why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power

In article . net, Andy
Coggan wrote:

"mr60percent" wrote in message
om...

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

"warren" wrote in message
...
In article . net, Andy
Coggan wrote:

"warren" wrote in message
...

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

"warren" wrote in message
...
In article . net, Andy
Coggan wrote:

"mr60percent" wrote in message
om...

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

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 crap 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" wrote in message ink.net...
"chris" wrote in message
om...

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" wrote in message
om...
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 crap 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

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 crap 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

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:14:52 GMT, "Andy Coggan" wrote:

"Top Sirloin" wrote in message
.. .

If you want to be the best cyclist possible - don't lift
year round. However if you're a masters racer concerned with bone density

As a professional in the field of exercise science, I should be the last
person to discourage individuals from exercising. Even so, I think it is
important to recognize that weight training is actually a fairly weak
stimulus for increasing bone mineral density, at least compared to impact
sports and/or drug treatment. So, if you're a master's racer who is *really*
concerned about your bone density (e.g., due to a family history of
osteoporosis, results of a DXA scan), you shouldn't blindly count on weight
training to protect you.

Really? This contradicts studies I've read concerning weight training and the
elderly (snicker), and the benefits supersede just bone density. Building the
musculature supporting the spine can potentially prevent a serious injury later
in life.

I can see impact sports being superior, but there's a lot of people that can't
participate in them because of joint problems that can still lift with weight
bearing exercises pain-free.


--

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

"Top Sirloin" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:14:52 GMT, "Andy Coggan"
wrote:

"Top Sirloin" wrote in message
.. .

If you want to be the best cyclist possible - don't lift
year round. However if you're a masters racer concerned with bone
density

As a professional in the field of exercise science, I should be the last
person to discourage individuals from exercising. Even so, I think it is
important to recognize that weight training is actually a fairly weak
stimulus for increasing bone mineral density, at least compared to impact
sports and/or drug treatment. So, if you're a master's racer who is
*really*
concerned about your bone density (e.g., due to a family history of
osteoporosis, results of a DXA scan), you shouldn't blindly count on
weight
training to protect you.

Really? This contradicts studies I've read concerning weight training and
the
elderly (snicker),

No, it doesn't - you just haven't also read studies looking at the rate of
bone loss in women in the years immediately following menopause, or the rate
of bone gain when individuals have been given drugs such as phosomax. If you
had, then you'd be able to put the changes in bone mineral density due to
resistance training into context.

FWIW, two colleagues from my post-doc days - Wendy Kohrt and Gail Dalsky -
and a PhD student from a former department - Sue Bloomfield - are among the
best known researchers studying exercise and bone mineral density. It was
via participating in research that Gail was conducting some 10-15 years ago
that I learned that my own bone mineral density is on the low side, enough
to now put me in the osteopenic range (despite the fact that I've lifted
weights for at least 3 months of most of the intervening years). This is why
I've been boning up g on the possible need for treatment and what options
are available.

and the benefits supersede just bone density. Building the
musculature supporting the spine can potentially prevent a serious injury
later
in life.

I can see impact sports being superior, but there's a lot of people that
can't
participate in them because of joint problems that can still lift with
weight
bearing exercises pain-free.

I'm not trying to diss weight lifting, just pointing out that people
shouldn't count on that alone to protect them.

Andy Coggan

(mr60percent) wrote in message . com...
(Rik O'Shea) wrote in message

Ones ability to ride at high velocities for long periods of time is a
function of VO2max, lactate threshold and economy (efficiency). Since
the forces required to reach VO2max are well below those for maximal
force and strength requirements, strength is not considered to be an
important part of endurance training.

TT winners are defined by the above aerobic cycling abilities...

Although what you are saying makes some sort of sense how do you
account for the fact that most good TTs tends to be big guys who can
crunch the big gears. All the really good guys seem to be strong
athletes - Induraion, Moser, Merckx, Ulrich...

In all the local clubs I've been attached to its always the big guys
that trash the squirts when it come to the TT or rolling a big gear. I
think everyone has a story about some local big guy who kills everyone
on the flat by rolling a big gear.. and its always a big gorrilla
never a Pantani squirt.

Ah Mr60 as always you seem to want to extract the practical from the
musing of the academics. You are correct in trying to relate this
information to your own practical experience however you may
understandably have misinterpreted one of the concepts. The terms
power and strength tend to be bandied about quite arbitrarily in
cycling. When we specify a strong or powerful rider we may be talking
about a rider who generates more than 1000 W sustainable for a few
seconds during a sprint or we could be talking about a rider who
generates just over 400 W while riding at LT threshold or TT pace for
an hour. And of course there are many variations.

The area that you have questioned relates to power at LT threshold or
TT pace which tends to be governed by the cardiovascular system. A big
engine (heart & lungs) is the main driver for this system as opposed
to muscle size. For example Indurain could sustain about 510 W for an
hour. You and I could sprint or "go hard" and generate 510 W but we
would not be able to maintain it for anything more than a few seconds
to maybe a few minutes. So the limitation here is our cardio system
not our muscle strength. You are correct in your observation about big
riders – bigger people tend to have a body that can house a bigger
engine – potentailly with a bigger lung capacity and a greater
heart/stroke volume.

But performance cycling is all about trade offs, and the trade off in
the TT at modern high speeds is one of power Vs aerodynamic drag. A
bigger trained person may potentally have more power but they also
generate more drag.

It is interesting that you make reference to a Pantani. The 125lb
Pantani as you may know exceeded his own natural potential by wining a
major flat TT in a Grand Tour – '99 Giro. However he did this with the
use of ergogenic aids that increased his hermacrit level and in effect
made his cardio system more efficient. Even though his heart
stroke/volume didn't change his power output increased due to the
increased oxygen carrying capacity of his blood.
He "enjoyed" a double performance benefit in that he increased his
power beyond his natural limit to that normally associated with a
bigger rider but not at the cost of an increase in his size and
aerodynamic drag.

Andy Coggan wrote:
"Top Sirloin" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:14:52 GMT, "Andy Coggan"

wrote:

"Top Sirloin" wrote in message
...


If you want to be the best cyclist possible - don't lift
year round. However if you're a masters racer concerned with bone

density

As a professional in the field of exercise science, I should be the last
person to discourage individuals from exercising. Even so, I think it is
important to recognize that weight training is actually a fairly weak
stimulus for increasing bone mineral density, at least compared to impact
sports and/or drug treatment. So, if you're a master's racer who is

*really*

concerned about your bone density (e.g., due to a family history of
osteoporosis, results of a DXA scan), you shouldn't blindly count on

weight

training to protect you.

Really? This contradicts studies I've read concerning weight training and

the

elderly (snicker),


No, it doesn't - you just haven't also read studies looking at the rate of
bone loss in women in the years immediately following menopause, or the rate
of bone gain when individuals have been given drugs such as phosomax. If you
had, then you'd be able to put the changes in bone mineral density due to
resistance training into context.

FWIW, two colleagues from my post-doc days - Wendy Kohrt and Gail Dalsky -
and a PhD student from a former department - Sue Bloomfield - are among the
best known researchers studying exercise and bone mineral density. It was
via participating in research that Gail was conducting some 10-15 years ago
that I learned that my own bone mineral density is on the low side, enough
to now put me in the osteopenic range (despite the fact that I've lifted
weights for at least 3 months of most of the intervening years). This is why
I've been boning up g on the possible need for treatment and what options
are available.


and the benefits supersede just bone density. Building the
musculature supporting the spine can potentially prevent a serious injury

later

in life.

I can see impact sports being superior, but there's a lot of people that

can't

participate in them because of joint problems that can still lift with

weight

bearing exercises pain-free.


I'm not trying to diss weight lifting, just pointing out that people
shouldn't count on that alone to protect them.

Andy Coggan

Certainly the prevalence of osteoporosis in highly athletic
pre-menopausal women with low body fat who have become amenorrheic
supports your position that exercise alone cannot be depended upon to
prevent osteoporosis.

Steve