gyming to improve power

[Carrera]

I can understand the sprinters' situation but I sometimes get to wondering why so many guys seem to be pounding away at squats e.t.c. and cycling at the same time. I've confessed several times that I still do squats but I'm aware you can't max out on squats while cycling, or max out on the bike after really squatting hard.
The only real options would be to squat light to moderate once a week or only do squats in the Winter in order to prepare for Summer. Even then, the main advantage would be to build a reserve that would see you through the hours of cardio work that would be done in Summer.
The way I do it is to phase down my cycling and squat if I feel I want to gain a liitle weight. I wouldn't ever ride my bike after my squats or even the day after since that would make the whole notion of muscle growth pointless. Nope, I'd bike again after 48 hours rest. Once I'd gained the weight I wanted to gain I'd resume more intensive cycling again. It's like a yin and yang process but I certainly wouldn't recommend my own system to other people as my goal isn't to take part in the tour as such.
I do think we all need to be clear, though, that it would be pointless to bust ass doing set after set of heavy squats and then ride 60 miles straight after, expecting to gain muscle and fitness at the same time.

Gym work = track sprinters only. If you are in the gym on a regular basis trying to build strength and size, you'll compromise your performance if you are a road cyclist.

 

[velomanct]

I can understand the sprinters' situation but I sometimes get to wondering why so many guys seem to be pounding away at squats e.t.c. and cycling at the same time. I've confessed several times that I still do squats but I'm aware you can't max out on squats while cycling, or max out on the bike after really squatting hard.
The only real options would be to squat light to moderate once a week or only do squats in the Winter in order to prepare for Summer. Even then, the main advantage would be to build a reserve that would see you through the hours of cardio work that would be done in Summer.
The way I do it is to phase down my cycling and squat if I feel I want to gain a liitle weight. I wouldn't ever ride my bike after my squats or even the day after since that would make the whole notion of muscle growth pointless. Nope, I'd bike again after 48 hours rest. Once I'd gained the weight I wanted to gain I'd resume more intensive cycling again. It's like a yin and yang process but I certainly wouldn't recommend my own system to other people as my goal isn't to take part in the tour as such.
I do think we all need to be clear, though, that it would be pointless to bust ass doing set after set of heavy squats and then ride 60 miles straight after, expecting to gain muscle and fitness at the same time.

why exactly is it that if you were to ride 60 miles after a weight session, that you would not gain strength AND fitness? (the cycling workout would be endurance pace only, no high intensity). obviously your recovery will take longer. BUT, since both systems are being stressed within the same time period of a couple hours, you wouldn't be in 'recovery' mode from the weights. Why is it that riding 60 miles after a weight workout will detract from your possible strength gains? by combining the two, you put stress on both the muscular and aerobic system. just look at it like one big workout, not two. why can't they both repair themselves fully after sufficent rest? (sorry if that was repetitive)

from what i know, as long as you are fully recovered before each workout, you will be able to train to your full potential. i think the biggest problem people run into with training is that they are not fully recovered from the previous workout, whether it be weights or cycling.

i am not saying you are wrong, just would like to see the science behind it.

 

[Roadie_scum]

why exactly is it that if you were to ride 60 miles after a weight session, that you would not gain strength AND fitness? (the cycling workout would be endurance pace only, no high intensity). obviously your recovery will take longer. BUT, since both systems are being stressed within the same time period of a couple hours, you wouldn't be in 'recovery' mode from the weights. Why is it that riding 60 miles after a weight workout will detract from your possible strength gains? by combining the two, you put stress on both the muscular and aerobic system. just look at it like one big workout, not two. why can't they both repair themselves fully after sufficent rest? (sorry if that was repetitive)

from what i know, as long as you are fully recovered before each workout, you will be able to train to your full potential. i think the biggest problem people run into with training is that they are not fully recovered from the previous workout, whether it be weights or cycling.

i am not saying you are wrong, just would like to see the science behind it.

Look up 'interference effect' and weights or resistance training on pubmed or google - google yields a nice summary from 'peak performance', who aren't my favourite source of advice, but the article is ok.

 

[closesupport]

Look up 'interference effect' and weights or resistance training on pubmed or google - google yields a nice summary from 'peak performance', who aren't my favourite source of advice, but the article is ok.

When i was training last, i was told that i was to squat to a max of 170\180lb max since it woud hinder running perormance, although i was told that i could max out on steps, this would improve the strength of my hamstrings glutes and the upper most musce groups, these you can do for longer lengths of time, plus i found squating afterwards easier since i was squating less but stepping with around doule and leg presses possibly triple that weight.

 

[Carrera]

Well, you asked me a reasonable question and I guess I have few answers. There are lots of people on the forum who know far more than I do so I suppose I tend to find all sorts of conflicting ideas and opinions. It's just my gut feeling is it would be almost impossible to excel in cycling and weight-training at the same time - unless maybe steroids were thrown into the picture.
I mean, if you look at top athletes today you find they're incredibly specialised. Their whole training is geared towards excellence in their own sphere. There aren't many people on the scene who are simultaneously developed aerobically and muscular wise. These latter tend to be boxers, I suppose. Muhammad Ali, for example, did lots and lots of cardio but was fairly strong as well. Frank Bruno is another good example - a bodybuilder type physique but he must have done around 4 - 5 hours aerobics daily, jogging, skipping, swimming lengths e.t.c. as well as weights (shame Tyson knocked him out at the time)
Having said that, I still doubt that we'll see any tour de France winners the size of Foreman or Ali who couldn't compete against guys with a superb power to weight ratio. Of course, I'm no expert on this subject but maybe someone could tell us whether you can develop slow and fast twitch fibres simultaneoulsy or does one simply cancel the other out?

why exactly is it that if you were to ride 60 miles after a weight session, that you would not gain strength AND fitness? (the cycling workout would be endurance pace only, no high intensity). obviously your recovery will take longer. BUT, since both systems are being stressed within the same time period of a couple hours, you wouldn't be in 'recovery' mode from the weights. Why is it that riding 60 miles after a weight workout will detract from your possible strength gains? by combining the two, you put stress on both the muscular and aerobic system. just look at it like one big workout, not two. why can't they both repair themselves fully after sufficent rest? (sorry if that was repetitive)

from what i know, as long as you are fully recovered before each workout, you will be able to train to your full potential. i think the biggest problem people run into with training is that they are not fully recovered from the previous workout, whether it be weights or cycling.

i am not saying you are wrong, just would like to see the science behind it.

 

[closesupport]

I'm no expert on this subject but maybe someone could tell us whether you can develop slow and fast twitch fibres simultaneoulsy or does one simply cancel the other out?

FG SO fibres are recruited to move heavier weights where the work has to be completed slowly.

SO fires are recruited for rapid movement of for instance a light weight none of the fibre groups work simultaneously, some other fibres will participate at all times others will have shared in the work but are now fatigued, this is due to a selective dropping out of fibres as they become fatigued resulting in a total number of fibres that can be recruited to perform the particular task

 

[mac_220]

I haven't had time to read every message in the thread yet and am not sure if this aspect has been raised yet. But here goes:

It is a simple enough calculation: power at the crank (in W, or in Nm/s) is equal to the torque (in Nm) multiplied by the angular velocity (in rad/s). Thus, the average force being applied to the pedals is equal to the power divided by 2*Pi*cadence (since there are 2 Pi radians per 360 degrees). Divide by 9.81 (there being 9.81 N/kg) and by the crank length (in m, not mm), and voila - you have the average effective pedal force in kilograms (although technically, kilogram is a unit of mass, not force)!

I'm not a sports scientist however, I'm a physicist and i think you need to think a bit more about the above equation your using and what you are extrapalating from them. I don't think this equation gives you an accurate reflection of the forces required to turn the pedals.

Looking at average force really gives you a very distorted view of what will really be happening during a cycle of the pedal.

Constant force cannot to be applied to the pedals. due to the difference in muscles required to complete the turning motion. secondly, you have to factor in the extra force required to lift the rising leg and how effectively the legs is lifted.

Most importantly there is only a small portion of the complete revolution where the leg can appy the full force, guessing i would say that between 1 and 5 o'clock on the pedal cycle. During this sector of the pedal cycle i would suggest that the force applied to the pedals is much greater that the forces or equilent weight stated during this thread.

To state the equation required to understand the force, power applied to a pedal during a complete revolution "is simple" shows a fundemental misunderstanding of the concepts of physics.

It is for these reasons that i think a lot of the comments about force, weight in this thread are fundementally floored.

If you were to plot force against rotation angle (0-360 degress) i would expect to see a bell shaped curce with the maximum (different to full force stated earlier)force being applied for a between 2 and 4 o'clock. the dreased sector is due to the time it take for the muscle to acheive full force, which i know nothing about, however i do know that it is not possibe to apply force instantly

If you were to make a very simplistic calculation starting at 12 o'clock for one leg the quessed average of max force or aofm me be applied as follows:
12-1 medium force for 30 degrees ~aofm 20%
1-2 increasing force for 30 degrees ~aofm 70%
2-4 Max force is applied for 60 degrees ~aofm 100%
4-5 decreasing force for 30 degrees ~aofm 70%
5-7 minimal force for 60 degrees ~aofm 30%
7-12 a bit more tricky depending on how effectively the cyclist moves the leg upwards this could, if ineffective this could actually be a force acting in the opersite direction, requiring the other leg to increase force to counter the weight of the leg, which i imagine must weigh a lot. Lets assume ~aofm minus10% to +30%

Another factor that should be accounted for is the ivariance of angular velocity, during the pedal cycle 12 and 6 o'clock. this cannot be completely connstant, however it may not be a significant factor.

Efficiency of the power transmission to the power measureing devices has not been factored into the Equation. A variance factor which defines the effieciency of which power from the leg is tranfered during pedal cycle. which are dependant upon the direction the forces are being applied to the multiple pivots within the transmission of the bike. The force should be spilt to understand which direction they are applied and how effiecently the force is converted to turning motion and how much force is lost as it is transfered through each section of the mechanism

when lifting free weights there is no loss of power due to force transfer between systems. A significant amount of force will be lost due to the mechanical mechanism, the bike.

i would guess the force would actually be applied for a very short sector of the pedal revolution. Which means that the max force exerted would be much higher than the average force. which would mean that when this force was converted into mass or weight it would be significantly higher than those suggested during this thread. Exspecially when riding against a high resistance such as wind resistance or when climbing as the both resting forces will be require the cyclist to apply a much higher max force to keep the momentum during the dead spots. this can be expereicenced when riding a very steep hill 1/3 or 1/4. the bike drastically Decelerates at these points in the pedal stroke.

Conclusion: Do some research which quantifies the max force applied to the pedals during a revolution in different situations climbing, time trialling sprinting etc.

As i stated i do not know about the effects of weight training on cycling performance, how ever equating euqivilent 25 KG of force being required by an elite cyclist seems wrong to me

Regards,

Mark

 

[Roadie_scum]

Conclusion: Do some research which quantifies the max force applied to the pedals during a revolution in different situations climbing, time trialling sprinting etc.

As i stated i do not know about the effects of weight training on cycling performance, how ever equating euqivilent 25 KG of force being required by an elite cyclist seems wrong to me

Regards,

Mark

All of this research has already been done. There's no need to repeat it. It's discussed in detail in part in this thread, and extensively elsewhere. Have a look at one of the threads on powercranks and the literature discussed therein if you want to know about effective pedalling force at different points in the pedal stroke. There is a paper which discusses the different pedal strokes used by elites and amateurs from 1991. Can't remember the ref off-hand. Ask me if you want it.

All this research has been considered by Ric, myself and others in what they have posted regarding the sufficiency of average or below strength in meeting force requirements in endurance cycling.

Also, the sports science angle IS important. Neuromuscular gains from the gym will not transfer to cycling and hypertrophy will be detrimental to aerobic capacity for a number of reasons.

 

[n crowley]

I haven't had time to read every message in the thread yet and am not sure if this aspect has been raised yet. But here goes:



I'm not a sports scientist however, I'm a physicist and i think you need to think a bit more about the above equation your using and what you are extrapalating from them. I don't think this equation gives you an accurate reflection of the forces required to turn the pedals.

Looking at average force really gives you a very distorted view of what will really be happening during a cycle of the pedal.

Constant force cannot to be applied to the pedals. due to the difference in muscles required to complete the turning motion. secondly, you have to factor in the extra force required to lift the rising leg and how effectively the legs is lifted.

Most importantly there is only a small portion of the complete revolution where the leg can appy the full force, guessing i would say that between 1 and 5 o'clock on the pedal cycle. During this sector of the pedal cycle i would suggest that the force applied to the pedals is much greater that the forces or equilent weight stated during this thread.

To state the equation required to understand the force, power applied to a pedal during a complete revolution "is simple" shows a fundemental misunderstanding of the concepts of physics.

It is for these reasons that i think a lot of the comments about force, weight in this thread are fundementally floored.

If you were to plot force against rotation angle (0-360 degress) i would expect to see a bell shaped curce with the maximum (different to full force stated earlier)force being applied for a between 2 and 4 o'clock. the dreased sector is due to the time it take for the muscle to acheive full force, which i know nothing about, however i do know that it is n

If you were to make a very simplistic calculation starting at 12 o'clock for one leg the quessed average of max force or aofm me be applied as follows:
12-1 medium force for 30 degrees ~aofm 20%
1-2 increasing force for 30 degrees ~aofm 70%
2-4 Max force is applied for 60 degrees ~aofm 100%
4-5 decreasing force for 30 degrees ~aofm 70%
5-7 minimal force for 60 degrees ~aofm 30%
7-12 a bit more tricky depending on how effectively the cyclist moves the leg upwards this could, if ineffective this could actually be a force acting in the opersite direction, requiring the other leg to increase force to counter the weight of the leg, which i imagine must weigh a lot. Lets assume ~aofm minus10% to +30%

Another factor that should be accounted for is the ivariance of angular velocity, during the pedal cycle 12 and 6 o'clock. this cannot be completely connstant, however it may not be a significant factor.

Efficiency of the power transmission to the power measureing devices has not been factored into the Equation. A variance factor which defines the effieciency of which power from the leg is tranfered during pedal cycle. which are dependant upon the direction the forces are being applied to the multiple pivots within the transmission of the bike. The force should be spilt to understand which direction they are applied and how effiecently the force is converted to turning motion and how much force is lost as it is transfered through each section of the mechanism

when lifting free weights there is no loss of power due to force transfer between systems. A significant amount of force will be lost due to the mechanical mechanism, the bike.

i would guess the force would actually be applied for a very short sector of the pedal revolution. Which means that the max force exerted would be much higher than the average force. which would mean that when this force was converted into mass or weight it would be significantly higher than those suggested during this thread. Exspecially when riding against a high resistance such as wind resistance or when climbing as the both resting forces will be require the cyclist to apply a much higher max force to keep the momentum during the dead spots. this can be expereicenced when riding a very steep hill 1/3 or 1/4. the bike drastically Decelerates at these points in the pedal stroke.

Conclusion: Do some research which quantifies the max force applied to the pedals during a revolution in different situations climbing, time trialling sprinting etc.

As i stated i do not know about the effects of weight training on cycling performance, how ever equating euqivilent 25 KG of force being required by an elite cyclist seems wrong to me

Regards,

Mark

Researchers have and continue to make many bad mistakes and assumptions
in the simple matter of pedalling. If you were to set up hand cranks
(similar to normal leg cranks but shorter) in a position so that shoulder
to hand on crank slope would resemble the hip to foot on pedal slope,
excluding the pulling power, would you apply that pushing force in the
same way as one normally does when cycling. The pulling power has
to be excluded because in the case of hand cranks these forces are almost
equal.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Researchers have and continue to make many bad mistakes and assumptions
in the simple matter of pedalling. If you were to set up hand cranks
(similar to normal leg cranks but shorter) in a position so that shoulder
to hand on crank slope would resemble the hip to foot on pedal slope,
excluding the pulling power, would you apply that pushing force in the
same way as one normally does when cycling. The pulling power has
to be excluded because in the case of hand cranks these forces are almost
equal.

I'd ask what you are talking about, but I don't even care. Next time you post this inane nonsense can you at least delete the parts of the post you are replying to that do not have relevance to what you're saying?

 

[closesupport]

I haven't had time to read every message in the thread yet and am not sure if this aspect has been raised yet. But here goes:



I'm not a sports scientist however, I'm a physicist and i think you need to think a bit more about the above equation your using and what you are extrapalating from them. I don't think this equation gives you an accurate reflection of the forces required to turn the pedals.

Looking at average force really gives you a very distorted view of what will really be happening during a cycle of the pedal.

Constant force cannot to be applied to the pedals. due to the difference in muscles required to complete the turning motion. secondly, you have to factor in the extra force required to lift the rising leg and how effectively the legs is lifted.

Most importantly there is only a small portion of the complete revolution where the leg can appy the full force, guessing i would say that between 1 and 5 o'clock on the pedal cycle. During this sector of the pedal cycle i would suggest that the force applied to the pedals is much greater that the forces or equilent weight stated during this thread.

To state the equation required to understand the force, power applied to a pedal during a complete revolution "is simple" shows a fundemental misunderstanding of the concepts of physics.

It is for these reasons that i think a lot of the comments about force, weight in this thread are fundementally floored.

If you were to plot force against rotation angle (0-360 degress) i would expect to see a bell shaped curce with the maximum (different to full force stated earlier)force being applied for a between 2 and 4 o'clock. the dreased sector is due to the time it take for the muscle to acheive full force, which i know nothing about, however i do know that it is not possibe to apply force instantly

If you were to make a very simplistic calculation starting at 12 o'clock for one leg the quessed average of max force or aofm me be applied as follows:
12-1 medium force for 30 degrees ~aofm 20%
1-2 increasing force for 30 degrees ~aofm 70%
2-4 Max force is applied for 60 degrees ~aofm 100%
4-5 decreasing force for 30 degrees ~aofm 70%
5-7 minimal force for 60 degrees ~aofm 30%
7-12 a bit more tricky depending on how effectively the cyclist moves the leg upwards this could, if ineffective this could actually be a force acting in the opersite direction, requiring the other leg to increase force to counter the weight of the leg, which i imagine must weigh a lot. Lets assume ~aofm minus10% to +30%

Another factor that should be accounted for is the ivariance of angular velocity, during the pedal cycle 12 and 6 o'clock. this cannot be completely connstant, however it may not be a significant factor.

Efficiency of the power transmission to the power measureing devices has not been factored into the Equation. A variance factor which defines the effieciency of which power from the leg is tranfered during pedal cycle. which are dependant upon the direction the forces are being applied to the multiple pivots within the transmission of the bike. The force should be spilt to understand which direction they are applied and how effiecently the force is converted to turning motion and how much force is lost as it is transfered through each section of the mechanism

when lifting free weights there is no loss of power due to force transfer between systems. A significant amount of force will be lost due to the mechanical mechanism, the bike.

i would guess the force would actually be applied for a very short sector of the pedal revolution. Which means that the max force exerted would be much higher than the average force. which would mean that when this force was converted into mass or weight it would be significantly higher than those suggested during this thread. Exspecially when riding against a high resistance such as wind resistance or when climbing as the both resting forces will be require the cyclist to apply a much higher max force to keep the momentum during the dead spots. this can be expereicenced when riding a very steep hill 1/3 or 1/4. the bike drastically Decelerates at these points in the pedal stroke.

Conclusion: Do some research which quantifies the max force applied to the pedals during a revolution in different situations climbing, time trialling sprinting etc.

As i stated i do not know about the effects of weight training on cycling performance, how ever equating euqivilent 25 KG of force being required by an elite cyclist seems wrong to me

Regards,

Mark

Save your brain, http://www.analyticcycling.com/Topics.html here its done for you, best info site for cadenance and power... etc.....

 

[velomanct]

Save your brain, http://www.analyticcycling.com/Topics.html here its done for you, best info site for cadenance and power... etc.....

The question is then, how do you compare kg/m/s/s to what the others were refering to in regards to force on the pedals?

During a standing start, I have done 3000kg/m/s/s of effective pedal force for a very short period. And I have gone over 1000inch lbs max torque on the bike. What does that mean to me? My 1RPM for the squat is in the high 200lbs.


All I know is that weight lifting makes your muscles stronger and bigger, which improves sprint power, and that's all I care about.

 

[ed073]

All I know is that weight lifting makes your muscles stronger and bigger, which improves sprint power, and that's all I care about.

Correct. It's pretty simple really.
-train in the gym for strength and power
-train on the track for technique/endurance
-race to win

 

[n crowley]

Save your brain, http://www.analyticcycling.com/Topics.html here its done for you, best info site for cadenance and power... etc.....

Excellent site and useful for comparison purposes but like yourself when it
comes to cycling nobody uses their brain, all rely on cycling scripture and
tradition, yet nobody knows the basis of all this teaching. The most
important half of bicycling biomechanics lies unresearched both from the
performance and medical aspect.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Excellent site and useful for comparison purposes but like yourself when it
comes to cycling nobody uses their brain, all rely on cycling scripture and
tradition, yet nobody knows the basis of all this teaching. The most
important half of bicycling biomechanics lies unresearched both from the
performance and medical aspect.

What, exactly, remains unresearched?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

What, exactly, remains unresearched?

Noel's ramblings...?

 

[n crowley]

What, exactly, remains unresearched?

You could start with the introduction of upper body muscles into seated
competitive cycling and it will open the door to a whole new area of research.

 

[Roadie_scum]

You could start with the introduction of upper body muscles into seated
competitive cycling and it will open the door to a whole new area of research.

In an uncontrolled n=1 study 100% of Roadie_scums tested were unable to power bicycles of any form with arms, neck muscles or abdominals. Significant speeds were achieved, however these were proportional to the downward slope of the road. The magnitude of injury gained from coming to an abrupt halt while riding upside down increased in proportion to the speed attained.

 

[lanierb]

I've read most of this thread and have a question for the experts that is related to the discussion. When I take time off in the winter I usually lose a few pounds, which comes back when I start training again in the spring. I always attributed this to losing and then gaining back leg muscle. However, if strength really plays no role in cycling, does that contradict my theory or not? Does it take more muscle mass to have more endurance? And, if not, why do I gain weight when I train? (I have pretty low body fat either way.) The reason I ask is that, if it's not helping me I'd like to keep it from happening!

 

[closesupport]

I've read most of this thread and have a question for the experts that is related to the discussion. When I take time off in the winter I usually lose a few pounds, which comes back when I start training again in the spring. I always attributed this to losing and then gaining back leg muscle. However, if strength really plays no role in cycling, does that contradict my theory or not? Does it take more muscle mass to have more endurance? And, if not, why do I gain weight when I train? (I have pretty low body fat either way.) The reason I ask is that, if it's not helping me I'd like to keep it from happening!

IT PROBALY IS DUE TO ATROPHY. THATS MUSCLE WASTING SINCE THE MUSCLE ISN'T BEING REQUIRED, ITS STILL THERE, OR RATHER THE STORAGE POTENTIAL IS STILL THERE.

IF YOU WHERE TO REQUIRE FUEL FOR A 10 MILE JOURNEY IN A CAR YOU WOULDN'T PUT 100MILES WORTH OF FUEL INIT, CAUSE IT AIN'T REQUIRED. OUR MUSCLE GROUPS ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. IF WE CALL UPON FUEL STORES REQUIRING LARGE AMOUNTS OF FUEL THEN THE BODY WILL STORE THIS FOR THE NEXT POSSIBLE JOURNEY. THE MORE REGULAR YOU CALL UPON THIS FUEL STORE, THE BODY GETS TRAINED "IF YOU LIKE" TO STORING THAT FUEL SOURCE, THEN WHEN WE DON'T CALL UPON IT WE GO THROUGH DE-TRAINING WHICH LEADS TO MUSCLE LOSS, SINCE MUSCLE FUEL STORES AREN'T REQUIRED.

BUT WHEN YOU START TRAINING AGAIN AND THE MUSCLE GROUPS ARE CALLED UPON. THEN MORE POTENTIAL ENERGY IS STORED IN AND AROUND THE MUSCLE GROUPS THAT ARE BEING CALLED UPON AGAIN. THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT UNFORTUNATELY, SO RETAINING SOME KIND OF MUSCULAR WORK REQUIRING A SIMILAR AMOUNT OF ENERGY, WEATHER AEROBIC OR ANOEROBIC WILL PREVENT ATROPHY.