Muscle Tension Ints: Torque vs. Watts

[Dr. Doofus]

the doof is bored and still can't ride outside for a few more weeks

but, the first foundation cycle done got started up anyway last week (don't tell the fast kid...dang...just did...oh well...)

so while doing some stupid muscle tension intervals last night, because doof is scrawny and weak and two months of these will maybe help him be slightly less scrawny, doof gets an idea:

since you're training sustained torque output on these ints (low cadence, low HR -- higher force component, but they are not pure strength training, which is only stresses the ATP/CP system and is of short duration...10 seconds or 10 reps, not the 10 minutes of a muscle tension interval), why not use torque as the training measure?

my, doof's watts were low -- around 220 -- and in that regard there was no difference between simply doing a L2 endurance session. there was a huge difference in torque -- 85 lbs at 55 rpm vs. maybe 30-something for the same watt load at 100rpm.

so, this leads oodf to conclude that when doing this sort of training, the way to measure it is by torque -- because duh, that's what you're training the body to do, sustain a greater torque load for a given time duration.

question is, any of you other watt geeks tried using torque as a measure for Muscle Tension training? what might be the ranges, by ability level, of lbs torque/kg, of competitive cyclists?

or would lbs torque/kg not be the right measure?

discuss

[Ken Lehner]

the doof is bored and still can't ride outside for a few more weeks

but, the first foundation cycle done got started up anyway last week (don't tell the fast kid...dang...just did...oh well...)

so while doing some stupid muscle tension intervals last night, because doof is scrawny and weak and two months of these will maybe help him be slightly less scrawny, doof gets an idea:

since you're training sustained torque output on these ints (low cadence, low HR -- higher force component, but they are not pure strength training, which is only stresses the ATP/CP system and is of short duration...10 seconds or 10 reps, not the 10 minutes of a muscle tension interval), why not use torque as the training measure?

my, doof's watts were low -- around 220 -- and in that regard there was no difference between simply doing a L2 endurance session. there was a huge difference in torque -- 85 lbs at 55 rpm vs. maybe 30-something for the same watt load at 100rpm.

so, this leads oodf to conclude that when doing this sort of training, the way to measure it is by torque -- because duh, that's what you're training the body to do, sustain a greater torque load for a given time duration.

question is, any of you other watt geeks tried using torque as a measure for Muscle Tension training? what might be the ranges, by ability level, of lbs torque/kg, of competitive cyclists?

or would lbs torque/kg not be the right measure?

discuss

(beating a dead horse)

What are these "muscle tension" workouts supposed to do for you? Are you planning on racing or generally riding at 55rpm (specificity of training adaptation)? You are not necessarily trying to sustain a greater torque load for a given time duration (unless you are just trying to blow out your knees): you are trying to sustain a greater power output, which can be done at low torque if you spin enough. In any case, you are already strong enough: even "muscle tension" workouts are nowhere near your maximum strength. If 220W is an L2 workout for you, then do longer intervals (20min or so) at L4.

[Dr. Doofus]

cycling-specific strength training, ken

strength training and cycling is an area of much disagreement and competing theories, but, there is a body of evidence to suggest that doing low-rpm, high-torque, low HR intervals can help improve cycling-specific strength.

of course, no one in their right mind would climb at 55-60 rpm, but doing intervals at that rpm range, at a sufficient torque load, will help overload the nervous system and the muscles, teaching the athlete how to recruit more fibers over sustained efforts.

[Ken Lehner]

cycling-specific strength training, ken

strength training and cycling is an area of much disagreement and competing theories, but, there is a body of evidence to suggest that doing low-rpm, high-torque, low HR intervals can help improve cycling-specific strength.

of course, no one in their right mind would climb at 55-60 rpm, but doing intervals at that rpm range, at a sufficient torque load, will help overload the nervous system and the muscles, teaching the athlete how to recruit more fibers over sustained efforts.

(my last post on the subject)

No matter how scrawny you claim to be, as long as you are healthy, you are already strong enough. The low torque you generate doing these workouts will not give you the training effects you seek. In addition, any workout like this that lasts more than 2-3 minutes is almost entirely aerobic in nature.

[zap]

I hear you Doof.

After farting around for 2 months, I'm getting back into riding a bit more and harder. Kind of like this low rpm, high torque thingy. Helps to focus on utilizing more "circle" ;) muscles so that when racing starts again, you have a new weapon. :D Lemond mentioned something about this years ago.

This is not a structured workout for me, just something that feels neat when I'm doing it. I'll mix it up with some low force/high cadence hill work. Fartlek kind of thing thats great for solo November/December riding.

What is my torque range? I have no idea. Watts on the road. No clue. Sorry.

[Dr. Doofus]

(my last post on the subject)

No matter how scrawny you claim to be, as long as you are healthy, you are already strong enough. The low torque you generate doing these workouts will not give you the training effects you seek. In addition, any workout like this that lasts more than 2-3 minutes is almost entirely aerobic in nature.


stay with the thread, ken

carmichael and saiz advocate this type of thing as cycling-specific strength workouts. yes, the torque is low, but much higher than normal training loads, so there might be a training stimulus that could improve the ability to handle a larger gear.

of course, there might not be any such stimulus, either, because it is primarily an aerobic effort, and it is certainly possible a long climb at 80+ rpm may be just as effective at improving torque generation as a big gear interval at 55rpm....

ken, have you seen any research on the benefits, or lack thereof, of this kind of training?

[Dave]

The fact that torques goes up for a given power output when the cadence is dropped from 100 to 55 shouldn't be surprising, since power = torque x cadence. If torque was 85 at 55 rpm, then it would be 47 at 100 rpm.

I'm skeptical of the value of high torque training. I've tried it while climbing a mountain, but all it does is put you into an anerobic state, where the legs start burning pretty quick.

I do a lot of heavy leg presses during the winter, but they never seem to do me a lot of good. In the early season, I can apply more torque, riding maybe one cog higher on one of my well-known stretches of mountain, but it doesn't mean I'm riding any faster. I may just be applying more torque at a lower rpm, producing the same power, but in a less-aerobic, nonsustainable fashion.

I rode my fastest time on the Mount Evans hillclimb route, using a more forward position (knee still about 1cm behind the pedal) and higher cadence, compared to previous efforts with a further back and higher torque/lower cadence approach.

[Ken Lehner]

stay with the thread, ken

carmichael and saiz advocate this type of thing as cycling-specific strength workouts. yes, the torque is low, but much higher than normal training loads, so there might be a training stimulus that could improve the ability to handle a larger gear.

of course, there might not be any such stimulus, either, because it is primarily an aerobic effort, and it is certainly possible a long climb at 80+ rpm may be just as effective at improving torque generation as a big gear interval at 55rpm....

ken, have you seen any research on the benefits, or lack thereof, of this kind of training?

Here's the best summary of why there are little to no benefits for "strength training" for endurance cycling (meaning anything past a 3K pursuit), and indeed it may be counter-productive: Ric Stern (http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern). He has a number of references at the bottom.

[Too Tall]

"any workout like this that lasts more than 2-3 minutes is almost entirely aerobic in nature." <---Ken Said it man!

Your point however is specific adaptation and your numbers are low, real low for non-adaptive power work. I'd advocate burst-type workouts instead...in Carmichael-speak it is akin to "stomps".

Torque and watts. Same same dewd.

The fast kid wants your HR low so you don't peak in Feb.!!! These drills are otay...do what he says. If you want to learn how I do non-adaptive aerobic power work just ask and I'll give you some workouts. They look like intervals but the HRs at high(er) watts are not sustained...you do not have a dramatic affect cardio-wise.

I'm not a big fan of sustained low cadence high torque / watts work...it makes my knees hurt. Give those drills to the kids ;)

Peace on Earth and good wheels to mankind, ride tubulars.

[Dr. Doofus]

I'm skeptical of the value of high torque training. I've tried it while climbing a mountain, but all it does is put you into an anerobic state, where the legs start burning pretty quick.

.

as is the doof, dave

on one hand, I haven't seen any documented studies that show a sustainable power increase while climbing as a result of this training. niether has I, doof, seen a study that analyzes improvements in motor-unit recruitment (the supposed goal behind this) as a result of this type of training.

however

ferrari says it works...and he's a dirty shady guy, but give him his due...and is he says it works, doof is willing to give high-torque training during the foundation phases a try

questions...doubts...questions...doubts....

[Dr. Doofus]

The fast kid wants your HR low so you don't peak in Feb.!!!

the fast kid is not to be blamed for this...this is doof being a loose canon....

and TT, the ol doof always aims for an April peak, then some racin in May

(since 1993, odof has never made it through a South Carolina August without a fitness-wrecking two-week sinus infection...so peak early for the spring races)

[Cadence230]

I believe in this type of work. I think it's a neuro-muscular firing and hooking up type of thing that manifests itself in a lower RPE. For me a lower RPE is what makes cycling, and life in general more fun! I don't have reliable power or torque info to share with you because of a much needed srm recalibration. I do like the option of using torque analysis as I hear that is the way to go but have not used this myself.

[cpg]

as is the doof, dave


ferrari says it works...and he's a dirty shady guy, but give him his due...and is he says it works, doof is willing to give high-torque training during the foundation phases a try

questions...doubts...questions...doubts....

Greg Lemond says there's only one reason to have any relationship with Ferrari... I'd say Ferrari is a scary dude and I'd take anything he has to say with a grain of salt. Unless you're under his "care."

Curt

[Dr. Doofus]

Greg Lemond says there's only one reason to have any relationship with Ferrari... I'd say Ferrari is a scary dude and I'd take anything he has to say with a grain of salt. Unless you're under his "care."

Curt

as a doof whose only qualifications are three physiology classes as an undergrad, doof would say that ferrari knows two things as well as anyone in the world: the energy dynamics of cycling and the medication of cycling.

unfortunately, to get the most out of the former, one has to enagge in the latter, and ferrari, in all likelihood, prefers his clients to engage intensively in both.

regarding the coments about RPE: if it feels better, but you're not actually performing more work, did it really benefit you?

doof sees as many potential benefits as he does flaws in high-torque, low-cadence training during the foundation period..keep the thoughtful responses coming


yo, and Too Tall, what's this about my torque is too low? and my stem is too short? we're not all 200-pound megawatt monsters....

[Too Tall]

Torque IS watts!!!
Yeah yah yeah we are different for one I don't throw poo and...nevermind.

Since my big gear low rpm watts numbers are classified...we'll skip that one.
Here is what I like instead of the kneecrusher(tm) you proposed. This uses some fast pedaling so you are well and ready for some hard work and finishes with fast pedaling for obvious reasons. The sets are blocks of 10 mins. each where you are "ON" for 15 seconds and "OFF" for 15 seconds continuously for 10 mins. Gearing is your choice, just hit the numbers. If on a trainer (good idea) jack the front wheel up a little. Clear?

1. warm-up
2. 5 mins. of FAST low force pedaling 110+ rpms
3. 3 X 10 minutes each with 5 min. easy between sets:
15 seconds ON (160% of threshold watts/torque)
15 seconds Off (Active Recovery watts/torque)
4. 5 mins. of FAST low force pedaling 110 rpms

[Dr. Doofus]

Torque IS watts!!!
Yeah yah yeah we are different for one I don't throw poo and...nevermind.



oofd feels you, Too Tall

power = force times speed

watts = torque x cadence

so no, torque does not equal watts. you can put out 250 watts at 70 pounds of torque, or at 100, depending on gear choice...so training torque is not training power, although there is a relation between the two....

[Ti Designs]

Science types spouting formulas shouldn't coach. Yeh, power = torque x cadece and given the real power gains to be made at low RPMs it'll never be practical for real riding. If that's all you take from it, you're not seeing the whole picture.

Two years ago I started coaching a rider who was a good climber but never did well in stage races, due in part to fatigue. We went over her training log, she had an entry for pain on a scale from 1 to 7. After hard races there were lots of 6's and 7's. My solution was to figure out which muscles were damaged, then get her into the gym and isolate those muscles, working on fiber strength. With each weigh increase in a 16 week program she felt the same pain she had after a hard race, but at the end of the program she could push twice the weight she started at without feeling it the next day. Her muscle fibers could now sustain higher loads, her fatigue from going hard was much lower. She may not have been any faster this year, but she attacked more at the end of races and got better results because of it.

[Cadence230]

regarding the coments about RPE: if it feels better, but you're not actually performing more work, did it really benefit you?



...
Yes for me if there is a lower rpe then yes it did benefit me. If not in an increase in absolute power but in a lower rpe makes RIDING MORE ENJOYABLE. I have read TT's many posts on this subject and agree with his workouts to increase cycling strength. Stomps, whether seated or standing are great for explosive power when called upon. It gives people you are riding with the "What the f#%&!" response. It is something you HAVE to train and you will loose it if not performed on a regular basis. In fact these from my experience should be done year round.

[Too Tall]

Don't yah think you are being a little harsh on monkey boy? He's just seeking, wasting time and staying out of jail k? Pick on me, I am a coach ;)

OK here is my knuckle dragging answer to your torque vs watts deali-o. I did the math for a ride to and from work this week and came up with the following:

Max Watts Avg Watts
593 167
Max Torque Avg Torque
678 184

So you can see, in the real world it is very close. Over an entire race or even a workout I feel that the numbers will approximate.

You are dead on with the assessment torque is a great way to measure force to the pedals for steady state but matters little eh?

If you want to have alot of fun do 5 min. intervals at 90 vs 130 rpms at threshold HR and see which give more pedal to the metal. You know the answer pal. The higher rpms have more torque but so whaaat eh?

[inthegutter]

Don't yah think you are being a little harsh on monkey boy? He's just seeking, wasting time and staying out of jail k? Pick on me, I am a coach ;)

OK here is my knuckle dragging answer to your torque vs watts deali-o. I did the math for a ride to and from work this week and came up with the following:

Max Watts Avg Watts
593 167
Max Torque Avg Torque
678 184

So you can see, in the real world it is very close. Over an entire race or even a workout I feel that the numbers will approximate.

You are dead on with the assessment torque is a great way to measure force to the pedals for steady state but matters little eh?

If you want to have alot of fun do 5 min. intervals at 90 vs 130 rpms at threshold HR and see which give more pedal to the metal. You know the answer pal. The higher rpms have more torque but so whaaat eh?

You mean the higher RPM's have less torque, right?

My coach has me in the weight room for some dynamic plyo's and core stuff (some lower and upper too) and also has me do some low cadence work on a 5-6% hill. Last year I noticed huge improvements in climbing which I attribute to the low cadence stuff.

I agree with the RPE. If you felt like crap at 250 watts and now you feel good at 250 watts, that means you can maybe do 270 watts before feeling like crap. That translates into more speed.

I also feel like if you are used to climbing in a 53-17, when you climb in a race situation, 39-21 just feels EASY!


Also, torque is very different from watts although they can get very close depending on your cadence. I clicked a ride in my CyclingPeaks and did a couple of screen shots where it shows some fairly large differences between watts and torque.
The green is cadence, the grey is torque, and the yellow is watts.

Good thread! This is fun to bat around... :beer: :beer:

[Dr. Doofus]

monkeyboy does not think TiD was harshing on him...perhaps the comments were meant for Dave. Its not clear, and maybe bald dead guys are just pissy. Who knows.

anyway.

Doof does think this type of training has value. there is a speed component to power. there is a torque component. a racing cyclist has to be comfortable spinning above 130, and has to be comfortable when applying high degrees of force. Bompa and anyone else with some sense would tell you you need to isolate the components of a complex skill before combining them togther in more specific training. so duh, you do your 130+ spins and your 55-60 grinds in the off-season. you can't climb mountains ten months out of the dang year.

doof's original quiestion was simply whether watts or torque would be the most specific measure for low-cadence/higher force work. doof would say torque.

and too tall: doof was the one who told you the value of :10-:15 efforts above LT followed by equally short recoveries!

[Ken Lehner]

3. 3 X 10 minutes each with 5 min. easy between sets:
15 seconds ON (160% of threshold watts/torque)
15 seconds Off (Active Recovery watts/torque)


I believe that it has been shown that doing microintervals like this elicits the same physiological response as doing steady-state riding at the same average power.

[Dr. Doofus]

Ken -- can you post a link or ref to some studies comparing micointervals to steady state riding at lower wattages?

doof's first encounter with microintervals was in college as a swimmer -- doing hard 25's with :05 rest as training for the 1650...haven't kept up with the literature (because I've been teching Literature) for the past few years....

[Too Tall]

inthegutter, you are right I'm wrong...mind is smoked by a really nasty cold last eve. TiDi - my apologies...haha as if monkey man needed defending...he throws his stuff DUCK.

[Ken Lehner]

Ken -- can you post a link or ref to some studies comparing micointervals to steady state riding at lower wattages?

doof's first encounter with microintervals was in college as a swimmer -- doing hard 25's with :05 rest as training for the 1650...haven't kept up with the literature (because I've been teching Literature) for the past few years....

I'll look for it. I first read about it on the wattage forum, which I haven't visited for a while. It may or may not have been a study; it might have been a statement based on the physiological responses known to occur during exercise.

This morning's workout (by myself, at 5:45am) was 5x100 on 1:30, 5x100 on 1:20, 5x100 on 1:25, and 4x100 on 1:15 (~:30-50 between sets), all coming in between 1:12 and 1:14 (made the last set a bit of a bother). Not too bad for a 47 year old who started swim training at age 26.

[Dr. Doofus]

good for an old guy, ken!

doof thought he was fast when he did a 4:42 500 free

then he watch two sprinters (44+ 100 free) do 4:40 in freaking November in an early-season bozo meet...

that's when doof realized how limited of an athlete he was

[Too Tall]

Yep, Andy made first mention of this. I've used these intervals in various forms for two seasons. Works.
Ken, the next version of Peaks is going to be a dilly.

[Ken Lehner]

Yep, Andy made first mention of this. I've used these intervals in various forms for two seasons. Works.
Ken, the next version of Peaks is going to be a dilly.

Glad it works for you. I find that if I go over red line, even for a brief interval, I blow. I don't have many matches, so steady state is what works for me (maybe that's why I have more success at triathlons than crits!).

[Tom]

How come I am riding around this fall two to three gears higher, lower revs, pushing (what feels like) better circles for no other reason than it's different than how I normally ride and feels good?

Usually I turn the pedals over really fast without really putting any force into them. These days I'm putting force into them. My plan is to put the two together after I get the force part working better.

I have no idea why I started doing this except it feels good.

[Too Tall]

Tom, wild guess...better bike fit and or you are rested.
Ken - yeah that is what I used to think about myself and than really decided to change it. Am willing to talk off line about this. Bet you have a really huge VO2.

[Dr. Doofus]

while we're on thsi interval thing....

swimmers will know this as a "locomotive"...a simple interval workout that you can tailor to any part of the season...good because it helps lay a crit foundation for repeated accelerations, and if the "hard" parts are kept within L3-4 its not too stressful


:15 hard
:15 easy
:30 hard
:30 easy
:45 hard
:45 easy
1:00 hard
1:00 easy
1:30 hard
1:30 easy
2:00 hard
2:00 easy

then repeat the whole cycle back down to :15

foundation 1 or 2, you can do the hard parts as L3 (240-260w for the doof) and the easy parts as L2. works a little ME, but mainly it lays the foundation for more intense repeated accleration work later. the point isn't to develop ME -- the hard parts are not long enought to develop a stimulus for that. the point is to re-acclimate your body to the repeating harder efforts without overextending yourself...trust the doof...early season crits are much more comfy after doing this once a week for a month....doing this on a fixie is particularly nice for developing "snap"

foundation 2 or 3, you could go hard parts in L4, easy parts L2

never go L5 on the hard parts unless you just want to overtrain to see what it feels like

[Too Tall]

And for you two wheelers:
(done in about 38X17 all out as long as you maintain good form. 4-5 min recovery 'tween sets. Repeat at least 6 X.)
10 on
10 off
20 on
20 off
30 on
30 off
20 on
20 off
10 on
10 off

[jerk]

Here's the best summary of why there are little to no benefits for "strength training" for endurance cycling (meaning anything past a 3K pursuit), and indeed it may be counter-productive: Ric Stern (http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern). He has a number of references at the bottom.


cycling is not a pure "endurance" sport. you don't know what you are talking about. muscle tension excercises will make you stronger, faster and more efficient. it should be the primary basis of any early season program.

you could get away without doing it if, as you say you do steady effort tris and tts and don't race on the road....but the jerk thinks you'd have a hard time improving anything without a good early season muscle tension base....the jerk knows he couldn't.

jerk

jerk

[bcm119]

doof's first encounter with microintervals was in college as a swimmer -- doing hard 25's with :05 rest as training for the 1650...haven't kept up with the literature (because I've been teching Literature) for the past few years....

When did you go to college, the 70's?
;) Actually I've heard of weird stuff like that. My crazy coach at penn state had us sprinters jumping out of the water at either end of the pool for 50 push ups. I think he just did it so the distance guys wouldn't think we had it so easy. Those poor guys...

[Dr. Doofus]

84-88

tried to walk on at Iowa, didn't cut it

[Ken Lehner]

cycling is not a pure "endurance" sport. you don't know what you are talking about. muscle tension excercises will make you stronger, faster and more efficient. it should be the primary basis of any early season program.

you could get away without doing it if, as you say you do steady effort tris and tts and don't race on the road....but the jerk thinks you'd have a hard time improving anything without a good early season muscle tension base....the jerk knows he couldn't.

jerk

jerk

Did you read the referenced article by Ric Stern? What the hell is a "muscle tension base"? And yes, anything beyond a pursuit in cycling is an endurance event: the best predictor of success is not maximum power but maximum sustainable power (or % of VO2max).

[Dr. Doofus]

"muscle tension base" -- 4-8 weeks of doing low-cadence, high(er) torque intervals 1-2 times a week

why?

to develop force, one of the two components of explosive power (the other is speed...that comes from high-cadence/low torque intervals). a tt rider or triathlete does not need to worry about explosiveness. a crit rider who has to do 100 accelerations out of corners in an hour, or a road racer who has to respond to, or initiate, attacks, does.

what TiD said here is absolutely true. you want to be able to race? you have to have the strength component of power to punch it when its one of the *many* times to punch it.

now, one canadian on a website says don't do it. one australian by the name of charlie walsh says do it. a fat spaniard named saiz says do it. a pudgy american named carmichael says do it (wait, that one doesn't help). a drug-pushing italian (well, several) says do it. when doof was up around greenville last year, he saw big george doin it. doof's old hero Adri Van Der Pol always did one ride a week from Nov-Jan in a 53x12, with no shifting (and it was a 5 hour ride, too...and you wonder why that guy was strong as snot until 40....)

the jerk is right (again).

[jerk]

Did you read the referenced article by Ric Stern? What the hell is a "muscle tension base"? And yes, anything beyond a pursuit in cycling is an endurance event: the best predictor of success is not maximum power but maximum sustainable power (or % of VO2max).


ride in a peloton that suddenly jumps, try to follow an attack up the koppenberg, or better yet try to initiate an attack up a similar "hill"....try to break away from a peloton that's charging to bring back a break-away, or better yet try to push the 1200watts someone the jerk's size needs to push to bridge two groups riding tempo....cycling is alot more than endurance....one could have pretty mediocre "endurance" for a marathon runner and sit in all day and still win a race.... there's a reason a successful cyclist can look like tom boonen, peter van petegem or roberto heras....strength matters; and muscle tension excersizes primes your body so that its capable of keeping up with the real interval work that starts later in the (pre)season.

if the jerk had to pick between "endurance" and "maximum power" he'd pick ability to recover, but that's a different story. the jerk'll turn your equation on its head. any moron, with no scientific training can go out and "ride" and in a few weeks will be able to ride a 100 miles averaging 20mph, being able to sustain that doesn't prove anything except that you're probably going to live past 60, it certainly doesn't make you capable of racing a bike. a cyclist needs strength because cycling is not a constant steady output of aerobic power...if it were they'd call it triathlon.

jerk

[Too Tall]

That about sums it up Senor'.
Anybody want to stoke tandem in the mtns.? That will make you strong ;)

[Ken Lehner]

"muscle tension base" -- 4-8 weeks of doing low-cadence, high(er) torque intervals 1-2 times a week

why?

to develop force, one of the two components of explosive power (the other is speed...that comes from high-cadence/low torque intervals). a tt rider or triathlete does not need to worry about explosiveness. a crit rider who has to do 100 accelerations out of corners in an hour, or a road racer who has to respond to, or initiate, attacks, does.

what TiD said here is absolutely true. you want to be able to race? you have to have the strength component of power to punch it when its one of the *many* times to punch it.

now, one canadian on a website says don't do it. one australian by the name of charlie walsh says do it. a fat spaniard named saiz says do it. a pudgy american named carmichael says do it (wait, that one doesn't help). a drug-pushing italian (well, several) says do it. when doof was up around greenville last year, he saw big george doin it. doof's old hero Adri Van Der Pol always did one ride a week from Nov-Jan in a 53x12, with no shifting (and it was a 5 hour ride, too...and you wonder why that guy was strong as snot until 40....)

the jerk is right (again).

(now you know why I wanted to bail on this thread early)

I'll say it for the last time: you are already as strong as you need to be to be an elite bike racer. You are possibly stronger than Boardman or Hamilton ever were; you may be stronger than Armstrong ever was. The *only* difference is the length of time they can hold a high power lever: much longer than you. That comes from mitochondrial density and capillarization, among other things, none of which come from strength training.

The torque generated in your "muscle tension base" phase is nowhere near your max strength, and thus aren't "strength" workouts at all. If they were, they would be contra-indicated for the demands of bike racing: they wouldn't develop the energy systems (delivery and generation) required of bike racing.

If by Canadian you are referring to Ric Stern, he's in the UK. Carmichael used to say "lift weights", but he dropped it. Why? Probably because he finally realized it was useless for all but track sprinters.

[Ken Lehner]

ride in a peloton that suddenly jumps, try to follow an attack up the koppenberg, or better yet try to initiate an attack up a similar "hill"....try to break away from a peloton that's charging to bring back a break-away, or better yet try to push the 1200watts someone the jerk's size needs to push to bridge two groups riding tempo....cycling is alot more than endurance....one could have pretty mediocre "endurance" for a marathon runner and sit in all day and still win a race.... there's a reason a successful cyclist can look like tom boonen, peter van petegem or roberto heras....strength matters; and muscle tension excersizes primes your body so that its capable of keeping up with the real interval work that starts later in the (pre)season.

if the jerk had to pick between "endurance" and "maximum power" he'd pick ability to recover, but that's a different story. the jerk'll turn your equation on its head. any moron, with no scientific training can go out and "ride" and in a few weeks will be able to ride a 100 miles averaging 20mph, being able to sustain that doesn't prove anything except that you're probably going to live past 60, it certainly doesn't make you capable of racing a bike. a cyclist needs strength because cycling is not a constant steady output of aerobic power...if it were they'd call it triathlon.

jerk

So, that would be a "no, I didn't read the article".

Yeah, I'm sure Roberto Heras is really strong. Nonsense. Half the people on this forum are probably stronger than Heras. As for bridging between two groups, I don't care how strong you are, you aren't going to be pushing max watts for more than a couple of seconds. An elite might need about 500-600W for a couple of minutes (power records of Riis at his peak in the Classics show this to be true). That doesn't require strength (any putz around here can generate 500W), it requires endurance. If you don't understand that, I suggest you read up on it from some people who understand the physiology of exercise.

[inthegutter]

interesting article I found from a less than reliable source most likely, but seems to sum up both sides nicely.

Site link (http://www.calcycling.org/training.php?id=2)


Strength Training for Cyclists

In this installment, we're going to be talking about muscles and physical strength for cycling. First we'll describe where it fits into to bike fitness and then we'll talk about ways we can incorporate a weight-lifting program into our training plan to improve strength. I'll conclude with a recommended general beginning lifting plan suitable for everyone and a few tips on resources we have at Cal, namely the RSF.

How muscular strength fits into total bike fitness

At first glance, you might think that being stronger means being able to push harder on the pedals which would, in turn, allow you to make the bike go faster. In other words, the stronger you are the faster you are. But this isn't necessarily true. Consider, for example, Kate Maher and Matt Dubberley. Neither has a particularly visually-imposing musculature, but they led our team to two national championships in 2002. Understand that in nearly every circumstance, the ability to go fast on a bike is NOT limited by how strong your muscles are but rather how much oxygen you can get to those muscles. For the case of Kate and Matt, each has a world-class, phenomenally high aerobic capacity---virtually off the charts. Their hearts, lungs, and blood vessels keep the oxygen flowing to their legs long after the muscles of their competitors have started to do without.

Well then, where does strength fit in for cyclists? The greatest physiological benefits of having strong muscles are slightly more subtle--it's all about efficiency. When muscle fibers get fatigued they get less efficient requiring more oxygen to do the same amount of work. By increasing your strength (that is, increasing the number of muscle fibers,) the workload for each fiber is less, so they can go longer until they become fatigued. The typical overall benefit that you may notice, for example, is that you can climb up Wildcat Canyon Road at the same speed but with a lower heart rate. You may also often find that you can sustain these high efforts for longer before exhaustion sets in. So even though the amount of oxygen available to your muscles is limited by other factors, building muscle where you need to allows you to get the most out of what's there.

There is also some research that suggests that strength training aids in muscle recovery from races and hard training. This is due ostensibly from the fact that load-bearing activities, like weight-lifting, cause an increase in the density of blood vessels surrounding the tendons and ligaments that get taxed far more heavily during these exercises than from cycling alone. This means all those healing nutrients get to those sore tendons faster.

So being strong still is important, but less so than other aspects of fitness. You'll spend the vast majority of your time training on the bike to improve your aerobic capacity, but a few hours a week of strength conditioning in the winter can do wonders for your bike fitness.

Ways to improve muscular strength

One way to increase muscle strength that is useful for cycling is to spend lots of time climbing hills at a low (60-70 RPMs) pedaling speed. Super Legend Andy Jacques-Maynes used this technique back in his Cal Cycling days as his primary method of strength conditioning---obviously with great results! This has the advantage of strengthening all of the muscles needed for cycling without gaining unnecessary muscle weight---an obvious liability when climbing! This way is typical for folks with a cross-country mountain bike background, like Andy.

This method does however have some serious disadvantages—particularly for the inexperienced. First of all, building strength takes longer than any other aspect of bike fitness. Thus strength conditioning typically starts in the winter/off-season when you're the least aerobically fit. You're likely to stop your workouts from being out of breath well before your muscles are properly fatigued. Secondly low cadence pedaling puts a lot of stress on your knees which can be very dangerous! It’s a truism for all cyclists that as they get tired, their form (by this, I mean patterns of regular, smooth, and efficient movement) deteriorates---just watch the last few laps of the San Francisco Grand Prix on Taylor Street to get the idea. Bad form under such heavy loads, such as due to low-cadence pedaling, has been responsible for the untimely demise of numerous careers in the history of cycling. Finally, when cycling, stronger parts of your body can often compensate for weaker parts at the expense of efficiency. For example, having underdeveloped hamstring (back-of-thigh) muscles forces the quadriceps to do more of the work resulting in a wasteful "jerky" pedal stroke. On-the-bike workouts don't readily allow you to isolate and strengthen these troubled spots.

A more effective way to increase muscle strength is by adopting a suitable weight-lifting program. Weight training allows you to completely bypass your relatively weak off-season aerobic fitness to effectively work on your total body musculature in a controlled, safe setting.

Is weight training right for you? Well, if the time you have available to train is typically less than 5 or 6 hours per week, you're probably better off just spending that time on your bike. If you do however have more time to spare, then weight training is very likely to be the way to go!

[Too Tall]

Ken that is true about CTS dropping weights for most elites...I get that first hand but that's old news. Talk to me about how to time VO2 work as a prelude to early season B races (April). I was taught and seems to make sense to save that for 8-10 weeks prior (2X20s etc.)

[Ken Lehner]

Ken that is true about CTS dropping weights for most elites...I get that first hand but that's old news. Talk to me about how to time VO2 work as a prelude to early season B races (April). I was taught and seems to make sense to save that for 8-10 weeks prior (2X20s etc.)
For that you should get a coach; I'm even less helpful for things of that nature. All I know is that alternating blocks of L4 work (to raise your % of V02max you can maintain) and L5 work (to raise your VO2max) seem to be suggested; 8-10wks of the former, and a couple of weeks for the latter?

I'm sure you can learn far more from the Peaks website than I could give you.

[Tom]

If I'm going for 10-15 minutes up a hill at any pace at all I'm dogged going over the top and completely unable to force it away from there. On some longer hills, I'll go a couple miles up the steep part and after a brief flat find that I'm just about cooked going the last three quarters of a mile at a 5% grade... don't say 'aw, pace yourself on the first part'... that's not the issue. Going over rollers at a good pace will do the same thing. After a bunch of them they start taking a toll.

How do I learn to come close to the red line and then recover right away? From what I'm reading here, if I want to try racing this is what I need to be able to do.

[Fixed]

ride in a peloton that suddenly jumps, try to follow an attack up the koppenberg, or better yet try to initiate an attack up a similar "hill"....try to break away from a peloton that's charging to bring back a break-away, or better yet try to push the 1200watts someone the jerk's size needs to push to bridge two groups riding tempo....cycling is alot more than endurance....one could have pretty mediocre "endurance" for a marathon runner and sit in all day and still win a race.... there's a reason a successful cyclist can look like tom boonen, peter van petegem or roberto heras....strength matters; and muscle tension excersizes primes your body so that its capable of keeping up with the real interval work that starts later in the (pre)season.

if the jerk had to pick between "endurance" and "maximum power" he'd pick ability to recover, but that's a different story. the jerk'll turn your equation on its head. any moron, with no scientific training can go out and "ride" and in a few weeks will be able to ride a 100 miles averaging 20mph, being able to sustain that doesn't prove anything except that you're probably going to live past 60, it certainly doesn't make you capable of racing a bike. a cyclist needs strength because cycling is not a constant steady output of aerobic power...if it were they'd call it triathlon.

jerkbro the weather really good down here this time of year i got this idea the jerk's winter camp with all the fourm cats well if not at least we get to read your post thanks /cheers :beer:

[Dr. Doofus]

bro the weather really good down here this time of year i got this idea the jerk's winter camp with all the fourm cats well if not at least we get to read your post thanks /cheers :beer:

bro lets do it here in rock hill

we'll have a barbeque in the back yard , set up a ring, watch while william and jerk take on all comers...Too Tall holds the money cause you can trust him with anything