squats and leg-presses?
Comments
-
bernithebiker wrote:Unfortunately, the Alpe d'Huez is a bit longer than that......
But that's irrelevant. At no point was length or grade of hill restricted to those only found in races that you now try to retrospectively introduce into the argument.
We are talking about whether or not leg strength can benefit climbing remember? And 'climbing' comes in many different varieties.0 -
You don't get it, do you? Perhaps you ought to pop over to the forum where they discuss riding up 30m 50% inclines. This is the Road Forum, where we discuss riding on roads. Real ones, not ones imagined in order to win an argument.Bustacapp wrote:neeb wrote:There will certainly come a point of hill steepness and under-gearing where you predominantly need leg strength to push the cranks around.
I rest my case.
0 -
Bustacapp wrote:bernithebiker wrote:Unfortunately, the Alpe d'Huez is a bit longer than that......
But that's irrelevant. At no point was length or grade of hill restricted to those only found in races that you now try to retrospectively introduce into the argument.
We are talking about whether or not leg strength can benefit climbing remember? And 'climbing' comes in many different varieties.
Did you ever bother to look up the difference between aerobic and anaerobic? Thought not.0 -
So, which is more relevant - a real hill that thousands of people ride up every year, or one that only exists in your mind for the sake of an argument?Bustacapp wrote:bernithebiker wrote:Unfortunately, the Alpe d'Huez is a bit longer than that......
But that's irrelevant.
I wish I could find one of Alex Simmons' posts where he recalls losing 50% of his leg quotient (he had one amputated) but his post-amputation power returned to what it was before. Now, what was the limiting factor there - the amount of strength in his leg(s) (which must have reduced something like, er, 50%), or his ability turn food and oxygen into power?0 -
Can I be an n=1 case study?
I recently (8 months ago) started doing weight training for no other reason than to try and get a good overall level of strength. This was as a supplement to my cycling. It featured squats, leg presses etc.
It has made no difference to my climbing EXCEPT for the fact that it has helped me lose weight. My power has improved in line with what I would expect from cycling alone.
That said, I do feel better/stronger in day to day things, especially work.
I'd recommend weights to any amateur cyclist but not to improve your cycling though...Insta: ATEnduranceCoaching
ABCC Cycling Coach0 -
NapoleonD wrote:Can I be an n=1 case study?
I recently (8 months ago) started doing weight training for no other reason than to try and get a good overall level of strength. This was as a supplement to my cycling. It featured squats, leg presses etc.
It has made no difference to my climbing EXCEPT for the fact that it has helped me lose weight. My power has improved in line with what I would expect from cycling alone.
That said, I do feel better/stronger in day to day things, especially work.
I'd recommend weights to any amateur cyclist but not to improve your cycling though...
Nap, I ll put this one up if you put the one of you stood next to the great man up. Are the quads any bigger now?
Uploaded with ImageShack.us0 -
briantrumpet wrote:This is the Road Forum
Love it!
Love the way it's gone from 'stronger legs can't benefit climbing' to 'stronger legs can't benefit climbing specific hills that fall into xyz category'!!
But even the 'we are only talking road climbs' argument fails as there are plenty of extreme ramps on roads where 'failing to turn the crank' is a real possibility.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:briantrumpet wrote:This is the Road Forum
Love it! Love the way it's gone from 'stronger legs can't benefit climbing' to 'stronger legs can't benefit climbing specific hills that fall into xyz category'!!
But even the 'we are only talking road climbs' argument fails as there are plenty of extreme ramps on roads where 'failing to turn the crank' is a real possibility.
Hello? Can you hear me? Did you ever look up the difference between aerobic and anaerobic? Or the difference between strength and power?
Having said that - your determined ignorance does not suprise me in the least.0 -
Do any of us think , Sir Chris or Robert Forstermann is a better climber than Bertie Contador :?:0
-
Really not worth engaging in discussion.Imposter wrote:Bustacapp wrote:briantrumpet wrote:This is the Road Forum
Love it! Love the way it's gone from 'stronger legs can't benefit climbing' to 'stronger legs can't benefit climbing specific hills that fall into xyz category'!!
But even the 'we are only talking road climbs' argument fails as there are plenty of extreme ramps on roads where 'failing to turn the crank' is a real possibility.
Hello? Can you hear me? Did you ever look up the difference between aerobic and anaerobic? Or the difference between strength and power?
Having said that - your determined ignorance does not suprise me in the least.0 -
Imposter wrote:Hello? Can you hear me? Did you ever look up the difference between aerobic and anaerobic? Or the difference between strength and power?
Having said that - your determined ignorance does not suprise me in the least.
Since power is directly linked to strength I can't see how you can continue to argue strength is irrelevant.
...but there is no need to be upset. I largely agree that strength is rarely utilized when climbing, or even at all for most people. However there is a time and place.0 -
For people with poor aerobic fitness maybe, not as a result of lack of strength.Bustacapp wrote:But even the 'we are only talking road climbs' argument fails as there are plenty of extreme ramps on roads where 'failing to turn the crank' is a real possibility.
...and that time and place is a track sprint, or your imaginary 30m climb. Power at lower effort levels is not linked to strength. That is why strength is irrelevant.Bustacapp wrote:I largely agree that strength is rarely utilized when climbing, or even at all for most people. However there is a time and place.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:A new guy turned up to our group ride and looked the weediest, scrawny thing you ever saw, with no muscles whatsoever to speak of. Looked easy meat. Turned out he was Cat 1, and I couldn't hold on to him on long climbs.......
i think that's power to weight ratio trump you there...skin small guys need less power to get up and along...i guess bigger guys are good for descents as the momentum will carry for longer. but you still need to get upto the top first Road - Cannondale CAAD 8 - 7.8kg
Road - Chinese Carbon Diablo - 6.4kg0 -
-
NoBustacapp wrote:
..or even here?Tom Dean wrote:...or your imaginary 30m climb.
...
Are you going to try some sort of counter-argument?Bustacapp wrote:
Sorry but that sounds made up.Tom Dean wrote:Power at lower effort levels is not linked to strength. That is why strength is irrelevant.
It sounds like you:
do not understand the meaning of the word strength.
do not understand the demands of bike racing.
Keep ignoring sensible advice and keep grinding to a halt on all these 'extreme ramps' you have found, telling yourself you just need more strength training.0 -
4th time lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12908935&p=18181699#p18181699
viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12902120&p=18109520#p18109520Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Physiologically & physically speaking:
Strength is the maximal force generating ability of a muscle or group of muscles.
By definition it occurs at zero velocity. However, practically speaking and in the context of the primary muscles involved in cycling, we can define strength as the maximal mass lifted in a one rep free standing squat.
Power is the rate of doing work, or of energy transfer.
It can be also defined as a force x velocity
Power can refer to very rapid acceleration activities taking only fractions of a second or a few seconds (e.g. throwing, sprinting) or to much longer duration activities (e.g. endurance cycling, running, swimming).
For a start, force and power are not the same thing. You can apply a huge force to something (e.g. push hard against a brick wall) but unless it is also moving, then you are applying no power.
Also by definition, the greater the rate at which we do something, the lower the force we are able to apply. Even in maximal sprint efforts on a bike, there is a linear relationship between maximal force applied to the pedals and the rate at which we are pedaling.
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).
Increasing strength (i.e. maximal force generation ability) has not been conclusively shown to result in ability to increase our sustainable power, which isn't all that surprising since the physiological adaptations resulting from training that increases strength (e.g. enhancing neurological recruitment, but more importantly, increasing muscle fibre cross sectional area via hypertrophy and associated mitochondral dilution) run counter to those that improve our ability to turnover ATP (i.e. increased mitochondral density and capillarisation inside the muscles, reducing the cell diffusion distance and so on).
The density of mitochondria (which are the energy plants inside our muscle cells) and the ability to readily exchange gases (O2 & CO2) and key metabolites (e.g. glycogen) is the primary limiting factor in endurance cycling.
Fewer mitochondria per kg of muscle mass = lower sustainable power to mass.
To increase strength (beyond an initial neurological improvement which occurs in the first few weeks of such training) requires hypertrophy, which in turns reduces our power to mass ratio.
Now if one is talking about training (with weights for example) that doesn't increase strength, then that's not strength training, and it's a different discussion.And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
Simply because someone does or doesn't have monster thighs doesn't indicate whether or not he uses weights.tim wand wrote:Do any of us think , Sir Chris or Robert Forstermann is a better climber than Bertie Contador :?:
Looking at this issue from a strictly human standpoint(and we are human), as opposed to a more calculated type of discussion, my whole argument for weight training comes pretty much from the idea that adding some strength to the muscles of the body is a damn good idea.0 -
That sounds made up.NeXXus wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Physiologically & physically speaking:
Strength is the maximal force generating ability of a muscle or group of muscles.
By definition it occurs at zero velocity. However, practically speaking and in the context of the primary muscles involved in cycling, we can define strength as the maximal mass lifted in a one rep free standing squat.
Power is the rate of doing work, or of energy transfer.
It can be also defined as a force x velocity
Power can refer to very rapid acceleration activities taking only fractions of a second or a few seconds (e.g. throwing, sprinting) or to much longer duration activities (e.g. endurance cycling, running, swimming).
For a start, force and power are not the same thing. You can apply a huge force to something (e.g. push hard against a brick wall) but unless it is also moving, then you are applying no power.
Also by definition, the greater the rate at which we do something, the lower the force we are able to apply. Even in maximal sprint efforts on a bike, there is a linear relationship between maximal force applied to the pedals and the rate at which we are pedaling.
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).
Increasing strength (i.e. maximal force generation ability) has not been conclusively shown to result in ability to increase our sustainable power, which isn't all that surprising since the physiological adaptations resulting from training that increases strength (e.g. enhancing neurological recruitment, but more importantly, increasing muscle fibre cross sectional area via hypertrophy and associated mitochondral dilution) run counter to those that improve our ability to turnover ATP (i.e. increased mitochondral density and capillarisation inside the muscles, reducing the cell diffusion distance and so on).
The density of mitochondria (which are the energy plants inside our muscle cells) and the ability to readily exchange gases (O2 & CO2) and key metabolites (e.g. glycogen) is the primary limiting factor in endurance cycling.
Fewer mitochondria per kg of muscle mass = lower sustainable power to mass.
To increase strength (beyond an initial neurological improvement which occurs in the first few weeks of such training) requires hypertrophy, which in turns reduces our power to mass ratio.
Now if one is talking about training (with weights for example) that doesn't increase strength, then that's not strength training, and it's a different discussion.0 -
Totallybriantrumpet wrote:
That sounds made up.NeXXus wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Physiologically & physically speaking:
Strength is the maximal force generating ability of a muscle or group of muscles.
By definition it occurs at zero velocity. However, practically speaking and in the context of the primary muscles involved in cycling, we can define strength as the maximal mass lifted in a one rep free standing squat.
Power is the rate of doing work, or of energy transfer.
It can be also defined as a force x velocity
Power can refer to very rapid acceleration activities taking only fractions of a second or a few seconds (e.g. throwing, sprinting) or to much longer duration activities (e.g. endurance cycling, running, swimming).
For a start, force and power are not the same thing. You can apply a huge force to something (e.g. push hard against a brick wall) but unless it is also moving, then you are applying no power.
Also by definition, the greater the rate at which we do something, the lower the force we are able to apply. Even in maximal sprint efforts on a bike, there is a linear relationship between maximal force applied to the pedals and the rate at which we are pedaling.
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).
Increasing strength (i.e. maximal force generation ability) has not been conclusively shown to result in ability to increase our sustainable power, which isn't all that surprising since the physiological adaptations resulting from training that increases strength (e.g. enhancing neurological recruitment, but more importantly, increasing muscle fibre cross sectional area via hypertrophy and associated mitochondral dilution) run counter to those that improve our ability to turnover ATP (i.e. increased mitochondral density and capillarisation inside the muscles, reducing the cell diffusion distance and so on).
The density of mitochondria (which are the energy plants inside our muscle cells) and the ability to readily exchange gases (O2 & CO2) and key metabolites (e.g. glycogen) is the primary limiting factor in endurance cycling.
Fewer mitochondria per kg of muscle mass = lower sustainable power to mass.
To increase strength (beyond an initial neurological improvement which occurs in the first few weeks of such training) requires hypertrophy, which in turns reduces our power to mass ratio.
Now if one is talking about training (with weights for example) that doesn't increase strength, then that's not strength training, and it's a different discussion.
And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
Let's imagine a cyclist weighing 70kg, on a bike weighing 10kg, so total weight 80kg, on this fabled 50% slope - that's 30°.
The force required to balance gravity (i.e. trackstand, or keep moving at a constant speed*) is 80 * sin 30 = 40kg (using kg as a unit of force is technically incorrect but easier to understand: it means "the force you need to lift this weight against earth's gravity")
To climb a slope like that we need a low gear, obviously (something that seems to have been left out in, errr, certain posters' calculations ;-) ) so let's suppose you are running an MTB type triple, perhaps 22X33, to keep the maths simple - that's a 2:3 ratio. The ratio of wheel radius (I guess we're on MTB now so 26" with 2" tyre, radius is about 330mm ) to crank length (let's say 170mm) ≈ 2
So you have to push on the cranks with a force of 40*2*2/3 ≈ 53kg.
That's right, about 70% of your own bodyweight. Not exactly a huge lot of strength needed, most human beings past the age of about 2 can do that. Now that's a 30° slope: a more common slope, say 10%, is actually about 6°, which makes the force, errr, about 10kg. Running a proper MTFU double at 39X26 would up this to a whole 22kg.
So how much strength do you think you need then?
*The really important thing to notice is that this does mean any speed. The force required to go up the hill faster is exactly the same. This is the whole power thing that, errrr, certain posters really don't seem to be capable of understanding. The force required to pedal up a 50% slope at 3mph? 53kg. At 30mph? 53kg. It's the power that has to increase, and you could do this by keeping the same cadence and increasing the gear ratio, or keeping the same gear and increasing the cadence. There's rather a lot of evidence that one of these approaches works better than the other.0 -
NeXXus wrote:4th time lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12908935&p=18181699#p18181699
viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12902120&p=18109520#p18109520Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Physiologically & physically speaking:
Strength is the maximal force generating ability of a muscle or group of muscles.
By definition it occurs at zero velocity. However, practically speaking and in the context of the primary muscles involved in cycling, we can define strength as the maximal mass lifted in a one rep free standing squat.
Power is the rate of doing work, or of energy transfer.
It can be also defined as a force x velocity
Power can refer to very rapid acceleration activities taking only fractions of a second or a few seconds (e.g. throwing, sprinting) or to much longer duration activities (e.g. endurance cycling, running, swimming).
For a start, force and power are not the same thing. You can apply a huge force to something (e.g. push hard against a brick wall) but unless it is also moving, then you are applying no power.
Also by definition, the greater the rate at which we do something, the lower the force we are able to apply. Even in maximal sprint efforts on a bike, there is a linear relationship between maximal force applied to the pedals and the rate at which we are pedaling.
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).
Increasing strength (i.e. maximal force generation ability) has not been conclusively shown to result in ability to increase our sustainable power, which isn't all that surprising since the physiological adaptations resulting from training that increases strength (e.g. enhancing neurological recruitment, but more importantly, increasing muscle fibre cross sectional area via hypertrophy and associated mitochondral dilution) run counter to those that improve our ability to turnover ATP (i.e. increased mitochondral density and capillarisation inside the muscles, reducing the cell diffusion distance and so on).
The density of mitochondria (which are the energy plants inside our muscle cells) and the ability to readily exchange gases (O2 & CO2) and key metabolites (e.g. glycogen) is the primary limiting factor in endurance cycling.
Fewer mitochondria per kg of muscle mass = lower sustainable power to mass.
To increase strength (beyond an initial neurological improvement which occurs in the first few weeks of such training) requires hypertrophy, which in turns reduces our power to mass ratio.
Now if one is talking about training (with weights for example) that doesn't increase strength, then that's not strength training, and it's a different discussion.
I have only one problem with Mr. Simmons ideas. I refuse to believe that a human being's potential is limited by scientific equations, power meter readings, and the like. We are not machines in that sense. Just like science has proven that honey bees can't fly there is simply too much we don't know.I believe someone once said " We don't even know what we don't know." Way, way, way to much unknown about human and animal potential to flatly state as fact that any one thing will or won't help. Key words here are "flatly state as fact". No, you can't do it. Believe what you will but to state that you KNOW is a huge stretch at the very least.
I'l sigh off on this post with words from the late, great, and somewhat immortal philosopher Moe Howard.
"Anyone who is positive is an idiot"0 -
dennisn wrote:I have only one problem with Mr. Simmons ideas.
Can I stop you there? Those are not 'Mr Simmons' ideas' as you put it. Mr Simmons is simply proffering established science. There is a difference.0 -
And your scientific source for this is? That's right, there isn't one. This is an age old myth.dennisn wrote:Just like science has proven that honey bees can't fly0 -
We're not limited by scientific equations: science is only a human way of explaining how we and the world works. If you haven't read stuff by Richard Feynman, it's well worth doing (e.g., 'Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman' and 'Six Easy Pieces'). Even biology at its most fundamental form relies on physics and the basic building blocks of matter: only by understanding the smallest particles can we start to understand the universe. And there's no escaping the physics. And that's not a negative outlook - it's pretty damned awesome that we blobs are built out of the same stuff (albeit in differing proportions and physical form) as the rest of the universe.dennisn wrote:I refuse to believe that a human being's potential is limited by scientific equations, power meter readings, and the like. We are not machines in that sense.
Now, where were we? Will weights damage my knees??0 -
Breaking news: Scientists show how bees flybompington wrote:
And your scientific source for this is? That's right, there isn't one. This is an age old myth.dennisn wrote:Just like science has proven that honey bees can't fly
"The people I meet, therefore, continue to tell me that science is a load of crock because it once proved that bumblebees cannot fly. And they will not hear otherwise, especially not from a scientist."0 -
ricky1980 wrote:bernithebiker wrote:A new guy turned up to our group ride and looked the weediest, scrawny thing you ever saw, with no muscles whatsoever to speak of. Looked easy meat. Turned out he was Cat 1, and I couldn't hold on to him on long climbs.......
i think that's power to weight ratio trump you there...skin small guys need less power to get up and along...i guess bigger guys are good for descents as the momentum will carry for longer. but you still need to get upto the top first
I see your point, but no, not in this case. I am also pretty light, 63kg, and go up hills well - I would think this guy was around 58 to 60kg.
He is also excellent on the flat into the wind, something I am NOT very good at, and nor are most light riders, so this guy clearly has something that I don't, and it isn't strength, it's.......fitness?!0 -
bompington wrote:
And your scientific source for this is? That's right, there isn't one. This is an age old myth.dennisn wrote:Just like science has proven that honey bees can't fly
My source? Why the Internet of course. In any case you are wrong. A thing called Creation Science came up with this idea and they have proven it. Depending on what your idea of proof is. Maybe you're making the mistake that if it's called science then it must be correct. Sciences(of the day) once proved that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of our solar system, that man did(or did not) descend(or ascend) from the apes, That man landed(or didn't) on the moon, that there was(or wasn't) more than one shooter in the JFK assassination. This list of proven(or not) things goes on and on.
When I was in Elementary School(grades 1 thru 6), in the mid to late 50's, we received a 2 or 3 page thing called The Weekly Reader. As I recall almost every week it had a "Scientific" article telling us how, if we weren't careful, that we would run out of coal, oil, food, iron ore, or just about everything within the next 30 years. These articles were always followed by a photo of some geeky looking guy whose name had a bunch of letters behind it. Of course,thereby proving that what we were being told was indisputable. To this day The Weekly Reader remains one of my earliest memories of my childhood school days.
Are you starting to see just why I'm a bit skeptical of anyone, and I mean anyone, claiming to "know for a fact" pretty much anything?
Even my own mother tried to lead me astray. As a pre-teen I loved to watch pro wrestling but my mother kept telling me to turn that stuff off as all it was was a bunch of vicious men beating each other up. She believed it. I didn't fall for it for a minute but could not, to this day, convince her otherwise. The two of us saw two different things at the same time.0
This discussion has been closed.
