gyming to improve power

tarczan

Not trying to be controversial, but my own experience is that weightlifting also conditions body parts other than muscle. Most lifters will also tell you this. It's just speculation on my part that it would affect cycling.

If one lifts very heavy for years, and then stop, your ligaments actually ache for some time after you stop. My interpretation is that they are accustomed to the load. Lifters also state that the tendons need more time than the muscles to increase their ability to handle heavy weight. I am just speculating that increased tendon and ligament strenght may be helpful in preventing injuries when one rides high miles. Not something one would do in season.

As far as falling, a few extra pounds of muscle does help. It's a personal preference. The times I've fallen I've been thankful for the lifting I do. Lifting also controls osteporosis, which could be a problem in the upper body of high mileage riders. It's not meant as a replacement for a helmet. We're talking about 2 or 3 pounds of upper body muscle.

I don't see how it could hurt to have a stronger back and upper body as long as one watches the weight. One can become quite a bit stronger without putting on much weight at all.

ric_stern/RST

although this isn't one of my areas of expertise, a colleague whose it is, informs me that this isn't really the case, and that there's little or no evidence to support such a notion (that weight training increases bone mineral density)



the strength that's gained when there's no increase in cross sectional area or only a small amount is likely to be mainly neuromuscular in nature. the gains that occur neuromuscularly only occur at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Roadie_scum

Carrera, it is kind of funny that you use this as an analogy with your understanding of the science of weights. Zeno's paradoxes (there are a couple of other versions) were resolved independently by Liebniz and Newton in the early 1700's. It is a misunderstanding of the nature of infinity that leads to thinking that Zeno's paradox is true. It's resolution lies in the theory of limits and differentials - calculus. If you actually draw the line on the graph you will see the tortoise does catch the hare. This is the problem of not applying science in a practical situation, and not spending time coming to grips with the factors involved.

RyBike

Ric,

I have a few questions, mostly in regards to the statement that strength gains, which are neuromuscular in nature, only occur at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

I am not very strong at the bench press, but I know individuals who have trained on the bench for years and are much stronger than I. They have followed a similar routine throughout the years and always lift at the same angle and velocity (say 1 ft per sec). If they increased that velocity (say to 1.5 ft per sec) would all there strength gains be for naught? Would they be no stronger than me? I can’t imagine that his is true, because I know that these individuals can lift more than me on the bench, no matter what the velocity. One explanation I can think of is that this is solely due to an increase in muscle cross-sectional area. The other explanation I can think of is that most strength is gained at a given velocity, but some strength gains are distributed throughout the velocity curve.

Also, how specific are neuromuscular gains? If I weight train at an angle of 52 degrees, will I have no strength gains at 53 degrees? What about 52.5? Or 52.01? What about velocity? If I weight train at a speed of 1ft/sec, will I have no strength gains at 1.1 ft/sec? How much variation is allowed?

Another question. On a leg press one can simulate the angle and position of cycling moderately well, except for the fact that the sled moves linearly, while the movement on a bike is circular. Thus, the force vectors are constantly changing on a bike, while they are staying constant on a leg press. Though at some point during the pedal stroke the force vector will match up with that which has been trained on the leg press. Assuming that velocity was also the same, that given point on the pedal stroke would have the same specific joint angle as was trained on the leg press. At that point would there be specific neuromuscular gains that would be transferred over from the leg press? Would the individual actually be able to output more force at that point in the stroke?

Last question. If strength has no bearing on long-term power output, why are most of the best time trialists larger riders? And when a rider loses weight his climbing obviously improves, but why would his time trialing get worse? I have seen and heard of this happening many times.

It makes sense that a normal sedentary person could output the same amount of force that is needed for one pedal stroke during a TdF time trial, but would they have enough leg strength (eliminating aerobic strength from consideration) to be able to sustain that for the entirety of the time trial? Just like you could put 120lbs on the bench press and almost any sedentary person could bench it at least once, but an extremely strong individual cold bench it almost indefinitely.

I just think that leg strength has to have something to do with steady state power output (I’m not saying it can be improved in the gym) or all the smallest riders in the peleton would be the best time trialists. Heck, they have the smallest coefficient of drag.

EagleFlight

ty for your constantly repeated over and over again information ric. Believe me, just getting started at this again after 22 years is going to be tough enough, your information is invaluable to helping me get farther along on this.

tarczan

I can't quote any studies to back up the claim that lifting can increase bone
mass, but I have seen it stated in many articles. I do know the inverse is true; that is when astronauts return to Earth after extended time in space that not only are their muscles extremely atrophied, they have have lost a great percentage of their bone mass.

ric_stern/RST

how would this person have trained at exactly the same velocity and angle every session? why has there been no increase MCSA?




assuming that, that was true, and that at the point it was crucial to apply more to the pedals had been trained in the weights room, what would be the point? we can already apply more force than is necessary for endurance cycling performance. very few people would not be able to generate the forces required to win pro cycling events. we don't need more force, we need to sustain what we have for longer.



why does chris boardman hold the all the Hour Records and currently the world record for the pursuit? why did tyler hamilton win the Olympic TT




doing it once is *the* measure of strength (the maximal force or tension a muscle or group of muscles can generate). want to do it for a TT? that's a cardiovascular and metabolic issue



it doesn't. approximately, to win TTs at the highest level, requires a force of around 250 Newtons (or ~ 25 kg between legs).

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

ric_stern/RST

there *are* studies that show an increase. however, from memory, the magnitude of increase is not very much, and doesn't appear to able to significantly alter the condition. the upshot being, that you really need medical intervention.

going into space is not the inverse of not doing weights.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

RyBike

So if you are saying that leg strength has nothing to do with steady state power output on a bike, wouldn't it be best to lose as much muscle as possible? Shouldn't elite cyclists starve themselves in the offseason, causing there muscles to atrophy. Then when they have lost enough muscle that they can only output the 25kg per leg needed, they will be at an ideal weight.

If strength has no bearing at all on cycling, cyclists should just try and get as light as possible, no matter how much strength they lose.

ric_stern/RST

if they starved themself in the off-season they'd be dead by the time the season started...

and if they didn't they'd not have enough energy to train

what i'm saying is that trying to make yourself stronger for endurance cycling performance isn't required and is in the most part wasting time. if you train hard enough for your discipline and don't use certain muscles they'll eventually atrophy even if you eat well.

the important issue is being able to train hard enough to meet the demands of your event/goals. assuming that's not track sprinting or you don't have a functional disability strength is not a limiting factor in ECP.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

RyBike

I agree that endurance cyclists don’t need more force, only the aerobic ability to sustain it longer, but that has nothing to do with what I posted. I was just speaking hypothetically and just thought it was an interesting thing to discuss. I didn’t say that it was immediately relevant to endurance cycling.




I didn't say that ALL the best time trialists were big riders. Just that it is interesting that MOST of the best time trialists are bigger riders. Your observation that Chris Boardman and Tyler Hamilton are small riders doesn't refute the notion that it is possible strength has some (albeit potentially minor) relationship to steady state power output. By that logic I could name a few larger riders (Miguel Indurain, Ullrich, Armstrong) as proof that weight has nothing to do with climbing ability.

I really am curious as to why countless riders have lost weight to improve their climbing abilities and subsequently lost some time trialing ability? Also, why aren’t all the best time trialists small riders? They have smallest frontal area and lowest coefficient of drag.

lederhosen

I just can't believe this! Someone who can't squat 50 kg without falling on the floor is telling us that lifting weights is not good for you, and some people are actually believing him

the brother

This would seem strange to me aswell. Which riders have lost weight and had their TT performance drop off as a direct result?
If all that is lost is weight but all other variables have stayed the same then their VO2max/kg should increase which should lead to an increased performance.

RyBike

Yes, it would be hard to prove without doubt that there is a direct correlation between lost weight and lesser performance in the time trial. Yet, countless riders mention this phenomenon, the most recent that I can remember are Jan Ullrich and Michael Rogers. Ullrich actually said this after the Olympic TT, "I weighed too little in the time trial. For this discipline, you need power, but I'm only 71 kilos at the moment. I've only been lighter than that when I hunger flatted in the 1998 Tour de France." Now I know Jan isn't a sports scientist, and he probably has a misconstrued notion of what power really is, but I have heard comments like this enough that it makes me wonder. Still this is going to be hard to prove.

The more scientific question is "Why aren't all the best time trialists really, really small? We think of climbers as being the little guys, but if strength doesn't matter, shouldn't they also be the TT specialists?