|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
Andy:
I find the conclusions very intriguing. In my group of riding friends... I need at least one gear lower to accomplish the same task. There was a time I was stronger then they were... but they all started weight training and cross training. I stick to riding 7 days a week all year 'round. It really bugs me that I can't climb some really technical sections (MTB) they they can, because they higher gearing they can use gives them a slightly faster speed/more momentum to get over the obstacles. Any hints on how i can increase my pedaling strength on the short technical climbs? thanks charlie |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"Charles Beristain" wrote in message ... Andy: I find the conclusions very intriguing. In my group of riding friends... I need at least one gear lower to accomplish the same task. There was a time I was stronger then they were... but they all started weight training and cross training. I stick to riding 7 days a week all year 'round. It really bugs me that I can't climb some really technical sections (MTB) they they can, because they higher gearing they can use gives them a slightly faster speed/more momentum to get over the obstacles. Any hints on how i can increase my pedaling strength on the short technical climbs? Read Bicycling Magazine. They have scores of ways to get better. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
Now if we can only think of a reason to abbreviate it PMS.
"Ewoud Dronkert" wrote in message l.nl... On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:00:25 GMT, Andy Coggan wrote: Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I agree with you that simple "pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be used within context, it might not be if, for example, the plot was presented out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the speed and direction that the pedal travels. http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/s...tebuilderpictu res/strengthvspower.gif Bull****. It's a simple 2D plot, only the magnitude of the velocity is used. How can "pedal speed (m/s)" be misinterpreted?! If you want to be more precise you could say "Pedal turning speed (m/s)" or "Pedal speed wrt. axle (m/s)", but "Circumferential pedal velocity", please. I think you were just afraid of the alternative abbreviation PTS. Btw, thanks for your efforts in writing the article. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
Gee, I just love that kind of talk.
"Ilan Vardi" wrote in message m... "Andy Coggan" wrote in message k.net... Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I agree with you that simple "pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be used within context, it might not be if, for example, the plot was presented out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the speed and direction that the pedal travels. It looks like my previous critique was not quite accurate. In order to make a graph of pedal velocity versus some other quantity, you would actually need to make a four dimensional plot. This is because pedal velocity, as opposed to pedal speed, is not roughly constant for a given value of the other quantity, so you must include time to make a plot. That is, you need to make a graph with respect to the scalars: speed, direction, time, quantity you used in your graph. To highlight the complication you introduce by insisting on using pedal velocity, note that the graph of the speed of a pedal rotating in a circle at constant speed consists of a single point, while the graph of its velocity is a 3-dimensional figure, a helix (this is what I was thinking of previously). Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when I have made a mistake. -ilan |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
Ilan Vardi wrote:
Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when I have made a mistake. Ilan, you're not a scientist. You are a mathematician. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
Strength gains are triggered by intensity, not by duration.
Ron Voltaire wrote: Thank you very much for the excellent technical essay. Am I correct in concluding from your essay that my twice a week, three or four seated, in-the-hooks, 4 minute climbs up a steep hill are the type of specificity to which you refer? I'm doing these rather than weight-room leg exercises in hopes of building bicycling specific strength and power. Vol(tryingtobeabetterfattiemastersracer)taire |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"Andy Coggan" wrote in message nk.net...
"Ilan Vardi" wrote in message m... Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when I have made a mistake. Once again, you use an opportunity to aggrandize yourself by making trivial criticisms. Andy Coggan I am continually amazed by the capacity of scientists to defend their mistakes. How can you not admit that you were completely wrong in defending your use of the term velocity? Recall that science is a search for the truth. In that sense it is you who is more concerned with ego, since it takes precendence over objective truth. -ilan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
Benjamin Weiner wrote in message news:3fb5beee$1@darkstar...
Ilan Vardi wrote: Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when I have made a mistake. Ilan, you're not a scientist. You are a mathematician. How to tell the difference between a mathematician and a scientist: Step 1: Present the subject with a bunson burner, an empty beaker and a match. The tast is to boil water. Both the mathematican and the scientist will fill the beaker with water, light the burner, and place the beaker over the flame until it boils. Step 2. This time the beaker is full of water and the burner is already lighted. The subject is told to boil water. The scientist places the beaker over the flame until the water boils. The mathematician empties the beaker, turns off the burner, and says "I have reduced the problem to the preceeding case." ----- Back to power and weight lifting: If hypertrophy accounts for 10 to 20% of the strength increase, isn't that sufficient to justify some amount of traditional weight training in conjunction with cycling specific exercises? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
Benjamin Weiner wrote in message news:3fb5beee$1@darkstar...
Ilan Vardi wrote: Once again, I use an opportunity to differentiate myself from most scientists by admitting when I have made a mistake. Ilan, you're not a scientist. You are a mathematician. This is true, but both share the fact that correctness is most important. -ilan |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"Ilan Vardi" wrote in message
om... How can you not admit that you were completely wrong in defending your use of the term velocity? Simple: because I wasn't. I specified a direction ("circumferential"), meaning that what I was speaking about was indeed velocity, not just speed. Andy Coggan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Armstrong's Tour De France Time Trials | Rik O'Shea | Racing | 33 | November 6th 03 04:46 AM |
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison | Robert Chung | Racing | 169 | November 5th 03 05:25 AM |
LA seen motorpacing in Austin | Tom Paterson | Racing | 104 | September 12th 03 01:22 PM |