will give you some insight.
Choose your parents (or your sport) wisely & if you see me coming at you with a tape measure, run the other way :-)
Train Smart
AC

Training Update

$
0
0
It struck me the other day that I rarely use my blog in the way that most folks use a blog, i.e. to keep others up to date on the goings on of their lives. Probably because I coach folks who, I figure, are athletically much more interesting than myself JStill, as someone who is also on their own athletic journey, I’m thinking there may be some interest in my own strange split personality perspective as a self-coached athlete. In that spirit, I’m going to start providing occasional brief updates on my own training as I pursue my long term goal of qualifying for Kona.
The story so far…(A brief recap of 2012 training to date)
My big goal at the start of every year (whether talking about myself or the athletes I coach) is to be starting the year completely fresh (ditching the fatigue of last season) but also at a higher level of fitness than the previous year. This is the 3rd consecutive year that I’ve been able to manage that and I’m very happy about that. For the data-geeks (like me!) starting CTL’s (low points of the year) have been 36, 45, 48 resp.
I started the year with 2 months with a strength focus (December & January) with ~20tons/wk in loading weeks. Those who’ve seen me (& my DEXA scans) can confirm that I can afford to put on a little muscle so every year starts the same way – trying to add a little to this strength base. Results were positive with a kilo and a half of muscle added and a return to decent levels of strength for me.
February was a bike emphasis month, preparing for the Tucson camp in the first week of March. Nothing crazy as far as volume goes – 28hrs of cycling for the month (an hour a day), most of it on the trainer with a mix of intensities. Just enough to keep the fears of an upcoming 30hr week at bay J
March – Tucson camp. Best early season camp to date – 27hrs of total work for the week, 1852TSS, 13,193 kJ of work on the bike with some good quality – CP20 of 312W, CP150 of 249W & CP300 of 231W. I was feeling the positive effect of the strength work & exceeded all of the benchmarks that I had set for myself as ameasure of being ‘on track’. The CP300 was a life  best so very happy all around coming out of camp. Coming out of camp I was feeling fit so I ran an early season 5K as a ‘hit out’. It was a fairly hilly course with a few twists and turns but I was a minute off the benchmark that I had set for myself (22:19 vs 21:19). This, coupled with my first failed MAF test had me deciding that April would be a run focus month.
YTD Totals through to end of March:
Total: 162hrs (~53hrs/mo)
Swim – 15.3hrs (5.1/mo) – Yes, I need to swim more.
Bike – 79.5hrs (26.5/mo)
Run – 50.3hrs (16.8/mo)
Strength – 17.2hrs (5.7/mo)
Last block (April):
Focus has been run more, lose a little weight.
For the running more part I did 2x40+mi back to back run weeks in April, which is a solid amount of running for me. There was some quality in there as well, with a little bit of threshold, marathon pace and VO2 work in each week and I was happy with how I tolerated it (I would have been content to drop some of the quality if load suffered but it didn’t and it was fun to mix it up a bit).
Weight is a touchy one. There is a definite relationship between weight and run speed, at least for me. When I was consistently running around the 18min mark for 5Ks I was 158-163lbs (at 6’4”). This was before I had a power meter. Since working with a power meter, I’ve found that my highest bike power numbers consistently come at a weight of ~176lbs. I’ve also found that I get injured a whole lot less & tolerate the training a whole lot better when my training weight is in the mid 170’s. So there is a trade off. Given that the bike makes up 50+% of the total Ironman race, it’s important not to stray too far from your best bike weight. Similarly, given the importance of tolerating lots of training when preparing for an Ironman, it’s important not to deviate too far from your best training weight!
 Still, considering I need to be running 3:15 off the bike to reach my goal, I need to start getting on track for that and, with a 371W CP5 on the bike in April, I have some watts to spare at this point on the bike. My mean weight in April was 177lb, down from 179lb in March and results have been positive. MAF improved by 20s/mi and I ran a second 5K on a similarly hilly course 10s quicker. Both are still off my planned benchmarks but nothing a few more miles and a few less lbs won’t fix.

April Totals:
44hrs
Swim – 4.2
Bike – 17.5
Run – 19.5
Strength – 3.0
This block (May)
This block is balanced base of an up-down nature, by hrs per week – 21/8/21/8 with a bit of run intensity and a run race in each of the low weeks. With ~200hrs down in the first 4 months and about 600 to go, it’s time to start seeing some of those 20hr weeks!
Unsurprisingly, the swim benchmarks are starting to get a bit tougher to hit, I’ve fallen off my target of 3K in <45mins so late May/June will have a bit of a swim emphasis. Fortunately, the local outdoor pools open this month and swimming outside on a sunny day is so much more palatable.  I’m hoping my muscle memory holds me in good stead until then J
Train Smart.
AC

Is Doping A Necessary Evil?

$
0
0




It’s TdF time again. Unfortunately, nowadays, that means everwhere you turn an ear in the circles of endurance sport you’ll hear all kinds of folks, some qualified, most not, postulating on who’s on what.

Most of these opinions will be based on little more than conjecture and the individual’s general world view, however, some have put a little more thought into the implications of today’s performance level on the question of the prevalence of doping. Ross & Jonathon at the Science of Sport website (www.sportsscientists.com) have put a lot of time into looking at what some of the recent TdF stages  suggest about today’s top cyclists’ physiology and more specifically, how they compare to yesteryear’s athletes who competed in an era in which doping control was less advanced.
A thumbnail summary shows that today’s top athletes (Wiggins et al.) are putting out somewhere around 6.4W/kg over short climbs (~20min) & <6.0W/kg over the longer climbs (40min+) whereas cyclists from Armstrong’s era & earlier were ~6.8W/kg for the short climbs and ~6.3W/kg for the long. These figures for the fastest tour climbs in history (from w/kg calculations based on the VAM metric of  Michele Ferrari, 2009) are shown below.


I’ve added my own calculations of suggested VO2 max of these athletes based on an economy of 78W/L & a fatigue curve of 5% - typical numbers for pro level cyclists that I’ve tested/have data on, though the best cyclists in the world may be even higher. Lab data from Miguel Indurain (Padilla et al., 2000) suggested efficiency of 26% or ~90W/L.
The estimated VO2max of ~90ml/kg/min is marginally lower than the numbers that Ross & Jonathon came up with, presumably because of the differences in the assumption of %VO2max being held for the respective durations. I have good data to suggest that elite level cyclists are holding >95% WVO2max for durations in and around the 20min mark & >90% WVO2max for efforts in and around 40min. Again, these are elite, not world class athletes.
So, the big question becomes, how feasible is it for an athlete to ‘train up to’ a VO2max in the vicinity of 90ml/kg/min? Certainly, lab values in excess of 90ml/kg/min are exceedingly rare though not unheard of. Cross Country Skier Bjorn Dahlie, cyclist Greg Lemond & ultra runner Matt Carpenter have all cited test values of >90ml/kg/min. Several of the cyclists in the above list have been tested in the mid-high 80’s. Were all of these numbers the result of doping? Given the relatively low economic incentive of sports like XC skiing or, especially, ultrarunning, coupled with the fact that a year of  EPO use costs in the vicinity of $30,000 (Riis, 2012) I would  question the economic reality of that assumption. But without doping, are these numbers even plausible?
This is a tough question to answer, but an important one. It’s dangerous for a physiologist to say that just because the VO2max numbers implied by these performances far exceed what they have measured from athletes in their own lab that they are physiologically ‘implausible’. History is full of athletes with ‘implausible physiology’ who were at their time head and shoulders above the rest of the field. This was true long before doping reared its ugly head. It will be a sad day in sport when any performance that exceeds the norm for the day by a large margin is looked on with suspicion. I hope we are not there yet. I hope that we still at least entertain the possibility that athletes will come along every so often who take the sport to the next level.
So back to the question, how feasible is it for an athlete to ‘train up to’ a VO2max of 90ml/kg/min? I spend a lot of time looking at the training response of various types of athletes. I rigorously monitor the relationship between training load (TSS) & fitness (VO2 score) for a wide array of athletes of all different levels and abilities.
What do these observations suggest for a (non-doped) athlete targeting a VO2max of 90+ml/kg/min?
10+ years of consistent, progressive overload.
While there are individual differences in training response, if we look at the average, a pattern of diminishing returns of a ‘half life’ of 15ml/kg/min per year would be a ‘normal’ training response, i.e. +15ml/kg in the first year of training, + another 15 over the next 2 years, + another 15 over the next 4 years etc. For an athlete starting with an untrained VO2max of 35ml/kg, 10 years of consistent, progressive aerobic training will theoretically yield a gain of ~55ml/kg, i.e. 90ml/kg/min. Of course, lots can happen over 10 years of training & a true consistent progressive build over that time is rare. Though for the truly driven athlete, the type that might go out for training rides in the middle of chemotherapy treatment, say, not impossible.
 
While an optimist & someone admittedly clinging to the purity of sport, I’m also not naïve to the possibility that the type of athlete who is that driven to be the best, might resort to short cuts and, to be sure, the physiologist in me knows the relative benefit of these short cuts. Even small increases in haematocrit of 10% will yield similar improvements in VO2max, i.e. for a domestique of say 75ml/kg/min, it would be very tempting to skip 3-4 years of development and jump ahead to a VO2max in the mid 80’s and a team leader position (with an extra few hundred grand a year). Before the HcT limit of  50%, the potential for gains was even greater which is  why you would see young riders come out of nowhere for a season and then literally drop dead!
However, for athletes who have ‘paid their dues’, it is my position that these levels of performance (consistent with a VO2max of ~90ml/kg/min) are indeed possible. Similar levels of performance have been seen both in sports without the financial draw of cycling & before doping was widespread. As the endurance sport with the highest financial draw, cycling will continue to see those looking for shortcuts however I truly hope that we don’t fall into the pattern of automatically discounting the ever-true performance benefit of devoting a decade or more to developing your craft.
Train Smart (& clean),
AC


The Perfect Taper Part 2: Taper Weeks By Sport

$
0
0

Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)

Last week I wrote a piece on common taper mistakes for the Endurance Corner website (http://www.endurancecorner.com/Alan_Couzens/race_week_taper). The piece spawned some great discussion on our EC forum that prompted me to go into a little more depth on both the practicalities of an optimal taper and the rationale behind it in this follow up article.
When tapering, an athlete is looking to exploit a key principle of exercise physiology – that fitness decays more slowly than fatigue. If we consider performance to be the sum of these 2 components, this leads us to a ‘sweetspot’ when, after a period of reduced training, fitness remains relatively high while fatigue is very low & performance is maximized. An example of this is illustrated below.
 
I suggested in the article that this sweetspot is a function of:
·         Fitness – Fitter athletes need shorter tapers.

·         Race type – Shorter events need longer tapers

·         Gender/Body type. – Bigger athletes need longer tapers.

However, when getting down to the nitty gritty of planning the contents of the taper, there are other factors that need to be considered. The first of these is….
Content of the taper weeks by sport.
To complicate matters of optimal tapering, each sport (swim, bike, run) exhibits different rates of decay for fitness and fatigue, leading to different ‘sweetspots’ for each sport.
1.    Some time ago, I wrote a piece on using ‘influence curves’ to frame the importance of load through the season (http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/2009/12/influence-curves.html
). We can apply this same concept to the taper to ascertain the relative benefit of a given swim, bike or run load at various points though the taper.
Using data from mathematical modelling studies on the various sports (Busso et al., 1991, 1993, 1997, Hellard et al., 2005, Morton et al., 1990, Millet et al., 2001, Mujika et al., 1996), I have averaged the fitness and fatigue constants from each study to produce the following SBR influence curves.
It should be noted that these studies represent all levels of athlete from untrained to the very elite, so, as mentioned above, the actual SBR patterns will also be a function of fitness. But, speaking generally, the figure below represents the typical influence curves for swim, bike & run -  the curve of maximal impact of load on performance vs time from performance date.

 
 Looking at the curves, the following general conclusions on the content of taper weeks by sport can be drawn.

·         The impact of load on performance is maximized for all sports at a period of approximately 28-35 days from the competition date. In other words, for most athletes, the 5th week out should be a big week.

·         In the 4th week from competition (days 21-28), the influence of cycling load on performance tends to drop off more quickly than the other 2 sports. In practical terms, you may want to apply this by making the 5th week out cycling focused (i.e. a bike camp) & 4th week out (while still relatively big) more SBR balanced.

·         In the 3rd week out from competition (days 14-21)the influence of cycling and running load (while still generally positive), tend to fall at similar rates. This leads to 2 key ‘take aways’ for this week:

1.       Keep the swim load generally high

2.       If in doubt, leave it out – Load is starting to trend towards negative at this point & for larger or less fit athletes, may be approaching negative, so if a session feels tired, this is the week where more rest may begin to trump more fitness.
·         In the 2nd week out (days 7-14), bike and run load trends quickly towards negative. Almost all athletes should be dropping load quickly at this point, from bike and especially from run.  Swim load will also start to drop but should remain relatively high (50-75% of peak) 

·         In race week (0-7 days from the event), both bike and run load will generally have a negative impact on performance. At the extreme, you may take this to mean (with the exception of a couple of trips to the pool) that you should spend the time with your feet up in your hotel room, however, this is a mistake as, when we drill down a little deeper to the training and detraining rates of the various physiological qualities, you’ll see  that there is one in particular that the Ironman athlete wants to stay in touch with during race week. I’ll look at this question of  content of taper weeks by intensity level in my next article on tapering.

Until then, train smart.

AC

The 'double whammy' of missed workouts

$
0
0

Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)
It’s that point in the year where all the races are done, the spreaadsheets are full of data & lessons are ready to be learned.

One of the most striking comparisons that I look at each year is the “planned v actual” comparison, i.e. how did the actual training pan out when compared to the initial plan? Without exception, even among the most dedicated athletes, actual NEVER matches planned. After all, we’re dealing with human beings here operating within that fuzzy medium that we call life. This fact speaks to the pointlessness of buying and attempting to follow a long term plan. A good coaching plan, in contrast, won’t be a ‘pretty’ list of numbers and workouts over a long period of time but rather will be full of red marks and rewrites as the plan is adjusted in accordance with reality. Small changes in day to day execution can and should amount to large changes over the course of the long term plan.

The actual impact of this simple principle on the athlete’s eventual race performance is nothing short of staggering. Most athletes tend to think of the training v performance relationship in some ways akin to simple interest, i.e. you put in your time each year and get a given performance return on your investment but in reality, the return on your training investment is compounded! Let me explain…

You  put in ‘$100’ worth of training load. Not only do you get a small return from that investment that you can ‘spend’ on a performance but you also get a return that you can re-invest in harder training leading to higher performance gains in the future.  On the flipside, if you miss your deposit for a given day and your buddy doesn’t, not only is he a smidge fitter after that workout but the tiny extra bit of base that he has invested can be applied to the next workout, which he’ll be able to complete at a slightly higher level than you & widen the gap a little more, and the workout after that where he’ll widen it a little further and before you know it 2 guys who started at exactly the same point are miles apart in their performance level.

So, quantitatively, what’s the impact of missing a workout every now and again?

I have a 90% rule that I follow when assessing adherence to workouts. In other words, if an athlete is completing 90% of planned load, we’re on track. If less than 90%, we’re failing. Why 90%? I don’t know. It’s a pretty arbitrary cut off that attempts to take into account the realities of the gap between planned v actual training load on a given day. In other words, if I plan a 100TSS 2 hour workout and the athlete hits a few extra stop lights or has to noodle through some road work & only gets 90TSS for that day, I don’t want to call that a failed workout. Similarly he might be a little tired. That’s OK. If he’s a lot tired, I want it to register as a red flag.

But what if every workout is a 90% workout? Or what if every week that athlete misses 1 out of the 10 planned workouts each week of the training year? In a subjective sense, hitting 9 of 10 workouts each week is pretty good, right? But what’s the true impact on performance?

I modeled out the end of year difference in terms of VO2 Score (http://www.endurancecorner.com/Alan_Couzens/benchmarking)  for an athlete with typical training response (F=0.23, B=34) & tolerance to load (TSBF=-20) using the default constants of 42/7

 
Both athletes start at the same point but Athlete A hits all workouts & is consequently able to accrue a lot more training load over the course of the year (44,000 vs 29,000 TSS) despite starting at the same level of fitness with the same physical tolerance to load. Athlete B hits 90% of planned workouts throughout the year – in relative terms, a good number, but the impact on performance is obvious. Athlete B hits a peak VO2 score of 57 (a midpack number), while athlete A hits 71 (an absolute front of pack amateur number worthy of ~9:00 on a flat course!)

I present the above in the hope that this visibility will inspire you to raise your standards as we go into the 2013 training year. Small changes can have a surprisingly large impact.
Train Smart,

AC

 

 

 

Learn from my mistakes - the 2012 edition

$
0
0

 
As the end of year approaches, it’s time to do a ‘state of the nation’ assessment of what worked and what didn’t in coaching this year. 2012 was by and large a great year for my athletes, with more Kona Q’s, Ironman and 70.3 podiums and life best performances. But, as always, some athletes had a challenging season. Here’s a quick round up of some of the factors that led to a less satisfying season.
Note: The 2011 edition can be found here . http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/2011/09/learn-from-my-mistakes.htmlHappy to say we didn’t repeat these (with the possible exception of 1)

Multiple Peaks

Not so much a mistake, but yet again a confirmation that multiple peak years are at best, maintenance years for the majority of athletes. With 2 Ironman peaks, getting fitness back to the level of the first peak is a challenge. Exceeding this level is bordering on impossible for all but the fastest recovering athletes.
Racing 2 Ironmans too close together

Related to the above, an alternative strategy to multiple peaks is to try and hold one peak for 2 closely spaced Ironman races by going in a little undertapered for the first and a little overtapered for the second. While not necessarily a mistake in and of itself, this is a high risk strategy & a very tricky one to get right. We tried it this year with one very fast recovering athlete who had pulled off a great result on a 4 week gap before but we tried a 3 week gap this year and it didn’t work. The optimal seems to be 4-6 weeks but there is a lot of individual variation between athletes and for some it just isn’t a viable strategy.
Racing too early (esp for athletes with a winter)

Every year Kona qualification becomes a more and more competitive undertaking. Age group athletes are becoming more serious, more intelligent and, frankly, in most cases it takes nothing short of season best fitness just to get a slot(!) With Southern Hemisphere athletes becoming willing to travel for races and Northern Hemisphere athletes becoming more apt to plan a number of  ‘escape camps’ early season, it is becoming very tough for an athlete coming from a normal winter to qualify.
Lack of 'real' race practice (esp. Open Water swimming)

Another thing that I’m seeing; as the competition for slots increases, every leg has to be relatively strong. In a couple of instances this season, very fit athletes with decent pool speeds had a poor swim due to conditions, poor sighting or lack of shoulder to shoulder ‘argey-bargey’ experience and were unable to make up the difference. The top AG race is in general becoming more like the elite race and if your pack is missed the gap will often become insurmountable.
Too much life stress late season.

A corollary to the point on racing too early, athletes with a peak race late season need to be aware that in general life stress tends to increase as the year comes to a close. Athletes who have a successful late season race often have alternative ‘work seasons’, i.e. their busy work period is antipolar to their busy training period. When the 2 coincide, getting through unscathed (i.e. with target training load in tact and without getting sick) is VERY tough. Late season ‘escape’ camps, in this case escaping life rather than weather (!), are especially useful here.
Race efforts in training

An error a little too close to home here… My best performance this season came in training rather than a race. In an effort to attack my life best 2.5hr mark I was rested and ready to go. A little too rested and ready to go! With strong watts at 2.5hrs, I decided to push on for a 5hr best. It was a great ride, a ride that took me 2 weeks of lighter than planned training to come back from! I’m not alone here. I commonly see a few ‘spirited group rides’ with a higher than planned training load leading to a lower than planned race day fitness due to extended recovery. Note to self & others: Manage the training highs, exercise self discipline & save those efforts for the race.
Course/event selection. Some are significantly more competitive than others.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, qualifying is becoming VERY COMPETITIVE so competitive in fact that just being fit doesn’t cut it. You need to be fit & be selecting a race that offers advantage to someone of your morphology. I was amazed this year by one athlete in particular who was putting out incredibly strong training numbers & had a great race on a rolling course but still didn’t hit the qualifying standard. Move him to a flat race, even with a little less fitness & he dominated. Race selection matters!

Also a bit of research on relative competitiveness of the various races will show that not all are created equal. There are some very competitive races out there and some significantly less competitive races. In  the interests of ensuring that my athletes get the pick of the bunch, I’ll keep the details to myself but suffice to say, a little bit of research goes a long way.
Address muscle issues before they become problems

High volume endurance athletes are always at risk of overuse injury. Athletes over the age of 35 significantly more so. Inccreasing training before (or without) increasing ‘prehab’ strength and conditioning work is inviting trouble. Nothing sucks more than going through an entire season build, being in fantastic shape and then succumbing to the weak link of a dodgy tendon. Take care of ‘niggles’ before they become season-ending problems.

And the big one: “Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades”.

I’m a bit of a hard ass when it comes to training load of my athletes coming in on plan. Athletes who deviate more than 10% from plan typically have a limited life span in the AC squad. Turns out, I might not be hard enough. The 10% rule of thumb works out well over the short term, but if athletes are chronically under the mark, the end of year gap between actual and planned is nothing short of a chasm. More on that here… http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-double-whammy-of-missed-workouts.html
Similarly, athletes who are chronically a little over the mark on every session wind up carrying fatigue from block to block and, invariably, it catches up with them in the form of illness, injury or burnout before they’re due to taper for the race.
The lesson here is to be inherently aware of your natural tendencies (& those of your athletes). If you know that you typically overshoot the mark, be especially conscious of not ‘adding extra’ especially during the early season when volume is low and you’re feeling good. Similarly, if you’re someone who is typically under the mark, 2013 is the year to raise your standards and make a commitment to show up for every session. If attendance requirements are good enough for 10 year old swimmers…..
For those with a more variable schedule in which things tend to ‘crop up’, early morning sessions are the rule of the day & camps in which you have nothing to think about but train, eat, sleep have exponential advantage.
#####
I don’t want you all to think that I’m a complete idiot who keeps making new mistakes every year so in my next post, I’ll share some of the smarter things we tried this year that did work J
Until then…
Train smart,
AC
Spoiler Alert: In the list of things that DID work, early season camps are close to the top. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the folks you’re competing for a slot with are going to use their vacation time this way and have a significant head start on those who stay put for the winter.
Nicolas Theopold (9:04 age-grouper) and I will be hosting a small escape camp on the island of Mallorca from March 31-April 7. It’s reasonably priced and a great opportunity to learn from and put in some big miles witha great group of folks with a common passion for endurance sport. Details can be found here http://mallorcacamp.wordpress.com/  Don’t hesitate to drop me a line for any additional info – alan ‘at’ endurancecorner.com

Understanding ‘General Preparation’

$
0
0
Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)


 Around this time last year on the EC site I posted my series on ‘basic limiters’ – http://www.endurancecorner.com/Alan_Couzens/basic_limiters looking at the 3 things that ultimately limit the level of specific performance the athlete can build to during specific preparation.
I’ve had a couple of emails as we're heading into a new year that have made me realize that the concept of general preparation remains nebulous so I want to see if I can elaborate a little on what it means to be truly ‘generally prepared’.

The picture above  is of a Crossfit athlete. While I’ve been critical of Crossfit in the past, I want to make it clear that I am critical of the widespread poor execution of Crossfit principles rather than the concept itself. Briefly, my 2 concerns with the execution of Crossfit are…

1.The Crossfit ‘workouts’ are typically too metabolically hard to accumulate sufficient work to make big gains in strength or endurance... While cranking your blood lactate up to 20 mmol may make you feel like you’re getting some real gains. Real gains in strength and endurance sports come from frequent (as in 2-a-day) consistent solid but not maximal workouts over many years. Complete 14 WOD’s a week for an extended period and I’ll eat my words.

2. Some exercises simply aren’t built to be done fast. Decelerating a barbell loaded with 200lbs beyond the limits of your range of motion is a recipe for disaster. Power moves should be reserved for power ‘tools’ that permit a controlled follow through – medicine balls, tornado balls, exercise bands, jumps etc.

Anyhow, so that’s my beef with Crossfit execution. If I ran a Crossfit style facility, I would reserve the WOD’s for tests and spend the bulk of time doing ‘intervals’ with appropriate rest periods to prepare for these WOD’s. I would also be careful in which exercises are done ‘at speed’ and make sure technique was there before testing.
The Crossfit concepthowever, i.e. to develop multi-modal & multi-energy system fitness is a sound one that leads to some generally ‘ready’ athletes. What are they ready for? They’re ready to make the most of specific preparation for their sport.

This is where things get a bit confusing. Anyone who has picked up an exercise physiology text will be familiar with the principle of specificity, i.e. that training that uses movements and energy systems specific to the sport will have the greatest positive carry over to sporting performance. If this is true, where does general preparation (training in a wide variety of movements and energy systems) fit in to the preparation of the serious athlete?
The primary purpose of general preparation is to build an ‘adaptation reserve’ or, put more simply to build a buffer against (&/or undo some of) the bad things caused by the narrow focus & imbalance of specific preparation. In the case of the Ironman athlete – the negative effects of living in perpetual catabolism, the negative effects of doing millions of repetitions of three movements over a limited range of motion and in a single plane & the negative effects that come with training at one speed for a long period of time. For a strength/power athlete these ‘bad things’ may be the erosion of the aerobic base and the neural fatigue of high intensity training. In both cases, the remedy is the same, i.e. a temporary return to balanced training.

General preparation greatly benefits ALL athletes in 3 specific ways…
1. Generally FIT athletes recover faster from all types of training.

ALL athletes at the high level require a lot of training. Even for the elite lifter, 1000+hr years of training are the elite norm. In order to recover quickly from sessions of any type and accommodate such loads, a good basic level of aerobic capacity is required.
2. Generally STRONG athletes have a better training response to all types of training.

Muscle is the most adaptable tissue within the human body and, generally speaking, athletes with more of it respond more quickly to any training stress. In other words, they get more performance bang for their training buck. This effect has been witnessed by any coach who’s been in the game for a while in the difference in training response between untrained and ‘athletic’ individuals. With a similar aerobic/anaerobic quality to the muscle, athletes with more of it have a better general training response. It is no coincidence that athletes from all sports from ‘skinny’ distance runners to ‘chubby’ hammer throwers are still predominantly mesomorphic (http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/2010/01/importance-of-strength-to-endurance.html)
3. Athletes with good general  levels of STABILITY& MOBILITY get injured less frequently than athletes with muscle imbalance.

Any type of high level specific training will, of necessity, be largely devoted to training in the specific competition mode. For Ironman athletes, this means countless repetitions in 3 sagittal plane activities over a limited range of motion. The risks of spending 1000 or so hours in a limited position(s) will be obvious to any supposedly fit triathlete who decides to help a friend move house or jump into an ultimate Frisbee game during the off-season (!)
A good general preparation program will be devoted to placing the 3 objectives above as primary and any sport specific training as secondary. In fact, the Eastern Bloc countries made it a point to consciously and deliberately develop general athletes before any thought was given to specialization.

To illustrate these points, let’s look at some typical physiological and morphological parameters of 4 different types of athlete of a similar frame size.

<!--[if gte vml 1]>

 The above speaks to the relative benefits of general training to all athletes. ALL specialized athletes develop areas that are very strong while letting other areas become weak. These weak points can eventually limit specialized training if ignored.

For example, elite ironman athletes are VERY aerobically fit & VERY lean. In order to get very fit and very lean, some muscle mass will invariably be lost. To account for this and still maintain an appropriate amount of muscle for the (albeit modest) power demands of the event, it is important that the athlete begins specific Ironman training from a point of having a little muscular reserve. This means, for most of the more serious endurance athletes, keeping volume moderate, eating and lifting a little more than average during the off-season.
A good general preparation program will be devoted to placing the 3 objectives above as primary and any sport specific training as secondary. In fact, the Eastern Bloc countries made it a point to consciously and deliberately develop genera'all around' athletes before any thought was given to specialization.

In the over-specialized western world, General Preparation has come to mean dropping one of your VO2max workouts from your early season routine or spending 2x30min sessions per week in the gym. In the GDR, general preparation meant spending 4 years in a general sports school (!), training 12-17hrs a week in a multitude of sports ranging from mobility and agility sports like gymnastics to aerobic sports like swimming to strength sports like weightlifting, letting natural selection determine the sport to which you were best suited.

The first goal for the GDR athletes was simply to achieve the standards to be accepted to one of these schools and at least have the chance of a better life that came with being an athlete. Ekkart Arbeit has written extensively on the process of talent identification and development in the former GDR. Here are the standards that he recounts for admission to one of the State administered Sports Schools (remember this was a basic level of athleticism achieved at an age of ~13 by ALL future athletes from marathon runners to Olympic Lifters)…

·    1500m run: 4:40

·    30m sprint: 4s

·    3x Long Jump: 6m

·    165g Ball Throw: 54m

·    3 Jump Long Jump: 6m

·    3kg Shot: 9m

In other words, all eventual world beaters from skinny marathon runners to big powerful hammer throwers were once generally balanced, powerful, fit well rounded athletes.
While it may be a bit of a tough sell to convince you to forget your chosen sport & go back to general fitness training until you see what sport/event you are best suited for, I’m hoping I can at least convince you to spend a period of this year training as a general fitness athlete as an investment in training to improve your general training capacity and athleticism.

How do we know when someone qualifies as “ generally athletic”?
This is a question that has been the source of much bar chatter through the ages – “who’s the fittest?” In fact, it was this very question that spawned the first Ironman competition to settle the argument among swimmers, cyclists and marathon runners. No doubt, if there happened to be an Olympic lifter in the bar on that day, todays ‘Ironman’ might look entirely different!

While the GDR tests are certainly a step in the right direction, they do tend to favor the power athlete. In my opinion, a truly ‘fair’ assessment of fitness, should incorporate tests that lie somewhere in the middle of the aerobic/anaerobic spectrum, i.e. somewhere in that range where an endurance athlete’s and a power athlete’s fatigue curves intersect. In other words, we would want both a power athlete and an endurance athlete to have a ‘fair shot’ at doing well in the early season before a lot of specific training (designed to alter the fatigue curve) is commenced.
It would have to include upper and lower body activities over a full range of motion in multiple planes. It would have to include some activities with a relatively high force component and others with a relatively high speed component.

Something along the lines of the following ‘fitness decathlon’ might fit the bill….
* 1 minute Push Ups for reps
* 1 minute Bodyweight deadlifts for reps (Barbell loaded to bodyweight)
* 1 minute Pull Ups (chest to bar) for reps
* 1 minute treadmill run for distance
* 1 minute Clean and Press w/barbell loaded to 25% of bodyweight
* 1 minute 'Ice Skaters' 1m distance (take off foot behind landing)
* 1 minute rowing erg (best avg watts/kg)
* Lunge walk for reps with dumbells equal to 50% bodyweight
* Sit ups for reps w/a medball throw at 10% bodyweight
* Russian twist for reps with a med ball at 10% bodyweight.
 
The above test is something that I’ve been playing with a little over the past year with a range of different types of athlete. In collecting data, here are some suggestions for ranking the test.

<!--[if gte vml 1]>

 

Add up scores for each column (0 points for any scores in the first column, 2 in the second, 4 in the the third etc) Rankings based on an athletic sample…

less than 40 = Poor">
40-50 = Fair

50-60 = Good

60-70 = Excellent
70+ = Superior

No doubt some of these standards will seem pedestrian. All I can say is, do the test. What’s ‘pedestrian’ in the context of a 10minute straight effort is very different to what the athlete can do fresh as a solo 1 minute best. Related to this, the relationship between these 2 things can be revealing in a talent identification sense, i.e. the difference between a stand alone 1 min push up test and the push up portion of the decathlon is indicative of the upper body power of the athlete. A difference of >60% may indicate a natural power athlete while a difference of less than 30% would tend to indicate an athlete with better muscular endurance capabilities and may suggest what event the athlete should devote their specific preparation towards.

-------

Some important notes for those thinking of doing the above test:
#1 Exercise are on a 1:10 turnaround, i.e. you have 10s to move to the next station and start the next minute of activity. Place all stations as close as possible to allow for this. An assistant (e.g. to crank up the treadmill, hand you the row handle, WATCH FORM etc) is very helpful.

#2: It is essential that you have practiced good technique for each exercise & that you do each exercise over an appropriate ROM (for your flexibility) and at an appropriate speed. You don’t need to do any exercise at 100%. Take the time to use control, especially on the descent. You don’t need to go at 100% to be at the limit by the end J
A key objective of the training leading into these tests is to develop the appropriate range of motion to do these exercises properly and without compensation. The importance of this to both doing the test safely and reinstating functional mobility at the end of a long season of specific work cannot be understated.

Drop me a line and let me know how it goes!

--------------

So how much general preparation is enough?

 A better question might be, at what point of fitness is an athlete truly competitive in their event? Certainly, for masters athletes, the impetus for getting involved is often to get fit/get ‘back in shape’. While there are certain ‘fun’ benefits to getting ready for different events, I think sometimes middle of the pack athletes can lose sight of the bigger picture; becoming one sided, ditching strength work, ditching flexibility work, ditching basic speed work & becoming less generally fit to spend more time going long and slow. Invariably, this lack of balance comes back to haunt them, either in the form of not feeling like they got ‘what they deserved’ out of their training input or getting injured from the lack of training balance. I would suggest that athletes specializing in the more extreme events be especially careful of early specialization.

As a minimum standard, I would suggest that the athlete makes it a high priority to get a score of 60+ in the above test each season before really focusing on specific preparation for their event. I would recommend this standard for ALL youngish male athletes who wish to train competitively for an event – sprinters, endurance athletes, strength athletes, MMA fighters etc. For all of these athletes, in my opinion, the 60 number is a good indication that they’re ready to train competitively for an event to which they’re suited & thus head off their separate ways.

Again returning to our socialist comrades for a bit of real world athletic context on how much general preparation is ‘enough’, training towards a specific event only began in the 4th year of sports school & at a starting ratio of only 3 months of the year (adapted from Arbeit, 1997)….

 

 
Athletes who were deemed ready to begin specializing were training 750+hrs per year, were able to run at ~3min/k for 9mins, were able to swim 1:07’s for 4+mins and were able to throw an 8kg shot 15m! Needless to say, when they did specialize in the event to which they were best suited, they were bringing a good bit of general athleticism to the table!

What does a “General Preparation” week look like?
So you’re sold on the idea of developing athleticsm this winter. What’s the next step? Tractor pulls, depth jumps, overspeed training on an Alter-G? Sorry to disappoint but the bulk of your week should still be focused on improving your ‘work capacity’, largely via improving your aerobic base (remember, those GDR sports school students were training up to 17hrs per week!). If you’re doing a regular triathlon program, you’re already doing a lot right when it comes to being athletic! I would simply recommend seeing yourself as a general athlete during the winter and adding a few basic week tweaks along those lines…


If you were a young East German talented schoolboy athlete, you’d be doing something similar to the above for 45 weeks a year. No wonder their medal haul per capita was so large!

In terms of specific content, it doesn’t take much. Keep your heart rate primarily aerobic during each of these sessions but Include regular short exposures within the aerobic work such as a 30s power move followed by a couple of minutes jog recovery, mobility work at the end of your warm ups. Simple additions to your usual winter routine can have a very positive effect on what you’re able to get out of your specific preparation phase when the time is right.
Train smart this early season,

AC

 

 
Viewing all 52 articles
Browse latest View live