Cycling specific weights/strengthening.

dennisn

briantrumpet wrote:

dennisn wrote:

What about all the LA stuff? Same people, same stuff, over and over. :?

In that case it goes on and on as we don't REALLY know what the evidence is. In the case in this thread the science and evidence seems to lie fairly strongly in one direction, but the debate is only kept going ad nauseam by using different definitions of 'strength' and 'endurance'. If there were anything new from the previous 18-page debate, it might be interesting.

Still science is at best only as good as it's methods and has proven over and over that what was once thought to be gospel is now discredited. Tomorrow most likely will prove todays thinking wrong and may even prove last weeks discredited ideas as the way to go.

briantrumpet

dennisn wrote:

Still science is at best only as good as it's methods and has proven over and over that what was once thought to be gospel is now discredited. Tomorrow most likely will prove todays thinking wrong and may even prove last weeks discredited ideas as the way to go.

Well, do carry on trying to argue, if you feel unhappy with the consensus. But if you don't accept generally agreed definitions, you won't have many people taking you seriously.

dennisn

briantrumpet wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Still science is at best only as good as it's methods and has proven over and over that what was once thought to be gospel is now discredited. Tomorrow most likely will prove todays thinking wrong and may even prove last weeks discredited ideas as the way to go.

Well, do carry on trying to argue, if you feel unhappy with the consensus. But if you don't accept generally agreed definitions, you won't have many people taking you seriously.

I guess you might say I tend to argue a bit but I don't just buy into anything. For me this is a world filled with things that need to be questioned as opposed to just accepting the concensus(at the time).

ric/rstsport

dennisn wrote:

I would note that there are other types of cycling than this so called "endurance" cycling. Crit's, track TT'ing. All of which require a bit of strength. I would also note that you seem to be saying that weight training can be helpful IF you have the proper recovery time. Which for my money is really at the root of most peoples being just average riders and not improving. As for endurance cycling, it would seem this is a part of sports designed for people who do not have the ability or desire to actually train at any kind of intense level. So they just go out and ride, ride, ride, then enter 12 hour time trials, and Ironman tri's. No intensity required. In reality these people train mega hours and don't seem to realize that by training less at a higher intensity and using the extra free time to rest and recover they might actually become notable racers instead of so called "pack fill".

crits, track (other than e.g. 200m, kilo, team sprint, etc), TTing, road racing, TdF, etc ARE all endurance cycling. I know you have difficulty with this dennis, but do try to keep up.

They also do not "require a bit of strength". Strength is the maximal force a muscle or group of muscles can generate. They require a bit of force. And, this is a very submaximal force.

Hmmm. 12 Hour TTs. I coach the world record holder at 12 hr TTs, i can quite clearly tell you he *does* train at an intense level, and has recorded the 3rd fastest ever 10-mile TT in the UK (behind michael hutchinson and some geezer called bradley wiggins). Pretty certain Jeff isn't pack fill.

Anyway, carry on Dennis. I know you'll ignore me and go off on one. But here endeth my contribution to your rubbish.

cheers
ric

dennisn

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I would note that there are other types of cycling than this so called "endurance" cycling. Crit's, track TT'ing. All of which require a bit of strength. I would also note that you seem to be saying that weight training can be helpful IF you have the proper recovery time. Which for my money is really at the root of most peoples being just average riders and not improving. As for endurance cycling, it would seem this is a part of sports designed for people who do not have the ability or desire to actually train at any kind of intense level. So they just go out and ride, ride, ride, then enter 12 hour time trials, and Ironman tri's. No intensity required. In reality these people train mega hours and don't seem to realize that by training less at a higher intensity and using the extra free time to rest and recover they might actually become notable racers instead of so called "pack fill".

They also do not "require a bit of strength". Strength is the maximal force a muscle or group of muscles can generate. They require a bit of force. And, this is a very submaximal force.

Hmmm. 12 Hour TTs. I coach the world record holder at 12 hr TTs, i can quite clearly tell you he *does* train at an intense level, and has recorded the 3rd fastest ever 10-mile TT in the UK (behind michael hutchinson and some geezer called bradley wiggins). Pretty certain Jeff isn't pack fill.

So why would Jeff need to train at anything near an "intense" level if all his race efforts are "very submaximal"?
Intense training builds strength, which as you have stated is a waste of time. It would seem that all he really needs to do is just go out and ride 6 hours a day. Anything intense would interfere with his recovery time. You say he trains "intensely", well, I consider weight training as intense training yet you simply pooh pooh it as useless. Can you see my question in this???? Not trying to slam Jeff here but if ALL cycling is "very submaximal" how and why does any intensity need to be included for anyone?

dennisn

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I would note that there are other types of cycling than this so called "endurance" cycling. Crit's, track TT'ing. All of which require a bit of strength. I would also note that you seem to be saying that weight training can be helpful IF you have the proper recovery time. Which for my money is really at the root of most peoples being just average riders and not improving. As for endurance cycling, it would seem this is a part of sports designed for people who do not have the ability or desire to actually train at any kind of intense level. So they just go out and ride, ride, ride, then enter 12 hour time trials, and Ironman tri's. No intensity required. In reality these people train mega hours and don't seem to realize that by training less at a higher intensity and using the extra free time to rest and recover they might actually become notable racers instead of so called "pack fill".

crits, track (other than e.g. 200m, kilo, team sprint, etc), TTing, road racing, TdF, etc ARE all endurance cycling.

They also do not "require a bit of strength". Strength is the maximal force a muscle or group of muscles can generate. They require a bit of force. And, this is a very submaximal force.

So winning the final sprint at a TDF race or even your local crit doesn't require any strength? Sprinting is all "very submaximal" in those cases?

Alex_Simmons/RST

dennisn wrote:

So winning the final sprint at a TDF race or even your local crit doesn't require any strength? Sprinting is all "very submaximal" in those cases?

Correct. The forces applied, even in a sprint, are sub-maximal (and significantly so). A cursory glance at a quadrant analysis of pedal forces and pedal speeds will show that in an instant.

The only time an effort on the bike approaches anything near maximal force (i.e. strength) is the first pedal stroke of a track/BMX standing start (which is not endurance cycling). Even then the forces fall away very rapidly after the first pedal stroke and what actually matters is the rate at which you can apply force (i.e. power) and not your strength.

All the strength in the world is pretty useless unless one can apply that force at speed (and this is the point at which strength debates all fall over). Force at zero velocity (i.e. strength) is mostly unrelated to our ability to apply force at speed (which is much more determined by our muscle fibre type mix).

At maximum effort (i.e. the first handful of seconds in a sprint) there is an inverse linear relationship between the force we can apply and the rate at which we are applying it. Becoming stronger does nothing to aid the rate at which you can apply force. Indeed it can have the opposite effect (as it does with me).

So before someone comes along and posts a pic of Chris Hoy pushing some "enormous" weight, let me point out that yes, he is strong, and no, he is not an endurance cyclist. But also note that he is not all that strong relative to specialists (for instance the women's world record incline press is higher than what Sir Chris does). But I bet SCH is way faster than that woman.

Even for pure sprinters, beyond a certain point, more strength does not = more power. That point is not particularly high (e.g. the AIS suggests that once you are able to 1RM 2x body mass in a free squat you have more than enough strength for an elite world class track sprinter - since they also know that it's force at speed that matters, not force at zero speed).

dennisn

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

dennisn wrote:

So winning the final sprint at a TDF race or even your local crit doesn't require any strength? Sprinting is all "very submaximal" in those cases?

Correct.

All I can say is that I have been in a few crits(many years ago) where I was actually near the front toward the finish. One thing I would NOT call my efforts in the last lap or two would be "submaximal". Nor do I think any of the other riders would use that term either. Call it what you will power, force, effort, strength, etc., none of what happened near the end was anything close to "very submaximal".

Alex_Simmons/RST

dennisn wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

dennisn wrote:

So winning the final sprint at a TDF race or even your local crit doesn't require any strength? Sprinting is all "very submaximal" in those cases?

Correct.

All I can say is that I have been in a few crits(many years ago) where I was actually near the front toward the finish. One thing I would NOT call my efforts in the last lap or two would be "submaximal". Nor do I think any of the other riders would use that term either. Call it what you will power, force, effort, strength, etc., none of what happened near the end was anything close to "very submaximal".

You are confusing applying maximal effort with applying maximal force. They are not the same thing.

Even at maximal effort (e.g. sprinting in a crit), we are unable to apply maximal force (i.e. strength). It is physiologically impossible to do so (for the simple reason I have already explained - the forces are being applied at speed). To apply maximal force, by definition, the velocity has to be zero (or very close to it). That doesn't happen when we are pedaling.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Perhaps some numbers might help (although possibly not for some).

Before I had my leg chopped off, my peak power was around 1450W and that would occur at ~ 130rpm (peak power typically occurs at ~ 120-135rpm for most people).

In terms of forces, that's an average effective pedal force applied by both legs of ~ 80-85% of my body mass. Last time I checked, I was capable of standing up and applying such force without needing to go to a gym.

When training in a gym (many years ago), I was capable of sets of 6-10 reps of free squats with 2.5 x body mass on the bar. Not sure what my 1RM was (i.e. my leg strength), but a little more than that I suppose.

What holds us back (physiologically) in such a sprint scenario is not the maximal force we can apply, but rather how much force we can apply at speed (and of course how long we can hold it for).

P_Tucker

dennisn wrote:

Still science is at best only as good as it's methods and has proven over and over that what was once thought to be gospel is now discredited. Tomorrow most likely will prove todays thinking wrong and may even prove last weeks discredited ideas as the way to go.

All science is provisional, that's its greatest strength. The way to challenge the current scientific view is with new science, not a load of utter sh!te based on your own personal perceptions and very limited mental faculties.

poynedexter

ok ok ok,

so i dont train with heavy weights and low reps to build "strength" as thats not needed, so why does it not work for cycling if i do moderate weights at high reps? does this not build stamina in the legs, the ability to keep the power going for longer?

dennisn

P_Tucker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Still science is at best only as good as it's methods and has proven over and over that what was once thought to be gospel is now discredited. Tomorrow most likely will prove todays thinking wrong and may even prove last weeks discredited ideas as the way to go.

All science is provisional, that's its greatest strength. The way to challenge the current scientific view is with new science, not a load of utter sh!te based on your own personal perceptions and very limited mental faculties.

I thought science was all about personal perceptions of things by people with very limited mental faculities. Otherwise how do you explain all the differing points of view on subjects by well educated Phd's.

meanredspider

I'm actually a convert to the "strength isn't necessarily a good thing" side of the argument. What took me such a long time to get there is that I don't think it's explained very well because it's quite a complex idea to get across. As an engineer, I find it easier to think of the mechanical equivalents of the two sides of the argument:

If strength ruled, diesel engines (that develop high torque) would be in the world's supercars. They aren't because the physics of combustion limits the rate of burn of the fuel thus limiting their power (torque delivered at speed)

Petrol engines rule the power world becuse we can better manipulate combustion conditions to improve fuel burn. Even then, power is ultimately determined by ability of the engine to "breathe". Torque is lower but can be delivered at a much higher rate (speed).

I think something analogous is happening in cyclists. It's all about the ability of the muscles to continuously provide force but more importantantly the continuous rate at which they can do that. There will be an optimum force level but I believe that peaks and falls off. The most important factor is the rate at which the force can be delivered and the ability of the body to provide fuel to that process.

I have a colleague who is smaller than me and I have no doubt I have "stronger" legs. He, though, has doping levels of natural hematocrit in his blood which allows him to fuel his muscles much more effectively than I can mine. Despite my clear "strength" advantage, his 5 and 10 minute power levels are much higher than mine. Working on strength isn't going to get me faster - working on my aerobic system to support the fuelling of my muscles (and all the other adaptations needed), just might.

P_Tucker

dennisn wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Still science is at best only as good as it's methods and has proven over and over that what was once thought to be gospel is now discredited. Tomorrow most likely will prove todays thinking wrong and may even prove last weeks discredited ideas as the way to go.

All science is provisional, that's its greatest strength. The way to challenge the current scientific view is with new science, not a load of utter sh!te based on your own personal perceptions and very limited mental faculties.

I thought science was all about personal perceptions of things by people with very limited mental faculities. Otherwise how do you explain all the differing points of view on subjects by well educated Phd's.

Sorry, you are too stupid to treat with anything other than utter contempt.

dennisn

P_Tucker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Still science is at best only as good as it's methods and has proven over and over that what was once thought to be gospel is now discredited. Tomorrow most likely will prove todays thinking wrong and may even prove last weeks discredited ideas as the way to go.

All science is provisional, that's its greatest strength. The way to challenge the current scientific view is with new science, not a load of utter sh!te based on your own personal perceptions and very limited mental faculties.

I thought science was all about personal perceptions of things by people with very limited mental faculities. Otherwise how do you explain all the differing points of view on subjects by well educated Phd's.

Sorry, you are too stupid to treat with anything other than utter contempt.

So tell me. How do you explain differing opinons on all manner of science topics by people with all sorts of degrees???? Also, why can't I ask questions about the why's and wherefores of conventional wisdom???

P_Tucker

dennisn wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Still science is at best only as good as it's methods and has proven over and over that what was once thought to be gospel is now discredited. Tomorrow most likely will prove todays thinking wrong and may even prove last weeks discredited ideas as the way to go.

All science is provisional, that's its greatest strength. The way to challenge the current scientific view is with new science, not a load of utter sh!te based on your own personal perceptions and very limited mental faculties.

I thought science was all about personal perceptions of things by people with very limited mental faculities. Otherwise how do you explain all the differing points of view on subjects by well educated Phd's.

Sorry, you are too stupid to treat with anything other than utter contempt.

So tell me. How do you explain differing opinons on all manner of science topics by people with all sorts of degrees???? Also, why can't I ask questions about the why's and wherefores of conventional wisdom???

You can ask, but you're too stupid to understand any reasonable answer.

dennisn

P_Tucker wrote:

You can ask, but you're too stupid to understand any reasonable answer.

That's why I ask. So you can enlighten me. One answer that I'd like to hear is from a previos post.
I asked Jeff's trainer why Jeff(or any cyclist) needed to do any kind of intense workout if all cyclist efforts are "very submaximal"? What would intense accomplish for these people(or any cyclist for that matter)?

mattshrops

you seem to be not seeing this part. the forces are submaximal -the effort aint. ok?two different things

dennisn

mattshrops wrote:

you seem to be not seeing this part. the forces are submaximal -the effort aint. ok?two different things

So how do you develop effort? How is effort related to force? So much effort = so much force?

Alex_Simmons/RST

dennisn wrote:

mattshrops wrote:

you seem to be not seeing this part. the forces are submaximal -the effort aint. ok?two different things

So how do you develop effort? How is effort related to force? So much effort = so much force?

The forces we produce at maximal effort are limited by the velocity at which we are apply that force. It's an inverse linear relationship. If you plot on vertical axis pedal force, and on horizontal axis, pedal speed (or cadence if you like), then the maximal effort we are capable of is a straight line from max force at zero velocity, to zero force at our maximal theoretical leg speed.

It's why when people do maximum cadence tests, it's quite easy to get >200rpm when unloaded (e.g. think of a crank not connected to anything and you are asked to spin as fast as you could), but as soon as you put the chain back on and the wheel is connected to a resistance of some kind, we can't pedal that fast anymore.

Or to put it another way, we are limited by the power we can produce, not the forces we can apply.

But if you are asking about how our neural and muscular skeletal system works, well that a whole 'nuther topic.

Alex_Simmons/RST

An example of the sort of muscle force-velocity relationship I am talking about is shown at Figure 3. Force-velocity relationship during cycling in this item by Dr Coggan:

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowerm ... om_07.html

Squaggles

P_Tucker wrote:

You can ask, but you're too stupid to understand any reasonable answer.

Wow , what a nice attitude

meanredspider

Squaggles wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

You can ask, but you're too stupid to understand any reasonable answer.

Wow , what a nice attitude

Nothing new there

meanredspider

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

An example of the sort of muscle force-velocity relationship I am talking about is shown at Figure 3. Force-velocity relationship during cycling in this item by Dr Coggan:

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowerm ... om_07.html

Yup - I was pondering all of this on my way to Cromarty in the pouring rain last night and wondering how we know whether we're working in anything close to our optimal "power band" naturally. I know how much perceived force I'm putting through the pedals but how does that compare to the next person? The answer, I'm sure lies in power meters but it would also be interesting to know how close two ("identical") individuals come to selecting the same gear combination independent of the data or each other. Am I working closer to my maximal force than the next man? Where on that line do I sit and could I benefit from targetting a different place?

briantrumpet

Squaggles wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

You can ask, but you're too stupid to understand any reasonable answer.

Wow , what a nice attitude

There's some history there. In a few thousand years' time it'll have probably seeped into general mythological folklore, or into seaside Punch and Judy shows. If you need more context, you could read the 18-page thread I mentioned earlier.

dw300

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

So before someone comes along and posts a pic of Chris Hoy pushing some "enormous" weight, let me point out that yes, he is strong, and no, he is not an endurance cyclist. But also note that he is not all that strong relative to specialists (for instance the women's world record incline press is higher than what Sir Chris does). But I bet SCH is way faster than that woman.

Even for pure sprinters, beyond a certain point, more strength does not = more power. That point is not particularly high (e.g. the AIS suggests that once you are able to 1RM 2x body mass in a free squat you have more than enough strength for an elite world class track sprinter - since they also know that it's force at speed that matters, not force at zero speed).

When it comes to pumping out huge wattages being heavier has got to help right? ie. Shifting your weight to add power. Is it likely that Hoy trains simply for mass to increase his power? In such short events could the benefit of higher peak power than a competitor outweigh the disadvantage of having to lug is the comparatively short distance to the final sprint?

Alex_Simmons/RST

dw300 wrote:

When it comes to pumping out huge wattages being heavier has got to help right? ie. Shifting your weight to add power. Is it likely that Hoy trains simply for mass to increase his power? In such short events could the benefit of higher peak power than a competitor outweigh the disadvantage of having to lug is the comparatively short distance to the final sprint?

Increased muscle mass will be an advantage for a sprinter, but only up to a point. Again, unless it enable forces to applied at speed, then extra mass will just slow one down.

Keep in mind that the rate of acceleration (critical in sprinting) is proportional to one's power to weight ratio, and additional mass also adds additional aerodynamic drag. So no point adding mass, if the additional power gained does not outweigh the extra load one has to accelerate and push through the air. Even Hoy has made this point in the past.

dw300

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

dw300 wrote:

When it comes to pumping out huge wattages being heavier has got to help right? ie. Shifting your weight to add power. Is it likely that Hoy trains simply for mass to increase his power? In such short events could the benefit of higher peak power than a competitor outweigh the disadvantage of having to lug is the comparatively short distance to the final sprint?

Increased muscle mass will be an advantage for a sprinter, but only up to a point. Again, unless it enable forces to applied at speed, then extra mass will just slow one down.

Keep in mind that the rate of acceleration (critical in sprinting) is proportional to one's power to weight ratio, and additional mass also adds additional aerodynamic drag. So no point adding mass, if the additional power gained does not outweigh the extra load one has to accelerate and push through the air. Even Hoy has made this point in the past.

Cheers for the answer!

briantrumpet

dw300 wrote:

Cheers for the answer!

Don't you understand anything about weight/strength threads in BR? Nobody's supposed to agree, or say "thank you" for helpful and persuasive responses. It's just the way it is, and ever shall be.

But Alex definitely gets my vote for the most unflappable and informative poster on BR. Thank you.

Now see what you've done - I'm at it now.