Periodization(Periodisation)

Roadie_scum said:

Isn't it also closely correlated with slow twitch muscle fibre density? Would this not suggest that manipulations of pedalling technique are have little or no effect on efficiency since it relates to fibre type not technique (unless someones technique really, really sucks)? [so your use of 'thus' is possibly a little misleading because it suggests (to me) that the reason pro's are better than untrained people with respect to efficiency is small increases in quality of pedalling technique, whereas its more likely to be dominant fibre type and density??]

This subject is extremely interesting and somewhat complex. I think before pursuing the it much further it might be worth defining what we mean by efficiency. Ric has pointed out that we are all constrained to pedal in circles. When people make the distinction between circles and squares I sometimes think they are really talking about the way force is distributed throughout a 360 degree pedal stroke. It can be smooth and sinusoidal i.e round or jerky i.e. square (and a recent and v.interesting study suggests that the pros use the latter). Anyway if by efficiency one means instantaneous force applied to the pedals divided by instantaneous resulting kinetic energy of the rider I am inclined to agree with Rick. However other efficiencies, for example delta efficiency (so called) i.e. slope of HR vs Watts are presumably metabolic efficiencies of some sort and would be determined by the type of muscles involved in pedaling. It seems to me possible (although I need to think it through) that efficiency of this type may well be influenced by the way force is applied during the pedal stroke and hence the fiber type involved. To take an extreme example a v.short push (employing fast twitch fibres) producing a given kinetic energy might have a different delta efficiency to a long slow push produced by slow twitch and economical fibres also producing the same kinetic energy. [email hidden]

[email hidden said:

"]This subject is extremely interesting and somewhat complex. I think before pursuing the it much further it might be worth defining what we mean by efficiency. Ric has pointed out that we are all constrained to pedal in circles. When people make the distinction between circles and squares I sometimes think they are really talking about the way force is distributed throughout a 360 degree pedal stroke. It can be smooth and sinusoidal i.e round or jerky i.e. square (and a recent and v.interesting study suggests that the pros use the latter). Anyway if by efficiency one means instantaneous force applied to the pedals divided by instantaneous resulting kinetic energy of the rider I am inclined to agree with Rick. However other efficiencies, for example delta efficiency (so called) i.e. slope of HR vs Watts are presumably metabolic efficiencies of some sort and would be determined by the type of muscles involved in pedaling. It seems to me possible (although I need to think it through) that efficiency of this type may well be influenced by the way force is applied during the pedal stroke and hence the fiber type involved. To take an extreme example a v.short push (employing fast twitch fibres) producing a given kinetic energy might have a different delta efficiency to a long slow push produced by slow twitch and economical fibres also producing the same kinetic energy. [email hidden]

so what your saying is for a trackie, who doesnt need to worry about effiecency should go with what ric said and just produce more force, no matter how.

But a roadie or a stage racer, who needs to conserve energy, might want to look at making themselves into more of an economical machine, and if pedaling circles helps that, then one should try and do that?

[email hidden said:

"]This subject is extremely interesting and somewhat complex. I think before pursuing the it much further it might be worth defining what we mean by efficiency. Ric has pointed out that we are all constrained to pedal in circles. When people make the distinction between circles and squares I sometimes think they are really talking about the way force is distributed throughout a 360 degree pedal stroke. It can be smooth and sinusoidal i.e round or jerky i.e. square (and a recent and v.interesting study suggests that the pros use the latter).

This isn't normally what they mean in my experience - though they are smarter than I thought if they are visualising force graphs, and this would make more sense. The study I've seen isn't recent - Coyle in 1991 from memory. (Ric??)

Quoted post said:

Anyway if by efficiency one means instantaneous force applied to the pedals divided by instantaneous resulting kinetic energy of the rider I am inclined to agree with Rick.

That would be efficiency of the bike, and take into account only efficiency of power transfer. It would be improved by getting a better bike, or a more aerodynamic one (e=1/2mv^2), and wouldn't have anything to do with the rider. Also, you would have to measure instantaneous power rather than instantaneous force as forceXspeed=power and it's energy transfer we are worried about in calculating efficiency.

Quoted post said:

However other efficiencies, for example delta efficiency (so called) i.e. slope of HR vs Watts are presumably metabolic efficiencies of some sort and would be determined by the type of muscles involved in pedaling. It seems to me possible (although I need to think it through) that efficiency of this type may well be influenced by the way force is applied during the pedal stroke and hence the fiber type involved. To take an extreme example a v.short push (employing fast twitch fibres) producing a given kinetic energy might have a different delta efficiency to a long slow push produced by slow twitch and economical fibres also producing the same kinetic energy. [email hidden]

Generally exercise physiologists and coaches are talking about metabolic efficiency when they use the term. This is measured by oxygen consumption at a specific steady state power. (The higher the O2 use the less efficient).

jagrazor said:

so what your saying is for a trackie, who doesnt need to worry about effiecency should go with what ric said and just produce more force, no matter how.

Kind of, yes.

Quoted post said:

But a roadie or a stage racer, who needs to conserve energy, might want to look at making themselves into more of an economical machine, and if pedaling circles helps that, then one should try and do that?

Not really. We already know pedalling circles doesn't help that, or, at least, you have no option other than to pedal circles because pedals attach via crank to your bottom bracket. Roadies don't need to worry about this any more than trackies.

Roadie_scum said:

This isn't normally what they mean in my experience - though they are smarter than I thought if they are visualising force graphs, and this would make more sense. The study I've seen isn't recent - Coyle in 1991 from memory. (Ric??)

the Coyle et al 91 paper is the seminal one. they used force measuring pedals, and found that it was sinusoidal, with virtually no force on the upstroke (less for elite road than regional road riders - who pulled up more).

efficiency is the thermodynamic measure energy expended/energy input * 100

Quoted post said:

Generally exercise physiologists and coaches are talking about metabolic efficiency when they use the term. This is measured by oxygen consumption at a specific steady state power. (The higher the O2 use the less efficient).

many coaches probably don't use it this term correctly (at least if you read many coaches articles) they tend to talk about something else and like to redefine a word that has had a meaning for a long time...

ric

jagrazor said:

so what your saying is for a trackie, who doesnt need to worry about effiecency should go with what ric said and just produce more force, no matter how.

But a roadie or a stage racer, who needs to conserve energy, might want to look at making themselves into more of an economical machine, and if pedaling circles helps that, then one should try and do that?

the point is that no one (with a sort of* exception of mountain bikers) should really worry about how to pedal. many coaches like to introduce this sort of thing (pedalling style) to make themselves sound more useful than needs be.

all you need to do is pedal the bike at the desired intensity. how you pedal and distribute those forces has little bearing on your performance, and you have very little control of. all that matters is you produce more power (assuming a goal is to be more fitter in some defined way).

the fact that we don't pull up on the upstroke is a mechanism that i believe has been developed of eons of years through evolution.

pulling up on purpose is likely to be counter productive. i can just see this scenario now: you're trying to cross to the break and you're fair moving, suddenly you think "pedal circles" (or whatever) while you concentrate on pedalling in some artificial manner you immediately slow down....

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

efficiency is the thermodynamic measure energy expended/energy input * 100

many coaches probably don't use it this term correctly (at least if you read many coaches articles) they tend to talk about something else and like to redefine a word that has had a meaning for a long time...

ric

Yep, but there are many different thermodynamic systems/interfaces at which efficiency could be measured in the bike-rider interface, so the physics/thermodynamics definition isn't conclusive in my view.

Roadie_scum said:

Yep, but there are many different thermodynamic systems/interfaces at which efficiency could be measured in the bike-rider interface, so the physics/thermodynamics definition isn't conclusive in my view.

if you check (e.g.) McArdle or Astrand & Rodahl or any physiology text, this is *the* definition of efficiency

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

if you check (e.g.) McArdle or Astrand & Rodahl or any physiology text, this is *the* definition of efficiency

ric

I'm not arguing with the definition. It's *the* definition in physics and thermodynamics texts too. The question is how you apply the definition to exercise science. Energy expended/energy input * 100 doesn't tell you what is expending energy or what the energy is being channeled into and so isn't conclusive of how to measure efficiency or apply it in the context of sport or physiology. That is, using the definition you give, you could still talk sensibly about the efficiency of components within bike itself, the person powering it or the metabolic efficiency of any system responsible for providing energy to the body during exercise (eg, the efficiency of the contribution of different substrate systems under different conditions - more/less intense exercise).

Is it true to say that efficiency is often (universally?) measured within the context of exercise physiology by way of O2 consumption in steady state exercise?

How would you define the systems in this scenario?

What is putting energy in (is it aerobic metabolism only, or all systems because anaerobic metabolism results in oxygen debt - and is this oxygen debt equal to the energy that would have been expended had the activity been completed aerobically [eg by an aerobically fitter but similarly efficient individual - I wouldn't think these things would be equal])?
[this question relates to the energy expended part of the equation]

And what is the energy being put into? (This seems clearer - the bike - either the crank, the chain or some other part of the mechanical system).
[this question relates to the energy input part of the equation]

Quoted post said:

You can't generally build strength on the bike. In general the forces required are too low. Certain populations may be able to build strength, e.g., frail old ladies, but in general people who aren't frail are highly unlikely to build strength. You may be able to build strength with exercises such as standing start 50-metre sprints, but i'd question the validity of such training for the vast majority of cyclists.

ric

How does one generally build strength for cycling then? I'm talking about cycling from recreational cycling to elite cycling racing, and not track racing.

Orange Fish said:

How does one generally build strength for cycling then? I'm talking about cycling from recreational cycling to elite cycling racing, and not track racing.

you don't need to build strength for that type of cycling. virtually everyone has sufficient strength to excel at cycling

sustainable power on the other hand is a different matter

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

you don't need to build strength for that type of cycling. virtually everyone has sufficient strength to excel at cycling

sustainable power on the other hand is a different matter

ric

I hear all the time that strength is not needed to become a good cyclist.

So... How come most (I realize not all) elite cyclists have big leg muscles? If they don't need strength for big leg muscles, why do they have this extra weight?

Or are their legs bigger than normal for some other reason than strength?

I don't understand this... (c:

Aaberg said:

I hear all the time that strength is not needed to become a good cyclist.

So... How come most (I realize not all) elite cyclists have big leg muscles? If they don't need strength for big leg muscles, why do they have this extra weight?

Or are their legs bigger than normal for some other reason than strength?

I don't understand this... (c:

just because you might have big legs, doesn't mean they'll be strong. however, it may appear they have big legs, but generally they don't (they do however look 'cut'😉

ric_stern/RST said:

you don't need to build strength for that type of cycling. virtually everyone has sufficient strength to excel at cycling

sustainable power on the other hand is a different matter

ric

So how does one improve/increase sustainable power to become a better rider?

Orange Fish said:

So how does one improve/increase sustainable power to become a better rider?

various types of training on the bike, e.g., TT type work, MAP/VO2max intervals, etc

strength likely *decreases* as you get fitter (in terms of this type of fitness)

ric

Aaberg said:

I hear all the time that strength is not needed to become a good cyclist.

So... How come most (I realize not all) elite cyclists have big leg muscles? If they don't need strength for big leg muscles, why do they have this extra weight?

Or are their legs bigger than normal for some other reason than strength?

I don't understand this... (c:

Take a look at a fellow like Tom Danielson. He's got stick legs...

Anyways, elite cyclists mayb look like they've got big leg muscles, but I believe they don't. When you look at an elite cyclist you can see virtually every muscle rippling when they ride because they have very little body fat. If you had no body fat you'd look pretty damn ripped too.

So, what I'm saying: It's an illusion. They don't have huge muscles. It just looks like they have huge muscles because of the lack of body fat to cover their muscles.

ric_stern/RST said:

various types of training on the bike, e.g., TT type work, MAP/VO2max intervals, etc

strength likely *decreases* as you get fitter (in terms of this type of fitness)

ric

Strength *decreases* as you get fitter (in your line of thought) because you're not advocating strength training on or off the bike, so of course it will decrease. That's obvious.

You stated that:

"you don't need to build strength for that type of cycling. virtually everyone has sufficient strength to excel at cycling"
and
"You can't generally build strength on the bike.

Why are you using the term "generally" to say that you can't generally build strength on the bike? You can either build strength or you can't. If you train appropriately, then you can build strength, and if you don't, then you won't build strength - simple as that. So I'm unclear where the "generally" term comes from - seems a bit wishy washy to me.

The point I'd like to make about strength training is that there is more to strength than maximal strength. Before I get the definition of strength quoted by someone in here, I'll include it in my post:
(muscular) strength is defined as "the maximum force or tension generated by a muscle (or muscle groups)" (McArdle, Katch, and Katch, 1991, p. 452)

When we ride bikes, we have to apply a certain amount of force to the pedals to get them to start turning and to continue turning. This isn't maximal force obvsiously - we hardly ever, if at all, apply maximal force during road cycling. So we need to look at sub-maximal force. During cycling, we're applying a sub-maximal force many times over as we pedal.

So, if we are in a specific gear and moving along at a specific cadence, then we have to apply the appropriate amount of force (sub-maximal) to the pedals to get the bike to move and to continue moving.
Now, if we come to a hill and maintain that same gearing and same cadence, then we will have to apply slightly more force (still sub-maximal) to the pedals to overcome the force of gravity that is trying to push us back downhill. If we train appropriately and have the right amount of recovery, then over this time our bodies will adapt to this stress and we will become stronger, meaning that the hill will become easier to climb - this is because we've become stronger. Our sub-maximal strength has improved. Sure, we also may have increased our lactate threshold, VO2 max, etc., but to have shown an improvement in that climb in the specific gear and cadence that we started at, we would have needed to apply slightly more sub-maximal force to the pedals. As we know,
Power = work/time
and
Work = force * distance

So to go back to that example, the distance of the hill won't change, and if we see improvements over time with appropriate training, then our power output will increase and make the hill seem easier to climb, which means that we had to change the work equation somehow, and since the road most likely did not shorten, we must have applied slightly more sub-maximal force to the pedals, thereby increasing the amount of work done, and altering the power equation.

Also, when I talk about strength training, I don't want to make it seem like I'm advocating lifting like a bodybuilder or powerlifter. There are many ways to train, both on and off the bike. This example shows why strength training on the bike has benefits for most cyclists.
Strength training off the bike, and in a gym for example, is good for reducing and preventing muscular imbalances, preventing injury, and maintaining muscle mass and neuromuscular coordination while in an off-season or transition phase. There are many options to train in gyms, not just with squats or whatever the stereotypical lift you see in gyms is. There are free weights, machines, isokinetic machines, free-motion machines, elastic bands, and functional training tools. All of these can help cyclists in some way or another, but to say that you don't need to build strength for road cycling seems like a very narrow-minded opinion to me. I think it's the way that we talk about strength training, thinking that it means only going into the gym to lift heavy weights, squat however many hundreds of pounds, and whatever else...but there's so much more to it, and it's not all about maximal strength when it comes to cycling. We need to consider the sub-maximal forces that are at work, and learn how to train them.

mattv2099 said:

Take a look at a fellow like Tom Danielson. He's got stick legs...

Anyways, elite cyclists mayb look like they've got big leg muscles, but I believe they don't. When you look at an elite cyclist you can see virtually every muscle rippling when they ride because they have very little body fat. If you had no body fat you'd look pretty damn ripped too.

So, what I'm saying: It's an illusion. They don't have huge muscles. It just looks like they have huge muscles because of the lack of body fat to cover their muscles.

I am exactly the same height and weight as Lance Armstrong.

However, I bet I've got at least 10kg more fat than he does.

Therefore I suspect that he's got 10kg more muscle on his legs than I do.

ric_stern/RST said:

various types of training on the bike, e.g., TT type work, MAP/VO2max intervals, etc

strength likely *decreases* as you get fitter (in terms of this type of fitness)

ric

it's interesting. I've been reading a book called "Core Performance." It was talking about how to age comfortably. He explains that it isn't so much the strength lost that makes a person thats older uncomfortable (pain in joints ect) but rather a loss of power.

Its not that the cyclists legs arent strong, they are very strong. But using the word strong or strength deceives people into thinking that this was attained by squatting.

I have a question for ric though. When you say that lifting isn't neccesary. Do you mean your overall performance increase from last year to this year, or from the beginning of your career to the peak of it would be better w/o lifting and doing something else instead. Or do you mean, it isn't neccesary, as a very long ride wouldnt be neccesary to a trackie?

Orange Fish said:

Strength *decreases* as you get fitter (in your line of thought) because you're not advocating strength training on or off the bike, so of course it will decrease. That's obvious.

it decreases as aerobic machinery replaces contractile proteins

Quoted post said:

You stated that:

"you don't need to build strength for that type of cycling. virtually everyone has sufficient strength to excel at cycling"
and
"You can't generally build strength on the bike.

Why are you using the term "generally" to say that you can't generally build strength on the bike?

i used "generally" as most people can't build strength on the bike. simply, very weak people can build strength (e.g., frail old ladies), and (e.g.) roadies *may* be able to build strength via all-out 50-metre standing start efforts. The rest of the time you can build strength. So, in general you can't build strength.

[quote]
The point I'd like to make about strength training is that there is more to strength than maximal strength. Before I get the definition of strength quoted by someone in here, I'll include it in my post:
[i](muscular) strength is defined as "the maximum force or tension generated by a muscle (or muscle groups)" (McArdle, Katch, and Katch, 1991, p. 452)
[/quote]

that was me

Quoted post said:

So, if we are in a specific gear and moving along at a specific cadence, then we have to apply the appropriate amount of force (sub-maximal) to the pedals to get the bike to move and to continue moving.
Now, if we come to a hill and maintain that same gearing and same cadence, then we will have to apply slightly more force (still sub-maximal) to the pedals to overcome the force of gravity that is trying to push us back downhill.

Quoted post said:

If we train appropriately and have the right amount of recovery, then over this time our bodies will adapt to this stress and we will become stronger,

Quoted post said:

meaning that the hill will become easier to climb - this is because we've become stronger. Our sub-maximal strength has improved. Sure, we also may have increased our lactate threshold, VO2 max, etc., but to have shown an improvement in that climb in the specific gear and cadence that we started at, we would have needed to apply slightly more sub-maximal force to the pedals.

Quoted post said:

So to go back to that example, the distance of the hill won't change, and if we see improvements over time with appropriate training, then our power output will increase and make the hill seem easier to climb, which means that we had to change the work equation somehow, and since the road most likely did not shorten, we must have applied slightly more sub-maximal force to the pedals, thereby increasing the amount of work done, and altering the power equation.

Quoted post said:

All of these can help cyclists in some way or another, but to say that you don't need to build strength for road cycling seems like a very narrow-minded opinion to me.

Quoted post said:

but there's so much more to it, and it's not all about maximal strength when it comes to cycling. We need to consider the sub-maximal forces that are at work, and learn how to train them.