climbing, force/power required
Comments
-
Harry-S wrote:I'm in my sixties, and find gym work has no effect on my cycling ability!
What are you trying to achieve with your cycling ability.
If you are a cyclist that wants to go out for a days cycling, cruise up and down hills, enjoy you ride and get back feeling like you are still alive, then strength training will have zero effect on that, its not what its about.
Strength training is what it says, you increase strength. .. its useful for racing .. You can do this on the bike with training like sprint intervals and jumps, but the forces are a lot less, than squatting 100kg ... so, as you would expect the neuromuscular adaptions take longer.
Weight training in a gym is a short cut to strength training drills on a bike when it comes to increasing strength ... the advantage of doing it on a bike is you get the benefit of getting a ride in at the same time, so working endurance etc ... the advantage of doing it in a gym is the volume is a LOT higher so your muscles can respond quicker.
Why
Why should you increase strength ? ..... it helps with sudden acceleration, .. How long does it take you to reach 1000w at the moment (lets just assume you can hit 1000w) ... I expect the average hobbiest can spin up to 1000w in 6-10 seconds ..... apply a crap load more strength to that and you can hit 1000w in 2 seconds ... then its down to power and your ability to spin to keep it going.
if you cant hit 1000w you can either increase the power and spin quicker OR increase your strength and use a lower gear .... OR .. and this is the clever bit use both, strength + power ... and rip your wattage up for a massive quick burst.
strength training is a useful short cut to improving acceleration, useful for racing, useful for getting back in the pack when it drops you, allows you to respond instantly.
Likewise you don't need to put on masses of muscle, infact you will only put on muscle if you are eating at an excess for your body to grow AND it takes a long time ..... however eat at mantanence and strength training will improve neuromuscular adaptation, it will teach your brain how to use the muscle and recruit the correct muscles to do the job and it will slowely change your muscle to include a greater amount of Type 2 fibres (fast twitch)
you can achieve this by training on the bike .... but the gym is quicker due to the volume, but you would still need to do the time on the bike for endurance and power0 -
No, FFS..
You will not be able to increase your 'strength' on a bike - because the resistance forces involved in pedalling a bike - even on a hard acceleration from a low speed - are simply not high enough. Alex has already explained all this in some pretty clear detail.0 -
lol fat daddy, get back under your bridge - quite possibly the biggest load of utter shit I've ever seen on this forum, and you've got stiff competition from the army of mongs on here.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0
-
Imposter, I think that it is you that needs to be clear about the distinction between strength and power. Strength is a pretty woolly term, but it is measured as how much force you can apply. Now how you measure this depends upon what you want to know, if you want to measure how much force you can apply in a single lift then this is your 1RM, if you want to measure it over 20 reps it is your 20RM. Both are measures of strength and are equally valid. If you want to get stronger for a climb (which is the focus of the OP) then you also have to make up your mind what kind of climb you mean. If it is a steep UK climb then we are looking at putting a lot of power down over perhaps ten minutes, if you are talking about the Alps the power will be less and the time a lot more. For a UK climb then undoubtedly increased strength will improve your ability to climb, for the Alps the focus needs to be much more on training your CV system.
You repeatedly say people need to differentiate between strength and power. Power a measure of the force applied multiplied by the speed at which it is applied. If you can improve your strength that means you increase the force you can apply. At normal cycling cadences the speed isn't an issue, so therefore your power will also increase. But in the same way it depends upon how you measure it. Power can be measured on a single stroke of a pedal, over 20 minutes to find your ftp, or averaged over a four-hour ride.
Finally clearly you can increase strength on a bike. Just riding around will improve your strength if you start from a low base, but you can do strength sessions which may consist of short bursts of max power with long rests which will have a much better impact on your strength. The reason why almost all athletes use weights these days is that it is easier to create the necessary conditions of overload that have the greatest impact on improving strength, and at the same time improvement is easily measured. And Froome does use the gym, a lot.0 -
I can't help but think that if all the time posting on this had been spent riding some actual hills then we would all be better climbers.
0 -
okgo wrote:lol fat daddy, get back under your bridge - quite possibly the biggest load of utter shoot I've ever seen on this forum, and you've got stiff competition from the army of mongs on here.
Well perhaps you should hang out on a different forum then .. one with less mongs .....try www.Iamapretentiousknob.com ? 0 -
davebradswmb wrote:Imposter, I think that it is you that needs to be clear about the distinction between strength and power.
To be fair mate, the destinction has already been made extremely clear on this thread - which you appear not to have read, by the way. The rest of your post is a perfect example of how you have not understood that distinction. Go back and have a read...0 -
Some serious tripe going on. Full marks to Alex, Imposter and okgo for hanging in there, it's mind-numbing how attached people get to these bro science bits of nonsense.0
-
Imposter wrote:No, FFS..
You will not be able to increase your 'strength' on a bike - because the resistance forces involved in pedalling a bike - even on a hard acceleration from a low speed - are simply not high enough. Alex has already explained all this in some pretty clear detail.
You can stop pretending now, your the intro coach in this BC vid on strength training for cyclists arent you lol!
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowl ... cyclists-0 (series of 3 videos)
I think we should all be complaining to BC for wasting our membership money on such voodoo science, its a disgrace tbh.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Imposter wrote:No, FFS..
You will not be able to increase your 'strength' on a bike - because the resistance forces involved in pedalling a bike - even on a hard acceleration from a low speed - are simply not high enough. Alex has already explained all this in some pretty clear detail.
You can stop pretending now, your the intro coach in this BC vid on strength training for cyclists arent you lol!
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowl ... cyclists-0 (series of 3 videos)
I think we should all be complaining to BC for wasting our membership money on such voodoo science, its a disgrace tbh.
What you have in that video, mamba, is a series of conditioning exercises - all perfectly valid if you have the time to do them (as the guy in the video actually states). Doesn't sound like you understand the difference between 'strength' and 'conditioning'. Stop looking for confirmation bias and start reading the thread.0 -
Imposter wrote:mamba80 wrote:Imposter wrote:No, FFS..
You will not be able to increase your 'strength' on a bike - because the resistance forces involved in pedalling a bike - even on a hard acceleration from a low speed - are simply not high enough. Alex has already explained all this in some pretty clear detail.
You can stop pretending now, your the intro coach in this BC vid on strength training for cyclists arent you lol!
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowl ... cyclists-0 (series of 3 videos)
I think we should all be complaining to BC for wasting our membership money on such voodoo science, its a disgrace tbh.
What you have in that video, mamba, is a series of conditioning exercises - all perfectly valid if you have the time to do them (as the guy in the video actually states). Doesn't sound like you understand the difference between 'strength' and 'conditioning'. Stop looking for confirmation bias and start reading the thread.
what an earth are you on about? i said it was voodoo science and a disgrace........ we need to know why they are propounding this garbage? younger less mature minds than ours, could be influenced!
how the heck can they write this rubbish?????
"If you struggle on the hills, this cycling climbing strength routine from EIS strength and conditioning coaches Scott Pearson and Joe Hewitt could help. They demonstrate correct form for mountain climbers, renegade rows, straight leg deadlifts and Bulgarian squats. Follow their advice on how often to train and what numbers of sets and reps to perform and you will soon be flying up those climbs"0 -
VamP wrote:Some serious tripe going on. Full marks to Alex, Imposter and okgo for hanging in there, it's mind-numbing how attached people get to these bro science bits of nonsense.
If its tripe can you or Imposter post a link showing that strength training as you age is not benificial please ? Also can you tell us all what do you actually think happens physically to you as you age, are you actually saying that you will continue to perform like a 22 year old until such time as you decide to stop training no matter how old you are ?
Plus I find it hard to believe that you are all so physically blessed that theirs not room for improvement, if you were all that blessed you would be pro cyclists I'm pretty sure or at a very high level in which case as I said don't go near a gym otherwise some gym work might just be of some use to you0 -
So you've read the thread and claimed several times that you understand what you are being told - and now you are back to square one again?
The only thing people are talking about in this thread is 'strength' training for CYCLING - you do get that, don't you..?? If you want to hit the gym for reasons other than becoming a better cyclist, then crack on. But I can't help thinking that you are just trolling now.0 -
It's called deliberate obstinacy :roll:0
-
reacher wrote:I'm the first to admit that I got strength and power confused no argument from me their,
In physics, strength is a force (Newtons) versus the area (square meters) it is applied upon; power is a force (Newtons) multiplied by velocity (meters per second). I think more generally the quantity you refer to is a force of some description
For example: if you generate a given force when you turn a pedal, you only produce a lot of power if you also turn the pedals fast... otherwise it's just a force that we refer to as torque.
The force you apply might be a hell of a lot of strength if you apply it to a tiny surface, but if you apply it to something which is one square meter, it's probably not a lot of strength after all...
Does it make sense?left the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Does it make sense?
In a word, no. In physiology and sports science terminology, the definition of strength has already been clarified at least 58* times on this thread, so no need to create your own version.
(* might not be completely accurate)0 -
reacher wrote:VamP wrote:Some serious tripe going on. Full marks to Alex, Imposter and okgo for hanging in there, it's mind-numbing how attached people get to these bro science bits of nonsense.
If its tripe can you or Imposter post a link showing that strength training as you age is not benificial please ? Also can you tell us all what do you actually think happens physically to you as you age, are you actually saying that you will continue to perform like a 22 year old until such time as you decide to stop training no matter how old you are ?
Plus I find it hard to believe that you are all so physically blessed that theirs not room for improvement, if you were all that blessed you would be pro cyclists I'm pretty sure or at a very high level in which case as I said don't go near a gym otherwise some gym work might just be of some use to you
I haven't been near a gym and got to a good national level in my events. Far better than when I was going to the gym.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0 -
Imposter wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Does it make sense?
In a word, no. In physiology and sports science terminology, the definition of strength has already been clarified at least 58* times on this thread, so no need to create your own version.
(* might not be completely accurate)
I don't think physiology has the authority to take a concept from physics and modify it at please...
I think broadly speaking, what the OP refers to is what we call torque. Basically how damn hard you can churn those pedals... what he wants is to be able to fit an 84 teeth ring at the front and an 11 T rear sprocket and accelerate from standing to 30 mph in 10 seconds ... I suggest an electric motor in the downtube, electric motors have a lot of torque... look how those Tesla whizz at the lights left the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:
I don't think physiology has the authority to take a concept from physics and modify it at please...
Well, if it doen't then the alternative is that we end up with threads like this. Nobody is modifying anything. Strength in physiology is generally a measure of your 1RM capacity - ie the maximum force you can exert in a single application. If you want to redefine it, then feel free to write a paper on it.0 -
Imposter wrote:So you've read the thread and claimed several times that you understand what you are being told - and now you are back to square one again?
The only thing people are talking about in this thread is 'strength' training for CYCLING - you do get that, don't you..?? If you want to hit the gym for reasons other than becoming a better cyclist, then crack on. But I can't help thinking that you are just trolling now.
Nope, not back to square one, as I said I get the strength/power part and the difference. Where in that question that i asked you am I disputing that fact ?
What I asked you was, what do you think happens as you age physically and show me something that says strength training is not benificial as you age. How is that trolling ?
It's a completely differant question0 -
reacher wrote:What I asked you was, what do you think happens as you age physically and show me something that says strength training is not benificial as you age. How is that trolling ?
It's a completely differant question
Strength training for what - cycling? The physics doesn't change as you get older. As I said before, if you ever get to the stage where you can't exert a 20kg (+/-) force with your legs, then cycling ain't your biggest problem.
If your question relates to strength training for something other than cycling - then do what ever you like.0 -
Sorry Imposter, I didn't realise that was all you meant. Yes, even I can do that quite easily, so good to know my legs are strong enough to continue cyclingImposter wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:Hi Imposter, supporting 20 kg on each leg sounds a lot but I've never been at the gym and tried it so I don't know. In view of what you're saying I guess it must be easier than it sounds.
Stand on one leg and hop, mate. If you can do that, you are already supporting well over 20kg on that leg. Now try the other one. There you go.
I'd be interested for your views on the other point in my post. I have copied it again below as there have been so many more posts since last night:As regards this strength debate - when I get on part of a hill when the gradient gets over 20% even for a small distance, I find it a struggle just to turn the pedals, never mind keep up a decent cadence. I always thought that is because my legs are not strong enough rather than a lack of fitness. I would have thought a cyclist half my age would find it easier to turn the pedals in that situation down having younger stronger legs? Or of course a cyclist my age (late 50s) with the same level of fitness as me, but with stronger legs than me?0 -
ForumNewbie wrote:
I'd be interested for your views on the other point in my post. I have copied it again below as there have been so many more posts since last night:As regards this strength debate - when I get on part of a hill when the gradient gets over 20% even for a small distance, I find it a struggle just to turn the pedals, never mind keep up a decent cadence. I always thought that is because my legs are not strong enough rather than a lack of fitness. I would have thought a cyclist half my age would find it easier to turn the pedals in that situation down having younger stronger legs? Or of course a cyclist my age (late 50s) with the same level of fitness as me, but with stronger legs than me?
If you don't have the power to sustain the gear you are in, then you are either in the wrong gear, or you don't have the aerobic capacity to sustain your effort level. Either way, stronger legs will not help you for the reasons which have already been outlined on more than one occasion. You either need a gearset/road speed more appropriate to your fitness level, or you need to improve your w/kg / sustainable power to a level where you can maintain it.0 -
not sure that there is a specific definition of "strength" in Physics. What you're describing here is pressure.ugo.santalucia wrote:In physics, strength is a force (Newtons) versus the area (square meters) it is applied upon
Torque is turning force, and is calculated by the force you are applying (Newtons) multiplied by the distance from the axle (metres). So the units are Nm - Newtons x Metres.ugo.santalucia wrote:For example: if you generate a given force when you turn a pedal, you only produce a lot of power if you also turn the pedals fast... otherwise it's just a force that we refer to as torque.
Since the distance is fixed (unless your pedals fall out of the cranks...
) for any given bike setup, you can ignore the torque and just think about the force... which is of course, as people have restated here ad nauseam, really quite small: and what's more, you can essentially make the force as small as you like by using a lower gear. As we all know, of course, although my assumptions about what everyone knows are becoming more pessimistic by the day... 0 -
Imposter wrote:reacher wrote:What I asked you was, what do you think happens as you age physically and show me something that says strength training is not benificial as you age. How is that trolling ?
It's a completely differant question
Strength training for what - cycling? The physics doesn't change as you get older. As I said before, if you ever get to the stage where you can't exert a 20kg (+/-) force with your legs, then cycling ain't your biggest problem.
If your question relates to strength training for something other than cycling - then do what ever you like.
Ok, let me re-phrase it because I'm genuinely interested in this, if as you say and others say you only require 20 kilos of force, I've been in gyms most of my life and to be fair to you that's not beyond the capabilities of anyone at any age to maintain that even in very late ages, so what's happening to cyclists as they age that's stopping them from performing at the same level at ages like 20 or 30 in the pro ranks when you see cyclists at their peak to stop them doing that same level at ages like 50 or 60 if all you need to do is pedal a bike to train that ability to its absolute maximum potential. It's not like it's a small drop in performance either, so something is happening and at an age at which you say their should actually be improvement0 -
Good Lord.0
-
bompington wrote:
not sure that there is a specific definition of "strength" in Physics. What you're describing here is pressure.ugo.santalucia wrote:In physics, strength is a force (Newtons) versus the area (square meters) it is applied upon
Torque is turning force, and is calculated by the force you are applying (Newtons) multiplied by the distance from the axle (metres). So the units are Nm - Newtons x Metres.ugo.santalucia wrote:For example: if you generate a given force when you turn a pedal, you only produce a lot of power if you also turn the pedals fast... otherwise it's just a force that we refer to as torque.
Since the distance is fixed (unless your pedals fall out of the cranks... ) for any given bike setup, you can ignore the torque and just think about the force... which is of course, as people have restated here ad nauseam, really quite small: and what's more, you can essentially make the force as small as you like by using a lower gear. As we all know, of course, although my assumptions about what everyone knows are becoming more pessimistic by the day...
There is... Strength of a material... Which as you say as the same dimensions of pressure... Obviously irrelevant here, but anything to perpetuate a pointless thread....
left the forum March 20230 -
Ok I think you need to rephrase that paragraph as I'm not sure it's actually makes sense. But giving you the benefit of doubt I think has been said several times that your aerobic capacity declines as you get older and as that's the thing you need to be a cyclist that might be why there are no 60 year old pros in the tour.reacher wrote:Imposter wrote:reacher wrote:What I asked you was, what do you think happens as you age physically and show me something that says strength training is not benificial as you age. How is that trolling ?
It's a completely differant question
Strength training for what - cycling? The physics doesn't change as you get older. As I said before, if you ever get to the stage where you can't exert a 20kg (+/-) force with your legs, then cycling ain't your biggest problem.
If your question relates to strength training for something other than cycling - then do what ever you like.
Ok, let me re-phrase it because I'm genuinely interested in this, if as you say and others say you only require 20 kilos of force, I've been in gyms most of my life and to be fair to you that's not beyond the capabilities of anyone at any age to maintain that even in very late ages, so what's happening to cyclists as they age that's stopping them from performing at the same level at ages like 20 or 30 in the pro ranks when you see cyclists at their peak to stop them doing that same level at ages like 50 or 60 if all you need to do is pedal a bike to train that ability to its absolute maximum potential. It's not like it's a small drop in performance either, so something is happening and at an age at which you say their should actually be improvement0 -
reacher wrote:Imposter wrote:reacher wrote:What I asked you was, what do you think happens as you age physically and show me something that says strength training is not benificial as you age. How is that trolling ?
It's a completely differant question
Strength training for what - cycling? The physics doesn't change as you get older. As I said before, if you ever get to the stage where you can't exert a 20kg (+/-) force with your legs, then cycling ain't your biggest problem.
If your question relates to strength training for something other than cycling - then do what ever you like.
Ok, let me re-phrase it because I'm genuinely interested in this, if as you say and others say you only require 20 kilos of force, I've been in gyms most of my life and to be fair to you that's not beyond the capabilities of anyone at any age to maintain that even in very late ages, so what's happening to cyclists as they age that's stopping them from performing at the same level at ages like 20 or 30 in the pro ranks when you see cyclists at their peak to stop them doing that same level at ages like 50 or 60 if all you need to do is pedal a bike to train that ability to its absolute maximum potential. It's not like it's a small drop in performance either, so something is happening and at an age at which you say their should actually be improvement
this 20kg is for a steady state effort, say a 25mile TT, we can see in TT events that older cyclists can keep producing this force and post v competitive times
but stick a 55yo in a e12 race and he ll be going one way and it aint fwd and it ll happen on the first climb or attack, what is missing? is it just vo2 max ? and/or the ability to produce high force levels to the pedals for 60 or 90 seconds and before you say anything Imposter, if i m follow the wheels when a decent rider decides to attack, i m producing way over 20kg per leg, pull up on a Bannister and mid foot on a set of scales and see how many kilo are registered for an idea as to the forces involved.
fwiw i ve just tried it, an easy 77kg, (my non cycling drinking buddy, same weight as me, did 52kg) odd lot down in cornwall! and trust me, we didnt even try tbh, so am i stronger than him? he is 10 years younger and a very good 10k runner,
to me, saying its all aerobic and all u need is to be able to hop on one leg is v simplistic.
btw i m not saying do weights either.0 -
Aerobic capacity doesn't even decline that much with age, there's plenty of guys in their 50s and 60s racing to a high standard.
I'm not much younger than reacher, and I am still getting better year-on-year. Not much, but perceptibly, and that is as much due to being close to my potential as it is with getting older. And no I don't spend time in the gym. The few corrective things I do are all body weight based.0
