Increasing leg strength
Comments
-
Oh heck, all I wanted was to improve my hill climbing over the winter! Sorry guys...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 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:
Some other good books you might want to read. And because someone published them, they must be true:
0 -
Darren Derby wrote:Oh heck, all I wanted was to improve my hill climbing over the winter! Sorry guys...
Are you still planning to do weights?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
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.
"Leg force" isn't actually a term you hear very often - I expect there's a more common word for the human physical ability.
And I know I'm not using the 200kg of force my legs can generate. But there IS a function of maximal strength to the endurance ability. What I mean to say is that, if my maximal strength is 200kg force, then I can sustain 10% of that longer than I can 20% (else hills wouldn't be a challenge).
The point that I've still never got a clear answer on is where the extra "power" comes from. You studiously avoid "force" and "torque" (rotational force) yet they are the foundation of power.
I'm not arguing just trying to understand.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Can anyone point me in the direction of the basic physiology involved in cycling? These threads are contain diamonds in the dust, but I need more understanding of the basic underlying processes involved when I sit on my perch and pedal.
One thing is for certain, after the last 'weight training' debate on this forum I spend on time in the gym and more time on my bike. Why tidy the house when you can clean your bike?0 -
meanredspider wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
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.
"Leg force" isn't actually a term you hear very often - I expect there's a more common word for the human physical ability.
And I know I'm not using the 200kg of force my legs can generate. But there IS a function of maximal strength to the endurance ability. What I mean to say is that, if my maximal strength is 200kg force, then I can sustain 10% of that longer than I can 20% (else hills wouldn't be a challenge).
The point that I've still never got a clear answer on is where the extra "power" comes from. You studiously avoid "force" and "torque" (rotational force) yet they are the foundation of power.
I'm not arguing just trying to understand.
If you can lift 200kg, then you might be able to lift say 190kg twice. If you do strength training for a while and increase your 1RM to 250kg, then yes - you'll be able to lift 190kg more than twice. I believe this is your argument . However, the mistake you're making is extrapolating this a lot further down the weight range, and the reason this is wrong is because at some point local muscular fatigue is no longer the limiting factor - your aerobic engine is.
I'm going to go off-piste and talk about thing I don't understand fully, so hopefully if I'm wrong someone can correct me - but basically there are 3 energy systems for generating ATP in the skeletal muscles. The first one (ATP-PC) is the one that fuels efforts like lifting very heavy weights, and is exhausted after about 10 seconds. The anaerobic system then takes over, and this lasts about a minute and exhaustion of this system is assoicated with the characteristic burning sensation in the legs that we all know and hate. After about a minute, you're basically onto aerobically generated ATP. Now its not quite as simple as this; in particular its a continuum rather than discrete zones, but you get the gist. Oooh look, heres a nice diagram:
So by lifting heavy weights, you aren't developing your aerobic engine at all, you are just increasing the work you can do for about 10 seconds - for efforts of over about a minute in length you aren't any better because your aerobic engine is whats limiting you.
More info http://www.brianmac.co.uk/energy.htm
I still don't understand your force/torque/power conundrum. Clearly if you double the power at the same cadence then you are producing twice the force - however as Alex says the forces required will (except in the most contrived of cases) still be relatively low compared to your 1RM, and thus as I've tried to explain above will still be limited primarily by the aerobic system.0 -
Mr Dog wrote:Can anyone point me in the direction of the basic physiology involved in cycling? These threads are contain diamonds in the dust, but I need more understanding of the basic underlying processes involved when I sit on my perch and pedal.
One thing is for certain, after the last 'weight training' debate on this forum I spend on time in the gym and more time on my bike.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/index.htm
This ones quite good, albeit not cycling specific0 -
Pokerface wrote: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 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:
Some other good books you might want to read. And because someone published them, they must be true:
Are all published books on the subject wrong and all items on the internet supporting your view correct? If so I think I finally understand.0 -
Be quiet Dennis, adults are talking0
-
Hi, after becoming even more confused by the differing opinions I've decided to cover all bases and see what works for me. I'm going to ride more and include hill repeats one day per week, but yes I'm also going to incorporate some compound weight training movements too.P_Tucker wrote:Darren Derby wrote:Oh heck, all I wanted was to improve my hill climbing over the winter! Sorry guys...
Are you still planning to do weights?
Cheers.0 -
Darren Derby wrote:
Hi, after becoming even more confused by the differing opinions I've decided to cover all bases and see what works for me. I'm going to ride more and include hill repeats one day per week, but yes I'm also going to incorporate some compound weight training movements too.P_Tucker wrote:Darren Derby wrote:Oh heck, all I wanted was to improve my hill climbing over the winter! Sorry guys...
Are you still planning to do weights?
Cheers.
Ugh. This is why idiots like dennis should be banned from the internet. Now this poor chap is going to waste time in the gym trying to get better at riding up hills. Terrible scenes0 -
OK, how about asking the question slightly differently? I can get out on the bike 4 to 5 times per week for around 1 to 2 hours at a time plus I have a turbo in the garage(trainer not car!!). What would you suggest I do to improve my general riding/fitness but hill climbing in particular? Thanks for taking the time to help.P_Tucker wrote:Darren Derby wrote:
Hi, after becoming even more confused by the differing opinions I've decided to cover all bases and see what works for me. I'm going to ride more and include hill repeats one day per week, but yes I'm also going to incorporate some compound weight training movements too.P_Tucker wrote:Darren Derby wrote:Oh heck, all I wanted was to improve my hill climbing over the winter! Sorry guys...
Are you still planning to do weights?
Cheers.
Ugh. This is why idiots like dennis should be banned from the internet. Now this poor chap is going to waste time in the gym trying to get better at riding up hills. Terrible scenes0 -
You should cycle a lot, but forget weights: do things that strengthen your core, like planks, sit-ups, leg raises, and definitely back raises. The thing that was killing me when I was going uphill was my back. I have gleaned that most of the time we're not putting out crazy outputs, and crazy outputs aren't needed by those who aren't sprinters, and even then they're only needed for a comparaitively short amount of time.
The last thing you want to be doing is weights/weight bearing! You want a good power to weight ratio.0 -
Darren Derby wrote:
OK, how about asking the question slightly differently? I can get out on the bike 4 to 5 times per week for around 1 to 2 hours at a time plus I have a turbo in the garage(trainer not car!!). What would you suggest I do to improve my general riding/fitness but hill climbing in particular? Thanks for taking the time to help.P_Tucker wrote:Darren Derby wrote:
Hi, after becoming even more confused by the differing opinions I've decided to cover all bases and see what works for me. I'm going to ride more and include hill repeats one day per week, but yes I'm also going to incorporate some compound weight training movements too.P_Tucker wrote:Darren Derby wrote:Oh heck, all I wanted was to improve my hill climbing over the winter! Sorry guys...
Are you still planning to do weights?
Cheers.
Ugh. This is why idiots like dennis should be banned from the internet. Now this poor chap is going to waste time in the gym trying to get better at riding up hills. Terrible scenes
It were in the comic ( Cw)2 weeks back.... to develop power - evaluated in a study, do 2 lower cadence sessions with highr resistance on the turbo 40 or so mins a pop.... apparently those who did that improved their output significantly than those who maintained a higher cadence work out schedule - just don;t blame me if it dont work !! but as with everything it has the right tone of - give it a go, it can't really screw you up can it??
My race cadence averages about 95 this season... tho' only did 1 hilly race.. and yes going uphill at race pace, it really does pay to train for them..0 -
Turbos - 2x20s. 10 min warm up, ride quite hard but not flat out for 20 mins, rest for 5, repeat, warm down. 1 hour job done. If you've got a speedo, then make sure the tyre has the same pressure in at the start of every workout and you can track progress (you'll go faster, obv)
On the road, 10 minute warm up, ride a constant pace for 60-90 minutes, not as hard as for the 2x20 obv, but its got to be slightly challenging to finish else theres not much point.
If youre a beginner, then build up to the above - start with 2x10 and say 30 mins tempo on the road.
Come spring, you can add vo2max intervals (3-8 mins flat out) or anaerobic capacity intervals (60-120 seconds flat out) depending on the length of the hills you want to get up.0 -
Fantastic, why didn't I ask that in the first place!? Are hill repeats once a week worthwhile over winter? Cheers.0
-
Darren Derby wrote:Fantastic, why didn't I ask that in the first place!? Are hill repeats once a week worthwhile over winter? Cheers.
Dunno. They're mentally very hard to do properly, and I for one find them impossible to do week in week out, but that might just be because I'm a wuss. For this reason alone, I wouldn't consider them until spring at the earliest. Physiologically I don't believe there's any reason not to do them, but I'm not 100% certain. Alex will know.
You could always choose a hilly route for your outside rides, and push a bit harder on the uphills and recover slightly as on the descents. Just try to avoid routes with traffic lights or lots of junctions - ideally you don't want to stop pedalling at all for the entire 60-90 minutes.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:If you can lift 200kg, then you might be able to lift say 190kg twice. If you do strength training for a while and increase your 1RM to 250kg, then yes - you'll be able to lift 190kg more than twice. I believe this is your argument . However, the mistake you're making is extrapolating this a lot further down the weight range, and the reason this is wrong is because at some point local muscular fatigue is no longer the limiting factor - your aerobic engine is.
I'm going to go off-piste and talk about thing I don't understand fully, so hopefully if I'm wrong someone can correct me - but basically there are 3 energy systems for generating ATP in the skeletal muscles. The first one (ATP-PC) is the one that fuels efforts like lifting very heavy weights, and is exhausted after about 10 seconds. The anaerobic system then takes over, and this lasts about a minute and exhaustion of this system is assoicated with the characteristic burning sensation in the legs that we all know and hate. After about a minute, you're basically onto aerobically generated ATP. Now its not quite as simple as this; in particular its a continuum rather than discrete zones, but you get the gist. Oooh look, heres a nice diagram:
So by lifting heavy weights, you aren't developing your aerobic engine at all, you are just increasing the work you can do for about 10 seconds - for efforts of over about a minute in length you aren't any better because your aerobic engine is whats limiting you.
More info http://www.brianmac.co.uk/energy.htm
I still don't understand your force/torque/power conundrum. Clearly if you double the power at the same cadence then you are producing twice the force - however as Alex says the forces required will (except in the most contrived of cases) still be relatively low compared to your 1RM, and thus as I've tried to explain above will still be limited primarily by the aerobic system.
Thanks! You know what? I scrolled up from the bottom so didn't see who posted this before I read it and really wouldn't have guessed it was you. Fantastic - cheers.
You kinda understand my point which may not have been very eloquent. Bear with me on this example - but take two cyclists and stick them on a stationary bike and get them to pedal to generate a given high-level power for an hour. Intuitively the (maximally) stronger of the two cyclists would find this easier. If it makes it a better example, say a male and a female top-flight cyclist - I'd expect the male to find it easier. Is that wrong?ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
meanredspider wrote:Thanks! You know what? I scrolled up from the bottom so didn't see who posted this before I read it and really wouldn't have guessed it was you. Fantastic - cheers.
You kinda understand my point which may not have been very eloquent. Bear with me on this example - but take two cyclists and stick them on a stationary bike and get them to pedal to generate a given high-level power for an hour. Intuitively the (maximally) stronger of the two cyclists would find this easier. If it makes it a better example, say a male and a female top-flight cyclist - I'd expect the male to find it easier. Is that wrong?
No. Because the thing that makes it "difficult" after the first minute or so (let's assume that this is a tough workout for both cyclists) is that their aerobic systems are struggling to get enough oxygen to the muscle, and a little bit of energy is being produced anaerobically which increases acidity in the muscle - which is the discomfort we feel when we're riding hard.
Lets make up a preposterous analogy. Say you have a Land Rover and a Toyota Yaris and attach caravans to the back of them. Give them an unrestricted supply of fuel which one can pull the caravan faster? Obv the Land Rover.
Now, assume that somehow we can restrict the fuel supply of both to the amount of fuel thats used by a Yaris when idling. To be clear, both cars have the same amount of fuel - the LR doesn't get more because it uses more to idle. Now which one pulls faster? (do ignore any differences in the design of the engines or gearboxes - I know nothing about cars). Since both have the same amount of fuel, the extra "strength" of the LR means nothing. It can't use it - there's no fuel to burn. It can only go as fast as the supply of fuel coming in lets it. Moreover, since its heavier and bulkier than the Yaris, if anything its slower than the Yaris.
Wow, that was pretty tenuous.0 -
So bench presses will help me to increase my cadence? ;-)0
-
P_Tucker wrote:Lets make up a preposterous analogy. Say you have a Land Rover and a Toyota Yaris and attach caravans to the back of them. Give them an unrestricted supply of fuel which one can pull the caravan faster? Obv the Land Rover.
Now, assume that somehow we can restrict the fuel supply of both to the amount of fuel thats used by a Yaris when idling. To be clear, both cars have the same amount of fuel - the LR doesn't get more because it uses more to idle. Now which one pulls faster? (do ignore any differences in the design of the engines or gearboxes - I know nothing about cars). Since both have the same amount of fuel, the extra "strength" of the LR means nothing. It can't use it - there's no fuel to burn. It can only go as fast as the supply of fuel coming in lets it. Moreover, since its heavier and bulkier than the Yaris, if anything its slower than the Yaris.
Wow, that was pretty tenuous.
OK - I kinda get what you say. But (AFAIK) male cyclists are faster than female cyclists - despite being bigger and heavier. My understanding of this is that men are typically "stronger" than women rather any differences in their metabolisms. To go to your Land Rover vs Yaris anology - I'd have thought it was not an absolute fuel limit but, more nearly a limit on the fuel per c.c. of engine size (or something between the two).
I can very well understand putting a articulated truck engine in a Yaris would be a waste of time as would having World's Strongest Man muscles on a bike would be useless. And I now understand that muscles developed by weights are more akin to diesel engines - lots of force (torque) but poor power.
What I'm trying to get to is there really an absolute limit on the power that can be produced by a human based simply on metabolism. I don't doubt that the aerobic system is absolutely critical - especially beyond a certain amount of muscle is available. I wonder if this becomes more critical as the rider's muscles have reached an optimum "size" (for want of a better expression) for their type of event?ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
meanredspider wrote:P_Tucker wrote:Lets make up a preposterous analogy. Say you have a Land Rover and a Toyota Yaris and attach caravans to the back of them. Give them an unrestricted supply of fuel which one can pull the caravan faster? Obv the Land Rover.
Now, assume that somehow we can restrict the fuel supply of both to the amount of fuel thats used by a Yaris when idling. To be clear, both cars have the same amount of fuel - the LR doesn't get more because it uses more to idle. Now which one pulls faster? (do ignore any differences in the design of the engines or gearboxes - I know nothing about cars). Since both have the same amount of fuel, the extra "strength" of the LR means nothing. It can't use it - there's no fuel to burn. It can only go as fast as the supply of fuel coming in lets it. Moreover, since its heavier and bulkier than the Yaris, if anything its slower than the Yaris.
Wow, that was pretty tenuous.
OK - I kinda get what you say. But (AFAIK) male cyclists are faster than female cyclists - despite being bigger and heavier. My understanding of this is that men are typically "stronger" than women rather any differences in their metabolisms. To go to your Land Rover vs Yaris anology - I'd have thought it was not an absolute fuel limit but, more nearly a limit on the fuel per c.c. of engine size (or something between the two).
I can very well understand putting a articulated truck engine in a Yaris would be a waste of time as would having World's Strongest Man muscles on a bike would be useless. And I now understand that muscles developed by weights are more akin to diesel engines - lots of force (torque) but poor power.
What I'm trying to get to is there really an absolute limit on the power that can be produced by a human based simply on metabolism. I don't doubt that the aerobic system is absolutely critical - especially beyond a certain amount of muscle is available. I wonder if this becomes more critical as the rider's muscles have reached an optimum "size" (for want of a better expression) for their type of event?
RE men vs women - way beyond my comfort zone here, but I think testosterone promotes haemoglobin production which explains most of the difference - also women tend to carry more fat. (haemoglobin, as you may know, is the blodds device for transporting oxygen)
Yes there is a limit on what can be produced aerobically. AFAIK, no-one has ever achieved an FTP of 7w/kg - certainly no-one has ever achieved 8. However, adding more muscle wouldn't improve this - going back to the Land Rover analogy, in a limited fuel environment bolting on a supercharger wouldn't help - in fact the extra weight would be a hinderance.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:RE men vs women - way beyond my comfort zone here, but I think testosterone promotes haemoglobin production which explains most of the difference - also women tend to carry more fat. (haemoglobin, as you may know, is the blodds device for transporting oxygen).
Yes - for sure - male haematocrit is higher than females (we were just discussing this at work this week) by about 5% of volume so that does explain some of it.P_Tucker wrote:Yes there is a limit on what can be produced aerobically. AFAIK, no-one has ever achieved an FTP of 7w/kg - certainly no-one has ever achieved 8. However, adding more muscle wouldn't improve this - going back to the Land Rover analogy, in a limited fuel environment bolting on a supercharger wouldn't help - in fact the extra weight would be a hinderance
7w/kg - does that mean there's a weight factor? I did try (albeit slightly half-heartedly, sorry) looking it up but even Wiki is a bit thin on FTP and the link on here doesn't discuss weight.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
meanredspider wrote:7w/kg - does that mean there's a weight factor? I did try (albeit slightly half-heartedly, sorry) looking it up but even Wiki is a bit thin on FTP and the link on here doesn't discuss weight.
Yes. Bigger athletes tend to have higher absolute VO2Maxs and higher absolute FTPs. As you'd expect - they have more blood if nothing else.0 -
That's because the foundation of power is not force, but rather our ability to generate the volume of ATP (click link to see what that is) required to meet the energy demand in the time required. ATP is the "unit of energy currency" in our bodies.meanredspider wrote:The point that I've still never got a clear answer on is where the extra "power" comes from. You studiously avoid "force" and "torque" (rotational force) yet they are the foundation of power.
I'm not arguing just trying to understand.
Force is just what we measure and is a result of contractions in our muscles which occur due to the energy released by available ATP.
We can produce ATP in a number of ways, through either anaerobic (without oxygen) processes (which supply ATP very quickly and as a result, quite inefficiently* - that's the trade off for speed of supply) and/or aerobically (with oxygen) processes (which can be maintained pretty much indefinitely, provided we eat, since a limitless supply is available in the air we breathe). When exercising we are using both processes all the time, just the proportions vary depending on what we are doing.
We are only capable of maintaining anaerobic processes for a very short time, beyond that and we need oxygen to keep on supplying the ATP demand (and to replenish any anaerobic work capacity we have used up).
Hence, we are not limited by the maximal force we can produce, rather we are limited by our ability to generate sufficient ATP via aerobic processes to meet the ongoing demand to sustain the repeatedly applied (sub-maximal) forces involved in cycling. It is those underlying aerobic processes that we need to improve in order to go further, faster.
Once the ATP demand from any activity exceeds that which can be supplied by aerobic metabolism, then the activity has either a short lifetime, or it must reduce in intensity eventually (which might be seconds to minutes), i.e. we are forced to slow down.
And the best training to enhance aerobic capacities are those that stimulate the body's underlying infrastructure to supply the inputs (sugars and oxygen), perform the chemical reactions and remove the waste (water and carbon dioxide). In particular this is dictated by the number and size of mitochondria in our muscle cells (in which the chemical reactions that supply ATP are performed) and the proximity and density of the blood supply network (capillaries inside the muscles) to those mitochondria which provides the oxygen & sugar (glycogen) required to produce energy.
The type of training that best induces these changes is hard aerobic exercise, especially exercise which uses the specific muscles in the manner desired for performance.
Training to increase maximal force (i.e. strength) has the opposite effect on the size and number of mitochondria and it decreases the proximity of the blood supply to the mitochondria. This is roughly akin to making bigger highways between the cities to deal with the large short term traffic flow but closing off many small distribution roads so the trucks can't get the resources to the factories in the towns nearly as quickly (and so ongoing production slows), nor remove their waste.
That's why are high force athletes like say weightlifters are not also champion aerobic athletes (runners, swimmers, cyclists, rowers, X-country skiers etc). Training to apply high force is about the release of a vast quantity of ATP in a very short time. That however is not what limits an endurance (racing) cyclist, who needs ATP supplied in an ongoing manner, the more one can do this, the more sustainably powerful you can be. And it also means you can recover far more quickly from anaerobic efforts and be able to repeat them more frequently and more often.
* Aerobic production of ATP (using carbs as fuel) is 19 times more efficient that anaerobic processes. IOW, anaerobic efforts "burn" carbs at 19 times the rate for the same energy output as an aerobic process.
See this link and video for an intro to aerobic/anaerobic processes:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Aerobi ... espiration0 -
Did they perform such efforts at the same power output as those that maintained regular (higher) cadence? Because if the low cadence efforts were performed at a higher power output, then that's more likely the reason for improvement, rather than the cadence per se.JGSI wrote:It were in the comic ( Cw)2 weeks back.... to develop power - evaluated in a study, do 2 lower cadence sessions with highr resistance on the turbo 40 or so mins a pop.... apparently those who did that improved their output significantly than those who maintained a higher cadence work out schedule0 -
The cyclist that can sustain a higher power output for the duration will find it easier.meanredspider wrote:You kinda understand my point which may not have been very eloquent. Bear with me on this example - but take two cyclists and stick them on a stationary bike and get them to pedal to generate a given high-level power for an hour. Intuitively the (maximally) stronger of the two cyclists would find this easier. If it makes it a better example, say a male and a female top-flight cyclist - I'd expect the male to find it easier. Is that wrong?
I bet I can find plenty of guys far stronger than me, who couldn't sustain the power output I can.
Chris Boardman for instance was a comparative weakling, yet he managed to sustain ~ 6.4W/kg for an hour. I suspect Hulk Hogan wouldn't have a chance of even matching Chris' absolute power output, let alone his power to weight ratio.0 -
Hi Alex - thanks for the replies - very clear. I'm past the point of questioning if weights are significantly beneficial to endurance cyclists - my question is a bit more subtle than the Hulk Hogan question. I'll try to explain it this way:
Take an average non-exercising bloke on the street and start to train him to win the local TT. I don't doubt that the majority of improvement to his performance will come from the adaptations you describe above. Intuitively, I'd also expect an increase in muscle mass and, therefore, "stronger" legs - that's certainly happened to me as I significantly increased my cycling. I also expect that these changes will tail off and it will become more the efficiency of these muscles rather than their size that matters (and maybe this is the foundation of the "strength debate").ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
