Leg workouts at the gym - Good idea?
Comments
-
P_Tucker wrote:And for the record, I'm under 80kg, my FTP is >300w and I have a full time job - so I'd suggest that the Irish paralympic coaching team might not be all that.
And yet - I have (almost) achieved those same figures. With one leg (and that one doesn't work correctly either). Done with the help of these 'crap' coaches. I'm one of the best riders in the world amongst my peers. Can you say the same?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
A strength and conditioning journal reports that you need strength and conditioning, no surprises there. Was there any improvement in actual performance reported and what were the controls?Pokerface wrote:Probably not a big enough sample size:
Core conditioning has become a staple of many workout programs in hopes that strength improvements will result in better overall function. What about cyclists? Scientists at the Neuromuscular Research Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh sought to determine the importance of core strength among a group of 15 competitive cyclists. They were tested on torque after participating in a “core fatigue workout” that sought to pre-exhaust area musculature prior to cycling. The exercises included seated upper-torso rotations with a medicine ball, static prone torso extension with a medicine ball, supine lower-torso rotations with a medicine ball, incline sit-ups with a weighted plate, lateral side-bends with a weighted plate, rotating lumbar extension with a weighted plate and standing torso rotations with weighted pulley resistance. Subjects then rode their bikes untethered on a treadmill at 25.8 kilometers per hour with a 1% increase in elevation until fatigue.
According to the study, which was printed in the November issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2007; 21 [4], 1300–1304), “a core fatigue workout altered the mechanics of the lower extremity,” increasing the risk of injury and indicating that core strength development might be a vital training component for cyclists. Study authors suggested that cyclists “integrate a year-round core conditioning program into current training to promote lower extremity alignment while cycling.” Not only might this help performance, the authors suggested, but it could also be essential for injury prevention.
You left out the bit that even after pre-fatiguing the core with an exercise routine, that no significant differences were demonstrated for pedaling forces compared to those that did not pre-fatigue.
As I've said already, the research into (non crash related) cycling injury has shown most is due to poor bike positioning and/or attempting to do too much acutely or chronically than you are ready for. There is scant evidence that weight work prevents injury in cyclists.
I make the point again, I am not saying don't do these things (weight, core etc). In context they are good for you as a human being.
All I am saying is that evidence they improve endurance cycling performance is exceptionally limited, and in the case of strength training (as opposed to weight/resistance work that may not be strength related), the balance of relevant studies indicates no or even detrimental impacts to performance.
As for Lance - his famous weight routines were in retirement and he needed to undo a lot of that when he decided to come out of retirement. All the rest referred to are simply anecdotes and not evidence.
A full time cyclist or pro, sure, no issue doing some regular work on top of what you already do. But if you are someone with time constraints, then the best core work for cycling will come from on the bike training. Sprints, hard efforts, threshold intervals, hill climbs, long tempo rides etc will give the core the stimulus it needs, as well as be specific to cycling performance.
I don't think the study was done *for* a Strength and Conditioning Journal - but was published in it. (I mean, would you publish the study in a car magazine?)
After reading it, it seems the results were vague at best. SO point to you. No reduction in pedal forces recorded - but the body basically had to realign itself to compensate. The conclusion being drawn that this can cause injury (or if the body DOESN'T realign, then power will suffer).
I think another thing in this study is that it was done with trained athletes - people who would already have a strong core? I assume you are saying that an untrained person will gain the necessary core strength merely by riding a bike and no additional work is needed?
If *my* core isn't getting stronger (or getting strong enough) merely by riding a bike, it would seem it needs additional (focussed) work to get stronger.
Merely dismissing any type of exercise based on the principles of specificity found in any textbook seems as flippant as saying something should be done because it's always been done that way.
The big issue here seem to be that no one has actually done any pertinent research into whether or not core work is beneficial or not to cycling.0 -
0
-
huuregeil wrote:2. Biomechanical issues are explicitly cited by a couple of those papers as intrinsic factors behind overuse injuries, and explicit factors such as flexibility, muscular imbalance are listed.
For me this is more likely where the benefits of complementary training are likely to be found. It's impossible to talk about "correct" position on the bike without reference to flexibility, ability to maintain certain positions etc. Just riding the bike will not necessarily provide all the correction necessary - in some circumstances it may just ingrain faults.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:For me this is more likely where the benefits of complementary training are likely to be found. It's impossible to talk about "correct" position on the bike without reference to flexibility, ability to maintain certain positions etc. Just riding the bike will not necessarily provide all the correction necessary - in some circumstances it may just ingrain faults.
Precisely. Until anyone comes up with empirical evidence to the contrary, I'm going to stick with common sense on this one.
a serious case of small cogs0 -
If you have free access to online articles, please look up:
Core Stability in Bicycling
Authors: C Asplund & M Ross
Summary: Core stability is being recognised as being an important facet of injury prevention in a wide variety of sports. A strong and stable core provides a platform to maximise power transfer and improve performance. Research indicates that good core stability can prevent injuries. In one study involving two groups of cyclists, those with back pain were found to have a trend towards increased lumbar flexion and rotation with an associated loss of stabilisation in the lumbar spine. The findings suggested that altered motor control and kinematics of the lower lumbar spine are associated with the development of low back pain in cyclists. In addition, an increase in core stability can enhance recovery from injury.
However, the item that will clinch the deal for most cyclists is that core stability has the potential to improve performance. Improved core stability can provide better alignment of the lower extremity when riding for an extended duration, and this enables greater force transmission to the pedal. When the core is stable, the peripheral muscles require less forceful contractions to produce the same amount of power. This article includes excellent diagrams on how to assess core stability with background text, plus advice on improvement of core stability with programmes incorporating both sagittal and frontal plane exercises.0 -
A strength and conditioning journal reports that you need strength and conditioning, no surprises there. Was there any improvement in actual performance reported and what were the controls?
Thats a bit like saying "of course a study in the lancet supports chemotherapy for cancer Its a medical journal, they would say that "Fundamental principle of specificity you'll find in any decent exercise physiology textbook.
Specificity does not mean just replicate the activity you are training for, it means that you need to apply a specific stimulus to produce a specific adaptation. If (and it is an if) core strength/ endurance is required for peak cycling performance then you need to apply a specific stimulus to produce an adaptation in strength/endurance not just say ride your bike more (thats not to say you couldnt train this while on a bike).
In addition you also need to consider the concepts of overload and variation along side this, if you just ride a bike how are you going to produce overload to cause/continued adaptation?0 -
0
-
There is a risk that you may injure your neck doing "core" work in the gym - spending excessive time ponsing around in front of the mirror.0
-
dawebbo wrote:There is a risk that you may injure your neck doing "core" work in the gym
I risked my neck this morning getting out of bed. 20 people a year die getting out of bed every year in the UK alone. Its a risk but I'm glad I took it this morning as its made my day far more productive than a day in bed. Risks happen in real life, apart from the nanny state not liking this we just have to accept it.And yet - I have (almost) achieved those same figures. With one leg (and that one doesn't work correctly either). Done with the help of these 'crap' coaches. I'm one of the best riders in the world amongst my peers. Can you say the same?
touché! Well said PokerfaceWaaaah, people don't agree with me, lock the thread. Christ, act like you;ve got a pair FFS
Better to act like I have a pair than to act like a fucking dick, with your pointless arguments, worthless evidence, inane ramblings, elitest views and belittling attitude. People might not agree with what I say in the way I might not agree with what others say, but there are ways to go about it without without coming across as an arsehole.
For your info I am over 80kg, my FTP is <300w (by a lot I guess) and I also have a full time job. I am also a mountain biker more than a road biker, so core strength and upper body strength is important, but I'm sure if I started a new topic about that you could tell me why I am wrong there
Sorry, back to work, forum nerd rage getting the better of me0 -
This is an interesting thread and what it needs is a LABRAT to help with all the strength and conditioning and core theories that have abounded.
This weekend I am on a Les Mills Body Pump 3 day course ( a fitness class that is more or less hits the definition of strength conditioning squarely in the eyes along with a fair amount of core) followed by a number of classes that I will have to teach in the following week... then ,.. here's the rub
I am racing again on April 26th...
previous race last week I got shelled at the 25mile mark but finished the 44 mile race with a few stragglers...
Will I have a better time of it on the 26th?
Bike time is going to be restricted... but will manage a few training sessions to help with balance.0 -
Jesus.. Didn't mean for this thread to get quite so heated, but o well.
Going to include some leg work into my gym time and let you know how I get on.
Obviously if I dont see any improvements then weights don't work, if I do, they do
0 -
Zoomer37 wrote:Jesus.. Didn't mean for this thread to get quite so heated, but o well.
Going to include some leg work into my gym time and let you know how I get on.
Obviously if I dont see any improvements then weights don't work, if I do, they do
Great, let us know how you get on, just make sure you give us a non personal scientific report with detailed analysis on your power output, otherwise I wont believe a word of it 0 -
Excepting that this is not exactly a premium journal known for quality research material. I would take much stuff published there with a large grain of salt. Not to say it isn't valid but just based on historical precedence, I keep a higher than normal level of skepticism for that journal.jp1985 wrote:A strength and conditioning journal reports that you need strength and conditioning, no surprises there. Was there any improvement in actual performance reported and what were the controls?
Thats a bit like saying "of course a study in the lancet supports chemotherapy for cancer Its a medical journal, they would say that "
Exactly, so if you train in a progressive overload manner (with appropriate recovery) as one should when seeking to improve fitness, then the core will adapt as needed, along with everything else.jp1985 wrote:Fundamental principle of specificity you'll find in any decent exercise physiology textbook.
Specificity does not mean just replicate the activity you are training for, it means that you need to apply a specific stimulus to produce a specific adaptation. If (and it is an if) core strength/ endurance is required for peak cycling performance then you need to apply a specific stimulus to produce an adaptation in strength/endurance not just say ride your bike more (thats not to say you couldnt train this while on a bike).
In addition you also need to consider the concepts of overload and variation along side this, if you just ride a bike how are you going to produce overload to cause/continued adaptation?
It's going to take a lot of hard evidence that training that is not performed on a bike, will provide a better training stimulus for improving bike riding than training performed on a bike.0 -
I think you know I'm not about scoring points. Just like to look at things critically.Pokerface wrote:I don't think the study was done *for* a Strength and Conditioning Journal - but was published in it. (I mean, would you publish the study in a car magazine?)
After reading it, it seems the results were vague at best. SO point to you.
How much core strength do you think is actually needed to ride a bike?Pokerface wrote:I think another thing in this study is that it was done with trained athletes - people who would already have a strong core? I assume you are saying that an untrained person will gain the necessary core strength merely by riding a bike and no additional work is needed?
If *my* core isn't getting stronger (or getting strong enough) merely by riding a bike, it would seem it needs additional (focussed) work to get stronger.
If someone's core is not up to it, then why wouldn't it adapt to the stimulus provided by riding in the same way that every other group of muscles would?
What is so magical and different about core muscles that they need a non bike stimulus to improve for use on the bike?
The principle of specificity is a very sound one.Pokerface wrote:Merely dismissing any type of exercise based on the principles of specificity found in any textbook seems as flippant as saying something should be done because it's always been done that way.
Doing things because we've always done it that way, isn't.
That's reasonable, however the research conducted isn't exactly convincing.Pokerface wrote:The big issue here seem to be that no one has actually done any pertinent research into whether or not core work is beneficial or not to cycling.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:It's going to take a lot of hard evidence that training that is not performed on a bike, will provide a better training stimulus for improving bike riding than training performed on a bike.
I don't believe that anyone is saying that lifting weights will make you a better / stronger bike rider as opposed to actually riding a bike, one compared to the other. I just can't believe that anyone would doubt that lifting weights would not make you a stronger rider. People lift weights and they get stronger. How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face? How can anyone say that becoming stronger is a bad thing or not helpful?
If all you need to do is ride, why bother with stretching, or nutrition, or rest, or coaching, or any of the other myriad things that go into producing quality athletes? Just ride and eat pizza, 'cause the rest is crap? I don't buy that for a minute.0 -
That's simple - because cycling is not a strength sport.dennisn wrote:I don't believe that anyone is saying that lifting weights will make you a better / stronger bike rider as opposed to actually riding a bike, one compared to the other. I just can't believe that anyone would doubt that lifting weights would not make you a stronger rider. People lift weights and they get stronger. How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face? How can anyone say that becoming stronger is a bad thing or not helpful?
Even track cycling match sprinters don't need a huge amount of strength. Like all cyclists, what they require is power.
Too often strength and power are wrongly equated. They are not the same thing. Not by a long way.0 -
Booger it. I started cycling because I have 'strong' legs and thought it was a sport I could do. Now I've become hooked you tell me I don't need strong legs at all!
Well I suppose I'll just have to try and increase my power then.
James0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:If someone's core is not up to it, then why wouldn't it adapt to the stimulus provided by riding in the same way that every other group of muscles would?
Have you ever heard of synergistic dominance? In a nutshell, it's when a synergist - a secondary muscle in a certain movement - becomes overly dominant and takes on the role of the primary muscle, the primary mucle then remains weak because it's not being recruited. So simple stimulus in this situation is not enough - even though you're doing work, you're working the wrong muscles.
The classic examples of this with regards cyclists are: glutes (prime) & hams (syn); glute (prime) & tfl (syn); glutes (prime) & erector spinae (syn); transverse abs (prime) & erector spinae (syn). The first and second are directly linked to knee issue as well as poor flexibility and it band issues. The third and fourth have strong links to lower back pain.
Cyclists spent a lot of time bent over, particularly if they also have a desk job. This is not good for glute recruitment in itself, and it also leads to tight hip flexors, which further inhibits glute function.
This is the real reason why targeted exercises in the gym are necessary if someone has e.g. poor glute or core function. From personal experience and judging by the injury stats mentioned in the papers above, there seem to be a large proportion of cyclists who have issues in this area. I conclude, as before, that cyclists would be better of if they worked out if they have any underlying issue and did something about it if necessary. The easiest way to do this is to through some potentially challenging exercises at people and see how they get on: there are exercises where you can't cheat if you can't fire the glutes, and some of the rotational core muscles can be easily and effective challenged. Some weeks of gym work can quite effectively sort things out and this can easily be fitted into a winter training plan.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Excepting that this is not exactly a premium journal known for quality research material. I would take much stuff published there with a large grain of salt. Not to say it isn't valid but just based on historical precedence, I keep a higher than normal level of skepticism for that journal.
The paper appears quite sound. I agree, be wary of papers in lesser journals but don't dismiss out of hand work that people have done beause it appears in a lesser journal, this is a little disrespectful to the academics involved in the study. I could point you to papers in some quite well respected journals that are quite poor. (For the record, I've both had peer-reviewed papers I've written published, and I've been part of the peer review process myself.)0 -
In my "youth" i approached this issue from the other side, by creating muscle imbalance !
Rugby training the emphasis (in the day) was very much on upper body strength, and forward motion. Ignorance meant gym work revolved around heavy short sets of squats, dead lift, press, militaries and curls (for the beach).
The result was chronic back pain, tightened hamstrings, rotator cuff injuries and blown knees.
The rehabilitation consisted of ... core stability along with establishing muscle balance (including the Wobble board front squat).
Be it witch science, or spoon bending it certainly worked for me, and the explanation given (in boof head laymans terms) is that without a solid MUSCLE core the skeletal structure takes the burden instead which results in increased wear with the majority of stress in the soft tissue (cartilage) areas.
Having spent some 15 years since maintaining through a balanced gym workload I now remain fairly problem free. Im certainly no racehorse but I can comfortably hike my bike up a hill, carry a heavy pack for multi night tramping trips, grind up a fire road and get through the occasional endurance "race" (read 200 metre sprint against my mates
Any fitness / gym / sports work should be about balance. To me unless you're an absolute specialist in one doctrine (in which case you should be under the guidance of a trainer) its maintaining an overall balanced degree of strength, and stability. Focusing solely on any one area is going to create issues in other areas, a strong core is great, but pointless if its got a bunch of flaccid weak muscles attached to it, ditto slabs of meat on a brittle calcified skeleton.
And as so many people seem to have touched on, the placebo effect. This is the greatest benefit !!! If im grinding up a hill, cursing every single piece of gravel that is obviously responsible for slowing my forward motion I can picture my last set of deep squats, and all that extra power it has given me, and keep on going (in my head at least). You have to inspire and motivate yourself first !
And at my age the long term benefits of a healthy skeletal structure will hopefully see me in better stead than my current Vo2 max or Wingate Anaerobic 30 test ever will !0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
That's simple - because cycling is not a strength sport.dennisn wrote:I don't believe that anyone is saying that lifting weights will make you a better / stronger bike rider as opposed to actually riding a bike, one compared to the other. I just can't believe that anyone would doubt that lifting weights would not make you a stronger rider. People lift weights and they get stronger. How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face? How can anyone say that becoming stronger is a bad thing or not helpful?
Even track cycling match sprinters don't need a huge amount of strength. Like all cyclists, what they require is power.
Too often strength and power are wrongly equated. They are not the same thing. Not by a long way.
Strength / power? Whatever. Now you're telling me that weight training doesn't increase the available power in your body? It only increases your strength? People who lift weights haven't gained any power in all the years they have been doing it? And why is that cycling doesn't benefit from strength? Why is cycling this "special sport" and is so different from all the others, or at least you seem to say? What works in other sports doesn't do a thing for a cyclist? We're special?0 -
Dennis - very simply: Cycling for 99% of the time does not involve pushing down on the pedals as hard as you can. It is about keeping the pedals rotating in a certain gear (the bigger the better) at as high a cadence as can be maintained.
Chris Hoy can put out massive amounts of power with his big legs. For a very short period of time.
Andy Schleck looks like an Ethopian on a diet and can put out large amounts of power for hours on end. He doesn't do it by pushing down hard on the pedals.
Once you understand that strength (ie large, strong muscles) play virtually no part in endurance cycling, you will begin to understand why/how cycling is different from other sports.
As to the whole argument over core workouts, etc - I find it mind-boggling that so many of the world's top cyclists, with all their access to the best coaches and technology, are doing this type of exercise if it serves no purpose at all. I don't see it as 'just what's always been done'.0 -
Pokerface wrote:Dennis - very simply: Cycling for 99% of the time does not involve pushing down on the pedals as hard as you can.
i don't know about you but after doing 6 or 7 week long Rocky mountain Bike Tours I can assure you pushing down on the pedals played a maior role in getting from one place to the other. Most of the arguments against weight training are way to academic for my tastes. What with quoting this or that article in this or that journal. My last ride up and down the Rockies sure as hell didn't involve academics. it was, for me, a brutal torture test of pretty much every part of my body and not anything to do with facts and figures from a magazine.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Too often strength and power are wrongly equated. They are not the same thing. Not by a long way.
It's groundhog day!!0 -
dennisn wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
That's simple - because cycling is not a strength sport.dennisn wrote:I don't believe that anyone is saying that lifting weights will make you a better / stronger bike rider as opposed to actually riding a bike, one compared to the other. I just can't believe that anyone would doubt that lifting weights would not make you a stronger rider. People lift weights and they get stronger. How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face? How can anyone say that becoming stronger is a bad thing or not helpful?
Even track cycling match sprinters don't need a huge amount of strength. Like all cyclists, what they require is power.
Too often strength and power are wrongly equated. They are not the same thing. Not by a long way.
Strength / power? Whatever. Now you're telling me that weight training doesn't increase the available power in your body? It only increases your strength? People who lift weights haven't gained any power in all the years they have been doing it? And why is that cycling doesn't benefit from strength? Why is cycling this "special sport" and is so different from all the others, or at least you seem to say? What works in other sports doesn't do a thing for a cyclist? We're special?
Strength = the maximum force you can exert
Power = the amount of energy you put out per secondCAPTAIN BUCKFAST'S CYCLING TIPS - GUARANTEED TO WORK! 1 OUT OF 10 RACING CYCLISTS AGREE!0 -
This really is another hillarious thread, must say it's very entertaining when I can get over the frustration of good information falling on deaf ears.
Dennis,dennisn wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
That's simple - because cycling is not a strength sport.dennisn wrote:I don't believe that anyone is saying that lifting weights will make you a better / stronger bike rider as opposed to actually riding a bike, one compared to the other. I just can't believe that anyone would doubt that lifting weights would not make you a stronger rider. People lift weights and they get stronger. How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face? How can anyone say that becoming stronger is a bad thing or not helpful?
Even track cycling match sprinters don't need a huge amount of strength. Like all cyclists, what they require is power.
Too often strength and power are wrongly equated. They are not the same thing. Not by a long way.
Strength / power? Whatever. Now you're telling me that weight training doesn't increase the available power in your body? It only increases your strength? People who lift weights haven't gained any power in all the years they have been doing it? And why is that cycling doesn't benefit from strength? Why is cycling this "special sport" and is so different from all the others, or at least you seem to say? What works in other sports doesn't do a thing for a cyclist? We're special?
I recall explaining why this is to you in adequate detail in the past and you seem to have forgotten all about it. I have no conclusion to draw other than that is a topic you can not get your head around and until you can it is probably best not to argue with somebody knowledgeable like Alex Simmons who incidentally has also been quite the gentleman spending his precious time here sharing information worth listening to.
Like many here you have more to learn than to contribute to this.
Murr X0 -
Strength= The ability to produce force
Power = Force x Velocity
If strength and force are synonymous then strength must be linked to power in some way. However, this has little to do with the discussion of whether Maximal strength is linked to sub maximal power output.
If we use the definition of strength above then strength will have a magnitude of 0 - 100% (e.g. its not just a maximal measure) it will also have a direction and will result in a speed of movement from 0 to 100%.
If we assume a constant cadence (velocity) then the limiting factor to performance is the ability to exhibit force within the time constraints of the pedal stroke. So what is really important is the ability to express a high degree of force in a short period of time which is rate of force development.
If you assume a constant muscle size and composition then what determines rate of force development is neural factors such as intra and inter muscular coordination. If these factors can be improved (increased coordination) it would mean a higher peak rate of force development or a higher sub maximal rate of force development, which would increase power output for a given cadence, and as
these adaptations would occur independently of any energy cost would theoretically, increase power output for a given energy expenditure (movement economy / efficiency).
In order to induce these neural adaptations the neuromuscular system needs to be stressed at close to maximum intensities, either in relation to peak force (as long as you are attempting to move quickly, even if movement speed is low) or peak power (a compromise between peak force and peak velocity). Such training in short durations does not influence muscle size or compositon or influence aerobic capacity.
This stimulus could be achieved either on a bike (track starts, sprints) or in a gym based environment (squats, olympic lifts, ballistic exercises) or a combination of both in a periodised programme.
So theres a rational that could be used to support the inclusion of a low volume of maximum intensity resistance training in a cyclists training programme, in addition to those already mentioned in the thread.
Even if this theory is correct (it has been observed in other endurance sports) then the question becomes at what point does it become beneficial to conduct such training instead of traditional cycling training... probably at very low training volumes (4-5 hours a week) when there is plenty of time for rest and recovery between sessions or for elite athletes who are close to their genetic potential in relation to vo2max and threshold adaptations where responses to training would be extremely small.
discuss...0 -
Who said it serves no purpose at all?Pokerface wrote:As to the whole argument over core workouts, etc - I find it mind-boggling that so many of the world's top cyclists, with all their access to the best coaches and technology, are doing this type of exercise if it serves no purpose at all. I don't see it as 'just what's always been done'.
People do strength and flexibility work for many reasons. Heck I've done plenty of yoga (quite physical and lot of core work in that) in my time and have also done strength work in the gym. Not since accident though.
But I never did core work to go faster on a bike (and neither did it help me with that). And my sprint performance declined as I got stronger (strength clearly wasn't my limiter). My sprint did however improve the more I rode and did sprints.0 -
Strength and force are not the same thing.jp1985 wrote:Strength= The ability to produce force
Power = Force x Velocity
If strength and force are synonymous then strength must be linked to power in some way
The forces one can apply are intrinsically linked to the velocity of the motion. Once the rate of movement goes up, then the forces decline accordingly.
By definition, strength (maximal force) occurs at zero velocity.
It is a physical impossibility to apply maximal force (strength) at non-zero or almost non-zero velocity (as is the case when pedaling a bike when the motion is fairly rapid).
The only time we approach this scenario is the initial pedal stroke of a track cyclist TT or BMX standing start. Even on the second down stroke the forces are no longer maximal and drop away quite rapidly from there.0
