Power/Strength/LT Efforts 20min x 2 advice
- Thread starter federal
- Start date
if you are improving then keep doing what your doing until its done and you dont gain anymore. adding any additional effort will just make gains that you are already getting continue until plateau's , for some people this workout DOES NOT DO ANYTHING yet for yourself and others it helps, we are all individuals and training must be INDIVIDUALIZED.federal said:
Hi Warren,WarrenG said:
I am sorry, she already developped an allergic reaction to ac in the passed. Sorry.
I doubt that she ever going to join us.
Cheers
Yeah I know. Cause after all these debates about weight and SE, there are still couple of points that leave me thinking.WarrenG said:
Not a closed file IMO.
You know, my next door neighboor, I really doubt this guy be able of climbing our Mont Royal (site of a women world cup event). What does he lack?
He would have to fight just to stay still. 1 kmh on the bike seems to cost him more than 1kmh walking. At least it seems. May have something to do with the circular aspect of both the pedaling system and the weels.
But if you put a stair on the side of the hill, or even walking on the road, he can get to the top no problem. Put him on a bike, he'll probably start going backward.
In fact, the more I think about it, most of my neighboors don't look top shape. Few of them would be able to climb that hill. Maybe some would even stop before being out of breath. Maybe.
Sorry I don't want to start a debate. I am just thinking.
People have an easier time climbing stairs because they don't have to keep continuous motion in their feet on stairs. Think about a cadence of 50 rpm. That's 50 steps *for each foot* per minute. Even without skipping steps (which I usually do) that's 100 steps per minute, which is a much faster climbing rate than I see from most out-of-shape people. Also, there's no additional drag on their unweighted foot while it's being lifted up to the next step (ie, no pulling through top-dead-center).SolarEnergy said:
Amen, brother.SolarEnergy said:
Another two things to remember:SolarEnergy said:
1. Your speed must stay higher while cycling than walking, otherwise you'll fall over. Do you think your neighbor could make it up the hill if he had small enough gears and people on either side to keep him from falling over?
2. Strength and power aren't the same thing. Just because he doesn't have the power to get up a hill, doesn't mean he isn't strong enough.
Yeah, that's also what I think.frenchyge said:
The question behind this, is :whoawhoa said:
Given the same speed, is bike climbing easier, the same, or more difficult than walk climbing?
If I reuse Frenchyge's comment, I would be tempted to state that the lower the speed is on the bike, the greater the discrepency between the two activities (stairs, and bike).
So in your opinion, my neighboor would be lacking power, not strength.whoawhoa said:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I had an argument with Dr. Coggan recently about a similar issue. He basically came to the conclusion that strength requirement for climbing stairs was the same, no matter how many stair (at the time) you take. I had to agree.
In fact, he clearly made the demonstration that strength requirement wasn't the only variable to look at, while comparing those two activities.
But the perceived effort will be greater due to the difference in biomechanical, and also to the resulting speed, when doing it 2 at the time, even though the "force" to produce is the same.acoggan said:
Not everyone can climb stairs two at the time, the same way not everyone can climb a hill on a regular road bike. That is why at least for me, this whole issue is still ongoing in my mind.
And it'll remain that way until I can better understand all the variables involve, including biomechanical.
I thought you said you didn't want to start an argument?
Relating this back to your comment, lower bike speeds are typically a result of using a lower gearing, which produces a quicker acceleration on each stroke and hence less static pedal force. But that would mean a faster cadence, too. If you wanted to compare riding to stair climbing, you'd want a very high gear so that the static pedal force would be closer to stair-stepping. That would probably create such a slow riding speed that the rider would need external support, as Whoawhoa mentions. It's not like people are moving very fast if they take 1 step at a time (~3 ft/sec or 2 mph).
The difference is that on a bike, the pedal force is still less than one's body weight because of the acceleration produced when one steps on the pedal. IOW, the force doesn't equal the weight of the rider, but rather the 'resistance' provided by the bike as it rolls up the hill. Any available force above the bike's resistance to motion produces an acceleration rather than a static force.SolarEnergy said:
Relating this back to your comment, lower bike speeds are typically a result of using a lower gearing, which produces a quicker acceleration on each stroke and hence less static pedal force. But that would mean a faster cadence, too. If you wanted to compare riding to stair climbing, you'd want a very high gear so that the static pedal force would be closer to stair-stepping. That would probably create such a slow riding speed that the rider would need external support, as Whoawhoa mentions. It's not like people are moving very fast if they take 1 step at a time (~3 ft/sec or 2 mph).
I'd say a person needs to accelerate their body a little more on take-off while double-stepping, which would require a slightly higher peak force, but generally you're (both) correct.SolarEnergy said:
When double-stepping, the downward force is required at the end of the extended (further) leg, which reduces the mechanical advantage of the joints. IOW, the leg/hip muscles have to exert greater force at the hip in order to produce the same downward force way out at the foot. That does require more strength on the part of the glutes/hamstrings. I'd say single-stepping also shares the weight better between both legs, whereas double-stepping is more like launching off the back foot (solely), and then standing up from a squat on the front foot (solely). That probably means more strength is required in each leg as well.SolarEnergy said:
I am not arguing Frenchy,frenchyge said:I thought you said you didn't want to start an argument?
In fact, why would I be? I don't need to. You guys are much more knowledgable than I with these equations, thus making my own point in a more efficient way that I could ever dream.
Whoawhoa and yourself are saying that in order to compare bike climbing, with stair climbing, one would need to have one person on each side to help him not to fall while climbing.
I don't disagree with that. No argument there.
Now, I will keep wandering (for myself) : What if that person don't want those helpers while climbing on the bike? What does he lacks?
Not trying to do a sell here guys. I am more trying to do a purchase.
frenchyge said:
How steep are the steps? How about if you don't push off with the trailing foot at all? Just use the leading leg to lift yourself up each step. Single leg squats/step-ups done with no more than bodyweight up a 12" rise, or more, is a fairly hard effort-not the same as the average step rise of 6-8" while pushing off from the trailing foot.
Do 90, 12" steps (45 with each leg) per minute in sets of 5' each, times 5 sets. Total number of single leg squats is 2,250. With a 12" rise that would come out to somewhere near climbing up 250 stories in a building. 7" step rise (average) would come out to about 145 stories. Easy huh? Oh, and before you do the stairs you do 6 uphill sprints of 20" each at 95-100% effort, 3' rest between each sprint. And after the stairs you get to do 3-4, 10" sprints. You have 2 hours to complete the entire workout.
Bettini and Boonen looked pretty good in MSR, eh?
Well, balance, if he's trying to ride a bike up the hill at <3 mph. Power, if he's trying to do it at a more manageable 6 mph. By the same token, he's still lacking power if he wanted to climb the set of stairs twice as fast as he typically would (ie, as fast as he might typically ride a bike up a hill). Basically he'd be jogging up the stairs to ascend at close to 6 mph without double-stepping. Certainly he has the strength to climb the stairs (ie, he could do it if he had all day), but not the power to do it quickly. Power = work / time.SolarEnergy said:
Yeah but what about 3 or 4 mph.frenchyge said:
Take 4 mph (6.4 kmh). If he still can't climb on his bike at that speed. What does he lack?
If he can do it at 3 mph (with balance assistance, perhaps) but not at greater than 3 mph because he gets exhausted, then he lacks power. The amount of work performed is the same in both cases, and they only differ by the shorter time in the second case. Power = work / time. Therefore, same work but shorter time requires greater power.SolarEnergy said:
Work is expressed in units of energy. Your body is converting food into energy all the time, but it can only do it so fast. If you're doing too much work (ie, using up too much energy) in a short period of time (ie, high power), then your body can't meet the energy demands of the muscles and that eventually forces you to stop. You lack power in that case.
frenchyge said:Bettini is my new cycling hero. I love watching that guy race.
"New"? Where ya been?
He's been great for years. I'm a little surprised he's still going so well. Garzelli is getting into some sprints as well. Not bad for a guy who has won the Giro. Guys who can do that are fun to watch. Maybe Hincapie can follow them to some degree.Similar threads
- Locked
