brendancg wrote:if your strength is greater the efforts required will be less? If I have a 1RM of 100kg my pedal force required will be 20kg if 1/5 of my strength. Surely if I increase my 1RM to 120kg then without any increase in weight and gravity staying the same I reduce the effort required to 1/6 of my strength and so on. With reduced percentage effort on my legs (largest muscle groups in my body) then my spare aerobic capacity will increase?
that's like saying you'll save fuel by buying a car with a bigger motor - it's not working as hard as the little buzzbox you had so it must be more efficient. strength is just the capacity to exert a maximum force, it's not the efficiency with which it's exerted.
Doing weights doesn't necessarily mean that you will put on weight unless you had no muscle mass before. For information;
85+% of 1RM x 5 reps = Strength training 70 - 85% of 1RM 8 - 12 reps = hypertrophy (adding size and weight) 60 - 70% of 1RM 12 - 20 reps = endurance If you are doing any more than 20 reps in a set the weight is too light and you will get very little improvement out of it. Each of these is pretty exclusive to the other. If you do lighter weight and want to gain strength then you will not gain that much strength unless you change the way you do it.
I guess what this thread has taught us is that we all have our thoughts on it. I personally have found that the gains I am getting from training as I currently am is getting almost negligible. Basically my body has adapted. As such I have to look at other ways to improve my performances hence the weights. By adding strength training I have noticed a difference, power has improved, climbing has improved and sprinting has improved. As such I will stick with it.
that's like saying you'll save fuel by buying a car with a bigger motor
Difference is I said, without increasing size or weight. If you get a bigger car with a bigger motor you are adding weight. If you think of all the forces acting on a climbing cyclist, such as gravity, resistance and weight then strength is certainly a factor that can be improved. In relation to aerobic capacity this means the ability of your body to fuel the muscles for the exercise. Now if your muscles work harder then they are going to need more fuel. If they aren't working so hard then the fuel requirement is less. If you are working at your lactate threshold before, by improving your strength you work below your lactate threshold then you have spare aerobic capacity.
You do realise that the pedaling forces involved in such seated climbing efforts are quite low, maybe 1/5th to 1/10th of your strength and as such strength is not the limiter? You're limited by your aerobic metabolism, not strength.
I agree aerobic metabolism would be a limiting factor, but as strength is part of it I would suggest it would also be a limiting factor. Now I appreciate what you are saying, you are more learned than I in this area, but if your strength is greater the efforts required will be less? If I have a 1RM of 100kg my pedal force required will be 20kg if 1/5 of my strength. Surely if I increase my 1RM to 120kg then without any increase in weight and gravity staying the same I reduce the effort required to 1/6 of my strength and so on. With reduced percentage effort on my legs (largest muscle groups in my body) then my spare aerobic capacity will increase?
Strength is not a limiter for endurance cycling.
Your logic is I'm afraid flawed. It wouldn't matter if you were riding at 1/10th, 1/5th, 1/12th of you max force generation ability - the forces are still so significantly sub-maximal that we simply don't recruit the muscle fibres in the way that we do when applying maximal force.
The limiter is the rate of energy production (power) which ultimately is constrained by the rate of ATP production (via aerobic and anaerobic metabolism). Since anaerobic ATP production fulfills only very short duration needs (i.e. measured in seconds) then the ATP production needs in endurance cycling is all but wholly constrained by our aerobic metabolism. Increasing strength (max force production ability) does nothing to improve this. In fact it can actually hamper it.
Cycling powerfully is about applying sub maximal forces frequently and over long periods - and to do that we need to improve our ability to generate ATP. That requires improved O2 delivery, more mitochondrial density, reduced diffusion distances for exchange of gases and key metabolites, increased capillarisation and so on. Fortunately these are all best enhanced by riding our bikes with sufficient volume and intensity. They aren't helped by training that increases our strength.
Of course doing just about any exercise will help an untrained sedentary individual.
brendancg wrote:if your strength is greater the efforts required will be less? If I have a 1RM of 100kg my pedal force required will be 20kg if 1/5 of my strength. Surely if I increase my 1RM to 120kg then without any increase in weight and gravity staying the same I reduce the effort required to 1/6 of my strength and so on. With reduced percentage effort on my legs (largest muscle groups in my body) then my spare aerobic capacity will increase?
that's like saying you'll save fuel by buying a car with a bigger motor - it's not working as hard as the little buzzbox you had so it must be more efficient. strength is just the capacity to exert a maximum force, it's not the efficiency with which it's exerted.
I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall a Top Gear episode where a fuel economy challenge was done between a Porsche of some sort and a little 4 cylinder buzz box. When driven conservatively the Porsche actually won, despite having a bigger capacity engine and a massive power advantage. As it was just idling along it used bugger all juice.
shiv wrote:I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall a Top Gear episode where a fuel economy challenge was done between a Porsche of some sort and a little 4 cylinder buzz box. When driven conservatively the Porsche actually won, despite having a bigger capacity engine and a massive power advantage. As it was just idling along it used bugger all juice.
the analogy has limitations. you can make the same car return all sorts of different fuel figures depending on how it's driven. on a highway at constant speed, a bigger, more powerful car with taller gearing is often at an advantage - the weight has no impact at a constant speed on flat terrain and the taller gearing helps reduce engine speed/load. but we digress
shiv wrote:I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall a Top Gear episode where a fuel economy challenge was done between a Porsche of some sort and a little 4 cylinder buzz box. When driven conservatively the Porsche actually won, despite having a bigger capacity engine and a massive power advantage. As it was just idling along it used bugger all juice.
the analogy has limitations. you can make the same car return all sorts of different fuel figures depending on how it's driven. on a highway at constant speed, a bigger, more powerful car with taller gearing is often at an advantage - the weight has no impact at a constant speed on flat terrain and the taller gearing helps reduce engine speed/load. but we digress
Well it was Top Gear so I wouldnt be at all surprised if Mr Clarkson made sure it was done to give the Porsche a more then healthy chance of winning
shiv wrote:Well it was Top Gear so I wouldnt be at all surprised if Mr Clarkson made sure it was done to give the Porsche a more then healthy chance of winning
i just assumed that was the case - he does a less than subtle job of pandering to the all-important redneck "global warming is for ***s" market.
shiv wrote:Well it was Top Gear so I wouldnt be at all surprised if Mr Clarkson made sure it was done to give the Porsche a more then healthy chance of winning
i just assumed that was the case - he does a less than subtle job of pandering to the all-important redneck "global warming is for ***s" market.
In actual fact its generally true - or used to be anyway. For highway cruising (100kmh+) - a larger engine was usually more efficient because its not wokring as hard to maintain that speed. A smaller engine is working a lot harder to maintain the same speed and there is less efficient. Its reversed for city stop start traffic of course.
The Top Gear comparo was a V8 BMW M3 vs a Toyota Prius. The Prius was driven flat out around their test track and the M3 just had to keep up with the Prius. At the end of the test the Prius had used more fuel than the M3 over the same distance.
I dont think this would translate to cycling though?
J-C90 wrote:The Top Gear comparo was a V8 BMW M3 vs a Toyota Prius. The Prius was driven flat out around their test track and the M3 just had to keep up with the Prius. At the end of the test the Prius had used more fuel than the M3 over the same distance.
i can imagine that may be the case, but it's misleading. the M3 was probably gliding by carrying more speed through the corners, while the prius was being thrashed to within an inch of its life.
it doesn't translate to cycling. endurance is partly a measure of how efficiently your body delivers blood to muscles and evacuates lactic acid. strength is just a measure of how much a muscle can work in short bursts. (someone will give a more precise explanation) the fact you may exceed at the latter doesn't impact on the former at all.
Well as a track sprint cyclist, then I would expect one to do some weight training. But we are talking about endurance cycling, not sprint.
Even in track sprint cycling, there's a limit to how much strength one needs. Beyond that is pretty useless, since it's the rate of force application (i.e. power) that matters. No point being strong if you aren't able to generate that force quickly. It's force AND speed of contraction that matters, not just the force part. Plenty of very strong, but very slow "sprinters" out there.
steve-waters wrote:Alex - So weights if done should be more focused on dynamic and explosive sets if to get some benefit from them? Rather than all out strength sets.
It depends. For track sprinters, yes* but it's still only cross training and not bike specific. For endurance riders, not really.
The very best training for explosiveness on a bike are, you guessed it, explosive efforts on the bike. Starts, sprints, seated accelerations, downhill sprints, uphill sprints, etc etc etc.
* I would suggest if you can 1RM free squat 2-2.5 x body mass, then as a track sprinter at the elite world class level, you have more than enough strength. More is not necessary and training to go beyond might in fact slow you down.
In addition to a distinction between Track sprinting and Road endurance, there is also the distinction between those looking specifically for cycling performance vs those looking for general fitness.
mikesbytes wrote:[Mod] Moved to the Training subforum [/Mod]
In addition to a distinction between Track sprinting and Road endurance, there is also the distinction between those looking specifically for cycling performance vs those looking for general fitness.
Fitness in what sense? Body asthetics would probably be more apt.
I rate well on a lot of general fitness measures but still look like a skeleton, weights probably won't make me any fitter though.
mikesbytes wrote:In addition to a distinction between Track sprinting and Road endurance, there is also the distinction between those looking specifically for cycling performance vs those looking for general fitness.
Agree to post above - you have to specify what the fitness is specific to/for. Fitness is highly modality specific.
In this case the OP is training for a half Ironman. From a specific fitness development POV, they'll be far better off doing as much running, swimming and cycling as they can, than doing anything in the weights room.
.
