gyming to improve power

[swampy1970]

Maybe you're the one reading the wrong stuff, coz it says 445w here (for his 56.375km record):

Bike Cult Book: Online Resource: World Hour Records

If Peter Keen estimated that Boardman produced about 442 W during the record, based upon readings from an SRM during pre record prep then I'll take his numbers

Some have estimated the record to be down in the 410W range...

 

[531Aussie]

^ fair enough.

I sometimes wonder where that Bike Cult joint gets its info from (especially the output estinmations fromt he older records), because, for example, it's says Sosenka used 190mm cranks, but a Yank on a forum swears he read in a mag that Sosenka used 195s

 

[Piotr]

^ fair enough.

I sometimes wonder where that Bike Cult joint gets its info from (especially the output estinmations fromt he older records), because, for example, it's says Sosenka used 190mm cranks, but a Yank on a forum swears he read in a mag that Sosenka used 195s

I'm pretty sure he used 200 cc's to break the record.

 

[531Aussie]

I'm pretty sure he used 200 cc's to break the record.

Well, there ya go

 

[fergie]

Right, but it is limited by sustainable power output, right? I'm not completely convinced that if you take two athletes with a significant difference in the power clean, that the one with the heavier power clean won't be able to ride faster than the one with the lower weight power clean.

You would have to be able to prove it. I haven't seen a World Sprint Champion convert to a World Pursuit Champion for quite some time.

The power clean is a great exercise for developing leg power, so I think it's certainly reasonable to expect the heavier weight power cleaner to have a higher peak power output, and maybe even a higher average power output, since 150W is a much larger percentage of 600W(25%) than it is of 1500W(10%) (which are the powers generated in a 56 kg power clean and a 141 kg power clean respectively, if you move the weight .65 m in .6 seconds).

Again the reality is not so clear. While the old East German sprinters did use squat totals and triple jump scores as an indicator it was not an direct correlation. I worked with a ex World Keirin Champion and many asked me how much he squatted. My response was to any sprinter who asked was "not as much as you".

So, I don't think it's ridiculous to think that weight training in the off season can increase your energy output, which will lead to increased speed in the racing season.

That may be the case but we have yet to see anyone come up with any reasonable data to support it or even a sound physiological rationale.

At the very least, couldn't weight training be a good way to shake things up and push your body past your current limits?

Why not just change interval training methods. Instead of doing 60se flat intervals or intervals at 100 rpm, try uphill intervals or intervals at 75rpm?

Also, as far as cycling not being limited by strength, I think it's clear that if you develop the ability to do heavy squats, your body is responding to a stress that requires strength used in the squat, so why not train the squat and remove that limiting factor?

Cycling is not limited by strength that means there is no limit to remove.

I would contend that strength isn't a limit to sprint performance let alone endurance performance. Australian Track Sprinters spent years chasing peak power, speed and strength in the gym and had the highest peak powers on the track. Pity for them that the Brits focused on power relative to the actual event and cleaned them up over 250-1000m.

Even the French learned the hard way that even fast flying 200m wouldn't save them in the rounds when sprints would go from 250-400m out or Hoy would start cranking a Keirin to warp speed from 2.5 laps out.

So I don't see how a roadie will benefit from going from a peak power of 1200watts to 1250watts when an average race power is 200-400watts and even less benefit in improving a powerclean from 50kg to 100kg (most of which would be improving technique) as it is a completely different motor pattern to cycling.

 

[swampy1970]

I'm pretty sure he used 200 cc's to break the record.

190mm, although looking at the size of the lad he could have used 910mm's.

I think it said 190mm on his website that mysteriously vanished along with his drugs after he got busted and failed a dope test.

 

[swampy1970]

Even the French learned the hard way that even fast flying 200m wouldn't save them in the rounds when sprints would go from 250-400m out or Hoy would start cranking a Keirin to warp speed from 2.5 laps out.

When Hoy goes flat out on the track for more than one lap, it's said that the Earth spins just a little bit slower. He really is THAT good.

 

[velomanct]

I can't believe there is still a debate on this topic.

The coaches and other highly experienced individuals on here have continuously proved that strength is not a limiting factor in cycling.

Road cycling is such an endurance-based sport (even the last 200 meters of a crit!).


Are there seriously riders out there who can't ride faster because they deem themselves too weak in muscular strength?

 

[fergie]

Road cycling is such an endurance-based sport (even the last 200 meters of a crit!).

I have a peak power of 1330 watts and have never cracked 1000 watts in a crit.

 

[velomanct]

I have a peak power of 1330 watts and have never cracked 1000 watts in a crit.

Exactly!
During the final sprint, I usually would find myself sprinting at 60-70% of the wattage I'd be at during a sprint in training(recovered, aerobic).

Talk about strength not being a factor! Woah!

 

[fergie]

Handy things Powermeters for figgerring out what the actual demands of competition are.

 

[ragiarn]

I am jumping as a "Johnny come lately" and have not read all the posts in this thread, but enough to the get the drift of the conversation, so I hope my posting is not redundant.

People lose track of the fact that is not about absolute strength but rather it is about the mitochondria.

The mitochondria are those little energy factories within the muscle cells that allow us to utilize energy supplies (glucose/ fat) aerobically.

A big difference (but not the only difference) between the muscles of strength trained athletes and endurance trained athletes is the mitochondrial density of the muscle cells.

Endurance training increases mitochondrial density, resistance training creates mitochondrial dilution (muscles cells with less mitochondria).

In resistance type competitions (OL, Power lifting etc) the gu/gal with the biggest and most muscle cells usually wins. In endurance competitions the guy/gal with the most mitochondria usually wins.

A very interesting article was published by Stephen Seiler in 2004(Strength Training and Endurance Performance Stephen Seiler PhD ) just about the time that this thread was started. .

Dr. Seiler is a well known exercise physiologist who also actively competes in rowing in the masters division and is an avid cross country skier. Dr. Seiler explores the differences I cited above in detail with sound physiology science.

The article covers various aspects of strength training as it pertains to endurance performance and covers the few instances where it may be valuable and why for the most part it is of little use for endurance athletes.

Anyone truly interested in the topic of strength training and endurance performance, will do well to look up this article on he internet and study it well.
Ragiarn

 

[graywulf]

Well if you have more muscle wouldn't it be easier for a greater quantity of mitochondria develop?

 

[daveryanwyoming]

If your muscles have larger cross sectional area the mitochondrial density drops. The idea is to have lots of thin muscle fibers rather than fewer thicker fibers. From a mitochondrial density standpoint that's the big difference between training for peak strength (fat low mitochondrial density muscle fibers with high peak force capabilities) vs endurance training (more individual muscle fibers, higher mitochondrial density per fiber, much better metabolic endurance but lower peak force capabilities).

-Dave

 

[graywulf]

If your muscles have larger cross sectional area the mitochondrial density drops, correct, but wouldn't it be easier to build up mitochondria is tissue where it is less dense. Like, diminishing returns, or sub maximal gains.

 

[taricha]

A very interesting article was published by Stephen Seiler in 2004(Strength Training and Endurance Performance Stephen Seiler PhD ) just about the time that this thread was started. .

Dr. Seiler is a well known exercise physiologist who also actively competes in rowing in the masters division and is an avid cross country skier. Dr. Seiler explores the differences I cited above in detail with sound physiology science.

I found a really remarkable (to me at least) claim on Dr. Seiler's website:
"Body Position on the Bike will Influence Heart Rate. Let's say I am riding on an indoor bicycle trainer with my upper body parallel to the ground (Hands on the drops) at a heart rate of 145. Raising upright while continuing to cycle at the exact same workload will result in an increase in heart rate of about 5 beats per minute. Trust me I have experimented with this effect on many a winter evening! This is due to decreased venous return in the more upright position. Heart rate increases to compensate for the slightly decreased venous return and stroke volume, keeping cardiac output constant. Whe I return to the drops, the heart rate drops again."

Have others noticed this? And perhaps more importantly, does this actually imply lower stress is placed on the heart with a horizontal upper body position and therefore higher sustainable power is achievable in the drops?

It seems logical that a less uphill return trip for the blood from legs to heart would be beneficial, but is it really as significant an effect as he makes it out to be?

 

[ragiarn]

If your muscles have larger cross sectional area the mitochondrial density drops, correct, but wouldn't it be easier to build up mitochondria is tissue where it is less dense. Like, diminishing returns, or sub maximal gains.

If you are really interested in this topic I suggest that you read the article I cited by Dr. Steven Seiler. He goes into great detail with scientific basis for his article.

This is the link:
Strength Training and Endurance Performance 20041

 

[doctorSpoc]

If your muscles have larger cross sectional area the mitochondrial density drops, correct, but wouldn't it be easier to build up mitochondria is tissue where it is less dense. Like, diminishing returns, or sub maximal gains.

you need to read at least some of the thread... you miss the larger point... the point is that you don't need particularly big and strong muscles for cycling.. cycling at the power that can win you the tour de france literally requires the strength of little girl 50lbs per leg... what is required is many, many tiny torques many times a minute. big strong muscles are just not required and there are many problems with big muscles in doing this.

1) big muscles are heavy.. the muscle needs to lift itself those many times a a minute and you need to lift those big totally unnecessarily strong and heavy muscles up hill if you are climbing.. remember that the strength of the muscle goes up by the cross section (by the square) but the weight is going up by the cube (varies with volume).. for cycling unless your are a sprinter you want the smallest leanest muscles you can find that produce just enough torque to produce the power you require and not an ounce more or you'll basically just end up carrying them around for no benefit...
2) it's hard to get great really good blood flow to all crease and crevasse of those big muscles
3) it's hard to saturate those big muscles with mitochondria


big, strong muscles carry all kinds of detriments and don't bring any benefits unless you are a sprinter... if you are a road sprinter then you need to figure how much muscle you can live with having to carry around until the sprint and even in road sprinting it much more endurance pursuit type power that is required vs power neuromuscular type of power that is required from a track sprinter.. notice Mark Cavendish competes in the pursuit on the track and can't compete with the Hulkster track sprinters..

cycling is about getting and utilizing nutrient and oxygen in the muscle to produce many, many tiny torques many, many times a minute.. cycling is not about strength at all.. working on strength is a waste of time for cycling unless you are a sprinter.. track sprinting is about the only cycling event that is about raw power (torque) and if you look at these guys they show it... look at a guy like Michael Rasmussen one of the best climbers in the world and he looks like an aids patient on his last legs.. even look at a guy like armstrong or any of the top guys... cycling requires small, lean muscles.. big/strong muslcles are a detriment in cycling...

 

[graywulf]

Ok, I don't think you understood my question. From a physiological point of view, it makes sense that things work towards equilibrium, same with mitochondrial development. If you have more room to build mitochondria, won't development either be (a) faster or (b) more complete, ie. great # of mitochondria as you approach the ceiling.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Ok, I don't think you understood my question. From a physiological point of view, it makes sense that things work towards equilibrium, same with mitochondrial development. If you have more room to build mitochondria, won't development either be (a) faster or (b) more complete, ie. great # of mitochondria as you approach the ceiling.

i have no idea.. but as interesting as the question is, it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion. the bottom line is that bigger, stronger muscles don't help you to pedal a bicycle faster for sustained periods of time that would be advantageous for road racing and/or time trialling performances etc...

[edit] i would imagine (complete guess) that bigger muscles would likely not be able to become as saturated as smaller muscles since because of the limitations your aerobic capacity you couldn't stress the bigger muscles as much in relationship to their larger size as smaller muscles... as far as i know mitchondria production is related to stress/need not to some kind of osmotic pressure for mitchondria..