why reduce strength training as you get closer to the racing
Comments
-
There you go Alex - you've almost answered your own question.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote: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.
But as usual you are just demonstrating extremes for what ever point it is you want to make.
I have done a lot of standing starts, over-geared and other work on the bike to develop my strength and power and that was there long before I ever started gym work.
So, want are you going to tell me now? That I'm wrong and/or deluded?I’m a sprinter – I warmed up yesterday.0 -
Eddy S wrote:
There you go Alex - you've almost answered your own question.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote: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.
But as usual you are just demonstrating extremes for what ever point it is you want to make.
I have done a lot of standing starts, over-geared and other work on the bike to develop my strength and power and that was there long before I ever started gym work.
So, want are you going to tell me now? That I'm wrong and/or deluded?
Out of interest, why exactly do you think you are right and Alex is wrong? He has SCIENCE as a wingman after all.0 -
Do you want to show me exactly where I've said that I think that?P_Tucker wrote:Out of interest, why exactly do you think you are right and Alex is wrong?
Read it again. Alex challenged me and I've replied with my own real world personal experience and examples.
There is always the possibility that we're both right (or wrong...) and that there are many ways but one has to be open-minded to that possibility. 8)
Well, there you go. I can't possibly be right against all of that science can I and I must be imagining it and deluding myself about my progression??? :roll:P_Tucker wrote:He has SCIENCE as a wingman after all.
In the meantime, I'll just carry on winning races and championships! 8)I’m a sprinter – I warmed up yesterday.0 -
What I am saying is that to induce strength adaptations, you need to apply high forces.Eddy S wrote:
There you go Alex - you've almost answered your own question.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote: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.
But as usual you are just demonstrating extremes for what ever point it is you want to make.
I have done a lot of standing starts, over-geared and other work on the bike to develop my strength and power and that was there long before I ever started gym work.
So, want are you going to tell me now? That I'm wrong and/or deluded?
Since such forces only occur very rarely on a bicycle then you are not likely to be inducing much in the way of strength gains from riding a bike, no matter what gear you ride.
Overgear work is not strength training. The forces are way too low.0 -
Alex - why do you see strength as one-dimensional? From what you've said before to me (that a_n_t is so fond of quoting), strength is just the maximal force you can apply - just one dimension: the maximum.
A lot of other reference refer to maximal strength and endurance strength - your ability to sustain the force: the number of reps in weight training language. That's different from power - power is your ability to do the reps at speed. What term do you use for this repetitive strength - the point at which your arms or legs go to jelly?
I ask this because as I read the various threads about strength, it seems to be the definition of strength that causes much of the trouble. It's certainly the one that I don't get.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Eddy S wrote:
Do you want to show me exactly where I've said that I think that?P_Tucker wrote:Out of interest, why exactly do you think you are right and Alex is wrong?
Read it again. Alex challenged me and I've replied with my own real world personal experience and examples.
There is always the possibility that we're both right (or wrong...) and that there are many ways but one has to be open-minded to that possibility. 8)
Well, there you go. I can't possibly be right against all of that science can I and I must be imagining it and deluding myself about my progression??? :roll:P_Tucker wrote:He has SCIENCE as a wingman after all.
In the meantime, I'll just carry on winning races and championships! 8)
If your "evidence" is your personal experience, vs decades of research by scientists on thousands of people, then I think I'll believe science thanks.
"It works for me" is just about the stupidest thing it's possible to say RE your training. How would you know? So you win championships? Good for you. Perhaps if you trained another way you would be beating Hoy/Wiggins/Cancellara/Contador?0 -
Because when we discuss physical training and exercise physiology, we need to use precise terms, precisely.meanredspider wrote:Alex - why do you see strength as one-dimensional? From what you've said before to me (that a_n_t is so fond of quoting), strength is just the maximal force you can apply - just one dimension: the maximum.
A lot of other reference refer to maximal strength and endurance strength - your ability to sustain the force: the number of reps in weight training language. That's different from power - power is your ability to do the reps at speed. What term do you use for this repetitive strength - the point at which your arms or legs go to jelly?
I ask this because as I read the various threads about strength, it seems to be the definition of strength that causes much of the trouble. It's certainly the one that I don't get.
Strength is, by definition, the maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles. Also, by definition, such forces can only occur at zero (or very close to zero) velocity.
If you do training that doesn't seek to induce an increase in maximal force generation capacity, then it isn't strength training.
If we all started defining things in any which way we like, then the communication of such ideas and concepts becomes impossible.
Being able to repeatedly apply sub-maximal forces at a given rate over a period of time is not strength, that's power. When such training is performed at a maximal level for a given duration, then that's mean maximal power.
The question then becomes, does strength matter for production of power? The answer is yes, but only for very specific circumstances (such as track standing starts - and then only for the initial pedal stroke).
Even in track sprinting, the forces are significantly sub-maximal (they have to be given the speed of movement) and there is a limit to the role of strength in performance. What is needed for track sprint is the ability to apply high forces at high speed. There are plenty of people who are strong, but have no sprint.
In endurance cycling, the forces are so low that they are nearly an order of magnitude less than our strength. Even when doing over-gear efforts up hills.
It's an aerobic sport, dammit!"0 -
I wouldn't be so hard. I prefer to think of it this way:P_Tucker wrote:Eddy S wrote:
Do you want to show me exactly where I've said that I think that?P_Tucker wrote:Out of interest, why exactly do you think you are right and Alex is wrong?
Read it again. Alex challenged me and I've replied with my own real world personal experience and examples.
There is always the possibility that we're both right (or wrong...) and that there are many ways but one has to be open-minded to that possibility. 8)
Well, there you go. I can't possibly be right against all of that science can I and I must be imagining it and deluding myself about my progression??? :roll:P_Tucker wrote:He has SCIENCE as a wingman after all.
In the meantime, I'll just carry on winning races and championships! 8)
If your "evidence" is your personal experience, vs decades of research by scientists on thousands of people, then I think I'll believe science thanks.
"It works for me" is just about the stupidest thing it's possible to say RE your training. How would you know? So you win championships? Good for you. Perhaps if you trained another way you would be beating Hoy/Wiggins/Cancellara/Contador?
A rider trains hard and they improve. That is not in question. However they can misunderstand the reasons why they are improving and assign a causation to that misunderstanding, which can lead to making training decisions that perhaps are less optimal.
e.g. "I do "strength endurance" overgear hillclimbs and I become a fitter cyclist, therefore strength training = better bike rider".
The problem the statement is that such training has nothing to do with strength* and that misunderstanding might lead you down the path of thinking actual strength training will also make you a fitter cyclist, when what matters is doing sufficient efforts at a high enough power output.
* What you are in fact doing is lots of higher power efforts and that will, typically, induce positive adaptations in your ability to sustain a higher power output. The gearing used in this instance is a pretty sizable red herring and is a case of correlation being confused with causation.0 -
In 2 or 3 posts you seem to have assumed rather a lot about me, my training, what my coach and I work on and my challenges to the views expressed here. You’re wrong on every count/observation. You can now go be condescending to someone else.P_Tucker wrote:If your "evidence" is your personal experience, vs decades of research by scientists on thousands of people, then I think I'll believe science thanks.
"It works for me" is just about the stupidest thing it's possible to say RE your training. How would you know? So you win championships? Good for you. Perhaps if you trained another way you would be beating Hoy/Wiggins/Cancellara/Contador?I’m a sprinter – I warmed up yesterday.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Because when we discuss physical training and exercise physiology, we need to use precise terms, precisely.............meanredspider wrote:Alex - why do you see strength as one-dimensional? From what you've said before to me (that a_n_t is so fond of quoting), strength is just the maximal force you can apply - just one dimension: the maximum.
A lot of other reference refer to maximal strength and endurance strength - your ability to sustain the force: the number of reps in weight training language. That's different from power - power is your ability to do the reps at speed. What term do you use for this repetitive strength - the point at which your arms or legs go to jelly?
I ask this because as I read the various threads about strength, it seems to be the definition of strength that causes much of the trouble. It's certainly the one that I don't get.
.........
It's an aerobic sport, dammit!"
Thanks for that, Alex, I don't disagree (per se) with anything you've said but you've steered right around my question.
I'll try a different route:
(Maximal) Strength: the maximum weight I can hold up
Power: how fast I can do reps with a 15kg dumbell with one arm
So what do you call the ability to do 100 press-ups at any speed? Or 20 arm curls with a 40kg weight? It's not power (because there's no speed dimension). It's not your definition of strength because there's more than 1. The "strong" guy can do more of these before failure.
Now, translate that to cycling - the point up a really steep incline, you're in lowest gear, when your legs start turning to jelly - it's not your lungs that have given up, it's your leg muscles. Again, the "strong" guy can sustain this longer.
As you say, there must be a precise term for this...ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
OK - found the answer to my own question on the Livestrong site..
Muscular endurance is the term I'm looking for and one test seems to be 10 reps at 75% of your "maximum" strength (this being defined as the force you can deliver for 1 rep)
To quote the siteEnhanced muscular endurance benefits long-distance runners and cyclists.
Personally, I think this is the term that other people are refering to when they use the word "strength" in these threads. I maybe wrong.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
It's called being more powerful.meanredspider wrote:So what do you call the ability to do 100 press-ups at any speed? Or 20 arm curls with a 40kg weight? It's not power (because there's no speed dimension). It's not your definition of strength because there's more than 1. The "strong" guy can do more of these before failure.
Now, translate that to cycling - the point up a really steep incline, you're in lowest gear, when your legs start turning to jelly - it's not your lungs that have given up, it's your leg muscles. Again, the "strong" guy can sustain this longer.
As you say, there must be a precise term for this...
Power is the rate of doing work.0 -
Who knows? That's my point.meanredspider wrote:Personally, I think this is the term that other people are refering to when they use the word "strength" in these threads. I maybe wrong.
By the way, it's a pretty well established physiological principle that strength and aerobic endurance are not related.
In fact there is a low correlation between speed, strength and endurance.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
It's called being more powerful.meanredspider wrote:So what do you call the ability to do 100 press-ups at any speed? Or 20 arm curls with a 40kg weight? It's not power (because there's no speed dimension). It's not your definition of strength because there's more than 1. The "strong" guy can do more of these before failure.
Now, translate that to cycling - the point up a really steep incline, you're in lowest gear, when your legs start turning to jelly - it's not your lungs that have given up, it's your leg muscles. Again, the "strong" guy can sustain this longer.
As you say, there must be a precise term for this...
Power is the rate of doing work.
I KNOW that - I'm the engineer, remember....
I'm not talking about RATE, I'm talking about REPETITIONS at a certain load to failure. That's not power.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:By the way, it's a pretty well established physiological principle that strength and aerobic endurance are not related.
but what about strength and muscle endurance?ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
But you have to define the time period over which the work is being performed, since time not doing work affects what you can do. The rate at which you do work matters.meanredspider wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Power is the rate of doing work.
I KNOW that - I'm the engineer, remember....
I'm not talking about RATE, I'm talking about REPETITIONS at a certain load to failure. That's not power.
I could move a certain % of my maximal for ever, provided I have infinite time then I could do an infinite number of efforts.0 -
If by muscle endurance you mean maximal sustainable aerobic power for longer time periods, then no, they are not related.meanredspider wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:By the way, it's a pretty well established physiological principle that strength and aerobic endurance are not related.
but what about strength and muscle endurance?
If you mean being able to do a certain high % of 1RM for 10 repeats within a given time, then yes, of course, but that is so far removed from endurance cycling, it's irrelevant.0 -
Trying to follow this the best I can with limited knowledge. Would it be benefical to include the muscle types in an attempt to root the discussion in physiology? Is there any more evidence for the existence of a third adaptable muscle type? 8)Why tidy the house when you can clean your bike?0
-
Depends on what you want to talk about.Mr Dog wrote:Trying to follow this the best I can with limited knowledge. Would it be benefical to include the muscle types in an attempt to root the discussion in physiology? Is there any more evidence for the existence of a third adaptable muscle type? 8)
1. Strength per se is not reliant on muscle fibre type*. Strength is primarily determined by muscle cross sectional area. Some other factors like neural, muscle architecture, limb length and joint structure do play a role in strength. Hence to increase strength, beyond some initial neural adaptation, one needs to induce hypertrophy to increase the cross sectional area of the muscles.
2. Fibre type make up is pretty much an inherited characteristic.
3. When there is conversion (or at least conversion in the sense of one fibre type taking on properties of another), then in endurance cycling there can be conversion from faster to slower twtich fibre properties. Requires a lot of training to happen.
* It's mostly when forces are to be exerted at high velocities (i.e.at very high power) does fibre type composition becomes an important consideration for performance.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:I could move a certain % of my maximal for ever, provided I have infinite time then I could do an infinite number of efforts.
Exactly. But above a % of your maximal, the time available is not a key factor. Your average punter, for instance, can do a certain number of press-ups. Telling them they have 3 minutes or 5 minutes probably makes no difference - their arms would give up sooner. If I gave you a steep enough hill with a high enough gear, your muscle endurance would give out before your aerobic endurance. That's what I'm trying to get at.
I know that one way I could climb the hill out the back of me faster, would be to have better "muscle endurance" (the term I'm going to use for this). That would allow me to maintain POWER through pedal force rather than revs (mashing vs spinning). As I'm sure you'd argue, I should be dropping a couple of cogs and using my aerobic fitness to get me up there - though there's a cadence limit. But there are times when having more leg strength helps. What is it that's happening (from a physical sense) when pro cyclists "stand" in the climb? Their cadence tends to drop so I'm assuming their AEPF increases?
I read this article http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/stre ... 23098a.htm and was interested in the conflicting studies and the conclusions drawn (which might explain your point of view)ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Eddy S wrote:
In 2 or 3 posts you seem to have assumed rather a lot about me, my training, what my coach and I work on and my challenges to the views expressed here. You’re wrong on every count/observation. You can now go be condescending to someone else.P_Tucker wrote:If your "evidence" is your personal experience, vs decades of research by scientists on thousands of people, then I think I'll believe science thanks.
"It works for me" is just about the stupidest thing it's possible to say RE your training. How would you know? So you win championships? Good for you. Perhaps if you trained another way you would be beating Hoy/Wiggins/Cancellara/Contador?
What a strong rebuttal. I concede.
0 -
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
I've heard of and experienced anecdotal evidence that supports this idea - that strength training improves endurance performance. Important to note that the study (and anecdotal stuff) talks about weight training over 80% 1RM - pretty heavy, few reps stuff. And clearly biceps curls will not help your legs....0 -
You are using your aerobic fitness to climb hills no matter what you think (I'm assuming these hills take at least several minutes). Strength isn't the limiter. The forces, even up steep hills, are still quite low. Of course you need an appropriate gear, no one suggests riding silly low cadences.meanredspider wrote:I know that one way I could climb the hill out the back of me faster, would be to have better "muscle endurance" (the term I'm going to use for this). That would allow me to maintain POWER through pedal force rather than revs (mashing vs spinning). As I'm sure you'd argue, I should be dropping a couple of cogs and using my aerobic fitness to get me up there - though there's a cadence limit. But there are times when having more leg strength helps.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
You are using your aerobic fitness to climb hills no matter what you think (I'm assuming these hills take at least several minutes). Strength isn't the limiter. The forces, even up steep hills, are still quite low. Of course you need an appropriate gear, no one suggests riding silly low cadences.meanredspider wrote:I know that one way I could climb the hill out the back of me faster, would be to have better "muscle endurance" (the term I'm going to use for this). That would allow me to maintain POWER through pedal force rather than revs (mashing vs spinning). As I'm sure you'd argue, I should be dropping a couple of cogs and using my aerobic fitness to get me up there - though there's a cadence limit. But there are times when having more leg strength helps.
An aside which may be tenuously related is this: lets say that my one-rep max on a leg press is 100kg. Its fair to assume that since it's my absolute max, I can lift it only once without several minutes of rest. I now work on my max strength using sets <= 6 reps at 90% - 100% of max for 4 weeks. Lets say my max is now 110kg. I can now lift 100kg 3 times per set. What mechanism improves my "endurance", if I can use that term, at nearly but not quite maximal strength? And might this mechanism, whatever it is, help when doing nearly but not quite maximal strength efforts on a bike e.g. sprinting?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
You are using your aerobic fitness to climb hills no matter what you think (I'm assuming these hills take at least several minutes). Strength isn't the limiter. The forces, even up steep hills, are still quite low. Of course you need an appropriate gear, no one suggests riding silly low cadences.meanredspider wrote:I know that one way I could climb the hill out the back of me faster, would be to have better "muscle endurance" (the term I'm going to use for this). That would allow me to maintain POWER through pedal force rather than revs (mashing vs spinning). As I'm sure you'd argue, I should be dropping a couple of cogs and using my aerobic fitness to get me up there - though there's a cadence limit. But there are times when having more leg strength helps.
So what is happening when my leg muscles "fail"? The forces are low but with very high reps (10kg dumbell arm curls - my arm eventually "fails" in fatigue)
I don't think I ever drop below 70rpm, BTW, and target 90
And why do riders "stand"?
(genuine questions BTW - not trying to be clever - trying to learn)ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Acidosis?
To engage more/different muscle groups?0 -
You do 70-90 arm curls per minute?meanredspider wrote:So what is happening when my leg muscles "fail"? The forces are low but with very high reps (10kg dumbell arm curls - my arm eventually "fails" in fatigue)
I don't think I ever drop below 70rpm, BTW, and target 90
When your legs fail, it because you are no longer capable of generating the power you are attempting to sustain. You fatigue of course from endurance and also from high force type work outs. The precise nature of fatigue is multifactoral and quite complex and not totally understood. Glycogen depletion, limited training/low fitness, not recovered from hard blocks of training beforehand, motivation, neural function fatigue.
The things that best improve our resistance to fatigue is exercise that involves the activity we expect to perform, in a progressive overload manner so that we develop the adaptations necessary.
e.g. the fitter we become on the bike, the less glycogen we tend to draw upon at any given intensity, saving it for when we most need it.
To generate more power for relatively brief periods by engaging more musculature.meanredspider wrote:And why do riders "stand"?0 -
Boy--lots of discussion on this, so rather than letting my thoughts get buried so late in this thread, I've posted a new subject on this forum at the link below.
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12753875
Hope to hear some comments.0
