In Reply To:
Quote:
I merely contend that strength, as it relates to cycling, plays a part in one's success - as do lots of other things. As it relates to cycling, strength is not irrelevant.
BTW- do you have the contact info for Haile Gebrselassie? Based on what I've learned here - I think he has a legitimate shot at the Cycling TT World Champs.
If you are talking about "strength" then you are talking about "max rep strength" or at the very least "low rep strength." If you are talking about any number of reps lasting more than a minute, you are talking about endurance. Provided that you aren't redefining strength as something other than it is, then no, strength is not relavent to cycling, running, swimming, or any other *endurance* event.
More than a minute and you are talking "endurance"? Really? I think one could talk about 50 rep strength, or 100 rep strength, or 1000 rep strength without needing to call it 1000 rep endurance. Strength does not have a single definition. There is no "redefining" strength. One must define what they are talking about each time one talks about "strength" or people are going to be confuse.
In Reply To:
Yes, it kinda sorta makes sense that it would if you think about it.....but that doesn't make it true. Andrew Coggan who has a Phd in this field and directly studies cyclists has posted this several times.
Coggan's definitions are so narrow they are essentially irrelevant to what the poster is talking about.
In Reply To:
The best I can describe this to you is to think of it this way: If you want a car to go the most miles on a tank of gas, would putting a more powerful engine into the car help? Relating this to muscular strength, you would contend that it would because the more powerful engine would move the car "more easily." The problem is, the more powerful engine uses more gas to do it.
The bottom line is, you need to tranfer energy into velocity and do that for very very long periods of time at very low percentages of maximum strength. Strength is not the limiting factor, just like engine size isn't if you are only driving 50 mph. What IS the limiting factor is how effeciently your fuel system works and how big of a gas tank you have.
Not necessarily. If one has a 50 hp car and the same car with a 51 hp engine there will be essentially zero difference in gas mileage when cruising but one will climb better. Which engine would race better? Aren't we talking about race performance and not just "gas mileage". It is not clear that the analogy works in humans but I think that is the appropriate analogy.
In Reply To:
Lance armstrong is a killer cyclist because his body is extremely efficient at being aerobic. Rasmussen, you know....that guy with the super super skinny legs....is also an awesome cyclist for the same reason.
Of course Lance has a huge aerobic engine. But, what of all those videos of Lance doing strength training using those weight things? This is sort of like those who don't think pedaling style doesn't matter and ignoring that recent article where it states Lance works on that also. Maybe it doesn't make any difference and Lance is wasting his time but for many it is hard to ignore what he does based upon his results.
--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks