JamesShaw said:

Not sure where else to put this so here goes....
Last night I went out to the park on my track bike for a change but as I got on a realised that the seat was really low, certainly my legs were nowhere near full extension and I definitely don't recall lowering the saddle for any reason and I don't think there have been any other kit changes that would make it feels so low. First question, having not ridden this bike for probably 6 weeks or so, maybe more, is there a chance that with increased training and ride time that my body would change to allow for greater saddle height? Also, because it was late I didn't want to bother with changing the height as I'm pretty sure that's where its always been so I did a low saddle workout which felt like it was working muscles in different ways, I wasn't out for too long but it made me wonder if there was a benefit to doing a 'bent leg' workout in this way.

It is possible that the saddle dropped on the track bike or that you raised the saddle on the road bike.  And it's possible that there's a differing crank length.  Even small things like saddle tilt and/or setback change your effective position so that the old bike is lower.  There's also the matter of shoes and pedals.  If you switch at all, this could be another source of the "low" sensation--taller pedal stack and thicker sole. 

I don't think that your body can stretch beyond the various bone lengths, though certainly you can train your body to be efficient in a higher or lower position.  There's a range of efficient positions, and you can ride comfortably within that range with only a little initial discomfort.  That written, there's a high point for everyone, and beyond that, it can get uncomfortable--usually manifest by lower back issues.  Problem is, lower back issues can be the result of any number of things.  

Yes, a lower saddle position means your body utilizes muscles a bit differently.  I think of it with a motor metaphor--your muscles are firing differently, both in terms of timing and effort.  

No I don't think it could be much, if any, of a training benefit, mostly because of the mental and physical change. I suppose it could help with "freshness" in the sense that new is interesting, but after that, I don't see how you'd benefit.  For example, on the low position, your quad stops moving at one point, it will move past that in the high position.  

My own experience is that with less than ideal positions is that I can ride them for a long time.  The problem is when trying to generate threshold or above-threshold power.  With a too-low saddle position, I can ride easy all day, but feel blocked when going for high power.  With a too-high saddle position, my back starts to hurt after a few hours even if I'm going easy, and I seem to lose power past about the five o'clock position on the downstroke.  

I've done too-high saddle in races.  When it's the track, it's not very apparent until the end of the session.  When it's the road, the power is fine at the start, but I can tell that I'm not sustaining as time goes on, like after an hour.  When it's CX, I can start fine, but the repeated spikes start to ebb pretty quickly, like after 10 or 15 minutes.  I did a TT once on a too-high saddle.  Oy, this was a bummer--I was testing out a Cervelo P bike with a Zipp disc.  I was in trouble after five minutes.  I blame it on me having trouble dialing in my position on the nose-less saddle.    

@JamesShaw@JamesShaw

you might want to check out the bike fit thread about issues with a lower saddle height. Your saddle can migrate if you don't have enough friction holding it in. With a lower saddle you're using muscles differently because you're not supporting your weight with your bones and ligaments, so this puts greater pressure on your tender vittles (aka soft undercarrage) as well as your joints. in weight lifting terms it would be like doing squats incorrectly which will activate muscles differently but can damage your knees and hips (neither of which you want to damage).

As for adaptation on your part. unless you have changes in cleat location on the shoes, moved the saddle forward, or had dramatic weight loss causing you to lose fat deposits on your feet, or have chosen to go with dramatically thinner chamois I can't imagine something that would give the perception of lowered saddle height.

Leg length isn't something like reach that can be improved with stretching or yoga.

Just the kind of wisdom I was looking for so thanks gents. All other things are equal but of course the game changer I've experienced is going from 165 to 170 and back to 165, I considered this as I was riding around but never thought it would make such a difference. It's amazing that I used to ride at that position (I mark saddle height etc so know they haven't changed). Interestingly I definitely noticed a lack of top end speed and power last night when rally going for it so I'm excited to ride the track bike with the saddle raised a bit.
It was really only a little experiment knowing that I could easily change the height and I'm very comfortable on both when I take the time to adjust them properly.

Crank length will do that to you. 

see Nibali winning the 2016 Giro, he switched back to his 172.5 mm crank from a 175 and, nothing to do with a history of doping amongst Astana leadership. 

I remember reading somewhere about what a young pro had "learned" riding with Cadel Evans. Apparently Cadel always rides with a tailor's tape measure so that he can check his saddle height. Seat posts shift (it's happened to everyone) so I've had a little tape measure in my saddle bag ever since.

This has got me wondering , what way do folks accurately measure their seat height without a fit stick etc 

sometimes my saddle feels lower than it actually is, depending on my efforts the day before

Mark Taylor said:

This has got me wondering , what way do folks accurately measure their seat height without a fit stick etc 

If I'm setting up a new bike I do it from a book over the entire saddle to the center of the bottom bracket.

If the bike has already been set up I measure from the seat-rail clamp to the edge of the seatpost clamp, and take a photo on my phone because my memory is shit.

Mark Taylor said:

This has got me wondering , what way do folks accurately measure their seat height without a fit stick etc 

I put a big level on my saddle and measure to that, as I find it hard to find a good sight line on a saddle.  I go from the center of the BB up along the seat tube and seat post. I also use a torque wrench on all the bolts, and when I travel, I've taken to installing one of those blinky light mounts on the seat post slammed against the clamp before pulling the saddle, so I have an easy reference point when I reinstall the saddle.  

And, because I don't trust my memory either, I have a picture of how the level looks--though it's specific to the bike with identical tires leaning in the exact same spot in the wall of my apt

Came across this article by Tim Cusick on Pez.  
It's about reviewing your data

"Summary
Reviewing race data give us a clear vision of how athletes succeed and how they fail. The deeper and more specific we look, the more we learn. In today’s environment of training with data, both coaches and self-coached athletes need to utilize the data that’s out there to support deeper diagnosis, which leads to better planning, which in turn creates better performance. Next week’s part 2 article will discuss how to review the previous year of training and how to extract key learning from the race review to determine the cause and effect of an athlete’s results (or lack thereof)."

how to do it: http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/toolbox/toolbox-racing-data-review/#.V_bQldw3nBE

Get your tickets to the gun show...I'm lookin at u little girly men
http://www.velonews.com/2016/11/news/road/fast-talk-podcast-ep-6-like-not-lifting_424891

Bruce van-Schalkwyk said:

This was one of David's last Cat 4 races, if I recall.  And you can see why.  He was bike lengths away from everyone at the finish.  He did that a couple of times before moving up to Cat 3.

http://blog.trainerroad.com/how-6-cyclists-raised-their-ftp-by-82-on-average/

The before and after Power numbers are impressive, and speak to real power jumps at the beginning of training, when one is just starting, and then follows through with the schedule and maintains their training.
Power numbers and fitness, after a few years of training, can continue to increase, but the gains are smaller, and change during the season. 
That's a great reason to set fitness numbers when you're just starting out, because the gains are really impressive.  And a great reason not to get discouraged when gains are smaller, later, knowing that they will be incremental, because that's how it works for most.

David is a bona fide strongman. That race we both attacked together and I went all in on the hill to get that gap for him, per our plan. I was cooked by 3rd street and he brought it home in high style.

No surprise the pedalling strokes of pros are more efficient. Lower resistive torque during the upstroke and a higher ankle range of movement. Pros opted for enhancing pulling force at the recovery phase to sustain the same power output. 

Would be interesting to compare the two groups at their respective FTPs.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/toolbox/toolbox-pro-pedaling-technique/

More data that flat back on the hoods is fastest position.
Big penalty in output of watts, but factoring aerodynamics it's still a net gain. 

To be comfortable in this position is a challenge. To get your pelvis's rotated forward to lose the hump and get the back flatter you'll need a regimen of stretches

These stretches supposedly helped LA achieve a faster TT position:


From active.com

I fear I am developing what's called "quad dominance," i.e. relying on my quads when I should be using my quads, hamstrings and glutes as a group. I suspected something was off when I began having difficulty doing squats in October. Recently I noticed that the top of my vastus lateralis (a quad muscle) bulges out where it anchors to the hip, towards the outside. It is bigger than I've ever seen it, and most noticeable at the top of every stroke. And I just don't feel like I'm getting my hamstrings and glutes involved enough (though this might be confirmation bias). 

Not only can quad dominance lead to injury, but it means I'm slower than I would be if I recruited all three groups to work together to turn the pedals. Does anybody have any experience with this? How can I correctly identify whether or not I have this problem? And then if I do, what can I do about it? 

MaxThorn said:

Does anybody have any experience with this? How can I correctly identify whether or not I have this problem? And then if I do, what can I do about it? 

Bike fit comes to mind. Schedule some time with Ilya at Redbeard, or Jon or Colin at Acme, they'll help you determine what is happening, and will help you correct it.

Bruce suggestion still stands, form matters.

Max I honestly wouldn't worry about it too much. Your body is going to change size and shape as you train and your ability to squat will go up and down as well.

At the end of the day the proof will be in how strong you are on the bike, not how you look in the mirror.

Sorry, Jules, not sure why you'd be confused about this, to be clear: looking sharp is goal number one. 

eloy said:

Sorry, Jules, not sure why you'd be confused about this, to be clear: looking sharp is goal number one. 

I must have bumped my head on a moving box. You're totally right. Don't know what came over me!

MaxThorn said:

I fear I am developing what's called "quad dominance,"... Does anybody have any experience with this? How can I correctly identify whether or not I have this problem? And then if I do, what can I do about it? 

Max,
    Both for practical benefit and serious style points, there is only one answer.

     Rollers.

@mugwump, I'm intrigued. Why rollers?

Smoover is betterer.

MaxThorn said:

@mugwump, I'm intrigued. Why rollers?

Seriously?  

Le Sigh.

Basically, rollers will help your body re-learn smooth pedaling.  Efficiency is huge in cycling, and the more efficient your stroke is, the faster you'll go with less effort.  

What I like about it is it's a simple solution that works great.

But, if you want to go into the details, it's because without the distractions of the road, most people end up doing more pulling through and up on the latter half of their pedal stroke.  It's not uncommon for people who are new to rollers (after  they've gotten over the utter terror of riding in place but having to steer) to find that their hamstring tendons are a bit sore after a roller session.  

It's a form of overload training.  On the road, most probably pedal 90-100rpm, but going at 100-120, even up to 130, forces you to figure out how to pedal smoothly.  

Bonus is most people also learn how to quiet and relax their upper body, getting rid of excess torso motion which robs you of forward momentum.  And totally ups your style points.

tl;dr for @MaxThorn: There is nothing holding you stationary on rollers except for balance which forces you to be smooth through the entire pedal stroke instead of just mashing squares.

Fascinating post by Tim

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/how-to-target-the-best-power-and-adaptation-using-optimized-intervals

@MaxThorn, ask Redbeard to get order you set.  I picked up a basic CycleOps set for a good price, can't remember what I paid, but they're totally awesome and totally worth it.

@Bruce van-Schalkwyk, I want to piggy-back on your mention of tasks vs. goals & share something we use in project management for creating 'SMART' goals:

S Specific - Be specific in targeting an objective

M Measurable - Establish a measurable indicator(s) of progress

A Assignable - Make the objective assignable to one person for completion

R Realistic - State what can realistically be done with available resources

T Time related - State when the objective can be achieved, that is, duration