gyming to improve power

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I did, lots of outdated misinformation



yes

Ha! you've really got no idea what you're talking about have you?


and you're evidence to support your "theory" is...?

ric

Ha! you've really got no idea what you're talking about have you?


and you're evidence to support your "theory" is...?

ric

Actually Ric, he could have been referring to the posts by himself, Coolworx and (sorry mate - I like you but I disagree) Carrera. A lot of outdated misinformation...

There's an old story about the hare and the tortoise. The old Greek philosophers argued that logically speaking, the hare could never catch the tortoise up. This is because every time the hare advances a measured distance, the tortoise will have advanced. You can draw a line on a graph and it would seem to prove the tortoise can never catch the hair. However, we all know that in practice the hare will definitely outrun the tortoise.
This is the problem with applying too much science to a practical situation. Sorry, guys, but it seems obvious to me that strength bears some relevance to cycling. The stronger your thigh muscles are, the more advantage you will have with regard to the use of bigger gears, say, on steep climbs.
As I say, I'm convinced the reason I usually pass lots of other guys on the steepest part of an ascent is due to having squatted - plus the fact my bodyweight is now quite lower. Of course, I'm not saying squats will make you a better cyclist all around - I usually struggle like hell on the flat and on descents. But it will have some effect on your technique.
Most of us who are pro-squat are pro-squat because we did squats. Many guys can see there is a difference just Like LA testifies in his book he noticed that his weight program had helped him to a certain degree. I confess I occasionally reflect on this thread when I'm on my bike and really busting my ass to power pedals in higher gears. I need all my strength on those occasions.

There's an old story about the hare and the tortoise. The old Greek philosophers argued that logically speaking, the hare could never catch the tortoise up. This is because every time the hare advances a measured distance, the tortoise will have advanced. You can draw a line on a graph and it would seem to prove the tortoise can never catch the hair. However, we all know that in practice the hare will definitely outrun the tortoise.
This is the problem with applying too much science to a practical situation. Sorry, guys, but it seems obvious to me that strength bears some relevance to cycling. The stronger your thigh muscles are, the more advantage you will have with regard to the use of bigger gears, say, on steep climbs.
As I say, I'm convinced the reason I usually pass lots of other guys on the steepest part of an ascent is due to having squatted - plus the fact my bodyweight is now quite lower. Of course, I'm not saying squats will make you a better cyclist all around - I usually struggle like hell on the flat and on descents. But it will have some effect on your technique.
Most of us who are pro-squat are pro-squat because we did squats. Many guys can see there is a difference just Like LA testifies in his book he noticed that his weight program had helped him to a certain degree. I confess I occasionally reflect on this thread when I'm on my bike and really busting my ass to power pedals in higher gears. I need all my strength on those occasions.
It seems that you have made your mind up and aren't willing to listen the overwealming weight of evidence that shows that your point of view is incorrect. Although strength training has been shown to increase economy and performance in other endurance sports I have never seen a single piece of evidence that suggests weight training in any of its forms has lead to improved performance in cycling.

Not quite sure about the tortoise-hare thing but I'm sure you know what you mean!

On first reflection I also thought that strength MUST have an effect on cycling performance but once you look at it scientifically, which you seem to be unwilling to do ar unable to grasp, it becomes more clear why EXTRA strength is of no added benefit to performance.
Are you also of the opinion that Heart rate or power or speed are also overanalysing a practical situation and do you just "get out there and see what happens"?
If you do, then that is great, but don't then expect to improve most efficiently as the odds are against you.
Enjoy the weather, fresh air and exercise and leave the science to those that want to maximise their improvements.

This is the problem with applying too much science to a practical situation. Sorry, guys, but it seems obvious to me that strength bears some relevance to cycling. The stronger your thigh muscles are, the more advantage you will have with regard to the use of bigger gears, say, on steep climbs.


unfortunately, you're completely wrong. try re reading the thread.

as an aside, you don't win races by riding a bigger gear, *in part* you win races by riding faster up the hill, which is determined by your power output. more power under given conditions = more velocity.

if we look at what it takes to win say the mountain TT at Alpe d'Huez, you'd need to produce a force of ~ 250 Newtons, between *both* legs. That's about 25 kg between both your legs. that's win in the TT at the TdF.

It's hardly a lot of force. the issue is maintaining it -- you could get most people off the street, assuming a few standard exceptions, and they could generate that and a whole lot more. they couldn't however keep it going. keeping it going is an issue related to cardiovascular and metabolic pathways. it's nowt to do with strength. you can generate stacks more force in an isometric contraction. you generate maximal force (strength) at zero velocity.

so, even if you're going slowly up a steep hill, you're not going faster not because of a lack of strength, but a lack of aerobic power. Think about it like this, i am likely way weaker than you and fell over the last time i tried to squat 50 kg (too much for me), butyou won't be able to stay with me when i go uphill, unless you can produce the same power to mass ratio as me

ric

As an afterthought I've been experimenting with gears a lot these days. The thing is if your legs aren't strong you will always have the option of high cadence in cycling. Anyone who gets onto the third ring will be able to keep pace with someone on the middle ring. This is why female cyclists are recommended to use higher cadence to keep up with men. Women usually have slightly weaker legs than men but they can level the advantage by gearing down.
I've had all sorts of experiences pacing other riders. The best guy I encountered was a high cadence climber who weighed less than me (maybe 2 stones less). I really had trouble keeping up with him when he passed me on a hill but I did notice he was pedaling really fast. I doubt he had strong legs but his technique was sound and most of these guys are a little fitter than I am aerobically. I'm sure he didn't do weights.
Sometimes I find it's me who's doing the spinning. I had this weird experience racing a guy on the road and I was in my biggest gear on the big ring. Yet it seemed to me I was pedaling far faster to keep pace so I can only assume the guy had very strong legs and slightly bigger cogs. His technique seemed to draw on strength and a steady, regulated style of pedaling. He wasn't really fast but seemed to ride with ease and no sweat while I was really drawing on my reserves. Would have been effective over bigger distances.
2 different riders, 2 different styles. Some guys make use of strong legs but it's my view strength is more of a factor if you want to uise higher gears (especially for climbing).

I was just wondering Ric, as you are the facts and figures guy, how much extra force you need to apply to turn a 11 cog instead of a 13 for example?
(Holding the same velocity/power output)

I cant imagine that the increase is that great is it? Even if you had some desire to pedal at a lower cadence for some reason.

Enough to warrant weight training? I think not.

This is where I differ. I don't swallow the notion that the average guy from the street could power a bike up very hilly terrain in a bigger gear.
I already guessed you're a high cadence rider since it's seemed to me you've been discussing a point from your own experience and style of riding that probably works very well for yourself. You state that anybody can generate sufficient forces to power a bike under various circumstances and I agree if we both assume the average guy from the street can select a lower gear. Again I agree that in such a scenario the novice will only bonk out when his endurance fails, as you point out. So far so good.
But are you suggesting the average guy from the street could climb in the tour de France with Jan Ullrich using the same gears as he does? Even for a short period? I recall the commentator at the time (a British guy) remarking what a huge gear Ullrich was using while all the other guys were on the smaller ring. He used the terms "legs like pistons" and "incredible power". It's also been mentioned before about Eddy Merkcx himself dropping one or two riders in a huge gear uphill in the tour.
But let's put it another way. I would love to see the average guy on the street climb with me on the big chain ring on a hilly course I do most days. Couldn't do it myself when I started out and that was when I squatted heavier than I do now (I only squat light these days and seldom).
I haven't argued that squatting will make a person a better cyclist, only perhaps a different kind of cyclist. But where I really differ on this point is that strength isn't relevant to cycling. When you state you can't squat heavy I don't think that proves anything as I assume you simply tried on one occasion. The same thing would happen to me if I tried to do snatches or something unfamiliar. I think if you tested yourself with a squatting program for a few weeks your progress would be far higher than the average guy on the street. I'll bet your strength would progress far more rapidly than a non-athlete (you'd probably do more reps than a novice after a short spell of adaptation).
All I'm saying is that cyclists are different and the same approach doesn't suit everyone. The trick is to find what works for you and stick with that. If weights don't help, no need to do them. If they affect you negatively (this happens to certain riders) leave gym-work out. This is my angle and I just try to keep an open mind and judge by personal experience as to what might (or might not) suit me.



unfortunately, you're completely wrong. try re reading the thread.

as an aside, you don't win races by riding a bigger gear, *in part* you win races by riding faster up the hill, which is determined by your power output. more power under given conditions = more velocity.

if we look at what it takes to win say the mountain TT at Alpe d'Huez, you'd need to produce a force of ~ 250 Newtons, between *both* legs. That's about 25 kg between both your legs. that's win in the TT at the TdF.

It's hardly a lot of force. the issue is maintaining it -- you could get most people off the street, assuming a few standard exceptions, and they could generate that and a whole lot more. they couldn't however keep it going. keeping it going is an issue related to cardiovascular and metabolic pathways. it's nowt to do with strength. you can generate stacks more force in an isometric contraction. you generate maximal force (strength) at zero velocity.

so, even if you're going slowly up a steep hill, you're not going faster not because of a lack of strength, but a lack of aerobic power. Think about it like this, i am likely way weaker than you and fell over the last time i tried to squat 50 kg (too much for me), butyou won't be able to stay with me when i go uphill, unless you can produce the same power to mass ratio as me

ric

This is where I differ. I don't swallow the notion that the average guy from the street could power a bike up very hilly terrain in a bigger gear.


i haven't said they could. i said they could generate the forces that an elite TdF pro can generate when e.g., climbing a hill


I already guessed you're a high cadence rider since it's seemed to me you've been discussing a point from your own experience and style of riding that probably works very well for yourself.


no i'm a low cadence rider. i live in a hillier area than you


You state that anybody can generate sufficient forces to power a bike under various circumstances and I agree if we both assume the average guy from the street can select a lower gear.


you seem unable or unwilling to grasp or understand what i'm saying. i'm saying that they can generate the same force. if they ride at the same power and use a lower gear then the force will be lower. do you understand?

i've already shown what forces are required to ride e.g., Alpe d'Huez and win and it's a miserably low 250 N (~ 25 kg between both legs). Untrained sedentary people can often/usually/most likely generate such a force.


But are you suggesting the average guy from the street could climb in the tour de France with Jan Ullrich using the same gears as he does?


most likely. for e.g., those guys need to climb ~ 400 - 450 W. most males of say 70ish kg (the mass- ish of Ullrich) will be able to generate > 800 W if only for brief periods of time, thus at ~ 400 W it's axiomatic that they can generate a lower power for longer. as they can generate a higher power, which requires more force than a lower power, then a lower power can be completed at a greater range of cadences as you'd have to pedal very slow to generate that force from the higher power at the lower power at a low cadence.

most males can generate 800 W at 100 revs/min (and to be honest most would be able generate higher power at lower cadences). however we'll leave at this for this calculation

at 400 W and 100 revs/min the forces required are half of the higher power. at 400 W and 50 revs/min the forces are the same as the higher power.

so, yes, they'd be able to ride Alpe d'Huez at a lower cadence than Ullrich at the same power (albeit for not as long, but as stated on a multitude of occasions that's an issue of a cardiovascular and metabolic nature and nowt whatsoever to do with strength).


When you state you can't squat heavy I don't think that proves anything as I assume you simply tried on one occasion.


no i tried on several occasions.


The same thing would happen to me if I tried to do snatches or something unfamiliar. I think if you tested yourself with a squatting program for a few weeks your progress would be far higher than the average guy on the street.


if you mean i'd be able to squat more than the guy on the street then yes, maybe i don't disagree. that's called *training* what do you expect to happen? to get worse?

ifyou mean get better at cycling, then this would only happen if the choice was no training at all or weights/squats.


This is my angle and I just try to keep an open mind and judge by personal experience as to what might (or might not) suit me.

you haven't kept an open mind you've completely ignored the available evidence

ric

I was just wondering Ric, as you are the facts and figures guy, how much extra force you need to apply to turn a 11 cog instead of a 13 for example?
(Holding the same velocity/power output)

I cant imagine that the increase is that great is it? Even if you had some desire to pedal at a lower cadence for some reason.

Enough to warrant weight training? I think not.

lets say you're an elite pro capable of 400 W, you do a TT and average 50.6 km/hr. in 53 x 13 that 98 revs/min and requires a force of 229 N (23.3 kg) between both legs

you decide to redo the TT (dunno why!!!) and this time everything is the same except you use 53 x 11 at 83 revs/min, the force goes up to 270 N (27.5 kg).

pretty much anyone can generate either of those forces ;-)

ric

lets say you're an elite pro capable of 400 W, you do a TT and average 50.6 km/hr. in 53 x 13 that 98 revs/min and requires a force of 229 N (23.3 kg) between both legs

you decide to redo the TT (dunno why!!!) and this time everything is the same except you use 53 x 11 at 83 revs/min, the force goes up to 270 N (27.5 kg).

pretty much anyone can generate either of those forces ;-)

ric
Cheers Ric

I would agree that these are not exessive forces even for a little guy like myself ;)

I must admit that it seems obvious that if you manage to improve your maximum strength then it seems logical that you can then do more repetitions X% of that weight.
There obviously comes a point though where this is no longer of importance and that point is a long way short of a short time trial and significantly shorter than a stage in the TdF! As has been refered to earlier in the thread(ie max strength is of use to sprinters but not once cardiovascular fitness becomes the determinant of performance).
If you must go to the gym then get on the exercise bike. You can then get an even better look at the male/female of your choice than you can lying on a leg press machine and you will improve your cycling performance at the same time :D
That is the main reason for going to the gym isn't it!?
;)

I don't see how developing fast twitch muscles will help in an endurance event, unless their is some way to convert that muscle to slow twitch.

However weight lifting will improve overall body strength and protect you if you fall.Without bulking up a stronger athelete is a better athelete, as they say.

One other way weightlifting may help is that it strengthens ligaments and tendons. Weightlifting may offer something in this area that cycling doesn't.

Cheers Ric

I would agree that these are not exessive forces even for a little guy like myself ;)


yes, i agree. i can do them too, and i'm not very strong at all. in general, i'd say there's little or no difference on average for the force and power that most can generate compared to elite TdF pros. where they differ is the duration that it can be sustained for.

However weight lifting will improve overall body strength and protect you if you fall.Without bulking up a stronger athelete is a better athelete, as they say.

One other way weightlifting may help is that it strengthens ligaments and tendons. Weightlifting may offer something in this area that cycling doesn't.

although this is often quoted, i've never seen any evidence to support it, or experienced this with anyone i know of, since i started coaching in '90.

I don't see how developing fast twitch muscles will help in an endurance event, unless their is some way to convert that muscle to slow twitch..

I mustn't have made myself clear. I wasn't impyling that it would. The opposite infact!
However weight lifting will improve overall body strength and protect you if you fall.Without bulking up a stronger athelete is a better athelete, as they say..
Is that instead of a helmet or as well as?How does weight lifting protect you if you fall? As has been written quite a few times on this thread, if you don't bulk up then your weight training is causing a neuromuscular adaption which is very specific to the angle/velocity that it is trained at. ie weight lifting makes you better at ..........weight lifting. Cycling?

One other way weightlifting may help is that it strengthens ligaments and tendons. Weightlifting may offer something in this area that cycling doesn't.
I wasn't aware that weight lifting trained ligaments and tendons better than some other form of training. I was under the impression that they became stronger in response to a change in musculature although they are slower to react to training than muscle fibres.
Does weight lifting realy strengthen L+T more efficiently than cycling for example? I can't say that I have ever thought about strengthening L's+T's, I have just been careful to not increase strength too quickly so that they have time to 'keep up' as it were.
Any other thoughts? :confused:

Not trying to be controversial, but my own experience is that weightlifting also conditions body parts other than muscle. Most lifters will also tell you this. It's just speculation on my part that it would affect cycling.

If one lifts very heavy for years, and then stop, your ligaments actually ache for some time after you stop. My interpretation is that they are accustomed to the load. Lifters also state that the tendons need more time than the muscles to increase their ability to handle heavy weight. I am just speculating that increased tendon and ligament strenght may be helpful in preventing injuries when one rides high miles. Not something one would do in season.

As far as falling, a few extra pounds of muscle does help. It's a personal preference. The times I've fallen I've been thankful for the lifting I do. Lifting also controls osteporosis, which could be a problem in the upper body of high mileage riders. It's not meant as a replacement for a helmet. We're talking about 2 or 3 pounds of upper body muscle.

I don't see how it could hurt to have a stronger back and upper body as long as one watches the weight. One can become quite a bit stronger without putting on much weight at all.

Lifting also controls osteporosis, which could be a problem in the upper body of high mileage riders. It's not meant as a replacement for a helmet. We're talking about 2 or 3 pounds of upper body muscle.


although this isn't one of my areas of expertise, a colleague whose it is, informs me that this isn't really the case, and that there's little or no evidence to support such a notion (that weight training increases bone mineral density)


I don't see how it could hurt to have a stronger back and upper body as long as one watches the weight. One can become quite a bit stronger without putting on much weight at all.

the strength that's gained when there's no increase in cross sectional area or only a small amount is likely to be mainly neuromuscular in nature. the gains that occur neuromuscularly only occur at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

ric

There's an old story about the hare and the tortoise. The old Greek philosophers argued that logically speaking, the hare could never catch the tortoise up. This is because every time the hare advances a measured distance, the tortoise will have advanced. You can draw a line on a graph and it would seem to prove the tortoise can never catch the hair. However, we all know that in practice the hare will definitely outrun the tortoise.
This is the problem with applying too much science to a practical situation.

Carrera, it is kind of funny that you use this as an analogy with your understanding of the science of weights. Zeno's paradoxes (there are a couple of other versions) were resolved independently by Liebniz and Newton in the early 1700's. It is a misunderstanding of the nature of infinity that leads to thinking that Zeno's paradox is true. It's resolution lies in the theory of limits and differentials - calculus. If you actually draw the line on the graph you will see the tortoise does catch the hare. This is the problem of not applying science in a practical situation, and not spending time coming to grips with the factors involved.

Ric,

I have a few questions, mostly in regards to the statement that strength gains, which are neuromuscular in nature, only occur at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

I am not very strong at the bench press, but I know individuals who have trained on the bench for years and are much stronger than I. They have followed a similar routine throughout the years and always lift at the same angle and velocity (say 1 ft per sec). If they increased that velocity (say to 1.5 ft per sec) would all there strength gains be for naught? Would they be no stronger than me? I can’t imagine that his is true, because I know that these individuals can lift more than me on the bench, no matter what the velocity. One explanation I can think of is that this is solely due to an increase in muscle cross-sectional area. The other explanation I can think of is that most strength is gained at a given velocity, but some strength gains are distributed throughout the velocity curve.

Also, how specific are neuromuscular gains? If I weight train at an angle of 52 degrees, will I have no strength gains at 53 degrees? What about 52.5? Or 52.01? What about velocity? If I weight train at a speed of 1ft/sec, will I have no strength gains at 1.1 ft/sec? How much variation is allowed?

Another question. On a leg press one can simulate the angle and position of cycling moderately well, except for the fact that the sled moves linearly, while the movement on a bike is circular. Thus, the force vectors are constantly changing on a bike, while they are staying constant on a leg press. Though at some point during the pedal stroke the force vector will match up with that which has been trained on the leg press. Assuming that velocity was also the same, that given point on the pedal stroke would have the same specific joint angle as was trained on the leg press. At that point would there be specific neuromuscular gains that would be transferred over from the leg press? Would the individual actually be able to output more force at that point in the stroke?

Last question. If strength has no bearing on long-term power output, why are most of the best time trialists larger riders? And when a rider loses weight his climbing obviously improves, but why would his time trialing get worse? I have seen and heard of this happening many times.

It makes sense that a normal sedentary person could output the same amount of force that is needed for one pedal stroke during a TdF time trial, but would they have enough leg strength (eliminating aerobic strength from consideration) to be able to sustain that for the entirety of the time trial? Just like you could put 120lbs on the bench press and almost any sedentary person could bench it at least once, but an extremely strong individual cold bench it almost indefinitely.

I just think that leg strength has to have something to do with steady state power output (I’m not saying it can be improved in the gym) or all the smallest riders in the peleton would be the best time trialists. Heck, they have the smallest coefficient of drag.

ty for your constantly repeated over and over again information ric. Believe me, just getting started at this again after 22 years is going to be tough enough, your information is invaluable to helping me get farther along on this.