zakeen wrote, i replied with >>
But I always thought cycling was low wieghts and high reps! so as I stated before doing low weigths and high reps would benifit me. as I still believe it has
>>Cycling (endurance), is low force and high reps. It's quite possible to actually calculate the forces at the pedal (if you're interested). As a ballpark figure, at ~ 32 km/hr on level ground, an average sized (male) will need to apply < 9 kg of force. At world record pace for the 4-km pursuit, that force will rise to about 35 kg. I'm positive that any of us can produce those forces, and the equivalent power outputs. At theWR 4km pursuit pace, the power that Boardman produced was ~ 520 W. Admitedly, some (generally small, e.g., < 60kg) untrained (doesn't exercise) or recreational females, might not be able to produce that power (but obviously, the womens pursuit record will require substantially less power). Therefore, just about everyone else will be able to produce and exceed these powers (and the associated forces).
>>a lot of the adaptations that occur within the muscle with training are only *specific* to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained. One of the classic examples is to get someone to do some weight training using a specific exercise. Over a period of time, they rapidly increase the amount of weight that they can lift. Then, after a training period, they are asked to perform another exercise, that uses the same muscle but in a different manner. When this compared to the pre weight training control, there is no difference. They're using the same muscle, but at different velocities and angles of movement there's no crossover -- this ties in with your theory of why XC skiers who are fitter than cyclist X (fitness measured by e.g., VO2 max, LT), but the less fit cyclist beats the fitter skier.
>>even with the exercises are very similar, there's no cross over to the main sport
I always thought I was special! JOKE!
>>i'm sure you are! we all are
I am not untrained and thats for sure!!
Would someone be untrained if they were not at there best??
>>when i mention untrained i mean either no exercise whatsoever, or maybe goes to the gym (e.g.) twice a month
Well you are right! I have no facts on paper, only results. I dont know which one is important for you but I know which one is important for me!
>>I understand, realise and fully appreciate that results are what are important to an athlete (i'm one too!).
>>However, the idea of having some concrete facts (e.g., power output) is that you can eliminate variables that affect performance. For, e.g., my PB for a 10mile TT was done at a lower power output than a slightly slower TT. This was due to differences in environmental conditions that weren't readily apparent. Without the power data i wouldn't have known which effort was really my 'best' one.
I have never ever done any tests on myself, dont know my Vo2max,LT,etc.... I dont really want to either!
I dont want to be in a race and see my heart rate and say:
Oh my god I am over my LT level! I will blow any second!
or
this is my max I cant go any faster!
It creates limits. I have no limits because I dont know them.
>>i feel that this is a misnomer. I don't understand why you feel that knowing various facts limits you in some way?
>>we all ride to our limits, and i suspect that you limit yourself too. However, rather than using data obtained via e.g., a power meter or HR monitor, you use perceived exertion.
>>if you (or i or anyone!) was to somehow 'unplug' our brains and actually ride at our limits, we'd have to stop after about 60-secs. Very quickly, we learn that we have to pace ourselves, whether this is done with meters or with a brain makes little or no difference.
>>even with (e.g.) a power meter, it's often used *with* perceived exertion levels, so as your fitness increases you ride at a higher power output.
But I do a lot of one legs on the mag in a hard gear. I have built up and I do about 500 in a row, with mag setting the hardest and in 53,19. This is a form of the weights I do. Low weights and high reps! I found this a huge difference in my performance.
>>Are you talking about one - legged cycle training? This has been discussed fairly recently in another thread. I don't believe that there's any benefit to this mode of exercise (unless you only have one leg).
>>When you mentioned weights, i assumed that you meant with some form of gym equipment. However, it's highly unlikely that one legged cycling will increase your strength. As the velocity of movement increases (e.g., pedalling a bike versus doing squats), the force applied decreases. This is known as Hills Force - Velocity Curve. As the velocity increases, muscles can't fire at a fast enough rate to produce the force needed.
>>It's perhaps easier to think of it like this: if you lie down on the floor with your feet facing an inmovable object such as a wall, and then press against it with all your strength, the force will be far higher than that, that can be achieved by pressing on the pedals (even at low cadences such as 30 revs/min)
Also situps squats and calf rasies. but you telling me this is wrong!
>>yes
I am in complete shock someone at your level at coaching just says NO. Sure you have done tests and have results but have you made the right tests in all areas?? There are so many different ways of doing weights did you test every single different type of weight session for cycling, or just one or two??
>>i've looked at the research within this area. There's stacks of it. This is what is known as 'Specificity'. As previously mentioned there's little or no crossover in different exercise modalities. You've also made that assumption with the XC skier.
The core body must be very riged(did I spell that right?)or strong,stiff) if you fail in this department it is like riding a soft frame and you lose power.(Wish my bike frame was a little less stiff! I have broken 4 this year!) I believe you must do some form of situps to strengthen this!
am I right in saying you truely believe that all training should be done on a bike for a road racer??
>>Yes. There's some exceptions to this however, e.g., you crash and break a leg, and in the rehab process you might need to do weights to offset any atrophy that occured while you were immobolised.
>>There's *some* evidence that weight training might also offset some clinical conditions, e.g., osteoporosis. However, the research is somewhat equivocal on this and it might not be the case.
Ric
But I always thought cycling was low wieghts and high reps! so as I stated before doing low weigths and high reps would benifit me. as I still believe it has
>>Cycling (endurance), is low force and high reps. It's quite possible to actually calculate the forces at the pedal (if you're interested). As a ballpark figure, at ~ 32 km/hr on level ground, an average sized (male) will need to apply < 9 kg of force. At world record pace for the 4-km pursuit, that force will rise to about 35 kg. I'm positive that any of us can produce those forces, and the equivalent power outputs. At theWR 4km pursuit pace, the power that Boardman produced was ~ 520 W. Admitedly, some (generally small, e.g., < 60kg) untrained (doesn't exercise) or recreational females, might not be able to produce that power (but obviously, the womens pursuit record will require substantially less power). Therefore, just about everyone else will be able to produce and exceed these powers (and the associated forces).
>>a lot of the adaptations that occur within the muscle with training are only *specific* to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained. One of the classic examples is to get someone to do some weight training using a specific exercise. Over a period of time, they rapidly increase the amount of weight that they can lift. Then, after a training period, they are asked to perform another exercise, that uses the same muscle but in a different manner. When this compared to the pre weight training control, there is no difference. They're using the same muscle, but at different velocities and angles of movement there's no crossover -- this ties in with your theory of why XC skiers who are fitter than cyclist X (fitness measured by e.g., VO2 max, LT), but the less fit cyclist beats the fitter skier.
>>even with the exercises are very similar, there's no cross over to the main sport
I always thought I was special! JOKE!
>>i'm sure you are! we all are
I am not untrained and thats for sure!!
Would someone be untrained if they were not at there best??
>>when i mention untrained i mean either no exercise whatsoever, or maybe goes to the gym (e.g.) twice a month
Well you are right! I have no facts on paper, only results. I dont know which one is important for you but I know which one is important for me!
>>I understand, realise and fully appreciate that results are what are important to an athlete (i'm one too!).
>>However, the idea of having some concrete facts (e.g., power output) is that you can eliminate variables that affect performance. For, e.g., my PB for a 10mile TT was done at a lower power output than a slightly slower TT. This was due to differences in environmental conditions that weren't readily apparent. Without the power data i wouldn't have known which effort was really my 'best' one.
I have never ever done any tests on myself, dont know my Vo2max,LT,etc.... I dont really want to either!
I dont want to be in a race and see my heart rate and say:
Oh my god I am over my LT level! I will blow any second!
or
this is my max I cant go any faster!
It creates limits. I have no limits because I dont know them.
>>i feel that this is a misnomer. I don't understand why you feel that knowing various facts limits you in some way?
>>we all ride to our limits, and i suspect that you limit yourself too. However, rather than using data obtained via e.g., a power meter or HR monitor, you use perceived exertion.
>>if you (or i or anyone!) was to somehow 'unplug' our brains and actually ride at our limits, we'd have to stop after about 60-secs. Very quickly, we learn that we have to pace ourselves, whether this is done with meters or with a brain makes little or no difference.
>>even with (e.g.) a power meter, it's often used *with* perceived exertion levels, so as your fitness increases you ride at a higher power output.
But I do a lot of one legs on the mag in a hard gear. I have built up and I do about 500 in a row, with mag setting the hardest and in 53,19. This is a form of the weights I do. Low weights and high reps! I found this a huge difference in my performance.
>>Are you talking about one - legged cycle training? This has been discussed fairly recently in another thread. I don't believe that there's any benefit to this mode of exercise (unless you only have one leg).
>>When you mentioned weights, i assumed that you meant with some form of gym equipment. However, it's highly unlikely that one legged cycling will increase your strength. As the velocity of movement increases (e.g., pedalling a bike versus doing squats), the force applied decreases. This is known as Hills Force - Velocity Curve. As the velocity increases, muscles can't fire at a fast enough rate to produce the force needed.
>>It's perhaps easier to think of it like this: if you lie down on the floor with your feet facing an inmovable object such as a wall, and then press against it with all your strength, the force will be far higher than that, that can be achieved by pressing on the pedals (even at low cadences such as 30 revs/min)
Also situps squats and calf rasies. but you telling me this is wrong!
>>yes
I am in complete shock someone at your level at coaching just says NO. Sure you have done tests and have results but have you made the right tests in all areas?? There are so many different ways of doing weights did you test every single different type of weight session for cycling, or just one or two??
>>i've looked at the research within this area. There's stacks of it. This is what is known as 'Specificity'. As previously mentioned there's little or no crossover in different exercise modalities. You've also made that assumption with the XC skier.
The core body must be very riged(did I spell that right?)or strong,stiff) if you fail in this department it is like riding a soft frame and you lose power.(Wish my bike frame was a little less stiff! I have broken 4 this year!) I believe you must do some form of situps to strengthen this!
am I right in saying you truely believe that all training should be done on a bike for a road racer??
>>Yes. There's some exceptions to this however, e.g., you crash and break a leg, and in the rehab process you might need to do weights to offset any atrophy that occured while you were immobolised.
>>There's *some* evidence that weight training might also offset some clinical conditions, e.g., osteoporosis. However, the research is somewhat equivocal on this and it might not be the case.
Ric