squats and leg-presses?
Comments
-
It means that you are able to lift/push or pull heavier things.philwint wrote:Imposter wrote:if someone can explain to me how stronger legs will benefit an endurance cyclist, I'll hit the gym tomorrow
Thinking out loud here, I've not considered this before.
Ok so for endurance there has to be some force coming from your legs, or you wouldn't be moving. I get the fact that the force necessary to turn the pedals is less than say a dead lift, but there is still some force there.
Now come back to that dead lift force and the cycling force. The cycling force might be [insert made up number, say 15%] of the maximum force you can generate. So 15% of your total force can be maintained for x hours, lets say 5 hours cycling. Before you start to get seriously tired.
Now what if you hit the gym so you max force increases. maybe that cycling force is now only 10% of your max. Does that mean you can keep going for longer? Or perhaps it means you can go 'up' a gear and increase speed by 5% over those 5 hours?(~ 400 W) at 90 revs/min up a long alpine pass, the force requirements assuming 170-mm cranks is 249 Newtons (~ 25 kg between each leg).And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
philwint wrote:Imposter wrote:if someone can explain to me how stronger legs will benefit an endurance cyclist, I'll hit the gym tomorrow
Thinking out loud here, I've not considered this before.
Ok so for endurance there has to be some force coming from your legs, or you wouldn't be moving. I get the fact that the force necessary to turn the pedals is less than say a dead lift, but there is still some force there.
Now come back to that dead lift force and the cycling force. The cycling force might be [insert made up number, say 15%] of the maximum force you can generate. So 15% of your total force can be maintained for x hours, lets say 5 hours cycling. Before you start to get seriously tired.
Now what if you hit the gym so you max force increases. maybe that cycling force is now only 10% of your max. Does that mean you can keep going for longer? Or perhaps it means you can go 'up' a gear and increase speed by 5% over those 5 hours?
You are confusing force with strength. As I said before, the two are not the same. The typical forces through each pedal while riding up a 'big hill' like Mont Ventoux will be something like 25kg. You will never be able to exert 'max' force on a moving pedal anyway. Assuming you weigh more than 25kg and you can already stand, jump, walk up stairs, etc, then you already have the 'strength' required to lift your entire bodyweight with each leg, so you are already perfectly capable of exerting 25kg of force through a pedal stroke. Consequently, you do not need more strength. What you possibly do need is to develop your ability to repeatedly apply this force 80-100 times a minute for a sustained period - which is an aerobic issue, not a strength one.0 -
I was doing one legged "pistol" squats for a bit. Good for showing off at parties because most people can't do them even if they are quite fit, but I can't say I noticed any big difference in my cycling... It was the other way around really, lots of powering up short hills on the bike meant I was able to do the squats. Eventually strained some thingie in my thigh and stopped doing them. They will only damage your knees if you use the wrong technique (you need to keep your feet flat on the floor) or haven't got the appropriate muscle strength to support the joint, but in that case you probably won't be able to do them anyway.0
-
Bustacapp wrote:If a professional cycling coach won't convince you then sorry but there's no point me staying in this thread.
Bye.
There are good professional coaches and there are bad ones. Just because you are 'professional' doesn't mean you're right.
Look at Francois Hollande. He's a professional politician, yet he's a complete numpty that's digging France into an early grave......0 -
Thinking out loud, here increased Torque may well help racers in that much like cars, having "in gear acceleration" is i'm sure a handy thing to have, since you'll not always be in the perfect gear.
But yes on whole leg strength seems of little use for your typical roadie. bar finding them self's over geared on some climb!0 -
roger merriman wrote:Thinking out loud, here increased Torque may well help racers in that much like cars, having "in gear acceleration" is i'm sure a handy thing to have, since you'll not always be in the perfect gear.
Torque and power are pretty much the same in this respect. Not a strength issue.roger merriman wrote:But yes on whole leg strength seems of little use for your typical roadie. bar finding them self's over geared on some climb!
Over-geared or not - it still isn't a strength issue.0 -
Like an earlier poster, just thinking out loud.
If leg strength is not important, then why do my legs hurt riding up hills? Surely if it was ONLY about power (to weight ratio), I would be completely out of breath but my legs wouldn't hurt to the point that on really steep gradients it feels like I can struggle to turn the pedals over?
Or is the argument that leg strength IS important but it is best trained by cycling more rather than gym work?
:?:0 -
YIMan wrote:Like an earlier poster, just thinking out loud.
If leg strength is not important, then why do my legs hurt riding up hills? Surely if it was ONLY about power (to weight ratio), I would be completely out of breath but my legs wouldn't hurt to the point that on really steep gradients it feels like I can struggle to turn the pedals over?
Or is the argument that leg strength IS important but it is best trained by cycling more rather than gym work?
:?:
Aerobic fitness converts into the ability to sustain a given power output. Your legs hurt because of lactic build-up (presumably - disregarding the possibility of any other ailments or illnesses). In other words, you don't have the required fitness to maintain the effort you are riding at.
Look at it another way - if you can already lift your own bodyweight with each leg, and if you accept that you will only ever push around 25kg through each leg when riding up a steep hill - why would you need more leg strength than that?0 -
But if that's the case that relatively little force is required to turn pedals even uphill, why do cyclists often (though admittedly not always) develop bulging leg muscles?0
-
YIMan wrote:But if that's the case that relatively little force is required to turn pedals even uphill, why do cyclists often (though admittedly not always) develop bulging leg muscles?
which cyclists are you thinking of ?0 -
Bustacapp wrote:For example a bit of explosive power would come in handy for uphill breakaway attempts
Explosive power won't get you very far going uphill m8 - suppose your in a 234 race and the group is going up a 3 % gradient at 23 mph - someone breaks away at the front and accelerates up to 26 mph with a big effort - it's not explosive power that is then going to enable them to sustain that effort, but aerobic fitness.0 -
Haven't seen this topic appear in quite a while. It's the same old thing over and over.
All the guys who don't like lifting or won't or can't always have to chip in with their "proof" that it does no good. All the people who enjoy a bit of lifting(myself included) will swear up and down that it helps them. I'm always tempted to go with the latter. After all, why would you listen to someone, who doesn't lift, tell you it's no good?
It's always been my opinion that people who don't lift yet play at sports are the people who really aren't all that serious about developing their potential. Plus me thinks a lot of the naysayers just don't have what it takes to lift.0 -
dennisn wrote:Haven't seen this topic appear in quite a while. It's the same old thing over and over.
All the guys who don't like lifting or won't or can't always have to chip in with their "proof" that it does no good. All the people who enjoy a bit of lifting(myself included) will swear up and down that it helps them. I'm always tempted to go with the latter. After all, why would you listen to someone, who doesn't lift, tell you it's no good?
It's always been my opinion that people who don't lift yet play at sports are the people who really aren't all that serious about developing their potential. Plus me thinks a lot of the naysayers just don't have what it takes to lift.
This is such a breath-takingly moronic post that I don't even know where to start - the perfect example of a logical fallacy. So I'll just leave it
0 -
I cycle with a friend who I struggle to keep up with on the flat but I beat him up every hill. What's that all about if it's simply a matter of one of us having better aerobic fitness? (Genuinely curious.)0
-
Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:Haven't seen this topic appear in quite a while. It's the same old thing over and over.
All the guys who don't like lifting or won't or can't always have to chip in with their "proof" that it does no good. All the people who enjoy a bit of lifting(myself included) will swear up and down that it helps them. I'm always tempted to go with the latter. After all, why would you listen to someone, who doesn't lift, tell you it's no good?
It's always been my opinion that people who don't lift yet play at sports are the people who really aren't all that serious about developing their potential. Plus me thinks a lot of the naysayers just don't have what it takes to lift.
This is such a breath-takingly moronic post that I don't even know where to start - the perfect example of a logical fallacy. So I'll just leave it
Prove me wrong.
In any case let's try a different approach. The roof on my house needs fixing and I'm looking for advice. I'm thinking I'm going to get a really good answer to my questions if I ask someone who has actually put a few roofs on houses. Asking someone with zero experience with roofs seems pretty stupid to me. Hence why would I listen to someone, who had never touched a barbell, about weight training?0 -
dennisn wrote:Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:Haven't seen this topic appear in quite a while. It's the same old thing over and over.
All the guys who don't like lifting or won't or can't always have to chip in with their "proof" that it does no good. All the people who enjoy a bit of lifting(myself included) will swear up and down that it helps them. I'm always tempted to go with the latter. After all, why would you listen to someone, who doesn't lift, tell you it's no good?
It's always been my opinion that people who don't lift yet play at sports are the people who really aren't all that serious about developing their potential. Plus me thinks a lot of the naysayers just don't have what it takes to lift.
This is such a breath-takingly moronic post that I don't even know where to start - the perfect example of a logical fallacy. So I'll just leave it
Prove me wrong.
In any case let's try a different approach. The roof on my house needs fixing and I'm looking for advice. I'm thinking I'm going to get a really good answer to my questions if I ask someone who has actually put a few roofs on houses. Asking someone with zero experience with roofs seems pretty stupid to me. Hence why would I listen to someone, who had never touched a barbell, about weight training?
You could always ask an architect, structural surveyor or roofing supplier who in all fairness may never have actually put a roof on any property but are still experts in the design & supply of such roofs. Sorry but it is a poor analogy to use, but I do get our point.Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0 -
dennisn wrote:Prove me wrong.
In any case let's try a different approach. The roof on my house needs fixing and I'm looking for advice. I'm thinking I'm going to get a really good answer to my questions if I ask someone who has actually put a few roofs on houses. Asking someone with zero experience with roofs seems pretty stupid to me. Hence why would I listen to someone, who had never touched a barbell, about weight training?
Using your own argument, you should be asking weightlifters for advice on how to improve your endurance cycling performance. Maybe you should try a powerlifting forum. Bizarre logic though, good work. Ironically, you've been severely-beaten on this topic in the training forum, using the same ridiculous arguments, so it is pointless reiterating them here simply for your own entertainment.0 -
ooermissus wrote:I cycle with a friend who I struggle to keep up with on the flat but I beat him up every hill. What's that all about if it's simply a matter of one of us having better aerobic fitness? (Genuinely curious.)
Quite possibly he produces more power than you (which on the flat is pretty much all that matters). On the hills, you may well have a better power:weight than him.0 -
Imposter wrote:roger merriman wrote:Thinking out loud, here increased Torque may well help racers in that much like cars, having "in gear acceleration" is i'm sure a handy thing to have, since you'll not always be in the perfect gear.
Torque and power are pretty much the same in this respect. Not a strength issue.roger merriman wrote:But yes on whole leg strength seems of little use for your typical roadie. bar finding them self's over geared on some climb!
Over-geared or not - it still isn't a strength issue.
Torque is turning force, power is work done.
To ride up the hill or what ever, for the same time will be the same work done/power.
For the same power, torque can be quite different, spin up at a high cadence/low torque or low cadence/high torque same work done.
If one is seriously over geared then to maintain progress you'll need to increase torque. To do so will require some strength.
Clearly if you look at fast climbers being lighter seems to be a more profitable training, than bulging thighs.0 -
Forget the squats - most of us would benefit more by spending the time involved on the bike!0
-
roger merriman wrote:If one is seriously over geared then to maintain progress you'll need to increase torque. To do so will require some strength.
If by 'strength' you mean 'push harder on the pedals' - then you'd be right. But that doesn't require any more 'leg strength' than you already have. You don't need more strength, because you are not pushing on the pedals with anything like your maximal force capacity - so additional strength in that context would be meaningless. It simply requires better aerobic conditioning in order to sustain a higher power output.0 -
Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:Prove me wrong.
In any case let's try a different approach. The roof on my house needs fixing and I'm looking for advice. I'm thinking I'm going to get a really good answer to my questions if I ask someone who has actually put a few roofs on houses. Asking someone with zero experience with roofs seems pretty stupid to me. Hence why would I listen to someone, who had never touched a barbell, about weight training?
Using your own argument, you should be asking weightlifters for advice on how to improve your endurance cycling performance.
I'm going to assume that you don't lift. If you don't and have never tried it how would you know whether or not it worked for you? Or anyone for that matter? I'm thinking that you don't know, but that doesn't stop you from claiming
to be something of an authority on the subject. Me? I never claimed it did or didn't work. Only that some people enjoy pushing the poundage around . You're sort of lost in the world of "All you need to do is ride". What about stretching? No value I suppose? Good nutrition? Naw. All you need is to ride? Plenty of rest? Rest? H*ll no. You can rest when you're dead. Nothing but riding ever has or ever will make a difference? :roll:0 -
dennisn wrote:I'm going to assume that you don't lift.
correct.dennisn wrote:If you don't and have never tried it how would you know whether or not it worked for you?
Does the science confuse you?dennisn wrote:Me? I never claimed it did or didn't work.
Actually, you did.dennisn wrote:All the people who enjoy a bit of lifting(myself included) will swear up and down that it helps them. I'm always tempted to go with the latter.dennisn wrote:You're sort of lost in the world of "All you need to do is ride". What about stretching? No value I suppose? Good nutrition? Naw. All you need is to ride? Plenty of rest? Rest? H*ll no. You can rest when you're dead. Nothing but riding ever has or ever will make a difference? :roll:
Nothing like going off on a tangent to deflect the argument eh ? 0 -
Imposter wrote:roger merriman wrote:If one is seriously over geared then to maintain progress you'll need to increase torque. To do so will require some strength.
If by 'strength' you mean 'push harder on the pedals' - then you'd be right. But that doesn't require any more 'leg strength' than you already have. You don't need more strength, because you are not pushing on the pedals with anything like your maximal force capacity - so additional strength in that context would be meaningless. It simply requires better aerobic conditioning in order to sustain a higher power output.
Try a steep hill in a high gear, you'll stop because you'll be unable produce sufficient torque, at that point it is all about leg strength.0 -
roger merriman wrote:Try a steep hill in a high gear, you'll stop because you'll be unable produce sufficient torque, at that point it is all about leg strength.
Changing gear might be the best option then? Riding up a 20% incline in 52/12 is hardly relevant to this discussion - but if you are stalling on a hill in a big gear then it just means you cannot generate the power to turn the pedals efficiently and (as has already been pointed out several times) power is not the same as strength. Try driving a Ferrari up Porlock Hill in 5th gear and see how far you get. Does that mean the engine is not 'strong' enough ? (answer = no, by the way).
The only time you will ever exert maximal force on the pedals is perhaps in a standing start in a track sprint - and even then only for a few seconds - which is the reason track sprinters are all built like Arnold and stage race riders are all built like hunger strikers.0 -
Imposter wrote:roger merriman wrote:Try a steep hill in a high gear, you'll stop because you'll be unable produce sufficient torque, at that point it is all about leg strength.
Changing gear might be the best option then? Riding up a 20% incline in 52/12 is hardly relevant to this discussion - but if you are stalling on a hill in a big gear then it just means you cannot generate the power to turn the pedals efficiently and (as has already been pointed out several times) power is not the same as strength. Try driving a Ferrari up Porlock Hill in 5th gear and see how far you get. Does that mean the engine is not 'strong' enough ? (answer = no, by the way).
The only time you will ever exert maximal force on the pedals is perhaps in a standing start in a track sprint - and even then only for a few seconds - which is the reason track sprinters are all built like Arnold and stage race riders are all built like hunger strikers.
yes, that why I said Torque not Power. Torque being turning force, will be closely related to leg strength, power is work done ie how fast you got up that hill.0 -
roger merriman wrote:
yes, that why I said Torque not Power. Torque being turning force, will be closely related to leg strength, power is work done ie how fast you got up that hill.
No - power is the rate at which energy is transferred and is a product of your CV and metabolic output. Torque is applied through the power you generate - not the strength you have. Strength is an anaerobic function. We've been over this. Power is not a measurement of how fast you can go up a hill (ie work done). The definitions are important - which is probably why you're not quite grasping it yet. You really do need to separate strength and power or you'll go round in circles (no pun intended).0 -
Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:You're sort of lost in the world of "All you need to do is ride". What about stretching? No value I suppose? Good nutrition? Naw. All you need is to ride? Plenty of rest? Rest? H*ll no. You can rest when you're dead. Nothing but riding ever has or ever will make a difference? :roll:
Nothing like going off on a tangent to deflect the argument eh ?
I don't really think it's off on a tangent. I'm simply using your theory that all you need to do is ride. If weight training does nothing, why would stretching, resting, nutrition, or any of a whole bunch of things do any good? Why would a swimmer run and or lift? Why would a wrestler stretch and or lift? What's the point in a boxer doing roadwork? With your thinking all he has to do is box and spar and he's as ready as he will ever be. Road work won't help. Why would it? It's not boxing.0 -
Imposter wrote:roger merriman wrote:
yes, that why I said Torque not Power. Torque being turning force, will be closely related to leg strength, power is work done ie how fast you got up that hill.
No - power is the rate at which energy is transferred and is a product of your CV and metabolic output. Torque is applied through the power you generate - not the strength you have. Strength is an anaerobic function. We've been over this. Power is not a measurement of how fast you can go up a hill (ie work done). The definitions are important - which is probably why you're not quite grasping it yet. You really do need to separate strength and power or you'll go round in circles (no pun intended).
Power is the rate at which work is done. If you have more power the work of you getting that bike up a hill will go faster. Lesser power and it will take you longer to get the bike up the same hill. Total work accomplished is still the same though.0 -
dennisn wrote:I don't really think it's off on a tangent. I'm simply using your theory that all you need to do is ride.
I'm pretty sure I never said anything of the sort. It's not far off the truth though.dennisn wrote:If weight training does nothing, why would stretching, resting, nutrition, or any of a whole bunch of things do any good? Why would a swimmer run and or lift? Why would a wrestler stretch and or lift? What's the point in a boxer doing roadwork? With your thinking all he has to do is box and spar and he's as ready as he will ever be. Road work won't help. Why would it? It's not boxing.
Not sure what you are arguing there, tbh. If your argument is that cyclists should do strength work because wrestlers do it, then that is quite clearly ignorant nonsense. Think about what you are saying.dennisn wrote:Power is the rate at which work is done. If you have more power the work of you getting that bike up a hill will go faster. Lesser power and it will take you longer to get the bike up the same hill. Total work accomplished is still the same though.
True enough. Power is not the same as strength though. I'm sure I mentioned that before.
Two more links here - worth a read:
viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12753875
viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12796394
It really has been done to death. The worst thing is that the people who didn't get it then are still not getting it now.0
This discussion has been closed.
