Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter

Why is motorpacing so good?

Recommended Posts

it's all about speed !

getting the feeling of going fast ie 50km +

Most triathletes really struggle above 40-45km/ hour even in bunches.

 

Doing sustained MP efforts above 50km will make 45km on your own seem allot more easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I disagree with that. A lot of power nuts disregard heart rate and pedaling suppleness as important factors in improving your ability to go faster on a bike. Developing the ability to pedal faster and more efficiently has certainly helped me and I would imagine many others to produce more watts, and sustain higher heart rates but at the same time having a lower perceived exertion or having it 'hurt good' rather than 'hurt bad'.

Sure, but don't confuse correlation with causation*.

 

You get better because you are riding harder, not because it's motorpaced per se. If you rode harder solo, you would get better as well. But if you need the motivation of the motorbike to ride harder, then that falls into the motivation/psychological element I outlined earlier and it is of benefit. Want suppleness? Ride faster/higher power in a smaller gear. Don't need a moto for that. Just some HTFU.

 

You'll have to enlighten me on how knowing heart rate can make you faster on a bike.

 

 

And for others, yes I have plenty of motorpace experience. I'm also an accredited derny rider.

 

 

* It's the same logical fallacy when people attribute power gains to big ring efforts up hills. It ain't the gear/low cadence that makes you better, it's the power you are riding at.

 

No disrespect to Alex but there is a lot more to the equation that the numbers coming out of a power meter, and I own three of the things.

I own 12. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day Alex,

 

At the end of the day the most important factor should be what motivates the athlete to generate more power.

 

Sure, but don't confuse correlation with causation*.

 

You get better because you are riding harder, not because it's motorpaced per se. If you rode harder solo, you would get better as well. But if you need the motivation of the motorbike to ride harder, then that falls into the motivation/psychological element I outlined earlier and it is of benefit. Want suppleness? Ride faster/higher power in a smaller gear. Don't need a moto for that. Just some HTFU.

Can't the HFTU come from putting it into a BG?? Quite often you need to give that stimulus to athletes in order to get them pushing a bigger gear with more power.

 

 

 

You'll have to enlighten me on how knowing heart rate can make you faster on a bike.

Myabe because like a powermeter it has the potential to make you lift, and it has the potential to show you when you are bludging??? I undrstand that HR monitors lag, but across the course of week or month thing seem to level out.

 

And for others, yes I have plenty of motorpace experience. I'm also an accredited derny rider.

 

* It's the same logical fallacy when people attribute power gains to big ring efforts up hills. It ain't the gear/low cadence that makes you better, it's the power you are riding at.

Does a BG have the potential and the motivation to generate more power?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the good fortune to speak to an ex-pro triathlete now turned pro cyclist and asked him why, relatively speaking, triathletes make better time triallers than roadies. (I know that needs a lot of qualification, but just go with it for now, OK? :lol: )

He said it was in the constant nature of the TT. Triathletes are going hard - and staying that way. Roadies go hard - very hard - but are looking for that respite 'tween times. (Conversely, I think that triathletes need to learn how to turn the gas off every now and again in road races :D )

So, my thinking about motorpacing is - go hard, no respite (I imagine the noise of the motor would drown out your pleas for mercy!! :lol: ) and the opportunity to get on the edge and stay there. Sure you could do this with a power meter, but there is no discipline like hanging on, no matter what!

Most of us are only capable of big pain with an external motivation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the day the most important factor should be what motivates the athlete to generate more power.

 

Can't the HFTU come from putting it into a BG?? Quite often you need to give that stimulus to athletes in order to get them pushing a bigger gear with more power.

 

Does a BG have the potential and the motivation to generate more power?????

Re-read my original post. I highlighted motorpacing's constructive use as a motivational tool for TT/tri riders. It is but one means to aid motivation and encourage an athlete to ride harder (when it makes sense to do so).

 

Nevertheless, the fitness gains come from riding harder. Not because it's motorpacing per se. Plenty of people bludge behind a moto too (or in a bunch).

 

big gear, motorpace, etc etc for TT riders are all just ways to motivate them to spend time at higher power levels - but as far as the physiological/metabolic side of it goes, it's how hard we ride that matters, not what method we employ to make us ride hard.

 

That's why I'm trying to distinguish between the causation and correlation. Moto use for TT is primarily for motivation, no more or less.

 

If you are a TT rider (which includes non-draft triathlon events) then you better learn how to ride hard solo as you won't have a motorpacer in a race egging you along.

 

 

Myabe because like a powermeter it has the potential to make you lift, and it has the potential to show you when you are bludging??? I undrstand that HR monitors lag, but across the course of week or month thing seem to level out.

The harder and/or more variable the effort on a ride, then the utility of a HR significantly declines as a guide to actual intensity.

 

Here are some quick thoughts on that:

http://cyclecoach.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=166#p166

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rentakill

... Might say I have a lot of respect for Alex and what he has overcome, raced against him both before and after he lost his leg. Also he is essentially without peer in the power guru stakes to the point where some of the pioneers of the science of cycling with power now take notice of him.... Alex once told me in relation to heart rate to "throw away the strap".

 

Setting aside my own heart issues that first occurred in 1997 and mean I need to take notice of what 'the strap' tells me (even have an episode of Afib recorded on WKO as it happened when I was riding), I think there is a large amount of validity in measuring and keeping track of heart rate.

 

I have been using heart rate monitors since 1987 when the first polar ones were big and clunky (and expensive!)

 

The big blob of protoplasm on top of the bike is powered by a motor. At the heart of this motor is.... the heart. In terms of triathlon and racing with a HRM I have found that an indication of swim fitness can be found from measuring the heart (high heart rate dropping at the commencement of the bike) and a sign of fatigue (dropping heart rate particulary in the second half of IM marathons where muscular fatigue and not aerobic fitness is the limiter on performance (and why people should do more weights), but also on the bike. Sometimes due to poor sleep, stress, illness or whatever your heart and measuring it can tell you a lot about whether you should train or attempt to train a planned workout, it is also an excellent indicator of fitness and determining an effective taper i.e. I have found when I get the taper right I can squeeze those few extra beats out. At the top end and it 'hurts good'.

 

True a power meter will tell you the same thing essentially, but at a much greater cost, but arguably not at a greater benefit.

 

Power meters are a fantastic tool, no doubt. Before I had a power meter I used a CS 200 on my track bike and it gave me a max speed, max Hr and max cadence for about a tenth of the cost of a PM, actually a CS 200 is about 200 bucks and the SRM track I have which I got at a bargain basement price was about three grand with the extra crankarms.

 

From personal experience I find heart rate also a much more consistent number 'on the road' and the variability of a PM can drive you mad. I only really look at the power numbers when I get home and download them.

 

A PM really comes into its own in races, for timed efforts and peak power numbers, and on the track where you can work out gearing, cadence and all that. The information is great, and even at the base level I can only really interpret some of the basic stuff, but I still find it helpful.

 

For running, I used to do 'aerobic time trials' as advocated by Mark Allen, where you would run a certain distance at a certain heart rate on the track. To see you body becoming more efficient and running faster and faster at the same heart rate is a very encoraging thing, and translates into racing benefits.

 

The other thing is a PM doesnt do is tell you the vagaries of when your legs blow up for whatever reason, and we have all felt that feeling, that is about being self aware and having a good sense of RPE and focus internally, not externally and relying on numbers. Some people heaven forbid dont even race with a watch or any type of monitoring device and have gone pretty well over the years in all endurance sports, but I am sure they are very self aware of pacing and getting themselves 'in the zone' I have found a HRM has assisted me in this in years gone by.

 

With the advent of downloadable HRM's, Garmins, Power meters, cadence meters, and all the rest, I think no one number should be held up at being better than the others. For example an average gradient percentage and an average speed up said gradient might be a better set of numbers than power.

 

I guess what I am saying is 'athlete know thyself' rather than relying on all these numbers is what I am saying. Have enjoyed rolling along instead of putting some pressure on myself with some nice wheels in the past few weeks, left the power meter wheels in the garage.

 

I also still reckon the motorpacing thing there is more to it in terms of its benefits, the simplistic explanation of 'just pedal faster' doesnt cut it for me.

 

There is a lot more to human physiology and athletic performance than numbers coming out of a gadget - although I like playing with the gadgets and I think they have helped me to get better.

 

If I had to go bare bones, I would say a set of accurate digital scales and an accurate stop watch is about all you need if you want to improve. Given that we are talking about getting from A to B in the shortest possible time, lot of merit in that simple approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Might say I have a lot of respect for Alex and what he has overcome, raced against him both before and after he lost his leg. Also he is essentially without peer in the power guru stakes to the point where some of the pioneers of the science of cycling with power now take notice of him.... Alex once told me in relation to heart rate to "throw away the strap".

 

Setting aside my own heart issues that first occurred in 1997 and mean I need to take notice of what 'the strap' tells me (even have an episode of Afib recorded on WKO as it happened when I was riding), I think there is a large amount of validity in measuring and keeping track of heart rate.

 

I have been using heart rate monitors since 1987 when the first polar ones were big and clunky (and expensive!)

 

The big blob of protoplasm on top of the bike is powered by a motor. At the heart of this motor is.... the heart. In terms of triathlon and racing with a HRM I have found that an indication of swim fitness can be found from measuring the heart (high heart rate dropping at the commencement of the bike) and a sign of fatigue (dropping heart rate particulary in the second half of IM marathons where muscular fatigue and not aerobic fitness is the limiter on performance (and why people should do more weights), but also on the bike. Sometimes due to poor sleep, stress, illness or whatever your heart and measuring it can tell you a lot about whether you should train or attempt to train a planned workout, it is also an excellent indicator of fitness and determining an effective taper i.e. I have found when I get the taper right I can squeeze those few extra beats out. At the top end and it 'hurts good'.

 

True a power meter will tell you the same thing essentially, but at a much greater cost, but arguably not at a greater benefit.

 

Power meters are a fantastic tool, no doubt. Before I had a power meter I used a CS 200 on my track bike and it gave me a max speed, max Hr and max cadence for about a tenth of the cost of a PM, actually a CS 200 is about 200 bucks and the SRM track I have which I got at a bargain basement price was about three grand with the extra crankarms.

 

From personal experience I find heart rate also a much more consistent number 'on the road' and the variability of a PM can drive you mad. I only really look at the power numbers when I get home and download them.

 

A PM really comes into its own in races, for timed efforts and peak power numbers, and on the track where you can work out gearing, cadence and all that. The information is great, and even at the base level I can only really interpret some of the basic stuff, but I still find it helpful.

 

For running, I used to do 'aerobic time trials' as advocated by Mark Allen, where you would run a certain distance at a certain heart rate on the track. To see you body becoming more efficient and running faster and faster at the same heart rate is a very encoraging thing, and translates into racing benefits.

 

The other thing is a PM doesnt do is tell you the vagaries of when your legs blow up for whatever reason, and we have all felt that feeling, that is about being self aware and having a good sense of RPE and focus internally, not externally and relying on numbers. Some people heaven forbid dont even race with a watch or any type of monitoring device and have gone pretty well over the years in all endurance sports, but I am sure they are very self aware of pacing and getting themselves 'in the zone' I have found a HRM has assisted me in this in years gone by.

 

With the advent of downloadable HRM's, Garmins, Power meters, cadence meters, and all the rest, I think no one number should be held up at being better than the others. For example an average gradient percentage and an average speed up said gradient might be a better set of numbers than power.

 

I guess what I am saying is 'athlete know thyself' rather than relying on all these numbers is what I am saying. Have enjoyed rolling along instead of putting some pressure on myself with some nice wheels in the past few weeks, left the power meter wheels in the garage.

 

I also still reckon the motorpacing thing there is more to it in terms of its benefits, the simplistic explanation of 'just pedal faster' doesnt cut it for me.

 

There is a lot more to human physiology and athletic performance than numbers coming out of a gadget - although I like playing with the gadgets and I think they have helped me to get better.

 

If I had to go bare bones, I would say a set of accurate digital scales and an accurate stop watch is about all you need if you want to improve. Given that we are talking about getting from A to B in the shortest possible time, lot of merit in that simple approach.

 

Word!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is allot of crap about very little. Lots of mumbo jungo which totally over reads what is going on in Motor pacing !

 

1. Speed - triathlete getting the feel of going faster (which they fail to do by themselves)

2. Increased intenstiy - at or above threshold which they would also struggle to maintain by themselves unless they have extremely strong motivation.

 

If you are serious triathlete MP is a great idea.

 

Stop talking crap in circles

 

 

 

Once you examine power meter data from such sessions, you quickly realise it's of no specific physiological benefit for TT performance or improving threshold power, over that which you can/do attain from non-motor paced efforts.

 

 

while I agree with the above

 

 

I would suggest that it's not the speed issue that is the adaptation but a neuromuscular one.

 

Speed is simply balance between power output and the resistance forces. If you happen to have resistance forces lowered because you're drafting in a big bunch/motorbike, then you simply ride a bigger gear. The pedal forces and speeds are the same. If you want higher speed for same power then ride down a long steady descent and/or find a strong tailwind.

 

 

There are two main elements:

- Physiological differences

- Motivational/psychological differences

 

Physiologically, it has far more to do with the fact that the neuromuscular demands are significantly different to solo riding.

Metabolically, as long as it's at the desired overall intensity, it will be no more/less beneficial than solo riding.

 

A casual glance at a Quadrant Analysis from motor pace efforts will demonstrate this quite quickly and also show the neuromuscular demands have little physiological specificity with respect to time trial and non-draft triathlon events.

 

However it can be a motivational tool to ensure an athlete gets hard training done (the metabolic impact is similar), even if the specificity is reduced.

 

Many sensible purposes for motor pace are:

- providing (roadie) race like simulation where the neuromuscular demands are significantly different to those encountered with solo riding, even though the metabolic demand may be similar. The same simulations are attainable through hard bunch rides, and road races. Where a rider has limited access to such training opportunity or races, it makes some sense to consider motorpacing if you know what you are doing

 

- as a motivational tool and a change up to training. Many find it challenging and fun

 

- for track sprint work - e.g. getting track sprinters up to a high pace without having used all their gas getting to a high speed in the first place, so they can practice hard accelerations from a high start speed. This enables more such work to be completed in a session.

 

- for track team pursuit and points race simulation when limited riders are available

 

- practice for motor pace events (various track races have elements of motorpacing)

 

- for ensuring rider safety and discipline during track warm ups with lots of riders on the track

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
* It's the same logical fallacy when people attribute power gains to big ring efforts up hills. It ain't the gear/low cadence that makes you better, it's the power you are riding at.

:lol:

So you will get the same benefit from riding 250w @120rpm on the flat as you will riding 250w @80rpm up a hill? Bollucks! The gear & cadence also play a part. The power is only a result of the gear & cadence.

 

 

 

There isn't ONE aspect alone that solely contributes to a physical benefit, it is ALWAYS a combination of many aspects of the ride, HR, gear, altitude, elevation, power, cadence, etc. Change any one of these and the benefits of the session will change.

Edited by 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is allot of crap about very little. Lots of mumbo jungo which totally over reads what is going on in Motor pacing !

 

1. Speed - triathlete getting the feel of going faster (which they fail to do by themselves)

2. Increased intenstiy - at or above threshold which they would also struggle to maintain by themselves unless they have extremely strong motivation.

 

If you are serious triathlete MP is a great idea.

 

Stop talking crap in circles

Thank you for your considered and reasoned response.

 

I'm sorry if you can't understand what I write. I really try to make it accessible to most but clearly I've failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

So you will get the same benefit from riding 250w @120rpm on the flat as you will riding 250w @80rpm up a hill? Bollucks! The gear & cadence also play a part. The power is only a result of the gear & cadence.

 

 

 

There isn't ONE aspect alone that solely contributes to a physical benefit, it is ALWAYS a combination of many aspects of the ride, HR, gear, altitude, elevation, power, cadence, etc. Change any one of these and the benefits of the session will change.

Specificity dictates that riding 80rpm up a hill will make you better at riding up hill at 80rpm. No surprise there.

 

But that's not the point. The impact on metabolic fitness from either effort will be very similar.

 

You are wrong about power being a result of cadence and gear. It's a result of metabolic processes in our muscle cells. Read up on mitochondria - the energy power plants in our bodies. Their job is production of ATP - our bodies' energy currency.

 

Cadence is an outcome of the power you produce (or choose to produce, i.e. the level of effort), the resistance forces acting against you and the gear chosen. Cadence is not an "input" and it is not an independent variable. It's just something we measure (and just because it's easy to measure doesn't mean it's all that important per se).

 

This is not a concept I expect many to get their heads around at first glace, since monitoring cadence is such an ingrained thing in our sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specificity dictates that riding 80rpm up a hill will make you better at riding up hill at 80rpm. No surprise there.

 

But that's not the point. The impact on metabolic fitness from either effort will be very similar.

 

You are wrong about power being a result of cadence and gear. It's a result of metabolic processes in our muscle cells. Read up on mitochondria - the energy power plants in our bodies. Their job is production of ATP - our bodies' energy currency.

 

Cadence is an outcome of the power you produce (or choose to produce, i.e. the level of effort), the resistance forces acting against you and the gear chosen. Cadence is not an "input" and it is not an independent variable. It's just something we measure (and just because it's easy to measure doesn't mean it's all that important per se).

 

This is not a concept I expect many to get their heads around at first glace, since monitoring cadence is such an ingrained thing in our sport.

Good, you agree then, it's not just about the power. :lol: But you could have just written that instead of another chicken or the egg answer......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all makes sense now I click on a few links at the bottom of your post. Why am I not surprised that you are a R.Stern follower.........

 

Someone else with fixed views, living(training) inside the box, unable to listen to logic because science tells him otherwise.

 

So, what do you think of power cranks Alex?

Edited by 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It all makes sense now I click on a few links at the bottom of your post. Why am I not surprised that you are a R.Stern follower.........

I am a Performance Director at RST. I suppose that makes me a "follower".

 

Someone else with fixed views, living(training) inside the box, unable to listen to logic because science tells him otherwise.

So we should just ignore science? - what a ludicrous statement. The whole point of science in our field is to be open to the investigation and understanding of all things performance related. Sort out fact from fiction. Recognise that evidence is very helpful and anecdotes are just that. That's why I use tools such as power meters (and boy there's a lot of fiction and myth in this sport). It has nothing to do with having fixed views, quite the opposite actually.

 

But if the body of evidence suggests something, well are you suggesting we should just ignore it anyway? :lol:

 

 

Of course I "live in a box" and wouldn't have a clue about the real world of training and racing. Or HTFU. :lol:

Ad hominem is a pretty weak form of argument BTW.

 

In my "box" I've developed and published new methods of assessing pacing performance, helped riders around the world improve their aerodynamics with diagnostics tools, and better understand key elements of training and performance. All available FOC from my contributions to the online world. What's your contribution?

 

So, what do you think of power cranks Alex?

I think they make you good at riding power cranks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Animal
living(training) inside the box, unable to listen to logic because science tells him otherwise.

 

There's just so much information inside the box I'm not sure why anyone would ever need to leave! :lol::):lol: It's a massive box full of wonderful things and I'm not sure we'll ever discover everything that's inside it, but it's sure fun trying. :D:):D

 

Tell us of life outside the box though, what have you discovered? What's it like out there.

 

(Only kidding, just having a laugh, no need to get all antsy about these things folks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell us of life outside the box though, what have you discovered? What's it like out there.

Bad things happen out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G’day Alex,

 

I sort of do agree with you, but in saying that science quite often is flawed by what we get to witness everyday in the real world. Just because something has been proven it doesn’t always make it right, because sure as shit some time down the track it will be proven incorrect.

 

In way I agree with 100% in that I think that powermeters contribute to putting on the blinkers. They provide a very accurate measure of power/effort, but fail to acknowledge that power/effort is affected by so many variables. To me that is the flaw with powermeters. A powermeter fails to measure what affects power, true???

 

It is so difficult to control the variables and then when you do they results can’t hold up in terms of real world applications. I think this why it is impossible to prove that motor pacing and or BG work does not work. It can’t be proved.

What are your views on this statement I read quite often

 

A watt is a watt……………….. I personally think this is incorrect because there are so many variables that affect our ability to produce and HANDLE a watt. In other words I believe 200 watts can feel easy some days while on other days 200 watts can feel like a grind, so how do powermeters take that into consideration, over something like a HR monitor, pace, or RPE?

 

Fluro

P.S: I just want to make it clear, I’m not having a go, just wanting to learn more.

P.S 2: 100% and Alex you guys have the potential to turn this into a really good discussion, coming from such differing points of view.

Edited by fluro2au

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Animal

I think the main point Fluro is that things like Big Gear work and Motor pacing do work. It's just the "why" and "how" they work where peoples opinions differ.

 

People use the word strength a lot when talking of big gear work, but the forces involved are not large enough to impact on the strength of a muscle. Go to the gym and lift 3 or 4 reps maximum. Then see how light a weight you need in order to perform a few hundred repeats. Massive difference. So people saying big gear work makes you stronger and that being stronger makes you a better cyclist are not entirely accurate - but then again, they may well be talking about a different kind of strength then what is commonly accepted. A lot of sports folk, particularly endurance sports talk of strength and being strong in terms of stamina and toughing it out.

 

One thing I think is beneficial though is the "mix it up, shock the system" type aspect of some of the different approaches to training - even if it is all mental it doesn't matter if it gets results. The clock is the true judge after all!

 

At the end of the day, we've all got more in common then sometimes I think we like to admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they make you good at riding power cranks.
So kinda like using a power meter, what does one do when they don't have the little screen to look at to tell them how hard to ride?

 

Using a power meter, making riders good at using a power meter.......

 

flouro your spot on I reckon. training at 250w is not just training at 250w, hot days cold days, flat or climbing, 80rpm or 120rpm, all these and more things contribute to the effect of that training. Power is not the be all and end all, it is but another valuable tool that should be used for what it is, one more way to measure/guage your effort, but should not be used alone forsaking all others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rentakill
Bad things happen out here.

 

.... and Alex can tell you all about that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People use the word strength a lot when talking of big gear work, but the forces involved are not large enough to impact on the strength of a muscle.

 

G'day Animal,

 

Mmmmmm, this one comes up quite a bit too.

 

 

 

If I can hold a 53/14 at 90rpm am I not stronger than someone who can only hold 53/15 at 90rpm? Even though the strength component may seem miniscule, it still makes me stronger? What other term would be better other than being stronger, more strength etc?

 

At the end of the day I'm still stronger because I can push a bigger gear at the same cadence?

 

Consequently, doesn't it take quite a bit of training to develop that specific strength, relative to the task you are undertaking, irrespective of the fact you may be able to squat 100kg more than me in the gym.

 

I don't understand why the term strength is being discredited, when I feel the forces are large enough, because it allows me to push a bigger gear at the same cadence so I must be stronger right? What am I missing here?

 

 

 

fluro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rentakill

... Yeah I disagree with that Animal. Have been doing that big gear stuff since I read about Conconi and Ferrari advocating it and Lemond recommending it. Cadel Evans still does a lot of it on the road, I prefer the ergo and do one minute repeats at around 55rpm and high watts that have your legs screaming at the end, it definitely makes you stronger in a specific sort of way, as an example on a rolling TT course it enables you to maintain position and power over the hills and use your strength to punch it without lactate/fatigue.

 

I am plenty strong and but this is very specific and really helps make you stronger. If the forces arent high enough to increase strength how is it I could only maintain a certain wattage when I started and this improved by over 100 watts over time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Animal

Nah, you are both examples of what I mentioned in that the term strength is used to describe other components of fitness when talking about endurance sports.

 

I have no problem understanding or using either, was merely highlighting it as a point where the "science" guys differ from the "real world" guys for lack of a better description.

 

The increase in performances you both mentioned can happen when muscular strength doesn't change at all (or could even go down). Muscular strength being basically your 1 rep max. That is where the science/physiology guys like to place it and its definition.

 

(gee I wish I knew how to quote just bits of peoples posts and a quotes from different peoples posts)

 

But basically - lets say you can peddle 90rpm in 53x15 for an hour (around 40km/h). Then after some training you can peddle 53x14 at 90rpm for an hour (around 43km/h). You may not have increased muscular strength at all, but your endurance has increased. Any non-trained person could jump on a bike and peddle 53x14 at 90rpm a few times, with some minor training, anyone could do it for a minute or so and most without any training either, but to be able to do it for an hour takes stamina - endurance, and all the changes that occur in the body are not related to the strength of the muscle. They are related to the ability of the muscle to supply energy to keep repeating the task over and over and over again.

 

As I said, I don't really see a major problem with either way of describing it as I know exactly what you two are talking about and exactly what the science guys don't like about the way you two talk about it as it really isn't scientifically correct.

 

At the end of the day, being able to push a bigger gear at the same day doesn't mean you have increased muscular strength (according to accepted physiological definitions - please don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger! :lol::):lol:)

Edited by Animal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Animal
G'day Animal,

 

Mmmmmm, this one comes up quite a bit too.

 

 

 

If I can hold a 53/14 at 90rpm am I not stronger than someone who can only hold 53/15 at 90rpm? Even though the strength component may seem miniscule, it still makes me stronger? What other term would be better other than being stronger, more strength etc?

 

The term you are looking for is greater endurance capacity - "stamina" or "fitter" not stronger could perhaps be used. I don't think the terms used as as crucial as being able to understand what each other are talking about. It's just that if the whole world used the same terms it would be easier for all. And some people may get confused and start to think that if they lift heavy weights in the gym and get stronger that they will then get better at riding 40 or 90km or whatever in a triathlon. (Not talking about track sprinters here by the way).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Animal
... Yeah I disagree with that Animal. Have been doing that big gear stuff since I read about Conconi and Ferrari advocating it and Lemond recommending it. Cadel Evans still does a lot of it on the road, I prefer the ergo and do one minute repeats at around 55rpm and high watts that have your legs screaming at the end, it definitely makes you stronger in a specific sort of way, as an example on a rolling TT course it enables you to maintain position and power over the hills and use your strength to punch it without lactate/fatigue.

 

I am plenty strong and but this is very specific and really helps make you stronger. If the forces arent high enough to increase strength how is it I could only maintain a certain wattage when I started and this improved by over 100 watts over time?

 

I'm not saying that sort of training doesn't have it's place. Look at the courses cyclists ride, and also consider cyclists have to sprint.

 

I've no doubt you're plenty strong, I've seen those pics of your thighs in the magazines......haha, no, the track bike review pics..

 

But what the arguement is, and keep in mind, it isn't necessarily my arguement, but the arguement put forward by cycling scientists if you like, is that strength is defined as 1 rep max and when you are talking about endurance cycling, the forces are no-where near that.

 

I bet you could pump out 1500 watts or something like that in a 5 sec effort. But you wouldn't approach that in a 1 hour effort. Now, I bet you could increase that 1 hour effort by 100 watts without any change whatsoever if that 1500 watt 5 sec effort. The 5 sec effort is heavily reliant on strength. The 1 hour effort isn't.

 

But then again, the 5 sec effort is related to the 1 minute effort, the 1 minute effort related to the 5 minute effort, the 5 to 10, the 10 to 20, the 20 to an hour, the knee bone connected to the thigh bone , but there is a point where it is too big a gap to jump.

 

Re the rolling course, I get my butt spanked at the moment by chicks at Calga, not because they are stronger then me, but because they are fitter, they have greater endurance. I could beat any of them in a 5 second test, a squat 1rm and I could beat any of them in a short sprint, if their was a pizza riding on it, but because I'm so fat and unfit at the moment, they can just keep pedalling up blood hill at a much higher power output then I because they have a much higher endurance capacity.

 

But I do understand exactly what you are saying and the way you describe it too. ::lol:):lol::)

Edited by Animal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×