# Winter Weight Training for Strength not Mass?



## Rackerman

Are there any general rules of thumb to follow when winter weight training to build strength but not to pack on mass? I'm using full body weight training to continue with a weight loss plan and with a current knee injury, I'm not able to cycle or do as much leg work as I'd like to do... But I'm concerned about packing on unwanted mass that will do little to benefit cycling speeds... unless descending of course.

Any input re: reps, sets, how fast to go through reps, rest periods, reps to failure, supersetting? I'm fairly experienced in the gym and workout 3 or 4 times a week based on work schedule.

My wife disagrees. But that's another story.


----------



## brianmcg

Keep the reps under 5.

Starting Strength

Don't worry so much about gaining a little weight in the offseason. 5lbs of muscle = good. 20lbs of fat = bad.


----------



## Rackerman

*Brianmcg*, So reps under 5 to failure and how many sets? The link talks about a principle but does not give much actual detail.

I appreciate your reply and look forward to hearing from others as to what they do as well.


----------



## jbinbi

If you are in good enough shape, Google 5 x 5 strength plan, then follow it. I can't get you the link now, there used to be one that had a spreadsheet to enter data in and it produced the plan. It is the base plan of any athlete these days trying to get stronger, from hs football on up


----------



## crit_boy

I disagree with the low reps from posts above. Lower reps imply weight high enough to only permit low reps. That is a conventional recipe for gaining muscle mass. 

From BodyBuilding.com discussing 5x5 plan: Along with the strength however you will *most often see an increase in muscle mass* as well, provided you are eating enough calories to support this muscle growth (emphasis added).

Oversimplification: If you exercise and/or lift weights you are going to gain muscle mass. The issue is the amount of muscle mass. 

Since you have gym experience, you should have some idea how you body responds to lifting. I would talk to a trainer at the gym. They are actually pretty good at helping people make workout plans to achieve a given set of goals. 

You are likely going to get better answers there, than from a cycling website with a general question like how many sets and reps should I do. - Your question is too broad and general to get much in the way of consistent, quality answers. Kind of like: what bike should I get vs. what is wrong with my bike when my chain jumps on the cassette when under high power.


----------



## ericm979

I think few trainers in the gym will know much about training for endurance athletes.

You might check out the book Weight Training for Cyclists.


----------



## Local Hero

I agree with those who have recommended the 5X5. I do five by five squats and five by five unweighted pistol squats. I have a watch handy and either start the sets on 60 second intervals or rest 60 seconds _between_ sets. 

My initial struggle was with finding a day on which to lift. I ride easy on Friday, do a fast group ride on Saturday (35-60mi), a longer endurance ride on Sunday, and complete rest Monday. 

Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday are the weeks workouts. Should I lift on the neuromuscular day, the FTP day, or the _other_ (tempo/sub-threshold or V02) day? And do I lift during the same workout as my riding or split it up, e.g., ride morning and lift at night? 

I do not know if it is best but for convenience--and to avoid over-thinking it--I lift legs on Tuesday night.


----------



## Local Hero

Also, I would not be overly concerned with packing on too much heavy muscle mass. Imagine holding a 16oz steak against each thigh. Are you really going to gain that much muscle over the next few months without heavy anabolic steroid use? I don't think so. All else being equal, the most that a trained, mature athlete can gain is a few ounces of lean muscle.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Rackerman said:


> Are there any general rules of thumb to follow when winter weight training to build strength but not to pack on mass?


Beyond initial neural gains in the initial weeks, the only way to increase _strength _is via hypertrophy, ie. adding muscle mass.


----------



## aclinjury

here may be an interesting video. It compares an Olympic weightlifter vs a powerlifter vs a bodybuilder. Notice the Olympic weightlifter (70kg guy in red named Robert) is visibly and significantly smaller than the others yet he lifts more than most of them, and he doesn't use any knee wraps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qySRWjqctok


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Not sure I get the point of this vid. I didn't bother watching it all, too long.

Different people training for different outcomes. As for squatting twice body weight, that's not exactly extraordinary. Most track sprint cyclists can do at least 2 x body weight for free squat.


----------



## sdeeer

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Beyond initial neural gains in the initial weeks, the only way to increase _strength _is via hypertrophy, ie. adding muscle mass.


Correct! ^^

Strength is the sum of recruitment of motor units and the amount of force those motor units can produce. The initial gains in strength (from low lifting fitness) are neural. Almost all gains after that are protein (actual gains in cross bridges).

Any plan that says otherwise is pulling your leg.

and all of the rep ranges / weights / plans are simply guides. Muscle adapts to stress on a continuum and the phenotypic changes you actually get depend on your genes, the stress(es) applied, and what type of recovery you have (nutrition, sleep, other "training" loads). 

So what the OP is really asking is how do you maintain strength and burn calories in a weight room or gym. That should change the answers given. 

Personally I would focus on an aerobic exercise that you can complete due to the knee injury. Focused knee rehab. And if you must, only minimal resistance training. 

You didn't explicitly state your goal (other than not gaining "unwanted mass").

But the gain or loss or mass is more in the diet than the exercise. 

I think many people forget that (or conveniently ignore that). I assume that is because exercise is an acute thing and diet is a lifestyle.


----------



## PBL450

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Beyond initial neural gains in the initial weeks, the only way to increase _strength _is via hypertrophy, ie. adding muscle mass.


Yep. Which requires a calorie surplus.


----------



## dcb

sdeeer said:


> Correct! ^^
> 
> Strength is the sum of recruitment of motor units and the amount of force those motor units can produce. The initial gains in strength (from low lifting fitness) are neural. Almost all gains after that are protein (actual gains in cross bridges).
> 
> Any plan that says otherwise is pulling your leg.
> 
> and all of the rep ranges / weights / plans are simply guides. Muscle adapts to stress on a continuum and the phenotypic *changes you actually get depend on your genes*, the stress(es) applied, and what type of recovery you have (nutrition, sleep, other "training" loads).


Alex and sdeer are correct. However, the idea that a committed cyclist is going to gain enough lean mass to slow themselves down by lifting a couple of days per week is pretty laughable. However, if it's really a concern the solution is pretty simple: Begin a resistance training program that sees you training with weights 2-3 times per week for 2-4 weeks. After the initial (mostly neural) gains are realized, cut back to 1 maintenance training session every 7-10 days. That one session will allow you to keep most of your strength gains but won't be enough to result in any net increase in lean mass. There are other ways around this, but this is the most straight forward. 

As sdeer said, genetics play a large role in response to resistance training and there are a lot of people who could try REALLY hard to gain as much mass as possible and get little in return for their efforts, while others can look at a barbell and gain mass. For more on this, google: exercise genomics pescatello roth


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

dcb said:


> Alex and sdeer are correct. However, the idea that a committed cyclist is going to gain enough lean mass to slow themselves down by lifting a couple of days per week is pretty laughable. However, if it's really a concern the solution is pretty simple: Begin a resistance training program that sees you training with weights 2-3 times per week for 2-4 weeks. After the initial (mostly neural) gains are realized, cut back to 1 maintenance training session every 7-10 days. That one session will allow you to keep most of your strength gains but won't be enough to result in any net increase in lean mass. There are other ways around this, but this is the most straight forward.


Then why bother with it at all*? 

Even if you worked on achieving the initial neural gains, those neural gains are not readily transferred to the bike as they are different exercise modalities with different joint angles, muscle forces and velocities. In short, they recruit muscles quite differently.

You'd be far better off doing dedicated sprint work, standing starts, hill efforts etc. High(er) force cycling activity that is far more transferable to the neural activation of regular cycling. It'll do bugger all for your weight room "strength" but will be far more useful for actual cycling performance.


* from an endurance cycling performance POV. Obviously there are various reasons why one might want to do strength/weights work


----------



## PBL450

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Then why bother with it at all*?
> 
> Even if you worked on achieving the initial neural gains, those neural gains are not readily transferred to the bike as they are different exercise modalities with different joint angles, muscle forces and velocities. In short, they recruit muscles quite differently.
> 
> You'd be far better off doing dedicated sprint work, standing starts, hill efforts etc. High(er) force cycling activity that is far more transferable to the neural activation of regular cycling. It'll do bugger all for your weight room "strength" but will be far more useful for actual cycling performance.
> 
> 
> * from an endurance cycling performance POV. Obviously there are various reasons why one might want to do strength/weights work


For benefits to your overall health and fitness? If you don't make your living riding a bike that is... Reducing bone density losses... Strengthening your whole body for injury prevention? Just living life? Cosmetic effects? Not to be snarky, but there are good reasons, again, for regular Joes especially... While adding some weight may be counter productive, strengthening your body as a whole system may make cycling more enjoyable.


----------



## dcb

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Then why bother with it at all*?
> 
> Even if you worked on achieving the initial neural gains, those neural gains are not readily transferred to the bike as they are different exercise modalities with different joint angles, muscle forces and velocities. In short, they recruit muscles quite differently.
> 
> You'd be far better off doing dedicated sprint work, standing starts, hill efforts etc. High(er) force cycling activity that is far more transferable to the neural activation of regular cycling. It'll do bugger all for your weight room "strength" but will be far more useful for actual cycling performance.
> 
> 
> ** from an endurance cycling performance POV. Obviously there are various reasons why one might want to do strength/weights work*


I think you answered your own question with the part I bolded. These questions come up every other day this time of year here in the northern hemisphere and I think a lot of riders have other motives for weight training beyond going faster on a bike. 

Alex - you mentioned in another post (not on this thread) your own not so great experience with weight training in regard to getting faster on a bike. Would you mind detailing that again? I can't seem to find it. Or, maybe you talked about it in Wattage?


----------



## ibericb

How to train with weights for different objectives is highly controversial and debatable. A lot of the recommendations come from a past era where notions of more or less reps with less or more weight fueled the training programs of various types of athletes. In more recent years advances in exercise physiology have provided a great deal of enlightenment. 

I've spent a lot of my time over the past three years working with training football players at various levels. A significant part of that has been in "strength training". One thing you can bet on is that the NFL has access to the best and latest guidance on how to achieve various objectives in their training program. What follows below is quoted directly from the Houston Texans Strength and Condition Program Players Manuall

The section on Muscular Fitness begins on page 48. I recommend reading the entire section for anyone interested. That posted below is a small subpart of that section that focusing on the question of adding bulk, which I assume is what the OP means by "pack on mass" (bulk and mass are not the same, but tend to be related). Hope it helps.

_*I want to “Bulk up!”*

Doesn’t a few heavy reps add more bulk and mass? The answer is no! It’s not the
number of reps that determines how a muscle develops. Our entire team uses the same combination of sets and reps; the difference is how each player responds to the same stimulus.

In the past we had linemen perform sets of only a few reps with heavy weights. The quarterbacks, receivers and defensive backs performed sets with higher reps and lighter weights. We assumed we could change how muscles respond by the number of reps performed.

Experience has taught us that you can’t change a muscle’s capacity to grow simply by altering the number of reps performed. Genetic potential and the intensity of exercise stimulate muscular development, not the number of reps.

When someone says, “I want to bulk up,” what do they mean? What is bulk? Bulk is
either fat, muscle, or bone. What else is there but your organs, skin and hair, and teeth?

You add muscle by lifting and add fat by eating too much. Your genetic assets, not
the number of reps you perform or the equipment you use, determine how much muscle you can add.

Observe the body types of competitive weight lifters. The 132-pound lifter uses the
same system of heavy weights and as few reps as the 165-pound lifter, the 198-pound lifter, and the super heavyweight lifter. Each has a specific body type and amount of muscle mass.

Why isn’t the 132-pound lifter bulky like the 198-pound lifter, or the super heavyweight? They all perform the same exercises and combination of sets and reps. The amount of muscle mass each lifter develops is different because it has nothing to do with the number of reps they perform. The amount of muscle mass each athlete develops is dictated by their genetic predisposition for adding muscle._


----------



## dcb

Thanks for the link. You do know that Riley is no longer the strength coach at the Texans though right?

Hard to believe there are still HIT guys around in the strength and conditioning world.


----------



## ibericb

dcb said:


> Thanks for the link. You do know that Riley is no longer the strength coach at the Texans though right?
> 
> Hard to believe there are still HIT guys around in the strength and conditioning world.


Yep - O'Brien brought one his boys with him. But, the basic rules of physiology remain the same. The differences any of us realizes IS, as you have pointed out, mostly genetic in origin. About all any of us can do is optimize what we were blessed with. That's true for any of the typical athletic measures, be it strength, power, speed, endurance, etc.

There is a lot of good practical (non-technical) stuff in that manual for atheletes at all levels, and it's not just about strength.


----------



## dcb

ibericb said:


> Yep -
> There is a lot of good practical (non-technical) stuff in that manual for atheletes at all levels, and it's not just about strength.


Yes, there is some good general information in there on subjects other than weight training.


----------



## Local Hero

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Even if you worked on achieving the initial neural gains, those neural gains are not readily transferred to the bike as they are different exercise modalities with different joint angles, muscle forces and velocities. In short, they recruit muscles quite differently.
> 
> You'd be far better off doing dedicated sprint work, standing starts, hill efforts etc. High(er) force cycling activity that is far more transferable to the neural activation of regular cycling. It'll do bugger all for your weight room "strength" but will be far more useful for actual cycling performance.


I agree with the importance of specificity. 

What would you prescribe as a "gym day" to a cyclist who is trying to improve their sprint, both peak power and duration? 

eg, "complete warmup with some sprints followed by standing starts on the spin bike with the resistance close to 100%"?

Why do so many trackies spend so much time doing squats in the gym? Are they wasting their time with non-transferable gains?


----------



## jbinbi

PBL450 said:


> For benefits to your overall health and fitness? If you don't make your living riding a bike that is... Reducing bone density losses... Strengthening your whole body for injury prevention? Just living life? Cosmetic effects? Not to be snarky, but there are good reasons, again, for regular Joes especially... While adding some weight may be counter productive, strengthening your body as a whole system may make cycling more enjoyable.


Couldn't agree more. Unless you make your living riding a bike, or are super competitive amateur racer, you want some muscle mass bone density etc.

I personally think it is crazy that 10 year old girls probably bench press more than a pro cyclist, but I understand that they want max strength in their legs, and want the highest watt/lb they can get. So the end justifies the means for them.

For me, I do strength training as well for upper body.

And like sdeer said, diet is much more important for wt gain loss. Exercise helps, but I know that I find it hard to lose weight in the summer riding months as I inappropriately justify horrible eating habits because I rode lots. (e.g. , well i just rode for 2hrs and burned 1k calories. Having that 8 oz cheeseburger with bacon I just grilled washed down with 2 beers and a large brownie for dessert, what, how am i gaining weight;-)


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

PBL450 said:


> For benefits to your overall health and fitness? If you don't make your living riding a bike that is... Reducing bone density losses... Strengthening your whole body for injury prevention? Just living life? Cosmetic effects? Not to be snarky, but there are good reasons, again, for regular Joes especially... While adding some weight may be counter productive, strengthening your body as a whole system may make cycling more enjoyable.


Hence the asterisk in my previous note - but this is a *cycling *coaching forum, so I am discussing such matters through that lens, and I put my comments also in context of the type of cycling performance (e.g. endurance cycling performance vs say track sprint cycling performance).

As for your other reasons, there are far more effective forms of exercise than weights for BMD (weights is fairly neutral wrt improving BMD - you'd be far better off jogging for that), injury prevention thru weight training for cycling is not supported by the evidence. For vanity and other potential health benefits, sure. 

Making cycling more enjoyable? That's pretty debatable. I have far more fun on a bike when I'm in the best cycling condition, but then the most fun for me usually involved racing.


----------



## nealric

ibericb said:


> Why isn’t the 132-pound lifter bulky like the 198-pound lifter, or the super heavyweight? They all perform the same exercises and combination of sets and reps. The amount of muscle mass each lifter develops is different because it has nothing to do with the number of reps they perform. The amount of muscle mass each athlete develops is dictated by their genetic predisposition for adding muscle.[/I]


This seems incomplete and misleading.

Usually, the heavy weight lifters are TALLER than the light weight. A six foot tall person would never compete in the 132 pound weight class. The difference is not their genetic capacity for building muscle, but the weight at which they are most competitive from a strength to bodyweight ratio perspective. 

Your total body mass can be manipulated a great deal by how much (and what) you eat. No matter how much he lifts, and no matter how good his genetics are, a six foot tall athlete will never hit 200lbs (lean or otherwise) eating 1800 calories a day. By contrast, those 132 lb olympic lifters almost certainly could pack on extra mass by eating an extra 3,000 calories a day over what they already do. They are largely limited by their need to make weight in their weight class. 

Also, the statement about reps should have been qualified. It may not make much of a difference whether you do a 5x5, 3x8 or 3x12 program, but nobody has ever gained much mass from doing 100 rep curls of a 5lb dumbell. And I doubt anybody has made it far without injury with a program consisting solely of 1RM max attempts.

In response to the OP. Packing on too much mass is a common and almost always ill-informed fear of people considering strength training. Keep in mind that those gigantic muscle mag bodybuilders are ALL doping. Every single one. Gaining lean mass is quite difficult for anybody who is not a pubescent teenager or on steroids. An untrained adult with good genetics can expect, at most, to gain 10lbs of lean mass from a year of intense training. Most people can realistically expect to gain 2-3lbs of mass a year. I actually lost 20lbs when I started weight training, because my body fat dropped from 20% to under 10%. After 2 years of very consistent training, I am still 10lbs under when I started, and I was not even in the overweight BMI category when I started.

Lifting made me feel much better fitness-wise, but it had a minimal impact on my endurance cycling. However, judging from the athletes, it seems lifting can be quite important for track cycling.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Local Hero said:


> I agree with the importance of specificity.
> 
> What would you prescribe as a "gym day" to a cyclist who is trying to improve their sprint, both peak power and duration?
> 
> eg, "complete warmup with some sprints followed by standing starts on the spin bike with the resistance close to 100%"?


That depends on the type of cyclist (e.g. endurance vs sprint cyclist) and it also depends on the individual's development needs and phenotype / power profile.

It's almost impossible on most indoor bikes to replicate the neural demands of hard starts and the acceleration phase of full on sprints because the inertial load is just too low. So you can pretty much forget about that sort of work, unless you have a highly specialised trainer made for the job (like I did).

The sort of work that makes more sense with indoor equipment is a focus on functional reserve capacity / anaerobic work capacity - IOW very high intensity efforts of 20-60 seconds duration. That will help with crit and roadie sprints that tend to be won by those who fade less than those with the highest peak power. But that sort of work can only be done in a focussed phase of training for a limited time as the gains are fairly rapid (day to weeks) and will plateau.

For an endurance racing cyclist (road/crit/track endurance) don't forget that superior aerobic condition helps you arrive at the sprint far fresher than your opponents or with fewer opponents to sprint against, and that is also a key element of sprint performance. 

So craft and guile in both saving energy as well as work that helps to improve your threshold power are also beneficial to sprint performance for an endurance cyclist. You can do the latter on an indoor bike, but the former requires actual racing.




Local Hero said:


> Why do so many trackies spend so much time doing squats in the gym? Are they wasting their time with non-transferable gains?


The performance and physiological demands for track sprint cycling are significantly different than for endurance cycling, and this is a sport that rewards increased muscle mass (in the right places), provided the increased mass is accompanied by a sufficient improvement in top end/peak power/functional reserve/anaerobic work capacity. 

Olympic weight movements are the norm. Perhaps some plyos as well. But ergo efforts similar to those described above as well given the limitations of the indoor bikes used.

Even so, it's very important that gains be realised on the track, and no matter what you do in the gym, the work done on the track is far more important.

Being strong is not enough. You have to be fast. IOW a focus on strength is the wrong focus, what matters is power over durations of relevance.

One can be very strong, but slow.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

dcb said:


> I think you answered your own question with the part I bolded. These questions come up every other day this time of year here in the northern hemisphere and I think a lot of riders have other motives for weight training beyond going faster on a bike.


Yes, just to be clear, my comments are specific to cycling performance matters. I'm a professional cycling coach and this is a cycling coach forum.

There are other reasons why one might want to move weights at their local gym.



dcb said:


> Alex - you mentioned in another post (not on this thread) your own not so great experience with weight training in regard to getting faster on a bike. Would you mind detailing that again? I can't seem to find it. Or, maybe you talked about it in Wattage?


Who knows? There are roughly seventy bazillion weight/strength training threads in cycling forums 

For me, increasing strength made my sprint slower. Sprints are what made my sprint faster. But I was never a sprint cyclist, I was an enduro. YMMV. I have rider focussed on the kilo TT, so we use weight training for him. In his case it makes sense.

For reference my free squats (when I did them) got to 6 reps of 2.5 x body mass. That was a lot more than say Ryan Bayley, dual Olympic gold medallist in match sprint and Keirin, could do for 1RM, indeed it's stronger than the majority of elite track sprinters in Australia. Once you are about 2 - 2.2 x body mass for a male for 1RM, that's usually considered plenty strong enough and (physiological) work needs to be more about power than about strength (indeed it should always be about power). 

My kilo client is not even close to that sort of strength (maybe 1.6-1.7 x body mass) but his kilo is 8 seconds faster than I could ever do.


----------



## evs

strength times speed= power , so to some extent one needs to be strong. speed applied is being fast. But one can be strong and be fast. Isn't that what we are all striving for?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

evs said:


> strength times speed= power , so to some extent one needs to be strong. speed applied is being fast. But one can be strong and be fast. Isn't that what we are all striving for?


No, power = force x velocity

Strength <> force since force is a variable.

Strength is maximal force at zero velocity.

Just because maximal force at zero velocity (strength) has increased doesn't automatically imply that force also improves at when pedalling at higher velocities. 

Likewise, just because your maximal _unloaded _pedal speed has increased doesn't automatically imply you can apply same forces at higher pedal velocities.

It's a mistake to think of these things (force and velocity) as independent variables we can simply manipulate by a focus on one of them. They are not.

Even in sprint cycling the pedal forces don't approach the maximal we are capable of generating. It's physically impossible to do so. At maximal effort, which we can sustain for maybe 6 second before fatigue sets in, the force we can apply and the rate we can apply it at is inversely (linearly) related.

Even at 2000W and 135rpm the average effective pedal force applied by both legs on 170mm cranks is 832N, which is equivalent to lifting about 85kg.

IOW it's all about applying sub-maximal forces at speed.


Speed in endurance cycling is attained at pedal forces that are very low, an order of magnitude less than those involved with strength. That sort of speed is all about sustainable rate of energy supply and metabolism.

Climbing at 400W at 80rpm on 170mm cranks requires an AEPF for both legs of ~ 28.7kg. If you can't lift 28.7kg with both legs, then you have bigger problems than being able to cycle fast.


----------



## evs

Then why are bigger guys better in sprints?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

evs said:


> Then why are bigger guys better in sprints?


Who are you asking?

In any case, I already said this earlier:



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> The performance and physiological demands for track sprint cycling are significantly different than for endurance cycling, and this is a sport that rewards increased muscle mass (in the right places), provided the increased mass is accompanied by a sufficient improvement in top end/peak power/functional reserve/anaerobic work capacity.


To expand on that, when talking about flat sprinting, then the equation is one of W/m^2 for sustainable sprint speed and peak power W/kg for acceleration phase.

W/CdA does not increase linearly with rider's mass, hence at high (but unsustainable sprint/anaerobic) power outputs, bigger riders have a higher W/m^2 than smaller riders, in general.

The muscle mass can aid in the peak power W/kg, provided it's done right and it's the right sort of muscle and trained to be fast on a bike.

But being bigger doesn't mean you'll be faster. Theo Bos set a world record in the track 200m fly then at 9.772 seconds (not at altitude) and he's a former world champion in the match sprint, the kilo and the Keirin - he's wan't exactly a big monster. he's trimmed a little since then, currently ~77kg.


----------



## PBL450

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Who are you asking?
> 
> In any case, I already said this earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> To expand on that, when talking about flat sprinting, then the equation is one of W/m^2 for sustainable sprint speed and peak power W/kg for acceleration phase.
> 
> W/CdA does not increase linearly with rider's mass, hence at high (but unsustainable sprint/anaerobic) power outputs, bigger riders have a higher W/m^2 than smaller riders, in general.
> 
> The muscle mass can aid in the peak power W/kg, provided it's done right and it's the right sort of muscle and trained to be fast on a bike.
> 
> But being bigger doesn't mean you'll be faster. Theo Bos set a world record in the track 200m fly then at 9.772 seconds (not at altitude) and he's a former world champion in the match sprint, the kilo and the Keirin - he's wan't exactly a big monster. he's trimmed a little since then, currently ~77kg.


Thanks Alex! I appreciate your taking the time to answer a slew of questions! I'm learning a ton. If you don't mind yet another question... Do you have key suggestions for further reading? I just started Base Building and I'm going to re-read Friel's Bible. Do you have any favorites?

I've never hit close to 2X my weight squats... That's impressive! I am coming from (hobby level) Speedskating where squats and Plyos are a big part of the off-season plan, so I'm still trying to get the cycling mindset. There aren't indoor trainers or stationary pieces of equiptment for Speedskating that are affordable and accessible, just slide boards. So cycling is very different in what is possible... And that's very exciting!


----------



## dcb

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> For reference my free squats (when I did them) got to 6 reps of 2.5 x body mass.


Thanks Alex, I do remember reading a post of yours with similar information but it may have been in Wattage. That's pretty darn strong! The strongest athletes I've worked with were NCAA D1 football players at a pretty big school and although you wouldn't have been close to the strongest in that group, you certainly wouldn't have been out of place on test day. 

Can I ask why you worked yourself up to strength levels that high, and what was your starting 6RM squat? I would think that somewhere in that process you would have realized that you were at a dead end if your goal was a better sprint. But maybe you started out with a 2.2 x body mass 6RM so it wasn't a big reach to get where you did?

How much mass did you gain in the process?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

dcb said:


> Thanks Alex, I do remember reading a post of yours with similar information but it may have been in Wattage. That's pretty darn strong! The strongest athletes I've worked with were NCAA D1 football players at a pretty big school and although you wouldn't have been close to the strongest in that group, you certainly wouldn't have been out of place on test day.
> 
> Can I ask why you worked yourself up to strength levels that high, and what was your starting 6RM squat? I would think that somewhere in that process you would have realized that you were at a dead end if your goal was a better sprint. But maybe you started out with a 2.2 x body mass 6RM so it wasn't a big reach to get where you did?
> 
> How much mass did you gain in the process?


It was a over decade ago (ca 2002) and I don't have many records handy from then. I'm not sure what I started at but as it was probably at least a decade before that when I last did any such weight work (ca 1989) so I'm guessing I started at what felt conservative, and just kept adding to the bar in the opening week or two until it felt about as much as it should, so maybe around 1.8-1.9x. I'd do 5-6 sets, lighter to start with and end with 2-3 sets with full weight.

I was 80-82kg at that time, and I ended up doing 210kg after ~ 6-7 weeks from one squat session per week. Not much mass gain in that time.

After some road race seasons, I was experimenting with track, and with training, and given I reached such a strength level fairly quickly and there was no positive impact on my sprint, I figured there wasn't much point doing more. I was training regularly with world record level masters track sprinters so I had a pretty decent gauge on my abilities. I was no sprinter. Strong for sure, stronger than all of them, but just not that fast. I wasn't a slug either but it was enduro-level pace, not sprinter-level pace.

I did then progress to doing more explosive type work to see if that was a better choice, but I got an injury from that and decided the risks were not worth it and by then I'd decided to focus on track endurance and crits, and shorter road races/kermesse style races, so the strength work wasn't a priority. 

I then kept doing sprint training on the bike at the track, usually after I'd had a morning endurance ride I'd go to the track and do sprints with the guys. It was fun and that's really important.

I've not touched a weight since. Well not quite. I tried once in 2009 a couple of years after my amputation but all that happened was my knee swelled badly and I was unable to use my prosthetic leg for a week or so. No leg to walk or ride on sucks. If I do sprint work, it's only ever on the bike now, and I vastly prefer to do the training on the track bike. I'm unable to jog or run with my prosthetic.


----------



## stevesbike

many "endurance" cyclists appear to have substantial muscle hypertrophy as the result of cycling stimuli (presumably anaerobic training). Tony Martin and Fabian Cancellara are two good examples of time trialist specialists (both would be easily confused with gym rats from the waist down). This certainly looks like hypertrophic adaptation - presumably it helps their time trial performance. Even Wiggins talks about his need to gain muscle mass for the pursuit (an endurance event). My guess is that Wiggins is surprisingly strong in the gym for someone who looks like they've never touched a weight (when Dave Zabriskie tried strength training he was also surprisingly strong). 

Given these examples of muscle hypertrophy, what's the difference between gaining it through the gym vs. high-intensity intervals? Maybe the gym route is more time effective as a way to supplement on the bike training for people who don't have 20 hours a week, etc.?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

stevesbike said:


> many "endurance" cyclists appear to have substantial muscle hypertrophy as the result of cycling stimuli (presumably anaerobic training). Tony Martin and Fabian Cancellara are two good examples of time trialist specialists (both would be easily confused with gym rats from the waist down). This certainly looks like hypertrophic adaptation - presumably it helps their time trial performance. Even Wiggins talks about his need to gain muscle mass for the pursuit (an endurance event). My guess is that Wiggins is surprisingly strong in the gym for someone who looks like they've never touched a weight (when Dave Zabriskie tried strength training he was also surprisingly strong).
> 
> Given these examples of muscle hypertrophy, what's the difference between gaining it through the gym vs. high-intensity intervals? Maybe the gym route is more time effective as a way to supplement on the bike training for people who don't have 20 hours a week, etc.?


The muscle adaptations are different in a few ways.

Endurance cycling induces various muscle adaptations:
- interconversion of fast twitch muscle fibres type IIb -> type IIa (i.e. to take on more endurance like properties)
- hypertrophy of slow twitch muscle fibres
- increased capillarisation (for getting blood into and out of the working muscles)
- increase in size and number of mitochondria in muscle cells (these are the energy supply plants inside each cell)
- reduction in the cell diffusion distance for exchange of gases and metabolites
- increased muscle glycogen storage

Maximal effort sprint and proper strength training leads to:
- hypertrophy of fast twitch muscle fibres
- reduced mitochondrial density
- reduced capillarisation
- increased cell diffusion distance
- increased anaerobic capacity and ability to tolerate high lactate levels for short periods
- increase rapid energy phosphate stores

IOW the type of hypertrophy induced by volumes of endurance cycling are different and done so while preserving or even improving mitochondrial and capillary density. The mitochondria are absolutely key to endurance cycling performance since they are the energy factories and determine how much energy our muscles can _sustainably _supply.

What you do with weight in a gym will have little or no benefit for this crucial physiological adaptation for aerobic abilities.

Also keep in mind that high level endurance cyclists have very low body fat levels, and so muscle definition is enhanced.

As for Zabriske - sure, there will be a range of strength abilities for endurance cyclists just as here is for everyone (like me for instance, was strong but it still didn't make me a sprinter). Some will be strong, others much less so. e.g. Boardman was not strong (his peak power was well under 900W) yet he road 56.3km for an hour at ~6.4W/kg and held the world pursuit record for nearly 20 years.


WRT Wiggins and pursuit, keep in mind that pursuit is a flat event over 4.X minutes and W/m^2 (power to aero drag ratio) is the key determinant of performance in the pursuit. As such it rewards an ability to sustain higher absolute power including a sizeable anaerobic energy contribution (approx 25%) and the additional muscle mass one might attain from doing pursuit oriented training doesn't come with an equal aerodynamic loss, so there can be a net performance gain (assuming you are still trim). High intensity cycling work can also induce muscle mass gain, you don't need to go to the gym for that, plus of course what you eat is very important.

When climbing long mountain passes is critical for success then additional muscle mass may or may not come with the addition of an equal amount of power. Remember that the physics changes for climbs and W/kg is king.


----------



## sdeeer

nealric said:


> This seems incomplete and misleading.
> 
> but nobody has ever gained much mass from doing 100 rep curls of a 5lb dumbell. .
> .


Have you seen the studies on blood flow restriction training? While they are often not going as low as 5lbs in weight, the load is as little as 20% of 1rm and they are causing pretty substantial gains in skeletal muscle mass, markers of MPS, and gains in 1RM.

Then there is the data from Phillips lab and others using "traditional" endurance type exercises (30% of 1rm) but taking it all the way to failure for three sets. phillips sm 30% 80 muscle - Google Scholar

Both of theses data sets suggest that muscle adapts to a stimulus on a continuum. And while specificity is crucially important to optimal performance in a specific modality, the path to get there is not always linear. 

If I had to choose sides, I am with Alex on this one, in that for cycling performance (as the primary goal) time on the bike which includes a variety of "workouts" is better for most of us than time in the gym (for on bike performance). 

Now there is the argument that resistance training can recruit "new" or more fiber types which can then be used on the bike. I am open to the possibility that is true. But I have not seen a well designed study which suggests that method is better.

In the end, training is an art and a science. There is room for personal preference in practice. And as others have said, not many of us are anywhere close to professional. 

Never stop questioning what you do and why you do it (without paralysis by analysis). 

Alex and Steve....If I am reading what you wrote correctly, I feel you are somewhat saying the same thing to an extent with the data I suggested above. 

Classic strength training will activate mTOR and gain of cross bridges to a greater degree. Endurance activities will active AMPk and PGC1-alpha and down stream kinase to a greater degree. But the amount of cross talk is very complex. Keith Baar and David Hughes have quite a bit of data on this at the molecular level (sorry no papers to cite off the top of my head).

But basically, endurance modalities drive strength adaptations when properly fed and with the right fiber types. And resistance training modalities can drive some endurance training adaptations (especially when short rest and longer sets are employed). 

The main negative I have heard both anecdotally and in discussions with researchers in this area is the DOMs and reduced training capacity when undertaking concurrent training. Some are better able to handle and recover from those stresses either due to diet or other factors. Illustrating the reponder / nonresponder.


----------



## dcb

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> It was a over decade ago (ca 2002) and I don't have many records handy from then. I'm not sure what I started at but as it was probably at least a decade before that when I last did any such weight work (ca 1989) so I'm guessing I started at what felt conservative, and just kept adding to the bar in the opening week or two until it felt about as much as it should, so maybe around 1.8-1.9x. I'd do 5-6 sets, lighter to start with and end with 2-3 sets with full weight.
> 
> I was 80-82kg at that time, and I ended up doing 210kg after ~ 6-7 weeks from one squat session per week. Not much mass gain in that time.
> 
> After some road race seasons, I was experimenting with track, and with training, and given I reached such a strength level fairly quickly and there was no positive impact on my sprint, I figured there wasn't much point doing more. I was training regularly with world record level masters track sprinters so I had a pretty decent gauge on my abilities. I was no sprinter. Strong for sure, stronger than all of them, but just not that fast. I wasn't a slug either but it was enduro-level pace, not sprinter-level pace.
> 
> I did then progress to doing more explosive type work to see if that was a better choice, but I got an injury from that and decided the risks were not worth it and by then I'd decided to focus on track endurance and crits, and shorter road races/kermesse style races, so the strength work wasn't a priority.
> 
> I then kept doing sprint training on the bike at the track, usually after I'd had a morning endurance ride I'd go to the track and do sprints with the guys. It was fun and that's really important.
> 
> I've not touched a weight since. Well not quite. I tried once in 2009 a couple of years after my amputation but all that happened was my knee swelled badly and I was unable to use my prosthetic leg for a week or so. No leg to walk or ride on sucks. If I do sprint work, it's only ever on the bike now, and I vastly prefer to do the training on the track bike. I'm unable to jog or run with my prosthetic.


Alex - I really appreciate the detailed response. Given your starting strength levels I'd guess your 1RM at the time you initiated strength training at ~ 2.15 x bw. For a ground based athlete who isn't interested in gaining mass I would have immediately focused on RFD with simplified Olympic type lifts and plyos, while maintaining strength. With an athlete like you, there would be little need to work on maintaining that strength given what you came to the table with. However, I know nothing about track cyclists or how they train for sprints so I'm not sure that plan would apply to a cyclist. As you noted, there's nothing like sprinting to make your sprint better. It works on the ground and on the bike. I have always looked at weights and plyos as a compliment to on the field sprint work, not as the primary method for performance enhancement. 

As I've mentioned in other threads on this subject I think there's an avenue for improvement on the bike through resistance training focused on mobility and imbalance correction rather than gaining as much strength as possible. For example, my own strength training program consists of 2x4-6 reps of each of the following types of movements: Squat, Hip Hinge, Pull, Push, Loaded Carry or Get-Up. I do this once every 7-10 days with very light weight. I do this because if I don't my hips start to lock up (usually right SI joint) and I start to get upper back and neck pain. If I let this get started, it's bad both on and off the bike. So while my weight training isn't directly impacting my power output, it's keeping me pain free and on my bike. My plan is pretty low level as cycling is not a very dynamic sport (and I'm not getting paid to ride), but our older athletes follow similar but more involved plans in-season and it has been very effective keeping them healthy and on the field.

I'm lucky, because I have a job that keeps me on my feet and moving for half the day or more. I can't imagine what I'd feel like if I had to sit at a desk 8+ hours a day. I'd imagine there are more than a few middle aged recreational (but committed) cyclists who may have similar issues. 

Again Alex, your input is always enlightening and I'm glad to read your posts.


----------



## aclinjury

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Not sure I get the point of this vid. I didn't bother watching it all, too long.
> 
> Different people training for different outcomes. As for squatting twice body weight, that's not exactly extraordinary. Most track sprint cyclists can do at least 2 x body weight for free squat.


video sort of shows that you don't have to be massive to be strong. All the guys were doing the same lift at the same weight, yet one guy looks smaller than the rest. I know squatting 2x body weight is nothing extraordinary. I'm 118 myself and I can do 275 on a Smith machine about 5 reps, granted smith macine is not free weight but I'm also a very skinny 5'7" 118lbs.


----------



## Local Hero

I don't want to muddy the waters here but...

First, that video was great. The smaller guy obviously trains for strength (while the others may train for size). And the smaller guy had superior form. There is no doubt that he is getting everything out of his size. And if those bigger guys trained similarly to how he trains, they would certainly be able to get more out of their bodies. 

So how does the powerlifter train--without putting on excess bulk--and is it transferable to cycling? 

Alex and others have posted some good information here. And post #37 summed up things nicely.


----------



## Flexnuphill

sdeeer said:


> Have you seen the studies on blood flow restriction training? While they are often not going as low as 5lbs in weight, the load is as little as 20% of 1rm and they are causing pretty substantial gains in skeletal muscle mass, markers of MPS, and gains in 1RM.
> 
> Then there is the data from Phillips lab and others using "traditional" endurance type exercises (30% of 1rm) but taking it all the way to failure for three sets. phillips sm 30% 80 muscle - Google Scholar
> 
> Both of theses data sets suggest that muscle adapts to a stimulus on a continuum. And while specificity is crucially important to optimal performance in a specific modality, the path to get there is not always linear.
> 
> If I had to choose sides, I am with Alex on this one, in that for cycling performance (as the primary goal) time on the bike which includes a variety of "workouts" is better for most of us than time in the gym (for on bike performance).
> 
> Now there is the argument that resistance training can recruit "new" or more fiber types which can then be used on the bike. I am open to the possibility that is true. But I have not seen a well designed study which suggests that method is better.
> 
> In the end, training is an art and a science. There is room for personal preference in practice. And as others have said, not many of us are anywhere close to professional.
> 
> Never stop questioning what you do and why you do it (without paralysis by analysis).
> 
> Alex and Steve....If I am reading what you wrote correctly, I feel you are somewhat saying the same thing to an extent with the data I suggested above.
> 
> Classic strength training will activate mTOR and gain of cross bridges to a greater degree. Endurance activities will active AMPk and PGC1-alpha and down stream kinase to a greater degree. But the amount of cross talk is very complex. Keith Baar and David Hughes have quite a bit of data on this at the molecular level (sorry no papers to cite off the top of my head).
> 
> But basically, endurance modalities drive strength adaptations when properly fed and with the right fiber types. And resistance training modalities can drive some endurance training adaptations (especially when short rest and longer sets are employed).
> 
> The main negative I have heard both anecdotally and in discussions with researchers in this area is the DOMs and reduced training capacity when undertaking concurrent training. Some are better able to handle and recover from those stresses either due to diet or other factors. Illustrating the reponder / nonresponder.


Interesting tidbit you mentioned about training with weights and cycling concurrently. Last winter I trained my legs with resistance once a week and spent 5 - 6 hous a week spinning indoors. The first month went well, the second month I noticed that my legs felt constantly fatigued. I modified my resistance training program and arranged it so I was on the bike the day after the resistance session. I found that spinning the day after helped with the DOMs. I was able to improve my w/kg and my leg strength over the 4 month period but I have no idea whether or not the two types of training complimentated one another. 

Armed with what I learned last spring, I'm going to try the same approach starting this January, it will be interesting to see how I do this time around.


----------



## jspharmd

There seems to be a great deal of concern about gaining mass. Have any of you really (I mean really) put on so much mass during the off season that it adversely affected your cycling performance? If so, genetically, you are in the wrong sport! I lifted for over 10 years. I tried to put on muscle mass and it isn't as easy as lifting a weight a couple of days a week for a few months. So, if muscle mass is a major concern for you, and your cycling, you can stop worrying. It is highly unlikely that you will put on 5-10 lbs of *muscle mass* over a few months.


----------



## nealric

sdeeer said:


> Have you seen the studies on blood flow restriction training? While they are often not going as low as 5lbs in weight, the load is as little as 20% of 1rm and they are causing pretty substantial gains in skeletal muscle mass, markers of MPS, and gains in 1RM.
> 
> Then there is the data from Phillips lab and others using "traditional" endurance type exercises (30% of 1rm) but taking it all the way to failure for three sets. phillips sm 30% 80 muscle - Google Scholar
> 
> Both of theses data sets suggest that muscle adapts to a stimulus on a continuum. And while specificity is crucially important to optimal performance in a specific modality, the path to get there is not always linear.


I'm familiar with those kinds of studies, but I'm skeptical for a few reasons. 

First, they tend to focus on machine exercises (leg extension, in this case) rather than proper lifting exercises and often use test subjects with low fitness baselines such that almost any resistance will show gains. I understand why they use machines (eliminate form as a variable), but nobody who is serious about strength training should be spending much time on a leg lift machine, and using machines casts doubt as to whether the same results occur with free weights. 

Second, experientially, I find I become very cardio-limited once I get past 20 reps. That would seem to limit the ability to actually provide max sustained load. The prescription of the Phillips study of 30% of 1RM max at 23-24 reps would also have me quitting well before failure or even really serious exertion. 

Third, most scientific studies focus on very short term impacts and extrapolate from there. Most people with a significant amount of muscle mass have stuck to a program over a period of years. It's all well and good to find that protein X was activated the next day, but the body may have complex reactions to a process repeated over a period of years. 

Finally, the bodybuilders and power lifters have tried all kinds of different programs over the years to maximize mass gains, and have settled on 5-15 rep range for their training as most effective. 

Intuitively, it seems to me that your body is going to adapt to what you train for. Training for 1RM max will adapt your body for 1RM max. Training for endurance will yield endurance. There will certainly be crossover between the two, but I have difficulty accepting that the best way to train from 1RM max is endless reps at 30% of max.


----------



## 41ants

I really don't think a cyclist would have to worry about putting on mass during a few months of lifting during the winter. Not only would you have to be very specific and intentional in your lifting, the diet itself, as previously mentioned, would have to be completely altered to facilitate mass building. Gains are made in the kitchen and while you are asleep. I am not an easy gainer and thus I have to be very specific in diet and training in order to gain mass. It's not something that is going to happen by accident. I may have over simplified it, but it's true, at least it was for me. 6'1 235# and 7% bf many years ago, I just don't eat how I used to. I still lift throughout the season, but I am not anywhere near my old weight. I'm probably just as lean or leaner, but down more than 50# or so. However, I have met some of those freaks, and there were a few on my col baseball team, that could look at a weight and put on 5# of lean mass overnight. You might be one of those easy gainers and have to worry about it.


----------



## ycastane

Not sure if anyone mentioned the most important part because I didn't read all the previous post but DIET is key whenever you are trying to gain muscle or lose fat, if you are doing a diet to drop some weight, you will definitely not gain an once of muscle whether you try lifting a building or lifting a 15lb dumbbell.

I have to also as some mention disagree with the 5x5, I can assume that if you are asking this question it means you are not very experienced with bodybuilding, heavy weights = injuries. Stick to a comfortable weight and just take it to failure, do 3-4 sets, this will also work to your advantage because it will help with cycling.

All in all if you are in a caloric deficit forget about gaining anything, it won't happen, you need to be eating over your maintenance TDEE calories in order to gain muscle or fat.


----------



## Local Hero

Highly trained cyclists may be hesitant to incorporate resistance training (RT) with their endurance training (ET) because of the mixed data regarding concurrent RT and ET (CT). The purpose of this review was to search the scientific body of literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CT on road cycling performance for highly trained cyclists. Key words (including cycling and strength training) were used to search relevant databases through September 2009 for literature related to CT. Randomized controlled trials were included if they scored > or =5 on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Five studies met the inclusion criteria: highly trained road cyclists (>7 h.wk or > 150 km.wk, with at least 6 months of training), outcome measure was cycling performance (time trial or time to exhaustion), and RT performed off-bike. Two of the 5 studies found no improvement in performance with CT, but these studies added RT on top of the athletes' existing ET. The 3 studies with improved cycling performance replaced a portion of the athletes' ET with RT, and 2 of the 3 studies included high-intensity explosive-type resistance exercises. Despite the limited research on CT for highly trained cyclists, it is likely that replacing a portion of a cyclist's ET with RT will result in improved time trial performance and maximal power.
The effects of resistance training on road cycling performance amon... - PubMed - NCBI



ycastane said:


> heavy weights = injuries





> Stick to a comfortable weight and just take it to failure, do 3-4 sets, this will also work to your advantage because it will help with cycling.


Are these claims supported by science?


----------



## ycastane

Local Hero said:


> Highly trained cyclists may be hesitant to incorporate resistance training (RT) with their endurance training (ET) because of the mixed data regarding concurrent RT and ET (CT). The purpose of this review was to search the scientific body of literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CT on road cycling performance for highly trained cyclists. Key words (including cycling and strength training) were used to search relevant databases through September 2009 for literature related to CT. Randomized controlled trials were included if they scored > or =5 on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Five studies met the inclusion criteria: highly trained road cyclists (>7 h.wk or > 150 km.wk, with at least 6 months of training), outcome measure was cycling performance (time trial or time to exhaustion), and RT performed off-bike. Two of the 5 studies found no improvement in performance with CT, but these studies added RT on top of the athletes' existing ET. The 3 studies with improved cycling performance replaced a portion of the athletes' ET with RT, and 2 of the 3 studies included high-intensity explosive-type resistance exercises. Despite the limited research on CT for highly trained cyclists, it is likely that replacing a portion of a cyclist's ET with RT will result in improved time trial performance and maximal power.
> The effects of resistance training on road cycling performance amon... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> Are these claims supported by science?


Obviously they arent but science in the grand scheme of things doesnt mean anything, a 100 people study on whatever subject whether is training or medicine doesnt mean your body will react the same way period. Ive been doing strength training for a very long time and all i hear from people who do heavy weights is that at some point they get joint pains and injuries, myself included at a point. Im not doing the leg work but studies show that taking the muscle past failure whether is low or heavy weights will increase muscle mass with proper nutrition which is key to begin with. The muscle breaksdown regardless of the heaviness of the weight, its what you do to it and your nutrition that makes it grow, or tear, or whatever.

You dont see or hear from any professional bodybuilder (the top dogs) doing 5x5s, its all about pushing the muscle beyond its limits, just like cycling, if you always do the same speed, same cadence, same everything you will never get any better!!!


----------



## Local Hero

ycastane said:


> Obviously they arent but science in the grand scheme of things doesnt mean anything


Science is the best authority we have on the physical universe.


----------



## PBL450

41ants said:


> I really don't think a cyclist would have to worry about putting on mass during a few months of lifting during the winter. Not only would you have to be very specific and intentional in your lifting, the diet itself, as previously mentioned, would have to be completely altered to facilitate mass building. Gains are made in the kitchen and while you are asleep. I am not an easy gainer and thus I have to be very specific in diet and training in order to gain mass. It's not something that is going to happen by accident. I may have over simplified it, but it's true, at least it was for me. 6'1 235# and 7% bf many years ago, I just don't eat how I used to. I still lift throughout the season, but I am not anywhere near my old weight. I'm probably just as lean or leaner, but down more than 50# or so. However, I have met some of those freaks, and there were a few on my col baseball team, that could look at a weight and put on 5# of lean mass overnight. You might be one of those easy gainers and have to worry about it.


Right. I'm a hard gainer by nature. In reference to the "don't worry bout gaining mass" posts, I wouldn't worry about that at all... You will however need a calorie surplus to gain muscle mass (within reason) so you will be adding some muscle mass and some unwanted weight. I realize there are a few nuances here, but in general you will add lbs beyond muscle mass gains. Will that effect your cycling? It depends, at the very least, on how much lean mass vs dead weight you add and how much you climb?


----------



## PBL450

ycastane said:


> Obviously they arent but science in the grand scheme of things doesnt mean anything, a 100 people study on whatever subject whether is training or medicine doesnt mean your body will react the same way period. Ive been doing strength training for a very long time and all i hear from people who do heavy weights is that at some point they get joint pains and injuries, myself included at a point. Im not doing the leg work but studies show that taking the muscle past failure whether is low or heavy weights will increase muscle mass with proper nutrition which is key to begin with. The muscle breaksdown regardless of the heaviness of the weight, its what you do to it and your nutrition that makes it grow, or tear, or whatever.
> 
> You dont see or hear from any professional bodybuilder (the top dogs) doing 5x5s, its all about pushing the muscle beyond its limits, just like cycling, if you always do the same speed, same cadence, same everything you will never get any better!!!


Body Building and strength training aren't exactly the same thing... There are strength athletes, that I would consider as strength training, and they don't look much at all like body builders. Then there are oly lifters, a different sport again, with weight classes and dynamic lifts. Body builders are doing something completely different, at no time are they being asked to lift heavy things, or even to lift light things a great many times. Using strength training for other sports, regardless of the sport, is something, once again, even more so completely different. Specificity becomes god. 

And, science is good.


----------



## 41ants

Agreed.. Very difficult to add only lean muscle without adding some fat and h2o retention. It seems that we are either naturally expanding, contracting, or remaining the same. Dropping body fat AND adding lean muscle at the same time is incredibly difficult.. Unless, one starts playing games, but they don't bode well for endurance sports and that person has other serious issues to contend with.

I'm personally enjoying getting back into the gym with more consistency as of late. Diet is still balanced and coming in around 3,800 - 4,100 calories and I have not seen anything measurable on the scale over the past couple of months. Calories will be adjusted soon and I also plan to do a bf analysis in a few weeks to see if that has changed.


----------



## nealric

PBL450 said:


> Body Building and strength training aren't exactly the same thing... There are strength athletes, that I would consider as strength training, and they don't look much at all like body builders. Then there are oly lifters, a different sport again, with weight classes and dynamic lifts. Body builders are doing something completely different, at no time are they being asked to lift heavy things, or even to lift light things a great many times. Using strength training for other sports, regardless of the sport, is something, once again, even more so completely different. Specificity becomes god.
> 
> And, science is good.


It's a common myth that bodybuilders aren't strong. A lot of this comes from the cut cycle they go into for competitions. Bodybuilders at competitions are severely dehydrated and have been fasting for weeks- so they are relatively weak at that moment. However, their training is all about heavy lifts. There is a lot of overlap between bodybuilders and power lifters (many have done both). The reason olympic lifters look different is that olympic lifts are heavily dependent on leg and core strength, while body building style lifts are much more upper-body centered. Also, heavy weight olympic lifters don't have to care about bodyfat percentage (like bodybuilders do), so they can err on the side of over-nutrition. 

Another difference is the genetics that excel. For most competitive weight lifting, it is an advantage to have a big torso and short limbs. But this is not an ideal form for bodybuilding, which idealizes the more lanky greek statue aesthetic. The body builder's muscles may be just as strong, but the physics of leverage dictates that they won't be able to lift as much as a shorter limbed person of equal strength.


----------



## jspharmd

PBL450 said:


> Body Building and strength training aren't exactly the same thing... There are strength athletes, that I would consider as strength training, and they don't look much at all like body builders. Then there are oly lifters, a different sport again, with weight classes and dynamic lifts. Body builders are doing something completely different, at no time are they being asked to lift heavy things, or even to lift light things a great many times. Using strength training for other sports, regardless of the sport, is something, once again, even more so completely different. Specificity becomes god.
> 
> And, science is good.


You are way off base regarding bodybuilders. I've known guys that were both competitive bodybuilders and powerlifters at the same time. In fact a friend was the teen world record holder in squats and subsequently won a bodybuilding competition. When I was bodybuilding, I would routinely leg press 900 lbs for sets of 8 and 1100 lbs for sets of 5. I would do one arm dumbell row with 150 lbs. 

Go to a gym and watch some bodybuilders. They are lifting big weights. I look funny to them doing sets of 10-12 reps with lighter weight than they use.


----------



## PBL450

nealric said:


> It's a common myth that bodybuilders aren't strong. A lot of this comes from the cut cycle they go into for competitions. Bodybuilders at competitions are severely dehydrated and have been fasting for weeks- so they are relatively weak at that moment. However, their training is all about heavy lifts. There is a lot of overlap between bodybuilders and power lifters (many have done both). The reason olympic lifters look different is that olympic lifts are heavily dependent on leg and core strength, while body building style lifts are much more upper-body centered. Also, heavy weight olympic lifters don't have to care about bodyfat percentage (like bodybuilders do), so they can err on the side of over-nutrition.
> 
> Another difference is the genetics that excel. For most competitive weight lifting, it is an advantage to have a big torso and short limbs. But this is not an ideal form for bodybuilding, which idealizes the more lanky greek statue aesthetic. The body builder's muscles may be just as strong, but the physics of leverage dictates that they won't be able to lift as much as a shorter limbed person of equal strength.


Im not sure why you quote me in your post? I never said body builders aren't strong and I could care less if they are... What I said is that they aren't asked to lift heavy weights or light weights or anything at all. What they are asked to do in their sport is pose. Body builders, like other models, are meat. A strength athlete is being asked to lift weights in a competition. They train very differently. The excess calorie surplus is irrelevant for a strength athlete. They care about how much they can lift not how lean they are. My point is that specificity is what really matters in regards to a sport like CYCLING. 

OK, genetics matter for every sport a really lot. What is your point? And what the F is "over-nutrition?" 

The point of this thread is whether or not lifting will make you ride a bike faster? The literature is fuzzy at best and the input I'm getting combined with my outside reading and consulting with local experts has me rethinking my approach... I'm base training right now... I'm not sure how much time and energy I'm willing to give to lifting based on what I am learning...


----------



## PBL450

jspharmd said:


> You are way off base regarding bodybuilders. I've known guys that were both competitive bodybuilders and powerlifters at the same time. In fact a friend was the teen world record holder in squats and subsequently won a bodybuilding competition. When I was bodybuilding, I would routinely leg press 900 lbs for sets of 8 and 1100 lbs for sets of 5. I would do one arm dumbell row with 150 lbs.
> 
> Go to a gym and watch some bodybuilders. They are lifting big weights. I look funny to them doing sets of 10-12 reps with lighter weight than they use.


In what way am I "way off base?" Please be specific. Your reply doesn't make sense otherwise. How much you can lift is completely irrelevant to being a body builder. Completely... What matters is your physique. How you get there can be similar, but it is irrelevant. You are judged, you are not competing in a way that makes things clear, like someone lifted more weight than you... 

How does that translate into the kind of specificity that makes you go faster on a bicycle? Please, again, be specific... Because I am learning more and more how irrelevant this is to riding a bike.


----------



## jspharmd

PBL450 said:


> In what way am I "way off base?" Please be specific. Your reply doesn't make sense otherwise. How much you can lift is completely irrelevant to being a body builder. Completely... What matters is your physique. How you get there can be similar, but it is irrelevant. You are judged, you are not competing in a way that makes things clear, like someone lifted more weight than you...
> 
> How does that translate into the kind of specificity that makes you go faster on a bicycle? Please, again, be specific... Because I am learning more and more how irrelevant this is to riding a bike.


The context of lifting heavy weights in this thread relates to whether or not you will gain mass (sometimes unwanted by cyclists). You said bodybuilders aren't asked to lift anything. That they are judged by meat. How you get that meat directly relates to how much weight you lift. So, if you want to be a competitive bodybuilder, you are indirectly asked to lift heavy weights. This in turn related to the topic of mass and helping or hurting cycling. 

Therefore, you are WAY off base regarding bodybuilders. They are indeed asked to lift heavy weights to gain mass. They are also asked (or at least used to be asked) to lift lighter weights for more repetitions when they are "cutting up" for a competition. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## PBL450

jspharmd said:


> The context of lifting heavy weights in this thread relates to whether or not you will gain mass (sometimes unwanted by cyclists). You said bodybuilders aren't asked to lift anything. That they are judged by meat. How you get that meat directly relates to how much weight you lift. So, if you want to be a competitive bodybuilder, you are indirectly asked to lift heavy weights. This in turn related to the topic of mass and helping or hurting cycling.
> 
> Therefore, you are WAY off base regarding bodybuilders. They are indeed asked to lift heavy weights to gain mass. They are also asked (or at least used to be asked) to lift lighter weights for more repetitions when they are "cutting up" for a competition.
> 
> Hope this helps.


What would help is a video or link where a title goes to the strongest bodybuilding competitor. Maybe even a judge asking them how much they bench, squat or Deadlift? Then I might understand why I'm WAY off base? Until then, there are different and very specific forms of training for different strength sports. Strength athletes, people who win events because they can lift more, don't generally care much about adding extra bulk unless they compete in weight classes. Endurance athletes, regardless of the sport, will be concerned with adding useless weight because it will hurt your performance.


----------



## jspharmd

PBL450 said:


> What would help is a video or link where a title goes to the strongest bodybuilding competitor. Maybe even a judge asking them how much they bench, squat or Deadlift? Then I might understand why I'm WAY off base? Until then, there are different and very specific forms of training for different strength sports. Strength athletes, people who win events because they can lift more, don't generally care much about adding extra bulk unless they compete in weight classes. Endurance athletes, regardless of the sport, will be concerned with adding useless weight because it will hurt your performance.


I think you're arguing a different argument. Nobody ever said that bodybuilders compete my lifting. Somehow you seem to think that because bodybuilders don't compete by lifting weights, that they don't lift heavy weights. This is illogical. Some of us just chose to point it out. Unfortunately, we haven't done a good job of pointing it out to you, because you still don't realize that they lift heavy weights whether they do it in competition or not. 

Sorry I couldn't help you understand and aknowledge this.


----------



## Local Hero

OK, let's sum this up: Generally speaking, the way body builders lift is different from the way power lifters lift. Some power lifters look like bodybuilders. And some bodybuilders are very strong. And we know that different ways of lifting can produce different results. 

So...

Assuming that a cyclist wants to lift, what is the best way to lift? 

X sets of Y

X=?
Y=?


I like the 5x5. I cannot find the study now but I recall something indicating that 5X5 squats *after* a longer workout actually improves V02max and TT times.


----------



## PBL450

Local Hero said:


> OK, let's sum this up: Generally speaking, the way body builders lift is different from the way power lifters lift. Some power lifters look like bodybuilders. And some bodybuilders are very strong. And we know that different ways of lifting can produce different results.
> 
> So...
> 
> Assuming that a cyclist wants to lift, what is the best way to lift?
> 
> X sets of Y
> 
> X=?
> Y=?
> 
> 
> I like the 5x5. I cannot find the study now but I recall something indicating that 5X5 squats *after* a longer workout actually improves V02max and TT times.


Hahaha! Yes, perfect! I can't rep you because I have repped you before apparently... I must spread it around. 

Right. You will add mass to add strength once you pass initial adaptation. How much you want is the question. I'm learning mountains from here and from reading everything I can find, I'll ask for suggestions for further reading again? The lifting suggestions I'm reading from Chapple and Friel seem to be general fitness and core strength focused, like the stuff Mark Verstagen writes about in his Core Performance series. With the exception of leg presses, it seems strength or bodybuilding types of lifting are counterproductive. The jury is out on Plyos? Albeit I'm sure you will get the bone density there if you struggle to run like I do... But even moderate intensity Plyos are a formula for injury (although I've never had that happen in years of doing them, I still get it). I'm thinking base building and dropping some weight on the bike is a more productive use of time... At 6'2" and 180 I'd think 5-10 pounds?


----------



## nealric

PBL450 said:


> Im not sure why you quote me in your post? I never said body builders aren't strong and I could care less if they are... What I said is that they aren't asked to lift heavy weights or light weights or anything at all. What they are asked to do in their sport is pose. Body builders, like other models, are meat. A strength athlete is being asked to lift weights in a competition. They train very differently. The excess calorie surplus is irrelevant for a strength athlete. They care about how much they can lift not how lean they are. My point is that specificity is what really matters in regards to a sport like CYCLING.
> 
> OK, genetics matter for every sport a really lot. What is your point? And what the F is "over-nutrition?"
> 
> The point of this thread is whether or not lifting will make you ride a bike faster? The literature is fuzzy at best and the input I'm getting combined with my outside reading and consulting with local experts has me rethinking my approach... I'm base training right now... I'm not sure how much time and energy I'm willing to give to lifting based on what I am learning...


As others said, while bodybuilders are judged by appearance, the way to gain the appearance they are judged upon is lifting heavy weights. And I was disputing the claim that their training is very different from power lifters. 

"Over nutrition" is simply eating more nutrients than required to gain lean muscle mass. A heavy weight olympic lifter can be competitive at 20% bodyfat. A body builder can not so needs to be very careful to consume only the amount of nutrients to gain/sustain muscle mass. 

As for cycling, I agree that the case for weight training is a bit fuzzy. Based on morphology, however, it appears that track sprinters absolutely MUST do strength training to be competitive (squat 'till you drop!), while it is probably more or less optional for super-endurance athletes. This bears out in running too. Sprinters are very muscular while marathoners are long and lean. 

But I think the bottom line for a casual racer is that lifting certainly can't hurt. You won't gain enough mass to slow you down unless you really get into lifting over a period of several years.


----------



## Local Hero

nealric said:


> As others said, while bodybuilders are judged by appearance, the way to gain the appearance they are judged upon is lifting heavy weights. And I was disputing the claim that their training is very different from power lifters.


There are multiple sources which say the X sets of Y can vary depending on whether someone wants to train for strength or size. When I googled "lift for strength vs lift for size" this came up:

_If someone wants to improve his 1-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press or squat strength, he should be training with loads very close to maximum weight with fewer repetitions to gain maximal strength. On the other hand, if someone wants to get a larger chest or thigh muscles, he would want to train with higher volumes (sets + reps) and less weight to elicit a growth response. _
Men's Health - Power Training - The Program - Strength Versus Size Gains




> As for cycling, I agree that the case for weight training is a bit fuzzy. Based on morphology, however, it appears that track sprinters absolutely MUST do strength training to be competitive (squat 'till you drop!), while it is probably more or less optional for super-endurance athletes. This bears out in running too.


I come from a running background. And I remember an article 10 years ago which said that the then-dominant Ethiopian and Kenyan runners do not lift. But they do run hills and do plenty of plyos.


----------



## nealric

Local Hero said:


> There are multiple sources which say the X sets of Y can vary depending on whether someone wants to train for strength or size. When I googled "lift for strength vs lift for size" this came up:
> 
> _If someone wants to improve his 1-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press or squat strength, he should be training with loads very close to maximum weight with fewer repetitions to gain maximal strength. On the other hand, if someone wants to get a larger chest or thigh muscles, he would want to train with higher volumes (sets + reps) and less weight to elicit a growth response. _
> Men's Health - Power Training - The Program - Strength Versus Size Gains


I wouldn't take Men's health as a very serious strength training guide. While there is certainly considerable debate about the precise number of "ideal" reps for various outcomes, it's pretty much impossible to increase your muscle mass without also seeing strength gains. You can, to a limited degree, increase strength without gaining much mass (increase maximum muscle fiber recruitment), but you eventually hit a wall and your muscles have to increase in size to get stronger.

If the training for mass and strength were so different, you wouldn't see the crossover between power lifters and bodybuilders.


----------



## Local Hero

nealric said:


> I wouldn't take Men's health as a very serious strength training guide.


Yes, feel free to attack that source. But the idea was not to use mens health as a scientific authority or training guide, it was just one of the first hits on google. I posted it because it clearly summarizes the fact that different values for X and Y when doing X sets of Y produce different results. 

Feel free to search for yourself. There are millions of articles that compare high reps/low weight with low reps/high weight. 

More to the point, there are countless studies for weight training and cycling performance. 

Here's a scientific study on cyclists which found no significant differences between high resistance, high reps, and control: High resistance/low repetition vs. low resistance/high repetition t... - PubMed - NCBI

Here's a scientific article that found heavy strength training leads to improved cycling performance in elite cyclists as evidenced by a superior effect size of ES training vs E training on relative improvements in power output at 4 mmol L-1 [la- ], peak power output during 30-s Wingate test, Wmax , and mean power output during 40-min all-out trial. Strength training improves performance and pedaling characteristics... - PubMed - NCBI



> If the training for mass and strength were so different, you wouldn't see the crossover between power lifters and bodybuilders.


Sorry, that's too conclusory. 

Exactly what crossover, aside from them both lifting weights? 

Can you tell us the X sets of Y used by both body builders and power lifters?


----------



## nealric

Local Hero said:


> Here's a scientific study on cyclists which found no significant differences between high resistance, high reps, and control: High resistance/low repetition vs. low resistance/high repetition t... - PubMed - NCBI


That study actually finds that the high resistance subjects had better strength gains, but that those gains didn't translate to cycling performance. 

There is a ton of research out there, but the conclusions are often rather equivocal if you dig deeply. 



> Exactly what crossover, aside from them both lifting weights?
> 
> Can you tell us the X sets of Y used by both body builders and power lifters?


I'm talking about athletes who successfully compete in both bodybuilding and powerlifting in a relatively short period of time. For example, Arnold Schwartzenegger won the German power lifting championships and the Mr. Universe competitions in the same year.


----------



## Local Hero

nealric said:


> There is a ton of research out there, but the conclusions are often rather equivocal if you dig deeply.
> 
> I'm talking about athletes who successfully compete in both bodybuilding and powerlifting in a relatively short period of time. For example, Arnold Schwartzenegger won the German power lifting championships and the Mr. Universe competitions in the same year.


So...no scientific conclusions and just anecdotes? 

I have already said that there are plenty of bodybuilders who are strong and plenty of powerlifters who look like bodybuilders. That doesn't really change whether varying the X and Y in X sets of Y makes a difference if someone is lifting for size or strength. 





nealric said:


> That study actually finds that the high resistance subjects had better strength gains, but that those gains didn't translate to cycling performance.


So...the high resistence, low reps are better for strength. That disputes your point (yet you mention it?). And I said there is no significant difference (in cycling, which is what this thread is all about anyway). As I said? 

I'm not sure what you're on about. It feels like you are arguing just to argue. So I will go ahead and bow of out this on.


----------



## nealric

Local Hero said:


> So...no scientific conclusions and just anecdotes?
> 
> I have already said that there are plenty of bodybuilders who are strong and plenty of powerlifters who look like bodybuilders. That doesn't really change whether X sets of Y makes a difference if someone is lifting for size or strength.
> 
> 
> 
> So...the high resistence, low reps are better for strength. That disputes your point (yet you mention it?). And I said there is no significant difference (in cycling, which is what this thread is all about anyway). As I said?
> 
> I'm not sure what you're on about. It feels like you are arguing just to argue. So I will go ahead and bow of out this on.


Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-science on this front. My issue is that the quality of most fitness research is simply terrible. This is for two reasons 1) they don't have the funding for long term or sufficiently large sample groups, 2) the researchers often have limited fitness expertise and therefore often don't examine real training alternatives, instead focusing on extremely contrived exercise regimens that only make sense in a lab environment. 

The study you cited on cyclists and strength went for a mere 10 weeks. But strength builds the body up over a period of YEARS. A more interesting study would have taken a group of cyclists that did no strength training (perhaps with an average max squat of 135lbs) and followed them as they trained to double or more than initial amount, THEN examined their cycling performance. 

Regarding anecdotes vs studies. It's true that the plural of anecdote is not data. But if the science says there are no 3-armed monkeys, and you have one right in front of you, you have to take a hard look at the science. 

My take on this thread was initially limited to concerns about "bulking up" expressed by the OP, rather than the usefulness of strength training for cyclists. This got into disputing implications that strength and size were unrelated. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing- just trying to share my understanding and critiques of various training ideas.


----------



## Local Hero

lunges with 95? lbs: 
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=862704680448591&set=vb.213365598715839&type=2&theater

squats with 155lbs:
https://www.facebook.com/opqscyclin...3365598715839/862729080446151/?type=1&theater

according to Omega Pharma, these riders had jsut finished 3.5 hours of riding. 

And, "professional road cyclists are endurance athletes, not strength athletes. Resistance training is part of training, but not their top priority"


----------



## PBL450

There isn't a best way... Lift to failure repeatedly... To the OP, the answer is no, you can't get stronger without gaining mass. It's a trade off between how much weight you are willing to gain for improvements in your cycling. As we all know and have seen or posted here, you are not going to get huge and kill your climbing, but you will gain muscle mass AND fat. The amount of unwanted weight can be mitigated by your nutrition but without "help" it's still going to be some combination of muscle and fat. 

So there are two questions, the first being will this help your cycling at all? I'm not convinced that it will. I am left thinking there is a degree of core and physioball work that can be a real benefit but I wouldn't really consider that traditional lifting. And none of it would make a cosmetic difference. Again, not traditional lifting, but Plyos are an odd man out? Increased injury risk but maybe worth it? Brutal stuff though, wear your HR monitor for that and see if you can blow it up! LOL! 

And, what kind of lifting is best if I want to gain strength without unnecessary extra weight? Probably none? But, I think you are as well advised to lift for total load as you are for low rep max. Lifting heavy increases injury risk but accomplishes hypertrophy in less total time. Ultimately, failure is failure. Stress and adaptation is what will make you stronger. So where is the balance between high rep and low rep? Well, crazy high rep stuff is ridiculous in the time it takes to do a set. Low rep is increasing injury risk... This is IMO only... So the old standard of 8-12 reps seems to hold. Lift what you can 8 times until you can do it comfortably and then go to 10 then 12 then add weight and go back to 8. Do that for 2 or 3 sets depending on how much time you have. Or pick lifts that are more important to you and do three sets of those, knocking off on two sets of the others. 

Me? I'm going out to get in some base miles.


----------



## Rackerman

This forum has given me so much information and I am so appreciative of all the advice that has come along.

Just a quick comment on the "Mass" part that I was initially concerned about. My body type is more that of a sprinter than a Spanish climber (Unfortunate for me as a cyclist by much more to my wife's liking!). I have been on a weight loss journey over the past couple of years and still carry 24% body fat. I weight lifted hard in High School and in the years after HS. As such, size can come back quickly for me and faster than the 150lb climber...

You have all given me a ton to review and consider and I believe I'm on a training plan now that should have me progressing well towards my goals in the spring.

Please keep the forum going. I love reading some of the battles in different opinions here!


----------



## ESTrainSmartBlog

Rackerman said:


> Are there any general rules of thumb to follow when winter weight training to build strength but not to pack on mass? I'm using full body weight training to continue with a weight loss plan and with a current knee injury, I'm not able to cycle or do as much leg work as I'd like to do... But I'm concerned about packing on unwanted mass that will do little to benefit cycling speeds... unless descending of course.
> 
> Any input re: reps, sets, how fast to go through reps, rest periods, reps to failure, supersetting? I'm fairly experienced in the gym and workout 3 or 4 times a week based on work schedule.
> 
> My wife disagrees. But that's another story.


Is the knee injury an overuse injury? If that's the case, then you can still safely strengthen your leg. In order to prevent reinjury, it would be wise to address any muscle imbalances with corrective exercise. Use this time to get some quality rehabilitation and injury prevention. It will feel less like a setback to make this a priority.

Also, if you don't want to gain weight, aim to get only one or two sets (6-8 reps) done and avoid protein intake immediately before a weight lifting session. That's only a very general rule of thumb. I know several other methodologies to increasing strength without increasing weight. There are other training and nutritional protocols you can use. By the way, I'm an ACE Certified Sports Conditioning Specialist, Personal Trainer and hold a degree in Kinesiology. I specialize in the strength and conditioning for cycling and use it for my own competitive purpose too.

Also, I can help you determine what body weight will optimize your chances at a race win. The terrain, course design, physiological limitations, psychological limitations and racing style need to be considered. There are pros and cons associated with any body weight and I can teach you how to take advantage of other rider's weaknesses. Contact me at [email protected] to set up a free consultation with me.


----------

