why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I understand what you intended. I simply expanded the analysis in what I thought was a logical
> extension

Not logical from where I sit, as it is far too incomplete.

> and found, what I believed to be an illogical conclusion. How does your analysis look at strength
> when being used submaximally?

It doesn't, in any way, shape, or form.

> 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?

Since this means of data presentation completely ignores metabolism, it can't make any such
predictions, except to demonstrate that strength is not a limiting factor. To understand why
strength *training* doesn't improve aerobic performance requires additional knowledge.

> 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.

You're right, I do mention that the point at which the isopower curve and straight line relationship
between AEPF and CPV meet is the optimum cadence for maximal power development. But that's only in
passing...

Andy Coggan
 
This is off the topic of Andy's article, but...The use of higher cadences is related to the force
issue, with the general idea being that cyclists choose higher cadences because they are trying to
reduce the overall "strain" on the muscles, rather reducing lactic acid. Andy, correct me if I'm
wrong, but wasn't Coyle's contention that the elite riders are able to spread the workload of the
legs over a great number of fibers, so that individually each is less stressed? Higher cadences
would also "spare" each fiber some "strain".

Metabolically, higher cadences would be worse, but relative to the untrained person, its not a
problem, because the trained rider has the extra capacity; considering Lance, he has taken this a
step or two further, turning a cadence none of us mere mortals could without "blowing up", but he
has that extra capacity. How does this relate to strength?

The idea of cyclists lifting weights in the winter and gaining strength seems like a good one. I
mean you lift and get so much stronger that it seems natural that, like an increase in LT or VO2
max, all the previous sub max workloads are less hard. However, something many of the posters have
failed to address is the fact that one's 1 RM is so much higher than we could produce on the
steepest Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and, as Andy pointed out, largely neurological.

The only way to make the strength increase permanent (so to speak) is to develop a bigger muscle.
Unfortunately (for those of you concerned with metabolic issues), a large increase in muscle would
decrease capillary density, decreasing endurance capacity, at least in the short-term. But, let's
say you grow your muscles and then say, "OK, now I'm going to train my ass off and get that
endurance back." Super, 3 months later (probably longer), your capillary density is increased, your
endurance is back up and your muscles are SMALLER. Why? Because the smaller muscle is better for
endurance.

While I may have oversimplified this, the point here is that large muscle sizes are good for force,
but probably not possible to sustain for endurance sports. Obviously, cyclists have very large legs,
but compared to body builders they're still "small potatoes"!

I think a lot of people missed the point of the original post and zeroed in on his use of
terminology. Whether correct or incorrect, the point was to raise issue over weight training, not
word usage.

Now for my own use in coaching, I am not a strong proponent of weight training, but some clients use
it, others don't and I mostly believe weights can be an important break for a rider and help address
weaknesses. Some clients even feel they need weight training making it not worth the time to argue
or reform, because cycling is part
psychological, too. Let's all consider the overall role of auxiliary training and not forget the
need for specificity.

Chris Harnish

"Fighting poor training one client at a time."

[email protected] (Frank Day) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> 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
 
In article <[email protected]>, chris
<[email protected]> wrote:
> However, something many of the posters have failed to address is the fact that one's 1 RM is so
> much higher than we could produce on the steepest Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and,
> as Andy pointed out, largely neurological.

What about strength training that isn't directed towards increasing 1RM? Like doing squats with 3-6
sets of 10-15 reps for two months before moving on to more specific (on the bike) exercises?
>
> The only way to make the strength increase permanent (so to speak) is to develop a bigger muscle.
> Unfortunately (for those of you concerned with metabolic issues), a large increase in muscle would
> decrease capillary density, decreasing endurance capacity, at least in the short-term. But, let's
> say you grow your muscles and then say, "OK, now I'm going to train my ass off and get that
> endurance back." Super, 3 months later (probably longer), your capillary density is increased,
> your endurance is back up and your muscles are SMALLER. Why? Because the smaller muscle is better
> for endurance.

Why not train the muscle for size (as you put it) and then train to maintain that (probably on the
bike) while you also train to increase the capillary density?

> I think a lot of people missed the point of the original post and zeroed in on his use of
> terminology. Whether correct or incorrect, the point was to raise issue over weight training, not
> word usage.

Yes, that brain power would be more useful to us if it addressed the much more important
issues at hand.
>
> Now for my own use in coaching, ...I mostly believe weights can be an important break for a rider
> and help address weaknesses.

-WG
 
"chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is off the topic of Andy's article, but...The use of higher cadences is related to the force
> issue, with the general idea being that cyclists choose higher cadences because they are trying to
> reduce the overall "strain"

Higher cadence means lower torque to achieve the same power.

on the muscles, rather reducing lactic acid.
> Andy, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Coyle's contention that the elite riders are able to
> spread the workload of the legs over a great number of fibers, so that individually each is less
> stressed? Higher cadences would also "spare" each fiber some "strain".
>
> Metabolically, higher cadences would be worse, but relative to the untrained person, its not a
> problem, because the trained rider has the extra capacity;

Cardio-vascular capacity.

considering Lance, he has taken this a step or two
> further, turning a cadence none of us mere mortals could without "blowing up", but he has that
> extra capacity. How does this relate to strength?
>
> The idea of cyclists lifting weights in the winter and gaining strength seems like a good one. I
> mean you lift and get so much stronger that it seems natural that, like an increase in LT or VO2
> max, all the previous sub max workloads are less hard. However, something many of the posters have
> failed to address is the fact that one's 1 RM is so much higher than we could produce on the
> steepest Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and, as Andy pointed out, largely
> neurological.
>
> The only way to make the strength increase permanent (so to speak) is to develop a bigger muscle.
> Unfortunately (for those of you concerned with metabolic issues), a large increase in muscle would
> decrease capillary density, decreasing endurance capacity, at least in the short-term. But, let's
> say you grow your muscles and then say, "OK, now I'm going to train my ass off and get that
> endurance back." Super, 3 months later (probably longer), your capillary density is increased,
> your endurance is back up and your muscles are SMALLER. Why? Because the smaller muscle is better
> for endurance.
>
> While I may have oversimplified this, the point here is that large muscle sizes are good for
> force, but probably not possible to sustain for endurance sports. Obviously, cyclists have very
> large legs, but compared to body builders they're still "small potatoes"!
>
> I think a lot of people missed the point of the original post and zeroed in on his use of
> terminology. Whether correct or incorrect, the point was to raise issue over weight training, not
> word usage.
>
> Now for my own use in coaching, I am not a strong proponent of weight training, but some clients
> use it, others don't and I mostly believe weights can be an important break for a rider and help
> address weaknesses. Some clients even feel they need weight training making it not worth the time
> to argue or reform, because cycling is part
> psychological, too. Let's all consider the overall role of auxiliary training and not forget the
> need for specificity.
>
> Chris Harnish
>
> "Fighting poor training one client at a time."
>
>
> [email protected] (Frank Day) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "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.

I like to think of it as the "Dianetics" of cycling.

A good Catholic boy,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:45:53 GMT, warren <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, chris
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> However, something many of the posters have failed to address is the fact that one's 1 RM is so
>> much higher than we could produce on the steepest Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and,
>> as Andy pointed out, largely neurological.
>
>What about strength training that isn't directed towards increasing 1RM? Like doing squats with 3-6
>sets of 10-15 reps for two months before moving on to more specific (on the bike) exercises?

That's exactly what's being recommended - training for hypertrophy. While we're on the subject,
check out:

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/

I have a handy spreadsheet for calculating your weights up at:

http://home.kc.rr.com/tjhp/hst/

Once you start training solely for 1RM strength a lot of the adaption is neural, coming from an
increases in rate coding and firing rate, and technique perfection.

--

Scott Johnson "be a man ,stop looking for handouts , eat ,lift and shut your mouth" -John Carlo
 
In article <[email protected]>, Top Sirloin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:45:53 GMT, warren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, chris
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> However, something many of the posters have failed to address is the fact that one's 1 RM is so
> >> much higher than we could produce on the steepest Berg, that strength alone is not relevant,
> >> and, as Andy pointed out, largely neurological.
> >
> >What about strength training that isn't directed towards increasing 1RM? Like doing squats with
> >3-6 sets of 10-15 reps for two months before moving on to more specific (on the bike) exercises?
>
> That's exactly what's being recommended - training for hypertrophy. While we're on the subject,
> check out:
>
> http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/
>
> I have a handy spreadsheet for calculating your weights up at:
>
> http://home.kc.rr.com/tjhp/hst/

Interesting stuff, thanks.

-WG
 
"Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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?

Based on hundreds of posts I've read on numerous forums over the years, I'd say that many people
seem to believe that it does.

> 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?

??

Weight training causes hypertrophy. Hypertrophy increases the potential to generate power. These are
well-known facts that I have never disputed. Where people's thinking goes awry is when they assume
that increases in strength resulting from weight training are due entirely to hypertrophy, and
therefore that increases in strength automatically result in an increase in maximal power.

Andy Coggan
 
In article <[email protected]>, DESAY <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Where people's thinking goes awry is when they assume that increases in strength resulting from
> >weight training are due entirely to hypertrophy, and therefore that increases in strength
> >automatically result in an increase in maximal power.
> >
> >Andy Coggan
>
> Would it be relevant for sake of substantiating the preceeding statement to illustrate a
> comparison (in terms of power output) between multi time Olympic weight lifting champion, Naim
> Suleymanoglu and any of the Mister Olympia bodybuilding champions. Suleymanoglu at 132 lbs would
> hoist more weight then any of the bodybuilders who weigh considerably more and typify
> hypertrophy states.
>
> Zatsiorsky (1996), "Don't overemphasize the role of maximal strength in power production. To be a
> strong athlete does not mean to be a power athlete. It is true that all elite power athletes are
> very strong people. On the other hand, not all strong individuals can execute movement powerfully
> when combining large force and high velocity."

I'm sure Larry has seen this too, I've seen plenty of people at the track who have huge, muscular
quads but they're not very fast. Still, almost all of the really fast guys also have big,
muscular quads.

-WG
 
In article <[email protected]>, Carl Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote:

> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:161120031527303031%[email protected]...
> >
> > I've seen plenty of people at the track who have huge, muscular quads but they're not very fast.
>
>
> I don't mean to pick on him because he's a really nice guy, but unfortunately the name that comes
> to mind is Danny Wilson.

The first time I saw Danny in 1996 I thought this guy must be reallllly fast, but he wasn't as
fast as he looked. (His girlfriend mentioned he'd lost 50 pounds! from when he played for the
Green Bay Packers). He beat me by less than a tenth to get the 4 seed. Al Whaley was much smaller
and was .4 faster.

-WG
 
"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

It's interesting to note that the great sprinters from the GDR specifically Hesslich, Hubner and
Huck (who are arguably the greatest exponents of the match sprint) performed weight training regimes
to increase strength and thereby power. However one of the significant aspects of the weight
training was that the muscle group that was most targeted were the muscles that were specifically
engaged during the pedal stroke. For example for each rider the exact angle of the leg during the
pedal stroke was used to determine the manner in which the squat trust exercise was performed. I
would suggest that the specific nature of this weight/strength training would lead to both a
hypertropic response and neural adaptation that benefits an increase in power by virtue of an
increase in strength during the pedal stroke.

These huge men who were incredible muscular also performed other weight training – the benefit of
which was not to provide additional leg power but specifically to stabilize the bicycle and upper
body during acceleration so that all generated leg power was specifically channeled into forward
propulsion. To qualify the above statement these men would also have been genenetically blessed
with a high percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers, which would no doubt have been the basis for
their speed.
 
"Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It's interesting to note that the great sprinters from the GDR specifically Hesslich, Hubner and
> Huck (who are arguably the greatest exponents of the match sprint) performed weight training
> regimes to increase strength and thereby power. However one of the significant aspects of the
> weight training was that the muscle group that was most targeted were the muscles that were
> specifically engaged during the pedal stroke. For example for each rider the exact angle of the
> leg during the pedal stroke was used to determine the manner in which the squat trust exercise was
> performed. I would suggest that the specific nature of this weight/strength training would lead to
> both a hypertropic response and neural adaptation that benefits an increase in power by virtue of
> an increase in strength during the pedal stroke.

The former (hypertrophy), but not the latter (neural adaptation), unless joint angular velocities
were also similar to those encountered when pedaling. (Of course, if they were, then you wouldn't be
lifting heavy weights, you'd be sprinting.)

Andy Coggan
 
You could do this, but there is no real effective way to maintain that hypertrophy while endurance
training. By training, I mean serious training, not going to the stair master for 30 minutes per
day. Additionally, it is not so easy to increase capillarization; I'm not particularly familiar
with the recent literature on this subject, but one needs to consider that it takes much more
training to build this capillary structure. It was thought (perhaps still is) that high rep weight
training could increase capillarization, but the research was never convincing. You can increase
muscle size, but it takes a long time (6 months) to see serious size gains and its easy to lose
that size unless you maintain the training program; ie, once you start putting in serious miles you
lose most of that size.

My 2 cents is this: You would have to weight train year round and cut into you specific bike
training. Is it really worth it to spend that much time weight training vs. riding?

CH

> What about strength training that isn't directed towards increasing 1RM? Like doing squats with
> 3-6 sets of 10-15 reps for two months before moving on to more specific (on the bike) exercises?
> >

>
> Why not train the muscle for size (as you put it) and then train to maintain that (probably on the
> bike) while you also train to increase the capillary density?
 
"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.
>
> Andy Coggan

As everyone understands perfectly well, I started this in order to annoy you, because your overly
technical term was pretentious. But your continued defence of your error perfectly highlights how
little you understand. Dude, you are measuring speed, figure it out and admit your error. Then you
will have learned a little about scientific truth.

-ilan
 
On 17 Nov 2003 07:29:47 -0800, [email protected] (chris) wrote:

>My 2 cents is this: You would have to weight train year round and cut into you specific bike
>training. Is it really worth it to spend that much time weight training vs. riding?

You don't think you could fit in two quick 30 minute workouts a week, something like:

warmup back squat 2x8 overhead press 2x10 chin-up 2x5 front squat 3x5

How much does your weight fluctuate between your peak fitness and your off season?

--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen
 
In article <[email protected]>, chris <[email protected]> wrote:

> You could do this, but there is no real effective way to maintain that hypertrophy while endurance
> training.

I would think once per week hard sprint training on the bike will go a long way to preserving the
hypertrophy you gained during 2-3 months of indoor resistance training, and since many riders
(criterium, track) need to do that sprint training anyway how much of that gym work will get lost?

-WG
 
"Top Sirloin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17 Nov 2003 07:29:47 -0800, [email protected] (chris) wrote:
>
> >My 2 cents is this: You would have to weight train year round and cut into you specific bike
> >training. Is it really worth it to spend that much time weight training vs. riding?
>
> You don't think you could fit in two quick 30 minute workouts a week,
something
> like:
>
> warmup back squat 2x8 overhead press 2x10 chin-up 2x5 front squat 3x5
>
> How much does your weight fluctuate between your peak fitness and your off season?

Dumbass -

Weight training doesn't do squat for road cycling unless your musculature is so underdeveloped that
it is the weak link in the chain.

99.99% of the time in road cycling, the cardio system is the differentiator. Look at how small those
Euros are.
 
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:32:07 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Weight training doesn't do squat for road cycling unless your musculature is so underdeveloped that
>it is the weak link in the chain.

I already said that - I just gave him an idea for hanging onto muscle (if he chose to).

>99.99% of the time in road cycling, the cardio system is the differentiator. Look at how small
> those Euros are.

They also race for a living. Some of us are interested in being able to pick up heavy things,
avoiding osteoporosis at 35, and not looking like a 14 year old boy.

--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen
 
"Top Sirloin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:32:07 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Weight training doesn't do squat for road cycling unless your musculature
is
> >so underdeveloped that it is the weak link in the chain.
>
> I already said that - I just gave him an idea for hanging onto muscle (if
he
> chose to).
>
> >99.99% of the time in road cycling, the cardio system is the
differentiator.
> >Look at how small those Euros are.
>
> They also race for a living. Some of us are interested in being able to
pick up
> heavy things, avoiding osteoporosis at 35, and not looking like a 14 year
old
> boy.

Dumbass -

With the abundance of caloric intake options available in our culture, your chances of looking like
a 14 year old boy are almost nonexistent.

You're more likely to look more like an undefined blob, like most of the other dudes who hang
out in gyms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.