climbing, force/power required

124678

Comments

  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    reacher wrote:
    Ok, i didn't realise we were not allowed to ask questions on training in his section

    Asking questions is fine obviously - just not the same one over and over again, and especially when you already claim to have understood on previous pages.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    reacher wrote:
    That's all very well and I don't disagree but what happens as you age is the question I keep on asking at some stage strength has to play a part or you would have really old people doing all sorts of sports at very high levels, simply put at some stage that old person will fail to get out of that chair or climb those stairs up his house, that's a strength issue nothing else.
    I still don't really get that the force in big gear work is not strength, when I do big gear work it's not aerobic capacity or anything else that stops me useing an even bigger gear it's simply too hard to push round, surely that has to be a strength element because the more I do it the easier it gets so what's improving ? I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong btw just trying to understand the elements of training. Thanks for the input
    As you seem to be more interested in the age decline bit. I will relate a bit more of my own experience to see if it helps. As imposter has stated it depends on how long you have been doing the training and at what level.
    I ruptured my Achilles in January and was out of climbing till may, by the end of June I was back at the level I had been pre injury. Cycling wise I had not ridden more than 60 miles since October 15 but was using the turbo and do the odd 50 miler pre injury. As cycling was part of the rehab I was able to do the Lincoln Arrow on May 22nd 99 miles in 5 hrs 33 mins.
    What I am eluding to here is that my body has been trained for 40 plus years so even after a period of inactivity it soon gets back to previous levels. Yes there is some age related decline but it will not be as fast as a 60 year old who only started training at 55.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    reacher wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    reacher wrote:

    How is that helping to understand what happens as you age when riding a bike and trying to improve your performance other than the fact that some old person has managed to go around a park, although I would hazard a guess that she was not beating many 25 year old runners so maybe it is relevant


    As you age, your strength declines, your V02 max declines and your aerobic capacity declines. The rate of decline depends on where it is starting from, and what level of exercise you already undertake. What else are you not understanding about getting older? You claim to have understood this on previous pages and yet you clearly see the need to repeat the question for some reason. It's almost like you're trolling.

    Ok, i didn't realise we were not allowed to ask questions on training in his section

    Here is another idiot, along with that clown Friel and those morons at BC that dont understand that all you need to do is ride your bike, take no notice of these buffoons.

    http://www.hunterallenpowerblog.com/201 ... chive.html
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    mamba80 wrote:

    Here is another idiot, along with that clown Friel and those morons at BC that dont understand that all you need to do is ride your bike, take no notice of these buffoons.

    http://www.hunterallenpowerblog.com/201 ... chive.html

    That guy is selling 'Kettlebell Max (tm)' exercises and his evidence is purely anecdotal. Come on Mamba, you can do better...
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,305
    reacher wrote:
    I still don't really get that the force in big gear work is not strength, when I do big gear work it's not aerobic capacity or anything else that stops me useing an even bigger gear it's simply too hard to push round, surely that has to be a strength element because the more I do it the easier it gets so what's improving ?
    Until you understand the difference between strength and power, you won't understand why you're not "really getting" what people are saying here, or why people are getting wound up by your repeated questions.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Brian - we can't go on meeting like this ;)
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,305
    Imposter wrote:
    Brian - we can't go on meeting like this ;)
    Moths to a flame...
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    reacher wrote:
    I still don't really get that the force in big gear work is not strength, when I do big gear work it's not aerobic capacity or anything else that stops me useing an even bigger gear it's simply too hard to push round, surely that has to be a strength element because the more I do it the easier it gets so what's improving ?
    Until you understand the difference between strength and power, you won't understand why you're not "really getting" what people are saying here, or why people are getting wound up by your repeated questions.


    3 pages devoted to how many fig rolls to eat in an hour, I ask some questions that are important to me an its suddenly not allowed, I'm not asking them to enlighten you, you dont need to answer anything I post, yet im doing something wrong in posting these questions ? If you don't like what I'm asking why don't you and imposter go and post somewhere else on the forum, it's not a requirement that you answer every post with a clever one liner like imposter seems to do on every subject that people want to discuss, for your information I've learned a lot and mostly thanks to those who took he trouble to try and help. No wonder people don't bother asking anything and before you reply with a smart answer believe it or not some people like to discuss training even if they are wrong thats how people learn stuff or didnt you know that either, rather than just try to be a clever dick on every thread that's posted
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    reacher wrote:
    reacher wrote:
    I still don't really get that the force in big gear work is not strength, when I do big gear work it's not aerobic capacity or anything else that stops me useing an even bigger gear it's simply too hard to push round, surely that has to be a strength element because the more I do it the easier it gets so what's improving ?
    Until you understand the difference between strength and power, you won't understand why you're not "really getting" what people are saying here, or why people are getting wound up by your repeated questions.


    3 pages devoted to how many fig rolls to eat in an hour, I ask some questions that are important to me an its suddenly not allowed, I'm not asking them to enlighten you, you dont need to answer anything I post, yet im doing something wrong in posting these questions ? If you don't like what I'm asking why don't you and imposter go and post somewhere else on the forum, it's not a requirement that you answer every post with a clever one liner like imposter seems to do on every subject that people want to discuss, for your information I've learned a lot and mostly thanks to those who took he trouble to try and help. No wonder people don't bother asking anything and before you reply with a smart answer believe it or not some people like to discuss training even if they are wrong thats how people learn stuff or didnt you know that either, for future reference try not to answer my posts if all you want to do is be a one line clever dick that way you won't get wound up ]
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,305
    reacher wrote:
    reacher wrote:
    I still don't really get that the force in big gear work is not strength, when I do big gear work it's not aerobic capacity or anything else that stops me useing an even bigger gear it's simply too hard to push round, surely that has to be a strength element because the more I do it the easier it gets so what's improving ?
    Until you understand the difference between strength and power, you won't understand why you're not "really getting" what people are saying here, or why people are getting wound up by your repeated questions.


    3 pages devoted to how many fig rolls to eat in an hour, I ask some questions that are important to me an its suddenly not allowed, I'm not asking them to enlighten you, you dont need to answer anything I post, yet im doing something wrong in posting these questions ? If you don't like what I'm asking why don't you and imposter go and post somewhere else on the forum, it's not a requirement that you answer every post with a clever one liner like imposter seems to do on every subject that people want to discuss, for your information I've learned a lot and mostly thanks to those who took he trouble to try and help. No wonder people don't bother asking anything and before you reply with a smart answer believe it or not some people like to discuss training even if they are wrong thats how people learn stuff or didnt you know that either, rather than just try to be a clever dick on every thread that's posted
    I'd never have a dig at anyone for asking questions, but if you really don't understand the difference between strength and power, then you'll not get any useful answers, any more than someone not knowing the difference between wattage and amperage would on a physics forum.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    reacher wrote:
    3 pages devoted to how many fig rolls to eat in an hour, I ask some questions that are important to me an its suddenly not allowed,

    Asking the same question repeatedly, when you already claim to have understood the answer previously is a little odd though, do you not agree? If the discussion was progressive, there would not be an issue.
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    That's exactly what I mean, you both seem to feel some overwhelming need to reply to people's posts in a manner that I can only assume makes you feel more important by trying to search through threads and find stuff that you can answer in this way, trying to pick holes or point out stuff in posts that are limited in what and the way you can ask stuff, in the very nature of forums its inevitable that stuff will be repeated or phrased incorrectly at times, it's not big and it's not clever chaps, I've already said that I got pretty much the info I needed from several people who I thanked for their input. The rest was just discussion and if some of it was repeated then simply ignore it and read something else and respond to the stuff your interested in. To be honest the one name that comes up constantly across these threads in this manner as iv looked at stuff over a period is Imposter constantly delivering these smart arse answers , I can only assume your his side kick.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Maybe we are the only two who can be arsed to repeatedly reply to this kind of crap. Not sure what that says about us, to be honest. Anyway, you're welcome. Next time I'll just tell you to UTFS.
  • reacher wrote:
    reacher wrote:
    I still don't really get that the force in big gear work is not strength, when I do big gear work it's not aerobic capacity or anything else that stops me useing an even bigger gear it's simply too hard to push round, surely that has to be a strength element because the more I do it the easier it gets so what's improving ?
    Until you understand the difference between strength and power, you won't understand why you're not "really getting" what people are saying here, or why people are getting wound up by your repeated questions.


    3 pages devoted to how many fig rolls to eat in an hour, I ask some questions that are important to me an its suddenly not allowed, I'm not asking them to enlighten you, you dont need to answer anything I post, yet im doing something wrong in posting these questions ? If you don't like what I'm asking why don't you and imposter go and post somewhere else on the forum, it's not a requirement that you answer every post with a clever one liner like imposter seems to do on every subject that people want to discuss, for your information I've learned a lot and mostly thanks to those who took he trouble to try and help. No wonder people don't bother asking anything and before you reply with a smart answer believe it or not some people like to discuss training even if they are wrong thats how people learn stuff or didnt you know that either, rather than just try to be a clever dick on every thread that's posted
    So that we can get a sense of what you are or are not getting, in your own words please explain the difference between strength, force and power.
  • reacher wrote:
    I still don't really get that the force in big gear work is not strength,
    Because the forces involved in such big gear cycling are significantly sub-maximal. Strength is a maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles.

    e.g. would you go to a gym and lift your 300 rep weight to improve strength? The answer of course is no. To build strength you lift weights which are a significant proportion of your 1 rep max, and the number of reps you can do with such weight is relatively small (e.g. one to a dozen lifts).
    reacher wrote:
    when I do big gear work it's not aerobic capacity or anything else that stops me useing an even bigger gear it's simply too hard to push round, surely that has to be a strength element because the more I do it the easier it gets so what's improving ? I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong btw just trying to understand the elements of training. Thanks for the input
    If the power you are putting out is above that you can sustain for a longish period (i.e. threshold power), then you will be drawing upon short term energy reserves that provide energy anaerobically (i.e. without oxygen) to supplement your aerobic power capacity.

    That short term energy supply is rather limited and ultimately you burn through it all and eventually fatigue and are forced to recover. Depending on how hard you are attempting to ride relative to your maximal aerobic capability, it's possible to burn through your anaerobic reserves in a minute or three. The recovery of those anaerobic energy reserves is itself a wholly aerobic process, and hence you are not only forced back to aerobic effort levels, but well below that as your body needs your aerobic system to replenish your short term anaerobic energy supply.

    For efforts at the very peak of your cycling power capability (e.g. sprint power), then we have enough energy supply for about 5 or 6 seconds of such effort before neuromuscular fatigue and a draining of the very rapidly available but very short term PCr energy system sets in. Replenishment is also an aerobic process and often requires quite a deal of recovery at low effort level (preferably rest).

    Riding big gear efforts up hills is a pretty common coaching ruse simply to make people ride at a higher power level (it sort of focuses people on one thing while it's actually doing another). The impact of doing that versus say riding a more normal gear and putting out the same power is 3/5th of SFA. The adaptations that are being stimulated are metabolic in nature, not strength (which is mostly about neural adaptations and hypertrophy of muscle fibres, especially fast twitch).
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    reacher wrote:
    I still don't really get that the force in big gear work is not strength,
    Because the forces involved in such big gear cycling are significantly sub-maximal. Strength is a maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles.

    e.g. would you go to a gym and lift your 300 rep weight to improve strength? The answer of course is no. To build strength you lift weights which are a significant proportion of your 1 rep max, and the number of reps you can do with such weight is relatively small (e.g. one to a dozen lifts).
    reacher wrote:
    when I do big gear work it's not aerobic capacity or anything else that stops me useing an even bigger gear it's simply too hard to push round, surely that has to be a strength element because the more I do it the easier it gets so what's improving ? I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong btw just trying to understand the elements of training. Thanks for the input
    If the power you are putting out is above that you can sustain for a longish period (i.e. threshold power), then you will be drawing upon short term energy reserves that provide energy anaerobically (i.e. without oxygen) to supplement your aerobic power capacity.

    That short term energy supply is rather limited and ultimately you burn through it all and eventually fatigue and are forced to recover. Depending on how hard you are attempting to ride relative to your maximal aerobic capability, it's possible to burn through your anaerobic reserves in a minute or three. The recovery of those anaerobic energy reserves is itself a wholly aerobic process, and hence you are not only forced back to aerobic effort levels, but well below that as your body needs your aerobic system to replenish your short term anaerobic energy supply.

    For efforts at the very peak of your cycling power capability (e.g. sprint power), then we have enough energy supply for about 5 or 6 seconds of such effort before neuromuscular fatigue and a draining of the very rapidly available but very short term PCr energy system sets in. Replenishment is also an aerobic process and often requires quite a deal of recovery at low effort level (preferably rest).

    Riding big gear efforts up hills is a pretty common coaching ruse simply to make people ride at a higher power level (it sort of focuses people on one thing while it's actually doing another). The impact of doing that versus say riding a more normal gear and putting out the same power is 3/5th of SFA. The adaptations that are being stimulated are metabolic in nature, not strength (which is mostly about neural adaptations and hypertrophy of muscle fibres, especially fast twitch).

    Ok thanks Alex, I'm getting what your saying finally lol, it's actually changed my approach to training and put me in a whole new direction for what I'm training to do, in actual fact the differance is noticible already in performance just by making those changes that you suggested, its not that i was not training hard i was just putting the effort in the wrong place hence the post,it's very much appreciated that you have taken the time and trouble to reply with such in depth answers, i will be sure to let you know how I get on and thank you for your patience best regards
  • Indeed, the physiological adaptions involved in a rider increasing sustainable power output include:
    - increased muscle glycogen storage,
    - increased muscle mitochondrial enzymes,
    - increased lactate threshold,
    - increased muscle capillarisation,
    - hypertrophy of slow twitch muscle fibres,
    - increased blood plasma volume,
    - increase heart stroke volume and maximal cardiac output,
    - increased VO2max.

    Is increased blood Hct not something you'd expect to see? I don't think it will change much but my nderstanding (from a friend who does have very high natural Hct and performance to match - but also has health issues related to this) is that it does respond to training. Clearly Hct and performance are closely linked.

    It would also be interesting to know if and how lung function changes. I think increased VO2max isn't so much a physiological adaption but a result of same. Same is true of lactate threshold.

    It would also be interesting to understand which of the list change quickly and those that change slowly. There's no doubt that there are elements of fitness that fall off quickly (but also come back quicker) and those that take a long time to build but remain much longer when training stops.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • Indeed, the physiological adaptions involved in a rider increasing sustainable power output include:
    - increased muscle glycogen storage,
    - increased muscle mitochondrial enzymes,
    - increased lactate threshold,
    - increased muscle capillarisation,
    - hypertrophy of slow twitch muscle fibres,
    - increased blood plasma volume,
    - increase heart stroke volume and maximal cardiac output,
    - increased VO2max.

    Is increased blood Hct not something you'd expect to see? I don't think it will change much but my nderstanding (from a friend who does have very high natural Hct and performance to match - but also has health issues related to this) is that it does respond to training. Clearly Hct and performance are closely linked.

    It would also be interesting to know if and how lung function changes. I think increased VO2max isn't so much a physiological adaption but a result of same. Same is true of lactate threshold.

    It would also be interesting to understand which of the list change quickly and those that change slowly. There's no doubt that there are elements of fitness that fall off quickly (but also come back quicker) and those that take a long time to build but remain much longer when training stops.
    Hct isn't something that differs greatly due to training AFAIK (it does vary quite a bit in an acute sense during exercise due to blood plasma volume changes, but not so much in a baseline sense). It does vary naturally through a season.

    No doubt there are studies to point to but I recall one which specifically examined Hct in both trained and untrained individuals before and after training interventions designed to improve aerobic capabilities and there was no statistically significant change in Hct in either group.

    Hct can actually drop with sufficient training load. Given the increase in blood plasma volume this is not surprising.

    Many studies show that athletes in general have lower Hct than sedentary controls.

    Not sure about lung function but lung capacity is rarely a limiter.
  • It would also be interesting to understand which of the list change quickly and those that change slowly. There's no doubt that there are elements of fitness that fall off quickly (but also come back quicker) and those that take a long time to build but remain much longer when training stops.
    Yes they do have difference response times and the reversibility principle applies. In general think of lactate threshold and associated physiological changes as being malleable over weeks, months and years, VO2max / maximal aerobic capacity as malleable over weeks to a couple of months, and anaerobic and sprint capabilities as malleable over days/weeks (hours even).

    One does need to carefully consider the timing and dosage of efforts designed to emphasise the various physiological attributes considered desirable for whatever your goals are.
  • Dave_P1
    Dave_P1 Posts: 565
    Interesting thread which I've enjoyed reading.

    I notice a lot of World Class mountain biker's spend a lot of time in the gym doing various leg exercises, squats, dead lifts etc etc and I just wondered what could the reason behind this be?

    It's a genuine question as I'm interested, not here to troll. I'm not doubting what has been written above as the like's of Alex know far more about this than what I do :)
  • fat daddy
    fat daddy Posts: 2,605
    Mountain biking requires a lot more strength ... it's less about spinning the legs for 6 hours and more about sudden bursts of high intense work for short periods, also the upper body is utilised.

    Track cyclists / sprinters also do a lot in the gym
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    fat daddy wrote:
    Track cyclists / sprinters also do a lot in the gym

    They certainly seem to - but I can't help thinking there's a massive bubble that needs bursting over this 'sprinters need to push weights' malarkey. It's quite possible they do, but then you also have to compare someone like Forstermann (his infamous legs in particular), with someone like Kenny, whose physique for the same discipline is totally different. Only one of them has been world and olympic sprint champ though.

    They may both do weights work, although Forstermann clearly does a bit more than Jason. But to no obvious benefit, it seems.
  • Whilst I respect all of your views, power and strength in the broader sense are inextricably the same thing. No-one was ever discussing your 1-rep max although that can be helpful. None of the above even comes close to really understanding the true physiology and what it means to become a more powerful rider. I assure you the more power you output the stronger you're muscles must be. The key to understanding all of this is to realise that you can create the same power from cycling but weights short-cuts the process by enacting the fiber and nerve recruitment required in a much more intensive way. The aerobic aspect applies to ALL muscle fibers, and is an absolute neccesity for sports such as cycling. But w/kg will not change unless you over-stress your muscles.

    I think you need to look at what professional road cyclists are actually doing. Nathan Haas for example form the link below.

    http://www.menshealth.co.uk/fitness/how ... ad-cyclist
  • gavt0333 wrote:
    Whilst I respect all of your views, power and strength in the broader sense are inextricably the same thing.
    They most certainly are not. Not in a physics sense and not in a physiology sense.

    This really fundamental misunderstanding is why we end up with threads like this all the time.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,305
    gavt0333 wrote:
    Whilst I respect all of your views, power and strength in the broader sense are inextricably the same thing.
    They most certainly are not. Not in a physics sense and not in a physiology sense.

    This really fundamental misunderstanding is why we end up with threads like this all the time.
    Don't forget that in this 'post-truth' world, words can mean anything you want them to.
  • Imposter wrote:
    fat daddy wrote:
    Track cyclists / sprinters also do a lot in the gym

    They certainly seem to - but I can't help thinking there's a massive bubble that needs bursting over this 'sprinters need to push weights' malarkey. It's quite possible they do, but then you also have to compare someone like Forstermann (his infamous legs in particular), with someone like Kenny, whose physique for the same discipline is totally different. Only one of them has been world and olympic sprint champ though.

    They may both do weights work, although Forstermann clearly does a bit more than Jason. But to no obvious benefit, it seems.
    In general sprinters will need to do strength training to aid their performance development but only to a point. The reasons are due to the different nature of physiological demands in such events compared with endurance cycling.

    The primary issue is that it's about applying highish forces at speed. IOW being able to apply a bigger force is of little value if it can't be done at speed. As you say, being stronger does not automatically imply one will be faster. It's a physiological reality that as soon as the velocity of movement increases, the maximal force we can apply reduces. At peak levels before fatigue sets in (i.e. after a handful of seconds), this relationship is linear.

    This is why the most important training a sprinter does is sprinting.

    Elite track sprinters in general are not excessively strong when compared with athletes in pure strength events. Chris Hoy for example had a 1RM squat somewhat less than the women's WR and well well under the Men's WR. As a rough rule of thumb, if you are able to squat around 2x to 2.5x body mass, then you are plenty strong for a track sprinter. More is not going to help.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Thanks Alex, much appreciated. Do we know what Forstermann's squat is in comparison? Just wondering if there is a justification for all that leg bulk..

    gavt0333 wrote:

    I think you need to look at what professional road cyclists are actually doing. Nathan Haas for example form the link below.

    http://www.menshealth.co.uk/fitness/how ... ad-cyclist

    So all pro cyclists are doing exactly the same thing as Nathan Haas? I hope not. What a bizarre article. It's almost like you don't need to train on a bike in order to win the ToB. No mention of cycle training at all.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,305
    Imposter wrote:
    No mention of cycle training at all.
    Not quite. He does say he gets on a bike to shed muscle bulk.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Imposter wrote:
    No mention of cycle training at all.
    Not quite. He does say he gets on a bike to shed muscle bulk.

    Ah yes, so he does. Build it all up in the gym, then work it off on the bike..
  • Imposter wrote:
    Thanks Alex, much appreciated. Do we know what Forstermann's squat is in comparison? Just wondering if there is a justification for all that leg bulk..
    I don't, never had any particular interest in knowing. I did the research for Hoy at one time since he was the best for quite a while it made more sense to see what he was doing.

    Track sprinters come in many shapes and sizes. e.g. Theo Boss and Chris Hoy:
    2526186118_f690be2afe.jpg

    It's not that long ago than the slimline Bos held the world record for the flying 200m TT.

    In general my advice is do strength work for various reasons (e.g. because you enjoy it, for general health and well being, vanity if that matters to you) but don't expect endurance cycling miracles. If improving endurance cycling performance is your primary aim, then strength work is way way down the list of priorities, and may potentially be detrimental.

    Keep in mind that cycling in sufficient volume and intensity also induces muscle hypertrophy (mostly slow twitch muscle fibres for aerobic level work and fast twitch fibres for neuromuscular power/sprint work) but does so in a manner that is specifically advantageous for cycling, since it is specific to the joint angles, forces and velocities encountered while cycling.