Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [johanandbex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
yes, do weights. Let me ask you this...will the weight training really HURT you? no. I don't understand why people think spending a little bit of time with weights (to provide balance for your body) is bad. Think about this. With triathlon what direction is your body always moving-forward. We rarely use any other muscles than going forward. You need to develop and balance your body to handle the stress and pressures...
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wonder what's the percentage of people posing as sports science experts who actually have an academic background in the field...?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jstatham] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I wonder what's the percentage of people posing as sports science experts who actually have an academic background in the field...?

Oh, that was such a clever burn... is it all you got?

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, you're also a poopy head.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [SlayerHatebreed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey, at least I can pronounce my last name...

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [littlefoot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
yes, do weights. Let me ask you this...will the weight training really HURT you? no. I don't understand why people think spending a little bit of time with weights (to provide balance for your body) is bad. Think about this. With triathlon what direction is your body always moving-forward. We rarely use any other muscles than going forward. You need to develop and balance your body to handle the stress and pressures...

It's simply a time management issue. Are you cycling enough that you are maxing out your gains on the bike? For most people I would guess that's probably well over the 20hrs a week range.

Most of us aren't riding that much. We need to be on our bikes. Maybe you have more free time than I do.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Murphy'sLaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
PS - when I first read the subject line, I thought this had to do w/ the toilet. Wasn't really sure what that had to do w/ ST... ;-)


And I thought is was real estate.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I hate to say this, but I agree with Rappstar and have known this for a few years now (see first link). There are many studies like this that tell the same tale, not sure how you can deny the benefits of strength training for endurance athletes. Of course none that I've seen improved Vo2 Max, but they have improved many other things.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460997

http://journals.lww.com/...ling_Economy.26.aspx

As a personal example, I have never been a biker and havent biked much at all in many years, but I was a jumper in track&field. I constantly did heavy squats, deadlifts, cleans, and snatches, not to mention other explosive activites like starts, flys, etc. I recently quit track and started training for triathlons. After only training a max of three ~hour cycles per week for about 7 months before this summer my bike mph range was from 23.1mph at the beginning of the year to 25.6mph at the end of the year. I find that evidence in favor of lifting heavy.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Sure, that's easy to figure out. High-Tech Cycling has a study of 17 riders at 350w at 90rpm. Average *PEAK* normal (perpendicular to the pedal) force is 400N. That's the equivalent of 90lbf. That's the MAX force that is applied to the pedal (so for like 1deg).

The average force during the peak 90deg of power application at 350w is ABOUT 300N or so, or maybe 65lbf (67.XX if you want to be super particular). The distance traveled during 90deg, assuming 175mm cranks, is 175mm*pi*1/2 = 274mm.

Or, put another way, each pedal stroke at 350w @ 90rpm, you are moving a 65lb weight about 12inches.

Time, of course, is essential, for power calculations, so you really need to move a 65lb weight 12inches in
0.167seconds.

And, of course, there is momentum involved in both cycling and weight lifting, which makes it even harder to really say "X is like Y." Because what most people will equate that force with is how hard it is to start the weight moving - accelerating it - not keeping it moving.

However, as Jack said, all a child needs to do is to lean their body weight on a pedal and it'd be as much force as an elite cyclist generates during the peak 1/4 of a pedal stroke.


Rappstar, thank you very much for the informative response. So, it's difficult to be exact because of acceleration/inertia but basically we are talking about moving a 60lb weight 12 inches.
Jack said 'think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT' I think this would imply that the child is not 'leaning' in the pedal but turning it while holding it. I don't know any, maybe Jack does, small children who can handle what is probably about their body weight that easily. In fact i wonder how my single arm curls with a 60lb weight most adult male triathletes can manage.

Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling. Not that it isn't easily overstated but a dose of reality would be better.

Kind Regards

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I'm gonna compare IP addresses of the posts with the IP addresses in my website log file of who downloaded the file (and when). Why do you think I hosted it myself? That's not a definitive answer to your question, but I'd be surprised - and I'll let you know - about who replied to the thread that even bothered to *download* the paper.
y
Since I'm confident that I'll show up on the right list after your crack analysis of server logs, I'll ask - did you actually read the full paper? I don't mean the glorified summary in your link, but the full paper that was still in peer review when the summary was published.

I read - as regards this particular topic - what I posted a link to. Nothing more. Nothing less.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling.

You sound... confused.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So thinking back to the type of strength training I was coached to do while swimming in college, skimming the article, and your response - my initial thought was that the type of lifting required for this is stuff along the lines of clean and jerks. high weight, explosive, etc.

Than I skimmed some more and found the reference to explosive lifting had an effect on 5k times, but not really longer stuff.

Than I though more about the lifting I did in college - rather than the 3x10 stuff that is traditional expoused - we tended more towards doing 10-8-3x6 - high volume in terms of lift, and when you get down to the 6 rep sets - pretty damn high resistance.

That's my guess on a possible protocol they exercised, but I really don't know - need to spend some more time digesting this.





The question(s) from me is - so high volume, high resistance Strength training concurent with endurance training is shown to have a roughly 8% increase in a 45 minute TT power, over aerobic training alone.
Did the study account for increased body mass in the study - power output was greater but was w/kg ?

Has anybody caught how long the concurrent training should occur - and what type of maintenance is needed to keep the gains intact?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [mntriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I did that without any lifting or any serious sports background of any kind.

what you experienced is just a sign of having some biking talent, which could be for any number of reasons.



In Reply To:
After only training a max of three ~hour cycles per week for about 7 months before this summer my bike mph range was from 23.1mph at the beginning of the year to 25.6mph at the end of the year. I find that evidence in favor of lifting heavy.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As if this thread is not contentious enough....

I know I risk getting hammered for saying this, but is anyone concerned that this paper is supposed to be available only to readers who have paid for access to it? Isn't posting it in this manner a form of piracy? If the publisher has made it freely available to all or if I've missed something, then...never mind.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Fatdoggy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
As if this thread is not contentious enough....

I know I risk getting hammered for saying this, but is anyone concerned that this paper is supposed to be available only to readers who have paid for access to it? Isn't posting it in this manner a form of piracy? If the publisher has made it freely available to all or if I've missed something, then...never mind.

Paulo gave the paper - which is a summary (a relatively complete summary, but still a summary) - to me. Given that he works in academia - and publishes such papers - I would expect that he would be sensitive to the intellectual property concerns of posting it. I asked if I could post it for download, and he said yes. I took that as being express confirmation that it would NOT be piracy to share this. Obviously, as the person who manages this site, I'm very sensitive to these issues. But to the best of my knowledge, I'm not sharing something which I should not be.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:


Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling.


You sound... confused.


then help me understand, please. I'd really like to know.

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I think it is fair to say I was wrong, you would need a medium sized child =)


i don't know. how old were you when you were able to knock out a few reps of 60 lb single arm curls?
I would have trouble now.........

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:


Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling.


You sound... confused.


then help me understand, please. I'd really like to know.

Sure...

You seem to have mixed up "force" with "power". If you did, you are wrong, because the estimates of force that were presented above are accurate.

If you didn't, you do not understand that "the power requirement of cycling" is individual and based on the level of performance that is required.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I wonder what's the percentage of people posing as sports science experts who actually have an academic background in the field...?


Oh, that was such a clever burn... is it all you got?

Bazinga!!!!!! ;)
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you, yes i did mix up 'force' with 'power' in that statement. Sir Newton would surely be upset.
I will find AC's statement on the precise use of percise terminology are write it 50 times.
But i did not comment on the accuracy of the statements by rappstar. I took them as accurate.

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
As if this thread is not contentious enough....

I know I risk getting hammered for saying this, but is anyone concerned that this paper is supposed to be available only to readers who have paid for access to it? Isn't posting it in this manner a form of piracy? If the publisher has made it freely available to all or if I've missed something, then...never mind.


Paulo gave the paper - which is a summary (a relatively complete summary, but still a summary) - to me. Given that he works in academia - and publishes such papers - I would expect that he would be sensitive to the intellectual property concerns of posting it. I asked if I could post it for download, and he said yes. I took that as being express confirmation that it would NOT be piracy to share this. Obviously, as the person who manages this site, I'm very sensitive to these issues. But to the best of my knowledge, I'm not sharing something which I should not be.

It says in the very first post "Paulo sent me the complete paper, which you can download HERE." The link is to a pdf of the full paper. If you try to access the full text of the same paper from the publisher (Wiley) website here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...38.2010.01197.x/full

and you are not recognized as having access you are told:


You do not have a subscription to this Journal or Article. Please contact your librarian for details. Options for accessing this content:
  • If you have access to this content through a society membership, please first log in to your society website.
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
  • You can purchase online access to this Article for a 24-hour period (price varies by title)
    • If you already have a Wiley Online Library or Wiley InterScience user account: login above and proceed to purchase the article.
    • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.
Bottom line is I know you and Paulo did not intend to do anything wrong, but seems to me this article was not meant to be distributed in this manner.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Fatdoggy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Who's watching the hallway while you're posting here?

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Fatdoggy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Looking forward to seeing traithletes with "Chris Hoy Legs" next season. That guy's thighs are insane!


http://rogersroadrash.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So since this issue is now settled can we all finally agree that forefoot striking is also better :) ???



When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy
Quote Reply

Prev Next