Strengthening legs

13

Comments

  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Track sprinters seem to manage to transfer their weight training strength to the bike. Why can't you if it's so important?

    The stairs thing is just an illustration of the forces required in endurance cycling vs the definition of 'strength'. It in no way implies that endurance cycling is aerobic-only.

    When did I say weight training was "so important"? I've even said that strength only has a minor influence on endurance cycling ability. The same can't be said for sprinting. Even if a minor muscle starts to fade in a sprint, it doesn't matter, the big ones will allow you to push through the pain.

    The stairs thing is put forward as having all the strength you need.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,803
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Track sprinters seem to manage to transfer their weight training strength to the bike. Why can't you if it's so important?

    The stairs thing is just an illustration of the forces required in endurance cycling vs the definition of 'strength'. It in no way implies that endurance cycling is aerobic-only.

    When did I say weight training was "so important"? I've even said that strength only has a minor influence on endurance cycling ability. The same can't be said for sprinting. Even if a minor muscle starts to fade in a sprint, it doesn't matter, the big ones will allow you to push through the pain.

    The stairs thing is put forward as having all the strength you need.
    I think I can see where people are coming from, and maybe there's not much distance between folk. My instinct is to go with the stairs analogy, but, if strength develops as a side-effect of riding a bike (I don't think anyone's ruling out that possibility), then it's merely that, and not what is making you ride faster (which comes down to the body's ability to turn fuel into power through the legs). On the other hand, if people think that by training for strength they will become a faster endurance cyclist, then they are barking up the wrong tree, as they've done nothing for the body's ability to deliver the power through the legs from the fuel.

    All instinct, no science.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    frisbee wrote:
    It would be extremely foolish not to learn from other sports.

    If you accept that cycle-specific training is the most appropriate training for cycling, then how people train for other sports is pretty irrelevant, IMO. Having said that, I wouldn't exclude anything else if it was demonstrated to offer a useful training advantage though - what other sports or types of training are you thinking of?
    frisbee wrote:
    And if you climb out of the saddle then you do lift your body weight?

    Climbing out of the saddle does not suddenly alter the equation - think about it.
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    Following encouragement from Imposter I just got through reading a couple of (lengthy) old threads on the same topic that some might find interesting. The first thread contains a link to the second.

    viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12796394

    viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12753875

    Both have interesting (and informative) contributions from Alex Simmons and the second thread from CoachFerg.

    It's cleared up a lot of things in my mind regarding this topic.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,803
    hypster wrote:
    Following encouragement from Imposter I just got through reading a couple of (lengthy) old threads on the same topic that some might find interesting. The first thread contains a link to the second.

    viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12796394

    viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12753875

    Both have interesting (and informative) contributions from Alex Simmons and the second thread from CoachFerg.

    It's cleared up a lot of things in my mind regarding this topic.
    Yep, two classic threads. Should be compulsory reading for anyone wanting to comment on 'leg strength'. The topic isn't littered with people who have admitted to changing their minds, but there's persuasive argument in both for people willing to engage.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Track sprinters seem to manage to transfer their weight training strength to the bike. Why can't you if it's so important?

    The stairs thing is just an illustration of the forces required in endurance cycling vs the definition of 'strength'. It in no way implies that endurance cycling is aerobic-only.

    When did I say weight training was "so important"? I've even said that strength only has a minor influence on endurance cycling ability. The same can't be said for sprinting. Even if a minor muscle starts to fade in a sprint, it doesn't matter, the big ones will allow you to push through the pain.

    The stairs thing is put forward as having all the strength you need.
    I thought you were saying strength was important. My mistake.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Alex - do you have any thoughts on why Wiggo was increasing his race weight?
    Well since I don't have any specifics of the actual scenario (as opposed to whatever is third hand reported), not sure I can answer that specific case.

    I will say is that when training for a particular event, e.g. say individual pursuit or a short flat TT versus a grand tour then the specific demands for winning are different. Clearly each needs exceptional aerobic fitness and that is the primary focus for general conditioning, however the physics involved and the increasing importance of anaerobic abilities for the shorter duration events means the physiology necessary for success changes.

    For a start, while power to weight ratio (W/kg) is important for both such events, power to aerodynamic drag (W/m^2) is much more important in flat races against the clock. W/m^2 and W/kg do not scale linearly, indeed W/m^2 can potentially go up with an increase in productive aerobic muscle mass (since the aero penalty of additional lean power producing leg muscle is pretty small), while W/kg may go the other way (IOW the increase in muscle mass isn't compensated for by an equivalent increase in power). Faster on flat (track), slower when climbing.

    Consider also that in order to generate more top end / maximal aerobic power, as well as develop anaerobic capacity (which accounts for about 25% +/-5% of the energy demand in a 4km individual pursuit, a rider that has been thinned down for stage racing may indeed benefit from a little extra muscle mass.

    It's not unusual during such training focussed on pursuiting that one puts on a little muscle if they start very lean - hypertrophy can indeed be induced with such work. And if a rider is also seeking to ride team pursuit, the neuromuscular demands are also a factor, meaning one also needs to address ability to rapidly increase power, so sprints and standing starts also come into the equation more.

    Also, such training involves much more work at higher intensities (well above functional threshold) and by its very nature it requires more recovery, and likely involves a drop in kilojoules expended weekly compared with stage race preparation. Burn fewer calories and do high intensity work -> increased mass, both muscle and body fat.

    Keep in mind these sort of things are experienced by elite riders who are already very lean. If you are carrying extra mud around the middle, then you have other fish to fry (or not) as the case may be.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Imposter wrote:
    Ordinarily, you wouldn't be pushing the pedals with anything like the forces that are typically required to bring about hypertrophy.
    Hypertrophy of slow twitch muscle fibres is a normal response to sufficient aerobic training, although such inducement is more pronounced with work performed above functional threshold power, up to MAP (maximal aerobic power) / VO2 max inducing levels.

    Hypertrophy of fast twitch fibres is also induced with sprint work, starts etc, sufficient short maximally hard efforts.
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    Tom Dean wrote:
    I thought you were saying strength was important. My mistake.

    No - I do, however, think it's a small lever to performance (I think Alex's post above suggests it might be) but not one that it's worth spending much time on as a amateur endurance rider. The problem though - and why I think these threads exist - is that there are those that say it has no impact ("if you can climb stairs then you're strong enough"). Combine that with the layman's use of the word "strength" (ability to produce force - dynamic in this case) with the more rigorous use of the word (maximal static force) and you drawn the lines for an argument.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    Alex - do you have any thoughts on why Wiggo was increasing his race weight?
    Well since I don't have any specifics of the actual scenario (as opposed to whatever is third hand reported), not sure I can answer that specific case.
    ....

    Thanks, Alex, that helped.

    The specific example (which you may know) was comments from Sean Yates in his book "It's All About the Bike" - that Wiggo, for his successful TdF year, put on some weight (because the course was going to be flatter than average years) and I wanted to understand that from a cycling perspective.

    I, on the other hand, have plenty to lose and would love to be in the position where someone was suggesting I need to put on weight!

    Thanks again.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Tom Dean wrote:
    I thought you were saying strength was important. My mistake.

    No - I do, however, think it's a small lever to performance (I think Alex's post above suggests it might be)...
    I can't see strength mentioned at all in Alex's last couple of posts. I think he was pretty clear about it earlier though.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    I thought you were saying strength was important. My mistake.

    No - I do, however, think it's a small lever to performance (I think Alex's post above suggests it might be)...
    I can't see strength mentioned at all in Alex's last couple of posts. I think he was pretty clear about it earlier though.

    I'm a pretty ordinary cyclist - and like many (if not most) our regular riding has resulted in the apparent increase in muscle mass - certainly my thigh and calf muscles are much more defined than they ever were before.

    Alex does say that hypertrophy of the two muscle types is common/normal with sufficient aerobic and/or short hard efforts.

    It would be normal for a cyclist to regularly do both of these - normal riding and then sprinting to catch up or overtake a friend - pretty normal stuff. It then follows that they will experience muscle hypertrophy and that is usually described as "stronger legs". How else do you describe the ability to go faster for longer and up hill more quickly? Fitter? Yes - but in what? Your heart & lungs? Or your legs? or combination of all three.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Riding a bike may make you stronger. That doesn't mean that getting stronger means you will ride your bike faster. I'm sure we have been over this.

    The fact that your fitness depends on something going on in your legs does not mean it's anything to do with strength.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Slowbike wrote:
    How else do you describe the ability to go faster for longer and up hill more quickly? Fitter? Yes - but in what? Your heart & lungs? Or your legs? or combination of all three.

    People much cleverer than us have already thought of that. They call it 'aerobic fitness'...
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    ...and anaerobic capacity, and neuromuscular power... People might categorise these areas in different ways, but it seems like some of the confusion comes from wrongly equating the non-aerobic components of fitness with strength.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Riding a bike may make you stronger. That doesn't mean that getting stronger means you will ride your bike faster. I'm sure we have been over this.

    So, riding my bike makes my legs stronger, and they're getting stronger for no other reason than to get stronger - because it's not required for riding my bike .... er... yes ... right ....
    Tom Dean wrote:
    The fact that your fitness depends on something going on in your legs does not mean it's anything to do with strength.
    Depends on your precise definition of strength.

    There's lots of "strength" ... even within the physical it's used to describe many forms of strength.

    That you're using in such a narrow meaning doesn't make you right.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    I have already answered the first point. If that strength was 'needed' then more efficient strength trAining like lifting weights would show benefits. It doesn't.

    Using a precise definition doesn't make me right, but if gives me the chance to make a coherent argument. Good luck trying to train according to scientific principles.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Tom Dean wrote:
    I have already answered the first point. If that strength was 'needed' then more efficient strength trAining like lifting weights would show benefits. It doesn't.
    Perhaps you're looking at examples from the wrong rider group.
    If riding makes your legs stronger to a point then if a beginner can get your legs that strong, with the same mix of fast/slow twitch muscle fibres without actually riding then that would show benefits as soon as they start riding. The question then becomes - does lifting weight create the correct mix of fast/slow twitch muscle fibres? - the answer will almost certainly be - it depends.

    I believe there will be a balance where stronger muscles won't help, but up until that optimal point stronger muscles will make you faster.
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Using a precise definition doesn't make me right, but if gives me the chance to make a coherent argument. Good luck trying to train according to scientific principles.
    Scientific principles are the best ones to train with ... anything else is just guesswork. But I assume you mean that the otherway around.


    I assume that I will "strengthen" my legs and improve my general fitness for cycling far better through actually cycling than by doing specific leg work in a gym and I'd much rather spend my time on a bike than in a gym so the matter of gym work makes little difference to me. However, if there were little exercises that helped improve performance that didn't require additional specialist equipment and didn't take long then I would be interested, but I also believe that there are no shortcuts through hard work.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,803
    Slowbike wrote:
    Depends on your precise definition of strength.

    Let's try re-reading the 2011 thread.
    P_Tucker wrote:
    Lets settle a definition here - strength is defined as the maximum force your muscles can generate at zero velocity.

    Is that precise enough?
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Slowbike wrote:
    Depends on your precise definition of strength.

    Let's try re-reading the 2011 thread.
    P_Tucker wrote:
    Lets settle a definition here - strength is defined as the maximum force your muscles can generate at zero velocity.

    Is that precise enough?

    No - that is just one definition. It is not the only one. Remove the blinkers and see.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strength
    Definition of strength in English:
    strength
    Line breaks: strength
    Pronunciation: /strɛŋθ

    , strɛŋkθ

    /
    noun
    [mass noun]

    1The quality or state of being physically strong: cycling can help you build up your strength
    More example sentencesSynonyms
    1.1The influence or power possessed by a person, organization, or country: the political and military strength of European governments
    More example sentencesSynonyms
    1.2The degree of intensity of a feeling or belief: street protests demonstrated the strength of feeling against the president
    More example sentencesSynonyms
    1.3The extent to which an argument or case is sound or convincing: the strength of the argument for property taxation
    More example sentencesSynonyms
    1.4The potency, intensity, or speed of a force or natural agency: the wind had markedly increased in strength
    More example sentences
    1.5 Bridge The potential of a hand to win tricks, arising from the number and type of high cards it contains.
    More example sentences

    2The capacity of an object or substance to withstand great force or pressure: they were taking no chances with the strength of the retaining wall
    More example sentencesSynonyms
    2.1The emotional or mental qualities necessary in dealing with difficult or distressing situations: many people find strength in religion it takes strength of character to admit one needs help
    More example sentencesSynonyms

    3The potency or degree of concentration of a drug, chemical, or drink: it’s double the strength of your average beer [count noun]: the solution comes in two strengths
    More example sentences

    4 [count noun] A good or beneficial quality or attribute of a person or thing: the strengths and weaknesses of their sales and marketing operation his strength was his obsessive single-mindedness
    More example sentencesSynonyms
    4.1 • literary A person or thing perceived as a source of mental or emotional support: he was my closest friend, my strength and shield
    More example sentencesSynonyms

    5The number of people comprising a group, typically a team or army: the peacetime strength of the army was 415,000
    More example sentencesSynonyms
    5.1A number of people required to make such a group complete: we are now more than 100 officers below strength some units will be maintained at full strength while others will rely on reserves City were under strength, yet put up a creditable performance [in combination]: an under-strength side
    More example sentences

    Phrases

    from strength
    From a secure or advantageous position: it makes sense to negotiate from strength
    More example sentences
    give me strength!
    Used as an expression of exasperation or annoyance.
    More example sentences
    go from strength to strength
    Develop or progress with increasing success: his party has gone from strength to strength since he became leader
    More example sentences
    in strength
    In large numbers: security forces were out in strength
    More example sentences
    on the strength of
    On the basis or with the justification of: I joined the bank on the strength of an MA in English
    More example sentencesSynonyms
    the strength of
    chiefly Australian/NZ The point or meaning of; the truth about: you’ve about got the strength of it, Mick
    tower (or pillar) of strength
    A person who can be relied upon to give a great deal of support and comfort to others: Liz had been an absolute tower of strength over Laura’s sudden departure
    More example sentences
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,803
    Slowbike wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Depends on your precise definition of strength.

    Let's try re-reading the 2011 thread.
    P_Tucker wrote:
    Lets settle a definition here - strength is defined as the maximum force your muscles can generate at zero velocity.

    Is that precise enough?

    No - that is just one definition. It is not the only one. Remove the blinkers and see.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strength
    Words can mean different things in different contexts. 'Inertia' has a very precise definition in terms of physics, but I could easily quote the OED for its more general metaphorical use in everyday English. But if I tried using that general definition to argue within the confines of physics, I'd get laughed at.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Slowbike wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Depends on your precise definition of strength.

    Let's try re-reading the 2011 thread.
    P_Tucker wrote:
    Lets settle a definition here - strength is defined as the maximum force your muscles can generate at zero velocity.

    Is that precise enough?

    No - that is just one definition. It is not the only one. Remove the blinkers and see.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strength
    Words can mean different things in different contexts. 'Inertia' has a very precise definition in terms of physics, but I could easily quote the OED for its more general metaphorical use in everyday English. But if I tried using that general definition to argue within the confines of physics, I'd get laughed at.

    We're talking within the confines of cycling and Oxford Dictionary online gives an example of cycling making you stronger.
    The OP asked for tips on strengthening legs - no mention of bench presses or gym work - so the meaning was entirely open to interpretation.

    Yet what happens ... the discussion degenerates into two sets arguing different points. It's no help to anyone.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,803
    Slowbike wrote:
    We're talking within the confines of cycling and Oxford Dictionary online gives an example of cycling making you stronger.
    The OP asked for tips on strengthening legs - no mention of bench presses or gym work - so the meaning was entirely open to interpretation.

    Yet what happens ... the discussion degenerates into two sets arguing different points. It's no help to anyone.
    Nope, you're quite right. If we can't agree on what 'strong' means, it is a pointless debate.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Slowbike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Using a precise definition doesn't make me right, but if gives me the chance to make a coherent argument. Good luck trying to train according to scientific principles.
    Scientific principles are the best ones to train with ... anything else is just guesswork. But I assume you mean that the otherway around.
    I meant that if you have difficulty with basic definitions of terms, you are going to struggle with scientific ideas.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Using a precise definition doesn't make me right, but if gives me the chance to make a coherent argument. Good luck trying to train according to scientific principles.
    Scientific principles are the best ones to train with ... anything else is just guesswork. But I assume you mean that the otherway around.
    I meant that if you have difficulty with basic definitions of terms, you are going to struggle with scientific ideas.

    I suggest you don't continue down the line of personal attacks and start to read more carefully and attempt to understand what is being said or asked rather than make assumptions.

    As for science - every fact is a challenge - scientists question and don't take things at face value. Perhaps you should try the same?
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Slowbike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Using a precise definition doesn't make me right, but if gives me the chance to make a coherent argument. Good luck trying to train according to scientific principles.
    Scientific principles are the best ones to train with ... anything else is just guesswork. But I assume you mean that the otherway around.
    I meant that if you have difficulty with basic definitions of terms, you are going to struggle with scientific ideas.

    I suggest you don't continue down the line of personal attacks and start to read more carefully and attempt to understand what is being said or asked rather than make assumptions.
    It wasn't much of an attack really was it? If you think I have misread or made assumptions, please explain how.
    Slowbike wrote:
    As for science - every fact is a challenge - scientists question and don't take things at face value. Perhaps you should try the same?
    Every fact is a challenge. I don't know what this means. I have taken you at face value and asked questions. For some reason you don't want to accept a simple definition of the word 'strength'.
  • frisbee
    frisbee Posts: 691
    edited May 2014
    Imposter wrote:
    frisbee wrote:
    It would be extremely foolish not to learn from other sports.

    If you accept that cycle-specific training is the most appropriate training for cycling, then how people train for other sports is pretty irrelevant, IMO. Having said that, I wouldn't exclude anything else if it was demonstrated to offer a useful training advantage though - what other sports or types of training are you thinking of?
    frisbee wrote:
    And if you climb out of the saddle then you do lift your body weight?

    Climbing out of the saddle does not suddenly alter the equation - think about it.

    It's pointless me suggesting any alternatives, I could say cross country skiing, as there are arguably better "engines" competing at that than in cycling, but no doubt there is some random paper that can be googled that states the exact opposite, snow is white and tarmac is black or something.

    And climbing out of the saddle means that you are no longer supporting your weight, so the equation is different.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,803
    How is this debate happening again? See post #3 :roll:
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Slowbike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    I thought you were saying strength was important. My mistake.

    No - I do, however, think it's a small lever to performance (I think Alex's post above suggests it might be)...
    I can't see strength mentioned at all in Alex's last couple of posts. I think he was pretty clear about it earlier though.

    I'm a pretty ordinary cyclist - and like many (if not most) our regular riding has resulted in the apparent increase in muscle mass - certainly my thigh and calf muscles are much more defined than they ever were before.

    Alex does say that hypertrophy of the two muscle types is common/normal with sufficient aerobic and/or short hard efforts.

    It would be normal for a cyclist to regularly do both of these - normal riding and then sprinting to catch up or overtake a friend - pretty normal stuff. It then follows that they will experience muscle hypertrophy and that is usually described as "stronger legs". How else do you describe the ability to go faster for longer and up hill more quickly? Fitter? Yes - but in what? Your heart & lungs? Or your legs? or combination of all three.

    Power is the correct term, and specifically, the power sustainable over durations of relevance, and in the case of hills, power to weight ratio. It would be correct to say a cyclist becomes more powerful.

    If you really want to understand, then realise that our "energy currency" is a molecule called ATP, and it's the metabolic processes and infrastructure that use this molecule to provide our energy, as well as those that regenerate it after it's broken down, that will determine how much energy we can sustainably provide per unit time (i.e. power).

    Once you understand the various metabolic mechanisms for this, you'll soon realise that for anything more than a short duration effort, it's an aerobic process (i.e. requires a constant supply of oxygen) that requires aerobic support infrastructure, both central (e.g. lungs, heart) and peripheral (e.g. the mitochondria inside our muscle cells, and capillaries that deliver metabolites and gas exchange). What you want then from training is to increase mitochondrial and capillary density, as well as heart stroke volume/cardiac output.

    Being able to apply more force won't help much if you can't maintain a constant supply of ATP to meet the energy demand. Hypertrophy does not provide any assistance to this aerobic metabolic process, indeed it can impede it.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,803
    Power is the correct term, and specifically, the power sustainable over durations of relevance, and in the case of hills, power to weight ratio. It would be correct to say a cyclist becomes more powerful.
    But couldn't we have much more fun if we used the OED definitions of 'power'?
    1a. Ability to act or affect something strongly; physical or mental strength; might; vigour, energy; effectiveness.

    3 a. More generally: ability, capacity. Also fig.
    b. As a count noun: a particular mental or physical faculty, capacity, or ability. Freq. in pl., sometimes with singular sense.

    4 a. Capacity in an inanimate thing for producing a certain effect; efficacy; an active property or principle, spec. the active property of a stone, herb, etc. Also occas. †concr.

    etc.
    Or are you attempting to say that having one unambiguous, clearly-defined term for each concept is helpful in understanding complex systems?