Strength training: cyclists and runners

[Tapeworm]

http://www.drmirkin.com/fitness/weight_training_cyclists.html


Anything we didn't know already?

 

[DirtyWorks]

leg training with weights does not help experienced and well trained, long distance cyclists to race faster

How big is that pool of riders though? The other 98% will probably get some benefit.

I'd argue two points having to do with the design test.

1. They use a maximal graded test along with sprinting test. The test is biased to very specified uses that can't be replicated in the gym. If they did a TT instead, the results might have been different.

2. Their test mentions doing a single max-weight rep. That is not cycling specific. Do the test over with about 20 squats to failure and I bet there are different results.

In my experience, weights get me through fitness plateaus like nothing else. That's me though. Every body is different.

 

[Tapeworm]

1. The fact they can't be replicated in the gym but are representative of real world cycling (30km plus a few sprints [or attacks?]) is telling of the effectiveness of resistance training. I think if they had done the TT the results would have been worse for the RT group.

2. The 1RM max was just a measure of effectiveness of training. The actual training protocol used is NOT discussed.

 

[cromagnon]

The confusion partly comes in using "strength" and "hypertrophy" as synonyms when they are not.

Eccentric muscle action (as found in traditional weight lifting) increases strength and muscle fibre size.

Concentric strength training does not lead to much increase in muscle size - but it DOES lead to increases in muscle strength.

The last thing a well-trained endurance athlete wants is their capillary density decreased by hypertrophy - unless they are below some strength threshold where they need to increase their muscle size before getting back to endurance training (e.g. lance post-chemo, yeah I know I know but still it's a good example).

 

[oldborn]

I respect those findings although there is another. http://www.hokksund-rehab.no/filarkiv/File/Forskningsartikler/Sunde_2009_MAXIMAL_STRENGTH_TRAINING_IMPROVES_CYCLING.pdf which show us a little bit different story.
Muscles generate strenght and power and IMHO strenght is part of cycling training.

Is that study suggest that i should quit weights and maybe beat 28th finisher in Geelong Worlds, Kvasina (12th in race) which results show us that i am only 4 minutes down (17th place) from Kvasina and therefore only 6 minutes down of Thor Hushvod.
http://www.dinamo.hr/rezultati%20klupske%20utrke.pdf

No, in fact i was dying aerobically and Kvasina was on his 65% max, therefore i will continue with weights.

No i will never surrender

 

[CoachFergie]

http://www.drmirkin.com/fitness/weight_training_cyclists.html


Anything we didn't know already?

Not really. I love how any JSCR paper that finds a negative result for resistance training goes on to make excuses why they found that result. Part of the bias inherent in a journal that makes the assumption that every athlete needs to perform auxiliary training. The journal is the dumping ground for studies that fail to make Med Sci Sports Exrc and J Sports Sci. And neither of those two journals come close to any of the Physiology journals in the quality stakes.

There is no aspect of preparation for a cycle race that is not done better on the bike. Whether it is the flying 200m on the track or a 21 day Tour de France.

 

[bc_hills]

leg training with weights does not help experienced and well trained, long distance cyclists to race faster

How big is that pool of riders though? The other 98% will probably get some benefit.

I'd argue two points having to do with the design test.

1. They use a maximal graded test along with sprinting test. The test is biased to very specified uses that can't be replicated in the gym. If they did a TT instead, the results might have been different.

2. Their test mentions doing a single max-weight rep. That is not cycling specific. Do the test over with about 20 squats to failure and I bet there are different results.

In my experience, weights get me through fitness plateaus like nothing else. That's me though. Every body is different.

+1 on this. My experience is the same. After a winter of hammering squats and leg presses in the gym I was able to kill some short output/high intensity techy mtb stuff that gave me problems previously. Strength is strength, and nothing will make you stronger more quickly than a well designed strength program.

 

[cromagnon]

I respect those findings although there is another. http://www.hokksund-rehab.no/filarkiv/File/Forskningsartikler/Sunde_2009_MAXIMAL_STRENGTH_TRAINING_IMPROVES_CYCLING.pdf which show us a little bit different story.
Muscles generate strenght and power and IMHO strenght is part of cycling training.

Is that study suggest that i should quit weights and maybe beat 28th finisher in Geelong Worlds, Kvasina (12th in race) which results show us that i am only 4 minutes down (17th place) from Kvasina and therefore only 6 minutes down of Thor Hushvod.
http://www.dinamo.hr/rezultati%20klupske%20utrke.pdf

No, in fact i was dying aerobically and Kvasina was on his 65% max, therefore i will continue with weights.

No i will never surrender

Maybe I'm stupid but I don't understand what you're saying in this post.

 

[oldborn]

Maybe I'm stupid but I don't understand what you're saying in this post.

Even I do not sometimes, even I
I am just saying that without weights i should be faster (what that study suggest) than 28th in Geelong Worlds last year D. Kvasina with whom i was racing and he beat me for 4 minutes, this is of course not true.

 

[usedtobefast]

upper body strength gained in any way can only help your running/cycling to a point. adding mass is not the goal. being comfortable for long miles is. the same as running. when the sprint comes,your entire body comes in to play.

 

[Boeing]

leg training with weights does not help experienced and well trained, long distance cyclists to race faster

How big is that pool of riders though? The other 98% will probably get some benefit.

I'd argue two points having to do with the design test.

1. They use a maximal graded test along with sprinting test. The test is biased to very specified uses that can't be replicated in the gym. If they did a TT instead, the results might have been different.

2. Their test mentions doing a single max-weight rep. That is not cycling specific. Do the test over with about 20 squats to failure and I bet there are different results.

In my experience, weights get me through fitness plateaus like nothing else. That's me though. Every body is different.

I agree with DW. works for me. I do max rep low weight 3-4 sets.

 

[CoachFergie]

Will see Ronnestad et al (2010)'s 8% increase in WattMax (power at VO2max) from 25 weeks of combined endurance and resistance training and raise with my 10% in 4 minute power increase from 2 weeks of training at and around my Max Aerobic Power.

BOOM!

 

[triman10]

Will see Ronnestad et al (2010)'s 8% increase in WattMax (power at VO2max) from 25 weeks of combined endurance and resistance training and raise with my 10% in 4 minute power increase from 2 weeks of training at and around my Max Aerobic Power.

BOOM!

G'day coachfergie,

Great improvement there in 2 weeks. How long did you continue with that sort of protocol before the improvements began to taper off....

What % of FTP is Max aerobic power, just trying to get my head around that term.

Paul

 

[CoachFergie]

Around 125% of FTP although some of the efforts were up to 175% of Max Aerobic Power.

Most of the research indicates 4 to 6 weeks is the most one can sustain such efforts.

 

[triman10]

Around 125% of FTP although some of the efforts were up to 175% of Max Aerobic Power.

Most of the research indicates 4 to 6 weeks is the most one can sustain such efforts.

Damn,

125% of FTP seems reasonable, but 175% is HUGE.....

I do a regular dose (every 10days or so) of 4 x 4min intervals at 125%, but what sort of intervals, in time, do you recommend for that 175% target?

Looking at Golden Cheetah the longest I can hold 175% is 1min and 15 seconds....LOL!

But, I am focusing on 20-40k TT events.

Paul

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Damn,

125% of FTP seems reasonable, but 175% is HUGE.....

I don't think Fergie quoting same thing there.

He is saying that MAP is typically 125% of FTP, but that he was doing interval efforts at ~ 175% of FTP. They are hurty efforts, more typically used for peaking or rapid fitness gains (not necessarily sustainable longer term). Fundamental condition requires much longer to gain.

Typically, FTP is ~ 72-77% of MAP.

Either way, one will get better cycle performance outcomes from hard work on the bike than in the gym.

 

[CoachFergie]

That is 175% of max aerobic power not ftp. Definately for peaking.

 

[oldborn]

Levi on gym, interesting words about core, trx, and I think swiss ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl9R2Zxjl2Y

 

[DirtyWorks]

....
They are hurty efforts, more typically used for peaking or rapid fitness gains (not necessarily sustainable longer term). Fundamental condition requires much longer to gain.

Either way, one will get better cycle performance outcomes from hard work on the bike than in the gym.

Those are a couple of assumptions to which I disagree...

"Rapid" fitness gains versus "slow fitness gains." I think the general idea here is peaking. Maybe I'm wrong? If it is peaking, this is out of the realm of 99% of all athletes but it's taken on almost dogmatic characteristics with little benefit to anyone.

My experience in the gym suggests that some cycling specific training is required, but more is not better.

My time constraints are very limited and I'm seeing steady increases in performance spending most of my time in the gym. The number of hours in the gym has not increased either! Of the time in a gym, a small amount of time on an exercise bike with varying resistance features. The majority of the time using weights and a swiss ball.

One anecdote is not science. I've been through a number of training scheme fashions at this point and see too much of it as a way to sell 'coaching' when the reality is what's being sold is the Hawthorne effect.

 

[oldborn]

DirtyWorks must agree.
Is it better just to sit in couch all winter (for average Joe in really cold places without inside velodrome) or doing gym workouts with some rollers and running?

I must say that I would pick not to sit in couch or coach?

 

[Tapeworm]

Levi on gym, interesting words about core, trx, and I think swiss ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl9R2Zxjl2Y

Excellent example of how athletes can improve in spite of their training and not because of it.

Swiss balls - best invention ever... for the inventor of Swiss balls.


And there is no core!

 

[CoachFergie]

Those are a couple of assumptions to which I disagree...

"Rapid" fitness gains versus "slow fitness gains." I think the general idea here is peaking. Maybe I'm wrong? If it is peaking, this is out of the realm of 99% of all athletes but it's taken on almost dogmatic characteristics with little benefit to anyone.

175% of MAP for me is 600 watts. Certainly not out of the realm to achieve this and I have the power data that suggests I have zero talent. I am focused on track at present and have a rider who has utilised such efforts to break the NZ U19 3000m record.

My experience in the gym suggests that some cycling specific training is required, but more is not better.

I will see your personal observation and raise you the improved power data from 1-6 years from a process of conditioning and very specific cycling programmes.

My time constraints are very limited and I'm seeing steady increases in performance spending most of my time in the gym. The number of hours in the gym has not increased either! Of the time in a gym, a small amount of time on an exercise bike with varying resistance features. The majority of the time using weights and a swiss ball.

How are you defining performance?

One anecdote is not science. I've been through a number of training scheme fashions at this point and see too much of it as a way to sell 'coaching' when the reality is what's being sold is the Hawthorne effect.

No secret in what gets measured gets improved. Just have to make sure you are specific in what you measure. People think that just because they improve their 4min power they will automatically improve a 4000m pursuit. If they improve their 4min power on a indoor velodrome at ~120rpm they will improve their pursuit performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

How are you defining performance?

My definition of performance is a 16 year old riding a 1:03.644 1000m time trial (new NZ record to go with his 3000m record last night) trial on cranks he has been told were 2.5mm too long, using fixed gear training, hard erg sessions and has never been to a gym in his life.

 

[blutto]

My definition of performance is a 16 year old riding a 1:03.644 1000m time trial (new NZ record to go with his 3000m record last night) trial on cranks he has been told were 2.5mm too long, using fixed gear training, hard erg sessions and has never been to a gym in his life.

...big congrats to the kid sounds like a monster in the making...and now if could find some proper equipment and a really smart coach the world could be his oyster...

Cheers

blutto

 

[oldborn]

My definition of performance is being coached by fargo.

P.S. Fargo stop sending me friend requests