Power Athletes?

Training Powerlifting
41

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
Going back to your old lady example:
KiloSprinter wrote:
The bike is just a lever. Yes it matters, but it won’t turn an old lady into a 2000watt generator.

Wouldn’t the old lady be able to produce a LOT more power with the bike than without?[/quote]

The bike is irrelevant. Maybe you mean “Can a human produce more power while moving the legs in a circular (pedaling) motion than while running?” If so, then that was essentially the original question.

[quote]
THAT’S my point, that you’re missing.

If you want to compare the athlete’s power, you need all other variables the same.[/quote]

The original question was “What type of athlete produces the most power for a 10-20 second period?”, not “What type of athlete produces the most power for a 10-20 second period while doing movement X?”

42

[quote]larryb wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:
Going back to your old lady example:
KiloSprinter wrote:
The bike is just a lever. Yes it matters, but it won’t turn an old lady into a 2000watt generator.

Wouldn’t the old lady be able to produce a LOT more power with the bike than without?

The bike is irrelevant. Maybe you mean “Can a human produce more power while moving the legs in a circular (pedaling) motion than while running?” If so, then that was essentially the original question.

THAT’S my point, that you’re missing.

If you want to compare the athlete’s power, you need all other variables the same.

The original question was “What type of athlete produces the most power for a 10-20 second period?”, not “What type of athlete produces the most power for a 10-20 second period while doing movement X?”[/quote]

Yes, but he wanted to completely rule out NASCAR drivers and luge. They are athletes, and they produce power, with the assistance of other things allowed in their sport.

That was my point. If he’s going to rule out other sports because of factors other than the person him/herself, then you’d also rule out the speed bike. The BMX has to overcome much more friction resistance due to the tire size, the ground and bumps/hills.

If you don’t want to rule out any factor, then you have to allow for ANY athlete, which includes NASCAR drivers.

I’m still waiting on the excuse for speed skaters. Are they not counted for some reason.

You’re measuring the power of the whole bike and person moving fast, quickly. The bike is aiding the athlete in moving that fast with the force produced by the athlete’s legs.

Without the bike, the power would be less.

The bike aids in speed with the same effort. The faster the speed, with all other variables the same, you’ll get more power.

This is why you shouldn’t compare ‘apples to bananas’.

43

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
Without the bike, the power would be less.

The bike aids in speed with the same effort. The faster the speed, with all other variables the same, you’ll get more power.

This is why you shouldn’t compare ‘apples to bananas’.[/quote]

Speed does not exist in the formula for power. If a cyclist exerts the same force on the pedals that a runner exerts on the ground (pushes just as hard) he will accelerate the same, (or less given the mass of the bike).

In fact, I bet a sprinter would out accelerate a cyclist for the first few seconds.

44

SWR - the subject is human performance. WHY WHY WHY WHY do you bring up nascar? or luge? Dude, seriously, your nascar arguement is like saying

“I can go 100 miles in my car faster than you can run it”

THAT is what you are saying. THINK ABOUT IT! then get back to me.

HUMAN PERFORMANCE!

I don’t give a sh*t about nascar drivers, downhill lugers(in the sled), or any other athlete that does not propel themself UNDER THEIR OWN POWER!

Dude, how dumb do you have to be to not understand this? Can you not differentiate between human power and engine power (or gravity)?

Seriously, this is like elementary knowledge. I shouldn’t have to repeat myself 10 times.

Do you not understand that THIS THREAD is about HUMAN POWER?

answer me that

45

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:

Yes, but he wanted to completely rule out NASCAR drivers and luge. They are athletes, and they produce power, with the assistance of other things allowed in their sport.

—DUDE!!! a car is not the same assistance to an athlete as a bike is.

That was my point. If he’s going to rule out other sports because of factors other than the person him/herself, then you’d also rule out the speed bike. The BMX has to overcome much more friction resistance due to the tire size, the ground and bumps/hills.

—rue. But whats you’re point? A bmx’er still relies mostly on their own power in their event (expection being the downhill starting ramp and such)

If you don’t want to rule out any factor, then you have to allow for ANY athlete, which includes NASCAR drivers.

—I am ruling out factors such as ENGINE POWER, GRAVITY. Once again, THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HUMAN PERFORMANCE, not who can push a gas pedal of a 500hp car, or who slide down a hill faster.

I’m still waiting on the excuse for speed skaters. Are they not counted for some reason.

—Speed skaters are fine. They move entirely under their own power, just as cyclists and runners do.

You’re measuring the power of the whole bike and person moving fast, quickly. The bike is aiding the athlete in moving that fast with the force produced by the athlete’s legs.

—True. But you are missing the fact that a bike will not move an inch by itself. Mechanical “assistance” is fine. But ENGINE POWER is a compleletly different thing than a bike/lever. The difference is so clear that you must be an idiot to still not be able to differentiate between the two.

Without the bike, the power would be less.

—True. The bike is simply a means to allow the athlete to generate more power himself. This is fine, because the ONLY POWER SOURCE IS THE ATHLETE. reread that 20 times because you obviously still dont’ comprehend.

The bike aids in speed with the same effort. The faster the speed, with all other variables the same, you’ll get more power.

–True. But as others have said, the bike simply enables the athlete to push a heavier load, which is fine. Mechanical assistance is NEEDED. This is completely different from being propelled by gravity or engine power.

This is why you shouldn’t compare ‘apples to bananas’.[/quote]

—I’m not. All I wanted to know was what athlete is capable of producing the most HUMAN POWER PERIOD. A nascar driver doesn’t produce any HUMAN power, the engine is producing all the power. WHY CAN’T YOU SEE THIS? Same with a luger.

Do you not see a difference between HUMAN power and ENGINE power?

please just answer that one question and I will be happy.

46

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:
Without the bike, the power would be less.

The bike aids in speed with the same effort. The faster the speed, with all other variables the same, you’ll get more power.

This is why you shouldn’t compare ‘apples to bananas’.

Speed does not exist in the formula for power. If a cyclist exerts the same force on the pedals that a runner exerts on the ground (pushes just as hard) he will accelerate the same, (or less given the mass of the bike).

In fact, I bet a sprinter would out accelerate a cyclist for the first few seconds.[/quote]

This is true. Because a cyclist is using a lever, he cannot accelerate as fast as a runner for this first 1 or 2 seconds. Simple physics.

During a standing start, I will go 0- 20mph in 2.5 seconds. My average power for those 2.5 seconds is lower than a runner because I am pushing a lever which does not allow me to produce my highest power that I am capable of.

47

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:

Without the bike, the power would be less.

The bike aids in speed with the same effort. The faster the speed, with all other variables the same, you’ll get more power.

This is why you shouldn’t compare ‘apples to bananas’.[/quote]

speed has nothing to do w/it. you could do it on rollers, or uphill, or into a headwind, or on fat knobby tires in quicksand or underwater.

what takes more power to do throw a 5oz baseball 95 mph or a 16 lb hammer 80 metres ? doesn’t matter the ball weighs less or that the pitcher generates leverage off the mound or the hammer guy has a 4ft. wire as a multiplier. the whole point of this thread is precisely to compare apples to oranges with the common denominator of power output in watts or joules or calories or whatever.

48

[quote]Jumanji wrote:
Kilo~

You are right in that regard, they produce power in pulses of explosion, with intermittent relaxation. In fact to get from the advanced to elite, it is often the ability to master tension control that makes the biggest difference.

In the end, I would tip my hat to cyclists for producing more power than any other athlete over 10-20s.

But, you still have a 17 in vertical…

I will keep my high 30" vertical and go try to sleep knowing you produce more power… LOL.

The last two statements just shows you that the focus is totally different. Our response to the displays are based on what we hold as important…

I do think the topic is interesting though, since the constant tension is definitely the differentiator…

This would be a kool bar bet…

Kinda like the one where you take and elite sprinter and a jav thrower and have them see who broad jumps further…

[/quote]

Yup, I train for bike sprinting not jumping. Although i will include more plyometrics. I wonder how it would affect my peak power, if I were to raise my vertical jump 10 inches, to a modest 27inches. that’s like a 60% increase.

I still consider myself a slow-twich’r for the most part. It’s going to take a long time to transform myself into a true sprinter.

49

[quote]swivel wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:

Without the bike, the power would be less.

The bike aids in speed with the same effort. The faster the speed, with all other variables the same, you’ll get more power.

This is why you shouldn’t compare ‘apples to bananas’.

speed has nothing to do w/it. you could do it on rollers, or uphill, or into a headwind, or on fat knobby tires in quicksand or underwater.

what takes more power to do throw a 5oz baseball 95 mph or a 16 lb hammer 80 metres ? doesn’t matter the ball weighs less or that the pitcher generates leverage off the mound or the hammer guy has a 4ft. wire as a multiplier. the whole point of this thread is precisely to compare apples to oranges with the common denominator of power output in watts or joules or calories or whatever. [/quote]

Thanks for giving another angle to my arguement. I sometimes don’t have enough words to speak what I am thinking! lol

At least most of you guys understand the point I am trying to make. It doesn’t matter how the athlete produces the power, as long as he is doing all the work himself.

I still can’t think of many other athletes who will produce as much power over full sprint duration as a sprint cyclist. I think strongman pulling is too slow to generate high power outputs, but I could be wrong.

The only other activity I can think of would be stair sprints, aiming for the most vertical feet gained.

50

KiloSprinter, everyone understands that you mean HUMAN power. My comment about NASCAR was sarcastic. My point was that you can’t compare a cyclist’s power output to other athletes because they have a mechanical device assisting them. The biker is NOT producing ALL the power the mechanisms of the bike are helping a lot too. If the bike did impact power output then the cyclists would not care what bike they ride which is far from the case. If you put someone on a shitty bike and someone on a world-class bike the total power output would change even though the human power output does not. My argument is the same as SWD’s. One of my picks for highest power output might be throwers.

51

[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
The biker is NOT producing ALL the power the mechanisms of the bike are helping a lot too.[/quote]

This has been explained several times already. Let’s try once again.

The biker is producing ALL the power. The bike is reducing the power somewhat, due to friction and drag.

The mechanisms of the bike change the ratio of force at the pedals to force at the wheels and speed at the pedals to speed at the wheels. They do not increase power output. They do allow the BIKER to produce more power by maintaining a more optimal leg speed. In a similar way, running up a hill allows a sprinter to produce more power, but you would not say “the sprinter is not producing all the power, the hill is helping a lot too.”

52

Okay, since you’re not getting the point, lets use a simple lever as an example, since we all agree that the bike adds leverage, and the athlete is putting all of the power into the bike him/herself.

Big rock on the left, fulcrum in the middle, guy using his own force to lift the rock on the right.

We measure the power of accelerating the rock over a certain distance for a set amount of time.

fulcrum is close to man, he puts lots of power into the lever, but there’s not a lot of power going into the rock, so the rock moves slowly for a short distance.

Fulcrum in closer to rock, man puts less of his own power into the lever, the power going into the rock is MUCH greater, rock accelerates quickly, goes farther.

The man is able to produce more power than any other athlete on the face of the earth because the lever was designed to produce the best results.

Yea for the man working the lever.

I know you still won’t get my point, but it’s fun reading all the responses anyway. I can almost feel the blood pressure rising as I read some of these posts.

Your turn.

53

Actualy, the vertical leap would be a good measure. Running up steps would be an inclined plane. I guess it depends on what you are measuring. A burst, long term power output, or the amount needed to maintain the velocity of a given weight.
What are you measuring?

54

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
Okay, since you’re not getting the point, lets use a simple lever as an example, since we all agree that the bike adds leverage, and the athlete is putting all of the power into the bike him/herself.

Big rock on the left, fulcrum in the middle, guy using his own force to lift the rock on the right.

We measure the power of accelerating the rock over a certain distance for a set amount of time.

fulcrum is close to man, he puts lots of power into the lever, but there’s not a lot of power going into the rock, so the rock moves slowly for a short distance.

Fulcrum in closer to rock, man puts less of his own power into the lever, the power going into the rock is MUCH greater, rock accelerates quickly, goes farther.

The man is able to produce more power than any other athlete on the face of the earth because the lever was designed to produce the best results.

Yea for the man working the lever.

I know you still won’t get my point, but it’s fun reading all the responses anyway. I can almost feel the blood pressure rising as I read some of these posts.

Your turn. [/quote]

I understand what you are saying. But with your logic, a man could produce an infinite amount of power. There are limits to how much power a person can produce, and that is what I am after.

The farther the man is from the fulcrum, the larger the distance he must move, thus it spreads out the workload. That is the only thing occuring, spreading the work load. I could tow a 10,000lb truck up a steep with my bike, IF I had a small enough gear ratio (i.e. a lever). I would be traveling at a very slow speed though, which SPREADS THE WORKLOAD.

A lever simply spreads out the workload, it doesn’t turn a human being into a 500hp machine.

Get it?

But it still doesn’t explain your nascar comments.

55

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
fulcrum is close to man, he puts lots of power into the lever, but there’s not a lot of power going into the rock, so the rock moves slowly for a short distance.[/quote]

Neglecting friction, power into a lever equals power out. Does that help?

56

[quote]larryb wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:
fulcrum is close to man, he puts lots of power into the lever, but there’s not a lot of power going into the rock, so the rock moves slowly for a short distance.

Neglecting friction, power into a lever equals power out. Does that help?[/quote]

yes. that is true, and should explain my point.

SWR-1222D is confusing power with torque (force). that is the root of this big misunderstanding.

You can have all the torque in the world, but 0 watts if there is no velocity in the equation.

power = force x velocity

SWR, you need to revist high school physics. I’m not trying to be ass, but you need to understand basic physics.
power is not force.

57

[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
Actualy, the vertical leap would be a good measure. Running up steps would be an inclined plane. I guess it depends on what you are measuring. A burst, long term power output, or the amount needed to maintain the velocity of a given weight.
What are you measuring?

[/quote]

I was orignally after 10 to 20 second power, so vertical leap is useless.
Running up an inclined plane would work.

I think this thread got me worked up today. Did a personal best 1912 peak watts on my bike tonight. thanks :slight_smile:

58

You guys seem a lot like those bikers I see going down the narrow two lane roads on Saturday mornings. The ones that you can’t pass because there isn’t room, the ones that think that tough shit for going so fast in a bike, the ones that make me want to open the door and knock them out.

I respect your athletic ability, but damn some bikers can be annoying.

59

[quote]DeepRiver wrote:
You guys seem a lot like those bikers I see going down the narrow two lane roads on Saturday mornings. The ones that you can’t pass because there isn’t room, the ones that think that tough shit for going so fast in a bike, the ones that make me want to open the door and knock them out.

I respect your athletic ability, but damn some bikers can be annoying.[/quote]

Why do you think this?

If there is a single rider on the side of road, and you can’t pass, it’s not his problem or his responsibilty to stop and let you pass. If he is following the laws, he has every right to ride there.
I have a feeling you are talking about groups of riders who take up more room. I do not ride with guys like that because it is not fair to drivers. BUT, there have been times when I was in a group, and we were at or above the speed limit, and then we still get sht from drivers because it is hard for them to pass. If that is you, then f** off. There is a reason there is speed limit, and you got NOTHING if you think you are still have the right to pass another road user who is at the speed limit. Yeh, call the police because you are not able to break the speed limit.
If you are not that kind of driver, then disregard what I just said, it’s not directed at you.

In the end, I try to share the road as fairly as possible with drivers. I got no problem with drivers who respect me.

And if there are any drivers out there who feel it’s unfair to them if they are slowed down because of cyclists, then you have to look at it from a cyclists point of view. Many times I have been slowed down by cars in many many situations. Do I bitch at them? Do run them off the road? Do I call the police? No. I accept the fact that the world is not ‘fair’, and I understand that I don’t own the road, as should every driver and cyclist. It’s called sharing the road for a reason.

I can’t speak for every cyclist, because I have seen many of them that are often in the wrong. I don’t judge every driver to be the same inconsiderate driver, so don’t it to cyclists. Of course there will always be idiots out there, on bikes, in cars, whatever.
Just don’t be one of them.

I’m not directing this at anyone, I just felt it needed to be said.

60

[quote]DeepRiver wrote:
You guys seem a lot like those bikers I see going down the narrow two lane roads on Saturday mornings. The ones that you can’t pass because there isn’t room, the ones that think that tough shit for going so fast in a bike, the ones that make me want to open the door and knock them out.

I respect your athletic ability, but damn some bikers can be annoying.[/quote]

bro i feel it too. i’ve been cycling for years. most of the cyclists out there right now are bandwagon posers who feel empowered by wearing some gear. ride with them at your own peril for they can’t even hold a straight line let alone ride a wheel or form an echelon.

got no clue what it means when you say “car up” or “car back” and piss me off to no end when they’re out there in the middle of the lane without the power to move with traffic or the skills to even clip in and out at a stop light.

that said i guess i gotta say something about the topic so 's not to totally hijack:

kilo-maybe you should phrase it:“how many 100 watt light bulbs will each human powered sporting event burn for 30 seconds ?” or something like that.

i wonder how many watts rowers generate ? prolly more force and less speed though so just under a cyclist ? what about nordic skiiers and swimmers ? how would you measure that ?

and mighty mouse, force is only half of the power equation. there’s an interesting article at the renegade training site, which gives a few clues to understanding.