|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
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 |
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 03:46 AM |
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison | Robert Chung | Racing | 169 | November 5th 03 04:25 AM |
LA seen motorpacing in Austin | Tom Paterson | Racing | 104 | September 12th 03 01:22 PM |