Building muscle - how best to, and the pros and cons

a_n_t

Pokerface wrote:

I want to know more about Ant's sister

meanredspider

a_n_t wrote:

And if he has no more power to give how will increasing strength help?

The question I quoted was about increasing power/weight. You either need to increase power [not strength] or decrease weight.

POWER = FORCE (strength) x DISTANCE ÷ TIME

To increase power, you either need to keep the strength the same and pedal faster (the motorbike engine approach)

OR

increase the strength and keep the pedal speed the same (higher gear) (the V8 muscle car approach)

And that's what I mean about them being related - you can't separate them (like you can you and your sister).

Pokerface

I may be way off base here, but I thought I read that in endurance cycling, power has very little to do with strength.

As Alex would say - if you can walk up a flight of stairs, you have all the strength you need. The rest comes from....? (Lungs, heart, blood, etc)


Something like that.


In track sprinting, there's probably more of a corelation between power and strength due to the short nature of the effort.

meanredspider

Pokerface wrote:

I may be way off base here, but I thought I read that in endurance cycling, power has very little to do with strength.

As Alex would say - if you can walk up a flight of stairs, you have all the strength you need. The rest comes from....? (Lungs, heart, blood, etc)


Something like that.


In track sprinting, there's probably more of a corelation between power and strength due to the short nature of the effort.

Endurance cycling is like the motorbike thing - not much strength but keeping the "revs" up (Lance and his high cadence). Additionally, they aren't going as fast as the sprinters and more speed mean shedloads more power.

Sprinters are more like dragster racers - big engines (loads of "strength") deliver power through loads of grunt.

a_n_t

Pokerface wrote:

I may be way off base here, but I thought I read that in endurance cycling, power has very little to do with strength.

You're correct. Power and strength are 2 different things like I said. Increasing strength is going to do little for your power/weight ratio, whereas increasing your power will.

Anyway, I'm done with banging my head against a brickwall, I've got my FTP to increase.

a_n_t

meanredspider wrote:

and more speed mean shedloads more power.

See? You do understand.

Alex_Simmons/RST

meanredspider wrote:

a_n_t wrote:

And if he has no more power to give how will increasing strength help?

The question I quoted was about increasing power/weight. You either need to increase power [not strength] or decrease weight.

POWER = FORCE (strength) x DISTANCE ÷ TIME

To increase power, you either need to keep the strength the same and pedal faster (the motorbike engine approach)

OR

increase the strength and keep the pedal speed the same (higher gear) (the V8 muscle car approach)

And that's what I mean about them being related - you can't separate them (like you can you and your sister).

Not only are you confusing strength with power, you are confusing force with strength.

Yes, force is what we apply to pedals to cause them to move, but that is not strength.

Strength is a measure of our maximal force generation capacity. By definition it can only occur at zero velocity. The faster the speed of motion, the lower the force we can maximally generate.

In endurance cycling, the forces applied are way sub-maximal, to the extent that strength is irrelevant for all but the extremely frail.

For example, at 300 watts and a cadence of 90 rpm on 170mm cranks, the average effective pedal force applied to the pedals is only ~ 19kg for both legs combined.

The only times we use anything approaching our maximal force (strength) is during the first couple of pedal strokes in standing start efforts, such as a track kilo/500m TT or BMX start. After that the forces drop significantly below our strength levels.

Once you look at quadrant analysis of power meter files and maybe even do some maximal force-velocity testing, then you'll start to see what's going on.

meanredspider

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Not only are you confusing strength with power, you are confusing force with strength.

Yes, force is what we apply to pedals to cause them to move, but that is not strength.
.

I actually think you're beginning to confuse force and power yourself. Power takes into account force applied at speed. The example is the world's strongest man can pull a truck (force) but wouldn't beat Mr Bolt in a 100m sprint (power). Diesel engines product lots of torque (force) but struggle to deliver power due to the combustion characteristics.

Once you start to define specific cycling disciplines (Endurance, Sprint etc) then the focus changes enormously. You've only got to look at the thighs of track sprint cyclists to see that strength is important. Granted, for endurance cyclists, the physiology is very different - but that's just a series of trade-offs - if they could have Chris Hoy's strength on tap for a sprint finish, I'm sure they would - it's just isn't worth them dragging around for the other 100 miles. I'm sure if you compare the peak power generated by a sprint cyclist it's very high just unsustainable - physiologically we can't support that.

Again, I'm not arguing for a particular route but there are two parts to the equation. For most road cycling, developing strength isn't a rich seam of opportunity - it's all about endurance and efficiency for a given power level.

robz400

you won't put on a stone in muscle in 2 to 3 month

This is not true. If you train hard and more importantly eat until your jaw hurts everyday you can, I know this because I did.

If you eat very cleanly you can also avoid piling on much fat. I increased my weight from 10.5 stone to just over 12 in just under 3 months without steriods. My body fat % has stayed below 10% the whole time.

Just buy a george foreman grill and learn to love chicken breasts and brown rice 5 times a day. Once you've got the muscle maintaining it is much easier.

Oh and as someone else said stick to very simple compound routines with free weights. No swiss balls etc......

Good luck :-)

a_n_t

I give up............................................. next!

Alex_Simmons/RST

meanredspider wrote:

I actually think you're beginning to confuse force and power yourself.

Not really. I have an exceptional understanding of the factors involved in producing power on a bicycle.

As endurance cyclists, we are not simply not force limited when it comes to producing sustainable power. Our limiters are aerobic metabolic in nature.

Bringing track sprinters into the discussion is a red herring.

meanredspider

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I actually think you're beginning to confuse force and power yourself.

Not really. I have an exceptional understanding of the factors involved in producing power on a bicycle.

As endurance cyclists, we are not simply not force limited when it comes to producing sustainable power. Our limiters are aerobic metabolic in nature.

Bringing track sprinters into the discussion is a red herring.

Far from it. Where did the OP say he was an "endurance cyclist"?

I'm only a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - I really have no idea about force and power...

Eddy S

meanredspider wrote:

Sprinters are more like dragster racers - big engines (loads of "strength") deliver power through loads of grunt.

That sounds like me. Or at least it did till I broke my leg! :roll:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Bringing track sprinters into the discussion is a red herring.

Now I'm having an identity crisis... am I a car or a fish?!?!?

Pokerface

At 57kg I think it's safe to assume that the OP isn't a track sprinter!


Now - how about some photos of Ant's sister? Anyone? 8)

SteveR_100Milers

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I actually think you're beginning to confuse force and power yourself.

Not really. I have an exceptional understanding of the factors involved in producing power on a bicycle.

As endurance cyclists, we are not simply not force limited when it comes to producing sustainable power. Our limiters are aerobic metabolic in nature.

Bringing track sprinters into the discussion is a red herring.

This is easy enough to observe when riding, especially on a fixed gear, the difference between the force exerted on the pedals from a standing start is much much higher than the difference between pedalling at 100 rpm and 130 rpm on a say a 90" gear. No one ever broke chain or pulled the rear wheel out of alignment whilst accelerating from 30 mph to 35mph let alone the force required just to maintain that speed.

John Stevenson

meanredspider wrote:

I'm only a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - I really have no idea about force and power...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

campagman

There was a thread on here about a year ago, which I thought at the time explained this differance of opinion perfectly. When you start climbing a hill what starts to hurt and scream at you first? Is it your heart and lungs (Alex?) or is it your legs (me and a few others on here). Because my legs start to hurt first then I think they are the limiting factor so increasing my leg strength is the way to go. Some peoples legs are fine and its their heart and lungs that are the limiting factor so they naturally think that training the aerobic system is the way to go. Only you can decide.

Pokerface

campagman wrote:

There was a thread on here about a year ago, which I thought at the time explained this differance of opinion perfectly. When you start climbing a hill what starts to hurt and scream at you first? Is it your heart and lungs (Alex?) or is it your legs (me and a few others on here). Because my legs start to hurt first then I think they are the limiting factor so increasing my leg strength is the way to go. Some peoples legs are fine and its their heart and lungs that are the limiting factor so they naturally think that training the aerobic system is the way to go. Only you can decide.

Oh dear. Do you have even the slightest idea why your legs start burning?! I can assure you it's not because they aren't strong enough :roll:

meanredspider

John Stevenson wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'm only a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - I really have no idea about force and power...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Accepted (although ironic from a man who has "Editor in Chief
" in his avatar) - except force and power are the most basic concepts in mechanical engineering and yet widely (extremely widely - just Google "Torque & Power" to see how widely) misunderstood.

Besides that, I was only responding to

Not really. I have an exceptional understanding of the factors involved in producing power on a bicycle.

which comes without stated qualification/"authority"... just a 'because I say so"

irezumi

Check out Alex_Simmons links at the bottom of his posts to decide whether his crednetials are good enough.

My biggest concern with everybody here is that nobody knows how good the OP's power levels at his current weight are, merely that they are 'good'. He also mentions this isnt for a specific event, so overall building, or at the very least strengthening, of muscle may be beneficial for his overall fitness & health if not necessarily improving, although not adversley affecting, his cycling capabilities.

meanredspider

irezumi wrote:

Check out Alex_Simmons links at the bottom of his posts to decide whether his crednetials are good enough.
.

They're very good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It's a self-defeating argument

I don't doubt Alex_Simmons's cycling knowledge. All I'm doing is clearing up the relationship between force and power. Somehow we headed off into endurance cycling (how, I don't know) and I don't disagree with anybody that absolute strength has little impact on endurance cycling. But the endurance bit is an assumption (based on the OP's size?)

Alex_Simmons/RST

meanredspider wrote:

I'm only a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - I really have no idea about force and power...

Cool. Now all you need to do is to examine the physics of cycling, and combine that with some knowledge of exercise physiology to see what I'm talking about. Humans are not motor vehicles.

Since you're an engineer (or a fellow at least since I don't know what you actually do), then let's start with the physics side of it.

Average Effective Pedal Force (AEPF) on a bike:

AEPF = 60 x Power(watts) / (crank length metres x PI x cadence rpm)

Let's take say Fabian Cancellara banging along at say 5.8-6 W/kg or ~ 450W at his typical 105-110rpm. I'm guessing 175mm cranks.

AEPF (110rpm) = 223 Newtons, or about the equivalent of applying a force of ~ 23kg with both legs.

Being able to apply an average of 23kg of force with both legs isn't what I would call a strength based activity (since I'm sure Fab could push nearly an order of magnitude more than that with both legs).

Endurance cycling (anything longer than a 2km pursuit) is primarily an aerobic activity.

What limits us is the ability to supply energy in the form of ATP production in our muscles, which can be done aerobically or anaerobically (but anaerobically only for a very short time measured in seconds).

To supply ATP we need a few things, most important of those are a well developed blood supply (increased capillarisation in the muscles), lots of mitochodria (our energy production plants) in the muscle cells and an available fuel supply (O2 and key metabolites - glycogen and free fatty acids mostly).

The adaptations needed to increase mitochondral density, capillarisation, O2 delivery, glycogen storage and improved utilisation of FFA are attained through aerobic (low force) exercise.

Exercise that increases strength (longer term) actually runs counter to these aerobic adaptations, primarily through reducing capillary density and mitochondral dilution. Which is why you won't see any "power" lifters winning the Tour de France (or even your local Cat 2/3 road race).

Now a world class elite track sprinter who can generate up to 2.4kW of the line for a few seconds, well that's different. Getting off the line, strength matters. But for a few seconds only, then the forces drop significantly sub-maximal and the role of strength declines significantly in the performance and other energy systems take over.

Alex_Simmons/RST

meanredspider wrote:

But the endurance bit is an assumption (based on the OP's size?)

It's a reasonable one - the OP mentioned his power to weight and going up hills.

The OP also asked for the Pros and Cons of adding body mass.

meanredspider

Yup - understand all that - my day-job is medical devices (diabetes specifically - 100m patients) - I have a good understanding of physiology of human energy production.

I don't think we're arguing about the same things at all.

My point was a simple one: strength does deliver power. What does Hoy produce at peak? 2.3-2.5kW? Given the speed he does and the size of the guy, I'd imagine his average power is pretty high too. Peak power of a TdF cyclist? Half that? A long way shy of Hoy for sure.

You're arguing that strength isn't important to endurance cycling - I'm not disagreeing with you

I know Hoy can't sustain his performance over an endurance event. But the OP was asking how to build muscle & power not how to build endurance. Someone started to say that strength had nothing to do with power and it's patently not true.

SteveR_100Milers

Alex, out of interest, what do the AEPF and power plots look like for say the kilo? And, if you take a muscle cell operating in equilibrium, i.e. constant power output I guess that after a time t it is safe to assume that the process is mostly of not all aerobic. Now if the rider accelerates, the initial acceleration delta t must be anaerobic? Is there any test / data that analyses the effect of acceleration whilst at measured power output in terms of aerobic -> temporary anaerobic process? Whilst I understand that the chemical process taking place within the muscle are not the same as a mechanical device in that we burn energy even when static (thus proving Newtonian laws cannot be applied to muscular output) externally there might be an analogy to the situation of a car travelling at x mph, which requires a measurable amount of power to overcome drag, friction etc. Simple ish calculus can predict that In order to go faster, the engine has to continue to produce sufficient power to overcome the instantaneous drag (steady state) and enough force to increase the velocity of the car (mass) by delta V. If applied to the situation of a cyclist, in order to accelerate from velocity A to velocity B requires an increase of force over and above that required to maintain either velocities. I am not arguing that bench pressing 200Kgs every night is going to make you a faster cyclist, but whatever the physiology of the muscle that allows it to generate greater force can help a cyclist provided those mechanisms don't inhibit the aerobic capacity? Or is this just a manifestation of fast v slow twitch fibres? and can the training effect be separated or isolated for each type?

From observation, some riders have a big difference in their steady state output (FTP for arguments sake) and their max power (over say a 500m all out effort), i.e. some are close (big "engine" no kick vs no endurance but strong kick and high speed over a short distance). There are riders who will simply ride away from me over 20 laps, yet over 2 I am much faster. I am pretty sure that for me 75% of this short effort is anaerobic, or at least not steady state, and it increased from 1-2 laps to 2-3 laps through training but at no different physical effort - I am no more out of breath now after 2-3 laps than I was after 1-2 laps a month ago, simply that muscle fatigue is delayed, I can push much harder (faster) and for longer (distance). I have not seen anything like the same improvement in my endurance speed, and while none of this is any surprise to any cyclist, it is understanding the different physiological processes in the different muscle fibre types and how they are developed and how that interaction can be enhancing or destructive.

Ok enough rambling! I am going to do some squats over the next couple of days now that I am going to make an effort at short track events unless you tell me they will make me slower! (I am talking about squats that require significant movement and getting out of breath, not static leg presses).

a_n_t

meanredspider wrote:

Someone started to say that strength had nothing to do with power and it's patently not true.

I pointed out that strength and power in relation to cycling are 2 completely different things and are often confused.

The OP wants a better power/weight ratio, increasing strength isn't the way to go.

carrock

TRack cycling, particualrly sprinting, would improve if the OP gained muscle

Not endurance cycling though

I have a weight training background, strong legs, and blitz my wife in sprints and even short hill sprint

She mullers me over long distances, especially hills

You need to train in a focused specific manner, and play to your strngths.

Legends abound f how Sir Chris was last man home on many long distance rides before he found his true vocation

John Stevenson

meanredspider wrote:

Someone started to say that strength had nothing to do with power and it's patently not true.

The problem is the way the terms get used. You're an engineer and rightly insist on physics-style definitions because, in your line of work inaccuracy = dead patients. And that would be bad.

But what most lay people mean by 'strength' is 'the ability to smash down walls like the Incredible Hulk'.

That kind of massive peak strength is, as Alex points out, and you agree, irrelevant for almost all cycling disciplines, and especially for the OP who is interested on the effect of changes in his power:weight on his climbing ability.

Pedantic attachment to your field's definitions of terms isn't useful when you're dealing with an audience that uses those terms differently.

As for my pointing out that you were reaching for the fallacy of argument from authority, well, you were. You claimed that simply being a member of an organisation gave you special insight. Alex, on the other hand, merely claimed he knows his stuff - and his numerous well-explained and coherent posts on these topics rather suggest he does.

I claim no particular authority attached to my job title, though a certain ability to herd cats helps.

CarbonCopy

This is great but i don`t understand all these big words. Alex does seem very very educated in the subject and it`s a pleasure learning from his posts.i also enjoy reading other peaples opinions too.like i said this is great

meanredspider

John Stevenson wrote:

Pedantic attachment to your field's definitions of terms isn't useful when you're dealing with an audience that uses those terms differently.
.

Which, to be fair, is why I've kept dragging this back to Chris Hoy - a "strong" cyclist I'd have thought in everybody's definition (he looks like he could kick a door or two in)? He's strong and produces huges amounts of power. He also happens to be one of our most successful cyclists. What I was seeking to do was point out, in layman's terms, that strength IS key a component of power.

I'd also suggest that, as soon as strength stops becoming a key component of power in cycling (ie in endurance cycling), power itself is irrelevant per se. Only the ability to sustain a certain power level becomes important not the power level itself. I might be able to produce the average power levels of a TdF winner. The difference is, I can't sustain it. Then, as discussed above, it all comes down to aerobic fitness and stamina. Measuring power or even power-to-weight is useless unless distance (1k, 10k, 100k) is also factored in. That may already exist - I haven't seen it here and no-one asked the OP.

The vagueness of the OP's original question hasn't helped. People have applied their own paradigm to it.

And I'd would like to apologise if I've seemed pedantic.It's a hazard of my job (which is, effectively, to protect those 100m patients from our products harming them) and I shouldn't drag that into a discussion forum. That's my problem - sorry! :oops: