Strengthening legs
Comments
-
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 > ROUGH0 -
meanredspider wrote: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.
All instinct, no science.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
meanredspider wrote: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.0 -
meanredspider wrote:Alex - do you have any thoughts on why Wiggo was increasing his race weight?
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.0 -
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 fast twitch fibres is also induced with sprint work, starts etc, sufficient short maximally hard efforts.0 -
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 > ROUGH0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:meanredspider wrote:Alex - do you have any thoughts on why Wiggo was increasing his race weight?
....
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 > ROUGH0 -
meanredspider 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)...0 -
Tom Dean wrote:meanredspider 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'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.0 -
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.0 -
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'...0 -
...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.0
-
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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.
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.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
No - that is just one definition. It is not the only one. Remove the blinkers and see.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strengthDefinition 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 sentences0 -
Slowbike wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
No - that is just one definition. It is not the only one. Remove the blinkers and see.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strength0 -
briantrumpet wrote:Slowbike wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
No - that is just one definition. It is not the only one. Remove the blinkers and see.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strength
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.
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?0 -
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.
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.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?0 -
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.0 -
madasahattersley wrote:How is this debate happening again? See post #3 :roll:0
-
Slowbike wrote:Tom Dean wrote:meanredspider 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'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.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote: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.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.0