why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power

"Frank Day" wrote in message
om...
I understand what you intended. I simply expanded the analysis in what
I thought was a logical extension

Not logical from where I sit, as it is far too incomplete.

and found, what I believed to be an
illogical conclusion. How does your analysis look at strength when
being used submaximally?

It doesn't, in any way, shape, or form.

Would your model predict that strength
training would be beneficial for improving aerobic (submaximal)
performance?
How does that analysis work using the model you used?

Since this means of data presentation completely ignores metabolism, it
can't make any such predictions, except to demonstrate that strength is not
a limiting factor. To understand why strength *training* doesn't improve
aerobic performance requires additional knowledge.

In
your paper you do mention optimum cadence for maximum power so my
bringing up what the model predicts for cadence at submaximal power is
not beyond the pale.

You're right, I do mention that the point at which the isopower curve and
straight line relationship between AEPF and CPV meet is the optimum cadence
for maximal power development. But that's only in passing...

Andy Coggan

This is off the topic of Andy's article, but...The use of higher
cadences is related to the force issue, with the general idea being
that cyclists choose higher cadences because they are trying to reduce
the overall "strain" on the muscles, rather reducing lactic acid.
Andy, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Coyle's contention that the
elite riders are able to spread the workload of the legs over a great
number of fibers, so that individually each is less stressed? Higher
cadences would also "spare" each fiber some "strain".

Metabolically, higher cadences would be worse, but relative to the
untrained person, its not a problem, because the trained rider has the
extra capacity; considering Lance, he has taken this a step or two
further, turning a cadence none of us mere mortals could without
"blowing up", but he has that extra capacity. How does this relate to
strength?

The idea of cyclists lifting weights in the winter and gaining
strength seems like a good one. I mean you lift and get so much
stronger that it seems natural that, like an increase in LT or VO2
max, all the previous sub max workloads are less hard. However,
something many of the posters have failed to address is the fact that
one's 1 RM is so much higher than we could produce on the steepest
Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and, as Andy pointed out,
largely neurological.

The only way to make the strength increase permanent (so to speak) is
to develop a bigger muscle. Unfortunately (for those of you concerned
with metabolic issues), a large increase in muscle would decrease
capillary density, decreasing endurance capacity, at least in the
short-term. But, let's say you grow your muscles and then say, "OK,
now I'm going to train my ass off and get that endurance back."
Super, 3 months later (probably longer), your capillary density is
increased, your endurance is back up and your muscles are SMALLER.
Why? Because the smaller muscle is better for endurance.

While I may have oversimplified this, the point here is that large
muscle sizes are good for force, but probably not possible to sustain
for endurance sports. Obviously, cyclists have very large legs, but
compared to body builders they're still "small potatoes"!

I think a lot of people missed the point of the original post and
zeroed in on his use of terminology. Whether correct or incorrect,
the point was to raise issue over weight training, not word usage.

Now for my own use in coaching, I am not a strong proponent of weight
training, but some clients use it, others don't and I mostly believe
weights can be an important break for a rider and help address
weaknesses. Some clients even feel they need weight training making
it not worth the time to argue or reform, because cycling is part
psychological, too. Let's all consider the overall role of auxiliary
training and not forget the need for specificity.

Chris Harnish

"Fighting poor training one client at a time."


(Frank Day) wrote in message . com...
Shayne, We are not talking about imaginary numbers here. If you prefer
to call it science that we ignore results we don't like or can't
explain so be it. You are not alone in this regards. I don't see why
the higher cadence is necessarily the "unphysical" one. Lots of people
here would argue that higher cadences are better than lower cadences
because they "flush out the lactic acid", even though there is no good
science to back that claim up either.

Frank


"Shayne Wissler" wrote in message news: 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

In article , chris
wrote:
However,
something many of the posters have failed to address is the fact that
one's 1 RM is so much higher than we could produce on the steepest
Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and, as Andy pointed out,
largely neurological.

What about strength training that isn't directed towards increasing
1RM? Like doing squats with 3-6 sets of 10-15 reps for two months
before moving on to more specific (on the bike) exercises?

The only way to make the strength increase permanent (so to speak) is
to develop a bigger muscle. Unfortunately (for those of you concerned
with metabolic issues), a large increase in muscle would decrease
capillary density, decreasing endurance capacity, at least in the
short-term. But, let's say you grow your muscles and then say, "OK,
now I'm going to train my ass off and get that endurance back."
Super, 3 months later (probably longer), your capillary density is
increased, your endurance is back up and your muscles are SMALLER.
Why? Because the smaller muscle is better for endurance.

Why not train the muscle for size (as you put it) and then train to
maintain that (probably on the bike) while you also train to increase
the capillary density?

I think a lot of people missed the point of the original post and
zeroed in on his use of terminology. Whether correct or incorrect,
the point was to raise issue over weight training, not word usage.

Yes, that brain power would be more useful to us if it addressed the
much more important issues at hand.

Now for my own use in coaching, ...I mostly believe
weights can be an important break for a rider and help address
weaknesses.

-WG

In article ,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

"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.

I like to think of it as the "Dianetics" of cycling.

A good Catholic boy,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
link.net...
Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I
thought I'd try to clear up some of the confusion:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html

I don't want to take away the value of your article; I think it is great to
have for reference when the subject comes up.

What I want to ask you is, who ever claimed that increasing strength would
automatically increase power?

I can remember several years ago (?) when talking about this, there were a
few folks that testified weight training helped them gain power. Your
reaction made me believe you thought that was not possible. Was this simply
a case of misunderstanding?

"chris" wrote in message
om...
This is off the topic of Andy's article, but...The use of higher
cadences is related to the force issue, with the general idea being
that cyclists choose higher cadences because they are trying to reduce
the overall "strain"

Higher cadence means lower torque to achieve the same power.


on the muscles, rather reducing lactic acid.
Andy, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Coyle's contention that the
elite riders are able to spread the workload of the legs over a great
number of fibers, so that individually each is less stressed? Higher
cadences would also "spare" each fiber some "strain".

Metabolically, higher cadences would be worse, but relative to the
untrained person, its not a problem, because the trained rider has the
extra capacity;

Cardio-vascular capacity.

considering Lance, he has taken this a step or two
further, turning a cadence none of us mere mortals could without
"blowing up", but he has that extra capacity. How does this relate to
strength?

The idea of cyclists lifting weights in the winter and gaining
strength seems like a good one. I mean you lift and get so much
stronger that it seems natural that, like an increase in LT or VO2
max, all the previous sub max workloads are less hard. However,
something many of the posters have failed to address is the fact that
one's 1 RM is so much higher than we could produce on the steepest
Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and, as Andy pointed out,
largely neurological.

The only way to make the strength increase permanent (so to speak) is
to develop a bigger muscle. Unfortunately (for those of you concerned
with metabolic issues), a large increase in muscle would decrease
capillary density, decreasing endurance capacity, at least in the
short-term. But, let's say you grow your muscles and then say, "OK,
now I'm going to train my ass off and get that endurance back."
Super, 3 months later (probably longer), your capillary density is
increased, your endurance is back up and your muscles are SMALLER.
Why? Because the smaller muscle is better for endurance.

While I may have oversimplified this, the point here is that large
muscle sizes are good for force, but probably not possible to sustain
for endurance sports. Obviously, cyclists have very large legs, but
compared to body builders they're still "small potatoes"!

I think a lot of people missed the point of the original post and
zeroed in on his use of terminology. Whether correct or incorrect,
the point was to raise issue over weight training, not word usage.

Now for my own use in coaching, I am not a strong proponent of weight
training, but some clients use it, others don't and I mostly believe
weights can be an important break for a rider and help address
weaknesses. Some clients even feel they need weight training making
it not worth the time to argue or reform, because cycling is part
psychological, too. Let's all consider the overall role of auxiliary
training and not forget the need for specificity.

Chris Harnish

"Fighting poor training one client at a time."


(Frank Day) wrote in message
. com...
Shayne, We are not talking about imaginary numbers here. If you prefer
to call it science that we ignore results we don't like or can't
explain so be it. You are not alone in this regards. I don't see why
the higher cadence is necessarily the "unphysical" one. Lots of people
here would argue that higher cadences are better than lower cadences
because they "flush out the lactic acid", even though there is no good
science to back that claim up either.

Frank


"Shayne Wissler" wrote in message news:
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

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:45:53 GMT, warren wrote:

In article , chris
wrote:
However,
something many of the posters have failed to address is the fact that
one's 1 RM is so much higher than we could produce on the steepest
Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and, as Andy pointed out,
largely neurological.

What about strength training that isn't directed towards increasing
1RM? Like doing squats with 3-6 sets of 10-15 reps for two months
before moving on to more specific (on the bike) exercises?

That's exactly what's being recommended - training for hypertrophy. While we're
on the subject, check out:

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/

I have a handy spreadsheet for calculating your weights up at:

http://home.kc.rr.com/tjhp/hst/

Once you start training solely for 1RM strength a lot of the adaption is neural,
coming from an increases in rate coding and firing rate, and technique
perfection.


--

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

In article , Top Sirloin
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:45:53 GMT, warren wrote:

In article , chris
wrote:
However,
something many of the posters have failed to address is the fact that
one's 1 RM is so much higher than we could produce on the steepest
Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and, as Andy pointed out,
largely neurological.

What about strength training that isn't directed towards increasing
1RM? Like doing squats with 3-6 sets of 10-15 reps for two months
before moving on to more specific (on the bike) exercises?

That's exactly what's being recommended - training for hypertrophy. While
we're
on the subject, check out:

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/

I have a handy spreadsheet for calculating your weights up at:

http://home.kc.rr.com/tjhp/hst/

Interesting stuff, thanks.

-WG

"Nick Burns" wrote in message
m...

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message
link.net...
Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I
thought I'd try to clear up some of the confusion:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html

I don't want to take away the value of your article; I think it is great
to
have for reference when the subject comes up.

What I want to ask you is, who ever claimed that increasing strength would
automatically increase power?

Based on hundreds of posts I've read on numerous forums over the years, I'd
say that many people seem to believe that it does.

I can remember several years ago (?) when talking about this, there were a
few folks that testified weight training helped them gain power. Your
reaction made me believe you thought that was not possible. Was this
simply
a case of misunderstanding?

??

Weight training causes hypertrophy. Hypertrophy increases the potential to
generate power. These are well-known facts that I have never disputed. Where
people's thinking goes awry is when they assume that increases in strength
resulting from weight training are due entirely to hypertrophy, and
therefore that increases in strength automatically result in an increase in
maximal power.

Andy Coggan

Where
people's thinking goes awry is when they assume that increases in strength
resulting from weight training are due entirely to hypertrophy, and
therefore that increases in strength automatically result in an increase in
maximal power.

Andy Coggan

Would it be relevant for sake of substantiating the preceeding statement to
illustrate a comparison (in terms of power output) between multi time Olympic
weight lifting champion, Naim Suleymanoglu and any of the Mister Olympia
bodybuilding champions. Suleymanoglu at 132 lbs would hoist more weight then
any of the bodybuilders who weigh considerably more and typify hypertrophy
states.

Zatsiorsky (1996), "Don't overemphasize the role of maximal strength in power
production. To be a strong athlete does not mean to be a power athlete. It is
true that all elite power athletes are very strong people. On the other hand,
not all strong individuals can execute movement powerfully when combining large
force and high velocity."

Larry D