login
Weight training for improving biking? (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-10-01 6:43 AM in reply to: TriMyBest |
Elite  7783      PEI, Canada |  Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking?Originally posted by TriMyBest Originally posted by happyscientist Funny you would use that as an example, because that demonstrates the lack of understanding most people have between the difference between strength and power well. Think of strength as the maximum you can lift one time. Think of power as the amount you can lift repeatedly over a given period of time. It's easy to see there's going to be a correlation between strength and power at very short durations. This is why Shane's chart can use 5s power as a proxy for strength. At the other far extreme of the spectrum, most people seem to recognize intuitively that there is going to be less correlation between the amount you can lift one time (strength) and the amount you can lift a couple hundred thousand times during a 200 mile bike ride (power). Somewhere between these two extremes seems to be when the debate starts, because intuitively there seems like there should be a correlation. The issue is that the correlation between strength and power appears to end at much shorter durations than intuition would indicate. Even on an extremely steep climb like the Westernport Wall, FTP/ KG will be a much better indicator of speed up the wall than 1RM on any given leg exercise. This is supported by current endurance training philosophy, which focuses on training energy systems, not muscles, for performance gains. Strength is fueled almost exclusively by anaerobic energy pathways that provide energy for efforts of only a few seconds before dropping off, while even very short endurance events like a 5k are fueled primarily by aerobic energy pathways. Originally posted by Left Brain Apparently you have never ridden in Garrett County, MD. Anyone who has ridden their Gran Fondo or done the Wall at Savageman would probably disagree.Originally posted by gsmacleod This is also worth a read: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2672335Shane Yeah, I have seen in quite a few of my readings the idea that you NEVER reach, or use, your true "strength" threshold on the bike, so leg "strength" is somewhat irrelavent. (at least according to the literature I've come across). I'm still holding out for something that more closely correlates to what I've always believed to be true. http://www.strava.com/segments/4731398 I'm way out of my league on this discussion but that's the Westernport Wall on Strava. The fastest time up it for someone with a power meter is 2:36 @ 430w with a max wattage of ~650w. It doesn't seem like a great feat of strength but a great power output over that time. That may be irrelevant but it looks to me that absolute strength has little to do with one's ability to get up the wall. |
| 2013-10-01 7:59 AM in reply to: 0 |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by axteraa Could add that several people in the discussion explaining that it's energy systems and not 1 rep max have done the wall. Originally posted by TriMyBest Originally posted by happyscientist Funny you would use that as an example, because that demonstrates the lack of understanding most people have between the difference between strength and power well. Think of strength as the maximum you can lift one time. Think of power as the amount you can lift repeatedly over a given period of time. It's easy to see there's going to be a correlation between strength and power at very short durations. This is why Shane's chart can use 5s power as a proxy for strength. At the other far extreme of the spectrum, most people seem to recognize intuitively that there is going to be less correlation between the amount you can lift one time (strength) and the amount you can lift a couple hundred thousand times during a 200 mile bike ride (power). Somewhere between these two extremes seems to be when the debate starts, because intuitively there seems like there should be a correlation. The issue is that the correlation between strength and power appears to end at much shorter durations than intuition would indicate. Even on an extremely steep climb like the Westernport Wall, FTP/ KG will be a much better indicator of speed up the wall than 1RM on any given leg exercise. This is supported by current endurance training philosophy, which focuses on training energy systems, not muscles, for performance gains. Strength is fueled almost exclusively by anaerobic energy pathways that provide energy for efforts of only a few seconds before dropping off, while even very short endurance events like a 5k are fueled primarily by aerobic energy pathways. Originally posted by Left Brain Apparently you have never ridden in Garrett County, MD. Anyone who has ridden their Gran Fondo or done the Wall at Savageman would probably disagree.Originally posted by gsmacleod This is also worth a read: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2672335Shane Yeah, I have seen in quite a few of my readings the idea that you NEVER reach, or use, your true "strength" threshold on the bike, so leg "strength" is somewhat irrelavent. (at least according to the literature I've come across). I'm still holding out for something that more closely correlates to what I've always believed to be true. http://www.strava.com/segments/4731398 I'm way out of my league on this discussion but that's the Westernport Wall on Strava. The fastest time up it for someone with a power meter is 2:36 @ 430w with a max wattage of ~650w. It doesn't seem like a great feat of strength but a great power output over that time. That may be irrelevant but it looks to me that absolute strength has little to do with one's ability to get up the wall.  Edited by brigby1 2013-10-01 7:59 AM |
| 2013-10-01 8:27 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by Left Brain Part of your post covers my dilemma in trying to figure out what direction to go with my 15 year old. He runs a 16:XX 5K, a 34:XX 10K, swims a sub 5:00 500, and a 17:XX 1650 (SCY) and bikes as I've already described. He doesn't do near the endurance training that most people here probably think he does to reach those times.....he has never ran more than 25 miles per week. he does swim ALOT....nearly 7000 per day and at least 6 sessions per week. That's where he builds the aerobic engine....and on long bike rides in season. At his age we work on speed for his running, and he wants to build more speed into his bike...which is why I'm in this discussion to begin with. I get the idea of riding more, but riding more alone, from my experience with my own training, doesn't add enough stress to build speed. So I'm exploring how that's done, and wondering about weight training.....something he's never done. For the record, he has one coach who wants him to start some pretty serious weight training this winter, and one who doesn't think it's necessary.......so I'm just trying to give myself an informed opinion. What has your son's riding looked like before? Just riding with races here & there? Curious as in here you've said he's ridden long and might possibly ride more. How one does the riding matters. A LOT. Certainly not one to loaf along, but still curious what it's been consisting of. He has a coach so he does interval work, threshold work, hills, etc. (no, he does not yet train with power, except for some computrainer sessions.....that will change next year) But the miles, again, are probably shorter than most people think for the times he is able to generate. He also does a long ride per weerk....40-60 miles. I don't hav his logs in front of me, but during peak training he probably does 100 miles per week broke up into 3-5 sessions. Ok, just making sure. I don't really have much to add to what Shane, Fred, and some others have already said. Generally don't think weights are really necessary. Some have seen gains with it in between what Shane laid out, but would be interested in seeing explanation as to why as many do not. They may still see gains, but not necessarily on top of what they should have by just cycling alone. I'm thinking that a number of cases in the middle could be just learning to work harder (or rediscovering what their limit is) as opposed to the lifting providing an increase. Sorta like taking someone to decent hills or an aggressive group ride for the first time (and a few times after). They tend to redefine what hard is after going through it. The comparison is very limited as it only really applies to learning to push oneself (how much leg burning can they take?). The physiological adaptations are quite different. The putting on more weight is a bit interesting. I don't know what to say for sure, but wondering how the coach is identifying your son needs it. Not saying it's wrong to look at it, but also not seeing an automatic need to put some on. I don't think there should be a specific weight for a given height, but rather look at it on a case by case nature. Maybe over time to give his body a chance to develop for itself and get used to things (he seems to still be growing), but don't see a need to make sure that happens immediately. Not everything is going to stay in perfect balance all the time for a growing kid. Don't want to be too thin, but still see him as about the same as Rapp or Wiggins. |
| 2013-10-01 9:05 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by Left Brain Part of your post covers my dilemma in trying to figure out what direction to go with my 15 year old. He runs a 16:XX 5K, a 34:XX 10K, swims a sub 5:00 500, and a 17:XX 1650 (SCY) and bikes as I've already described. He doesn't do near the endurance training that most people here probably think he does to reach those times.....he has never ran more than 25 miles per week. he does swim ALOT....nearly 7000 per day and at least 6 sessions per week. That's where he builds the aerobic engine....and on long bike rides in season. At his age we work on speed for his running, and he wants to build more speed into his bike...which is why I'm in this discussion to begin with. I get the idea of riding more, but riding more alone, from my experience with my own training, doesn't add enough stress to build speed. So I'm exploring how that's done, and wondering about weight training.....something he's never done. For the record, he has one coach who wants him to start some pretty serious weight training this winter, and one who doesn't think it's necessary.......so I'm just trying to give myself an informed opinion. What has your son's riding looked like before? Just riding with races here & there? Curious as in here you've said he's ridden long and might possibly ride more. How one does the riding matters. A LOT. Certainly not one to loaf along, but still curious what it's been consisting of. He has a coach so he does interval work, threshold work, hills, etc. (no, he does not yet train with power, except for some computrainer sessions.....that will change next year) But the miles, again, are probably shorter than most people think for the times he is able to generate. He also does a long ride per weerk....40-60 miles. I don't hav his logs in front of me, but during peak training he probably does 100 miles per week broke up into 3-5 sessions. Ok, just making sure. I don't really have much to add to what Shane, Fred, and some others have already said. Generally don't think weights are really necessary. Some have seen gains with it in between what Shane laid out, but would be interested in seeing explanation as to why as many do not. They may still see gains, but not necessarily on top of what they should have by just cycling alone. I'm thinking that a number of cases in the middle could be just learning to work harder (or rediscovering what their limit is) as opposed to the lifting providing an increase. Sorta like taking someone to decent hills or an aggressive group ride for the first time (and a few times after). They tend to redefine what hard is after going through it. The comparison is very limited as it only really applies to learning to push oneself (how much leg burning can they take?). The physiological adaptations are quite different. The putting on more weight is a bit interesting. I don't know what to say for sure, but wondering how the coach is identifying your son needs it. Not saying it's wrong to look at it, but also not seeing an automatic need to put some on. I don't think there should be a specific weight for a given height, but rather look at it on a case by case nature. Maybe over time to give his body a chance to develop for itself and get used to things (he seems to still be growing), but don't see a need to make sure that happens immediately. Not everything is going to stay in perfect balance all the time for a growing kid. Don't want to be too thin, but still see him as about the same as Rapp or Wiggins. Yes, all of those things you mention in your second paragraph are things we struggle to make good choices about. Right now he's 6'4" and 155. I'll attach a pic so you can see that he is working with very little body fat. One school of thought is that he has the frame to put on a bit more weight/muscle and weight training could do that while also adding some strength. The other school of thought is that he will naturally put on more weight/muscle with the increases in training load that he is getting in swimming (and soon biking) now that he is maturing physically. Here is a pic of him from July...... he's 15 1/2. He's even a bit leaner now that cross country season is in full swing. Edited by Left Brain 2013-10-01 9:17 AM (grifcapeswimcut1.jpg) Attachments ---------------- grifcapeswimcut1.jpg (41KB - 9 downloads) |
| 2013-10-01 9:51 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking?
Craig Alexander: 5’11″, 150 lbs.: 2.11 pounds per inch Chris Lieto: 6’0″, 160 lbs.: 2.22 pounds per inch Michael Lovato: 6’0″, 170 lbs: 2.36 pounds per inch Andy Potts: 6’2″, 175 lbs.: 2.33 pounds per inch Andreas Raelert: 6’0″, 159 lbs.: 2.20 pounds per inch Michael Raelert: 6’2″, 163 lbs.: 2.20 pounds per inch Matt Reed: 6’5″, 180 lbs.: 2.34 pounds per inch Dave Scott: 6’0″, 162 lbs.: 2.25 pounds per inch Average: 2.25125 Just as a point of reference for the discussion...
|
| 2013-10-01 9:57 AM in reply to: switch |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by switch
Craig Alexander: 5’11″, 150 lbs.: 2.11 pounds per inch Chris Lieto: 6’0″, 160 lbs.: 2.22 pounds per inch Michael Lovato: 6’0″, 170 lbs: 2.36 pounds per inch Andy Potts: 6’2″, 175 lbs.: 2.33 pounds per inch Andreas Raelert: 6’0″, 159 lbs.: 2.20 pounds per inch Michael Raelert: 6’2″, 163 lbs.: 2.20 pounds per inch Matt Reed: 6’5″, 180 lbs.: 2.34 pounds per inch Dave Scott: 6’0″, 162 lbs.: 2.25 pounds per inch Average: 2.25125 Just as a point of reference for the discussion...
My son is 2.03 lbs/inch. So now we look at workiing to get there and building strength along the way by adding some weight training, or seeing if it happens as the training loads start to increase. Either way, the general concensus as he moves forward is that he could use a few lbs. The info above seems to add some credence to that. |
| 2013-10-01 12:21 PM in reply to: 0 |
| Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by switch
Craig Alexander: 5’11″, 150 lbs.: 2.11 pounds per inch Chris Lieto: 6’0″, 160 lbs.: 2.22 pounds per inch Michael Lovato: 6’0″, 170 lbs: 2.36 pounds per inch Andy Potts: 6’2″, 175 lbs.: 2.33 pounds per inch Andreas Raelert: 6’0″, 159 lbs.: 2.20 pounds per inch Michael Raelert: 6’2″, 163 lbs.: 2.20 pounds per inch Matt Reed: 6’5″, 180 lbs.: 2.34 pounds per inch Dave Scott: 6’0″, 162 lbs.: 2.25 pounds per inch Average: 2.25125 Just as a point of reference for the discussion...
My son is 2.03 lbs/inch. So now we look at workiing to get there and building strength along the way by adding some weight training, or seeing if it happens as the training loads start to increase. Either way, the general concensus as he moves forward is that he could use a few lbs. The info above seems to add some credence to that. LB, I have absolutely no expertise about juniors or youth development (or expertise about anything for that matter At your son's height and weight, it seems plausible that he would benefit from some additional muscle mass to help support his frame. But maybe that can be accomplished simply by eating a little more? I don't know. Just throwing some caution to the wind in that you can't apply the same logic to growing young men as you can to full grown adults. You probably can't even compare him to his peers as some people grow into their frame at an earlier age than others. I know you already know that ETA: I didn't even read the bolded at first...so I think we're on the same page. Edited by Jason N 2013-10-01 12:24 PM |
), but is your son's coach well experienced with working with juniors? Or have you consulted a nutritionist specializing in teens. The reason I ask is that you can't really compare the body compositions of 30-40 year old grown men to your 15 year old son and say "that's where we need to get him in the next 1-2 years." I know that's not the literal approach you're taking, but it's important to remember that your son is still growing into his frame. What he looks like today is probably not what he will look like 10 years from now regardless of whether he weight trains or not.| 2013-10-01 12:28 PM in reply to: Jason N |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by Jason N Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by switch
Craig Alexander: 5’11″, 150 lbs.: 2.11 pounds per inch Chris Lieto: 6’0″, 160 lbs.: 2.22 pounds per inch Michael Lovato: 6’0″, 170 lbs: 2.36 pounds per inch Andy Potts: 6’2″, 175 lbs.: 2.33 pounds per inch Andreas Raelert: 6’0″, 159 lbs.: 2.20 pounds per inch Michael Raelert: 6’2″, 163 lbs.: 2.20 pounds per inch Matt Reed: 6’5″, 180 lbs.: 2.34 pounds per inch Dave Scott: 6’0″, 162 lbs.: 2.25 pounds per inch Average: 2.25125 Just as a point of reference for the discussion...
My son is 2.03 lbs/inch. So now we look at workiing to get there and building strength along the way by adding some weight training, or seeing if it happens as the training loads start to increase. Either way, the general concensus as he moves forward is that he could use a few lbs. The info above seems to add some credence to that. LB, I have absolutely no expertise about juniors or youth development (or expertise about anything for that matter At your son's height and weight, it seems plausible that he would benefit from some additional muscle mass to help support his frame. But maybe that can be accomplished simply by eating a little more? I don't know. Just throwing some caution to the wind in that you can't apply the same logic to growing young men as you can to full grown adults. You probably can't even compare him to his peers as some people grow into their frame at an earlier age than others. I know you already know that ETA: I didn't even read the bolded at first...so I think we're on the same page. Thanks Jason....yes, he is coached by one of the top Jr. coaches in the country. Still, like with anything involving our kids, my wife and I know that we are ultimately responsible for his development....so I don't mind soliciting opnions/advice from anywhere I can get it. I've actually been PM'd with some great resources with regard to this discussion.....so these threads are worth gold to me. |
| 2013-10-01 6:56 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Master 8247 Eugene, Oregon Bronze member | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Not a doctor or a nutritionist, but if your son's still growing and doing that kind of volume, it might be hard for him to put on much muscle even with weight training. Kids at that age, even when they're just active at an average level, esp. boys, are just calorie-burning machines. Add high-level training to that mix and you have an unstoppable garbage disposal! I recall just eating and eating and never getting full, until I stopped growing at 18. It was a struggle to keep my weight up to a healthy level for training. We did lift weights for swimming (in winter and summer, about 10,000m a day) and I don't recall being able to put on any muscle until well into my college years. Strength, yes, but muscle and weight, no. Of course boys will be able to put on some muscle due to hormone differences, but it would still seem hard if he is using up all his calories for growth and training. You might want to check with a nutritionist that he is getting enough total calories and protein. I know as a young athlete, I probably wasn't at times--it can just be hard to pack in enough into a busy day. It also might just be a matter of physical maturity. The body changes a lot between 15 and 20; muscle bulk and definition may well come partly as a matter of time and hormonal changes. It looks like your son is already one strong kid! |
| 2013-10-01 7:58 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by gsmacleod Why would you not expect 5sMMP to be a good proxy for strength? Because a guy who squats 10% less than me... but can turn the pedals 10% faster shows the same power.... even over 5 seconds. And I'm just giving squats as an example. I don't even know what a good measure of "strength" would be. My engineer brain just doesn't like using proxies when I think there might be a better measure. Correct but without more data, there is no way to know. What we can say is that in a mass start event or hill climb, both the red and blue groups would likely expect about the same level of performance. We couldn't say that same with a TT since that is highly related to aero position and absolute power but strength is not a significant component in endurance cycling. Shane Agreed on the mass start and hill climb (assuming gearing selected for the user's power level) Even in endurance cycling... are the guys on the right side of the graph more able to breakaway at key times? Are they able to jump from the peloton into the leader group when other guys can't?
Shane, thank you for continuing to come back to me on this. I'm learning a ton. I appreciate your patience and your willingness to teach. (maybe that's why you're a coach?) I really appreciate this type of "debate." But for the love of all that is holy... don't ever post those leg pictures again. woof. It's like Popeye doing a handstand.
Edited to fix quotes Edited by moondawg14 2013-10-01 8:26 PM |
| 2013-10-01 8:57 PM in reply to: Hot Runner |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by Hot Runner Not a doctor or a nutritionist, but if your son's still growing and doing that kind of volume, it might be hard for him to put on much muscle even with weight training. Kids at that age, even when they're just active at an average level, esp. boys, are just calorie-burning machines. Add high-level training to that mix and you have an unstoppable garbage disposal! I recall just eating and eating and never getting full, until I stopped growing at 18. It was a struggle to keep my weight up to a healthy level for training. We did lift weights for swimming (in winter and summer, about 10,000m a day) and I don't recall being able to put on any muscle until well into my college years. Strength, yes, but muscle and weight, no. Of course boys will be able to put on some muscle due to hormone differences, but it would still seem hard if he is using up all his calories for growth and training. You might want to check with a nutritionist that he is getting enough total calories and protein. I know as a young athlete, I probably wasn't at times--it can just be hard to pack in enough into a busy day. It also might just be a matter of physical maturity. The body changes a lot between 15 and 20; muscle bulk and definition may well come partly as a matter of time and hormonal changes. It looks like your son is already one strong kid! We can't feed him anymore right now...... there's a govt. shutdown. |
| 2013-10-01 11:21 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 635 Ajo | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? I read the link to Dr. Coggan's article. I have read his blogs and books and deeply respect his contribution and follow his power training methodologies, BUT I disagree with him about his concept of strength. What limits a person to turning over the cranks of a 53/11 gearing if not strength or whatever you call it? In order to turn a 53/11 over one time requires a person to place the same amount of mass or strength as doing a 1 legged squat of at least 80lbs... like on a leg press machine. Speed (power) is product of force x velocity and force is a product of mass... and then what requires mass to move the crank pedal around if not a certain amount of strength? I agree with his assertion that maximal strength is not used while riding, since only 20 to 25% of your strength can be converted to force anyways. But if the rider doesn't have the initial strength to turn that gear or do a 80lb single legged press, then they are going to attempting to turn that crank at greater than maximal power and inevitably the speed or watts from the rider will be far below that effort. But, again how do you move the AEPF line up if not by a certain amount of strength? and by his own creations of AEPF he is basically asserting that maximal strength is a concept of watts production over time, whether he admits it or not. So back to the first paragraph, if you can't even turn over the crank in a 53/11 to 13 gear on a flat road, then how the hell are you going to make watts to go fast like folks want? In order to acheive 22 to 25 mph as most folks want, it takes strength to turn over the pedals in the first place and then takes the aerobic system to keep it going. I've read that world class bike and track sprinters can squat 400 to 500 lbs and I'd believe it, and some would argue that they have massive explosive strength but suck at endurance, but it's just how they've trained their bodies for that particular activity... but their body types are probably mesomorphic anyways and thus the genes have predisposed them to short term strength events... not that they couldn't reengineer their bodies for endurance sports. LB, if I may say... your son is pretty damn fit. As for strength training... I'd see what the coaches say about it, however my thoughts are that he could get away with doing sets of 3 for 10 to 15 reps each, where the last few reps of the last set he would need a slight nudge from a spotter. I wouldn't get him on a power weight system at that age, no no no, he's got a long road ahead in life and that just cause injuries, start out lightly for several years to build a base in the gym, then after 20 when his developing is over, he can change his routine to power or whatever is recommended. Edited by tomspharmacy 2013-10-01 11:45 PM |
| 2013-10-02 12:42 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by tomspharmacy I read the link to Dr. Coggan's article. I have read his blogs and books and deeply respect his contribution and follow his power training methodologies, BUT I disagree with him about his concept of strength. What limits a person to turning over the cranks of a 53/11 gearing if not strength or whatever you call it? In order to turn a 53/11 over one time requires a person to place the same amount of mass or strength as doing a 1 legged squat of at least 80lbs... like on a leg press machine. Speed (power) is product of force x velocity and force is a product of mass... and then what requires mass to move the crank pedal around if not a certain amount of strength? I agree with his assertion that maximal strength is not used while riding, since only 20 to 25% of your strength can be converted to force anyways. But if the rider doesn't have the initial strength to turn that gear or do a 80lb single legged press, then they are going to attempting to turn that crank at greater than maximal power and inevitably the speed or watts from the rider will be far below that effort. But, again how do you move the AEPF line up if not by a certain amount of strength? and by his own creations of AEPF he is basically asserting that maximal strength is a concept of watts production over time, whether he admits it or not. So back to the first paragraph, if you can't even turn over the crank in a 53/11 to 13 gear on a flat road, then how the hell are you going to make watts to go fast like folks want? In order to acheive 22 to 25 mph as most folks want, it takes strength to turn over the pedals in the first place and then takes the aerobic system to keep it going. I've read that world class bike and track sprinters can squat 400 to 500 lbs and I'd believe it, and some would argue that they have massive explosive strength but suck at endurance, but it's just how they've trained their bodies for that particular activity... but their body types are probably mesomorphic anyways and thus the genes have predisposed them to short term strength events... not that they couldn't reengineer their bodies for endurance sports. LB, if I may say... your son is pretty damn fit. As for strength training... I'd see what the coaches say about it, however my thoughts are that he could get away with doing sets of 3 for 10 to 15 reps each, where the last few reps of the last set he would need a slight nudge from a spotter. I wouldn't get him on a power weight system at that age, no no no, he's got a long road ahead in life and that just cause injuries, start out lightly for several years to build a base in the gym, then after 20 when his developing is over, he can change his routine to power or whatever is recommended. Shane, Fred, Jason, et al.....can you comment on the bolded part with regard to this question: If it's true that only 20 - 25% of your strength can be converted to force (something I take at face value since it makes sense in light of this discussion and what I've read) how is it possible that, all other endurance training being the same, you cannot benefit from more strength? If I'm 20% stronger from a weight training program, then won't my 20-25% that can be converted to force be greater? Maybe not by the entire 20% that I have gained in a strength training program, but surely by some metric of that 20%, right? What am I missing? Edited by Left Brain 2013-10-02 12:45 AM |
| 2013-10-02 4:21 AM in reply to: tomspharmacy |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by tomspharmacyI read the link to Dr. Coggan's article. I have read his blogs and books and deeply respect his contribution and follow his power training methodologies, BUT I disagree with him about his concept of strength. What limits a person to turning over the cranks of a 53/11 gearing if not strength or whatever you call it? In order to turn a 53/11 over one time requires a person to place the same amount of mass or strength as doing a 1 legged squat of at least 80lbs... like on a leg press machine. Speed (power) is product of force x velocity and force is a product of mass... and then what requires mass to move the crank pedal around if not a certain amount of strength?I agree with his assertion that maximal strength is not used while riding, since only 20 to 25% of your strength can be converted to force anyways. But if the rider doesn't have the initial strength to turn that gear or do a 80lb single legged press, then they are going to attempting to turn that crank at greater than maximal power and inevitably the speed or watts from the rider will be far below that effort. But, again how do you move the AEPF line up if not by a certain amount of strength? and by his own creations of AEPF he is basically asserting that maximal strength is a concept of watts production over time, whether he admits it or not.So back to the first paragraph, if you can't even turn over the crank in a 53/11 to 13 gear on a flat road, then how the hell are you going to make watts to go fast like folks want? In order to acheive 22 to 25 mph as most folks want, it takes strength to turn over the pedals in the first place and then takes the aerobic system to keep it going.I've read that world class bike and track sprinters can squat 400 to 500 lbs and I'd believe it, and some would argue that they have massive explosive strength but suck at endurance, but it's just how they've trained their bodies for that particular activity... but their body types are probably mesomorphic anyways and thus the genes have predisposed them to short term strength events... not that they couldn't reengineer their bodies for endurance sports.LB, if I may say... your son is pretty damn fit. As for strength training... I'd see what the coaches say about it, however my thoughts are that he could get away with doing sets of 3 for 10 to 15 reps each, where the last few reps of the last set he would need a slight nudge from a spotter. I wouldn't get him on a power weight system at that age, no no no, he's got a long road ahead in life and that just cause injuries, start out lightly for several years to build a base in the gym, then after 20 when his developing is over, he can change his routine to power or whatever is recommended. Sorry about the brief reply, but I'm posting from my phone... You're still thinking in terms of biomechanics. I mentioned the answer to your question about why strength isn't the limiter to turning over the cranks - biochemistry, not biomechanics. Strength is 1RM, so you literally do 1 rep and are unable to do a second one. Applying 100% of your strength to the pedals would result in 1 revolution of the cranks, then you're done. Biochemically, the energy to do this is provided mostly by the ATP-CP energy pathways that mostly drop out after 10 or so seconds. At these very short durations, thinking biomechanically works, but as durations get longer, the amount of energy needed to fire the muscles simply isn't available to them, because the energy pathways for efforts longer than a few minutes are mostly aerobic. It would be like having a car with a big engine, but the fuel line is too small to supply the volume of fuel necessary for it to produce the power it's capable of. Endurance performance is primarily limited by the capacity of the aerobic energy pathways. To produce more power, most people need to focus on training those systems, I.e. endurance training - they need to make the fuel line bigger. |
| 2013-10-02 9:03 AM in reply to: TriMyBest |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by TriMyBest Originally posted by tomspharmacyI read the link to Dr. Coggan's article. I have read his blogs and books and deeply respect his contribution and follow his power training methodologies, BUT I disagree with him about his concept of strength. What limits a person to turning over the cranks of a 53/11 gearing if not strength or whatever you call it? In order to turn a 53/11 over one time requires a person to place the same amount of mass or strength as doing a 1 legged squat of at least 80lbs... like on a leg press machine. Speed (power) is product of force x velocity and force is a product of mass... and then what requires mass to move the crank pedal around if not a certain amount of strength?I agree with his assertion that maximal strength is not used while riding, since only 20 to 25% of your strength can be converted to force anyways. But if the rider doesn't have the initial strength to turn that gear or do a 80lb single legged press, then they are going to attempting to turn that crank at greater than maximal power and inevitably the speed or watts from the rider will be far below that effort. But, again how do you move the AEPF line up if not by a certain amount of strength? and by his own creations of AEPF he is basically asserting that maximal strength is a concept of watts production over time, whether he admits it or not.So back to the first paragraph, if you can't even turn over the crank in a 53/11 to 13 gear on a flat road, then how the hell are you going to make watts to go fast like folks want? In order to acheive 22 to 25 mph as most folks want, it takes strength to turn over the pedals in the first place and then takes the aerobic system to keep it going.I've read that world class bike and track sprinters can squat 400 to 500 lbs and I'd believe it, and some would argue that they have massive explosive strength but suck at endurance, but it's just how they've trained their bodies for that particular activity... but their body types are probably mesomorphic anyways and thus the genes have predisposed them to short term strength events... not that they couldn't reengineer their bodies for endurance sports.LB, if I may say... your son is pretty damn fit. As for strength training... I'd see what the coaches say about it, however my thoughts are that he could get away with doing sets of 3 for 10 to 15 reps each, where the last few reps of the last set he would need a slight nudge from a spotter. I wouldn't get him on a power weight system at that age, no no no, he's got a long road ahead in life and that just cause injuries, start out lightly for several years to build a base in the gym, then after 20 when his developing is over, he can change his routine to power or whatever is recommended. Sorry about the brief reply, but I'm posting from my phone... You're still thinking in terms of biomechanics. I mentioned the answer to your question about why strength isn't the limiter to turning over the cranks - biochemistry, not biomechanics. Strength is 1RM, so you literally do 1 rep and are unable to do a second one. Applying 100% of your strength to the pedals would result in 1 revolution of the cranks, then you're done. Biochemically, the energy to do this is provided mostly by the ATP-CP energy pathways that mostly drop out after 10 or so seconds. At these very short durations, thinking biomechanically works, but as durations get longer, the amount of energy needed to fire the muscles simply isn't available to them, because the energy pathways for efforts longer than a few minutes are mostly aerobic. It would be like having a car with a big engine, but the fuel line is too small to supply the volume of fuel necessary for it to produce the power it's capable of. Endurance performance is primarily limited by the capacity of the aerobic energy pathways. To produce more power, most people need to focus on training those systems, I.e. endurance training - they need to make the fuel line bigger. Thanks Don......I'm starting to catch on now. But still, how is it that as you build the endurance system, especially in a growing body, adding strength is not helpful? Or maybe I'm still thinking of "strength" in the wrong light? |
| 2013-10-02 9:25 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 635 Ajo | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? I'm quoting from "Cutting-Edge Cycling" by Hunter Allen and Stephen Cheung, Phd "Most of the energy contained in the nutrients that we take in is instead converted to heat, such that gross efficiency of the body is only 20 to 25% on average." The sentence is in reference to energy and efficiency and continues a couple of sentences later: "For example, requiring 1000 watts of overall matabolism to generate 200 watts on your bike means a gross efficiency of 200 divided by 1000, or 20 percent. Therefore, the term gross efficiency (in italics) refers more to the internal metabolic economy rather than the overall economy of the human-bike system." and continues in next paragraph: "Hence, gross efficiency is the part of economy of MOVEMENT (my emphasis as the way I read it) that refers to your metabolism of food energy into stored energy that your MUSCLES can use..... Gross efficiency is somewhat analogous to the baseline fuel efficiency of a vehicle. and in the section titled CAN EFFICIENCY BE ALTERED? within the same chapter "The reasons and mechanisms behind changes in efficiency are still begin explored. Physiological, mechanical and aerodynamic, and strategic factors affect economy, and smart and dedicated training can help you exceed your perceived limits. Finally, the smoother and more ECONOMICAL (I interpret this as being stronger or able to generate more force smoothly over time) your pedal stroke is, the LESS ENERGY you require to maintain a power output or speed. Who wouldn't benefit from that?" It's like the new engine management system in the 2014 Corvette... there is a button that you can disable 4 of the 8 cylinders to increase the fuel economy while cruising down the highway at 75 mph... now how many cars can you cut out half the engine and still cruise at 75mph? The corvette has a higher baseline of power and can thus cruise on 250 hp vs. the 500 hp nominal horsepower of the V8. This the analogy that I'd think about when training. I want to build a torquey, high revving V8, so that cruising in an 56 mile bike leg is easier. Try that with an economy car and it will be wheezing to maintain 75 mph. Edited by tomspharmacy 2013-10-02 9:34 AM |
| 2013-10-02 10:20 AM in reply to: tomspharmacy |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by tomspharmacy "The reasons and mechanisms behind changes in efficiency are still begin explored. Physiological, mechanical and aerodynamic, and strategic factors affect economy, and smart and dedicated training can help you exceed your perceived limits. Finally, the smoother and more ECONOMICAL (I interpret this as being stronger or able to generate more force smoothly over time) your pedal stroke is, the LESS ENERGY you require to maintain a power output or speed. Who wouldn't benefit from that?" Why? It would be more correct to see it as taking what your body can produce and transferring that to the bike (and therefore road) more effectively. It's like the new engine management system in the 2014 Corvette... there is a button that you can disable 4 of the 8 cylinders to increase the fuel economy while cruising down the highway at 75 mph... now how many cars can you cut out half the engine and still cruise at 75mph? The corvette has a higher baseline of power and can thus cruise on 250 hp vs. the 500 hp nominal horsepower of the V8. This the analogy that I'd think about when training. I want to build a torquey, high revving V8, so that cruising in an 56 mile bike leg is easier. Try that with an economy car and it will be wheezing to maintain 75 mph. Cars don't work the same way. The Corvette can produce 500 hp until it runs out of gas. A human will fall off their 1 rep max (or 5 sec mmp) immediately because they don't have the energy system to maintain that. |
| 2013-10-02 10:30 AM in reply to: brigby1 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by tomspharmacy "The reasons and mechanisms behind changes in efficiency are still begin explored. Physiological, mechanical and aerodynamic, and strategic factors affect economy, and smart and dedicated training can help you exceed your perceived limits. Finally, the smoother and more ECONOMICAL (I interpret this as being stronger or able to generate more force smoothly over time) your pedal stroke is, the LESS ENERGY you require to maintain a power output or speed. Who wouldn't benefit from that?" Why? It would be more correct to see it as taking what your body can produce and transferring that to the bike (and therefore road) more effectively. It's like the new engine management system in the 2014 Corvette... there is a button that you can disable 4 of the 8 cylinders to increase the fuel economy while cruising down the highway at 75 mph... now how many cars can you cut out half the engine and still cruise at 75mph? The corvette has a higher baseline of power and can thus cruise on 250 hp vs. the 500 hp nominal horsepower of the V8. This the analogy that I'd think about when training. I want to build a torquey, high revving V8, so that cruising in an 56 mile bike leg is easier. Try that with an economy car and it will be wheezing to maintain 75 mph. Cars don't work the same way. The Corvette can produce 500 hp until it runs out of gas. A human will fall off their 1 rep max (or 5 sec mmp) immediately because they don't have the energy system to maintain that. OK, I get that part. But then I'm back to the question I asked that hasn't been answered yet. What if a strength program consists of not one rep for max, but 3 sets of 20 reps with the last 2 or 3 near failure. Obviouslyt that will make you stronger, so now your 20-25% of usuable "strength" is higher. If the rest of the training stays the same and the aerobic engine continues to build, how does being stronger in that sense not compute to being stronger on the bike? |
| 2013-10-02 10:51 AM in reply to: moondawg14 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by moondawg14 Because a guy who squats 10% less than me... but can turn the pedals 10% faster shows the same power.... even over 5 seconds. And I'm just giving squats as an example. I don't even know what a good measure of "strength" would be. My engineer brain just doesn't like using proxies when I think there might be a better measure. However, it is not as simple as deciding that you want to turn the pedals 10% faster; one needs to accelerate the pedals to that angular velocity. Since this acceleration would require even more force than simply turning the pedals at a constant angular velocity. While you could do this with a 1RM for a given leg strength exercise, since the correlation between strength and 5sMMP is high, it is often used as a proxy strength. Agreed on the mass start and hill climb (assuming gearing selected for the user's power level) Even in endurance cycling... are the guys on the right side of the graph more able to breakaway at key times? Are they able to jump from the peloton into the leader group when other guys can't? Possibly but generally in endurance cycling we will not be looking at maximal efforts over very short durations. Instead what an athlete needs to breakaway is the ability to ride somewhat above threshold for a certain period of time (usually a few minutes) to establish the break and then settle in at a mostly thresholdish effort with a few other athletes while the peloton sits at a tempoish pace and you build a gap large enough to stay away. OTOH, when it finishes in a bunch sprint, these athletes are still not great sprinters but rather great endurance sprinters; very high FTP with a higher anaerobic work capacity than those they are outsprinting. Shane, thank you for continuing to come back to me on this. I'm learning a ton. I appreciate your patience and your willingness to teach. (maybe that's why you're a coach?) I really appreciate this type of "debate." But for the love of all that is holy... don't ever post those leg pictures again. woof. It's like Popeye doing a handstand.
Edited to fix quotes You didn't like the picture?  I posted it simply because when it comes to purely anaerobic efforts, the cyclists who do best look very different from endurance cyclists (from the kilo on out). You won't see the same musculature when it comes to endurance cyclists that you do on the sprinters. Shane |
| 2013-10-02 10:55 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by Left Brain Thanks Don......I'm starting to catch on now. But still, how is it that as you build the endurance system, especially in a growing body, adding strength is not helpful? Or maybe I'm still thinking of "strength" in the wrong light? It is because endurance is basically all about biochemistry not biomechanics; endurance is the result of metabolic efficiency which allows an athlete to produce a small amount of force many thousands of times over the course of an event where strength is about the ability to apply a maximal force once. Shane |
| 2013-10-02 10:56 AM in reply to: #4866195 |
| Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Some of this conversation is getting too advanced for my simple mind. But I'm trying to wrap my head around the example of one rep of 53x11 being equal to squating 80 pounds? Are we talking about adding 80 pounds of weight on your shoulders or just a fraction of your body weight. There are elite cyclists that can turn over 53x11 on a flat road, for over 10 minutes in a short all out tt. I'd like to know how many of them could do 900 reps of 80 pound squats in 10 minutes. Unless were refering to 80 pound squats as body weight squats with assistance so the net resistance is 80 pounds. Maybe I missed it in this thread, but imho, if you want to increase strength for biking purposes, I'd advise finding a steep do hill repeats on your bike. You can purposely use a harder gear to bring your cadence down, which should put more stress on building bike specific strength rather than taxing your cardio as much. |
| 2013-10-02 11:04 AM in reply to: gsmacleod |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by gsmacleod Originally posted by Left Brain Thanks Don......I'm starting to catch on now. But still, how is it that as you build the endurance system, especially in a growing body, adding strength is not helpful? Or maybe I'm still thinking of "strength" in the wrong light? It is because endurance is basically all about biochemistry not biomechanics; endurance is the result of metabolic efficiency which allows an athlete to produce a small amount of force many thousands of times over the course of an event where strength is about the ability to apply a maximal force once. Shane Basically, the metabolic part will not scale up directly with the peak. It must be trained to provide more. So pushing the peak higher does not really help when the fueling can not keep up. |
| 2013-10-02 11:07 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by Left Brain OK, I get that part. But then I'm back to the question I asked that hasn't been answered yet. What if a strength program consists of not one rep for max, but 3 sets of 20 reps with the last 2 or 3 near failure. Obviouslyt that will make you stronger, so now your 20-25% of usuable "strength" is higher. The 20-25% does not refer to usable strength but rather the average efficiency of cyclists; basically the power that is delivered to the pedals (say 200W) represents 20-25% of the metabolic cost to the athlete. So, if an athlete is 20% efficient, to deliver 200W to the pedals, the metabolic cost is 1000W with 80% of that being lost primarily to heat. It is reasonable that what is often called strength endurance would be beneficial to endurance athletes (lower weight, higher reps) but the research does not bear this out. Instead what we see is that although strength does not correlate well endurance performance, athletes who do some maximal strength training (high weights, low reps) may see some small benefits in endurance performance. If the rest of the training stays the same and the aerobic engine continues to build, how does being stronger in that sense not compute to being stronger on the bike? It is because aerobic fitness is biochemical not biomechanical (for the most part). Shane |
| 2013-10-02 11:08 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by gsmacleod Originally posted by Left Brain Thanks Don......I'm starting to catch on now. But still, how is it that as you build the endurance system, especially in a growing body, adding strength is not helpful? Or maybe I'm still thinking of "strength" in the wrong light? It is because endurance is basically all about biochemistry not biomechanics; endurance is the result of metabolic efficiency which allows an athlete to produce a small amount of force many thousands of times over the course of an event where strength is about the ability to apply a maximal force once. Shane Ok, I get that. You can't do squats for 6 months and expect that to apply to cycling strength (or force), lacking any aerobic bike trianing. But if you are still cycling and building the aerobic pathways, how does adding leg strength not produce any results? I still don't understand the idea that you can't increase the 20-25% number (the amount of strength needed to move the pedals). If my 20-25% is higher than yours, as apercentage of total strength, and everything else is equal regarding aerobic system.....won't I be a stronger/better cyclist? Edited by Left Brain 2013-10-02 11:08 AM |
| 2013-10-02 11:12 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weight training for improving biking? Originally posted by Left Brain Ok, I get that. You can't do squats for 6 months and expect that to apply to cycling strength (or force), lacking any aerobic bike trianing. But if you are still cycling and building the aerobic pathways, how does adding leg strength not produce any results? I still don't understand the idea that you can't increase the 20-25% number (the amount of strength needed to move the pedals). If my 20-25% is higher than yours, as apercentage of total strength, and everything else is equal regarding aerobic system.....won't I be a stronger/better cyclist? Forget the 20-25%; that is dealing with the metabolic efficiency of cycling not the amount of strength available to push the pedals. The amount of force that is available to push on the pedals is going to be some fraction of 1RM but the reason why we cannot push harder is not because we are limited to that fraction of strength due to a biomechanical limitation but rather because of the biochemistry; if we improve aerobic conditioning, then we can access a higher fraction of 1RM (still small compared to 1RM) in order to push harder on the pedals. Shane |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK