HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am
Posts: 2342
DMF wrote:
To me Wiggins looks seriously muscular, I don't claim that it's a matter of volume, and he has some serious muscle definition so why did you post that as an example?


Because Mr Wiggins is practically skin and bone, very little muscle there and puts out M.A.S.S.I.V.E amounts of power. Muscle definition is utterly meaningless, all that shows is low body fat. That, and it's a cool pic.

Quote:
And I'm not talking about what you can do at maximum effort, as you seem to take it. "I can lift this and that at maximum effort", what's that got to do with anything? And by your logic, anybody could do 300w, 400w or even 500w for an hour, or whatever arbitrary wattnumber as long as It's well below your maximum achievable effort if they just have the stamina, muscles have nothing to do with that? Ofcourse this isn't true, and the reason I don't buy the logic...


Fortunately you don't have to "buy it", it exists with or without your preconceived ideas. Muscle size, and relative strength is largely irrelevant. As mentioned above if you have enough strength to walk up stairs then you have enough strength to pedal a bike at high power. The ability to hold that power, as I was talking about above, comes down to a whole host of things none of which revolves around "strength" so when you post things like:-

Quote:
Are you seriously telling me, that putting on more muscle won't allow you to ride higher gear ratios for the same perceived effort? No, REALLY?! I'm not talking about riding a higher cadence, that would ofcourse require better endurance.


I reply with the above. Because, no, you don't need to put on more muscle to turn a higher gear ratio. Better mitochondiral density, neovascularization, cardiovascular ability (gas exchange) etcetc, this is what will make you improve.

Here's a good summation about mitochondria:-
http://www.biketechreview.com/performance/supply/48-mitochondria-the-aerobic-engines
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0129.htm

Here's a study looking at strength work and how it related to mitochondria (please note, there are some which suggest the opposite, but read it anyway):-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10541929

An overview of strength training in cycling and other cool stuff:-
http://cyclingresearchnews.com/News_And_Events.php?cid=3&iid=80
http://ftp.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern

Quote:
But seriously, what you are saying is that overall strength has nothing to do with speed (as in speed has nothing to do with watts, or higher watts doesn't become easier if you are stronger), and a guy putting out low watts wouldn't benefit from becoming stronger?


Yes, this is what I am saying. (On the proviso that the person doesn't lack the basic intrinsic strength to be of "good health" [highly subjective].)

Quote:
And another thing, you do realize that what you are talking about is a very fictional, theoretical, besides-TT/Tri's-and-indoor-trainers-non existing cycling scenario... This cruising along at a constant watt, that's just not what an actual group ride really looks like, now is it? ...if it was, I'd never ride that group again.


I have no idea what you are talking about here. This is not fiction, this is not theory. This is proven. Do you argue from a position of knowledge, or a position of assumed knowledge?


Quote:
But ofcourse I'm biased here, I am myself from the generation of oldschool, power house, low cadence, high gear mashers, who will gain speed from brute force. I know this has gone "out of style" in training lately. But hey listen, you do it your way then and I'll do it my way.


There's a reason it's "old school". Not all old school stays old school, but there's a lot of BS which has been jettisoned for good reason. Don't accept what has been done in the past, research, review, rinse, repeat and form your own opinion.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:51 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
Isn't it strange, that like 4 out of 5 pro cyclists (and many, many serious amateurs) have noticeably (not to say massively) oversized muscles, and it's for the most part pretty much the same muscle groups throughout, compared to just about any other athlete in just about any other sport, when those muscles have got nothing to do with anything?

Why do most cyclists not look like most runners, or your "endurance" sport of choice? I mean hell, cyclists often have more muscles than 100m sprinters.

If we did not use these muscles, where did they come from?

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am
Posts: 2342
Your perception of what size muscles actually are is way out. Yes, compared to their arms most cyclists have "large" legs. Compare those legs to other people in "sports" in general and they aren't big. Sometimes there will be some outliers, but mostly not. Stand next to almost any pro, they are tiny, even the "huge" legs.

And it is not that the leg muscles are not needed or used, just that what makes them effective is not the size or "strength". Genetics plays a large part and some people will have very dense muscle fibres other won't but will have a lot of them. Pro example: Fabian Cancellera has "large" legs and produces big power, Wiggins is a stick and produces big power.

And comparing actual body composition and weight of 100m sprinters to enduro cyclists... there is no comparison here, none, move along.

Seriously, read up on some physiology:- muscles fibre types, mitochondria, krebs cycle (citric acid cycle), gas exchange, lactate and the cori cycle, just to name a few.

Then read up on limiters of aerobic performance.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
This is just utterly pointless. I say "they have big muscles", you respond "no, they don't". We're sitting in the sandbox on that one. And frankly, I think you are just pushing numbers that don't actually hold up IRL.. They are a theoretical truth, and I've yet to visit a groupride where the more muscular guys aren't just killing it. And I've never (in thirteen years of serious riding) been dropped by a skinny guy without some serious muscle definition, not once!

I know, I know... Here comes the precious pet word of every forum-argument-fanatic - It's all "anecdotal" so none of it counts... So I'll agree to disagree on this one.

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am
Posts: 2342
DMF wrote:
This is just utterly pointless. I say "they have big muscles", you respond "no, they don't".


Doesn't really matter, you're still wrong on that one.

Quote:
... And frankly, I think you are just pushing numbers that don't actually hold up IRL..


What numbers are you referring? Do you have any "numbers" or anything beyond casual observation? I have quite a few power files that are very In Real Life (and racing and training) that show all sorts of funky things.

Quote:
I've never...been dropped by a skinny guy without some serious muscle definition, not once!


You are confusing muscle size and definition. Do you actually understand the difference between the two?

Definition arises from low body fat levels. Good cyclists usually have very low body fat. Size is different. Definition can give the illusion of size.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:22 pm
Posts: 865
Location: London
Tanned legs from hours on the bike also make legs look more defined and muscular.

Anyway, since I started to point out the nonsense, this thread has become pure :popcorn:

Carry on. :D

_________________
Snacking on carrot sticks - Where did it all go so wrong?
-
Finsbury Park CC


Last edited by MattSoutherden on Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am
Posts: 2342
Hmmm maybe a tan helps boost power, what with all that definition, because if it looks defined then that must be the cause of all that power.

To the tanning booth! :lol:

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:13 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 7310
Location: Geeeelong!
DMF wrote:
But ofcourse I'm biased here, I am myself from the generation of oldschool, power house, low cadence, high gear mashers, who will gain speed from brute force. I know this has gone "out of style" in training lately. But hey listen, you do it your way then and I'll do it my way.

Which I encourage.

If people did not hold on to 'old school' training techniques there's no way I could be as competitive as I am now.

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au Forum Jedi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:22 pm
Posts: 865
Location: London
Tapeworm wrote:
To the tanning booth! :lol:


:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

_________________
Snacking on carrot sticks - Where did it all go so wrong?
-
Finsbury Park CC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm
Posts: 1515
DMF wrote:
This is just utterly pointless.

I have seen people with spindly little toothpick legs that can ride my legs right down to bloody stumps. I can't even stay on their wheel drafting, even on the flats.
But it does seem like by the time it gets to a sprint, you can pretty much look around and see who is going to win just by quad size.
And it does seem like cyclist's quads are 'disproportionately' large, although not body-builder massive.

It is sort of amazing in a long road race to see the different body types and cadences that seem to work for people on flats and hills.
The other aspect of this is that when you are suffering and see a completely different pedaling style going past you, you don't really know if that pedaling style is really "better" or if you are just having a low-blood-glucose moment. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:43 am
Posts: 94
Thanks for all the replies. Looks like it got into a workout verse more miles intervals discussion. Alot of great thoughts and I appreciate the time and thoughts. I was really looking for something quite simple like. I've been there and for me doing 2 hard 1 hour rides a week or 1 3X20 interval day a week helped etc.. Just Some basic training plans that you felt really helped your progress.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:56 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 7310
Location: Geeeelong!
That's what was answered, only with more depth. It's a simple enough question that, really, doesn't have an incredibly simple answer.

Some great training plans in here

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=78810" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au Forum Jedi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:51 pm
Posts: 12
I'd also check out this forum thread as well: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=76094. It focuses on what to do during "base" season, but I think it's applicable.
If you just want cookie cutter plans, then each week do something like:
2 days of 2-3x20 @95-100%FTP (210-220watts for you),
1-2 days longer, like 2-3 hours w/ lots of time (1.5-2.5hr) in "sweet spot" or tempo, so ~80-90%FTP(~175-200watts). The time at sweet spot could be just straight, or split into intervals, like 3-4x30' or 2x45 or something. Maybe also a hard steady group ride.
Maybe 1 day of 5-10x3-5'@115-120%FTP (~255-275watts). Maybe also a hard group ride with lots of 3-10'climbs hard.
2-3 days of no riding or 30-45' of super easy riding (like 50 watts).

Just fit that to your schedule. As many people have pointed out, it's really individual. For some people, just doing 2x20s is perfect, for others long rides with lots of tempo works best. For many time is what dictates what their training week looks like. Just because someone has 30hr to ride per week doesn't mean they should use it though. Pay attention to recovery as well. You can't go out and hammer all of the time.
This article might also be useful. http://www.hunterallenpowerblog.com/201 ... level.html it talks about threshold training.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 2912
Location: Canada
you forget a key part in your cookie cutter week: recovery

how the hell are people pilling up 2-3x20 twice a week on top of steady overly long sweet spot efforts is beyond me.

You guys must be 1- in chronic inflammation state 2- constantly glycogen depleted/low 3- massively lack top end power.

geez


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:56 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:51 pm
Posts: 12
Sorry, now that I re-read I see I put too much in there to actually fit in the 2-3 days of recovery. This is closer to what I was aiming for:

2-3x20 during weekdays (for me twice is fine, some people can only do once, some do 3).

longer ride with some sweetspot/tempo on the weekend (again, some can do twice, some can only do one of these on the weekend). Time in tempo is also relative to personal riding ability. I don't think that 3x30 or 2x45 is overly long. I find these extremely helpful. It does take a while for me to build up to these though.

The higher end efforts I don't think are necessary week in week out, but can be substituted for the 20' intervals mid week.

My apologies at not making sure that the "week" actually had room for recover. Thanks for catching that. Recovery is the main reason that it's hard to put out a cookie cutter week. It's 100% individual. Some guys do 5 days hard, some do 2 days hard. Bantamben, if I were you, I would start out on the more conservative side and then add depending on how you feelyou are recovering.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Anyone with a Weight Weenie PEGORETTI

[ Go to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

in Road

Bantamben

30

3521

Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:26 pm

kgt View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Are there other weight weenie forums?

in MTB

nrsnow

2

860

Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:52 pm

cerro View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Old School Weight Weenie

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Introduce Yourself / Gallery - Please use metric weights.

01Erion

21

3142

Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:38 pm

CBJ View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Weight Weenie Project

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Introduce Yourself / Gallery - Please use metric weights.

DaveLeeNC

19

1644

Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:43 pm

DaveLeeNC View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Five qualities of a weight weenie bike

in Cycle Chat

donald

14

1166

Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:29 pm

drainyoo View the latest post


It is currently Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:53 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB