asgelle

Not again. High cadence might be more effective, but every study, and they are myriad, has shown cadences around 60 rpm are most efficient regardless of power.

Carbonfiberboy 

Do you monitor HR? If so, what's it like when you do this? I'm curious, because back when I did those single speed rides, I found that no matter how hard I pushed, my HR never came very high. Cadence brings my HR up blammo, pedal force at low cadence not so much. I've been using that in my recent polarized work, keeping myself from getting bored with long moderate rides by interjecting some low cadence pedaling at a power (94% FTP) which doesn't bring my HR and breathing up past AeT. I'm curious if this is an artifact of me personally or more general. That's been quite convenient and something I was unaware of - I hadn't done any low cadence work in ages, not since I got my power meter.

asgelle

And with 172.5mm cranks that works out to 40lb average force per leg or 80lb max since max is about double average. I'm not sure efforts less than 2/3 body weight is doing much to increase strength.

So to emphasize once again, the goal should not be to increase the maximum force the muscles can produce (strength); but rather, delay fatigue in those muscles as they produce the required force.



35/60 s-1x2pix0.172.5m = 0.63 m/s
225 W (kgm2/s3)/0.63 m/s = 357 kgm/s2 = 80 lb to total for both legs

asgelle

Perhaps, but I was referring to the example of 225W @35prm.

BillyD

Gentlemen, please don’t address those individuals who cannot respond. Thanks!

asgelle

Force on the pedals can be resolved into a radial and tangential component. Only the tangential propels the bike. Increasing force on the pedals by pressing radially might increase total force, but would not propel the bike forward and would be counterproductive.

asgelle

You realize your earlier posts are still visible so as you wriggle and squirm to change the meaning of what you wrote, the evidence remains in plain sight.

Carbonfiberboy 

Nicely done!

From my experience and the literature, it seems to me that road cyclists should both increase strength and delay fatigue. The interesting thing is that strength training does both. As I've said before in these threads, when a TdF announcer says that the strongest rider will win, they don't mean the person who can squat the most. Cycling strength is complicated.

I've searched for examples of the strength training routines of road pros. Not much there, probably for competitive reasons, excepting Wiggens getting ready for his hour record.

I did find another strength meta-study (2013 though): https://sportsandscience.de/wp-conte...-und-Kraft.pdf
The conclusions in this study are totally in line with my experience of about 25 years of concurrent strength and endurance training. I suppose if we count all the way back to varsity Nordic skiing in college, and doing long backpacks, that's 57 years. We joined our first gym as a couple in 1979 to prep for fishing Bristol Bay. I usually start strength training for next July in September.

I wondered at the youtube videos of track sprinters bouncing at the bottom of their back squats, i.e. speed on the concentric phase. That's the opposite of what most strength trainers recommend.

Riders who do strength training, start with that and then attempt to "transfer those strength increases to the bike" by doing low cadence work. These low cadence intervals increase endurance. Or something. They extend the length of time high force can be applied to the pedals, whatever that's called. Tactilely, what I experience is that the pedals feel lighter on long workouts or intervals,. That's a sensation, not a measurement. I don't know the physiological reason for the change. That said, the lower the pedal force is as a percentage of maximum possible force, the greater the endurance, hence we use a high cadence at high wattages. However high cadence also increases oxygen cost, so force applied as a percentage of max is still in the mix. Most, but not all of the randonneurs I've ridden with, ride at a high cadence.

asgelle

It's complicated only if you try to apply strength in the generic, undefined sense as the announcers use it. If you use the precise definition accepted by exercise physiologists, the maximum force or tension a muscle or muscle group can produce, it's very simple; strength is irrelevant to road cycling.

And more often than not I hear it in the context that the strongest rider doesn't always win.

asgelle

It's not a matter of opinion. The experts who've studied it are unanimous; it doesn't matter. Remember, ProTour riders show no difference in strength from a matched group of UNTRAINED individuals.
Without getting into the merits, don't confuse strength training with strength, Among the coaches I've seen who recommend strength training, I'm not aware of any who prescribe it to increase strength.

Moisture

Can't expect to get stronger legs by neglecting the rest of your body.

Cycling is good for your entire lower body. What about upper?

Moisture

Strength IS relevant to cycling.

Cardiovascular training is not entirely a cardiovascular ordeal, and strength training is not entirely strength. They do overlap.

Moisture

im sure you think so. Same dude that's probably a quarter of his body mass in pure fat, and failed to counter any of my points.

asgelle

Well, that's certainly enough to change my mind over the conclusions of experts in the field who have conducted numerous studies. Well done.

Moisture

Very true .

No, not entirely true.

Endurance and overall muscular strength are integrated.

asgelle

Then how do you explain ProTour riders show no greater strength than an aged-matched group of untrained men? If endurance and strength were linked, wouldn't the top riders show greater strength than a random set of couch potatoes?

Moisture

Okay, I'll bite.

I dont think there is anything fundamentally wrong with your idea. Lets do this one step at a time.

What is your definition of "strength?"

How does it apply to everyday human life?

How do you train for it?

How does it relate to muscular endurance? What is the fine line between the two?

this is mostly a genetic thing. Most endurance cyclists are built for endurance, not power. A couch potato with a different genetic disposition can easily be stronger than an endurance oriented athlete. If you applied that persons abilities to the fitness world, they would be good at something completely different.

Like I said, endurance, muscular hypertrophy and overall power (fast twitch versus use of slow twitch muscles) are all interrelated. They are all being used at any given moment of a training session, even if the road cyclist has substantially less fast twitch. He still has them, and consequently will use them .

asgelle

You really need to start reading before you write. As I wrote, strength and strength training are not the same.

asgelle

It's not my definition it's THE definition and it's as I wrote above.

Further, related to what I wrote above, not only is it necessary to distinguish strength from strength training, you also have to separate increasing strength from the ancillary adaptations from it. While increasing strength might also improve other functions related to performance, the improvement does not come from the increased strength per se but from those other adaptations.

asgelle

Only if you choose to ignore the accepted definition of the word.

OBoile

Actually both matter. Assuming one's form doesn't change, progress is measured by how much you lift.
This is not important at all with respect to recovery.
Things like: aren't worthy of taking the time to write a detailed response.
The number of elite strength athletes that make bands and/or isometrics the key part of their training program is 0. There's a reason for that.

OBoile

What?!? Are you implying that if someone were to go to the gym and only do leg presses, they wouldn't get stronger legs because they didn't do any upper body work? You are aware that earlier in this thread, someone posted an article from a Olympic champion where he said he only trains legs in the gym.

Carbonfiberboy 

May we please see the study? We know all about claims with no evidence . . .

It doesn't google: "ProTour riders strength aged-matched untrained study" = "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search" - I google a lot, and I've never seen this result from a search string before. Huh.

Carbonfiberboy 

All of the above arguing over strength is silly. Let's see some evidence:

I have some reading for all of us. In no particular order, and remembering that there are zero studies showing that strength training interferes with cycling performance: What asgelle is saying was the practice "long ago" before strength training methodology was scientifically examined and understood and moved into practice.
Coaches:
https://trainright.com/5-things-cycl...ngth-training/
https://trainright.com/cyclists-bene...ngth-training/
https://trainright.com/getting-start...ance-athletes/
https://tombell.co/strength-training-cycling/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/tags/strength/
Coach Hughes: Cycling Strength Training pt. 1
https://fascatcoaching.com/tips/weig...g-for-cycling/
https://tailwind-coaching.com/2014/0...-1-podcast-42/
The Unconventional Guide to Strength Training for Cyclists | Simply Cycling Training
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/s...ginners-guide/

Pros who strength train:
https://www.bicycling.com/training/g...in-like-a-pro/ Note that Dombrowski trains to failure.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pet...with-gym-work/
Sagan has pulled all his strength videos for some reason, except this one and some showing his core work. I've seen video of him lifting heavy, which this isn't either. He's an unbelievable beast in the gym.:

I haven't read a better explanation of the science than in the study in my post 77: https://sportsandscience.de/wp-conte...-und-Kraft.pdf.

OBoile

Here's another good one: Jasper is a strong guy.

Here's Stephen Seiler talking about strength training in general for master's endurance athletes.