why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power

[Andy Coggan]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:181120031543206432%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:181120030957148374%[email protected]...
> > > from about 40 rpm's to about 90+ rpm's a sprint is mostly a series of pushing more or less
> > > straight down on the pedals with high force, but if that force is averaged out over one or
> > > more pedal
strokes
> > > or recorded (and averaged) only once per half second (like Andy has done in his article) the
> > > (actual) forces applied appear smaller, e.g. 400 pounds of force applied for one-third of a
> > > pedal stroke doesn't look like much when it's averaged over a whole pedal stroke or for a half
> > > second.
> >
> > As I indicated in the article, maximal force is typically around twice
the
> > average force.
>
> Where is the data collected *during* a sprint by a person who is good at sprinting while riding a
> bicycle on a road that confirms this?

Mostly in the hands/minds of people like Jeff Broker, Ph.D. (formerly at the OTC, now at U of
C-Colorado Springs) and Jim Martin, Ph.D. (former masters national match sprint champion, former
Director of Sports Science for Team EDS, now on the faculty of U of Utah). It is mostly from Jim
that I'm getting my information...do a PubMed search for Martin JC, and/or look at the crank length
thread for some of his recent publications. Of course, there's tons and tons of somewhat older
scientific literature on the general subject, since the notion of instrumenting cranks or pedals and
measuring the forces that people apply is nearly a century old.

> > This matters not to the conclusions drawn, however, since the maximal strength data I showed
> > are also based on the average for the complete pedal cycle. IOW, if you present the data as
> > maximal, not
average,
> > force, all that changes is the scaling of the y-axis, not the
relationship
> > between the applied force(s) and strength.
>
> But that was for a standing start and people who are decent at those generate substantial power
> during a longer portion of the pedal stroke. IOW, standing start data is not particularly relevant
> for a sprint that begins at a higher rpm.

Obviously you haven't read the website well enough: the standing start is an example of a case where
strength CAN BE limiting. Maximal power while sprinting, OTOH, typically occurs at 120+ rpm...at
which point the force exerted is far from maximal (i.e., strength is not limiting).

> How about some data showing the max strength of individuals and their corresponding standing start
> numbers and their speed attained during a sprint on a bicycle while on a road?

The reason I posted the standing start data of that track racer is because the only standing start
data I have on myself were obtained using a PowerTap...which doesn't record cadence below 40 rpm.
However, their maximal power is very similar to mine, whereas they seem to be stronger than I am
(compare the y-intercept of the plots at http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id5.html and
http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html). Thus, they use an even smaller percentage of
their strength when generating maximal power than I
do. As for speeds, I haven't a clue - but since maximal power is <1 kW in both cases, it would
definitely be on the low side.

I haven't a clue where you're trying to go with this...if you're thinking that more powerful
sprinters are more likely to be strength-limited, you're clearly wrong.

Andy Coggan

 

[Warren]

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

> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:181120031543206432%[email protected]...
> the standing start is an example of a case where strength CAN BE limiting. Maximal power while
> sprinting, OTOH, typically occurs at 120+ rpm...at which point the force exerted is far from
> maximal (i.e., strength is not limiting).

So we have Cipo and Petacchi sprinting side by side going the same speed at approximately the same
power. Max strength has little bearing on the result from this point onward to the line.

The next day Petacchi is on Cipo's wheel and Robbie McKewen is on Petacchi's wheel. The 200 meter
sign arrives at 40mph and Petacchi and McKewen need to accelerate by Cipo to win. Now how much does
max strength matter?

I know that Petacchi is doing weights right now.

You can also talk to guys who are quick from the last corner of a criterium and you'll find most
of them trying to increase their strength, and if they live where outdoor cycling is difficult
during the winter they'll be in the gym to get stronger and devote the majority of their precious
outdoor time on the weekends for longer rides and development of abilities not so easily developed
in the gym.

> > How about some data showing the max strength of individuals and their corresponding standing
> > start numbers and their speed attained during a sprint on a bicycle while on a road?
>
> The reason I posted the standing start data of that track racer is because the only standing start
> data I have on myself were obtained using a PowerTap...which doesn't record cadence below 40 rpm.
> However, their maximal power is very similar to mine, whereas they seem to be stronger than I am
> (compare the y-intercept of the plots at http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id5.html and
> http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html). Thus, they use an even smaller percentage of
> their strength when generating maximal power than I
> do. As for speeds, I haven't a clue - but since maximal power is <1 kW in both cases, it would
> definitely be on the low side.

I don't think a person such as yourself (a self-described poor sprinter with not much jump) is an
appropriate representative for sprinting and accelerations that would benefit from the ability to
generate high forces. I'd give you some data but my Polar PM only averages over 5 seconds so I doubt
it's very useful for the type of analysis you're trying to do.
>
> I haven't a clue where you're trying to go with this...if you're thinking that more powerful
> sprinters are more likely to be strength-limited, you're clearly wrong.

Perhaps the reason they are more powerful is because they are stronger,
i.e. they have enough strength so it's not limiting, and they train to increase their strength so
that is the case.

-WG

 

[Andy Coggan]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:181120031819136759%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:181120031543206432%[email protected]... the standing start is an example of a case
> > where strength CAN BE limiting. Maximal power while sprinting, OTOH, typically occurs at 120+
> > rpm...at which point the force exerted is far from maximal (i.e., strength is not limiting).
>
> So we have Cipo and Petacchi sprinting side by side going the same speed at approximately the same
> power. Max strength has little bearing on the result from this point onward to the line.
>
> The next day Petacchi is on Cipo's wheel and Robbie McKewen is on Petacchi's wheel. The 200 meter
> sign arrives at 40mph and Petacchi and McKewen need to accelerate by Cipo to win. Now how much
> does max strength matter?

It doesn't play any role at all. Strength is the maximal force generating capacity of muscle, which
occurs at zero velocity (excluding lengthening contractions). For an isolated muscle, maximal power
occurs at approximately one-third of maximal shortening velocity, and the same is true when
pedaling...ergo, strength is not limiting, because shortening velocity is far greater than zero.

> I know that Petacchi is doing weights right now.

So?

> You can also talk to guys who are quick from the last corner of a criterium and you'll find most
> of them trying to increase their strength

What they should be doing is trying to grow bigger muscles, since only the hypertrophic adaptations
to other forms of training will transfer to cycling.

>, and if they live where outdoor cycling is difficult during the winter they'll be in the gym to
>get stronger and devote the majority of their precious outdoor time on the weekends for longer
>rides and development of abilities not so easily developed in the gym.
>
> > > How about some data showing the max strength of individuals and their corresponding standing
> > > start numbers and their speed attained during a sprint on a bicycle while on a road?
> >
> > The reason I posted the standing start data of that track racer is
because
> > the only standing start data I have on myself were obtained using a PowerTap...which doesn't
> > record cadence below 40 rpm. However, their
maximal
> > power is very similar to mine, whereas they seem to be stronger than I
am
> > (compare the y-intercept of the plots at http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id5.html and
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html). Thus, they use an
even
> > smaller percentage of their strength when generating maximal power than
I
> > do. As for speeds, I haven't a clue - but since maximal power is <1 kW
in
> > both cases, it would definitely be on the low side.
>
> I don't think a person such as yourself (a self-described poor sprinter with not much jump) is an
> appropriate representative for sprinting and accelerations that would benefit from the ability to
> generate high forces.

Nonsense. The physiological principles at play here apply to all mammalian muscles, so I could just
as well prove my point by showing data from a mouse. You obviously just don't have enough of an
understanding of muscle physiology to "get it" (which is why I keep having to explain the same
points to you over and over and over again).

> I'd give you some data but my Polar PM only averages over 5 seconds so I doubt it's very useful
> for the type of analysis you're trying to do.

The Polar doesn't average over 5 s, it just records the 1 s average every 5
s. But in any case, please send the data along...I might even be nice enough to tell you the cadence
at which you generate maximal power.

> > I haven't a clue where you're trying to go with this...if you're
thinking
> > that more powerful sprinters are more likely to be strength-limited,
you're
> > clearly wrong.
>
> Perhaps the reason they are more powerful is because they are stronger,
> i.e. they have enough strength so it's not limiting, and they train to increase their strength so
> that is the case.

High power is generated when large muscles contract rapidly. High forces are generated when large
muscles contract slowly, and maximal force is generated when large muscles contract against a
resistance so high that they do not shorten at all. What confuses people like you is the fact that
muscle size plays a role in determining both maximal power and maximal force (i.e., strength) - this
leads to the false assumption that a person's strength is an important determinant of their power,
and that training to increase strength will increase power. The points that you're overlooking are
1) both power and strength are also heavily influenced by how the muscles are controlled by the
nervous system (with adaptations in this control being HIGHLY specific to mode of exercise), and 2)
power is also determined by how quickly force declines with increasing velocity of shortening (i.e.,
fiber type/myosin ATPase activity).

Here's but one example showing that strength and power are not necessarily related:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9973770&dopt=Abstract

(Yes, I know, these are volleyball players, not cyclists - but as both the recent AIS talent search
and Jim Martin's data show, many times the individuals who can generate the most power while
pedaling are *NOT* cyclists.)

Andy Coggan

 

[Warren]

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

> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:181120031819136759%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:181120031543206432%[email protected]... the standing start is an example of a case
> > > where strength CAN BE limiting. Maximal power while sprinting, OTOH, typically occurs at 120+
> > > rpm...at which point the force exerted is far from maximal (i.e., strength is not limiting).
> >
> > So we have Cipo and Petacchi sprinting side by side going the same speed at approximately the
> > same power. Max strength has little bearing on the result from this point onward to the line.
> >
> > The next day Petacchi is on Cipo's wheel and Robbie McKewen is on Petacchi's wheel. The 200
> > meter sign arrives at 40mph and Petacchi and McKewen need to accelerate by Cipo to win. Now how
> > much does max strength matter?
>
> It doesn't play any role at all. Strength is the maximal force generating capacity of muscle,
> which occurs at zero velocity (excluding lengthening contractions).

So my definition of strength is different than yours. Fine. What property of muscle is it that
allows a person to jump harder/quicker than another person? Whatever you want to call it that
ability has been improved countless times with appropriate resistance training and with other
training too.

> > I know that Petacchi is doing weights right now.
>
> So?

To improve his ability as as sprinter, which is really what the discussion should be about, not the
precise definition of strength as you prefer to use the term.

> > I don't think a person such as yourself (a self-described poor sprinter with not much jump) is
> > an appropriate representative for sprinting and accelerations that would benefit from the
> > ability to generate high forces.
>
> Nonsense. The physiological principles at play here apply to all mammalian muscles, so I could
> just as well prove my point by showing data from a mouse.

Nonsense. As any good sprinter knows it takes practice to properly coordinate the muscles to sprint
well, and/or to perform hard accelerations and standing starts on a bike outdoors. As AMH told you
this ability can be taught and can help even poor sprinters like yourself to improve their
sprinting. Your data would likely look different if your ability/skill could be improved.

> You obviously just don't have enough of an understanding of muscle physiology to "get it" (which
> is why I keep having to explain the same points to you over and over and over again).

Same for you about sprinting and standing starts.

> > I'd give you some data but my Polar PM only averages over 5 seconds so I doubt it's very useful
> > for the type of analysis you're trying to do.
>
> The Polar doesn't average over 5 s, it just records the 1 s average every 5
> s. But in any case, please send the data along...I might even be nice enough to tell you the
> cadence at which you generate maximal power.

Experience/practice is an accurate way to decide what gearing and cadence to use for a sprint in an
actual race and this will also vary depending on the course and conditions, tactics, etc. It's not a
lab with ideal, static conditions and no pair of numbers would be ideal for the variety of
situations it could be used.

And maximal power isn't the priority, it's how fast you can go to the line that counts. If you're
sitting down less power is needed to overcome the wind resistance so power can be lower but speed
can still be higher. Or you may be best when you wait in the draft (at relatively low power) and
then jump at very high, but brief power to win, ala Petacchi. You could also consider the amount of
power over 100m, 200m, 300m, etc. because all are possible ways to sprint well in a race.

> What confuses people like you is the fact that muscle size plays a role in determining both
> maximal power and maximal force (i.e., strength) - this leads to the false assumption that a
> person's strength is an important determinant of their power, and that training to increase
> strength will increase power.

What confuses people like you is that training to increase x can lead to an increase in the
quickness of accelerations and the number of them that can be done at less than 100% effort.

Go measure the speed and accelerations of good sprinters and then look for trends in their 1RM squat
and the amount of weight they can squat in sets of 10-15 (assumes sufficient skill doing squats).
Please provide data that shows that a person who improves/increses these weights does not also
increase their ability to accelerate on their bike (with appropriate training on the bike to go
along with the resistance training).

-WG

 

[William Belafor]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:181120032006542647%[email protected]...
> >
> > It doesn't play any role at all. Strength is the maximal force generating capacity of muscle,
> > which occurs at zero velocity (excluding lengthening contractions).
>
> So my definition of strength is different than yours. Fine. What property of muscle is it that
> allows a person to jump harder/quicker than another person?

Dumbass -

That's power (work per unit of time).

Strength is different than power - there is no time component when evaluating strength.

>Go measure the speed and accelerations of good sprinters and then look for trends in their 1RM
>squat and the amount of weight they can squat in sets of 10-15 (assumes sufficient skill doing
>squats). Please provide data that shows that a person who improves/increses these weights does not
>also increase their ability to accelerate on their bike (with appropriate training on the bike to
>go along with the resistance training).

Been there, done that.

Spending all winter in the weight room didn't help a fraction as much as spending all winter on the
bike. I'm good at the weight room too - maxed out the leg press machine (sets of 10 with 1000 lbs.)
and could have done more. Didn't work as well as riding, even for sprinting.

As an aside, one of my teamates had the fastest first half lap in the kilo on year at Nationals
(real nats, not Master Fattie) one year and he couldn't do **** in the weight room.

Power (output per unit of time).

We don't pedal at less than 20 rpm (the frequency of strength sets in the weight room).

As Cooglian says: specificity.

 

[Ron Jenkins]

He's probably the best example among world-class athletes because you can find out exactly what he
was doing . . .

Ron

Tim Mullin wrote:

> "DESAY" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > I've read that among the athletes that have used these methods of training
> were
> > Valery Borzov and Ben Johnson who have utilized a 3RM squat load 10
> minutes
> > before winning 100 meter championships.
>
> Johnson was known for using a number of "methods of training." Probably not the best example....

 

[Mr60percent]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> High power is generated when large muscles contract rapidly. High forces are generated when large
> muscles contract slowly, and maximal force is generated when large muscles contract against a
> resistance so high that they do not shorten at all. What confuses people like you is the fact that
> muscle size plays a role in determining both maximal power and maximal force (i.e., strength) -
> this leads to the false assumption that a person's strength is an important determinant of their
> power, and that training to increase strength will increase power. The points that you're
> overlooking are 1) both power and strength are also heavily influenced by how the muscles are
> controlled by the nervous system (with adaptations in this control being HIGHLY specific to mode
> of exercise), and 2) power is also determined by how quickly force declines with increasing
> velocity of shortening (i.e., fiber type/myosin ATPase activity).
>
> Here's but one example showing that strength and power are not necessarily related:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9973770&dopt=-
> Abstract
>
> (Yes, I know, these are volleyball players, not cyclists - but as both the recent AIS talent
> search and Jim Martin's data show, many times the individuals who can generate the most power
> while pedaling are *NOT* cyclists.)
>
> Andy Coggan

This thread and the f@uckers on it has confused the complete f@ck out of me. So maybe explain it to
me like I'm a 3 year old.

I just want to kown the follow:

(1) to improve my sprint (that is initial acceleration or jump and top end speed) what is the
best way ?

(2) why do the top sprinters use weights ? (maybe someone can tell me how they use them). Is there a
difference between what Petacchi does and what some German track monster does ?

(3) Diverging from the practical, I know I'm asking for trouble with this one - is the top end speed
governed by max power generation ? And what governs the ability to accelerate ?

 

[Andy Coggan]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:181120032006542647%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:181120031819136759%[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:181120031543206432%[email protected]... the standing start is an example of a case
> > > > where strength CAN BE limiting. Maximal power
while
> > > > sprinting, OTOH, typically occurs at 120+ rpm...at which point the
force
> > > > exerted is far from maximal (i.e., strength is not limiting).
> > >
> > > So we have Cipo and Petacchi sprinting side by side going the same speed at approximately the
> > > same power. Max strength has little bearing on the result from this point onward to the line.
> > >
> > > The next day Petacchi is on Cipo's wheel and Robbie McKewen is on Petacchi's wheel. The 200
> > > meter sign arrives at 40mph and Petacchi and McKewen need to accelerate by Cipo to win. Now
> > > how much does max strength matter?
> >
> > It doesn't play any role at all. Strength is the maximal force
generating
> > capacity of muscle, which occurs at zero velocity (excluding lengthening contractions).
>
> So my definition of strength is different than yours. Fine.

Not fine - this is muscle physiology we're talking about here, therefore only one definition is
possible: the maximal force generating capacity of muscle.

>What property of muscle is it that allows a person to jump harder/quicker than another person?

Power

> Whatever you want to call it that ability has been improved countless times with appropriate
> resistance training and with other training too.

Yeah? Provide some evidence (name-dropping doesn't count).

> > > I know that Petacchi is doing weights right now.
> >
> > So?
>
> To improve his ability as as sprinter, which is really what the discussion should be about, not
> the precise definition of strength as you prefer to use the term.

First, since when are you charge of where this - or any - discussion on the internet goes? Second,
the distinction between strength and power is extremely important, because it has a direct and
significant impact on HOW weight training should be performed if you hope to improve cycling
performance. Third, it isn't my "preference" that strength be defined as the maximal force
generating capacity of muscle - that IS the definition of strength in this context, and in part it
is your unfamiliarity with appropriate terminology that has led to your (and other's) confusion.
Only when you (and others) can properly and *conceptually* (as in, understand the underlying
physiological/molecular mechanisms) distinguish between strength and power is it possible to move on
to other matters.

> > > I don't think a person such as yourself (a self-described poor
sprinter
> > > with not much jump) is an appropriate representative for sprinting and accelerations that
> > > would benefit from the ability to generate high forces.
> >
> > Nonsense. The physiological principles at play here apply to all
mammalian
> > muscles, so I could just as well prove my point by showing data from a mouse.
>
> Nonsense. As any good sprinter knows it takes practice to properly coordinate the muscles to
> sprint well, and/or to perform hard accelerations and standing starts on a bike outdoors. As AMH
> told you this ability can be taught and can help even poor sprinters like yourself to improve
> their sprinting. Your data would likely look different if your ability/skill could be improved.

First, no amount of practice will change the fact that as velocity of shortening increases, force
production decreases - this is an intrinsic property of muscle that arises from the sliding filament
mechanism itself. It is this property that results in maximal power occuring at less-than-maximal
force, i.e., means that strength is not limiting. Second, contrary to your clalim very little, if
any, practice is actually required to produce maximal power - Jim assessed this in his studies, just
as I did in my undergraduate honors thesis (never published) and masters thesis
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_u
ids=6746177&dopt=Abstract).

> > You obviously just don't have enough of an understanding of muscle physiology to "get it" (which
> > is why I keep having to explain the same points to you over and over and over again).
>
> Same for you about sprinting and standing starts.

What is it that I don't understand? You repeatedly make allusions and assertions to try to
contradict my claims, but you present no actual data or counterclaims/concepts of your own.

> > > I'd give you some data but my Polar PM only averages over 5 seconds so I doubt it's very
> > > useful for the type of analysis you're trying to do.
> >
> > The Polar doesn't average over 5 s, it just records the 1 s average
every 5
> > s. But in any case, please send the data along...I might even be nice
enough
> > to tell you the cadence at which you generate maximal power.
>
> Experience/practice is an accurate way to decide what gearing and cadence to use for a sprint in
> an actual race and this will also vary depending on the course and conditions, tactics, etc. It's
> not a lab with ideal, static conditions and no pair of numbers would be ideal for the variety of
> situations it could be used.

See, there you go again: unable to stay on point. I didn't promise to tell you your optimum cadence
or gear, just the cadence at which you generate maximal power.

> And maximal power isn't the priority, it's how fast you can go to the line that counts. If you're
> sitting down less power is needed to overcome the wind resistance

Since few people sprint well when standing and pedaling at 120+ rpm, you'd better be sitting down if
you want to produce maximal power.

> so power can be lower but speed can still be higher. Or you may be best when you wait in the draft
> (at relatively low power) and then jump at very high, but brief power to win, ala Petacchi. You
> could also consider the amount of power over 100m, 200m, 300m, etc. because all are possible ways
> to sprint well in a race.

And what does this have to do with my point that strength does not limit power?

> > What confuses people like you is the fact that muscle size plays a role in determining both
> > maximal power and maximal force (i.e., strength) - this leads to the false assumption that a
> > person's strength
is
> > an important determinant of their power, and that training to increase strength will increase
> > power.
>
> What confuses people like you is that training to increase x can lead to an increase in the
> quickness of accelerations and the number of them that can be done at less than 100% effort.

Except in this case, it can't (doesn't). That is, training to increase strength does not increase
power (except to the extent that it induces hypertrophy). This has been shown over and over again in
quantitative experiments.

> Go measure the speed and accelerations of good sprinters and then look for trends in their 1RM
> squat and the amount of weight they can squat in sets of 10-15 (assumes sufficient skill doing
> squats).

I just posted an abstract showing that there was no relation between maximal cycling power and
static strength in volleyball players. You'll of course criticize those data as not applicable
because the study subjects weren't cyclists, but if your claim that practice/skill is such an
important component, explain this: why is it that you can often find NON-cyclists who can just jump
on a bike and generate 20 W/kg with no practice at all? The answer is that pedaling is NOT something
that requires a lot of skill (something that the AIS has realized., which is why they performed
their talent search).

> Please provide data that shows that a person who improves/increses these weights does not also
> increase their ability to accelerate on their bike (with appropriate training on the bike to go
> along with the resistance training).

Let's turn this on its head: your faith in weight training borders on the religous, since there is
no quantitative evidence to support your claims, and no underlying physiological principles that
would suggest that they should be true. I'd therefore say that the onus is on YOU to provide such
data, just like the onus is/was on proponents of cold fusion to show that it could be accomplished.
(Of course I know that you can't provide such data, since 1) such highly specific information
doesn't exist, and 2) you don't understand muscle physiology well enough to realize what the
literarlly hunderds of related studies tell us. However, that's your problem, not mine.)

As the saying goes: in (insert name of preferred diety here*) we trust, everybody else better
bring data...

*Max Testa doesn't count. ;-)

Andy Coggan

 

[Chris]

You might think that, but it wouldn't. The fact is, 2-3 months of training won't do **** for you. I
don't have exact numbers, but 10 weeks is the accepted "cut-off". Before that, there isn't any
significant gain in mass. Most riders confuse the shift in fluid to the muscle (ie, the "pump") with
increases in mass. Like I said earlier, I'd give it a good 6 months to see some serious gains.

On another note, the current weight lifting regiments used by cyclists are not particularly
conducive to growth. In fact, most contempory body builders have gone to working muscle groups as
little as 1 or 2 times per week vs the cyclists 3 day/week program.

CH

warren <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<171120030934564892%[email protected]>...
> 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

 

[Andy Coggan]

"mr60percent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > High power is generated when large muscles contract rapidly. High forces
are
> > generated when large muscles contract slowly, and maximal force is
generated
> > when large muscles contract against a resistance so high that they do
not
> > shorten at all. What confuses people like you is the fact that muscle
size
> > plays a role in determining both maximal power and maximal force (i.e., strength) - this leads
> > to the false assumption that a person's strength
is
> > an important determinant of their power, and that training to increase strength will increase
> > power. The points that you're overlooking are 1)
both
> > power and strength are also heavily influenced by how the muscles are controlled by the nervous
> > system (with adaptations in this control being HIGHLY specific to mode of exercise), and 2)
> > power is also determined by
how
> > quickly force declines with increasing velocity of shortening (i.e.,
fiber
> > type/myosin ATPase activity).
> >
> > Here's but one example showing that strength and power are not
necessarily
> > related:
> >
> >
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9973770&dopt=Abstract
> >
> > (Yes, I know, these are volleyball players, not cyclists - but as both
the
> > recent AIS talent search and Jim Martin's data show, many times the individuals who can generate
> > the most power while pedaling are *NOT* cyclists.)
> >
> > Andy Coggan
>
>
> This thread and the f@uckers on it has confused the complete f@ck out of me. So maybe explain it
> to me like I'm a 3 year old.
>
> I just want to kown the follow:
>
> (1) to improve my sprint (that is initial acceleration or jump and top end speed) what is the best
> way ?

Not necessarily in any particular order (although #1 must come first)

1. Pick your parents wisely
2. Lift weights (and/or take drugs) to grow big muscles
3. Train by sprinting

> (2) why do the top sprinters use weights ? (maybe someone can tell me how they use them).

They *should* be using them to induce hypertrophy, as that's the only thing that will really carry
over to the bike.

>Is there a difference between what Petacchi does and what some German track monster does ?

I have no idea, but I would assume that the track sprinters focus even more on weights in general
and hypertrophy in particular.

> (3) Diverging from the practical, I know I'm asking for trouble with this one - is the top end
> speed governed by max power generation ?

Speed is always determined by power and the resistive forces that must be overcome. If there's
somebody who only seems to pull away from you towards the end of a side-by-side sprint, when speed
is high, then either they're generating more power or they have less wind resistance (or both). If
the former, it could be due to their having a higher max power, a slower rate of fatigue (depending
on the length of the sprint), or more fast-twitch-like muscles (i.e., their power is higher despite
the high pedaling rate because it falls off less with increasing muscle shortening velocity).

> And what governs the ability to accelerate ?

It is *always* power vs. resistance.

Andy Coggan

 

[Chris]

I think in general, MR 60 is correct at the local level, but most people misjudge the size of pro
cyclists. Case in point: Merckx and Indurain were very big for cyclists and great TTers, Armstrong
is probably a bit tall for a cyclist too, but Lemond and Rominger (to mention two) were 5'9", and
Hamilton is 5'8 and all were "pretty good" at the TT too. I think Prudencio, Mig's brother was big
too, but he was last in many TT's, and compared to me, I know one guy who is huge and a better TTer
than myself, but he hardly crushes me.

The point here is that you can generalize, but you can't do anything more. As Andy pointed out, the
data are clear about the qualities that determine TT performance; what you're trying to do is
compare non-elite to elite and generalize. At the local level, size probably plays a big role
because these guys can produce more force with little negative affect of frontal area, but at the
elite level, VO2 max, LT and economy are more important. Last word, taking Big Mig, he was big, but
he had numerous qualities that made him great, and size was merely something that added to his
"mystique".

CH

 

[Andy Coggan]

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

> At the local level, size probably plays a big role because these guys can produce more force

Power.

> with little negative affect of frontal area, but at the elite level, VO2 max, LT and economy are
> more important.

Together, VO2max, LT, and efficiency determine sustainable power regardless of the level of athlete
(or even level of function, e.g., nursing home residents).

Andy Coggan

 

[Chris]

I agree, power is higher, but aren't we really talking about the amount of force at a given cadence
increasing, which actually leads to higher power. Obviously power is the final number we look at,
but someone who is 6'3 and 220 would be able to, assuming they are well trained, produce greater
torque at a given cadence. Whatever the case, you are correct about physiologic variables being the
overall determiner.

I guess I was trying to make the point, that its more common to find a less "talented" (for lack of
a better term) local house a good cat 1 or 2 rider in a TT, but still amount to nothing is anyother
type of racing. Clearly, there are numerous factors that are at play in pack racing, but size
correlates (or seems to) with power (and flat TT) better at lower levels of training than at the
elite level. Among similar groups, however, shear size is far less influential by itself.
Admittedly, size itself can be a confounding factor when looking at TT performance, and therefore is
a poor factor to use.

Here's a question for you, why do we see highly talented roadies - great at climbing, decent
sprinting and even good in flat races and crits, totally **** out in TT's. I know a few riders
myself who cannot TT to save their lives, despite producing great results in very hard races. Sure
VO2 max, LT and economy must be; why do they suck so bad at TT's?

CH

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > At the local level, size probably plays a big role because these guys can produce more force
>
> Power.
>
> > with little negative affect of frontal area, but at the elite level, VO2 max, LT and economy are
> > more important.
>
> Together, VO2max, LT, and efficiency determine sustainable power regardless of the level of
> athlete (or even level of function, e.g., nursing home residents).
>
> Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

"chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I agree, power is higher, but aren't we really talking about the amount of force at a given
> cadence increasing, which actually leads to higher power. Obviously power is the final number we
> look at, but someone who is 6'3 and 220 would be able to, assuming they are well trained, produce
> greater torque at a given cadence.

Assuming not only that they are well trained (also equally talented/gifted), but that they also
pedal at the same cadence as a smaller person. Conceivably, though, they could be generating a
higher power simply by pedaling faster at the same, or even lower, torque.

> Whatever the case, you are correct about physiologic variables being the overall determiner.
>
> I guess I was trying to make the point, that its more common to find a less "talented" (for lack
> of a better term) local house a good cat 1 or 2 rider in a TT, but still amount to nothing is
> anyother type of racing. Clearly, there are numerous factors that are at play in pack racing, but
> size correlates (or seems to) with power (and flat TT) better at lower levels of training than at
> the elite level.

If it does, it is simply a selection phenomenon, i.e., big guys tend to like TTing, and indeed even
cycling in general (vs., say, running) simply because they tend to be better at it. But the same
physical and physiological influences are at play regardless of the level of competition.

> Among similar groups, however, shear size is far less influential by itself. Admittedly, size
> itself can be a confounding factor when looking at TT performance, and therefore is a poor factor
> to use.
>
> Here's a question for you, why do we see highly talented roadies - great at climbing, decent
> sprinting and even good in flat races and crits, totally **** out in TT's. I know a few riders
> myself who cannot TT to save their lives, despite producing great results in very hard races. Sure
> VO2 max, LT and economy must be; why do they suck so bad at TT's?

Because 1) their threshold power isn't as high as you might think, a deficiency they can conceal in
mass start racing by drafting more/better, 2) their other physiological traits (e.g., high anaerobic
capacity) allow them to get results despite their average threshold power, and/or 3) they TT
relatively poorly because they aren't aerodynamically talented, and/or 4) can't concentrate/motivate
themselves well enough when riding alone to perform up to their true physiological potential.

I guess #'s 1 and 2 are sort of the same thing, huh? Oh well...you get the point.

Andy Coggan

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, chris
<[email protected]> wrote:

> You might think that, but it wouldn't. The fact is, 2-3 months of training won't do **** for you.

I've noticed an improvement in my ability to to do harder sprints after just a few weeks of
resistance training off the bike. The resistance training also seems to strengthen my ligaments and
tendons (especially around my knees) so I don't hurt them during hard sprints or long, steep climbs.

> On another note, the current weight lifting regiments used by cyclists are not particularly
> conducive to growth. In fact, most contempory body builders have gone to working muscle groups as
> little as 1 or 2 times per week vs the cyclists 3 day/week program.

They work them for different reasons and benefits? I've always been a proponent of doing weights
only once per week on legs. The HST website Scott mentioned days ago suggests a particular regimen
that is several times per week but it looks to me like that type of training is closer to what a
cyclist would get by doing certain training on the bike 3 days per week.

-WG

 

[Warren]

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

> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:181120032006542647%[email protected]...

> > So my definition of strength is different than yours. Fine.
>
> Not fine - this is muscle physiology we're talking about here, therefore only one definition is
> possible: the maximal force generating capacity of muscle.

Yet earlier you weren't precise in your own terminolgy about velocity or something and you said it
was okay because of your intended audience. Oh the hypocrisy!
>
> >What property of muscle is it that allows a person to jump harder/quicker than another person?
>
> Power
>
> > Whatever you want to call it that ability has been improved countless times with appropriate
> > resistance training and with other training too.
>
> Yeah? Provide some evidence (name-dropping doesn't count).

I've already told you where to get that.
>
> > > > I know that Petacchi is doing weights right now.
> > >
> > > So?
> >
> > To improve his ability as as sprinter, which is really what the discussion should be about, not
> > the precise definition of strength as you prefer to use the term.
>
> First, since when are you charge of where this - or any - discussion on the internet goes? Second,
> the distinction between strength and power is extremely important, because it has a direct and
> significant impact on HOW weight training should be performed if you hope to improve cycling
> performance. Third, it isn't my "preference" that strength be defined as the maximal force
> generating capacity of muscle - that IS the definition of strength in this context, and in part it
> is your unfamiliarity with appropriate terminology that has led to your (and other's) confusion.
> Only when you (and others) can properly and *conceptually* (as in, understand the underlying
> physiological/molecular mechanisms) distinguish between strength and power is it possible to move
> on to other matters.

Not really a prerequisite. Just answer the 3 questions posed by another person here and the
terminolgy nuances become less important.

> Second, contrary to your clalim very little, if any, practice is actually required to produce
> maximal power - Jim assessed this in his studies, just as I did in my undergraduate honors thesis
> (never published) and masters thesis

Sure Andy. Any national-class sprintrs besides your buddy who were around to properly review your
thesis-whatever that was? Good sprinters practice aspects of their sprint unrelated (primarily) to
strength and power so they can go faster. You just don't know what you don't know. Try to suspend
your preconceived notions and talk to lots of sprinters about how they get fast.

> > > The Polar doesn't average over 5 s, it just records the 1 s average
> every 5
> > > s. But in any case, please send the data along...I might even be nice
> enough
> > > to tell you the cadence at which you generate maximal power.
> >
> > Experience/practice is an accurate way to decide what gearing and cadence to use for a sprint in
> > an actual race and this will also vary depending on the course and conditions, tactics, etc.
> > It's not a lab with ideal, static conditions and no pair of numbers would be ideal for the
> > variety of situations it could be used.
>
> See, there you go again: unable to stay on point. I didn't promise to tell you your optimum
> cadence or gear, just the cadence at which you generate maximal power.

A near useless piece of information for the reasons I described above.

> > And maximal power isn't the priority, it's how fast you can go to the line that counts. If
> > you're sitting down less power is needed to overcome the wind resistance
>
> Since few people sprint well when standing and pedaling at 120+ rpm, you'd better be sitting down
> if you want to produce maximal power.

I've already explained why maximal power isn't necessarily the goal.

> I just posted an abstract showing that there was no relation between maximal cycling power and
> static strength in volleyball players. You'll of course criticize those data as not applicable
> because the study subjects weren't cyclists, but if your claim that practice/skill is such an
> important component, explain this: why is it that you can often find NON-cyclists who can just
> jump on a bike and generate 20 W/kg with no practice at all? The answer is that pedaling is NOT
> something that requires a lot of skill (something that the AIS has realized., which is why they
> performed their talent search).

Once again. Power is not the ultimate goal of a sprinter. Their training reflects this.

-WG

 

[Warren]

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

> "mr60percent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > I just want to kown the follow:
> >
> > (1) to improve my sprint (that is initial acceleration or jump and top end speed) what is the
> > best way ?
>
> Not necessarily in any particular order (although #1 must come first)
>
> 1. Pick your parents wisely
> 2. Lift weights (and/or take drugs) to grow big muscles
> 3. Train by sprinting

See, when we throw out all the silly terminology debates most of the answers are clearer.

-WG

 

[Andy Coggan]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:191120030922345048%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:181120032006542647%[email protected]...
>
> > > So my definition of strength is different than yours. Fine.
> >
> > Not fine - this is muscle physiology we're talking about here, therefore only one definition is
> > possible: the maximal force generating capacity
of
> > muscle.
>
> Yet earlier you weren't precise in your own terminolgy about velocity or something and you said it
> was okay because of your intended audience. Oh the hypocrisy!

I never said that at all - in fact, I defended my use of the term "circumferential pedal velocity"
because this is the term frequently used in the scientific literature.

> > >What property of muscle is it that allows a person to jump harder/quicker than another person?
> >
> > Power
> >
> > > Whatever you want to call it that ability has been improved countless times with appropriate
> > > resistance training and with other training too.
> >
> > Yeah? Provide some evidence (name-dropping doesn't count).
>
> I've already told you where to get that.

Again, where is the evidence? You won't find it in the scientifiic literature, I can tell you that.
You also won't find it in other sports,
e.g., swimming. Only in cycling does the mistaken belief seem to hold sway that lifting weights to
increase strength is a good way of increasing power.

> > > > > I know that Petacchi is doing weights right now.
> > > >
> > > > So?
> > >
> > > To improve his ability as as sprinter, which is really what the discussion should be about,
> > > not the precise definition of strength as you prefer to use the term.
> >
> > First, since when are you charge of where this - or any - discussion on
the
> > internet goes? Second, the distinction between strength and power is extremely important,
> > because it has a direct and significant impact on
HOW
> > weight training should be performed if you hope to improve cycling performance. Third, it isn't
> > my "preference" that strength be defined as
the
> > maximal force generating capacity of muscle - that IS the definition of strength in this
> > context, and in part it is your unfamiliarity with appropriate terminology that has led to your
> > (and other's) confusion.
Only
> > when you (and others) can properly and *conceptually* (as in, understand
the
> > underlying physiological/molecular mechanisms) distinguish between
strength
> > and power is it possible to move on to other matters.
>
> Not really a prerequisite. Just answer the 3 questions posed by another person here and the
> terminolgy nuances become less important.

I already did.

> > Second, contrary to your clalim very little, if any, practice is actually
required
> > to produce maximal power - Jim assessed this in his studies, just as I
did
> > in my undergraduate honors thesis (never published) and masters thesis
>
> Sure Andy. Any national-class sprintrs besides your buddy who were around to properly review
> your thesis

Jim is the only national (master) class sprinter that I am aware of who would be properly qualified
to review my undergraduate thesis (although he wasn't qualifed at the time, still being an
engineer/engineer-in-training).

>-whatever that was?

Effect of crank length on short-term power.

> Good sprinters practice aspects of their sprint unrelated (primarily) to strength and power so
> they can go faster. You just don't know what you don't know. Try to suspend your preconceived
> notions and talk to lots of sprinters about how they get fast.

See, once again you're confusing different issues: I never said that practice (vs. training, i.e.,
implying a skill/motor control component) wouldn't help somebody's sprinting ability, just that it
wasn't necessary (except in complete neophytes to the act of pedaling) to practice producing maximal
power to be able to produce maximal power. (Besides, what makes you think that sprinters actually
know what makes them fast?)

> > > > The Polar doesn't average over 5 s, it just records the 1 s average
> > every 5
> > > > s. But in any case, please send the data along...I might even be
nice
> > enough
> > > > to tell you the cadence at which you generate maximal power.
> > >
> > > Experience/practice is an accurate way to decide what gearing and cadence to use for a sprint
> > > in an actual race and this will also vary depending on the course and conditions, tactics,
> > > etc. It's not a lab with ideal, static conditions and no pair of numbers would be ideal
for
> > > the variety of situations it could be used.
> >
> > See, there you go again: unable to stay on point. I didn't promise to
tell
> > you your optimum cadence or gear, just the cadence at which you generate maximal power.
>
> A near useless piece of information for the reasons I described above.

Not *entirely* useless - for example, since I know that the cadence at which I produce maximal power
is lower than average, I automatically know that I need to use a bigger gear than average when
sprinting. I agree with you when you say that "Experience/practice is an accurate way to decide what
gearing and cadence to use for a sprint in an actual race...", but you could also speed up a
beginning rider's learning curve based on testing/calculations such as I allude to.

> > > And maximal power isn't the priority, it's how fast you can go to the line that counts. If
> > > you're sitting down less power is needed to overcome the wind resistance
> >
> > Since few people sprint well when standing and pedaling at 120+ rpm,
you'd
> > better be sitting down if you want to produce maximal power.
>
> I've already explained why maximal power isn't necessarily the goal.

Winning is of course the goal - but whereas being strong won't help you achieve that goal, being
powerful most certainly will. Ergo, weight traiing, if employed, should be used in a manner so as to
enhance power, not strength. Somewhat counterintuitively, this means lifting using moderate-to-heavy
weights at relatively slow velocities, since this is the best way of inducing hypertrophy.

> > I just posted an abstract showing that there was no relation between
maximal
> > cycling power and static strength in volleyball players. You'll of
course
> > criticize those data as not applicable because the study subjects
weren't
> > cyclists, but if your claim that practice/skill is such an important component, explain this:
> > why is it that you can often find NON-cyclists
who
> > can just jump on a bike and generate 20 W/kg with no practice at all?
The
> > answer is that pedaling is NOT something that requires a lot of skill (something that the AIS
> > has realized., which is why they performed their talent search).
>
> Once again. Power is not the ultimate goal of a sprinter. Their training reflects this.

See above.

Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:191120030928568003%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "mr60percent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> > > I just want to kown the follow:
> > >
> > > (1) to improve my sprint (that is initial acceleration or jump and top end speed) what is the
> > > best way ?
> >
> > Not necessarily in any particular order (although #1 must come first)
> >
> > 1. Pick your parents wisely
> > 2. Lift weights (and/or take drugs) to grow big muscles
> > 3. Train by sprinting
>
> See, when we throw out all the silly terminology debates most of the answers are clearer.

So you're saying that you agree with my position that lifting doesn't (automatically) result in an
increase in power, that if you're going to lift, the intent should be to grow big muscles, nothing
else, and that there's really not much point in doing on-the-bike "strength" training at a cadence
far removed from that actually employed in competition? Imagine that...

Andy Coggan

 

[Chris]

I tend to agree with both these points
>
> Assuming not only that they are well trained (also equally talented/gifted), but that they also
> pedal at the same cadence as a smaller person. Conceivably, though, they could be generating a
> higher power simply by pedaling faster at the same, or even lower, torque.
>
> > Whatever the case, you are correct about physiologic variables being the overall determiner.
> >
> > I guess I was trying to make the point, that its more common to find a less "talented" (for lack
> > of a better term) local house a good cat 1 or 2 rider in a TT, but still amount to nothing is
> > anyother type of racing. Clearly, there are numerous factors that are at play in pack racing,
> > but size correlates (or seems to) with power (and flat TT) better at lower levels of training
> > than at the elite level.
This is definately a confounding factor, because many large riders shy away from other evetns.

> If it does, it is simply a selection phenomenon, i.e., big guys tend to like TTing, and indeed
> even cycling in general (vs., say, running) simply because they tend to be better at it. But the
> same physical and physiological influences are at play regardless of the level of competition.
>
> > Among similar groups, however, shear size is far less influential by itself. Admittedly, size
> > itself can be a confounding factor when looking at TT performance, and therefore is a poor
> > factor to use.
> >
> > Here's a question for you, why do we see highly talented roadies - great at climbing, decent
> > sprinting and even good in flat races and crits, totally **** out in TT's. I know a few riders
> > myself who cannot TT to save their lives, despite producing great results in very hard races.
> > Sure VO2 max, LT and economy must be; why do they suck so bad at TT's?

I definately believe 3 and 4 play a greater value than many give credence to, enough to completely
override 1 & 2. I make this point because I can think of one rider I have consistently beaten in
TT's who has consistently beaten me in very hilly races. I have noted that despite some outstanding
equipment, he couldn't muster much more than 10-15 sec on me in a 10 mile TT. I just can't believe
my LT is higher.

> Because 1) their threshold power isn't as high as you might think, a deficiency they can conceal
> in mass start racing by drafting more/better, 2) their other physiological traits (e.g., high
> anaerobic capacity) allow them to get results despite their average threshold power, and/or 3)
> they TT relatively poorly because they aren't aerodynamically talented, and/or 4) can't
> concentrate/motivate themselves well enough when riding alone to perform up to their true
> physiological potential.
>
> I guess #'s 1 and 2 are sort of the same thing, huh? Oh well...you get the point.
>
> Andy Coggan