squats and leg-presses?

1…1112141617…23

Comments

  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Having more strength does not mean you use less energy.

    Remaining seated does. Try again.
    compared to riding out of the saddle? possibly, but this does not necessarily benefit performance. Performance is based on sustainable power output.

    How about you try again to answer my main point?

    I accept that increased strength may increase power at the very top end. At effort levels below this, strength is not a factor. The situations where strength is a factor in performance do not include the examples you have given.

    edit: I repeat for clarity:

    You misunderstand what is meant by the word 'strength'

    and/or

    You do not understand the factors that affect cycling performance.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Tom Dean wrote:
    How about you try again to answer my main point?
    OK
    Tom Dean wrote:
    You simply cannot put in a maximal, strength-based effort in the middle of a hard aerobic effort without needing to recover. How strong you are makes no difference to this. Being aerobically fitter means there is less chance of needing to try.
    Of course you need to recover. But you can recover at a rate manageable whilst continuing to pedal at a pace close to where it would be had you not give maximal, strength based effort. For example if you was climbing for 5km and came across a 30m, 25% ramp, powering up that ramp would be recoverable when you reach a plateau, in which time you have left the weaker rider who is still struggling to get up that ramp at their maximal strength effort.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    edited May 2013
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Having more strength does not mean you use less energy.

    Remaining seated does. Try again.

    Asuming all else is equal, two riders riding up the same hill at the same speed will use the same energy - regardless of whether one is seated or not. Unless you are disputing the laws of physics, which in your case is eminently possible...
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Of course you need to recover. But you can recover at a rate manageable whilst continuing to pedal at a pace close to where it would be had you not give maximal, strength based effort. For example if you was climbing for 5km and came across a 30m, 25% ramp, powering up that ramp would be recoverable when you reach a plateau, in which time you have left the weaker rider who is still struggling to get up that ramp at their maximal strength effort.

    which is not actually possible, as I have already pointed out.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    How about you try again to answer my main point?
    OK
    Tom Dean wrote:
    You simply cannot put in a maximal, strength-based effort in the middle of a hard aerobic effort without needing to recover. How strong you are makes no difference to this. Being aerobically fitter means there is less chance of needing to try.
    Of course you need to recover. But you can recover at a rate manageable whilst continuing to pedal at a pace close to where it would be had you not give maximal, strength based effort. For example if you was climbing for 5km and came across a 30m, 25% ramp, powering up that ramp would be recoverable when you reach a plateau, in which time you have left the weaker rider who is still struggling to get up that ramp at their maximal strength effort.

    :edit:

    Are you trying to say that time gained made by powering up steep slopes correlate directly with time lost recovering later on?
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Imposter wrote:
    Asuming all else is equal, two riders riding up the same hill at the same speed will use the same energy - regardless of whether one is seated or not. Unless you are disputing the laws of physics, which in course case is eminently possible...

    So you are telling me there is no difference energywise between climbing whilst seated versus climbing when standing? That there are absolutely no differences in muscle groups used, movement and so on? So essentially I can ride up a hill seated with no hands on the bar and waving my arms about hysterically, and it would not make a jot of difference?
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Imposter wrote:
    which is not actually possible, as I have already pointed out.

    If someone wants to max out with all their might. How is it impossible?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Asuming all else is equal, two riders riding up the same hill at the same speed will use the same energy - regardless of whether one is seated or not. Unless you are disputing the laws of physics, which in course case is eminently possible...

    So you are telling me there is no difference energywise between climbing whilst seated versus climbing when standing? That there are absolutely no differences in muscle groups used, movement and so on? So essentially I can ride up a hill seated with no hands on the bar and waving my arms about hysterically, and it would not make a jot of difference?

    Like I said - before you start disputing the laws of physics, you need to be able to understand them first. Go away and look up the definition of energy.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    which is not actually possible, as I have already pointed out.

    If someone wants to max out with all their might. How is it impossible?

    I've already explained that - did you not bother to read it? There is a difference between 'maximal strength' and 'maximum effort' - the two are not the same. Just because you may be making a maximal (eg VO2 max) effort, does not follow that you are using your maximum strength capability. As above, you really do need to understand the definitions if you want to argue this.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    How about you try again to answer my main point?
    OK
    Tom Dean wrote:
    You simply cannot put in a maximal, strength-based effort in the middle of a hard aerobic effort without needing to recover. How strong you are makes no difference to this. Being aerobically fitter means there is less chance of needing to try.
    Of course you need to recover. But you can recover at a rate manageable whilst continuing to pedal at a pace close to where it would be had you not give maximal, strength based effort. For example if you was climbing for 5km and came across a 30m, 25% ramp, powering up that ramp would be recoverable when you reach a plateau, in which time you have left the weaker rider who is still struggling to get up that ramp at their maximal strength effort.
    No, if you went to a level where your strength was a factor, you could not continue at anything like a decent steady pace. You might feel like you were going all out and using your strength in this situation, but if you could settle back into your climbing I don't think you were.

    If you did go that hard, and your aim is to be good over 30 metres, that's great. The 'weaker' rider that you left behind has no reason to go into the red like you did, and all else being equal, will smash you over 5km with his better pacing.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Imposter wrote:
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    I've already explained that - did you not bother to read it? There is a difference between 'maximal strength' and 'maximum effort' - the two are not the same. Just because you may be making a maximal (eg VO2 max) effort, does not follow that you are using your maximum strength capability. As above, you really do need to understand the definitions if you want to argue this.

    I believe I have made reasonable examples of how strength in the legs can benefit hill climbing in certain scenario's. All you can do is change the topic of argument, claim intellectual superiority and tell everyone to go read a book about it.

    How about you give it a try and actually experience it for yourself?
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Tom Dean wrote:
    If you did go that hard, and your aim is to be good over 30 metres, that's great. The 'weaker' rider that you left behind has no reason to go into the red like you did, and all else being equal, will smash you over 5km with his better pacing.

    If that is the case then why did I smash my pb last weekend when I decided to power up the steep bit as opposed to 'pacing myself' up it as I usually do?
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    If you did go that hard, and your aim is to be good over 30 metres, that's great. The 'weaker' rider that you left behind has no reason to go into the red like you did, and all else being equal, will smash you over 5km with his better pacing.

    If that is the case then why did I smash my pb last weekend when I decided to power up the steep bit as opposed to 'pacing myself' up it as I usually do?
    What makes you think it had anything to do with strength?
  • TheSmithers
    TheSmithers Posts: 291
    Step 1: Agree to disagree
    Step 2: Close thread
    Step 3: Get on with your lives

    :D
    http://app.strava.com/athletes/2086404
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    TheSmithers wrote:
    Step 1: Agree to disagree
    Step 2: Close thread
    Step 3: Get on with your lives

    :D

    :mrgreen:
  • stifflersmom
    stifflersmom Posts: 177
    MountainMonster wrote:
    I now lack the power for the short bursts needed to fly up hills here in Cambridge, and that is purely down to power/strength.

    Where are these hills in Cambridge that you can't fly up? :lol:
  • pride4ever
    pride4ever Posts: 510
    NITR8s wrote:
    pride4ever wrote:
    Short and brutal interval training, preferably on a turbo for safety reasons.

    Are we talking Revolver here, 1 min normal pace - 1 min killing my self. repeat for 50 mins.

    Everything from 5/1 off/on to 1/30sec intervals. Mix it up and keep your engine guessing. Also never do more than 3 sessions per week.
    the deeper the section the deeper the pleasure.
  • pride4ever
    pride4ever Posts: 510
    Two dudes could happily go up the same hill side by side at the exact same speed. One of them might be finding it very easy and the other could be hanging on for all his worth. Energy output does not equate to speed but fitness.
    the deeper the section the deeper the pleasure.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Helped out at a local bike race last night. In talking with a friend he mentioned that one of his buddies torn up his knee a while back skiing. He referred to this person as a great endurance cyclist. The way he said it was strange because he seemed to be implying that because he had called this person an "endurance cyclist" that this person was to be held in in a sort of awe(for lack of a better word). I think "Imposter" is using the word endurance to add to his name like one might add "King". He's looking for something to make himself sound better and in his way of thinking calling yourself, or being known as, an endurance cyclist is boost to his ego. He's heard Pro's and other famous people called this so he's on board with it. Much more manly than simply being a cyclist.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    dennisn wrote:
    Helped out at a local bike race last night. In talking with a friend he mentioned that one of his buddies torn up his knee a while back skiing. He referred to this person as a great endurance cyclist. The way he said it was strange because he seemed to be implying that because he had called this person an "endurance cyclist" that this person was to be held in a sort of awe(for lack of a better word). I think "Imposter" is using the word endurance to add to his name like one might add "King". He's looking for something to make himself sound better and in his way of thinking calling yourself, or being known as, an endurance cyclist is boost to his ego. He's heard Pro's and other famous people called this so he's on board with it. Much more manly than simply being a cyclist.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    haha so stupid. I don't know what to say.
  • Strith
    Strith Posts: 541
    Bustacapp wrote:
    If that is the case then why did I smash my pb last weekend when I decided to power up the steep bit as opposed to 'pacing myself' up it as I usually do?

    You either can't pace yourself properly, or you're lazy.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Strith wrote:
    You either can't pace yourself properly, or you're lazy.
    ok.
  • NeXXus
    NeXXus Posts: 854
    NITR8s wrote:
    Bustacapp wrote:
    NITR8s wrote:
    Cav (Weight trains)= fast sprinter = terrible climber.

    Silly comparison. He's an out and out sprinter so will always be bulkier than a climber.

    Get a climber to gain strength in his legs and not put weight on and it can only be of benefit!!

    Extra stength = extra muscle mass = More weight. It is impossible to gain muscle strength without gaining weight.

    Sports science 101. Muscle weighs more than fat.
    Sport science 101 fail - muscle does not weigh more than fat :roll:
    And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    NeXXus wrote:
    NITR8s wrote:
    Bustacapp wrote:
    NITR8s wrote:
    Cav (Weight trains)= fast sprinter = terrible climber.

    Silly comparison. He's an out and out sprinter so will always be bulkier than a climber.

    Get a climber to gain strength in his legs and not put weight on and it can only be of benefit!!

    Extra stength = extra muscle mass = More weight. It is impossible to gain muscle strength without gaining weight.

    Sports science 101. Muscle weighs more than fat.
    Sport science 101 fail - muscle does not weigh more than fat :roll:
    But it is more dense, by about 18% :roll: :roll:
  • NeXXus
    NeXXus Posts: 854
    bompington wrote:
    NeXXus wrote:
    NITR8s wrote:
    Bustacapp wrote:
    NITR8s wrote:
    Cav (Weight trains)= fast sprinter = terrible climber.

    Silly comparison. He's an out and out sprinter so will always be bulkier than a climber.

    Get a climber to gain strength in his legs and not put weight on and it can only be of benefit!!

    Extra stength = extra muscle mass = More weight. It is impossible to gain muscle strength without gaining weight.

    Sports science 101. Muscle weighs more than fat.
    Sport science 101 fail - muscle does not weigh more than fat :roll:
    But it is more dense, by about 18% :roll: :roll:
    :mrgreen:
    And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.
  • Zoomer37
    Zoomer37 Posts: 725
    Slightly OT, but a fellow cycling friend of mine used to really struggle picking up the plate of carrot cake from our local café after 2 hrs in the saddle each Saturday morning so he started doing one-arm dumbbell curls and he reckons its definitely helped.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Zoomer37 wrote:
    Slightly OT, but a fellow cycling friend of mine used to really struggle picking up the plate of carrot cake from our local café after 2 hrs in the saddle each Saturday morning so he started doing one-arm dumbbell curls and he reckons its definitely helped.
    There you go! Busta and Dennis were right all along!
  • iPete
    iPete Posts: 6,076
    Had a roast chicken sandwich for lunch yesterday. Powered up a short hill on the way home, set a pb.

    Weights, you are doing it wrong! eat chicken.
  • Strith
    Strith Posts: 541
    Saw Iron man 3 yesterday. Got KOM on a short hill on the way home.

    Weights, you are doing it wrong! watch shite movies.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories