# More evidence in support of weight-training



## WeakSister (Oct 30, 2009)

I read in a UK mag that Dan Martin has been riding less and spending more time in the gym, doing high-rep squats and leg presses, sometimes three sessions a week. Seems to have worked out well for him.

I know, I know...this is anecdotal and has no validity, blah, blah. Go ahead and site your short-term, small sample size studies indicating weight-training is no good.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

Your logic makes me smile


----------



## Kristatos (Jan 10, 2008)

Awesome - would love the details on his workout. I've been thinking of adding a high-rep session to my routine - any chance you can provide a link or a brief summary of what his session looks like?



WeakSister said:


> I read in a UK mag that Dan Martin has been riding less and spending more time in the gym, doing high-rep squats and leg presses, sometimes three sessions a week. Seems to have worked out well for him.
> 
> I know, I know...this is anecdotal and has no validity, blah, blah. Go ahead and site your short-term, small sample size studies indicating weight-training is no good.


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

My wife and I were watching some of the spring classics and noticed that the riders in general are looking bigger. Maybe it's because it's early spring, or they are lifting more, or it could be our TV. 

Maybe they gotta do something different if they can't take EPO any more.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Is this limited to winter training or something followed all season?


----------



## WeakSister (Oct 30, 2009)

Kristatos, sorry...the article didn't provide any details about his routine, other than high-rep squats and leg presses. I can't even recall the name of the mag now, sorry.

vetboy, if you have something to say, say it, ya creep.


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

WeakSister said:


> Kristatos, sorry...the article didn't provide any details about his routine, other than high-rep squats and leg presses. I can't even recall the name of the mag now, sorry.
> 
> vetboy, if you have something to say, say it, ya creep.



Now, now. Name calling won't improve your flawed logic.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

I do a routine in conjunction with general core work but, it's more geared towards injury prevention than anything else. It was prescribed by a PT:

-Warm up
-Stretches
-3X10 single leg presses on a machine with bands for resistance. Light resistance to get range and warm up
-3X10 leg presses on same machine. Very light resistance...same as above.
-3X30 leg press machine with 10 reps wide stance, 10 mid and 10 narrow.
-3X15 pushing the sled back (glute kicks?). Machine used has resistance bands.
-3X15 Adduction then 3X15 abduction.
-3X20 step ups.
-3X12 seated hamstring machine.

I think that about it. Nothing replaces time on the bike for generating good prolonged power though. Again, injury prevention for me.


----------



## WeakSister (Oct 30, 2009)

Well...I guess you could point out my flawed logic. But that would require you to actually say something, and I'm not sure you're up to it.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

WeakSister said:


> I read in a UK mag that Dan Martin has been riding less and spending more time in the gym, doing high-rep squats and leg presses, sometimes three sessions a week. Seems to have worked out well for him.
> 
> I know, I know...this is anecdotal and has no validity, blah, blah. Go ahead and site your short-term, small sample size studies indicating weight-training is no good.


I think the issue for most of us is the 'bang for your buck' part of weight training. Sure, weight training is good for you and may add a bit to your cycling, but if I only have an hour to do a workout I can't see how squats will make me a faster cyclist than 2x20s. If I had 6 hours to spend training, then I'd consider some weight lifting in addition to riding.


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

This whole lower-body weight training thing is a bunch of malarkey.
Several well respected posters put this to bed ages ago. Unless you
are either elderly or infirm and a non-serious rider, squatting\leg lifting
is either counter or nonproductive. The amount of actual strength used in
pedaling is not the issue, cycling is an endurance, not a strength based
activity. Muscle produced by weightlifting is not capillary dense, or mitochondrially
substantial enough to be adequately sustained by the cardiovascular system.
I remember getting on a bike back in college when I was squatting over 500
for reps. That strength was totally irrelevant to cycling. Additionally, if you
are riding hard enough to be making gains in cycling, no way are you going
to feel like doing squats on your off day! And on the next day after doing
meaninful (in terms of gaining actual muscle) I could hardly stand up let
alone ride a bike! Malarkey


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

> Is this limited to winter training or something followed all season?


I think LH is asking the right question.


----------



## WeakSister (Oct 30, 2009)

Malarkey, if you squat 500, I doubt your limiter is "strength." A twig like Dan Martin, otoh, may benefit from off-season squats. And who is to say that high-rep training doesn't help muscle endurance? (now is when you cite some half-ass, flawed study from Moose Jaw Junior college).

I did a race last week that ended in an uphill sprint----you can't convince me there's not a "strength" component to cycling.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

WeakSister said:


> ...you can't convince me there's not a "strength" component to cycling.


Exactly. When you hold a faith-based belief, no amount of evidence can contradict it.

But for those with an open mind, the fact that when leg strength for professional cyclists was compared to the general age-matched, untrained population, no difference could be found should indicate that leg strength does not play a role in differentiating road cycling performances.


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

I apologize for becoming exasperated, it's just that definitive information has
already been posted here, I believe by Kerry Irons and Alex Simmons regarding
this very topic, and I have a hard time believing that in the course of coming to
this forum someone has either not read, not comprehended, or chosen to ignore
the factual evidence and reposted for the umpteenth time another amatuer hearsay
thread which wastes everyone's time reading. I will remain silent in the future, having
been the grateful beneficiary of definitive factual information and having had a 
sufficiently objective and open mind to assimilate this information permanently into
my thick skull.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

WeakSister said:


> I know, I know...this is anecdotal and has no validity, blah, blah. Go ahead and site your short-term, small sample size studies indicating weight-training is no good.


You mean something more substantial then your breakthrough research with a sample size of one that was published in a magazine that you can't even remember the name of?

Dan Martin did not come from no where, and concluding he won recently because of spending some time in the gym seems like you may be grasping for straws. 

Have a read of Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan (Training with power), there is a part where they look at this topic using power meter data. The basics are, you do not come anywhere close to putting down your max power on a bike that you can in the gym, I think max on a bike is somewhere around 25% (I could be a little off but it's much less then your gym max). There evidence is only based on hundreds or thousands of power meter files, so they may need to include a bigger sample size


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

jmorgan said:


> Have a read of Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan (Training with power), there is a part where they look at this topic using power meter data. The basics are, you do not come anywhere close to putting down your max power on a bike that you can in the gym, I think max on a bike is somewhere around 25% (I could be a little off but it's much less then your gym max). There evidence is only based on hundreds or thousands of power meter files, so they may need to include a bigger sample size


I would like to see a longitudinal study comparing squat and power to the pedals. 

Let's say that a guy can squat 150lbs and has a 150 watt FTP. I'm using the same numbers for simplicity's sake, not because they are equivalent.

He's trained as a cyclist but not as a weight lifter. 

Through six months of weight training raises that 150lb squat to 200lbs. A big jump in 1 rep max is typical for someone who just gets into weight training. Can we assume the gains in strength will be mirrored on the bike? (Will his 150 watt FTP jump to 200 watt FTP?) Is it a linear progression? 

That does not sound right.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

Local Hero I have no idea. But a realistic increase on a bike would only be around 25% of that increase in maximal force would get translated into power on a bike, I assume that would be a closer guess then your linear suggestion. You would also need to convert to newtons or kilograms when working with force to get an idea, a pound does not equal a watt.

Let me follow on the bit I wrote above. 25% of maximal force was what an athlete was producing at FTP, in a sprint he did produced more at around 55% of maximal force. He produced a max 166% of his weight. 


I think training at FTP will net you a bigger gains then simply lifting weights.


Alex Simmons as stated above could probably shed more light on this and I think he has if you search.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

phoehn9111 said:


> Additionally, if you are riding hard enough to be making gains in cycling, no way are you going to feel like doing squats on your off day! And on the next day after doing meaninful (in terms of gaining actual muscle) I could hardly stand up let
> alone ride a bike! Malarkey


I have to nitpick this one. From my own experience I can say this is false. I've been doing consistent strength training (yes, including squats) for a few months now, all while riding every day and training on the bike basically as though I wasn't doing anything else. In other words, I do both concurrently (as in the same day) at high intensities and plan my recovery as though that's the only activity I'm doing. I'm making great gains on the bike.

To be honest, if you can "hardly stand" the next day after riding hard on the bike or lifting, you're just not conditioned to that type of effort and need more experience.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

Cableguy said:


> I have to nitpick this one. From my own experience I can say this is false. I've been doing consistent strength training (yes, including squats) for a few months now, all while riding every day and training on the bike basically as though I wasn't doing anything else. In other words, I do both concurrently (as in the same day) at high intensities and plan my recovery as though that's the only activity I'm doing. I'm making great gains on the bike.
> 
> To be honest, if you can "hardly stand" the next day after riding hard on the bike or lifting, you're just not conditioned to that type of effort and need more experience.


How do you know you wouldn't see the same or even better gains just cycling with the correct training?


----------



## WeakSister (Oct 30, 2009)

Not "faith" based, but based on my own experience and observation (I know...that's just anecdotal).

I think you "open minds" put too much weight in flawed research (or flawed conclusions from good research) and seem incapable of thinking for yourselves.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

Personally I would rather spend another hour on a bike then lift weights in a gym, that's just me. 

But really, you have to look at the time involved. If you were biking 5 hours a week then add in weights for 5 hours a week of course you will get stronger you are working out more and longer. But the real question is there an advantage to lifting 5 hours and riding 5 hours or will riding 10 hours provide the same or better increase in overall biking performance. That is the hard part to separate. The idea behind lifting not making a difference is you hardly utilize the full force of those muscles when actually riding and you use different systems during endurance events then you do lifting basically not optimizing either system the best that they could be. 

If it works for you it works for you, keep doing it. I have found riding more works for me and training with power makes training much more efficient and I can quantify the training and not "guess".


----------



## Kristatos (Jan 10, 2008)

jmorgan said:


> How do you know you wouldn't see the same or even better gains just cycling with the correct training?


It's a fair question - in my case without weight and core training I get various niggles. I can address it to an extent with lots of stretching, but adding in weight training and some stability ball exercises has helped me squash out all the issues I had completely. So, it can be debated whether the weight training helps my performance on its own merits, but as it helps me train on the bike better I feel pretty certain that the weight training has at least an indirect effect. If I didn't do the strength and weight training I wouldn't be able to function as well on the bike in longer and harder sessions and wouldn't get as much from my on-the-bike training. 

25 years ago when I first started training and racing bikes I didn't do any weight or strength training and had no issues really that I can remember with my back, knees, glutes, etc. So it may not have done me any good as a younger rider - hard to say either way.

I don't think there's any one size fits all answer here. Some pros seem to hit the gym, others don't. Same with my local amateur team, and it seems like it's pretty split here as well. If someone was killing it without any strength training in their regimen there's no way I'd try to convince them they needed to do it.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

jmorgan said:


> How do you know you wouldn't see the same or even better gains just cycling with the *correct* training?


Little presumptuous aren't we? Before the change I had been training "correctly" (no strength training) for 3 and a half years. During this time I rode regularly and trained consistently. For example last year I logged 10,000 miles, the year before that approx 7,000.

What is your basis for claiming this is an incorrect way to train, other than what you've *read* about?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Cableguy said:


> What is your basis for claiming this is an incorrect way to train, other than what you've *read* about?


You don't seem to grasp that among the things I've read about are the experiences of literally hundreds of people in controlled environments where extraneous effects were minimized. For example, a year over year increase in volume greater than 40% might possibly swamp any strength training effect.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

vetboy said:


> Your logic makes me smile


Agree. The OP presents anecdotal evidence, but refutes anecdotal evidence from others.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

serious said:


> Agree. The OP presents anecdotal evidence, but refutes anecdotal evidence from others.


Resistance exercise induced mTORC1 signalling is not impaired by subsequent endurance exercise in human skeletal muscle

Here is some data from po-dunk U.....(sarcasm) Karolinska Institutet

Albeit the opposite side [Endurance impact on strength not vice-versa]

And there is some data regarding RT END and nutrient intake to potentially further tweak the dials......

But we need more data there...

The adaptations are occurring at the molecular level. As many have said, RT does not (typically) add to a well designed endurance cycling program. But it 'can' when you don't optimally train on the bike.......

The cells don't 'know' what you are doing (per se). 

Check out this data.....Resistance exercise load does not determine t... [J Appl Physiol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

Specificity goes a long way in motor learning...But growth and cellular adaptations 'don't care' about the mode as much.....Just know that it 'sucked' and must adapt.


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

sdeeer said:


> But growth and cellular adaptations 'don't care' about the mode as much.....Just know that it 'sucked' and must adapt.


Rønnestad BR[Author] - PubMed - NCBI

Just like these infamous studies show. 

E=Endurance, S=Strength Training. The E+S group performed better than the E group. Well of course, since the E+S group was training more (2 hours extra a week. In both groups, E hours were similar). 

What a study really needs to do is compare equal hours of exercise: E=10 hours a week; E+S=10 hours a week as well (for example). I think that's what most time crunched people really want to know: where is my precious time better spent?


----------



## WeakSister (Oct 30, 2009)

I made no claim to be presenting research. Nor did I conclude that Martin won LBL because he did a bunch of off-season squats. I merely passed on what I read in an interview with Dan Martin, and I stated that his program, which includes weight-training, has worked out well for him. What you did here is called a straw man argument.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

someone needs to tell this guy - watts/kg up 10%.


----------



## dnice (Jul 12, 2012)

the spin instructor and bike racer at my gym strongly recommends those single leg presses, primarily for stabilizing the core.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

These days too much is made of "core work" and strength training -- it's hard to imagine that an activity (cycling) requires core strength but somehow doesn't train it. Generally, though, I have no problem with people wanting to do some upper body work, except:

Don't pretend core and strength work make you a faster cyclist. More rounded? Why not. Compensating for injury/old age? I do (lumbar fracture and spine fusion, for starters). But cycling is the most effective way to train for cycling. This is called specificity. And it matters. Even more when you have other time commitments.

Also, why not consider a more appropriate way of working out the rest of your body? Try swimming. It's a huge workout for your core, upper back, even arms (especially if you're not good at it). More importantly 1) it's an endurance activity so might actually contribute to your aerobic fitness, and 2) it doesn't lend itself to trying to "isolate" this or that muscle or muscle group thereby making the workout entirely ineffectual.

As a former weight lifter I can't imagine using weights to train for cycling.


----------



## dnice (Jul 12, 2012)

i don't want to get into the discussion of whether weight training is beneficial or not, but i'll gladly take up the core issue. what we know is that in addition to the tons of hours they spend riding their bike, pro cyclists also make time for workouts that strengthen their core. brad wiggins, tom danielson, et al. i could find dozens of references for this. 

why do you think that is?

i'd love to swim, but i don't enjoy it, so on off days i'm on the stair climber (great for lower back and hamstrings) and in yoga class(overall flexibility and strength). 

if you think it's just an placebo effect, i'm ok with that, but i feel much stronger on rollers in the drops and climbing out of the saddle than before.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

asgelle said:


> You don't seem to grasp that among the things I've read about are the experiences of literally hundreds of people in controlled environments where extraneous effects were minimized.


Ok quick recap. I originally was pointing out how I disagreed with phoehn9111's implication that meaningful gains both on the bike and in the gym at the same time was far fetched. Then jmorgan baited me with the classic strawman about strength training vs more bike time argument... and now we have you (I like how you quoted what I said to someone else and then made what I said personal to you...??). So even though this is irrelevant to what I originally came here to talk about, I will say... you're asking me to pretend, for my case, that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 because you read about it and there are supposedly hundreds (no literally, hundreds) of people out there who have been tested to prove your "absolute truth"? Ok, no thanks... no more solicitors please.



asgelle said:


> For example, a year over year increase in volume greater than 40% might possibly swamp any strength training effect.


Do you understand that was "last year" and we're 4 months into this year? I'm also doing a lot less volume than "last year"...


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

serious said:


> Agree. The OP presents anecdotal evidence, but refutes anecdotal evidence from others.


The anecdotal evidence I believe is better than the anecdotal evidence you believe!!!!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Poncharelli said:


> Rønnestad BR[Author] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Just like these infamous studies show.
> 
> ...


Except with riding you can tack on 2 hours of easy spinning pretty much anywhere in a routine. For example, you can add an additional 20 minutes to your rides six days a week. Or add 60 minutes to two different rides. 

You cannot simply add in 2 hours of weight training anywhere. Recovery is different.


----------



## CoachTJCormier (Sep 16, 2011)

dnice said:


> the spin instructor and bike racer at my gym strongly recommends those single leg presses, primarily for stabilizing the core.


Getting info on strength training from a spinning instructor is not a good idea, as this info is poor at best. Using a leg press/leg sled does very little if anything to help stablize your core (1 or 2 legged). If you wanted to get core stabiliazation squats (and their variations)are a much better choice and the are a better overall exercise. They are also a much more functional exercise too.
I don't think any exercise that uses a machine is of much use like a Smith Machine squat


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Except with riding you can tack on 2 hours of easy spinning pretty much anywhere in a routine. For example, you can add an additional 20 minutes to your rides six days a week. Or add 60 minutes to two different rides.
> 
> You cannot simply add in 2 hours of weight training anywhere. Recovery is different.


Yes, true. Logistics are a PITA with weightlifting. 

If scientific studies are showing the body can't tell the difference (as some studies are showing) AND I can replace 2 hours of trainer time (think cold winters) with weightlifting, then I'd rather weighlift for those 2 hours.

And maybe the people who ran those studies own a chain of Gold's Gyms in Denmark. haha.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

Maybe we should turn this question around: why not bike as training for weightlifting? 

Does someone want to pretend that thousands of little squats an hour will add up to more leg strength for more traditional maximal squats? No? Then why would it work the other way?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

that's a really bad argument. The starting point for this debate should be that almost all cycling training is anecdotal. Even worse, most is based on what is likely a non-representative sample - professional cyclists. The range of effective training stimuli for cycling performance is extraordinarily unexplored. What exists re the question of strength training shows a performance benefit in terms of 5 and 45 minute time trial performance, a mechanism (changes in proportion of muscle fiber types, which to my knowledge is not reported for interval training - Per Aagaard's group). There are a lot of proposed mechanisms that strength training could involve to improve cycling beside maximal strength. 

The guy in the pic I posted is Dan Martin's teammate, Dave Zabriskie, who tried a strength training program this offseason and had good performance gains.

Personally, I think a lot of US racers would be better off if they followed a program more like Chris Hoy's kilo training than Chris Froome's Tour program....



JohnStonebarger said:


> Maybe we should turn this question around: why not bike as training for weightlifting?
> 
> Does someone want to pretend that thousands of little squats an hour will add up to more leg strength for more traditional maximal squats? No? Then why would it work the other way?


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't making that much of an argument, I was simply suggesting that it's wrong to ignore specificity.

Meanwhile, I don't cite the training regimens of pros, nor do I base my training on theirs. What does Dave Z have to do with this? And if he had good performance gains this year, why should we assume they came from weight training?

As long as we're speaking anecdotally we should add that pretty much all training regimens work if you want them to, new bikes are always faster than old ones, and powermeters make people very fast. If people are motivated to ride -- whether by fancy toys, hitting the gym, or being told what to do -- they will indeed get faster.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Poncharelli said:


> Rønnestad BR[Author] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Just like these infamous studies show.
> 
> ...


Indeed

Ronnestad's data shows some marginal improvement, although most neglect to mention the decline in 30-second power in the S+E group, as well as the significant difference in average starting physiology between the control and intervention groups (e.g. a 20+% difference in peak power between groups and that only the control group contained female riders). And the workload was not the same (and what was reported was via use of HR monitors).

But let's put those aside, what's probably most telling is the gains were significantly less than what any half decent interval program on a bike would yield.


The issue is less about whether strength and/or weight training may/may not aid performance, it's whether it can lead to better performance outcomes than forms of training we already know work very effectively. Such training should be the benchmark against what such things are measured.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Aagaard uses a different population (all male, elite athletes) and reports the largest gain is for 45 minute time trial performance (+8%). 

The muscle biopsy aspect of Aagaard's studies show an increased proportion of IIa fibers. As far as I know, no studies have shown a similar effect as the result of interval training - I've seen null results in studies on runners. 




Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Indeed
> 
> Ronnestad's data shows some marginal improvement, although most neglect to mention the decline in 30-second power in the S+E group, as well as the significant difference in average starting physiology between the control and intervention groups (e.g. a 20+% difference in peak power between groups and that only the control group contained female riders). And the workload was not the same (and what was reported was via use of HR monitors).
> 
> ...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

JohnStonebarger said:


> Maybe we should turn this question around: why not bike as training for weightlifting?
> 
> Does someone want to pretend that thousands of little squats an hour will add up to more leg strength for more traditional maximal squats? No? Then why would it work the other way?


Good point. But even those focused on anaerobic gains may reap tangential benefits from aerobic training. For example, improved endurance could allow for more reps/sets and an improved circulatory system could allow for better recovery.


----------



## everything motorcycles (May 2, 2013)

Hi all. Well, I'm a personal trainer, former bodybuilder (competitive back in the day), and avid cyclist.

My simple logic...
If you take two guys at the same times, similar training, one ADDS some proper strength and conditioning, that (2nd) competitor will like gain an advantage. You stated however, that DM was "riding less", so that raises other questions:

Possibly overtraining, now he is not, as well as added the benefits of weight resistance!

Keep in mind, if you never do gym work, there are certain small muscles that won't be oft conditioned. By strengthening those particular muscle groups through 'gym' work, may have some benefits. 

I don't believe that 'studies' could neither prove nor disprove through Physiological testing. I would believe it to be more result oriented. Over the years, I have trained with an array of different atheletes, to which I can't recall a single one stating 'this is deleterious to my particular sport's results'.


----------



## Sean.B (Jul 20, 2012)

My extremely simplified view on this subject is that you can get really good by just cycling alone. But take sprinting for example, deadlifts and squats are going to help with explosive power, and that will in turn help with sprinting. I've started crossfit/circuit style workouts, which include deadlifts and squats a few times a week, and my mile times have been dropping (running one mile that is). My new personal record is a 6:06, I'm 5'11 and weigh 188 pounds. I've never run that fast before, even before my spine surgery when I was doing tons of milage and was 20 pounds lighter. 

I enjoy lifting almost as I enjoy cycling/mountain biking, and I do have a hard time deciding if I should do this heavy leg work out and either suffer through a ride the next day or just not ride the next day. So I do understand why a lot of people don't want to lift, it's just fun for me.


----------



## Red Brixton (Apr 4, 2012)

Kristatos said:


> It's a fair question - in my case without weight and core training I get various niggles. I can address it to an extent with lots of stretching, but adding in weight training and some stability ball exercises has helped me squash out all the issues I had completely. So, it can be debated whether the weight training helps my performance on its own merits, but as it helps me train on the bike better I feel pretty certain that the weight training has at least an indirect effect. If I didn't do the strength and weight training I wouldn't be able to function as well on the bike in longer and harder sessions and wouldn't get as much from my on-the-bike training...


This has been my experience as well. Unfortunately, cycling is not a "balanced" workout. Quads in particular for me require weight training to balance stresses on the patella. Also rowing at high watts seems to work the same as weights in this regard.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

Sean.B said:


> ...But take sprinting for example, deadlifts and squats are going to help with explosive power, and that will in turn help with sprinting...


Actually, probably not. Our adaptation to stress is much too specific for that.

I do a few floor exercises and I swim sometimes. When I routinely do push ups I notice my arms and pecs are bit bigger. Not huge, but a bit. Same thing when I swim routinely, but more my lats than pecs. The thing is, though, swimming doesn't seem to help me do push ups more easily, and doing push ups definitely doesn't help my swimming.

If you want weightlifting to directly benefit cycling, do those squats one leg at a time, with MUCH lighter weight, kind of hunched over, and 80-100 times a minute with each leg...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

no. if you want work in the gym to help with your sprint, do this:



JohnStonebarger said:


> Actually, probably not. Our adaptation to stress is much too specific for that.
> 
> I do a few floor exercises and I swim sometimes. When I routinely do push ups I notice my arms and pecs are bit bigger. Not huge, but a bit. Same thing when I swim routinely, but more my lats than pecs. The thing is, though, swimming doesn't seem to help me do push ups more easily, and doing push ups definitely doesn't help my swimming.
> 
> If you want weightlifting to directly benefit cycling, do those squats one leg at a time, with MUCH lighter weight, kind of hunched over, and 80-100 times a minute with each leg...


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

I wonder how many hours it took him to get that good at squatting. Is this his day job?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Sean.B said:


> My extremely simplified view on this subject is that you can get really good by just cycling alone. But take sprinting for example, deadlifts and squats are going to help with explosive power, and that will in turn help with sprinting. I've started crossfit/circuit style workouts, which include deadlifts and squats a few times a week, and my mile times have been dropping (running one mile that is). My new personal record is a 6:06, I'm 5'11 and weigh 188 pounds. I've never run that fast before, even before my spine surgery when I was doing tons of milage and was 20 pounds lighter.
> 
> I enjoy lifting almost as I enjoy cycling/mountain biking, and I do have a hard time deciding if I should do this heavy leg work out and either suffer through a ride the next day or just not ride the next day. So I do understand why a lot of people don't want to lift, it's just fun for me.


1. running is not cycling, and there are different issues involved with the forces involved in running that never occur on a bike, and can mean gym work has greater cross over benefit.

2. gym work is normal for track sprint cyclists, where additional lean muscle mass can be an advantage since power is required for very short durations only, and is not reliant on aerobic metabolism, nor required to be delivered up any hills (where it would become a burden). Consider that the increase in muscle mass does not result in a linear increase in aerodynamic resistance, hence why it works for accelerations and short duration efforts at high speed but sucks once the duration lengthens and terrain varies. Even Hoy himself said that only so much mass was warranted as it would become a performance burden.

3. even so, the most effective sprint work one can do is still on the bike, and extra muscle mass for this purpose can definitely be gained with the right type of training on the bike (coupled with the right diet). Riders transitioning from road to individual and/or team pursuit training will typically gain lean muscle mass without weight training.

4. Hoy's photo usually always end up in these threads, and that's great if the discussion were about track sprinters. Put Hoy in an elite road race and he'd be mince meat pretty quickly though. Heck, put him in a points race and he'd get blown out the arse pretty soon I'd guess.

5. As far as strength goes, even Hoy's squats and leg presses are less than the legit women's records. What matters is force at speed. You can be really strong but slow.

What determines performance in most cycling events is our aerobic abilities.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

no, this is (was):



JohnStonebarger said:


> I wonder how many hours it took him to get that good at squatting. Is this his day job?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Hoy also did a lot of strength training for the kilo. He'd get spit out the back of a points race because he didn't do a lot of endurance-aerobic training, not because he did strength training. In the US, especially in regions like Southern California, almost all the races are short, fast, and flat. Most non-elite racers end up being pack fodder and drift to the back in sprints because they lack absolute power in short efforts. When you test them in the gym, many are weak - they can't leg press 120-150kg. An 8 week program typically doubles their starting point and translates into increases in absolute power, increased 5 minute power, etc (e.g., Aagaard). Of course, that doesn't preclude on the bike training. But as a coach you know that client compliance in doing short, maximal efforts is an issue - as the attrition rate in studies like Laursen's shows, it's even hard to get them to complete longer interval sessions. 



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> 1. running is not cycling, and there are different issues involved with the forces involved in running that never occur on a bike, and can mean gym work has greater cross over benefit.
> 
> 2. gym work is normal for track sprint cyclists, where additional lean muscle mass can be an advantage since power is required for very short durations only, and is not reliant on aerobic metabolism, nor required to be delivered up any hills (where it would become a burden). Consider that the increase in muscle mass does not result in a linear increase in aerodynamic resistance, hence why it works for accelerations and short duration efforts at high speed but sucks once the duration lengthens and terrain varies. Even Hoy himself said that only so much mass was warranted as it would become a performance burden.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

JohnStonebarger said:


> I wonder how many hours it took him to get that good at squatting. Is this his day job?


Who knows how good he was at "Squatting" ... The picture is of him doing a "Leg Press" ... which it appears he was pretty good at. 

The simple fact people don't even know what exercise he's doing ... is, well, kinda sad. I guess some people on this forum never spent much time in a weight room


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> Who knows how good he was at "Squatting" ... The picture is of him doing a "Leg Press" ... which it appears he was pretty good at.
> 
> The simple fact people don't even know what exercise he's doing ... is, well, kinda sad. I guess some people on this forum never spent much time in a weight room


I am 122lbs (yeah, gained a little) and I know what a leg press is. 

Carry on.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

Sorry, but to my mind the leg press is a sort of dumbed down squat. Mechanically assisted, of course, but a squat.
And actually, I spent years weightlifting long before I took up bike racing. I really enjoy it, too. But I don't see how it could help my bike racing, so I don't find time to do it much any more.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

Oh, and though I should have known better than to attempt humor without an emoticon, I am sorry that I made you sad.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

JohnStonebarger said:


> Sorry, but to my mind the leg press is a sort of dumbed down squat. Mechanically assisted, of course, but a squat.
> 
> And actually, I spent years weightlifting long before I took up bike racing. I really enjoy it, too. But I don't see how it could help my bike racing, so I don't find time to do it much any more.


Again kinda shows this is a cycling forum.

There is a fairly big difference between a leg press and a squat. The squat is load bearing and uses many more muscles than does a leg press (due to the need to stabilize the weight during the exercise). The leg press targets the quads, hams and glutes more than a squat and is actually fairly cycling specific due to the muscles used and the angle of the body when doing the presses.

I haven't done a lot of lifting since I started cycling ... however, what little I've done showed improvement in 5 second to 5 minute power. I still do "Good Mornings" to help strengthen my hamstrings, glutes and lower back ... by doing these I've seen improvements in my power as high as 20+ minutes. However, this is high rep work with light weight and not the heavy lifting I used to do in college when I was throwing (shot, disc and mostly hammer).

If I ever started track racing ... I'd spend about half my time, maybe more, in the weight room.

For me though ... I put weight on way to fast when lifting and the size I'd put on would be detrimental to my cycling. It wouldn't take very long to jump from 195 pounds to 230-250 just in muscle mass alone. Heck, I'm still working on losing extra muscle I still carry from my younger days to help my climbing.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

JohnStonebarger said:


> Oh, and though I should have known better than to attempt humor without an emoticon, I am sorry that I made you sad.


Why would I be sad? The degrading educational system in this country makes me sad, animal abuse makes me sad, people like Donald Trump still making millions of dollars at the detriment of others makes me sad.

Correcting somebody because they don't know the difference between a squat and a leg press ... does not make me sad :thumbsup:


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

jmorgan said:


> Personally I would rather spend another hour on a bike then lift weights in a gym, that's just me.


My studies show you see more good looking women in a one hour gym session than you do on the roads riding


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

stanseven said:


> My studies show you see more good looking women in a one hour gym session than you do on the roads riding


Ya know, sometimes good looking women also ride bikes and you can ride with them. Just sayin'. 

Dibs on someone calling my post misogynistic.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> ... The simple fact people don't even know what exercise he's doing ... is, well, kinda sad ...


I must have misread this somehow.



Wookiebiker said:


> ... Correcting somebody because they don't know the difference between a squat and a leg press ... does not make me sad :thumbsup:


A leg press is a mechanically assisted squat. It resembles a bicep curl on a Nautilus machine. You're more bent over at the hip than in most squats, but still, a leg press is a squat... not to be confused with riding a bike.



Wookiebiker said:


> ... The leg press targets the quads, hams and glutes more than a squat and is actually fairly cycling specific ...


Lost me again. I would guess that a leg press is significantly less "specific" to cycling than walking up stairs would be. Any resemblance to cycling is only in the context of the weight room.

I run. I swim. I ski when I get the chance. I get a lot out of these things, and sometimes even notice effects on my cycling. Still, I don't equate any of them with training for speed on a bike.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

JohnStonebarger said:


> I must have misread this somehow.


As I said ... the decline of the American educational system makes me sad. I stated the fact that people don't know what he's doing "Is" sad ... it doesn't "Make" me sad. So yes, you did misread and this makes me sad 

It's this lack of reading comprehension that leads me to believe why you can't understand that there "Is" a difference between a squat and a leg press, it's not just a "Mechanically" assisted squat. The primary muscles used are similar, but the secondary muscles used are much different, as are the basic angles and mechanics of the exercise.



> I run. I swim. I ski when I get the chance. I get a lot out of these things, and sometimes even notice effects on my cycling. Still, I don't equate any of them with training for speed on a bike.


Then go ride your bike and enjoy life ... that's what I do. 

There is a very good reason why trackies do a lot of work in a weight room ... it benefits speed on the bike. Simple as that. If you want to have a faster sprint, spend time in the weight room. They also do a lot of jumping up onto boxes, over hurdles, etc. (i.e. plyometrics) which would appear to not be cycling specific, but it helps with sprinting ... go figure? Something that doesn't look "To You" that it would be beneficial to cycling actual is ... who would have thunk it?

It all comes down to goals ... do what's going to help you the most ... however, don't be surprised if the guys beating you in those field sprints have spent some time in the weight room.


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> Hoy also did a lot of strength training for the kilo. He'd get spit out the back of a points race because he didn't do a lot of endurance-aerobic training, not because he did strength training. In the US, especially in regions like Southern California, almost all the races are short, fast, and flat. Most non-elite racers end up being pack fodder and drift to the back in sprints because they lack absolute power in short efforts. When you test them in the gym, many are weak - they can't leg press 120-150kg. An 8 week program typically doubles their starting point and translates into increases in absolute power, increased 5 minute power, etc (e.g., Aagaard). Of course, that doesn't preclude on the bike training. But as a coach you know that client compliance in doing short, maximal efforts is an issue - as the attrition rate in studies like Laursen's shows, it's even hard to get them to complete longer interval sessions.



Posting a picture of a track sprinter in a thread where no is talking about track sprinting or Kilo's is pointless and not helping the cause, the kilo is a complicated mix starting off with a standing start and requires neuromuscular power, a highly developed AWC as well as using a high percentage of aerobic power so weight training can be helpful, no one is doubting that.

You could have at least posted a picture of Wiggins in the weight room preparing for some short fast flat road racing.... though I doubt you'll find anything in recent history of him using weight training to prepare for road racing,
and I'm absolutly certain he could hold his own in these short flat, fast road races you speak of, not only that I'm sure he could dish out most of the pain in the final minutes of ANY road race flat or not and put any gym junkie flat fast road racer in a world of pain before the sprint even starts.

And just because clients may not like or devote the time and effort needed to develop the neromuscular and or AWC needed to succeed in such events doesn't change the fact that on the bike training is far superior bang for buck than spendening time in the gym unless as pointed out you are a pure track sprinter/kilo rider and even then if time to train is short then any coach worth his money will have you devote that time on the track not the gym.


----------



## Saikidodo (Jul 7, 2008)

MF meets GB cyclist Bradley Wiggins | Men's Fitness UK

How to win the Tour de France :: Men's Health

wiggo hits the gym or at least strength training (so he claims)! having said that im sure that is not the bulk of his training. bang for buck riding a bike is better than weight training to be stronger biker and strength work cant replace the needed hours/effort on two wheels. but i cant see it hurting performance to mix it in your training. 

at the end of the day its up to what your personal goals and experience are and what you believe. strength training in cycling (though i would argue any aspect of training ) or hydration/nutrition or components or bike brands or most things biking will elicit all kinds of research and perspectives and beliefs that people feel strongly about. i say train however you want, drink/eat whatever you want, ride whatever bike/components you want - as long as you dont get dropped and/or can ride away from the pack - keep doing it


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

actually, I first posted a pic of Dave Zabriskie in the gym since he spent the last 5 months doing a combined strength training program, which resulted in a 10% increase in watts/kg. Not bad for a later career professional cyclist. 

Sorry, but it would be dumb for most amateur racers to emulate Wiggins's program, since his goal is stage racing and most people can't spend 30 hours/week in Tenerife. The bigger problem of emulating those programs is that most cyclists simply can't handle those training volumes. Most amateur racers would be better off simply ignoring how Wiggins trains. And most would be better off incorporating elements of Hoy's kilo training than Wiggins' 7 hour rides. Ask amateur racers how many do standing starts or flying 500s.



aussiebullet said:


> Posting a picture of a track sprinter in a thread where no is talking about track sprinting or Kilo's is pointless and not helping the cause, the kilo is a complicated mix starting off with a standing start and requires neuromuscular power, a highly developed AWC as well as using a high percentage of aerobic power so weight training can be helpful, no one is doubting that.
> 
> You could have at least posted a picture of Wiggins in the weight room preparing for some short fast flat road racing.... though I doubt you'll find anything in recent history of him using weight training to prepare for road racing,
> and I'm absolutly certain he could hold his own in these short flat, fast road races you speak of, not only that I'm sure he could dish out most of the pain in the final minutes of ANY road race flat or not and put any gym junkie flat fast road racer in a world of pain before the sprint even starts.
> ...


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> actually, I first posted a pic of Dave Zabriskie in the gym since he spent the last 5 months doing a combined strength training program, which resulted in a 10% increase in watts/kg. Not bad for a later career professional cyclist.
> 
> Sorry, but it would be dumb for most amateur racers to emulate Wiggins's program, since his goal is stage racing and most people can't spend 30 hours/week in Tenerife. The bigger problem of emulating those programs is that most cyclists simply can't handle those training volumes. Most amateur racers would be better off simply ignoring how Wiggins trains. And most would be better off incorporating elements of Hoy's kilo training than Wiggins' 7 hour rides. Ask amateur racers how many do standing starts or flying 500s.


You missed the point, No one has said you need to follow wiggins training program or need to train 30hrs/wk, you are right that would be dumb! 
The point I was trying to make was just because one becomes pack fodder when they race short fast flat road races doesn't mean their only option is hit the gym in search of strength and emulating a track sprinter is not necessary and that at the other end of the scale (Wiggins) is going to have more success in road races than someone who trains like Hoy who would not last long any any flat short road race I do with a training program like his.

Even in short amateur races to be a successful road sprinter one needs a HIGHLY developed AWC and the gym is the last place one needs to be to accomplish this, and I say last because if you are at the pointy end of sprints but still lacking wins then some weight training may be of benifit but in my exeperiance it was nothing but detremental to every other part of my race fitness.
As to amateurs never doing rolling or standing starts or flying 200's, EXACTLY, If one suck's in long drawn out sprints and end up as pack fodder the first thing they assume is they need to work on strength and that they need to head to the gym to accomplish this, and while they are half right they will improve their strength, it won't make them a faster bike rider and will do little to help them stay at at the pointy end of sprints even in short flat road races.


----------



## dnice (Jul 12, 2012)

Saikidodo said:


> MF meets GB cyclist Bradley Wiggins | Men's Fitness UK
> 
> How to win the Tour de France :: Men's Health
> 
> ...


his gym work consists of core exercises. (see below). just another guy who overrates core exercises, i guess. 

_"In the gym you should focus on strengthening your core for 30 minutes each day, mixing up Pilates and yoga moves and using exercise balls. Without a solid core you can't transfer power efficiently, and you'll be left with dust in your eyes, however strong your legs are."_


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> Hoy also did a lot of strength training for the kilo. He'd get spit out the back of a points race because he didn't do a lot of endurance-aerobic training, not because he did strength training.


It's because his training would not be specific to the demands of points racing, and possibly also because his genetic abilities may also be lacking for that style of racing (where aerobic capabilities are FAR more important). 

IOW, to perform better at such racing (if that were his goal), he would need to stop strength work and start doing training far more suitable for the demands of such races, i.e. a vastly improved aerobic capability.



stevesbike said:


> In the US, especially in regions like Southern California, almost all the races are short, fast, and flat.


Not sure what that has to do with anything, but hey, you should see the style of racing in Australia where there is a track in just about every town in the nation, as well a crits 'till the cows come home. Or maybe a Belgian town kermesse. There's fast flat races all over the planet. So what?



stevesbike said:


> Most non-elite racers end up being pack fodder and drift to the back in sprints because they lack absolute power in short efforts. When you test them in the gym, many are weak - they can't leg press 120-150kg. An 8 week program typically doubles their starting point and translates into increases in absolute power, increased 5 minute power, etc (e.g., Aagaard). Of course, that doesn't preclude on the bike training.


I'd suggest that most non-elites get dagged off the back in such races not because of their short duration power but because they lack aerobic capability (and probably race craft). Time and time again when we train non-elites to bring their aerobic power up (and improve race craft), they go a stack load better in such races.

And their strength in the gym has nothing to do with it.



stevesbike said:


> But as a coach you know that client compliance in doing short, maximal efforts is an issue - as the attrition rate in studies like Laursen's shows, it's even hard to get them to complete longer interval sessions.


This is a red herring. Client compliance in doing interval (or any training) sessions is not an indicator what training is most effective to meet their goals. If they are incapable of doing the work necessary, then they are not going to be the best they can be. 

But why make an athlete do more or unnecessary work when there is more efficient (legal/ethical) means to achieve performance improvement?

If we do have a training compliance problem, then finding the means by which an improvement can be attained with the minimum amount of training would presumably be more successful.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> actually, I first posted a pic of Dave Zabriskie in the gym since he spent the last 5 months doing a combined strength training program, which resulted in a 10% increase in watts/kg. Not bad for a later career professional cyclist.


To be frank, I'm not sure one should draw many conclusions on the relative self reported performances of an admitted professional doper.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> It wouldn't take very long to jump from 195 pounds to 230-250 just in muscle mass alone.


Roids much?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Coaching seems to follow a confused dogma that the lack of evidence for a hypothesis is somehow evidence against that hypothesis. The fact that strength training is not part of the ‘best practices’ of current endurance cycling lore isn’t evidence against it (and may be one reason why teams like Sky look to coaches from other sports that are less entrenched in the central dogmas of cycling training). 

I did mention one plausible hypothesis, which so far you’ve ignored, namely that strength training at high intensities (>85% 1 rm) results in changes in muscle fiber proportions and specifically IIa fibers (also reviewed in Andersen and Aagaard. Effects of strength training on muscle fiber types and size; consequences for athletes training for high-intensity sport." Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports 20 Suppl 2(2010):32-38. Recent studies demonstrate that East African runners have lower percentages of type 1 fibers (and higher percentage of IIa) than Caucasian endurance runners (Kohn et al., Do skeletal muscle phenotypic characteristics of Xhosa and Caucasian endurance runners differ when matched for training and racing distances? J Appl Physiol 2007a: 103: 932–940). Elite cross-country skiers have less type 1 fibers (31% vs. 62%) than recreational skiers (Klitgaard H, Bergman O, Betto R, Salviati G, Schiaffino S, Clausen T, Saltin B. Co-existence of myosin heavy chain I and IIa isoforms in human skeletal muscle fibres with endurance training. Pflügers Arch 416: 470–474, 1990). A training adaptation resulting in increased IIa proportion, CSA, metabolic adaptations within IIA (such as LDH activity) will impact more than just a sprint.

Does high intensity interval training lead to changes in fiber type proportions? How do elite vs. non-elite cyclists respond to HIT (which may select for certain genotypes)? I know of a study in runners showing high intensity interval training doesn’t lead to changes in fiber type proportions (Kohn et al., Specific muscle adaptations in type II fibers after high-intensity interval training of well-trained runners). How do such changes impact cycling performance at various durations and what is the most effective stimuli across a range of genotypes to induce such changes? 

When an elite cyclist like Cancellara attacks as he did in Flanders with a 1450 watt dig, was the inability of other riders to follow him due to aerobic capacity? It’s certainly not in the sense of type I fiber endurance, and Cancellara certainly isn’t regarded as a sprinter, but his capacity to produce short bursts of such power is most likely due to being an ideal genotype for IIa fiber expression. Most elite cyclists are probably outliers genetically selected for in similar ways. The question is, what range of stimuli are effective in inducing adaptive changes among those not genetically predisposed like Cancellara? Maybe it’s HIT. Maybe it’s a combination of HIT + strength training (and it most likely changes across the lifecourse). To rule out entire swaths of training stimuli because they are not represented in current cycling dogma seems entirely myopic. 



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> It's because his training would not be specific to the demands of points racing, and possibly also because his genetic abilities may also be lacking for that style of racing (where aerobic capabilities are FAR more important).
> 
> IOW, to perform better at such racing (if that were his goal), he would need to stop strength work and start doing training far more suitable for the demands of such races, i.e. a vastly improved aerobic capability.
> 
> ...


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

As far as professional fulltime cyclists who have 24hrs a day 7 days a week to train/race and recover, who may be at or very close to their genetic limit and not seen a change in their power profile for some time and maybe even years in some cases then sure why not try strength training, but that may also act as a placebo effect, (I'm stronger now so I have to be able to train harder and hit new pb's in training) who knows.

But are you really saying that for mere amateurs who struggle to train and recover from 10 -12hrs/wk on the bike let alone 15+ hrs/wk and are going backwards at the bussiness end of races that strength training is a must and the fastest way to address why they are going backwards? 

Instead of just maybe looking at their power profile 5's, 30's, 1m, 5m 60m etc and then looking at the race power profile to determine why they are going backwards, be it aerobic power (maybe their NP for the duration is close to or well above what they can actually sustain for the duration) 
or perhaps it is their AWC or nuromuscluar that is the limiting factor and simply focus their training on that part of their race fitness, it's really not that complicated and most amateurs are simply no where near their genetic potential and their best bang for buck is just to get on their bike and work on what is holding them back instead of heading to the gym and thinking this is what I need to do to become the next Spartacus.
For road racing training 15hrs or less their is simply no substitute for time spent on the bike.... none!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

how do you know there is no substitute for time spent on the bike? Because Eddy Merckx said so? That's just another cycling dogma. I never said the only way to improve was via heavy strength training - I said there is some evidence - and proposed mechanisms - for it as an appropriate training stimulus. As far as how to optimize 15 hours/week, maybe the optimal way will turn out to be a few hours/week doing HIT, heavy strength training, and polymetrics/ballistic training for some genotypes. Point is, the 'space' of effective training stimuli is largely unexplored, is based on a non-representative sample, takes little account of genotypic variability, and is limited by the necessarily conservative nature of coaching.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

http://gssi.vmldev.com/docs/default...nt-library/acsm_precon_promotion.pdf?sfvrsn=2

If you can be there.....It should be good (and it is free). Keith Baar will likely be addressing some of the issues that Stevesbike discussed above. 

"The question is, what range of stimuli are effective in inducing adaptive changes among those not genetically predisposed like Cancellara? Maybe it’s HIT. Maybe it’s a combination of HIT + strength training (and it most likely changes across the lifecourse). To rule out entire swaths of training stimuli because they are not represented in current cycling dogma seems entirely myopic."

This is where researchers like Keith Baar, Kevin Tipton, Martin Gibala, and Stuart Phillips are contributing to body of knowledge. If you can make ACSM this year, most of them will be there and discussing this. They also hash out arguments on twitter.

I am personally excited to see what the next ten years brings in this regard.


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

The space of effective stimuli is not largely unexplored, 
people have been cycling, running, swimming, lifting weights and recording their progress for decades now with no clear eveidence that those who choose to cross train (with weights or otherwise) are dominating their sport over those who do not,

what is clear is that those (ex triathletes are a good example) who choose to focus on one discipline over the other make very fast progress and make leaps and bounds in power output (even Freil notes this with all his athletes who have chosen to fucus on one discipline) I wonder why that is? hmmm!
Even though swimming and running are highly aerobic they are not specific to the demands of riding a bike.

Want to lift weights? fine, will it increse power, maybe/maybe not but time spent on the bike WILL increase power that is clear, weight training WILL cost you in terms of recovery and or reduced training and quality of training weather you like it or not

CTL will go down as weight training does not contribute to CTL, and theres also plenty of evience that increased CTL leads to increased fitness.... Who knew eh?

At 10-12hrs/wk you don't need less time on the bike you need more because on those hours you are no where near you genetic potential and there are still LARGE gains to be had from riding/training more or just smarter, e.g. addressing any weaknesses aerobic or otherwise on the bike and the bonus part is it all contributes to CTL.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> Coaching seems to follow a confused dogma that the lack of evidence for a hypothesis is somehow evidence against that hypothesis.


That's a strawman, i.e. a misrepresentation of my position.

It would be like me suggesting you are claiming a lack of evidence _is _evidence. 
_But that would be equally silly._

If I had a dogma (I don't), it's to use the current best evidence to guide an approach to training. At present the current best evidence tells us where/when strength training is valid and where it's equivocal and where it's detrimental. The former and latter can be used for ruling things in/out.

Where evidence is currently equivocal, then we resort to sound fundamental principles (e.g. principle of specificity) to make sensible choices, and can also look to empirical data (e.g. whether there clear indication that athletes with higher _strength_ perform better in a given discipline).

We can also choose to experiment as coaches but that must be done in the knowledge that:
i. it may not be successful (which may not be suitable arrangement for the parties concerned), and
ii. that any such experiment is largely uncontrolled and full of bias, and hence any perceived benefits cannot be properly attributed to that specific intervention. IOW, it's not itself evidence, but just anecdote and correlation (not causation). Such an approach might be interesting for a coach, but a failure to recognise such things is just belief based coaching.

Whenever a training intervention has a solid body of evidence to support its use as being more beneficial than a current training practice, then I'm all ears, eyes and any other body orifice, and will seek to adapt and adopt it into training methodologies applied (provided it's legal, ethical etc). 

If such evidence is mounting, then that's great, I look forward to it. In the meantime, I'll stick to practices that are proven effective.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

This argument/discussion reminds me a lot of counseling and "Motivational Interviewing" which is an evidenced based practice. I've seen it used to great affect and I've seen it work about as well as trying to drive a nail in with a tooth pick.

What it really boils down to is that "Evidenced Based" practices work well for about 90% of the population, but there are those on the outside of that 90% where it doesn't work very well. This is where thinking outside the box comes into play and where plyometrics, weight lifting, etc. may help those become better at what they do.

It's no different than bike fit ... bikes are designed to fit about 90% of the population based on evidence gathered from measuring bodies, what has worked in the past, what will work for most people, etc. However, there are those that don't fit the norm when it comes to bike fit and a custom frame is the best option.

Does weight lifting work for everybody in helping their cycling ... not really. Does it work for some people? Yes ... the real question is whether it's right for you or not.


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

Yeh I hear ya Wookie,

It would be interesting to hear peoples opinions on what what studies they would like to see done, it is likely never going to happen but;
3 groups tested at 30's, 5min and 60min at the begining and end of a 12wk study

G 1. 12hrs/wk, 10hrs of L3,4,5,6 plus 2 hr SST ride.

G 2. 12hrs/wk, 10hrs of L3,4,5,6 plus 2hrs of strength training.

G 3. 15hrs/wk, 10 hrs of L3,4,5,6 plus 5hr ride starting with 2hr SST followed with 3hrs endurance.

Would be interesting to see difference between Groups 1 & 2 for sure but just as interesting for me to see the difference if any between group 3 and the the other 2 groups, as I'm sure your aware I am a strong advocate for as much time on the bike as you can spare and recover from.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

In the US, in many sports, there are always many experts to over emphasize strength training. Even in golf, when Tiger Woods was the hip and winning, some experts were emphasizing strength training (seeing how Woods was a pretty buff guy for a golfer). This is of no surprise because many American kids who play sport in high school also lift weight. Sometimes it's quite ridiculous to see a US trainer come up with all these weirdo strength exercises.

oh yeah, "cross training" or "cross fit" are hip and happening thing in the US. I mean, shoe manufacturers even come up with shoes designed for "cross training". What the hell does it mean? I have no clue. But it goes to show that cross training, and often time working with weight, are one of the same in the US. In Socal, it seems like there's a big weight gym every 10 miles. I know plenty of middle aged cyclists crit-hero-wannabe who hit the weight room. Tons of them. And it's pretty funny to see the gym junkie getting dropped by the skinny 15/16/17 yr old kid on a Saturday hammerfest lol. 

But see that's why flat, short, crits are popular in the US. That's because many Americans are built for that sort of thing. There's hardly any real road race in the US. Forget about stage race.

And Alex is dead right about being strong does not mean being fast. When I was running medium distance track, I beat plenty of big bad football players including running backs in the 100/200m dash, 400m they don't last.

I think if you have under 15 hrs/wk to workout, then it's best putting all that 15 onto a bike.

However, weightlifting does have the benefit of maintaining bone density. So I do about 2 hrs or weightlifting and running for this reason alone.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> And Alex is dead right about being strong does not mean being fast. When I was running medium distance track, I beat plenty of big bad football players in the 100/200m dash.


But did you beat those "Football" guys in full pads on a grass or turf field while carrying a football? Did you beat them after being tackled by a 220 pound Linebacker, then do it again and again, each time after being tackled? As they say, there is a big difference between football and track speed.

Different types of speed for different purposes.

If lifting weights didn't help with shear speed, trackies wouldn't do it ... however, many of them spend an awful lot of time in the gym. Again, different types of fitness for different types of riders/racers.

Again ... I would say that general training guidelines work for 90% of the people, but for the individuals that are on the outside of that 90%, a different type of training "Could" yield better results. Just because it didn't work for you, doesn't mean that it won't work for somebody else.

As for "Cross fit" or "Cross Training" ... it's kinda of funny, but some football teams are now using that instead of traditional weight room lifting and finding very good results from it. This is an instance where "Evidence Based" training may or may not be the best method to use for strength conditioning.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> If lifting weights didn't help with shear speed, trackies wouldn't do it ... however, many of them spend an awful lot of time in the gym. Again, different types of fitness for different types of riders/racers.


Perhaps you missed this bit:


Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> At present the current best evidence tells us where/when strength training is valid and where it's equivocal and where it's detrimental.





Wookiebiker said:


> Again ... I would say that general training guidelines work for 90% of the people, but for the individuals that are on the outside of that 90%, a different type of training "Could" yield better results. Just because it didn't work for you, doesn't mean that it won't work for somebody else.


The fundamental principles behind exercise physiology work for everybody. 

Of course people respond differently to training (well actually they don't, it's more the degree to which they respond that varies, not the actual response), but there is nothing to tell us whether an intervention of strength training is the automatic goto training option which will be more beneficial for the "10%" you refer to than current sound training practices, nor how one is supposed to know who that "10%" are.

It would be a fallacy to think that a rider that hasn't responded so well to a given course of training will magically be superman on a bike because they start to lift weights. It's far more likely that the training they actually did was either not appropriate and it should be corrected, or they would respond better to another form of on bike training, or there may be other underlying issues involved, e.g. medical, psychological or social, that need resolution.

Nobody is ruling stuff out, but it is fallacious to claim we should automatically rule something in when the evidence for it is pretty bloody skinny.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> ...
> ...
> 
> It would be a fallacy to think that a rider that hasn't responded so well to a given course of training will magically be superman on a bike because they start to lift weights. *It's far more likely that the training they actually did was either not appropriate and it should be corrected,* or they would respond better to another form of on bike training, or there may be other underlying issues involved, e.g. medical, psychological or social, that need resolution.
> ...


I think you hit it home for me with the bolded statement. There are lots of folks are not training correctly or optimally in their sport disciplines, let alont training with weight specific to their discipline. 

Too many people (particularly Americans) think just because you hit the weight, you will improve. Well I used to run track in high school and college (though never a serious threat), so I got plenty of chances to see what "strength training" a lot of these gym junkies are going. I see lots of folks from track, swimming, basketball, baseball, and of course football, hit the gym. And guess what, almost ALL of them seem to lift in the exact same exercises using the exact same lifting methodology. For the love of god, if you're going to hit the weight, at least have a lifting program specific to your sport discipline. But this is not the case. I can only imagine a middle aged cyclist crit hero hitting the weightroom lifting in the same manner as the muscleheads in there, yep seen it. So, even when training with weight, they're not doing it optimally. If this is the case, it's probably best that they should have spent time on the bike.

Wookie,
football guys train for the 40 yards, that's it. Perhaps if we're doing 40 yards sprint with a freakin 5-minute rest in between, then maybe they'll beat me. They're explosive for 10-15 yards, but then they struggle to maitain speed. I can see that they run like a bull, not like a cheetah. Hey a raging bull is just as fast a cheetah in the first 10-15 yards too, but I'm refering to 100/200 meter type of sprint with a 30 seconds rest. And btw, trackies do it, they all do, but the fastest ones don't do it as much as the slower ones. There seems to be a trend (at least with some US athletes) that if you're not fast enough, then you need to hit the weight harder. 

I tend to agree with Alex and Aussiebullet. If you have limited training time, it's best you put it all in your discipline, rather than try to muddle with weightlifting that you may not be even doing it right. Heck, most cyclists are always searching for that magical cycling training routine and not find it,.. and now they're trying to incorporate weight into their routine too? Sounds to me like a guy trying too many medications to fine a cure and not giving enough time for 1 medication to work.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Wookie,
> 
> football guys train for the 40 yards, that's it. Perhaps if we're doing 40 yards sprint with a freakin 5-minute rest in between, then maybe they'll beat me. They're explosive for 10-15 yards, but then they struggle to maitain speed. I can see that they run like a bull, not like a cheetah. Hey a raging bull is just as fast a cheetah in the first 10-15 yards too, but I'm refering to 100/200 meter type of sprint with a 30 seconds rest.


So ... you admit that their training is for distances under 40 meters, and closer to 20 meters than anything ... but you are trying to compare your beating them in 100m - 200m distances? What's the point of this comparison ... other than to say you could beat a football player over distances they never need to run?

If you believe it's because they are lifting too much or are too big, chances are you are wrong ... or you are not paying attention to world class sprinters. Those guys are doing "A lot" of lifting and it is an important part of their training, as is running, plyometrics and other various training techniques.



> I tend to agree with Alex and Aussiebullet. If you have limited training time, it's best you put it all in your discipline, rather than try to muddle with weightlifting that you may not be even doing it right. Heck, most cyclists are always searching for that magical cycling training routine and not find it,.. and now they're trying to incorporate weight into their routine too? Sounds to me like a guy trying too many medications to fine a cure and not giving enough time for 1 medication to work.


I think part of the problems with this whole thread is that people only look at things from a P/1/2 level of training and negate the fact that most people are in the 3/4/5 range and will never move beyond that. They are training to be as fast as they can be ... but are looking at general fitness as well, which would include lifting.

As with all things, I see people get stuck in the ... "This is the way it's done and it's the only way that works" ... that is until somebody comes along and starts kicking everybody's butt with another method, then it's ... "Why haven't we been doing thing all along, we better get on this bandwagon and now".

People know what they know, and they tend to stick with it. They will read other ideas, but unless they mesh with their way of thinking they don't give it much thought, other than ... It's interesting, but will never work.

@ Alex:

Concerning this statement:


> The fundamental principles behind exercise physiology work for everybody.


This is largely true ... however, there are discrepancies when you look at physiology that have to be taken into account when training and looking at what works for individuals.

The simple fact is you can take any P/1/2 racer and I'd pretty much guarantee you without the use of PED's (and in most cases with) ... they would never be able to lift the weights I did in college (bench 455 and squat just under 600) ... because our physiology is much different. You could train them forever and they wouldn't be able to get there, it just won't happen. Just as I can train all I want in cycling and I'm never going to be a P/1/2 racer, especially now that I'm over 40. I don't and never have had the physiology to be able to race at that level.

The reality ... again ... is do what works for you. The shorter the distance of the race, the more likely lifting is going to help. The more explosive efforts needed in a race, the more lifting will likely work for a specific rider.

It can be argued all day that one method is better than another ... but it's all semantics ... each rider needs to do what works best for them, and what works best for their goals. Sometimes those goals are to be as fast on a bike as possible, but also includes general health, which has show lifting to be an important part of general fitness.

Everybody has a different viewpoint ... and just because you believe that one way works because everybody's physiology is close enough that it doesn't matter, doesn't make you right ... it also doesn't make you wrong ... it just means that others have a different way of looking at things and some have had results that worked well for them using alternative methods.

Again ... I'll refer back to general rule of thumb works for about 90% of the people, but there are always people on the outside of that 90% that it doesn't work for. This is why there are different ideas, different techniques, different ways of doing things and why one method doesn't work for everybody.

For the 90% ... you are correct, for the rest, you may or may not be.

With that said ... I'm out of this thread because it's repetitive and has been covered a hundred times with the same arguments thrown around time and time again. It's like arguing politics ... everybody has an opinion and they are 100% sure they are correct and everybody else is a fool not to think like they do.

Such is life and have a nice day 

*One addendum:*

What about core strength?

According to the general rule of thumb ... all exercise should be done on the bike to become the best cyclist possible. Just the fact of being on the bike builds the muscles needed for riding/racing ... i.e. sport specific exercise.

Yet, even the pro's are using lifting for core work and are always talking about how having a strong core is important to cycling (as it is to every sport).

So ... which is it? Do you get all your fitness on the bike, or do you need to do work off the bike? If you are not building enough strength on the bike in your core, how are you so sure you are able to do it in other areas of your body?

It kind of goes against the argument of no lifting needed to be the best cyclist you can be.

*BTW* ... I'm a believer that lifting can help some with cycling. The fastest I've ever been on a bike is when I've done light lifting (lunges, good mornings, calf raises, etc.) as well as general cycling specific traing. During these times* I had my highest 10 second as well as 20 minute power numbers *... when I stopped lifting, my numbers dropped while continuing with the same training routine (sans lifting).


----------



## rockdude (Apr 3, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> The simple fact is you can take any P/1/2 racer and I'd pretty much guarantee you without the use of PED's (and in most cases with) ... they would never be able to lift the weights I did in college (bench 455 and squat just under 600) ... because our physiology is much different. You could train them forever and they wouldn't be able to get there, it just won't happen. Just as I can train all I want in cycling and I'm never going to be a P/1/2 racer, especially now that I'm over 40. I don't and never have had the physiology to be able to race at that level.


I am going to toot my horn not to brag but to make a point. In competition, I have bench pressed 400 pounds, squats over 600 and deadlift over 550, At the time I was ranked one of the strongest guys in the nation at my weight. In high school, I ran in the 4.4 range in the 40. I played college football as a running back and was the fastest guy in the university in the 40. I am full of fast twitch fibers. I am now approaching 50 and race P/1/2 and I am competitive. What did it take to make the change? You have to understand psychology, know the research and apply empirical knowledge. Then you have to have the time and desire to implement it. Listen to Alex, he is an expert in this field.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> So ... you admit that their training is for distances under 40 meters, and closer to 20 meters than anything ... but you are trying to compare your beating them in 100m - 200m distances? What's the point of this comparison ... other than to say you could beat a football player over distances they never need to run?
> 
> If you believe it's because they are lifting too much or are too big, chances are you are wrong ... or you are not paying attention to world class sprinters. Those guys are doing "A lot" of lifting and it is an important part of their training, as is running, plyometrics and other various training techniques.


That is correct, and my answer is in light of the assumption that most everyone on RBR is not looking to be sprinters like Chris Hoy and Gregory Bauge.

So then why are they looking to train like a footballer in the weightroom? You know, the typical strength stuff like squat, deadlift, leg press, and throw in some biceps, row, and shoulders too. I hardly see any speed component in their training, mostly strength stuff. Good for maybe a 10 second burst, then game over.

So the point of my comparison is that if you're going to lift weight to acquire the explosion similar to that of a football player, then you're doing it wrong, because all that stregth is gonna last you about 20 yards max.

My example of 100/200m sprints with 30 second rest was to hightlight the weakness (or rather limitations) of a 40-yd dash prowess, and its related weightlifting routines. 

I'd be very interested in seeing how much weight pro cyclists lift in the gym when compared to the weekend warrior cyclist. I'll bet that the weekend warrior cyclist lift a lot more weight. And as a sidenote, Americans lift more weight than any people in the developed world.

My position in here is:

1) With 15 hrs/wk, you're better off hitting the bike and forget the weight stuff

2) When people do hit the gym stuff, most just don't have the insight and experience to fully utilize the weight. Most weightlifting routines/advice they get sound like stuff belonging in "Gold's Gym" and "Bro's Gym", which makes their time spent in the weightroom way less productive than they thought.


Edit:

Here in Socal, many of the local crit guys are actually quite big already when compared to a Euro club racer. I'm often astonished how big AND muscular American non-pro cyclists are. I see lots of crit guys with huge biceps and quads, stuff that I hardly see on Euro guys. And this would support my statement that Americans lift weight more any other people. So I don't think weight training is the issue. If anything, many guys need LESS weight training (at least based on what I see from the Socal amateur cycling demographics).


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

I am not a believer as some here are that you get (enough) core work on the bike. Truthfully I think riding a bike exclusively, while aerobically good, leads to some nice muscle imbalance front to back, side to side and top to bottom. The more you ride the more the potential imbalance. So, if you want to avoid walking around like an old man in your 30's/40's etc...it's beneficial to do some work in the gym to get muscles engaged that otherwise are not engaged or underdeveloped. As has been explained to me by professional sports physiologist core work includes leg, butt, back and tummy area. 

As far as developing power on a bike I am a believer that that happens pretty exclusively on the bike as it applies to the context of a road bike race. How much does a stronger core aid in absolute power generation I don't know and is apparently unknown past track applications. Yet, I think absolute power is the wrong way to think about it. What's really important is how one is able to delay the onset of fatigue over time. Meaning, does a developed core v. one not developed aid in efficiency? When i push down hard on the pedal with a weak v. strong core what is happening biomechanically? Is power transfer the same? I think not but defer to you guys.

So why do athletes like Dave Z and others do work in the gym?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

woodys737 said:


> I am not a believer as some here are that you get (enough) core work on the bike. Truthfully I think riding a bike exclusively, while aerobically good, leads to some nice muscle imbalance front to back, side to side and top to bottom. The more you ride the more the potential imbalance. So, if you want to avoid walking around like an old man in your 30's/40's etc...it's beneficial to do some work in the gym to get muscles engaged that otherwise are not engaged or underdeveloped. As has been explained to me by professional sports physiologist core work includes leg, butt, back and tummy area.
> 
> As far as developing power on a bike I am a believer that that happens pretty exclusively on the bike as it applies to the context of a road bike race. How much does a stronger core aid in absolute power generation I don't know and is apparently unknown past track applications. Yet, I think absolute power is the wrong way to think about it. What's really important is how one is able to delay the onset of fatigue over time. Meaning, does a developed core v. one not developed aid in efficiency? When i push down hard on the pedal with a weak v. strong core what is happening biomechanically? Is power transfer the same? I think not but defer to you guys.
> 
> So why do athletes like Dave Z and others do work in the gym?



Dave Z and alll pro athletes have a lot more time to train then a typical weekend warrior with job and family duties. So gym work for these pros is probably a welcome break from their cycling training. And furthermore, they have coaches and nutritionists and masseur looking over their recovery time. You can't do much effective gym work if you haven't recovered. 

And these pros probably take plenty of dope. How do we know if it's gym work or the dope that's enhancing them? Chances are 100% it's the dope.

But for most amatuer cyclists with 12-15 hrs/wk, if you want to go as long and as fast as possible on a bike, you're better off riding a bike with that allotted 12-15 hrs/wk.

When you have 40 hrs/wk to train like the pros, then we'll talk about gym time.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

aussiebullet said:


> Yeh I hear ya Wookie,
> 
> It would be interesting to hear peoples opinions on what what studies they would like to see done, it is likely never going to happen but;
> 3 groups tested at 30's, 5min and 60min at the begining and end of a 12wk study
> ...


Training studies are a bear. 

But this IS the question that we need to address. Where are the true gaps in knowledge that we need to assess? I hope to look into this some this summer.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Dave Z and alll pro athletes have a lot more time to train then a typical weekend warrior with job and family duties. So gym work for these pros is probably a welcome break from their cycling training. And furthermore, they have coaches and nutritionists and masseur looking over their recovery time. You can't do much effective gym work if you haven't recovered.
> 
> And these pros probably take plenty of dope. How do we know if it's gym work or the dope that's enhancing them? Chances are 100% it's the dope.
> 
> ...


All I wanted to know is why pros spent time in the weight room?


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> BTW[/B] ... I'm a believer that lifting can help some with cycling. The fastest I've ever been on a bike is when I've done light lifting (lunges, good mornings, calf raises, etc.) as well as general cycling specific traing. During these times* I had my highest 10 second as well as 20 minute power numbers *... when I stopped lifting, my numbers dropped while continuing with the same training routine (sans lifting).


Again this is just another anecdote and goes back to the start of the thread where people ask; did you improve because of or inspite of lifting,
what was the bike training like in the 3 mths leading up to the increase in 20min power? did the lifting contribute to an increase in overall stress? was it beacuse you rode less but added intensity with the lifting? 

I always see and continue to set PB's when I ride less and include intensity but I don't lift, usually my numbers drop off just a little too after a few weeks or so until I repeat the process.

Lifting muddies the water so much that everytime someone who lifts see's an improvement they almost always say that it had to come from the lifting. 
If l wasn't seeing improvement I'd change my training on the bike to be certain where my improvement came from, 

lucky for me I have years of power data to look back on and see trends and my gains come often enough (though modest) to know my bike training is actually what is contibuting to these gains in Neuromuscular power AWC and aerobic power, still after a over a decade of training and racing.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

well, it would be pretty straightforward to add lifting and then see the effect on power. This is what DZ's coach did with him - power testing protocols distributed across the training. I rode with him yesterday and he's looking good for ToC.

More generally, there are many markers that can be used to assess the effects of strength training, so the remark about subjective impressions is a red herring. The studies I referred to include muscle biopsy and scanning to work out mechanisms and physiological adaptations, such as the IIa data.

What seems to be lost on most of this discussion is that the potential benefits of concurrent endurance and strength training (not simply training like a track sprinter) are not well explored, just as extremely short duration HIT sessions aren't in terms of aerobic benefits (where repeated short duration efforts - potentially under 10 seconds each - become predominantly aerobic). For example, a recent study found that strength training enhances mitochondrial biogenesis following endurance training ("Resistance exercise enhances the molecular signaling of mitochondrial biogenesis induced by endurance exercise in human skeletal muscle, J. Applied Physiology). Point being, the training adaptations of strength training in a concurrent protocol extend beyond sprinting. These effects remain largely unexplored. 




aussiebullet said:


> Again this is just another anecdote and goes back to the start of the thread where people ask; did you improve because of or inspite of lifting,
> what was the bike training like in the 3 mths leading up to the increase in 20min power? did the lifting contribute to an increase in overall stress? was it beacuse you rode less but added intensity with the lifting?
> 
> I always see and continue to set PB's when I ride less and include intensity but I don't lift, usually my numbers drop off just a little too after a few weeks or so until I repeat the process.
> ...


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

aussiebullet said:


> what was the bike training like in the 3 mths leading up to the increase in 20min power? did the lifting contribute to an increase in overall stress? was it beacuse you rode less but added intensity with the lifting?


The only difference was the lifting. 

My schedule remains fairly steady throughout the year with increases in intensity leading up to my "A" races, which are generally TT's so I'm more concerned with my 20 minute - 1 hour power profiles. I have been using a Powertap for the last 4 years, so I have a fair amount of data to go off of. The difference for me was, on average, 10 watts during 20 minute efforts.

Mostly at this point I concentrate on my hamstrings and glutes because they seem to get the least amount of work on the bike. When I wasn't doing some lifting, on long (40k) TT's I would always cramp up really bad ... to the point I couldn't pedal back to the car for a good 15-30 minutes after crossing the finish line. After my first one my wife had to drive me home because I couldn't operate the car (manual transmission) due to the cramping.

Since I've started lifting, I don't cramp nearly as much because those muscles are now stronger than they were previously.

With that said ... I'm not lifting heavy weight ... basically on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday I do high rep "Good Mornings" which involve 3 sets/100 reps each with a 26 pound par. I don't do the lunges any longer due to knee issues from a crash last year (just below the knee, 14 staples and a lot of scar tissue under the patella tendon).

It's not a huge training load difference, but it's made a difference overall ... for me.

Sure it's anecdotal evidence ... but it works for me, which is my point. Lifting likely won't work for everybody, however, there is a certain % of people out there it likely will help when it comes to cycling.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> well, it would be pretty straightforward to add lifting and then see the effect on power. This is what DZ's coach did with him - power testing protocols distributed across the training. I rode with him yesterday and he's looking good for ToC.
> 
> More generally, there are many markers that can be used to assess the effects of strength training, so the remark about subjective impressions is a red herring. The studies I referred to include muscle biopsy and scanning to work out mechanisms and physiological adaptations, such as the IIa data.
> 
> *What seems to be lost on most of this discussion is that the potential benefits of concurrent endurance and strength training (not simply training like a track sprinter) are not well explored, just as extremely short duration HIT sessions aren't in terms of aerobic benefits (where repeated short duration efforts - potentially under 10 seconds each - become predominantly aerobic). For example, a recent study found that strength training enhances mitochondrial biogenesis following endurance training ("Resistance exercise enhances the molecular signaling of mitochondrial biogenesis induced by endurance exercise in human skeletal muscle, J. Applied Physiology). Point being, the training adaptations of strength training in a concurrent protocol extend beyond sprinting. These effects remain largely unexplored.*



Actually I think your line of questioning is a very valid from an academic and research point of view. It's always interesting to read research papers investigating something new, and its associated potential results. I'm always a bit intrigued about all this stuff.

But see, here is the problem I see in the food chain of information and knowledge, if you will. These research are usually conducted by highly qualified professional (PhD) in an as ideal as environment. Variables are controlled by those who know how to control them.

Then the subjects of their research are many times very highly tuned athletes. That is, they already have maximized their potential with their current training method (and their current athletic base is already huge), and they now I suppose that given their 40 hrs/wk time availability, some strength training might be helpful.

But for a typical time-limited cyclists, those with only 12-15 hrs/wk to train, the more important question is what is the best way to gain power with the allotted time? And I'm speculating that 12-15 hrs/wk is not enough to maximize one's aerobic potential, that is to say, there is still lots of room to extract more power. Now if you're a pro and you have 40 hrs/wk to train, then I suppose then you can speculate that perhaps after over 30-35 hrs/wk on the bike, your are hitting an extreme diminishing return territory with the bike, and in that case, a switch to strength training can actually extract a bit more power outta your body. 

Is there such a study that investigates a pro cyclist's time spent training on the bike and time spent trained with weight and graph these time components against his power profile? It would surely show his maximizing power point, along with a profile of "diminishing return" on the bike. Again, I'm speculating that with 12-15 hrs/wk, we're not at a in dimishing return point where incorporating in weight training would help his power profile.

These sort of "athletic" studies are very technical, conducted by very knowledgable people, often using subjects that are pretty gifted athletically... and then you have folks from RBR reading these and inferring that maybe if it works for Dave Z, it'll work for me too. But I ask, does anyone in here have the time, resources, and resources to train like a pro? Until then, I'm going to say it's probably better to train with what is already proven to work with your 12-15 hrs /wk time, like Alex said

Also, I'd think a proper and optimizing weight training routine for a cyclist is probably different from that of a Gold's and Bro's gym dude. But for the average RBR, weightraining is probably going to their local Bro's gym and mixing it up with the bros, which is not exactly optimizing either. My buddy is going thru such a training based on tips he got from some coach who is supposedly training pro athletes. And honestly I think he's wasting his time with the weight since he's only putting in 10 hrs/wk on the bike and 3 hrs/wk on the weight. I told him that he ain't gonna better as a cylist but he's hell bent on doing the weight anyway. So far he's been doing the weight thing for 6 months now, and frankly i'm under impressed with his power profile resulting from mixing in weight training.

So until there is a solid plan of attack, with clear data to show for it, I don't think we should just casually say to an RBR cyclist: "hit the gym if you want more power".


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

woodys737 said:


> All I wanted to know is why pros spent time in the weight room?


Most likely a combination of things. Weight training does have the benefit of maintaining bone density and injury prevention. Weight training also gives pros (who have 40 hrs/wk to train) a break in their cycling routine, which could actually prevent injuries that are repetitive in nature (and cycling is pretty repetitive). 

I used to have time of 4-5 hrs/day as a junior gymnast, and I can remember sometimes I just want a break from all the gymnastic routines. I'll bet pro athletes who have 6-8 hrs/day surely will want to do something different.

The important question is like what I've posted above in replying to Stevesbike. What point is the dimishing return? What point is the power increase from weight training. And how much of an increase in power (if any) is from weight training? If you have to spend too much gym work for a 2% gain, then that needs to be looked at too. Maybe you're better off resting, but still gain, say, 1%? and save your body some wear and tear.

A typical RBR cyclist does not spend time training anywhere close to a pro like Dave Z, and to use him as a model for time-limited cyclist may not work.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

couple of quick comments: subjects in studies vary from elite athletes to untrained. Research is not principally about adding volume. It's about optimizing training stimuli and in some cases radically decreases volume (as in Martin Gibala's research). Concurrent strength and endurance training could be particularly beneficial to time-crunched athletes, since the actual gym work isn't much volume (could be as little as 3 sets of one exercise and done during lunch in an office setting). It's not about adding hours in the gym. Again, I'm not claiming cyclists need to hit the gym - I'm saying there's some evidence showing it is beneficial but it is largely unexplored and that's not equivalent to evidence against it.



aclinjury said:


> Actually I think your line of questioning is a very valid from an academic and research point of view. It's always interesting to read research papers investigating something new, and its associated potential results. I'm always a bit intrigued about all this stuff.
> 
> But see, here is the problem I see in the food chain of information and knowledge, if you will. These research are usually conducted by highly qualified professional (PhD) in an as ideal as environment. Variables are controlled by those who know how to control them.
> 
> ...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> couple of quick comments: subjects in studies vary from elite athletes to untrained. Research is not principally about adding volume. It's about optimizing training stimuli and in some cases radically decreases volume (as in Martin Gibala's research). Concurrent strength and endurance training could be particularly beneficial to time-crunched athletes, since the actual gym work isn't much volume (could be as little as 3 sets of one exercise and done during lunch in an office setting). It's not about adding hours in the gym. Again, I'm not claiming cyclists need to hit the gym - I'm saying there's some evidence showing it is beneficial but it is largely unexplored and that's not equivalent to evidence against it.



I enjoy training in the gym myself, as I come from a gymnastic and then later track & field discipline. But ever since taking up road cycling full throttle, I find that I simply don't have the energy to do much gym. Yes I've been doing some "lunch time" quickie at the gym (short & light sets) but I do it because I can't get away from the gym (still a gym junkie a little). What I'm speculating is that it does help with the anaerobic sprinting. But see my cycling is mostly endurance, and I enjoy doing 100 mi, 8000-10000ft climbing. And under this type of riding, I don't see much benefit from gym work. Gym work is all nice and tiddy if you're looking to map a power profile for say a 20 min, 30 min, or even 1hr duration. But for me, it's the power after 3hr+ on the bike and some 5000-6000 ft of climbing and with still more to go.. is what I care. For me.

I'd be very interested in seeing the power profile beyond, say 2hr of cycling, of those who work with weight (and how much with weight) versus those who largely don't work with weight. Be very interesting to see how such power profile change as the duration of the event goes long.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> This is what DZ's coach did with him - power testing protocols distributed across the training. *I rode with him yesterday and he's looking good for ToC*.












Kidding... but I'm glad you saw him and gave your stamp of approval


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Here in Socal, many of the local crit guys are actually quite big already when compared to a Euro club racer. I'm often astonished how big AND muscular American non-pro cyclists are. I see lots of crit guys with huge biceps and quads, stuff that I hardly see on Euro guys. And this would support my statement that Americans lift weight more any other people.


Faulty reasoning.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

woodys737 said:


> All I wanted to know is why pros spent time in the weight room?


When you find out, then let us know about the pros who don't.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> When you find out, then let us know about the pros who don't.


Sorry Alex. I'm not following what you wrote. Are you saying they don't? Or alluding to something else?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> The only difference was the lifting.
> <snip>
> 
> Sure it's anecdotal evidence ... but it works for me, which is my point. Lifting likely won't work for everybody, however, there is a certain % of people out there it likely will help when it comes to cycling.


See, this is the problem, personal anecdotes leading people to misguidedly assign a causation due to self reported correlation from their own uncontrolled experiment, which is inherently full of bias.

When I did concurrent strength work, I ended up the slowest I'd been, and when I say slowest I mean slowest in sprinting and aerobic power. But even so, I cannot attribute a causation to that self reported correlation. It's foolish to think that way.

I know it's a hard habit to break, and is human nature, but we simply cannot trust such reports, and anecdotal reports about what a pro does/does not do are equally invalid.


On a different note:
As for using scum dopers as examples of what training people should do, well I have a hard time keeping the sick from rising up in my throat when they are held up as a training role model.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

woodys737 said:


> Sorry Alex. I'm not following what you wrote. Are you saying they don't? Or alluding to something else?


What I mean is, for every anecdotal report of a pro in a gym, you can find an anecdotal report of one that doesn't do gym. IOW it tells us nothing of value with respect to what sound training principles we should apply.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Most likely a combination of things. Weight training does have the benefit of maintaining bone density and injury prevention. Weight training also gives pros (who have 40 hrs/wk to train) a break in their cycling routine, which could actually prevent injuries that are repetitive in nature (and cycling is pretty repetitive).
> 
> I used to have time of 4-5 hrs/day as a junior gymnast, and I can remember sometimes I just want a break from all the gymnastic routines. I'll bet pro athletes who have 6-8 hrs/day surely will want to do something different.
> 
> ...


My guess is injury prevention but it's just a guess.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> What I mean is, for every anecdotal report of a pro in a gym, you can find an anecdotal report of one that doesn't do gym. IOW it tells us nothing of value with respect to what sound training principles we should apply.


Got it.


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

woodys737 said:


> Sorry Alex. I'm not following what you wrote. Are you saying they don't? Or alluding to something else?


I think he means ask the the pro's who don't spend time in the wight room why they don't.


----------



## aussiebullet (Sep 26, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> well, it would be pretty straightforward to add lifting and then see the effect on power. This is what DZ's coach did with him - power testing protocols distributed across the training. I rode with him yesterday and he's looking good for ToC.


Was already looking farward to the ToC as we get full coverage of it, and it's better coverage than our own TDU but now you've talked up DZ it's just added to the build up.
I'm heading down to the tab to put money on him now, I mean a 10% increase in w/kg at 5w/kg would see him at 5.5wkg, but if he was already at 6w/kg then that puts him at 6.6w/kg.
Hope I don't get done for insider trading.

As to the make up of his bike training during those 5mths I have not see his training diary from the last ~10mths so I have no idea on how he trained and if the timing or intensity of his workouts changed once he started lifting I suspect it would change somewhat over that time period.
So IMO the waters are still as muddy as ever.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> Most likely a combination of things. Weight training does have the benefit of maintaining bone density and injury prevention.


If BMD is an issue (and it can be for a cyclist), there are better/more effective training methods than weights to address that.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

actually, I cited controlled studies. Exactly what controlled studies is your coaching based on? How much of it is anecdotal 'best practices" based on a non-representative sample? While you're on your pedestal, you might want to watch out for the ASADA report that might fall on you. Then of course there's your Tour champion with his links to Ferrari and Rominger. Glass houses and all that...



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> See, this is the problem, personal anecdotes leading people to misguidedly assign a causation due to self reported correlation from their own uncontrolled experiment, which is inherently full of bias.
> 
> When I did concurrent strength work, I ended up the slowest I'd been, and when I say slowest I mean slowest in sprinting and aerobic power. But even so, I cannot attribute a causation to that self reported correlation. It's foolish to think that way.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> actually, I cited controlled studies. Exactly what controlled studies is your coaching based on? How much of it is anecdotal 'best practices" based on a non-representative sample? While you're on your pedestal, you might want to watch out for the ASADA report that might fall on you. Then of course there's your Tour champion with his links to Ferrari and Rominger. Glass houses and all that...


1. I was referring to the response by Wookiebiker. On this particular topic, I have considered the body of evidence regarding strength and endurance cycling performance.

2. ASADA report? lol, sure can't wait for ASADA to help clean up the cesspool of long time Aussie doping that most have had their head in the sand on. It's not really going to do that though unfortunately, so I'm not holding out much hope on that front tbh. As a coach of riders who've had dopers and corrupt management and administrations screw over their careers, I say bring it on. I just wish they had the resources necessary to do a better job. Not ASADA's jurisdiction unfortunately in these cases and inadequate systems in many nations to deal with such things, but I digress.

3. _My _tour champion? You mean Evans? Well we happen to share a nationality but I fail to see what that has to do with the topic? He's not "mine", he's just another pro rider as far as I'm concerned. What has any rider's nationality to do with the topic? There are disgraceful Aussie dopers. Same as there are disgraceful American, Italian, British, Belgian, Dutch, German, Spanish, French etc etc dopers.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I was one of those screwed over, so I have no soft spot for dopers, but realize it's a structural problem as much as a moral one. The biggest distinction among most pro riders who rode during the last 10 years is between those who got caught and those who didn't. I made a reference to a current rider and training protocol only because I have a high level of confidence that the results are not the result of doping. 



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> 1. I was referring to the response by Wookiebiker. On this particular topic, I have considered the body of evidence regarding strength and endurance cycling performance.
> 
> 2. ASADA report? lol, sure can't wait for ASADA to help clean up the cesspool of long time Aussie doping that most have had their head in the sand on. It's not really going to do that though unfortunately, so I'm not holding out much hope on that front tbh. As a coach of riders who've had dopers and corrupt management and administrations screw over their careers, I say bring it on. I just wish they had the resources necessary to do a better job. Not ASADA's jurisdiction unfortunately in these cases and inadequate systems in many nations to deal with such things, but I digress.
> 
> 3. _My _tour champion? You mean Evans? Well we happen to share a nationality but I fail to see what that has to do with the topic? He's not "mine", he's just another pro rider as far as I'm concerned. What has any rider's nationality to do with the topic? There are disgraceful Aussie dopers. Same as there are disgraceful American, Italian, British, Belgian, Dutch, German, Spanish, French etc etc dopers.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> If BMD is an issue (and it can be for a cyclist), there are better/more effective training methods than weights to address that.


I'm very interested in knowing what methods you speak of. Please divulge if you don't mind. 

I like to do light running but knee surgery limits my running to 30-40 min at a time on treadmill.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> I'm very interested in knowing what methods you speak of. Please divulge if you don't mind.
> 
> I like to do light running but knee surgery limits my running to 30-40 min at a time on treadmill.


Exercise that provides an amount of "jarring" or impacts to the skeletal system is generally more effective for promotion or maintenance of BMD. Obviously I don't mean over the top stuff like football tackles or contact sports, but the sort of lighter body jarring from jogging, skipping, "aerobics" or non-contact field sports or similar.

Presumably the nature of the stresses on the skeletal system during such exercise promotes a greater response in BMD to meet those demands than does lifting weights (which is better than doing nothing).

That sort of impact exercise may not be possible for many (it's pretty difficult for me as a leg amputee) so other means to address BMD need to be considered (e.g. diet) and some form of weight bearing exercise is generally better than non-weight bearing exercise (or no exercise).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Exercise that provides an amount of "jarring" or impacts to the skeletal system is generally more effective for promotion or maintenance of BMD. Obviously I don't mean over the top stuff like football tackles or contact sports, but the sort of lighter body jarring from jogging, skipping, "aerobics" or non-contact field sports or similar.
> 
> Presumably the nature of the stresses on the skeletal system during such exercise promotes a greater response in BMD to meet those demands than does lifting weights (which is better than doing nothing).
> 
> That sort of impact exercise may not be possible for many (it's pretty difficult for me as a leg amputee) so other means to address BMD need to be considered (e.g. diet) and some form of weight bearing exercise is generally better than non-weight bearing exercise (or no exercise).



Ah I figured you'd say something about needing some jarring to the skeletal. That's why I mix in 30 minutes on the weights and then afterward 30 minutes on the treadmill, twice per week. 

But I'm also considering doing slow easy mini runs of 20-minute, 3-4 times/wk, right after my bike workout, with the main intent of getting the impact to the skeletal system rather than the aerobic from the running. I really love to run as I find there is something primal and elemental about running. And since I'm not under any illusion that I'll be a bicycle racer, time spent on the bike is not an absolute must for me.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> actually, I first posted a pic of Dave Zabriskie in the gym since he spent the last 5 months doing a combined strength training program, which resulted in a 10% increase in watts/kg. Not bad for a later career professional cyclist.





stevesbike said:


> well, it would be pretty straightforward to add lifting and then see the effect on power. This is what DZ's coach did with him - power testing protocols distributed across the training. I rode with him yesterday and he's looking good for ToC.


So what happened to lose more than 10-minutes to the GC leader on the final climb? 

If he was 10% up on W/kg, then he must have been relatively unfit for the initial power measurement. Keep in mind that 10% is a typical seasonal variance in threshold power for well trained racing cyclists.

If however after a few months of training it was a 10% increase in W/kg on his _previous best performances_, then given his time in the sport we are talking doping to achieve that, not weightlifting. 

So given the result, I'll given him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the weightlifting ;-)

Still, there is a TT to come, so let's see how he goes there. Bit of a nasty hill climb for the finale.


----------



## WIBadger (Apr 25, 2013)

The best way to get faster is to ride more but in order to ride more you need to back it all up with some strength training. Prepare your body for some brutality with the weights and then go out on the bike and brutalize it.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

well, we'll have to wait for another day since he crashed on the TT warmup.... Stage 2 wasn't much of an opportunity to gauge form since the heat was such a factor. DZ, like a bunch of other riders, didn't react well to the heat...



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> So what happened to lose more than 10-minutes to the GC leader on the final climb?
> 
> If he was 10% up on W/kg, then he must have been relatively unfit for the initial power measurement. Keep in mind that 10% is a typical seasonal variance in threshold power for well trained racing cyclists.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> Ah I figured you'd say something about needing some jarring to the skeletal. That's why I mix in 30 minutes on the weights and then afterward 30 minutes on the treadmill, twice per week.


Strain rates are what drive BMD changes. So something like landing on the ground from a relatively high height would be the most potent stimulus. Running is fine, but if you care about time, doing a few of those is likely to be just as effective as a half hour of running.


----------



## bikerbert (Jan 28, 2005)

A 2010 study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research titled "The Effects of Resistance Training on Road Cycling Performance Among Highly Trained Cyclists: A Systematic Review" found that "positive muscular adaptations from muscle hypertrophy include increased anaerobic enzyme activity, increased force production, increased intramuscular enzyme activity" for cyclists.

Within that study, several others like it were cited that showed a positive benefit for cyclists from weight training. In 2005, Patton, , CD and Hopkins, WG (Combining Explosive and High Resistance Training Improves Performance in Competitive Cyclists) found that 18 highly trained road cyclists, using the outcome measurements of a 1K and 4K TT as well as VO2Peak, they discovered an 8.7% increase in 1KM power, and an 8.1% in 4K power. They did this by replacing segments of traditional cycling training with high explosive resistance training to produce sprint and performance gains. It should be noted that this study was carried out during a competitive cycling season giving this idea a lot more food for thought.

Another study mentioned was by Hickson, RC, Divorak, BC, Gorostiaga, EM, Korowski, TT and Foster, C (Potential for Strength and Endurance Training to Amplify Endurance Performance) found that both short term performance (11%) and time to exhaustion (20%) both improved over the course of 10 weeks with three sessions a week of parallel back squats, knee extensions, ham curls and calf raises in eight highly trained subjects. 

While I wouldn't recommend seated machine work (very little to zero functional carry over for cycling, and is simply not as effective as standing unsupported to train), it does demonstrate how this can help. Conclusive? Not by any stretch due to the small sample size, but it does lend credence to the idea.

Hickson, et al also found that by adding in strength training to the routines of cross country skiers and runners, their short term endurance capacity increased by 11-13%. They also found time to exhaustion improved from 6.5 mins to 10.2 mins during all out efforts using a double poling ski ergometer for cross country skiers. While not cyclists, it shows the benefits of strength training across other endurance sports.

One of the most intriguing findings in this study was that while strength increased during the course of the study, size didn't. They found that due to the opposing hormonal releases during cycling, the endurance component of strength training essentially can "diminish or fully blunt out the muscle hypertrophy that normally occurs with strength training while increases in maximal strength are still observed." This would lend credibility to the notion that you can build strength without putting on size laying to rest this particular concern for cyclists.

Long story short, if you ride, get into the gym!


----------



## bikerbert (Jan 28, 2005)

dnice said:


> the spin instructor and bike racer at my gym strongly recommends those single leg presses, primarily for stabilizing the core.


Bulgarian split squats would be the best way to go due to the fact the angle of force production more closely matches pushing a pedal down. Plus, when you support you, more muscle is recruited than when you sit. 

For a recumbant rider, the leg press might make sense. If you pushed the pedals up at a 45 degree angle on a bike, then maybe. But since you push a pedal down, you may as well train that way. 

Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat Finisher- 80 reps - YouTube


----------



## bikerbert (Jan 28, 2005)

CoachTJCormier said:


> Getting info on strength training from a spinning instructor is not a good idea, as this info is poor at best. Using a leg press/leg sled does very little if anything to help stablize your core (1 or 2 legged). If you wanted to get core stabiliazation squats (and their variations)are a much better choice and the are a better overall exercise. They are also a much more functional exercise too.
> I don't think any exercise that uses a machine is of much use like a Smith Machine squat


+1000000000000000000000000000


----------



## rockdude (Apr 3, 2008)

bikerbert said:


> A 2010 study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research titled "The Effects of Resistance Training on Road Cycling Performance Among Highly Trained Cyclists: A Systematic Review" found that "positive muscular adaptations from muscle hypertrophy include increased anaerobic enzyme activity, increased force production, increased intramuscular enzyme activity" for cyclists.
> 
> Within that study, several others like it were cited that showed a positive benefit for cyclists from weight training. In 2005, Patton, , CD and Hopkins, WG (Combining Explosive and High Resistance Training Improves Performance in Competitive Cyclists) found that 18 highly trained road cyclists, using the outcome measurements of a 1K and 4K TT as well as VO2Peak, they discovered an 8.7% increase in 1KM power, and an 8.1% in 4K power. They did this by replacing segments of traditional cycling training with high explosive resistance training to produce sprint and performance gains. It should be noted that this study was carried out during a competitive cycling season giving this idea a lot more food for thought.
> 
> ...


I wish my races were 4ks or 10m in length... Looks like track guys need to hit the gym but we already knew that. For us racers that race in a dominate aerobic state of 30m or more we are just going to have to ride more and develop out our cardio and aerobic systems.


----------



## bikerbert (Jan 28, 2005)

The biggest reason cyclists should lift weights isnt improved power/faster times, but to preserve soft tissue integrity and prevent injury. That's why you need to get out of the saddle and into the weight room. 

Cycling kills thoracic spine (huge component to breathing correctly) and hip mobility as well as glute function. Three things you need to ride well (and to maintain a healthy spine) . We weren't meant to sit for long periods of time, let alone with our feet connected to a machine that puts us in repetitive stress pattern overload while pedaling. 

If you've got the time, check out this article. It details how pattern overload hammers the body. 

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online...=AFE671967393C6D6FFCBFB375A4AE513-mcd01.hydra


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

bikerbert said:


> The biggest reason cyclists should lift weights isnt improved power/faster times, but to preserve soft tissue integrity and prevent injury. That's why you need to get out of the saddle and into the weight room.


The most important things to do as a cyclist to prevent injury are not crashing and having a properly fitted bicycle.

If your "glute function" is a problem, get a proper bike fit.

If you are encouraging people to get out of the saddle, the best thing they can do by that is practice some sprints and short hard hill efforts. Does wonders for the core and bike skills.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I wonder if the top tour guys like Froome, Contador, Valverde, Rodriguez, Evans, Uran, Porte, etc, work out with weight much?

I know Lance Armstrong said he worked out with some weight during the off season, but we all know his performance had more to do with doping than weight training.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

bikerbert said:


> The biggest reason cyclists should lift weights isnt improved power/faster times, but to preserve soft tissue integrity and prevent injury. That's why you need to get out of the saddle and into the weight room.
> 
> Cycling kills thoracic spine (huge component to breathing correctly) and hip mobility as well as glute function. Three things you need to ride well (and to maintain a healthy spine) . We weren't meant to sit for long periods of time, let alone with our feet connected to a machine that puts us in repetitive stress pattern overload while pedaling.
> 
> ...


Those can be addressed without weights. Proper core training, stretching or yoga will all get you there.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the problem is 1) they are an unrepresentative sample (genetic outliers) so extrapolating training methods based on their 'best practices' is fallacious, 2) their training is targeted for performance in 3 week stage races, so unless you're a kid training to ride the Tour one day, it's a bit like a 400-meter runner basing their training on professional marathon runners. I'm part of a cohort that based their training on Greg Lemond's book - not a very appropriate training template (even Lemond was chronically overtrained), 3) professional training practices likely 'select' riders as much as train them (in analogy to organic chemistry classes for pre-med students), 4) they have more resources/support for recovery, 5) won't even mention high likelihood that they 'supplement' their training programs, so it's like basing a bodybuilding program on professional bodybuilders. 

Best line in this whole thread is Alex's anecdotal observation (when he was strength training) to dismiss strength training because it's based on anecdotal reports....



aclinjury said:


> I wonder if the top tour guys like Froome, Contador, Valverde, Rodriguez, Evans, Uran, Porte, etc, work out with weight much?
> 
> I know Lance Armstrong said he worked out with some weight during the off season, but we all know his performance had more to do with doping than weight training.


----------

