Leg strength

[stephens]

Are you familiar with the studies cited in this summary?

http://www.d.umn.edu/~nacsm/meeting...ations/Resistance_Training_endurance_Haff.pdf

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes and they add little weight to your argument. Most done on untrained subjects, poorly controlled, low subject numbers, conclusions not matching the results. Andy Coggan, Ric Stern, Alex Simmons and many others including myself have been through these papers in depth. Most of the gains (if there were any) are trivial compared to the gains one sees from performing specific interval training.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Anecdotes aren't evidence.

That applies to all side of the debate.

Do you have even a theory as to how lifting weights can make someone slower?

Weight training has the potential to:
- Increase body mass without a commensurate increase is sustainable aerobic power
- reduce mitochodral density
- reduce capillary density
- increase the cellular diffusion distance for the exchange of gases and key metabolites
all of which lead to reduced capability for production of aerobic power.

Maybe they screwed up somewhere else in their training plan. Clearly athletes need to maintain their endurance training while adding weights to that. It's not a substitute, it's an additional methods athletes can use.

Doing weights when one would be far better off recovering from hard training on the bike doesn't sounds very smart to me.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I definately know that in an untrained individual, supplementing the main exercise they are in will be aided by weight lifting.

Almost any training will help an untrained individual.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

You are trying to compare one guy to the next, whereas my post just mentions the change that will take place in an individual himself if he increases his own strength (while maintaining his fitness).

Strength and sustainable aerobic power are unrelated.

 

[stephens]

Strength and sustainable aerobic power are unrelated.

Given two otherwise identical subjects, the one who is stronger will be riding at a lower heart rate for any given speed and be able to sustain that effort longer (because a lower percentage of his energy is necessary to do so). Do you have an explanation why this wouldn't be true or are you going to assume we'll believe you because we like the sound of your name?

Weight training has the potential to:
- Increase body mass without a commensurate increase is sustainable aerobic power

Sorry, but there is only one way a human can increase his body mass: through his mouth. And it's pretty damn hard to overeat while engaging in endurance training. (though i'm sure there are some food addicts who can do so).

The rest of the things you mentioned may or may not be true depending on the type of weight lifting program.

 

[CoachFergie]

Given two otherwise identical subjects, the one who is stronger will be riding at a lower heart rate for any given speed and be able to sustain that effort longer (because a lower percentage of his energy is necessary to do so). Do you have an explanation why this wouldn't be true or are you going to assume we'll believe you because we like the sound of your name?

Get over yourself mate. Straw man arguments are not going to get you anywhere. What does lower heart rate have to do with winner bikes races. Bikes races are not won by the person with the highest or lowest heart rate. Bike races are won by the person who produces more power then the next guy. Strength has 5/8ths of f**k all to do with this.

Sorry, but there is only one way a human can increase his body mass: through his mouth. And it's pretty damn hard to overeat while engaging in endurance training. (though i'm sure there are some food addicts who can do so).

Jan Ullrich, Greg LeMond, the list is endless of guys who struggled at times because they were pretty lax with their diet.

 

[stephens]

Get over yourself mate. Straw man arguments are not going to get you anywhere. What does lower heart rate have to do with winner bikes races. Bikes races are not won by the person with the highest or lowest heart rate. Bike races are won by the person who produces more power then the next guy. Strength has 5/8ths of f**k all to do with this.

Sorry for trying to make a logical connection between things. Let me see if I can just post in your approved style instead: "Those last two sentences are possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read about the sport of cycling. And they're just wrong because I say they are and no I'm not going to give you any
scientific reasoning why."

How'd I do?

 

[CoachFergie]

Sorry for trying to make a logical connection between things. Let me see if I can just post in your approved style instead: "Those last two sentences are possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read about the sport of cycling. And they're just wrong because I say they are and no I'm not going to give you any
scientific reasoning why."

How'd I do?

Pathetic, a lower heart rate response to exercise has little to do with performance. Cycling is about producing more power than the guy you are trying to beat. If it was about being stronger I would be a better rider than Chris Boardman seeing my peak power is over 400 watts higher and from all accounts in the gym I am 10 x stronger. Sadly this is not the case and while he can sustain 429 watts for 60mins I can hold that for about 90sec. These are not anecdotes as they are valid and reliable measures.

 

[stephens]

Sadly you're not getting that we're not talking about you vs. Boardman. We're talking about Boardman vs. a Boardman of the same aerobic fitness but stronger leg muscles, and how this second Boardman could sustain a higher power output for 60minutes compared to his earlier self because that output would be a lower percentage of his max possible power.

Now if you want to argue that Boardman could not become stronger while maintaining the same aerobic fitness, then go ahead. But don't just say so: provide some sort of evidence, some studies by experts...or at least some sort of logical explanation.

I can lift 50 lbs. X number of times with one arm. But if I (roughly) double my strength by using both arms, I can do it many more times right? Same goes for pushing a pedal round and round with one's legs. The easier it is, the longer one can do it.

Answer this one: would you find a lighter or heavier bike faster in most conditions? Why?

 

[CoachFergie]

Sadly you're not getting that we're not talking about you vs. Boardman. We're talking about Boardman vs. a Boardman of the same aerobic fitness but stronger leg muscles, and how this second Boardman could sustain a higher power output for 60minutes compared to his earlier self because that output would be a lower percentage of his max possible power.

Seeing that lactate threshold is a better determinant of aerobic performance than max power let alone strength in the gym I would say the burden is on you to show how greater strength benefits aerobic performance. That pdf you posted failed to do this. The majority of studies on interval training point to a far greater impact on performance than the trivial benefits (if any) from weight training.

Now if you want to argue that Boardman could not become stronger while maintaining the same aerobic fitness, then go ahead. But don't just say so: provide some sort of evidence, some studies by experts...or at least some sort of logical explanation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17901124

The three main contributors to aerobic performance are VO2max, the lactate threshold and efficiency.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567923

This is where in Boardman vs. Boardman the "stronger" Boardman would find his strength to no advantage and even a disadvantage because the main contributor to a slow performance is starting too fast. You may recall in Boardman's WR ride in 1996 that he was down on his Italian opponent in the final before maintaining his pace to the current 4000m World Record.

I can lift 50 lbs. X number of times with one arm. But if I (roughly) double my strength by using both arms, I can do it many more times right? Same goes for pushing a pedal round and round with one's legs. The easier it is, the longer one can do it.

All you are doing is doubling up on muscle. Even sprinters are reluctant to build too much muscle that must be accelerated or create a larger frontal surface area.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I can lift 50 lbs. X number of times with one arm. But if I (roughly) double my strength by using both arms, I can do it many more times right? Same goes for pushing a pedal round and round with one's legs. The easier it is, the longer one can do it.

Your analogy is flawed for three reasons.

Firstly it makes no mention of power output, which is the rate of doing work. No point being able to move the mass more times if you are also slow in doing so. It is entirely possible that one might become stronger but less powerful.

But more importantly, in endurance cycling we are talking about forces that are nearly an order of magnitude less than our strength. Improving strength (enhanced maximal force generation ability) does not enhance endurance (ability to sustain significantly sub-maximal forces for long periods). Well it might if you are untrained, frail etc but we are not talking about untrained cyclists here. It's such a well established physiological principle that I'm not sure what I'm arguing about.

Strength (max force ability) can only be expressed at zero (or very low) velocity. On a bike, with the exception of a standing start, this isn't ever the case and it is this very reason that if one wants to examine the role of strength in cycling, you must also examine the velocity of the movements as well (and joint angles too).

Our maximal-force - maximal-velocity curve happens to be pretty linear for cyclists, and it is an inverse relationship. You can draw a straight line between the max force applicable (at zero pedal speed) and the max speed/cadence possible (which occurs at zero force), and that will mark the upper end of power output for very short durations.

We rarely, if ever, hit that level (requires full all out sprint effort lasting only a handful of seconds) - and pushing that curve out still doesn't help us in an endurance sense, mainly because the metabolic demands at such high power levels are met via very short term anaerobic processes, whereas enhancing our endurance cycling performance is all about our aerobic metabolic abilities. "It's an aerobic sport, dammit!" - A. Coggan

Training to lift one does not influence to any great extent the other, indeed it can can a detrimental impact.

Thirdly, increased strength does not also mean an increase in muscle contraction speed. Strength and speed are also poorly correlated (as is strength and endurance). If we can't actually apply the forces at speed, then we are no more more powerful, despite having greater strength. Indeed it is physically impossible to apply maximal force when pedaling because of the speeds involved.

This is why even the very top elite track sprinters and BMX riders don't need to be concerned with increasing strength beyond a certain point, because they simply cannot apply the forces fast enough when there is only maybe 100 milliseconds available to apply what force they can for each leg. What matters for them in explosiveness, speed at which they can fire their muscles, and speed endurance, and that's still all about sub maximal forces generated very rapidly.


If you don't get it, that's OK, I suggest perhaps reading up on it a little more. Here a really good place to start:
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/textbook-of-work-physiology-4th-edition

The chapter on Physical Training is an excellent place to start.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

I can lift 50 lbs. X number of times with one arm. But if I (roughly) double my strength by using both arms, I can do it many more times right? Same goes for pushing a pedal round and round with one's legs. The easier it is, the longer one can do it.

OK, answer this:

Pantani could ride up mountains at >90% of VO2max, for over 30 minutes, and be in a state of hypoxia at the top. So, if he doubled his strength, would he be faster?

If so, where does the extra energy come from? Clearly not much extra can come from aerobic sources as he's using all that his body can provide over a 30 minute period (hence the hypoxia).

If not, then time spent in the gym would be wasted wouldn't it? It's not going to make him faster, but if he adds muscle mass (or spends too much time in the gym, and therefore less on his bike) then he'll actually be slower up hills.

Even if you try to pretend that he'd be able to extend his time to exhaustion, by lifting weights, (though this is wrong too) there isn't much point is there? (Considering that he gets to the top pretty-much as fast as his cardiovascular system allows anyway.)

 

[stephens]

Alex's post was very excellent and informative. Thanks.

But as for "ihavenolimbs", run your experiment backwards and tell us what results you get. I.e. Pantani gets weaker and weaker, until the point where he has, say 10% of the strength he had when you timed him: do you think he'd still be able to climb the mountain in the same time? If not, then you have to ask yourself why the gains you are willing to allow him in going from 10% of his strength to 100% of his strength could not continue if he had 110% of his strength.

(Let's ignore additional mass as plenty of cyclists could add more strength without changing their weight or impacting their aerodynamics.)

 

[CoachFergie]

(Let's ignore additional mass as plenty of cyclists could add more strength without changing their weight or impacting their aerodynamics.)

But it would be a wasted effort as the strength demands of cycling are minimal.

 

[stephens]

But it would be a wasted effort as the strength demands of cycling are minimal.

Minimal or not, the stronger individual will always be using a lower percentage of his available strength to complete the task than the weaker individual. He will be taxing his system less to accomplish the same task than the weaker individual and thus will not be as fatigued at the same speed or distance. He will be riding at like 75% of his max power, while the weaker guy must ride at 95% of his max: who wins?

 

[CoachFergie]

Minimal or not, the stronger individual will always be using a lower percentage of his available strength to complete the task than the weaker individual. He will be taxing his system less to accomplish the same task than the weaker individual and thus will not be as fatigued at the same speed or distance.

So you keep saying but you can't show that strength training leads to an increase in performance. You can't show a stronger cyclist (peak strength in the gym or peak power) holding aerobic capacity constant is the better rider. It may sound right in your head but the evidence is not there to support it.

 

[stephens]

So you keep saying but you can't show that strength training leads to an increase in performance. You can't show a stronger cyclist (peak strength in the gym or peak power) holding aerobic capacity constant is the better rider. It may sound right in your head but the evidence is not there to support it.

There are lots of studies that show it, and i linked to a document that cites many of them, but you guys chose to just dismiss them and quote anecdotes about australian cyclists instead.

BTW, riding a bike uphill is for all intents and purposes, strength training. But many believe that one can accomplish the same gains in the gym more easily.

 

[CoachFergie]

There are lots of studies that show it, and i linked to a document that cites many of them, but you guys chose to just dismiss them and quote anecdotes about australian cyclists instead.

BTW, riding a bike uphill is for all intense and purposes, strength training. But many believe that one can accomplish the same gains in the gym more easily.

Ha ha that article was a joke. Is that the best you can come up with.

When are you going to learn that when data is presented that it is not an anecdote. The Aussies achieved high peak power, peak speed and peak strength yet were dealt to by the British who clearly had a better idea of the demands of Sprint Cycling. This is all pretty well documented.

Peak strength doesn't differentiate between sprinters so how do you expect it to differentiate between endurance cyclists?

 

[stephens]

It is totally possible that the brits won, despite being weaker, because they were more advanced in other ways. But if they were stronger, maybe they'd have won by an even greater margin. This example of yours has no "control", nothing to indicate that all other things were the same between the two groups. That's why before and after studies of an individuals performance are much better evidence of what works than the comparisons between individuals that you like to bring up.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

But as for "ihavenolimbs", run your experiment backwards and tell us what results you get. I.e. Pantani gets weaker and weaker, until the point where he has, say 10% of the strength he had when you timed him: do you think he'd still be able to climb the mountain in the same time? If not, then you have to ask yourself why the gains you are willing to allow him in going from 10% of his strength to 100% of his strength could not continue if he had 110% of his strength.

Now instead of doubling/halving strength, like your earlier example, you have reduced strength to an extremely low 10% to try to make a point. Is that because you don't believe your own foolishness? You remember that your original point was that increasing strength is somehow beneficial, right? Now you are trying to pretend that reducing strength to below a level required by a sport is somehow backing up your point. Or are you just trolling?

If Pantani needed to push on the pedals with 170 N of force, and he's only capable of 150 N, then he will obviously be force-limited (though he could use a lower gear too, and spin faster). In this case, if he were to go from 150 N -> 200 N, this would make a lot of difference. But if he went from 1500 N -> 2000 N of maximum pedal-force then why would this make a difference?

Additionally, your own example shows why you are wrong. If there were a Pantani almost-clone that had only 90% of non-clone's strength, he'd likely be the same speed up a hill wouldn't he? (Because he is clearly aerobic-power limited, indicated by the hypoxia.)

And if, for example, clonish-Pantani boosted his blood's O2 carrying ability, but was still at 90% strength, he'd be faster than the non-clone with normal blood, wouldn't he?

And if you want actual research, go have a look on PubMed. Most studies show results somewhere around a loss of cycling power to no change, when weight-training is added to cyclists' training programs.

I'd also suggest that you should enrol in a basic physics course. Then you might understand why some cyclists buy power meters, not strength meters.

 

[Tapeworm]

It is totally possible that the brits won, despite being weaker, because they were more advanced in other ways. But if they were stronger, maybe they'd have won by an even greater margin. This example of yours has no "control", nothing to indicate that all other things were the same between the two groups. That's why before and after studies of an individuals performance are much better evidence of what works than the comparisons between individuals that you like to bring up.

By your own argument, this is why all the studies to date that have shown a correlation between weight training and improvements in aerobic performance are not valid or clearly incorrect, because control subjects where either not used or the parameters of the study too loose to draw definitive conclusions. Even the presentation which advocated the use of weight training still stipulated that it MAY improve, not definitive.

 

[CoachFergie]

It is totally possible that the brits won, despite being weaker, because they were more advanced in other ways. But if they were stronger, maybe they'd have won by an even greater margin. This example of yours has no "control", nothing to indicate that all other things were the same between the two groups. That's why before and after studies of an individuals performance are much better evidence of what works than the comparisons between individuals that you like to bring up.

Well duh, and where are these studies showing that strength training improve cycling performance? Hint, not in that pdf you posted

 

[oldborn]

Hi there!

Lot of procyclist and it is not rocket science do gym strenght training in december, january and during winter times, lot of reps with small weight per example up to 100 reps (20% of max weight) and 20-30 reps (70% max weight) but this is personal, they also do core and other strenght training.

For me it is good stuff i did kettlebell training (12kg) lot of reps, and squats up to 100 reps, it is great coz i can not ride in december or january unless i am drunk, and after that i just transform leg strenght on rolers (40-60 RPM) for 45 or so minutes.
Also it is great to work on specific strenght training on rolers. Yes you can gain mucles mass and it is hurt, but it will not kill you. There is a women trainer in BBox French pro team and she said but this is extereme that running during season and between races will be good too! I don t agree, maybe during base period when you do a lot 80-90% aerobic level 1-2 training, to do step running, gym strenght, nordic cross ski, speed skate etc.

So without good base period and long aerobic and treshold rides it is not very clever to do leg strenght training wright away and wait for miracles.
P.S. Nothing can replace trashold flat- uphill training, and hill strenght training.
Stay well!

 

[2beeDammed]

i think the difference between power and torque may be more relevant to weight training. Correct me if I'm wrong but as i understand it torque gets you rolling and power keeps you rolling. If that's the case isn't it possible that weights may help increase torque output but have little impact on power?