why reduce strength training as you get closer to the racing

chalford

a_n_t

chalford wrote:

strength comes into play on longer distance

Erm, could you expand on that?

P_Tucker

a_n_t wrote:

chalford wrote:

strength comes into play on longer distance

Erm, could you expand on that?

You're really going to bother with this line of questioning?

Garry H

a_n_t wrote:

chalford wrote:

strength comes into play on longer distance

Erm, could you expand on that?

For me too please

chalford

over longer distances. in tts im talkin about, the ability to sustain power is very important, and that is where stentgh comes into play as opposed to aerodynamics

shockedsoshocked

NapoleonD wrote:

Interesting recent journal article on Strength training for endurance athletes here that supports claims that it helps...

http://www.rappstar.com/pdf/StrengthTra ... hletes.pdf

There is articles out there that have been brought up before showing findings that cyclists engaging in a appropriate stregnth and conditioning program have increased their maximal power without an increase in VO2, with an overall decrease in total time spent cycling and no weight gain.

But, I'd suggest reducing strength training as the season starts because your legs will be in bits. The racing season should be for maintenence, not progression.

a_n_t

chalford wrote:

the ability to sustain power is very important, and that is where stentgh comes into play

Oh dear

chalford

chalford

perfect eg. cancellara wins the classics ,over the longer distances, as he has the ability and stength to push big watts over longer distances, reported to be pushing 530 watts in last half of flanders

a_n_t

chalford wrote:

reported to be pushing 530 watts in last half of flanders

Now is that strength? or power?

chalford

powers what you produce, you need the strength to do it, im an example of that, ive improved my neuromuscular strength over the winter ,and i can now produce bigger watts , 61 watts to be exact

cyco2

See below
.
.
.

a_n_t

What about Wiggins or Millar? They dont look very strong?

P_Tucker

a_n_t wrote:

What about Wiggins or Millar? They dont look very strong?

Why? You know you're right and he's wrong, just make your point FFS

a_n_t

P_Tucker wrote:

a_n_t wrote:

What about Wiggins or Millar? They dont look very strong?

Why? You know you're right and he's wrong, just make your point FFS

Killjoy! thats no fun is it?

a_n_t

Allow me to cut and paste Mr Simmons view on the matter. Hope you dont mind Alex.

"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".

chalford

never mentioned force

Garry H

I think that was his point...

I think you have all your terminology mixed up.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Garry H wrote:

mattshrops wrote:

the conclusion IS interesting. is it just me i had a severe attack of glazing over trying to read the rest of it :oops:

Don't know. I just went straight to the conclusion...

The conclusions are not always supported by the data presented.

This paper says to me that the findings are equivocal.

The primary limiter in 10-mile TT performance is our aerobic metabolism. Work to improve that. It involves riding a bike mostly.

Garry H

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Garry H wrote:

mattshrops wrote:

the conclusion IS interesting. is it just me i had a severe attack of glazing over trying to read the rest of it :oops:

Don't know. I just went straight to the conclusion...

The conclusions are not always supported by the data presented.

This paper says to me that the findings are equivocal.

The primary limiter in 10-mile TT performance is our aerobic metabolism. Work to improve that. It involves riding a bike mostly.

Thanks Alex. See, I still didn't need to read the main body of the study

jibberjim

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Don't know. I just went straight to the conclusion...

The conclusions are not always supported by the data presented.[/quote]

To be fair to them quite a bit of the evidence does support the view. Strength Training improves endurace performance. The problem for us as cyclists is, that evidence is in running and cross country skiing...

Anonymous

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

This paper says to me that the findings are equivocal.

Trying to get my head round all this, I personally don't do any strength training as my training time is so limited it needs to be on the bike. TBH I find a lot of sports science equivocal. Not least because some things seem to work better for some people...

jibberjim

NapoleonD wrote:

Trying to get my head round all this, I personally don't do any strength training as my training time is so limited it needs to be on the bike. TBH I find a lot of sports science equivocal. Not least because some things seem to work better for some people...

The biggest problems with training studies is that they're all tiny populations - now that doesn't mean they're completely useless and if there was a big effect it wouldn't be shown up after enough studies - but what it can't show up is effects which are smaller (and often 5% improvement which would be a pretty worthwhile improvement once you're trained won't be discernable) and it won't show up if there are particularly individuals who would get a much larger benefit that most people wouldn't.

At an extreme - if you consider the Elite Dutch parar-triathlete who recently got full function back in her legs after an accident - a lot of her physiology would be awesome but her legs not so much and her training is likely to see big effects from something completely different from others. Leg Strength training is likely to be very valuable there (but she probably does struggle with the strength to walk up stairs)

Studies aren't everything - neither the ones that support an idea or ones that don't.

P_Tucker

jibberjim wrote:

Studies aren't everything - neither the ones that support an idea or ones that don't.

They're not perfect, but they're miles better than anything else; from the usual "it works for me" nonsense (how would you know?) through to "my coach says to do this because he's always done it this way".

Eddy S

NapoleonD wrote:

Trying to get my head round all this, I personally don't do any strength training as my training time is so limited it needs to be on the bike. TBH I find a lot of sports science equivocal. Not least because some things seem to work better for some people...

Surely you must do some kind of strength sessions/work on the bike?

As must most everybody else who says you don't need strength as part of your riding/training/racing?

P_Tucker

Eddy S wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Trying to get my head round all this, I personally don't do any strength training as my training time is so limited it needs to be on the bike. TBH I find a lot of sports science equivocal. Not least because some things seem to work better for some people...

Surely you must do some kind of strength sessions/work on the bike?

As must most everybody else who says you don't need strength as part of your riding/training/racing?

What, like riding up hills in a big gear? Thats NOT strength training contd pg 94 etc...

cyco2

In cycling you need to train using strength in a cyclic action. Very simply if you ride your bike at 20mph and it weigh 35lbs. Then ride it again with it at 15lbs then you should be able to ride it with a higher gear ratio. Hence go faster for the same cadence. I think this is Kinetic Energy Accumulation Training and in my case worked so guess it would for anybody.

jibberjim

P_Tucker wrote:

Eddy S wrote:

Surely you must do some kind of strength sessions/work on the bike?

As must most everybody else who says you don't need strength as part of your riding/training/racing?

What, like riding up hills in a big gear? Thats NOT strength training contd pg 94 etc...

I don't even do that... If my cadence falls below 80 I generally get off and walk. (unless I'm also putting out lower than threshold watts the limiter is really torque) So I do no big gear work, or any other sort of "strength" work.

chrisw12

P_Tucker wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

Studies aren't everything - neither the ones that support an idea or ones that don't.

They're not perfect, but they're miles better than anything else; from the usual "it works for me" nonsense (how would you know?) through to "my coach says to do this because he's always done it this way".

That' comment has left me a bit uneasy, I know what you are saying but sometimes bad science can cause a lot more damage than someone's random ramblings. I suppose the thing with bad science is that it eventually gets called out as bad and is replaced by better theories.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Eddy S wrote:

Surely you must do some kind of strength sessions/work on the bike?

As must most everybody else who says you don't need strength as part of your riding/training/racing?

Just exactly what training on a bike will increase one's strength?

Bear in mind that it is almost impossible to apply the sort of forces on a bike that are required to develop strength.

The only time such forces approach maximal on a bike are in the opening pedal stroke from a maximal effort standing start.