Weight Training

[ImmaculateKadence]

Is that the best you can do?

"Chris Hoy does weights so we should too"

Why so hostile?

Besides, he actually wasn't doing weights in those pictures. He was doing core work. He must be fantastic at sitting on a bouncy ball . Anyway, if a world champion and gold medalist finds time for core work, then.....

 

[Tapeworm]

IIRC that was for a print media fluff piece about "exercises you can do at home as used by our brilliant track team" or the like.

Newspaper health pieces bein the forefront of sport science literature...

Apart from anything if you squat as much as Sir Hoy then those exercise would be an utter waste of time for anything other than a warm up. You don't get a strong core by rolling on ball. Squat 160kgs however (or more) and watch what happens to core strength.

And Sir Hoy is also a track sprinter who have different demands to their events over any other cycling discipline.

 

[oldborn]

Not wrong, just a different approach to training.

I thinks that ultimately where the disagreement lies. Two totally different approaches to training. I advocate a more balanced overall approach; I'm assuming your training is more focused on lactate thresholds, Vo2 max, etc. Something I think absolutely important.

Besides, I don't think Chris Hoy would do this if it weren't beneficial:

Yes it is different approach, some likes weights some do not, that is all. And there is obsolute zero evidences that either approach are wrong, but anyway you can hear it from "i wanna be someone in world of cycling" Dude

Just saying

 

[undencem]

Well road and track cyclists have different approaches to WT . While roadies do WT in off season and during the first camp , track riders do WT everyday no less than 3 hours and in the afternoon 2 hrs riding . Of course these change in competition and prep periods but none of them stay away WT and core training of course

 

[elapid]

Why so hostile?

Besides, he actually wasn't doing weights in those pictures. He was doing core work. He must be fantastic at sitting on a bouncy ball . Anyway, if a world champion and gold medalist finds time for core work, then.....

CF is always hostile. You're wrong if you're not doing it his way or believing him. Look at his criticisms of Frank and you and anyone else on this thread. To paraphrase: Anecdotes are not worth a dime, studies are what matters; but don't believe the doctors and believe me because I have all the power data to prove what I am saying is correct (but they're really no better than anecdotes because I don't show these results and definitely never publish them). Oh yeah, also believe me because my riders are performing well. Who ever said anecdotal evidence was meaningless?!

 

[Tapeworm]

Well road and track cyclists have different approaches to WT . While roadies do WT in off season and during the first camp , track riders do WT everyday no less than 3 hours and in the afternoon 2 hrs riding . Of course these change in competition and prep periods but none of them stay away WT and core training of course

Not sure about other nations but the Aussie sprinters do not lift every day, volume varies depending on which phase of prep they are in and in total WT accounts for approximately 30% of total training volume. And none I know (which isn't many) do core exercises. Squating/dealifting over 2x your body weight takes care of "core" work.

 

[CoachFergie]

CF is always hostile. You're wrong if you're not doing it his way or believing him. Look at his criticisms of Frank and you and anyone else on this thread. To paraphrase: Anecdotes are not worth a dime, studies are what matters; but don't believe the doctors and believe me because I have all the power data to prove what I am saying is correct (but they're really no better than anecdotes because I don't show these results and definitely never publish them). Oh yeah, also believe me because my riders are performing well. Who ever said anecdotal evidence was meaningless?!

Wow, and you claim to be an academic yourself.

 

[elapid]

Wow, and you claim to be an academic yourself.

Hey, just calling it as I see it, and having been an academic has nothing to do with my response. Interesting how you respond with personal attacks rather than actually addressing and answering the criticisms of your arguments. You're no better than Frank, in fact you're probably worse in some respects. You dismiss anecdotal evidence, yet all you provide in defense of your arguments is anecdotal evidence, often with worse science than Frank. For example:

I have SRM data and performance data that indicate that strength is not relevant to sprint cycling.

and

Probably because they are doing too much like trying to combine big miles and high intensity interval training. I have SRM data to support that as well.

and

My riders are doing rather well. One won a major Pro Race in Canada and another won a criterium in Belgium.

Wow, I wonder why we aren't all swayed by your overwhelming anecdotal evidence and the weight of your scientific arguments? Duh!

 

[CoachFergie]

Hey, just calling it as I see it, and having been an academic has nothing to do with my response. Interesting how you respond with personal attacks rather than actually addressing and answering the criticisms of your arguments. You're no better than Frank, in fact you're probably worse in some respects. You dismiss anecdotal evidence, yet all you provide in defense of your arguments is anecdotal evidence, often with worse science than Frank. For example: and and Wow, I wonder why we aren't all swayed by your overwhelming anecdotal evidence and the weight of your scientific arguments? Duh!

Hmmmm some academic, cut and pasting some of my posts out of context.

At least I have data. That is the whole point of the crank length thread and any weight training thread; that no valid or reliable data has been presented.

Wish I had more time to cut and paste the drivel you post here. Some people have too much time on their hands. For those of us that have a life my suggestion based on the current evidence is to spend what time you have riding the bike to get better at riding the bike and don't sweat the small stuff like crank length, cross training and weight training.

 

[mastersracer]

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.

What you refer to as a confound isn't a confound since its explicitly the independent variable being manipulated (it's the same design as the paper report a null result you cite approvingly). There's nothing wrong with a E vs. E+S manipulation. You say the gain may be due to the increased workload - but that is exactly the hypothesis being tested. It is a separate issue whether another manipulation such as E + interval protocol results in similar gains.

As a scientist, I find the amount of dogma in exercise science deeply perplexing. Given the paucity of controlled experiments, the complexity of the systems involved, the largely unacknowledged role of genetic variance (Ahmetov et al., The combined impact of metabolic gene polymorphisms on elite endurance athlete status and related phenotypes), etc., and the largely unexplored 'space' of training regimes, it's puzzling why anyone would think there is enough understanding to dismiss any training mode.

The Aagaard paper you mention and a more recent one from his group are also not review papers. The gains are not marginal. They report an 8% mean power production increase in 45 minute TT performance over E alone alongside findings on muscle morphology and fiber-type composition, capillarization, maximal muscle strength and contractile rate of force development. They offer a plausible mechanism underlying the improved performance. The null result paper you cite is also plausibly explained by the short duration of that program in relatively untrained subjects vs. a longer training program in trained subjects.

Further, what does anyone know about the signaling pathways (beyond HSPs) that may be modulated by strength training involving alterations (such as HGH, testosterone, inflammatory response, AMPK). Seems like largely unexplored and premature to simply rule out an entire training modality.

 

[elapid]

Mastersracer - Coach Fergie does not know scientific literature. This has been proven conclusively on this and other threads, as you have done effectively as well. He uses the literature for his own purposes, ignores papers that report conflicting findings or dismisses them using poor arguments, and seemingly cannot interpret the literature either intellectually or critically. And when you call him on it, he resorts to the typical troll like behaviour of personal attacks rather than addressing the points being raised.

 

[CoachFergie]

Mastersracer - Coach Fergie does not know scientific literature. This has been proven conclusively on this and other threads, as you have done effectively as well. He uses the literature for his own purposes, ignores papers that report conflicting findings or dismisses them using poor arguments, and seemingly cannot interpret the literature either intellectually or critically. And when you call him on it, he resorts to the typical troll like behaviour of personal attacks rather than addressing the points being raised.

Your opinion has been duly noted. Rather amusing you resort to the same personal attacks you accuse me of.

Keen to know which papers on the subject of weight training I have glossed over?

 

[CoachFergie]

What you refer to as a confound isn't a confound since its explicitly the independent variable being manipulated (it's the same design as the paper report a null result you cite approvingly). There's nothing wrong with a E vs. E+S manipulation. You say the gain may be due to the increased workload - but that is exactly the hypothesis being tested. It is a separate issue whether another manipulation such as E + interval protocol results in similar gains.

The topic of the thread is weight training. The question is whether it is extra work improved performance or the weight training. You are correct about the separate issue of interval training where most of the research would indicate a larger increase in performance. Although this would depend on the level of athlete used in the study.

As a scientist, I find the amount of dogma in exercise science deeply perplexing. Given the paucity of controlled experiments, the complexity of the systems involved, the largely unacknowledged role of genetic variance (Ahmetov et al., The combined impact of metabolic gene polymorphisms on elite endurance athlete status and related phenotypes), etc., and the largely unexplored 'space' of training regimes, it's puzzling why anyone would think there is enough understanding to dismiss any training mode.

This is very true. The problem I have as a coach is not what to include in the programme but what to exclude. The options of on the bike and off the bike training are vast and the riders want to know why they are not doing various forms of intervals, LSD, weight training, cross training, plyometrics, one leg riding when they see others do it.

The Aagaard paper you mention and a more recent one from his group are also not review papers. The gains are not marginal. They report an 8% mean power production increase in 45 minute TT performance over E alone alongside findings on muscle morphology and fiber-type composition, capillarization, maximal muscle strength and contractile rate of force development. They offer a plausible mechanism underlying the improved performance. The null result paper you cite is also plausibly explained by the short duration of that program in relatively untrained subjects vs. a longer training program in trained subjects.

I was referring to a previous review paper by Aagaard.

His 2011 paper is interesting and the experimental group did the same amount of endurance training as the control group plus 40 sessions in the gym in a 16 week period. Was it the weight training or the extra work. Still many questions.

Further, what does anyone know about the signaling pathways (beyond HSPs) that may be modulated by strength training involving alterations (such as HGH, testosterone, inflammatory response, AMPK). Seems like largely unexplored and premature to simply rule out an entire training modality.

While the push into molecular biology is exciting I am looking at questions at the performance level with well trained and experienced cyclists. My take on the literature is that there is more bang for buck with specific interval training.

 

[mastersracer]

I don't disagree with any of that - no doubt there's both a large gap of basic science understanding on these issues as well as obstacles in translating this into coaching practice, and it seems perfectly reasonable for a coach to take a conservative approach to the literature. My own area of research is cognitive neuroscience (an area that has overturned most of the traditional dogmas about neural plasticity), and I've become interested in central-peripheral interactions in athletic performance, but already see the difficulties of conducting such research in terms of subjects, etc.

 

[CoachFergie]

I don't disagree with any of that - no doubt there's both a large gap of basic science understanding on these issues as well as obstacles in translating this into coaching practice, and it seems perfectly reasonable for a coach to take a conservative approach to the literature. My own area of research is cognitive neuroscience (an area that has overturned most of the traditional dogmas about neural plasticity), and I've become interested in central-peripheral interactions in athletic performance, but already see the difficulties of conducting such research in terms of subjects, etc.

I am trying to get my Master's research project cranking and finding enough subjects is a real mission. Looking at performance in Elite Sprinters but not that many floating around.

My flatmate is a Neuroscientist doing research on sleep apnea. I am a control in one of her studies and will be going in for a brain scan. Hope they find something

I am open minded about weight training but it would appear that the people pushing it the most are the strength and conditioning coaches who have a commercial interest. My commercial interest is in performance so my focus is on ANY method that improves the results for riders.

 

[blutto]

I am trying to get my Master's research project cranking and finding enough subjects is a real mission. Looking at performance in Elite Sprinters but not that many floating around.

My flatmate is a Neuroscientist doing research on sleep apnea. I am a control in one of her studies and will be going in for a brain scan. Hope they find something

I am open minded about weight training but it would appear that the people pushing it the most are the strength and conditioning coaches who have a commercial interest. My commercial interest is in performance so my focus is on ANY method that improves the results for riders.

"I am open minded..."....you have got to be joking....next thing you'll be telling us is that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east...dude, you are the gold standard for close minded pedantic bullies....an image which becomes even more repulsive when mixed in with a large dose of sanctimonious stalker whose obsession verges on scary...

...in fact, your behaviour almost warrants one of those science based peer reviewed studies that you are so enamoured with...and no, that study would not be in the field of exercise physiology....


Cheers

blutto

 

[elapid]

"I am open minded..."....you have got to be joking....

He he he. At least CF is good for a laugh occasionally!

 

[CoachFergie]

Some academic.

Just out of curiosity did you have anything to share about the topic of weight training.

Always keen to hear more personal anecdotes

 

[elapid]

Some academic.

Just out of curiosity did you have anything to share about the topic of weight training.

Always keen to hear more personal anecdotes

I'll leave the anecdotes for you ... you're better at them than me.

 

[CoachFergie]

I'll leave the anecdotes for you ... you're better at them than me.

Some academic.