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

I don't do any lifting except when I am trying to muscle one of my exercise machines into and out of the car.

---

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

Frank,

Are you off your meds again?

As I asked earlier perhaps you could direct us to the source of your definitions for a little "fact checking". thanks.

---

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

Yes.

---

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

this really sums up this thread, and JR's responses, to a 'T'. He's using 'strength' as a proxy for metabolic fitness. That's fine and all, until it then leads to faulty conclusions, such as 'stronger legs=stronger cyclist'.

 
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

---

You're killing me, man.

Hill running is considered a strength workout. It's too late to erase all the published materials that call it that. Go with it.

"Just running" is the best way to improve running economy. So of course hill running will help with that, too. But to me, improvement in running economy, is not the primary reason for running hills.

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

And, as roady points out, therein lies the problem. We are discussing exercise physiology here, ergo, to avoid confusion one must use the definition of strength as is accepted in that field.



The ACSM uses the same definition of strength as used by The President's Council on Physical Fitness (cf. ACMS's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins, 2010, p. 86). The President's Council defines muscular strength as:

"a health-related component of physical fitness that relates to the ability of the muscle to exert force..."

then goes on to comment that:

"Like flexibility and muscular endurance, strength is specific in nature. For true assessment it would be necessary to test each major muscle group of the body. Lab and field tests are similar and involve the assessment of one repetition maximum (the maximum amount of resistance you can overcome one time)."

(cf. http://www.fitness.gov/digest_mar2000.htm)

Notably, the President's Council definition in turn is based upon a Surgeon General's Report from 1996, which in turn is based upon Costill and Wilmore's well-known textbook. I chose the 3rd edition of the latter text for use by USA Cycling's Coaching Education program, and recently used the 4th edition when teaching a master's level course in exercise physiology at a nearby chiropractic school. Unchanged from the 1st three editions, the 4th edition defines muscular strength as:

"the maximal force that a muscle or muscle group can generate..."

and goes on to use 1 RM as an example of how strength can be measured.

(Wilmore JH, Costill DL, Kenney WL. Physiology of Sport and Exercise, 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008, p. 188.)