Cadence, Speed and hill climbing.

[marzjennings]

The 'stairs analogy' is just a good, practical, everyday example to illustrate strength that most people (most people apart from you, that is) seem to understand...
.

The stairs analogy is a great analogy if drawing someone into the cycling for exercise or fun. If you can climb some stairs then you're strong enough to go ride. Easy, got that from the start.

Where the analogy breaks down and where you and others have used it, is to say that if you can climb stairs you already have all the leg strength you'll ever need and the rest is just conditioning.

If that idea is limited to just endurance riding, and following training and conditioning to get from a to b without collapsing, then I guess I have no argument.

My argument is that to excel as the type of cyclist you want to be, you will at some point go beyond the strength 'ceiling' set by stair climbing alone.

 

[black'n'yellow]

There must be some point at which more strength is required, muscle mass must be developed, otherwise we'd all look like marathon runners rather than cyclists.

Not sure what you're on about - professional endurance cyclists DO look like marathon runners. Just because you might not resemble one, doesn't mean the analogy is incorrect.

Other than that, you are STILL confusing physics with physiology - and becoming somewhat tedious in the process. A pro rider racing up alpe d'huez will only be putting about 25kg of force through each pedal stroke - about the same as most people could manage - even you. It is also, however, a HUUUGE amount less than most people's maximal capacity. The difference with a trained ahtlete is, they have trained their CV and muscular system to repeat that effort for upwards of 20-30 minutes at a time without recovery.

 

[black'n'yellow]

My argument is that to excel as the type of cyclist you want to be, you will at some point go beyond the strength 'ceiling' set by stair climbing alone.

once again - stair climbing sets NO CEILING. - it's just an analogy. See my post above about applied forces. No endurance cyclist should ever need any more strength than he/she already has.

 

[Thomk]

Increasing leg "strength" may delay fast twitch muscle fibre fatigue. If we agree that even in aerobic cycle events fast twitch muscle fibres are used to some extent (perhaps on steep hills or a sprint finish for example) then increasing muscle strength should have at least some merit.

 

[black'n'yellow]

Increasing leg "strength" may delay fast twitch muscle fibre fatigue. If we agree that even in aerobic cycle events fast twitch muscle fibres are used to some extent (perhaps on steep hills or a sprint finish for example) then increasing muscle strength should have at least some merit.

 

[Thomk]

And. It is very possible that, especially for fairly new cyclists, strength training could couse the body to begin to use more slow twitch muscles and less fast twitch muscles which would also have a beneficial effect on endurance. You just seem a little rude, as well as being strangely dogmatic.

 

[black'n'yellow]

For anyone new to exercise, then almost any type of exercise will be better than nothing. for regular cyclists, you are better off working on the causes of fatigue, as opposed to pushing weights in the gym in the hope of fixing some 'fast twitch' problem. sorry if you think that is dogmatic..

 

[Thomk]

That I agree with

 

[ayceejay]

I have read back through this thread in an attempt to see where the log jam is and I think it is this:-
if you can climb stairs you already have all the leg strength you'll ever need and the rest is just conditioning.
This is where the either/or thinking comes from because no one has actually said this and the basis of black 'n' yellows argument (as far as I understand it) is that improvement in strength will come as a by product of appropriate exercise. The stamina required to ride a bike will not come from strength training in the gym.
My own attempt at an analogy: if the activity you are training for is similar to pushing a heavy rock up a hill and then letting it roll down the other side you will need to emphasis your strength work. If your activity requires you to chase the rock down the hill and push it up another one over and over, strength alone will not serve you well.

 

[black'n'yellow]

This is where the either/or thinking comes from because no one has actually said this and the basis of black 'n' yellows argument (as far as I understand it) is that improvement in strength will come as a by product of appropriate exercise.

Almost - but not quite. No 'improvment in strength' is necessary. All that is needed is to be able to get better at converting your available strength (which you already have - you don't need more) into a repeated aerobic effort at any given level, depending on how fast you want to ride, or how long/steep the hill is.

My own attempt at an analogy: if the activity you are training for is similar to pushing a heavy rock up a hill and then letting it roll down the other side you will need to emphasis your strength work. If your activity requires you to chase the rock down the hill and push it up another one over and over, strength alone will not serve you well.

er, no. Not really. I think. I don't really understand that analogy at all, to be honest. I'll have a go at my own analogy though - "if you want to be a better endurance cyclist - you don't need to get stronger, you need to get fitter." That'll probably do.

 

[Nebulous]

I came to cycling seriously pretty late in life, as part of a weight loss / fitness thing for several reasons:-
I've always enjoyed being on a bike.
I wasn't convinced at my age that my knees could cope with running.
I've always had strong muscular legs.

About 22 months on I'm much faster, pushing out more power, on less muscular legs, that are probably less 'strong.' I haven't tried any weights for ages, so I don't really know.

The whole I can do this because I have strong legs thing was a total blind alley. Pushing myself until I thought my lungs would burst, and my heart would pop out of my chest was much more effective. I still have some way to go, and can't work out if there is anything I might be better suited for, possibly longer TTs? I'm sure however that being able to take in more oxygen has contributed far more to the gains I've made than the fact my leg strength has always been one of my stengths.

 

[willhub]

I've started lowering my cadence slightly, I get more power out around 97 now if I concentrate, I have to force my ankles down so my feet are more level though.

Yesterday over 140 miles my average cadence was only 81, in fact, the last 40 miles I was struggling to keep above 90, my legs just would not do it, seems like it must take more energy to spin them. It was a shock to the system having to push out between 30 and 60 rpm for quite a way due to hills too. A 33% + 38-25 did not help, and going up a hill called Blakey Bank in 38-23 because I forgot about the 25 was just as bad too.

And pushing up a 33% in 38-25 takes MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more strength than is used just walking up the stairs, and you're going slower too.

 

[oldfatfool]

And pushing up a 33% in 38-25 takes MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more strength than is used just walking up the stairs, and you're going slower too.

Not if you think about it, if you walk up the steps you might climb two steps a second, the equivalent of 1 rpm on the bike and with each step (single pedal stroke) you are lifting your entire body weight vertically.

 

[willhub]

Going up a 33% climb you can be fighting to keep the bike moving, I certainly feel like I'm pushing much harder than going up the stairs, I can walk up stairs easy compared to a 33% climb on a bike.

 

[black'n'yellow]

Yesterday over 140 miles my average cadence was only 81, in fact, the last 40 miles I was struggling to keep above 90, my legs just would not do it, seems like it must take more energy to spin them.

It might have something to do with the fact that you had already ridden 100 miles and they (your legs, that is) might have been getting a bit tired. Which is a fitness issue, not a strength issue. Look up the phrase 'muscle fatigue' when you get a moment...

Going up a 33% climb you can be fighting to keep the bike moving, I certainly feel like I'm pushing much harder than going up the stairs, I can walk up stairs easy compared to a 33% climb on a bike.

Have you read/understood the rest of the thread? It doesn't sound like it. Nobody said that climbing a hill on a bike was as hard as walking upstairs - of course it flippin well isn't. But - and here's the thing you may have missed from the earlier posts - if you can walk upstairs unassisted (ie without the aid of a nurse, or a stair-lift), then you don't need any more leg strength than you already have. How you apply that available strength and convert it into power is called 'fitness'.