Increasing leg strength
Comments
-
Okay, you've got 24 hours.0
-
ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
Lets see.
Hill climbing? The art(if you will)of moving a weight(you, the bike, whatever gear) vertically to a higher point by using your bodies strength, power, whatever, as the prime mover in the endeavor.
Weight lifting? The art(if......0 -
dennisn wrote:Lets see.
Hill climbing? The art(if you will)of moving a weight(you, the bike, whatever gear) vertically to a higher point by using your bodies strength, power, whatever, as the prime mover in the endeavor.
Weight lifting? The art(if......
Special needs teacher? A teacher specifically employed to work with children and adults who need extra support, or require an advanced programme of education, in order to complete their learning successfully
Someone arguing on the internet with dennis? A teacher spec...0 -
P_Tucker wrote:dennisn wrote:Lets see.
Hill climbing? The art(if you will)of moving a weight(you, the bike, whatever gear) vertically to a higher point by using your bodies strength, power, whatever, as the prime mover in the endeavor.
Weight lifting? The art(if......
Special needs teacher? A teacher specifically employed to work with children and adults who need extra support, or require an advanced programme of education, in order to complete their learning successfully
Someone arguing on the internet with dennis? A teacher spec...
...but, am I wrong? :? :?0 -
Yes, for reasons explained many times already.0
-
meanredspider wrote:
Hmmm, I'm not sure an understanding of, and respect for, science combined with a desire not to fill people's heads with a load of utter cobblers is compatible with the job description.0 -
I don't suppose that all vicars tell their congregations that weight training will make them more powerful cyclists.P_Tucker wrote:Hmmm, I'm not sure an understanding of, and respect for, science combined with a desire not to fill people's heads with a load of utter cobblers is compatible with the job description.0 -
You have to define the rate at which such mass is lifted, and the total height it is lifted in order to make any sort of sensible comparison.dennisn wrote:Lets see.
Hill climbing? The art(if you will)of moving a weight(you, the bike, whatever gear) vertically to a higher point by using your bodies strength, power, whatever, as the prime mover in the endeavor.
Weight lifting? The art(if......
When you do that, you will see that they are completely different challenges (physiologically).0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
I don't suppose that all vicars tell their congregations that weight training will make them more powerful cyclists.P_Tucker wrote:Hmmm, I'm not sure an understanding of, and respect for, science combined with a desire not to fill people's heads with a load of utter cobblers is compatible with the job description.
You say that, but even if you present evidence to the contrary I'll continue to believe that they do.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:... in order to make any sort of sensible comparison.....
Do you really think that's his aim?0 -
I pretty much knew the basics of this discussion before this thread. Now, i pretty much understand WHY. (sorry still glaze over a bit when it gets too technical).
Thanks for taking the time Alex
Death or Glory- Just another Story0 -
Alex is class. Never loses his cool and always takes the time to try and explain in great detail why things are the way they are and how they work.0
-
No probs. Right, now I'm off to do some weightsmattshrops wrote:I pretty much knew the basics of this discussion before this thread. Now, i pretty much understand WHY. (sorry still glaze over a bit when it gets too technical).
Thanks for taking the time Alex 0 -
Pokerface wrote:Alex is class. Never loses his cool and always takes the time to try and explain in great detail why things are the way they are and how they work.
I don't know how he does it. As soon as overwhelming stupidity rears it's head (and, being BR, this normally takes about 2 posts) I get the uncontrollable urge to do this:
0 -
Christ, look at the time!
Once I started reading this thread, I just had to see it through to the end.....
Very entertaining and there was nowt on telly, but please let this be the end! 0 -
Since this is all over, or so it seems, I'm suddenly reminded of a line in Norman Mailers
book "Harlot's Ghost". "Give me a vigorous hypothesis every time. Without one, there's nothing to do but drown in facts".0 -
"Norman Miler's".
I got educated (sic) by this thread. If only some other people here had the capacity to learn we would make the world a better place.
I've been riding for a long time now, but didn't understand the science behind why my body does what it does. Thanks to those who explained why my skinny legs get me up the hills.0 -
neilo23 wrote:"Norman Miler's".
I got educated (sic) by this thread. If only some other people here had the capacity to learn we would make the world a better place.
I've been riding for a long time now, but didn't understand the science behind why my body does what it does. Thanks to those who explained why my skinny legs get me up the hills.
It was a classic good cop/bad cop routine. Can't believe at least 2 people have confessed to changing their minds on an issue as a result of a forum debate - this MUST be a record. Someone phone Guinness FFS.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:neilo23 wrote:"Norman Miler's".
I got educated (sic) by this thread. If only some other people here had the capacity to learn we would make the world a better place.
I've been riding for a long time now, but didn't understand the science behind why my body does what it does. Thanks to those who explained why my skinny legs get me up the hills.
It was a classic good cop/bad cop routine. Can't believe at least 2 people have confessed to changing their minds on an issue as a result of a forum debate - this MUST be a record. Someone phone Guinness FFS.
Didn't necessarily have my mind changed. I simply became better informed. It just seemed logical, that more legs strength = better cycling, but was proved wrong.
You brainwashed me, master :-)0 -
Close enough. Its still unprecedented.0
-
neilo23 wrote:P_Tucker wrote:neilo23 wrote:"Norman Miler's".
I got educated (sic) by this thread. If only some other people here had the capacity to learn we would make the world a better place.
I've been riding for a long time now, but didn't understand the science behind why my body does what it does. Thanks to those who explained why my skinny legs get me up the hills.
It was a classic good cop/bad cop routine. Can't believe at least 2 people have confessed to changing their minds on an issue as a result of a forum debate - this MUST be a record. Someone phone Guinness FFS.
Didn't necessarily have my mind changed. I simply became better informed. It just seemed logical, that more legs strength = better cycling, but was proved wrong.
You brainwashed me, master :-)
Let's look at it another way. Yesterday research was done on weight training and cycling. "Facts" emerged that pointed to weights being helpful and a book was written and articles published. All claiming that this was / is the "way to go" and people did it. Between yesterday and today more research was done and more "facts" were discovered that seemed to indicate that previous "facts" didn't really add up to what was thought. Although probably not disproven, these older "facts" and their way of thinking fell somewhat out of favor. My question is what happens between today and tomorrow? Is it not possible that todays "facts" get a good looking at, and new research and "facts" tends to follow a course more toward the older way of thinking because todays ideas may have a flaw in them, just like yesterdays and tomorrows most certainly will have flaws?
Some time ago it was thought, and "facts" presented that cell phone use caused brain cancer. Later, new "facts" and studies emerged that said differently. The other day a front page newspaper article, along with "facts", said that there was a definate link between cell phones and cancer. What will tomorrow bring?0 -
rain?Death or Glory- Just another Story0
-
mattshrops wrote:rain?
For us, over here, that's today. Tomorrow, and the rest of the week is supposed to be low 70's and sunny. At least that's what todays facts are.0 -
dennisn wrote:neilo23 wrote:P_Tucker wrote:neilo23 wrote:"Norman Miler's".
I got educated (sic) by this thread. If only some other people here had the capacity to learn we would make the world a better place.
I've been riding for a long time now, but didn't understand the science behind why my body does what it does. Thanks to those who explained why my skinny legs get me up the hills.
It was a classic good cop/bad cop routine. Can't believe at least 2 people have confessed to changing their minds on an issue as a result of a forum debate - this MUST be a record. Someone phone Guinness FFS.
Didn't necessarily have my mind changed. I simply became better informed. It just seemed logical, that more legs strength = better cycling, but was proved wrong.
You brainwashed me, master :-)
Let's look at it another way. Yesterday research was done on weight training and cycling. "Facts" emerged that pointed to weights being helpful and a book was written and articles published. All claiming that this was / is the "way to go" and people did it. Between yesterday and today more research was done and more "facts" were discovered that seemed to indicate that previous "facts" didn't really add up to what was thought. Although probably not disproven, these older "facts" and their way of thinking fell somewhat out of favor. My question is what happens between today and tomorrow? Is it not possible that todays "facts" get a good looking at, and new research and "facts" tends to follow a course more toward the older way of thinking because todays ideas may have a flaw in them, just like yesterdays and tomorrows most certainly will have flaws?
Some time ago it was thought, and "facts" presented that cell phone use caused brain cancer. Later, new "facts" and studies emerged that said differently. The other day a front page newspaper article, along with "facts", said that there was a definate link between cell phones and cancer. What will tomorrow bring?
Yes. Nothing science says is ever definitive. In fact, this provisional nature is it's greatest strength. Newton/Einsteins gravity took man to the moon, despite the fact that both are known to be wrong.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:dennisn wrote:neilo23 wrote:P_Tucker wrote:neilo23 wrote:"Norman Miler's".
I got educated (sic) by this thread. If only some other people here had the capacity to learn we would make the world a better place.
I've been riding for a long time now, but didn't understand the science behind why my body does what it does. Thanks to those who explained why my skinny legs get me up the hills.
It was a classic good cop/bad cop routine. Can't believe at least 2 people have confessed to changing their minds on an issue as a result of a forum debate - this MUST be a record. Someone phone Guinness FFS.
Didn't necessarily have my mind changed. I simply became better informed. It just seemed logical, that more legs strength = better cycling, but was proved wrong.
You brainwashed me, master :-)
Let's look at it another way. Yesterday research was done on weight training and cycling. "Facts" emerged that pointed to weights being helpful and a book was written and articles published. All claiming that this was / is the "way to go" and people did it. Between yesterday and today more research was done and more "facts" were discovered that seemed to indicate that previous "facts" didn't really add up to what was thought. Although probably not disproven, these older "facts" and their way of thinking fell somewhat out of favor. My question is what happens between today and tomorrow? Is it not possible that todays "facts" get a good looking at, and new research and "facts" tends to follow a course more toward the older way of thinking because todays ideas may have a flaw in them, just like yesterdays and tomorrows most certainly will have flaws?
Some time ago it was thought, and "facts" presented that cell phone use caused brain cancer. Later, new "facts" and studies emerged that said differently. The other day a front page newspaper article, along with "facts", said that there was a definate link between cell phones and cancer. What will tomorrow bring?
Yes. Nothing science says is ever definitive. In fact, this provisional nature is it's greatest strength. Newton/Einsteins gravity took man to the moon, despite the fact that both are known to be wrong.
I have found one definitive statement though that will never be disproven. "The more you run over a dead cat the flatter it gets."0 -
dennisn wrote:P_Tucker wrote:dennisn wrote:neilo23 wrote:P_Tucker wrote:neilo23 wrote:"Norman Miler's".
I got educated (sic) by this thread. If only some other people here had the capacity to learn we would make the world a better place.
I've been riding for a long time now, but didn't understand the science behind why my body does what it does. Thanks to those who explained why my skinny legs get me up the hills.
It was a classic good cop/bad cop routine. Can't believe at least 2 people have confessed to changing their minds on an issue as a result of a forum debate - this MUST be a record. Someone phone Guinness FFS.
I have another. 51% of the people on this forum talk out of their arse, 49% of the people on this forum will argue the toss for the hell of it.
Didn't necessarily have my mind changed. I simply became better informed. It just seemed logical, that more legs strength = better cycling, but was proved wrong.
You brainwashed me, master :-)
Let's look at it another way. Yesterday research was done on weight training and cycling. "Facts" emerged that pointed to weights being helpful and a book was written and articles published. All claiming that this was / is the "way to go" and people did it. Between yesterday and today more research was done and more "facts" were discovered that seemed to indicate that previous "facts" didn't really add up to what was thought. Although probably not disproven, these older "facts" and their way of thinking fell somewhat out of favor. My question is what happens between today and tomorrow? Is it not possible that todays "facts" get a good looking at, and new research and "facts" tends to follow a course more toward the older way of thinking because todays ideas may have a flaw in them, just like yesterdays and tomorrows most certainly will have flaws?
Some time ago it was thought, and "facts" presented that cell phone use caused brain cancer. Later, new "facts" and studies emerged that said differently. The other day a front page newspaper article, along with "facts", said that there was a definate link between cell phones and cancer. What will tomorrow bring?
Yes. Nothing science says is ever definitive. In fact, this provisional nature is it's greatest strength. Newton/Einsteins gravity took man to the moon, despite the fact that both are known to be wrong.
I have found one definitive statement though that will never be disproven. "The more you run over a dead cat the flatter it gets."constantly reavalueating the situation and altering the perceived parameters accordingly0 -
Not really trying to re-open this debate but it seems that whenever the subject of weights gets brought up on the forum someone always posts a picture of Tom Platz. You know the guy. Biggest, most muscular, all time greatest thigh-leg guy, and rightly so. I was reading about he trained back in the day. He was what's called a volume trainer in that he spent tons of time in the gym. He would often work his legs for an hour or two. And that's a bunch for a bodybuilder. He did the same with the rest of his body. This type of training was also practiced by a certain Arnold something or other. Just lots and lots of gym time. Pretty much on the flip side of all this was one Dorian Yates. Who, IMHO, has yet to be equaled in covering the body with muscle. Simply amazing. I say flip side because Dorian trained using what was then known as "Heavy Duty". I'm guessing it is still known that way. Anyway, he didn't spend tons of time in the gym. Short, sweet, to the point, and very brutal workouts to "so called" muscle failure. At least that's how the magazines used to describe it. I doubt if I will get any arguments that it worked for him, and also so did the volume training of Tom and Arnold. I only bring this up to show that there is more than one way to skin a cat and that two seemingly opposing training styles can yeild the same result. Sort of a whatever works for ya. It sort of surprised me that Platz got all that leg muscle with lots of reps and lots of time spent. In cycling, if you spent
lots of time and lots of reps(so to speak) it would seem that your legs would get "leaner" or not as big as opposed to you doing simply track / sprint work, where conventional wisdom says your legs get bigger. I realize that all this is about bodybuilding and doesn't deal much with cycling(or maybe it does) but I was bored and once I started typing(poorly) I couldn't stop.0 -
Did either of them win any bike races?dennisn wrote:..................Tom Platz................Dorian Yates0
