Noticing a pattern....
Comments
-
Toks wrote:
Hey Mike good to have you back mate! I'm not knocking anecdotal evidence per se. Afterall who wouldn't want to listen to what an elite level rider has to say on their training methods. But lets be clear on this, some of these guys and girls are just good because they're good, sometimes even with seemingly ineffective training approaches. I was quite pally with an elite level RR'er some years ago who advised me to spin a low gear all winter and I'd be flying come spring. Come the first RR race in March I was indeed flying - out the back!Mike Willcox1 wrote:[I would rather read anecdotal evidence of riders like Dave Lloyd etc. who have known and experienced the art of putting their money (efffort and dedication) where their mouth is. And after all Ruth is a champion and that's why people on here listen to what she has to say.
You may remember a ding dong battle I had with this guy who recommended upper body strength to improve climbing performance. According to this guy Dave Lioyd believed it was absolutely crucial for road racers apparently. Well in all my 4 years of riding I've never once read about or felt that upper body strength has inhibited mine or anyone elses climbing; whether that be in the Pyreness or up surrey's Box Hill. As I keep saying to those ever so friendly Jehovas's witnesses - I wanna believe but where's the evidence!
I guess different methods work for different people. There is an element of if you think it's going to work for you then it will (placebo effect), and that belief has a definite physical benefit.
Re climbing I've always incorporated upper body strength exercises into my training schedule as I believe that :
1) Core strength is the foundation for stability and is the platform for generating power through the legs into the transmission on the bike. (like engine mountings in a car).
2) I can pull up on my arms as a leverage against pushing down with my legs whilst out of the saddle.
3) It provides the muscle endurance to go along with the cardio vascular fitness for keeping it going.
On the negative side it produces extra weight. The solution is to work on upper body strength in the winter months and just top up once a week or so in the racing season, when you should focus on cardio vascular training.
I always found that I won more races when the weather condtions were bad e.g. strong winds, and I put that down to my strength work.0 -
Mike Willcox1 wrote:I guess different methods work for different people. There is an element of if you think it's going to work for you then it will (placebo effect), and that belief has a definite physical benefit.
Certainly, the placebo effect is important and can make a true differenceRe climbing I've always incorporated upper body strength exercises into my training schedule as I believe that :
1) Core strength is the foundation for stability and is the platform for generating power through the legs into the transmission on the bike. (like engine mountings in a car).
the forces (in the leg) are so low in cycling that are any stability forces are going to be of a significant magnitude less than this. Simply if you can stand up, or hold yourself upright in a chair you're good to go on a bike. Of course, if you do have some sort of functional disability or injury then some strength training maybe of use. Hhowever, there's no evidence that strength training helps prevent injuries.2) I can pull up on my arms as a leverage against pushing down with my legs whilst out of the saddle.
given that to win on the Alpe d'Huez in a Tour TT requires an approximate average force of ~12.5 kg on each leg (i.e., ~ 25 kg between both legs) the forces on your arm are going to be tiny.3) It provides the muscle endurance to go along with the cardio vascular fitness for keeping it going.
it doesn't. endurance is provided via cardiovascular and metabolic sources.I always found that I won more races when the weather condtions were bad e.g. strong winds, and I put that down to my strength work.
or, perhaps, everyone was less motivated than you in the inclement weather. some people don't mind the rain. still, if you'd had, had a power meter on your bike, you'd have know if you were generating more power and could see whether you were better or whether the others were worse.
RicProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Ric_Stern/RST wrote:[
the forces (in the leg) are so low in cycling that are any stability forces are going to be of a significant magnitude less than this. Simply if you can stand up, or hold yourself upright in a chair you're good to go on a bike. Of course, if you do have some sort of functional disability or injury then some strength training maybe of use. Hhowever, there's no evidence that strength training helps prevent injuries.2) I can pull up on my arms as a leverage against pushing down with my legs whilst out of the saddle.
given that to win on the Alpe d'Huez in a Tour TT requires an approximate average force of ~12.5 kg on each leg (i.e., ~ 25 kg between both legs) the forces on your arm are going to be tiny.3) It provides the muscle endurance to go along with the cardio vascular fitness for keeping it going.
it doesn't. endurance is provided via cardiovascular and metabolic sources.I always found that I won more races when the weather condtions were bad e.g. strong winds, and I put that down to my strength work.
or, perhaps, everyone was less motivated than you in the inclement weather. some people don't mind the rain. still, if you'd had, had a power meter on your bike, you'd have know if you were generating more power and could see whether you were better or whether the others were worse.
Ric
The thing is that I don't climb Alp D'Huez or any long climbs where the effort is spread over a long period. The climbs that I do require shorter sharper efforts and I definitely use my arms and upper body to great effect. Often beating out and out skinny climbers so I see that extra strength as an advantage.
In the context of core stability I don't see muscle endurance and CV endurance as the same thing. You are looking at the generation of power as the main reason for cycling success which is correct in purely physical terms.
If you are keeping a lower profile into the wind whether or not you are in a road race or a TT in the aero position you are exerting unnatural forces on to the lower back and neck and there is a crossover where a sacrifice in power is offset by a more efficient aero postion which results in a greater speed, which after all is the desired aim.
If I'm wrong then so be it (and you're not going to change my mind), but my strength training gives me confidence that I can maintain that postion better than i can without it.0 -
Mike Willcox1 wrote:The thing is that I don't climb Alp D'Huez or any long climbs where the effort is spread over a long period. The climbs that I do require shorter sharper efforts and I definitely use my arms and upper body to great effect. Often beating out and out skinny climbers so I see that extra strength as an advantage.
my point was that while i have zero idea about who you are, i'm betting large sums of money that you can't generate the same power as someone who can win on d'Huez. If your power is less, then it's likely (but not definite) that the forces you generate will be lower as well.
However, let me know what category, or potential category racer you are and what sort of climbs you ride over and i'll throw out some numbers for you.
In the meantime, i live in Wales, we have steep climbs (up to ~30%) and some longish climbs (~10%) and the forces are pretty low on these climbs. nothing spectacular, nothing than an untrained healthy person couldn't generate. It's *maintaining* these low forces that is the difficulty and that's a cardiovascular and metabolic issue.If you are keeping a lower profile into the wind whether or not you are in a road race or a TT in the aero position you are exerting unnatural forces on to the lower back and neck and there is a crossover where a sacrifice in power is offset by a more efficient aero postion which results in a greater speed, which after all is the desired aim.
i have an 18 cm difference between my bars and my saddle on my road bike, i.e., a huge drop. I produce the same power in both the drops and the tops.If I'm wrong then so be it (and you're not going to change my mind), but my strength training gives me confidence that I can maintain that postion better than i can without it.
i'm as weak as they come in terms of strength, and lack flexibility. it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference.
RicProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Ric_Stern/RST wrote:[
my point was that while i have zero idea about who you are, i'm betting large sums of money that you can't generate the same power as someone who can win on d'Huez. If your power is less, then it's likely (but not definite) that the forces you generate will be lower as well.
However, let me know what category, or potential category racer you are and what sort of climbs you ride over and i'll throw out some numbers for you.
In the meantime, i live in Wales, we have steep climbs (up to ~30%) and some longish climbs (~10%) and the forces are pretty low on these climbs. nothing spectacular, nothing than an untrained healthy person couldn't generate. It's *maintaining* these low forces that is the difficulty and that's a cardiovascular and metabolic issue.If you are keeping a lower profile into the wind whether or not you are in a road race or a TT in the aero position you are exerting unnatural forces on to the lower back and neck and there is a crossover where a sacrifice in power is offset by a more efficient aero postion which results in a greater speed, which after all is the desired aim.
i have an 18 cm difference between my bars and my saddle on my road bike, i.e., a huge drop. I produce the same power in both the drops and the tops.If I'm wrong then so be it (and you're not going to change my mind), but my strength training gives me confidence that I can maintain that postion better than i can without it.
i'm as weak as they come in terms of strength, and lack flexibility. it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference.
Ric
Anyone who could win a TDF TT up Alp D'Huez would obviously be pretty good. Hardly earth shattering that they could produce more power than me then. Could I have bet too?
I could generate maybe the same power as they could (or used to able to) for a shorter time, say 3/5 minutes over a 10% climb using my arms and upper body and then recover on the descent. I once rode the National 25 TT and finished within a couple of seconds of that year's winner of the Tour of Britain's King of the Mountains.
How do you know it doesn't make the slighest bit of difference to your own performance. You would have to have done a full winter's worth of strength training for core stability, taken power readings in the middle of the following seaon's racing and then the following year done bugger all core stability and then measured your power readings again in summer nto compare.
Getting your chin down on to the handlebars stresses the back. Your back must be made of rubber if there are no stresses. And in other words you believe that there is no trade off to be made between aero postion and power. Really?
Like I say you haven't changed my mind.
0 -
Mike Willcox1 wrote:Anyone who could win a TDF TT up Alp D'Huez would obviously be pretty good. Hardly earth shattering that they could produce more power than me then. Could I have bet too?
I could generate maybe the same power as they could (or used to able to) for a shorter time, say 3/5 minutes over a 10% climb using my arms and upper body and then recover on the descent.
So, you can generate the same power as them. That's fine. the forces are going to be the same as the pros on the d'Huez. about 12 kg per leg. hardly earth shattering, and not really requiring strength training is it?How do you know it doesn't make the slighest bit of difference to your own performance. You would have to have done a full winter's worth of strength training for core stability, taken power readings in the middle of the following seaon's racing and then the following year done bugger all core stability and then measured your power readings again in summer nto compare.
been there, done it.Getting your chin down on to the handlebars stresses the back. Your back must be made of rubber if there are no stresses. And in other words you believe that there is no trade off to be made between aero postion and power. Really?
I didn't say there were no stresses. i said that my power was the same, which it is. If you practice in your aero position you should be able to generate the same power as a more upright position after a period of training.
ricProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Ric_Stern/RST wrote:Mike Willcox1 wrote:Anyone who could win a TDF TT up Alp D'Huez would obviously be pretty good. Hardly earth shattering that they could produce more power than me then. Could I have bet too?
I could generate maybe the same power as they could (or used to able to) for a shorter time, say 3/5 minutes over a 10% climb using my arms and upper body and then recover on the descent.
So, you can generate the same power as them. That's fine. the forces are going to be the same as the pros on the d'Huez. about 12 kg per leg. hardly earth shattering, and not really requiring strength training is it?
ric
12 kgs a leg for one revolution doesn't require a lot of strength but when you are talking about a sustained long effort then it's a lot.
1 press up doesn't need a lot of strength....but 100 press ups?
Please explain0 -
:roll:Mike Willcox1 wrote:12 kgs a leg for one revolution doesn't require a lot of strength but when you are talking about a sustained long effort then it's a lot.
1 press up doesn't need a lot of strength....but 100 press ups?
Please explain
Suggest you begin to understand the definition of strength so that in future you don't confuse it with endurance.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
:roll:Mike Willcox1 wrote:12 kgs a leg for one revolution doesn't require a lot of strength but when you are talking about a sustained long effort then it's a lot.
1 press up doesn't need a lot of strength....but 100 press ups?
Please explain
Suggest you begin to understand the definition of strength so that in future you don't confuse it with endurance.
Is that supposed to be an explanation?
Ok then let me re-phrase that to read..
1 Press up doesn't need a lot of muscle endurance....but 100 press ups?
(Please read the posts above to see the context in which this refers) Smarty Alec remarks do not do you justice. Not what I would have expected from someone like you. Suggest you get some manners!
Accoriding to your guru the endurance required to ride a bike is provided entirely by CV and metabloic sources. Nothing to do with strength or muscle endurance at all as all of us have sufficient muscle endurance and strength without any training requirement.
Personally I think that's a load of tosh. But hey what do I know.0 -
care to clarify your understanding of strength v endurance for us?
A recent experience of mine fully accords with Mike's thinking. My only "training" is 55 miles a week of flat commuting. Recently, I rode up the Mont Ventoux while on holiday in France, and it felt, subjectively, to me, like the limiting factor was a lack of "strength" in my legs, i.e. that at the beginning an effort well below maximum was required to keep the pedals turning in a given gear whereas, by the end, it felt like a close to maximum effort. I find it difficult to understand how this is purely a "cardiovascular and metabolic issue". Surely, despite the minimal forces involved, the legs of an elite cyclist have an ability to sustain a higher level of force than mine - the difference can't be all cardiovascular?0 -
I too rode up Mt Ventoux, in July of this year. It was my best time yet -- a modest two hours 3 mins for the 21k from Bedoin to the summit. 15 mins quicker than the previous year and a lot faster than my first attempt as a younger man. The core of my training in the two months before was 2x30 mins and 3x30 mins intervals. I'd done no weight training since the previous December and even then it wasn't very much (see below).
I put my improvement down to doing lots of VO2 max intervals and 2x20 intervals early in the year. What also helped was being able to pace myself properly on the climb and of course getting my weight down to about 70 kilos. Actually I've always managed to get my weight down to 70 kilos for that climb.
Whilst I disagree with Ric (and possibly Alex) about strength training not being useful for preventing injury, I would agree with him about "building the engine" to get up the mountain.
I do the strength work to deal with an injury I suffered several years back where I strained my achillies tendon. the physio I saw gave me resitance exercises to correct my over-pronation and low arch in my right foot which he diagnosed as causing my achilies to be strained. I followed his program of corrective exercises, then strength and flexibilty exercises to re-align my lower leg and foot. I continue to do these exercises every now and again. I don't use heavy weights, in fact I do the exercises without any weights most of the time. I'm careful on the bike to make sure my legs push straight down and that my hips, knees and feet are in proper alignment to deal with the repitition of pushing on the pedals. I haven't had any achillies problem since.
But the stength exercises just help me keep my bones in alignment. Once on the bike it's about endurance. Except for 10-20 second sprints, but that's another story.
Bin0 -
Is Strength = max force that a muscle can apply. Can be measured very easily on a pedal crank, in Newtons, or N/m as its strictly a torque force. Easy enough to measure as a static force though - a multigymn leg press will give you a rough idea.
Endurance is the total energy output a muscle is capable of, i.e. no of joules. This is where Ric's gadget comes in handy: its the area under your total power curve. (1W=1Joule/sec).0 -
Mike Willcox1 wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
:roll:Mike Willcox1 wrote:12 kgs a leg for one revolution doesn't require a lot of strength but when you are talking about a sustained long effort then it's a lot.
1 press up doesn't need a lot of strength....but 100 press ups?
Please explain
Suggest you begin to understand the definition of strength so that in future you don't confuse it with endurance.
Is that supposed to be an explanation?
Ok then let me re-phrase that to read..
1 Press up doesn't need a lot of muscle endurance....but 100 press ups?
(Please read the posts above to see the context in which this refers) Smarty Alec remarks do not do you justice. Not what I would have expected from someone like you. Suggest you get some manners!
Accoriding to your guru the endurance required to ride a bike is provided entirely by CV and metabloic sources. Nothing to do with strength or muscle endurance at all as all of us have sufficient muscle endurance and strength without any training requirement.
Personally I think that's a load of tosh. But hey what do I know.
To clarify, strength is the maximal force or tension that a muscle or group of muscles can generate. This can only occur at zero velocity or very close to it,
Endurance would be defined as the ability to keep doing something. to keep riding a bike at say TT pace or hill climb power, it's entirely dependent on aerobic energy (although possibly if you attacked on said climb, there would be some anaerobic contribution, with a very likely decrease in aerobic power thereafter). These aerobic energy sources are what allow you to ride at a given (long term) effort and the rate at which you can do them (your sustainable power) is goverened by metabolic issues (i.e., your lactate threshold). Your metabolic ability is rate limited by cardiovascular issues (your VO2max).
This allows riders to have huge engines (i.e., world class riders) yet who couldn't sprint faster than your average 2nd or 3rd cat rider. For e.g., i know riders who can ride at more than 400 W for an hour (a second cat rider may be able to do this for about 4 or 5 mins and then collapse) yet can't generate more than 800 W for 5-secs. 800 W for 5-secs with an average sized male would probably get you last place in a bunch sprint. On the other hand i know 4th cats that can generate about 200ish W maximally for an hour (this would probably get you about 75+ mins in a 25-mile TT) but can knock out about 1500 W for 5-secs.
RicProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
lateralus wrote:care to clarify your understanding of strength v endurance for us?
A recent experience of mine fully accords with Mike's thinking. My only "training" is 55 miles a week of flat commuting. Recently, I rode up the Mont Ventoux while on holiday in France, and it felt, subjectively, to me, like the limiting factor was a lack of "strength" in my legs, i.e. that at the beginning an effort well below maximum was required to keep the pedals turning in a given gear whereas, by the end, it felt like a close to maximum effort. I find it difficult to understand how this is purely a "cardiovascular and metabolic issue". Surely, despite the minimal forces involved, the legs of an elite cyclist have an ability to sustain a higher level of force than mine - the difference can't be all cardiovascular?
I think you've answered your own question there lateralus. If you're only doing 55 miles a week of flat commuting then how did you expect to feel climbing up a monster such as Mont Ventoux? The pros will do thousands of km training and racing a year yet won't be muscle bound gym bunnies yet will still fly up Ventoux. It's the size of their cardiovascular engines that are the main difference between you, me and them.
It's your aerobic capacity to keep the pressure on that is the biggest differential between us and them.
If you rode for 200miles a week for say 3 months (structured training with rest periods) and re-tried the climb you'd find out just what difference it makes.0 -
Ric_Stern/RST wrote:Mike Willcox1 wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
:roll:Mike Willcox1 wrote:12 kgs a leg for one revolution doesn't require a lot of strength but when you are talking about a sustained long effort then it's a lot.
1 press up doesn't need a lot of strength....but 100 press ups?
Please explain
Suggest you begin to understand the definition of strength so that in future you don't confuse it with endurance.
Is that supposed to be an explanation?
Ok then let me re-phrase that to read..
1 Press up doesn't need a lot of muscle endurance....but 100 press ups?
(Please read the posts above to see the context in which this refers) Smarty Alec remarks do not do you justice. Not what I would have expected from someone like you. Suggest you get some manners!
Accoriding to your guru the endurance required to ride a bike is provided entirely by CV and metabloic sources. Nothing to do with strength or muscle endurance at all as all of us have sufficient muscle endurance and strength without any training requirement.
Personally I think that's a load of tosh. But hey what do I know.
To clarify, strength is the maximal force or tension that a muscle or group of muscles can generate. This can only occur at zero velocity or very close to it,
Endurance would be defined as the ability to keep doing something. to keep riding a bike at say TT pace or hill climb power, it's entirely dependent on aerobic energy (although possibly if you attacked on said climb, there would be some anaerobic contribution, with a very likely decrease in aerobic power thereafter). These aerobic energy sources are what allow you to ride at a given (long term) effort and the rate at which you can do them (your sustainable power) is goverened by metabolic issues (i.e., your lactate threshold). Your metabolic ability is rate limited by cardiovascular issues (your VO2max).
This allows riders to have huge engines (i.e., world class riders) yet who couldn't sprint faster than your average 2nd or 3rd cat rider. For e.g., i know riders who can ride at more than 400 W for an hour (a second cat rider may be able to do this for about 4 or 5 mins and then collapse) yet can't generate more than 800 W for 5-secs. 800 W for 5-secs with an average sized male would probably get you last place in a bunch sprint. On the other hand i know 4th cats that can generate about 200ish W maximally for an hour (this would probably get you about 75+ mins in a 25-mile TT) but can knock out about 1500 W for 5-secs.
Ric
All very nice I'm sure but what has the above got to do with whether or not muscle endurance does or does not have a bearing on the physical ability to ride a bike? I don't give a doodaa about what one rider can do compared to another and whether they have two heads or one.
To get back to the point.
How can the endurance provided by CV and metabolic sources entirely govern your ability to do 100 press ups and muscular endurance (core strength and shoulder and arm muscle endurance) have nothing to do with it.0 -
Mike Willcox1 wrote:[12 kgs a leg for one revolution doesn't require a lot of strength but when you are talking about a sustained long effort then it's a lot.
1 press up doesn't need a lot of strength....but 100 press ups?
Please explain
if you (or anyone reading this) tried to do 100 press ups I'd wager you'd soon be feeling a burning sensation in your arms - lactic acid. The same as if you tried to keep up with a TdeF rider on the climbs - your legs would soon fill up with lactic acid. SO the idea is to do training that increases the point at which you start to accumulate lactic acid and then training that allows you to lengthen the amount of time you can spend at that point.
Typically the training required to sustain a breakaway or a good TT.0 -
Don't muscles grow when put under repeated load too? A broken leg in a cast loses muscle. Up to a point having muscle (not just super dooper lactic acid resistent muscle) must be a plus :?:
(I think teh RST police will be along soon - we're are SO many who've written LACTIC ACID in our posts - sorry sorry sorry!)
0 -
Matchstick Man wrote:Mike Willcox1 wrote:[12 kgs a leg for one revolution doesn't require a lot of strength but when you are talking about a sustained long effort then it's a lot.
1 press up doesn't need a lot of strength....but 100 press ups?
Please explain
if you (or anyone reading this) tried to do 100 press ups I'd wager you'd soon be feeling a burning sensation in your arms - lactic acid. The same as if you tried to keep up with a TdeF rider on the climbs - your legs would soon fill up with lactic acid. SO the idea is to do training that increases the point at which you start to accumulate lactic acid and then training that allows you to lengthen the amount of time you can spend at that point.
Typically the training required to sustain a breakaway or a good TT.
It's funny how your leg muscles develop over the months and years as you ride a bike. Why should they if they have no bearing on your physical limitations on ridng it as fast as you can.0 -
Mike Willcox1 wrote:It's funny how your leg muscles develop over the months and years as you ride a bike. Why should they if they have no bearing on your physical limitations on ridng it as fast as you can.
so you had skinny legs to begin with and now you have massive well muscled legs? Cos even though I started cycling in 1992 my legs are still as skinny as when I started (hence my moniker). Admittedly they're toned but I can't see any difference in leg size in photos of me over the past 15 years. In that time I've done about less than 20 weight sessions in the gym (mostly over one winter)
Is that why so many pros are such skinny wretches? Or am I missing the point?0 -
Matchstick Man wrote:I think you've answered your own question there lateralus. If you're only doing 55 miles a week of flat commuting then how did you expect to feel climbing up a monster such as Mont Ventoux? The pros will do thousands of km training and racing a year yet won't be muscle bound gym bunnies yet will still fly up Ventoux. It's the size of their cardiovascular engines that are the main difference between you, me and them.
It's your aerobic capacity to keep the pressure on that is the biggest differential between us and them.
If you rode for 200miles a week for say 3 months (structured training with rest periods) and re-tried the climb you'd find out just what difference it makes.
I expected to find it bloody hard, and I wasn't disappointed! I was just curious to see if I could do it. I'm sure the training you suggest (or any additional training) would make a great difference. If I had the time, I'd be doing it.
However, bear with me -everyone's still saying that the determinants are cardiovascular and metabolic. I accept it's nothing to do with muscle size (and it was interesting, on the mountain, to see that the fastest rider were often those with the skinniest legs), but are you really suggesting that a muscle biopsy on my quads, compared to one from an elite rider, would show no difference as it's all down to the cardiovascular system?0 -
lateralus wrote:[However, bear with me -everyone's still saying that the determinants are cardiovascular and metabolic. I accept it's nothing to do with muscle size (and it was interesting, on the mountain, to see that the fastest rider were often those with the skinniest legs), but are you really suggesting that a muscle biopsy on my quads, compared to one from an elite rider, would show no difference as it's all down to the cardiovascular system?
again, you've answered your own question. If muscle size was a limiting factor in climbing up a mountain then these skinny guys would be nowhere. However, as VO2 max is the biggest limiting factor in aerobic endurance sports, muscle size plays little part but aerobic capacity does.
I'd even say that you could leg-press more than those skinny guys you saw, but a VO2 max test would show up the major differences straight away.0 -
Mike Willcox1 wrote:All very nice I'm sure but what has the above got to do with whether or not muscle endurance does or does not have a bearing on the physical ability to ride a bike? I don't give a doodaa about what one rider can do compared to another and whether they have two heads or one.
you asked the difference between endurance and strength. i told you.How can the endurance provided by CV and metabolic sources entirely govern your ability to do 100 press ups and muscular endurance (core strength and shoulder and arm muscle endurance) have nothing to do with it.
because you don't understand exercise physiology. unfortunately, i don't have more time to explain it to you. essentially, it just involves the answer i gave
ricProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Matchstick Man wrote:Mike Willcox1 wrote:[12 kgs a leg for one revolution doesn't require a lot of strength but when you are talking about a sustained long effort then it's a lot.
1 press up doesn't need a lot of strength....but 100 press ups?
Please explain
if you (or anyone reading this) tried to do 100 press ups I'd wager you'd soon be feeling a burning sensation in your arms - lactic acid. The same as if you tried to keep up with a TdeF rider on the climbs - your legs would soon fill up with lactic acid. SO the idea is to do training that increases the point at which you start to accumulate lactic acid and then training that allows you to lengthen the amount of time you can spend at that point.
Typically the training required to sustain a breakaway or a good TT.
While this isn't strictly correct, the essence of the answer is correct.
Lactic acid is actually lactate (which is the dissociated salt), lactate is actually *good* for us (it provides a fuel source), the fatigue is metabolic in nature. Essentially though, you're correct.
RicProfessional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Ric_Stern/RST wrote:[How can the endurance provided by CV and metabolic sources entirely govern your ability to do 100 press ups and muscular endurance (core strength and shoulder and arm muscle endurance) have nothing to do with it.
because you don't understand exercise physiology. unfortunately, i don't have more time to explain it to you. essentially, it just involves the answer i gave
ric[/quote]
You're right, byyour definition you don't even need arms.0 -
Mike Willcox1 wrote:Ric_Stern/RST wrote:[How can the endurance provided by CV and metabolic sources entirely govern your ability to do 100 press ups and muscular endurance (core strength and shoulder and arm muscle endurance) have nothing to do with it.
because you don't understand exercise physiology. unfortunately, i don't have more time to explain it to you. essentially, it just involves the answer i gave
ric
You're right, byyour definition you don't even need arms.[/quote]
I'm not sure where you made that up from?Professional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
www.cyclecoach.com0 -
We appear to have gone OT.Is it me or do all posts in the training forum go along the lines of
Question
Beacon Ruth
Ric Stern correcting Ruth
Ruth re-correcting and explaining
Ric Stern conceding minor point and trying to sell power meter
Continue for 2 or 3 pages
LMAO at this thread
At least it has prompted some healthy debate - and isn't that what a forum is for? If you don't like someones comments, attitude or advice then just ignore them.
And for what it's worth - thanks for the replies to threads I have begun - I always appreciate another perspective. Even if it does mention power 0 -
and I'll throw it even more off topic
This argument about Britain/Australia doing so well becasue of them embracing a scientific approach, I find a but worrying. It does not give a PROOF that the scientific approach is the best (it doesn;t prove the oppositre either by the way) There is no way that you can reflect on the history of cycling without mentioning the D word. Now I'm going to say the un-sayable, perhaps Britain is the best track cycling nation because we now have the best drug programme.
Now I'm not saying that anyone is taking drugs, just pointing out that it's best not use profesional cyclists as an argument for scientific proof.0 -
chrisw12 wrote:and I'll throw it even more off topic
This argument about Britain/Australia doing so well becasue of them embracing a scientific approach, I find a but worrying. It does not give a PROOF that the scientific approach is the best (it doesn;t prove the oppositre either by the way) There is no way that you can reflect on the history of cycling without mentioning the D word. Now I'm going to say the un-sayable, perhaps Britain is the best track cycling nation because we now have the best drug programme.
Now I'm not saying that anyone is taking drugs, just pointing out that it's best not use profesional cyclists as an argument for scientific proof.
This is as naughty as suggesting taking pace is a way to ride faster.... 0 -
I think the UK track medals are an unfortunate example to use as a proof of the success of quality scientific training. The UK followed Australia in that government sports policy was channelled into certain elite sports and certain sections of those elite sports. Policy was directed to specialisation in certain sports.
"In the UK, it is only over the past decade that central government has promoted a far more positive policy discourse around, and allocated increasingly large amounts of public money for, elite sport development."
Yet, public money was used at the expense of grassroots development of sport in the UK. Many will know the story of Eastway cycle circit where a facility used by roadies, MTBers, cyclo-cross and from kids to adults was bulldozed to makeway for the damned Olympics. A generation of youngsters, adults and vets lost out to elite sport. And what will be returned to East London ater 2012 is anybody's guess. But it's unlikely to be a grassroots facility. There's no trickle-down factor here where funding sport at the top will filter down to the less genetically endowed budding athletes in our fair land.
"The inexorable pursuit of sporting excellence on the international stage is one in which broader social goals associated with sport become routinely subordinated to the production of performance."
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... mptype=rss
I'm all for the development of sports science and I agree with much of what the lads from RST say. But the UK example is a bad one to illustrate it because the UK example is a disgrace.
Bin0 -
Perhaps but it is hard to argue against the impact the scientific approach has had on all Australia sport. In the mid 1970s (Montreal '76) Australia managed one Silver and four Bronze medals (32nd nation on medal tally). Not long after, the AIS was established. Australia is now in the top 5 Nations at the Olympics. (Atlanta 5th, Sydney 4th, Athens 4th).binlinus wrote:I think the UK track medals are an unfortunate example to use as a proof of the success of quality scientific training. The UK followed Australia in that government sports policy was channelled into certain elite sports and certain sections of those elite sports. Policy was directed to specialisation in certain sports.0
