Strengthening legs

124»

Comments

  • poynedexter
    poynedexter Posts: 283
    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.

    i like this post.

    can i also add, that for me a massive target is the ability to recover from a high intensity effort, and be able to repeat this throughout a race. i need to be able to do this on and off for about 3 hrs at most. i guess this is the atp supply thing? i do however notice that the guys who tend to do better at my level are bigger more muscular types, ie more powerful. there are a few body builder types who seem to do quite nicely and can sprint well at the end, over a rolly course.
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    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.

    May I'm mistaken but I thought this refered to "strength" (in layman's definition - since we seem to no longer have a single word for dynamic ability to generate force) - "productive aerobic muscle mass"
    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.

    But I'm pretty sure that this debate falls over on the basis of both the language but also just our understanding of human physiology (it would seem we're still not clear on whether lactic acid is a "good thing" or not).

    Let me also reiterate - I'm not advocating leg "strengthening" especially where hills are concerned (doing the last climb of the Chouffe Classic on Saturday which hits 20% and, I guess, forms part of Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and being passed by skinny racing snakes, made me think of this thread). All I wanted to do is to understand why Wiggo would be adding weight for his successful TdF attempt.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    All I wanted to do is to understand why Wiggo would be adding weight for his successful TdF attempt.
    Did he though (I take such reports with a large grain of salt)? Rider's weights are notoriously misreported.

    Keep in mind that in 2012, the TdF had over 100km of ITT across 3 TTs, and only two summit finishes, so it made sense to give the ITT a greater level of important in preparation, and in mountains apply a defence strategy. It was a race far better suited to a chrono man than a climber. So the balance between W/m^2 and W/kg meant that there would be a tipping towards W/m^2.

    By way of contrast:
    In 2011 there was 43km of ITT in just one ITT, a 23km TTT, and 5 summit finishes (Evans).
    In 2013 there were 65 km of ITT over 2 TTs, one 25km TTT, and 4 summit finishes (Froome).

    This year there are half the ITT kms of 2012 in just one ITT but 5 summit finishes. Totally different kind of race to 2012 and more favourable to W/kg than W/m^2 (winner?).
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    All I wanted to do is to understand why Wiggo would be adding weight for his successful TdF attempt.
    Did he though (I take such reports with a large grain of salt)? Rider's weights are notoriously misreported.

    Keep in mind that in 2012, the TdF had over 100km of ITT across 3 TTs, and only two summit finishes, so it made sense to give the ITT a greater level of important in preparation, and in mountains apply a defence strategy. It was a race far better suited to a chrono man than a climber. So the balance between W/m^2 and W/kg meant that there would be a tipping towards W/m^2.

    By way of contrast:
    In 2011 there was 43km of ITT in just one ITT, a 23km TTT, and 5 summit finishes (Evans).
    In 2013 there were 65 km of ITT over 2 TTs, one 25km TTT, and 4 summit finishes (Froome).

    This year there are half the ITT kms of 2012 in just one ITT but 5 summit finishes. Totally different kind of race to 2012 and more favourable to W/kg than W/m^2 (winner?).

    That's exactly the reason that was given: it was a "flatter"(my word) race that usual so Wiggins could beef up a bit without serious penalty. I don't see a reason for Yates to mislead people after the fact (maybe there is one?) - he's fairly blunt about Team Sky in his book in many aspects. The impression I'm left with though is that there's a marginal (probably a good word to use in this specific context) benefit to having slightly more muscle mass (and I'm sure it's slightly) on a flatter overall race - especially for someone like Wiggo for whom the TT can be a real advantage. What I'm not arguing (in case, in the context of this thread, it's misunderstood) is that loads of muscle mass is a Good Thing.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    This was the hill I was going up that I was thinking hard about this topic

    http://www.sport.be/cyclingtour/lachouf ... guage_id=1
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • Stalin
    Stalin Posts: 208
    All I wanted to do is to understand why Wiggo would be adding weight for his successful TdF attempt.
    Did he though (I take such reports with a large grain of salt)? Rider's weights are notoriously misreported.

    Keep in mind that in 2012, the TdF had over 100km of ITT across 3 TTs, and only two summit finishes, so it made sense to give the ITT a greater level of important in preparation, and in mountains apply a defence strategy. It was a race far better suited to a chrono man than a climber. So the balance between W/m^2 and W/kg meant that there would be a tipping towards W/m^2.

    By way of contrast:
    In 2011 there was 43km of ITT in just one ITT, a 23km TTT, and 5 summit finishes (Evans).
    In 2013 there were 65 km of ITT over 2 TTs, one 25km TTT, and 4 summit finishes (Froome).

    This year there are half the ITT kms of 2012 in just one ITT but 5 summit finishes. Totally different kind of race to 2012 and more favourable to W/kg than W/m^2 (winner?).

    That's exactly the reason that was given: it was a "flatter"(my word) race that usual so Wiggins could beef up a bit without serious penalty. I don't see a reason for Yates to mislead people after the fact (maybe there is one?) - he's fairly blunt about Team Sky in his book in many aspects. The impression I'm left with though is that there's a marginal (probably a good word to use in this specific context) benefit to having slightly more muscle mass (and I'm sure it's slightly) on a flatter overall race - especially for someone like Wiggo for whom the TT can be a real advantage. What I'm not arguing (in case, in the context of this thread, it's misunderstood) is that loads of muscle mass is a Good Thing.

    Maintaining an unnaturally light weight puts tremendous strain on the constitution. It isn't just power to weight. You also have to factor in health and constitution. If Wiggins is healthier and can recover faster and better at a slightly higher weight it may allow him to compete better over the whole 3 weeks.

    Remember Boardman went as light as possible one year. On paper it meant he would be more competitive in the mountains. In reality he was more competitive one day but hopeless the next. The lighter weight impacted on his ability to recover.
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    Stalin wrote:
    Maintaining an unnaturally light weight puts tremendous strain on the constitution. It isn't just power to weight. You also have to factor in health and constitution. If Wiggins is healthier and can recover faster and better at a slightly higher weight it may allow him to compete better over the whole 3 weeks.

    Remember Boardman went as light as possible one year. On paper it meant he would be more competitive in the mountains. In reality he was more competitive one day but hopeless the next. The lighter weight impacted on his ability to recover.

    I did wonder if this was part of the reason too. For any given situation there had to be the optimal size. There's no doubt that the cyclists around here (North NL), for instance, believe that it favours bigger men than, say, down in the Ardennes.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    mmacavity wrote:
    Can you please stop random link posting without providing explanation(s) for the links. It's poor netiquette.

    This I presume is the same Ed Burke (deceased) that was responsible for organising blood doping on the USA Olympic cycling team, and no doubt quotes Armstrong as an example of how one should strength train? :roll:
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    mmacavity wrote:
    Can you please stop random link posting without providing explanation(s) for the links. It's poor netiquette.

    Agreed - although looking back at the guy's post history, that's all he ever seems to do, regardless of topic.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,803
    Imposter wrote:
    mmacavity wrote:
    Can you please stop random link posting without providing explanation(s) for the links. It's poor netiquette.

    Agreed - although looking back at the guy's post history, that's all he ever seems to do, regardless of topic.
    It's probably the future of academic argument. Well, it saves the effort of actually copying and pasting chunks of text from wikipedia, which is the current model.
  • top_bhoy
    top_bhoy Posts: 1,424
    Stalin wrote:
    Maintaining an unnaturally light weight puts tremendous strain on the constitution. It isn't just power to weight. You also have to factor in health and constitution. If Wiggins is healthier and can recover faster and better at a slightly higher weight it may allow him to compete better over the whole 3 weeks.

    Remember Boardman went as light as possible one year. On paper it meant he would be more competitive in the mountains. In reality he was more competitive one day but hopeless the next. The lighter weight impacted on his ability to recover.

    I did wonder if this was part of the reason too. For any given situation there had to be the optimal size. There's no doubt that the cyclists around here (North NL), for instance, believe that it favours bigger men than, say, down in the Ardennes.
    I had a thought about this. If this is true wrt Boardman (although I have my doubts as there were several experts involved with his preparation) then the team of scientists and coaches behind him should be publicly castigated for getting it so badly wrong. Boardman projected the image that he trained purely on numbers and science hence if true, it indicates that listening to coaches and scientists isn't always the right policy. :lol:
  • Stalin
    Stalin Posts: 208
    Top_Bhoy wrote:
    Stalin wrote:
    Maintaining an unnaturally light weight puts tremendous strain on the constitution. It isn't just power to weight. You also have to factor in health and constitution. If Wiggins is healthier and can recover faster and better at a slightly higher weight it may allow him to compete better over the whole 3 weeks.

    Remember Boardman went as light as possible one year. On paper it meant he would be more competitive in the mountains. In reality he was more competitive one day but hopeless the next. The lighter weight impacted on his ability to recover.

    I did wonder if this was part of the reason too. For any given situation there had to be the optimal size. There's no doubt that the cyclists around here (North NL), for instance, believe that it favours bigger men than, say, down in the Ardennes.
    I had a thought about this. If this is true wrt Boardman (although I have my doubts as there were several experts involved with his preparation) then the team of scientists and coaches behind him should be publicly castigated for getting it so badly wrong. Boardman projected the image that he trained purely on numbers and science hence if true, it indicates that listening to coaches and scientists isn't always the right policy. :lol:

    All in Boardman's book. Peter Keen crunched the numbers. But Boardman admits he overdid it. His wife told him he was overdoing it, but he became obsessive. I can't remember if Boardman got lighter than Keen advised. What Keen and Boardman could not have known, is the effect his weight loss would have over a span of weeks or months. The weight loss worked, it enabled him to climb better one day, but It affected his recovery the next. His form became unpredictable. Recovery wasn't Boardman's strong point.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Le Tour in the latter half of the 1990s isn't really a meaningful contest to assess how someone would manage recovery.
  • top_bhoy
    top_bhoy Posts: 1,424
    Le Tour in the latter half of the 1990s isn't really a meaningful contest to assess how someone would manage recovery.
    Are you suggesting Boardman doped? :o :evil:
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    Top_Bhoy wrote:
    Le Tour in the latter half of the 1990s isn't really a meaningful contest to assess how someone would manage recovery.
    Are you suggesting Boardman doped? :o :evil:

    I'd imagine exactly the opposite. I'd imagine quite a few riders "recovered" with "help" - Boardman's performance might look a bit weak against those guys.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • frisbee
    frisbee Posts: 691
    Stalin wrote:
    Top_Bhoy wrote:
    Stalin wrote:
    Maintaining an unnaturally light weight puts tremendous strain on the constitution. It isn't just power to weight. You also have to factor in health and constitution. If Wiggins is healthier and can recover faster and better at a slightly higher weight it may allow him to compete better over the whole 3 weeks.

    Remember Boardman went as light as possible one year. On paper it meant he would be more competitive in the mountains. In reality he was more competitive one day but hopeless the next. The lighter weight impacted on his ability to recover.

    I did wonder if this was part of the reason too. For any given situation there had to be the optimal size. There's no doubt that the cyclists around here (North NL), for instance, believe that it favours bigger men than, say, down in the Ardennes.
    I had a thought about this. If this is true wrt Boardman (although I have my doubts as there were several experts involved with his preparation) then the team of scientists and coaches behind him should be publicly castigated for getting it so badly wrong. Boardman projected the image that he trained purely on numbers and science hence if true, it indicates that listening to coaches and scientists isn't always the right policy. :lol:

    All in Boardman's book. Peter Keen crunched the numbers. But Boardman admits he overdid it. His wife told him he was overdoing it, but he became obsessive. I can't remember if Boardman got lighter than Keen advised. What Keen and Boardman could not have known, is the effect his weight loss would have over a span of weeks or months. The weight loss worked, it enabled him to climb better one day, but It affected his recovery the next. His form became unpredictable. Recovery wasn't Boardman's strong point.

    As Colin Chapman said, "Any car which holds together for more than a race is too heavy."

    Go light and it increases your chances of winning, it also increases your chance of getting ill. But the chance to win far outweighs a guaranteed 10th place.
  • Stalin
    Stalin Posts: 208
    frisbee wrote:
    Stalin wrote:
    Top_Bhoy wrote:
    Stalin wrote:
    Maintaining an unnaturally light weight puts tremendous strain on the constitution. It isn't just power to weight. You also have to factor in health and constitution. If Wiggins is healthier and can recover faster and better at a slightly higher weight it may allow him to compete better over the whole 3 weeks.

    Remember Boardman went as light as possible one year. On paper it meant he would be more competitive in the mountains. In reality he was more competitive one day but hopeless the next. The lighter weight impacted on his ability to recover.

    I did wonder if this was part of the reason too. For any given situation there had to be the optimal size. There's no doubt that the cyclists around here (North NL), for instance, believe that it favours bigger men than, say, down in the Ardennes.
    I had a thought about this. If this is true wrt Boardman (although I have my doubts as there were several experts involved with his preparation) then the team of scientists and coaches behind him should be publicly castigated for getting it so badly wrong. Boardman projected the image that he trained purely on numbers and science hence if true, it indicates that listening to coaches and scientists isn't always the right policy. :lol:

    All in Boardman's book. Peter Keen crunched the numbers. But Boardman admits he overdid it. His wife told him he was overdoing it, but he became obsessive. I can't remember if Boardman got lighter than Keen advised. What Keen and Boardman could not have known, is the effect his weight loss would have over a span of weeks or months. The weight loss worked, it enabled him to climb better one day, but It affected his recovery the next. His form became unpredictable. Recovery wasn't Boardman's strong point.

    As Colin Chapman said, "Any car which holds together for more than a race is too heavy."

    Go light and it increases your chances of winning, it also increases your chance of getting ill. But the chance to win far outweighs a guaranteed 10th place.

    Boardman lost weight to make him more competitive over the Tour de France. It wasn't that he got ill, it made his form unpredictable. He would go well one day in the mountains then have nothing the next day.

    You are correct though, trying to sustain too little body fat does seem to play havoc with the immune system. I have found there is a tipping point.

    One problem is that assumptions are made about what constitutes a healthy body fat. One man can be perfectly healthy at 4% but another finds 10% causes him problems. Then you have the notorious unreliability of body fat estimation methods. Particularly these scales which claim to measure body fat etc. I used to say they are good only for checking trends up or down. I've now revised my opinion, don't bother with them at all, they are rubbish.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Top_Bhoy wrote:
    Le Tour in the latter half of the 1990s isn't really a meaningful contest to assess how someone would manage recovery.
    Are you suggesting Boardman doped? :o :evil:

    No.

    I'm saying that to make comparisons on performance matters (e.g. some training or riding "technique", or training intervention, or diet or recovery method or whatever) of professional cyclists during that era probably isn't overly meaningful given the widely varying impacts of the rampant doping that masks over everything.

    Those that did dope (a majority) had widely variable responses to the doping (which itself was highly variable in its nature), and those that didn't dope (the minority) were screwed over and perhaps had to dig deeper in several ways in order to attempt to compete (e.g. weight loss) and one wouldn't be surprised if their recovery was compromised in such a turbo charged environment.

    Now I don't mean to take this thread into a doping discussion, just wanted to point out some context of the times.
  • Stalin
    Stalin Posts: 208
    Top_Bhoy wrote:
    Le Tour in the latter half of the 1990s isn't really a meaningful contest to assess how someone would manage recovery.
    Are you suggesting Boardman doped? :o :evil:

    No.

    I'm saying that to make comparisons on performance matters (e.g. some training or riding "technique", or training intervention, or diet or recovery method or whatever) of professional cyclists during that era probably isn't overly meaningful given the widely varying impacts of the rampant doping that masks over everything.

    Those that did dope (a majority) had widely variable responses to the doping (which itself was highly variable in its nature), and those that didn't dope (the minority) were screwed over and perhaps had to dig deeper in several ways in order to attempt to compete (e.g. weight loss) and one wouldn't be surprised if their recovery was compromised in such a turbo charged environment.

    Now I don't mean to take this thread into a doping discussion, just wanted to point out some context of the times.

    I was using Boardman because his experience was a good example of how excessive weight loss can lead to problems.

    Boardman used an SRM at the time. In his book when he refers to his form being unpredictable and his weight loss affecting his ability to recover, he is referring to himself compared to himself before the weight loss. Boardman never had the ability to recover as well as other top tour riders. As you rightly point out we don't know who was on what exactly back then but we know most were on stuff, so we can't make comparisons rider to rider. Boardman was writing about himself and how his excessive weight loss affected him. So he is a valid example.

    The point being, that even a Boardman with the help of peter Keen and others can make mistakes with experimenting with weight loss.

    You get a lot of young inexperienced people on cycling forums who may not be aware that excessive weight loss in pursuit of an improved power to weight ratio might impact on their health and or ability to train.