why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power

[Andy Coggan]

"RK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Back to power and weight lifting: If hypertrophy accounts for 10 to 20% of the strength increase,
> isn't that sufficient to justify some amount of traditional weight training in conjunction with
> cycling specific exercises?

When a moderately active individual takes up strength training for a few months, the typical
increase in strength averages around 25%. If we go with your assumption that 20% of this is due to
hypertrophy (and 80% is due to neural factors), then that means a 5% increase in muscle
cross-sectional area, and thus the potential for a 5% increase in maximal power. Realizing the
difference between 25% and 5%, that the 5% is only a potential (that needs to be trained via,
e.g., sprinting), that that gain is accompanied by an increase in mass (which needs to be
accelerated and carried up hills), and that there are other ways of increasing maximal power (such
as by simply riding a bike), you then have to decide whether/if weight training really fits into
somebody's program.

To put it more simply: non-endurance track racers better be lifting really heavy weights, to grow
big muscles. For anybody else, weight training can't be considered a requirement (or even
necessarily useful).

Andy Coggan

 

[Frank Day]

Andy,

An interesting article. I have a couple of observations that i would like to use to stimulate
discussion and, you might be surprised to learn, are not meant as criticisms.

!. I am not convinced the AEPF line is really a straight line since
the "efficiency" of muscular contraction varies some with contraction speed. However, I will accept
that it is probably close to a straight line and this is a reasonable assumption for this
discussion.

2. The model does not address the issue of endurance and your discussion ignores a flaw that is
evident if one looks at submaximal power. Assuming that one cannot maintain the maximum power for
very long due to endurance issues, most riding must be done at some number less than maximum
power. One could say that for a 40 k TT optimum power is 80% of max or for 100 miles 70% of max.
It would be easy them to move the dark blue line down to reflect these levels but if one does so
then one gets two optimum cadences, one at around 80 or so and the other around 200 or so.
According to this analysis these cadences should be equally optimal. I look forward to hearing
from someone hear who would make that claim. Therefore, there is a flaw in the analysis. I
believe I know what it is in that it doesn't take into account the energy required to make the
pedals go around. I know many here believe this is zero but, if it is, how else can one account
for this flaw in the analysis?

Frank

 

[Shayne Wissler]

"Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It would be easy them to move the dark blue line down to reflect these levels but if one does so
> then one gets two optimum cadences, one at around 80 or so and the other around 200 or so.
> According to this analysis these cadences should be equally optimal. I look forward to hearing
> from someone hear who would make that claim. Therefore, there is a flaw in the analysis.

This conclusion does not follow. There are lots of examples in physics where you throw out the
"unphysical" solution, which is just an artifact of the method of computation.

Shayne Wissler

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Charles Beristain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Andy: I find the conclusions very intriguing. In my group of riding friends... I need at least
> > one gear lower to accomplish the same task. There was a time I was stronger then they were...
> > but they all started weight training and cross training. I stick to riding 7 days a week all
> > year 'round. It really bugs me that I can't climb some really technical sections (MTB) they they
> > can, because they higher gearing they can use gives them a slightly faster speed/more momentum
> > to get over the obstacles.
> >
> > Any hints on how i can increase my pedaling strength on the short technical climbs?

> Read Bicycling Magazine.
>
> They have scores of ways to get better.

Hey, don't dis Bicycling Magazine! They had a really good suggestion in this month's issue about
using an old sock to contain spare tubes. I should have thought of that myself, but I'm glad to
have read it.

That makes it Fabrizio 1 (he accidentally posted something useful once), Bicycling 1.

Read it only for the articles,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> > Read Bicycling Magazine.
> >
> > They have scores of ways to get better.
>
> Hey, don't dis Bicycling Magazine!

Dumbass -

Who's dissing Bicycling Magazine?

That publication is the Bible (or the Koran) of cycling.

 

[Phil Holman]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ilan Vardi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > How can you not admit that you were completely wrong in defending
your use
> > of the term velocity?
>
> Simple: because I wasn't. I specified a direction ("circumferential"), meaning that what I was
> speaking about was indeed velocity, not just
speed.

A nice semantic argument. In this situation we either have instantaneous tangential velocity or
circumferential speed. As the direction and pathway is clearly defined at any point on the pedal
arc, a simply stated pedal velocity (taken as instantaneous tangential) is acceptable. However, you
won't see the combination of terms *circumferential velocity* used in any of the better physics
references even though it is regularly (incorrectly) used by physicists. In one dimension, velocity
is dx/dt and in two dimensions, sqrt(dx^2+dy^2)/dt which, when we look at the average pedal velocity
for one revolution (in the reference frame of the bicycle), is zero. The pedal velocity over any arc
length of the circle is therefore not the same as the circumferential speed along that arc.

Phil Holman

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> !. I am not convinced the AEPF line is really a straight line since
> the "efficiency" of muscular contraction varies some with contraction speed. However, I will
> accept that it is probably close to a straight line and this is a reasonable assumption for this
> discussion.

The force-velocity relationship of isolated single muscle fibers/muscles in vitro - and even for
multimuscle, single joint movements in vivo - is curvilinear, something that has been known
since the early part of the 20th century. For multijoint activities such as cycling, however, it
is linear, probably because you've got many muscles contributing, each of which has its own
unique force-velocity curve. Be that as it may, the exact shape has little to do with the
conclusions drawn.

> 2. The model does not address the issue of endurance and your discussion ignores a flaw that is
> evident if one looks at submaximal power. Assuming that one cannot maintain the maximum power
> for very long due to endurance issues, most riding must be done at some number less than
> maximum power. One could say that for a 40 k TT optimum power is 80% of max or for 100 miles
> 70% of max. It would be easy them to move the dark blue line down to reflect these levels but
> if one does so then one gets two optimum cadences, one at around 80 or so and the other around
> 200 or so. According to this analysis these cadences should be equally optimal. I look forward
> to hearing from someone hear who would make that claim. Therefore, there is a flaw in the
> analysis. I believe I know what it is in that it doesn't take into account the energy required
> to make the pedals go around. I know many here believe this is zero but, if it is, how else can
> one account for this flaw in the analysis?

The analysis has nothing to do with endurance/metabolism, or even with optimum cadence - it has to
do with the role of strength in determining power output.

Andy Coggan

 

[Top Sirloin]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 03:03:34 GMT, Charles Beristain <[email protected]> wrote:

>Andy: I find the conclusions very intriguing. In my group of riding friends... I need at least one
>gear lower to accomplish the same task. There was a time I was stronger then they were... but they
>all started weight training and cross training. I stick to riding 7 days a week all year 'round. It
>really bugs me that I can't climb some really technical sections (MTB) they they can, because they
>higher gearing they can use gives them a slightly faster speed/more momentum to get over the
>obstacles.
>
>Any hints on how i can increase my pedaling strength on the short technical climbs?

You can still lift to get bigger legs, which will make you stronger.

Unfortunately you have to haul them uphill.

I like the weight training suggestions in _Performance_Cycling_ by Dan Morris. He has you lift for
hypertrophy, and then switch to lower weight/higher speed lifting and phases in hard low-cadence
intervals to create cycling specific strength.

Solely focusing on your 1RM in the squat will not make you a fast cyclist - I'm proof.

--

Scott Johnson "be a man ,stop looking for handouts , eat ,lift and shut your mouth" -John Carlo

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Ilan Vardi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > How can you not admit that you were completely wrong in defending
> your use
> > > of the term velocity?
> >
> > Simple: because I wasn't. I specified a direction ("circumferential"), meaning that what I was
> > speaking about was indeed velocity, not just
> speed.
>
> A nice semantic argument. In this situation we either have instantaneous tangential velocity or
> circumferential speed. As the direction and pathway is clearly defined at any point on the pedal
> arc, a simply stated pedal velocity (taken as instantaneous tangential) is acceptable. However,
> you won't see the combination of terms *circumferential velocity* used in any of the better
> physics references even though it is regularly (incorrectly) used by physicists. In one dimension,
> velocity is dx/dt and in two dimensions, sqrt(dx^2+dy^2)/dt which, when we look at the average
> pedal velocity for one revolution (in the reference frame of the bicycle), is zero. The pedal
> velocity over any arc length of the circle is therefore not the same as the circumferential speed
> along that arc.

I don't follow your argument here - but in any case, I find it telling that according to you,
circumferential velocity is regularly used by physicists, even though you dispute its correctness.

Andy Coggan

 

[Frank Day]

Shayne, We are not talking about imaginary numbers here. If you prefer to call it science that we
ignore results we don't like or can't explain so be it. You are not alone in this regards. I don't
see why the higher cadence is necessarily the "unphysical" one. Lots of people here would argue that
higher cadences are better than lower cadences because they "flush out the lactic acid", even though
there is no good science to back that claim up either.

Frank

"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:> This conclusion does not
follow. There are lots of examples in physics where
> you throw out the "unphysical" solution, which is just an artifact of the method of computation.
>
>
> Shayne Wissler

 

[Phil Holman]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Ilan Vardi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > How can you not admit that you were completely wrong in
defending
> > your use
> > > > of the term velocity?
> > >
> > > Simple: because I wasn't. I specified a direction
("circumferential"),
> > > meaning that what I was speaking about was indeed velocity, not
just
> > speed.
> >
> > A nice semantic argument. In this situation we either have
instantaneous
> > tangential velocity or circumferential speed. As the direction and pathway is clearly defined
> > at any point on the pedal arc, a simply stated pedal velocity (taken as instantaneous
> > tangential) is
acceptable.
> > However, you won't see the combination of terms *circumferential velocity* used in any of the
> > better physics references even though
it is
> > regularly (incorrectly) used by physicists. In one dimension,
velocity
> > is dx/dt and in two dimensions, sqrt(dx^2+dy^2)/dt which, when we
look
> > at the average pedal velocity for one revolution (in the reference
frame
> > of the bicycle), is zero. The pedal velocity over any arc length of
the
> > circle is therefore not the same as the circumferential speed along
that
> > arc.
>
> I don't follow your argument here - but in any case, I find it telling
that
> according to you, circumferential velocity is regularly used by
physicists,
> even though you dispute its correctness.

Just as they regularly and incorrectly flip flop speed and velocity. Just because they do so doesn't
mean it's correct. Velocity being a vector, requires a frame of reference with a coordinate system
and there is no system defined that would explain circumferential velocity in the way you intended
(constant speed).

Phil Holman

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Top Sirloin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I like the weight training suggestions in _Performance_Cycling_ by Dan
Morris.
> He has you lift for hypertrophy, and then switch to lower weight/higher
speed
> lifting and phases in hard low-cadence intervals to create cycling
specific
> strength.

I think you mean Dave Morris (another exercise physiologist, BTW). Anyway, I'd even take one step
further: lift for hypertrophy, then go straight to velocity-specific training on the bike (e.g., if
you're a sprinter, practice sprinting, if you're an off-road racer who needs to be able to grind up
steep pitches, practice grinding up steep pitches, etc.).

Andy Coggan

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> To put it more simply: non-endurance track racers better be lifting
really
> heavy weights, to grow big muscles. For anybody else, weight
training can't
> be considered a requirement (or even necessarily useful).

And this is the crux of the entire matter and something that I'd suspected but for which I hadn't
any proof.

So, I ride my road bike up hills peddling as fast as I can and seem to gain no climbing ability at
all. A couple of times a week I ride my MTB up REALLY steep hills that require me to be in the 24/32
and I'm barely able to turn the pedals over and keep the bike balanced and my cadence starts going
up everywhere and my speed and stamina increase.

So what the hell is with that?

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > "Ilan Vardi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > > How can you not admit that you were completely wrong in
> defending
> > > your use
> > > > > of the term velocity?
> > > >
> > > > Simple: because I wasn't. I specified a direction
> ("circumferential"),
> > > > meaning that what I was speaking about was indeed velocity, not
> just
> > > speed.
> > >
> > > A nice semantic argument. In this situation we either have
> instantaneous
> > > tangential velocity or circumferential speed. As the direction and pathway is clearly defined
> > > at any point on the pedal arc, a simply stated pedal velocity (taken as instantaneous
> > > tangential) is
> acceptable.
> > > However, you won't see the combination of terms *circumferential velocity* used in any of the
> > > better physics references even though
> it is
> > > regularly (incorrectly) used by physicists. In one dimension,
> velocity
> > > is dx/dt and in two dimensions, sqrt(dx^2+dy^2)/dt which, when we
> look
> > > at the average pedal velocity for one revolution (in the reference
> frame
> > > of the bicycle), is zero. The pedal velocity over any arc length of
> the
> > > circle is therefore not the same as the circumferential speed along
> that
> > > arc.
> >
> > I don't follow your argument here - but in any case, I find it telling
> that
> > according to you, circumferential velocity is regularly used by
> physicists,
> > even though you dispute its correctness.
>
> Just as they regularly and incorrectly flip flop speed and velocity. Just because they do so
> doesn't mean it's correct.

There are also physiologists that take exception to the term "eccentric contraction" - but there's
no universal agreement on that, either.

> Velocity being a vector, requires a frame of reference

Around the circumference of the pedal circle.

> with a coordinate system and there is no system defined that would explain circumferential
> velocity in the way you intended (constant speed).

I never claimed that the pedal moves at a constant speed.

Andy Coggan

 

[Kirby Krieger]

I was hoping that Ilan's objection was purposefully exemplary -- that is that by illustrating his
objection to the jargonist mouthful "circumferential pedal velocity" with a giant 4D helix he was
showing just how unwieldable -- unspeakable even -- specificities can become in the hands of
sophisticates. Is not "pedal speed" *most* usefully descriptive in this context? One of the most
important things for a teacher to know is what to allow to be simple.

Kirby.

"Ilan Vardi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Benjamin Weiner <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<3fb5beee$1@darkstar>...
> > Ilan Vardi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting
> > > when I have made a mistake.
> >
> > Ilan, you're not a scientist. You are a mathematician.
>
> This is true, but both share the fact that correctness is most important.
>
> -ilan

 

[Phil Holman]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > "Ilan Vardi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > > How can you not admit that you were completely wrong in
> > defending
> > > > your use
> > > > > > of the term velocity?
> > > > >
> > > > > Simple: because I wasn't. I specified a direction
> > ("circumferential"),
> > > > > meaning that what I was speaking about was indeed velocity,
not
> > just
> > > > speed.
> > > >
> > > > A nice semantic argument. In this situation we either have
> > instantaneous
> > > > tangential velocity or circumferential speed. As the direction
and
> > > > pathway is clearly defined at any point on the pedal arc, a
simply
> > > > stated pedal velocity (taken as instantaneous tangential) is
> > acceptable.
> > > > However, you won't see the combination of terms *circumferential velocity* used in any of
> > > > the better physics references even
though
> > it is
> > > > regularly (incorrectly) used by physicists. In one dimension,
> > velocity
> > > > is dx/dt and in two dimensions, sqrt(dx^2+dy^2)/dt which, when
we
> > look
> > > > at the average pedal velocity for one revolution (in the
reference
> > frame
> > > > of the bicycle), is zero. The pedal velocity over any arc length
of
> > the
> > > > circle is therefore not the same as the circumferential speed
along
> > that
> > > > arc.
> > >
> > > I don't follow your argument here - but in any case, I find it
telling
> > that
> > > according to you, circumferential velocity is regularly used by
> > physicists,
> > > even though you dispute its correctness.
> >
> > Just as they regularly and incorrectly flip flop speed and velocity. Just because they do so
> > doesn't mean it's correct.
>
> There are also physiologists that take exception to the term
"eccentric
> contraction" - but there's no universal agreement on that, either.
>
> > Velocity being a vector, requires a frame of reference
>
> Around the circumference of the pedal circle.

And the origin is?

> > with a coordinate system and there is no system defined that would explain circumferential
> > velocity in
the
> > way you intended (constant speed).
>
> I never claimed that the pedal moves at a constant speed.

If I pick a circumferential velocity of 2m/s off your chart. I think your intent is the speed will
be constant within the small accelerations/decelerations due to the variation in pedal force at a
given power output. I take it your term "circumferential velocity" is meant as the average
instantaneous tangential velocity of the pedal at this power output.

Phil Holman

 

[Gwb]

"Kirby Krieger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was hoping that Ilan's objection was purposefully exemplary -- that is
that by illustrating his
> objection to the jargonist mouthful "circumferential pedal velocity" with
a giant 4D helix he was
> showing just how unwieldable -- unspeakable even -- specificities can
become in the hands of
> sophisticates. Is not "pedal speed" *most* usefully descriptive in this
context? One of the most
> important things for a teacher to know is what to allow to be simple.
>
> Kirby.
>
My thoughts exactly. My question is: who is the article written for? Scientists or cyclists?

 

[Frank Day]

I understand what you intended. I simply expanded the analysis in what I thought was a logical
extension and found, what I believed to be an illogical conclusion. How does your analysis look at
strength when being used submaximally? Would your model predict that strength training would be
beneficial for improving aerobic (submaximal) performance? How does that analysis work using the
model you used? In your paper you do mention optimum cadence for maximum power so my bringing up
what the model predicts for cadence at submaximal power is not beyond the pale.

Frank

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>

> The analysis has nothing to do with endurance/metabolism, or even with optimum cadence - it has to
> do with the role of strength in determining power output.
>
> Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

"GWB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kirby Krieger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I was hoping that Ilan's objection was purposefully exemplary -- that is
> that by illustrating his
> > objection to the jargonist mouthful "circumferential pedal velocity"
with
> a giant 4D helix he was
> > showing just how unwieldable -- unspeakable even -- specificities can
> become in the hands of
> > sophisticates. Is not "pedal speed" *most* usefully descriptive in this
> context? One of the most
> > important things for a teacher to know is what to allow to be simple.
> >
> > Kirby.
> >
> My thoughts exactly. My question is: who is the article written for? Scientists or cyclists?

A little of both, actually. Hence the adherence to scientific convention re. the means of data
presentation.

Andy Coggan

 

[Nick Burns]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I thought I'd try to clear up
> some of the confusion:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html

I don't want to take away the value of your article; I think it is great to have for reference when
the subject comes up.

What I want to ask you is, who ever claimed that increasing strength would automatically
increase power?

I can remember several years ago (?) when talking about this, there were a few folks that testified
weight training helped them gain power. Your reaction made me believe you thought that was not
possible. Was this simply a case of misunderstanding?