Single Speed Training

imposter2.0

twotyred wrote:

Well Wiggo can sustain 450 watts for an hour but that doesn't win him any sprints.

how is that relevant ? Greipel doesn't cross the line at FTP...

Strith

twotyred wrote:

or are you suggesting that Greipel applies a force on the pedals greater than his own bodyweight with each revolution ?

er yes I am.

Go here http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

Now plug in 85kg of rider and bike traveling at 60kph (16.5 m/s) 100rpm cadence with a 175mm crank gives 1622.1 kg m/s2 or 1622 N effective pedal force in each leg.

1622N/9.81m/s/s= 165kg

Now unless Greipel is considerably heavier than he looks he's applying more force than gravity acting on his body weight. And why wouldn't he as he's trying to accelerate his body forwards not just hold it up against gravity.

But that calculation is based on a 3% gradient climb and an effective pedal range of 70 degrees. Change the gradient to zero and the effective range to 90 degrees and all of a sudden he's using less than his own body weight in force on the pedals.

While I'm not disputing a sprinter can put out more than his bodyweight in force through the pedals under certain circumstances, it's quite easy to miscalculate something with that calculator.

twotyred

Taking no gradient and 70 degrees (probably a bit much to expect max force to be maintained through 90 degrees) still gives the equivalent of 106 kg.

We could work it out another way. Let's assume Greipel has a power output of 1600 watts when sprinting. That's a torque of 152 Nm. That's roughly 873 N. However let's assume that's only applied through half a pedal revolution (2 legs x 90 degrees for simplicity) that's 1746 N or the equivalent of 177 kg.

Imposter. Greipel needs to sustain around 1600 watts to win a sprint. To do that he needs more strength/force than it takes to support his body it also takes the anaerobic energy supply to sustain that for the 10 seconds or so of a sprint so yes fitness plays a part but so does strength.

My comment about Wiggo is that the ability to sustain power is no good in a sprint without the strength to generate large quantities of it

Froomes Edgar

Why is the ability to lift your own bodyweight the threshold for "strength"? Can you carry a bag of shopping up the stairs? Then you have the strength to lift more than your bodyweight with one leg - which isn't exactly impressive, my grandmother can do it and she's nearly 90.

As Alex or Ric will confirm if they can be bothered, the only time strength is a limiting factor in cycling is during standing start track sprints. So stop being wrong FFS

imposter2.0

twotyred wrote:

Imposter. Greipel needs to sustain around 1600 watts to win a sprint. To do that he needs more strength/force than it takes to support his body it also takes the anaerobic energy supply to sustain that for the 10 seconds or so of a sprint so yes fitness plays a part but so does strength.

Generating 1600w (+/-) should not be particularly difficult for a rider at his level. As you said yourself, it is the ability to sustain it that matters.

twotyred wrote:

My comment about Wiggo is that the ability to sustain power is no good in a sprint without the strength to generate large quantities of it

Thanks for pointing that out - there could be people reading this that didn't know that already. Have you read any of those other 'strength' threads yet - or would you like me to give you a couple of links ?

twotyred

Why is the ability to lift your own bodyweight the threshold for "strength"?

I never said it was. Imposter said I was suggesting that Greipel applied a force to the pedals greater than his own body weight which he seemed to think was outrageous. I simply demonstrated that that was exactly what I was suggesting.

Generating 1600w (+/-) should not be particularly difficult for a rider at his level

But if strength isn't important then you or I should be able to generate 1600 watts for some period of time. I must go and check my power meter records.

I'll finish with this taken from one of Alex Simmons posts

"While the neural gains from gym based strength training don't translate well to the bike, the hypertrophy aspect of strength gains do have a positive impact on cycling power (more muscle mass = more power in general), which is why track sprinters will seek to strength train for long enough to induce a hypertrophic response"

imposter2.0

twotyred wrote:

But if strength isn't important then you or I should be able to generate 1600 watts for some period of time. I must go and check my power meter records.

It's quite possible that you could generate that amount of power already - or an equivalent w/kg - for a limited time. Even if you can't, it shouldn't imply anything - other than the fact that you personally can't do it.

twotyred wrote:

I'll finish with this taken from one of Alex Simmons posts

"While the neural gains from gym based strength training don't translate well to the bike, the hypertrophy aspect of strength gains do have a positive impact on cycling power (more muscle mass = more power in general), which is why track sprinters will seek to strength train for long enough to induce a hypertrophic response"

Track sprinters - absolutely. No argument there. Bit different to road cycling though.

twotyred

Track sprinters - absolutely. No argument there. Bit different to road cycling though.

We've just been arguing about where Andre Geipel gets his sprint power at the end of a road race. Pretty similar situation to track sprinting.

For general road cycling I agree that the pedal forces required for maintaining 200-300 watts are nothing special and maybe your granny could generate the required force and yet cycling a lot leads to slow and fast twitch muscle hypertrophy. If increased strength isn't beneficial why does the human body respond to cycling by making bigger muscles? I may be being naive here but aren't bigger muscles stronger muscles? However there may well some other advantage to bigger muscles that I'm missing.

imposter2.0

twotyred wrote:

We've just been arguing about where Andre Geipel gets his sprint power at the end of a road race. Pretty similar situation to track sprinting.

Track sprinters don't generally have to ride 80-120 miles before they start their sprint though, do they ?

twotyred wrote:

If increased strength isn't beneficial why does the human body respond to cycling by making bigger muscles? I may be being naive here but aren't bigger muscles stronger muscles? However there may well some other advantage to bigger muscles that I'm missing.

You still haven't read those other threads, have you? If you want links, just ask.

twotyred

Track sprinters don't generally have to ride 80-120 miles before they start their sprint though, do they

Doesn't make any difference as similar amounts of power have to be produced for the sprint. Does a road rider have a completely different way of generating sprint power from a track rider? I don't think so.

I have read some of those threads, that's where I got Alex's quote from, but I don't think anywhere was it explained why doing lots of cycling leads to bigger muscles if more strength is not required. However if you know different please point me to the post.

rob churchill

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Roll your eyes all you like - you're wrong, I'm right. You will not increase your strength by being in a slightly higher gear.

But you will increase your strength by being in a substantially higher gear. I ride a SS on the South Downs - there are hills where it takes everything I've got to make the pedals turn at all (and one or two where I physically cannot turn the pedals). No different to doing squats with 30kg or more added weight.

imposter2.0

twotyred wrote:

I have read some of those threads, that's where I got Alex's quote from, but I don't think anywhere was it explained why doing lots of cycling leads to bigger muscles if more strength is not required. However if you know different please point me to the post.

doing lots of cycling will only give you 'big' muscles if you let it - ie by pushing high gear/low cadence etc - there is no argument about that as an outcome. The argument is whether that potential increase in muscle size is actually beneficial to improve aerobic cycling performance - which it isn't. Google some pics of Chris Froome for context. Aerobic cycling is not strength-dependent. I'm not getting through to you, am I ?

rob churchill wrote:

I ride a SS on the South Downs - there are hills where it takes everything I've got to make the pedals turn at all (and one or two where I physically cannot turn the pedals). No different to doing squats with 30kg or more added weight.

so, you are either over-geared, or you are not fit enough to maintain a viable cadence in the gear you have. Amounts to the same thing really. Either way, nothing to do with strength, sorry.

twotyred

Aerobic cycling is not strength-dependent

In none of my posts have I suggested that it is. In fact in my last post I agreed with you.

Yet cycling develops larger leg muscles (and not just specifically lots of high force low cadence efforts) so if its not an unintended consequence of training (which it could be) that strength could well be an advantage somewhere. Despite the example of Froome pros generally have well developed legs.

I don't seem to be getting through to you

imposter2.0

twotyred wrote:

so if its not an unintended consequence of training (which it could be) that strength could well be an advantage somewhere.

it could be an advantage in lots of circumstances - but not in cycling unfortunately. Any healthy, functional human being already has the capability to lift more than their own bodyweight with each leg. You are unlikely to ever even need that much strength in most cycling disciplines.

styxd

twotyred wrote:

Aerobic cycling is not strength-dependent

Despite the example of Froome pros generally have well developed legs.

I'm not sure what you mean by well developed?

Do you mean "well defined"? Due to low levels of body fat? Rather than the actual size of the muscles?

twotyred

OK so you see muscle (hence strength) increase through cycling as an unintended consequence of training which has no cycling utility unless you are a sprinter. In that case lets all gear down lots and spin everywhere at 100rpm at low force to build fitness and minimise wasteful and heavy muscle growth.

My take is that the body doesn't respond in a certain way to a training stimulus unless there's some advantage to it doing so. Trouble is in this case I can't figure out what that advantage might be.

I'm not sure what you mean by well developed?

How about this guy

rob churchill

Imposter wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

I ride a SS on the South Downs - there are hills where it takes everything I've got to make the pedals turn at all (and one or two where I physically cannot turn the pedals). No different to doing squats with 30kg or more added weight.

so, you are either over-geared, or you are not fit enough to maintain a viable cadence in the gear you have. Amounts to the same thing really. Either way, nothing to do with strength, sorry.

I am over-geared. Massively over-geared for the hill. So over-geared that my bodyweight alone is not enough to force a pedal through the downstroke, I have to haul hard against the handlebars and pull up hard on the rising pedal. This happens when you ride a SS in a hilly area. Nothing to do with my fitness, everything to do with how much force I can apply to a pedal. And often I can manage no more than twenty revolutions before muscular exhaustion prevents further progress and I have to get off and push with jelly legs.

So in effect, high resistance-low rep weight training. And what does high resistance-low rep weight training do, smartarse?

Murr X

rob churchill wrote:

But you will increase your strength by being in a substantially higher gear. I ride a SS on the South Downs - there are hills where it takes everything I've got to make the pedals turn at all (and one or two where I physically cannot turn the pedals). No different to doing squats with 30kg or more added weight.

A trained cyclist will not increase leg strength by using a higher gear. It may well actually decrease strength due to an increase in capillary and mitochondrial density which develop during endurance exercise (which high gear road riding still very much is despite commonly held belief) and are needed for increased aerobic performance but come at the expense of the muscles ability to generate high amounts of force (strength) for very short periods.

Also riding uphill in any gear is very different than squatting. In cycling there is no eccentric contraction in the leg muscles and it is the eccentric contraction which is mainly responsible for the adaptions to weight training. Eccentric force releases growth hormones that are not released during the concentric phase which is at least partially responsible for the benefits.

Of course to gain in one area you must lose in another and there is no getting around that. You can be bad at everything but you can't be good at everything.

Murr X

rob churchill

Murr X wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

But you will increase your strength by being in a substantially higher gear. I ride a SS on the South Downs - there are hills where it takes everything I've got to make the pedals turn at all (and one or two where I physically cannot turn the pedals). No different to doing squats with 30kg or more added weight.

A trained cyclist will not increase leg strength by using a higher gear. It may well actually decrease strength due to an increase in capillary and mitochondrial density which develop during endurance exercise (which high gear road riding still very much is despite commonly held belief) and are needed for increased aerobic performance but come at the expense of the muscles ability to generate high amounts of force (strength) for very short periods.

Also riding uphill in any gear is very different than squatting. In cycling there is no eccentric contraction in the leg muscles and it is the eccentric contraction which is mainly responsible for the adaptions to weight training. Eccentric force releases growth hormones that are not released during the concentric phase which is at least partially responsible for the benefits.

Of course to gain in one area you must lose in another and there is no getting around that. You can be bad at everything but you can't be good at everything.

Murr X

If you can provide a link to accessible research demonstrating that eccentric contraction is responsible for all but an insignificant proportion of adaptation to resistance training, then you've got me convinced.

Otherwise I'm sticking with my view that anyone stomping up hills in a stupidly high gear* for long enough will end up with quads that look more like Chris Hoy's than Chris Froome's.


* In my defence, I bought the SS for a two-mile flat commute.

Matchstick Man

rob churchill wrote:

Imposter wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

I ride a SS on the South Downs - there are hills where it takes everything I've got to make the pedals turn at all (and one or two where I physically cannot turn the pedals). No different to doing squats with 30kg or more added weight.

so, you are either over-geared, or you are not fit enough to maintain a viable cadence in the gear you have. Amounts to the same thing really. Either way, nothing to do with strength, sorry.

I am over-geared. Massively over-geared for the hill. So over-geared that my bodyweight alone is not enough to force a pedal through the downstroke, I have to haul hard against the handlebars and pull up hard on the rising pedal. This happens when you ride a SS in a hilly area. Nothing to do with my fitness, everything to do with how much force I can apply to a pedal. And often I can manage no more than twenty revolutions before muscular exhaustion prevents further progress and I have to get off and push with jelly legs.

So in effect, high resistance-low rep weight training. And what does high resistance-low rep weight training do, smartarse?

Well thats great. Grab your bike by the top tube and raise your arm perpendicular to your body and you'll find you'll be exercising one of your deltoids. I think the question relates to general cycling, rather than odd contrivances.

rob churchill

Matchstick Man wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

Imposter wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

I ride a SS on the South Downs - there are hills where it takes everything I've got to make the pedals turn at all (and one or two where I physically cannot turn the pedals). No different to doing squats with 30kg or more added weight.

so, you are either over-geared, or you are not fit enough to maintain a viable cadence in the gear you have. Amounts to the same thing really. Either way, nothing to do with strength, sorry.

I am over-geared. Massively over-geared for the hill. So over-geared that my bodyweight alone is not enough to force a pedal through the downstroke, I have to haul hard against the handlebars and pull up hard on the rising pedal. This happens when you ride a SS in a hilly area. Nothing to do with my fitness, everything to do with how much force I can apply to a pedal. And often I can manage no more than twenty revolutions before muscular exhaustion prevents further progress and I have to get off and push with jelly legs.

So in effect, high resistance-low rep weight training. And what does high resistance-low rep weight training do, smartarse?

Well thats great. Grab your bike by the top tube and raise your arm perpendicular to your body and you'll find you'll be exercising one of your deltoids. I think the question relates to general cycling, rather than odd contrivances.

I think you'll find that the question relates to singlespeed cycling (the clue is in the thread title). And a singlespeed is nothing if not an odd contrivance.

amaferanga

rob churchill wrote:

I am over-geared. Massively over-geared for the hill. So over-geared that my bodyweight alone is not enough to force a pedal through the downstroke, I have to haul hard against the handlebars and pull up hard on the rising pedal. This happens when you ride a SS in a hilly area. Nothing to do with my fitness, everything to do with how much force I can apply to a pedal. And often I can manage no more than twenty revolutions before muscular exhaustion prevents further progress and I have to get off and push with jelly legs.

So in effect, high resistance-low rep weight training. And what does high resistance-low rep weight training do, smartarse?

If you could look at the power you're putting out at these silly low cadences then you'd find it's almost certainly very modest compared to what you're capable of. If you were suitably geared you'd be able to pedal up the hill at a more efficient cadence putting out considerably more Watts and you'd be able to cycle all the way to the top of the hill. Which do you think would be more beneficial?

Riding fixed in the winter is fun, but don't try to make it more than that. It's sh!t training for riding a geared bike.

imposter2.0

rob churchill wrote:

So in effect, high resistance-low rep weight training. And what does high resistance-low rep weight training do, smartarse?

What does it do ? It makes you really crap on a bicycle. That's what it does. Smartarse.

rob churchill

amaferanga wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

I am over-geared. Massively over-geared for the hill. So over-geared that my bodyweight alone is not enough to force a pedal through the downstroke, I have to haul hard against the handlebars and pull up hard on the rising pedal. This happens when you ride a SS in a hilly area. Nothing to do with my fitness, everything to do with how much force I can apply to a pedal. And often I can manage no more than twenty revolutions before muscular exhaustion prevents further progress and I have to get off and push with jelly legs.

So in effect, high resistance-low rep weight training. And what does high resistance-low rep weight training do, smartarse?

If you could look at the power you're putting out at these silly low cadences then you'd find it's almost certainly very modest compared to what you're capable of. If you were suitably geared you'd be able to pedal up the hill at a more efficient cadence putting out considerably more Watts and you'd be able to cycle all the way to the top of the hill. Which do you think would be more beneficial?

Riding fixed in the winter is fun, but don't try to make it more than that. It's sh!t training for riding a geared bike.

I haven't suggested that it's anything other than sh1t training for riding a geared bike. I simply take issue with the ideas that (i) riding an SS is likely to result only in being in a 'slightly higher' gear, and (ii) that riding a hill so overgeared that every pedal stroke represents the kind of proportion of 1RM that someone doing weight training would employ won't build any muscle.

imposter2.0

rob churchill wrote:

I simply take issue with the ideas that (i) riding an SS is likely to result only in being in a 'slightly higher' gear, and (ii) that riding a hill so overgeared that every pedal stroke represents the kind of proportion of 1RM that someone doing weight training would employ won't build any muscle.

nobody ever said it wouldn't build muscle.

rob churchill

Imposter wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

So in effect, high resistance-low rep weight training. And what does high resistance-low rep weight training do, smartarse?

What does it do ? It makes you really crap on a bicycle. That's what it does. Smartarse.

crap riders.

imposter2.0

rob churchill wrote:

Imposter wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

So in effect, high resistance-low rep weight training. And what does high resistance-low rep weight training do, smartarse?

What does it do ? It makes you really crap on a bicycle. That's what it does. Smartarse.

crap riders.

This gets better with every post. How fast do you reckon Forstermann could get up Ventoux then ?

rob churchill

Imposter wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

Imposter wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

So in effect, high resistance-low rep weight training. And what does high resistance-low rep weight training do, smartarse?

What does it do ? It makes you really crap on a bicycle. That's what it does. Smartarse.

crap riders.

This gets better with every post. How fast do you reckon Forstermann could get up Ventoux then ?

None too fast. Now read this again:

rob churchill wrote:

I haven't suggested that it's anything other than sh1t training for riding a geared bike. I simply take issue with the ideas that (i) riding an SS is likely to result only in being in a 'slightly higher' gear, and (ii) that riding a hill so overgeared that every pedal stroke represents the kind of proportion of 1RM that someone doing weight training would employ won't build any muscle.

imposter2.0

like I mentioned earlier - nobody ever said that it wouldn't build build muscle.

rob churchill

Imposter wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

I simply take issue with the ideas that (i) riding an SS is likely to result only in being in a 'slightly higher' gear, and (ii) that riding a hill so overgeared that every pedal stroke represents the kind of proportion of 1RM that someone doing weight training would employ won't build any muscle.

nobody ever said it wouldn't build muscle.

Imposter wrote:

so, you are either over-geared, or you are not fit enough to maintain a viable cadence in the gear you have. Amounts to the same thing really. Either way, nothing to do with strength, sorry.