Weight Training

[M Sport]

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

Get over it Australians, it might helps.

I read an interesting paper last year on the weights program the Australian road and track team do, so while there might be Australians that disagree with cyclists doing weights I think you will find those riders and their coaches at elite level have a slightly different view.

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?

I would be amazed if cycling as a sport that requires an element of strength, was the only one where a strength and weights conditioning program had no effect. It just defies all logic to say that only riding your bike will improve your performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

I read an interesting paper last year on the weights program the Australian road and track team do, so while there might be Australians that disagree with cyclists doing weights I think you will find those riders and their coaches at elite level have a slightly different view.

Amusing. It is at the elite level where the riders need and have the ability to perform higher volumes of specific work on the bike. I have seen their actual programmes and the programmes of the EIS and there is no physiological basis behind them.

I would be amazed if cycling as a sport that requires an element of strength, was the only one where a strength and weights conditioning program had no effect. It just defies all logic to say that only riding your bike will improve your performance.

What element of strength is that?

Cycling is the only sport where we can measure the actual stimulus and even in the match sprints it doesn't come close to the levels of strength seen in field events, weightlifting, gymnastics etc.

There are plenty of papers from other sports showing no performance improvements from including weight training.

If people want to lift weights go for it. For those who just want to ride the bike you are missing nothing by skipping the gym.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I read an interesting paper last year on the weights program the Australian road and track team do, so while there might be Australians that disagree with cyclists doing weights I think you will find those riders and their coaches at elite level have a slightly different view.

One current Australian world track cycling champion does not do any weights training. Like most anecdotes, of course it proves nothing.

I would be amazed if cycling as a sport that requires an element of strength, was the only one where a strength and weights conditioning program had no effect. It just defies all logic to say that only riding your bike will improve your performance.

Endurance cycling is not a strength sport. That's the point.

The forces involved are very low (for the most part an order of magnitude less than our strength).

 

[oldborn]

One current Australian world track cycling champion does not do any weights training. Like most anecdotes, of course it proves nothing.

Of course

Endurance cycling is not a strength sport. That's the point.

No it is not, but sometimes we need it. Do you ride hills?

The forces involved are very low (for the most part an order of magnitude less than our strength).

Who said that we should train every time with same forces or range of movement. Do not you think that we need some more forces.

P.S. Strenght is not max. force

 

[oldborn]

I read an interesting paper last year on the weights program the Australian road and track team do, so while there might be Australians that disagree with cyclists doing weights I think you will find those riders and their coaches at elite level have a slightly different view.

Of course that was a joke. Alex is fine coach and cyclist but involved in powermeter industrie and training so much that his opinion on this is at least power based. Tapeworm and i do not disagree that is all. Aussies

I would be amazed if cycling as a sport that requires an element of strength, was the only one where a strength and weights conditioning program had no effect. It just defies all logic to say that only riding your bike will improve your performance.

Of course such a sport do not exist, and cycling like any sport consists of cross training. Saying that cycling is endurance sport and there is no room for weight or strenght is IMHO wrong.
What is boxing or rowing then, strenght or endurance sport?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

No it is not, but sometimes we need it. Do you ride hills?

Yes. And I can sustain the same/similar power there as I do on the flat. The forces are still way sub-maximal.

Let's take a tour GC contender whacking out 6W/kg on a tour climb at 80rpm. I think it's reasonable to look at the best as a benchmark. The average effective pedal force applied by both legs by such a rider is still less than 30kg.

I have no problem pushing 30kg with my legs. What I have a big problem with is generating sufficient ATP to supply energy at the rate of 6W/kg for more than a couple of minutes. I have an aerobic metabolic limiter, not a strength/force limiter.

Who said that we should train every time with same forces or range of movement. Do not you think that we need some more forces.

I think we need more power. And that's an aerobic metabolic issue, not a strength problem.

P.S. Strenght is not max. force

Strength is exactly that. Maximal force generation capacity of a muscle/group of muscles. By definition it occurs at zero velocity.

 

[oldborn]

Yes. And I can sustain the same/similar power there as I do on the flat. The forces are still way sub-maximal.

Of course forces are submaximal, cos strenght is not max. force.

Let's take a tour GC contender whacking out 6W/kg on a tour climb at 80rpm. I think it's reasonable to look at the best as a benchmark. The average effective pedal force applied by both legs by such a rider is still less than 30kg.

So mine strenght program is also sometimes less then 30kg, so i am generating same force and sometimes more force. Repetitions are far more less, and some would say "what is weight might helps if we only do 100 reps, and we spin more then 10000 rpm". I am saying that reps has nothing to do with it.

Also this papers sugest http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2005/07000/Maximal_Leg_Strength_Training_Improves_Cycling.22.aspx and this http://www.hokksund-rehab.no/filarkiv/File/Forskningsartikler/Sunde_2009_MAXIMAL_STRENGTH_TRAINING_IMPROVES_CYCLING.pdf

that even maximal strenght (what is that if your definition of strenght is maximal force?) can improve cycling economy.
"Conclusion: Maximal leg-strength training improves cycling economy in previously untrained subjects. Increases in leg strength during the final 4 wk of training with unchanged LLM suggest that neural adaptations were present"

I have no problem pushing 30kg with my legs. What I have a big problem with is generating sufficient ATP to supply energy at the rate of 6W/kg for more than a couple of minutes. I have an aerobic metabolic limiter, not a strength/force limiter.

Weights can also help develop aerobic capacity, while making are legs stronger or more powerful.
Let me make you example which i know you are knowing very well.
Sometimes i do not have hills, so i am riding 53x12 (6x5 or so minutes) with maybe 45-55 rpm. Lungs and heart are superb (145 bpm) but i can not generating more force to the pedals to make them faster, even i have planty of air and feel pretty confortable.
So i need more force, aerobic are just fine, and please do not say that i am consumig CP, or i am low on carbo for sucha short workout.

I think we need more power. And that's an aerobic metabolic issue, not a strength problem..

Power is force

Strength is exactly that. Maximal force generation capacity of a muscle/group of muscles. By definition it occurs at zero velocity.

I do not agree.
Listen, there are papers which show us that weights can help, there are also some papers that show us that weights can not help. That is.
Those are two different methods of training, which one is wright? You or i can not say that, for me weights helps, for you do not.


Stay well!

 

[Tapeworm]

Just an ancedote. A lot of boxers, including Ali, never did weights, the trainers believe(d) that it makes people slow.

They do/did a lot of boxing, sparring, heavy bag work, plyometrics etc.

 

[oldborn]

Just an ancedote. A lot of boxers, including Ali, never did weights, the trainers believe(d) that it makes people slow.

They do/did a lot of boxing, sparring, heavy bag work, plyometrics etc.

That is correct. Yes they do, some of them, some do weights.

But increasing the size of the functional unit of muscle tissue will results in faster more powerful movements by some, without being slow or gain weight.

Once, i could not become bigger that 75 kg, and i was eating a lot and spending some time in gym, genetics and maximum muscle mass (which i did not train) was limiter.

Remember those boxers, runners sweating while running in those nylon jackets, atempting to lose weight, that was a myth
Some things have been changed, some not.

Stay well!

 

[CoachFergie]

Just an ancedote. A lot of boxers, including Ali, never did weights, the trainers believe(d) that it makes people slow.

They do/did a lot of boxing, sparring, heavy bag work, plyometrics etc.

Neither do a lot of top Gymnasts and many Runners and Rowers.

Like Supplements and other Training Gimmicks there is a dollar to be made from claiming performance benefits from a variety of products and services. Weight Training is a big one.

If I was in coaching for the money I would be on-selling many of these products and including gym sessions to derive more profit from clients. I do get a wee commission from products I do sell but when a Father of a 15 year old girl I coach asked if he should get her a power meter I responded "no" as she has far more things to learn about cycling and racing before she needs that precise a measure of riding.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Power is force

Until you realise how wrong this is, there is little point taking the discussion further.

 

[CoachFergie]

Can see why Oldborn and Boing are in my ignore list. It's not a level of wrong, it's a level of Epic Fail.

At least you can understand those with a financial interest and forgive their bias. Sort of.

 

[oldborn]

Until you realise how wrong this is, there is little point taking the discussion further.

Now you can see that objects/pedals are moving while the forces act on it, simple as that, add some velocity and you get power, what is so complicated by any means.

Do you know any machine where forces do not produce power?

Is there some new definition Down Under?

Some picture of Sir Hoy s legs, (my favorite legs) why he is doing weights and his forces on pedals are way submaximal of his weight training?

 

[oldborn]

Come on Chris, 160kg impressive



Oh yeah Tapeworm, there is a real world picture that proper weight training will not make you slow at all. Same thing with athletics sprinters not cyclist.
Does anyone think that Sir Hoy s legs are slow?

 

[Tapeworm]

Track sprinters and other ~10sec efforts CAN benefit from weights.

But lifting does not a sprinter make. There are many whom can easy lift more than Sir Hoy but not get close to the power on the bike and conversely those whom lift less (or do not lift at all?) but can produce power in the same ball park. Hence Alex's point about strength and it's relationship to power.


Oh and Sir Hoy rocks!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Do you know any machine where forces do not produce power?

Yes, plenty. A vice for instance can apply huge forces but do no work.

If you do no work then the rate of doing work (i.e. power) = zero.

Clench your teeth. Lots of force but no power.

Force and power are different things, unless you plan on redefining their meaning in physics.

Strength is maximal force generation capacity - unless you plan on redefining its meaning in physiology.

 

[oldborn]

Track sprinters and other ~10sec efforts CAN benefit from weights.

But lifting does not a sprinter make. There are many whom can easy lift more than Sir Hoy but not get close to the power on the bike and conversely those whom lift less (or do not lift at all?) but can produce power in the same ball park. Hence Alex's point about strength and it's relationship to power.

Oh and Sir Hoy rocks!

Sir Hoy is animal for sure But others who can lift more, do not ride bike, and i am agree that bike portion should be far more represented then weight program.
I can not agree with that 10 seconds duration definition by Gastin table, where 6% is aerobic and 94% is anerobic, while on 0-15 seconds duration is 12% vs 88%.

I can see your and Alex point very well. It is about concurent training; strenght vs aerobic, does one will kill another.

Some thoughts: Concurrent strength and aerobic conditioning can result in significant improvement of each quality, in fact, an increase in strength can translate into a significant improvement in aerobic performance, even though VO2max may remain unchanged.

It must also be said that no papers (as far i read) has reported deterioration in either strength or endurance as a result of concurrent training, and most have reported significant gains.

Of course IMHO it depends of time, frequency, and intensity of concurent training programs.

So is there another myth about "weights will make you slower, or marathon runners do not lift weights"? i do not know.

I think it is called strenght endurance and aerobic strenght. Cycling has something to do with aerobic strenght.

P.S. I must feed my cat.

 

[oldborn]

Yes, plenty. A vice for instance can apply huge forces but do no work.

If you do no work then the rate of doing work (i.e. power) = zero.

Clench your teeth. Lots of force but no power.

Force and power are different things, unless you plan on redefining their meaning in physics.

Strength is maximal force generation capacity - unless you plan on redefining its meaning in physiology.

One thing you should know, without force there is no power, whatever you are trying to say.

Strength refers to a muscle's ability to generate force against physical objects. In the fitness world, this typically refers to how much (not max)weight you can lift for different strength training exercises. Clear enough?

Alex, what is maximal strenght or maximal effort?

P.S. What is vice?

 

[oldborn]

Alex i know how much power and theory based on power training in cycling is important to you but let me say something.

You can not look at the power and say it is a work done or energy released in time frame, without mentioning other factors involved like forces.

Power is function of two factors, force applied on pedals and how fast we can turn those pedals, and as you know this, relationship is not linear.

We applied force on pedals, do not think you so?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

You can not look at the power and say it is a work done or energy released in time frame, without mentioning other factors involved like forces.

We applied force on pedals, do not think you so?

Of course we apply force, and we move the pedals. But we don't do either of these independently of the other.

Don't confuse the measurement of power with how we generate it.

Power is function of two factors, force applied on pedals and how fast we can turn those pedals, and as you know this, relationship is not linear.

Actually it is linear for the first 5 or 6 seconds of a maximal effort. After that, the linearity breaks down due to fatigue.

You can determine this from force-velocity testing using an SRM power meter (but not other common power meters).

An example of this linearity shown in figure 3 in this post:
http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/12/prediction-of-muscle-fiber-type-from_07.html

 

[oldborn]

Of course we apply force, and we move the pedals. But we don't do either of these independently of the other.
Don't confuse the measurement of power with how we generate it.

I am glad that you agree that force is factor which contribute something. I can say that force is also a measure of strenght, and strenght is force (maximal as you claim or not)

Why should i care much about measurement of power. Is power alone something that transform cycling. You are just happy with numbers/wats and this is just ok, but it is not something that i should be impressed
I am happy with my style of riding/training. There is other things involved in cycling, move on from power Dude.

Why do you think that invention of powermeter has been big step forward for cycling, and that cycling coaches are so advanced and more hapier than others? Just because they have numbers at diner time I can not see other sports suffering from lack of numbers.

Actually it is linear for the first 5 or 6 seconds of a maximal effort. After that, the linearity breaks down due to fatigue.
You can determine this from force-velocity testing using an SRM power meter (but not other common power meters).
An example of this linearity shown in figure 3 in this post:
http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/12/prediction-of-muscle-fiber-type-from_07.html

Thanks for that graph.
We can agree that relationship is curvilinear.
Power is close to zero either for very high values of force and very low values of velocity and vice versa.

So fatigue is limiter or aerobic engine is limiter? Or those two things are corelated? Hmmm
I can push even 54x11 at 45rpm, but not very fast (and speed is very funny) cos i do not have force/strenght, while fatigue is pretty low as we know that most economical (spending less O2) cadence is about 50-60 rpm in untrained mens.

Of course we do not ride that way, we must push at higher rpm.

Those things are simply not Von Braun rocket science, we still just push pedals down.
Let s back on weight, and myths about it.

P.S. Our ex Prime minister has been deported back in country, and my cat are sick.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

It's clear you are more interested in a wind up than discussing the physics and physiology of cycling.

I have more interesting things to do. I don't have a cat though, maybe I should get one. Will it make me a better coach?

 

[oldborn]

It's clear you are more interested in a wind up than discussing the physics and physiology of cycling.

Dude cycling is not Alex.
I respect your opinion on me very much. We are discussing about cycling, please respect other people thoughts or opinions on cycling rather calling it wind up.
As you only coach/Dude here so hard against weights and role of concurent training, maybe you should consider/take your thoughts as well.
Why should i reconsider mine thoughts, i am not coach that mine thoughts could hurts someone/client.

Just saying.

No hard feelings

I have more interesting things to do. I don't have a cat though, maybe I should get one. Will it make me a better coach?

I just do not know that Alex, just do not know. Same as you can t know that weights helps or not.
Good night!

P.S. Buy hairy one, it is not so aerodynamic but more stronger than hairless one

 

[CoachFergie]

Track sprinters and other ~10sec efforts CAN benefit from weights.

By what mechanism? Strength (as 99.999999% of people define it) is either increased by hypertrophy and there is a limit to how much extra muscle will benefit a sprinter. The other is improving the message from the CNS to the working muscle to contract. This necessitates very strict specificity.

But lifting does not a sprinter make. There are many whom can easy lift more than Sir Hoy but not get close to the power on the bike and conversely those whom lift less (or do not lift at all?) but can produce power in the same ball park.

Sir Hoy's maximal 500lb squat is 90lb shy of the 90-94kg weight category world record for women. Hoy has stated that while impressive his thunder thighs are not very aerodynamic and pointed to multiple world sprint champ Theo Bos who won Sprint, Keirin and Kilo titles through maintaining an incredible cadence.

There are riders vying for places in the NZ sprint squad who put out very high peak powers (over 2000 watts) but can sustain this power for long and more importantly can not sustain 80-90% of this peak for 200-500m in the actual racing.

Hence Alex's point about strength and it's relationship to power.

I think 99.9999999% of people get it.

Leading into my Master's thesis I will be helping a Phd student with her research on the NZ sprint team testing a new crank shaft based power meter and using an erg with a 20kg flywheel to see what these guys can crank out and comparing that with SRM data from racing and training.

From my collection of data from several sprinters in competition and training my thoughts are that even sprinting is not a strength sport.

 

[Tapeworm]

By what mechanism? Strength (as 99.999999% of people define it) is either increased by hypertrophy and there is a limit to how much extra muscle will benefit a sprinter. The other is improving the message from the CNS to the working muscle to contract. This necessitates very strict specificity.

Yep, that's why I say "CAN" as in has potential to but not necessarily in all cases. Probably applicable to those, like the seeming improvement for aerobic performance, occur mostly in untrained persons. There are also the possible benefit to things like "core strength" (a term I loathe) but these have been hard to quantify by any research and seem to spouted a lot by people selling big rubber balls.

Sir Hoy's maximal 500lb squat is 90lb shy of the 90-94kg weight category world record for women. Hoy has stated that while impressive his thunder thighs are not very aerodynamic and pointed to multiple world sprint champ Theo Bos who won Sprint, Keirin and Kilo titles through maintaining an incredible cadence.

And Bos had a leaner frame (at least from photos). Victoria Pendleton is another whom, compared to other sprinters, is very lean.

From my collection of data from several sprinters in competition and training my thoughts are that even sprinting is not a strength sport.

This is something I would be interested in seeing. I had, like many, thought that weight training was essential for all things sprinting.

Though, as I alluded to above, it would seem that whilst there could be an application for it at times (start of season maybe?) it can be done without. Or is that "should be done without"??

However I know your stance on it Fergie which I know is not gained merely by tradition, so I have, to the best my ability, tried to look further into this.

Part of my research into boxing training as I mentioned in previous posts showed that very sport specific power is developed without touching a barbell.

Which is a pity cuz I like squatting and deadlifting