Really!!! I am not so sure I would say that the "science" on this subject is particularly definitive.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Oh hell, my thread is only 10 minutes old and it's already been killed!

Percentage of positive responders to weight training threads who weigh more than 170lbs, dont break bones on a semi annual basis, have all around ability in athletics, haven't been beaten down or intimated by a girl in the last decade, cannot be mistaken for a female while riding= you already know the answer, dont you!

Percentage of negative responders who do not fit into the above category= NIL.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

First I'm no pinko communist, as you stated, nor am I some vile monster, depending upon who you ask anyway.

Second I think that, and it on the surface seems logical, the strength training = better racing crowd thinks that if I'm stronger I'll be faster. How many times have you heard bigger, stronger, faster?

Third, plyo's can increase running economy so those are something people should investigate

I think big ring climbing & running hill repeats have been characterized as strength workouts by some author that came up with erroneous terms like muscular endurance or completely got wrong terms such as critical power in his "bibles". This made way for a complete generation of endurance athletes to think wrong about the what behind the why of what they were doing contributing to the hey if I lift i'll get faster crowd. I mean if I need muscles to get more endurance then the gym has to be the place right? right? WRONG.
Riding hills in the big ring or running up hills are ways to increase your efficiency and economy, increase your ability to do more work in a shorter period of time. They don't require massive amounts of strength, they do require your body to become very efficient at converting CHO and fat into energy. Nothing strong about that. That's a chemical reaction not a function of strength.

I have something to confess. A deep, dark secret. Something I've been harboring inside of me, that has been gnawing at the core of my tiny, tiny soul. Chewing on the deliciousness that the very foundations of my being are built upon. I have athletes lifting weights. There, I said it. I almost feel better in a dirty sort of way. I have athletes lift weights. Only a few though and for specific reasons none of which have to do with performance. I have them lifting because osteoporosis is a real thing. I don't want my athletes to get a dexa and have them come back with a T score of -2.0 or worse, I don't want my -1.5 T score people getting worse. Maybe I am a pinko commie for this, for trying to keep health care costs down and improve their quality of life, maybe I'm not. But my tiny, tiny soul feels just a little better right now after spilling those beans. Mmm beans, black beans, on a warm tortilla with rice, avocado, tomatoes, some cheese and a touch of guacamole, but I digress.

Finally I've seen Jeannie Longo race. She is very fast, one of my goals in life is to be as fast as she is now climbing.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

You need to add "beat down by a girl" and "weigh less than 170" to the pinko commie and vile creature thing... ; )

Ha! Was this a confession, too? Having you been harboring this desire deep inside?

"It is impossible to prove a negative (go read a philosophy book if necessary) so your 'injury prevention' argument is a fallacy."

This is true for N=1 studies. If you got a large group, split it in half randomly and had one half lift, and the other not and track injury rates you could absolutely prove or disprove injury prevention.

 Was this a confession, too? Having you been harboring this desire deep inside?

I'll cop to wanting to be as fast as Chrissie Wellington. I'll scream it from my rooftop when I get home tonight...scratch that. I would have to shovel it off.

I have them lifting because osteoporosis is a real thing. I don't want my athletes to get a dexa and have them come back with a T score of -2.0 or worse, I don't want my -1.5 T score people getting worse.

Do these people not run, or is there some other issue? Older women?

Seriously curious.

-Jot

I would second this question, as my understanding was that running was not only sufficient at building/maintaining bone density, but actually superior to lifting?

I coach more then just triathletes and runners you know. Cyclists also, some who refuse to run or swim (smart people). IMO, some upper body lifting to maintain bone density is better then having them reinforced by plates and screws.

See if I ever tell my deep, deep, dark secrets again on ST ;-)

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

 
First I'm no pinko communist, as you stated, nor am I some vile monster, depending upon who you ask anyway.

---

You're neither a pinko commy nor vile monster - but you ARE a hypocrite. Big-gear workouts AND weights? Pick a side, man;)

JR

PS- I'm pounding up Lemmon in the 53x12-14 tomorrow. You in?

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

How about big gear working wearing a weight vest with 4 cement bottles filling up the 4 possible water bottle locations that we triathletes feel we need to fill with liquid on race day given that there is only an aid station every 6 miles or so.....

I think I'll agree with most of what you say. However, most of the anti-lifting crowd isn't content just to say "it won't make you faster"...they say that it's stupid to lift---as if the athlete may not have some other priorities in addition to faster triathlons.

And the core work and treatment of muscle imbalances that you DO support doing...can be done just fine by lifting weights (or being in the gym near weights). So as long as the lift-haters don't say that I'm wrong to lift, I won't say that lifting makes me faster.

I have not seen that on this forum. I'm hard pressed to recall anyone saying that: even the most strident anti-lifting-for-triathlon-performance proponent agrees that there are justifications for lifting weights. Can you point out some examples? It should be easy since "most" of them do what you say.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Not inclined to search, and you may have caught me speaking from an unwarranted implication....but then again...I sure feel as though thread after thead has strongly IMPLIED that triathletes are dumb to lift weights. In fact, I will bet it would be easy to find someone saying that if you put that extra time in to more run/bike/swim rather than weight training that you'd be faster. It follows therefore that lifting makes you slower as a triathlete. And anyone expressing that opinion without qualifications would pretty much prove my statement.

Do you lift, or do any form of non R/B/S training?

You'll notice that I didn't advocate lifting for improving triathlon performance nor did I endorse big gear workouts. I merely stated what big gear workouts are for, and that some females I coach need some better T scores.


That probably makes me a vile, anti-democracy monster.

I'd love to be in for Lemmon tomorrow, but I'm at home now for the second day nursing a cold. I think tomorrows workouts will consist of dog walking

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

On the contrary, every one of the anti-lifting crowd would say a triathlete is dumb for lifting weights if the goal of said lifting is to improve performance. It's the italicized qualification that matters.

As what little training I do is to improve triathlon performance, I don't do any training but S/B/R for triathlon. I do other stuff (tennis, alpine skiing, etc.) because I like to do other stuff. If my goal was to improve my tennis instead of triathlon, I'd likely lift weights.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Why?

 
"You'll notice that I didn't advocate lifting for improving triathlon performance nor did I endorse big gear workouts. I merely stated what big gear workouts are for, and that some females I coach need some better T scores."

---

It's okay - I know what you really mean.

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Because tennis requires maximal exertion and explosive acceleration: hitting the ball and getting to the ball. Weight lifting can improve those things. If I had to choose between court time and gym time, though, I'd go with the former.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

 
"How about big gear working wearing a weight vest with 4 cement bottles filling up the 4 possible water bottle locations that we triathletes feel we need to fill with liquid on race day given that there is only an aid station every 6 miles or so....."

---

You may be on to something ... a few things, actually:)

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Finally, Jeanni Longo would kick my ass in a time trial. And it ain't because she can leg press more than me!
"Rock it old school and embrace the suck."

---

Are you sure about that;)

In a cycling sense - she's stronger than you, right? She can push harder on the pedals.

If you consider big-gear work, strength training (which you do, right?) - perhaps you should include some in your training routine and see if it helps. Longo does (and MANY other top cyclists).

And before you get all bent out of shape - I agree to disagree:)

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Actually, it's doubtful Longo can push harder on the pedals than many here. What she can do is push the pedals at some power for longer than almost everyone here.

Unless your big gear work lasts only seconds or maybe a minute or two, then no, it isn't strength training as you are still only using a small fraction (25-30%?) of your max power.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Really, she can't. This misconception is at the root of all of the flawed logic regarding lifting and cycling performance. Things then typically deteriorate into the beach muscle crowd talking about bone density and scoring chicks to justify weight training...but really, no, she can't push 'harder' on the pedals. She can push on them for much longer, which is not the same as strength.

I really can't figure out why this is such a difficult concept for folks to grasp.

"Actually, it's doubtful Longo can push harder on the pedals than many here. What she can do is push the pedals at some power for longer than almost everyone here.

Unless your big gear work lasts only seconds or maybe a minute or two, then no, it isn't strength training as you are still only using a small fraction (25-30%?) of your max power."

---

I hear what you're saying: we use a very small percentage of maximum strength on each pedal stroke.

That understood - won't pushing harder on the pedals make you a stronger cyclist?

2x50 squats is not the best way to improve your max squat strength - but you'll still get stronger, right? Just trying to relate this to the bike. I understand we pedal at ~85-95 rpm.

Are you saying big-gear workouts are worthless, or that they should be considered something other than "strength training?"

Longo: her "some power" is a lot for such a tiny person. I would bet that her power output across any range of time - exceeds that of most of us on this forum (lots of force for 30"-1' power).

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Really, she can't. This misconception is at the root of all of the flawed logic regarding lifting and cycling performance. Things then typically deteriorate into the beach muscle crowd talking about bone density and scoring chicks to justify weight training...but really, no, she can't push 'harder' on the pedals. She can push on them for much longer, which is not the same as strength.

I really can't figure out why this is such a difficult concept for folks to grasp.

---

I get it, Roady. And I'm not talking about weight lifting. I'm talking about pushing a "big gear" on the bike. Do you consider it strength training (for cyclists) or not?

Relatively speaking, are you telling me Longo is not a strong cyclist - regardless of the fact that the 20-30k TT may be her specialty? I'm sure she can (even at the ripe old age of 50ish) significantly spank most of us in a 1' time trial.

I know you grasp this concept - right?

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

We have a Dirty Secrets thread you know.

(good for you, and them. Fractures SUCK.)

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

didn't read the whole tread so I'm not sure if this was posted yet

http://depts.washington.edu/...exercise/sports.html

---

---

Nothing to see here

of course, big-gear workouts 'work'. of course, so do 'small-gear' workouts (surely you remember the school of the thought that suggesting riding at 100RPM all winter, including over rolling hills).

The question is 'do big-gear workouts work better than workouts of similar intensity done in a different gear?'. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to suggest they do, and it certainly hasn't been my personal experience.

I suspect that a lot of people do big-gear workouts at a higher intensity than they would otherwise be riding at on that particular day, then suggest it's some magical property of the bigger gear which is responsible for improvement. I just don't buy it, and I've yet to see someone put forth any compelling reason for me to believe it.

No offense as a scientist you really never proved your point from a scientific point. From a scientific point science could support strength training.

1. If you lift for strength and endurance, not for mass gain, your power would be increased therefore making you faster. If you are able to generate more power and not have additional, or minimal weight gain, it equals increase speed. You do not lift for bodybuilding or power lifting, you lift for triathlons.
2. It has been scientifically proven that strength training increases the strength of many soft tissue fibers such tendons,muscles, and ligaments. Therefor reducing injury.

Not scientific just anecdotal:
1. When I was not strength training I had a lot more injuries. I play a lot of other sports beside tris, and I was constantly getting hurt.
2. Lance does strength training.
3. When I combine strength training with endurance training ... I look damn good! nuff said.

of course, big-gear workouts 'work'. of course, so do 'small-gear' workouts (surely you remember the school of the thought that suggesting riding at 100RPM all winter, including over rolling hills).

The question is 'do big-gear workouts work better than workouts of similar intensity done in a different gear?'. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to suggest they do, and it certainly hasn't been my personal experience.

I suspect that a lot of people do big-gear workouts at a higher intensity than they would otherwise be riding at on that particular day, then suggest it's some magical property of the bigger gear which is responsible for improvement. I just don't buy it, and I've yet to see someone put forth any compelling reason for me to believe it.

---

I agree. In terms of time spent - big-gear workouts comprise a small part of the total program. Lots of different types of workouts help make us stronger and faster.

And I share your frustration. I can't figure out why lots of people acknowledge that big-gear workouts help people get faster/stronger - but refuse to acknowledge that pushing harder than normal on the pedals, has anything to do with the improvement.

Have you tried them?

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Saying you could "prove" it is a bit overstated. You could make statistical inferences about an entire population from the sample but not conclusively determine causation.

That said, I'm a weight lifter, as there is more to life than being aerobically fast. Such as not looking like (or actually being) a pussy.

'Stronger' is not the correct term.

Unless she can produce 1400W, I am stronger/more powerful than her.

The thing is, she can produce higher w/kg (as I probably still produce more total watts at FTP) than I can over a sustained period. And the limiting factor in that is not strength or power.

The limiting factor (non ex phys degree speaking) is the body's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles and do so aerobically.

Will this boil the topic down, finally... the limiting factor in endurance sport is aerobic capacity, not strength. So spend your training time accordingly!

To the poster above: if you claim to look 'damn good,' you better be willing to post pics to the Lavender Room. And no, being more powerful does not equate to being faster. When a 12yr old girl kicks your ass in the pool, it is not b/c she is stronger. And when my wife is one of the last 5 people at the local hammerfest, it's not because she can leg press more than the guys who got dropped 20 miles ago.

well, I think that training on a Dura Ace crank helps me get faster--but I don't think the brand of crank has anything to do with it. If I did suggest so, I think it would be reasonable for someone to ask 'why?'.[/reply]

yes. FWIW, I don't do them anymore.

"'strong' as a euphemism for 'very fit'? absolutely. That's kinda the problem, though, since 'strength' and 'fitness' aren't really related."

---

Force (strength) x velocity = power, correct. How can you say that strength and fitness are not really related. They go hand-in-hand.

And if you understand this equation AND you accept that Longo would kick most of our butts in a 1 minute TT - you must acknowledge that, not only is she "fitter" than most of us - but she's also stronger than most of us.

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

well, I think that training on a Dura Ace crank helps me get faster--but I don't think the brand of crank has anything to do with it. If I did suggest so, I think it would be reasonable for someone to ask 'why?'.

---

What? But I think I get your point.

You don't think big-gear intervals help, because you've yet to see scientific evidence that suggests it does. Fair enough.

JR

PS- You tried them and they didn't work for you - or you're just not doing them anymore? Maybe you were doing them incorrectly;)

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Seems I didn't kill your thread after all even though my original comment seems to still have relevance.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Stronger' is not the correct term.

Unless she can produce 1400W, I am stronger/more powerful than her.

The thing is, she can produce higher w/kg (as I probably still produce more total watts at FTP) than I can over a sustained period. And the limiting factor in that is not strength or power.

The limiting factor (non ex phys degree speaking) is the body's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles and do so aerobically.

Will this boil the topic down, finally... the limiting factor in endurance sport is aerobic capacity, not strength. So spend your training time accordingly!

---

1400 is some good stuff - really. But can you take her in a 1' TT? Wouldn't you classify her as stronger than you if she could spank you in a 1' TT - even a 10' TT? Where does "stronger" factor in - only in max power output? I guess I just use a broader definition of stronger.

In terms of training time for events that we do, a very small amount of time will be spent on strength - I agree with you there.

I'm mostly saying that I feel big-gear work will improve cycling strength ... and that Longo will whup your butt in a 1' TT:) (mine too - although back when I was stronger;), I did manage to get her in the 2001 Mt. Graham hill climb - barely):

1 1st AZ Phil Zajicek Mercury 1:09:12 2 2nd AZ Jimmy Riccitello Unattached 1:09:14 1 Jennie Longo Vit' all 1:11:05 France





JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Okay I'm really not trying to be an ass here...

Now with that caveat out of the way... words have precise meanings, and we must use them the correct way, in the correct context, if we are going to have a meaningful conversation. (I'm a journalism and speech comm guy...)

You said you use a broader definition of stronger. I will defer to AC or DD or an ex phys person, but I don't think that your use of it is correct.

For example, if she kicked my butt in a kilo (a one-minute ish TT) I would not say she is stronger. I would say she has a higher anaerobic capacity, as that is the primary energy system for that length of effort. If she kicked my ass in a pursuit, I would say her Vo2 max is higher than mine.
Obviously W/kg would not be a good way to measure that, unless it was uphill, so we would be speaking in terms of W/CdA, so it would be feasible that she's just a hell of a lot more aero than I am.

And just for reference, I do big-ring work on the road and TT bike. What I don't do is go to the gym and move plates or sleds.

Very nice result on the uphill TT!

My kilo is nothing to clap about, but I'd put money on myself in a kilo versus that skinny little old french woman! A pursuit? Probably not!
(And, FWIW, if I were focusing on kilo or 500 or 200m TT, I would be lifting weights)

Perhaps you might want to revisit your use of the word science in the original post.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Well seeing as how you ain't one, and have demonstrated a particular obtuseness to the field, are you qualified to question my use of the word?

yes

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Jeannie Longo and deep desire used in proximity to each other????.....

Now with that caveat out of the way... words have precise meanings, and we must use them the correct way, in the correct context, if we are going to have a meaningful conversation. (I'm a journalism and speech comm guy...)

---

From the HarperCollins Dictionary: Strength- 1. quality of being strong. 2. power. 3. capacity for exertion or endurance. 4. vehemence. 5. force.

I feel I used the word correctly and in context. I knew what I meant, anyway. But you can use your definition - especially if it'll keep you from having to admit that a girl is stronger than you;)

But seriously - the "big-ring" stuff you do doesn't address your cycling specific strength (force) at all - even a little bit - really? I'm okay with "no." It just seems weird, that's all.

The hill climb was a mass start event. She was third overall. Thanks for letting me have my day and for not bringing up the fact that she's beaten me more times than I've beaten her. And your 1400w would probably spank her skinny old butt in the kilo and maybe even the pursuit. One thing's for sure - you'd both be lapping my ass.

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

You might not be sure, but those people that bother to read and also understand the scientific literature and the scientific method are pretty clear. Do you ever wonder why you are the odd one out - or do you just like to paint yourself that way, so melodramatic.

Is this thread the proof of your point? LOL. Re: the bolded text. No.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

You will find people who quote stats that it can't help you and if you say it did they say you are nuts. You will never get a number cruncher to believe anything they can't verify with a calculator.

I can say from personal experience it was either the biggest coinkydink or it worked for me. Tried for nearly a decade to break an hour for the annual club 40K with no success. Hung out with a track guy who invited me to do a 10 week weight training course that winter. Became freakishly strong in the core, glutes, hammys from where I had been. I was able to turn 2 extra cogs at maximum effort during my training that spring and went 58:10 for the spring 40K.

The no weight training group will say it was something else, but I know the changes my body went through and to go from 1:01ish to 58ish.....I know what happened.

Try it, what's the worst thing that can happen?

I introduced weight training into my schedule beginning in Nov, (so 10 weeks ago).

in the meantime my swim, bike and run have all improved, plus my mad calf is now GONE GONE GONE.

My 4 hour power has gone up 22 watts in the last 24 days.

My 20K run time has dropped 4 minutes.

IF weights dont work............ then it must be my Mark McGwire signature series footy pajamas.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Mad calf?

Some kind of prion disease...

He was hungry, so he ate it. He loves him some good veal.

How this is relevant to weight training, I'm not sure. ;)

-Jot

p.s.: I believe Slowman posted something about "mad calf" disease on the main page.

Could you link the Science please?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...alf_disease_926.html

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

"Actually, it's doubtful Longo can push harder on the pedals than many here. What she can do is push the pedals at some power for longer than almost everyone here.

Unless your big gear work lasts only seconds or maybe a minute or two, then no, it isn't strength training as you are still only using a small fraction (25-30%?) of your max power."




I'm trying to learn here, so don't misinterpret this as an argument. You said that we are only using 25 - 30% of our max power.

If our max power is trainable and increases by strength training, then why wouldn't our sustainable power increase as well? You should still use the same 25 - 30% of max, correct? I'm not saying that weights or "strength" training is the only or best way to increase the max power, but it seems like it would work. Or am I not thinking about this correctly?

It's my understanding that max power and max sustainable power don't correlate. Raising the former does not necessarily come about through adaptations that will also raise the latter. Boardman supposedly could sustain 40-50% of max power for an hour; I'd suspect that the best road or track sprinters could only sustain ~20% for an hour.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Muscular force is for the most part specific to the speed of muscular contraction.

It is pretty clear that you do not understand the relationship between force and velocity then.

Maximal force of a muscle/group of muscles (i.e. strength) occurs at zero velocity. No one pedals with their feet going at zero velocity. I can be very strong (e.g. have a very high 1RM) but be pretty slow on a bike, because I have crap aerobic fitness/ability to generate significantly sub-maximal forces repeatedly over long durations.

As soon as you introduce velocity to the effort, the maximal forces we can apply reduce, pretty much decreasing linearly with increasing velocity.

But cycling in a TT involves forces that are well below our maximal force-speed line anyway. It is a metabolic fitness issue and has nothing to do with strength.

Indeed this applies to even the elite track sprinter, let alone endurance cyclists. I was stronger than dual Olympic gold medallist sprint specialist Ryan Bayley (i.e. I could squat more than him) but he can do a flying 200m on the track nearly 3 seconds faster than me. That's because he can apply sub-maximal forces at high velocities than me.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Bingo!

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Bingo what?

is a cadence of 20 better than a cadence of 40? edit: or a cadence of 140 better than a cadence of 100?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

It is pretty clear that you do not understand the relationship between force and velocity then.

---

I completely understand, Alex.

I also understand why someone who can squat more than an Olympic Gold medalist sprinter, can't ride as fast has him.

Strength is a component of power, right? I understand strength as it relates to cycling. It's a relative thing. Can we compare apples to apples, so to speak?

Let's say two riders of the same weight and same drag, finish a 20km TT with the same time (same average power). One rider averages 75 rpm and one rider averages 100 rpm. How would you characterize the difference between the two riders - in general?

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

No. Developing sustainable muscular force to the pedals at 40 rpm will not necessarily translate to a proportional increase in force one can put to the pedals at 80 rpm. Muscular strength is speed of contraction specific. As an extreme example, that's why isometric strength building exercises are for the most part worthless.

But that's where you're going wrong. Strength is not a component of power. When riding our bikes the forces are so far below the maximal force we can apply that strength simply doesn't come into it.

One prefers to ride at a lower cadence than the other. So what?

At 250 watts that's an AEPF of 187N and 140N respectively (170mm cranks).

That's equivalent to pushing ~ 19kg at 75rpm and ~14 kg at 100 rpm with both legs. If you can stand up out of your chair you are already pushing several times that force.
Massive strength is required to do that.

"It's an aerobic sport, dammit" - A.R. Coggan

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

But that's where you're going wrong. Strength is not a component of power. When riding our bikes the forces are so far below the maximal force we can apply that strength simply doesn't come into it.

---

Al- I'm a 5'6" skinny legged runt who used to be able to keep up with big manly guys - I understand the role of the engine in the process.

I understand the relative forces are low - but if one person applies a little more force per pedal stroke to produce the same power - I would classify that person as stronger ... in a cycling sense.

But all these years I did not realize the bicycle magically propelled itself if you simply sat on top of it with a great aerobic engine. Damn - I wasted a lot of time.

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Actually if you read the velocity specific training research literature you will find that training at slow velocities of contraction tends to result in improvements in force at faster velocities as well. The opposite is not true.

Mike

but if one person applies a little more force per pedal stroke to produce the same power

Actually, I'd say it's tough to make any conclusion. Results seem to be kind of contradictory.

http://jap.physiology.org/...t/abstract/51/6/1437

http://www.springerlink.com/...nt/h57235146815622w/

Maybe it's best to say that in a perfect world, specificity still applies and the more specific you can match your force-velocity training to the force-velocity demands of your event the better.

Unless the race is a 1 pedal stroke race. But I've not seen any of those.


Either way you want to pedal, you have to produce energy. It's not a function of how strong you are but, in part, a function of how efficient your body is at meeting the energy demands over a period of time.

Lots of people don't have a science background, for them, maybe it's hard to grasp that strength doesn't = going faster, as I said early in this thread on the surface it seems to make sense for the layman. it's also hard, especially in a conversation that deals with the generalities of energy production, to start talking about the individual nuts and bolts of an athlete.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

The Kenyans and the Ethiopians are the strongest runners in the world, but if you look at them, it's pretty apparent that they have never been near a gym let alone a weight room in their lives! Connection?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

But, strength might = going faster. (It does seem incredulous on the face of it that people seem to actually be arguing that being "weaker" is better. I can see the book now, "How watching Oprah instead of training made me a better triathlete") If one is stronger then the "same" pushing force when pedaling is actually a smaller percentage of the total. In general, someone who is working at a lower percentage of their potential can continue to do that work longer. Or, is "stronger" and pushes at the same percentage of his total potential as another but at a lower cadence. This also could result in better endurance. Can't you accept that this is possible?

Of course, all these changes, if done poorly, could result in lesser performance. I don't think science has really addressed this question very well yet, especially as regards ultra-endurance events.

I agree with your comment it is all about energy. But, it is more than about simply energy production. It also involves energy conversion and transmission to the wheel. Cadence is involved in this conversion and transmission also (see the recent Chrissie cadence thread). It has to do with how one can get the most power to the wheel for the duration of the race.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I just saw on TV that Reggie Bush squats 500 lbs at a bodyweight of 200. That is more than a double bodyweight squat, which is impressive. That is way more than Lance can manage (much greater strength to bodyweight ratio). Therefore when Reggie bush pushes on the pedals to go any given speed (let's say 30 mph), it is a much lower percentage of the max force he can generate compared to Lance going the same speed. Who is going to be ahead 5 minutes down the road? Limit strength has almost no relationship to performance for almost any race distance, certainly any distance contested in triathlon.

---

Simplify, Train, Live

Is there a correlation between 1 rep max squat capability, and maximal cycling power output?

If there is, is there also a correlation between maximal cycling power output, and 60 second cycling power output?

And if there is, is there also a correlation between 60 second cycling power output and 60 minute cycling power output?

Is it the case that if we look at people with an FTP of e.g. 350W, that the lowest maximal cycling power output we would see among those people, would be higher than the maximal power output of many people who only have an FTP of 250W?

What I'm getting at is, is there a limiting relationship between maximal power and sub-maximal power, such that while cycling for an hour may only require a relatively low amount of force, the person may nonetheless effectively be limited by their maximal power.

To give an example from swimming - there is basically a limiting relationship between 1500m speed and 50m speed. Nobody can sustain more than a certain % of their 50m speed for 1500m. If you take anyone from the Olympic 1500m final and get them to swim a max effort 50m, they will be really fast. Not as fast as the 50m specialists, but very very fast indeed compared to any average competitive swimmer. So while someone might be able to swim 50m at a speed that if sustained for just over 14 minutes, would break the 1500m World Record, they are nonetheless effectively limited by their 50m speed because everyone who can actually swim a fast 1500m is much faster than they are at 50m, and hence is sustaining a lower % of their max speed.

Bush is going to go a lot further than someone watching the game who also has little aerobic training. Put Bush in a sprint distance triathlon and, if he doesn't drown, I suspect he would do pretty well. I don't think anyone is saying a triathlete should train as a professional football player. What some people are saying is there could be some benefit to the aerobic athlete to doing some strength (weight) training. Others think there is no benefit. The issue is whether "science" has answered this question definitively. I think not. People are arguing their opinions, not science.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

If you mean peak one to five second power, then a loose one, but as I've shown with one simple example, I could out squat the world's best spinter of his day, yet his power output at peak would be ~ 600-750W more than me. And there are thousands of people who are far stronger than me (1RM) but I could leave them for dust in a sprint. Perhaps not nowdays since I had a leg amputated.

Not really as 60 second power is a very complex beast, demanding a lot from all the primary metabolic systems (well perhaps not FFA utilisation). One can have excellent 5-sec power but pretty ordinary 1-min power. And one can have excellent 1-min power (because they have phenomenal peak power and anaerobic work capacity) but are not so good over an hour (or any duration which is primarily aerobic, even something as short as a 3-4km pursuit).

No. Think about it, do you see track sprint specialists winning road TTs?

Chris Boardman holds the all time hour record at something over 56km. He couldn't crack 800W in a sprint.

There is definitely no relationship between maximal power (5-sec) and FTP. Absolutely none.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

I would disagree. There is a relationship. It is just that it isn't the same in everyone, depending mostly upon their training background.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

No, and you don't see 50m swimming specialists winning 1500m swimming races (you don't generally see them even taking part in them), but if you plotted the 50m & 1500m times of all swimmers in the world who have trained for and competed in a 1500m race on a graph you would see a strong correlation between the two.

I'm not saying that being a fast 50m swimmer makes you a fast 1500m swimmer, not at all. But if someone is a fast 50m swimmer, they are almost certainly capable of a fast 1500m, given appropriate training. And nobody swims a fast 1500m without also being able to swim a fast 50m.

Do you have a link to evidence for that? I'm just sceptical that someone with such a low max power output could be as good as Chris was at short hill climb events.

Is there any data anywhere where the two things are plotted on a graph for a large population of cyclists, and/or where someone has calculated the correlation coefficient? It's just that when I compare my power to people who I know personally, there seems to be a strong correlation, but it's admittedly a small sample. The ranking order of cyclists in my club for short hill climbs seems to be pretty similar to the ranking order for longer time trials, but I don't know what most people can do for 5 seconds.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/...ss/?id=strengthstern doesn't state Boardman's max power, but Ric Stern (who has contributed to ST) has worked with Boardman and stated (IIRC) that Boardman couldn't break 1000W (more like 900).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Help me find one then:

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

I'll have to check with Ric, it might be Ric that can't crack 800W and Boardman is a bit more. LOL

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

i don't know if there's some 'confidentiality' clause still in operation (so i won't mention the exact power), but CB's lab tested peak sprint power was between 800 and 900 W (towards the bottom end). I can crack 800 W (but as i like to joke in bike races, dead people can sprint faster than me) and i could produce more peak power than CB could as well (we're the same height and mass, or at least were in the late 90's) and we used the same pieces of equipment to test on.

IIRC there was a group of English speaking riders who used SRMs (Boardman and some from the USA) who, when in training, used to try and beat 1KW for bragging rights.

There were some other riders in the Pro Tour who couldn't sprint with a peak power above 800 W, somewhere around the mid 700's. However, these riders were slightly lighter than CB (around mid-60kgs; versus CBs 68kg). I can't recall their name(s) at present, but i think one of them rode for Rabobank at the time.

I'd suggest that once you get over 90-secs maximal effort there's going to be FA correlation between 5-sec power and whatever the duration is. I'd say that ~60-secs limit is likely the best correlation you'll get with 5-secs. Imagine if there was a correlation between peak power and FTP - how frightening would it be to see Chris Hoy thundering up an alpine pass :-O!!!!!!!!!

Ric (back to lurk mode now)

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

Ah, well it is an interesting question whether you should be trying to link power or power to weight ratio as you have done above. Presumably the correlation would be stronger if you were to plot power rather than power to weight ratio.

Thanks to Ric for the data on elite riders with low peak power output, it's very interesting. I find it very surprising, because I have always seen myself as not being particularly sprint-oriented, e.g. compared to most other people I do better in freestyle races as the distance gets longer. However even I have a best peak power of 1237W and have averaged 1121W for 8 seconds (bodyweight 71kg).

Barely:

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Still, it's not an insignificant link, 27% of the change in one being explained by the relationship with the other.

I did an analysis of height vs swimming performance a while back, based on published height data for the Australian swimming team. When you look at the distribution of heights of swimmers in an Olympic final compared to the distribution of heights in the general population, it's pretty much indisputable that height is a great help in swimming. Yet the r^2 was only 0.2 for men and 0.25 for women. There were a couple of obvious outliers, Libby Trickett and Eamon Sullivan, and removing those changed r^2 to 0.46 for men and 0.39 for women.

In your data, do you have a mix of people who have different training objectives, i.e. are some of them training to optimise their FTP, and others training for sprints? If so, it would be interesting to separate the two groups. The nature of the link I'm speculating might exist, is that when people have done sufficient training to optimise their FTP, perhaps their ultimate potential is correlated with 5 second power. Clearly there is some limit, because you can't have an FTP of 350W if you can't manage 350W for 5 seconds, but it seems this is not a limit in practical terms, because anyone can output 350W for 5 seconds. It's a bit different in swimming, where the vast majority of the population couldn't dive in and keep up with the swimmers in an Olympic 1500m final for any distance at all. But might there still be some limit in cycling, e.g. 50% of 5 second power, where we could say that nobody with an FTP of e.g. 400W, has ever achieved that without having a 5 second power of 800W?

Well, I said it wasn't the same in everyone. It is not possible to show that relationship using only two points at the extremes of the curve (where the differences would be maximized) comparing a large group of people. If you were to do a scatter plot of the max W/kg of each of these individuals of the 5 sec, 20 sec, 1 min, 5 min, 20 min and 60 min power I believe a relationship would soon become evident and I believe the shape of that relationship would have a lower half of a general parabolic curve shape (turned on its side in the example). So, the general shape would follow a general polynomial equation.
and the individual differences would be defined by the values of a, b, and c that best fit the shape. Another alternative would be the best fit might be a hyperbolic curve shape. Either way there is a rapid power drop off slope as the short time intervals increase and a less rapid drop off slope as the longer time intervals increase. Isn't such a general relationship the basis of predicting FTP60 from a 20 minute test.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Personally, I think you're on crack. Unless by non-pros you mean sedentary individuals. Nonetheless, i work with one of the guys on that team, so i'll go and ask and find the exact details.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

Here is an alternative way of viewing this data.

There seem to be three groups. The average group (11 people) that seems well grouped along the new line I have drawn, I will bet that correlation is well above .9. Then there are those who probably emphasize endurance training (about 6 people) who are well above the new line and those who emphsize short term efforts (9 people) who are well to the right of the line. These three different groups would have completely different equations to define their power fall off with time per my previous post. Further, to really know what that curve is like one really needs three points. A curve cannot be defined with just two points.

What do you think?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

but if one person applies a little more force per pedal stroke to produce the same power

I think a similar relationship exists in that w/kg data also, although the correlation is not quite as good. It would be interesting to me if the data were separated into these three different groups and the analysis run to see what the lines really are and what the correlation is.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Don't confuse correlation with causation.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

I think you like playing fiddlesticks:

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

You asked us to show you a potential correlation. I thought I saw one for three different groups with different training regimen. I would be interested to see what the computer says the fit should be for the groups I identified and what the correlation might be. If you are not interested, so be it.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I totally agree, I wasn't suggesting the relationship is one of causation. We know that part of that link between 5 sec power and 60 minute power is a common factor i.e. bodyweight, given that r^2 is higher for raw power than power to weight ratio.

Establishing whether or not a correlation exists is a great first step, but I agree if one is found, we then need to look further to understand what has caused the correlation to exist.

I still think it would be interesting to split the data into groups if the riders have significantly different training objectives. And I will say in advance that if you were to do that, and it showed a stronger correlation within each group, I would not hold it up as evidence that increasing 5 second power will increase your FTP, just as evidence that there is some sort of link that requires explanation.

That is what I was trying to suggest also (after hearing your earlier thoughts) but he doesn't seem to be interested.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

It my understanding that the running does increase bone density in the areas affected by running....but sweet fa for the upper body.

Well I ain't carving it up every which way to satisfy people's curiosity. But here's a subset of some targeting track endurance events (a range of abilities/categories here):

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Clearly you aren't carving it up well enough. I see two distinct groups governed by x=14 and x=18.5. Oh, and it's quite obvious that there's one person in no man's land. I think if you draw a line from Mr. No Man to any of the other points you'll find the answer. It must be in there somewhere!!!

I love your "embrace the suck"!

---

Bike Racks Never leave home without one.

Until I see a video of a PROPER squat executed by this guy (instead of a leg-press quarter squat) I'm not believing that claim.

OK, one more subset, this time N=1, same rider different years. Data represent true best efforts.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

And, your point? What is the story in the interim?

I get the impression you are trying to say the relationship is random. It is not. Even you, I think, will agree that the max power one can hold for x seconds is greater than the max power they can hold for x+1 seconds. The slope of the curve is always negative and that the drop is greater when x is small than when x is large. And, at any point in time, the curve is always the same for the same person, although with training it can change, as you have demonstrated. It would seem to me that the training history of the person, combined with his/her make-up would determine that curve. It would appear that the above example concentrated his training on shorter efforts compared to 6 hour efforts.

You can't make any sense out of the data either because you don't have enough data (only two points of a curve or don't have their fiber type make up or something else) or not looking at it properly (not separating them into their proper groups, whatever they might be).

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Might I suggest one other way of looking at this data visually. Your method, I believe, magnifies the differences. How about graphing the points vs time. So, each person would have two points, one at 5 seconds and one at 3600 seconds. Then draw a line between the two. I think you would find that the slopes of the various lines, while having some differences, would be quite similar.

The question that is unanswered, it seems, is how to fully explain the differences?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

First of all, Alex, thank you for taking the time to analyse and share the data that you have.

I'm wary of seeing what I want to see in the first graph. I can see different ways to analyse it that would lead to drastically different conclusions. On the most basic level, it shows a weak correlation between 5 second and 60 minute power (and I'm not expecting any more than a weak correlation at best), but the data is quite sensitive to the sample in that if we experimented with removing one person from the sample, it would change things quite a bit depending on which person we removed.

Regarding the second graph, I have no problem at all believing that someone can increase their 5 second power without increasing their FTP. Indeed it would be easy to increase your 5 second power while decreasing your FTP if you changed your training emphasis. My speculation has always been that 5 second power might indicate a potential limiter to achievable FTP, not that everyone with a particular 5 second power will train in a way that reaches their maximum potential FTP.

I'll give a couple of examples of what I am talking about from swimming. David Davies won silver in the 2008 Olympics in the 10km open water swimming race. This makes him a mega-endurance athlete in swimming terms, as that race lasts almost 2 hours compared to less than 15 minutes for the longest pool race. However David Davies has raced LC 50m freestyle in 24.70 seconds. Only 298 people in GB have swum a faster 50m freestyle than that in the last decade, i.e. his 50m speed is very fast indeed compared to most competitive swimmers. Now, I'm sure that if he shifted his training focus, he could swim a faster 50m, and at the same time his 1500m+ times would get slower. And it is also the case that none of the 298 people who are faster than him at 50m have swum faster 1500m+ races than him. But his 50m speed is a pre-requisite for his 1500m+ speed. I can absolutely guarantee that nobody who can only do LC 50m in 27 seconds, say, will ever match David Davies' 1500m+ times. Another example is Russian Yuri Prilukov, roughly similar speed to David Davies over 1500m. I can't find a 50m time for Yuri, but he has done LC 100m in 51.54. Only 69 British swimmers have swum faster than that in the last decade. Again, that kind of 100m speed is a pre-requisite to being able to swim a fast 1500m. Not everyone who can swim 100m at that speed can swim a fast 1500m, but if you want to swim a fast 1500m, you're going to need to be able to swim 100m at that kind of speed.

So in terms of 5 second power and FTP, what I'm thinking about is suppose we have a rider who has already trained to optimise their FTP, and their FTP has been static for several years, they just aren't managing to improve any further. They probably have a lot of capacity to increase their 5 second power with specific training, so lets suppose they spend a period of time increasing their 5 second power by 10%. Then they shift the emphasis back to FTP training. It will take quite some time for that 10% improvement in 5 second power to be lost, and the question is might they then be able to get their FTP 1% higher than it was before, now that they are building from a higher raw power starting point?

I think the diff here is that in cycling there is almost not technique involved to increase 5 second power....just pound harder. Part of the reason why you need a fast 50m free to swim a fast 1500m free is because the sport is so technical. Its almost like the physiological adaptations at the various training intensities are meaningless int the void of good technique at high speed.

If you ask anyone who's seen a lot of power data from different riders, I think they'll all agree that there's no correlation. None. Many untrained individuals will have higher 5 second power than elite riders.



You can give them, but it's a poor comparison, for 2 reasons: 1)swimming is a highly technical sport, so the technique advantages will carry over regardless of distance (that's not the case in cycling) and 2) even the shortest swimming event is fueled by a different energy system than 5 second power.

While it is true that for many there may be no technique involved in increasing cycling power I am surprised that you, a PowerCanker, would imply that it is never involved. Cycling improvements, just ans swimming or running or lifting or anything else improvement, may or may not involve technique improvements.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

well, if you assume it is a straight line correlation I would agree that there is no correlation. But, if you had three points, I think you would find there is a great deal of correlation and that you would be able to predict that athletes performance anywhere on the curve. Three points gives you the rate of drop off and then if you know the 5 sec data. Do 5 sec, 1 min, and 10 minutes and I'll bet you could predict the FTP within 2%.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I think it must be 2) that is the crucial one because David Davies' 50m time would be world class if he were female, particularly as he did it before the shiny suits era. It seems unlikely that women have worse swimming technique than men, so I can only conclude he has a higher power output over 50m than almost all women.

Well, you'd be wrong--but that's nothing unusual.

You aren't very familiar with the Monod model, are you? I'd suggest plugging in some values for 1 and 10 minutes (which, BTW, are too short to really estimate FTP), then manipulate the 5 second power and see the MASSIVE impact 5 second power would have on predicted power output (at most, around 1%). Here's a calculator to make it easy: http://teamhealthfx.com/...neral/entry1758.aspx

Just for laughs I entered values for 5 riders using your parameters. The results ranged from 5-12% off.

Huh? What parameters are "mine"? I think the curves would have to come from actual data from the athletes and not "plugging" in some values to see what you get. The spreadsheet you linked is exactly what I am talking about. The curve would be specific to each person, depending upon what their muscle make-up is and what type of training they have done. Unfortunately, it would seem that the spreadsheet falls apart for any data less than 3 minutes so it cannot be used for this data but the power/duration curve that spreadsheet gives is exactly what I was talking about and if you will notice it takes 3 data points to calculate it (and we only have two data points for these athletes). There is a curve that will define how each individuals performance drops off. Three points along that curve should be pretty good at determining the curve unless there are any step changes in the curve that might occur, say, when the predominant energy systems shift with different durations. Perhaps that happens at durations less than 1 minute or so making the 5 second data useless in this determination. Since the curve cannot continue to increase exponentially as one gets to zero seconds there must be a second curve leveling the increase off (but 1 second is still going to be larger than 5 seconds). For my "three point curve" to work the first point would have to be outside of that point or we would have to know how and where that leveling occurs. Where is that? 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute? I don't know, do you?

Except for athletes like weight lifters 5 second power is probably irrelevant. Even track sprinter efforts last longer than that.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

5 seconds, 1 minute and 10 minutes. I don't know of anyone else who thinks those are reasonable parameters to determine threshold power using the Monod model, since they're basically measures of neuromuscular power and/or heavily influenced by anaerobic capacity.


I did that, too--and came up with huge errors, as it relates to threshold power. The time parameters are too short.


As I said, plug in some numbers and see how little 5 second power changes the curve....


well, ignoring neuromuscular power is a good start. The default points on the chart of 3, 12 and 20 minutes seem pretty reasonable to me, and give an accuracy around 3% for a quick n=5.

I would like to make one more comment on the critical power spreadsheet you linked to. While that is close to what I was talking about it is not exactly what I was talking about. That spreadsheet seemingly has a one size fits all algorithm (presumably based upon data taken from a sample of athletes without regard to muscle type or training background) and when you plug in your data it seemingly comes up with the "best fit" for their algorhythm to your actual data. I am sure it is pretty good for most people. But, what I was talking about was taking the actual data for any individual and determining the equation that fits those three points (or, if you had 4 points the best curve to fit those points, the more points the better). You still need some sort of algorithm to determine the basic curve shape, parabola vs circle, but I think the basic curve shape is the same for all. If the data is good then I think that the resulting curve would be a better predictor than a one-size fits all algorithm even though that is a good estimate for most. If you know the general shape of the curve for any one individual then any one point on the curve determines all other points on the curve and the 5 sec or 10 second or 1 minute data is relevant. That work will probably never be done but that is what I was talking about.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Ugh, I didn't specify they were good for the Monod model. I simply said a curve had to exist for each person. If good numbers put in any model do not predict outcome then the problem is with the model, not the numbers. The Monod model may be a great model for most applications (just like Newton's physics work for most applications) but it clearly does not work for all applications, like for 5 second power as an input. So, I would agree with your assessment that the Monod model does not work well using a 5 second power input. That is not particularly good evidence that 5 second power could not be useful using another model, yet to be developed.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Because the fraction of your maximal power that you can sustain for any duration is dependent upon other factors (esp. energy provision).

I suspect that those are Alex's personal data...in which case the story is both compelling and inspiring.

No. 27% of the variance in common - and as Alex's subsequent plot shows, that is due to the confounding influence of body mass.

I believe my definition was correct. You take the fitted linear equation which relates the two quantities, and the fraction given by the Coefficient of Determination is referred to as the explained variance, and the remainder is the unexplained variance. In saying this we are not saying that "explained by" is the same thing as "caused by", we're just saying that mathematically the two sets of numbers are linked in that way.

While technically speaking, body mass is a confounding factor, would you take the same approach to dismissing the link between 59 minute power and 60 minute power? One doesn't directly cause the other, they are correlated because they share common causal factors such as increased plasma volume, increased muscle mitochondrial enzymes, increased heart stroke volume etc. The same effect is what is being speculated about for 5 second power vs 60 minute power, that training might bring about adaptations that affect both (and one such adaptation might be increased muscle mass).

By saying "change in" you implied that the data weren't cross-sectional in nature.



I would take the same approach in expressing the link between 59 and 60 min power. That is, if all I had were cross-sectional data, I would attempt to control for confounding variables such as body mass (although partial correlation would actually be a better method than a per ratio standard).

Are you saying the data is cross-sectional? I don't think there is any data here to say that. We have no idea how this data was collected. We certainly know that the one data set, comparing the change in one person over time was not cross sectional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...Cross-sectional_data

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Yes (except for Alex's personal data).



Actually, we do (have some idea):

1) Alex is a coach who has access to power data from his clients, and

2) he stated (paraphrasing) "here's some data from a group of riders of mixed abilities targeting track endurance events".

So, while we don't know how the data were collected, logic dictates that it is (largely) cross-sectional in nature.



Aye, but that wasn't the data that yielded the R^2 to which Steve referred.

While logic may dictate that we still really do not know anything about the data. Perhaps it was taken at different times of the year and/or different periods of the training cycle. We don't know if his n=26 equals 26 different individuals or 26 different tests. We also don't know if he calibrated his equipment before each test. etc. etc. Unless he cares to tell us his protocol (and give us the raw data) I think we are all guessing as to what it all might mean.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

1. Andy is correct in that they are my personal data.

2. I didn't post them for the inspiring part, but agree they are quite compelling and IMO highly relevant to this discussion.

3. As an N=1 case, I think this demonstrates quite clearly the lack of a relationship between neuromuscular power (and one's ability to generate force at speed) and long endurance aerobic power (FTP).

For the rest that may not be aware (although it's not like I haven't shared before):

The two data points represent my own data for the years 2006 and 2009. The point on the right is my data from 2006.

I am a Masters track enduro/crit rider mostly (scratch, points, pursuit, team pursuit), although I also do TT, TTT and road racing. In 2006 I had an excellent season, followed up by podium results at Masters nationals in April 2007 (points race) and PBs in pursuit.

In May 2007 I had a leg amputation (trans tibial) as a result of a training accident in April 07 just after Nats.

I made a comeback to cycling, riding with a prosthetic. The point on the left is my 2009 post amputation data. As you can see, I managed to equal (actually fractionally better) my pre-amputation TT power but I have lost a lot of my ability to produce sprint power. In fact even my 5-min power is on a par with pre amputation levels.

The point being that the significant reduction in my leg strength, force generation ability and neuromuscular power (down ~ 25%) has had no impact on my ability to generate sustainable aerobic power.

Why? Well, quite simply, we are just not force limited when riding at threshold/aerobic power levels. The forces involved are only a fraction of what we can produce. Even with such a drastic reduction in my peak power.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Of the original N=26, that was from 25 athletes, for whom I chose because their data is readily accessible and not archived, and for whom I knew the data would provide both 5-sec and TT power info. They represent male, female, masters, elite, track, road, TT and even triathlon athletes.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

I see your point. "Difference in" would have been a better choice of words.

My point, though, is that if you remove all confounding variables, which strictly speaking, all training adaptations are, what are you left with? It isn't the 59 minute power that causes the 60 minute power, they are both caused by the common set of training adaptations.

I should say at this point, I don't think strength training is going to make a big difference to FTP, if indeed it makes any difference at all. It's just that many of the arguments as to why it doesn't, I don't find all that compelling. The most common argument I've seen is that the forces involved are much less than maximal, but it isn't intuitively obvious why someone with a greater maximal strength wouldn't find it much easier to repeatedly exert the same smaller force than someone with lower maximal strength. Our intuition doesn't remove bodyweight from this. When I encounter people in everyday life who are really strong, and apparently also have a greater ease of lifting lighter weights, I don't start asking them their bodyweight, work out their power to weight ratio and become less impressed. Instead, I just mentally register that they can outperform me for both heavy weights and light weights, and that there seems to be a link between the two things.

Another argument is that we understand the training adaptations that lead to improved FTP, and we understand the training adaptations arising from strength training, and there is no commonality. However there must be some commonality, because I've seen studies mentioned where untrained subjects have improved their FTP through strength training. It may well be the case, though, that the return on training is so small that it is swamped by the effects of more appropriate training in trained subjects, but this isn't an argument I've seen made against strength training.

I'm also not convinced that studies are sensitive enough to find any possible link if the potential increase in FTP is small, e.g. <1%. This problem is discussed in chapter 16.4 here, particularly 16.4.3.1:
http://www.ausport.gov.au/...46539/16Complete.pdf

"In effect, most intervention studies are able to detect only large differences in performance outcomes. Changes that are smaller than this large effect are declared to be ‘not statistically significant’ and are dismissed."

"Even though ‘worthwhile’ performance differences are larger than the tiny margins considered important by athletes, these changes are still outside the realms of detection for many of the studies commonly published in scientific journals."

While your data is interesting I would suggest it hardly means anything to the ordinary cyclist who has not had an amputation except for, perhaps, this. It certainly suggest to me that you are riding quite well for long periods of time at forces substantially closer to your maximum without any difficulty (it would be interesting to know your r/l ratio). Therefore, it says to me is the body eventually adapts to the stresses it regularly sees and "able bodied" folks can "easily" adapt to big ring/low cadence riding despite the "increased" pedal forces. Either way, congratulations to you on your accomplishment.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Frank would you please learn how to use the quote functions correctly and use your delete button to get rid of the information we don't need.

You posts in long threads end up being a whole page long because you are too lazy or don't know what you are doing. It takes up too much space and makes for quite difficult reading.

Unless you really need to, don't quote at all. When anyone makes a post it quite clearly indicates what the post is in reply to.

Which bit?

The fact that a 25% reduction in strength/maximal force generation ability has had no impact on ability to generate sustainable aerobic power?

I would have thought that was entirely relevant, even compelling, information for the ordinary cyclist (considering it's N=1).

Besides, I consider myself to be an ordinary cyclist.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

I use the quote so people know exactly what I am responding to. My mouse has a wheel that helps me scroll down quite quickly if I want to skip something. If you don't have one of those I would suggest you get one. I prefer posts that use the quote feature to those that don't because it doesn't mean trying to figure out what the person is responding to. Sometimes it requires going back several pages t figure it out. Now that is a time waster.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Because, most people haven't lost that ability and we don't know how you have compensated for your loss. Without pedal force data we know nothing of what you were doing before and now. It would suggest that you were easily underachieving 25% before your amputation. Do you believe that? If true, makes my 40% improvement claim easily believable don't you think?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

To your post:

"I should say at this point, I don't think strength training is going to make a big difference to FTP, if indeed it makes any difference at all. It's just that many of the arguments as to why it doesn't, I don't find all that compelling. The most common argument I've seen is that the forces involved are much less than maximal, but it isn't intuitively obvious why someone with a greater maximal strength wouldn't find it much easier to repeatedly exert the same smaller force than someone with lower maximal strength. Our intuition doesn't remove bodyweight from this. When I encounter people in everyday life who are really strong, and apparently also have a greater ease of lifting lighter weights, I don't start asking them their bodyweight, work out their power to weight ratio and become less impressed. Instead, I just mentally register that they can outperform me for both heavy weights and light weights, and that there seems to be a link between the two things. "


I had the same question earlier in the thread and I thought about it over the last few days and noticed that AC replied today. It makes sense to me to think that the maximal power is not a limiting factor. I think, though I'm not sure - so someone correct me if I'm wrong, our threshold power is not related to our maximal power (and if you believe Alex's data, that seems like it could be the case). Our energy system is what limits our threshold, not our maximal power. That's what I deduced from this thread - but like I said in my original question, I'm just trying to learn.

Your weakest link is what limits your power. The part of the power chain that reaches its maximum potential first is what stops you from improving. It will vary from person to person. If your weakest link is one small muscle in the chain, so be it. If it is a large muscle group, so be it. You will have achieved "perfect balance" when all the parts of the system "fail" at the same time. Train your weaknesses if you want to improve.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Having followed Alex's return to cycling from his accident I have also wondered if he was below his potential before the amputation. His return to pretty much post accident levels is pretty remarkable. I wonder in Alex's case that the accident and the lifestyle changes he has made and has had to make have meant a larger focus on cycling. This may end as his National Federation for Para-Cycling put up some rather high (and stupid) barriers to him competing. But rather than to suggest that using Gimmickcranks is behind the average 40% gain I would speculate that any progress is due to a greater commitment to cycling because one thing is sure that there is no scientific proof in the several studies done on them so far.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Well, unless you have data you are simply guessing. Something has to account for it. he was either way under his potential before his amputation or he has developed some compensatory changes that has allowed him to improve. We will never know what those changes were, if any, because it is impossible to go back and get the baseline data.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

It's fairly clear from this post that you have not comprehended a word written in this entire thread.

Seeing the word "wonder/ed" was there twice it is highly probable I was guessing or speculating.

With a lack of data I "wonder" is Alex is more focussed on cycling and this "may" explain his excellent comeback.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I think Frank understands all too well. It's not in his interests to admit it. Hence he falls back to Snake Oil Salesman tips and tricks to confuse the matter.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I keep thinking Mr Frank Day can't possibly outdo himself with some of his stupid comments and sheer lack of understanding in so many areas. But he is a source of constant amazement. I've never known somone so willing to display their stupidity for all to see so regularly.

??? Might I suggest you hit quote instead of reply. :-)

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Or, as he himself has suggested, his experience simply demonstrates that neither lower leg muscle mass nor strength limit sustainable power output. As anyone who understands exercise physiology recognizes, that is an entirely plausible explanation.

(BTW, although I didn't lose my lower leg like Alex did, I also have personal experience with a significant loss of muscle mass - in my case, due to two highly-invasive hip surgeries - resulting in absolutely no dimunition in my aerobic power.)

Ugh, it may be a plausible explanation but without the data, it is a guess.

And, I would love to know what procedure you had done on your hips that resulted in a "significant loss of muscle mass". Of all the hip surgeries (other than trauma debridement) I have been a part of I can't remember seeing a single muscle cell leave the patient.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

me thinks some of you have a real problem with someone with, sometimes, a contrary view who happens to point out your conjectures lack supportive data.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Placement and then subsequent removal of a Richard's compression screw to repair a broken femoral neck:

http://ortho.smith-nephew.com/...egory.asp?NodeId=345

The incisions extended approx. 1/2 way down my thigh, apparently impinging upon the motor endplate and resulting in almost complete atrophy of the v. intermedius and replacement of much of the upper portion of the v. lateralis with scar/connective/fatty tissue (based on MRI scans). My right thigh is therefore ~10% smaller than my left (even though I'm right-handed), and 5-10% weaker (vs. being 5-10% stronger prior to the surgeries, measured using isokinetic dynamometry). Yet, my highest VO2max and LT after the two surgeries were the same as before.

Well, I would also be interested in seeing your emg and pressure plate data before and after to see how you compensated for your loss. Of course, such is not available I suspect. VO2 max is a pseudomeasure (as you know) of the size of the exercising muscle mass. If your VO2 max hasn't changed then the effective size of the exercising muscle mass hasn't changed. Since you are telling us the actual size of your available muscle mass has changed then you must be using muscles you were not using before to compensate, wouldn't you say?

People do not lose important muscle mass or nerves and then simply return to doing things the same old way at the same level. The body must learn to compensate for those losses and do things in a different way. Such losses do not mean, necessarily that performance will be greatly compromised if the compensation is adequate. Professional football player Rocky Bleier is a good example I am surprised, as a scientist, you do not understand this and are, seemingly, not the least bit interested in exploring how that compensation occurred in either Alex or yourself.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

And what other data beside my maximal capability over 5 seconds would you think we'd need? Maybe I could grow my leg back and do some testing LOL?

Remember that I was not an untrained rider at time of the 2006 data and a super trained one in 2009 (I pointed that out already*). I'll agree that there was potential for me to improve from where I was. Just like there is potential for me to improve from where I am now.

But that's not the point.

The point is simply that the large loss of neuromuscular power due to my amputation has had no or an insignificant impact on my ability to generate sustainable aerobic power. But that's not surprising really, since the two (NMP and FTP) are not related.

* In 2006 I was member of a winning team pursuit sqaud (setting a new record time), won open criteriums, a regular Div 1 track racer and performed maximal efforts at the track on a regular basis. I am very lucky in that I train with half a dozen world masters champion sprinters in my local squad. These are best and maximal efforts (in fact the 2006 5-sec MMP best came from a crit I won). I still get to train with these guys.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

I do think your case is quite unusual, and the reasons for the lack of observed link might be different to those for the average person. I believe that 5 sec power has a large technical element, much more so than FTP, and it may be that your amputation has primarily reduced your technical ability to deliver high power.

Have you done leg presses in the gym before and after the amputation? I can't actually think of any reason why a below the knee amputation would reduce someone's leg press strength, which is normally done with the foot flat against the plate, hence the calf muscle isn't engaged.

I'll give another anecdotal experience, this one is an N=2. I have a friend who has tremendous aerobic capacity. He holds the GB record in his Masters age group for 800m and 1500m freestyle, and is a faster distance freestyle swimmer than me, approx 90 seconds faster over 1500m. If we run on two treadmills at the same speed and gradually ramp up the pace, his heart rate is 30bpm lower than mine at any given speed, and I'm at my limit when he is barely trying. However, I can leg press approximately twice the weight he can, and can absolutely crush him at cycling. He says that he doesn't get out of breath at all when cycling, it's just that his legs hurt like crazy. So my anecdotal experience from that tiny sample is that his cycling ability is limited by his very weak leg strength.

Fitness is exercise modailty specific to the joint angles and velocities involved. Strength is not his limiter. It's not riding a bike very much that's his limiter.

As far as technique goes, how come some untrained cyclists are well know to be able to develop very high peak power on a bicycle, yet have not learned much in the way of technique?
A: because it's more about muscle fibre type makeup than it is about technique. Fast twitchers are born that way.

Even in sprint cycling, there is a limit to how much strength is actually useful.

As far as my own strength goes, well ~14 months of enforced no weight bearing on one leg does tend to see your leg waste away somewhat. Moving weights with a prosthetic leg is not as simple as it might first seem. I have no ankle and there is an awful lot of things the ankle enables you to do. Even on a leg press you need your ankle joint to move. My prosthetic foot does have a moveable ankle joint but it is not controllable - it just goes with the forces applied to it and the range of flex is limited. The prosthetic is also force rated to a limit of 120kg. Also, all forces are now transmitted via the skin, not via the skeletal system and that creates major comfort issues at times.

I have tried a leg press, and well all that did after half a dozen presses with no weight on the machine was cause injury to my stump. So even if I wanted to, I would need to consider many things before embarking on such activity. there are solutions of course if I felt it was important enough, like getting another $12,000 leg specially made to deal with such demands, but you know, it's much better to ride a bike in order to get better at riding a bike... so I had a bike leg made instead.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

You're one to talk.

While you might believe that, it isn't true - indeed, many times the individuals with the highest 5 s power measured on an ergometer haven't ridden a bicycle since they were kids (if then). For example, Ed Coyle has a nice video clip that he shows in talks of one of the U Texas women volleyball players nonchalantly climbing onto the erg, cracking out >1500 W, then climbing off and walking off-screen w/o even a grimace.



Well aside from possible pain/injury, one reason might be that the gastrocnemius is not only a plantar flexor but a knee flexor, and as such helps to redirect the forces generated further "up the chain".

To reinforce that point: variations in strength between track cyclists only account for ~50% of the variation in how long it takes them to cover the first 25 m - about 3 pedal strokes - from a standing start.

IOW, even in the closest thing in cycling to, e.g., a clean-and-jerk, factors other than strength are just as important in determining performance...

No pre data, but I have posted my SRM torque data here previously.[/reply]VO2 max is a pseudomeasure (as you know) of the size of the exercising muscle mass.[/reply]

Exactly the opposite is true: VO2max is independent of the size of the exercising muscle mass. That is why, for example, you can have someone running up a treadmill started also performing arm cranking, and their VO2 does not increase.



That doesn't necessarily hold (see above).



No, I would not, and neither would any other exercise physiologist worthy of the title.

I'm not comparing my trained cycling performance to his untrained cycling performance. Even untrained I'm much better at cycling than him, along with having much greater untrained leg strength.

Some people are naturally better coordinated, so may have better technique without having to learn it. If it's mainly genetic, though, how is it that when I first obtained a power meter, I couldn't break 1000W for peak power, but 6 months later I have recorded a peak of 1237W? I'll add that over the same period my 60 second power has improved from 478W to 606W, and that is undoubtedly not due to technique improvements. My FTP has only improved 11% in the same time, despite my training being primarily aimed at improving 5 min to 60 min power rather than 5 sec to 1 min power.

I've had another thought on this whole subject, though. Consider the WKO+ athlete profile. If everyone's profile were flat, there would be a perfect correlation between 5 sec PWR and 60 min PWR. As this isn't the case, the best 5 sec cyclists must have a downwards sloping profile, and the best FTP cyclists must have an upwards sloping profile, and the gradient of the slope must be steep enough to mostly (possibly even entirely) cancel out the relative profile "height" differences between athletes. My own profile started off as upwards sloping, but has become pretty much flat with training. This may have caused me to underestimate just how much some people's profiles can slope. E.g. Chris Boardman, from the power figures given for him in this thread, and his performances from hill climb competitions to the hour record, must have been right up at the top for 5 min to 60 min PWR, very high for 1 min PWR, and right down at the bottom for 5 sec PWR. Chris Hoy was mentioned earlier in the thread - does anyone know what his power output is for durations greater than 5 seconds?

TBH i can't recall exactly what Boardmans 1-min power was, but i think it's modest (at a world level for a pursuiter)

yes, i know what Chris Hoy's power are for 5-secs up to 1-hour. I'm not at liberty to say, but i can tell you that i've worked out what power i could sustain when an average RRer and compared that to Hoy's for riding up Alpe d'Huez. And like i said, i'd have been able to spank him up d'Huez by a long way, as my power to mass ratio is (was) significantly better than his.

ric

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

We are so deep into the thread that I assume this HAS to have been answered by now. But in case it hasn't:

In 2000 I could squat about 375 lbs. I will contend that year that I had stronger legs than Longo. If not, then I know that I can certainly content that I had stronger legs than Greg Watson who could ride 26 mph in a long course duathlon, and I can also certainly contend that Arnold Schwarzenegger had stronger legs than Longo. Neither of us can outride Longo. Why? Because SINGLE REP MAX STRENGTH is irrelavent to events that require 1,000s of reps in a row at less than 15% of max rep strength. It is *completely* irrelavent.

What it takes to be a good *endurance* cyclist is the ability to put a force so tiny on the pedals that any of us can do it, but to do it for 1,000s of reps. Strength would only be relavent if you had trouble doing a single rep in the first place.....and if you do, call 911 ASAP!

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

For the same reason marathoners don't do heavy squats and spend workout days doing all out explosive 50 meter sprints with parachutes and weight vests on. They already have enough leg strength. Adding more doesn't help. What they need to be able to do is take the more than adequate leg strength they already have assuming they aren't wheelchair bound, and train themselves to do it over and over and over again for 1,000s of reps while learning to convert energy more effeciently in their bodied so that they don't get tired.

Or analogously, better spelling might make you a better lawyer, but most law students can already spell well enough so why waste time in law school maximizing your ability to spell. Likewise, if you can jog, your legs are already "strong" enough.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I can't take wading through this thread anymore. Believe it or not, it's time for my weight lifting workout. I'm doing squats today.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

What data would I like? I would like to see before and after emg data showing whether muscle use patterns have changed before and after and I would like to see pedal force patterns. I simply do not believe that someone at your level can lose part of a limb and make up for it in one area by simply "trying harder" and not be able to do the same in another. It makes no sense to me physiologically or biomechanically. So, show me the proof what you say is true. All I said is you are guessing as to the mechanism to explain the numbers you are seeing. Your explanation might account for some of the observation but I doubt it can account for all you are seeing.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I don't think anyone is contending that strength alone will give you a high cycling FTP. At best, people might contend that it can make a small contribution. The question is not whether someone who can squat 400lbs will have a higher FTP than someone who can squat 200lbs, the question is if someone who can squat 200lbs and has an FTP of 350W, which has been static for years, were to increase their squat to 400lbs, might that enable them to improve their FTP to 352W, say, after further appropriate training?

The reason why I'm suggesting the link is <1% is that there are swimmers who have won Olympic medals without ever having lifted weights. Most swimmers seem to do weight training anyway, but even those who don't, seem to eventually try adding weights to their regime when they can find no other source of further improvement. Whenever I've heard of a swimmer starting a weights regime having previously not done so, I've never noticed such a swimmer taking more than 1% off their times. Of course even 0.5% is a huge improvement in swimming, you're talking about a quarter of a second in a 100m swimming race which can easily make the difference between Olympic gold and no medal at all.

So the statement that person X could squat Y lbs but only had an FTP of Z watts is pretty irrelevant to the question of whether improving strength can contribute to such a tiny change in FTP.

Re your squat of 375lbs, I was looking for information on how much weight the strongest females can squat, and I came across this page about a female amputee who can squat 365lbs:
http://australian-bodybuilding.com/...ts-365lbs-165kg.html
While she was stronger before the amputation, it seems she only lost her leg a year before that, so perhaps she will get closer to her previous strength in time. Impressive stuff, as is Alex's case, too, course.

I agree that a normal bka should have little effect on leg press strength and little effect on overall cycling ability.

There is a huge difference in a bka and aka in the muscle mass lost for cycling. And, those who belittle the technical aspect of pedaling at both high and low power simply don't nderstand the possibilities. Let me give a N=1 anecdote. Sara Rheinertson, now there is a lady with a cycling muscle mass problem. AKA combined with congenital leg issue. Despite being a great athlete, in her first attempt she did not make the bike cut-off at Kona. Soon after that I met her at an expo and got her on PC's. It took her about 3 minutes on the bike to figure out how to ride them (which I thought might be impossible for her). So, we got her training on the PC's and the next year she took an hour or so off her bike split.

Regarding your swimmer friend it may simply be he has weak quads, especially from an aerobic perspective, limiting his ability to ride a bike. Again, without more than anecdotal data everyone is guessing as to what is going on.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

It would seem to me that the gastroc contraction, which tends to flex the knee, might not be of much benefit "up the chain" when one is trying to extend the knee. You might be right but I would like to see some data.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Huh? I have theorized mechanisms to explain the PowerCranks data we have. I have never said I know it to be true or that other mechanisms could not be present. We need data to better explain what we see. In this instance people are putting out explanations as true and discounting alternatives without a any supporting data.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Then, I would suggest his cycling problem involves some cycling biomechanical (or as you alude below) coordination issues. How well does he run?

This natural coordination issue is what sets the fast kids apart from the slow kids in grade school. Of course, the really fast kids tend to gravitate to running careers. Why would it be any different in cycling? I guess one might argue it isn't as important but to argue that it plays no role is just nonsensical to me.[/reply]

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

He is better than me at running. My guess is you were right the first time and he just has very weak quads. Andy and Alex will say it can't possibly be the bottleneck, but I can't see any other explanation. He demonstrably has similar if not better aerobic capacity compared to me, but less strength. I do think he would be an interesting test subject if I could get him to do some cycling training for a period, and we could see what happens to both his FTP and leg strength.

Congratulations on being one of the few around here who understands one cannot know for certain what is going on without adequate data.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

This is an absolute pearler.
Made my day.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Obviously you disagree. Please show me some data to convince me I am wrong.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Well Frank, you'll just have to take my word for it that I try as hard as I can when I sprint, and that's the power I generate. "Trying harder" ain't gunna get me another 300 sprint watts.
In 2009 I probably did 50-60 track specific sessions or races where I tried pretty hard, but obviously I'm not trying hard enough in your eyes.

This is not to say I won't be trying to improve. Of course I will but being a crafty sort of racer I will be finding other ways to win given my significantly changed power profile, like I did on the weekend.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

In 2000 I could squat about 375 lbs. I will contend that year that I had stronger legs than Longo. If not, then I know that I can certainly content that I had stronger legs than Greg Watson who could ride 26 mph in a long course duathlon, and I can also certainly contend that Arnold Schwarzenegger had stronger legs than Longo. Neither of us can outride Longo. Why? Because SINGLE REP MAX STRENGTH is irrelavent to events that require 1,000s of reps in a row at less than 15% of max rep strength. It is *completely* irrelavent.

---

First of all, congrats on your squat.

Second of all, I never mentioned anything about "max rep strength." It means nothing to me. I've never attempted a max squat - I don't care squat about what I can squat.

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.

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

My point is if you recovered all of your FTP power by "just trying harder" and none of your 5 sec power there must be an explanation beyond "trying harder". There has to be an explanation as to why you were able to recover one and not the other. I haven't heard one yet from you or anyone else that makes any sense. Edit: Perhaps you don't feel secure with your prosthetic when you are sprinting and that is, somehow, inhibiting or changes your technique to something "safer" but less efficient. There has to be an explanation.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

The explanation is pretty much the central theme of this entire thread: that leg strength has an influence on neuromuscular/5 second power, but not on threshold power.

The fact that this explanation is lost on you certainly isn't surprising to anyone.

While it may be a central theme to you and others, it doesn't make any sense to me, that these two points are entirely decoupled. All I have asked for is some supporting data.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

What are you doing roady ... your fingers just need a work out or what ;-) Trying to be *logical* w/ Dr. Day? He wants DATA ... LOL!

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

This is a crack up - how stupid is he, every post he makes he sounds dumber and dumber and his reputation just slides further down the drain. Far out, let him run with it, it is entertaining to see such open displays of ignorance and stupidity.

Jim,

I don't know what your background is, but it clearly isn't in exercise physiology. By definition, how much someone can squat just one time (i.e., their 1 RM) IS a measure of their strength, and in a movement reasonably comparable to the cycling motion. That is why, e.g., there is a signifcant correlation between 1 RM during a squat and the time required to cover the 1st 25 m of a standing start on the track. OTOH, strength does NOT play a role in determining endurance cycling performance - thus, you are simply contradicting yourself when you claim that it does, yet say that you "don't care squat about (what I can) squat".

As for Gebrselassie, again you are displaying your lack of understanding in this area. The reason that someone such as he would not make a very good cyclist (at least w/o training on the bike) isn't because of a lack of strength, but because he lacks the specific muscular metabolic and vascular adaptations in the muscles he would use when cycling to achieve a high level of performance. Indeed, because of this it is highly unlikely he could even achieve VO2max when pedaling an ergometer (although his VO2peak would probably be rather high...just not as high as his true VO2max).

Although I'm sure it pains your ears to recall my lame attempt at an Aussie accent, let me still say:

Good on ya, mate!

:-)

I simply do not understand your need to inflict others with continued academic bullying. Several things:

1. While, as you state, in exercise physiology "how much someone can squat just one time (i.e., their 1 RM) IS a measure of their strength" I would like to point out that you did not say how much someone can squat just one time (i.e., their 1 RM) IS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE measure of their strength. It is clear that your definition is not the only definition of strength allowed by exercise physiologists.
2. This is the internet. Few people at a site like this have similar backgrounds. People here tend to use lay definitions when discussing topics, not technical jargon.
3. I believe the discussion is mostly about strength training and not max single leg squat strength. Single leg squat strength has nothing to do with "strength training" as people use the term here. Even as you used the term it may even nothing to do with 5 sec power, since 5 sec power involves many more repetitions than one, at least the way most pedal anyway.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

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.

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.

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.

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.


If strength means something else to you......like a "strong cyclist" is someone who can "push a big gear for hours at a time".....then what you are really talking about is endurance and I don't think anyone will disagree with you. However, just because you call that "strong" doesn't mean that it relates in anyway to building muscles that can be very powerful for small amounts of time.


Re - Haile: I wouldn't be surpirsed if we could become a good cyclist, just like Lance isn't a bad distance runner. What you don't see are elite weight lifters being any good whatsoever at either.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Sometimes the only way to get through to people is to be blunt about it. Since Jim is posting here, I assume that he is adult enough to not take it as a personal affront when someone disagrees with his opinions.



So?



Sorry, but no: while there have been attempts by some to redefine strength as something other than the maximal force generating capacity of a muscle (or muscle group), such attempts have not gained any traction. Case-in-point: the American College of Sports Medicine still defines muscular strength as I have used the term.



Precise communication of precise ideas requires precise use of precise terminology. To do otherwise merely confuses things (as Jim's repeated inability to draw the distinction between strength and power/fitness clearly demonstrates).



While that may or may not be true, it really has nothing to do with my reply to Jim.



Thank you for supporting my point re. how people often fail to use correct terminology (although I disagree with your claim per se).



Again, thank you for supporting me: strength and power are different things.

Ex Phys is not my strong suit - buy my wife has her Master's in ex phys, so I guess that makes me somewhat of an expert. I also hang out with a lot of ex phys people. In general - they think too much;)

So forgive my ignorance, but aren't you saying Gebrselassie can't push hard enough on the pedals?

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

If you consider running hills a form of strength building for runners - or if you feel running hills will improve running "strength," then I think we have the same understanding.

Make sense?

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

All I know is now I'm going to go ride my bike more in a bigger gear so I can get my the amount of weight I can squat higher.

damn it, how come I can never get pink font? I'm blaming google chrome.

Frank, AC did reference something about 25% of a standing track start being strength related, which leaves 75% of it metabolism related. I'm not sure, bc I haven't had enough caffeine yet to think clearly but to me the low hanging fruit is the 75%.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

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.

Coggan's definitions are so narrow they are essentially irrelevant to what the poster is talking about.

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.

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

Running hills is one way to improve running economy. Improved economy leads to improved performance over a wide variety of terrain.

Instead of thinking strength, substitute economy for running and efficiency for cycling if using a powermeter

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

My wife sleeps with a PhD exercise physiologist - does that mean she is more of an expert than you? ;-)



Of course he can - the problem is that he can't do it frequently enough/keep it up for a long enough period of time.

(BTW, when TTing my AEPF is approximately the same as Lance Armstrong's - he just turns the cranks ~33% more often than I do, thus producing ~33% more power.)

Stone et al. found that the R between 25 m time and various measures of strength was ~0.7, so R^2 (fraction of variance in common) was ~0.5. That still leaves ~50% of the variation in performance apparently explained by other factors (e.g., reaction time, starting technique).

If this is true, do you do a lot lifting with your legs? If so, how often and what do you do?

My definitions are the accepted definitions.

Dr. Coggan,

Of course strength and power are different things. But, you are insisting upon using your technical jargon definition of strength on this non-technical site where the vast majority of the people here use an ordinary dictionary definition of strength. For instance, here is one:

strength (strngkth, strngth, strnth)n.1. The state, property, or quality of being strong.2. The power to resist attack; impregnability.3. The power to resist strain or stress; durability.4. The ability to maintain a moral or intellectual position firmly.5. Capacity or potential for effective action: a show of strength.6. a. The number of people constituting a normal or ideal organization: The police force has been at half strength since the budget cuts.b. Military capability in terms of personnel and materiel: an army of fearsome strength.7. a. A source of power or force.b. One that is regarded as the embodiment of protective or supportive power; a support or mainstay.c. An attribute or quality of particular worth or utility; an asset.8. Degree of intensity, force, effectiveness, or potency in terms of a particular property, as:a. Degree of concentration, distillation, or saturation; potency.b. Operative effectiveness or potency.c. Intensity, as of sound or light.d. Intensity or vehemence, as of emotion or language.9. Effective or binding force; efficacy: the strength of an argument.10. Firmness of or a continuous rising tendency in prices, as on the stock market.11. Games Power derived from the value of playing cards held.

Here is another definition found when searching specifically for the definition of "muscular strength".

Definition: Strength refers to a muscle's ability to generate force against physical objects. In the fitness world, this typically refers to how much weight you can lift for different strength training exercises. The type of resistance can include dumbbells, barbells, resistance bands, machines, cables or your own body. When lifting heavy weight, you increase strength, muscle size and connective tissues such as ligaments and tendons.

I see nothing in this definition that requires it to be for only a single repetition.

You state the ACSM defines muscular strength "as you use the term". Perhaps you could direct us to where that specific definition, that is referring to one rep squat strength, could be found. I would be surprised since squat strength involves a chain of muscle contractions in a specific coordination and doesn't directly measure any single muscle contraction force. After all, we all want to be using the terms precisely, using the same definition, if possible. Perhaps you could help us all out here? Thanks in advance.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks