Maximum strength and cycling performance
- Thread starter dominikk85
- Start date
Something additional to your aero toolbox.
Power requirements for a given speed (a bit simplified version but functional enough for static velocity):
(1/2*CdA*Rho*v0^2 + 9.81*m*crr + 9.81*m*gr) * v1
where
CdA = Aerodynamic drag coefficient * Area (there's no use thinking these separately. For an irregular shape like human body Cd can be only measured in combination with A)
Rho = Air density. Riding a weekly TT race on a same route you'll notice that this has surprisinly big effect to time. For normal pressure at sea level 1.225 kg/m3.
v0 = velocity of air in m/s (ie. velocity of the rider + velocity of wind)
v1 = velocity of rider to ground
m = system mass (rider + bike) in Kg
crr = rolling resistance coefficient. Depends on road surface and tires. You can find tests for most commonly used tires by googling around a bit. Typical value for a good tyre on good road surface would be 0.004
gr = grade of the ascent/desent (flat road 0; Alpe de Huez 0.07-0.08)
As you can see the formula itself is really simple but estimating the parameter values may be a bit tricky at times because unless on an indoor track you very rarely have perfectly uniform conditions (think about rolling terrain with gusty wind). Anyway it is very useful too for simulation purposes especially for a TT rider to eg. make a decision if investment to a new equipment with promised CdA or crr reduction is worth while.
A rule of thumb 10w = CdA 0.01 = crr 0.001 = 1s/km when circling close to 40km/h is very handy.
Power requirements for a given speed (a bit simplified version but functional enough for static velocity):
(1/2*CdA*Rho*v0^2 + 9.81*m*crr + 9.81*m*gr) * v1
where
CdA = Aerodynamic drag coefficient * Area (there's no use thinking these separately. For an irregular shape like human body Cd can be only measured in combination with A)
Rho = Air density. Riding a weekly TT race on a same route you'll notice that this has surprisinly big effect to time. For normal pressure at sea level 1.225 kg/m3.
v0 = velocity of air in m/s (ie. velocity of the rider + velocity of wind)
v1 = velocity of rider to ground
m = system mass (rider + bike) in Kg
crr = rolling resistance coefficient. Depends on road surface and tires. You can find tests for most commonly used tires by googling around a bit. Typical value for a good tyre on good road surface would be 0.004
gr = grade of the ascent/desent (flat road 0; Alpe de Huez 0.07-0.08)
As you can see the formula itself is really simple but estimating the parameter values may be a bit tricky at times because unless on an indoor track you very rarely have perfectly uniform conditions (think about rolling terrain with gusty wind). Anyway it is very useful too for simulation purposes especially for a TT rider to eg. make a decision if investment to a new equipment with promised CdA or crr reduction is worth while.
A rule of thumb 10w = CdA 0.01 = crr 0.001 = 1s/km when circling close to 40km/h is very handy.
Interesting discussion.
I think most power riders from Kilo and sprinters to Ulrich/Martin big-gear guys use weights in the off-season.
I've seen Ann Meares work-out and she puts most guys to shame.
Pendleton, on the other hand, is a bit thin and rides completely differently.
Know your body type and act according.
The first page says climbers don't do any weights, but I'm not so sure.
I think most power riders from Kilo and sprinters to Ulrich/Martin big-gear guys use weights in the off-season.
I've seen Ann Meares work-out and she puts most guys to shame.
Pendleton, on the other hand, is a bit thin and rides completely differently.
Know your body type and act according.
The first page says climbers don't do any weights, but I'm not so sure.
I am not really an expert on this, but I can tell position seems to be everything. It is just a matter of physics. The less resistance to air the faster you can go. Moreover, the most you can stretch you legs the most strength you can apply.
Well same ol same ol. These guys have time.
When your time to train is limited, you must make choices. So in such a context, the question is "Should I replace some cycling specific training by some non specific training, and expect to get more results than if I was training solely on the bike?"
When your time to train is virtually unlimited, then the question becomes "Is it worth investing some sugar on non specific activities, at some point in the season, given that I do everything that needs to be done on the bike?"
That debate also yields the notion of improvement. Have the people that usually ask about the question hit a plateau? Is this why this question is being asked? Because if you keep improving on a decent rate, it's hard to understand why changing the winning recipe to include means which efficiency is much harder to evaluate (again, given that the we have limited time to train).
For some coaches, there's a Ban on weight lifting. I think the message they vehicle is important for the ordinary Joe who's time to train is limited. Those who coach professional athletes (cyclists, triathletes, whatever) know what designing full time training schedule represent (5-6hr per day is a lot of hours, 11 months per year is a lot of months). That explains in part this discrepancy.
Pro cyclists wasting their time/energy in the gym, or confusing their competitors, or promoting a chain of gyms etc:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/gallery-argos-shimano-hit-the-gym-ahead-of-team-presentation/248527
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/gallery-argos-shimano-hit-the-gym-ahead-of-team-presentation/248532
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/gallery-argos-shimano-hit-the-gym-ahead-of-team-presentation/248527
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/gallery-argos-shimano-hit-the-gym-ahead-of-team-presentation/248532
maybe BW goes to the gym cause he challenges himself. i do too. i want to get 30 pullups. i do 25 now so i go to the gym and do some sets of pullups. aint helping me on my bike training, aint making me bigger and bulkier, but its just a personal challenge. dosent take away energy for bike training either. maybe some pros like the challenge. maybe some lifted before they became a pro rider and still like the challenge. lay down and do 1000 crunches. nonstop. work up to it is why they are in the gym.. who knows. they are smart enough to not waste energy on exercises to tire them out for riding. i seen gilbert simoni in a gym doing curls. a few sets with 20# dumbells.. WTF! 20#'s .. guys a weakling.. but he could ride. maybe he's there cause he likes lifting and wants to get to 30# . a personal challenge to him. who cares. they ride a ton , take a ton of drugs and ride 25mph average for 200k. and usually the last 20k at 30mph..they aint doing this by doing arm curls and crunches and pullups. riding and drugs..
Yup, can be as simple as that. We have a local academy of sport funded by High Performance Sport NZ and they run compulsory Strength Training Sessions.
I asked why my cyclists needed to attend. They said because it was part of the programme. I asked why it was part of the programme and they said it because it was. I pulled my riders from the programme. They still made all the right teams without strength training.
With an abundance of people studying sport science and exercise physiology the overflow tend to gravitate to strength and conditioning and will try and latch on to teams claiming that cyclists need more strength.
Where is the evidence?
Not photos off the net or youtube clips of Lance doing weights. We now know why he went so good!
It would seem to me the question isnt can stregth training lead to increases on the bike, I'm sure it can.
Rather 1 hour of strenght training vs say 1 hour in L4
In that case its my understanding that 1 hour L4 is going to lead to better gains and endurance.
Rather 1 hour of strenght training vs say 1 hour in L4
In that case its my understanding that 1 hour L4 is going to lead to better gains and endurance.
That is my contention after the 5-6 papers that Ronnestad has published claiming a group of strength trained cyclists improved over a group of endurance only trained cyclists. Subjects selected which group they could go in and the endurance only group made no improvement so these studies are very limited. Studies that use interval training over just basic endurance training holding workload constant deliver far greater gains in performance than the weight training studies by Ronnestad. Other studies using elite or trained cyclists see no benefit. Same deal it would seem with Beta Alanine or Beetroot Juice. Test with untrained subjects and you see results but with trained or elite these differences diminish.
Quote: ABSTRACT Effects of different interval-training programs on cycling time-trial performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 736-741, 1999. STEPTO, NIGEL K.; HAWLEY, JOHN A.; DENNIS, STEVEN C.; HOPKINS, WILL G.
Purpose: We have investigated the effect of varying the intensity of interval training on 40-km time-trial performance in 20 male endurance cyclists (peak oxygen uptake 4.8 ± 0.6 L·min-1, mean ± SD). Methods: Cyclists performed a 25-kJ sprint test, an incremental test to determine peak aerobic power (PP) and a simulated 40-km time-trial on a Kingcycle ergometer. They were then randomly assigned to one of five types of interval-training session: 12 × 30 s at 175% PP, 12 × 60 s at 100% PP, 12 × 2 min at 90% PP, 8 × 4 min at 85% PP, or 4 × 8 min at 80% PP. Cyclists completed 6 sessions over 3 wk, in addition to their usual aerobic base training. All laboratory tests were then repeated. Results: Performances in the time trial were highly reliable when controlled for training effects (coefficient of variation = 1.1%). The percent improvement in the time trial was modeled as a polynomial function of the rank order of the intensity of the training intervals, a procedure validated by simulation. The cubic trend was strong and statistically significant (overall correlation = 0.70, P = 0.005) and predicted greatest enhancement for the intervals performed at 85% PP (2.8%, 95%CI = 4.3-1.3%) and at 175% PP (2.4%, 95%CI = 4.0-0.7%). Intervals performed at 100% PP and 80% PP did not produce statistically significant enhancements of performance. Quadratic and linear trends were weak or insubstantial. Conclusions: Interval training with work bouts close to race-pace enhance 1-h endurance performance; work bouts at much higher intensity also appear to improve performance, possibly by a different mechanism.
Purpose: We have investigated the effect of varying the intensity of interval training on 40-km time-trial performance in 20 male endurance cyclists (peak oxygen uptake 4.8 ± 0.6 L·min-1, mean ± SD). Methods: Cyclists performed a 25-kJ sprint test, an incremental test to determine peak aerobic power (PP) and a simulated 40-km time-trial on a Kingcycle ergometer. They were then randomly assigned to one of five types of interval-training session: 12 × 30 s at 175% PP, 12 × 60 s at 100% PP, 12 × 2 min at 90% PP, 8 × 4 min at 85% PP, or 4 × 8 min at 80% PP. Cyclists completed 6 sessions over 3 wk, in addition to their usual aerobic base training. All laboratory tests were then repeated. Results: Performances in the time trial were highly reliable when controlled for training effects (coefficient of variation = 1.1%). The percent improvement in the time trial was modeled as a polynomial function of the rank order of the intensity of the training intervals, a procedure validated by simulation. The cubic trend was strong and statistically significant (overall correlation = 0.70, P = 0.005) and predicted greatest enhancement for the intervals performed at 85% PP (2.8%, 95%CI = 4.3-1.3%) and at 175% PP (2.4%, 95%CI = 4.0-0.7%). Intervals performed at 100% PP and 80% PP did not produce statistically significant enhancements of performance. Quadratic and linear trends were weak or insubstantial. Conclusions: Interval training with work bouts close to race-pace enhance 1-h endurance performance; work bouts at much higher intensity also appear to improve performance, possibly by a different mechanism.
Pro cyclist wasting his time/energy in the gym, or confusing his competitors, or promoting a chain of gyms etc:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=165546590260778&set=a.146726005476170.33604.145388992276538&type=1&permPage=1
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=165546590260778&set=a.146726005476170.33604.145388992276538&type=1&permPage=1
With that much weight on the bar, HE IS DEFINITELY WASTING HIS TIME. LAWL....I would paint them pink and it would be more colorful to look at atleast.
I think I had that same set of weights when I was in highschool for Xmas.
I think I had that same set of weights when I was in highschool for Xmas.
Originally Posted by POGATA .
Pro cyclist wasting his time/energy in the gym, or confusing his competitors, or promoting a chain of gyms etc:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=165546590260778&set=a.146726005476170.33604.145388992276538&type=1&permPage=1
Perhaps he is doing high reps? Nope, I don't see any sweat.
Seriously, a light weight like that can still generate a good burn at 50 to 100 reps with decent form. I do this from time to time to work my core, legs and range of motion in my bum knee.
Seriously, a light weight like that can still generate a good burn at 50 to 100 reps with decent form. I do this from time to time to work my core, legs and range of motion in my bum knee.
Ive skim read over a lot of the posts in this forum and it seems the general feeling is that strength training is not a particularly great way to focus your training if improving endurance on the bike is what you are looking for - you would be better off spending your time on the bike. This makes sense.
What I would like to know is, would doing squats, leg presses, lunges, deadlifts etc etc to strengthen the legs improve performance in shorter races ie: track races or criteriums. Because surely more strength = more power = more watts = more speed?
Obv this would have to be combined with training on the bike, and building fitness, but I cant see how lifting weights would have anything but a positive effect?
What I would like to know is, would doing squats, leg presses, lunges, deadlifts etc etc to strengthen the legs improve performance in shorter races ie: track races or criteriums. Because surely more strength = more power = more watts = more speed?
Obv this would have to be combined with training on the bike, and building fitness, but I cant see how lifting weights would have anything but a positive effect?
Except if recovery time from the weights interfered w/workouts on the bike. We have a former bodybuilder on the forum who still lifts but rides somewhat seriously as well. According to his experience, it does but he chooses to keep lifting anyway because he enjoys it. If one where looking to optimize performance on the bike with race results in mind it might not be an ideal way to spend time, even for shorter, faster event like crits or even the kilo/pursuit... which are still essentially aerobically driven events.
You have to do the weights after a bike workout if you add them to your program.
It can take 48-72 hours to fully recover if you are really ripping your muscles with weights, which can hinder some of your bike sessions. Working out sore can be detrimental.
If you search info on Anna Meares, I know there are some videos of her lifting some pretty hefty weights. Her body geometry is much different than Pendleton's.
Know thyself.
It can take 48-72 hours to fully recover if you are really ripping your muscles with weights, which can hinder some of your bike sessions. Working out sore can be detrimental.
If you search info on Anna Meares, I know there are some videos of her lifting some pretty hefty weights. Her body geometry is much different than Pendleton's.
Know thyself.
Similar threads
