Bruiser;

First, your application of terminology is incorrect. When discussing exercise physiology, the term aerobic refers to those mechanisms whereby energy is produced aerobically (the oxidation of either fat or carbohydrate). While at first counterintuitive, aerobic energy production has very little to do with breathing, at least in the sense of breathing being a performance limiting factor.

The exact mechanism of fatigue is not known, but I can assure you it has very little to do with strength. Let me give you a real example. In another thread, Indurain's hour power is discussed. To date, this is thought to be the highest power ever sustained by an individual for an hour: 509 watts power, 284 kg m/sec^2 force. My personal best hour to date: 319 watts, 260 KG m/sec^2 force. Note that my force (strength) is only 10% lower than Indurain's! The difference? Cadence. 101 RPM vs 69 RPM (my best hour was on a hillclimb race, for which in retrospect I was under-geared).

From this example, you see power and strength are two different things and as Ric Stern likes to say and this example underscores, strength has very little to do with cycling performance.

At the end of a long ride, fatigue occurs for one or more of a variety of reasons: lack of substrate (glycogen), accumulation of metabolic waste products, dehydration, core body temperature rise and neuromuscular adaptation. In fact, neuromuscular adaptation is now considered more significant than perviously thought.

Aerobic conditioning, therefore, refers to the ability to minimize all of the above. Peripheral adaptations (increased mitochondrial density and capillarization) a result of long hours in the saddle allow for increase oxygen perfusion, increased efficiency, increased metabolic waste product transport and removal, better regulation of core body temperature and conditioning of the neuromuscular sytems to allow the muscles to use there newfound power. None of this come from weight training.

_________________
John979

You mean when I get dropped on a steep hill or an attack into a block headwind because I don't have sufficent power, that has nothing to do with strength

Differences in strength are immediatly obvious when you compare a junior to a senior rider.

The impact of strength is less obvious on some courses than others; but steep hills and block headwinds arn't that uncommon.

I think when you say strength you mean power. You really do need to understand the difference. Even on steep hills, it is aerobic power (and power-weight ratio) that counts not strength.

Keep in mind the example I gave regarding the pursuit: aerobic power not strength. The data this is based upon is objective not a subjective observation and comes from somebody who has the tools, education and competative experience to present world-class knowledge.

Let me provide you additional objective data. I can produce over 400 watts for 4 minutes, which is not too shabby. My peak 5 sec power is 850 watts, which is horrible. I have very good aerobic power and poor neuromuscular strength. However, by your definition, I would "strong" which I am not.

Your observation regarding juniors is simple. Neuromuscular strength is first determined by genetics, plateaus early, and is difficult to train thereafter. Aerobic power, while somewhat dictacted by genetics, is trainable and under the proper training program takes years to plateau, although interseason gains do become marginal (a couple percent).

To objectify this go to http://www.gregggermer.com/wattage.htm and take a look at his testing data. Here is a UCI Division III professional who races almost exclusively kermesses. Note the continued, moderate increase in aerobic power while his neuromuscular strength has apparently plateaued.

_________________
John979

I can see a few terminology problems here but it doesn't change the need to develop muscle strength.

I also race alot of kermises which involve the final 16km being very, very fast; and the best riders spend the off season in the gym.

I think we need a little clarification here. Is strength basically doing an action once and power doing the same thing over a period of time?

I've heard the exact opposite definitions used by John, but it doesn't matter how we term these ideas but that we understand the difference.

I was told that power is explosive while strength is repetitive, and regardless of what term we use, I agree that gym work doesn't immediatly convert to bike performance as it depends on the work you do. You can be doing very large weights and still be deficient in exposive power.

Strength refers to the FORCE one can exert.

Power = force multiplied by speed.

_________________
Whow! That's a pretty damn nice garage door!

My understanding is that power insofar as weight training is concerned is not about either gaining bulk or strength, it's more like moving the weight at maximum velocity to work on the fast twitch muscles. So, reps tend to be approx 5 with the bar moved at maximum speed. This ties in with what they have been doing in Amercian football for decades now. There they have 3 phases. 6 weeks of fitness phase increasing aerobic capacity, 6 weeks of strength to gain some bulk, then a 6 week power phase on what I've just described.

My own view is that I feel power training could benefit someone attempting to improve their sprint capability. Obviously it's a balancing act in order not to gain too much muscle bulk.

More specifically:


Force is the mass times acceleration. The unit is Newtons.

Work is force times distance (joules). One joule is one newton acting over a distance of one meter.

Power is work per unit time (watts). One watt is one joule per second.

_________________
John979

Below are measurements taken approximately the same time, so fitness levels are equal. One is a low cadence, high force effort on a short, very steep hill. The other is a higher cadence, lower force effort (sprint). Both are maximum efforts.

15 Second Maximal Effort, High Torque
Ave Power: 350
Ave Cadence: 48
Ave Torque: 342 lb-in

15 Second Maximal Effort, High Cadence
Ave Power: 659
Ave Cadence: 104
Ave Torque: 191 lb-in

Note how significantly higher power is generated by the low force sprint. Interestingly, the high force effort felt much “harder,” even though less power was being generated. Many equate fast-twitch muscles solely with recruitment during high force requirements. This is incorrect as fast twitch muscles are also recruited during sititations that require fast shortening velocities at low force: sprinting. How do I increase my sprint power? Train my neuromuslcar coordination to produce more power at high cadence? How do I do this? By sprint repetitions.

When one rides with an objective measurement of power, almost immediately apparent is that the body senses force much better than power, hence, low-cadence, high force feel significantly “harder” than high cadence, low force efforts producing significantly more power; therefore, the fascination of many with “strength.”

_________________
John979

Belief-based Coaching is a common and traditional form of coaching. Its guides for practices are usually a mix of personal experiences, some limited education about sport sciences, selected incomplete knowledge of current coaching practices, and self-belief in that how coaching is conducted is right. Changes in coaching practices occur through self-selection of activities. The accumulated knowledge of belief-based coaching is subjective, biased, unstructured, and mostly lacking in accountability. Belief-based coaching also includes pseudo-scientific coaching. Pseudo-scientists attempt to give the impression of scientific knowledge but invariably their knowledge is incomplete resulting in false/erroneous postulations. Belief-based coaching is normally the foundation of most coaching development schemes. Organizations are closed (isolated) systems resisting intrusions of contrary evidence that might alter the constancy of the beliefs and social structure. Logical (knowledge) entropy increases with time in these structures.

Evidence-based Coaching is a restricted and relatively rare form of coaching. Its guides for practices are principles derived from replicated reputable studies reported by authoritative sources in a public manner. Often there is consideration of objective studies that do and do not support principles. Evidence-based coaches have fewer guides for practices, but what are included are highly predictive for accomplishing particular training effects. The accumulated knowledge of evidence-based coaching is objectively verified and structured. However, evidence-based coaching principles are developed in a fragmented scientific world. It could be somewhat difficult to gather all the relevant knowledge into an educational scheme. Organizations are open systems structured to constantly accept new knowledge and concepts. Logical (knowledge) entropy decreases markedly as order is established.

Anyone with serious intentions should understand the above.

_________________
John979

any way, weight training is good for bone structure.
its good aginst Calcium depletion.
but i prefer corss training better.