SolarEnergy said:
... on the other hand, Warren, the poor lady with the study (about strength training improving 40K TT performance)... plus this guy here :
"Strength and Power
The relevance of testing pure strength and power in endurance sports such as the 40-km time trial has been questioned. However it is postulated that a stronger athlete will have greater endurance with heavy loads eg. An athlete with a 1RM of 2000N will sustain an 800N load (equal to 40% of the maximum) for 2-3 minutes, whereas an athlete with a 1RM of 1000 (equal to 80% of the maximum) will only be able to sustain the same load for 15-20 seconds (Sale 1991). Furthermore there is a train of thought, which suggests that strength training will supplement certain types of endurance performance (particularly those requiring fast twitch fibre recruitment) in individuals already conditioned for endurance activities (Hickson et al 1988). Therefore it can be argued that the assessment of strength and power are relevant contributions to the physiological assessment of the elite cyclist."
are simply saying that power = force X velocity. Why not work on both?
I can't have a solid position on this matter, cause what if they are right?
I think they are both right, but how they are each applied is the trick.
The quote is about what some call "strength reserve". In this context, if you increase strength then you can make more "power". IOW, if a person could lift 200 pounds once, they could probably lift 100 pounds five times. If that person trained to where they could lift 250 pounds once, they could then lift 100 pounds 8 times, or lift 100 pounds faster, etc. So, the work (lifting 100 pounds) times the repetitions over time could be stated as power, and power improved.
People try to apply this to cycling, and it is a useful idea, to a point, and that point is like what frenchgye is saying-that you need more than just muscle strength to perform in cycling beyond 10-12 seconds. You need the supporting systems to be ready to help with the cycling effort too.
My coach told me about this years ago and used the example of the guys racing up the really steep climbs in the Belgian classics we will see next month. Yes, it takes good strength to climb 20+% grades for a minute or five, but the effort will always include aerobic components (anaerobic too, but not just as a simple muscle movement with high force), so these must be trained alongside the strength.
This is a main reason why I do all "strength" efforts on the bike-to train both sides of the effort in concert with each other. Also for specificity. By adjusting some parameters in the training session we can put more of the focus/stress on the muscular side of things, or relatively more focus/stress on the supporting systems, as needed for the racing objective(s).
Also, when weight-training is done in the gym you must ask, is it for improving my ability to accelerate during a 10-second effort, or improving my ability over an all-out 20 second effort. If you want to be better at the 10-second effort then you'll use very heavy weights that will tend to activate as many motor units of your fast twitch/peak power fibers as possible because this is what you need for that 10-second effort.
For the 20-second effort you'll need some fibers that are more fatigue resistant so you'll use higher reps to encourage that development of your muscle fibers, and probably a little bit of the supporting systems outside the muscle fibers per se.
Back to your neighbor... If he wants to get better at climbing for 10-20 seconds he'd probably want to increase peak strength as much as possible and rely on strength reserve to get up some steps. If he wants to be able to climb steps for longer periods then the protocol of higher reps, essentially the SE/SFR training done in that lady's study may well be a good method.
