|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"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 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"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 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
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 |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"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 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
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 |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
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 |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
"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 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power
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 |
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 |