Strength Endurance
-
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:13 pm
Strength Endurance
Postby doggatas » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:30 pm
So I started googling. http://www.endurancecorner.com/Talking_the_torque" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Seems to make sense. Anyone on here with some experience on the subject care to comment on the article? It seems to mention ironman splits at the bottom, but the article reads as if it is referring to road cycling.
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21439
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby g-boaf » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:50 pm
It certainly leaves you with weak legs finishing that.
Today I did a bit of that on some hills myself. It's very foreign to me given I prefer to spin-spin-spin, but I need to do more of it. Well, there are many things I need to do - but as Xplora said below, there is limited time. And sometimes the gym work really hurts and leaves you ruined the next day.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Xplora » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:41 pm
If you have time and funds to get the basic training of long hours on the bike done and need something more, doing some extra workouts will be helpful as long as you can recover properly before your next training. This could be yoga, barbells, massage, running - they will all help. But would you skip a 100km ride to go to the gym?
Triathletes seem to have different expectations to most cyclists though. No hills, 54-55 chainrings, major focus on running... a cyclist is much more focussed on sprinting and bike handling and climbing, so you can't afford to burn significant time on "strength" which writes you off for 2 days if you only have 5-6 hours to ride in a week, when you have to sprint at the crit tomorrow. The tri guy is grinding out his kms and if he's sore, no big deal because he's just trying to push threshold efforts anyway
I thought through this a while back and came down on Alex Simmons' side of the fence. Breadth of training is good, but you have to focus on the most pressing thing to improve it. I won't get faster cadence by skipping rope.
-
- Posts: 1358
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:58 pm
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby boss » Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:32 am
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:45 am
Low cadence higher torque efforts are good for helping you do low cadence higher torque efforts. Which is great if you expect to need to do low cadence higher torque efforts. The rest of humanity can just choose appropriate gearing and do hills repeats.
- Derny Driver
- Posts: 3039
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:18 pm
- Location: Wollongong
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Derny Driver » Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:29 pm
Just reading an article by Paul Rogers, strength and conditioning coach of our National sprinters (Im sure you've read it). He uses the term "strength endurance".Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Strength endurance is an oxymoron.
Low cadence higher torque efforts are good for helping you do low cadence higher torque efforts. Which is great if you expect to need to do low cadence higher torque efforts. The rest of humanity can just choose appropriate gearing and do hills repeats.
"For strength endurance on the bike, ride up hills in the saddle on bigger gears. That was the only strength work our Team Pursuit did for the last 3 years and they won everything there was to win with a bucket load of world records to boot. Incidentally they are the fastest starters"
Whats your take on the article Alex?
http://www.ridethetrack.com/pdf/train_paulrogers.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- toolonglegs
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
- Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby toolonglegs » Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:14 pm
The boys over here LOVE their 53/12 hill repeats at low RPM!
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:11 pm
My thoughts are already well documented. I haven't re-read the item. but in summary:Derny Driver wrote:Just reading an article by Paul Rogers, strength and conditioning coach of our National sprinters (Im sure you've read it). He uses the term "strength endurance".Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Strength endurance is an oxymoron.
Low cadence higher torque efforts are good for helping you do low cadence higher torque efforts. Which is great if you expect to need to do low cadence higher torque efforts. The rest of humanity can just choose appropriate gearing and do hills repeats.
"For strength endurance on the bike, ride up hills in the saddle on bigger gears. That was the only strength work our Team Pursuit did for the last 3 years and they won everything there was to win with a bucket load of world records to boot. Incidentally they are the fastest starters"
Whats your take on the article Alex?
http://www.ridethetrack.com/pdf/train_paulrogers.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- it's not strength, so it's a misnomer that's misusing the term
- the adaptations are primarily metabolic and the fact that they did hill work in a low gear just means they did some hard training
- don't confuse correlation with causation
- from a coaching POV, it's mostly a (possibly unintentional) ruse to make riders do hard or sustained hill repeats. the gearing really isn't all that relevant
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Xplora » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:12 pm
I got dropped bad today after doing four solid sets of z6/7 to finish the bunch ride on Saturday. I had Zero snap in the legs. Power data wasn't really bad. But I couldn't cope with the big field. I think that's the hardest part of all this talk... You want to sprint, then train to sprint. You will be shagged for FTP work, but FTP is not going to help your sprint. And you might be stuffing up your milestones by doing it at the wrong time.
Biggest take home from the second article was that muscle development just isn't a concern for non sprinters. Definitely need more big ring efforts though.
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:00 pm
- Location: W.A
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Marty Moose » Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:27 am
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 1358
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:58 pm
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby boss » Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:49 am
Alex, is the 'ride up a steep hill in a specific gear' training session just a hangover from pre-power meter days?Alex Simmons/RST wrote:My thoughts are already well documented. I haven't re-read the item. but in summary:Derny Driver wrote:Just reading an article by Paul Rogers, strength and conditioning coach of our National sprinters (Im sure you've read it). He uses the term "strength endurance".Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Strength endurance is an oxymoron.
Low cadence higher torque efforts are good for helping you do low cadence higher torque efforts. Which is great if you expect to need to do low cadence higher torque efforts. The rest of humanity can just choose appropriate gearing and do hills repeats.
"For strength endurance on the bike, ride up hills in the saddle on bigger gears. That was the only strength work our Team Pursuit did for the last 3 years and they won everything there was to win with a bucket load of world records to boot. Incidentally they are the fastest starters"
Whats your take on the article Alex?
http://www.ridethetrack.com/pdf/train_paulrogers.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- it's not strength, so it's a misnomer that's misusing the term
- the adaptations are primarily metabolic and the fact that they did hill work in a low gear just means they did some hard training
- don't confuse correlation with causation
- from a coaching POV, it's mostly a (possibly unintentional) ruse to make riders do hard or sustained hill repeats. the gearing really isn't all that relevant
I.e. If you ride a avg 10% grade in a tall gear, you are going to be forced to stomp a reasonable effort out or you won't get to the top. Whereas it's a lot easier to slack off in lower gears if you don't have a power meter slapping you in the face.
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:12 am
Pretty much, although it's hard to ride "easy" in any gear on a 10% gradeboss wrote: Alex, is the 'ride up a steep hill in a specific gear' training session just a hangover from pre-power meter days?
I.e. If you ride a avg 10% grade in a tall gear, you are going to be forced to stomp a reasonable effort out or you won't get to the top. Whereas it's a lot easier to slack off in lower gears if you don't have a power meter slapping you in the face.
There is a neuromuscular difference, one only has to inspect the torque v cadence plot from a power meter file from riding a hill in different ways to see the extent of that, but the primary adaptations are still metabolic rather than neuromuscular (the forces are still very low for any sensible amount of neuromuscular benefit for the time invested - for that you are far better off doing other sort of efforts that actually do tax your neuromuscular abilities).
IOW it's just hard hills or hill repeats using a trick to keep you honest effort wise. Nothing wrong with that, whatever helps people to train hard and keep focussed / motivated is a good thing. But it's a very big stretch to assign a performance causation to the fact they are done in a big(ger) gear than one might normally choose.
And yes I'd prefer it if the word strength was not used to describe these sorts of efforts, as it confuses people into thinking it causes a type of adaptation that it doesn't. Just call them hill repeats, or hill intervals, or hill efforts, or hill climbing because that's what they are.
-
- Posts: 1358
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:58 pm
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby boss » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:56 pm
Yeah just as I thought. Thanks for that Alex - always enjoy your insights.Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Pretty much, although it's hard to ride "easy" in any gear on a 10% gradeboss wrote: Alex, is the 'ride up a steep hill in a specific gear' training session just a hangover from pre-power meter days?
I.e. If you ride a avg 10% grade in a tall gear, you are going to be forced to stomp a reasonable effort out or you won't get to the top. Whereas it's a lot easier to slack off in lower gears if you don't have a power meter slapping you in the face.
There is a neuromuscular difference, one only has to inspect the torque v cadence plot from a power meter file from riding a hill in different ways to see the extent of that, but the primary adaptations are still metabolic rather than neuromuscular (the forces are still very low for any sensible amount of neuromuscular benefit for the time invested - for that you are far better off doing other sort of efforts that actually do tax your neuromuscular abilities).
IOW it's just hard hills or hill repeats using a trick to keep you honest effort wise. Nothing wrong with that, whatever helps people to train hard and keep focussed / motivated is a good thing. But it's a very big stretch to assign a performance causation to the fact they are done in a big(ger) gear than one might normally choose.
And yes I'd prefer it if the word strength was not used to describe these sorts of efforts, as it confuses people into thinking it causes a type of adaptation that it doesn't. Just call them hill repeats, or hill intervals, or hill efforts, or hill climbing because that's what they are.
-
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby ausrandoman » Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:24 am
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:41 am
Indeed. Even a 5-min effort at 50rpm = 250 reps per leg.ausrandoman wrote:One hour at 60 rpm = 3600 revolutions. In what other sport would a coach prescribe 3600 reps?. I quit strength endurance training about a year ago and I'm now slightly faster at any distance over about 25 km. Maybe trackies are different - I don't know much about track racing.
I've never seen a strength training plan suggest you do 250 reps per leg of gym weights in a matter of minutes.
IOW - it ain't a strength workout, it's a hill climbing workout that develops endurance / aerobic capacity.
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby trailgumby » Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:29 pm
It is my view that the lower cadence efforts require - and allow - more mental concentration and focus on form and appropriate muscle recruitment, which has helped with my core and lower back stability, which are an ongoing issue for me, being an office worker.
If I just do the hill efforts only at the most comfortable cadence, my form starts to deteriorate.
Being a mountain biker, being able to deliver power across a wide range cadences is more important than on the road due to the variable terrain.
They hurt though... which is why I've only started back on them in this build block.
Sent from my android thingy using Crapatalk
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:49 pm
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Xplora » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:39 pm
If anything, it shows that a good solid tempo session on the trainer will help you a lot, regardless of how fit you are.
I will keep doing my hill repeats but I'll keep in mind that staying aerobic probably isn't going to help build strength!!!
- Nikolai
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:55 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Nikolai » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:50 pm
The link exchange is futileAlex Simmons/RST wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24550843
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19675486/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:00 am
Sure, I was just posting something relatively new on the topic for interest, although the study you posted was assessing impacts of different forms of sprint training, not what most refer to as "SE" training.Nikolai wrote:The link exchange is futileAlex Simmons/RST wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24550843
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19675486/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Nikolai
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:55 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Nikolai » Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:42 pm
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/05/amt-m.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
One of the pioneers of this method was prof Polyschuk (spelling could be different in some sources) from Kiev. Unlike others, he worked with real, high level cyclists (world stage level) for several years. I was part of that work so I guess I know that methodology first hand and seen the results of it. Yet, I believe success cannot and should not be tied to this methodology or that. Our bodies are extremely complex and it would be a mistake to hang on to one approach exclusively. Which is why most studies don't prove anything. Including the ones I linked to.
- foo on patrol
- Posts: 9052
- Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:12 am
- Location: Sanstone Point QLD
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby foo on patrol » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:14 pm
Foo
Goal 6000km
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:44 pm
Indeed. And the one I linked before isn't much chop for comparative performance either.Nikolai wrote:True. Here is another study, more specific to the topic
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/05/amt-m.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
One of the pioneers of this method was prof Polyschuk (spelling could be different in some sources) from Kiev. Unlike others, he worked with real, high level cyclists (world stage level) for several years. I was part of that work so I guess I know that methodology first hand and seen the results of it. Yet, I believe success cannot and should not be tied to this methodology or that. Our bodies are extremely complex and it would be a mistake to hang on to one approach exclusively. Which is why most studies don't prove anything. Including the ones I linked to.
It would have been more instructive had the comparisons made one change in the experimental group rather than combining two (e.g. either adding of higher intensity intervals, or low cadence but not both), or if there were three groups, where a high intensity interval group used self selected cadence at the same work rate as the low cadence group. And it would have been more useful had far better information on actual workloads of riders been reported.
As it stands, it's not possible to draw a conclusion with respect to the cadence/gear used, and the most probable conclusion one can draw is that performance can be improved through the use of high intensity interval training. Which is something we already knew.
But as I've said, if people find such efforts work for them, great. But they are not a silver bullet.
- Nikolai
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:55 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Nikolai » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:06 am
For example, in a typical two group split--one group doing 'something' while the control group just riding their bikes--the psychological factors of performance are always ignored. When findings are evaluated and x% improvement in performance is found in the group that did 'something', the conclusion is made that that 'something' caused the improvement. How do we know that? Isn't it true that the participants, before the study even started, or they even knew about it, believed that doing 'something' causes performance improvement as opposed to just riding a bike? In other words, isn't this type of study a self-fulfilled prophesy?
Then too, what is the meaning of x% improvement? Let's say x=10 so that doing 'something' caused (or so is concluded) a 10% improvement in performance. When the study is closely examined, it shows no one actually improved by 10%. Some participants improved by 12%, some by 6%, some stayed where there were and others went backwards. So what does 10% mean? More importantly, what does it mean to me either as a rider or as a coach? What should I expect my percentage will be? Will I stay the same or go backwards? There's no answer.
Worse, the control group, after 6, 8, 12 weeks or whatever the duration was, does not stay the same either. Their results fluctuate in all directions just as well. So is just riding a bike good, bad or makes no difference to your performance? And so on it goes without end.
Which is why Polyschuk (btw, he's referenced in that 2nd link I gave above, I didn't see that at first) did not do a 12 week or whatever study. He approached certain people, convinced them of his view and the program went ahead with one particular team backed up by the government, the military and a university (it went ahead in 82). Obviously, you can't split a real, professional team into two parts, let one group do whatever while the other does the program and then evaluate in 2 years' time. The only way to do it was to make everyone do one thing hoping it will work. So it's not just the intervals and data evaluation, it's an entire approach that must be tested.
Which brings me to this--in a typical study, recovery, just like psychology, is also ignored. And that is a fatal mistake. The adaptations we're looking for do not happen on the bike; they happen off the bike, when we rest. If this part of the 'program' is messed up or not controlled, the study, in my opinion, is pointless.
Was the Polyschuk's program successful? I don't know. The team was. Multiple world champions came out of it. Some went on to leave their mark in Grand Tours and the Classics later on but can the success be linked to the program? I'm not sure. In other words, could the same results, or even better ones, have been achieved by doing something else? Well, there were people all around doing different things, sometimes radically different, who were successful just as well.
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: Strength Endurance
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:42 am
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.