Where does power come from?

[frenchyge]

However, since I began cycling I have seen a greater increase in these areas than I have in the past, particularly in my recovery between sets.

Recovery is primarily a function of aerobic fitness, which can be dramatically improved through cycling.

 

[vadiver]

vadiver,
As far as the size and strength of the leg muscles I personally have seen a decrease in the overall size of my leg but I also have more definition and vacularity?(I don't know if thats a word) than I did before I began cycling.
Another thing I have noticed is my strength has decreased but my ability to perform higher reps with less recovery time has improved significantly. This is part of the reason for my earlier questions. I have always been a firm believer in periodization weight training and so I have done higher reps before and I have been doing this long enough that I know how my body responds. However, since I began cycling I have seen a greater increase in these areas than I have in the past, particularly in my recovery between sets.

I think you are getting to the point of needing an excercise physiologist.

I would have a lot of gueses to what you have discribed but that would be all they were.

One I would suggest on your recovery time is possibly a more efficient cardiovascular system from cycling.

 

[bighead_9901]

One I would suggest on your recovery time is possibly a more efficient cardiovascular system from cycling.

This is what I was thinking as well. It has also made me wonder if I lifted using high reps and focused on decreasing my recovery time if this would then translate into improving recovery when I'm cycling.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

...So I'm curious if this is an area where weighttraining may have some benefit. What do you think?

I certainly did think that for many years and spent a lot of winter training time in the gym for just that reason. FWIW, there are still some very prominent cycling coaches like Joe Friel who definitely believe that weight training plays a role for cyclists. The thing is, it has been studied quite a bit and everything shows that cyclists would be better off spending their limited training time on their bikes. You can do strength work on the bike such as standing starts or 15 second sprints from a slow speed with complete recovery. I don't think anyone is arguing for no strength work, the argument is to keep it as cycling specific as possible and that's best done on the bike itself.

The other part of the bike vs. gym argument is that some (Frank for one) make a connection between peak strength for a few reps and a cyclist's ability to deliver power for a large number of reps [strength(1) vs. strength(5400) in Frank's new strength terminology]. I have never seen and cannot find any work that supports this theory. There's a lot of work relating one rep max weight to 10 rep weight or even more but nothing that I can find that relates one rep to multi-thousand rep max. This is where I argue we have plenty of strength but are limited in the multi-thousand rep case by the way we supply energy to our working muscles. Which gets back to my previous posts.

Personally I gave up on weight training in the gym and prefer to spend my training energies on the bike whenever possible. You seem to really enjoy the gym and sound like you'll probably stick with it. You might want to at least buy a copy of Friel's book: http://www.amazon.com/Cyclists-Training-Bible-Joe-Friel/dp/1931382212
or maybe something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Weight-Traini...9124656?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173748017&sr=1-2
I guess if you really want to combine the two, you might as well see what some cycling coaches think is the best way.

Good luck,
Dave

 

[Fday]

Now look up work and power. And you will start to see why what you are saying is confusing.

No, all I need to do is refer to the "accepted" definition of strength as put forth on this thread to see why that should be confusing to anyone with half a brain in a discussion of cycling. Might work for a discussion of powerlifting but not cycling. It is an inadequate definition for discussions such as this. I understand the concept of work and power and strength and efficiency. Too bad everyone here doesn't.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[bighead_9901]

Dave,
Thanks, I really appreciate everything you and others have written tonight.

You might want to at least buy a copy of Friel's book: http://www.amazon.com/Cyclists-Training-Bible-Joe-Friel/dp/1931382212
or maybe something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Weight-Training-Cyclists-VeloPress-Velopress/dp/1884737439/ref=sr_1_2/103-5469670-9124656?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173748017&sr=1-2 I guess if you really want to combine the two, you might as well see what some cycling coaches think is the best way.

I will definately check these out and hopefully they will be of some help. I should probably mention that part of my problem is my job demands a certain level of strength and power as my life and the life of someone else could depend on it. This is one of the reasons I am so interested in this subject and want to find the best possible way to balance cycling and weight lifting. I don't want to stop lifting legs and then need to pick up a 200lb unconcious person and carry them and not be able to do it.

It really sucks when two of the things you love most almost appear in direct opposition to each other. Hopefully these books will help me find a way to balance them.

 

[Fday]

Dave,
Thanks, I really appreciate everything you and others have written tonight.

I will definately check these out and hopefully they will be of some help. I should probably mention that part of my problem is my job demands a certain level of strength and power as my life and the life of someone else could depend on it. This is one of the reasons I am so interested in this subject and want to find the best possible way to balance cycling and weight lifting. I don't want to stop lifting legs and then need to pick up a 200lb unconcious person and carry them and not be able to do it.

It really sucks when two of the things you love most almost appear in direct opposition to each other. Hopefully these books will help me find a way to balance them.

Nothing it to prevent you from enjoying both. Just don't expect to be on the top of any podium soon. Everyone's life is a trade off except for those who choose to dedicate themselves to one thing. Those who choose to dedicate themselves to racing are few and far between and only a few of them make it to the top.

Have fun at what you do and accept that other influences in your life (family, job, etc.) can affect your ability to improve as much as your potential would allow.

 

[vadiver]

No, all I need to do is refer to the "accepted" definition of strength as put forth on this thread to see why that should be confusing to anyone with half a brain in a discussion of cycling. Might work for a discussion of powerlifting but not cycling. It is an inadequate definition for discussions such as this. I understand the concept of work and power and strength and efficiency. Too bad everyone here doesn't.

Thanks for the advice.

You are welcome.

Another piece of advice. Something I have learned is when I say everyone does not understand something. Particularly when they are almost all in agreement with themselves. It is probably not them that does not understand.

 

[Piotr]

You say tomahtoh, I say tomaytoe. The statement "gravity of a situation" doesn't make any sense from a physicists perspective either. It's all silly semantics IMHO. Oh, don't get me started on translating all those sacred words into other languages. Everybody understands the CONCEPTS of maximum strength and sustained power, so if Frank wants to use different terminology that's fine with me. Someone came up with FTP, CTL, ATL, TSB, etc., and even though it had to be explained we all ran with it. Now if Frank wants to use "strength()" that's fine with me as long as he explains what he means.

 

[frenchyge]

I don't want to stop lifting legs and then need to pick up a 200lb unconcious person and carry them and not be able to do it.

Just put them across your panniers.

The other part of the weightlifting discussion is that there are obviously other benefits of weightlifting that can't be gained from cycling. When people here advise against weightlifting, the caveat is always "if you want to maximize your cycling performance then there's no substitute for cycling." Other priorities may still come into play which force a compromise.

 

[Fday]

You are welcome.

Another piece of advice. Something I have learned is when I say everyone does not understand something. Particularly when they are almost all in agreement with themselves. It is probably not them that does not understand.

Thanks for the advice again. However, that is not my experience, at least on this site.

 

[frenchyge]

Now if Frank wants to use "strength()" that's fine with me as long as he explains what he means.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with making up new terms. But if one expects others to take the time to understand what they mean, then those new terms should bring something to the discussion besides just replacing existing terminology in a more complicated way.

 

[Fday]

You say tomahtoh, I say tomaytoe. The statement "gravity of a situation" doesn't make any sense from a physicists perspective either. It's all silly semantics IMHO. Oh, don't get me started on translating all those sacred words into other languages. Everybody understands the CONCEPTS of maximum strength and sustained power, so if Frank wants to use different terminology that's fine with me. Someone came up with FTP, CTL, ATL, TSB, etc., and even though it had to be explained we all ran with it. Now if Frank wants to use "strength()" that's fine with me as long as he explains what he means.

I just get tired of this **** that "strength doesn't matter" when it clearly does, if it is properly defined. So, let's define a term where we can rationally discuss, except it is impossible if there is only one "accepted" definition of strength on this site.

 

[frenchyge]

I just get tired of this **** that "strength doesn't matter" when it clearly does, if it is properly defined. So, let's define a term where we can rationally discuss, except it is impossible if there is only one "accepted" definition of strength on this site.

Of course pedalling 'force' matters, as does pedalling 'velocity'. The product of the two can be called 'power' and related to other things like chemical/food energy consumption, output of other mechanical machines, time to create a given increase in kinetic or potential energy, etc., or it can be called strength() to describe the amount of repetitive force which can be applied for a certain duration at 90rpm and 14inches linear displacement.

I don't yet understand the benefit that the latter provides over the former.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

I just get tired of this **** that "strength doesn't matter" when it clearly does, if it is properly defined. So, let's define a term where we can rationally discuss, except it is impossible if there is only one "accepted" definition of strength on this site.

The term exists, it's called AEPF and when coupled with CPV forms the basis for quadrant analysis which is all about understanding the force pedal speed relationships. But Frank I've really lost track of your point, semantics aside.

Are you arguing that pedal force at representative cadences can be increased through a specific form of training such as weight training? Are you simply arguing that there is a force component to power and we shouldn't ignore it? Is there some other point that's gotten lost in this definition debate? Or has this evolved into a language debate and lost its connection to training for cycling?

 

[Fday]

Of course pedalling 'force' matters, as does pedalling 'velocity'. The product of the two can be called 'power' and related to other things like chemical/food energy consumption, output of other mechanical machines, time to create a given increase in kinetic or potential energy, etc., or it can be called strength() to describe the amount of repetitive force which can be applied for a certain duration at 90rpm and 14inches linear displacement.

I don't yet understand the benefit that the latter provides over the former.

Thanks for the thought that we can refer to the term "strength ()" to refer to cycling strength because it is prohibited her to refer to the term "strength". It is a matter of semantics and bullying as far as I am concerned on this site. I don't take it easily.

 

[Fday]

The term exists, it's called AEPF and when coupled with CPV forms the basis for quadrant analysis which is all about understanding the force pedal speed relationships. But Frank I've really lost track of your point, semantics aside.

Are you arguing that pedal force at representative cadences can be increased through a specific form of training such as weight training? Are you simply arguing that there is a force component to power and we shouldn't ignore it? Is there some other point that's gotten lost in this definition debate? Or has this evolved into a language debate and lost its connection to training for cycling?

No, I am arguing that increasing force on the downstroke matters. That is increased strength over someone with lesser force or what that person did before, increasing endurance strength per my medical dictionary source or strength () per my definition here. Yet, it is not allowed to use the term strength on this site unless it complies with Andrew Coggan's narrow definition. If you do you get called stupid.

 

[doctorSpoc]

"I guess my next question about cycling is pretty similar to the first one in this thread but why do the best cyclists I personally know have rather muscular legs especially in relation to the rest of their body? If I understand everything I have read so far than most cyclists should have rather skinny legs like you see on distance runners. If you have ever had the opportunity to see world class distance runners in person their legs are very defined but really, really skinny. On the other hand the few cycling pro's I've seen in real life have rather large muscular legs for an endurance athlete."

probably because you know american pros that primarily ride citeriums where repeated 800-900W accelerations out out corners 4x a lap is important

have a look at the polka dot jersey from TdF 2005 "strongest" climber...

this is him winning TdF stage 9 2005 after a 160km break 6min ahead of the best riders in the world in the biggest race in the world... my 10 yr old nephew could squat more than him

 

[sugaken]

I just get tired of this **** that "strength doesn't matter" when it clearly does, if it is properly defined.

Of course. Anything matters if you arbitrarily define it in the way that serves your purpose.

This thread makes me wonder if the terms like "efficiency" and "power" Frank uses when he touts the benefits of PC mean the same as the ones well defined in the field of exercise physiology (or even in rudimental physics for that matter). And quite frankly, the more I read his posts, the less I want his product because chances are, he's probably talking about a dramatic improvement in something that is entirely different from what I would naturally think it is from reading what he describes.

I can't help but wonder in what field, if any, he's been professionally trained... Just can't imagine any field where you can take a well defined term and redefine it with a totally different, arbitrary meaning as you see fit.

Ken

 

[daveryanwyoming]

No, I am arguing that increasing force on the downstroke matters.

Well that's one way to get the job done. The other of course is to hold the force on the downstroke the same or even lessen it and pedal a bit faster. The point is that power captures both those concepts and neither is clearly superior as a focus for training. Quadrant analysis is a great tool for exploring the blend of pedal force and pedaling speed necessary for different events and for analyzing what a rider is doing in terms of the force/speed tradeoff.

... Yet, it is not allowed to use the term strength on this site unless it complies with Andrew Coggan's narrow definition. ..

Clearly it is allowed since the guy that hosts this site hasn't deleted any of your posts. It's not just Dr. Coggan that uses the term strength with that narrow definition. The whole field of "strength training" speaks to increasing peak force typically using free weights or resistance machines designed to induce similar adaptations. Broadening the definition as you've suggested to cover the specific case of a fixed cadence and a fixed range of motion isn't typically used anywhere in the sports training world by weight lifters, cyclists or anyone else.

Sure you can coin any terms you want but you seem to arguing for clearer communication and I don't see how introducing a term with a particularly limited definition (how about folks that pedal at 80 rpm or use 165 mm track cranks?) aids the communication you're after.

Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you're arguing for a type of training that increases force on the downstroke at a given cadence. O.K. sounds great if you're somehow capped in terms of cadence and want to focus on force.

So what's your plan or proposal or how does this tie back in to the thread question "Where does power come from" I've tried several times to offer an answer to that question by pointing to the need to supply energy via various systems to the working muscles as the core concept of where power comes from. What's your take on it?

-Dave