Increasing leg strength
Comments
-
A few of my reasons for believing the way I do.
1.) I'm not a fan of the words "endurance cyclist". Seems like simply a name to give yourself to feel better because you can't, won't, don't, race. Just an ego thing, I'm better than those guys who simply sprint to win races, when you're simply a bike rider. I thought the whole idea was to WIN races not simply DO event's and most "endurance cyclists" are people who simply DO things. Compete doesn't seem to be part of their cycling world.
2.) I see no reason to doubt what the "published authors" of cycling weight training books promote as opposed to what's written on the Internet. Why is so and so on the Internet more knowledgeable than someone who has put forth the effort to be published.
3.) I have faith in the idea that weight training will add strength, power, fitness , or whatever you want to call it, to your body. Thus making it more comfortable for you in the long haul by making muscles that little bit stronger. i.e. maybe that back won't be quite as sore at 80 miles because the muscles are stronger. And who doesn't want to be more comfortable on the bike. More comfort = better, more at ease, riding. A few bench presses and maybe some curls might help relieve some of the stress of hanging onto and leaning on the bars as a long day winds down.
4.) Believe what you will. That's what I do.0 -
^ you are quite simply the stupidest man alive. There is no other possible explanation.0
-
So anyway, since dennis has run out of kindergarten questions and simply stated that he is immune to logic and reason, I think this one is coming to a close. IMHO this has been one of the better weights threads - a few people have actually changed their minds (not on account of my posting obv, despite the fact that I have consistently been right). Christ, I've even learnt something too (endurance hypertrophy - didn't realise endurance adaptations actually caused an increase in muscle size). Thanks to everyone for taking part; and of course a special thanks to dennis for reminding us all of the truth in a famous quote:
See you all in two weeks for the next instalment..0 -
Sure, understand, but then if I encourage a few people to look some stuff up, do some reading and learn why we use more precise terminology, then that's a good thing. It's a key method of how I learned. One of the primary reasons we have such threads is because of the imprecise meanings used by various participants.meanredspider wrote:Anyway, the stuff above begins to really explain what's going on. Saintdracula's style really works for the layman. Alex, whilst I don't doubt your expertise in this topic, you do tend to dip into the jargon too quickly for a lot of us who don't spend our lives looking at this stuff and we then have to spend our time on Wiki translating what you've written.
It also means people don't have to assume what I say is valid, it can be actually verified by looking stuff up.
Pretty much. Slow twitch fibres will hypertrophy (grow bigger) from sufficient volume of aerobic level riding, fast twitch fibres will hypertrophy from sufficient volume of hard accelerations, sprints, standing starts etc. (provided we eat sufficient nutrients required to hypertrophy, i.e. protein).meanredspider wrote:But I think I'm understanding why the bigger muscles I've got from cycling (and I have got measurably (I just wish I had measured) bigger thighs and calves) aren't the same thing at all as bigger thighs & calves I might have got had I pumped iron in the gym (or, at least, so the theory goes). I am also stronger (by any definition you care to use) and, based upon the difference in the muscle composition above, I do see why gaining strength through the former muscle type is much better than muscle strength from the other type and how that allows you to generate endurance power (stop me if I've got any of this wrong).
The final bit of the jigsaw for me, is that muscle mass (of the correct sort) is a compromise. You need to drag it around but you can only sustain its use for short periods (as the sprint specialists do) so, for most people, there's a real diminishing return for strength to a point that it peaks and then can potentially become a hinderance depending upon the type of cycling you're doing.
Is that a fair understanding?
Strength* training (after a while) will also result in hypertrophy of the available fibres so trained (again diet dependent). What gets trained of course depends on our individual fibre type makeup, which is different for everyone and the type of training we do. Sprinters (e.g. Hoy) have a higher proportion of fast twitch fibres, pure endurance riders (e.g. Boardman) have almost none.
So if we are growing muscle mass and increasing our overall weight, in cycling we need to make sure that the additional power we can sustain (over durations relevant to the events we target) more than matches the additional mass. Otherwise you are likely to go slower overall. There are specialist examples where one needs to assess the relative merits, e.g. individual pursuit due to the physics of riding - balancing the energy cost of accelerations & climbing (which scales with body mass and there's no climbing) and air resistance (which is not scaled linearly with body mass and so power to aero drag ratio is the biggest factor in IP).
That will be different for riders targeting track sprint or BMX versus say a grand tour contender. But even an elite track sprinter only needs so much strength, and more can end up being a hindrance. That's because the forces need to be applied at speed (it's actually impossible on a bike to apply maximal force - the only time we approach that is the first pedal stroke of a standing start). A "sprinter" can become super strong but end up going slower.
* Strength = maximal force generation capacity of a muscle/group of muscles0 -
StageWinner wrote:^ you are quite simply the stupidest man alive. There is no other possible explanation.
Very well could be. And you're probably properly p*ssed off at me for slamming endurance cyclists. Can't help it. I've actually had people tell me that they are endurance cyclists and it's about all I can do to keep from laughing.
I would be interested in your reason as to why what's said on this forum has more merit
than books by some fairly well known cycling coaches? How does that work? I realize it's a stupid question but what do you expect from me? Anyway a man of your obvious superiority should have no trouble answering it. Right? I mean, are all those books just a plot to get us to buy barbells? Or to make us worse riders? What's the reason for them??? Why don't their opinions count? I await your answer. :? :?0 -
dennisn wrote:StageWinner wrote:^ you are quite simply the stupidest man alive. There is no other possible explanation.
Very well could be. And you're probably properly p*ssed off at me for slamming endurance cyclists. Can't help it. I've actually had people tell me that they are endurance cyclists and it's about all I can do to keep from laughing.
I would be interested in your reason as to why what's said on this forum has more merit
than books by some fairly well known cycling coaches? How does that work? I realize it's a stupid question but what do you expect from me? Anyway a man of your obvious superiority should have no trouble answering it. Right? I mean, are all those books just a plot to get us to buy barbells? Or to make us worse riders? What's the reason for them??? Why don't their opinions count? I await your answer. :? :?
Opinion oschminion. Weights for cycling is either right or wrong, and science's current view is that its wrong. Prove otherwise or STFU. You can divide the cycling training manuals into the set of those that advocate strength training and those that don't. One set has to be wrong.
Lots of books said that the sun went around the earth until the 16th (?) century (and probably for a long time after that - luddites are legion). Doesn't mean they're right. Our understanding of things moves on.
I think the real issue here is that you are just unwilling to accept that something you've believed for your entire life is wrong. Its difficult, but you'd be in some good company if you managed it. Don't hold out much hope for anyone who uses the word "faith" in a scientific discussion though.0 -
StageWinner wrote:^ you are quite simply the stupidest man alive. There is no other possible explanation.
Let's see now, I read a book on cycling and weights and believed what it said.
You have apparently have read things about weights and cycling and believed what was said.
We sound pretty much alike so far. Huh?
You said I must be the stupidest man in the world. Presumably because I believe and practice what I read.
It seems you think the same way and believe and practice what you've read.
Therefore I conclude that there is not one but two stupidest men in the world.
Welcome aboard. Lets do lunch. I'll have my people contact your people.
I'm sure between the two of us we can come up with something really dumb and stupid to do. Oh wait, we're already doing it. Duh. :oops: :oops:0 -
1. An endurance cyclist is someone for whom aerobic endurance capacity is the primary determinant of performance. It doesn't mean "non-racer". This tag would apply to anyone who focuses on event as short as the individual pursuit, to ultra endurance events like RAAM, Audax, Grand Tours and everything in between. e.g. a track points race is a track endurance event.dennisn wrote:A few of my reasons for believing the way I do.
1.) I'm not a fan of the words "endurance cyclist". Seems like simply a name to give yourself to feel better because you can't, won't, don't, race. Just an ego thing, I'm better than those guys who simply sprint to win races, when you're simply a bike rider. I thought the whole idea was to WIN races not simply DO event's and most "endurance cyclists" are people who simply DO things. Compete doesn't seem to be part of their cycling world.
2.) I see no reason to doubt what the "published authors" of cycling weight training books promote as opposed to what's written on the Internet. Why is so and so on the Internet more knowledgeable than someone who has put forth the effort to be published.
3.) I have faith in the idea that weight training will add strength, power, fitness , or whatever you want to call it, to your body. Thus making it more comfortable for you in the long haul by making muscles that little bit stronger. i.e. maybe that back won't be quite as sore at 80 miles because the muscles are stronger. And who doesn't want to be more comfortable on the bike. More comfort = better, more at ease, riding. A few bench presses and maybe some curls might help relieve some of the stress of hanging onto and leaning on the bars as a long day winds down.
4.) Believe what you will. That's what I do.
2. We should be skeptical of everything. Just because it's in a book (or I or anyone else says it) doesn't make it right. There are 4,165 books listed on Amazon on the topic of Homeopathy. It's still a load of pseudoscience twaddle and just because some might be published with a lot of care and (misplaced) well meaning does not make them right.
3. That's fine. Personally I find riding more and having a really well fitted bicycle is the first step to being really comfortable and being able to ride more. Some people need to do certain non-bike exercises for their general well being and to help a few specific issues.
4. Of course. I'm an evidence based coach. When the evidence is clear cut, then it gets incorporated into the training I prescribe. When it's not clear cut, then I revert to sound principles of exercise physiology and principle of specificity to guide me, along with some personal experimentation. Fortunately with power meters, testing things at least has some objective basis for knowing if you see a real improvement or not.0 -
Thank you A, for keeping some of us on the straight and narrow 0
-
It's not as simple as that I'm afraid.P_Tucker wrote:Opinion oschminion. Weights for cycling is either right or wrong, and science's current view is that its wrong. Prove otherwise or STFU. You can divide the cycling training manuals into the set of those that advocate strength training and those that don't. One set has to be wrong.
Much of the science is equivocal, although on balance, the weight of evidence does not support strength training for enhancing endurance cycling performance. One has to be a little clearer what each part of the published science is telling us.
For instance, doing weight training might not actually be strength training. Everything I have been talking about here is related to strength training as it pertains to endurance cycling performance.
One thing is certain. There is no better exercise for improving cycling performance, than cycling.0 -
Pseudonym wrote:dennisn wrote:I've actually had people tell me that they are endurance cyclists and it's about all I can do to keep from laughing.
anyone who rides a bike for longer than 1km is an endurance cyclist......I'd stop using the phrase, if I were you.....
I'm not at all interested in endurance cyclists. To me all it denotes is someone who is unable to be competitive in racing. I'd compare it being called an extreme athlete because you ride a skateboard or an adventure athlete because you rode a bike on some mountain trail. People don't watch races because of endurance cyclists, they watch races to see who wins. There is no endurance rider catagory in racing. It's just a feel good name that people give themselves in the hope someone will be impressed.0 -
Mark Cavendish is an endurance cyclist. So is Cadel Evans. Bradley Wiggins. Lance Armstrong. and so on.dennisn wrote:It's just a feel good name that people give themselves in the hope someone will be impressed.0 -
Great thread.
I work at Specialized and asked one of our pro riders the question on this thread. His answer?
'Strength gets me up the hill, power determines how fast'
Simple as that 0 -
bristolpete wrote:Great thread.
I work at Specialized and asked one of our pro riders the question on this thread. His answer?
'Strength gets me up the hill, power determines how fast'
Simple as that
but its not strength that gets him up the hill, he may think it is strength but it isn't.0 -
NJK wrote:bristolpete wrote:Great thread.
I work at Specialized and asked one of our pro riders the question on this thread. His answer?
'Strength gets me up the hill, power determines how fast'
Simple as that
but its not strength that gets him up the hill, he may think it is strength but it isn't.
Here we go again 0 -
dennisn wrote:I'm not at all interested in endurance cyclists. To me all it denotes is someone who is unable to be competitive in racing. I'd compare it being called an extreme athlete because you ride a skateboard or an adventure athlete because you rode a bike on some mountain trail. People don't watch races because of endurance cyclists, they watch races to see who wins. There is no endurance rider catagory in racing. It's just a feel good name that people give themselves in the hope someone will be impressed.
Despite several clear explanations of what an 'endurance cyclist' actually is, you still type this utter drivel. I'm beginning to think that 'stagewinner' and 'P_Tucker' are right about you.0 -
Maybe we can agree on a term for the force that your leg generates. If your leg didn't generate that force, there'd be no torque at the crank and you'd generate no power. You can only generate power by applying force and the Specialized guy is right in that power is the rate at which work is done. Force without power (a tractor) isn't of much interest to us but it will get us up the hill - just slowly.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
It's just force. We don't need to give something a name that already has one.meanredspider wrote:Maybe we can agree on a term for the force that your leg generates. If your leg didn't generate that force, there'd be no torque at the crank and you'd generate no power. You can only generate power by applying force and the Specialized guy is right in that power is the rate at which work is done. Force without power (a tractor) isn't of much interest to us but it will get us up the hill - just slowly.
People often way over estimate the force requirements in cycling. It is significantly sub-maximal, to the extent that strength (max force ability) is not our limiter in such situations.
A pro (well any rider) going uphill say at 360W and a cadence of 80rpm still only has an average effective pedal force for both legs equivalent to pushing 25kg against gravity, which is ~ 1/3rd of body mass. You apply more force standing up getting out of a chair (since you are lifting a much higher proportion of your body mass). I'd suggest most people have the ability to apply a lot more force with both legs than they do when standing up.
So, yes, if you can't stand up from a sitting position, then you might have a problem that could use some help.
Once again, our limiter is aerobic metabolic in nature (being able to process the bio-chemical reactions inside our muscles at a high enough rate that release the energy our muscles use to apply the very low forces repeatedly and often), and not our ability to generate high forces.0 -
I'm beginning to think that this thread should appear at the Edinburgh Festival. It's much funnier than Waiting for Godot.0
-
If he had said:bristolpete wrote:Great thread.
I work at Specialized and asked one of our pro riders the question on this thread. His answer?
'Strength gets me up the hill, power determines how fast'
Simple as that
"Power gets me up the hill, how much power determines how fast"
then he'd have been right.0 -
That would not be hard. One sure needs strength to get through a Beckett play.briantrumpet wrote:It's much funnier than Waiting for Godot. 0 -
You need strength to get through this thread. Apart from the laughing induced by the repeated use of comic catchphrases, it's an interesting play where the cast haven't decided what various words mean by the third act.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
That would not be hard. One sure needs strength to get through a Beckett play.briantrumpet wrote:It's much funnier than Waiting for Godot.0 -
dennisn wrote:StageWinner wrote:^ you are quite simply the stupidest man alive. There is no other possible explanation.
Let's see now, I read a book on cycling and weights
I seriously doubt that.
I you've proven anything in this thread it's that you are incapable of reading. Or maybe it's just the understanding of the words part.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Mark Cavendish is an endurance cyclist. So is Cadel Evans. Bradley Wiggins. Lance Armstrong. and so on.dennisn wrote:It's just a feel good name that people give themselves in the hope someone will be impressed.
I would guess that all of the above would much prefer to be known as bike racers. By the 1Km description earlier, an endurance cyclist is anyone and everyone just above the ability level of the 4 year old next door who went around the block with his training wheels on. Not something I'd endeavor to be labeled, even though I was 4 once. When some tells me they race bicycles I see them competing with a group of others in an attempt to win the race or help someone win a race. When they tell me they are an endurance cyclist(and a few have) I just want to chuckle. I asked one once if he had ever raced. He said yes, he had tried it once and all it turned out to be was a bunch of guys at the front trying to drop everyone else. I think I might have been speechless, if you can believe it.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
You need strength to get through this thread. Apart from the laughing induced by the repeated use of comic catchphrases, it's an interesting play where the cast haven't decided what various words mean by the third act.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
That would not be hard. One sure needs strength to get through a Beckett play.briantrumpet wrote:It's much funnier than Waiting for Godot.
Yeah, how come there's no translation screen above the post. Like at the Opera. :? :?0 -
Sure. But we are talking about physiological matters, not labels related to ego.dennisn wrote:I would guess that all of the above would much prefer to be known as bike racers.
Me, I'm a track enduro, crit and road racer. Which, physiologically speaking, makes me an endurance cyclist.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
It's not as simple as that I'm afraid.P_Tucker wrote:Opinion oschminion. Weights for cycling is either right or wrong, and science's current view is that its wrong. Prove otherwise or STFU. You can divide the cycling training manuals into the set of those that advocate strength training and those that don't. One set has to be wrong.
Much of the science is equivocal, although on balance, the weight of evidence does not support strength training for enhancing endurance cycling performance. One has to be a little clearer what each part of the published science is telling us.
For instance, doing weight training might not actually be strength training. Everything I have been talking about here is related to strength training as it pertains to endurance cycling performance.
One thing is certain. There is no better exercise for improving cycling performance, than cycling.
Well, yes and no. There is a definitive answer RE strength training; just because science hasn't proved it to "beyond a shadow of a doubt" doesn't change the fact that such an answer exists; conversely nor does it mean that we shouldn't use the current view. But I agree that my choice of the words "weights" in this post was poor. I feel dennis is dragging me down FFS.0 -
[quote=
There must be an aero impact too with thicker legs[/quote]
Oh no, we're not all going to be riding around wearing aero shin pads now are we?0
