Where does power come from?

frenchyge said:

I doubt it. Bulking up typically implies muscle hypertrophy, which means that the individual cells grow (as opposed to growing *more* cells). As each cell grows, it's ability to produce force grows, but it's ability to produce energy does not. Your W/kg will go down as a result.

Edit: However, even though your W/kg goes down, you're still likely to be somewhat more competitive in flat TT's and windy circuit races.

Frenchyge, I appreciate your insight on the subject. It occurred to me that if muscular hypertrophy is mostly a bad thing in cycling, then conversely atrophy we may experience during racing season is mostly a good thing. After all, we're not getting rid of our "little engines", just making them leaner. Is their capacity to produce energy and power decreased due to atrophy? What am I missing here?

Bigbananabike said:

Most pro cyclists do bulk up - from the likes of under 23s to fully fledged pros there is increase muscle mass - that doesn't just come from normal growth.

Males typically undergo their final growth spurt at around age 20.

RipVanCommittee said:

Close...they have bigger lungs, and bigger hearts. It's not 'bigger muscles' per se that makes them put out more absolute power.

As far as being at a disadvantage in a TT or in the wind, this is largely a self-fullfilling prophecy--lots of small guys think they're at a disadvantage, so they don't bother getting themselves in a really good aerodynamic position. At 61 kg or so, I'm probably stronger in a flat TT or big cross-wind than on a climb, mainly because I've gotten myself into a really good, aerodynamic position, both on my road bike and my TT bike.

There are plenty of good small TT'rs, too (Hamilton, Levi, etc...)--take advantage of your size and get in as small a position as possible. If anything, you're at a big advantage in a break on a really windy day, since the larger riders are getting less draft when you're on the front (and you're getting proportionally more of a draft). Think about it...

Is lung size really that crucial in cycling? Unlike swimmers we don't hold our breath and thus can choose to simply breathe faster. I believe VO2max to be the limiting factor in oxygen "consumption" not the absolute amount that enters our lungs. Likewise, bigger hearts of bigger cyclists have to pump more blood, which seems to equalize that supposed advantage. I'm no physiologist and I could be wrong, but I'd like to know how it works. Well, I guess I could always pursue a degree in exercise physiology. 🙂

Piotr said:

Frenchyge, I appreciate your insight on the subject. It occurred to me that if muscular hypertrophy is mostly a bad thing in cycling, then conversely atrophy we may experience during racing season is mostly a good thing. After all, we're not getting rid of our "little engines", just making them leaner. Is their capacity to produce energy and power decreased due to atrophy? What am I missing here?

If atrophy occurs through lack of use, then the aerobic capacity of those tissues would have detrained long before that point.

Extreme upper-body weight loss (through atrophy, catabolism, and/or fat burning) does seem pretty prevalent in pro cyclists, and probably would be beneficial in improving W/kg or W/CdA (power-to-drag). Lower-body atrophy seems pretty unlikely to occur in training or racing cyclists due to frequent use of those muscles. Even the skinniest pro cyclists seem to have pretty good-sized leg muscles compared to the size of their arms and chests.

When on the flat or into a head wind what really matters is the power to frontal area ratio.

Weight is proportional to volume, but a doubling of volume results in less than a doubling of frontal area. To get an idea of how it works picture a 1cm cube. The frontal area is 1 square cm. Now picture 8 x 1 cm cubes placed to make one 2 x 2 x 2 cm cube. The volume is eight times larger but the frontal area is only 4 times larger.

xbgs351 said:

When on the flat or into a head wind what really matters is the power to frontal area ratio.

Weight is proportional to volume, but a doubling of volume results in less than a doubling of frontal area. To get an idea of how it works picture a 1cm cube. The frontal area is 1 square cm. Now picture 8 x 1 cm cubes placed to make one 2 x 2 x 2 cm cube. The volume is eight times larger but the frontal area is only 4 times larger.

nail on head... on the flat the biggest resistance to forward motion is pushing air out of your way and drag... larger rider = less proportional frontal area (see above) to power ratio --> better TT, better in a head/cross wind etc...

larger riders have proportionately larger lungs and heart to go with their larger muscles... and it's the larger heart and lungs that allow them to produce more power at FTP...

larger muscles would increase your capcity for larger power output but are not going to do anything for you in a longer steady effort... my FTP is in the region of 250W but my maximal power is about 1200W.. so FTP --> no where near my maximal power output, so my capacity to produce power is not limiting since at FTP i'm not anywhere near what i could do + different energy system... what is limiting my FTP is my rate of power produced aerobicly... i.e. how much oxygen i can get to my muscles and how efficiently my muscles can use it... basically larger muscles are not going to do anything for your TTing... heart and lung transplant from Andre the Giant might [img]cyclingforums.comsmile.gifOpen ↗[/img]

on a hill, where speeds much lower the effect that drag has is much reduced and so the biggest factor is weight (gravity) so W/kg is the deciding factor but still W is watts produced aerobically so it is still determined by how much oxygen you can get to your muscles not the size of your muscle.. i.e. why Rassmuse,n who looks like a skeleton on a bike can win the polkadot jersey in the tour de france..

as others have eluded to, you need to learn to use what you have to your advantage... i'm 55-56kg (racing weight) and i know that in a RR i can get a great draft from almost anyone in the peleton.. proportionately better than others as well and very few can get a reasonable draft from me. in a break or a TT my postion and aerodynamics are extremely important... work on your tuck...

bottom line is that unless you are a sprinter (where maximal power actually matters) you are wasting your time lifting weights.

doctorSpoc said:

nail on head... on the flat the biggest resistance to forward motion is pushing air out of your way and drag... larger rider = less proportional frontal area (see above) to power ratio --> better TT, better in a head/cross wind etc...

larger riders have proportionately larger lungs and heart to go with their larger muscles... and it's the larger heart and lungs that allow them to produce more power at FTP...

larger muscles would increase your capcity for larger power output but are not going to do anything for you in a longer steady effort... my FTP is in the region of 250W but my maximal power is about 1200W.. so FTP --> no where near my maximal power output, so my capacity to produce power is not limiting since at FTP i'm not anywhere near what i could do + different energy system... what is limiting my FTP is my rate of power produced aerobicly... i.e. how much oxygen i can get to my muscles and how efficiently my muscles can use it... basically larger muscles are not going to do anything for your TTing... heart and lung transplant from Andre the Giant might [img]cyclingforums.comsmile.gifOpen ↗[/img]

on a hill, where speeds much lower the effect that drag has is much reduced and so the biggest factor is weight (gravity) so W/kg is the deciding factor but still W is watts produced aerobically so it is still determined by how much oxygen you can get to your muscles not the size of your muscle.. i.e. why Rassmuse,n who looks like a skeleton on a bike can win the polkadot jersey in the tour de france..

as others have eluded to, you need to learn to use what you have to your advantage... i'm 55-56kg (racing weight) and i know that in a RR i can get a great draft from almost anyone in the peleton.. proportionately better than others as well and very few can get a reasonable draft from me. in a break or a TT my postion and aerodynamics are extremely important... work on your tuck...

bottom line is that unless you are a sprinter (where maximal power actually matters) you are wasting your time lifting weights.

Thanks you encouragement. FYI, I don't lift weights, but was simply wondering if there was a colleration between larger (or longer) muscles and larger power output. To think of it, I did place 3rd in a well attended TT as a cat. 4 😎. It had a large hill half way through in it followed by a long downhill to the finish. That was in the day of steel frames, 7-speed downtube shifters, Scott clip-ons, and Uni-disc covers 🙂. I wish I had never quit. The guy who won became one of the most prominent cat. 1's in Utah.

Power to frontal area ratio is important in TTs and Flat courses, not power to weight ratio.

Maybe you should work on your TT position to lower your overall drag...

i think i definitley need to add some bulk and power i lost loads of weight last year and got to avery low bfp and lost loads of muscle. can anyone suggest workouts to add sprinting and attacking power, i can ride 200k easily but i lack the power to attack and pslit the bunch. Should i do overgeared ints or hill work or weights?

Aussie Steve said:

An Aussie rider called Cadel Evans, who is very very light, has always been a very good climber, and got the Pink Jersey in the Giro d'Italia a few years ago. He did a lot of work on his strength and won a Gold Medal at the Commonwealth Games in 2002 or maybe 1998 in the time trial. So it can be done, but remember he is a pro and has the best training methods at his disposal. It will be interesting to hear other people's suggestions and ideas, hopefully something will work for you...

I would like to point out that quick time trialing involves lots of things that all must be good at the same time to have an excellent result. Strength, efficiency, and aerodynamics must all be there. Cadel Evans may have worked on his strength but he also started training on PowerCranks several years ago, so it would appear he has also been working on efficiency.

On a flat course, weight has almost zero influence on how fast one can go on a bike. It only affects how fast one can accelerate. Anyhow, larger riders have more muscle packed into just a little more surface area, so they tend to have better aerodynamics for their power, and since the weight is not a factor, per se, in slowing them down, if the time trial is long enough such that the longer time it takes them to get up to speed can be negated, they will generally be better time trialists, on average, than lighter people.

If someone has good power for their weight then but results are disappointing it is probably because they have either poor aerodynamics or they are wasting energy because they can't ride a straight line.

Frank

Fday said:

quick time trialing involves lots of things that all must be good at the same time to have an excellent result. Strength, efficiency, and aerodynamics must all be there.

Except perhaps for the kilometer and 500 m, strength is not an important determinant of TT performance.

acoggan said:

Except perhaps for the kilometer and 500 m, strength is not an important determinant of TT performance.

I guess it depends upon what you mean by strength. One doesn't need 500 lb squat strength to do a good time trial. But, we must consider the rider who can push 21 lbs stronger than the one who can only push 18 or 20, especially if they have to do it 6000 times an hour. So, strength does matter, just not in the maximum sense of the word. It is the combination of strength and endurance that matters. Lots of strength with no endurance means little. Little strength with lots of endurance means little. A good combination of both is a winning combination.

Frank

Fday said:

I guess it depends upon what you mean by strength. One doesn't need 500 lb squat strength to do a good time trial. But, we must consider the rider who can push 21 lbs stronger than the one who can only push 18 or 20, especially if they have to do it 6000 times an hour. So, strength does matter, just not in the maximum sense of the word. It is the combination of strength and endurance that matters. Lots of strength with no endurance means little. Little strength with lots of endurance means little. A good combination of both is a winning combination.

Frank

It's stuff like this that makes us all wonder about your other claims, and exactly how daft you are.

Strength *IS* the maximal force or torque a muscle or group of muscles can generate.

Ric

Fday said:

I would like to point out that quick time trialing involves lots of things that all must be good at the same time to have an excellent result. Strength, efficiency, and aerodynamics must all be there. Cadel Evans may have worked on his strength but he also started training on PowerCranks several years ago, so it would appear he has also been working on efficiency.

On a flat course, weight has almost zero influence on how fast one can go on a bike. It only affects how fast one can accelerate. Anyhow, larger riders have more muscle packed into just a little more surface area, so they tend to have better aerodynamics for their power, and since the weight is not a factor, per se, in slowing them down, if the time trial is long enough such that the longer time it takes them to get up to speed can be negated, they will generally be better time trialists, on average, than lighter people.

If someone has good power for their weight then but results are disappointing it is probably because they have either poor aerodynamics or they are wasting energy because they can't ride a straight line.

Frank

just apoint - seeing as i have a fixed bone mass/ non usable mass (non-usable for cycling) if i was to increase my muscle mass (providing they are bike relevant muscles) wouldnt that increase my W/kilo?

Fday said:

strength does matter, just not in the maximum sense of the word.

In the present context, there is only one valid definition of strength, which is the maximal force generating capacity of a muscle (or muscle group(s)). So, while what you say may be true, it has nothing at all to do with strength.

jamesstout said:

seeing as i have a fixed bone mass/ non usable mass (non-usable for cycling) if i was to increase my muscle mass (providing they are bike relevant muscles) wouldnt that increase my W/kilo?

In a word, no.

acoggan said:

In the present context, there is only one valid definition of strength, which is the maximal force generating capacity of a muscle (or muscle group(s)).

Phooey. while it is necessary for us to define what we are talking about it is not true that the definition of strength when used in a cycling context can only mean one thing "the maximal force generating capacity of a muscle (or muscle groups)".

That is a silly definition that might apply to power lifters but has nothing to do with cyclists. Even track riders have to do several hundred repetitions (so never come close to their maximum force capacity during competition) and you have admitted that "muscle strength" may play a role for these athletes. Strength when compared to endurance must always be taken into account when talking about "strength" in cyclists.

Fday said:

Phooey. while it is necessary for us to define what we are talking about it is not true that the definition of strength when used in a cycling context can only mean one thing "the maximal force generating capacity of a muscle (or muscle groups)".

That is a silly definition that might apply to power lifters but has nothing to do with cyclists. Even track riders have to do several hundred repetitions (so never come close to their maximum force capacity during competition) and you have admitted that "muscle strength" may play a role for these athletes. Strength when compared to endurance must always be taken into account when talking about "strength" in cyclists.

Just because you think the definition isn't correct, doesn't alter it. The definition of strength is the maximal force generating capacity of a muscle or group of muscles. End of. Silly, or not.

Ric

Fday said:

Phooey. while it is necessary for us to define what we are talking about it is not true that the definition of strength when used in a cycling context can only mean one thing "the maximal force generating capacity of a muscle (or muscle groups)".

The precise communication of precise concepts requires the precise use of precise terminology. Anything else just results in unnecessary confusion.

Fday said:

That is a silly definition that might apply to power lifters but has nothing to do with cyclists. Even track riders have to do several hundred repetitions (so never come close to their maximum force capacity during competition) and you have admitted that "muscle strength" may play a role for these athletes.

That's because performance in a kilometer or 500 m is heavily influenced by the time required to accelerate up to speed, an act which must be accomplished from an initial cadence of zero. In contrast, strength is not an important determinant of performance in something like a flying 200 m TT (although somebody who can do a really fast flying 200 m is likely to be stronger than average).

jamesstout said:

just apoint - seeing as i have a fixed bone mass/ non usable mass (non-usable for cycling) if i was to increase my muscle mass (providing they are bike relevant muscles) wouldnt that increase my W/kilo?

Possibly, but only if you trained those muscles to have cycling endurance. In general, increasing muscle mass will not help your cycling. The muscles you already have are likely more than adequate for most types of racing, if you train them properly and use them better.