climbing, force/power required
Comments
-
Well, with me it must be the fact I don't have the aerobic capacity as I do have low enough gears. Maybe it's just my age, but I think I can still get fitter and improve my climbing.Imposter wrote: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.
Anyway, thanks for the good clear response - I think I'm now convinced that I don't need stronger legs.0 -
Well I'm just watching Mo Farah bust a gut in the gym and of all the sports that I would have thought did not need to do gym work it would be long distance running0
-
davebradswmb wrote: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.
Strength is the maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles. That is the definition in exercise physiology. It is not 1RM or 20RM, although typically 1RM is a good proxy indicator.
Strength or if you like, 1RM, has no bearing on the pedal force you can repeatedly sustain for longer durations. Statements like yours which imply that increasing strength will increase the force you can sustain for even 10 minutes at a given cadence are, well, nonsense and shows a lack understanding of basic physiology. What determines the forces one can repeatedly sustain over longer durations is our aerobic metabolic capabilities. Strength plays no part in it. Indeed it can run counter, an increase in strength can result in a reduction is sustainable power.0 -
Unlike endurance cycling, there is reasonable evidence for some benefit to endurance running of some strength/weight work. This is due to the significantly different nature of the forces involved in running v cycling and that running involves both eccentric and concentric muscles contractions and also taxes the muscular-skeletal system quite differently (impacts, muscle/ligament/tendon elasticity etc) than in cycling (which is concentric muscle contractions only and non-impact).reacher wrote:Well I'm just watching Mo Farah bust a gut in the gym and of all the sports that I would have thought did not need to do gym work it would be long distance running0 -
It hasn't.ugo.santalucia wrote: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...
There is no term called "strength" in physics. There is in exercise physiology.
Force is a physics term as is power, torque, pressure and velocity. None of which are used in exercise physiology to mean anything other than what they mean in physics.0 -
This is a repeat of your earlier strawman.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 ?
Again, no one is claiming such training is bad for you.
What is at issue is the effectiveness of such training for endurance cycling performance, especially when compared with specific training that one can do on a bike. There is no evidence, zero, zip, nil, nada, that demonstrates that strength training will outperform specific on bike training for improving endurance cycling performance.
There is a reason that S&C journals and S&C researchers don't put such training in a side by side comparison - because it won't generate the result they want.0 -
VO2max falls on average at a rate of approximately 1% per year of age from it's peak as a young adult. This is a very well understood phenomenon.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
Just one of many papers on this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18347663
Note all the attributes that decline are those specifically related to aerobic metabolism.0 -
... deleted repeat post0
-
mamba80 wrote: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.
Well if we are going to bring in some not particularly relevant anecdotes, how about mine?
In 2007 I had a lower leg (below knee) amputation as a result of a cycling accident. Understandably this had quite a big negative impact on my leg strength (best I managed was about 35% less in leg press compared to my 2 leg capability).
But within 3 years I had been able to reclaim my pre-amputation sustainable power output from a about a minute or so out to many hours. Indeed in 2011 I set my all time time trial power PB at the UCI Paracycling world cup. It wasn't like my performance before amputation was crap as I had plenty of race wins and some national level masters podium performances including a national record (which by the way I set again in 2011 as an amputee).
In terms of my power-duration curve, my peak power over 1-5 seconds suffered a 250W loss down from 1500W to about 1250W but once the duration went much longer, I essentially reclaimed my pre-amputation power output capability.0 -
That is one definition of strength, but not the only one. You can measure strength in many ways depending upon what you want to know. Like I said, strength is a wooly term and you have to define what you mean. When you hear commentators talking about strong riders they are not talking about their 1RM, they are talking about their ability to produce a high level of power over a sustained period, and a common way to measure this, particularly in cycling, is the ftp test. This is just as valid a way of measuring strength as a 1RM squat.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Strength is the maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles. That is the definition in exercise physiology. It is not 1RM or 20RM, although typically 1RM is a good proxy indicator.
If you want to improve any aspect of fitness you need to overload the system that produces that fitness. So for strength endurance you need to stress the system whereby the muscles can process oxygen and the system where the lungs and blood circulation can provide oxygen to the muscles. This is most effectively trained separately. So in the gym you could do sets of 20 squats. I've never timed this, but I would guess it takes over a minute, and I know that at the end of the set I am out of breath. For at least 40 seconds your muscles are working aerobically at a high intensity. This is too short a time for the heart and lungs to provide the additional oxygen, so the muscles are using the oxygen stored locally. At the end of the set your heart and lungs are playing catch-up which will have some benefits, but not as much as more sustained efforts at a lower intensity. At the end of the day doing sets of high rep squats as well as riding your bike over long distances will benefit your strength endurance far more than just riding your bike and you will go up hills quicker.0 -
It's how it's defined in the science of exercise physiology. Any other definition isn't relevant.davebradswmb wrote:
That is one definition of strength, but not the only one.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Strength is the maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles. That is the definition in exercise physiology. It is not 1RM or 20RM, although typically 1RM is a good proxy indicator.
Woolly lay use of terms have no place in discussion of topics where precise terminology is required to convey precise concepts and meaning. It's the very misuse of terms in discussions like this that causes so much confusion, such as leading one to falsely think strength has a greater importance than it does for endurance cycling performance.0 -
People talk about strong farts too, but it has nothing to do with the ability of one's flatulence to apply high forces. I wouldn't suggest learning about exercise physiology from a TV commentator. Most of them don't even understand the basics of power output, let alone the finer points of physiology. Their job is to be entertaining, not to lecture in sport science.davebradswmb wrote:When you hear commentators talking about strong riders they are not talking about their 1RM, they are talking about their ability to produce a high level of power over a sustained period, and a common way to measure this, particularly in cycling, is the ftp test.
No, it's not. FTP is a measure of one's maximal sustainable metabolic quasi steady state power output capability. It has absolutely nothing to do with strength.davebradswmb wrote:This is just as valid a way of measuring strength as a 1RM squat.
Continuing to confuse people through the misuse of specific terminology is a sizeable reason we have this same discussion every few months.
Yepdavebradswmb wrote:If you want to improve any aspect of fitness you need to overload the system that produces that fitness.
"strength endurance" is an oxymoron.davebradswmb wrote:So for strength endurance0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
This is a repeat of your earlier strawman.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 ?
Again, no one is claiming such training is bad for you.
What is at issue is the effectiveness of such training for endurance cycling performance, especially when compared with specific training that one can do on a bike. There is no evidence, zero, zip, nil, nada, that demonstrates that strength training will outperform specific on bike training for improving endurance cycling performance.
There is a reason that S&C journals and S&C researchers don't put such training in a side by side comparison - because it won't generate the result they want.
That's the problem Alex, no one is actually saying that it can out perform cycling specific training least of all me, the same as i made the point about Mo Farah im not party to his training regime but clearly he does not do this instead of his training on the track etc , one thing that is clear is more and more sports are turning towards strength training to supplement their events and a lot of them are endurance events.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
VO2max falls on average at a rate of approximately 1% per year of age from it's peak as a young adult. This is a very well understood phenomenon.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
Just one of many papers on this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18347663
Note all the attributes that decline are those specifically related to aerobic metabolism.
Well I read that 5 times and I still couldn't make any sense of it Alex, other than I knew vo2 falls as you age, my take on it as someone who has been in gyms virtually all my life is that the older you get the weaker you get as well, and strength/muscle loss and the ability to produce any sort of power in tests like jumps etc falls off like a stone down a well if you don't train it.0 -
mamba80 wrote: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,
Anecdotally, I know of at least one 55yo who won an E/1/2 race last year (or maybe the year before) - and Ned Overend was still winning elite-level MTB races well into his late 50s. There might be an age where you become limited in performance compared to the people around you, but national B/regional A road races are probably not it.0 -
reacher, are you actually reading any of this thread?! You keep writing the same stuff even though people (very knowlegeable people no less!) are giving you the answers. Here is brief summary:
- no one is denying that that strength decreases with age, although it can be counter-acted through strength training
- cycling requires very little actual strength, so even if your strength does decrease with age, you should still be able to do it. So if we make up some numbers, cycling requires ~20kg of force. Age 20 you are capable of exerting 100kg of force. Lets say your strength decrease by 1% every year, by the time you are age 60 how much force can you produce? Clue: its still more than 20kg......
- the limiting factor for endurance cycling is aerobic metabolism
- professional athletes will often do gym work (note I said gym work, not strength training. They might be doing strength training, they might be doing more sports-specific conditioning, they might be doing core work, they might be injury rehabing/preventing etc)
- they do this because they have the time at their disposal and it is unlikely they will do more than ~20/25 hrs a week of running/cycling/rowing/swimming (without it becoming counterproductive e.g. overtraining)
With regards to the strength thing, here is another way of thinking about it. I'm strong enough to do one press-up (as are the vast majority of people) but I can't do 100 press-ups in a row. However, I can do 100 press-ups if I take 5 mins between each one (actually I've never done this but I'm pretty sure I can). So I'm strong enough to do 100 press ups, but what is stopping me from doing 100 in a row? Is it strength?0 -
superlightweight wrote:So I'm strong enough to do 100 press ups, but what is stopping me from doing 100 in a row? Is it strength?
It is whatever is preventing your muscles from recovering quickly after one press-up, so most likely as you suggest cardio-vascular issues... more vascular than cardio, probably capillaries in your arms muscles are atrophic as all you do as exercise is spin your legs...
Beetroot juice just before might dilate them just enough to do two or three press-ups with no extra training... left the forum March 20230 -
Your optimism in thinking that rephrasing/paraphrasing will make any difference is actually quite touching, especially given that you've only made 79 posts in 11 years of being on Bike Radar. I'm not sure quite what it is about this subject that makes believers in the strength/weights thing so resistant to actual science and the acceptance of precise/technical definitions of certain English words.superlightweight wrote:reacher, are you actually reading any of this thread?! You keep writing the same stuff even though people (very knowlegeable people no less!) are giving you the answers. Here is brief summary:0 -
I blame the Russians and their T.U.E s.0
-
briantrumpet wrote:
Your optimism in thinking that rephrasing/paraphrasing will make any difference is actually quite touching, especially given that you've only made 79 posts in 11 years of being on Bike Radar. I'm not sure quite what it is about this subject that makes believers in the strength/weights thing so resistant to actual science and the acceptance of precise/technical definitions of certain English words.superlightweight wrote:reacher, are you actually reading any of this thread?! You keep writing the same stuff even though people (very knowlegeable people no less!) are giving you the answers. Here is brief summary:
To be fair I have been away from cycling (and this site) for 8 years so is 79 posts in 3 years any better?!
I'm more of a lurker than a contributer, however this thread has pushed me too far I just think it would be a shame if people like Alex gave up on the forum because we are fortunate to benefit from his knowledge (without having to pay for it!) 0 -
Welcome to the party, superlightweight
If anyone is looking for evidence that 'belief' massively outweighs 'fact', then they need look no further than this thread.0 -
I think that Alex's strength (or stamina) in staying polite and in explaining the science at length, at regular intervals, is worthy of some sort of award.superlightweight wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
Your optimism in thinking that rephrasing/paraphrasing will make any difference is actually quite touching, especially given that you've only made 79 posts in 11 years of being on Bike Radar. I'm not sure quite what it is about this subject that makes believers in the strength/weights thing so resistant to actual science and the acceptance of precise/technical definitions of certain English words.superlightweight wrote:reacher, are you actually reading any of this thread?! You keep writing the same stuff even though people (very knowlegeable people no less!) are giving you the answers. Here is brief summary:
To be fair I have been away from cycling (and this site) for 8 years so is 79 posts in 3 years any better?!
I'm more of a lurker than a contributer, however this thread has pushed me too far I just think it would be a shame if people like Alex gave up on the forum because we are fortunate to benefit from his knowledge (without having to pay for it!)0 -
Yes It is, the fact that you can only do 1 should tell you something is wrong with you physically as regards being an athletesuperlightweight wrote:reacher, are you actually reading any of this thread?! You keep writing the same stuff even though people (very knowlegeable people no less!) are giving you the answers. Here is brief summary:
- no one is denying that that strength decreases with age, although it can be counter-acted through strength training
- cycling requires very little actual strength, so even if your strength does decrease with age, you should still be able to do it. So if we make up some numbers, cycling requires ~20kg of force. Age 20 you are capable of exerting 100kg of force. Lets say your strength decrease by 1% every year, by the time you are age 60 how much force can you produce? Clue: its still more than 20kg......
- the limiting factor for endurance cycling is aerobic metabolism
- professional athletes will often do gym work (note I said gym work, not strength training. They might be doing strength training, they might be doing more sports-specific conditioning, they might be doing core work, they might be injury rehabing/preventing etc)
- they do this because they have the time at their disposal and it is unlikely they will do more than ~20/25 hrs a week of running/cycling/rowing/swimming (without it becoming counterproductive e.g. overtraining)
With regards to the strength thing, here is another way of thinking about it. I'm strong enough to do one press-up (as are the vast majority of people) but I can't do 100 press-ups in a row. However, I can do 100 press-ups if I take 5 mins between each one (actually I've never done this but I'm pretty sure I can). So I'm strong enough to do 100 press ups, but what is stopping me from doing 100 in a row? Is it strength?0 -
So do i and if you look at the posts I have made their is consistent thanks to him for the input, the good news for everyone that's fed up with me is that I've learned loads and already I'm planning a new strategy in my quest to conquer old age on the bike, so rest assured its not wasted. I could post more stuff but how many fig rolls you can eat in an hour has zero interest for me as does the majority of stuff on here, training is all I'm interested in at the moment which is what I've been busy doing , I do come on and read a lot of other stuff though from time to time and on other forums or information that coaches write, some interesting stuff on the iron man forums and such like, ultra endurance running all that stuff I look at, surprising what you can learn and how fast training methods are evolvingbriantrumpet wrote:
I think that Alex's strength (or stamina) in staying polite and in explaining the science at length, at regular intervals, is worthy of some sort of award.superlightweight wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
Your optimism in thinking that rephrasing/paraphrasing will make any difference is actually quite touching, especially given that you've only made 79 posts in 11 years of being on Bike Radar. I'm not sure quite what it is about this subject that makes believers in the strength/weights thing so resistant to actual science and the acceptance of precise/technical definitions of certain English words.superlightweight wrote:reacher, are you actually reading any of this thread?! You keep writing the same stuff even though people (very knowlegeable people no less!) are giving you the answers. Here is brief summary:
To be fair I have been away from cycling (and this site) for 8 years so is 79 posts in 3 years any better?!
I'm more of a lurker than a contributer, however this thread has pushed me too far I just think it would be a shame if people like Alex gave up on the forum because we are fortunate to benefit from his knowledge (without having to pay for it!)0 -
reacher wrote:
Yes It is, the fact that you can only do 1 should tell you something is wrong with you physically as regards being an athletesuperlightweight wrote:reacher, are you actually reading any of this thread?! You keep writing the same stuff even though people (very knowlegeable people no less!) are giving you the answers. Here is brief summary:
- no one is denying that that strength decreases with age, although it can be counter-acted through strength training
- cycling requires very little actual strength, so even if your strength does decrease with age, you should still be able to do it. So if we make up some numbers, cycling requires ~20kg of force. Age 20 you are capable of exerting 100kg of force. Lets say your strength decrease by 1% every year, by the time you are age 60 how much force can you produce? Clue: its still more than 20kg......
- the limiting factor for endurance cycling is aerobic metabolism
- professional athletes will often do gym work (note I said gym work, not strength training. They might be doing strength training, they might be doing more sports-specific conditioning, they might be doing core work, they might be injury rehabing/preventing etc)
- they do this because they have the time at their disposal and it is unlikely they will do more than ~20/25 hrs a week of running/cycling/rowing/swimming (without it becoming counterproductive e.g. overtraining)
With regards to the strength thing, here is another way of thinking about it. I'm strong enough to do one press-up (as are the vast majority of people) but I can't do 100 press-ups in a row. However, I can do 100 press-ups if I take 5 mins between each one (actually I've never done this but I'm pretty sure I can). So I'm strong enough to do 100 press ups, but what is stopping me from doing 100 in a row? Is it strength?
It was a hypothetical question, designed to make you think about the energy systems involved and realise that strength isn't the limiting factor. But it appears that is still lost on you, either that or you're a complete troll :roll:0 -
but it might be reasonable to observe that there is a little bit of further evidence out there right now...Imposter wrote:Welcome to the party, superlightweight
If anyone is looking for evidence that 'belief' massively outweighs 'fact', then they need look no further than this thread.0 -
Like when the VP of the US doesn't believe in evolution... (obviously not as important as whether leg strength is important for cycling, but even so...)bompington wrote:
but it might be reasonable to observe that there is a little bit of further evidence out there right now...Imposter wrote:Welcome to the party, superlightweight
If anyone is looking for evidence that 'belief' massively outweighs 'fact', then they need look no further than this thread.0 -
superlightweight wrote:reacher wrote:
Yes It is, the fact that you can only do 1 should tell you something is wrong with you physically as regards being an athletesuperlightweight wrote:reacher, are you actually reading any of this thread?! You keep writing the same stuff even though people (very knowlegeable people no less!) are giving you the answers. Here is brief summary:
- no one is denying that that strength decreases with age, although it can be counter-acted through strength training
- cycling requires very little actual strength, so even if your strength does decrease with age, you should still be able to do it. So if we make up some numbers, cycling requires ~20kg of force. Age 20 you are capable of exerting 100kg of force. Lets say your strength decrease by 1% every year, by the time you are age 60 how much force can you produce? Clue: its still more than 20kg......
- the limiting factor for endurance cycling is aerobic metabolism
- professional athletes will often do gym work (note I said gym work, not strength training. They might be doing strength training, they might be doing more sports-specific conditioning, they might be doing core work, they might be injury rehabing/preventing etc)
- they do this because they have the time at their disposal and it is unlikely they will do more than ~20/25 hrs a week of running/cycling/rowing/swimming (without it becoming counterproductive e.g. overtraining)
With regards to the strength thing, here is another way of thinking about it. I'm strong enough to do one press-up (as are the vast majority of people) but I can't do 100 press-ups in a row. However, I can do 100 press-ups if I take 5 mins between each one (actually I've never done this but I'm pretty sure I can). So I'm strong enough to do 100 press ups, but what is stopping me from doing 100 in a row? Is it strength?
It was a hypothetical question, designed to make you think about the energy systems involved and realise that strength isn't the limiting factor. But it appears that is still lost on you, either that or you're a complete troll :roll:[/
Then perhaps for future reference you should say here's an hyperthetical question then people would understand the point your trying to make0 -
reacher wrote:
Then perhaps for future reference you should say here's an hyperthetical question then people would understand the point your trying to make
Are you suggesting that allowances should be made for the 'hard of understanding'..?? I suspect pretty much everyone but you realised that was hypothetical..0 -
reacher wrote:Well I'm just watching Mo Farah bust a gut in the gym and of all the sports that I would have thought did not need to do gym work it would be long distance running
Interestingly on the Superstars special they did a few years ago, Mo Farah was crap on the bike whereas Anthony Joshua was very impressive.
I suspect all it means is that either Farah wasn't trying or running is a terrible sport for cross training.0
