# physiology of a sprinter vs. climber



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

What physiology qualities make one rider a better sprinter and another a better climber?

Is this quality a genetic element that can not be overcome with more training (like a marathon runner never being able to do well in a 100m dash)?

It appears that I am not particularly stronger in either, but want to spend some more time strengthening one of the two at this time. I'd like to have an idea if I have the physiological potential for significant improvements in either one or the other, and if so, then I would rather concentrate on that one strength.

Any insights or suggestions welcomed!


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*have you heard the term "fast twitch"?*



Kung Fu Felice said:


> What physiology qualities make one rider a better sprinter and another a better climber?
> 
> Is this quality a genetic element that can not be overcome with more training (like a marathon runner never being able to do well in a 100m dash)?
> 
> ...



it varies with training regimen and person, but some muscles just contract faster than others...those with fast(er) twitch capabilities can, if they understand their bike and body well enough, just turn the pedals faster..

with that said, I have no fast twitch anything anywhere. all the good climbers I know too weigh about 130-140 pounds and have above average power outputs (result of training)...more power, less weight = faster ascent. 

these things take a LOT of training to discover and a lot of training to utilize efficiently, but yes there are some physiological differences between some riders. most of us are all about equal however and finish differences come down to training, what risks we're willing to take, and just how we're feeling that day...  

a good pain threshold also comes into play sometimes..


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

bahueh said:


> it varies with training regimen and person, but some muscles just contract faster than others...those with fast(er) twitch capabilities can, if they understand their bike and body well enough, just turn the pedals faster..


Wrong way around. Slow cadence = fast twitch


----------



## Sub (Feb 13, 2004)

Take a look at your stregnths and weaknesses in other sports. Are you typicaly quicker than others? Do you have a good vertical leap? Those are signs of someone that will be a good sprinter. I came into cycling from other sports like basketball and I was always the quickest guy on the court and I could get off the ground and out jump guys for rebounds that were much taller than I am. That isn't to say I just gave up on being a good climber, I just realize that is my weakness and something I have to stay on top of to make sure I get over the climbs. If I had to choose, personaly I would rather be able to sprint than to climb as an amateur racer. 

Only a few of our races actually finish on a long climb where the climbers can take advantage of it. I'm fast enough climbing that I can stay with all but the top 2-3 guys at an all out pace and have no problem getting over big climbs at an early race tempo. Unfortunatly for the climbers, if they don't win it on the climb they have no chance at the finish and small climbers don't make good time trialists either so they can't exactly drop everyone and ride solo to the finish. 

Figure out what you do well and take advantage of that during races, but you still have to work your weakness.


----------



## gradosu (May 17, 2007)

cycling draws mainly from type 1 and type 2a muscle fibers. While the 'sprinters' in the tour are substantially faster than their climbing counterparts, there is one major factor that should be looked at along with 'physiological differences'. 

lets say a 60 (132 lb) kg rider is riding up a slope of 10 degrees. 

60 kg x 9.8 m/s s x sin 10 = 102 kg m/ s^2

As opposed to a heavier rider 75 kg (165 lb) rider riding the same 10 degree slope.

75 kg x 9.8 m/s s x sin 10 = 127 kg m/ s^2

these forces are the gravitational forces acting on the riders. not including a frictional force that is negligible. These forces the riders must overcome to continue to move forward. It appears that the lighter rider must do ~80% of the work the heavier rider must do to maintain the same speed.

Assuming that both riders are lean, the heavier rider will have more muscle mass, which on a flat surface will allow the rider to apply more power to the drive train, over coming any opposing forces better than that of the lighter weaker rider.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

iliveonnitro said:


> Wrong way around. Slow cadence = fast twitch


You're confusing two different issues. One is the influence of overall muscle composition to power over short time duraitons where having a relatively greater percentage of type II fibers may be a benefit. Two is at a submaximal efforts or even maximal efforts can cadence (which influences the absolute forces required at given power output) influence the relative contribution of Type I & II fibers to power.

During any maximal effort you're presumably recruiting almost all of your fibers.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kung Fu Felice said:


> What physiology qualities make one rider a better sprinter and another a better climber?


There probably are several contributions. From a pure physics standpoint obviously more mass takes more power to move uphill. Conversely it is likely that more mass contributes to a powerful sprint.

There are probably properties of the musculoskeletal system that contribute. The facile answer is differences in muscle fiber types contributes but there are probably other factors as well.

Finally, you can't ignore the contribution of the central nervous system. High powers are generated at high rpms and probably the ability to coordinate the muscles so as to produce force at the right times of the pedal stroke, to maintain a high cadence as severe fatigue is setting in, etc.


----------



## tubafreak (Apr 24, 2006)

gradosu said:


> cycling draws mainly from type 1 and type 2a muscle fibers. While the 'sprinters' in the tour are substantially faster than their climbing counterparts, there is one major factor that should be looked at along with 'physiological differences'.
> 
> lets say a 60 (132 lb) kg rider is riding up a slope of 10 degrees.
> 
> ...


This is all true, but another point that was overlooked is time of effort. Yes, the sprinters can put out more power for a few hundred meters and get spit out of a draft at ridiculously high speeds, but if you look at the sustained power outputs (tempo or LT) of the two riders, you'll find them to be quite similar. Because of this, the 132 lb rider will end up using that ~20% power advantage to power themselves up the hill.

Personally, my physiology makes me a climber (6', 135 lb), and I gotta say, Columbus is the wrong place for me to ride. I always like it when I show up to crits that end in a hill though, nice little edge I usually get there.


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

*Curious*

as to what you guys might say about the differences between say a climber, sprinter and a time trialist, for the latter seems to my strongest attribute cycling, with sprinting coming in second and climbing third.....Any thoughts?


----------



## gradosu (May 17, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> You're confusing two different issues. One is the influence of overall muscle composition to power over short time duraitons where having a relatively greater percentage of type II fibers may be a benefit. Two is at a submaximal efforts or even maximal efforts can cadence (which influences the absolute forces required at given power output) influence the relative contribution of Type I & II fibers to power.
> 
> During any maximal effort you're presumably recruiting almost all of your fibers.


The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Chris Carmichael writes "for cyclists who are carrying around more than 10 extra pounds, losing weight and gaining power are equally achievable through good nutrition and focused training"

From the physiological standpoint for cycling or any other aerobic sport with intermittent bursts of anaerobic periods. Developing more densely packed mitochondria in the type 1 and type 2a fibers will improve climbing, sprinting, spinning, running, walking, basket weaving, you name it, performance. 

Performance can also be directly controlled by neurological adaptations to the demand on skeletal muscle. Training the nervous system to innervate more motor units at any given time does not rely on how fit the rider is but how 'neurologically training' the rider is. I know the best way to train this aspect in most ball sports and track and field, however cycling is new to me and I wish I knew more about this sport.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"The two ideas are not mutually exclusive."

I think you misunderstand. I'm simply pointing out there are two different issues that the poster seems to be confusing (i.e. the contribution of Type II fibers to a good sprint, and the influence of cadence (force) on the relative contribution of type I & II fibers to the power produced). 

"Performance can also be directly controlled by neurological adaptations to the demand on skeletal muscle. Training the nervous system to innervate more motor units at any given time does not rely on how fit the rider is but how 'neurologically training' the rider is. I know the best way to train this aspect in most ball sports and track and field, however cycling is new to me and I wish I knew more about this sport."

I think your understanding is a bit off. Motor units are always innervated (I think you mena recruit?), what likely changes is the CNS ability to activate/deactivate the motor units of the various muscles in a coordinated way so that performance is optimized. Regardless, probably the best way to improve the skill aspect of sprinting is to.......practice sprinting.

That being said the maxim you often hear is that "sprinters are born, endurance athletes are created". It seems likely that there are inherent properties of the musculoskeletal or nervous system that contribute significantly to whether or not someone can produce high power for several seconds, or alternatively we posess a greater ability to adapt to improve our endurance to improve our sprint.

In cycling, you also have to consider that there are skills beyond the physical that can contribute to a good sprint. What might be called "pack skills" also matter to some extent.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

physasst said:


> as to what you guys might say about the differences between say a climber, sprinter and a time trialist, for the latter seems to my strongest attribute cycling, with sprinting coming in second and climbing third.....Any thoughts?


If you can TT well but not climb so well you likely either have a very good aero position which allows you to get alot of speed for the power you make or you need to lose weight because it is slowing you down on the hills (i.e. lowering your power/weight ratio), or some combination of the two.

As for sprinting, I would say it's largely unrelated to the others except perhaps that more muscle might contribute to a good sprint but slow you on the hills.


----------



## gradosu (May 17, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> "The two ideas are not mutually exclusive."
> 
> I think you misunderstand. I'm simply pointing out there are two different issues that the poster seems to be confusing (i.e. the contribution of Type II fibers to a good sprint, and the influence of cadence (force) on the relative contribution of type I & II fibers to the power produced).
> 
> ...


"Motor units are always innervated (I think you mena recruit?)," I'm sorry, I did mean recruit. 

I do understand the idea behind the cadence model. I'm sorry I left that out of my previous post. 

When talking about the ratio of type 1 to type 2 muscle fibers it should be stated that this ratio is somewhat controlled by genetics. Elite 100 m sprinters are born to sprint because of the uncommonly high amount of type 2 fibers to type 1 fibers. The inverse is logical with marathoners, distance cyclists and so on. The ability of a good mid-range athlete is the ability to convert pyruvate into acetyl CoA instead of lactic acid. 

"Regardless, probably the best way to improve the skill aspect of sprinting is to.......practice sprinting." without a doubt this is the correct answer on how to improve sprinting. Practice what you want to improve. 

Anything short of taking a muscle plug won't really bring to light the ratio of fast and slow muscle fibers. Being unable to accurately determine what someone was born to do, training importance (in my opinion) should go in this order (descending from most to least critical) 1. Overall fitness-mitochondrial density, high hematocrit, etc. 2. Neurological effeciency-being capable of recruiting more motor units during periods of high work. And 3. Event specific body mass, leg strength- finding the perfect balance between a lean body and the optimal amount of muscle.

What Dwayne said about improving a certain skill should be the underlining reason for a specific training. If you want to be a better climber, hit the hills. Sprinter sprint. It is a shame there isn't more hard science behind cycling training. I'll go to the college library when I have some time and see if I an pull up some literature on the topic.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*what? huh?*



iliveonnitro said:


> Wrong way around. Slow cadence = fast twitch


http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/exercisephysiology/a/aa080901a.htm

me don't think so...but others here are right, the two types are not mutually exclusive...excuse my oversimplification..


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

gradosu said:


> "Anything short of taking a muscle plug won't really bring to light the ratio of fast and slow muscle fibers. Being unable to accurately determine what someone was born to do, training importance (in my opinion) should go in this order (descending from most to least critical) 1. Overall fitness-mitochondrial density, high hematocrit, etc. 2. Neurological effeciency-being capable of recruiting more motor units during periods of high work. And 3. Event specific body mass, leg strength- finding the perfect balance between a lean body and the optimal amount of muscle."


Now that power meters are readily available really there is little reason to delve into the underlying physiology from the athlete's perspective. You can measure if you're a "sprinter" or "time-trialler", etc by measuring your power output over various time periods, and you can see how training or losing weight, adding muscle (that might be a little hard to determine) or bike position, etc. affects those numbers. 

However, as far as I'm aware training "science" is still almost entirely anecdotal and what is known are general principles (e.g. periodization, tapering, intervals). The only new information that I've scene in the literature over the last couple of years is that performing relatively short high-intensity intervals (~30 seconds) that are generally considered "anareobic" actually provide a fair amount of stimulus for aerobic adaptations. And I believe even this is more of a reminder of old research. 

Something like the wattage forum or coaches with a lot of athletes using power meters is probably the best place to get ideas on the efficacy of various training strategies.


----------



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

Thanks all. Based on your discussions, I have deduced that the lighter the rider, the less likely he is a "power" sprinter and more likely a climber because the increased muscle mass that contributes to sprinting is not an obstacle on the flats but is suddenly one on the hills, whereas the lightweight (like me, 125 lbs.) simply does not have the muscle mass to generate the power that a 180lb. sprinter can generate on the flats without receiving any benefit for being lighter.

A very educational discussion!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kung Fu Felice said:


> Thanks all. Based on your discussions, I have deduced that the lighter the rider, the less likely he is a "power" sprinter and more likely a climber because the increased muscle mass that contributes to sprinting is not an obstacle on the flats but is suddenly one on the hills, whereas the lightweight (like me, 125 lbs.) simply does not have the muscle mass to generate the power that a 180lb. sprinter can generate on the flats without receiving any benefit for being lighter.
> 
> A very educational discussion!



That pretty much sums it up. Just remember they are generalities. A 125 lb "sprinter" might be able to smoke a 180 lb guy with no sprint ability because sprint ability is influenced by more than just muscle mass. Or a 180 lb guy with a big aerobic engine that allows for a big power output might smoke a 125lb guy on any climb because the 125lb guy simply lacks the ability to make a lot of power, even relative to his weight.


----------



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Or a 180 lb guy with a big aerobic engine that allows for a big power output might smoke a 125lb guy on any climb because the 125lb guy simply lacks the ability to make a lot of power, even relative to his weight.


Sadly, this 125 lb guy that can't produce power up a hill, most likely is going to be similarly smoked on the flats by everybody else! Hoping I'm not that guy! :thumbsup:


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

OP: If you are just starting, don't worry about what you are or aren't. Train hard, things will develop and sometimes in different way than which you think. There are light sprinters (Valverde) and heavy climbers (Indurain). 

You will also note that your strengths and weaknesses differ as you begin to race more and in higher categories. What got you out of 3/4/5 usually doesn't help you survive in 1/2.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*reality?*

All theory aside, what's the reality? If you are getting dropped on hills, and can't therefore be up close to the front at the finish, it's pretty clear what you need to work on. Not much sense training your sprint to sprint for 50th place. On the other hand, if you can at least survive the hills with the lead group and have a shot at the finish, then by all means work on the sprint, along with tactics and skills. That's what I do.


----------

