gulp..How long did he manage that for. also whats a good power/weight ratio for a climb longer than 4k?
Maintaining form continuosly
- Thread starter SniperX
- Start date
GearGrinder: Lance cranked out 475-500 watts for about 38 minutes!!!
Hey Ric, I think anybody who knows anything about cycling would question what you say. You blow off the ABCC interview altogether. What's the matter, didn't they invite you?
I too graduated with honors from college. Big deal. By the way, the coach who has trained more Tour De France winners than anyone in history is Cyrille Guimard. He is a high-school dropout. How many Tour champions have you coached???
I realize that you are a legend in your own mind, but I don't really need a re-education in strength as it pertains to cycling. Perhaps you are too entrenched in the generalized, exercise physiology world which very often doesn't take into consideration the unique problem of sustainable high force in an endurance environment.
It seems the champions I mentioned found strength to be the foundation of their performance.
I realize you know more than them or their trainers. Think of how much faster they would have been if they would have listened to you!!!
Good Luck!!!
Hey Ric, I think anybody who knows anything about cycling would question what you say. You blow off the ABCC interview altogether. What's the matter, didn't they invite you?
I too graduated with honors from college. Big deal. By the way, the coach who has trained more Tour De France winners than anyone in history is Cyrille Guimard. He is a high-school dropout. How many Tour champions have you coached???
I realize that you are a legend in your own mind, but I don't really need a re-education in strength as it pertains to cycling. Perhaps you are too entrenched in the generalized, exercise physiology world which very often doesn't take into consideration the unique problem of sustainable high force in an endurance environment.
It seems the champions I mentioned found strength to be the foundation of their performance.
I realize you know more than them or their trainers. Think of how much faster they would have been if they would have listened to you!!!
Good Luck!!!
thanks for the great entertainment guys. I am currently in my 3rd yr of an exercise science degree at uni and i understand quite a bit of what u r saying, but there is no way i am entering into this one. Also i am not interested in deciding a winner! U both raised some great points and i feel maybe i should be doing a little more reading on the topic because there seems to be so much conjecture in this area maybe it is better to find out for myself. Thanks again both of you for the comments. Made great reading!
J-Mat wrote: i replly with>
Hey Ric, I think anybody who knows anything about cycling would question what you say. You blow off the ABCC interview altogether. What's the matter, didn't they invite you?
>erm i didn't "blow it off", as quite clearly stated above i had work to do and couldn't respond fully. As it happens I am an ABCC Coach
I too graduated with honors from college.
>good. But in what subject?
I realize that you are a legend in your own mind, but I don't really need a re-education in strength as it pertains to cycling.
>perhaps you do. As stated in the aforementioned McArdle book on exercise physiology you'll find a specific definition for strength. If you read that definition, and then also do some reading on Hills Force - Velocity curve, you'll understand what i'm saying
I've never stated or believe that i'm a legend in my own mind.
Perhaps you are too entrenched in the generalized, exercise physiology world which very often doesn't take into consideration the unique problem of sustainable high force in an endurance environment.
>Nope. My main interest is in cycling
It seems the champions I mentioned found strength to be the foundation of their performance.
I realize you know more than them or their trainers. Think of how much faster they would have been if they would have listened to you!!!
>I'm not sure why you have such a chip on your shoulder? I'm all for having a reasoned discussion, it helps everyones knowledge. However, if you want to continue being abusive, then please sign your actual name to your posts, so that we know who you are. Have the courage of your convictions -- as i do.
Ric
Good Luck!!!
Hey Ric, I think anybody who knows anything about cycling would question what you say. You blow off the ABCC interview altogether. What's the matter, didn't they invite you?
>erm i didn't "blow it off", as quite clearly stated above i had work to do and couldn't respond fully. As it happens I am an ABCC Coach
I too graduated with honors from college.
>good. But in what subject?
I realize that you are a legend in your own mind, but I don't really need a re-education in strength as it pertains to cycling.
>perhaps you do. As stated in the aforementioned McArdle book on exercise physiology you'll find a specific definition for strength. If you read that definition, and then also do some reading on Hills Force - Velocity curve, you'll understand what i'm saying
I've never stated or believe that i'm a legend in my own mind.
Perhaps you are too entrenched in the generalized, exercise physiology world which very often doesn't take into consideration the unique problem of sustainable high force in an endurance environment.
>Nope. My main interest is in cycling
It seems the champions I mentioned found strength to be the foundation of their performance.
I realize you know more than them or their trainers. Think of how much faster they would have been if they would have listened to you!!!
>I'm not sure why you have such a chip on your shoulder? I'm all for having a reasoned discussion, it helps everyones knowledge. However, if you want to continue being abusive, then please sign your actual name to your posts, so that we know who you are. Have the courage of your convictions -- as i do.
Ric
Good Luck!!!
J-Mat
Interesting response (and emotional?) but totally anecdotal.
Can you direct us to any peer reviewed, and therefore accepted, studies whereby it was proved that off the bike strength training transferred into on the bike benefits. Exercise physiologists claim no such study exists.
I can recall an accepted South African study where off the bike strength training proved detrimental to TT times.
The strength training used by O'Bree is the out of date Coconi regime. Great for developing strength at 30-40rpm but no transfer to the power required at around 90-110rpm. Also has detrimental effects on your average cadence.
You said "By the way NFL football is American football, the "real" football". Now you are touching a real nerve. In my country, Australia, it is like discussing religion and politics to assert the football code you follow is superior (we have four codes of football here but no American football). Everyone will agree to disagree.
BTW, without blowing my trumpet, I played one of those football codes at an international level. We did have opposition in the form of other nations. Can you say the same for NFL?
Interesting response (and emotional?) but totally anecdotal.
Can you direct us to any peer reviewed, and therefore accepted, studies whereby it was proved that off the bike strength training transferred into on the bike benefits. Exercise physiologists claim no such study exists.
I can recall an accepted South African study where off the bike strength training proved detrimental to TT times.
The strength training used by O'Bree is the out of date Coconi regime. Great for developing strength at 30-40rpm but no transfer to the power required at around 90-110rpm. Also has detrimental effects on your average cadence.
You said "By the way NFL football is American football, the "real" football". Now you are touching a real nerve. In my country, Australia, it is like discussing religion and politics to assert the football code you follow is superior (we have four codes of football here but no American football). Everyone will agree to disagree.
BTW, without blowing my trumpet, I played one of those football codes at an international level. We did have opposition in the form of other nations. Can you say the same for NFL?
Ric:
I read your post earlier on another topic regarding leg strength, and although I disagreed with what you said, I had enough respect for you to keep my mouth shut and not say anything.
I post something that you disagree with and suddenly you start attacking everything I say. Well, I don't talk ****. I back up whatever I say. I stand by everything I say 100%. I will change my mind on anything if I am presented with evidence that something works in the real world.
I'm the kind of person that even if I really hated a guy who rode a bike, I would still have more respect for him compared with the average person on the street, because of how hard our sport is at any level.
I go to bat for all riders no matter who they are, whenever I can. If you were fixing a flat in a bad area of town and some thugs were about to kick your ass and steal your bike, I would stop and put my ass on the line and start throwing punches on your behalf, even if I didn't know you.
So Ric, even if you didn't agree with me, you didn't have to slam me so hard saying things like "completely untrue," etc. We could go back and forth here and it could get a lot nastier, but what would that do for the board and the people on it?
So let me extend an olive branch to you Ric. Hey man, I'm sorry for getting in your face. I think you are squared away on most things, I just disagree with you on the strength issue. You could take a dozen experts in any field and they might all disagree with each other. The thing that we can all agree on is that we are all riders first!!!
Now that the air has cleared a little, let's talk about the strength and cadence issue. You need strength. If you want evidence that strength is necessary for high power output, again look at the track sprinters. They are HUGE and put out more power than any other type of rider.
Marty Nothstein years ago said he was squatting over 450 lbs 3 times a week and putting in 400 miles a week on the bike. He can put out 2200 watts. 200 meter sprinters also have the highest cadences of all (160 rpm).
To crank out the highest possible power (200m sprints), very high leg speeds are necessary. If it could be done any other way, don't you think someone by now would defy convention and use a bigger gear and lower cadence? Nobody has.
Look at the pursuiters. They are closest to a road rider. 400-500 watts at 100-110 rpm. Lower power, lower cadence. Like I said before, 100 rpm is the optimal cadence for high power output for experienced (well conditioned) riders.
I did some research on the cadences of the hour record holders. Nearly all of them for the last 100 years all held around 100 rpm. The lowest cadence in recent times was Obree's in 1993 (92.9 rpm).
Ric, I diagree completely with the Coyle study. There isn't one real-world example anyone can find of sustained high power output at "mashing" cadence (under 80rpm). I would really like to see one!!!
Here are the cadences of the record holders starting with Ole Ritter in 1968:
1968: Ole Ritter - ??? watts - 105.4 rpm
1972: Eddy Merckx - 485 watts - 103.8 rpm
1984: Francesco Moser - ??? watts - 104.3 rpm
1984: Francesco Moser - 446 watts - 103.0 rpm
1993: Graeme Obree - 375 watts - 92.9 rpm
1993: Chris Boardman - 410 watts - 100.1 rpm
1994: Graeme Obree - 400 watts - 94.9 rpm
1994: Miguel Indurain - 477 watts - 99.7 rpm
1994: Tony Rominger - 460 watts - 101.4 rpm
1994: Tony Rominger - 468 watts - 102.1 rpm
1996: Chris Boardman - 445 watts - 104.1 rpm
2000: Chris Boardman - 400 watts - 100.0 rpm
In 1912, Oscar Egg set the hour at 26.2 mph. His cadence was 97.2 rpm. Again, if you ask me Coyle's data doesn't hold water.
Check out the data:
http://www.bikecult.com/bikecultbook/sports_recordsHour.html
I heard lot's of people recently bag on Dr. Conconi. Well, you can say what you want about him, that he sucks or is out of date, but he directed Moser to two hour records, and nearly another when Moser was in his 40's!!! If he sucks so bad and is out of date, how many other coaches today could take their stars to Moser's level??? I don't see anyone doing it with more "modern" methods.
I've lifted weights for more than twenty years. I've been pretty strong before, benching close to 400 lbs for several reps. When I was that strong, I could easily pick up a 220lb man and throw him several feet. Lifting weights is specific to lifting weights, but it carried over well into other areas. I could crush anything or anyone in my path (I was 6'1", 225 lbs). I could easily pick up things with one hand that normal, healthy men struggled to pick up with two. My sprint for sure got better when I did squats and leg presses, but nothing else improved (tt, climbing).
I don't think weights are good for roadies. The extra muscle I gained from the gym melted away once into a regular riding program. That is why on-the-bike strength is the only type of strength I would recomend. Injury re-hab is one exception.
Now for the real debate. Is leg strength necessary? I say Yes!!!
Ric you say that a riders legs are weaker than the average person on the street. I just don't believe that at all. Maybe recreational riders who ride slowly all the time, but not a competitive rider doing lots of sprints and climbing.
Who thinks Cipollini's legs are weaker than someone the same age at the local grocery store?
What about those 18% climbs in Belgium???
If your legs aren't strong enough to get to the top you are screwed. Look at the famous Grahm Watson poster of Jesper Skibby in one of the classics years ago. He fell into a ditch and was almost run over by a team car when he lacked the strength to get over the top. It takes a lot of strength to get up a 10% climb, let alone the monsters in the classics.
Since a 10 second sprint is a pure strength activity, and if the average person is supposedly stronger, wouldn't the average non-rider be able to clip in and quickly wind up a 53x12 and hit 40 mph???
I can hear the specificity argument coming, so instead of winding up a big gear, let's say two people had to move fifty, 100 lb crates. Even if you never lifted 100 lb crates before (specificity), the stronger person would always do it much faster (more power) and easier, since a stronger muscle doesn't have to work as hard as a weaker one, regardless of what it's asked to do.
If you can lift 100 lbs maximum, and I can lift 400 lbs maximum, and we both have to move 100 lb crates, who's going to get tired first???
When your legs are stronger than another rider with everything else being the same, (weight, VO2 max, etc.) the rider with more leg strength will have a lot more at the end of a race, increasing the chances of success in a fieldsprint.
I've looked at what the pros and their coaches have done over the years. A lot is at stake for them, the whole world is watching. I've said it before, but don't you think with all the pressure they have on them that they would jeapordize the outcome of an important race by training for strength if it didn't work?
It is important to note that I'm not talking about weights. Sprints, isolated leg training, and climbing at any cadence will for sure increase your leg strength. It will be easier to turn bigger gears after your strength increase. Many riders can go 31 mph for a minute or so, but how many can hold 31 mph for a ten?
The more leg strength you have, the less impact it has on your strength reserves meaning it is much easier to hold a hard pace. So if you don't sprint and do your climbing you just won't be as strong or powerful. Isolated leg training (ILT) is one of the most potent weapons you can have in your speed arsenal. It creates tremendous leg strength and power, and adds fast-twitch muscle in the hips and legs you would never develop in 100 years of daily riding. Lance Armstrong does extensive ILT and look at his power output. This is the strength work I'm talking about.
drewjc: Why don't you get involved. Everybody should get involved. That's what it's all about - the exchange of information. Everybody: Share your experiences. What are your observations???
Veloflash: As for the football debate, Americans like blood. 200-300 lb men tackling and crushing each other is hardcore to say the least. Soccer is not bloody unless some hooligans are burning down the staduim and starting a riot. Maybe they are ****** off at the lack of action!!! To an American, soccer is soccer, and football is football. NFL is the National Football League. We don't like it when other countries call soccer football, even though that's what it is called in other countries. I know soccer is a source of pride for you guys, so I won't bag on it any more.
Cycling is the best sport there is anyway!!!
Peace!!!
I read your post earlier on another topic regarding leg strength, and although I disagreed with what you said, I had enough respect for you to keep my mouth shut and not say anything.
I post something that you disagree with and suddenly you start attacking everything I say. Well, I don't talk ****. I back up whatever I say. I stand by everything I say 100%. I will change my mind on anything if I am presented with evidence that something works in the real world.
I'm the kind of person that even if I really hated a guy who rode a bike, I would still have more respect for him compared with the average person on the street, because of how hard our sport is at any level.
I go to bat for all riders no matter who they are, whenever I can. If you were fixing a flat in a bad area of town and some thugs were about to kick your ass and steal your bike, I would stop and put my ass on the line and start throwing punches on your behalf, even if I didn't know you.
So Ric, even if you didn't agree with me, you didn't have to slam me so hard saying things like "completely untrue," etc. We could go back and forth here and it could get a lot nastier, but what would that do for the board and the people on it?
So let me extend an olive branch to you Ric. Hey man, I'm sorry for getting in your face. I think you are squared away on most things, I just disagree with you on the strength issue. You could take a dozen experts in any field and they might all disagree with each other. The thing that we can all agree on is that we are all riders first!!!
Now that the air has cleared a little, let's talk about the strength and cadence issue. You need strength. If you want evidence that strength is necessary for high power output, again look at the track sprinters. They are HUGE and put out more power than any other type of rider.
Marty Nothstein years ago said he was squatting over 450 lbs 3 times a week and putting in 400 miles a week on the bike. He can put out 2200 watts. 200 meter sprinters also have the highest cadences of all (160 rpm).
To crank out the highest possible power (200m sprints), very high leg speeds are necessary. If it could be done any other way, don't you think someone by now would defy convention and use a bigger gear and lower cadence? Nobody has.
Look at the pursuiters. They are closest to a road rider. 400-500 watts at 100-110 rpm. Lower power, lower cadence. Like I said before, 100 rpm is the optimal cadence for high power output for experienced (well conditioned) riders.
I did some research on the cadences of the hour record holders. Nearly all of them for the last 100 years all held around 100 rpm. The lowest cadence in recent times was Obree's in 1993 (92.9 rpm).
Ric, I diagree completely with the Coyle study. There isn't one real-world example anyone can find of sustained high power output at "mashing" cadence (under 80rpm). I would really like to see one!!!
Here are the cadences of the record holders starting with Ole Ritter in 1968:
1968: Ole Ritter - ??? watts - 105.4 rpm
1972: Eddy Merckx - 485 watts - 103.8 rpm
1984: Francesco Moser - ??? watts - 104.3 rpm
1984: Francesco Moser - 446 watts - 103.0 rpm
1993: Graeme Obree - 375 watts - 92.9 rpm
1993: Chris Boardman - 410 watts - 100.1 rpm
1994: Graeme Obree - 400 watts - 94.9 rpm
1994: Miguel Indurain - 477 watts - 99.7 rpm
1994: Tony Rominger - 460 watts - 101.4 rpm
1994: Tony Rominger - 468 watts - 102.1 rpm
1996: Chris Boardman - 445 watts - 104.1 rpm
2000: Chris Boardman - 400 watts - 100.0 rpm
In 1912, Oscar Egg set the hour at 26.2 mph. His cadence was 97.2 rpm. Again, if you ask me Coyle's data doesn't hold water.
Check out the data:
http://www.bikecult.com/bikecultbook/sports_recordsHour.html
I heard lot's of people recently bag on Dr. Conconi. Well, you can say what you want about him, that he sucks or is out of date, but he directed Moser to two hour records, and nearly another when Moser was in his 40's!!! If he sucks so bad and is out of date, how many other coaches today could take their stars to Moser's level??? I don't see anyone doing it with more "modern" methods.
I've lifted weights for more than twenty years. I've been pretty strong before, benching close to 400 lbs for several reps. When I was that strong, I could easily pick up a 220lb man and throw him several feet. Lifting weights is specific to lifting weights, but it carried over well into other areas. I could crush anything or anyone in my path (I was 6'1", 225 lbs). I could easily pick up things with one hand that normal, healthy men struggled to pick up with two. My sprint for sure got better when I did squats and leg presses, but nothing else improved (tt, climbing).
I don't think weights are good for roadies. The extra muscle I gained from the gym melted away once into a regular riding program. That is why on-the-bike strength is the only type of strength I would recomend. Injury re-hab is one exception.
Now for the real debate. Is leg strength necessary? I say Yes!!!
Ric you say that a riders legs are weaker than the average person on the street. I just don't believe that at all. Maybe recreational riders who ride slowly all the time, but not a competitive rider doing lots of sprints and climbing.
Who thinks Cipollini's legs are weaker than someone the same age at the local grocery store?
What about those 18% climbs in Belgium???
If your legs aren't strong enough to get to the top you are screwed. Look at the famous Grahm Watson poster of Jesper Skibby in one of the classics years ago. He fell into a ditch and was almost run over by a team car when he lacked the strength to get over the top. It takes a lot of strength to get up a 10% climb, let alone the monsters in the classics.
Since a 10 second sprint is a pure strength activity, and if the average person is supposedly stronger, wouldn't the average non-rider be able to clip in and quickly wind up a 53x12 and hit 40 mph???
I can hear the specificity argument coming, so instead of winding up a big gear, let's say two people had to move fifty, 100 lb crates. Even if you never lifted 100 lb crates before (specificity), the stronger person would always do it much faster (more power) and easier, since a stronger muscle doesn't have to work as hard as a weaker one, regardless of what it's asked to do.
If you can lift 100 lbs maximum, and I can lift 400 lbs maximum, and we both have to move 100 lb crates, who's going to get tired first???
When your legs are stronger than another rider with everything else being the same, (weight, VO2 max, etc.) the rider with more leg strength will have a lot more at the end of a race, increasing the chances of success in a fieldsprint.
I've looked at what the pros and their coaches have done over the years. A lot is at stake for them, the whole world is watching. I've said it before, but don't you think with all the pressure they have on them that they would jeapordize the outcome of an important race by training for strength if it didn't work?
It is important to note that I'm not talking about weights. Sprints, isolated leg training, and climbing at any cadence will for sure increase your leg strength. It will be easier to turn bigger gears after your strength increase. Many riders can go 31 mph for a minute or so, but how many can hold 31 mph for a ten?
The more leg strength you have, the less impact it has on your strength reserves meaning it is much easier to hold a hard pace. So if you don't sprint and do your climbing you just won't be as strong or powerful. Isolated leg training (ILT) is one of the most potent weapons you can have in your speed arsenal. It creates tremendous leg strength and power, and adds fast-twitch muscle in the hips and legs you would never develop in 100 years of daily riding. Lance Armstrong does extensive ILT and look at his power output. This is the strength work I'm talking about.
drewjc: Why don't you get involved. Everybody should get involved. That's what it's all about - the exchange of information. Everybody: Share your experiences. What are your observations???
Veloflash: As for the football debate, Americans like blood. 200-300 lb men tackling and crushing each other is hardcore to say the least. Soccer is not bloody unless some hooligans are burning down the staduim and starting a riot. Maybe they are ****** off at the lack of action!!! To an American, soccer is soccer, and football is football. NFL is the National Football League. We don't like it when other countries call soccer football, even though that's what it is called in other countries. I know soccer is a source of pride for you guys, so I won't bag on it any more.
Cycling is the best sport there is anyway!!!
Peace!!!
J-Mat wrote and i reply with ">":
Ric:
I read your post earlier on another topic regarding leg strength, and although I disagreed with what you said, I had enough respect for you to keep my mouth shut and not say anything.
>if you want to disagree with something i say, that's fine. just like i did with you!
I post something that you disagree with and suddenly you start attacking everything I say. Well, I don't talk ****. I back up whatever I say.
>you haven't. please repky with some peer reviewed articles that support your suppositions.
I stand by everything I say 100%.I will change my mind on anything if I am presented with evidence that something works in the real world.
>excellent. so, read the work i suggested
I'm the kind of person that even if I really hated a guy who rode a bike, I would still have more respect for him compared with the average person on the street, because of how hard our sport is at any level.
>do you only have friends and colleagues who ride a bike!?
So Ric, even if you didn't agree with me, you didn't have to slam me so hard saying things like "completely untrue," etc. We could go back and forth here and it could get a lot nastier, but what would that do for the board and the people on it?
>if you read the literature both in academic texts and peer reviewed journals, you'll see that the majority of the research is in agreement with what i said. so, i will say again for endurance cycling strength is not a limiting factor
So let me extend an olive branch to you Ric. Hey man, I'm sorry for getting in your face. I think you are squared away on most things, I just disagree with you on the strength issue. You could take a dozen experts in any field and they might all disagree with each other. The thing that we can all agree on is that we are all riders first!!!
> thank you
Now that the air has cleared a little, let's talk about the strength and cadence issue. You need strength. If you want evidence that strength is necessary for high power output, again look at the track sprinters. They are HUGE and put out more power than any other type of rider.
>this might have been missed, but the question that was posed was about endurance cycling, and that's what i was refering to. Nevertheless, if you bothered to read about Hill's Force-Velocity curve, you'd be able to see why at high cadences found under all-out 200-m efforts you can't apply maximum force.
Marty Nothstein years ago said he was squatting over 450 lbs 3 times a week and putting in 400 miles a week on the bike. He can put out 2200 watts. 200 meter sprinters also have the highest cadences of all (160 rpm).
To crank out the highest possible power (200m sprints), very high leg speeds are necessary. If it could be done any other way, don't you think someone by now would defy convention and use a bigger gear and lower cadence? Nobody has.
>highest powers can be reached at very low cadences. a large % of people can reach peak power from a very low cadence. the reason that a low gear and high cadence is used, is to reduce the force requirement so that you fatigue less, and to help with acceleration
Look at the pursuiters. They are closest to a road rider. 400-500 watts at 100-110 rpm. Lower power, lower cadence. Like I said before, 100 rpm is the optimal cadence for high power output for experienced (well conditioned) riders.
>optimal cadence for endurance riders is generally in the range of 85 - 100 revs/min. i've not disagreed with this
Ric, I diagree completely with the Coyle study. There isn't one real-world example anyone can find of sustained high power output at "mashing" cadence (under 80rpm). I would really like to see one!!!
>maybe some missunderstanding as to what i/we meant by mashing and stomping. i was referring to not pedalling in 'circles' -- this is what is generally meant by mashing and stomping - at least as far as i'm aware. And, i'll add to this, the biggest mashers/stompers are the elite 200m track sprinters. this has been validated by research on (i believe) marty nothstein and others of a similar ability
Here are the cadences of the record holders starting with Ole Ritter in 1968:
1972: Eddy Merckx - 485 watts - 103.8 rpm
>this power is wrong
can't recall the validity on the others, although some are definitely wrong. anyway, check the paper by Jeff Broker et al., in med sci sport and exer.
I've lifted weights for more than twenty years. I've been pretty strong before, benching close to 400 lbs for several reps. When I was that strong, I could easily pick up a 220lb man and throw him several feet. Lifting weights is specific to lifting weights, but it carried over well into other areas. I could crush anything or anyone in my path (I was 6'1", 225 lbs). I could easily pick up things with one hand that normal, healthy men struggled to pick up with two. My sprint for sure got better when I did squats and leg presses, but nothing else improved (tt, climbing).
> why on earth would you think that sprinting improves with climbing and TT training?
I don't think weights are good for roadies. The extra muscle I gained from the gym melted away once into a regular riding program. That is why on-the-bike strength is the only type of strength I would recomend.
>please, i urge you to read and understand what the concept of strength is. You never approach maximal forces on a bike -- although you'd get a lot closer on a MTB off-road up a very steep climb, than on a road bike
Now for the real debate. Is leg strength necessary? I say Yes!!!
>say what you like, but you're wrong.
Ric you say that a riders legs are weaker than the average person on the street. I just don't believe that at all. Maybe recreational riders who ride slowly all the time, but not a competitive rider doing lots of sprints and climbing.
>please go and do some reading on Pub Med, where abstracts are available. People have researched this using elite riders/athletes etc and compared to age and gender matched individuals. previously, you mentioned that you wanted scientific truth and integrity (or something like) -- so read the science journals.
Who thinks Cipollini's legs are weaker than someone the same age at the local grocery store?
What about those 18% climbs in Belgium???
>i don't think roads with 18% grades have any strength. how would you get a road in a lab ;-) If however, you mean the riders going up them in e.g., LBL, FW, etc. then i suggest (again) you thoroughly understand the concept the concept of what strength is and then look at some power data.
If your legs aren't strong enough to get to the top you are screwed. Look at the famous Grahm Watson poster of Jesper Skibby in one of the classics years ago. He fell into a ditch and was almost run over by a team car when he lacked the strength to get over the top. It takes a lot of strength to get up a 10% climb, let alone the monsters in the classics.
>erm it doesn't
If you can lift 100 lbs maximum, and I can lift 400 lbs maximum, and we both have to move 100 lb crates, who's going to get tired first???
>this is why i'm saying you need to look at the facts. look at the forces involved in endurance cycling. look at hills force velocity curve. look at a definition of strength
It is important to note that I'm not talking about weights. Sprints, isolated leg training, and climbing at any cadence will for sure increase your leg strength. It will be easier to turn bigger gears after your strength increase. Many riders can go 31 mph for a minute or so, but how many can hold 31 mph for a ten?
> i don't think you have any notion of exercise physiology.
The more leg strength you have, the less impact it has on your strength reserves meaning it is much easier to hold a hard pace. So if you don't sprint and do your climbing you just won't be as strong or powerful.
>no where have i said or suggested that you shouldn't do sprinting or climbing.
Isolated leg training (ILT) is one of the most potent weapons you can have in your speed arsenal.
> now i know you're pulling my leg
It creates tremendous leg strength
>it doesn't
Perhaps, instead of reading one book a hundred times, you should read some of the stuff mentioned. also, have a read of Astrand and Rodahl: textbook of work physiology, the papers on the hour record (Sabilla, Broker et al.,) the paper on the pursuit (broker et al), in JAP and MSSE (x2) respectively, the paper by Bishop on leg strength and 40-km TT performance, papers by Coggan on strength and ageing and on cycling performance, and also check out the other work by Coggan and his latest updates to USAC Coaching.
Finally, you might also be suprised to learn that one paper has reported an average power output requirement of 98 W for one of the TdF stages
Ric
Ric:
I read your post earlier on another topic regarding leg strength, and although I disagreed with what you said, I had enough respect for you to keep my mouth shut and not say anything.
>if you want to disagree with something i say, that's fine. just like i did with you!
I post something that you disagree with and suddenly you start attacking everything I say. Well, I don't talk ****. I back up whatever I say.
>you haven't. please repky with some peer reviewed articles that support your suppositions.
I stand by everything I say 100%.I will change my mind on anything if I am presented with evidence that something works in the real world.
>excellent. so, read the work i suggested
I'm the kind of person that even if I really hated a guy who rode a bike, I would still have more respect for him compared with the average person on the street, because of how hard our sport is at any level.
>do you only have friends and colleagues who ride a bike!?
So Ric, even if you didn't agree with me, you didn't have to slam me so hard saying things like "completely untrue," etc. We could go back and forth here and it could get a lot nastier, but what would that do for the board and the people on it?
>if you read the literature both in academic texts and peer reviewed journals, you'll see that the majority of the research is in agreement with what i said. so, i will say again for endurance cycling strength is not a limiting factor
So let me extend an olive branch to you Ric. Hey man, I'm sorry for getting in your face. I think you are squared away on most things, I just disagree with you on the strength issue. You could take a dozen experts in any field and they might all disagree with each other. The thing that we can all agree on is that we are all riders first!!!
> thank you
Now that the air has cleared a little, let's talk about the strength and cadence issue. You need strength. If you want evidence that strength is necessary for high power output, again look at the track sprinters. They are HUGE and put out more power than any other type of rider.
>this might have been missed, but the question that was posed was about endurance cycling, and that's what i was refering to. Nevertheless, if you bothered to read about Hill's Force-Velocity curve, you'd be able to see why at high cadences found under all-out 200-m efforts you can't apply maximum force.
Marty Nothstein years ago said he was squatting over 450 lbs 3 times a week and putting in 400 miles a week on the bike. He can put out 2200 watts. 200 meter sprinters also have the highest cadences of all (160 rpm).
To crank out the highest possible power (200m sprints), very high leg speeds are necessary. If it could be done any other way, don't you think someone by now would defy convention and use a bigger gear and lower cadence? Nobody has.
>highest powers can be reached at very low cadences. a large % of people can reach peak power from a very low cadence. the reason that a low gear and high cadence is used, is to reduce the force requirement so that you fatigue less, and to help with acceleration
Look at the pursuiters. They are closest to a road rider. 400-500 watts at 100-110 rpm. Lower power, lower cadence. Like I said before, 100 rpm is the optimal cadence for high power output for experienced (well conditioned) riders.
>optimal cadence for endurance riders is generally in the range of 85 - 100 revs/min. i've not disagreed with this
Ric, I diagree completely with the Coyle study. There isn't one real-world example anyone can find of sustained high power output at "mashing" cadence (under 80rpm). I would really like to see one!!!
>maybe some missunderstanding as to what i/we meant by mashing and stomping. i was referring to not pedalling in 'circles' -- this is what is generally meant by mashing and stomping - at least as far as i'm aware. And, i'll add to this, the biggest mashers/stompers are the elite 200m track sprinters. this has been validated by research on (i believe) marty nothstein and others of a similar ability
Here are the cadences of the record holders starting with Ole Ritter in 1968:
1972: Eddy Merckx - 485 watts - 103.8 rpm
>this power is wrong
can't recall the validity on the others, although some are definitely wrong. anyway, check the paper by Jeff Broker et al., in med sci sport and exer.
I've lifted weights for more than twenty years. I've been pretty strong before, benching close to 400 lbs for several reps. When I was that strong, I could easily pick up a 220lb man and throw him several feet. Lifting weights is specific to lifting weights, but it carried over well into other areas. I could crush anything or anyone in my path (I was 6'1", 225 lbs). I could easily pick up things with one hand that normal, healthy men struggled to pick up with two. My sprint for sure got better when I did squats and leg presses, but nothing else improved (tt, climbing).
> why on earth would you think that sprinting improves with climbing and TT training?
I don't think weights are good for roadies. The extra muscle I gained from the gym melted away once into a regular riding program. That is why on-the-bike strength is the only type of strength I would recomend.
>please, i urge you to read and understand what the concept of strength is. You never approach maximal forces on a bike -- although you'd get a lot closer on a MTB off-road up a very steep climb, than on a road bike
Now for the real debate. Is leg strength necessary? I say Yes!!!
>say what you like, but you're wrong.
Ric you say that a riders legs are weaker than the average person on the street. I just don't believe that at all. Maybe recreational riders who ride slowly all the time, but not a competitive rider doing lots of sprints and climbing.
>please go and do some reading on Pub Med, where abstracts are available. People have researched this using elite riders/athletes etc and compared to age and gender matched individuals. previously, you mentioned that you wanted scientific truth and integrity (or something like) -- so read the science journals.
Who thinks Cipollini's legs are weaker than someone the same age at the local grocery store?
What about those 18% climbs in Belgium???
>i don't think roads with 18% grades have any strength. how would you get a road in a lab ;-) If however, you mean the riders going up them in e.g., LBL, FW, etc. then i suggest (again) you thoroughly understand the concept the concept of what strength is and then look at some power data.
If your legs aren't strong enough to get to the top you are screwed. Look at the famous Grahm Watson poster of Jesper Skibby in one of the classics years ago. He fell into a ditch and was almost run over by a team car when he lacked the strength to get over the top. It takes a lot of strength to get up a 10% climb, let alone the monsters in the classics.
>erm it doesn't
If you can lift 100 lbs maximum, and I can lift 400 lbs maximum, and we both have to move 100 lb crates, who's going to get tired first???
>this is why i'm saying you need to look at the facts. look at the forces involved in endurance cycling. look at hills force velocity curve. look at a definition of strength
It is important to note that I'm not talking about weights. Sprints, isolated leg training, and climbing at any cadence will for sure increase your leg strength. It will be easier to turn bigger gears after your strength increase. Many riders can go 31 mph for a minute or so, but how many can hold 31 mph for a ten?
> i don't think you have any notion of exercise physiology.
The more leg strength you have, the less impact it has on your strength reserves meaning it is much easier to hold a hard pace. So if you don't sprint and do your climbing you just won't be as strong or powerful.
>no where have i said or suggested that you shouldn't do sprinting or climbing.
Isolated leg training (ILT) is one of the most potent weapons you can have in your speed arsenal.
> now i know you're pulling my leg
It creates tremendous leg strength
>it doesn't
Perhaps, instead of reading one book a hundred times, you should read some of the stuff mentioned. also, have a read of Astrand and Rodahl: textbook of work physiology, the papers on the hour record (Sabilla, Broker et al.,) the paper on the pursuit (broker et al), in JAP and MSSE (x2) respectively, the paper by Bishop on leg strength and 40-km TT performance, papers by Coggan on strength and ageing and on cycling performance, and also check out the other work by Coggan and his latest updates to USAC Coaching.
Finally, you might also be suprised to learn that one paper has reported an average power output requirement of 98 W for one of the TdF stages
Ric
Great discussion guys, sorry I missed this one for so long. There were some interesting points. I hope that my post adds discussion and it is not mean't to offend. Rics posts seem sound as ever, its hard to argue numbers!
Unfortunatly, I may come under the category of 'general exercise physiologist', 'cyclist', 'cycling coach' and 'athletics coach' but this has done me a lot in the past - cyclists are not different creatures altogether.
Off the top of my mind, the excepted definition for strength is...
'the maximum amount of force that can be generated by a muscle during a single contraction'.
Interestingly, the force velocity curve shows that 'as the velocity of a muscle contraction increases the amount of force that can be generated is reduced'.
Increasing strength (i.e. the maximum force that can be produced) doesn't always mean an increase in force production accross the range of pedaling cadences (i.e. contraction velocities). Strength is specific to contraction velocity and that is why it is best measured with a dynamometer or other specific test. Furthermore as Ric suggested strength training can be detrimental to endurance. The training that J-MAT has quoted doesn't sound like pure strength training to me, for sure strength 'might' increase but also consider the aerobic and anaerobic component of this training!
Sprinters high cadences are in part due to the use of 'relativly' low gears that allow them to accelerate quickly.
If cyclists needed the strength of NFL, the flexability of dance, the tan of beach barbie, etc. Then why don't cyclists do all these things. The links analogy is good, however the links need to be specific; endurance not strength is most important for endurance cycling! No good running a motor bike chain on a racing bike!!!!!
Perhaps you can corect me if I am wrong, but J-mat suggested that road racing needed a well developed ATP-PC system. This system has a reletivly small contribution to Road Racing, even the sprints which are very rarely less than 20 seconds long! Also cycling at releativly high power outputs for a period of time would deplete ATP-PC stores (and thats why you need anaerobic and aerobic metabolism to make new ATP) so at the end of a RR there is likly to be little ATP-PC in the tanks!
My next point is anecdotal as it yet has to be published in a clinical peer reviewed paper and relates to aging not cycling performance. Using twich (electrical stimulation) and voluntary contraction the maximum force that I could generate with my quads and calf was measured on an isokinetic dynamometer (there were other subjects (20 to 30 and 50 to 60 years). My calf volume was measured using Ultrasound and quads using MRI. I am an endurance cyclist (mainly road and TT) and had the smallest force production across a range of angles (isometric contaction) and smalest muscle volumes (calf and quad) against all other subjects. However my specific force (force/muscle volume or N/cm sq.) was the highest by more than 0.226 N.cm against 0.18 +/- 0.01 N.cm for the active young mens group (older subjects were 0.14 =/- 0.01 N.cm. On a bike I can do 22 min for a 10 (but can't sprint to save my life - I make breaks!).
What does this mean, I was least strongest in absolute terms and most strongest in relative terms! This study looked at aging, but wouldn't cyclists v's matched controls be interesting Ric! In the lab I actualy produce quite low peak and average power outputs (but I am small) but do produce good power to weight ratios (absolute v relative). They are also going to measure my force production relative to physiological cross sectional area; which takes into account direction of muscle fibres....cool!
Hope the studies are going well Ric. Oh and J-MAT, I'm returning your offer to help you out when you are getting mugged for your bike.
Unfortunatly, I may come under the category of 'general exercise physiologist', 'cyclist', 'cycling coach' and 'athletics coach' but this has done me a lot in the past - cyclists are not different creatures altogether.
Off the top of my mind, the excepted definition for strength is...
'the maximum amount of force that can be generated by a muscle during a single contraction'.
Interestingly, the force velocity curve shows that 'as the velocity of a muscle contraction increases the amount of force that can be generated is reduced'.
Increasing strength (i.e. the maximum force that can be produced) doesn't always mean an increase in force production accross the range of pedaling cadences (i.e. contraction velocities). Strength is specific to contraction velocity and that is why it is best measured with a dynamometer or other specific test. Furthermore as Ric suggested strength training can be detrimental to endurance. The training that J-MAT has quoted doesn't sound like pure strength training to me, for sure strength 'might' increase but also consider the aerobic and anaerobic component of this training!
Sprinters high cadences are in part due to the use of 'relativly' low gears that allow them to accelerate quickly.
If cyclists needed the strength of NFL, the flexability of dance, the tan of beach barbie, etc. Then why don't cyclists do all these things. The links analogy is good, however the links need to be specific; endurance not strength is most important for endurance cycling! No good running a motor bike chain on a racing bike!!!!!
Perhaps you can corect me if I am wrong, but J-mat suggested that road racing needed a well developed ATP-PC system. This system has a reletivly small contribution to Road Racing, even the sprints which are very rarely less than 20 seconds long! Also cycling at releativly high power outputs for a period of time would deplete ATP-PC stores (and thats why you need anaerobic and aerobic metabolism to make new ATP) so at the end of a RR there is likly to be little ATP-PC in the tanks!
My next point is anecdotal as it yet has to be published in a clinical peer reviewed paper and relates to aging not cycling performance. Using twich (electrical stimulation) and voluntary contraction the maximum force that I could generate with my quads and calf was measured on an isokinetic dynamometer (there were other subjects (20 to 30 and 50 to 60 years). My calf volume was measured using Ultrasound and quads using MRI. I am an endurance cyclist (mainly road and TT) and had the smallest force production across a range of angles (isometric contaction) and smalest muscle volumes (calf and quad) against all other subjects. However my specific force (force/muscle volume or N/cm sq.) was the highest by more than 0.226 N.cm against 0.18 +/- 0.01 N.cm for the active young mens group (older subjects were 0.14 =/- 0.01 N.cm. On a bike I can do 22 min for a 10 (but can't sprint to save my life - I make breaks!).
What does this mean, I was least strongest in absolute terms and most strongest in relative terms! This study looked at aging, but wouldn't cyclists v's matched controls be interesting Ric! In the lab I actualy produce quite low peak and average power outputs (but I am small) but do produce good power to weight ratios (absolute v relative). They are also going to measure my force production relative to physiological cross sectional area; which takes into account direction of muscle fibres....cool!
Hope the studies are going well Ric. Oh and J-MAT, I'm returning your offer to help you out when you are getting mugged for your bike.
The problem with talking about training is that it can mean different thing to different people. Here we are talking about strength and cadence.
Being "strong" can mean many things, besides pure physical strength. I can assure everybody I know the correct definition of strength. Cycling is so complex as I said before that unless you quantify everything you say down to the last detail, some people take things the wrong way. Even then, some might not understand where you are coming from.
My point on holding 31 mph was that many people can go fast for short periods, but can't sustain them. Time trialling requires enormous aerobic power and a strong anaerobic power capacity as well. This is the limiting factor overall. Let's say you could hold 31 mph for 5-10 minutes instead of 1 minute. Aerobic metabolism would be fully kicked in at 3 minutes. That's proof you would have the aerobic power to hold that pace. But you might start fatiguing shortly after because your muscles just don't like the amout of work they are being asked to perform. A muscle that is bigger/stronger will have have superior fatigue resistance than a smaller/weaker one with all else being equal.
Hard training of any type is a form of strength training. 5 minute VO2 max intervals primarily develop aerobic and anaerobic systems, but also subject the legs to a lot of pedal force as well. This will toughen and strengthen the myofibrils in the legs, making them stronger is a sport-specific way. This is a form of "strength" training.
Everybody remembers the number line in grade school math. To the left are negative numbers, in the center is zero, and to the right are positive numbers. Aerobics are the exact opposite of strength. Using the number line analogy, imagine aerobics on one side and strength on the other. Running doesn't require strength. Cycling is complex because you need aerobic power and also strength to climb and sprint. A 10 second sprint is as much a pure strength activity as 10 seconds of leg presses.
If you can't "put out" at the end of a 100 mile road race with hills and attacks that dip into your strength reserves, you will not win.
Every time you have to close a gap, take a pull, sprint, climb, etc, it fatigues the individual muscle fibers. Muscles will contract only so many times before they become tired. Stronger mucles will contract longer at the same effort before they get tired. The difference between holding 400 watts for 30 minutes and holding 400 watts for 60 minutes is the ability to ward off muscular fatigue. Weaker muscles fatigue more quickly than stronger ones.
Go to the gym and bench press 100 lbs 20 times. Come back in 30 minutes and do it again. Keep it up for several hours, doing a set every 30 minutes. A 30 minute rest interval would ensure that the lactate would be gone and the anaerobic energy systems would be replentished. Even so, after a few sets you will start to feel tired.
After many sets, even though your energy systems have been restored and are working properly, you will be struggling to finish your reps.
That's called muscular fatigue. The myofibrils are getting tired, and having a tough time contracting, even though there is plenty of energy to support the effort. This is an often ignored variable independent of power output or available energy. This is what happens very often at the end of a race. There could be ample energy (glycogen, atp) and low levels of performance robbing blood lactate, but if the muscles are tired from repeated, forceful contractions, you won't finsh well at all. That's the difference between a strong muscle and a weaker one.
Even if the atp-pc system is only 1% of a 100 mile road race, you need to have it well developed if it comes down to a sprint. The rider with the best 10-20 second power (atp-pc) at the end of 100 miles will win. Strength-trained muscle fibers have superior fatigue resistance compared with those that are not. You could have a VO2 max of 100 and it wouldn't mean anything if the myofibrils in your legs started fatiguing early.
Ric I never said climbing or tt'ing would help sprinting. I never said you said not to climb or sprint. Mashing refers to a lower cadence than normal, generally considered by most coaches to be anything under 80 rpm. This is ususally pushing a bigger gear than normal at a lower cadence. Perhaps we got our wires crossed on the definintion.
The high cadence (beacuse of low gears) of 200 meter sprinters are not as much a function of acceleration as it is the extreme power output needed. Anytime cadence comes up, force goes down, that's obvious. That's why spinning is most efficient. The issue is a stronger muscle compared to a weaker on. In any event from a 200 meter sprint to a 150 mile road race, the stronger muscle will have more left in it at the end no matter what.
Some have asked for peer-reviewed evidence from me. I am asking it of others - show me a study where people can produce and hold extreme power at low cadence. It's not because of gearing.
Sustainable power is what it's all about. Power is work divided by time. Work to a rider is the amount of pedal force you can apply to the pedals. Power is the time component of sustaining the work or force. Let's say we have two riders that have to sustain a workload of 26 mph on a flat course with no wind.
Rider "A" can sustain a workload of 29 mph. Rider "B" can sustain a workload of 32 mph. Both riders can hold 26 mph no problem, but rider "B" who can hold a pace 3 mph faster will do it with much less effort because he is more powerful.
Rider "B" is more powerful because of the higher force/resistance he can sustain. This is the strength component I am talking about. Strength is one half of the power equation. If you don't train for strength, you cannot be as powerful!!!
For a 75 kg rider, training uphill at 30 revs might put 40-80 lbs of pedal force on the legs (depending on slope, bodyweight, gearing)whereas riding at 30 mph might only put around 28 lbs or so of pedal force on the same rider. Training uphill or whatever for force will make it easier to hold the 28 lbs of force needed to hold 30 mph. This is the stronger muscle I'm talking about.
Of course, riding uphill at 30 revs won't make you powerful at all by itself. You might only be putting out 200-250 watts or less doing this!!!
30 mph time trials require almost twice as many watts!!!
This is where people get confused.
You have to have highly developed aerobic and anaerobic power to TT at 30 mph. The additional leg strength from specific force work (strength) makes it easier to hold the pace. If you get stronger and do your VO2 intervals you will be doing everything possible to get as fast as you can.
2LAP. My best time for a ten is 22:03 on a standard road bike. I could never sprint that well either, but I'm really working on it now. My sprint and overall power has improved a lot. I'm hoping for new a new personal best in the near future!!! I think we all underestimate sprinting. Most blow it off. To hold 10/25 mile TT power (250-400 watts)it helps to train at your peak power (800-1000 watts). The sprints make it easier to TT well!!! Good to know I'm not the only one out there that has another riders back!!!
Finally, let me say something about analytical approaches to things. Working things out in a lab or on paper with a calculator are great, but sometimes the real world defies logic. I used the Cyrille Guimard example before. He never graduated from high shcool yet managed to guide Hinault, Fignon, and LeMond to many tour victories. I'm sure he would have been the odd man out amongst a group of academics. Yet he has produced more Tour winners than any other coach.
All the tests and studies the other coaches clung onto couldn't produce the champions he did. LeMond was always an innovater and was into the techno side of things as testing was getting big in the early 80's.
When LeMond asked Guimard about scientific approaches, he told LeMond: "Don't worry about those things. Worry about being able to turn certain gears at certain rpms." Beautiful!!!
I'm reminded of the folktale of a man who was strong enough to pick up a cow. He didn't just start picking a cow one day, he picked up the calf from the time is was born and did it every day until the cow was fully grown. Although it's just a story, the analogy holds true. I think that power output is no different. If you want to TT at 30 mph for a ten, maybe you need around 380-400 watts to do it. If you can hold that power for a minute or two, eventually, if you keep it up, you will start lasting 3-5-10 Minutes etc. in time.
Here's a Guimard style workout: On your next hard ride, go out on the flats and spin a 53x15 at 100 rpm for 3 sets of 5-10 minutes. Don't worry about heart rate. That's as low tech as it gets and would serve 99% of all road riders extremely well.
I have a lot more to say and will produce some evidence for you guys soon. I gotta get back to work!!!
Being "strong" can mean many things, besides pure physical strength. I can assure everybody I know the correct definition of strength. Cycling is so complex as I said before that unless you quantify everything you say down to the last detail, some people take things the wrong way. Even then, some might not understand where you are coming from.
My point on holding 31 mph was that many people can go fast for short periods, but can't sustain them. Time trialling requires enormous aerobic power and a strong anaerobic power capacity as well. This is the limiting factor overall. Let's say you could hold 31 mph for 5-10 minutes instead of 1 minute. Aerobic metabolism would be fully kicked in at 3 minutes. That's proof you would have the aerobic power to hold that pace. But you might start fatiguing shortly after because your muscles just don't like the amout of work they are being asked to perform. A muscle that is bigger/stronger will have have superior fatigue resistance than a smaller/weaker one with all else being equal.
Hard training of any type is a form of strength training. 5 minute VO2 max intervals primarily develop aerobic and anaerobic systems, but also subject the legs to a lot of pedal force as well. This will toughen and strengthen the myofibrils in the legs, making them stronger is a sport-specific way. This is a form of "strength" training.
Everybody remembers the number line in grade school math. To the left are negative numbers, in the center is zero, and to the right are positive numbers. Aerobics are the exact opposite of strength. Using the number line analogy, imagine aerobics on one side and strength on the other. Running doesn't require strength. Cycling is complex because you need aerobic power and also strength to climb and sprint. A 10 second sprint is as much a pure strength activity as 10 seconds of leg presses.
If you can't "put out" at the end of a 100 mile road race with hills and attacks that dip into your strength reserves, you will not win.
Every time you have to close a gap, take a pull, sprint, climb, etc, it fatigues the individual muscle fibers. Muscles will contract only so many times before they become tired. Stronger mucles will contract longer at the same effort before they get tired. The difference between holding 400 watts for 30 minutes and holding 400 watts for 60 minutes is the ability to ward off muscular fatigue. Weaker muscles fatigue more quickly than stronger ones.
Go to the gym and bench press 100 lbs 20 times. Come back in 30 minutes and do it again. Keep it up for several hours, doing a set every 30 minutes. A 30 minute rest interval would ensure that the lactate would be gone and the anaerobic energy systems would be replentished. Even so, after a few sets you will start to feel tired.
After many sets, even though your energy systems have been restored and are working properly, you will be struggling to finish your reps.
That's called muscular fatigue. The myofibrils are getting tired, and having a tough time contracting, even though there is plenty of energy to support the effort. This is an often ignored variable independent of power output or available energy. This is what happens very often at the end of a race. There could be ample energy (glycogen, atp) and low levels of performance robbing blood lactate, but if the muscles are tired from repeated, forceful contractions, you won't finsh well at all. That's the difference between a strong muscle and a weaker one.
Even if the atp-pc system is only 1% of a 100 mile road race, you need to have it well developed if it comes down to a sprint. The rider with the best 10-20 second power (atp-pc) at the end of 100 miles will win. Strength-trained muscle fibers have superior fatigue resistance compared with those that are not. You could have a VO2 max of 100 and it wouldn't mean anything if the myofibrils in your legs started fatiguing early.
Ric I never said climbing or tt'ing would help sprinting. I never said you said not to climb or sprint. Mashing refers to a lower cadence than normal, generally considered by most coaches to be anything under 80 rpm. This is ususally pushing a bigger gear than normal at a lower cadence. Perhaps we got our wires crossed on the definintion.
The high cadence (beacuse of low gears) of 200 meter sprinters are not as much a function of acceleration as it is the extreme power output needed. Anytime cadence comes up, force goes down, that's obvious. That's why spinning is most efficient. The issue is a stronger muscle compared to a weaker on. In any event from a 200 meter sprint to a 150 mile road race, the stronger muscle will have more left in it at the end no matter what.
Some have asked for peer-reviewed evidence from me. I am asking it of others - show me a study where people can produce and hold extreme power at low cadence. It's not because of gearing.
Sustainable power is what it's all about. Power is work divided by time. Work to a rider is the amount of pedal force you can apply to the pedals. Power is the time component of sustaining the work or force. Let's say we have two riders that have to sustain a workload of 26 mph on a flat course with no wind.
Rider "A" can sustain a workload of 29 mph. Rider "B" can sustain a workload of 32 mph. Both riders can hold 26 mph no problem, but rider "B" who can hold a pace 3 mph faster will do it with much less effort because he is more powerful.
Rider "B" is more powerful because of the higher force/resistance he can sustain. This is the strength component I am talking about. Strength is one half of the power equation. If you don't train for strength, you cannot be as powerful!!!
For a 75 kg rider, training uphill at 30 revs might put 40-80 lbs of pedal force on the legs (depending on slope, bodyweight, gearing)whereas riding at 30 mph might only put around 28 lbs or so of pedal force on the same rider. Training uphill or whatever for force will make it easier to hold the 28 lbs of force needed to hold 30 mph. This is the stronger muscle I'm talking about.
Of course, riding uphill at 30 revs won't make you powerful at all by itself. You might only be putting out 200-250 watts or less doing this!!!
30 mph time trials require almost twice as many watts!!!
This is where people get confused.
You have to have highly developed aerobic and anaerobic power to TT at 30 mph. The additional leg strength from specific force work (strength) makes it easier to hold the pace. If you get stronger and do your VO2 intervals you will be doing everything possible to get as fast as you can.
2LAP. My best time for a ten is 22:03 on a standard road bike. I could never sprint that well either, but I'm really working on it now. My sprint and overall power has improved a lot. I'm hoping for new a new personal best in the near future!!! I think we all underestimate sprinting. Most blow it off. To hold 10/25 mile TT power (250-400 watts)it helps to train at your peak power (800-1000 watts). The sprints make it easier to TT well!!! Good to know I'm not the only one out there that has another riders back!!!
Finally, let me say something about analytical approaches to things. Working things out in a lab or on paper with a calculator are great, but sometimes the real world defies logic. I used the Cyrille Guimard example before. He never graduated from high shcool yet managed to guide Hinault, Fignon, and LeMond to many tour victories. I'm sure he would have been the odd man out amongst a group of academics. Yet he has produced more Tour winners than any other coach.
All the tests and studies the other coaches clung onto couldn't produce the champions he did. LeMond was always an innovater and was into the techno side of things as testing was getting big in the early 80's.
When LeMond asked Guimard about scientific approaches, he told LeMond: "Don't worry about those things. Worry about being able to turn certain gears at certain rpms." Beautiful!!!
I'm reminded of the folktale of a man who was strong enough to pick up a cow. He didn't just start picking a cow one day, he picked up the calf from the time is was born and did it every day until the cow was fully grown. Although it's just a story, the analogy holds true. I think that power output is no different. If you want to TT at 30 mph for a ten, maybe you need around 380-400 watts to do it. If you can hold that power for a minute or two, eventually, if you keep it up, you will start lasting 3-5-10 Minutes etc. in time.
Here's a Guimard style workout: On your next hard ride, go out on the flats and spin a 53x15 at 100 rpm for 3 sets of 5-10 minutes. Don't worry about heart rate. That's as low tech as it gets and would serve 99% of all road riders extremely well.
I have a lot more to say and will produce some evidence for you guys soon. I gotta get back to work!!!
the posts are really quite interesting but somewhat confusing as well... so the truth is that doing squats in the gym wont help in leg strength meant for bike as its considered an off the bike training? then how does one actually build up the power or strength ( kind of confused right now) to turn bigger gears at higher cadences? my own view is that training by riding in those bigger gears at low cadences and then slowly getting "used " to them will enable one to raise the cadences as well in time? I personally think that continuing high cadences in smaller gears wont help in strength to turn the bigger gears and bigger gears are definitely a must to get the speed high enuf in races.. and also regarding the strength to get up high gradient hills... J mentioned that it needed strength and ric said no.. i just did some high climbing last week and as i was strugglin up the hill i was deiniftely stomping down on the pedals with my whole body weight .... is that leg power .. speed or strength ?
hey J-MAT where do you get your Armstrong statistics? I find it hard to beleive actually. On the Cycle2max site they have a hill climb feature that predictes power output for a given climb on one i did 25.3 kph on a 4.1% climb in 4 minutes 30 and the power it predicted was 259 watts ,that was going pretyy hard and your saying armstong did 450-500 for 38 minutes. hmm Some pro's have there climb/power outputs on that site and the best only rub 300 watts. eg Brett Atkin (olympic medalist) exuse my doubt.. where do you get that info ? People tend to exaagerate so i was just wondering if the info was recorded or just 2nd hand exageration..
J-Mat, I said we had four football codes in Australia. Association Football or "Football" or "Soccer" is but one of them and would rank #4 in popularity and following. The others are body contact (without lobster padding, helmets and 10 seconds of play every few minutes) and two are played internationally. The Rugby World Cup, held every 4 years and to be played in Australia this year, ranks third behind the Olympic Games and Soccer World Cup as a sporting meet. Even the USA has a national rugby team which I am sure, as with most occurrences outside their borders, nearly 280 million Americans would not know about.
He was from Ancient Greece and was known as Milo of Crotoa. Nestle (in Oz, do not know about elsewhere) have a chocolate milk additive known as Milo with the story of Milo on the container wrapping. I believe he existed and was not a folk tale. He was my inspiration as a kid!
In relation to your other postings, I consider you can only gain credibility by referencing to peer reviewed studies.
J-Mat wrote, i reply with ">":
Being "strong" can mean many things, besides pure physical strength. I can assure everybody I know the correct definition of strength. Cycling is so complex as I said before that unless you quantify everything you say down to the last detail, some people take things the wrong way. Even then, some might not understand where you are coming from.
>and that is one good reason to use the *correct* definition (in this case of the word strength) -- so that we know what people are talking about
My point on holding 31 mph was that many people can go fast for short periods, but can't sustain them. Time trialling requires enormous aerobic power and a strong anaerobic power capacity as well. This is the limiting factor overall. Let's say you could hold 31 mph for 5-10 minutes instead of 1 minute. Aerobic metabolism would be fully kicked in at 3 minutes. That's proof you would have the aerobic power to hold that pace. But you might start fatiguing shortly after because your muscles just don't like the amout of work they are being asked to perform. A muscle that is bigger/stronger will have have superior fatigue resistance than a smaller/weaker one with all else being equal.
>if you can't maintain a specific power output (i use power output in place of speed or velocity, because i can freewheel down a hill at 31 mph) then this is because it is exceeding your "functional threshold" (i.e., TT power) -- this will cause an accumulation of lactate, which causes fatigue (more specifically H+ ions).
Hard training of any type is a form of strength training.
> No it isn't.
5 minute VO2 max intervals primarily develop aerobic and anaerobic systems, but also subject the legs to a lot of pedal force as well.
>not necessarily
Everybody remembers the number line in grade school math. To the left are negative numbers, in the center is zero, and to the right are positive numbers. Aerobics are the exact opposite of strength. Using the number line analogy, imagine aerobics on one side and strength on the other. Running doesn't require strength. Cycling is complex because you need aerobic power and also strength to climb and sprint.
>yes, but the strength requirements are very low -- IOW, non trained people can generate the force requirements encountered during endurance cycling (assuming age, gender, mass and health are the same)
A 10 second sprint is as much a pure strength activity as 10 seconds of leg presses.
>this is really neuromuscular power
Every time you have to close a gap, take a pull, sprint, climb, etc, it fatigues the individual muscle fibers. Muscles will contract only so many times before they become tired. Stronger mucles will contract longer at the same effort before they get tired. The difference between holding 400 watts for 30 minutes and holding 400 watts for 60 minutes is the ability to ward off muscular fatigue. Weaker muscles fatigue more quickly than stronger ones.
>it has nothing to do with weakness. this is a function of lactate threshold, functional threshold, and VO2 max
That's called muscular fatigue. The myofibrils are getting tired, and having a tough time contracting, even though there is plenty of energy to support the effort. This is an often ignored variable independent of power output or available energy. This is what happens very often at the end of a race. There could be ample energy (glycogen, atp)
>obviously, you either ride very short road races (<30-mins) or you have no idea about glycogen depletion. Even at very low efforts (50% VO2max) for 60-mins (which would be the equivalent pace of between recovery and most peoples long rides), glycogen stores are sufficiently depleted to lower performance (see Passfield and Doust, MSSE)
Ric I never said climbing or tt'ing would help sprinting.
>erm you did. you said weight training made my sprint better, which TTing and climbing didn't do.
Mashing refers to a lower cadence than normal, generally considered by most coaches to be anything under 80 rpm.
>mashing and or stomping with every coach i've spoken with and within the general cycling community refers to "not pedalling in circles", i.e., you pmash down on the pedals.
This is ususally pushing a bigger gear than normal at a lower cadence. Perhaps we got our wires crossed on the definintion.
>maybe.
The high cadence (beacuse of low gears) of 200 meter sprinters are not as much a function of acceleration as it is the extreme power output needed. Anytime cadence comes up, force goes down, that's obvious. That's why spinning is most efficient. The issue is a stronger muscle compared to a weaker on. In any event from a 200 meter sprint to a 150 mile road race, the stronger muscle will have more left in it at the end no matter what.
>in endurance cycling the stronger muscle doesn't have more left in it. I've yet to see any RR/TT etc being won by Arnie, or an Olympic Power lifter
Some have asked for peer-reviewed evidence from me. I am asking it of others - show me a study where people can produce and hold extreme power at low cadence. It's not because of gearing.
>neither have i suggested that i can show studies on low cadence and high power.
Sustainable power is what it's all about. Power is work divided by time. Work to a rider is the amount of pedal force you can apply to the pedals. Power is the time component of sustaining the work or force. Let's say we have two riders that have to sustain a workload of 26 mph on a flat course with no wind.
Rider "A" can sustain a workload of 29 mph. Rider "B" can sustain a workload of 32 mph. Both riders can hold 26 mph no problem, but rider "B" who can hold a pace 3 mph faster will do it with much less effort because he is more powerful.
>or rider B has better aerodynamics. or if they're the same (shape and position and thus air drag is the same) they still have to produce the same amount of work, but B finds it easier as you said.
Rider "B" is more powerful because of the higher force/resistance he can sustain. This is the strength component I am talking about. Strength is one half of the power equation. If you don't train for strength, you cannot be as powerful!!!
>but this isn't strength!! I'll reiterate again the forces (applied to the pedals) are very low in endurance cycling -- such that anyone (assuming age, gender, mass and health are the same) can produce the forces required. It's the ability to sustain them, that is difficult -- and these are dependent upon e.g., LT and VO2 max.
Okay, at 280 W, for a 70 kg rider, who is average sized 1m75 and riding a standard road bike on a flat road and no wind they'll likely be travelling at around 40 km/hr. The pedal forces involved in such an effort (which is ~ TT pace and therefore, you thought strength limited) are 45lb per leg at 100 revs/min. That's not really strength limiting is it?
On the other hand, the same cyclist can produce in a sprint ~900 W with a peak cadence of ~ 130 revs/min. Pedal forces are 113 lb per leg.
However, peak power can be hit at much lower down the force velocity curve, such that one method of testing to ascertain peak power is by getting the rider to stomp down from stationary in a low gear (e.g., 42 x 19), which will be reached possibly a second into the effort, thus cadence will be very low around 70 revs/min, which would give pedal forces of ~ 211 lb per leg (it'd be more than this if cadence was lower).
All forces are for 170mm cranks and i converted the pedal forces measured in Newtons to lbs to make it more readable.
Therefore, we already have an abundance of strength, we aren't limited by strength but by aerobic machinery.
You have to have highly developed aerobic and anaerobic power to TT at 30 mph.
>to TT (for an extended period of time e.g., ~ 60-mins), anaerobic power doesn't really come into it. Yes, you have to be *aerobically* fit, and no it doesn't require much strength
The additional leg strength from specific force work (strength) makes it easier to hold the pace. If you get stronger and do your VO2 intervals you will be doing everything possible to get as fast as you can.
>how will riding at a pedal force of ~45 lb make you stronger, when you can already hit pedal forces in excess of 200 lb??
Most blow it off. To hold 10/25 mile TT power (250-400 watts)it helps to train at your peak power (800-1000 watts). The sprints make it easier to TT well!!!
>how on earth does sprinting help you TT better? I've yet to see Marty Nothstein, Chris Hoy, Jason Queally etc., beat Lance, Chris Boardman, etc in a TT (unless you meant a 1-km TT)
Finally, let me say something about analytical approaches to things. Working things out in a lab or on paper with a calculator are great, but sometimes the real world defies logic.
>i'm sure you were all for scientific integrity before...
Ric
Being "strong" can mean many things, besides pure physical strength. I can assure everybody I know the correct definition of strength. Cycling is so complex as I said before that unless you quantify everything you say down to the last detail, some people take things the wrong way. Even then, some might not understand where you are coming from.
>and that is one good reason to use the *correct* definition (in this case of the word strength) -- so that we know what people are talking about
My point on holding 31 mph was that many people can go fast for short periods, but can't sustain them. Time trialling requires enormous aerobic power and a strong anaerobic power capacity as well. This is the limiting factor overall. Let's say you could hold 31 mph for 5-10 minutes instead of 1 minute. Aerobic metabolism would be fully kicked in at 3 minutes. That's proof you would have the aerobic power to hold that pace. But you might start fatiguing shortly after because your muscles just don't like the amout of work they are being asked to perform. A muscle that is bigger/stronger will have have superior fatigue resistance than a smaller/weaker one with all else being equal.
>if you can't maintain a specific power output (i use power output in place of speed or velocity, because i can freewheel down a hill at 31 mph) then this is because it is exceeding your "functional threshold" (i.e., TT power) -- this will cause an accumulation of lactate, which causes fatigue (more specifically H+ ions).
Hard training of any type is a form of strength training.
> No it isn't.
5 minute VO2 max intervals primarily develop aerobic and anaerobic systems, but also subject the legs to a lot of pedal force as well.
>not necessarily
Everybody remembers the number line in grade school math. To the left are negative numbers, in the center is zero, and to the right are positive numbers. Aerobics are the exact opposite of strength. Using the number line analogy, imagine aerobics on one side and strength on the other. Running doesn't require strength. Cycling is complex because you need aerobic power and also strength to climb and sprint.
>yes, but the strength requirements are very low -- IOW, non trained people can generate the force requirements encountered during endurance cycling (assuming age, gender, mass and health are the same)
A 10 second sprint is as much a pure strength activity as 10 seconds of leg presses.
>this is really neuromuscular power
Every time you have to close a gap, take a pull, sprint, climb, etc, it fatigues the individual muscle fibers. Muscles will contract only so many times before they become tired. Stronger mucles will contract longer at the same effort before they get tired. The difference between holding 400 watts for 30 minutes and holding 400 watts for 60 minutes is the ability to ward off muscular fatigue. Weaker muscles fatigue more quickly than stronger ones.
>it has nothing to do with weakness. this is a function of lactate threshold, functional threshold, and VO2 max
That's called muscular fatigue. The myofibrils are getting tired, and having a tough time contracting, even though there is plenty of energy to support the effort. This is an often ignored variable independent of power output or available energy. This is what happens very often at the end of a race. There could be ample energy (glycogen, atp)
>obviously, you either ride very short road races (<30-mins) or you have no idea about glycogen depletion. Even at very low efforts (50% VO2max) for 60-mins (which would be the equivalent pace of between recovery and most peoples long rides), glycogen stores are sufficiently depleted to lower performance (see Passfield and Doust, MSSE)
Ric I never said climbing or tt'ing would help sprinting.
>erm you did. you said weight training made my sprint better, which TTing and climbing didn't do.
Mashing refers to a lower cadence than normal, generally considered by most coaches to be anything under 80 rpm.
>mashing and or stomping with every coach i've spoken with and within the general cycling community refers to "not pedalling in circles", i.e., you pmash down on the pedals.
This is ususally pushing a bigger gear than normal at a lower cadence. Perhaps we got our wires crossed on the definintion.
>maybe.
The high cadence (beacuse of low gears) of 200 meter sprinters are not as much a function of acceleration as it is the extreme power output needed. Anytime cadence comes up, force goes down, that's obvious. That's why spinning is most efficient. The issue is a stronger muscle compared to a weaker on. In any event from a 200 meter sprint to a 150 mile road race, the stronger muscle will have more left in it at the end no matter what.
>in endurance cycling the stronger muscle doesn't have more left in it. I've yet to see any RR/TT etc being won by Arnie, or an Olympic Power lifter
Some have asked for peer-reviewed evidence from me. I am asking it of others - show me a study where people can produce and hold extreme power at low cadence. It's not because of gearing.
>neither have i suggested that i can show studies on low cadence and high power.
Sustainable power is what it's all about. Power is work divided by time. Work to a rider is the amount of pedal force you can apply to the pedals. Power is the time component of sustaining the work or force. Let's say we have two riders that have to sustain a workload of 26 mph on a flat course with no wind.
Rider "A" can sustain a workload of 29 mph. Rider "B" can sustain a workload of 32 mph. Both riders can hold 26 mph no problem, but rider "B" who can hold a pace 3 mph faster will do it with much less effort because he is more powerful.
>or rider B has better aerodynamics. or if they're the same (shape and position and thus air drag is the same) they still have to produce the same amount of work, but B finds it easier as you said.
Rider "B" is more powerful because of the higher force/resistance he can sustain. This is the strength component I am talking about. Strength is one half of the power equation. If you don't train for strength, you cannot be as powerful!!!
>but this isn't strength!! I'll reiterate again the forces (applied to the pedals) are very low in endurance cycling -- such that anyone (assuming age, gender, mass and health are the same) can produce the forces required. It's the ability to sustain them, that is difficult -- and these are dependent upon e.g., LT and VO2 max.
Okay, at 280 W, for a 70 kg rider, who is average sized 1m75 and riding a standard road bike on a flat road and no wind they'll likely be travelling at around 40 km/hr. The pedal forces involved in such an effort (which is ~ TT pace and therefore, you thought strength limited) are 45lb per leg at 100 revs/min. That's not really strength limiting is it?
On the other hand, the same cyclist can produce in a sprint ~900 W with a peak cadence of ~ 130 revs/min. Pedal forces are 113 lb per leg.
However, peak power can be hit at much lower down the force velocity curve, such that one method of testing to ascertain peak power is by getting the rider to stomp down from stationary in a low gear (e.g., 42 x 19), which will be reached possibly a second into the effort, thus cadence will be very low around 70 revs/min, which would give pedal forces of ~ 211 lb per leg (it'd be more than this if cadence was lower).
All forces are for 170mm cranks and i converted the pedal forces measured in Newtons to lbs to make it more readable.
Therefore, we already have an abundance of strength, we aren't limited by strength but by aerobic machinery.
You have to have highly developed aerobic and anaerobic power to TT at 30 mph.
>to TT (for an extended period of time e.g., ~ 60-mins), anaerobic power doesn't really come into it. Yes, you have to be *aerobically* fit, and no it doesn't require much strength
The additional leg strength from specific force work (strength) makes it easier to hold the pace. If you get stronger and do your VO2 intervals you will be doing everything possible to get as fast as you can.
>how will riding at a pedal force of ~45 lb make you stronger, when you can already hit pedal forces in excess of 200 lb??
Most blow it off. To hold 10/25 mile TT power (250-400 watts)it helps to train at your peak power (800-1000 watts). The sprints make it easier to TT well!!!
>how on earth does sprinting help you TT better? I've yet to see Marty Nothstein, Chris Hoy, Jason Queally etc., beat Lance, Chris Boardman, etc in a TT (unless you meant a 1-km TT)
Finally, let me say something about analytical approaches to things. Working things out in a lab or on paper with a calculator are great, but sometimes the real world defies logic.
>i'm sure you were all for scientific integrity before...
Ric
Gear Grinder wrote:
hey J-MAT where do you get your Armstrong statistics? I find it hard to beleive actually. On the Cycle2max site they have a hill climb feature that predictes power output for a given climb on one i did 25.3 kph on a 4.1% climb in 4 minutes 30 and the power it predicted was 259 watts ,that was going pretyy hard and your saying armstong did 450-500 for 38 minutes. hmm Some pro's have there climb/power outputs on that site and the best only rub 300 watts. eg Brett Atkin (olympic medalist) exuse my doubt.. where do you get that info ? People tend to exaagerate so i was just wondering if the info was recorded or just 2nd hand exageration..
as far i'm aware Alpe d'Huez is measured at 13.5 km long, with an average grade of 8% (please let me know if i'm wrong!). If LA has a mass of 70 kg and a total mass of 78kg, then he's putting out about 415 W average, which is just below 6 W/kg. In the World Hour record, the power to mass is ~ 6.5 W/kg. Thus, if they've just cycled ~ 160km to the base of the Alpe, and been over some other passes too, it would seem entirely plausible that LA (and the others) would have fatigued and 'only' be capable of just less than 6 W/kg.
450 - 500 W seems way to high, unless LA is considerably more than ~70kg
Ric
hey J-MAT where do you get your Armstrong statistics? I find it hard to beleive actually. On the Cycle2max site they have a hill climb feature that predictes power output for a given climb on one i did 25.3 kph on a 4.1% climb in 4 minutes 30 and the power it predicted was 259 watts ,that was going pretyy hard and your saying armstong did 450-500 for 38 minutes. hmm Some pro's have there climb/power outputs on that site and the best only rub 300 watts. eg Brett Atkin (olympic medalist) exuse my doubt.. where do you get that info ? People tend to exaagerate so i was just wondering if the info was recorded or just 2nd hand exageration..
as far i'm aware Alpe d'Huez is measured at 13.5 km long, with an average grade of 8% (please let me know if i'm wrong!). If LA has a mass of 70 kg and a total mass of 78kg, then he's putting out about 415 W average, which is just below 6 W/kg. In the World Hour record, the power to mass is ~ 6.5 W/kg. Thus, if they've just cycled ~ 160km to the base of the Alpe, and been over some other passes too, it would seem entirely plausible that LA (and the others) would have fatigued and 'only' be capable of just less than 6 W/kg.
450 - 500 W seems way to high, unless LA is considerably more than ~70kg
Ric
SniperX wrote, i reply ">":
the posts are really quite interesting but somewhat confusing as well... so the truth is that doing squats in the gym wont help in leg strength meant for bike as its considered an off the bike training?
> correct for endurance cycling
then how does one actually build up the power or strength ( kind of confused right now) to turn bigger gears at higher cadences?
>by increasing your LT, functional threshold and VO2 max (if you mean how do i improve for RRing, TTing, climbing etc). You want to be riding long endurance rides at low power, shorter endurance rides at slightly higher power, tempo type rides, long intervals at just below TT power (i.e., 20-mins) and as you get close to peaking and important events shorter more intense intervals (e.g., 4-mins at a little below VO2 max) to short, very intense intervals (e.g., 30-secs all-out)
and also regarding the strength to get up high gradient hills... J mentioned that it needed strength and ric said no.. i just did some high climbing last week and as i was strugglin up the hill i was deiniftely stomping down on the pedals with my whole body weight .... is that leg power .. speed or strength ?
>it definitely *feels* like you are strength limited when you are going to hard, but that's a perception. What it actually is (unless you're talking about accelerating or sprinting up a hill), is a lack of aerobic power (i.e., LT and VO2 max aren't high enough). These are increased with training (of the correct type).
Ric
the posts are really quite interesting but somewhat confusing as well... so the truth is that doing squats in the gym wont help in leg strength meant for bike as its considered an off the bike training?
> correct for endurance cycling
then how does one actually build up the power or strength ( kind of confused right now) to turn bigger gears at higher cadences?
>by increasing your LT, functional threshold and VO2 max (if you mean how do i improve for RRing, TTing, climbing etc). You want to be riding long endurance rides at low power, shorter endurance rides at slightly higher power, tempo type rides, long intervals at just below TT power (i.e., 20-mins) and as you get close to peaking and important events shorter more intense intervals (e.g., 4-mins at a little below VO2 max) to short, very intense intervals (e.g., 30-secs all-out)
and also regarding the strength to get up high gradient hills... J mentioned that it needed strength and ric said no.. i just did some high climbing last week and as i was strugglin up the hill i was deiniftely stomping down on the pedals with my whole body weight .... is that leg power .. speed or strength ?
>it definitely *feels* like you are strength limited when you are going to hard, but that's a perception. What it actually is (unless you're talking about accelerating or sprinting up a hill), is a lack of aerobic power (i.e., LT and VO2 max aren't high enough). These are increased with training (of the correct type).
Ric
ric : so what ure saying is that i shouldnt be doing leg squats in the gym as they re not beneficial? i guess i should do on the bike training n increase aerobic power to tackle those hills and those big gears ?
I think i'm correct in assuming you're a road rider...? The concensus of opinion in peer reviewed journals is that resistance training (e.g., squats) won't make any difference (possibly even detrimental) to endurance riding.
Some good sessions for increasing power output are what are known in the UK as low level 2 endurance rides (1 - 4 hrs at ~ 40 - 45 b/min below HRmax -- duration dependent upon fitness level) - this will be approximately equal to your LT and 20-min intervals at just below TT power (probably 5+ b/min below average TT HR for an 1-hr). Aim to do 2 x 20mins, with a few mins easy spinning between.
Ric
I think i'm correct in assuming you're a road rider...? The concensus of opinion in peer reviewed journals is that resistance training (e.g., squats) won't make any difference (possibly even detrimental) to endurance riding.
Some good sessions for increasing power output are what are known in the UK as low level 2 endurance rides (1 - 4 hrs at ~ 40 - 45 b/min below HRmax -- duration dependent upon fitness level) - this will be approximately equal to your LT and 20-min intervals at just below TT power (probably 5+ b/min below average TT HR for an 1-hr). Aim to do 2 x 20mins, with a few mins easy spinning between.
Ric
Maximal and supra maximal (sprints?) efforts can improve TT performance as they cause increases in VO2 max (imprved Q max?). I agree with Ric that strength isn't a limiting factor in performance and efforts should be directed towards improving aerobic and anaerobic capacities.
Strength is only a limiting factor in cycling when muscles are too weak to produce a power output sufficent to stress the aerobic and anaerobic systems maximaly. This would occur during clinical cases and disability (e.g. cerebral palsy). In this case strength would be a limiting factor (although the source of the weakness could be neural or muscular (i.e. atrophy))!
I see the point that J-MAT is trying to make in one of his posts regarding strength. Over the course of a race strength is reduced due to 'muscular fatigue' (i.e. 1 RM is reduced pre to post race) and this inability to produce force might mean that there is poor performance in a sprint. However, this would only be the case if the reduction in strength during the exercise (or race) was great enough to limit the maximum power output of the individual below the maximum capacity of the aerobic and anaerobic systems. For the majority of trained cyclists this would be a very hard race indeed! Hope that makes sense.
As for mashing, thats something my Mum did to potatoes.
Strength is only a limiting factor in cycling when muscles are too weak to produce a power output sufficent to stress the aerobic and anaerobic systems maximaly. This would occur during clinical cases and disability (e.g. cerebral palsy). In this case strength would be a limiting factor (although the source of the weakness could be neural or muscular (i.e. atrophy))!
I see the point that J-MAT is trying to make in one of his posts regarding strength. Over the course of a race strength is reduced due to 'muscular fatigue' (i.e. 1 RM is reduced pre to post race) and this inability to produce force might mean that there is poor performance in a sprint. However, this would only be the case if the reduction in strength during the exercise (or race) was great enough to limit the maximum power output of the individual below the maximum capacity of the aerobic and anaerobic systems. For the majority of trained cyclists this would be a very hard race indeed! Hope that makes sense.
As for mashing, thats something my Mum did to potatoes.
Glad to see everyone's alive and kicking!!!
I think I should shorten my posts. It takes too long for you to read and too long for me too read the different points of disagreement on rebuttal.
VeloFlash: To be honest with you, compared to cycling, no other sport really matters to me. Football, soccer, rugby, whatever, I really don't care about that stuff. So whatever. I promise not to bag on your national pride sports!!!
Geargrinder, Ric: The Lance Armstrong data came from the Cycle Sport magazine column written by the late Edmund R. Burke, PhD. He died riding his bike last year. I have heard some people say I lack credibility because I have not provided sources. I can and will, but is anyone on this board more educated, and skilled at producing champions than the coaches and riders I have mentioned? I follow proven winners. Don't most people???
Who cares what a study says in a laboratory??? Races are conducted and won in the real world not the analytical world. Common sense must be applied at some time when figuring out what works and what doesn't.
Sometimes, you have to hang up the lab coat and get in the sunshine and fresh air. I love science. I love math, chemistry, physics, genetics, physiology, nutrition, biochemistry, etc. Research is great, but again, races are not won in the lab.
Scientists very often produce conflicting results when doing research. Food is a good example. It seems every week, PhD's with millions of dollars in grants tell us what food is bad for us. 6 months later, with the same wasteful expenditures, they tell us it's not bad after all. Average people make jokes about it all the time. So much for studies!!!
Anyone knows that data collected in a labratory can be skewed to meet the desired outcome. I'm not accusing any cycling studies of this directly, but results can often be swayed to meet the desired outcome. This is often done in academia in order to secure funding from universities or private backers with a self-interest.
Lab studies are only "good science" when the results can be dupicated easily again and again, preferably by scientists who don't know each other, and separated by geographical distance. If someone in the U.K. does a study and researchers in Japan produce identical results, chances are the science is valid.
We all have to learn information somewhere. I look for things that work. You guys are looking too much at the analytical world I think. Don't make the mistake that this is always the real world. It may or not be.
Many centuries ago, the brightest scientists thought the world was flat. If you were in a university learning from these "pundits," you would be taught that as well.
When it comes time for you to teach, you would be perpetuating the false information that you learned. Of course, we know that they were very, very, wrong!!!
The article appeared in the July 2002 issue of Cycle Sport Magazine, Page 168. The late Dr. Edmund R. Burke had a regular column in the magazine. Regarding the L.A. numbers, the numbers come from Dr. Alejandro Lucia, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Spain: 38 minutes at 475-500 watts in a 39x23 at 100 rpm.
Credibility is always an issue. Since the guy who came up with the data is a doctor of some type, I would think he would know how to work the formulas at least as good as anyone on this board.
Dr. Burke would jeapordize his credibility by publishing bogus information. I suspect Dr. Burke felt satisfied Dr. Lucia's math was solid. If anyone on this board is more knowledgeable about cycling science, please step up, list your qualifications and make yourself known. Here is a list of Dr. Burke's qualifications I found in an obituary:
"Exercise and sports physiologist Edmund R. Burke died Nov. 7 from a heart attack while on a bike ride near his home in Colorado Springs, Colo. He was 53. Burke helped train Olympic Cycling teams: He was the coordinator of sports science leading up to the 1996 games and served as the director of the Center for Science and Technology for the U.S. cycling team, and was a staff member for the 1980 and 1984 teams. At the time of his death, Burke was a professor and the director of the exercise
science program at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. His research interests included the interrelationship of athletic performance and sports nutrition."
So, that's one of my sources. Sounds credible to me. I feel confident he knew at least as much as anybody on this board, don't you??? By the way, he was a big proponent of strength training. I think he had access to at least as many studies as anyone else here don't you??? I mean, he was only the director of exercise science at a major university!!! Anyone here hold that title???
Dr. Burke also wrote many cycling books as well and had the magazine column in Cycle Sport.
Anyone else here written a book or have a magazine gig??? If not, maybe it's because no one has ever heard of you. He is one of several successes I have learned from.
If you guys would like to educate yourselves on how important strength training to a cyclist, why not go to http://www.ridefast.com ???
It is the website owned by Lance Armstrong's personal coach Chris Carmichael.
Let's see, Coach Carmichael has coached L.A. to 4 TDF victories in a row. We will probably see number 5 this summer. Sounds credible to me. Anyone here know more than this guy???
Step up if you do!!!
Here is an excerpt from his website mentioning legstrength:
"...When we were rebuilding Lance Armstrong's aerobic system, one limitation we had to deal with was the reduced strength of his legs. He did not have the muscle to push big gears in training...
Additionally, holding high power is dependent on muscular endurance. Dr. Conconi preaches ME (muscular endurance) workouts at 84-86 rpm to load the legs down more and provide the specific strength training to ward off muscular fatigue. He also preaches low cadence big ring efforts uphill for strength.
Dr. Conconi coached Moser to two hour records.
Anyone here know more than Dr. Conconi??? He says you need leg strength. Is he wrong???
You guys are free to believe what you want, but I pattern my beliefs on what proven winners say.
You can play with your calculators all you want, but these are highly credible examples of coaching at the highest level. Again, if anyone on this board knows more than the sources I mention, I would like to see what you have produced. My sources produce winners in the real world. They all say you need strength!!!
I'm humble. I learned from guys like this. I didn't invent it, just learned from them. I believe them. So much for short posts!!!
Later!!!
I think I should shorten my posts. It takes too long for you to read and too long for me too read the different points of disagreement on rebuttal.
VeloFlash: To be honest with you, compared to cycling, no other sport really matters to me. Football, soccer, rugby, whatever, I really don't care about that stuff. So whatever. I promise not to bag on your national pride sports!!!
Geargrinder, Ric: The Lance Armstrong data came from the Cycle Sport magazine column written by the late Edmund R. Burke, PhD. He died riding his bike last year. I have heard some people say I lack credibility because I have not provided sources. I can and will, but is anyone on this board more educated, and skilled at producing champions than the coaches and riders I have mentioned? I follow proven winners. Don't most people???
Who cares what a study says in a laboratory??? Races are conducted and won in the real world not the analytical world. Common sense must be applied at some time when figuring out what works and what doesn't.
Sometimes, you have to hang up the lab coat and get in the sunshine and fresh air. I love science. I love math, chemistry, physics, genetics, physiology, nutrition, biochemistry, etc. Research is great, but again, races are not won in the lab.
Scientists very often produce conflicting results when doing research. Food is a good example. It seems every week, PhD's with millions of dollars in grants tell us what food is bad for us. 6 months later, with the same wasteful expenditures, they tell us it's not bad after all. Average people make jokes about it all the time. So much for studies!!!
Anyone knows that data collected in a labratory can be skewed to meet the desired outcome. I'm not accusing any cycling studies of this directly, but results can often be swayed to meet the desired outcome. This is often done in academia in order to secure funding from universities or private backers with a self-interest.
Lab studies are only "good science" when the results can be dupicated easily again and again, preferably by scientists who don't know each other, and separated by geographical distance. If someone in the U.K. does a study and researchers in Japan produce identical results, chances are the science is valid.
We all have to learn information somewhere. I look for things that work. You guys are looking too much at the analytical world I think. Don't make the mistake that this is always the real world. It may or not be.
Many centuries ago, the brightest scientists thought the world was flat. If you were in a university learning from these "pundits," you would be taught that as well.
When it comes time for you to teach, you would be perpetuating the false information that you learned. Of course, we know that they were very, very, wrong!!!
The article appeared in the July 2002 issue of Cycle Sport Magazine, Page 168. The late Dr. Edmund R. Burke had a regular column in the magazine. Regarding the L.A. numbers, the numbers come from Dr. Alejandro Lucia, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Spain: 38 minutes at 475-500 watts in a 39x23 at 100 rpm.
Credibility is always an issue. Since the guy who came up with the data is a doctor of some type, I would think he would know how to work the formulas at least as good as anyone on this board.
Dr. Burke would jeapordize his credibility by publishing bogus information. I suspect Dr. Burke felt satisfied Dr. Lucia's math was solid. If anyone on this board is more knowledgeable about cycling science, please step up, list your qualifications and make yourself known. Here is a list of Dr. Burke's qualifications I found in an obituary:
"Exercise and sports physiologist Edmund R. Burke died Nov. 7 from a heart attack while on a bike ride near his home in Colorado Springs, Colo. He was 53. Burke helped train Olympic Cycling teams: He was the coordinator of sports science leading up to the 1996 games and served as the director of the Center for Science and Technology for the U.S. cycling team, and was a staff member for the 1980 and 1984 teams. At the time of his death, Burke was a professor and the director of the exercise
science program at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. His research interests included the interrelationship of athletic performance and sports nutrition."
So, that's one of my sources. Sounds credible to me. I feel confident he knew at least as much as anybody on this board, don't you??? By the way, he was a big proponent of strength training. I think he had access to at least as many studies as anyone else here don't you??? I mean, he was only the director of exercise science at a major university!!! Anyone here hold that title???
Dr. Burke also wrote many cycling books as well and had the magazine column in Cycle Sport.
Anyone else here written a book or have a magazine gig??? If not, maybe it's because no one has ever heard of you. He is one of several successes I have learned from.
If you guys would like to educate yourselves on how important strength training to a cyclist, why not go to http://www.ridefast.com ???
It is the website owned by Lance Armstrong's personal coach Chris Carmichael.
Let's see, Coach Carmichael has coached L.A. to 4 TDF victories in a row. We will probably see number 5 this summer. Sounds credible to me. Anyone here know more than this guy???
Step up if you do!!!
Here is an excerpt from his website mentioning legstrength:
"...When we were rebuilding Lance Armstrong's aerobic system, one limitation we had to deal with was the reduced strength of his legs. He did not have the muscle to push big gears in training...
Additionally, holding high power is dependent on muscular endurance. Dr. Conconi preaches ME (muscular endurance) workouts at 84-86 rpm to load the legs down more and provide the specific strength training to ward off muscular fatigue. He also preaches low cadence big ring efforts uphill for strength.
Dr. Conconi coached Moser to two hour records.
Anyone here know more than Dr. Conconi??? He says you need leg strength. Is he wrong???
You guys are free to believe what you want, but I pattern my beliefs on what proven winners say.
You can play with your calculators all you want, but these are highly credible examples of coaching at the highest level. Again, if anyone on this board knows more than the sources I mention, I would like to see what you have produced. My sources produce winners in the real world. They all say you need strength!!!
I'm humble. I learned from guys like this. I didn't invent it, just learned from them. I believe them. So much for short posts!!!
Later!!!
http://grenoblecycling.free.fr/Col-AlpedHuez.htm
according to this site its 14 kilometers at 7.7%
nice pics
according to this site its 14 kilometers at 7.7%
nice pics
Similar threads
