why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power

In article , DESAY
wrote:

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."

I'm sure Larry has seen this too, I've seen plenty of people at the
track who have huge, muscular quads but they're not very fast. Still,
almost all of the really fast guys also have big, muscular quads.

-WG

"warren" wrote in message
...

I've seen plenty of people at the
track who have huge, muscular quads but they're not very fast.


I don't mean to pick on him because he's a really nice guy, but unfortunately the name
that comes to mind is Danny Wilson.

I'm sure Larry has seen this too, I've seen plenty of people at the
track who have huge, muscular quads but they're not very fast. Still,
almost all of the really fast guys also have big, muscular quads.

-WG

I guess the old adage "You Can't Judge A Book By It's Cover" is quite apropos
in regards to this.

Larry D

In article , Carl Sundquist
wrote:

"warren" wrote in message
...

I've seen plenty of people at the
track who have huge, muscular quads but they're not very fast.


I don't mean to pick on him because he's a really nice guy, but unfortunately
the name
that comes to mind is Danny Wilson.

The first time I saw Danny in 1996 I thought this guy must be reallllly
fast, but he wasn't as fast as he looked. (His girlfriend mentioned
he'd lost 50 pounds! from when he played for the Green Bay Packers). He
beat me by less than a tenth to get the 4 seed. Al Whaley was much
smaller and was .4 faster.

-WG

Phil Holman wrote:

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.

Just as they regularly and incorrectly flip flop speed and velocity.
Just because they do so doesn't mean it's correct. Velocity being a
vector, requires a frame of reference with a coordinate system and there
is no system defined that would explain circumferential velocity in the
way you intended (constant speed).

I never hear anyone say "circumferential velocity," but in my
line of work people use polar coordinates and talk about
tangential (and radial) velocity all the time. Cartesian coordinates
are a pain in the ass if you are dealing with round things. A
centripetal acceleration is usually implied. One could argue
that an object moving in a circle doesn't have a constant tangential
velocity, but everyone knows what it means. Besides, we also want
to talk about velocity dispersion in the tangential direction, and
calling that "tangential speed dispersion" would be somewhere between
awkward and wrong.

Bike racing content: uh ... any errors are because I'm tired from
riding today.

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message link.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.

Andy Coggan

As everyone understands perfectly well, I started this in order to annoy
you, because your overly technical term was pretentious. But your continued
defence of your error perfectly highlights how little you understand. Dude,
you are measuring speed, figure it out and admit your error. Then you
will have learned a little about scientific truth.

-ilan

On 17 Nov 2003 07:29:47 -0800, (chris) wrote:

My 2 cents is this: You would have to weight train year round and
cut into you specific bike training. Is it really worth it to spend
that much time weight training vs. riding?

You don't think you could fit in two quick 30 minute workouts a week, something
like:

warmup
back squat 2x8
overhead press 2x10
chin-up 2x5
front squat 3x5

How much does your weight fluctuate between your peak fitness and your off
season?


--
Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

You could do this, but there is no real effective way to maintain that
hypertrophy while endurance training. By training, I mean serious
training, not going to the stair master for 30 minutes per day.
Additionally, it is not so easy to increase capillarization; I'm not
particularly familiar with the recent literature on this subject, but
one needs to consider that it takes much more training to build this
capillary structure. It was thought (perhaps still is) that high rep
weight training could increase capillarization, but the research was
never convincing. You can increase muscle size, but it takes a long
time (6 months) to see serious size gains and its easy to lose that
size unless you maintain the training program; ie, once you start
putting in serious miles you lose most of that size.

My 2 cents is this: You would have to weight train year round and
cut into you specific bike training. Is it really worth it to spend
that much time weight training vs. riding?

CH


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?



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?

"Top Sirloin" wrote in message
...
On 17 Nov 2003 07:29:47 -0800, (chris) wrote:

My 2 cents is this: You would have to weight train year round and
cut into you specific bike training. Is it really worth it to spend
that much time weight training vs. riding?

You don't think you could fit in two quick 30 minute workouts a week,
something
like:

warmup
back squat 2x8
overhead press 2x10
chin-up 2x5
front squat 3x5

How much does your weight fluctuate between your peak fitness and your off
season?




Dumbass -

Weight training doesn't do squat for road cycling unless your musculature is
so underdeveloped that it is the weak link in the chain.

99.99% of the time in road cycling, the cardio system is the differentiator.
Look at how small those Euros are.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:32:07 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

Weight training doesn't do squat for road cycling unless your musculature is
so underdeveloped that it is the weak link in the chain.

I already said that - I just gave him an idea for hanging onto muscle (if he
chose to).

99.99% of the time in road cycling, the cardio system is the differentiator.
Look at how small those Euros are.

They also race for a living. Some of us are interested in being able to pick up
heavy things, avoiding osteoporosis at 35, and not looking like a 14 year old
boy.


--
Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen