Baby Puke

What is the consensus on the value of training starts in an over-gear? I had considered it a training staple, but a local coach has challenged that view and suggested that under-geared is more productive. What do you all think?

jmikami

both. I don't do starts very often, but I do use both overgear and under gear training as a regular staple. Over gear builds strength and increases stress, under gear improves form and fitness. I do more under gear in the off season, then work into over gear, then go back to undergear again, but I think mixing it up is always the best.

Baby Puke

That's kinda what I'm thinking to do. Thoughts on mixing over- and under-gear in the same session?

jmikami

I don't typically mix them the same session, but I could mix them if I were doing two a days. I don't see an issue with it at all, but for me at least I prefer to stress one area at a time in training. That thing might be a complicated effort, but I like a session to have a single focus.

gtrob

I would view overgear as similar to lifting weights. Its harder/heavier to build strength. Under for speed/form.

That said I also have a coach that is more into under gearing than over (for just about all drills), which mixed with a lifting program maybe is the better route? I dont know, if it hurts its probably working...

Hermes

I am not a fan of over gear for starts. Standing starts are similar to a golf swing in that due to the technical nature of the movements, proper technique can generate more force and forward velocity than brute strength. In a start, the proper timing, direction (up, down or straight), position over the bars, arm position and etc are all important. Muscling a bigger gear and potentially breaking form or learning a bad habit does not make a lot of sense to me.

I use smaller gears for form starts and race gears for full power.

Baby Puke

Sound advice, thanks guys.

carleton

Over-gear is great

- It slows down the movement.
- It allows more time for each muscle in the chain to get trained.
- When you go down to race gears, they feel easier (obviously) and more manageable. You'll feel more confident getting it rolling.

Under-gear, not so much.
I don't thing under-gear starts are productive at all for training. I only use under-geared starts for warmups before using race gears or over-gears.

I use rolling jumps for under-gear start types of efforts.

Baby Puke

See, now that's what I always thought, too. But according to the dude I talked to, nuh-uh. Without too much elaboration, but basically echoing what gtrob said above, and that heavy gears for starts "didn't work".

I'm just gonna mix it up.

MarkWW

This has always been my thinking, too. The first phase of a standing start is over before you know it with undergear work, so what are you even working on? Then again, I'm usually wrong with my training, anyhow.

Allegheny Jet

Why not all three ways, under, race and over gear? I was a track athlete when in college and coached HS for 6 years while my sons went through. In college early in the season we would practice block starts by having someone facing us and restraining our shoulders while back peddling in order to build strength. Late in the season we would do starts on a slight down hill to develop balance and leg speed. Of course we practiced starts on the level with starter's ****** for timing. When I coached HS technology caught up and we used rubber tubing and pulling devices that replicated what I did years before.

I can compare track starts to running starts in many ways. I don't think one size fits all but rather the athlete should determine the training goal then target the muscles and/or technique by stressing over gear, under gear or race gear. I practice starts on the street outside my driveway usually once a week. I built a jig to hold the bike and use my iPhone with a countdown app to practice metered breathing and start anticipation.

jmikami

I have actually gone back to my high school track team training roots. I am amazed at how many decent running track training programs there are and how the basics from that time period and discipline totally apply to cycling training on the track. I spend my entire 90s working on volume as the core of my program when all I had to do was go back and pull up my high school track program and switch out running for cycling and make some minor changes to times and distances.

Same exact principles apply, with the minor exception that I think I can handle more stress now. In part because running is harder on you and in part because I am older and have a larger overall base.

carleton

Training for track cycling is more similar than different when you compare with training for running events of similar elapsed times. The energy systems are the same. The only differences are the mechanics. Same engine, two different machines.

Also:

This is why I think that USA Cycling Track should look to USATF and AAU for a great talent pool of athletes who have been honing their engines since childhood.

carleton

In this same vein...

High School track and field is a good way for a new track athlete to have a clue as to their muscle fiber type (fast twitch, slow twitch, or equal amounts of both). In high school sports, the kids are generally evenly matched in terms of weight, training, nutrition, and equipment. The determining factors are muscle fiber type and genetic predisposition ("raw talent").

Anyone who displayed a predisposition to short, middle, or long distance events in HS will likely excel in the corresponding event as an adult (or maybe even masters) track cycling athlete. If you were head-and-shoulders above your peers in HS (maybe state or national level) then that may hint at a genetic predisposition that you should consider now...if you still got it