climbing, force/power required

Alex99

mamba80 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Where did you get the 12 to 18kg figure from?

they seem very low.

Power = Avg force (N) x crank length (m) x 2 x PI x cadence (rpm) / 60 (secs/min)

Simply flip that around to get average effective pedal force.

Avg force (N) = Power / [crank length (m) x 2 x PI x cadence (rpm) / 60 (secs/min)]

so 300W / (0.175m x 2 x 3.14 x 90rpm / 60) = 182 N

Which, when equated to force exerted by a mass due to gravity = 182N / 9.8m/s^2 = 18.6kg


People vastly overestimate the forces involved in cycling. They really are quite low, which is why it's not a strength sport.

The limiter in endurance cycling is the ability to aerobically generate and regenerate ATP via aerobic metabolism.

If you want to climb hills faster, you need to increase your sustainable aerobic power output and/or lose weight.

Yes all fine for a flat, long tempo ride.....

But if you want to get up a typical short 8 to 12% UK climb and stay in the club ride group, you ll have to generate more than 18kg with each pedal stroke, if i were to stand, hold the bars lightly and do very little else, thats (for me) 38kg, pull up on the bars and drive down through the leg and what is the force then?
If you want to stay with the lead group, over the top of a short climb, in a RR as the pace goes up, the forces will be even higher.

It might feel like you're applying your whole body weight to the pedal stroke whilst out of the saddle. You might be, for a fraction of the stroke, but definitely not all of it. And, if it's at low cadence out of the saddle, the power might be surprisingly low.

I

Alex_Simmons/RST

Alex99 wrote:

Clear on that. However, does strength come into part of the strategy to increase i? IOW, does developing strength generally lift the ceiling for increasing sustainable aerobic power?

No. Indeed if anything they are contraindicated but overall on the basis of the evidence, I'd say it's equivocal and YMMV.

You don't do such training to improve sustainable aerobic power, rather you do it for other reasons such as general health and well being, enjoyment, rehabilitation, or vanity. Although many quote other reasons like injury prevention benefits, that's not all that strongly supported by evidence, and other things like bone mineral density improvement are also often claimed although some light jogging-like activity would be far far more effective than weightlifting.

Alex99 wrote:

In one of the previous threads about using weights, there was a study posted that showed strength training to be effective in endurance sport. Obviously the devil is in the detail... can't recall the cohort and study details. Interested to know your thoughts.

There are quite a few studies related to strength training and cycling performance (and it's important to distinguish the exercise modality being considered because it matters, e.g. the impact of such training for running and cycling is different). Like assessment of many things in this field, we often deal with imperfect data and study design and sometimes various forms of bias, e.g. negative results are less likely to be published, very few confirmation studies are published, journal bias etc, so it requires some care to draw conclusions.

From a "body of evidence" view (IOW you can't simply pick and choose the study you like and ignore those you don't), the answer is that strength training has limited evidence of benefit for sustainable aerobic cycling performance, and may be detrimental. There is reasonably good evidence that strength training can be beneficial for sprint cycling performance, but only up to a point. From a physiological point of view, there are good reasons why this might be the case, e.g. strength training results in dilution of mitochondrial density and increases cell diffusion distance for exchange of gases and key metabolites. When seeking to increase aerobic abilities, you want to achieve the opposite effects (which is what occurs with aerobic endurance training).

In the studies that show a positive benefit of strength training for endurance cycling performance, it's generally a pretty small effect size and is far outweighed by a multitude of studies showing the performance benefits gained through specific cycling training with a far larger effect size. This also applies to sprint cycling as well but the case there is different due to the significantly different physiological and energy systems demands in play.

As always, YMMV.

Alex_Simmons/RST

okgo wrote:

Alex, what would this be in force using your calcs? I think this is likely the sort of effort Mamba might be referring to, and I remember it feeling quite hard at the time (especially at such low cadence), but I reckon its still probably not a lot of KG force...

Selection 0.2 mi 91 ft 6.0% 52s - 851W - Cadence 88 avg - 80.5kg (rider weight)

Calculating the average effective pedal force requires power output, cadence and crank length.
Neither the terrain nor rider mass are relevant.

Since I don't know crank length, the AEPF for both legs would be around 52-55kg. Which is approximately the same as this person doing squats without a weight bar on their shoulders.

reacher

Personally I think weightlifting/gyms can be a very important part of training as you age but that's open to debate as I see as many old people in very good health who tell me they have never done any exercise in their entire life and others who clearly have deteriorated very quickly as they age, so no firm conclusions their except that those who do train seem to age very well, however on to the strength issue, what's your take on older cyclists who have to move down to compact cranks and smaller gears as they age, surely this is a decline in actual physical strength or not ?

cycleclinic

Well thats a fairly convincing argument. I think I did start low cadance intervals to improve my sprinting ability which was very poor. Now it is less poor. So it may have owrked for that at least.

imposter2.0

reacher wrote:

what's your take on older cyclists who have to move down to compact cranks and smaller gears as they age, surely this is a decline in actual physical strength or not ?

Is that a speculative question of your own making? I've never heard of that issue before.

reacher

Imposter wrote:

reacher wrote:

what's your take on older cyclists who have to move down to compact cranks and smaller gears as they age, surely this is a decline in actual physical strength or not ?

Is that a speculative question of your own making? I've never heard of that issue before.

Not realy, I'm no expert but talking to older riders they seem to gravitate to smaller gears/chainrings, or do they ? That's why I asked the question maybe they don't, only older riders can answer that question how many riders as they age stay pushing standard chainsets and big gears as they age, if they do stay on those big chainsets and bigger gears then I'm wrong but if they do then clearly it's a strength issue, as I understand it, its possible to retain aerobic fitness to a very large degree , it's just a question, I'm not saying that it happens, strength has to play a part as you age as clearly demonstrated on any test of older people, strength declines or you would have old people lifting heavy weights or winning sporting events, in some way at some age strength has to play a part, which means at some level strength training has to play a significant part in older athletes

Alex_Simmons/RST

reacher wrote:

Personally I think weightlifting/gyms can be a very important part of training as you age but that's open to debate as I see as many old people in very good health who tell me they have never done any exercise in their entire life and others who clearly have deteriorated very quickly as they age, so no firm conclusions their except that those who do train seem to age very well, however on to the strength issue, what's your take on older cyclists who have to move down to compact cranks and smaller gears as they age, surely this is a decline in actual physical strength or not ?

VO2max shows a normal decline with age, typically of the order of 1% per year on average. One of course can reduce or halt that decline for a while with appropriate training, but it will inevitably decline at some stage.

Here's an example study:
http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/cardiovascu ... _Aging.pdf

mamba80

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

reacher wrote:

Personally I think weightlifting/gyms can be a very important part of training as you age but that's open to debate as I see as many old people in very good health who tell me they have never done any exercise in their entire life and others who clearly have deteriorated very quickly as they age, so no firm conclusions their except that those who do train seem to age very well, however on to the strength issue, what's your take on older cyclists who have to move down to compact cranks and smaller gears as they age, surely this is a decline in actual physical strength or not ?

VO2max shows a normal decline with age, typically of the order of 1% per year on average. One of course can reduce or halt that decline for a while with appropriate training, but it will inevitably decline at some stage.

Here's an example study:
http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/cardiovascu ... _Aging.pdf

yeah i get that but if i get weaker - (natural muscle loss) with age, then the 18kg to 50kg force that is required, takes more muscle recruitment in the initial stage, so i reduce that muscle loss, then why wont that benefit my cycling?

eg i used to be able to take the stairs 2 or 3 at a time and not get out of breath, now thats a struggle but i still dont get out of puff.......

reacher

Then if vo2 declines with age then so will strength, which I knew anyway, the strength part that is, it's just a question of at what age and what degree this happens so personally I'm not convinced people should readily dismiss weight lifting so quickly as part of a training programme and past a certain age they should consider it and definately light jogging is not better than weightlifting as you age to address these issues. The question is does this decline in strength matter to older cyclists or make a difference to the power they can put out

imposter2.0

reacher wrote:

Then if vo2 declines with age then so will strength, which I knew anyway, the strength part that is, it's just a question of at what age and what degree this happens so personally I'm not convinced people should readily dismiss weight lifting so quickly as part of a training programme and past a certain age they should consider it and definitely light jogging is not better than weightlifting as you age to address these issues. The question is does this decline in strength matter to older cyclists or make a difference to the power they can put out

I think you are missing the fundamental here, that cycling is not a strength sport - and that strength and power are not related. I think that's been mentioned already.

Alex_Simmons/RST

mamba80 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

reacher wrote:

Personally I think weightlifting/gyms can be a very important part of training as you age but that's open to debate as I see as many old people in very good health who tell me they have never done any exercise in their entire life and others who clearly have deteriorated very quickly as they age, so no firm conclusions their except that those who do train seem to age very well, however on to the strength issue, what's your take on older cyclists who have to move down to compact cranks and smaller gears as they age, surely this is a decline in actual physical strength or not ?

VO2max shows a normal decline with age, typically of the order of 1% per year on average. One of course can reduce or halt that decline for a while with appropriate training, but it will inevitably decline at some stage.

Here's an example study:
http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/cardiovascu ... _Aging.pdf

yeah i get that but if i get weaker - (natural muscle loss) with age, then the 18kg to 50kg force that is required, takes more muscle recruitment in the initial stage, so i reduce that muscle loss, then why wont that benefit my cycling?

eg i used to be able to take the stairs 2 or 3 at a time and not get out of breath, now thats a struggle but i still dont get out of puff.......

Weight training is not the only way to prevent muscle loss. Regular cycling will also prevent muscle loss, and with the added benefit of muscle with enhanced aerobic capabilities.

reacher

Imposter wrote:

reacher wrote:

Then if vo2 declines with age then so will strength, which I knew anyway, the strength part that is, it's just a question of at what age and what degree this happens so personally I'm not convinced people should readily dismiss weight lifting so quickly as part of a training programme and past a certain age they should consider it and definitely light jogging is not better than weightlifting as you age to address these issues. The question is does this decline in strength matter to older cyclists or make a difference to the power they can put out

I think you are missing the fundamental here, that cycling is not a strength sport - and that strength and power are not related. I think that's been mentioned already.

I don't think I'm missing it, I simply like to explore the possibilitys and options available when training, I actually agree with most of what's been said and to be fair have learned quite a lot at the same time

Alex99

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Clear on that. However, does strength come into part of the strategy to increase i? IOW, does developing strength generally lift the ceiling for increasing sustainable aerobic power?

No. Indeed if anything they are contraindicated but overall on the basis of the evidence, I'd say it's equivocal and YMMV.

You don't do such training to improve sustainable aerobic power, rather you do it for other reasons such as general health and well being, enjoyment, rehabilitation, or vanity. Although many quote other reasons like injury prevention benefits, that's not all that strongly supported by evidence, and other things like bone mineral density improvement are also often claimed although some light jogging-like activity would be far far more effective than weightlifting.

Alex99 wrote:

In one of the previous threads about using weights, there was a study posted that showed strength training to be effective in endurance sport. Obviously the devil is in the detail... can't recall the cohort and study details. Interested to know your thoughts.

There are quite a few studies related to strength training and cycling performance (and it's important to distinguish the exercise modality being considered because it matters, e.g. the impact of such training for running and cycling is different). Like assessment of many things in this field, we often deal with imperfect data and study design and sometimes various forms of bias, e.g. negative results are less likely to be published, very few confirmation studies are published, journal bias etc, so it requires some care to draw conclusions.

From a "body of evidence" view (IOW you can't simply pick and choose the study you like and ignore those you don't), the answer is that strength training has limited evidence of benefit for sustainable aerobic cycling performance, and may be detrimental. There is reasonably good evidence that strength training can be beneficial for sprint cycling performance, but only up to a point. From a physiological point of view, there are good reasons why this might be the case, e.g. strength training results in dilution of mitochondrial density and increases cell diffusion distance for exchange of gases and key metabolites. When seeking to increase aerobic abilities, you want to achieve the opposite effects (which is what occurs with aerobic endurance training).

In the studies that show a positive benefit of strength training for endurance cycling performance, it's generally a pretty small effect size and is far outweighed by a multitude of studies showing the performance benefits gained through specific cycling training with a far larger effect size. This also applies to sprint cycling as well but the case there is different due to the significantly different physiological and energy systems demands in play.

As always, YMMV.

Awesome. Many thanks

reacher

Seems to me that as the road tilts up the force required on the pedals goes up in proportion, it happens instantly not as you start to suffer, its a damm sight harder to push those pedals around, their talking about 15 kilos singularly or 30 kilos jointly a metre every second to generate 300 watts, now 30 kilos might not sound like much but try lifting a 30 kilo plate its pretty heavy or a 15 kilo weight a metre every second, I get the stuff about aerobic limitations but to be honest I still can't get my head around the fact that somewhere along the line you need strength to convert to power to push the pedals around

imposter2.0

If you can lift a 30kg plate once, then you already have sufficient strength to lift the plate. If you lift the plate again (and then keep lifting it) then that is an aerobic endurance issue, not a strength issue. You already have the strength, because you can already lift the plate.

okgo

reacher wrote:

Seems to me that as the road tilts up the force required on the pedals goes up in proportion, it happens instantly not as you start to suffer, its a damm sight harder to push those pedals around, their talking about 15 kilos singularly or 30 kilos jointly a metre every second to generate 300 watts, now 30 kilos might not sound like much but try lifting a 30 kilo plate its pretty heavy or a 15 kilo weight a metre every second, I get the stuff about aerobic limitations but to be honest I still can't get my head around the fact that somewhere along the line you need strength to convert to power to push the pedals around

Just go back and re-read until you do.

gavt0333

Hi folks,

Very interesting discussion. As far as i'm aware although someone can lift a weight once, their inability to do it more than once is related to the number and type of muscle fibers recruited. The muscle fibers themselves do need to be able to withstand the aerobic and anaerobic demands placed on them ie. endurance but a stronger muscle is actually one where more fibers are able to be recruited for a particular motion which can be improved by strength training and low cadence cycling at higher watts. The ability to push lots of watts for long periods of time is a function of strength x aerobic/anaerobic endurance. I do gym work and there is no question in my mind that it improves endurance as well as strength. Too much emphasis is placed on slow-twitch vs fast-twitch fibers IMO when every action will recruit a mix of each. Better to have lots more fibers of all types than less!

reacher

Imposter wrote:

If you can lift a 30kg plate once, then you already have sufficient strength to lift the plate. If you lift the plate again (and then keep lifting it) then that is an aerobic endurance issue, not a strength issue. You already have the strength, because you can already lift the plate.

Not a chance, have you ever lifted a 30 kilo plate ? It's blooming heavy and lifting it more than once is definitely hard to do and I can tell you I don't get out of breath doing it, and the only people I see doing multiple reps with it are not aerobically gifted in any way what so ever, their strong, you won't see any skinny marathon runners doing it

imposter2.0

gavt0333 wrote:

The ability to push lots of watts for long periods of time is a function of strength x aerobic/anaerobic endurance.

Strength does not feature in a power/watts equation. Force does. The two are not the same. You can already see that the forces required to generate the level of power being discussed here are generally low and well within the existing capability of most people. Please just read the thread.

imposter2.0

reacher wrote:

Imposter wrote:

If you can lift a 30kg plate once, then you already have sufficient strength to lift the plate. If you lift the plate again (and then keep lifting it) then that is an aerobic endurance issue, not a strength issue. You already have the strength, because you can already lift the plate.

Not a chance, have you ever lifted a 30 kilo plate ? It's blooming heavy and lifting it more than once is definitely hard to do and I can tell you I don't get out of breath doing it, and the only people I see doing multiple reps with it are not aerobically gifted in any way what so ever, their strong, you won't see any skinny marathon runners doing it

Sorry, I don't really get what you're on about.

reacher

Imposter wrote:

reacher wrote:

Imposter wrote:

If you can lift a 30kg plate once, then you already have sufficient strength to lift the plate. If you lift the plate again (and then keep lifting it) then that is an aerobic endurance issue, not a strength issue. You already have the strength, because you can already lift the plate.

Not a chance, have you ever lifted a 30 kilo plate ? It's blooming heavy and lifting it more than once is definitely hard to do and I can tell you I don't get out of breath doing it, and the only people I see doing multiple reps with it are not aerobically gifted in any way what so ever, their strong, you won't see any skinny marathon runners doing it

Sorry, I don't really understand what you're talking about. Please follow okgo's advice given earlier.

You don't understand the fact that to lift a 30 kilo weight or move it a metre every second requires strength, go to a gym pick up a 30 kilo weight try and do multiple reps and tell me what happens, I guarantee you that you won't get out of breath in any way what so ever before you give up

imposter2.0

reacher wrote:

Imposter wrote:

reacher wrote:

Imposter wrote:

If you can lift a 30kg plate once, then you already have sufficient strength to lift the plate. If you lift the plate again (and then keep lifting it) then that is an aerobic endurance issue, not a strength issue. You already have the strength, because you can already lift the plate.

Not a chance, have you ever lifted a 30 kilo plate ? It's blooming heavy and lifting it more than once is definitely hard to do and I can tell you I don't get out of breath doing it, and the only people I see doing multiple reps with it are not aerobically gifted in any way what so ever, their strong, you won't see any skinny marathon runners doing it

Sorry, I don't really understand what you're talking about. Please follow okgo's advice given earlier.

You don't understand the fact that to lift a 30 kilo weight or move it a metre every second requires strength, go to a gym pick up a 30 kilo weight try and do multiple reps and tell me what happens, I guarantee you that you won't get out of breath in any way what so ever before you give up

Two things: 1, you haven't understood my earlier post. 2, you need to look up the definition of strength. In physiology terms, I believe it is generally defined as your maximum force generation for 1rm.

gavt0333

Well that would be maximum 1 rep strength. Power will always be about the number of muscle fibers you can recruit x their ability to withstand repeated contraction. A stronger muscle with better motor unit recruitment will be much more efficient at doing an activity and thus will have significantly more endurance.

imposter2.0

gavt0333 wrote:

A stronger muscle with better motor unit recruitment will be much more efficient at doing an activity and thus will have significantly more endurance.

I suspect you mean a 'better trained' muscle, not a 'stronger' muscle. Strength has little bearing on endurance. Like I said earlier, please just read the thread and be clear on which various arguments put forward you are disagreeing with and why.

reacher

Not really disagreeing and reading something twice does not change much at all, in fact I'm agreeing with it all pretty much however I find he subject of strength/power in cycling something that is important to me, particularly at my age. What I don't understand is that without gears it's strength that turns the pedals ie the reason why some people use compacts and small gears, I understand that all the other stuff is the deciding factor like endurance aerobic ability vo2 etc. the forces to climb on anything like a reasonable gear are not insignificant therefor I just can't understand the need not to be stronger which in turn means more power and a better ability to climb better for people like me

svetty

Presumably it's only his stick thin puny legs that stop Chris Froome from being a decent cyclist. What he really needs to do is get down to the gym and do some proper manly squats - get some proper quads on him... :roll: :roll:

reacher

Svetty wrote:

Presumably it's only his stick thin puny legs that stop Chris Froome from being a decent cyclist. What he really needs to do is get down to the gym and do some proper manly squats - get some proper quads on him... :roll: :roll:

That's not helping at all, we all understand that for pro cyclists who have huge engines don't need anything but exactly that a huge engine, however no matter how much I train at my age theirs a limiting factor and that is my particular engine, getting stronger which in turn hopefully will produce more power is worth exploring if others don't want to explore these avenues then I understand that, it's not like I'm not doing the other work as well, so for me and possibly others I see it as possibly being relevant.

imposter2.0

reacher wrote:

That's not helping at all, we all understand that for pro cyclists who have huge engines don't need anything but exactly that a huge engine, however no matter how much I train at my age theirs a limiting factor and that is my particular engine, getting stronger which in turn hopefully will produce more power is worth exploring if others don't want to explore these avenues then I understand that, it's not like I'm not doing the other work as well, so for me and possibly others I see it as possibly being relevant.

It should help, because the point svetty makes is fundamental. Froome may be a pro (and we are not) but he is still a human being and therefore has the same physiology as the rest of us, which works in the same way. He is not immune to the laws of physics. Getting stronger will not give you more power, outside of a short sprint effort. You will never properly understand anything written on this thread until you de-couple strength and power.

meanredspider

Imposter wrote:

Getting stronger will not give you more power, outside of a short sprint effort.

I'm glad you edited that because this is partly where these threads go wrong. I think what is difficult to determine is when strength (as in a Hoy of this world) gives way to simple aerobic "endurance" power like a Froome