sb944 wrote:Power in cycling terms is about how much power can you hold over a full hour
sounds like you've got your own "unique" definition of power there mate...
The foundations for successful riding
Masters athletes, whether sprinters or enduros, benefit from weights...so says the literature.
even with weights, lean tissue loss is hard to avoid due to drops in testosterone and other aspects of ageing.
In what way is it unique? Functional Threshold Power (aka. maxiumum average power a cyclist can hold over an hour) is a commonly held measure of the aerobic power potential of a cyclist.
Power is precisely the correct term for it.
Power is the rate of doing work, or the rate of energy transfer.
Strength is a measure of maximal force generation capacity. Force and power are not the same thing.
Power can be applied over any duration. Typically for a cyclist we talk about power output over durations ranging from seconds to hours. FTP just refers to one particular duration, i.e. about an hour (and as a result provides insight into one element of out physiological capability). But we also look at power output over many other durations (from a handful of seconds, thought to many hours) to attain insight into performance and capability.
No matter if it is a short or long climb, to go faster you need to increase the power to weight ratio for the distance climbed. That's just physics (whether its a human on a bike, or a truck, or a cable car).
Work (energy) = force x distance
Power = work / time
Power = force x distance / time = force x speed
So if the objective is to go faster uphill (short or long), then we need to do the training that improves the power to weight ratio for the duration of interest.
He didn't say functional threshold power, he just said "Power" and in the context of his post it's pretty clear he isn't aware of how power is actually defined and used (correctly anyway), see Alex's post above.
Let's not get crazy here... my question was very specific - Joe Friel's Training Bible is saying that a dude like me at 72kgs should have a goal for the Maximum Strength phase during the Base block of 1.3-1.7 times bodyweight, around 100kgs... I wanted to know if people thought this sounded insane or if it was quite reasonable? I don't discuss gym with people anymore, and I've never been super strong... I managed 30kgs with 2x30 reps on Monday and feel sore as hell LOL rode the 20kmh straight home after. It's hard to know if this is a reasonable expectation after a few months of training if I'm pulling 40 hours riding in a month without asking.
sb944 is talking about cycling power - FTP is a useful measure for most Stravapests. Alex is talking about basic definitions which are certainly correct. I don't think anyone here is interested in discussing the merits of 200kg squats... but working out how to improve on the bike.
Who do I believe, Joe or Alex??
Alex anyday dude. He's said it 5 times already. WEIGHT TRAINING / SQUATS do diddly-squat for improving cycling performance.
To get better riding a bike, ride the bike more.
End of thread
Just do it on the bike... or in the winter off season if you really want to, agree with winstow that it could be of benefit as you get older as maintaining muscle mass gets harder ( possibly more of a benefit to general health than cycling performance, but if your general health is crap you are hardly going to perform on a bike )... but in general I think nearly everything can be done on the bike. Just spend off the bike time trying to keep flexible ... not adding to muscle soreness by trying to squat big weights, my muscles get sore enough as it is by just riding hard. Plus the more supple you are the lower you will get and the faster you will be!.
Personally I do spend a fair bit of time doing core work outs, helps me keep a loose as possible ( which in my case is about as flexible as a 4 by 2 )... I mix it in with my stretching.
Personal experimenting has shown that even in a full out sprint that brute strength doesn't produce the highest watts...or even get close!.
With the caveat it can improve sprinting, agreed.
I disagree with Friel's premise. I've known category 1 / open A grade racers who would struggle to squat their own body mass.
A decent on-bike interval program will have much larger benefits for endurance cycling performance that any weight lifting program ever will.
And be patient. Performance development takes time, hard work and consistency.
Well you've got a PhD and Professor of Exercise Science, and Cycling Australia authority, who say otherwise....but easier to write him off as just another strawman huh?
Well any reference to a non-existent authority as something to support an argument is a logical fallacy, but assuming they exist, then a reference to a third party authority is still a logical fallacy. What matters is the evidence.
So rather than be cryptic, why not provide some information on who you are talking about, and what have they actually said?
I'm guessing (but who knows really) that such roads probably lead to a summary of one of Ronnestad's papers, themselves based on one Norwegian study. If so then a far more critical analysis of Ronnestad's actual data is warranted than was publicly reported on CA's website. Indeed the uncritical appraisal was rather unfortunate and does readers a disservice.
Do your own research. I'd like to see you try and tear down the "non existent" expert with the puffery you wow your BNA glee club with.
It should be as pathetic as your generalized dismissives of all R&D by wheel manufacturers.
Here is the "CA authority" http://www.cycling.org.au/?ID=41186
but he is just summarising the Norwegian study. He hasn't actually done any research of his own. You don't need a PhD to read someone else's paper and summarise it on your monthly blog.
Please show me where I have dismissed all R&D by wheel manufacturers. You won't because I haven't, so stop making crap up.
Do my own research?
What have you been smoking? You mention someone as being an authority on the topic, yet won't even provide a link. Seriously?
If it is the item on the Ronnestad paper, well that's a pretty weak bit of uncritical reporting on a study which fails to recognise some significant methodological flaws and inherit biases. I'd have expected better than that.
But putting that to one side, the difference in performance reported pales when compared to many studies on use and application of a decent on-bike interval program.
If it's not that link, then please enlighten us.
If you have an issue with Peter Reaburn and/or CA's use of him as an expert in his field, use your self proclaimed respect in the cycling community to contact them both directly and make it known, rather than relent to puffed up misrepresentative derision on a net forum. Otherwise, just get on with drumming up aero clients.
I'm not the one who brought it up. You were the one who decided to refer to an unnamed authority, but as soon as someone asks you be specific and provide actual information, well of course it never appears, and the logical fallacy is there for all to see.
Misrepresentative derision? Please show me what or whom I have misrepresented. More false claims.
I have never self-proclaimed anything. Once more you are full of it.
Aero? I've never mentioned that here, but thanks for the tip on what work I should be doing.
How about, for once, you attempt to provide some information of value? Or is launching logical fallacy grenades the only trick in your book?
Last edited by Alex Simmons/RST on Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Are you going to retract this false statement?
[mod]I've reopened this thread. HOWEVER there is to be no discussion pointing at any posters.
Debate the topic and not the posters.
quote - content of post being quoted /quote
I was reading the [link to study] which states [differing information] is there different circumstances involved?
The objective of a debate is to enrich the communication and grow from the wisdom of all. It is not about winning
Got bored of my signature
You wanna strengthen your legs, do standing starts in your sprint gear, ride long inclines hard, attack the top 50-60mtrs of a hill and keep it going over the top, do interval training. So you see, you don't need to be doing weights, just train smarter on the bike.
I don't suffer fools easily and so long as you have done your best,you should have no regrets.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users