squats and leg-presses?
Comments
-
It's pretty apparent that we diverge at some point in the weights vs no weights debate.
I for one would be interested in just where and at what point this divergance happens. As opposed to this divergent point being whenever someone is decided to be an idiot. It would seem that there is agreement with the Wiki definition of physical strength. "Physical strength is the ability to move an object". A resonable definition as far as i'm concerned. Anyone not on board so far?
It would also seem that there is agreement that physical strength is required to move a bicycle. How much was not the question. Just IF it was required. Once again neither side seems to have an objection.
Next I'm hoping to get some agreement that some people have more or less physical strength than others. Not talking about how much or how little. Just that some have more than others. I can't understand how this is not a viable statement.
Anyone???
Next I'm going out on a limb and say that IF you exercise regularly you will gain physical strength. i.e. the ability to move more or bigger objects. Once again, anyone have an issue with this?0 -
dennisn wrote:Once again, anyone have an issue with this?
Yes you need a certain amount of 'strength' to move a bicycle, just as you need strength to climb stairs, lift a book, pull on socks, etc.
What you are missing is that cycling depends very much on how much POWER you can put out over a SUSTAINED period.
POWER = Force (kind of what you are calling strength) x speed.
So you can have all the strength in the world, but if you cannot repeat it rapidly and over a long period, it's worthless.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:dennisn wrote:Once again, anyone have an issue with this?
Yes you need a certain amount of 'strength' to move a bicycle, just as you need strength to climb stairs, lift a book, pull on socks, etc.
What you are missing is that cycling depends very much on how much POWER you can put out over a SUSTAINED period.
POWER = Force (kind of what you are calling strength) x speed.
So you can have all the strength in the world, but if you cannot repeat it rapidly and over a long period, it's worthless.
Your first line said it all. YES it takes strength to move.........
Just trying to see if we agree on the basic principle that you must use strength to move something. You're way ahead in your answers. Cycling, power, speed, force, weights, time. That's all for later. Right now all I want to know is if someone has the idea that you can move a physical object without exerting physical strength? Any object?0 -
Dennis, you can of course define strength as "the ability to exert force to move any physical object".
Which kind of makes me wonder whether I should go to the gym three days a week or so and do strength training so that I have the strength to lift the spoon to my mouth when I eat my breakfast cereal.
Or alternatively, we could agree that "strength training" means training to increase your maximum strength? Please?0 -
Just to help things: research as follows demonstrates even Maximum strength training can improve long distance (endurance) athlete performance, there are a number of research papers here- including systematic reviews, meta analysis, etc. All report that maximum strength exercises like squats etc will improve CVS, aerobic, and endurance performance.
KYVIND STKREN et al, (2008). Maximal Strength Training Improves Running Economy in Distance Runners. MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE.
Hickson et al, (1988). Potential for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance performance.Journal of Applied Physiology.
Tanaka & Swensen. (1998). Impact of Resistance Training on Endurance Performance. Sports Medicine.
SAUNDERS et al, (2006). Short-Term Plyometric Training Improves Running Economy in Highly Trained Middle and Long Distance Runners. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Arnstein et al, (2010). Maximal Strength Training Improves Cycling Economy in Competitive Cyclists. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Burke, (1983). Improved Cycling Performance Through Strength Training. National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal.
Sale et al (1990). Interaction between concurrent strength and endurance training. Journal of Applied Physiology.
Yamamoto et al(2008). The Effects of Resistance Training on Endurance Distance Running Performance Among Highly Trained Runners: A Systematic Review. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Aagaard & Andersen. (2010). Effects of strength training on endurance capacity in top-level endurance athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports.0 -
bompington wrote:Dennis, you can of course define strength as "the ability to exert force to move any physical object".
Or alternatively, we could agree that "strength training" means training to increase your maximum strength? Please?
Strength training is down the road a bit. Strictly trying to get everyone on board, or not, that the words "physical strength" denote "the ability to move an object". That object will eventually become a bicycle.0 -
Tb2121 wrote:Just to help things: research as follows demonstrates even Maximum strength training can improve long distance (endurance) athlete performance, there are a number of research papers here- including systematic reviews, meta analysis, etc. All report that maximum strength exercises like squats etc will improve CVS, aerobic, and endurance performance.
KYVIND STKREN et al, (2008). Maximal Strength Training Improves Running Economy in Distance Runners. MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE.
Hickson et al, (1988). Potential for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance performance.Journal of Applied Physiology.
Tanaka & Swensen. (1998). Impact of Resistance Training on Endurance Performance. Sports Medicine.
SAUNDERS et al, (2006). Short-Term Plyometric Training Improves Running Economy in Highly Trained Middle and Long Distance Runners. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Arnstein et al, (2010). Maximal Strength Training Improves Cycling Economy in Competitive Cyclists. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Burke, (1983). Improved Cycling Performance Through Strength Training. National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal.
Sale et al (1990). Interaction between concurrent strength and endurance training. Journal of Applied Physiology.
Yamamoto et al(2008). The Effects of Resistance Training on Endurance Distance Running Performance Among Highly Trained Runners: A Systematic Review. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Aagaard & Andersen. (2010). Effects of strength training on endurance capacity in top-level endurance athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports.
Jesus. Can we keep it sport-specific please? Running is not cycling. The other studies/articles you quote have all been dealt with elsewhere in this thread.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:
Person a) weighs 70kg - puts out 25kg force
Person b) weighs 70kg - puts out 50kg force
Who is gonna perform better up the ramps?
That's a very clumsy way of avoiding my question. If person b) can already squat their own bodyweight (ie 70kg) then why would stronger legs help them push 50kg - which is significantly less than the weight they can already squat.0 -
And anyway it also avoids the question of whether they can do that at a rate of 4800 times an hour in each leg independently for more than a minute.Imposter wrote:Bustacapp wrote:
Person a) weighs 70kg - puts out 25kg force
Person b) weighs 70kg - puts out 50kg force
Who is gonna perform better up the ramps?
That's a very clumsy way of avoiding my question. If person b) can already squat their own bodyweight (ie 70kg) then why would stronger legs help them push 50kg - which is significantly less than the weight they can already squat.0 -
FFS dennis YOU chose the wikipedia definition, and this is not what it says!dennisn wrote:the Wiki definition of physical strength. "Physical strength is the ability to move an object". A resonable definition as far as i'm concerned. Anyone not on board so far?
Is there something about the concept of force that confuses you? Or are you just trying to keep things as ambiguous as possible?0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
FFS dennis YOU chose the wikipedia definition, and this is not what it says!dennisn wrote:the Wiki definition of physical strength. "Physical strength is the ability to move an object". A resonable definition as far as i'm concerned. Anyone not on board so far?
Is there something about the concept of force that confuses you? Or are you just trying to keep things as ambiguous as possible?
OK, fine. What does it say then? And we will go from there. I'm not talking force or anything else. You are ahead of the question. It's simple. What moves a bicycle / object - physical strength. Nothing more than that was asked. You seem to have a paranoia that I'm setting some sort of trap. Not true. Just trying to see if we agree on anything. And what that might be. Then we can delve further into this dispute.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
FFS dennis YOU chose the wikipedia definition, and this is not what it says!dennisn wrote:the Wiki definition of physical strength. "Physical strength is the ability to move an object". A resonable definition as far as i'm concerned. Anyone not on board so far?
Is there something about the concept of force that confuses you? Or are you just trying to keep things as ambiguous as possible?
OK, fine. What does it say then? And we will go from there. I'm not talking force or anything else. You are ahead of the question. It's simple. What moves a bicycle / object - physical strength. Nothing more than that was asked. You seem to have a paranoia that I'm setting some sort of trap. Not true. Just trying to see if we agree on anything. And what that might be. Then we can delve further into this dispute.0 -
Imposter wrote:Bustacapp wrote:
Person a) weighs 70kg - puts out 25kg force
Person b) weighs 70kg - puts out 50kg force
Who is gonna perform better up the ramps?
That's a very clumsy way of avoiding my question. If person b) can already squat their own bodyweight (ie 70kg) then why would stronger legs help them push 50kg - which is significantly less than the weight they can already squat.
Look who's talking! Answer my simple question and put this thread to sleep.0 -
bompington wrote:Dennis, you can of course define strength as "the ability to exert force to move any physical object".
Which kind of makes me wonder whether I should go to the gym three days a week or so and do strength training so that I have the strength to lift the spoon to my mouth when I eat my breakfast cereal.
Or alternatively, we could agree that "strength training" means training to increase your maximum strength? Please?
...because lifting a spoon of cereal to your mouth is precisely the same thing as hauling yourself and a machine up a steep incline as fast as possible?
0 -
duplicate post.0
-
Bustacapp wrote:Tb2121 wrote:Just to help things: research as follows demonstrates even Maximum strength training can improve long distance (endurance) athlete performance, there are a number of research papers here- including systematic reviews, meta analysis, etc. All report that maximum strength exercises like squats etc will improve CVS, aerobic, and endurance performance.
KYVIND STKREN et al, (2008). Maximal Strength Training Improves Running Economy in Distance Runners. MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE.
Hickson et al, (1988). Potential for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance performance.Journal of Applied Physiology.
Tanaka & Swensen. (1998). Impact of Resistance Training on Endurance Performance. Sports Medicine.
SAUNDERS et al, (2006). Short-Term Plyometric Training Improves Running Economy in Highly Trained Middle and Long Distance Runners. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Arnstein et al, (2010). Maximal Strength Training Improves Cycling Economy in Competitive Cyclists. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Burke, (1983). Improved Cycling Performance Through Strength Training. National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal.
Sale et al (1990). Interaction between concurrent strength and endurance training. Journal of Applied Physiology.
Yamamoto et al(2008). The Effects of Resistance Training on Endurance Distance Running Performance Among Highly Trained Runners: A Systematic Review. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Aagaard & Andersen. (2010). Effects of strength training on endurance capacity in top-level endurance athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports.
Oh look, now we have the scientific studies that Imposter et al have been championing the absence of!
Happy reading Imposter!
:edit: nice to see Imposter whining about it not being sport specific. As if max strength benefits every single endurance sport except for cycling (for some reason).0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
And anyway it also avoids the question of whether they can do that at a rate of 4800 times an hour in each leg independently for more than a minute.Imposter wrote:Bustacapp wrote:
Person a) weighs 70kg - puts out 25kg force
Person b) weighs 70kg - puts out 50kg force
Who is gonna perform better up the ramps?
That's a very clumsy way of avoiding my question. If person b) can already squat their own bodyweight (ie 70kg) then why would stronger legs help them push 50kg - which is significantly less than the weight they can already squat.
OK, lets make it even simpler for you.
Lets assume that the riders are of exactly equal capability in every field except strength.
Now try again.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Imposter wrote:Bustacapp wrote:
Person a) weighs 70kg - puts out 25kg force
Person b) weighs 70kg - puts out 50kg force
Who is gonna perform better up the ramps?
That's a very clumsy way of avoiding my question. If person b) can already squat their own bodyweight (ie 70kg) then why would stronger legs help them push 50kg - which is significantly less than the weight they can already squat.
Look who's talking! Answer my simple question and put this thread to sleep.
Unsuprisingly, your question is not as 'simple' as you seem to think it is - which probably explains why we are still trying to explain basic physiology to you after 32 pages. Unless the hill could be climbed in one pedal revolution, then I assume you are talking about the sustainable, repeated application of 50kg compared to 25kg for the duration of the climb - in which case, the one who could sustain the higher force for the duration of the climb would go better.
Your turn now.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:OK, lets make it even simpler for you.
Lets assume that the riders are of exactly equal capability in every field except strength.
Now try again.
So you are saying that one of the riders has a physical weakness which means he/she is unable to lift their own bodyweight, yes ?0 -
Imposter wrote:Bustacapp wrote:OK, lets make it even simpler for you.
Lets assume that the riders are of exactly equal capability in every field except strength.
Now try again.
So you are saying that one of the riders has a physical weakness which means he/she is unable to lift their own bodyweight, yes ?
No.
I'm saying one has stronger legs than the other and therefore will be able to propel his combined body & bike weight faster. It really is a pretty simple concept to grasp. Even for you.0 -
Imposter wrote:I assume you are talking about the sustainable, repeated application of 50kg compared to 25kg for the duration of the climb - in which case, the one who could sustain the higher force for the duration of the climb would go better.
...and since we are assuming that both can sustain their respective forces for the same length of time then yes - you've finally accepted that the stronger rider wins.
Well done!0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Imposter wrote:Bustacapp wrote:OK, lets make it even simpler for you.
Lets assume that the riders are of exactly equal capability in every field except strength.
Now try again.
So you are saying that one of the riders has a physical weakness which means he/she is unable to lift their own bodyweight, yes ?
No.
I'm saying one has stronger legs than the other and therefore will be able to propel his combined body & bike weight faster. It really is a pretty simple concept to grasp. Even for you.
Your granny could probably squat 50kg, not to mention 25kg - so what do you actually mean by 'stronger' legs ?
If you go to the gym, you probably have stronger legs than me - does that make you a better climber ?0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Imposter wrote:I assume you are talking about the sustainable, repeated application of 50kg compared to 25kg for the duration of the climb - in which case, the one who could sustain the higher force for the duration of the climb would go better.
...and since we are assuming that both can sustain their respective forces for the same length of time then yes - you've finally accepted that the stronger rider wins.
Well done!
Jesus. The 'terminal thickness' warning light is flashing on my screen. What you actually mean is the rider with the higher sustainable power wins. You really are struggling with this, aren't you?0 -
I just wonder how many times we can copy & paste Alex Simmons' post quoted on page 1
"Typically, the forces involved in endurance cycling are sub-maximal, significantly so.
e.g. even at 300 watts, at regular cadences and crank lengths, the average effective pedal force is less than 20kg, which means that regular cycling (a vast majority of which is performed < 300W) requires forces roughly an order of magnitude less than (i.e. 1/10th of) our strength.
"What matters is being able to apply such low forces repeatedly for long periods and our limiting factor for that is not our maximal force generation ability but rather the biochemical processes going on in our muscle cells, i.e. our aerobic metabolism (ability to turnover ATP)."
Perhaps it would be possible to put it as a banner on each page.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:I just wonder how many times we can copy & paste Alex Simmons' post quoted on page 1
"Typically, the forces involved in endurance cycling are sub-maximal, significantly so.
e.g. even at 300 watts, at regular cadences and crank lengths, the average effective pedal force is less than 20kg, which means that regular cycling (a vast majority of which is performed < 300W) requires forces roughly an order of magnitude less than (i.e. 1/10th of) our strength.
"What matters is being able to apply such low forces repeatedly for long periods and our limiting factor for that is not our maximal force generation ability but rather the biochemical processes going on in our muscle cells, i.e. our aerobic metabolism (ability to turnover ATP)."
Perhaps it would be possible to put it as a banner on each page.
Is Alex Simmons God?
Is Alex Simmons talking about climbing in general or does he state his claim applies for every single aspect and variant of climbing?0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Is Alex Simmons God?
Is Alex Simmons talking about climbing in general or does he state his claim applies for every single aspect and variant of climbing?
I suspect he isn't 'god' - but he still happens to be correct. He is talking about riding a bike up a hill. Or on the flat. Or indeed anywhere else for that matter. The same principle applies.
I know - why don't you ask him yourself. Stick a thread in the training forum.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Perhaps it would be possible to put it as a banner on each page.
You could nail it to bustacapp's forehead - it still wouldn't make any difference.0 -
Nope, not God, but he just states simple cycling facts (using some physics/maths and thorough knowledge of how human bodies make a bike go along non-fictional roads). But it doesn't matter who his is - if anyone thinks he's wrong, all they have to do is disprove his statement.Bustacapp wrote:Is Alex Simmons God?
Is Alex Simmons talking about climbing in general or does he state his claim applies for every single aspect and variant of climbing?0
This discussion has been closed.
