# Any benefit to squats/deadlifts for cycling POWER?



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

I'm starting out with some power training now that it is warming up and my goal for today was [email protected] I came in at 326, 322, 315, 317, and 312. Close enough, or so I thought, until I looked at my first spring time intervals from last year. [email protected] (318, 323, 327, 328, 314, 323).

The only thing that has changed since then is that I have stopped squatting/deadlifting (because I felt it impacted my intervals the next day), I'm 5-10lbs lighter, and I'm 1 year older. Every night before intervals I have salmon, brown rice, and salad for dinner, and oatmeal for breakfast the morning of. I'm very by-the-book with consistency to more easily identify patterns.

So, unless I had an off day, it seems like squats/deadlifts were the only major variable to change. It doesn't make sense to me that doing heavy weight/low reps (relative to cycling anyway) would help. My old squat/deadlift routine was pretty lazy, just 3 sets of 8-10 reps squats, 3 sets of 8-10 reps deadlifts, once a week.

Can anyone chime in on this?


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

Yeah,
One thing, compare 5x5 to 5x5. 

Next, comparing one time to one time is not the greatest. If you could do it 3 weeks in a row, then it might be a better analysis.

Lastly, weights do help, especially riders over 35. You just have to gauge when to do weights so you recover properly. I can only do weights on Monday and Wednesday. If I do weights on Fri, I feel sluggish on a Saturday ride.

You should also very your weight workout. Do squats one week, lunges the next etc.

Also, do hamstring and glut work. 

Oh, core core and more core work. 3 days a week if you can manage it time wise. I never found core work to affect my riding


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

thisisthebeave said:


> ...
> 
> So, unless I had an off day...



Comparing two sessions is a pretty small N to be drawing conclusions from, especially if you did have an off (or great) day for one session.

But what the heck, let's think about it anyway. Pure speculation here, given the limited data.

Maybe what is going on is that you are suffering a loss in the ramp up time at the start of a hard effort? I see a clear fade this year, but not last year. So it could be that your effort to get up to 320w takes more out of you than in the past. And that shows up over the repeated efforts. That makes sense if power lifting helps in short term efforts (the time to do a set/ramp up to 320w) but not so much for longer efforts (the time to do an interval at 320w.) Generally speaking, training helps to the extent it mirrors activity. Short powerful bursts help more with short powerful bursts. 

Or it could be that you went out too hard on your first interval this year (326 versus 318 last year), and that caused the fade.

Or it could be that being 5-10 lbs lighter means you have less leg muscle mass, mass that went away (slightly) when you stopped power lifting. Less muscle, even a small amount, could be the reason for the slightly lower numbers.

So three options, four if you count "no real difference, statistical artifact". I am sure others can provide many more words on the topic.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

thisisthebeave said:


> I'm starting out with some power training now that it is warming up and my goal for today was [email protected] I came in at 326, 322, 315, 317, and 312. Close enough, or so I thought, until I looked at my first spring time intervals from last year. [email protected] (318, 323, 327, 328, 314, 323).
> 
> The only thing that has changed since then is that I have stopped squatting/deadlifting (because I felt it impacted my intervals the next day), I'm 5-10lbs lighter, and I'm 1 year older. Every night before intervals I have salmon, brown rice, and salad for dinner, and oatmeal for breakfast the morning of. I'm very by-the-book with consistency to more easily identify patterns.
> 
> ...


Lifting over the winter definitely improved my power in the Spring. :thumbsup: I followed the plan of Eddy B for the Polish cycling team back in the 80s. He recommended high rep full body lifting to total 10 tons when all added up. I did all the standard stuff: squats, deadlifts, barbell curls, bench presses, side lifts, in 4 sets of 20 repetitions each, of light weights building up to moderate weights. Amazing that a standard routine adds up to 10 tons in about an hour. 

Come Spring, I could do everything better, and only had to build up endurance, which came quickly. Go for it! 

Don't eliminate upper body. Cyclists ignore upper body. I found my climbing and sprinting improved having pulled together and strengthened upper body. Definitely worth it over the winter when you're not using up lots of energy and recovery time racking up the miles.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

ziscwg said:


> One thing, compare 5x5 to 5x5.


Good point in general, but in this case the shorter intervals have the lower power numbers. I would expect, all things equal, the longer intervals to have the lower numbers, and more fade at the end, for the same level of fitness.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

redacted


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

tvad said:


> I'm not sure about the benefits of dead lifts. I've never read any cycling weight training program that included them.


The internet says...

_What muscles do deadlifts work? Mostly lats, lower back, abs, glutes, hamstrings, and calves, ie the entire posterior chain. It's a true whole body movement. Back and Legs are primary muscle groups worked.
_
And I do see them mentioned in many cycling related hits. https://www.google.com/search?q=cycling+training+deadlifts Hits are 3/5 ratio on a three word search, deadlift to squats, in case you wondered.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> Squats work the glutes, which is beneficial for cycling. I don't believe a lot of weight is necessary. Single leg squats are even better.
> 
> I'm not sure about the benefits of dead lifts. I've never read any cycling weight training program that included them.


Well, dead lifts helped strengthen my aging 45 year old back. I also relied on barbell curls. I used weights that I could lift 20-30 times in a set. 

I think Eddy said lifting to failure wasn't the best way to train for cycling. He stressed repetition. Rather than standard 4 x 12, he'd prescribe 4 x 20 with lighter weights. I didn't believe it would work until I found out it did in the Spring. 

He treated lifting like interval training. Rest only a minute or less between sets. Go from one set to the next without full recovery, to work the heart and cardio. That too paid off in the Spring.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Well, dead lifts helped strengthen my aging 45 year old back. I also relied on barbell curls. I used weights that I could lift 20-30 times in a set.
> 
> *I think Eddy said lifting to failure wasn't the best way to train for cycling. He stressed repetition.* Rather than standard 4 x 12, he'd prescribe 4 x 20 with lighter weights. I didn't believe it would work until I found out it did in the Spring.
> 
> He treated lifting like interval training. Rest only a minute or less between sets. Go from one set to the next without full recovery, to work the heart and cardio. That too paid off in the Spring.


I'm not an exercise physiologist, but I play one on the internet.

I agree here with Eddy in that lifting to failure requires your 48 hr typically to recover fully. Body builders work different groups each day for this reason. 

Also, for cycling, we need muscular endurance as more than we need muscular strength. Higher reps will give you some strength and also give you muscular endurance.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Sounds like you're not in as good as shape. 

Want to get better at 6 min intervals? Keep doing them. 

With that said, those numbers are too close to say anything about anything. Could just be your powermeter variance.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> The internet says...
> 
> _What muscles do deadlifts work? Mostly lats, lower back, abs, glutes, hamstrings, and calves, ie the entire posterior chain. It's a true whole body movement. Back and Legs are primary muscle groups worked.
> _
> And I do see them mentioned in many cycling related hits. https://www.google.com/search?q=cycling+training+deadlifts Hits are 3/5 ratio on a three word search, deadlift to squats, in case you wondered.


Golly. Thanks! It's not often I'm made to feel like a ten year old, but you managed to do it.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> Squats work the glutes, which is beneficial for cycling. I don't believe a lot of weight is necessary. Single leg squats are even better.


Squats are not likely doing a thing for VO2 max work. Except potentially making your legs too tired to push as much power as you could without.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

ziscwg said:


> You should also very your weight workout. Do squats one week, lunges the next etc.
> 
> Also, do hamstring and glut work.
> 
> Oh, core core and more core work. 3 days a week if you can manage it time wise. I never found core work *to affect my riding*



Neither have I. Ergo, a waste of time if cycling performance is the goal.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

pedalbiker said:


> Sounds like you're not in as good as shape.
> 
> Want to get better at 6 min intervals? Keep doing them.
> 
> With that said, those numbers are too close to say anything about anything. Could just be your powermeter variance.


Nonetheless, being out of shape could be blamed on the absence of weight work in the off season. When its cold and windy outside, no better antidote than lifting 10 tons of weights in the warmth and comfort of home.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ziscwg said:


> ...Also, for cycling, we need muscular endurance as more than we need muscular strength. Higher reps will give you some strength and also give you muscular endurance.


Exactly. 

A fit body, muscles all pulled together and performing efficiently, definitely enhanced power, IME. Going from one set to the next without complete recovery also enhanced endurance. Lifting to failure, of course, would cancel out the endurance!

Track specialists have big muscles but the ones who go into road racing have to train up. Their endurance is too short. Same with bulked up lifters. Notice how Lance's muscular upper body conditioned from triathlons melted away after the first few years?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> Squats are not likely doing a thing for VO2 max work. Except potentially making your legs too tired to push as much power as you could without.


I wasn't mentioning it to improve VO2 max work.

But...since that's essentially the topic at hand, I will redact my comment.


----------



## Roland44 (Mar 21, 2013)

tvad said:


> Squats work the glutes, which is beneficial for cycling. I don't believe a lot of weight is necessary. Single leg squats are even better.
> 
> I'm not sure about the benefits of dead lifts. I've never read any cycling weight training program that included them.


Many experts recognize deadlifts as the king of all exercises. They are not only good for cycling but if done correctly can help a lot with everyday activities, like picking heavy stuff off the floor in correct posture. Deadlifts will put a lot of strength on your posterior chain too and improve overall athletic performance.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Roland44 said:


> Many experts recognize deadlifts as the king of all exercises. They are not only good for cycling but if done correctly can help a lot with everyday activities, like picking heavy stuff off the floor in correct posture. Deadlifts will put a lot of strength on your posterior chain too and improve overall athletic performance.


I have learned something today thanks to RBR Forums.


----------



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

ziscwg said:


> Yeah,
> One thing, compare 5x5 to 5x5.
> 
> Next, comparing one time to one time is not the greatest. If you could do it 3 weeks in a row, then it might be a better analysis.
> ...


It was not intentional to compare 5x5 to 6x6, that just happened to be the first interval session of each season. I went back and looked at last season to compare my starting point. I'll do a few more sessions and see how I compare. I just remember the last season's first day (6x6) so vividly. I had just gotten my power meter, amped to get training, fighting the urges to hit big power numbers right off the bat and burn myself out, etc. I'm just surprised that I hit 6x6 for the same numbers I just barely did for 5x5.


I'm 30 years old and spent age 21-28 doing weights but switched to cycling because it sounded more fun. I still do weights but I do 2 days a week of low intensity/volume and the bulk of my "program" (to stay in shape) is cycling. Weights M/W, cycling Tu/Th/Sa/Su.


----------



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> Comparing two sessions is a pretty small N to be drawing conclusions from, especially if you did have an off (or great) day for one session.
> 
> But what the heck, let's think about it anyway. Pure speculation here, given the limited data.
> 
> ...


Yeah, being lighter my w/kg is probably about the same, I'm just surprised (and disappointed) that after all this time of riding hard I'm not any better off than I was a year ago. At the end of my interval program last summer I was the strongest I have ever been, but I've faded since then to the same starting point I was a year ago. This is disappointing since I live where I can ride year round. It's not like I just took 3 months off for winter...


----------



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

Fredrico said:


> Lifting over the winter definitely improved my power in the Spring. :thumbsup: I followed the plan of Eddy B for the Polish cycling team back in the 80s. He recommended high rep full body lifting to total 10 tons when all added up. I did all the standard stuff: squats, deadlifts, barbell curls, bench presses, side lifts, in 4 sets of 20 repetitions each, of light weights building up to moderate weights. Amazing that a standard routine adds up to 10 tons in about an hour.
> 
> Come Spring, I could do everything better, and only had to build up endurance, which came quickly. Go for it!
> 
> Don't eliminate upper body. Cyclists ignore upper body. I found my climbing and sprinting improved having pulled together and strengthened upper body. Definitely worth it over the winter when you're not using up lots of energy and recovery time racking up the miles.


I still do upper body... chest/shoulders/abs on Monday and back/biceps on Wednesday.




pedalbiker said:


> Sounds like you're not in as good as shape.
> 
> Want to get better at 6 min intervals? Keep doing them.
> 
> With that said, those numbers are too close to say anything about anything. Could just be your powermeter variance.


I FEEL like I'm in better shape though and my times will back it up.


I started riding in early 2013 - 1578 miles, 2014 - 3801 miles, 2015 - 5564 miles, and by the end of next month I'll have as much ride time for 2016 as I had in all of 2013. I split my time between road, cross (gravel and easy singletrack), and mountain (mostly blue square or black diamond trails). I did the same mountain bike loop that I did this time last year 30 full minutes faster (moving time) a week ago than I did a year ago. This is a 30 mile mountain bike loop, but 30 mins is still quite substantial.


It's just odd to me that the same routes that kicked my ass 12-18 months ago are no big deal to me now, but my power numbers and perceived effort on intervals show the opposite. I gotta give it another go but I'm a little disappointed at my first round of intervals this year.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

thisisthebeave said:


> Yeah, being lighter my w/kg is probably about the same, I'm just surprised (and disappointed) that after all this time of riding hard I'm not any better off than I was a year ago. At the end of my interval program last summer I was the strongest I have ever been, but I've faded since then to the same starting point I was a year ago. This is disappointing since I live where I can ride year round. It's not like I just took 3 months off for winter...


You're now 5-10 lbs lighter, and makes a tiny less power. So your w/kg didn't change. I would not say you lose any fitness.

Another factor to keep in mind is that you might have just plateaud. It happens in every sport. Nobody is ever going to improve their performance in an forever upward trajectory.

Also, keep in mind that at a lighter weight, your cardiovascular system now has less overall mass to support and maintain. So in the long run, you're better off anyway with the lighter weight, regardless of performance.

And then there is the error viariance factor. This alone can explain the difference.

Having said all that, I would not stop squating and deadlifting 2x week. You're 30, that means going forward you'll only lose bone density. Squating and deadlifting will help preserve bone density, along with many benefits that come from good strong bones.

But to answer your question. I've been lifting for probably over 15 years. I lift a lot less today, but I'm still very muscular looking, even when compared to the gymrats. My strength has decreased somewhat, but I'm by no means a weakling. My bike fitness, while nothing amazing, but it's also not bad either. If I stop lifting and just concentrate on cycling, I might get a little better on the bike, but it won't be much, this I'm almost certain of.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Nonetheless, being out of shape could be blamed on the absence of weight work in the off season. When its cold and windy outside, no better antidote than lifting 10 tons of weights in the warmth and comfort of home.


You don't get in cycling shape by lifting weights. 

Specificity.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Roland44 said:


> Many experts recognize deadlifts as the king of all exercises. They are not only good for cycling but if done correctly can help a lot with everyday activities, like picking heavy stuff off the floor in correct posture. Deadlifts will put a lot of strength on your posterior chain too and improve overall athletic performance.


How exactly are dead lifts useful for cycling (or any endurance sport whatsoever)? 

Strength is NOT a limiter for anything over a few seconds time (which is what cycling is).


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

thisisthebeave said:


> I FEEL like I'm in better shape though and my times will back it up.
> 
> 
> I started riding in early 2013 - 1578 miles, 2014 - 3801 miles, 2015 - 5564 miles, and by the end of next month I'll have as much ride time for 2016 as I had in all of 2013. I split my time between road, cross (gravel and easy singletrack), and mountain (mostly blue square or black diamond trails). I did the same mountain bike loop that I did this time last year 30 full minutes faster (moving time) a week ago than I did a year ago. This is a 30 mile mountain bike loop, but 30 mins is still quite substantial.
> ...


So? Then chalk it up to power variance. You're not talking a huge percentage difference at all. 

You're disappointed at your first round of intervals? You say you've trained and raced a fairly significant amount before, but then make statements like that and I scratch my head. 

Like I said in my first post, if you want to be good at something, you have to do it. Don't expect to ride slow as hell and then start cranking out awesome intervals. I don't know why you would even start with vo2 intervals in the first place. That's just a lesson in agonizing frustration. I've been doing intervals for 3-4 months now and still haven't done a vo2 set yet.


----------



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

pedalbiker said:


> How exactly are dead lifts useful for cycling (or any endurance sport whatsoever)?
> 
> Strength is NOT a limiter for anything over a few seconds time (which is what cycling is).


Helps for mountain biking, muscling over obstacles... but road biking, yeah, rare for raw strength to be a limiter.




pedalbiker said:


> So? Then chalk it up to power variance. You're not talking a huge percentage difference at all.
> 
> You're disappointed at your first round of intervals? You say you've trained and raced a fairly significant amount before, but then make statements like that and I scratch my head.
> 
> Like I said in my first post, if you want to be good at something, you have to do it. Don't expect to ride slow as hell and then start cranking out awesome intervals. I don't know why you would even start with vo2 intervals in the first place. That's just a lesson in agonizing frustration. I've been doing intervals for 3-4 months now and still haven't done a vo2 set yet.


My coach said 3-5min intervals are ideal. 3-5mins bleed over into 20-60 min efforts more than 20-60 min efforts do into 3-5 min efforts. That way you can go out, slaughter yourself for 18-25 mins of real actual work (6x3mins or 5x5mins) and get stronger overall the quickest. Just one mans perception but he is so ungodly fast and I saw amazing gains last season from following him, there's gotta be some truth to it.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

I'm not questioning the impact of VO2 max work, I'm questioning the timing and placement of the work. 

Like I said, going from nothing to intervals like those is just torture. If you've been doing a few months of slow stuff (which I'd never advocate in the first place) it doesn't make a lot of sense to just start throwing out hell-fire missiles. 

And all of this begs the question: if you have a coach that you apparently admire so much that you regurgitate stuff like this, why not just go to said coach with your question?


----------



## ParadigmDawg (Aug 2, 2012)

I lift weights 3-4 days/wk and ride 3-4 days/wk.

When I am in the gym I tell people I am weak because I am really a cyclist.

When I am on the bike I tell people I am slow because I am really a weight lifter


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

pedalbiker said:


> You don't get in cycling shape by lifting weights.
> 
> Specificity.


Yes, but lifting over the winter when you can't ride is also "cross training."  Easing off cycling for a couple of months, or rather cutting back on riding due to cold, darkness, snow, etc, and doing something else will still keep rider fit for Spring. The specificity comes back quickly. That was the way it was with me, anyway. I came back fresh as a daisy, rarin' to go. Just cycling over the winter didn't do it. Riding a bike doesn't do much for the upper body.


----------



## scott967 (Apr 26, 2012)

I'm not sure lifting once a week is going to make much of a difference one way or the other. I don't think it's bad for you, but I found deadlifting was good for ... deadlifting. I do single leg squats, alternating legs. I've seen people do them with kettles, but I do them on a nautilus machine these days. I try to pay attention on how me knees track, and try to get as much flexion as I can while keeping form. I also use a lower back extension machine which I think helps with flexibility. Too old for the squat rack.

scott s.
.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Yes, but lifting over the winter when you can't ride is also "cross training."  Easing off cycling for a couple of months, or rather cutting back on riding due to cold, darkness, snow, etc, and doing something else will still keep rider fit for Spring. The specificity comes back quickly. That was the way it was with me, anyway. I came back fresh as a daisy, rarin' to go. Just cycling over the winter didn't do it. Riding a bike doesn't do much for the upper body.


So is shoveling snow, but that also doesn't get you in cycling shape. 

You don't need upper body strength for cycling performance as evidenced by every emaciated climber in the pro peloton. Everything you need you get on the bike.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> So is shoveling snow, but that also doesn't get you in cycling shape.
> 
> You don't need upper body strength for cycling performance as evidenced by every emaciated climber in the pro peloton. Everything you need you get on the bike.


I generally agree with the major point you are making, but those emaciated climbers break easy when they go wheels up. 

Weight work can help with MTB, and sprinting. It can also help strengthen the core, which cycling does not work. It can help in every other daily thing you do on and off the job, leaving more energy for training.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

tvad said:


> Golly. Thanks! It's not often I'm made to feel like a ten year old, but you managed to do it.


HTFU! 

But seriously, like you I thought deadlifts were not very useful, and I did not remember seeing them in training suggestions (not that I look at such things much at all, but it's hard to avoid them completely). So we were both wrong in what we thought, and now we both know a bit more than we used to.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

If all you do is cycling, it will give rise to muscle imbalance as you get older, and this may means back pain, which will affect your cycling. Chris Froome has a known history of back pain, so to remedy this, his trainers have him workout in the gym doing light squat and core ever single day before he goes on his training ride. I'd imagine it's not just Froome doing this, probably the entire Sky team is doing it too. This was talked about in an interview with Froome awhile back.

Here's a youtube video of the Saxo Tinkoff team doing core, every day.






In the video, the trainer makes a good reference to Formula 1 engine. Having a great engine alone does not make a great car, you need all other components to make a car run good too, and just as importantly run reliable and deliver consistent performance.

Cyclists do not need to do heavy weight like powerlifters, but to avoid weightlifting all together is not a good thing in the long run, especially as age catches up. I'm betting that there is no pro-cycling that does not incorporate some sort of core and/or light leg training regime in their program.

BTW, in the video above, it shows guy doing jumping jacks and active resistance stretching of the legs and quads. These are essentially close to mimicking doing light high reps squats. You don't have to do squat in a squat rack to be doing squat eh. Find a sturdy box and jump up on it. That's close to squating. Go to the local highschool stadium and start doing stairs, that's squating. Plenty of ways to skin a cat.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> Neither have I. Ergo, a waste of time if cycling performance is the goal.


You seem to be a knowledgeable cyclist, but some of your comments regarding the lack of usefulness of core strengthening and lower body strengthening (specifically gluteus) via squats seems ignorant of modern training for cyclists. It's more than a little befuddling.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> You seem to be a knowledgeable cyclist, but some of your comments regarding the lack of usefulness of core strengthening and lower body strengthening (specifically gluteus) via squats seems ignorant of modern training for cyclists. It's more than a little befuddling.


Pedalbiker is a little obsessive about specificity. True that if you want to be good at something, do it a lot. But specificity also gives rise to specific problems, eventually. They always do.

here's the issue I see with long term endurance cycling only. Say you train hard on the bike, even at high intensity, you're still training unloaded. That is, you develop muscles and cardio but not your bones, and in fact, due to high cortisol level from constant endurance training, your bone density decreases even faster than a couch potato (not exaggerating). And now, in your off-bike time, you feel like you have to lie horizontal because you have to recover. Well this again unloads your weight. Essentially, your skeleton almost never gets a workout, i.e., your bones are slowly turning to ash, hello osteoporosis. If you ain't racing pro for a living, you have no business whithering away your body like that eh. But I get it, some people will do anything at all costs. But when they get to 50, their minds might change, but by then they're a tad late. I've been lifting weight for 15-17 years ever since junior in school, and as much as I love cycling, there is not freakin way I'm staying away from the weightroom. Anyone who has lifted weight know the benefits it can give.

Chris Boardman, at around age 30, was forced to retire from pro cycling due to osteoporosis. His doctor told him his bones are too porous, need to take testosterone to remedy this condition, and taking test means he can't race. At freakin 30 years old! Not to mention a load of other symptoms associated with low testosterone eh, but this is whole 'nother discussion.

Runners have been doing strength training in the gym as far as I can remember, dating back to my highschool days (when I was running cross country).

Strength Training | Runner's World


----------



## BigTex91 (Nov 5, 2013)

pedalbiker said:


> Neither have I. Ergo, a waste of time if cycling performance is the goal.


The core muscles are among the fastest recovering muscles in the body, hence the reason that an intense core workout won't affect your riding the next day. "Not feeling it" has nothing to do with whether there is any benefit to your riding, and your anecdotal evidence is likely leading you to a very wrong conclusion. 

A weak or quickly tiring core can affect you in ways you might not think about, and it can fool you into believing that your legs are giving out. 

The core muscles are the body's stabilizers. There isn't a single human activity that doesn't reap benefits from a strong core. Seriously, take a look at the position we ride in and tell me that the core muscles aren't doing anything on a bike.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

BigTex91 said:


> The core muscles are among the fastest recovering muscles in the body, hence the reason that an intense core workout won't affect your riding the next day. "Not feeling it" has nothing to do with whether there is any benefit to your riding, and your anecdotal evidence is likely leading you to a very wrong conclusion.
> 
> A weak or quickly tiring core can affect you in ways you might not think about, and it can fool you into believing that your legs are giving out.
> 
> The core muscles are the body's stabilizers. There isn't a single human activity that doesn't reap benefits from a strong core. Seriously, take a look at the position we ride in and tell me that the core muscles aren't doing anything on a bike.


What he said ^^^^^^^


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

The post isn't asking about the benefits in general, it's asking about the benefits for cycling. The simple answer is no. If you want to get faster on the bike ride a training plan to get faster on the bike. Squats may have some limited benefit but deadlifts don't...


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> I generally agree with the major point you are making, but those emaciated climbers break easy when they go wheels up.
> 
> .


Doesn't really have anything to do with anything, though.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> Here's a youtube video of the Saxo Tinkoff team doing core, every day.


Isn't that just crazy that dudes from half a dozen countries get together, _in their cycling kits_, to do core work?

And every day!!!



> I'm betting that there is no pro-cycling that does not incorporate some sort of core and/or light leg training regime in their program.




I'd very, very happily take that bet. Even if you put "off-season" conditioners on it, there are still lots of pros that don't do that. 

And not that the majority of them need to. I guess if you're searching for that last little percent, or are doing some rehab or imbalance pt...since you're getting paid to do it and all...


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> You seem to be a knowledgeable cyclist, but some of your comments regarding the lack of usefulness of core strengthening and lower body strengthening (specifically gluteus) via squats seems ignorant of modern training for cyclists. It's more than a little befuddling.


I'm extremely knowledgeable. And extremely practical. I probably average 10 hours of training a week year round, but I'm a successful cat 1. I don't waste time doing stuff that is a waste of time. 

I spent my first five seasons, including two seasons as a cat 1, doing significant weight room and core work on top of a ton of on-the-bike training. 

And then I stopped because I realized all of those movements and all of that effort and energy I was doing, they really didn't do a single thing for me on the bike!

But, BUT, how can that be? I mean, CORE! It's your friggin' CORE! It's at the CORE of everything!

Obviously once I stopped doing gym work my power plummeted across the board...

Except it didn't. My sprint got better when I started doing better sprint workouts. My 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 60 min power all got better when I started doing specific workouts tailored to those critical power values. 

Because at the end of the day, unless you're dysfunctional or have an imbalance (certainly an issue for some, to be sure), you ARE going to get what you need core and upperbody wise on the bike. It really is that simple. 

It's not getting overzealous on specificity. It's taking half a second to critically examine how to improve cycling performance. And the weight room is not it for road/crit racing.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

BigTex91 said:


> A weak or quickly tiring core can affect you in ways you might not think about, and it can fool you into believing that your legs are giving out.
> 
> The core muscles are the body's stabilizers. There isn't a single human activity that doesn't reap benefits from a strong core. Seriously, take a look at the position we ride in and tell me that the core muscles aren't doing anything on a bike.


My core isn't holding me back. My inability to get enough oxygen to my muscles quickly enough is what is holding me back. 

Because, you know, aerobic sport (as Coggan would say).


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

thisisthebeave said:


> Yeah, being lighter my w/kg is probably about the same


So, you didn't lift and your watts/kg is just about the same. IOW, lifting last year didn't affect your watts/kg.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> Pedalbiker is a little obsessive about specificity. True that if you want to be good at something, do it a lot. But specificity also gives rise to specific problems, eventually. They always do.
> 
> here's the issue I see with long term endurance cycling only. Say you train hard on the bike, even at high intensity, you're still training unloaded. That is, you develop muscles and cardio but not your bones, and in fact, due to high cortisol level from constant endurance training, your bone density decreases even faster than a couch potato (not exaggerating). And now, in your off-bike time, you feel like you have to lie horizontal because you have to recover. Well this again unloads your weight. Essentially, your skeleton almost never gets a workout, i.e., your bones are slowly turning to ash, hello osteoporosis. If you ain't racing pro for a living, you have no business whithering away your body like that eh. But I get it, some people will do anything at all costs. But when they get to 50, their minds might change, but by then they're a tad late. I've been lifting weight for 15-17 years ever since junior in school, and as much as I love cycling, there is not freakin way I'm staying away from the weightroom. Anyone who has lifted weight know the benefits it can give.
> 
> ...


The benefits of strength* training to endurance cycling performance are not well supported by the evidence. What evidence there is does not demonstrate significantly better performance that that attainable with appropriate on bike training, and normally less benefit.

If bone mineral density is of concern then strength work is not the thing you should be doing, but rather more modestly jarring/jolting types of exercise like jogging, or touch football, or basketball, skipping, that sort of thing. Weights don't have nearly the beneficial impact on BMD that such exercises do, indeed in many cases it's effect is pretty negligible. Better than sedentary of course, but if such things are of primary concern, then I'd be pursuing the activities where the benefits are most strongly supported by evidence.

As for weights and running, that's a different kettle of fish as the joint angles and forces are quite different, and the fact it involves eccentric and concentric muscle actions, of which cycling is wholly concentric action (with perhaps the only small exception being slowing down on a fixed gear bike).

None of this is to say it will significantly harm your performance, unless you do too much of it, add a lot of muscle mass resulting in mitochondial dilution, reduces your ability to do the necessary work on a bike, or suffer injury. Else I suggest people do stuff they enjoy and keeps them happy - motivation is really important.

I've spent plenty of time in weight room at times during my racing "career" and it only ever correlated with reduced performances, even in track sprint events. I simply responded far better to on bike work.
YMMV


* Strength as defined in exercise physiology.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

pedalbiker said:


> I'm extremely knowledgeable. And extremely practical. I probably average 10 hours of training a week year round, but I'm a successful cat 1. I don't waste time doing stuff that is a waste of time.
> 
> I spent my first five seasons, including two seasons as a cat 1, doing significant weight room and core work on top of a ton of on-the-bike training.
> 
> ...


At Cat 1 level, I can see your point. Riding at those intensities is a full body activity. The core muscles are already in shape for the tasks demanded of them, all on the bike.

Many of us mortals never come close to Cat. 1. We're the ones who could benefit from some moderate weight lifting in the off season, if for anything else, to tighten up muscles stressed during the season, like lower back, neck, the muscles that hold everything in place and "ride" the bike. 

That's what I noticed the year I lifted. I was already fit from the last year. My strength was a little better, but power hadn't improved. I just felt better on the bike.

The core muscles above the hips shrink during cycling. Look at the top pros. There's a great example of "specificity." These muscles get out of shape on probably most riders if all they do is ride. Getting them fit may not be measurable in watts, but it sure improves confidence, being able to move around on the bike, for me anyway.

Agree, if rider puts too much effort into anything other than the performance he wants to achieve on the bike, it will be counterproductive--if you're already in great shape! :thumbsup:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> I'm extremely knowledgeable. And extremely practical. I probably average 10 hours of training a week year round, but I'm a successful cat 1. I don't waste time doing stuff that is a waste of time.
> 
> I spent my first five seasons, including two seasons as a cat 1, doing significant weight room and core work on top of a ton of on-the-bike training.
> 
> ...


It works for you.

But, what you do (or don't do) flies in the face of what many professional cyclists are doing to improve their performance (or endurance, or prevent injury) on the bike.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

pedalbiker said:


> Isn't that just crazy that dudes from half a dozen countries get together, _in their cycling kits_, to do core work?
> 
> And every day!!!
> 
> ...


sorry, paid athletes on company payrolls, with trainers on hands, don't just do random exercises if they don't see no benefits. Just because you don't see the benefits, or don't think there is evidence of its benefits, doesn't mean people doing them don't see fit. Maybe "staying injury free" is a part of long term cycling performance too? and not just some 20 min lab test? Then there' also the life aside from cycling too.

Paid pros are doing other exercises besides cycling, but some weekenders racing for peanuts want to focus on nothing but cycling so they can win some no name race? What's wrong with this picture, in the grand scheme of things?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> The benefits of strength* training to endurance cycling performance are not well supported by the evidence. What evidence there is does not demonstrate significantly better performance that that attainable with appropriate on bike training, and normally less benefit.
> 
> If bone mineral density is of concern then strength work is not the thing you should be doing, but rather more modestly *jarring/jolting types of exercise like jogging, or touch football, or basketball, skipping*, that sort of thing. Weights don't have nearly the beneficial impact on BMD that such exercises do, indeed in many cases it's effect is pretty negligible. Better than sedentary of course, but if such things are of primary concern, then I'd be pursuing the activities where the benefits are most strongly supported by evidence.
> 
> ...


This is all nice unless you have knee issue or starting to have knee issues. Old age only compound any minute knee issues. So not everyone is going to be able to run, jump, and skip to a desirable extent. But nothing say we have to just lift weight alone. What about a combination of dynamic but limited jarring exercise couple with short but heavy bout of lifting?

And what about the benefits of injury prevention? Plenty of endurance runners and swimmers work with weight. Are those coaches also wrong in telling their clients?

I know there is a lack of evidence in this area. Looks like evidence in this field is lacking, maybe because there is a low interest in funding such studies, maybe because "real" athletes don't have the time nor interest in participating in such studies, so maybe that's why the evidence is lacking. But for sure, there are more than a handful of endurance athletes doing the weightlifting/core workout routine, and this trend seems to be increasing, not decreasing, despite a lack of scientific evidence.

Maybe "performance" to these athletes is more than a 20min lab test, more than a 5k run, maybe they and their coaches know how to keep them from injury-free and this is seen as performance too.

But all this science and nonscience stuff are still wide open to debate. Nothing has been settled one way or another. Jury is still out on the weight training thing, and what possible advantage or disadvantage it may provide, and if so what what extent. Jury is still out.

==========================

Now this part below is not addressing you directly Alex, but to the general public:

Let me divert the attention of this topic a bit and pose a more practical question. Why are amateur non-paid weekend athletes, working 8-5, with zero hope of ever signing any paid contract,... ever so obsessed about training to perform on the bike as if he's going to be competing for money? If he doesn't have the genetics, he has zero zilch nada chance, weight training or no weight training. The whole "specificity training" perspective is out of whack for me to grasp in the grand scheme of their lives. And yes, osteoporosis and hip and vertebrae fracture is a real concern, especially for an aging population, which is pretty much every developed countries. It is not simply my concern, it's a real healthcare concern, and it's a concern that is best addressed in the earlier part of life, because building bone density is pretty much futile in the later part of life when you need it most. And yes, elites cyclists have the most porous bone of all athletes.

This is from a guy who used to put in 20 hrs/wk for almost a year on the bike/trainer. I think I've been over to that extreme side of cycling specific training as it gets for an amateur (though I still hit the gym), and in the end, I fail to see any long lasting value is cycling-specific training in my life. Because eventually I realize I ain't ever gonna be pro, and I'm just out there trying to win/compete against a bunch of wannabe bicycle racers who in reality more like big crit guys and nothing much like Tour de France guys. And when specificity training isnt enough, time to go for the PEDs. The obsession to compete/win within the peanut gallery is just mental at times and perspectives out of whack eh.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> This is all nice unless you have knee issue or starting to have knee issues. Old age only compound any minute knee issues. So not everyone is going to be able to run, jump, and skip to a desirable extent. But nothing say we have to just lift weight alone. What about a combination of dynamic but limited jarring exercise couple with short but heavy bout of lifting?
> 
> And what about the benefits of injury prevention? Plenty of endurance runners and swimmers work with weight. Are those coaches also wrong in telling their clients?
> 
> ...


Yes, we may be talking past each other. Elite cyclists need to specify workouts on the bike. If they don't, they can't be truly competitive in races. 


But they're a small segment of the cycling public. They also race for 10 or 20 years and then "retire," unlike we codgers who keep riding as if we were training for the big one that will never come. 

Bicycling is a great component of an overall fitness program for "seniors," so we could be talking a different breed of cat than a pimply faced 19 year old who's winning the local crits and wants to go on to greatness. I'm finding brisk walks are about the best overall exercise I can do at age 72 on. Riding is taking its place in this regimen. I no longer need specificity. Cycling built up the aerobic system and legs, which transitions well into walking, with the added benefit of moderate impacts on the bones, just what an older guy needs. Last year I was tested for everything tracking down a bowel problem. My bones are fine, resting HR and steady pulse admired by the nurses, one saying, "72?! You don't look 72!" Keep the BMI as close to spec as possible, and do moderate impact exercise such as walking. Save the high intensity stuff for low impact cycling. This has worked for me, so far.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

BigTex91 said:


> The core muscles are among the fastest recovering muscles in the body, hence the reason that an intense core workout won't affect your riding the next day.


If core includes quadriceps, then I have to disagree with you. Unless you and I have different view on what "intense workout" is.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> Doesn't really have anything to do with anything, though.


Do you think 2-3 weeks off the bike versus 2-3 months is irrelevant to developing power as a cyclist?


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> Do you think 2-3 weeks off the bike versus 2-3 months is irrelevant to developing power as a cyclist?


I think you're going way out into left field trying to stretch your inaccurate core strength position into something about bone density and the effects of crashing.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> sorry, paid athletes on company payrolls, with trainers on hands, don't just do random exercises if they don't see no benefits. Just because you don't see the benefits, or don't think there is evidence of its benefits, doesn't mean people doing them don't see fit. Maybe "staying injury free" is a part of long term cycling performance too? and not just some 20 min lab test? Then there' also the life aside from cycling too.
> 
> Paid pros are doing other exercises besides cycling, but some weekenders racing for peanuts want to focus on nothing but cycling so they can win some no name race? What's wrong with this picture, in the grand scheme of things?


You're right. Employees NEVER do anything they disagree with for media publicity stunts. Or, to put another way, they ALWAYS do the same things on their own that they do at publicly filmed team training camps. 

Your picture has nothing to do with anything. Don't confuse your notion of a healthy lifestyle with the topic at hand: performance. Racing at an elite level (or participating in most any sports at an elite level) is NOT a healthy lifestyle. 

Healthy lifestyles don't have to be mutually exclusive of performance training, but the argument is a different one entirely.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> It works for you.
> 
> But, what you do (or don't do) flies in the face of what many professional cyclists are doing to improve their performance (or endurance, or prevent injury) on the bike.


No, not really. I think you're being swayed by off season training articles and publicity stunts. 

You think most dudes are hitting the gym a couple of days after Paris-Roubiax or in the weeks leading up to the TdF?


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> I think you're going way out into left field trying to stretch your inaccurate core strength position into something about bone density and the effects of crashing.



I think you are going out of your way to do lots of things.

Weight training can help short term power, so it can help your kick, sprint. It can do that very well indeed. If you do the weights correctly for that purpose. 

Weight training (as most work outs define it) isn't going to do much for your longer term power, not the steady output, not compared to bike specific training.

*Weight training can keep you healthy and able to train longer and harder on the bike*. If you doubt it, feel free to spend 20+ years riding without touching a weight (as I did) and see how hard you can go in your 40s. Then spend a few years hitting the weights and see what happens in terms of your performance and injury resistance. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> No, not really. I think you're being swayed by off season training articles and publicity stunts.


No. Not at all. I'm being swayed by the advice of professionals in the field of sports medicine. Guys and gals with advanced degrees who work with professional and elite amateur athletes.



pedalbiker said:


> You think most dudes are hitting the gym a couple of days after Paris-Roubiax or in the weeks leading up to the TdF?


No. I'm not talking about gym training with weights. Core strength training doesn't require any weights, and effective gluteus, hamstring and lower back training doesn't require anything more than a stretch band...or nothing at all.


----------



## tickyboy (Jan 11, 2015)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> I think you are going out of your way to do lots of things.
> 
> Weight training can help short term power, so it can help your kick, sprint. It can do that very well indeed. If you do the weights correctly for that purpose.
> 
> ...


Someone that gets weight training!!


Deadlifts, as mentioned are one of the very best full body workouts you can do, and having a healthy and strong complete body will help you in all athletic aspects... Including cycling!!


For strength, concentrate on low reps at higher sets ie 3\4x5 with your 10 rep max weighg. Will increase strength without bulk. (Think Bruce Lee vs Arnold).


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

tickyboy said:


> For strength, concentrate on low reps at higher sets ie 3\4x5 with your 10 rep max weighg. Will increase strength without bulk. (Think Bruce Lee vs Arnold).


Really? Muscle adapts differently to stressors like weight? Really? Does it get longer and leaner too? Working to failure causes adaptation, growth, during recovery. Bruce Lee and Arnold have vastly different genetics. If you think you can be one of them through the type of lifting you do then you are very mis-informed.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> I think you are going out of your way to do lots of things.
> 
> Weight training can help short term power, so it can help your kick, sprint. It can do that very well indeed. If you do the weights correctly for that purpose.
> 
> ...


What a compelling argument. 

I really don't think you understand what it means to be able to train longer and harder on the bike, but do keep on believing that weight training is the key. I promise not to share your "secret". 

Anyway, I'll go with what actually works in the real world. 

And thanks, you have a nice day, too.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tickyboy said:


> Someone that gets weight training!!
> 
> 
> Deadlifts, as mentioned are one of the very best full body workouts you can do, *and having a healthy and strong complete body will help you in all athletic aspects... Including cycling!!*
> ...


Let's say I start hitting the gym 3x a week to do deadlifts and whatever other myriad of weight training you deem necessary. 

Can you give me a ballpark figure of how much faster I'm going to get?


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> No. Not at all. I'm being swayed by the advice of professionals in the field of sports medicine. Guys and gals with advanced degrees who work with professional and elite amateur athletes.
> 
> 
> No. I'm not talking about gym training with weights. Core strength training doesn't require any weights, and effective gluteus, hamstring and lower back training doesn't require anything more than a stretch band...or nothing at all.


Awesome. You take that advice for all of these "athletes" and you do what you do. 

Get your pistol squats and rubber bands a zinging because you think that's what all of these pro cyclists are doing. Maybe I'll even work up the gumption to ask a few pros about their "glute work" next month when the NRCs start. I already know the answer, though, even if you don't.

In the meantime, I'll concentrate my energy on what actually matters: the bike.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

pedalbiker said:


> Let's say I start hitting the gym 3x a week to do deadlifts and whatever other myriad of weight training you deem necessary.
> 
> Can you give me a ballpark figure of how much faster I'm going to get?


How much slower is the better question, haha... Especially if you are older. To gain muscle through lifting you need to lift and recover in a sequence. You are losing riding time to recover... Or, if you ride instead of recovering, you will interrupt the process of adaptation and nullify much of your "gains" in the gym.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

"_1. Mark Cavendish: Prior to the 2014 season, the Manx Missle had never lifted weights, he relied on his natural abilities and on bike workouts to get to where he was. But his coaches realized that he needed to start in order to compete with Kittel.
2. Andre Griepel: Griepel clearly likes to hit the gym and it shows as he is one of the top sprinters in the world.
3. Phil Gaimon: When he was trying to take his career to the next level, Gaimon got a gym membership. So weight training is for more than just sprinters._"

Strength Training for Cyclists Part 1 - The Wannabe Racer


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> Awesome. You take that advice for all of these "athletes" and you do what you do.


Why would professional and elite collegiate athletes require quotes, as if to suggest they aren't really athletes? I can assure you they are bona fide athletes, and those coaching them are at the top level of their field. There are no qualifying quotes required.

Are the cyclists in Post #64 who are weight training also "athletes"? Aren't they true athletes?



pedalbiker said:


> Get your pistol squats and rubber bands a zinging because you think that's what all of these pro cyclists are doing. Maybe I'll even work up the gumption to ask a few pros about their "glute work" next month when the NRCs start. I already know the answer, though, even if you don't.
> 
> In the meantime, I'll concentrate my energy on what actually matters: the bike.


Someday, you'll hopefully grow out of your derisive phase and see the benefits of listening to the advice of others. It does take a while to reach that point. Longer for some. Less for others. I imagine it will take you quite some time.

In the meantime, look at post #64 and see what weight training is doing for the top pro racers in the world. Even a Cat 1 guy might learn something beneficial.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

PBL450 said:


> To gain muscle through lifting you need to lift and recover in a sequence. You are losing riding time to recover... Or, if you ride instead of recovering, you will interrupt the process of adaptation and nullify much of your "gains" in the gym.


That depends on the type of riding. If it's light load and cardio oriented, then it's beneficial for muscle building. 

"_cardio can help your body repair muscle damage quicker because it increases blood flow. This helps your body build the muscle back up quicker and remove the waste, which results in an all-around quicker recovery. This is why I always do a cardio session on legs day–it dramatically reduces leg soreness in the days to follow._"

Cardio and Muscle Growth: Friends or Foes? | Muscle For Life


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

bvber said:


> That depends on the type of riding. If it's light load and cardio oriented, then it's beneficial for muscle building.
> 
> "_cardio can help your body repair muscle damage quicker because it increases blood flow. This helps your body build the muscle back up quicker and remove the waste, which results in an all-around quicker recovery. This is why I always do a cardio session on legs day–it dramatically reduces leg soreness in the days to follow._"
> 
> Cardio and Muscle Growth: Friends or Foes? | Muscle For Life


Good advice. Better make that cardio effort the next day a nice, easy spin, though! Don't try to do speed or climbing intervals! Ouch! That cardio is a "recovery day."


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

bvber said:


> That depends on the type of riding. If it's light load and cardio oriented, then it's beneficial for muscle building.
> 
> "_cardio can help your body repair muscle damage quicker because it increases blood flow. This helps your body build the muscle back up quicker and remove the waste, which results in an all-around quicker recovery. This is why I always do a cardio session on legs day–it dramatically reduces leg soreness in the days to follow._"
> 
> Cardio and Muscle Growth: Friends or Foes? | Muscle For Life


Agreed, but you are talking very light work... Your reference is "day-of" lifting, but you need the next day for recovery to realize gains. If you do that and If you lift 3X per week you are de-facto doing this 3X per week. When are you training to get faster? If you train hard the day after lifting you are not going to see any gains from it. Especially as you age. You train and rest to adapt from riding or lifting... The logic loop behind doing both together and having meaningful results is a tough one. If you have hit the genetic lottery and are in your athletic prime, perhaps it's an easier equation to solve.


----------



## JasonB176 (Aug 18, 2011)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> I think you are going out of your way to do lots of things.
> 
> Weight training can help short term power, so it can help your kick, sprint. It can do that very well indeed. If you do the weights correctly for that purpose.
> 
> ...


I didn't ride for 20 years without lifting weights but did cycle from my late 20s until my mid 30s without doing so. I had recurring back and groin problems. When I look at my riding logs from that era, I'm amazed at how often I reported some kind of injury. When I got back into cycling in my late 30s, I combined it with significant amounts of strength training including core work. I have been almost injury free since (I'm 44 now). I feel there is a strong correlation between this.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

JasonB176 said:


> I didn't ride for 20 years without lifting weights but did cycle from my late 20s until my mid 30s without doing so. I had recurring back and groin problems. When I look at my riding logs from that era, I'm amazed at how often I reported some kind of injury. When I got back into cycling in my late 30s, I combined it with significant amounts of strength training including core work. I have been almost injury free since (I'm 44 now). I feel there is a strong correlation between this.


Sure was for me, too. In fact, I went into cycling from weight lifting. At age 40, the overall integrity of the body made a big difference. Of course, ya gotta be careful not to overdo the weights if you're trying to get faster on the bike. Pedalbiker doesn't need supplemental upper body conditioning--yet.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

JasonB176 said:


> I didn't ride for 20 years without lifting weights but did cycle from my late 20s until my mid 30s without doing so. I had recurring back and groin problems. When I look at my riding logs from that era, I'm amazed at how often I reported some kind of injury. When I got back into cycling in my late 30s, I combined it with significant amounts of strength training including core work. I have been almost injury free since (I'm 44 now). I feel there is a strong correlation between this.


You can't rationally argue that you won't be healthier for daily life by lifting, doing core work and cycling. Absolutely. But that isn't the point. The point is whether it will make you faster on the bike. And that answer is that it really will not. There are certainly some benefits, especially if involves injury recovery and/or specific weaknesses or imbalances. But what I'll make you faster is work on the bike. If you have a weak core, then you may need to strengthen it beyond the natural adaptation that will occur with riding miles.... Lots of miles. I could see the benefit of plyos. I used to do 1X week as a speed skater religiously. It was brutal... Maybe a good idea for older cyclists, moderate impact plyos? Improve bone density, work at max HR... But nothing is going to make you faster but on bike specificity in your cycling training.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

PBL450 said:


> But nothing is going to make you faster but on bike specificity in your cycling training.


Cavendish and Greipel would likely disagree based on the weight training they are doing (see post earlier in this thread).


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

tvad said:


> Cavendish and Greipel would disagree based on the weight training they are doing (see post earlier in this thread).


I'd love to see peer reviewed scholarship that supports your assertion? It wasn't that long ago that I would be agreeing with you across the board... But I have read and read and listened... And, despite what I might believe or want to think, the answer is very clear. And it is NO. So I put belief behind me and trust the science. I could care less what videos you post... That is as far from knowledge as you can get.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

PBL450 said:


> I'd love to see peer reviewed scholarship that supports your assertion? It wasn't that long ago that I would be agreeing with you across the board... But I have read and read and listened... And, despite what I might believe or want to think, the answer is very clear. And it is NO. So I put belief behind me and trust the science. I could care less what videos you post... That is as far from knowledge as you can get.


I didn't post any videos, and I haven't made any assertions. I've only pointed readers to the strength training that is being done by some of the world's fastest cyclists and cycling teams. 

It's clear the best sprinters in the world are including weight training in their preparation. 

You want a peer review? It's not enough to simply look at their race results?


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

PBL450 said:


> Agreed, but you are talking very light work... Your reference is "day-of" lifting, but you need the next day for recovery to realize gains.


The next day cardio is also helpful.


> If you do that and If you lift 3X per week you are de-facto doing this 3X per week. When are you training to get faster?


You don't weight train same muscle 3x per week if you want to build up strength. Typically it's done once a week.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

"_Sir Chris Hoy, the British track cycling superstar, has colossal 27in thighs, which enable him to squat 240kg (more than 2.5 times his bodyweight), cycle around a velodrome at speeds of nearly 50mph_"

"_The workout Hoy shows me is made up of squats, stiff-leg deadlifts, Bulgarian squats and an abs exercise called ‘stirring the pot’._"

Olympian efforts | ShortList Magazine


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

PBL450 said:


> Agreed, but you are talking very light work... Your reference is "day-of" lifting, but you need the next day for recovery to realize gains. If you do that and If you lift 3X per week you are de-facto doing this 3X per week. When are you training to get faster?


I would suggest different weight training in the season versus off season.

During season, light high rep lifting (not to failure, but to "slight difficulty") a couple times a week to keep tone. Personally, I would skip the legs during the season. 

Off season, work to build muscle in glutes, quads, and hams, high weight low rep sets. In fact, I would suggest for cycling specific reasons, avoiding the free weights and using machines for this. Target the motion in the plane of the cycling stroke. Add more low weight/ high rep sets to hips and core, to help handle the higher power without jacking your back. (and of course work to strengthen the rest of the body too, when cycling training is less of an issue).

So work to *put muscle on* in a very targeted way a couple months in winter, *train that new leg muscle to cycling* early in the season, see benefits in higher steady power output during the season.

That's not what I actually do, but it is what I would do if I wanted to be able to lay down more power a couple years from now... for 5-10 minutes at a time.

What I actually do is a warm up on elliptical, then circuit training, which takes me exactly an hour from home to gym to home, two days a week. I hate weights, did way too much of them in my wrestling days. But 2 hours a week not to fall apart, that I can endure.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> I would suggest different weight training in the season versus off season.
> 
> During season, light high rep lifting (not to failure, but to "slight difficulty") a couple times a week to keep tone. Personally, I would skip the legs during the season.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more that the schedule you are on is a better way toward health and daily functioning than riding alone. By a lot even! Off season lifting to add muscle and weight to convert later to something more usable in cycling certainly seems to make better sense. That was always the approach as a speed skater. Lifting and training hard on the bike doesn't make a lot of sense, logically. Certainly lower body work, and that is all a cyclist really needs, maybe a little upper body, but not much, is going to kill your on-bike hard workouts. And, as you get older and benefit even more fm recovery time, you are taking away cycling specific training and recovering time. Foolish if your goal is to ride a bike faster...


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

tvad said:


> I didn't post any videos, and I haven't made any assertions.


Yes, good point, sorry...


----------



## bitterertundra0 (Jun 17, 2012)

PBL450 said:


> I'd love to see peer reviewed scholarship that supports your assertion? It wasn't that long ago that I would be agreeing with you across the board... But I have read and read and listened... And, despite what I might believe or want to think, the answer is very clear. And it is NO. So I put belief behind me and trust the science. I could care less what videos you post... That is as far from knowledge as you can get.


Can you point us to peer-reviewed scholarship that opposes it? Sorry if that question seems to have a confrontational tone, it is not the intention. I'm genuinely interested in reading that type of stuff.

Here is a link to an article which is a summary of 7 peer-reviewed sources (sources included) that does support strength training for endurance. Does strength training improve running performance? | Training Science What I gleaned from it was that strength training has less benefit the longer the events and the better trained the athlete, the less impact is observed. Also, strength training did not have a negative effect in any of the trials.


----------



## cnardone (Jun 28, 2014)

bitterertundra0 said:


> and the better trained the athlete,


I'd just like to highlight this. I know we get into a lot of details. And I know we often point to how / what the Pros are doing. I am not a Professional quality athlete and more importantly, I am not even in the area code of my peak possible fitness level.

I herniated a disc last June. I did not feel good enough to do anything (dead lifts, squats or ride for that matter), until October. My first time I did squats, I did a set of 20 (or so) with no weights. I did a second set of 20 or so with just the bar (45lbs). About 3 squats into the 3rd set (again just the bar), my legs where done. I could not get back up.

I am not saying that weights would be more effective than riding. But ANYTHING I do will be an improvement over where I was/am. Jump rope, walk the dog, run with the kids in the back yard. Just keep moving. That is not necessarily so with someone that is already very fit.


----------



## BigTex91 (Nov 5, 2013)

bvber said:


> If core includes quadriceps, then I have to disagree with you. Unless you and I have different view on what "intense workout" is.


My definition of core does not include quads, nor do I believe most peoples'. The abdominals, mid and lower back, obliques and, peripherally, glutes and hip flexors are usually defined as the core muscles.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> And what about the benefits of injury prevention? Plenty of endurance runners and swimmers work with weight. Are those coaches also wrong in telling their clients?
> 
> *I know there is a lack of evidence in this area.* Looks like evidence in this field is lacking, maybe because there is a low interest in funding such studies, maybe because "real" athletes don't have the time nor interest in participating in such studies, so maybe that's why the evidence is lacking. But for sure, there are more than a handful of endurance athletes doing the weightlifting/core workout routine, and this trend seems to be increasing, not decreasing, despite a lack of scientific evidence..


The evidence to support injury prevention is very thin for cyclists, and there is evidence that such exercise can result in increased injury risk.

The most common causes of non-crash injury for cyclists are improper bike fit (including shoes/cleat/pedal interface) and attempting to do too much and or do it too quickly. Address those issue first as they are the most important. Pretty much similar principles apply to running (e.g. badly fitting shoes, doing too much/too quickly).

The evidence of performance benefit of strength training for runners is much stronger than it is for cyclists. That's mostly likely due to the nature of running versus cycling - they have quite different forces in play with different impacts on various connective tissues.

Again I'm not seeking to dissuade people from doing such exercises, they can be great for one's general health and well being. And your point about the individual goals and aspirations is important.

My comments relate to an _over hyping_ of the performance and injury prevention benefits, as the evidence for such is equivocal at best. People should not expect such activity will make much difference (anecdotes aside, because, well, anecdote).

If you like and enjoy such training - then go for it! Motivation is really important and if it helps with that and makes you feel better, that's great. If you don't like it, then don't sweat it - cycling is still the single best exercise for improving any aspect of cycling performance. Bar none.

Trends and fashions exist in all forms of exercise but that does not mean they have a greater evidential basis. There are sheeple trainers everywhere, and S&C coaches everywhere prescribe, you guessed it, S&C exercises in their gyms as a panacea for all sorts of things. Provided they do no harm, then I've no particular objection.

We have a guide on such exercises we provide for our clients so that they can safely undertake such activity while doing no harm to their cycling abilities.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

bvber said:


> "_1. Mark Cavendish: Prior to the 2014 season, the Manx Missle had never lifted weights, he relied on his natural abilities and on bike workouts to get to where he was. But his coaches realized that he needed to start in order to compete with Kittel._


_

And how's that working out for Cav? He's not beaten Kittel in any head to head sprint yet._


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

bvber said:


> "_Sir Chris Hoy, the British track cycling superstar, has colossal 27in thighs, which enable him to squat 240kg (more than 2.5 times his bodyweight), cycle around a velodrome at speeds of nearly 50mph_"
> 
> "_The workout Hoy shows me is made up of squats, stiff-leg deadlifts, Bulgarian squats and an abs exercise called ‘stirring the pot’._"
> 
> Olympian efforts | ShortList Magazine


Before being overly impressed by Hoy's prowess, note that Hoy's squat PB is significantly less than the women's WR.

This is prep for track sprint cycling (not endurance cycling we are discussing), where evidence of strength work does demonstrate some benefit, but only up to a point. Strength in and of itself is inadequate for a track sprinter. It's power than matters and hence the rate at which one can apply force, not the force alone. One can be very strong, but pretty slow (in relative sprint terms).

That's why track sprinters don't actually need strength beyond such levels - because it ends up making them slower, not faster.

For an endurance athlete where aerobic capabilities vastly dominate, then it's a whole different athletic ball game.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> And how's that working out for Cav? He's not beaten Kittel in any head to head sprint yet.


Perhaps that's because Kittel also weight trains in his off season:

"And in the winter I’m really busy in the gym, *doing a lot of squats – around 120kg – and core workouts.* The focus then is on high weights and low repetitions to build power output. In the summer, weight sessions are less frequent and the workouts comprise lower weights and more repetitions. This adds sustainability to your sprints."

From the following article in "Cyclist".


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> But all this science and nonscience stuff are still wide open to debate. Nothing has been settled one way or another. Jury is still out on the weight training thing, and what possible advantage or disadvantage it may provide, and if so what what extent. Jury is still out.


Well despite 35+ years and some 70+ studies on strength and cycling performance that I'm aware of (no doubt there's more), the evidence for benefit to endurance cycling performance is still pretty equivocal.

So I think about why?

If there is benefit, it's not immediately apparent else we'd have clearly seen it by now. It'd stick out like a sore thumb. So that's either because it's not there, or the effect size is too small for such studies to reveal with any repeatable reliability. Keep in mind there are several studies that report it has detrimental impacts.

Yet we have study after study after study showing various forms of cycling training intervention improves cycling performance.

So do we go with a small or non existent effect size, or instead do training that's got clear evidential basis for improving performance?

Again, I'm talking about endurance cycling performance per se, not general health and well being. Nor am I saying don't do strength/gym work. Just we shouldn't overhype the benefits of such training on endurance cycling performance. Especially because the effect size is obviously pretty small, if it exists.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

tvad said:


> Perhaps that's because Kittel also weight trains in his off season:
> 
> "And in the winter I’m really busy in the gym, *doing a lot of squats – around 120kg – and core workouts.* The focus then is on high weights and low repetitions to build power output. In the summer, weight sessions are less frequent and the workouts comprise lower weights and more repetitions. This adds sustainability to your sprints."
> 
> From the following article in "Cyclist".


Perhaps I needed to put my post in pink as the irony perhaps wasn't sufficient.

Both are anecdotal examples that mean nothing.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Both are anecdotal examples that mean nothing.


Cav and Kittel doing off season weight training and core work is anecdotal and meaningless?

You are delusional.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> Why would professional and elite collegiate athletes require quotes, as if to suggest they aren't really athletes? I can assure you they are bona fide athletes, and those coaching them are at the top level of their field. There are no qualifying quotes required.
> 
> Are the cyclists in Post #64 who are weight training also "athletes"? Aren't they true athletes?
> 
> ...


They'd require quotes because we're not talking about other athletes, we're talking about endurance cycling. The quotes denote the fact that you're going off-topic. 

A lot of what I know I learned by listening to the advice of others AND then applying what I learned to see what worked. Others that actually had a clue as to what they were talking about in the first place and not an internet blowhard who has none of the experience but all of the conjecture. 

My favorite part is you now jumping on an *OFF-SEASON WEIGHT* training regiment of one or two pros as some sort of justification for your position. Weren't you just going on about not using weights? Really, do you even know what side you're arguing at this point?

Do try to keep up.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> Do try to keep up.


I'm doing just fine keeping up.

You'll notice if you read the article and the quote that Kittel weight trains both off season and during the season.

It's exceedingly entertaining to watch you move the goal posts as you try to argue against the obvious.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> Cavendish and Greipel would likely disagree based on the weight training they are doing (see post earlier in this thread).


As I queried earlier, do you think they're doing this in the middle of the classics? How about in the weeks before the TdF? 

Serious question: do you understand the theory of periodization and the principle of specificity?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> As I queried earlier, do you think they're doing this in the middle of the classics? How about in the weeks before the TdF?


It doesn't matter, as it's not on point. You're moving the goal posts to try to maintain your increasingly weak position.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> But, what you do (or don't do) *flies in the face of what many professional cyclists are doing to improve their performance *(or endurance, or prevent injury) on the bike.





tvad said:


> No. I*'m not talking about gym training with weights*. Core strength training doesn't require any weights, and effective gluteus, hamstring and lower back training doesn't require anything more than a stretch band...or nothing at all.





tvad said:


> In the meantime, look at post #64 and *see what weight training is doing for the top pro racers in the world*.
> 
> Are the cyclists in Post #64 w*ho are weight training* also "athletes"? Aren't they true athletes?


You are *SO* confused!


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> It doesn't matter, as it's not on point. You're moving the goal posts to try to maintain your increasingly weak position.


Let me restate my position:

You get better at riding a bike fast by riding a bike fast. You do not get better at riding a bike fast by doing gym work. 

Your initial position was that everyone was doing core and glute work sans weight. Now your position seems to be *OFF-SEASON weight training. Do keep in mind that would comprise all of maybe a month or two a year. *

That enough of a point for you?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> You are *SO* confused!


Truly I'm not.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

pedalbiker said:


> Serious question: do you understand the theory of periodization and the principle of specificity?


I assume you ignored this because you don't. And that explains a lot.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> Let me restate my position:
> 
> You get better at riding a bike fast by riding a bike fast. *You do not get better at riding a bike fast by doing gym work.*


And based on the evidence presented about Cav, Kittel and others, you are clearly either misinformed, behind the curve, or just plain wrong.

Read the interview with Kittel. He does weight work off season _and during the season (adjusting the weight and reps)_.

It's entertaining to watch you ignore the obvious as you desperately hang to your (erroneous) position.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> Truly I'm not.


I actually believe that you believe that. 

So you'll continue to revel in your ignorance while the cycling elite continues to ride their bike really, really fast. 

And honestly, it really doesn't matter.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> And based on the evidence presented about Cav, Kittel and others, you are clearly either misinformed, behind the curve, or just plain wrong.
> 
> It's entertaining to watch you ignore the obvious as you desperately hang to your (erroneous) position.


Okay, tvad, I'm ready to learn.

Please explain to me, then, why such weight work is limited to the off season? 

You ignored my previous question about building up before the TdF because you said it moved the goalposts. There are no goalposts here. You assert it makes you faster on the bike. Respond to the question then. 

If it makes you faster, why are guys not doing it all season long? Why is Contador not plowing out reps? Why, with umpteenth documentaries done on Armstrong, was he never baning out deadlifts in the weightroom during those mountain recon sessions? Why are all of these people so noticeably absent from the weight room when the rest of their training is covered in so much detail?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> I actually believe that you believe that.
> 
> So you'll continue to revel in your ignorance while the cycling elite continues to ride their bike really, really fast.


The cycling elite...e.g. Cav and Kittel (and certainly others)...integrate weight training (off season and during the season). 

That's the take-away.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> The cycling elite...e.g. Cav and Kittel (and certainly others)...integrate weight training (off season and during the season).
> 
> That's the take-away.


Wrong.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> Okay, tvad, I'm ready to learn.
> 
> *Please explain to me, then, why such weight work is limited to the off season?*


It's not limited to off season. Read the interview with Kittel.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> Wrong.


Wrong? 

The articles and videos posted previously aren't enough evidence?

Is the sky blue?


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> It's not limited to off season. Read the interview with Kittel.


For the majority (of which most pros are not) that do weight training, it IS limited to the off-season. 

Again, back to the theory of periodization and specificity that you're so ignorant of.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> For the majority (of which most pros are not) that do weight training, it IS limited to the off-season.


Changing the goal posts once again.

This debate is leading to nothing productive.

Good luck to you in your season.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> Wrong?
> 
> The articles and videos posted previously aren't enough evidence?
> 
> Is the sky blue?


I genuinely don't know what color you'd consider the sky. You seem to look at things and see stuff that isn't there. 

Anyway tvad, like I said earlier, you don't know what you're talking about. You have no experience and all you're doing is throwing conjecture around. 

You don't even know what you're arguing as what you're saying now is DIRECTLY at odds with your earlier posts. 

So when someone can't even figure out what they're arguing, then there's really no hope for any sort of understanding.

I'll be racing in the first two pro races of the US season next month. That's anecdotal as all hell, but I think it also falls back to the point of experience versus an internet blowhard who has no stake in the game and really no knowledge of it whatsoever at the elite level (to go with that, referring to Alex Simmons as delusional is just asinine). 

So until your next attempt at arguing something you clearly know nothing about... have a good one.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> That's anecdotal as all hell, but I think it also falls back to the point of experience versus an internet blowhard who has no stake in the game and really no knowledge of it whatsoever at the elite level (to go with that, referring to Alex Simmons as delusional is just asinine).


You're not Cav and you're not Kittel...and you're not a pro racer.

You're a faceless Cat 1 rider who posts on the internet as if he's an expert. 

I prefer follow the lead of the pros (at least they've posted video, and interviews of what training they're doing) and professionals in the field of sports training.

How many more insults would you like to trade?


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> You're not Cav and you're not Kittel...and you're not a pro racer.
> 
> I prefer follow the lead of the pros (at least they've posted video, and interviews, of what they're doing), than a faceless, blowhard Cat 1 rider who posts on the internet as if he's an expert.
> 
> How many more insults would you like to trade?


No, and I've never claimed to be. But I train and race with pros. And I have a slightly better understanding of training and methodology than what someone can glean from a youtube video and an online article. 

That's pretty much how it stacks up. Me, with a position I've maintaned from the getgo, a position based on reality that is used by elite cyclists the world over. And you, someone who watched a youtube video and from that learned so much that you changed the position you were previously arguing. Oh, and don't forget your earlier ad hominem towards actual, professional experts.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> I train and race with pros. And I have a slightly better understanding of training and methodology than what someone can glean from a youtube video and an online article.


That's all very good.

Perhaps you'll hit the gym and get even faster after learning what _the fastest guys in the world_ do to win races.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> That's all very good.
> 
> Perhaps you'll hit the gym and get even faster after learning what _the fastest guys in the world_ do to win races.


As I said to that earlier dude ranting and raving about deadlifts: my core and muscles aren't holding me back, my inability to get enough oxygen to said muscles is. 

It's an aerobic sport. 

And that's really all there is to it.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> As I said to that earlier dude ranting and raving about deadlifts: my core and muscles aren't holding me back...


Really? As a guy who apparently rejects weight training, you'll never know...unless you do it.

I'll give you credit for being intractable.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

As a scientist (brain), I find these claims about the state of the art in exercise science of cycling to be a bit curious. For one, almost all of training in cycling is based on anecdotal evidence. Even worse, it's based on an unrepresentative sample (pros), in which case the training regimes may be more selecting successful riders than creating them. Given the long history of doping in the sport, recovery, training load, etc. may be skewed as well. A little like following the training regime of a professional bodybuilder or power lifter. When it comes to specifics, such as how many interval sessions to include in a week, how to block them, etc. there is little consensus and few well-designed studies.

Re strength training, the limited studies that have some actual methodology in them, such as Ronnestad's, do show unequivocal benefits (and not simply as a result of a study in untrained subjects who are likely to respond to any systematic stimulus). The results are similar to running, in that they reveal improvements in cycling economy. They also find increased fractional utilization of VO2max. They identify cellular pathways involved, including increase in type IIA fibers and increase in endurance performance (40 min tt). It isn't just about sprint training.

For many cyclists, especially US riders whose main competitions are short criterium-like events, it makes little sense to emulate a European pro (I"m old enough to remember when one of the few books out was Lemond's and everyone thought they had to do 500 mile weeks). For a masters racer who is losing muscle mass, strength training has additional benefits. So too for hypothyroidism, hypogonadism, etc. 










Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Well despite 35+ years and some 70+ studies on strength and cycling performance that I'm aware of (no doubt there's more), the evidence for benefit to endurance cycling performance is still pretty equivocal.
> 
> So I think about why?
> 
> ...


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Before being overly impressed by Hoy's prowess, note that Hoy's squat PB is significantly less than the women's WR.


I'm not sure what your point is by bringing up women's WR. :confused5:



> For an endurance athlete where aerobic capabilities vastly dominate, then it's a whole different athletic ball game.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see OP mentioning endurance issue.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Both are anecdotal examples that mean nothing.


Kittel was out most of 2015 season. Why not wait another season and then comment on the results.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

tvad said:


> Cav and Kittel doing off season weight training and core work is anecdotal and meaningless?
> 
> You are delusional.


Delusional?

Not well documented training based on media reports of a couple of pros is most definitely anecdotal, especially when used in the context of it being a key factor in their relative race performances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

tvad said:


> The cycling elite...e.g. Cav and Kittel (and certainly others)...integrate weight training (off season and during the season).
> 
> That's the take-away.


And it's a small selective sample with nothing more than media reports to provide actual evidence of what these two really do, let alone what all pro riders do and don't do.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> And it's a small selective sample with nothing more than media reports to provide actual evidence of what these two really do, let alone what all pro riders do and don't do.


The lengths to which you and other Flat Earthers will go in this thread to discredit the benefits of weight training for cyclists is beyond belief.

Truly mind blowing.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> As a scientist (brain), I find these claims about the state of the art in exercise science of cycling to be a bit curious.


What claims? I've only pointed to the evidence that's available, not commented on the quality of it. There are over 70 published studies I'm aware of concerning strength training and cycling. Many of them pretty ordinary, or not directly relevant for various reasons. Of ones that are, the impact is still fairly equivocal on the whole.



stevesbike said:


> For one, almost all of training in cycling is based on anecdotal evidence. Even worse, it's based on an unrepresentative sample (pros), in which case the training regimes may be more selecting successful riders than creating them.


No argument there! Often riders are good despite their training.



stevesbike said:


> Given the long history of doping in the sport, recovery, training load, etc. may be skewed as well. A little like following the training regime of a professional bodybuilder or power lifter. When it comes to specifics, such as how many interval sessions to include in a week, how to block them, etc. there is little consensus and few well-designed studies.


Indeed. In my view, getting the overarching principles of training right is way more important that the particulars of an individual interval. 

Consistency, frequency, progressive overload, recovery as required, specificity and individualisation of training are what matter.



stevesbike said:


> Re strength training, the limited studies that have some actual methodology in them, such as Ronnestad's, do show unequivocal benefits (and not simply as a result of a study in untrained subjects who are likely to respond to any systematic stimulus). The results are similar to running, in that they reveal improvements in cycling economy. They also find increased fractional utilization of VO2max. They identify cellular pathways involved, including increase in type IIA fibers and increase in endurance performance (40 min tt). It isn't just about sprint training.


?
Ronnestad's study showed no improvement in economy. 

From Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015 Feb;25(1):e89-98. doi: 10.1111/sms.12257. Epub 2014 May 27.



> Neither of the groups displayed alterations in VO2max or cycling economy


Yet they reported an improvement in TT-like performance in the strength training group over the non-strength training group. Hence fractional utilisation of VO2max must have changed in the strength group as you suggest.

I question Ronnestad's conclusions regarding attribution of performance change. The work given to each groups was not the same. The improvement noted was from a group that did more work. Hardly a surprise that doing more work results in an improvement in fractional utilisation of VO2max.

And the improvements noted are no where near the magnitude attainable from doing quality on the bike efforts as demonstrated by the many published experiments with various on-bike training interventions, which are by and large unequivocal on this.

That's the real rub. Is doing something in the gym better for performance than doing something specific on a the bike? I'd have to say it isn't.



stevesbike said:


> For many cyclists, especially US riders whose main competitions are short criterium-like events, it makes little sense to emulate a European pro (I"m old enough to remember when one of the few books out was Lemond's and everyone thought they had to do 500 mile weeks). For a masters racer who is losing muscle mass, strength training has additional benefits. So too for hypothyroidism, hypogonadism, etc.


Again, I've never said people should not do such training. Please understand that. My point is about _over hyped performance gains_ from such activity, especially when compared to on bike training.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

tvad said:


> The lengths to which you and other Flat Earthers will go in this thread to discredit the benefits of weight training for cyclists is beyond belief.
> 
> Truly mind blowing.


Resorting to ad hominem is hardly going to win an argument. And neither is creating a strawman argument. Please avoid further logical fallacy (e.g. use of anecdotal evidence) because otherwise it suggests who the real flat earther might actually be.

A question:

Have you actually read any of the published research on the subject?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Resorting to ad hominem is hardly going to win an argument?


I'm really not trying to win any argument, rather just pointing people in the direction of what some of the _fastest cyclists in the world_ are doing to improve themselves.

Mostly, it's been defense against you and pedalbiker as you repeatedly attempt to discredit what is obviously a benefit.

The OP has long left the building. Smart one, he.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

tvad said:


> I'm really not trying to win any argument, rather just pointing people in the direction of what some of the _fastest cyclists in the world_ are doing to improve themselves.


What some are _reported_ to be doing, without any actual evidence of its efficacy. Let alone relevance of what a professional does to the cyclists that might frequent this forum.



tvad said:


> Mostly, it's been defense against you and pedalbiker as you repeatedly attempt to discredit what is obviously a benefit.


Yet it's not an obvious benefit to endurance cycling performance. Especially not over and above what is attainable through on bike training.

It might be in your mind, and it seems that you believe it to be, but that does not make it so. 

Which is why I look for more solid forms of evidence (even if imperfect) and consider the body of evidence (rather than say picking one study), instead of relying on anecdote, belief and what a pro may or may not be reported to do. Hence why I asked about whether you had in fact read any of the published literature on this topic.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> ...it's not an obvious benefit to endurance cycling performance. Especially not over and above what is attainable through on bike training.
> 
> It might be in your mind, and it seems that you believe it to be, but that does not make it so.


Nope. I've never claimed strength training to be beneficial to endurance cycling, and improved _endurance_ cycling was not the issue mentioned by the OP in Post #1.

I suggest you cease the Strawman arguments, and re-read the topic to be more on point.

Perhaps you should address your comments to Cav, Kittle, and likely Greipel ( look at his physique) about how their race results are anecdotal in relation to the hard work they're putting in at the gym. 

From Dave Loyd:

"Lloyd says he worked regularly in the gym to develop upper body strength while riding as a professional, and asks his clients to do the same. “When you’re sprinting, you’re using your arms, your shoulders, your back. Everything goes into a sprint. You have more control over the bike if your upper body is strong. The stronger you are, the more you can control the bike. I tell my guys not to throw the bike all over the place, but to concentrate on sending power to the back wheel.”


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

tvad said:


> Nope. I've never claimed strength training to be beneficial to endurance cycling, and improved _endurance_ cycling was not the issue mentioned by the OP in Post #1.





thisisthebeave said:


> I'm starting out with some power training now that it is warming up and my goal for today was [email protected]


You don't think 5 minutes qualifies as an endurance effort?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

asgelle said:


> You don't think 5 minutes qualifies as an endurance effort?


You'd have to ask the OP what he considers 5 minutes an endurance effort. He's the one who counts.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

tvad said:


> You'd have to ask the OP what he considers a 5 minute effort. He's the one who counts.


Apparently you have some thoughts on the matter.


tvad said:


> ..improved endurance cycling was not the issue mentioned by the OP in Post #1.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

asgelle said:


> Apparently you have some thoughts on the matter.


The OP was writing about reduced power numbers over five minute intervals. I don't consider that endurance cycling, no.

The question posed was, "Any benefit to squats/deadlifts for cycling POWER?"

Power is the OP's goal.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

tvad said:


> I've never claimed strength training to be beneficial to endurance cycling....





tvad said:


> ...what you do (or don't do) flies in the face of what many *professional cyclists* *are doing to improve their performance (or endurance*, or prevent injury) on the bike.





tvad said:


> ...
> *I prefer follow the lead of the pros* (at least they've posted video, and interviews of what training they're doing) and professionals in the field of sports training.
> ...



TVAD, it seem you have claimed that strength training is beneficial to bike riding, isn't that your whole argument here?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

arai_speed said:


> TVAD, it seem you have claimed that strength training is beneficial to bike riding, isn't that your whole argument here?


I did use the word endurance. 

Wish I hadn't.

I do believe that strength training is beneficial for cycling, based on what I observe by what pro cyclists are doing to improve, and based on the advice given to me by an expert in sports science with a Phd who trains pro athletes, college athletes and is a professor at USC, 

I'll leave it at that. I've exhausted my interest in this debate.

###


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Which is why I look for more solid forms of evidence (even if imperfect) and consider the body of evidence (rather than say picking one study), instead of relying on anecdote, belief and what a pro may or may not be reported to do. Hence why I asked about whether you had in fact read any of the published literature on this topic.


I began looking at peer reviewed scholarship much more seriously at your (and two others) suggestions. I used to believe strength training was essential. That's the thing, and I point to it often, there is a critical difference between what we know and what we believe. Albeit imperfect, the research does seem consistent.

Knowlege is Good.
-Emil Faber 1904


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> Really? As a guy who apparently rejects weight training, you'll never know...unless you do it.
> 
> I'll give you credit for being intractable.


You didn't read my earlier posts. I said I did it for my first five seasons, including two as a Cat 1. 

I got faster (stronger at all data points, from peak 1s to 4 hours) when I didn't do it and focused on better bike workouts.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

tvad said:


> Nope. I've never claimed strength training to be beneficial to endurance cycling, and improved _endurance_ cycling was not the issue mentioned by the OP in Post #1.


Holy crap, you've totally lost the plot. That's what this ENTIRE discussion is about. 

So now, not only can you not keep your own arguments straight, you obviously can't even keep the TOPICS the arguments center on straight. 

You're sort of hopeless with regards to this issue.

5 minutes is like 80%+(?!) aerobic. It's way more "endurance" than not.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

PBL450 said:


> I began looking at peer reviewed scholarship much more seriously at your (and two others) suggestions. I used to believe strength training was essential. That's the thing, and I point to it often, there is a critical difference between what we know and what we believe. Albeit imperfect, the research does seem consistent.
> 
> Knowlege is Good.
> -Emil Faber 1904


Standard wisdom in the halls of experience is, "when strength goes up, endurance goes down, and vice versa." I believe this uses the word strength correctly. Weight lifting improves strength, so it's logical it would also reduce endurance. As pedalbiker says, its not the legs, its the heart and lungs ability to supply the fuel that's the limiting factor. Strong legs demand more cardio than weaker legs, but the weaker legs can work just below AT and go on and on, and make up for it with power, watts.

But I think this misses the point. The pros have always had supplemental exercise programs for the off season, to rehabilitate the parts of the body broken down in a hard season of racing, upper body principally. They still have to bust their butts in the Spring to get fast again, but at least they're starting off in overall physical conditioning they won't have to develop along with the early season riding. MTB racing and cyclocross are great for rebuilding agility and strength in the off season. Maybe that's what the pros are doing now. But if it's cold outside and snows on the ground, doing deadlifts and squats in a nice warm gym might be just the ticket. 

And how about indoor track racing? Another short duration strength building strategy.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> But if it's cold outside and snows on the ground, doing deadlifts and squats in a nice warm gym might be just the ticket.


+1 :thumbsup:


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> What claims? I've only pointed to the evidence that's available, not commented on the quality of it. There are over 70 published studies I'm aware of concerning strength training and cycling. Many of them pretty ordinary, or not directly relevant for various reasons. Of ones that are, the impact is still fairly equivocal on the whole.
> 
> 
> No argument there! Often riders are good despite their training.
> ...


Ronnestad's more recent research shows improvements in cycling economy in trained female cyclists following heavy strength training: 

Ellesfsen et al., Strength training improves cycling performance, fractional utilization of VO2max
and cycling economy in female cyclists. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS · MAY 2015

in that study, there was no statistical difference in total training duration between the two groups (endurance, endurance + ST). 

improvements in cycling economy has also been shown following strength training in trained male and masters: 
Sunde A, Storen O, Bjerkaas M, Larsen MH, Hoff J, Helgerud J. Maximal strength training improves cycling economy in competitive cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 2010.
Louis J, Hausswirth C, Easthope C, Brisswalter J. Strength training improves cycling efficiency in master endurance athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012.
Barrett-O'Keefe Z, Helgerud J, Wagner PD, Richardson RS. Maximal strength training and increased work efficiency: contribution from the trained muscle bed. Journal of applied physiology 2012.

It is possible that it wasn't observed in the study you refer to due to subject pool (elite cyclists) so either economy was already near maximal and/or training stimulus too small to induce further adaptation. 

That's good if you don't dismiss it categorically. I think for masters athletes (especially in the US where racing is mostly short criterium style and even IP is 2k) strength training could have beneficial effects not just in terms of training specificity but more general effects, such as offsetting declining hormonal status. 

Re whether the same benefits could be gained on the bike, I"m not aware of any studies showing conversions of muscle fibers via interval training etc.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

stevesbike said:


> Re whether the same benefits could be gained on the bike, I"m not aware of any studies showing conversions of muscle fibers via interval training etc.


Probably because that's not the point of interval training?!!!!

Does the phrase "aerobic sport" fly completely over the heads of most weight-training advocates in this thread?

If you're racing or riding anything over ~30 seconds, you have much bigger issues to deal with than how much you can squat or deadlift. Because that means absolutely jack.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> Does the phrase "aerobic sport" fly completely over the heads of most weight-training advocates in this thread?
> 
> If you're racing or riding anything over ~30 seconds, you have much bigger issues to deal with than how much you can squat or deadlift. Because that means absolutely jack.


Your mention of max squat/deadlift shows you have zero idea of what you are talking about in relation to cycling training. That is a focus for power lifters, not cyclists. I have never, ever seen a cycling weight training program that has increasing max weight as a goal. Or even a measure. That's not the point, that's never the point.

The analogy to aerobic training and max heart rate might help you get why your focus is completely off base. Do you do aerobic training to increase your max heart rate? Of course not! But you do workouts at a certain percentage of max heart rate to improve aerobic performance. X minutes at Y heart rate.

Similarly, weight training for cycling only uses max weight (if it does at all) to set percentages for workouts designed to increase strength based performance. So X% of your max for Y reps over Z sets. 

The goal is not to increase how much weight you can lift as a max, not at all. Not even a concern really.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> Your mention of max squat/deadlift shows you have zero idea of what you are talking about in relation to cycling training. That is a focus for power lifters, not cyclists. I have never, ever seen a cycling weight training program that has increasing max weight as a goal. Or even a measure. That's not the point, that's never the point.
> 
> The analogy to aerobic training and max heart rate might help you get why your focus is completely off base. Do you do aerobic training to increase your max heart rate? Of course not! But you do workouts at a certain percentage of max heart rate to improve aerobic performance. X minutes at Y heart rate.
> 
> ...



I didn't mention max. I mentioned how much you lift not mattering a bit. Doesn't matter if you lift it once or a 100 times. Your entire response is based on something I'm not even talking about...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

pedalbiker said:


> Probably because that's not the point of interval training?!!!!
> 
> Does the phrase "aerobic sport" fly completely over the heads of most weight-training advocates in this thread?
> 
> If you're racing or riding anything over ~30 seconds, you have much bigger issues to deal with than how much you can squat or deadlift. Because that means absolutely jack.


Your reply indicates you don't understand the basics of strength training adaptation - it is not just for anaerobic sports. Clearly you've never actually read any of these studies. Here's a very short intro: strength training improves 40-minute time trial performance. Is that aerobic enough for you? It does so because it converts IIX muscle fibers to IIa, which are more economical and less fatigable. It also increases fractional utilization of VO2max, which is a critical training goal.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> I didn't mention max.


So, you are so unfamiliar with resistance training that you can't even speak clearly about it? Got it.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> Your reply indicates ...


Two things. First, I would pluralize that. Second, don't expect much when the Dunning–Kruger effect is obviously in play.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Both are anecdotal examples that mean nothing.


Alex_Simmons/RST, would you say the same about the following claim in quote?



pedalbiker said:


> Obviously once I stopped doing gym work my power plummeted across the board...
> 
> Except it didn't. My sprint got better when I started doing better sprint workouts. My 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 60 min power all got better when I started doing specific workouts tailored to those critical power values.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

stevesbike said:


> Your reply indicates you don't understand the basics of strength training adaptation - it is not just for anaerobic sports. Clearly you've never actually read any of these studies. Here's a very short intro: strength training improves 40-minute time trial performance. Is that aerobic enough for you? It does so because it converts IIX muscle fibers to IIa, which are more economical and less fatigable. It also increases fractional utilization of VO2max, which is a critical training goal.


WOW! That's INCREDIBLE.

Now, for the real show-stopper maybe you can explain what doing threshold intervals and the like would do instead? 

Think that would improve 40 minute time trial performance in any significant way? 

Just a guess here. Hit me with the info.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> So, you are so unfamiliar with resistance training that you can't even speak clearly about it? Got it.


So, you're so unfamiliar with the English language that you can't read what's actually written on the page?

I'm sorry that you're so heavily invested in weight training that you think it's paramount that everyone do it. I find such a position both vexing and comical. Clearly, CLEARLY riding a bike will make you better at riding a bike and lifting weights will make you better at lifting weights.

But hey, no one ever claimed that ignorance on this forum wasn't rife in the first place.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

bvber said:


> Alex_Simmons/RST, would you say the same about the following claim in quote?


I imagine he would, and so would I. Anecdotal evidence is just that. 

Besides, I didn't use it as evidence, I used it as a specific illustration demonstrating an occurrence contrary to what was being asserted. 

Connections to personal experience and all...


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> Two things. First, I would pluralize that. Second, don't expect much when the Dunning–Kruger effect is obviously in play.


Yeah, don't expect much when a Cat 1 explains what he and other cat 1s and domestic pros do. Or when he breaks down the fundamental physiological components necessary to actually ride well. 'Cause clearly I don't have a clue what it takes to ride a bike at a decent pace and you very much do.

Zeus knows how I'm capable of even riding past a gym at this point!


----------



## ddave12000 (Aug 16, 2013)

It's completely anecdotal, but I've spent 2 days per week of the last two off seasons in a gym. Tried to do one day a week or every other week during main riding season as well. I haven't done any "hardcore" weight lifting, or anything like that, but have done a ton of squats, lunges, and other various exercises both using body resistance and added weights. I am a lot stronger overall (core, legs, upper body) than before I started going to the gym. All that to say, it's had a tremendous positive impact on my cycling. While of course I can't scientifically attribute weight/gym training to cycling improvement, I didn't do anything else different so it would seem logical to assume that the weight training I did positively impacted my cycling capabilities. of course, this is just one man's experience.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

WTF. This is like the Middle East of cycling topics. You're not going to agree. Move on and live with it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

pedalbiker said:


> WOW! That's INCREDIBLE.
> 
> Now, for the real show-stopper maybe you can explain what doing threshold intervals and the like would do instead?
> 
> ...


How about this: strength training makes possible improving VO2 max. when doing these threshold intervals? :idea: The stronger muscles demand more fuel. This in turn raises VO2 max. and improves those 40 mile TTs.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> How about this: strength training makes possible improving VO2 max. when doing these threshold intervals? :idea: The stronger muscles demand more fuel. This in turn raises VO2 max. and improves those 40 mile TTs.


Except vo2 max is a measure of cardiovascular fitness and not strength, is but one factor (and not as important as some others) in a performance that long, has gains that typically max out with 4-6 weeks of specific work, and lastly, will vary depending on the activity (rowing and xc skiing can be very high). 

And to top it off, as Alex Simmons has repeatedly stated, not much to show that resistance training has been shown to improve vo2 max (or performance) in trained subjects.

No body is ever going to walk out of a gym and drop a sizzling 40k time. Just like no one is going to hop off a bike and out squat all the gym rats. And to focus on one improvement in one of those areas will be at a detriment to the other. It's not how cycling works. Hell, even triathletes trying to improve a specific discipline do so by dropping back on the other two. And that's STILL aerobic sport! Specific demands are too specific. No two ways around it.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> ...Alex Simmons has repeatedly stated, not much to show that resistance training has been shown to improve vo2 max (or performance) in trained subjects...


It took me like 5 seconds to find a study contradicting the above statement:

"Eight weeks of maximal strength training improved CE, work efficiency, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power among competitive road cyclists in spite of a decrease in total weekly cycle training."

http://www.hokksund-rehab.no/filark...AXIMAL_STRENGTH_TRAINING_IMPROVES_CYCLING.pdf


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> Your reply indicates you don't understand the basics of strength training adaptation - it is not just for anaerobic sports. Clearly you've never actually read any of these studies. Here's a very short intro: strength training improves 40-minute time trial performance. Is that aerobic enough for you? It does so because it converts IIX muscle fibers to IIa, which are more economical and less fatigable. It also increases fractional utilization of VO2max, which is a critical training goal.





arai_speed said:


> It took me like 5 seconds to find a study contradicting the above statement:
> 
> "Eight weeks of maximal strength training improved CE, work efficiency, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power among competitive road cyclists in spite of a decrease in total weekly cycle training."
> 
> http://www.hokksund-rehab.no/filark...AXIMAL_STRENGTH_TRAINING_IMPROVES_CYCLING.pdf



Please don't cherry pick such information, it's disingenuous. If you are going to discuss the published evidence, by all means do, then it helps to consider all of it, not just the parts that happen to fit a narrative.

There are also studies that demonstrate such training not to be beneficial to aerobic cycling performance / time trial power. It took me a few seconds to find a few of those too.

As I said earlier, there are over 70 such studies of strength training for cycling that I'm aware of, and on the basis of those which are relevant in context I consider the evidence of efficacy of strength training on aerobic performance in endurance cycling to be fairly equivocal, and certainly no where near the level of gains that people seem to believe exist.

That alone is not a reason to do or not do such training, life is more complex than that. Just it's wrong to over hype such things.

Of course there are individual variations but on the whole the evidence isn't particularly compelling, and that's probably because the effect sizes are too small. Which says something in itself.

Edit: 
I meant earlier to pop in an example of what I mean by selective quoting studies, when really one should be examining all relevant research, e.g. an example:
The effects of strength training on endurance performance and muscle characteristics. - PubMed - NCBI

there are others but you get the point.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

bvber said:


> Alex_Simmons/RST, would you say the same about the following claim in quote?


While obviously anecdotal, pedalbiker's experience isn't uncommon, at least in my years of racing, training and coaching.

I know several riders whose sprint power and sprinting abilities (which is the much more important consideration) improved in a season-wide sense when a strong a focus on the gym was replaced with specific on bike work. And some whose sprint and sprint power improved with some gym work.

In general my observation (not detailed evidence based) is that the guys that don't benefit much are the sort of phenotype that makes for good track endurance riders: scratch / teams pursuit / points race - really top aerobic abilities but with a good neuromuscular kick. I really think such riders need to exercise caution wrt what gym work they do, if any. They are often better off doing specific on bike work, stuff like track starts, and sprint training with the real sprinters. Starts are awesome workouts but lousy to do on a roadie. I guess many here probably don't have much of a chance for training on a velodrome much.

Of course of all the track sprinters I've trained with, coached or raced over the years, gym strength work is typically integral to their development and progression, but even track sprinters don't need a massive amount of strength, and it's not uncommon for such work to actually end up being detrimental if they over do it. Occasionally a track sprinter goes worse as a result of being too strong but not powerful enough. And more importantly for these guys, race craft is paramount. You will never develop race craft in a gym.

Physiologically it's power that matters. All the low speed gym force generation capacity in the world is no good when you are unable to release it at higher muscle contraction velocities. And that's the rub - it's force at speed that matters in sprinting. And sprint endurance. And race craft.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Since we're having fun with anecdotes, I may as well share my own. It's no more than anecdote and does not support nor refute any position on the matters under discussion.

Some here may know that in 2007, a couple of weeks after masters nationals where I had stepped onto podium there and was putting out all time PB power across the board, and had also set a national record in team pursuit with my team shortly before that, I had a bad cycling accident that ultimately ended up with me having a lower (below knee) leg amputation. 

That sucked but I eventually got back to training and racing and despite a massive loss of leg strength by end-2010 I had exceeded my previous sustainable aerobic power output. Understandably, my sprint suffered though, I'd lost about 250-300W off my peak power. In early-2011 I once again set a national record in team pursuit with my team, set an all-time time trial power PB (at para world cup) and won just as many races as I did with two legs. Despite the loss of peak power I just used race craft.

Lose a leg and go faster / end up more powerful. Go figure.

Now days I'm a fat lump that can't wait to move to his new town in a few weeks to start riding again.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

pedalbiker said:


> I'm sorry that you're so heavily invested in weight training that you think it's paramount that everyone do it.



BAHAHAHAHhahahahha!

Really? I'm invested in it? Let's see what the tape says.

Do I lift to improve my cycling performance directly? No, I have clearly said I do weights to prevent injury, using very limited circuit training. Which DOES have an indirect effect on cycling performance, because injuries cause time off the bike. Can everyone in the NON-WEIGHT BEARING sport of cycling improve over the long term with some form of resistance training? Yep. Less time off the bike, more time on the bike.

Did I tell the OP that he should go back to squats and deadlifts? No. But I did point out that use of both is common in cycling training plans.

Did I say stopping the weights would result in less power over 5 minutes, in terms of the OP? No, because I said I did not think there were any real differences in the numbers. To the extent there might have been a difference, I specifically said it would show up in the acceleration phase of the intervals, not the steady state phase.

Did I speculate on a way to use weights to improve such 5 minute performance? Sure, off season targeted strength and mass building.... followed by cycling specific training to get that extra muscle in cycling shape. And I specified a couple years time frame, not a few weeks or months, which is the time frame of some of the studies posted. (which I found very interesting even though small N studies are always problematic, thanks to those who gave enough detail to track those studies down. Anyone know of any meta analysis of studies on this topic?)

And speaking of studies versus other forms of "information"...




pedalbiker said:


> Yeah, don't expect much when a Cat 1 explains what he and other cat 1s and domestic pros do. Or when he breaks down the fundamental physiological components necessary to actually ride well. 'Cause clearly I don't have a clue what it takes to ride a bike at a decent pace and you very much do.


Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. And really, I don’t take anyone’s claims of cycling prowess or knowledge on the net without a huge grain of salt. Especially when that person is willing to make stuff up out of thin air:



pedalbiker said:


> 5 minutes is like 80%+(?!) aerobic.


I'll read studies people post links to, I'll check research they allude to, I'll look up definitions of terms I don't understand fully.... but blather is blather, and those who blather... while clearly not even CONSIDERING other people might know something they don't.... I don't put any weight at all in what they say.

Have a nice day, and enjoy your osteoporosis!


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

arai_speed said:


> pedalbiker said:
> 
> 
> > ...Alex Simmons has repeatedly stated, not much to show that resistance training has been shown to improve vo2 max (or performance) in trained subjects...
> ...


Hmmm. That word "contradicting"? I don't think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

pedalbiker said:


> Except vo2 max is a measure of cardiovascular fitness and not strength, is but one factor (and not as important as some others) in a performance that long, has gains that typically max out with 4-6 weeks of specific work, and lastly, will vary depending on the activity (rowing and xc skiing can be very high).
> 
> And to top it off, as Alex Simmons has repeatedly stated, not much to show that resistance training has been shown to improve vo2 max (or performance) in trained subjects.
> 
> No body is ever going to walk out of a gym and drop a sizzling 40k time. Just like no one is going to hop off a bike and out squat all the gym rats. And to focus on one improvement in one of those areas will be at a detriment to the other. It's not how cycling works. Hell, even triathletes trying to improve a specific discipline do so by dropping back on the other two. And that's STILL aerobic sport! Specific demands are too specific. No two ways around it.


Ok, we agree, "As strength goes up, endurance goes down." And "as endurance goes up, strength goes down." All of this has to do with the muscle fibers, aerobic and anaerobic. Weight lifting is a superior way of building up anaerobic fibers, but as y'all are implying, they actually interfere with the aerobic fibers, crowd them out. The anaerobic "fast twitch" fibers are great for sprinting, but no good for sustained power, as in a TT. 

But we're not talking about body builder style bulking up. We're talking supplemental light weight lifting of high repetition sets, once or twice a week in the off season; not to bulk up the anaerobic fibers, but to strengthen the upper body which deteriorates during the season. The evidence is in the race footage: by the end of the summer, riders are gaunt, bony shoulders, spindly arms. Their upper bodies have only carried the rider in isometric tension, while the legs did all the work.

Sure, using the body in other sports is a bad way to improve cycling performance. But it contributes to overall fitness, so rider is starting out the season in better condition than a couch potato, and will get fast sooner and with less pain.

The time I did it, my legs were stronger, demanded more from the cardio system, and the cardio system improved meeting the challenge. Not only could I get up the hill without going deep into anaerobic, but also recovered faster at the top. As the years went by, I found I could stay with club members on rides at considerably lower heart rates. They'd be pumping 165-175 bpm, and I'd be right with them doing 135-145. I attribute most of that to developing fast cadence, because it evens out the load in the muscular contractions in the legs, which standard wisdom back in the day said favored the slow twitch aerobic fibers, which in turn built up the cardio system so I could stay with the youngsters on the hills at significantly slower heart rates, and thus stay in aerobic much longer than they could.

Just throwing out ideas. Let's get a bit more specific on how to raise VO2 max, thus endurance at higher speeds. Because as speed goes up, endurance goes down, and we want both speed and endurance, right?  

We haven't discussed the best ways to elevate VO2 max. I believe strength training, confirmed in Arai's link above, will also improve VO2 max. which is critical to endurance. But it is also true that track riders have great strength but lousy endurance when they go into road racing. We could talk about why that is, too, because track riders have superior power over efforts lasting more than a 15 second sprint. There're lots of slow twitch aerobic fibers firing in a sustained power effort as well as fast twitch; they're both sharing the work. Physiologists also say the proportions of fast and slow twitch vary somewhat genetically, but the proportions are more or less equal; one group can be trained up over the other, and that cyclists develop powerful slow twitch fibers that can generate high power over the long run, providing the cardio has had enough time to adapt to the increased demands. We could also discuss how that happens.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

rchung said:


> Hmmm. That word "contradicting"? I don't think it means what you think it means.


Well for the benefit of those that didn't actually read the study posted as an example of the aerobic benefits of strength training, when you read it you discover the study reports no impact on VO2max nor any impact on power at lactate threshold!

The only performance test conducted was a time to exhaustion test at MAP, and MAP was determined via a different protocol for each rider, which perhaps is one reason why the groups had such a different average TTE results to begin with, i.e. 360s for intervention vs 567s for control. Intervention group was 7 men and 1 woman, control group was 3 men and 2 women. 40-50% of the training of both groups was not cycling, but comprised running and CX skiing.

But seriously, if VO2max hasn't gone up and power at lactate threshold has not improved, I'd hardly call this study a ringing endorsement of strength training as a way to improve sustainable aerobic power.

What it does show though is that if you do strength training, you improve your strength (1RM).


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> I believe strength training, confirmed in Arai's link above, will also improve VO2 max.


You might believe it, however the study shows no improvement to VO2max as a result of the addition of strength training.

From the study authors:


> No changes in body weight, VO2max, LT power, or cadence (RPM) in neither the intervention group nor the control group were apparent


You can look at the data yourself. It usually helps to read the study.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

So if this one study shows no improvement, and other studies contradict said study, and other studies contradict said studies...etc...then we are left with anecdotal examples.

According to you those anecdotal examples "mean nothing", what are we left with then?


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

arai_speed said:


> According to you those anecdotal examples "mean nothing", what are we left with then?


Just some time to kill on internet chit-chat...


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> Sure, using the body in other sports is a bad way to improve cycling performance. * But it contributes to overall fitness*, so rider is starting out the season in better condition than a couch potato, and will get fast sooner and with less pain.


Especially for those over 30, which is almost everyone on this forum.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

arai_speed said:


> So if this one study shows no improvement, and other studies contradict said study, and other studies contradict said studies...etc...then we are left with anecdotal examples.
> 
> According to you those anecdotal examples "mean nothing", what are we left with then?


Exactly what I said to start with. The evidence of benefits of strength training to aerobic endurance cycling performance is equivocal and hence it should not be hyped in the manner we regularly see on forums and by strength coaches. More to the point, there are well proven and significant benefits from specific on bike training.

What then tends to happen in such discussions is people then change the goal posts and list other beneficial claims (e.g. "injury prevention"), many of which are not strongly supported by a body of evidence either.

I now it's hard sometimes to recognise that belief and evidence don't always match, but it's better that the latter be used to inform. Now of course the conclusion one draws from a body of evidence may change as the evidence mounts and starts to strongly point to a particular conclusion, however that is not a reason to fall back on belief. Where specific evidence is lacking, then falling back on sound principles of exercise physiology is a better place to land.

Again, none of this should persuade or dissuade people from doing stuff in a gym or their home rack. It's really just not that important. What I consider to be more important is that you do something, anything, that is exercise related and that you do it sensibly, and that you (mostly) enjoy it - as enjoyment is a key component of motivation - and motivated cyclists are the ones that tend to perform better.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. And really, I don’t take anyone’s claims of cycling prowess or knowledge on the net without a huge grain of salt. Especially when that person is willing to make stuff up out of thin air:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except that wasn't an argument from authority. That was a direct response to your asinine "effect" quip. Isn't it comical when people try to assert the use of fallacy without actually understanding said fallacy in the first place? Good try, though. 

Not blather. Simply a factoid off the top of my head I didn't bother to look up. But since you want to question it, it's actually 84% according to Gastin's study on running and the use of anaerobic vs aerobic energy supplies. Look it up if you'd like. The entire point of said factoid, though, was that 5 minutes is a lifetime of effort supplied primarily by aerobic respiration.

And I can run a 17 minute 5k when properly enticed. Osteoporosis isn't in the cards yet. But hey, love that ill-will. Try to take a deep breath every once in a while and remember that all of the time you're wasting here isn't changing anything. Pure entertainment only.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

So far you have two prominent figures in the cycling world responding to this thread, one going to great length to explain why so many of these opinions are either inaccurate or flat-out wrong. 

At this point, the entertainment value has diminished significantly and while there's a great amount of relevant information, too many zealots are ignoring it to make the same inaccurate assertions over and over again. 

So you guys enjoy the weekend. Have a protein shake and a smile.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

pedalbiker said:


> So far you have two prominent figures in the cycling world responding to this thread, one going to great length to explain why so many of these opinions are either inaccurate or flat-out wrong.


Alex is an expert. I have read and read and spent time talking to kinesiologists, PTs, you name it. We are lucky to have him pop in and lend his knowledge and experience. He has both btw, knowledge and experience. There are a few others on this forum that will pop in who are really experts as well. It's a great benefit to keeping up with RBR. If you are concerned with cycling performance, it is a good bet to read his posts thoroughly. They are very well constructed. Some of what you get would cost you a small fortune in private coaching or a lot of your life reading scholarship, which I have done... In a recent post he echoed something I hold dear and have posted repeatedly. One of the many great things about science is that it doesn't matter what people believe. The difference between knowing and believing is rather profound.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

The science is still inconclusive, IMO, especially regarding for the underweight guys. If you're already "big", then strength training may not benefit much for your cycling performance. (But this is not to say strength training has no benefits in other aspects of health).

But what about if you're starting out as a light weight? I'm 5'7", and when I started doing road cycling just a bit over 3 years ago, I went from 118 lbs down to 114 lbs and while my w/kg increased initially and I ecstatic, but I find that recovery was difficult at 114 lbs. Not to mention low testosterone, probably has to due with me not eating enough fat too. So then beginning about almost a year ago, I decided that I should be in the 130ish range, because I thought that I was actually too light for my weight to be optimal. Guys like Froome, Contador, Porte, Nibali, and even small Quintana all had higher weight/height ratio than me! Since then, I've gone from 114 lbs to 118 then to 124 lbs. During this increase in weight, my absolute FTP has gone thru the roof big time, w/kg on a 2hr climb before the weight gain was 4.5ish, and now it's 4.7-4.8ish. My 5min w/kg has increase even more dramatically. So is my 10s, 20s, 30s, 1min all out effort. One a good day, I can hit over well over 900w for 17s-20s. There is absolutely no doubt that in my case, the weight increase helped big time, and a lot of that increase is by me cycling less (I was putting in 20hrs/wk before), eating more, eating more fat, and hitting the gym 2-3 days/wk doing legs. No doubt the weight gain has also resulted in increased leg mass because the thighs are now bigger, bibs that were loose before now actually fit perfectly! At this point, I still don't think I'm in the "optimal" weight range for a 5'7" yet. I need to be at 130 lbs minimum to even be in elite cyclist weight/height ration (hell Quintana is 2" shorter than me and he is 3 lbs more than me!).

And the most satisfying aspect of gaining weight, and strength for me is that the big guys can't no longer abuse me in power rollers, they simply can't without killing themselves first. My testosterone has increased, I know this because at night in bed, the hormone is raging like a horny teenager if you know what I mean, and I definitely feel more aggression and combative in me (whether this aggression is good or bad is debatable). Another good side effect is that I look like a ripped bodybuilder, well I've always been ripped, but now with muscles the effect is magnified. Bodyfat is in the 6% (well below the 10% of elite climbers when in form. I have been in the 7-9% BF for most of my life, most I've ever hit in my life is 12% BF when I did absolutely zero sports except for motorcycling).

I know there are experts like Alex in here, and honestly I really enjoy his posts. But there is no way anyone expert can convince me to go back to being 114 - 118 lbs ever again. If anything, my goal in the next 1 year is getting to 130 lbs and hitting that 10s @ 1000w barrier all the while gaining w/kg or at least not diminish w/kg. While I'm no "bro-tein" gymbro advocate, I'm also no chickle little when it comes to hitting the weight either. Most pure cyclists who see me with my shirt off say I look more like one of those small Chinese weightlifter who seem to lift weight way beyond his body is indicating, and then hit the climb with me and they be like wtf you climb too?!


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> What then tends to happen in such discussions is people then change the goal posts and list other beneficial claims (e.g. "injury prevention"),


Other benefit, meaning unrelated benefit to cycling?



> many of which are not strongly supported by a body of evidence either.


What do you mean? Weight training to strengthen certain muscles to prevent injury is unsupported claim? Or do you mean it's supported but not as much as you want to see?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Exactly what I said to start with. The evidence of benefits of strength training to aerobic endurance cycling performance is equivocal and hence it should not be hyped in the manner we regularly see on forums and by strength coaches. More to the point, there are well proven and significant benefits from specific on bike training.
> 
> What then tends to happen in such discussions is people then change the goal posts and list other beneficial claims (e.g. "injury prevention"), many of which are not strongly supported by a body of evidence either.
> 
> ...


Well, my "beliefs" are based solidly on quantifiable data I've tried to describe in the most scientific language I know, and you come back with generalities.

So what should a rider do to increase lactate threshold or AT or whatever you want to call it, viz. train the ability to generate power without blowing up? Intervals, starting out as short term, and then building up in length? Pros used to ride track over the winter, and/or criteriums in the Spring to build up power for the long road races that follow. Team Sky did spinouts, short high cadence efforts they later used quite successfully in the mountains. 

What are the proven routines a rider can do on the bike to increase lactate threshold, thus power, thus speed? If we can answer that question in physiological language, the issue of weight lifting/cycing cross benefit can be put to rest.  

For most of us, both lifting and pedaling contribute in their own ways to fitness and health, that just one or the other doesn't accomplish by itself.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> The science is still inconclusive, IMO, especially regarding for the underweight guys. If you're already "big", then strength training may not benefit much for your cycling performance. (But this is not to say strength training has no benefits in other aspects of health).
> 
> But what about if you're starting out as a light weight? I'm 5'7", and when I started doing road cycling just a bit over 3 years ago, I went from 118 lbs down to 114 lbs and while my w/kg increased initially and I ecstatic, but I find that recovery was difficult at 114 lbs. Not to mention low testosterone, probably has to due with me not eating enough fat too. So then beginning about almost a year ago, I decided that I should be in the 130ish range, because I thought that I was actually too light for my weight to be optimal. Guys like Froome, Contador, Porte, Nibali, and even small Quintana all had higher weight/height ratio than me! Since then, I've gone from 114 lbs to 118 then to 124 lbs. During this increase in weight, my absolute FTP has gone thru the roof big time, w/kg on a 2hr climb before the weight gain was 4.5ish, and now it's 4.7-4.8ish. My 5min w/kg has increase even more dramatically. So is my 10s, 20s, 30s, 1min all out effort. One a good day, I can hit over well over 900w for 17s-20s. There is absolutely no doubt that in my case, the weight increase helped big time, and a lot of that increase is by me cycling less (I was putting in 20hrs/wk before), eating more, eating more fat, and hitting the gym 2-3 days/wk doing legs. No doubt the weight gain has also resulted in increased leg mass because the thighs are now bigger, bibs that were loose before now actually fit perfectly! At this point, I still don't think I'm in the "optimal" weight range for a 5'7" yet. I need to be at 130 lbs minimum to even be in elite cyclist weight/height ration (hell Quintana is 2" shorter than me and he is 3 lbs more than me!).
> 
> ...


Lifting obviously made you stronger and endurance followed on top of that strength. How about that?

I'm still waiting for what our experts here recommend as the alternative!


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> What then tends to happen in such discussions is people then change the goal posts and list other beneficial claims (e.g. "injury prevention"), many of which are not strongly supported by a body of evidence either.


Is kicking a field goal a single play? Or is it part of a process that starts with getting into field goal position? I tend to take a more holistic (and longer term) than most approach to such things. 

Does aerobic training help your sprint? Does it help your sprint *at the end of a 2 hour race by leaving you more gas in the tank?*

Focusing on individual parts of training has great benefits, but failing to connect all the dots and look at the whole picture at the same time can lead to problems.

As for injury prevention, I leave you with this _official statement_ from the American College of Sports Medicine. https://www.acsm.org/docs/current-comments/rtandip.pdf


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Please don't cherry pick such information, it's disingenuous. If you are going to discuss the published evidence, by all means do, then it helps to consider all of it, not just the parts that happen to fit a narrative.
> 
> There are also studies that demonstrate such training not to be beneficial to aerobic cycling performance / time trial power. It took me a few seconds to find a few of those too.
> 
> ...


The reason the literature is equivocal is due almost entirely to methodology. I don't know of a single study in cycling science that isn't statistically underpowered. This is a major issue these days in neuroscience/psychology (with many journals now refusing to publish traditional significance tests - which as far as I can tell are all used in exercise science). The effect sizes are swamped by the typical variances due to sample size. That said, the Bishop study you refer to is a well-known example of utilizing an inadequate training load in the E+S group. The Ronnestad study (a newer 2015 study, not the one you refer to) uses female cyclists like the Bishop study but a larger training volume and finds performance VO2, mean power output, cycling efficiency, etc. Similar statistical issues, but at least consistent reports with cellular effects. 

Once again, if you want to use a moderately strict threshold for significance in cycling science, I don't think you'd find much that is not equivocal including on the bike adaptations such as interval effects. 

And as far as anecdotes go - it was interesting to see Wiggins essentially ride the rest of the pursuit team off his wheel at the WC. Do you think his time in the gym over the last year or so improved his 30 second power? Who would be a better classics rider - a post-Tour Wiggins or the current one with +16kg? It seems to be just perverse for the majority of amateur cyclists to emulate the Tour preparation Wiggins - emphasis on volume, getting as lean as possible - vs. the Rio preparation Wiggins.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> Is kicking a field goal a single play? Or is it part of a process that starts with getting into field goal position? I tend to take a more holistic (and longer term) than most approach to such things.
> 
> Does aerobic training help your sprint? Does it help your sprint *at the end of a 2 hour race by leaving you more gas in the tank?*
> 
> ...


To wit:

_Although bone will respond to many types of training programs, especially those with high strain such as jumping or running, it does appear that resistance training provides the greatest osteogenic (increase in bone mineral density) effect. Resistance training is beneficial for increasing bone strength, and muscular strength also appears to be positively related to bone mineral content and bone strength. As lower-body strength levels increase, the incidence of stress fracture is reduced. Thus muscular strength improves bone strength as well._

Endurance cycling has been shown to inhibit bone density. Calcium and minerals are sweated out. Veteran competitive cyclists are ending up with osteoporosis at shockingly early ages, if that's all they do.


----------

