power (Watts) = torque (in N.m) x angular velocity (in radian per second.. NOT rpm..)
so 95rpm --> 95/60 = 1.58revs per second 1.58 x 2 pi = 9.95 rads per second..
Sequencing Workouts/Intensity
- Thread starter LT Intolerant
- Start date
so 95rpm --> 95/60 = 1.58revs per second 1.58 x 2 pi = 9.95 rads per second..
I am well aware that one needs to produce force at speed in order to generate power.
Well before I had a lower leg amputation, my peak power was around 1450-1500W at ~ 125-130 rpm (although I was also doing 1400W+ from standing starts and much lower RPM) and I'm just an enduro rider, not a sprinter.
Since the amputation, my peak power has dropped to 1200W.
Strength, by definition, is maximal.
Not a chance. The two things (max power and sustainable aerobic power) are unrelated physiologically. They use and rely on completely different biochemical processes to supply the energy demand and the training to address one is significantly different to the other, and the physiological adaptations required to improve each are different.
And while my max power dropped after amputation, my sustainable aerobic power actually improved. Here's the comparison of my best power outputs over the entire duration spectrum before and after amputation:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/mean-maximal-power-unique-comparison.html
1) It appears that some people think that one can test rpms and torque independantly and then combine them making super-children. You don't appear to be one of them. Perhaps you could explain this issue to those who believe otherwise.
2) You are free to use any definition of strength you wish. I was asked for my definition. I gave the one I find useful. It appears other people also use it. Most words have multiple meanings. Most people can determine the meaning from context. Some respected author has indicateed that short term power does not mean much if you don't reach the finish with the leaders. So for racing something that measures power output for the length of the event (FTP) is more telling.
3) As I understand muscle mass: If I add10% more, I will get the same mix of fast and slow twitching fibers - add 10% more of each, the same blood flow and whatever else is necessary. Regardless of which process my muscles are involved in, I will still have 10% more of them involved. As long as I am not running out of fuel, oxygen, or whatever else is necessary I will have 10% more power avaiable. Pros have the problem of reaching the limit of other systems. I don't.
As far as your power changes go. My power has changed this year. It is all due to how I am training. I have no desire to look at your training plan, but there is a well known trade off between training for short durations and for long durations.
So you figured out where the factor of 10 came from. I don't use metric or radians much. The 10 is simply a conversion factor.
---
You can put on your big boy pants now.
but you had no idea why that "conversion factor" (2 pi / 60s or approximately 0.1047) was needed or what it represented at all.. some might interpret that as someone simply forgetting a conversion factor... while others might interpret that as someone simply not understanding what the hell they are doing and simply getting the wrong answer because of that ignorance..
You guys are too smart for me.
---
I was lazy today. I finally went out and did an hour of hill repeats. 135-140% of FTP; 1.1 IF; 150 TSS. And my heart rate got up to L4 for 2 minutes.
You have to love those funny concepts.
---
Maybe I can be more ambitious tomorrow and do 100miles.
1. Not sure what you mean. One can inspect how one produces power through a quadrant analysis plotting average effective pedal force and circumferential pedal velocity. But you are correct, you can't isolate one without consideration of the other. But no one here is suggesting that.
2. Well when we are talking about human athletic performance, it makes sense to use appropriate definitions as defined in exercise science, otherwise discussion will move off into pointless exercise of misunderstandings and misinterpretations. No one here is suggesting that one's sustainable power isn't the most important element in endurance cycling performance - so that's a straw man argument.
3. I suggest you read up on "mitochodrial dilution". Hypertrophy would only be of value if the additional muscle mass is accompanied by a proportionate increase in sustainable power. Your assumption that one follows the other however is not supported by the evidence.
Typically when one trains to gain muscle mass, it tends to reduce one's ratio of sustainable power to body mass because the larger muscle fibres still have the same size and number of mitochondria (the energy plants inside our muscle cells - and to generate more energy we need more and larger mitochondria), the capillarisation density is also reduced and the cell diffusion distance increases meaning the exchange of gases and key metabolites to/from the blood is harder and takes longer (all of which reduces aerobic capacity).
It is possible for hard endurance training to result in hypertrophy, and that would be an appropriate method for riders chasing performance on flatter terrain (e.g. crits and track racing) as the detrimental impact on power to mass ratio is smaller and the higher absolute power output is of more value in such racing. But if you ever need to climb, then think very carefully before seeking to add lean body mass, let alone adipose tissue.
Once again, the primary adaptations for improving sustainable aerobic power are increased capillarisation, increased size and number of mitochondria, increased cardiac output, and the blood's O2 carrying capacity and plasma volume - and these are induced by aerobic training, not by training designed to add muscle mass.
1) doctorSpoc is one example. You can read his story about kids walking up stairs and producing 500w of power.
2) Perhaps you should read about endurance sports. People in that field tend to use a different definition of strength.
While your other words may have some substance, I think you are giving them much more importance than they deserve.
1) ???.. NO.. i talked about a kid being able to produce a certain amount of torque and being able to pedal at a particular rpm and being able to produce OVER 500W.... the TWO components necessary for producing power.. now you're just being willfully ignorant.. yes the two things need to happen at the same time to produce the power.. but I chose a torque that the child is more than capable of producing and the torque is what is doing to limit reasonable cadence... because the two things needs to happen at the same time doesn't mean we can separate out the components and look at them.. this happens all the time..
2) the use of strength for endurance is a layman's term.. an exercise physiologist might say say that guy is strong or that girl is strong in reference to endurance.. but they are using layman terms while saying that.. why are you even arguing this? you argue against fact... it's just crazy.. it's like arguing with a kid with his hands over his ears.. saying nah, nah, nah, nah.. i can't hear you.. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif
well i'm out.. done feeding the troll.. i think it's apparent to everyone what you are.. don't think you haven't done yourself any favors.. you come off sounding insane in some of these exchanges.. and incredibly ignorant in others.. ignorance in and of it self is not necessarily a bad thing.. we are all here to learn, but you don't even reconize the holes in your knowledge or maybe you do.. who knows.. but that doesn't seem to prevent you from barging ahead with insane, often just plain wrong comments...
I will just post a link with some strength (your definition not mine) comments. You can find similar comments all over the Internet. Some of authors even have college degrees. Some even sell their coaching plans to bicyclists.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/09/training-center/velonews-training-center-is-strength-training-for-cycling-a-good-idea_139198
----
Still waiting to see a 10 year old who can produce 500w.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/09/training-center/velonews-training-center-is-strength-training-for-cycling-a-good-idea_139198
----
Still waiting to see a 10 year old who can produce 500w.
Martin et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10843350) found that the maximal neuromuscular power of 8-12 y old boys was 417 +/- 24 W. Inspection of Figure 1 reveals that several boys who were 10 y of age or less exceeded 500 W:
Your link is to an abstract. From the abstract it is impossible to make the comments you make.
But I have no reason to doubt the result.
---
The abstract indicates that maximum cycling power is related to lean thigh volume (muscle mass?) times optimal pedaling rate (optimal cadence).
Seems to support my points.
---
For those who are not bored with this discussion:
The above abstract obtained the results using inertial load cycle ergometry. This is a 3-4 second power number. It is hard to compare to the standard 5 second number.
From http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/
Critical 'taper' program for peak competition promote increases in 'neuromuscular-power' ... Using a special power ergometer ... During the tapers maximal power increased 10-12%.
Ignoring the possible equipment problems it appears one train to the test and produce non-typical results.
These are just my observations based on trying to understand the abstract.
But I have no reason to doubt the result.
---
The abstract indicates that maximum cycling power is related to lean thigh volume (muscle mass?) times optimal pedaling rate (optimal cadence).
Seems to support my points.
---
For those who are not bored with this discussion:
The above abstract obtained the results using inertial load cycle ergometry. This is a 3-4 second power number. It is hard to compare to the standard 5 second number.
From http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/
Critical 'taper' program for peak competition promote increases in 'neuromuscular-power' ... Using a special power ergometer ... During the tapers maximal power increased 10-12%.
Ignoring the possible equipment problems it appears one train to the test and produce non-typical results.
These are just my observations based on trying to understand the abstract.
It's interesting that you chastise Mr. Coggan for his comments when in fact you have no idea if those comments were only based on the abstract. Hmm. Mr. Coggan did provide a data plot that is not in the abstract. It's entirely possible he read the paper and as such his comments would be perfectly applicable. Even more hilarious is your attempt to use an abstract to do the very same thing. Pot, meet kettle. Have you read the the paper by Martin, Farrar, Wagner, and Spirduso? If not, how are you able to comment on their results and/or their methods? In fact, how are you able to comment on Coggan's reference when you have no knowledge of whether Coggan read the paper or just the abstract? I wonder......where did Mr. Coggan find that plot......hmmm. I wonder if it's in the referenced paper.......hmmm.An old Guy said:
Considering that I was on Jim's dissertation committee, you'd better not doubt the results.
As for your other comments:
1) of course maximal neuromuscular power is related to lean thigh volume - it would be surprising if it were not. Your claim, however, seems to be that sustained aerobic power is a function of strength/muscle mass, which is an entirely different question. In any case, these data clearly demonstrate that even young boys have sufficient strength/can generate sufficient power to, say, set the world hour record - they just can't sustain it. (A point, BTW, that Dean Golich, Lance Armstrong's go-to exercise physiologist for the last couple of decades, made repeatedly at the 1st power-based training seminar in Philadelphia back in 2001 or 2002.);
2) the data presented are actually power for a single pedal revolution - however, not much fatigue occurs in the first 5 s of exercise, such that the data are in fact quite comparable (and not "hard to compare" as you incorrectly claim);
3) the effects of tapering have nothing at all to do with the question at hand, so please don't attempt to obfuscate the issue by bringing it up; and
4) in another study, Jim (working with the sports scientists at the Australian Institute of Sport) has demonstrated that maximal neuromuscular power as measured using his (not! Coyle's) inertial load method is essentially identical to that athletes can generate when pedaling their own bikes.
These are just my observations based on 35+ y of trying to understand the functioning of the human body during exercise...
My criticism was that he posted a link to support his point and the link did not.
---
It appears that what I wrote about the abstract reflects the content of the abstract. It took me a while to parse out the acronyms in the abstract and I thought I would save others from that task. It appears you found fault with my parsing.
It took a google search to determine the time period used in the paper, but I found it. It appears to be non-standard, but I cannot tell without the paper.
---
I believe Mr. Coggan's post is reasonable.
---
It appears that what I wrote about the abstract reflects the content of the abstract. It took me a while to parse out the acronyms in the abstract and I thought I would save others from that task. It appears you found fault with my parsing.
It took a google search to determine the time period used in the paper, but I found it. It appears to be non-standard, but I cannot tell without the paper.
---
I believe Mr. Coggan's post is reasonable.
Similar threads
