# big ring hill climbing



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ok, that was a very informational thread we had on off-season weight training. Next debate/question. Big ring hill climbing.... how will it help you? How won't it help you? When (what part of the season) should you do it and how often?

My understanding thus far is that, just like weight training, this really won't help build strength in the major cycling specifics muscles. However, it will strengthen all the stabilizer muscles around them as well as help stengthen your core (abs, back) big time, especially when out of the saddle. 

Of course, most pros used to ride fixies all winter in the off-season which helped them perfect their spin as well as use a little more resistance in their training. As they were doing both on the same training ride, this seems to go against some of the ideas of periodization. True or false? In other words, is it best to separate these two training methods or is just riding a fixie going to give you what you need?


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*Maybe!*

I do big ring stuff, I ride a fixie, I think they both have made me a slightly stronger climber, where on my geared bike I can climb everywhere, comfortably, with 1 cog smaller than last year, as my 'bail-out' gear.

Most of the people I know who race and use fix gear for training, for the most part keep to the flats in the off season. Their reasoning is the off-season, at least most of it, is all about developing pedal speed, and mashing up-hill on your fixed ain't gonna help you there! 

Also, I'm sure it helps your standing climbing, but I would think it would be better to sit and strengthen the hips/glutes, etc.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Ok, that was a very informational thread we had on off-season weight training. Next debate/question. Big ring hill climbing.... how will it help you? How won't it help you? When (what part of the season) should you do it and how often?
> 
> My understanding thus far is that, just like weight training, this really won't help build strength in the major cycling specifics muscles. However, it will strengthen all the stabilizer muscles around them as well as help stengthen your core (abs, back) big time, especially when out of the saddle.
> 
> Of course, most pros used to ride fixies all winter in the off-season which helped them perfect their spin as well as use a little more resistance in their training. As they were doing both on the same training ride, this seems to go against some of the ideas of periodization. True or false? In other words, is it best to separate these two training methods or is just riding a fixie going to give you what you need?


cycling is unlikely to increase strength, unless you're very weak (e.g., frail old lady). the forces involved are low to moderate and easily met by most. riding on your big ring uphill won't do anything positive for you, and may lead to a faster rate of glycogen depletion.

however, when riding on your big ring, you may be forced to ride at a slightly higher velocity (to feel more comfortable) and this will mean that you're riding at a higher power output (under given conditions) and thus, getting a training effect that way.

if you want to get better at riding uphills, then practice riding up hills at the power required to meet your goal(s). use your normal cadence.

ric


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> cycling is unlikely to increase strength, unless you're very weak (e.g., frail old lady). the forces involved are low to moderate and easily met by most. riding on your big ring uphill won't do anything positive for you, and may lead to a faster rate of glycogen depletion.
> 
> however, when riding on your big ring, you may be forced to ride at a slightly higher velocity (to feel more comfortable) and this will mean that you're riding at a higher power output (under given conditions) and thus, getting a training effect that way.
> 
> ...


Well, that's one take. It's certainly not the only one you'll find though.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Well, that's one take. It's certainly not the only one you'll find though.


to which part are you referring, or all of my post?

ric


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> to which part are you referring, or all of my post?
> 
> ric


I'm not saying that anything you've said is invalid. My mind is pretty open on this one. However, I've already heard from several other coaches who recommend this type of training that there is a benefit. You're specifically saying that it will do "nothing" to help your cycling. I'd say that this stance is probably not the norm. At the VERY least, you are improving your ability to get out of the saddle and power over the crest of a hill. Spinning isn't going to keep you connected to they guy who just attacked you, nor is it going to allow you to attack. This is all anaerobic stuff of course, but there isn't any doubt that out of the saddle, big ring climbing stengthens your abs and back.


----------



## aaroncvc (Sep 26, 2003)

My coach last year suggested them to me as muscular endurance intervals. In other words, by climbing in a more difficult gear, and with a lower cadence than normal I was increasing the time-to-fatigue. There's so many muscles recruited when you're climbing, either seated or standing... The slow cadence can significantly increase how long each muscle is contracting, especially if like me, you like to climb in relatively easy gears.

They were never high speed climbs, my heart-rate was always pretty controlled. I think the prescribed intensity was sub-LT with a cadence of 40-50. It was certainly a weird feeling... Whether or not that specific work out helped, I don't know. There's alot that goes into pre-season preparation, everything from high cadence drills, to cruising at LT, to uphill sprints. 

Ric said something cool about specificity; If you want to get stronger when climbing, do it at the intensity/power that you'll be racing at. I don't think it is at all possible to do that unless you're turning your normal cadence! I certainly can't go balls-out, attacking a climb with a cadence of 50, nor can I do it at a cadence of 130. That being said, big-gear climbs puts an increase on the workload of the muscles I use when climbing, without having to push my heart-rate into the upper 180's (something I am not that interested in doing in November). 



The Human G-Nome said:


> Ok, that was a very informational thread we had on off-season weight training. Next debate/question. Big ring hill climbing.... how will it help you? How won't it help you? When (what part of the season) should you do it and how often?
> 
> My understanding thus far is that, just like weight training, this really won't help build strength in the major cycling specifics muscles. However, it will strengthen all the stabilizer muscles around them as well as help stengthen your core (abs, back) big time, especially when out of the saddle.
> 
> Of course, most pros used to ride fixies all winter in the off-season which helped them perfect their spin as well as use a little more resistance in their training. As they were doing both on the same training ride, this seems to go against some of the ideas of periodization. True or false? In other words, is it best to separate these two training methods or is just riding a fixie going to give you what you need?


----------



## aaroncvc (Sep 26, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Spinning isn't going to keep you connected to they guy who just attacked you, nor is it going to allow you to attack. This is all anaerobic stuff of course, but there isn't any doubt that out of the saddle, big ring climbing stengthens your abs and back.


Whoa there, hold on. Higher cadences favor quick-accelerations. This becomes more evident when you're cresting a 5k climb and you've been above threshold for most of it. If you need evidence to support this, slow down to a crawl, and try accelerating to 15mph from a 53x12. Now try it from a 39x15. 

Which gets you to speed faster? More importantly, which was "harder"?


----------



## cityeast (Sep 16, 2004)

*Good for the back...in moderation*

I prolapsed a disc in my back in the middle of June. I was told by the doctor to stay away from cycling especially hill climbing.

Sorry doc, but life is too short...

I found my local hard climb to really help in the recovering this injury. the average 12 percent (max 18%) forced me to use a low cadence and riding position that gave my back the workout it needed (easiest gear I have is 39/23) .Unfortunately I aggravated it once coming downhill, trying to lean to far forward in an attempt to reach 80kmh.  

Heart rate tends to get a little out of hand pushing the lower cadence, and there's not a lot of energy left at the top.









(Cursor here at 18% gradient point)


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

aaroncvc said:


> Whoa there, hold on. Higher cadences favor quick-accelerations. This becomes more evident when you're cresting a 5k climb and you've been above threshold for most of it. If you need evidence to support this, slow down to a crawl, and try accelerating to 15mph from a 53x12. Now try it from a 39x15.
> 
> Which gets you to speed faster? More importantly, which was "harder"?


Come on now.... we're talking apples and oranges here. Spin up an 8% grade to the crest and then get out of the saddle and attack the last 150 meters in your 39x23. Then watch the guy who shifted in to his big ring or, rather, threw it in the 39x16 fly by you. You can't sprint in a 39x23, even up hill unless you're talking about climbing up Fillmore. 

You're just misinterpreting what i'm saying. Besides, i'm only talking about training in the big ring on climbs, not racing in it.


----------



## Merlin (May 6, 2002)

*Big Ring Fan Here*

I don't know [email protected] about about all the scientific explanations of building power etc, what i do is what a coach I used taught me and how it worked for me in real life. Last winter and spring I worked with an MD who used to be a team Doc for Motorola and he had an ex TDF pro rider doing the "coaching". They were big advocates of on the bike strength training for me. I'm 6" 150 pounds , 44 years old. This involved doing my usual loops, but over gearing and standing up on all of the hills. I live in the foothils and a typical 2-3 hour ride has 3,000-5,000 feet of climbing. I learned to stand up on all the hills, some of them lasting more then 25 minutes to climb....IT HURTS, especially in the lower back and glutes. This exercise was also mixed in with seating overgeared climbs, usually at the end of the ride so my leggs are nice and fried! 
BOTTOM LINE>>IT WORKED!!!!!!!! 
I use a power meter and my AVG Power is up by 20 watts, more important all my ride times for my "loops" have never been faster.
I also use a Singlespeed MTB and love it.
If try this remember focus on pushing down through the pedal and use the upper body as little as possible, just rest on the hoods for balance.
Hope this helps


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

The Human G-Nome said:


> I'm not saying that anything you've said is invalid. My mind is pretty open on this one. However, I've already heard from several other coaches who recommend this type of training that there is a benefit. You're specifically saying that it will do "nothing" to help your cycling. I'd say that this stance is probably not the norm. At the VERY least, you are improving your ability to get out of the saddle and power over the crest of a hill. Spinning isn't going to keep you connected to they guy who just attacked you, nor is it going to allow you to attack. This is all anaerobic stuff of course, but there isn't any doubt that out of the saddle, big ring climbing stengthens your abs and back.


apologies, i should have added to my original post, that there's no benefit off riding in a bigger gear than riding in a smaller gear at the same power (i.e., there may be a benefit to riding up hill - depending on your goals it just doesn't about the gear if you do the *same* workout). I'd guess it's not the norm as well.

the ability, get out of the saddle and power over a hill is related to the power you can produce, not your cadence, which is a dependent variable.

The effort (big gear, low cadence) may or may not be anaerobic, it will really depend on the effort being put in, and whether or not it exceeds VO2max/peak, not whether it's a high or low cadence.

ric


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> the ability, get out of the saddle and power over a hill is related to the power you can produce, not your cadence, which is a dependent variable.
> 
> 
> 
> ric


That's all well and good except that it's untrue. If you never practice getting out of the saddle and pushing a bigger gear over the crest of a hill, then it doesn't matter how much power you can produce while sitting and spinnning because your body isn't going to have adapted and you're not going to be able to follow the attack. You can't just spin up a climb at 100 rpms, watch a guy get out of the saddle and attack and then start spinning at 170 rpms in order to cover the move. You're going to have to increase the resistance, get out of the saddle and cover the move. If you don't practice doing this, you won't be able to do it in a race.


----------



## aaroncvc (Sep 26, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Come on now.... we're talking apples and oranges here. Spin up an 8% grade to the crest and then get out of the saddle and attack the last 150 meters in your 39x23. Then watch the guy who shifted in to his big ring or, rather, threw it in the 39x16 fly by you. You can't sprint in a 39x23, even up hill unless you're talking about climbing up Fillmore.
> 
> You're just misinterpreting what i'm saying. Besides, i'm only talking about training in the big ring on climbs, not racing in it.


It's not apples and oranges, at all. It doesn't matter if you're climbing a 10k mountain pass or riding the flats. You accelerate faster in an easier gear, and your speed is then limited by your leg speed. In a harder gear there is a higher achievable top speed but it takes more force increase your cadence.

For the record, it's doubtful that I would attacking up an 8% grade in a 39x23. I'd top out my cadence after I got a 5 meter gap. I also wouldn't attack it in a 53x12, because my acceleration would be slow to the point of my attack being telegraphed. So if I am climbing at 90rpm, and I want to jump away I'm probably not going to shift at all, just jump and go. When I get to a cadence of 110 or 115, I'll shift to a harder gear where I can maintain the higher speed without getting in a ridiculously high cadence. That's common sense, though, right? 

As you move up and race with faster and fitter guys, the attacks become much more explosive and your ability to immediately respond to them is extremely important. Leg speed is really, truly important.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

The Human G-Nome said:


> That's all well and good except that it's untrue. If you never practice getting out of the saddle and pushing a bigger gear over the crest of a hill, then it doesn't matter how much power you can produce while sitting and spinnning because your body isn't going to have adapted and you're not going to be able to follow the attack. You can't just spin up a climb at 100 rpms, watch a guy get out of the saddle and attack and then start spinning at 170 rpms in order to cover the move. You're going to have to increase the resistance, get out of the saddle and cover the move. If you don't practice doing this, you won't be able to do it in a race.



i think you misinterpreted what i'm saying. specifically, i'm saying that if the power is the *same* the gearing is immaterial (other than a low cadence may well be more limiting in that it may cause glycogen depletion at a faster rate). i didn't mention that you can't change gear!

additionally, i've also not suggested riding up a hill at 100 revs/min.

furthermore, it would seem that LA attacks at high cadence, not that i'm suggesting that you should do this (just making an observation).


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Ok, that was a very informational thread we had on off-season weight training. Next debate/question. Big ring hill climbing.... how will it help you? How won't it help you? When (what part of the season) should you do it and how often?
> 
> My understanding thus far is that, just like weight training, this really won't help build strength in the major cycling specifics muscles. However, it will strengthen all the stabilizer muscles around them as well as help stengthen your core (abs, back) big time, especially when out of the saddle.
> 
> Of course, most pros used to ride fixies all winter in the off-season which helped them perfect their spin as well as use a little more resistance in their training. As they were doing both on the same training ride, this seems to go against some of the ideas of periodization. True or false? In other words, is it best to separate these two training methods or is just riding a fixie going to give you what you need?


Wow! There have been some WAY OT takes on this...

Big Ring, slow cadence, mod. HR hill intervals are basically lifting weights on the bike. Better than lifting weights, these are BIKE SPECIFIC. Yer not wasting time doing something that's not going to help you win races. So, in that sense, riding big gears uphill is a good way to build strength.

That said, if you're starting to train right around Christmas, I'm guessing late Jan is when the big ring efforts should start. If racing starts in April, they shouldn't go on thru much later than mid Feb. After that, you need a different kind of power. 

Again, go read Joel Friel's book if you want someone more expert on this's advice.

M


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

aaroncvc said:


> It's not apples and oranges, at all. It doesn't matter if you're climbing a 10k mountain pass or riding the flats. You accelerate faster in an easier gear, and your speed is then limited by your leg speed. In a harder gear there is a higher achievable top speed but it takes more force increase your cadence.
> 
> For the record, it's doubtful that I would attacking up an 8% grade in a 39x23. I'd top out my cadence after I got a 5 meter gap. I also wouldn't attack it in a 53x12, because my acceleration would be slow to the point of my attack being telegraphed. So if I am climbing at 90rpm, and I want to jump away I'm probably not going to shift at all, just jump and go. When I get to a cadence of 110 or 115, I'll shift to a harder gear where I can maintain the higher speed without getting in a ridiculously high cadence. That's common sense, though, right?
> 
> As you move up and race with faster and fitter guys, the attacks become much more explosive and your ability to immediately respond to them is extremely important. Leg speed is really, truly important.


Yes, it's not only common sense, but i'd like you to tell me where I say that leg speed doesn't have a greater affect on speed. I think you're assuming a lot of things. Of course, you're not going to attack an 8% climb in a 53x12. You're not even going to attack in the flats in that gear because you wouldn't go anywhere.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

MShaw said:


> Wow! There have been some WAY OT takes on this...
> 
> Big Ring, slow cadence, mod. HR hill intervals are basically lifting weights on the bike. Better than lifting weights, these are BIKE SPECIFIC. Yer not wasting time doing something that's not going to help you win races. So, in that sense, riding big gears uphill is a good way to build strength.
> 
> ...


I've read two volumes of the Friel book as well as many others by other authors. My racing starts in January if I bother to do the earlybirds this season in NorCal. The orginal post just brought up a lot of questions that people have A LOT of different opinions about and, seemingly, everyone is sure as the night is dark are right on the money. It's been interesting so far. I still say i'm just not being clear enough with Aaron though. I think we bascially see eye to eye on points he seems to be contesting.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

MShaw said:


> So, in that sense, riding big gears uphill is a good way to build strength.


Riding big gears (or little gears, or any combination thereof) does not increase strength (unless, you're either very weak such as a frail old lady, or you just do standing start 50-m all-out sprint efforts and even then it may not).

even riding at a low cadence uphill, the forces are still only moderate and are much less than required to increase your strength (even though it feels like you're strength limited).

ric


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> Riding big gears (or little gears, or any combination thereof) does not increase strength (unless, you're either very weak such as a frail old lady, or you just do standing start 50-m all-out sprint efforts and even then it may not).
> 
> even riding at a low cadence uphill, the forces are still only moderate and are much less than required to increase your strength (even though it feels like you're strength limited).
> 
> ric


Actually, this quote my MShaw is not untrue if taken at face value. He did not say which muscles would be strengthened. Riding a big gear out of the saddle will have an affect on your abs, your arms, and your back. Unless, of course, you're already a tri guy, a swimmer, and are otherwise already very devoloped in these areas. Most cyclists, however, site this as one of their bigger weaknesses - core strength. This is a way to work on that.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> i think you misinterpreted what i'm saying. specifically, i'm saying that if the power is the *same* the gearing is immaterial .


Yes, except that the gear that you're in is certainly not immaterial to the power you can produce. ; )


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Actually, this quote my MShaw is not untrue if taken at face value. He did not say which muscles would be strengthened. Riding a big gear out of the saddle will have an affect on your abs, your arms, and your back. Unless, of course, you're already a tri guy, a swimmer, and are otherwise already very devoloped in these areas. Most cyclists, however, site this as one of their bigger weaknesses - core strength. This is a way to work on that.


Strength is well defined as the maximal force or tension a muscle or group of muscles can generate, and unfortunately, which ever way you look at it, cycling will not increase your strength (with the exceptions previously mentioned and a couple of others e.g., if you've got a functional disability).

i'm not saying it won't have an effect on some muscles and/or feel harder, it just doesn't increase strength (with the exceptions mentioned).

the forces involved in endurance cycling performance (e.g., events > ~90-secs) are low to moderate and mainly aerobic in nature (along with anaerobic etc), such that elite male cyclists are on average no stronger (and sometimes weaker) than age, gender and mass matched, sedentary and healthy controls.

ric


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> which ever way you look at it, cycling will not increase your strength
> 
> ric



Alrighty then.


----------



## Kaparzo (Mar 9, 2004)

MShaw said:


> Wow! There have been some WAY OT takes on this...
> 
> Big Ring, slow cadence, mod. HR hill intervals are basically lifting weights on the bike. Better than lifting weights, these are BIKE SPECIFIC. Yer not wasting time doing something that's not going to help you win races. So, in that sense, riding big gears uphill is a good way to build strength.
> 
> ...


 I was talking to my coach about this. I'm not going to say you're wrong, because there are so many philosphies and all that junk out there, but he explained it to me like this. Basically, you CAN do specific bike training in the weight room, and gain more strength than if you were to do it on the bike. Think about, during a 2min force rep, which i mean to insinuate a high gear, mashing kind of ordeal, you're going to be shooting for about 60rpms, maybe less depending on your knees. Now, translating that to the weight room, how much weight would you be doing if you were going to be doing 60 rep squat sets? The bar, if anything. By doing squats with alot of weight, and even on the high end of the rep scale (say 10-12) you will be able to attain more strength. And it can still be specific, although it won't help you win races persay, during the winter months its okay to do stuff that's not totally specific. Im not trying to discredit you, and I definetly think there are ways to develop strength on the bike, like big gear climbs, low rpms and force reps, stuff like that, but I thought the insight my coach had was pretty interesting.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Kaparzo said:


> I was talking to my coach about this. I'm not going to say you're wrong, because there are so many philosphies and all that junk out there, but he explained it to me like this. Basically, you CAN do specific bike training in the weight room, and gain more strength than if you were to do it on the bike. Think about, during a 2min force rep, which i mean to insinuate a high gear, mashing kind of ordeal, you're going to be shooting for about 60rpms, maybe less depending on your knees. Now, translating that to the weight room, how much weight would you be doing if you were going to be doing 60 rep squat sets? The bar, if anything. By doing squats with alot of weight, and even on the high end of the rep scale (say 10-12) you will be able to attain more strength. And it can still be specific, although it won't help you win races persay, during the winter months its okay to do stuff that's not totally specific. Im not trying to discredit you, and I definetly think there are ways to develop strength on the bike, like big gear climbs, low rpms and force reps, stuff like that, but I thought the insight my coach had was pretty interesting.


Ya see, this is why I like bringing up this topic. We've been presented with so many different points of view that we're almost to the point where every person disagrees with every other person. A rare treat indeed.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

Kaparzo said:


> I was talking to my coach about this. I'm not going to say you're wrong, because there are so many philosphies and all that junk out there, but he explained it to me like this. Basically, you CAN do specific bike training in the weight room, and gain more strength than if you were to do it on the bike. Think about, during a 2min force rep, which i mean to insinuate a high gear, mashing kind of ordeal, you're going to be shooting for about 60rpms, maybe less depending on your knees. Now, translating that to the weight room, how much weight would you be doing if you were going to be doing 60 rep squat sets? The bar, if anything. By doing squats with alot of weight, and even on the high end of the rep scale (say 10-12) you will be able to attain more strength. And it can still be specific, although it won't help you win races persay, during the winter months its okay to do stuff that's not totally specific. Im not trying to discredit you, and I definetly think there are ways to develop strength on the bike, like big gear climbs, low rpms and force reps, stuff like that, but I thought the insight my coach had was pretty interesting.


Your coach is both incorrect and correct:

Assuming that you're not (e.g.) a 200-m track sprinter or kilo rider etc. you cannot do specific weight exercises for the bike. on the other hand, your coach is spot on -- if you want to get stronger then go lift some heavy weights -- it will make you strong.

the reason the weights can't be specific for cycling is that strength is gained in three ways
1) increase in muscle cross sectional area
2) neuromuscular increases (no weight/size gain)
3) a combo of 1 and 2

with 1) you increase the amount of contractile proteins, but you dilute your mitochondrial and capillary density which will have a negative effect on convective O2 delivery (the major limiting factor in endurance cycling performance). The increase strength you'll have will have a small positive effect on your peak (sprint) power, but you'll be much heavier and thus at a disadvantage especially when you cycle uphill (if the hill is more than 5 or 10 secs long the peak power won't be of benefit).

2) with neuromuscular increases the adaptations that occur, *only* occur at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained and thus don't transfer to any other modality.

so, if you want weights to help your cycling, make sure you get very big (think track sprinters) but be aware of the disadvantages (which are immaterial for track sprinters).

additionally, as previously mentioned cycling isn't limited by maximal forces (strength) as elite cyclists are, on average no stronger than sedentary matched controls. on average there's no difference in peak [sprint] power that can be generated between e.g., TdF riders and matched lower category riders. the difference is of a cardiovascular and metabolic nature. in fact most cyclists (and a whole host of sedentary matched controls -- with some exceptions) can generate the same power and forces as e.g., LA, JU, etc. the difference that separates the elite with e.g., everyone else is the duration that they can sustain those aerobic powers for. we can estimate that (e.g.) LA would have needed to generate about 450 W to win on L'Alpe d'Huez. i too can generate this power (and my mass is less) but whereas i can only stick that effort for several minutes before exploding, LA and the like can sustain it for 40-mins. the general public may be able to do this for 30-secs. it's not a strength issue but a cardiovascular one.

ric


----------



## Kaparzo (Mar 9, 2004)

interesting...anyway, i don't think he was being too specific, i think he was just throwing something out there. I doubt I'll be lifting too much anyway, i'd rather be outside


----------



## carver (Aug 15, 2002)

*Interesting Takes*

on this topic. The last couple weeks my coach and I have discussed this in light of developing our program for the winter - which includes outdoor riding when possible, trainer miles, and lots of skiing. For this kid - weight lifting does indeed make me stronger (not cycling specific though) and weight lifting does indeed cause me to gain mass, not much but say 5-6 lbs on a 180lb 7-8% body fat frame. Lifting tends to trigger my appetite. We all know how that goes. At the end of the day, those lbs aren't contributing (most likely) to my speed or power on the bike and I have to lug up the 5000 ft of climbing on my next ride. I think Ric mentioned this part.

Cheers--


----------



## turdburgle (Oct 2, 2004)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> additionally, as previously mentioned cycling isn't limited by maximal forces (strength) as elite cyclists are, on average no stronger than sedentary matched controls. on average there's no difference in peak [sprint] power that can be generated between e.g., TdF riders and matched lower category riders. the difference is of a cardiovascular and metabolic nature. in fact most cyclists (and a whole host of sedentary matched controls -- with some exceptions) can generate the same power and forces as e.g., LA, JU, etc. the difference that separates the elite with e.g., everyone else is the duration that they can sustain those aerobic powers for. we can estimate that (e.g.) LA would have needed to generate about 450 W to win on L'Alpe d'Huez. i too can generate this power (and my mass is less) but whereas i can only stick that effort for several minutes before exploding, LA and the like can sustain it for 40-mins. the general public may be able to do this for 30-secs. it's not a strength issue but a cardiovascular one.
> 
> ric


This completely makes sense. And I trust that it's basically true...

So, how does an amateur like me train to sustain a higher power for higher period of time? Certainly endurance is a major limiter of mine... So I do long rides to build cardio fitness? Then I gather that I need to do intervals to train my body to ride at higher intensities... So training for racing can be boiled down to 2 basic work outs? Endurance and intervals? Have I summed up your training philosophy correctly, ric?


One problem that I've encountered is that I've lost my high end sprint speed in the last few years. In 2001 I followed the Friel plan. At that time I was able to sprint 35-40 mph on the flats. I did not ride in 2002 or 2003. I started riding last april and raced this summer and am now racing CX... My high end sprint tops out at below 35 mph now on the same roads... What can I do to regain that sprint? The only thing different now about my training is that I don't do weights or do any high cadence training anymore.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Yes, except that the gear that you're in is certainly not immaterial to the power you can produce. ; )


a majority of people can generate their peak power at quite high cadence. this power would be significantly greater than the power that occurs during attacking or climbing. for e.g., i can generate my peak power in 39 x 19 (on flat roads) and the same ppwer in a much bigger gear (52 x 15).

track sprinters will often generate very high powers at high cadences (e.g., ~ 110+ revs/min)

ric


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> it's not a strength issue but a cardiovascular one.
> 
> 
> ric



How do we explain the general disparity in cycling prowess between men and women? Are men infinitely more adaptable to cardiovascular conditioning? Of course, there are countless women who can wax the floor with the men, but put similarly categorized racers them head to head and it won't be close. The women will not be able to match the surges from the men.... nor would they be able to match the aerobic capacity of the men in long time trials. The few exceptions I can think of are in the climbing department where a woman like Genieveve Jeanson can finish 3rd overall (men and women) do to her extraordinary ability and her superstar power to weight ratio. The men have the genetically superior ability to develop the appropriate lean muscle tissue.

In that case, does the statement "it's not a strength issue but a cardiovascular one" still stand or is this more of a conditional argument?


----------



## RockyMountainRacer (Mar 12, 2002)

My coach incorporates some intervals of big-gear turning into my training during the fall (i.e. now) though they are not performed on hills per se--mostly on flights or moderate inclines. Ya just put in a big ol' gear that you can turn at 50-60 RPM and feel the tension in your legs; shouldn't put much of a load on the cardio system.

So, this big-gear turning may or may not be actually increasing my leg strength, but I will always maintain that it has some benefit. One thing that turning a big gear does for me is smooth out my pedal stroke--turning that big gear all the way around in circles while feeling the high muscle tension does make my pedal stroke more efficient. Well it feels like it does anyway; I'm not a lab monkey so I can't prove that.

Another thing I think it does is simply get you used to turning over a big gear which you obviously have to do in races plenty so you can move quickly on that there bicycle your ridin' and not get dropped. Or even drop some peoples yourself if yer feelin' "frisky." Big gear turned quickly make bike rider go fast. So anyway, if your turning over the big gear at a low cadence in the Fall, you don't have to get your heart rate up the anaerobic area which I really don't likes to be doing too much in the fall. Need break from high heart-rate intervals, did many painfull intervals from February to September already, don't want to cause myself too much pain on the bike right now.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

The Human G-Nome said:


> How do we explain the general disparity in cycling prowess between men and women? Are men infinitely more adaptable to cardiovascular conditioning? Of course, there are countless women who can wax the floor with the men, but put similarly categorized racers them head to head and it won't be close. The women will not be able to match the surges from the men.... nor would they be able to match the aerobic capacity of the men in long time trials. The few exceptions I can think of are in the climbing department where a woman like Genieveve Jeanson can finish 3rd overall (men and women) do to her extraordinary ability and her superstar power to weight ratio. The men have the genetically superior ability to develop the appropriate lean muscle tissue.
> 
> In that case, does the statement "it's not a strength issue but a cardiovascular one" still stand or is this more of a conditional argument?


although there are differences in strength between men and women, with on average men being stronger, the difference in endurance performance between men and women is one of a cardiovascular nature and differences in haemoglobin, e.g., their O2 delivery is 'compromised' compared to men.

ric


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

RockyMountainRacer said:


> So, this big-gear turning may or may not be actually increasing my leg strength, but I will always maintain that it has some benefit. One thing that turning a big gear does for me is smooth out my pedal stroke--turning that big gear all the way around in circles while feeling the high muscle tension does make my pedal stroke more efficient. Well it feels like it does anyway; I'm not a lab monkey so I can't prove that.


in studies using instrumented force pedals and iEMG research, cyclists who are more elite push down more and pull up less that those who are less elite(but still good racers), even though the pulling up produces small propulsive forces. in the cyclists that pulled up more the forces on the upstroke are very small compared to the downstroke, because in essence your legs are designed to push down with big muscles.



> Another thing I think it does is simply get you used to turning over a big gear which you obviously have to do in races plenty so you can move quickly on that there bicycle your ridin' and not get dropped.


i don't understand what you mean? surely you're turning the gear over slowly as you're pedalling at 50 to 60 revs/min

ric


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

turdburgle said:


> This completely makes sense. And I trust that it's basically true...
> 
> So, how does an amateur like me train to sustain a higher power for higher period of time? Certainly endurance is a major limiter of mine... So I do long rides to build cardio fitness? Then I gather that I need to do intervals to train my body to ride at higher intensities... So training for racing can be boiled down to 2 basic work outs? Endurance and intervals? Have I summed up your training philosophy correctly, ric?


a good coach will be able to help you.

in brief you need to train to increase your LT and your MAP, this is done with quality endurance work, heavy tempo work, efforts of just below TT power, and hard efforts that tax your VO2max. that's likely to cover workouts from 2.5 hrs to 4-mins.




> One problem that I've encountered is that I've lost my high end sprint speed in the last few years. In 2001 I followed the Friel plan. At that time I was able to sprint 35-40 mph on the flats. I did not ride in 2002 or 2003. I started riding last april and raced this summer and am now racing CX... My high end sprint tops out at below 35 mph now on the same roads... What can I do to regain that sprint? The only thing different now about my training is that I don't do weights or do any high cadence training anymore.


it's impossible to compare velocities from one year to the next or even day to day as changes in environmental and topographical conditions as well as bike changes will alter all the variables. you could only compare the peak power output from session(s) to session(s).

you need to do some form of sprint of training if you want to improve at sprinting. for endurance racers (i.e., crit, RR, XC, etc) this can all be done on the bike

at a basic level just doing 10-sec all-out sprints with ~15-mins recovery between each effort will help you improve at sprinting

ric


----------



## aaroncvc (Sep 26, 2003)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> in studies using instrumented force pedals and iEMG research, cyclists who are more elite push down more and pull up less that those who are less elite(but still good racers), even though the pulling up produces small propulsive forces. in the cyclists that pulled up more the forces on the upstroke are very small compared to the downstroke, because in essence your legs are designed to push down with big muscles.


To clarify, this is "at peak power outputs", correct?
i.e. elite racers, when they're not on the rivet, can pull up in their pedal stroke but when it's crunch time we resort to some naturally occuring pedalling style. and those who push down go faster?


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

aaroncvc said:


> To clarify, this is "at peak power outputs", correct?
> i.e. elite racers, when they're not on the rivet, can pull up in their pedal stroke but when it's crunch time we resort to some naturally occuring pedalling style. and those who push down go faster?


This at all intensities, however in the above post i was referring, specifically, to TT efforts. however, with peak power efforts (sprints) it's usuall that most pedal at high cadences. typically, at high cadences, you need to start activating your muscles to push downwards prior to reaching top dead centre.

the elite racers didn't pull up in these studies or they pulled up less than the less good cyclists.

the exception to the above is with MTBers, due to the fact that this may cause loss of traction on steep, muddy inclines. 

however in either case i don't believe it's necessary to focus on how you pedal (it's not productive) it's more important to concentrate on generating more power over the duration you're training over

ric


----------



## RockyMountainRacer (Mar 12, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> i don't understand what you mean? surely you're turning the gear over slowly as you're pedalling at 50 to 60 revs/min
> ric


Indeed you are turning the gear over slowly when doing this type of training.

I think I understand where you're coming from: you don't think it is an effective form of training since it is not specific to what you'd be doing in a race. I do agree with you that specificity of training is a very important thing for cycling or any sport for that matter.

However, I and many coaches believe that the "off-season" is a good time for cross-training and/or training "out of the box." My personal feeling is that I really like a period of cross-training and/or non race specific cycling training during the off-season. This may not be the ideal thing for my bicycle racing, but it is ideal for my overall health and fitness which is something I tend to care about.


----------



## RockyMountainRacer (Mar 12, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> although there are differences in strength between men and women, with on average men being stronger, the difference in endurance performance between men and women is one of a cardiovascular nature and differences in haemoglobin, e.g., their O2 delivery is 'compromised' compared to men.
> 
> ric


Why? Do women have less hemoglobin than men in their individual red blood cells or do they have lower total hematocrit levels or what?


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

RockyMountainRacer said:


> Indeed you are turning the gear over slowly when doing this type of training.
> 
> I think I understand where you're coming from: you don't think it is an effective form of training since it is not specific to what you'd be doing in a race. I do agree with you that specificity of training is a very important thing for cycling or any sport for that matter.
> 
> However, I and many coaches believe that the "off-season" is a good time for cross-training and/or training "out of the box." My personal feeling is that I really like a period of cross-training and/or non race specific cycling training during the off-season. This may not be the ideal thing for my bicycle racing, but it is ideal for my overall health and fitness which is something I tend to care about.


i'm not being funny, but how does riding at a low cadence improve your overall health and fitness?


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

RockyMountainRacer said:


> Why? Do women have less hemoglobin than men in their individual red blood cells or do they have lower total hematocrit levels or what?



both, the two are linked.


----------



## RockyMountainRacer (Mar 12, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> i'm not being funny, but how does riding at a low cadence improve your overall health and fitness?


No dude, that's the "training out of the box" part. I understand you clearly think it is useless, but again most coaches would disagree with you.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> Riding big gears (or little gears, or any combination thereof) does not increase strength (unless, you're either very weak such as a frail old lady, or you just do standing start 50-m all-out sprint efforts and even then it may not).
> 
> even riding at a low cadence uphill, the forces are still only moderate and are much less than required to increase your strength (even though it feels like you're strength limited).
> 
> ric


Quick question for ya:

Have you ever actually DONE these workouts yer bashing? or are you one of those armchair scientists that tells me what the lab sez is the Truth? 

M


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

MShaw said:


> Quick question for ya:
> 
> Have you ever actually DONE these workouts yer bashing? or are you one of those armchair scientists that tells me what the lab sez is the Truth?
> 
> M


I have to admit that it's possible that i'm dead wrong about any of my assertions and that Ric is straight on the money. Still, if you're really that knowledgeable and you really have that much to offer Joe Shmoe Public out there then would it kill you to actually hire a real designer to remake your website? Seriously, it's hard for me to trust someone with an '80s design sense. ; )


----------



## Dctrofspin (Mar 10, 2004)

*I'm a slow twitch kind of guy*



The Human G-Nome said:


> Ok, that was a very informational thread we had on off-season weight training. Next debate/question. Big ring hill climbing.... how will it help you? How won't it help you? When (what part of the season) should you do it and how often?
> 
> My understanding thus far is that, just like weight training, this really won't help build strength in the major cycling specifics muscles. However, it will strengthen all the stabilizer muscles around them as well as help stengthen your core (abs, back) big time, especially when out of the saddle.
> 
> Of course, most pros used to ride fixies all winter in the off-season which helped them perfect their spin as well as use a little more resistance in their training. As they were doing both on the same training ride, this seems to go against some of the ideas of periodization. True or false? In other words, is it best to separate these two training methods or is just riding a fixie going to give you what you need?


I use a 53/27 or 25 for all my training when climbing and it has really paid off. I can't sprint worth a darn, but when the race hits the hills, I fly. I don't see how it wouldn't build more muscle in the cycling groups...if there is additional resistance due to gearing, and thus you are working and stressing the muscles harder, by definition you would be building strength, given proper recovery. The other thing I do is stay seated at all cost, avoiding getting out of the saddle. When marking power and speed on the computer, I've gotten to the point where I'm just as fast in the saddle.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

MShaw said:


> Quick question for ya:
> 
> Have you ever actually DONE these workouts yer bashing? or are you one of those armchair scientists that tells me what the lab sez is the Truth?
> 
> M


That's actually quite funny (to me), if you knew where i lived you wouldn't ask. my house is on top of 1-km long 16% avg grade climb with two switchbacks on it. another way up to my house is via a cobbled climb that must be > 25% in places.

Frequently, while riding to my house, i have no choice but to ride at low cadence.

ric


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*Why?*

Why not 39 x 19 or 18? Why be so crossed over? Also, just my opinion, but to me, big ring climbing means big ring paired with a sub-20 cog. Otherwise I call it over-geared training. Yeah, pretty dumb/nitpicky, but that's me.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

RockyMountainRacer said:


> No dude, that's the "training out of the box" part. I understand you clearly think it is useless, but again most coaches would disagree with you.


i fully realise that most coaches would disagree with me. i disagreed with me at one point (i.e., previously i used to think that low cadence work would be good).

ric


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*You're brave, Ric!*

MSHAW said: " Have you ever actually DONE these workouts yer bashing? or are you one of those armchair scientists that tells me what the lab sez is the Truth?"

Yeah, how dare you deign to argue with us well-informed, knowledgeable, and experienced lifetime cat. 4's! We are the *source* when it comes to training!


----------



## RockyMountainRacer (Mar 12, 2002)

hrv said:


> MSHAW said: " Have you ever actually DONE these workouts yer bashing? or are you one of those armchair scientists that tells me what the lab sez is the Truth?"
> 
> Yeah, how dare you deign to argue with us well-informed, knowledgeable, and experienced lifetime cat. 4's! We are the *source* when it comes to training!


Ha ha ha ha ha!

YEAH! Don't you know Cat 4's know everything? Sheet, my fellow Cat 4's are giving each other "training advice" all the time during the races. Here are some examples:

"Chase that guy down dammit, can't you see he's getting up the road?!"
"DUDE! You need to ride faster--they're getting away!"
"Would you pedal through the corners Godammit; I really don't want to sprint around you!"
"Dude you need to work on your sprint, don't even bother to go for primes that I'M chasing."
"You call that a pull?! Do some more intervals ya pansy!"


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> although there are differences in strength between men and women, with on average men being stronger, the difference in endurance performance between men and women is one of a cardiovascular nature and differences in haemoglobin, e.g., their O2 delivery is 'compromised' compared to men.
> 
> ric


I happen to work at a hospital so just for the heck of it I decided to ask one of our surgeons what he thought about it. He said that the differences in hemoglobin and 02 delivery between men and women are negligible in regards to cycling and other endurance sports. The difference is strength. He also said that the difference in men's marathon times are reaching a plateau while women appear to be getting stronger and stronger overall. In a road race, the difference will be made during attacks and the covering of attacks, and women are not as adept at following these attacks based on strength, not based on cardio fitness. The initial jump that one can make to create a gap or cover a gap is crucial in determining if a break can be made or whether a break can be followed and there isn't any question that a man is able to create or cover this based on strength and that a woman is less likely to be able to perform to the same standard.


----------



## RockyMountainRacer (Mar 12, 2002)

The Human G-Nome said:


> The initial jump that one can make to create a gap or cover a gap is crucial in determining if a break can be made or whether a break can be followed and there isn't any question that a man is able to create or cover this based on strength and that a woman is less likely to be able to perform to the same standard.


Yah dude--men have a higher peak power output, which means you'll see faster and harder attacks and faster sprints at the end of the race.

Let me guess, the surgeon is a tri-guy? For some reason it seems that many surgeons I have met are tri guys. Must appeal to their bizarre masochistic thirst for working very very hard...


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

RockyMountainRacer said:


> Yah dude--men have a higher peak power output, which means you'll see faster and harder attacks and faster sprints at the end of the race.
> 
> Let me guess, the surgeon is a tri-guy? For some reason it seems that many surgeons I have met are tri guys. Must appeal to their bizarre masochistic thirst for working very very hard...


I'm simply saying that a successful racer is a mix of a superior cardio engine as well as superior strength. It's not either/or. The reason Ric gave for women not being as fast as men is due to an inferior cardio engine (02 delievery, et al.). This information/opinion disputes that theory.


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

The Human G-Nome said:


> I happen to work at a hospital so just for the heck of it I decided to ask one of our surgeons what he thought about it. He said that the differences in hemoglobin and 02 delivery between men and women are negligible in regards to cycling and other endurance sports. The difference is strength. He also said that the difference in men's marathon times are reaching a plateau while women appear to be getting stronger and stronger overall. In a road race, the difference will be made during attacks and the covering of attacks, and women are not as adept at following these attacks based on strength, not based on cardio fitness. The initial jump that one can make to create a gap or cover a gap is crucial in determining if a break can be made or whether a break can be followed and there isn't any question that a man is able to create or cover this based on strength and that a woman is less likely to be able to perform to the same standard.


the difference in haemoglobin and hct between the sexes is significant and is one reason why there are different hct levels for both sexes in relation to the "health" test (as a possible rH-Epo 'detector'). small differences in haemoglobin and hct make a difference to performance, which is why some athletes use rH-Epo to boost performance. In other words by increasing their red cell mass their performance (fitness) automatically increases in endurance exercise without changes in strength (which wouldn't affect VO2max, except maybe in an ill population who are very weak).


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> the difference in haemoglobin and hct between the sexes is significant and is one reason why there are different hct levels for both sexes in relation to the "health" test (as a possible rH-Epo 'detector'). small differences in haemoglobin and hct make a difference to performance, which is why some athletes use rH-Epo to boost performance. In other words by increasing their red cell mass their performance (fitness) automatically increases in endurance exercise without changes in strength (which wouldn't affect VO2max, except maybe in an ill population who are very weak).


So if we doped the best women with EPO and leveled that playing field so that that their physiological attributes were equal then they would perform at the same level?


----------



## turdburgle (Oct 2, 2004)

I find that when I am racing cyclocross or cross-country there are many times when I'm in my easiest gear but grinding away at 50-60 rpm up some damn steep hill. 

So it seems that big gear hill climbing would precisely emulate what I experience in races. Given that this is the case should I do big gear climbing workouts? Or should I just get easier gears? I'm naturally a 100+ cadence spinner. CX bike has 39-25 and XC bike has 34-28 as easiest gears. My road bike has 39-23 as easiest gear.

The only problem I have with big gear hill climbing days is that I'm totally worked after such a work out and it takes a couple days to recover. I'll do up to 5 minute uphill efforts with low cadence and a heart rate at or above estimated lactate threshold (or maximal sustainable heart rate). And my hilly route has a lot of short climbs. I'm not sure that this workout has helped my racing. I'm inclined to believe that it would help in instances that i'm low rpm climbing in races but I have no proof. 

Actually I find this is a weakness of mine. When I can spin up a hill I'm definately one of the top climbers in my category. However, when I have to grind my lowest gear up a hill I get dropped. I'm your basic beanpole climber wussboy with no big muscles. I don't know if this is related but when sprinting at the start in sport class XC my sprint is the best (I always get the hole shot), but in expert XC my start sprint is at best mediocre (usually really bad compared to everyone else).

thoughts?


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

hrv said:


> MSHAW said: " Have you ever actually DONE these workouts yer bashing? or are you one of those armchair scientists that tells me what the lab sez is the Truth?"
> 
> Yeah, how dare you deign to argue with us well-informed, knowledgeable, and experienced lifetime cat. 4's! We are the *source* when it comes to training!


Hey! I resemble that last remark!

I'm a Cat4 with delusions of grandeur... I race As at the track with former olympians and other assorted fast guys and girls. Yes, I get my ass handed to me when the race gets really going, but till it hits 85%+ I can hang.

M


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> That's actually quite funny (to me), if you knew where i lived you wouldn't ask. my house is on top of 1-km long 16% avg grade climb with two switchbacks on it. another way up to my house is via a cobbled climb that must be > 25% in places.
> 
> Frequently, while riding to my house, i have no choice but to ride at low cadence.
> 
> ric


You still didn't answer the question...

I'm NOT talking about what gets you up the hill fastest/most efficient, I'm talking about building strength by doing a mod slope, big gear, low cadence workout. 

BUT, if you're gonna insist on using yer hill as an example, have you or have you not gained strength riding up it? 

M


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

MShaw said:


> You still didn't answer the question...
> 
> I'm NOT talking about what gets you up the hill fastest/most efficient, I'm talking about building strength by doing a mod slope, big gear, low cadence workout.
> 
> ...


apologies, i thought i had, but i guess looking back i obviously didn't. what i was implying was that the hill is so steep in places that sometimes i'm around 45 revs/min (so that while i don't plan to do such low cadence efforts, they sometimes do happen).

However, to answer your specific query i haven't gained strength from such workouts and nor would i really expect to. the forces that are required to ride up the said hill are still quite moderate, and are likely to be less than about 50% of the maximum force i can generate. to give some numbers to this, i can generate in a sprint around 637 N during a standing start sprint. on the hill during a low cadence effort i'm around 375 N. During an all-out sprint you require about 50 to 60 % of the maximum force you can generate (which is higher than the maximum force above in a standing start sprint). Maximum force can only be generated at zero velocity (see Hill's Force - Velocity curve). 

In short, the force being generated isn't sufficient (and even if it was, because these adaptations are specific to the joint angle and velocity being trained, i'd only be stronger at ~ 45 revs/min).

There's some more info here from one of my colleagues http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html and some more (related) info here from my article at Cyclingnews.com http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern


Ric


----------



## werdna (Feb 6, 2004)

Most coaches really shouldn't be coaches. You get coaches who have read one book (Friel's or Carmichael's) and miraculously think they understand everything about training for cyclists. It's really quite depressing when I hear about coaches who charge over $50/month when they know next to nothing about training with power.

On the other hand, Ric Stern actually has experimental and theoretical knowledge of training for cyclists and exercise physiology in general. 

My point is that you really have to question the credibility of the proponent of the argument. Ric Stern has researched such things as the UNimportance of "strength" in cycling, while most "coaches" just pluck their opinions from the sky, Carmichael, or Friel (all 3 might be equivalent).

-Andrew


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

werdna said:
 

> Most coaches really shouldn't be coaches. You get coaches who have read one book (Friel's or Carmichael's) and miraculously think they understand everything about training for cyclists. It's really quite depressing when I hear about coaches who charge over $50/month when they know next to nothing about training with power.
> 
> On the other hand, Ric Stern actually has experimental and theoretical knowledge of training for cyclists and exercise physiology in general.
> 
> ...



Actually, I think that Carmichael knows one small notch above nothing. And I'm not kidding when I say small.

EDIT: I'm not saying anything about his books, the training programs in there, etc. I have a strong feeling that he didn;t write the books himself and a lot of that stuff in there comes from other coaches.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

Ric_Stern/RST said:


> apologies, i thought i had, but i guess looking back i obviously didn't. what i was implying was that the hill is so steep in places that sometimes i'm around 45 revs/min (so that while i don't plan to do such low cadence efforts, they sometimes do happen).
> 
> However, to answer your specific query i haven't gained strength from such workouts and nor would i really expect to. the forces that are required to ride up the said hill are still quite moderate, and are likely to be less than about 50% of the maximum force i can generate. to give some numbers to this, i can generate in a sprint around 637 N during a standing start sprint. on the hill during a low cadence effort i'm around 375 N. During an all-out sprint you require about 50 to 60 % of the maximum force you can generate (which is higher than the maximum force above in a standing start sprint). Maximum force can only be generated at zero velocity (see Hill's Force - Velocity curve).
> 
> ...


Call me stupid, but I didn't see anything in either article that refutes the big gear hill climb workouts = good. 1. You ARE riding yer bike: specificity and 2. are applying bigger loads vs. what you normally ride (simulating weight lifting = hypertrophy). 

I DID see a bunch of science-speak that confuses the hell out of all of us that aren't scientists... 

What I would love to see (in the off-season) is a study that has cyclists doing the big-gear hill climb workouts over a length of time to see whether their maximum watts change begining to end. 

M


----------



## Ric_Stern/RST (Oct 22, 2004)

MShaw said:


> Call me stupid, but I didn't see anything in either article that refutes the big gear hill climb workouts = good. 1. You ARE riding yer bike: specificity and 2. are applying bigger loads vs. what you normally ride (simulating weight lifting = hypertrophy).


to briefly clarify, whilst you are riding your bike when doing low cadence drills, by definition the cadence is low and the gains are neuromuscular in nature -- thus you'd adapt to riding at 40 (or whatever) revs/min that you're training at. as you're generally unlikely to pedal this slowly in a race you're adapting to something that won't really be required

2) although the force is higher than 'normal', as i pointed out in my previous post, and as mentioned in the articles, the forces are still only moderate and are generally less than 50% of the maximal force you can generate. thus, it's highly unlikely you'd gain an increase in muscle cross sectional area (so any strength gains are neuromuscular see the above point).



> What I would love to see (in the off-season) is a study that has cyclists doing the big-gear hill climb workouts over a length of time to see whether their maximum watts change begining to end.
> 
> M


please forward the funding to me or another sports scientist/exercise physiologist etc, and we'll happily do it.

which science bit did you not understand -- i'll try to 'translate' for you?

ric


----------

