Regardless, that was an aside. I absolutely feel like having the ability to respond with strength is an advantage over being gear-restrained and, subsequently, needing a shift. It’s exactly the same as in high HP cars vs cars with more down-low torque. That highHP will kick in fast once it downshifts, but a torquier car can respond without shifting (NB, this analogy breaks down with the speed of today’s automatics, but that’s a different forum discussion. )
After many years of TR and self-directed plans where I did whatever it took to get the power out (usually by increasing cadence) I started with a coach last year and what you said kinda summarizes what I told him along with some tidbits about feeling a bit fragile, good at one off efforts but not repeated efforts, difficulty getting close to peak power curve late into rides. I’ve been getting hammered with SFRs / MTIs for about a year. I have specific power / cadence targets but I don’t care about specific torque metrics / targets and don’t think he does either.
Do I think gym + SFRs / MTIs has directly resulted in any FTP increase? No. Was that the intent? No. Do I think those things help with ‘fatigue resistance’? My n=1 / subjective experience is yes. Might it set me up indirectly for future power improvements? Maybe, but who knows… I would do them for the improved ‘fatigue resistance’, being comfortable at a wider set of cadences, and because they make a lot of normal situations feel easier, not with the expectation of direct or indirect power increases.
Strength, speed, power, fatigability, and recoverability are all different (albeit not entirely independent) contractile properties of skeletal muscle.
Cycling requires very little of the first two, and lots of the last three.
Resistance training is great for developing the first, but not really the second, only a little bit the third and (inversely) the fourth, and not at all the last.
Cycling requires very little of the first two, and lots of the last three.
Agreed. And:
I do think this doesn’t account for moments in real-world cycling where you’re over geared in the instant, and there’s an advantage in being able to quickly produce big power (via low rpm, high force).
Sorry, but I think real-world cycling (IE, not stats racing, but actually seeing a group suddenly throw down watts when you’re grabbing a drink and overgeared) occasionally benefits from straight strength.
I think you are using the lay-person definition of strength. In the realm of exercise science ‘strength’ has a specific definition that is not the same as the lay definition and you and @The_Cog are using the same word but with different definitions.
Fact: A cyclist with more strength can apply power in more gearing ranges than a cyclist with less strength, even if they have the exact same FTP (and for that matter, the same power profile.)
I’m using strength in the definition of being able to apply more force on the power half of the equation. Being able to put out X watts over Y time at 90RPM is not the same physical ability as being able to put out Xw over Y time at 60RPM. And in cycling, sometimes, that matters.
Do the math. Even when having to accelerate from relatively low cadence, the force requirements are far below maximal. Indeed, even for a standing start effort on the track, differences in strength* only account for ~50% of the variation in the time required to cover the first 15 m.
*Strength is defined as the maximal force generating capacity of muscle, which therefore implies zero - or even negative, if you consider eccentric contractions - shortening velocity.
You can spin it (pun intended) however you wish, but as I indicated, it is not a matter of opinion, but of facts/math: very rarely is cadence low enough that one could rightfully claim that strength, per se, is a limiting factor. Spending time pedaling really slowly and/or in the gym is not how you reduce fatigability/enhance fatigue resistance during sustained efforts.
Ok, one last time just because I’m genuinely trying to have a discussion about this, not argue a ‘who’s right’ with you:
I know. That’s exactly what I said in the very first post. Specific moments in which it matters, and sometimes (IMO), in the real world, that makes a difference. That’s it man. Ok, out.
I think practicing low cadence seated and especially going uphill, out of the saddle, plus doing some off-bike strength work can be beneficial from a muscle activation sequence/coordination point of view. It’s not the muscle building but maybe a better mind-muscle connection that helps in these scenarios.
I also think the whole body coordination can be learned and relearned as often as needed if we ride outside more and allow for occasional non-prescribed efforts. The spirited club ride may not be a scientific protocol, but it often reveals my weaknesses and occasionally what I’m doing right.
Once the weakness is slapped across your face, if it’s low cadence related, addressing it with specific drills or off-bike strength work may help, but it sounds like it’s not because of the added 1-5 rep strength, it’s just that you practiced/trained that sequence more.
That is, if I’m correctly scooping what this thread is pooping.
Momentum keeps those pedals turning on fixed , you don’t get those dead spots, and from what my fellow regular fixed riders tell me, it improves the smoothness of their pedalling force. They tend to have fixed gears in the 72-80” gear inches range. I guess you could leave your geared bike in that gear and see how you get on with the 20% plus hills that fixed riders tackle without issue.
I always find these disagreements interesting. Cog is clearly right but communicates poorly and inadequately . Justin is pushing some strange 1 in a million point so as not to be completely wrong from his original statement in the face of increasing evidence and common sense. I see this all the time in organizations and its always difficult to navigate with coworkers. So if there ever is something that allows the convo to continue i always take note as it’s something I can employ when I see it happen. Maybe thats the additional data from robert that brings things back?
)