why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power

"RK" wrote in message
om...

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?

When a moderately active individual takes up strength training for a few
months, the typical increase in strength averages around 25%. If we go with
your assumption that 20% of this is due to hypertrophy (and 80% is due to
neural factors), then that means a 5% increase in muscle cross-sectional
area, and thus the potential for a 5% increase in maximal power. Realizing
the difference between 25% and 5%, that the 5% is only a potential (that
needs to be trained via, e.g., sprinting), that that gain is accompanied by
an increase in mass (which needs to be accelerated and carried up hills),
and that there are other ways of increasing maximal power (such as by simply
riding a bike), you then have to decide whether/if weight training really
fits into somebody's program.

To put it more simply: non-endurance track racers better be lifting really
heavy weights, to grow big muscles. For anybody else, weight training can't
be considered a requirement (or even necessarily useful).

Andy Coggan

To put it more simply: non-endurance track racers better be lifting really
heavy weights, to grow big muscles. For anybody else, weight training can't
be considered a requirement (or even necessarily useful).

Andy Coggan

This pretty much reiterates what I have come across in much of the literature I
have read, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs myofibrillar hypertrophy. For those
interested, there are some good reads (on strength training) that explain
indepth the protocols, methodologies and physiological effects of various
regimens.

Supertraining: Special Strength Training For Sporting Excellence (Siff and
Verkhoshansky, 1993).

Science And Practice Of Strength Training (Zatsiorsky, 1995).

Power To The People (Tsatsouline, 1999).

The third listing (Tsatsouline) perhaps does a good job of breaking down the
info contained in the other texts into laymans terms. Also, the author
provides some humorous insight on the subject of training.

Larry D

In article ,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

"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.

Hey, don't dis Bicycling Magazine! They had a really good suggestion in
this month's issue about using an old sock to contain spare tubes. I
should have thought of that myself, but I'm glad to have read it.

That makes it Fabrizio 1 (he accidentally posted something useful once),
Bicycling 1.

Read it only for the articles,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
...


Read Bicycling Magazine.

They have scores of ways to get better.

Hey, don't dis Bicycling Magazine!





Dumbass -


Who's dissing Bicycling Magazine?


That publication is the Bible (or the Koran) of cycling.

Andy,

An interesting article. I have a couple of observations that i would
like to use to stimulate discussion and, you might be surprised to
learn, are not meant as criticisms.

!. I am not convinced the AEPF line is really a straight line since
the "efficiency" of muscular contraction varies some with contraction
speed. However, I will accept that it is probably close to a straight
line and this is a reasonable assumption for this discussion.

2. The model does not address the issue of endurance and your
discussion ignores a flaw that is evident if one looks at submaximal
power. Assuming that one cannot maintain the maximum power for very
long due to endurance issues, most riding must be done at some number
less than maximum power. One could say that for a 40 k TT optimum
power is 80% of max or for 100 miles 70% of max. It would be easy them
to move the dark blue line down to reflect these levels but if one
does so then one gets two optimum cadences, one at around 80 or so and
the other around 200 or so. According to this analysis these cadences
should be equally optimal. I look forward to hearing from someone hear
who would make that claim. Therefore, there is a flaw in the analysis.
I believe I know what it is in that it doesn't take into account the
energy required to make the pedals go around. I know many here believe
this is zero but, if it is, how else can one account for this flaw in
the analysis?

Frank

"Frank Day" wrote in message
om...

It would be easy them
to move the dark blue line down to reflect these levels but if one
does so then one gets two optimum cadences, one at around 80 or so and
the other around 200 or so. According to this analysis these cadences
should be equally optimal. I look forward to hearing from someone hear
who would make that claim. Therefore, there is a flaw in the analysis.

This conclusion does not follow. There are lots of examples in physics where
you throw out the "unphysical" solution, which is just an artifact of the
method of computation.


Shayne Wissler

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
ink.net...
"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.

A nice semantic argument. In this situation we either have instantaneous
tangential velocity or circumferential speed. As the direction and
pathway is clearly defined at any point on the pedal arc, a simply
stated pedal velocity (taken as instantaneous tangential) is acceptable.
However, you won't see the combination of terms *circumferential
velocity* used in any of the better physics references even though it is
regularly (incorrectly) used by physicists. In one dimension, velocity
is dx/dt and in two dimensions, sqrt(dx^2+dy^2)/dt which, when we look
at the average pedal velocity for one revolution (in the reference frame
of the bicycle), is zero. The pedal velocity over any arc length of the
circle is therefore not the same as the circumferential speed along that
arc.

Phil Holman

"Frank Day" wrote in message
om...

!. I am not convinced the AEPF line is really a straight line since
the "efficiency" of muscular contraction varies some with contraction
speed. However, I will accept that it is probably close to a straight
line and this is a reasonable assumption for this discussion.

The force-velocity relationship of isolated single muscle fibers/muscles in
vitro - and even for multimuscle, single joint movements in vivo - is
curvilinear, something that has been known since the early part of the 20th
century. For multijoint activities such as cycling, however, it is linear,
probably because you've got many muscles contributing, each of which has its
own unique force-velocity curve. Be that as it may, the exact shape has
little to do with the conclusions drawn.

2. The model does not address the issue of endurance and your
discussion ignores a flaw that is evident if one looks at submaximal
power. Assuming that one cannot maintain the maximum power for very
long due to endurance issues, most riding must be done at some number
less than maximum power. One could say that for a 40 k TT optimum
power is 80% of max or for 100 miles 70% of max. It would be easy them
to move the dark blue line down to reflect these levels but if one
does so then one gets two optimum cadences, one at around 80 or so and
the other around 200 or so. According to this analysis these cadences
should be equally optimal. I look forward to hearing from someone hear
who would make that claim. Therefore, there is a flaw in the analysis.
I believe I know what it is in that it doesn't take into account the
energy required to make the pedals go around. I know many here believe
this is zero but, if it is, how else can one account for this flaw in
the analysis?

The analysis has nothing to do with endurance/metabolism, or even with
optimum cadence - it has to do with the role of strength in determining
power output.

Andy Coggan

"Phil Holman" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
ink.net...
"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.

A nice semantic argument. In this situation we either have instantaneous
tangential velocity or circumferential speed. As the direction and
pathway is clearly defined at any point on the pedal arc, a simply
stated pedal velocity (taken as instantaneous tangential) is acceptable.
However, you won't see the combination of terms *circumferential
velocity* used in any of the better physics references even though it is
regularly (incorrectly) used by physicists. In one dimension, velocity
is dx/dt and in two dimensions, sqrt(dx^2+dy^2)/dt which, when we look
at the average pedal velocity for one revolution (in the reference frame
of the bicycle), is zero. The pedal velocity over any arc length of the
circle is therefore not the same as the circumferential speed along that
arc.

I don't follow your argument here - but in any case, I find it telling that
according to you, circumferential velocity is regularly used by physicists,
even though you dispute its correctness.

Andy Coggan

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 03:03:34 GMT, Charles Beristain
wrote:

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?

You can still lift to get bigger legs, which will make you stronger.

Unfortunately you have to haul them uphill.

I like the weight training suggestions in _Performance_Cycling_ by Dan Morris.
He has you lift for hypertrophy, and then switch to lower weight/higher speed
lifting and phases in hard low-cadence intervals to create cycling specific
strength.

Solely focusing on your 1RM in the squat will not make you a fast cyclist - I'm
proof.


--

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