Leg strength

[CoachFergie]

There is some guys who agree with her (Hey entire New Zealend is with her)

Not really, her ideas gained very little support here.

In contrast to almost all previous authors (see review by Paton and Hopkins, 2004), Amy had the foresight to trial the training strategy in the athlete’s competitive season, when the results would be more meaningful. Her findings are remarkably similar to ours and clearly support the beneficial effects of sport-specific resistance training in endurance cycling events. While the mechanisms underlying the improvement in performance are not yet clearly established, the fact is that this type of resistance training works for competitive cyclists, and probably other endurance athletes.

I questioned Will Hopkins on this point and his response was that in his study he felt the changes in performance came from the high intensity intervals performed rather than the plyometric exercises the experimental group performed. Seeing no one felt it was worth replicating Amy's study it is premature of Carl to suggest that either study show a benefit for performance.

While I acknowledge the difficulty in conducting interventions with athletes during their competitive season, it appears that this is the next logical step to take if we wish to provide more meaningful advice to the athletes. I hope that Amy’s success will encourage others to adopt this approach not only for training studies but also other interventions aimed at performance enhancement.

The claim's need replication using better methodology.

So something is going on, do you know them?

As I said till some better research is done I won't be paying these claims too much attention.

 

[CoachFergie]

There is something more on that.

http://www.sportsci.org/news/traingain/resistance.html#marcinik

We find strong evidence against a training program incorporating resistance training into well-trained endurance athletes' normal workouts to improve their endurance performance. There are, however, several scientific studies that report a beneficial effect of resistance training on both short and long-term endurance capacity. Hickson et al. (1988), a frequently cited investigation supporting the use of strength training to improve endurance, found that a three-times-a-week strength training program undertaken for 10 weeks did not change the VO2max of moderately-trained runners and cyclists. But a short-term (4-8 minutes) endurance test was improved by 12% for both running and cycling, while long-term endurance improved from 70 to 85 minutes for cycling.

Both tests were at a constant pace to exhaustion, we don't compete like that.

Marcinik et al. (1991) showed that strength training had positive effects of endurance cycling capacity. The conclusion: "strength training improves cycle endurance performance independently of changes in VO2max... and that this improvement appears to be related to increase in leg strength."

Untrained subjects.

I believe this is old school aproach.

Did Merckx or Coppi do weight training?

 

[CoachFergie]

Hey Fergie, do you realy thought that i knew Aldo, sorry but that was a allegory.

Stay well!

Am I meant to be surprised?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Do you have training and racing power files to quantify this?

Maybe it came as a result of more quality and less quantity on the bike. The gym just instigated this?

-Yes to the first, but just a spreadsheet. I don't have a budget for 'power files' equipment. I do it on the cheap using the same stationary bike's data over the same exercise program as provided by the bike. I don't measure every ride either. Too much variation. I 'test' about once a week.

-I don't race anymore. I'm doing much better against the riders (still racing) on the same training rides.

-Regarding the "more quality" I agree. The gym is instrumental in creating/sustaining the quality. The gym is much easier to get measured increases in Watts in much less time. Easy to track too. It still hurts, but that part doesn't change.

I'm providing anecdotal data to invalidate the broad claim made in this thread about the futility of weight training. I have no doubt what works for me won't work for someone else. But that's different than the irresponsible and ridiculous absolutes posted in this thread.

 

[oldborn]

Very relevant when we are trying to make a credible claims about the role of strength in cycling.

Cycling is an aerobic activity which will burn calories if your working hard. It takes time to burn off fat, and though you're building muscle, cycling doesn't produce muscle bound bodies like weight training does. It takes muscle to burn fat, so the muscle is going to help you get where you're going.

So does it mean that she is not lifting weights? Maybe? This type of argument are thiny, as we know that Basso lifting some and he is still a skinny guy?

 

[oldborn]

Am I meant to be surprised?

I don t know that, you tell me. Well Fergie :"But a short-term (4-8 minutes) endurance test was improved by 12% for both running and cycling, while long-term endurance improved from 70 to 85 minutes for cycling."

Where did you see constant pace to exhaustion? What shold they do, send then to TDF, instead, i told you that every study has some minuses, wright?

 

[oldborn]

Not really, her ideas gained very little support here.
I questioned Will Hopkins on this point and his response was that in his study he felt the changes in performance came from the high intensity intervals performed rather than the plyometric exercises the experimental group performed. Seeing no one felt it was worth replicating Amy's study it is premature of Carl to suggest that either study show a benefit for performance.

The claim's need replication using better methodology.

As I said till some better research is done I won't be paying these claims too much attention.

Is she cute?

You questioned, and is premature, Fergie come on, i can say that for Levi? 14 people study remember.

It is your decision, not mine, it is a free world?

 

[CoachFergie]

I'm providing anecdotal data to invalidate the broad claim made in this thread about the futility of weight training. I have no doubt what works for me won't work for someone else. But that's different than the irresponsible and ridiculous absolutes posted in this thread.

Poor data = poor claims.

 

[CoachFergie]

Cycling is an aerobic activity which will burn calories if your working hard. It takes time to burn off fat, and though you're building muscle, cycling doesn't produce muscle bound bodies like weight training does. It takes muscle to burn fat, so the muscle is going to help you get where you're going.

So does it mean that she is not lifting weights? Maybe? This type of argument are thiny, as we know that Basso lifting some and he is still a skinny guy?

You have no idea how Basso trains.

Just a sad person who needs to lie to win an argument on the Internet.

Welcome to my ignore file.

 

[oldborn]

Poor data = poor claims.

Come on Fergie, i provide you at least 3 studies.

 

[oldborn]

You have no idea how Basso trains.

Just a sad person who needs to lie to win an argument on the Internet.

Welcome to my ignore file.

Hey Fergie, you are running out of ammo, Basso did weight lifting, and yes i do not know his entire plan, who knows maybe Aldo?

 

[kielbasa]

Thanks, but irrelevant, this thread is not about my way of training.

That's a great coincidence, because I was only addressing those for whom it would be relevant.

 

[oldborn]

There is some about Basso way if you want, and his history of gym training with Ciappucci.

http://recovoxnews.blogspot.com/2010/01/at-home-with-team-liquigas-ivan-basso.html
Chiappucci won three stages and the mountain competition twice in the Tour de France in the early 1990s. Basso had the chance to follow him in the Carrera team car when he finished second at the 1994 Giro di Lombardia.

"He took me to the gym, training... It was a big deal, not every boy could do that."


http://www.wellsphere.com/biking-article/ivan-basso-picking-up-the-pieces/354011

A typically difficult training day for Basso might include a two-hour session in the gym followed by a 150-kilometre ride over two mountains.

 

[oldborn]

That's a great coincidence, because I was only addressing those for whom it would be relevant.

Hey thanks!

 

[oldborn]

You have no idea how Basso trains.

Just a sad person who needs to lie to win an argument on the Internet.

Welcome to my ignore file.

Fergie you are looking like a old boxer on ropes in 12 th round, just awaiting his coach to throw a towel

You are calling people again.

 

[Polyarmour]

http://www.wellsphere.com/biking-article/ivan-basso-picking-up-the-pieces/354011

A typically difficult training day for Basso might include a two-hour session in the gym followed by a 150-kilometre ride over two mountains.

You don't know what he was doing in the gym Oldborn. He might have been sitting on the Wattbike for two hours for all you know. Or may he was doing some light upper body work or yoga or spin cycle class or maybe there was a hot chick in the Zumba class?

I've been following this thread since the beginning and I believe you are baiting Coach Fergie. I'm not sure why? It's pretty clear there are different schools of thought on this issue and Coach Fergie has argued his position very well. You on the other hand have resorted to exaggerations and speculations in presenting yours. It's almost like you are not interested in the argument per se, you are just interested in disagreeing with him but you don't really have the ammo to back yourself up.

 

[CoachFergie]

You don't know what he was doing in the gym Oldborn. He might have been sitting on the Wattbike for two hours for all you know. Or may he was doing some light upper body work or yoga or spin cycle class or maybe there was a hot chick in the Zumba class?

Not my problem any more, in my ignore list.

Celebrity endorsement, appeals to authority, anecdotes, opinion, ad hominems, straw men and below the belt insults are not a way to support an argument. I will leave the Ivan Basso fan club to his own devices.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Uh, duh, obviously you use more motor units when you produce more force.
That's not an answer about how fiber types could be recruited differentially.

And how could you discriminate which fibers are being fired when using SRM?

You can't really, as Fergie noted.

What you can do however is infer it via an inspection of ride data using Quadrant Analysis of the average pedal forces and velocities for each second (or half second) of data.

Data points that appear between the PF-PV line indicating threshold power and towards the line of maximal PF-PV, will infer recruitment of faster twitch fibres, more so the closer each data point is to the Maximal PF-PV line.

See here for a bit on explaining Quadrant Analysis:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2009/01/quadrant-analysis.html

and this item on how one can determine the max PF-PV line:
http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/05/fatigability-and-bmx-performance-at.html

 

[marathon marke]

I've been following this thread since the beginning and I believe you are baiting Coach Fergie. I'm not sure why? It's pretty clear there are different schools of thought on this issue and Coach Fergie has argued his position very well. You on the other hand have resorted to exaggerations and speculations in presenting yours. It's almost like you are not interested in the argument per se, you are just interested in disagreeing with him but you don't really have the ammo to back yourself up.

This is pretty much the way I've seen the whole thread pan out myself. I'm surprized that Coach Fergie was as patient with oldborn as he was.

 

[BroDeal]

This is pretty much the way I've seen the whole thread pan out myself. I'm surprized that Coach Fergie was as patient with oldborn as he was.

I think this thread is hilarious. It demonstrates a well known Internet pattern, where a fool argues with people who are obvioiusly much more knowledgeable. Instead of realizing his position and shutting up like anyone with a brain would, the fool continues to dig the hole deeper and deeper.

 

[Rip:30]

You can't really, as Fergie noted.

What you can do however is infer it via an inspection of ride data using Quadrant Analysis of the average pedal forces and velocities for each second (or half second) of data.

Data points that appear between the PF-PV line indicating threshold power and towards the line of maximal PF-PV, will infer recruitment of faster twitch fibres, more so the closer each data point is to the Maximal PF-PV line.

See here for a bit on explaining Quadrant Analysis:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2009/01/quadrant-analysis.html

and this item on how one can determine the max PF-PV line:
http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/05/fatigability-and-bmx-performance-at.html

Not seeing how you can know which type of muscle fiber is being recruited from this? Maybe there are just more motor units firing for the higher force points. Of course I know that the larger fast twitch fibers and motor units, with more contractile proteins, produce more force. I also know that at large force outputs motor units with more fibers are recruited, while fine motor skills (less force) recruit smaller motor units initially. But still not seeing how the brain preferentially choses to fire motor units of a certain fiber type based on the type of effort? It certainly would be more efficient if it did.

 

[CoachFergie]

But still not seeing how the brain preferentially choses to fire motor units of a certain fiber type based on the type of effort? It certainly would be more efficient if it did.

From Hall 2007...

Neurons that innervate ST motor units have lower threshold so activate easier. Even if the movement is high force or high velocity the muscle contraction will start with the ST fibres and the harder to activate FT fibres will follow. This is why many athletes perform priming exercises as part of their warm up to activate the FT fibres.

During low intensity exercise the CNS may recruit exclusively ST fibres and as fatigue sets in will progress on to recruiting Type IIa and then Type IIb fibres.

FT fibres have a higher energy cost and fatigue faster so the aim of training for endurance riders is to train the ST fibres to avoid fatigue for as long as possible and to train the type IIa fibres to take on more oxidative characteristics than glycolytic.

From McArdle, Katch and Katch 2007

Higher force requirements progressively enlist more motor units. This exemplifies the size principle of orderly recruitment of fibres. If all motor units fired we would have no control of muscle force output.

As any pursuiter of time trialist knows there is a high cost for starting out too hard using up anaerobic energy supply which points to the benefit of training aerobic power and capacity.

All this points to the need to develop a strong aerobic engine. Noteworthy that in Coyle's case study on Lance Armstrong that he showed that the improvements were most likely related to greater efficiency in ST fibres due to many thousands of miles on the bike.

 

[oldborn]

Not my problem any more, in my ignore list.

Celebrity endorsement, appeals to authority, anecdotes, opinion, ad hominems, straw men and below the belt insults are not a way to support an argument. I will leave the Ivan Basso fan club to his own devices.

Well Fergie, your problem is accepting that there is another studies which shown there is relationship between strenght and endurance, not me. As far i read, you presents one studies and your explanations, i presented you at least three studies which tell us different way of training.

So please read it again, i think they are not; Celebrity endorsement, appeals to authority, anecdotes, opinion, ad hominems, straw men and below the belt insults. Insults on everyone who had another opinion is your speciality.

Links: http://redirectingat.com/?id=92X588377&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsci.org%2Fnews%2Ftraingain%2Fresistance.html%23marcinik&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.cyclingnews.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D7120%26page%3D28

http://redirectingat.com/?id=92X588377&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsci.org%2Fjour%2F05%2Fcdp.htm&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.cyclingnews.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D7120%26page%3D27

http://redirectingat.com/?id=92X588377&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fautobus.cyclingnews.com%2Ffitness%2F%3Fid%3Dstrengthstern&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.cyclingnews.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D7120%26page%3D26

Stay well!

 

[oldborn]

You don't know what he was doing in the gym Oldborn. He might have been sitting on the Wattbike for two hours for all you know. Or may he was doing some light upper body work or yoga or spin cycle class or maybe there was a hot chick in the Zumba class?

I've been following this thread since the beginning and I believe you are baiting Coach Fergie. I'm not sure why? It's pretty clear there are different schools of thought on this issue and Coach Fergie has argued his position very well. You on the other hand have resorted to exaggerations and speculations in presenting yours. It's almost like you are not interested in the argument per se, you are just interested in disagreeing with him but you don't really have the ammo to back yourself up.

Yes, there is different school, you should read it again please!

 

[Polyarmour]

Yes, there is different school, you should read it again please!

Yes I read it again.

Your 1st reference says gym work benefits non cyclists
Your 2nd reference is not a technical reference, it's a bit of professional back slapping.
Your 3rd reference is the rather embarrassing debacle of someone who doesn't understand the difference between strength and power????

So none of these references do a very good job of supporting your argument. I'd give you a big fail.

But since you're putting yourself up against real experts Oldborn, I'd like to know who you are? What are your qualifications? What is your experience in this area. Why should we listen to you? Who ARE you to even comment on this let alone be critical of other experts?