Losing weight without losing power

[lundback]

Originally posted by ricstern
just to emphasize my previous point: neither low cadence easy work or low cadence at high power will incease strength. even at seemingly low cadence/high power the forces are very low

Ok, if strength is the ability to generate force, then for a given power output, a lower cadence would require a higher average force, but the feet would travel through less distance relative to a higher cadence. With regards to "increase strength", there needs to be a reference for comparison. Some people I work with could increase their strength by riding around the block a few times, whereas a world class power lifter would likely loose strength on even the most strentgh oriented bicycle program.

it isn't going to have much use if any use for a pursuit rider (in terms of strength gain), but may for the skill aspect of starting. it'll have even less (i.e. zero) use for mountainous (road) racing

I would think the force generated would be greatest from a standing start than from any other portion of the event.

agreed. but, isn't this the opposite of what you previously said, i.e. you recommended reducing training along with energy intake

Sorry, that was a typo
ric [/QUOTE]

edited by Ric Stern to make the quotes/reply correct

 

[lundback]

Hey Ric, How do you put the quotes in the blue boxes?

Thanks, Steve

 

[oneradtec]

One of the most 'overlooked' aspects of improved cycling performance is 'economy'. I'm surprised that cycling specific 'economy' isn't talked about more by some of the knowledgeable members to this board.

This is one of the unheralded strengths of Lance Armstrong...perhaps the most economical cyclist in the peloton(especially in the mountains). Economy encompasses the dynamics of the neuro-muscular-skeletal connections and pathways. This is why Lance can pedal up the alps at a very high cadence and in so doing..stressing his cardiovascular/respiratory system in an entirely different(and more effecient) way than does another cyclist(Ullrich perhaps) who climbs along with a slower cadence involving the bigger gear selections.

Economy is also much about 'technique' and 'balance'. I call this 'cycling ballet'. What good is raw power if it cannot be controlled and utilized in an effecient manner. This is why Lance has 5 tour wins and Ullrich has only one.

Example..put a powerful weight lifter on a bike and have him race a 150 lb. highly trained cyclist for three laps around a high school running track. In all likelyhood...the more powerful weight lifter would be demolished by the tiny cyclist...even though the weightlifter is much more powerful. However, once put on the bike...the subject's(weightlifter's) neuro muscular connections and pathways have no frame of reference to perform in this situation. It is essentially a quagmire at the cellular level. It's like being on a plane that is about crash and not having a pilot on board..there's alot of panic and no one knows very well what to do. This brings about wasted energy. However...this same chaos doesn't exist within the cyclist because the system functions smooth and flawlessly...and no energy is wasted on chaos and indecision(figuratively).

Most experienced cyclist's have excellent technique and cycling specific economy..but that does not mean that it cannot be further developed and tuned. Lance does this when he's out on a training ride working on his high cadence spinning that he is so well known for.

Combine power, optimal body weight, and 'cycling ballet' and surely you will be tough to beat!

 

[lundback]

I think Lance has mutated aerobic enzymes and can provide a germ line for an aerobic super-race - Luke you lucky dog!

 

[Roy Gardiner]

Originally posted by lundback Hey Ric, How do you put the quotes in the blue boxes?

Click the 'reply' box, top right-hand corner of each post.

Note multiple quotes don't work here (previously noted and passed to the site admin)

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by lundback
Ok, if strength is the ability to generate force

strength is the *maximal* force or tension generated by a muscle or group of muscles

, then for a given power output, a lower cadence would require a higher average force, but the feet would travel through less distance relative to a higher cadence.
[/quote

lower cadence requires a relatively higher force, but they're still very submaximal. at the velocities of cadence encountered during cycling it's too fast to get maximal contractions

With regards to "increase strength", there needs to be a reference for comparison. Some people I work with could increase their strength by riding around the block a few times, whereas a world class power lifter would likely loose strength on even the most strentgh oriented bicycle program.

i've no doubt that a weightlifter (etc) would loose strength riding a bike. it's a very low strength sport. on the other hand, the only people who are likely to gain strength are probably going to be frail old ladies (but then i'm not sure you'd have them riding a bike on the road in case they fell over and they fractured their bones due to be osteoporotic)

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by oneradtec
One of the most 'overlooked' aspects of improved cycling performance is 'economy'. I'm surprised that cycling specific 'economy' isn't talked about more by some of the knowledgeable members to this board.

i'm not 100% certain, but economy is rarely measured in cycling, we use efficiency

This is one of the unheralded strengths of Lance Armstrong...perhaps the most economical cyclist in the peloton(especially in the mountains). Economy encompasses the dynamics of the neuro-muscular-skeletal connections and pathways. This is why Lance can pedal up the alps at a very high cadence and in so doing..stressing his cardiovascular/respiratory system in an entirely different(and more effecient) way than does another cyclist(Ullrich perhaps) who climbs along with a slower cadence involving the bigger gear selections.

actually, the converse of this is true. At high cadences, efficiency *decreases* as more effort is involved having to contract/fire muscles at a faster rate. at lower cadences the O2 cost is smaller (and you're therefore more efficient).

at lowish intensities the most efficient cadence is somewhere around 50ish revs/min and as the absolute intensity of exercise increases the most efficient cadence increases too.

paradoxically (perhaps) at higher intensities (compared to lower) you're more efficient.

Thus, if Ullrich uses a lower cadence he's very likely to be more efficient than Armstrong using a higher cadence.

Additionally, it's unlikely that the optimal cadence is the same as the most efficient cadence, and optimal will be higher. self selection of the optimal cadence is probably the best option

Economy is also much about 'technique' and 'balance'. I call this 'cycling ballet'. What good is raw power if it cannot be controlled and utilized in an effecient manner. This is why Lance has 5 tour wins and Ullrich has only one.

i very strongly suspect that the reason why one has 5 and the other 1 has nothing whatsoever to do with efficiency or economy or ballet or balance.

as regards raw power and efficiency, because the legs are constrained by the pedals (unlike e.g. running) and because they have little room to move in the correct plane efficiency is very similar between trained, well trained, and super elite athletes. in fact, even in untrained people cycling efficiency hardly differs than in trained riders.

Most experienced cyclist's have excellent technique and cycling specific economy..but that does not mean that it cannot be further developed and tuned. Lance does this when he's out on a training ride working on his high cadence spinning that he is so well known for.

i think there's probably other people that can spin faster/better/whatever than Armstrong, such as people who regularly race track and probably people who do lots of spinning classes. concentrating on learning to pedal fast/smoothly/whatever is probably a complete waste of time, all we really need to do is increase the amount of power we can produce for a certain time under given conditions, whilst maintaining some body mass

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by lundback
Hey Ric, How do you put the quotes in the blue boxes?

Thanks, Steve

as roy points out over the page (page 4). you need to press the "reply" button on the upper right hand side of each post.

additionally, if the person you're replying to has written a longish post and you want to put a comment in after each paragraph as i frequently do, then prior to each paragraph you need to put in "(quote)" and at the end of each section/paragraph/sentence/wherever put in "(/quote)" without the inverted commas.

Edit, you need to change the ( curved brackets for [ square brackets to do the quoting!

hope the above works without making it look like i'm quoting someone! Edit, it didn't, so i've edited the original post!

ric

 

[oneradtec]

"i'm not 100% certain, but economy is rarely measured in cycling, we use efficiency"
==============================================
........economy IS effeciency. They are one and the same.


"actually, the converse of this is true. At high cadences, efficiency *decreases* as more effort is involved having to contract/fire muscles at a faster rate. at lower cadences the O2 cost is smaller (and you're therefore more efficient)."
==============================================
....Yes it i true that effeciency might begin to fall apart at higher cadences...but the cyclist that can keep it from falling apart the LEAST has an advantage. As things begin to fall apart..more energy is wasted.

O2 cost might be smaller...but at higher cadences less stress is on the muscular systems...because some of the work is shifted to the aerobic system versus the muscle systems. The muscle systems gulp away energy at a much higher rate...thus it proves less effecient at endurance activities like cycling. Thus I say that a rider like Lance is ultimately more efficient than say Ullrich...although it is widely suspected that Ullrich has more raw power and talent. Lance has better control of the power he does have...and perhaps in the end he is more effecient(economical).


"Thus, if Ullrich uses a lower cadence he's very likely to be more efficient than Armstrong using a higher cadence."
==============================================
.....I don't believe that results thus far prove you to be right. I know that Chris Carmichael would disagree with you.


"in fact, even in untrained people cycling efficiency hardly differs than in trained riders."
==============================================
...This statement defies logic. You are 'off the wall'.


"all we really need to do is increase the amount of power we can produce for a certain time under given conditions, whilst maintaining some body mass"
==============================================
...I'll say agin, all the raw power in the world won't do you much good if you aren't able to focus it, manage it, and control it in an economical fashion

 

[oneradtec]

"all we really need to do is increase the amount of power we can produce for a certain time under given conditions, whilst maintaining some body mass"
==============================================
...Your all or nothing 'raw power at certain body mass' model seems to ignore other vital systems that have big impacts on performance. We are talking about an endurance sport..so we must consider the cardio/vascular/respiratory fitness as well....which has little to do with raw power. Human performance is based on systems..and how well all those systems work together. It's not wise to put too much focus on only one part of the system...there are some amazing system dynamics involved in cycling performance. Economy is an important part of the system. Power and body mass is another. VO2 max would also be a part of it. Genetics..etc.

 

[lundback]

Originally posted by ricstern
strength is the *maximal* force or tension generated by a muscle or group of muscles



i've no doubt that a weightlifter (etc) would loose strength riding a bike. it's a very low strength sport. on the other hand, the only people who are likely to gain strength are probably going to be frail old ladies (but then i'm not sure you'd have them riding a bike on the road in case they fell over and they fractured their bones due to be osteoporotic)

ric

I think of strength the same way, as the maximal force one can apply, whereas endurance is the ability to apply a give average force over some amount of time. Another important characteristic of force is that it is instantaneous, that is, there is no time component. During the pedal stroke, the force applied to the pedal varies at any instant in during the time it takes to complete that stroke. In training, I usually think in terms of intensity (average force applied) and duration. It well accepted that to gain strength, there must be some stimulus that causes muscle contraction, although not necesarily muscle movement (isometric). I think the question here is: for a given person, does the muscle need to contract maximally to gain strength? Or is there some submaximal threshold level that if repeated a given number of times would result in strength gain. From my experience in the gym, I have been able to increase my maximum lifting ablilty by performing repetitions of submaximal lifts, however those repetitions were some high percentage of my maximum. If this is granted, then the question is: what is the lowest thereshold level of force that needs to be applied over some length of time or some number of repetitions to increase ones strength. Is this level always going to require anaerobic pathway recruitment? I'm not sure what the literature says, but it would be interesting to find out.

Steve

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by oneradtec
"i'm not 100% certain, but economy is rarely measured in cycling, we use efficiency"
==============================================
........economy IS effeciency. They are one and the same.

i'm short on time at present, but they're not the same

"actually, the converse of this is true. At high cadences, efficiency *decreases* as more effort is involved having to contract/fire muscles at a faster rate. at lower cadences the O2 cost is smaller (and you're therefore more efficient)."
==============================================
....Yes it i true that effeciency might begin to fall apart at higher cadences...but the cyclist that can keep it from falling apart the LEAST has an advantage. As things begin to fall apart..more energy is wasted.

i'm not sure you understand what i'm saying: efficiency is higher at lower cadence and vice versa. nothing whatsoever to do with falling apart (whatever that may mean)

O2 cost might be smaller...but at higher cadences less stress is on the muscular systems...because some of the work is shifted to the aerobic system versus the muscle systems.

hence, my comment about optimal cadence and effecient cadences

The muscle systems gulp away energy at a much higher rate...thus it proves less effecient at endurance activities like cycling.

efficiency is a measure of work done, and it's lower, i.e. less energy is expended at lower cadences at an absolute power output. VO2 is minimised. period.

Thus I say that a rider like Lance is ultimately more efficient than say Ullrich...although it is widely suspected that Ullrich has more raw power and talent. Lance has better control of the power he does have...and perhaps in the end he is more effecient(economical).

neither of us know who is more efficient.

"Thus, if Ullrich uses a lower cadence he's very likely to be more efficient than Armstrong using a higher cadence."
==============================================
.....I don't believe that results thus far prove you to be right. I know that Chris Carmichael would disagree with you.

CC could disagree if he wishes or agree with me. either way he's not here, so he can't clarify. however, it's a well known physiological fact that lower cadence is more efficient than higher cadence. if you see search Pub-Med you'll find stacks of research on this with trained and elite cyclists

"in fact, even in untrained people cycling efficiency hardly differs than in trained riders."
==============================================
...This statement defies logic. You are 'off the wall'.

interestingly, you said a similar thing the other day - previously in this thread and couldn't provide any evidence for such a statement. however, in trained riders efficiency is about 20 to 22% and in untrained it's about 16 to 20%

this is because the energy demand is governed by the power and cadence that's being ridden and if they're the same or similar then so is efficiency. in cycling you're constrained in the sagittal plane so movement varies very little between an experienced elite rider and a novice

ric

 

[2LAP]

oneradtec,

We have talked about economy and efficiency lots on this site, but in cycling there is little variabilty or potential to change so there is rarely a reason to bring it up. People tend to select their most economical and efficient style/technique with experiance and when gear selections are freely made. Economy and efficiency are much bigger issues in running and athletics.

As ric said economy is different from efficiency and hance their different units. Economy is often expresed as ml.kg.min at a given power output while efficiency is expressed as a %.

In elite cyclists the differences between the best and other cyclists is far less likely to be due to differences in efficiency or economy than any other factors. The efficiency of Armstrong and Ulrich is 'likely' to be very similar in almost every situation as it would be between most trained cyclists.

 

[lundback]

Originally posted by ricstern
as roy points out over the page (page 4). you need to press the "reply" button on the upper right hand side of each post.

Thanks

additionally, if the person you're replying to has written a longish post and you want to put a comment in after each paragraph as i frequently do, then prior to each paragraph you need to put in "(quote)" and at the end of each section/paragraph/sentence/wherever put in "(/quote)" without the inverted commas.

for

Edit, you need to change the ( curved brackets for [ square brackets to do the quoting!

your

hope the above works without making it look like i'm quoting someone! Edit, it didn't, so i've edited the original post!

help!

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by lundback
Thanks

excellent

for

reply

your

cheers

help!

Ric

 

[jws]

One aspect of losing weight that's not mentioned much is thermal regulation. Admittedly, I have a lot to lose to return to my best weight, but I feel like I overheat and sweat much more now that I'm 10-15kg porked out. Also, in losing that amount I'm sure power-to-weight would improve, even if some power were lost.

Anyway, does thermal regulation have any effect on performance?

 

[2LAP]

Originally posted by jws
Anyway, does thermal regulation have any effect on performance?

Of course and one effect of training is that thermoregulation becomes faster and more 'accurate' (i.e. mechanisms like sweating 'turn on faster' and temperature is more stable).

This depends on what you're doing, environmental conditions, hydration status, acclimatisation, etc.