Weight Training

[iZnoGouD]

Hey guys. I want to start to do some weight training because i think it can help me, since i'am a begginer and i also read that it is also good for the bones.
I have Joe Friel Training Bible, there are some exercises there but there isn't much, can you give me some good articles and websites with good exercises? that would be great.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Hey guys. I want to start to do some weight training because i think it can help me, since i'am a begginer and i also read that it is also good for the bones.
I have Joe Friel Training Bible, there are some exercises there but there isn't much, can you give me some good articles and websites with good exercises? that would be great.

First thing I can tell you as both a cyclist and certified fitness trainer, there is no substitute for miles and interval training. That is the absolute best way to improve your cycling, and make you faster. However, using weight training as a supplement to bike training, you can improve as a rider. The most important thing is to focus on the right aspects weight training. For example, getting in the gym and loading up a bench press won't do a darn thing for cycling, but focusing on increasing core strength and flexibility will. Just a few workouts I recommend are with flexibilty ropes, stability balls, medicine balls, and suspension trainers. I honestly wouldn't spend too much time with free weights (atleast not heavy weights), I would use my own body as resistance, this builds lean muscle and won't bulk you up like free weights. Any workout that engages your core or stabilizing muscles will help you in cycling. Look at Dave Zabriskie and Fabian Cancellara: excellent core strength and flexibility. If you want more power, you will have to hit some weights a little and do some squats and calf raises, but don't neglect your bike.

 

[JayKosta]

Cycling 'base training' should be your first concern.
Work-up your cycling endurance so a 30mile (50k) ride at a brisk pace is a good 'training ride' that can be done without it being a 'killer'.

From there, increase the distance and add hills.

Probably the muscles besides legs that will need strength training are your arms and back to support you for long hours riding. Basic push-ups, chin-ups and pull-up are good.

Be sure to drink plenty of water, and salt placement is needed on long hot rides.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Hey guys. I want to start to do some weight training because i think it can help me, since i'am a begginer and i also read that it is also good for the bones.

Jogging, running, skipping would be better for the bones than weight training.

Best training for improving cycling performance is cycling.

 

[brianf7]

If you are over 50 then a bit of weight training will be good but only light weighte . I use a ball behind my back and 2x 5 kg weights one in each hand
and do 25 - 30 squats as fast as you can so as to burn then recover and try again
Depending on how heavy you are you realy dont need weights if you are 80 kg it enough.

Keep back straight and dont go too far down untill your knees are level with toes

Just do heaps of riding if you can it better,

 

[fujisst]

Jogging, running, skipping would be better for the bones than weight training.

Best training for improving cycling performance is cycling.

case closed. close the thread.

 

[JayKosta]

iZnoGouD,

If you tell us a little about yourself, we can give some ideas that are more specific.

For example:
age, weight, general physical condition, routes that are available to you for riding, your cycling 'goals'.

There aren't any 'miracle weight exercises' that will greatly improve your cycling.
The weight exercises that are useful will be less fun and more work than regular riding.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
age: 62
weight: 165 lbs
condition: pretty good, with no chronic or acute problems
routes: usual training ride is a flat 30 mile loop, hills are available but I haven't ridden them much
goals: just basic conditioning, I don't race, and usually ride alone.

 

[mcmcgill]

The case on this is hardly closed, and in fact physiology scientists are getting better and better at quantifying the value of strength training for cyclists. The two studies below, as well as the review paper following, shed much light on the value of strength training, primarily in short-term maximal efforts (<15 min.), but also there appears to be some benefit to long-term maximal efforts.

http://bit.ly/nnzPjB (Sunde--note the time-to-exhaustion improvement)
http://bit.ly/pLjdha (Ronnestad--7+% more watts in the last 5 mins of a race)
http://bit.ly/ntuxiw (Aargaard review--read this one if you have time for just one)

I'd really like to see a study on how strength training effects the various maximal efforts in AIS's Power Profile test protocol (http://bit.ly/qFzFbd), but haven't seen one yet (albeit I haven't looked in a while).

Also, from a basic physiological point of view, surely strength training improves a rider's rate of force development (RFD) which is one of the most important factors in sprints and attack accelerations; and is likely a very important factor in say a 30 second to 2 minute effort (I'll bet for example, any of the top track sprinters, having a lot of strength, can outperform the top climbers, having a lot of "endurance", in a 2 min. time trial).

Heavy load strength training simply creates adaptations in skeletal muscle that are not achievable via efforts less than 60% 1RM (and even 60% is much higher than what is achieved at a cadence above 50 rpm).

The question is where is strength important in cycling, and what type of strength exercises should one do? Certainly, the answer is not "just ride your bike".

Last, don't get me wrong--the vast majority of cycling training should be done on a bike. Only traditional endurance work on the bike builds up the aerobic engine that is required to be competitive in a typical crit or road race.

P.S. I work in a science field and have access to the above docs, but since there are probably copyright issues, I'll be removing soon.

EDIT to answer OP: the best strength exercises for cycling are those that most closely mimic how muscles are used in the cycling motion (muscle action specificity): one-legged presses, weighted step-ups (onto a small platform), and traditional core work helps as well. No need to do much other upper body stuff.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The case on this is hardly closed, and in fact physiology scientists are getting better and better at quantifying the value of strength training for cyclists. The two studies below, as well as the review paper following, shed much light on the value of strength training, primarily in short-term maximal efforts (<15 min.), but also there appears to be some benefit to long-term maximal efforts.

It might help to also provide the various studies that find such training to be of no benefit or to detrimental to endurance cycling performance.

Not a lot of argument that such training can benefit a track sprinter (although even there the most important training is still done on the bike). There is only so much strength a sprinter needs, more is unnecessary and can slow you down. It's still all about power.

 

[Tapeworm]

Also, from a basic physiological point of view, surely strength training improves a rider's rate of force development (RFD) which is one of the most important factors in sprints and attack accelerations; and is likely a very important factor in say a 30 second to 2 minute effort (I'll bet for example, any of the top track sprinters, having a lot of strength, can outperform the top climbers, having a lot of "endurance", in a 2 min. time trial).

I'd take that wager. Compare kilo times for the pure sprinter types and those of the omnimum (who are very capable road riders usually). Not much between them and I know who'd I'd back in any effort greater than 1min 30sec.

Heavy load strength training simply creates adaptations in skeletal muscle that are not achievable via efforts less than 60% 1RM (and even 60% is much higher than what is achieved at a cadence above 50 rpm).

What adaptions are they and what are their benefit to endurance riders? Some even advocate track sprinters get all the adaptations they need on the bike.

 

[mcmcgill]

It might help to also provide the various studies that find such training to be of no benefit or to detrimental to endurance cycling performance.

That is generally considered the job the person rebutting, but in the Aagaard review, he does discuss some of the earlier studies that contradict his conclusions and does provide some reasoning that may account for the differences.

Can you provide other studies that are not covered in the Aagaard review? If not, can you rebut his conclusions of the contradictory studies?

Not a lot of argument that such training can benefit a track sprinter (although even there the most important training is still done on the bike). There is only so much strength a sprinter needs, more is unnecessary and can slow you down. It's still all about power.

I agree, and that is why I said most training is done on the bike (and I'll add for trackies and roadies).

But, it isn't really too much strength that is unnecessary, rather, I'd say that it is some of the possible side effects of strength that should be checked: hypertrophy and perhaps any negative effects on aerobic power or resistance to long-term fatigue need to be monitored/understood (albeit I don't think there is much evidence that strength training has a negative effect in these areas).

 

[mcmcgill]

I'd take that wager. Compare kilo times for the pure sprinter types and those of the omnimum (who are very capable road riders usually). Not much between them and I know who'd I'd back in any effort greater than 1min 30sec.

Well you can't really make a comparison that way...and my fault I suppose for comparing a track sprinter to a top climber. Instead we really have to compare riders that don't strength train to riders that do strength train. So, to rephrase, I'd wager that a top track sprinter (I think all of which do strength training), could outperform a top climber who doesn't strength train, in a 2-min TT. Not sure we could settle that without paying some prof to do a study, but my intuition says the trackie would win.

What adaptions are they and what are their benefit to endurance riders? Some even advocate track sprinters get all the adaptations they need on the bike.

Well, we know there are neuromuscular adaptations, including improved motor unit recruitment, better agonist/antagonist muscle control, improved rate coding, and improved autogenic inhibition. Again, you might see some of these improvements in acceleration exercises, but such exercises break well accepted strength training protocols due to the drop in required force above 50 rpms or so.

There is also evidence that strength training downconverts Type IIx fibers to Type IIa. Endurance training does this as well, but I honestly don't know if strength training can add to that or not. Of course, more Type IIa fibers means more aerobic capacity, so if strength training does give a few extra percent of IIa fibers, then the benefit is obvious.

Strength training also improves the strength, and perhaps the fatigue resistance, of connective tissue. I don't think this plays a huge role in cycling performance, but what if it gives a rider even a 1/2 percent improvement in the last 200m of a road race?

Last, strength training also increases bone mineral density. Not a performance issue, but an important health issue, and something like 1/3 of pro roadies have low BMD.

 

[Tapeworm]

Well as I mentioned, when "pure" aerobic riders are within 1-2 secs of a "pure" sprinter/kilo rider I think there is no contest.

I think Jim Martin and others have looked at the dis-inhibition of the golgi tendon organ in terms of improving performance and found no benefit to aerobic performance.

You mention the 50rpm. Standing starts not relevant? (Usually at well below 50rpm). IIRC Coggan recommends sprint drills at light-ish loads and maxing out RPM.

As Alex mentions power, and not strength, is the key for performance cycling. Is this solely due to the contractile forces of the various types of muscle fibers or the recruitment of existing muscle by improving neurological pathways and motor neurons and hence contractile speed? There are plenty of examples of people far stronger yet cannot produce the power. The pithy saying "don't pedal harder, pedal faster" has relevance.

 

[Tapeworm]

Oh and whilst weights may improve BMD as Alex said there are far better ways to do this.

 

[CoachFergie]

EDIT to answer OP: the best strength exercises for cycling are those that most closely mimic how muscles are used in the cycling motion (muscle action specificity): one-legged presses, weighted step-ups (onto a small platform), and traditional core work helps as well. No need to do much other upper body stuff.

Why mimic the exercise when it's easier to do the actual exercise and no matter what the event (200m TT or 21 day TdF) to create a level of overload?

 

[CoachFergie]

Well you can't really make a comparison that way...and my fault I suppose for comparing a track sprinter to a top climber. Instead we really have to compare riders that don't strength train to riders that do strength train. So, to rephrase, I'd wager that a top track sprinter (I think all of which do strength training),

There are many that don't but like homosexuality and atheism it's not the done thing to come out and say it. A lot of those top sprinters are steroid users and it pays to keep a lid on that sort of thing as well.

could outperform a top climber who doesn't strength train, in a 2-min TT. Not sure we could settle that without paying some prof to do a study, but my intuition says the trackie would win.

Up a 20% gradient climb?

Well, we know there are neuromuscular adaptations, including improved motor unit recruitment, better agonist/antagonist muscle control, improved rate coding, and improved autogenic inhibition. Again, you might see some of these improvements in acceleration exercises, but such exercises break well accepted strength training protocols due to the drop in required force above 50 rpms or so.

Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands.

All of those things are trained best on the bike.

There is also evidence that strength training downconverts Type IIx fibers to Type IIa. Endurance training does this as well, but I honestly don't know if strength training can add to that or not. Of course, more Type IIa fibers means more aerobic capacity, so if strength training does give a few extra percent of IIa fibers, then the benefit is obvious.

Having copies of how the EIS and AIS sprinters train in the gym I know it is unlikely that they would see any conversion from IIx to IIa. Possibly from circuit training but the training stimulus for cycling would be a far more appropriate method to train for endurance events.

Cyclists should train to win bike races (which incorporates psychology and biomechanics) not to downconvert fibres or win the battle of the squat rack.

Last, strength training also increases bone mineral density. Not a performance issue, but an important health issue, and something like 1/3 of pro roadies have low BMD.

I think that that number is higher but it hasn't decreased as more Pro's do weight training. Noted exercise physiologist Andy Coggan suffers from Osteopenia and weight training has not changed his condition and the research suggests that other forms of impact exercise produce far better results.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

That is generally considered the job the person rebutting,

I'm not rebutting, just saying if posting such study links it might be good to post a range of relevant studies, not just those that support one notion.

So to add to the list, the following used trained cyclists and investigated training with weights in isolation (vs. combined with high intensity intervals).

None of them found any improvement in endurance performance or in relevant physiological markers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17313261

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378917

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11820327

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826297

 

[CoachFergie]

Sunde found no improvements in any measures relevant to cycling performance.

Ronnestad's four papers on the same piece of research are confounded by the fact that the experimental group did more work than the control group that actually went backgrounds in terms of performance. Not really comparing apples with apples. The gains the experimental group made were marginal compared to the gains seen from studies that measure performance improvement from various interval training protocols.

Aagaard was just a review paper and his own bias for strength training is very apparent. I think both him and Ronnestad collaborated on a study involving runners where the strength trained experimental group showed no improvement over a control group.

It appears the review journal Sports Medicine is jumping on the strength and conditioning band wagon and has published some very woeful reviews on the subject drawing some conclusions that do not match the actual data or resorting to physiological gains when performance gains are not found. While physiological gains are interesting and if significant warrant publishing if they find no performance gains then they should only provide the motivation for further research.

 

[CoachFergie]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17313261

Don't you love the way any negative finding in JSCR has to skirt around the issue to support the myth that strength and conditioning work is an essential component of any athletes training.

 

[oldborn]

What is this Australian anti weight thread? mcmcgill you can not win this

Why swimmers do weights, fins, paddles?
Why rowers do weights, runing, cycling?
Why formula 1 driver run, swim, instead driving his car 24/7?
Why parachuters practice their figures on land, instead jumping 30 times, 24/7?
Why skaters run, weights, taking ballet lessons instead just skating?
Why hockey players run, do weights, play basketball?
Why even freakin jockey goes to gym, doing static strenght, instead just killing horses 24/7?
Why Tyson Dude went to gym, do runing?
Why waterpolo players do weight, swimm in t-shirts, play with heavier ball?


Some coaches call it cross training, training aids, or just free mind liberation
What is so wrong about load/overload muscles in similar range of movement?

Get over it Australians, it might helps.

Could you please post any sport which training is 100% done on it, without cross training, aids etc?

P.S. Even chess (is that sport?) players doing weights and runing

 

[mcmcgill]

None of them found any improvement in endurance performance or in relevant physiological markers.

Guys...don't have time or interest to debate or rebut points you make, but will quickly comment on the 4 studies below.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17313261

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378917

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11820327

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826297

Two of those studies (Jackson and Bishop) measured physiological parameters that apply ONLY to long-term endurance efforts (blood lactate profile, VO2max, etc.), with no relevance to short-term endurance performance (<15 min maximal efforts). I'm only saying with high confidence that strength training improves the short-term efforts. It may also help longer-term efforts, but more research needs to be done on that.

The other two studies (Bastiaans and Levin) were both discussed in the Aagaard review and the authors concluded that the relatively low loading in the RT (compared to a more typically prescribed heavy load routine), was likely responsible for the contradiction to the other findings.

So, for me, I'll side with Aagaard on this versus what a few others might say on a discussion board like this.

I certainly have no intention for changing any of your minds, but for the OP, think about this: there is virtually no scientific thinking that weight training will harm your cycling performance (unless, of course, you're training for upper body hypertrophy), so unless you're aiming for complete optimization of your cycling potential, it is scientifically certain for overall health that you engage in resistance training to maintain your early adult amount of muscle mass (do a search on the term "sarcopenia" with either "elderly" or "frailty" added in).

 

[CoachFergie]

Two of those studies (Jackson and Bishop) measured physiological parameters that apply ONLY to long-term endurance efforts (blood lactate profile, VO2max, etc.), with no relevance to short-term endurance performance (<15 min maximal efforts).

So you are saying that VO2max has no influence on efforts less than 15min. Curious.

I'm only saying with high confidence that strength training improves the short-term efforts. It may also help longer-term efforts, but more research needs to be done on that.

There is ample research that forms of on the bike training match and exceed any form of auxiliary training.

The other two studies (Bastiaans and Levin) were both discussed in the Aagaard review and the authors concluded that the relatively low loading in the RT (compared to a more typically prescribed heavy load routine), was likely responsible for the contradiction to the other findings.

Levin was sets of 3 x 6 and 3 x 5 reps at appropriate percentages of 1RM so yet again Aagaard's bias is showing.

I certainly have no intention for changing any of your minds, but for the OP, think about this: there is virtually no scientific thinking that weight training will harm your cycling performance (unless, of course, you're training for upper body hypertrophy), so unless you're aiming for complete optimization of your cycling potential, it is scientifically certain for overall health that you engage in resistance training to maintain your early adult amount of muscle mass (do a search on the term "sarcopenia" with either "elderly" or "frailty" added in).

Not what Levin found. It is time that could be spent riding faster and harder on the bike.

WRT Sarcopenia there is again a wealth of evidence that even endurance training can induce hypertrophy in type I fibres. I had a road cyclist go to track cycling and he put 5kg of lean mass on his thighs alone just from the change in intensity .

 

[mcmcgill]

So you are saying that VO2max has no influence on efforts less than 15min. Curious.

Interesting tactic, putting words in my mouth. I said strength training has an influence on short-term efforts...I didn't say that VO2 max doesn't, and of course it certainly does--just less and less of an impact as the efforts get briefer and briefer.

As for your other comments, no plans to debate you on this...I ain't changing your mind and you ain't changing mine, and I'll go with Aargaard on this, thank you.

WRT Sarcopenia there is again a wealth of evidence that even endurance training can induce hypertrophy in type I fibres. I had a road cyclist go to track cycling and he put 5kg of lean mass on his thighs alone just from the change in intensity .

Oh, except I'll comment on this one. Are you insane? Was I talking about cycling with my comment on this? No. I was talking about how muscle mass is lost as one ages (the definition of sarcopenia), and was suggesting to the OP that RT is good for other things than cycling.

Comments like that make reasonable debaters go nuts, you know. (Maybe you do know?)

 

[Tapeworm]

I think the point is that if training specific to the goals fulfils the need (ie: cycling) and also that of many of the benefits of resistance training, why do resistance training?

I understand that you won't change your mind but perhaps accept that there are some very, very qualified people who advocate that there is no necessity for resistance training to improve cycling performance (across the board of disciplines).

There are of course equally qualified people who do.

For me the qualifier is:- have any of the resistance training benefits been shown to be clearly superior to any of the sport specific ones? So far there are a couple of promising studies and the already referenced review (though a review is not a study) which indicate this. But as Alex has already posted there are a far greater number of studies which show no real benefit.


FWIW I do a lot of resistance training, I would really like it to help my FTP. I hope a study proves conclusively that it does, then my FTP will climb

 

[CoachFergie]

Interesting tactic, putting words in my mouth. I said strength training has an influence on short-term efforts...I didn't say that VO2 max doesn't, and of course it certainly does--just less and less of an impact as the efforts get briefer and briefer.

Well it appears you don't have a very good grasp of such concepts. Just saying.

As for your other comments, no plans to debate you on this...I ain't changing your mind and you ain't changing mine, and I'll go with Aargaard on this, thank you.

His is a biased view and his review paper is very heavily criticised.

Oh, except I'll comment on this one. Are you insane? Was I talking about cycling with my comment on this? No. I was talking about how muscle mass is lost as one ages (the definition of sarcopenia), and was suggesting to the OP that RT is good for other things than cycling.

If one does nothing they will lose muscle. I am saying if one cycles they will retain muscle and in cases actually develop it.