One section in todays ride made me pay dearly

springtide9

RoadMeridaBen wrote:

The answer in short then is to go faster up the hills to keep your average up and ride through the pain for the remainder of the ride!

This ... ^^^^

rake

andrewjoseph wrote:

rake wrote:

but more leg strength will help you push hugher gears for longer waint it, even at high cadence. more muscle is more weight.

?? are you suggesting losing muscle?? you even contradict yourself.

more leg and lower body muscle should give more power. massively built up arms and upper torso may mean excess weight, but no need to be drastic about leisure riders.

not contradiction but just pointing out it slows you down once the road turns upwards significantly.i do weights including some leg, it all helps general fitness but i can belt along flatish and down hill much better than going up.legs weights do seem to stave off aching legs for much longer. usually 70-80kg leg curls.

Pross

RoadMeridaBen wrote:

Basically climbing will fatigue your legs its a well known thing, I dont know why you are so shocked about it.

As will riding over 50% further. I'm really not sure why the OP is surprised that his legs were more tired and average speed was down after riding further and over more hills.

As for the power debate, as Alex explained it once over on the training forum

Your limiter is not strength, it's aerobic metabolism.

That means in order to ride faster, you'll need to do the training on your bike.

and as someone then went on to explain

if you can walk up stairs, strength is not the limiter. the forces there are the same as a hard sprint on the bike.

increasing strength/forces will make a pedal stroke easier but to increase power, you want to make not just one stroke easier, all of them easier.

so I think the limiter is how many times you can apply that force again and again. core work and other bs wont help you there. the only thing you can do is cycle more to do that.

no point increasing strength to get up one step 'better' when theres a whole flight of stairs to think about.

sub55

rake wrote:

but more leg strength will help you push hugher gears for longer waint it, even at high cadence. more muscle is more weight.

no
as just explained by Pross

you already have more strength than you can use. As you cardiovascular system improves , you`ll be able to use more of it for longer before you become coming fatigued. But increasing your total strength is`nt the answer.

DavidJB

Anyone that doesn't ride at >22MPH ave over 40 miles should just give up cycling.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DavidJB wrote:

Anyone that doesn't ride at >22MPH ave over 40 miles should just give up cycling.

Close all LBS's,cancel C2W,take Cavs rainbow jersey off him. David JB the authority on cycling has spoken..

What about the newbs who can't?

DavidJB

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DavidJB wrote:

Anyone that doesn't ride at >22MPH ave over 40 miles should just give up cycling.

Close all LBS's,cancel C2W,take Cavs rainbow jersey off him. David JB the authority on cycling has spoken..

What about the newbs who can't?

They should slap themselves in the face with inner tubes until they can. Its the only way to train. :evil:

dodgy

On the subject of hills (and wind) and their impact on an A --> A ride (as opposed to an A --> B ride).

So, an A --> A starts and finishes at the same point, both in location and height.

Imagine a cyclist who can usually ride at 20mph on gentle terrain all day long, he's fit, his bike is in good nick etc.

So the cyclist embarks on a 10 mile ride, this ride would usually take him 30 minutes (20mph avg remember), but on this ride there is a great big hill in the way, it's a 5 mile long hill on the way, and 5 miles downhill and his speed on the way up is reduced to 10mph. So it takes him 30 minutes to get up the hill. No matter how fast he descends, he will never regain his 20mph overall average.

The same is true for very windy days.

This is why on a hilly ride, or one when it's very windy, your overall average is nearly always down. You'd think the downs would cancel out the ups, and the tailwinds would cancel out the headwinds. But they do not, because you spend longer (time) at the lower speeds

Phew :twisted:

sub55

DesWeller wrote:

Lactic acid anyone?

to be simplistic, lactic acid is produced in the muscle when the muscle is using more glutcone than can be sustained by the availability of oxygen supplied by the heamoglobin . It is a waste product that is then carried away by the blood. By increasing your cardio vascula fitness , you can supply your muscles with more oxygen , so lactic acid wont be produced at the intensity it used to be.

g00se

Another bite. I'm no expert on hills (living on Norfolk) but the tips I have picked up and seem to help is to regularly adjust your saddle position to use different leg muscles.

If you're more forward on the saddle, probably with hands on the hoods, you end up using your quads (front of thigh). If you get your hands on the tops, you can shift your weight back on the saddle and this uses your glutes (arse) and hamstrings - then alternately shift forward to swap back to your quads to share the work out.

rake

sub55 wrote:

fosst wrote:

Cadence is a red herring and leg strength doesn't matter??? So THAT'S where Fabien's electric motor went!

If you want another opinion, leg strength (effort) X rpm (cadence) is what is it all about. Fitness allows you to apply the power for longer. Say you're at the bottom, and stationary, a 30% hill and stuck in 53X11. If you're strong you will go forward, but if you are not fit then you won't go very far. Being fit and strong will get you to the top. Gears help out if you are not strong, nothing but hard work helps fitness.

Answering an earlier question: losing weight but applying the same effort = going faster. Because the weight loss means the same effort will show up either as faster cadence or using a higher gear.
Not science, but it works for me.

no
Strength : sit on a dining chair , stand up using one leg. You have enough strength in that one leg to lift your body weight. If you`re sitting on a saddle , you have more strength than you can use.
Cadence : as you become fitter and more experience , your cadence will naturally rise within sensible boundaries. This is because your cardiovascular system develops and provides your muscles with more hemoglobin. Allowing you to maintain the effort for longer. or more effort for the same duration

so how do account for the fact my legs have got consideable more muscular with cycling. i already could stand up one legged before, so why did they develope bigger if i can't use them fully. i dont think its that simple.

sub55

rake wrote:

sub55 wrote:

fosst wrote:

Cadence is a red herring and leg strength doesn't matter??? So THAT'S where Fabien's electric motor went!

If you want another opinion, leg strength (effort) X rpm (cadence) is what is it all about. Fitness allows you to apply the power for longer. Say you're at the bottom, and stationary, a 30% hill and stuck in 53X11. If you're strong you will go forward, but if you are not fit then you won't go very far. Being fit and strong will get you to the top. Gears help out if you are not strong, nothing but hard work helps fitness.

Answering an earlier question: losing weight but applying the same effort = going faster. Because the weight loss means the same effort will show up either as faster cadence or using a higher gear.
Not science, but it works for me.

no
Strength : sit on a dining chair , stand up using one leg. You have enough strength in that one leg to lift your body weight. If you`re sitting on a saddle , you have more strength than you can use.
Cadence : as you become fitter and more experience , your cadence will naturally rise within sensible boundaries. This is because your cardiovascular system develops and provides your muscles with more hemoglobin. Allowing you to maintain the effort for longer. or more effort for the same duration

so how do account for the fact my legs have got considerably more muscular with cycling. i already could stand up one legged before, so why did they develop bigger if i can't use them fully. i don't think its that simple.

Because the more you use them , the more hemoglobin they become used to taking . So the capillaries are becoming bigger and more of them, increasing the bulk and size of the muscle. Your not increasing the muscle fibres or their strength .
Look at vicky pendletons legs , damn sight smaller than mine and she`s a world class sprinter , producing torque readings i can only dream of.

rake

i see what you mean there when i watch hoy he never does any leg weights.

springtide9

re: weight training for cycling... been done so may times in the 'training section'
If you are weight training for cycling - you are really wasting your time. I guess there maybe some benefit for pro level 65kg sprinters who can output 1000+ watts, but for average joe, it's almost worthless.

I was a big believer in cross training for cycling. After the last debate in the 'training section', I have read a number of books and articles related to cycling training, and the consensus from all cycling training professionals is that to get better/faster at cycling, you need to spend your time cycling - which is what was being said by a few cycling coaches that posted on this forum on this very topic.

I guess it makes sense... I find one legged squats pretty easy, and can happily do three reps of a 100 per leg. But the effort involved is much different if I'm expecting my legs to complete 90 per leg per minute, over a sustained duration.

ddraver

rake wrote:

i see what you mean there when i watch hoy he never does any leg weights.

He only rides for 60 seconds though - relevance again rake!

kayakerchris

Cadence is a red herring, it does not matter. Ride in a gear that is comfortable for you .

I am sorry but this is nonsense. You only recruit a proportion of your muscle fibres in any exercise unless you are specifically doing a single rep maximum (and even then you would have to train to achieve that). The more force you apply with each stroke of the pedal the more fibres you recruit and the faster the whole muscle will fatigue. If you up the cadence to produce the same power you need less force per pedal stroke. You recruit less fibres per stroke and the whole muscle will last longer.

Yes the pros can produce vast amounts of power, FTP for many of them is over 400W!! But if you look at their cadence it is high 90+ usually. They know that is how you keep going at high speeds for long periods of time.

However it is not "normal" for us to spin at that speed and it takes training. If you only ever ride in a gear that is comfortable you will never change.

The problem with weight training is the balance between fast twitch and slow twitch fibres with endurance. Physiologically weight training will help produce muscle mass with more fibres to recruit but if you grow the slow twitch then they will not be of much help. Balance again and probably looking at the type of weight training.

rake

ddraver wrote:

rake wrote:

i see what you mean there when i watch hoy he never does any leg weights.

He only rides for 60 seconds though - relevance again rake!

yes thats as relevant as mentioning pendleton.
saddle weight only limits force if you only press down without wearing cleats.seeing as i pedal in a circle and pull up with the other leg i can press down with more weight than on the saddle, so that theory is full of holes.standing on one leg is meaningless.

springtide9

rake wrote:

ddraver wrote:

rake wrote:

i see what you mean there when i watch hoy he never does any leg weights.

He only rides for 60 seconds though - relevance again rake!

yes thats as relevant as mentioning pendleton.
saddle weight only limits force if you only press down without wearing cleats.seeing as i pedal in a circle and pull up with the other leg i can press down with more weight than on the saddle, so that theory is full of holes.standing on one leg is meaningless.

You appear to be at loggerheads again...

All I can suggest is you buy yourself a few 'well regarded cycling training' books and decide for yourself.

rake

i enjoy an argument sometimes. agreed on full endurance it probably hasnt much benefit. im not talking about massive legs but a little in addition to mostly riding doesnt do me any harm. could help with inclines if your not pushing full out the whole ride.

thiscocks

My advice would be to get out of the saddle and MTFU

ddraver

rake wrote:

ddraver wrote:

rake wrote:

i see what you mean there when i watch hoy he never does any leg weights.

He only rides for 60 seconds though - relevance again rake!

yes thats as relevant as mentioning pendleton.
saddle weight only limits force if you only press down without wearing cleats.seeing as i pedal in a circle and pull up with the other leg i can press down with more weight than on the saddle, so that theory is full of holes.standing on one leg is meaningless.

Personally, I never mentioned her I never did. Personally again, I can Leg Press a whole lot from my background as a rugby player, but there are plenty of skinny Dutch birdmen who can outsprint me with ease

rake

ddraver wrote:

skinny Dutch birdmen outsprint me with ease

Matt the Tester

sub55 wrote:

rake wrote:

but more leg will help you push hugher gears for longer waint it, even at high cadence. more muscle is more weight.

no
as just explained by Pross

you already have more strength than you can use. As you cardiovascular system improves , you`ll be able to use more of it for longer before you become coming fatigued. But increasing your total strength is`nt the answer.

this.

Sub knows what he's talking about.

and OP, garmin data or it's lies

RoadMeridaBen

I agree with that, garmin data cant be questioned :P

Matt the Tester

indeed! http://connect.garmin.com/activity/158815481

these awesome little things we actually done 23:41. i stopped and started it late.

symo

So in a nutshell :

Ride more, eat less and and you should also be looking at increasing your cadence.

Right?