squats and leg-presses?

imposter2.0

Bustacapp wrote:

I believe I have made reasonable examples of how strength in the legs can benefit hill climbing in certain scenario's.

Unfortunately, your 'examples' are based on a complete and wilful misunderstanding of the physiology, terms and definitions involved. So your examples have no basis in either fact or reality.

imposter2.0

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 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.

So you've run out of arguments and are now resorting to personal attacks? I've already explained what is meant by an endurance cyclist. Maybe you missed that bit, or are too ignorant to appreciate it. The latter, I expect.

bompington

Imposter wrote:

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 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.

So you've run out of arguments and are now resorting to personal attacks? I've already explained what is meant by an endurance cyclist. Maybe you missed that bit, or are too ignorant to appreciate it. The latter, I expect.

You have to remember that, as evidenced by certain posters in this thread, it is possible to be a deliberate and effective troll while at the same time showing all the signs of being genuinely stupid.

smidsy

I have said it on another post somewhere and I will say it again

Weight training has no place in road cycling. All the training you need can be done on the bike.

Building up your leg muscles in the gym does not make you any better on the bike.

bernithebiker

A different angle perhaps?

Average cyclist cadence is probably about 80rpm.

Try doing squats at 80 per minute, even with no weights. Feels kind of silly right? Suggests to me that long, slow heavy squats, (like 10 per minute) don't relate to cycling very well.

briantrumpet

I take the point of view that once someone has repeatedly refused to accept accepted definitions, refused to engage with even basic science or maths (viz. "unsubstantiated equations"), and can only keep on repeating personal anecdote, then it's quite pointless trying to engage in logical debate to convince them. Let them wallow in their own confident assertions, proclaiming their articles of faith, and use your time on those who do want to learn something.

Zoomer37

You think in some alternate universe there is a dedicated Squat and leg-press forum where there's a thread ''Cycling?'

imposter2.0

Zoomer37 wrote:

You think in some alternate universe there is a dedicated Squat and leg-press forum where there's a thread ''Cycling?'

What - "Will cycling help me improve my squats and leg presses?"

dennisn

Imposter wrote:

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 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.

So you've run out of arguments and are now resorting to personal attacks? I've already explained what is meant by an endurance cyclist. Maybe you missed that bit, or are too ignorant to appreciate it. The latter, I expect.

No more a personal attack than your calling people ignorant or idiots or possibly a few other things. :?
I don't think it's a personal attack at all to be honest. More of an impression I get in reading your posts.
C'mon, you know(or at least think) it sounds good when you call yourself that? I'm an endurance cyclist!!! Very manly sounding, don't ya think.

dennisn

Imposter wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

You think in some alternate universe there is a dedicated Squat and leg-press forum where there's a thread ''Cycling?'

What - "Will cycling help me improve my squats and leg presses?"

So, show us your Scientific study that proves it will or won't.

imposter2.0

dennisn wrote:

No more a personal attack than your calling people ignorant or idiots or possibly a few other things. :?
I don't think it's a personal attack at all to be honest. More of an impression I get in reading your posts.
C'mon, you know(or at least think) it sounds good when you call yourself that? I'm an endurance cyclist!!! Very manly sounding, don't ya think.

Calling you an idiot isn't an insult Dennis - it's just an observation based on the available evidence. However, your continued ignorance of the definition of an 'endurance cyclist' is alarming, to say the least. I'll try and make it simple for you in language you might understand - if you ride further than the front gate of the institution that you are in, then you are an endurance cyclist.

dennisn

Here's a question for someone with a bit more Science smarts than myself This most likely includes lots of people.

Is it really possible to prove that doing something(i.e. squats) has NO effect on something else(i.e. cycling)? Or vice versa for that matter?

This question is sort of in line with the idea that you can't prove a negative or you can't prove something doesn't exist.
Or put another way - If you move a grain of sand on the beach does it change EVERYTHING?

briantrumpet

dennisn wrote:

I'm an endurance cyclist!!! Very manly sounding, don't ya think.

You seem to have missed the repeated bits where an endurance cyclist defined is someone who is one who does anything other than a sprint of 1km or less. So Imposter is lumping himself with everyone from Tour de France winners to someone who pootles down to the shop a few miles away with a pink basket on the front of the bike. Yes, very manly.

Why have I responded? - because I still hope you can learn, Dennis.

iPete

Imposter wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

You think in some alternate universe there is a dedicated Squat and leg-press forum where there's a thread ''Cycling?'

What - "Will cycling help me improve my squats and leg presses?"

I can push pretty much the whole stack in the gym without training!

***runs away*** slowly, because cycling doesn't seem to help my running.

dennisn

Imposter wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No more a personal attack than your calling people ignorant or idiots or possibly a few other things. :?
I don't think it's a personal attack at all to be honest. More of an impression I get in reading your posts.
C'mon, you know(or at least think) it sounds good when you call yourself that? I'm an endurance cyclist!!! Very manly sounding, don't ya think.

Calling you an idiot isn't an insult Dennis - it's just an observation based on the available evidence. However, your continued ignorance of the definition of an 'endurance cyclist' is alarming, to say the least. I'll try and make it simple for you in language you might understand - if you ride further than the front gate of the institution that you are in, then you are an endurance cyclist.

I'll buy your observations pretty much. It's just that I can't believe anyone one is calling themselves an endurance cyclist because they can ride to the front gate. No the word in this case, in most peoples minds, and in the dictionary means "the capacity to endure; power of suffering without succumbing; continuance; fortitude." It's never been about riding to the front gate. Not too many people saying "hey, I'm an endurance cyclist. I rode 100 yards today". We're talking manly, ego, hard guy, tough stuff stuff here.

Tom Dean

dennisn wrote:

Here's a question for someone with a bit more Science smarts than myself This most likely includes lots of people.

Is it really possible to prove that doing something(i.e. squats) has NO effect on something else(i.e. cycling)? Or vice versa for that matter?

There is no absolute 'proof' in science. You can come to a working conclusion based on the available evidence. To answer your question on that basis, yes it is possible. Or, at least you can say there is no reason to think x has an effect on y, which is the same in practice.

briantrumpet

dennisn wrote:

Not too many people saying "hey, I'm an endurance cyclist. I rode 100 yards today". We're talking manly, ego, hard guy, tough stuff stuff here.

Tell you what, Dennis. You invent a pithy term that will more accurately describe all cyclists who aren't track sprinters (and will differentiate them from track sprinters), and we'll use that term. In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to use the term 'endurance cyclists' for them, as most people seem to be happy with the terminology, and we understand what it means, even if you don't.

EDIT - I've just thought of an appropriate term: 'aerobic cyclists' ... though I think I might see why you'd object to that.

dennisn

Tom Dean wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Here's a question for someone with a bit more Science smarts than myself This most likely includes lots of people.

Is it really possible to prove that doing something(i.e. squats) has NO effect on something else(i.e. cycling)? Or vice versa for that matter?

There is no absolute 'proof' in science. You can come to a working conclusion based on the available evidence. To answer your question on that basis, yes it is possible. Or, at least you can say there is no reason to think x has an effect on y, which is the same in practice.

I'm following you. Especially about "proof", hence the existence of the Flat Earth Society, man NOT having gone to the moon, more than one shooter in Dallas, etc. Everything is sort of a "working conclusion".

imposter2.0

dennisn wrote:

I'm following you. Especially about "proof", hence the existence of the Flat Earth Society, man NOT having gone to the moon, more than one shooter in Dallas, etc. Everything is sort of a "working conclusion".

hooray - we're back to page 16 again... :roll:

dennisn

briantrumpet wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Not too many people saying "hey, I'm an endurance cyclist. I rode 100 yards today". We're talking manly, ego, hard guy, tough stuff stuff here.

Tell you what, Dennis. You invent a pithy term that will more accurately describe all cyclists who aren't track sprinters (and will differentiate them from track sprinters), and we'll use that term. In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to use the term 'endurance cyclists' for them, as most people seem to be happy with the terminology, and we understand what it means, even if you don't.

Don't believe the term endurance cyclist is simply used by people to denote a cutoff point between track and road. No, people call themselves and others that for a much better reason. Enter tough guy, manly, ego thing.

MountainMonster

briantrumpet wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Not too many people saying "hey, I'm an endurance cyclist. I rode 100 yards today". We're talking manly, ego, hard guy, tough stuff stuff here.

Tell you what, Dennis. You invent a pithy term that will more accurately describe all cyclists who aren't track sprinters (and will differentiate them from track sprinters), and we'll use that term. In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to use the term 'endurance cyclists' for them, as most people seem to be happy with the terminology, and we understand what it means, even if you don't.

Judging by the replies to explain terms you guys are not even in agreement on certain things. One person says anything over 1km sprints is endurance, which places many many track cyclists in the endurance category.

Sort yourselves out LOL

briantrumpet

dennisn wrote:

Don't believe the term endurance cyclist is simply used by people to denote a cutoff point between track sprinters and road.

It is. Sorry Dennis. Not much else to say really.

imposter2.0

dennisn wrote:

Don't believe the term endurance cyclist is simply used by people to denote a cutoff point between track

Endurance covers pretty much any discipline which primarily recruits the aerobic pathways as opposed to the anaerobic. It's not quite as simple as 'road v track' as there are many track disciplines which are endurance based. But, it certainly has nothing to do with 'manliness' or otherwise, except perhaps in your own mind. We've been through all this before, but you obviously get a kick out of having things beaten into you.

Tom Dean

dennisn wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Here's a question for someone with a bit more Science smarts than myself This most likely includes lots of people.

Is it really possible to prove that doing something(i.e. squats) has NO effect on something else(i.e. cycling)? Or vice versa for that matter?

There is no absolute 'proof' in science. You can come to a working conclusion based on the available evidence. To answer your question on that basis, yes it is possible. Or, at least you can say there is no reason to think x has an effect on y, which is the same in practice.

I'm following you. Especially about "proof", hence the existence of the Flat Earth Society, man NOT having gone to the moon, more than one shooter in Dallas, etc. Everything is sort of a "working conclusion".

If you are saying your ideas about weight lifting have the same value as these theories, who am I to argue?

Tom Dean

MountainMonster wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Not too many people saying "hey, I'm an endurance cyclist. I rode 100 yards today". We're talking manly, ego, hard guy, tough stuff stuff here.

Tell you what, Dennis. You invent a pithy term that will more accurately describe all cyclists who aren't track sprinters (and will differentiate them from track sprinters), and we'll use that term. In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to use the term 'endurance cyclists' for them, as most people seem to be happy with the terminology, and we understand what it means, even if you don't.

Judging by the replies to explain terms you guys are not even in agreement on certain things. One person says anything over 1km sprints is endurance, which places many many track cyclists in the endurance category.

erm, correct. This is standard terminology.

Wikipedia wrote:

Track Cycling events fit into two broad categories, Sprint races and Endurance races. Riders will typically fall into one category and not compete in the other. Riders with good all round ability in the junior ranks will decide to focus on one area or another before moving up to the senior ranks.
Sprint races are generally between 8 and 10 laps in length and focus on raw sprinting power and race tactics over a small number of laps to defeat opponents. Sprint riders will train specifically to compete in races of this length and will not compete in longer endurance races.
Main Sprint Events
Sprint
Team sprint
Keirin
Track time trial
Endurance races are held over much longer distances. While these primarily test the riders endurance abilities, the ability to sprint effectively is also required in the Madison, Points Race and Scratch Race. The length of these races varies from 12–16 laps for the Individual and Team Pursuit races, up to 200 laps for a full length Madison race in World Championships or Olympic Games.
Main Endurance Events
Individual pursuit
Team pursuit
Scratch race
Points race
Madison
Omnium
Handicap or Hare and Hounds
Miss and Out, elimination or 'Devil Take the Hindmost'

dennisn

Tom Dean wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Here's a question for someone with a bit more Science smarts than myself This most likely includes lots of people.

Is it really possible to prove that doing something(i.e. squats) has NO effect on something else(i.e. cycling)? Or vice versa for that matter?

There is no absolute 'proof' in science. You can come to a working conclusion based on the available evidence. To answer your question on that basis, yes it is possible. Or, at least you can say there is no reason to think x has an effect on y, which is the same in practice.

I'm following you. Especially about "proof", hence the existence of the Flat Earth Society, man NOT having gone to the moon, more than one shooter in Dallas, etc. Everything is sort of a "working conclusion".

If you are saying your ideas about weight lifting have the same value as these theories, who am I to argue?

My theories have value? Maybe, maybe not. I think my "theories" are more in the line of questions than actual statements. At least I would hope they appear that way. I have a bit of curiosity in me that seems to know no bounds. Sort of a "the more I know the less I know". And I know that's true.

danlikesbikes

Zoomer37 wrote:

You think in some alternate universe there is a dedicated Squat and leg-press forum where there's a thread ''Cycling?'

Well no need to go to an alternative universe to find that out, why not look at bodybuilding.com and a thread called.... wait for it............ I kid you not "Cycling instead of leg work" which asks the very same question to this thread but the other way around.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthrea ... a19a8238ae

briantrumpet

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

You think in some alternate universe there is a dedicated Squat and leg-press forum where there's a thread ''Cycling?'

Well no need to go to an alternative universe to find that out, why not look at bodybuilding.com and a thread called.... wait for it............ I kid you not "Cycling instead of leg work" which asks the very same question to this thread but the other way around.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthrea ... a19a8238ae

Haha - Post 1 in that thread:

a.) I'm a cyclist (prior to joining the gym) and I guess half the reason I joined was to improve endurance on the bike. Man, do I suck now. The time I've spent in the gym doing legs IMO would have better been spent on the bike.

danlikesbikes

briantrumpet wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

You think in some alternate universe there is a dedicated Squat and leg-press forum where there's a thread ''Cycling?'

Well no need to go to an alternative universe to find that out, why not look at bodybuilding.com and a thread called.... wait for it............ I kid you not "Cycling instead of leg work" which asks the very same question to this thread but the other way around.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthrea ... a19a8238ae

Haha - Post 1 in that thread:

a.) I'm a cyclist (prior to joining the gym) and I guess half the reason I joined was to improve endurance on the bike. Man, do I suck now. The time I've spent in the gym doing legs IMO would have better been spent on the bike.

BTW I should add that I wasn't having a go at anyone in this thread as I have my own ideas on whats good for me in terms of cycle training. I just found it so funny that he was talking about bulking up and stripping fat (as you'd expect on such a forum) & asking could he swap his legs work out for cycling.

imposter2.0

dennisn wrote:

Sort of a "the more I know the less I know". And I know that's true.

There's certainly a wealth of evidence on here to support that supposition.