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