Strength and cycling controversy

[WarrenG]

That's an interesting comment. A given rate of acceleration (delta KE over time) would require the same power no matter what gear was used. The only difference would be the torque (force) requirement for different gears.

Yes, torque is one difference. The other difference is the cadence needed to produce the same power. We each have our ideal cadence ranges, and these cadence ranges vary by the event. This is a consideration for virtually any track event. ...The tradeoffs one has to consider when choosing the gear before the event.

 

[frenchyge]

I'm aware of that, but cadence is the result whereas torque is the input. Also, I was referring to the torque *requirement* to produce the acceleration. I was agreeing with you and disagreeing with Andy's comment.

 

[zaskar]

Like I said this is just some "food for thought". I personally lift 2 X per week and my times have reduced remarkably since I started doing triathlons 2 years ago. Between the endurance training and lifting, something seems to be working![/QUOTE]


So you getting better times i would think it's from training on the bike 2 years.

 

[WarrenG]

I'm aware of that, but cadence is the result whereas torque is the input. Also, I was referring to the torque *requirement* to produce the acceleration. I was agreeing with you and disagreeing with Andy's comment.

Okay. I just wanted to add that one's cadence abilities are the other part of that equation of torque to get a given power.

Around the track, there is far more conversation about gear vs. cadence for an estimated time over a distance, and for given speeds, than "power" requirements or estimates.

 

[WarrenG]

Like I said this is just some "food for thought". I personally lift 2 X per week and my times have reduced remarkably since I started doing triathlons 2 years ago. Between the endurance training and lifting, something seems to be working!

So you getting better times i would think it's from training on the bike 2 years.[/QUOTE]

When someone is new to a sport like cycling or triathlon the person may have some muscle imbalances that can be corrected quicker with some weight training that with only training in runnng, cycling, or swimming. Especially given some special considerations for an amputee like serendipity.

However, after a few to 6 months of weight training I doubt there's much more correction needed. Triathlon's unique demands could result in some imbalances cyclists usually don't have to worry much about, like the hamstring/quad issue mentioned by serendipity.

 

[velomanct]

I just happened to be browsing and noted your weight in another post to be 190 lbs (86kgs).

That would put your power/weight ratio at 23+ watts per kg which, according to A. Coggan's profiles, puts you in world champion elite class.

You appear to be a track sprinter. What is your best flying 200m time?

whoa, tons of replies since I was last here.

I'm 83kg right now. My best recorded 5 second power was 1780 watts last year on a short hill. I don't have a powermeter anymore, but I have recently done that hill 1-2 mph faster.

My jump is really all I got. I really fall apart when the cadence goes above 120 rpms. So my 200m time is in no comparison. (I've done a couple 200m efforts on the road in a 53x16 at around 38 average. I remember my power being around 800 at the 'line')

Another thing is that I seem to be very inconsistent with how I feel when training. Some days I am ****, other days I feel great. the last 3 weeks weren't too good, I felt like I had the strength of a 12 yr old girl. BUT, I have concluded it is due to stopping lifting. On wednesday I lifted for the 1st time in 3 weeks, and today I felt nearly like my old self again. I think my body 'shut down' and my CNS was loosing it because I hadn't been lifting.

Anyways, I hope to get back on track now and make some new personal bests. And hopefully I can get another powermeter. I love sprinting, and love feeling strong. On my good days I feel as if I could out-jump anyone. Of course I really need to work on my top end if I ever get to the track. I'm just a roadie right now. (btw, I'm usually at 60% power when it comes to a sprint finish on the road, because I am anaerobic.)

 

[velomanct]

If he can do it for 5 s, then his neuromuscular power is indeed comparable to that of the best match sprinters in the world.

Nope. I only peaked up there. 1 sec. But that's my goal this year! 2k for 5s

 

[velomanct]

I just want to reiternate how lifting has been of significant benefit for my SPRINT training. Without it, I felt weak. Lifting keeps the CNS going and make the muscles fire powerfully. Well, that's my experience.

 

[WarrenG]

Some days I am ****, other days I feel great. the last 3 weeks weren't too good, I felt like I had the strength of a 12 yr old girl.

In the words of my governor, "you're a girlie mahn."

BUT, I have concluded it is due to stopping lifting. On wednesday I lifted for the 1st time in 3 weeks, and today I felt nearly like my old self again. I think my body 'shut down' and my CNS was loosing it because I hadn't been lifting.

Lifters wanna lift, and sprinters wanna sprint. One of my sprinter buddies was feeling sluggish after masters nat's so he went back to the gym for a few weeks to prime for worlds and it woke him right back up. He won at Nat's and at Worlds.

To get your CNS going, and in a bike-specific way, try 2-4, 10-12 second all-out sprints in a 53x17 with 3-4' rest between. Try a few standing starts for 100 meters each in a 53x16. I think these will wake you up. If I'm feeling kind of sluggish at the beginning of a ride I'll do about half this amount and then rest for about 5 minutes. More often than not I will wake up and feel much more ready to do the training.

I love sprinting, and love feeling strong. On my good days I feel as if I could out-jump anyone.

Yeah, everybody feels like that with a tailwind.

 

[Belial]

So you getting better times i would think it's from training on the bike 2 years.

I would argue that, unless you are a dedicated cyclist (and not a triathlete or other multi-sport athlete) the majority of this discussion is not applicable. '

True, for a single sport athlete, especially a relatively simplistic sport such as cycling (no offense intended, but it is essentially a sport with a single movement type as opposed to various team sports that require quite a few disciplines) the SAID principle as it is being applied here makes a lot of sense. However, for a triathlete, especially an otherwise busy one, training on the bike every day is simply not an option.

WarrenG had it right, in this case. There are imbalances that need to be corrected, and weight training is, at the very least, an excellent way to monitor these imbalances. Another point is that triathletes need to compensate for an impact activity (running) that results in too much wear and tear to follow the SAID principle exclusively. In this case, weight training will improve bone density, connective tissue strength, and other non-aerobic related factors that can result in an athlete being able to tolerate greater training frequency and duration. This will translate to a better overall athlete.

In fact, I would wager this can apply to cyclists as well. Unless you eat a perfect diet tailored precisely to your activity level, and train on a perfectly fitted bike under completely ideal conditions while riding with perfect form every day, you will always be dealing with some imperfection that is causing excessive wear and tear to your body. If you're riding in the TDF, you can stop reading, but otherwise, you're probably not this perfect.

At the end of the day, people can argue all they want that torque does not equal power, and that increased maximal force production in no way translates to improved strength-endurance, and that w/kg is the ultimate metric for deciding on the relative quality of one's program, but it makes no difference. It seems like this whole argument is essentially going in circles.

Yes, in a perfect situation the best way to become a better cyclist is to cycle. But in reality, the human body is not a simple system that can operate in ideal/perfect conditions 24/7, and there are certain non-ideal circumstances that need to be addressed, whether it's non-training related wear and tear or other athletic endeavours that need to be taken into consideration. In this case, strength training is, in my opinion, a necessity. So I think what anybody needs to take away from this debate is the context in which it is being discussed. Theoretically, no, a cyclist doesn't need to lift. Even sprinting on a bike is so far removed from limit strength that there's little crossover benefit.

However, will squatting make you a faster sprinter on a bike? Yes. Is it the best way to make you a faster sprinter? Definitely not. Does it have a place in the triathlete's regimen? Absolutely. Does it have benefits to the athlete that will result in a longer career? Unequivocally yes.

 

[acoggan]

It takes more strength to start in the bigger gear.

It takes more strength to accelerate the larger gear as quickly, because you'll spend more time at a cadence that is sub-optimal for power production. However, the same rider doing standing starts in large vs. small gears will exert the same force: the most they can, i.e., their maximal strength. This is why Stone's design of testing using 84" and 90" gears is really irrelevant, at least when you look at the data for the first 25 m (about 3 pedal strokes). IOW, he could have used smaller or larger gears, and the result would have been the same.

 

[acoggan]

Weigh too much, you mean like all the 200 pound guys winning the events?

But 200 lbs isn't too much, at least if it is mostly muscle. Do you think a 200 lbs woman (of typical body composition) would not be at a disadvantage relative to such men?

In fact, there are plenty of guys I race with who have better w/kg than me but they don't go faster for the opening lap of a team sprint.

Now you're just BSing, because you don't know your power/mass, at least over such short durations (your Polar monitor can't measure it accurately).

You really need to watch, and time some laps of kilos and team sprints, as well as watching many, various combinations of riders doing the team sprints, IF you are truly interested in knowing what is important for the event(s).

Yeah, eyeballing things is always better than relying on direct measurements.

Since we know you have never done the events

I've done several kilometers, all in the glacial time of 1:17-1:18 or so. Why am I so slow? Because my power/mass over short durations is too low to get off the line quickly. If I magically added 20 kg of muscle to my legs, I'd go much faster, because my absolute power would go up more than my total mass. OTOH, add 20 kg to my bike, and I'd go even slower...IOW, it is power/mass, not just power.

, nor have you watched dozens and dozens of different riders doing the events I've mentioned, all you have is your "data" and your opinion, so let's see this data of yours that you base your opinion on.

Not opinions: facts based on scientific research.

, Show us all the results I asked for. Here. Now. Specifics. And not another silly study using gears too small and for only 25 meters WRT to events lasting 10 to 40 times longer than that. The mere fact you think such a study is relevant indicates your lack of understanding about the event(s).

The mere fact that you think it is NOT relevant only shows that you haven't read the paper in question, or any of the other studies on the topic (like Jim's paper that just appeared in MSSE). Of course, you're also the guy who argued vociferously that power was highest at the end of a flying 200 m, when everyone knows that is NEVER the case.

 

[acoggan]

A given rate of acceleration (delta KE over time) would require the same power no matter what gear was used.

Correct.

The only difference would be the torque (force) requirement for different gears.

Again correct...which means that you will be able to accelerate more rapidly in a small vs. large gear, but only once you "climb up" the ascending limb of the power-duration parabola far enough for there to be a significant difference. That doesn't happen in the first ~3 pedal strokes when comparing an 84" vs. a 90" gear, so 1) torque (force) is the same in both situations, i.e., essentially maximal, and 2) the time required to cover the first 25 m is not different (based on Stone's measurements, timing to 0.001 s). IOW, what Stone et al. studied was the closest thing to a "strength move" that any cyclist would experience...and yet the correlation between strength and performance was only about 0.5.

 

[dm69]

I would argue that, unless you are a dedicated cyclist (and not a triathlete or other multi-sport athlete) the majority of this discussion is not applicable. '

True, for a single sport athlete, especially a relatively simplistic sport such as cycling (no offense intended, but it is essentially a sport with a single movement type as opposed to various team sports that require quite a few disciplines) the SAID principle as it is being applied here makes a lot of sense. However, for a triathlete, especially an otherwise busy one, training on the bike every day is simply not an option.

WarrenG had it right, in this case. There are imbalances that need to be corrected, and weight training is, at the very least, an excellent way to monitor these imbalances. Another point is that triathletes need to compensate for an impact activity (running) that results in too much wear and tear to follow the SAID principle exclusively. In this case, weight training will improve bone density, connective tissue strength, and other non-aerobic related factors that can result in an athlete being able to tolerate greater training frequency and duration. This will translate to a better overall athlete.

In fact, I would wager this can apply to cyclists as well. Unless you eat a perfect diet tailored precisely to your activity level, and train on a perfectly fitted bike under completely ideal conditions while riding with perfect form every day, you will always be dealing with some imperfection that is causing excessive wear and tear to your body. If you're riding in the TDF, you can stop reading, but otherwise, you're probably not this perfect.

At the end of the day, people can argue all they want that torque does not equal power, and that increased maximal force production in no way translates to improved strength-endurance, and that w/kg is the ultimate metric for deciding on the relative quality of one's program, but it makes no difference. It seems like this whole argument is essentially going in circles.

Yes, in a perfect situation the best way to become a better cyclist is to cycle. But in reality, the human body is not a simple system that can operate in ideal/perfect conditions 24/7, and there are certain non-ideal circumstances that need to be addressed, whether it's non-training related wear and tear or other athletic endeavours that need to be taken into consideration. In this case, strength training is, in my opinion, a necessity. So I think what anybody needs to take away from this debate is the context in which it is being discussed. Theoretically, no, a cyclist doesn't need to lift. Even sprinting on a bike is so far removed from limit strength that there's little crossover benefit.

However, will squatting make you a faster sprinter on a bike? Yes. Is it the best way to make you a faster sprinter? Definitely not. Does it have a place in the triathlete's regimen? Absolutely. Does it have benefits to the athlete that will result in a longer career? Unequivocally yes.

yer what he said

 

[Billsworld]

It takes more strength to accelerate the larger gear as quickly, because you'll spend more time at a cadence that is sub-optimal for power production. However, the same rider doing standing starts in large vs. small gears will exert the same force: the most they can, i.e., their maximal strength. This is why Stone's design of testing using 84" and 90" gears is really irrelevant, at least when you look at the data for the first 25 m (about 3 pedal strokes). IOW, he could have used smaller or larger gears, and the result would have been the same.

I curious if you have ever compared the contractions of a Standing start to that of a compound movement such as the squat or leg press. I wonder if the concentric part of those movements on a set of 5reps @80% 1rep max, would require a stronger contraction in any given muscle group or angle than the standing start.

 

[WarrenG]

It takes more strength to accelerate the larger gear as quickly, because you'll spend more time at a cadence that is sub-optimal for power production. However, the same rider doing standing starts in large vs. small gears will exert the same force: the most they can, i.e., their maximal strength. This is why Stone's design of testing using 84" and 90" gears is really irrelevant, at least when you look at the data for the first 25 m (about 3 pedal strokes). IOW, he could have used smaller or larger gears, and the result would have been the same.

Nope. IME doing lots of standing starts both in training and in competition, using a smaller gear places more emphasis on technique because you will be at higher cadence much sooner and to keep accelerating well at the higher cadence requires better technique, both out of the saddle, and after sitting down, to produce high power.

A standing start includes lots of coordinated movements and I notice significant differences when using something like a 84" gear compared to 90+" gear. In every training session for this I intentionally use different gearing and different road slopes to help focus on one aspect of my ability in the start vs. another aspect.

This is also easy to see when you watch many different riders do their starts at competitions

I've done enough team sprints with riders posessing different abilities to see the relative differences in how each person is getting themself up to speed, and how that is compared to what I'm doing using similar or different gears and abilities.

I see some riders who weigh about the same as me that accelerate faster than me when cadence is very low, like in the first 25m, but then some accelerate slower than me after that even when they are in my draft. This indicates that some people can produce higher power at certain ranges of cadence, even just in the first 25-50 meters of the start, and in other cases some guys who are lighter than me can accelerate faster in the first 25m because of their weight advantage but they lose virtually all of that advantage very soon. Watching the video of our team sprint at the masters world championships last year makes these things very, very obvious.

If you haven't done it many times, and at least fairly well, you will not fully understand what is involved.

 

[acoggan]

Nope. IME doing lots of standing starts both in training and in competition, using a smaller gear places more emphasis on technique because you will be at higher cadence much sooner and to keep accelerating well at the higher cadence requires better technique, both out of the saddle, and after sitting down, to produce high power.

A standing start includes lots of coordinated movements and I notice significant differences when using something like a 84" gear compared to 90+" gear. In every training session for this I intentionally use different gearing and different road slopes to help focus on one aspect of my ability in the start vs. another aspect.

This is also easy to see when you watch many different riders do their starts at competitions

I've done enough team sprints with riders posessing different abilities to see the relative differences in how each person is getting themself up to speed, and how that is compared to what I'm doing using similar or different gears and abilities.

I see some riders who weigh about the same as me that accelerate faster than me when cadence is very low, like in the first 25m, but then some accelerate slower than me after that even when they are in my draft. This indicates that some people can produce higher power at certain ranges of cadence, even just in the first 25-50 meters of the start, and in other cases some guys who are lighter than me can accelerate faster in the first 25m because of their weight advantage but they lose virtually all of that advantage very soon. Watching the video of our team sprint at the masters world championships last year makes these things very, very obvious.

If you haven't done it many times, and at least fairly well, you will not fully understand what is involved.

Once again you're (deliberately??) missing the point: there will be no significant difference in cadence after just ~3 pedal revolutions unless you're talking about a much larger difference in gear selection than 84" vs. 90". In both cases, your cadence will still be quite low at at the 25 m mark, meaning that 1) force will still be nearly maximal, and 2) power will be sub-optimal. Indeed, in studying national team athletes Stone et al. found that there no difference in the time required to cover the first 25 m when the riders used such "markedly" different gears.

 

[acoggan]

I curious if you have ever compared the contractions of a Standing start to that of a compound movement such as the squat or leg press. I wonder if the concentric part of those movements on a set of 5reps @80% 1rep max, would require a stronger contraction in any given muscle group or angle than the standing start.

Stone et al. did, and found a relatively modest correlation of R = ~0.5 (i.e., ~25% of variance in common). The unshared variance, though, isn't due to one movement or the other requiring a stronger contraction, but due to differences in the person's ability to generate a stronger (or weaker) contraction. That is, the voluntary effort in each case was presumably maximal, and the resultant force output the most that the muscles could generate given the conditions (e.g., joint angle, speed of movement, etc.). Or in other words: specificity, specificity, specificity.

 

[Billsworld]

I just want to reiternate how lifting has been of significant benefit for my SPRINT training. Without it, I felt weak. Lifting keeps the CNS going and make the muscles fire powerfully. Well, that's my experience.

Vman, Up untill recently I approached the sprinting in a similar way to how I would a leg workout. What I mean is I would warm up just enough and save up for the heavy sets. I recently started doing a 20 minite road ride and sprinting after that. Some more expeienced guys were telling me that I needed to be fit to get through a tournament.. Any hoo, my ride is all hills, and as you know any decent effort to get up a hill has me in the 300-500 range for brief periods. Maybe thats enough of a primer, because I am having much better sprint workouts than when I would spin for 15 min on the trainer

 

[Billsworld]

Stone et al. did, and found a relatively modest correlation of R = ~0.5 (i.e., ~25% of variance in common). The unshared variance, though, isn't due to one movement or the other requiring a stronger contraction, but due to differences in the person's ability to generate a stronger (or weaker) contraction. That is, the voluntary effort in each case was presumably maximal, and the resultant force output the most that the muscles could generate given the conditions (e.g., joint angle, speed of movement, etc.). Or in other words: specificity, specificity, specificity.

I guess thats good news bad news