Weight training

13

Comments

  • Toks
    Toks Posts: 1,143
    Johnpsanderson wrote:
    big gear reps don't make you stronger.
    But isn't it giving the same effect as weight training? And doesn't weight training make you stronger?
    Come on now think this through! If you wanted to get stronger hypertrophy (increase in muscle size) needs to occur. From my limited gym days if I remember that 2/3 sets of 4-8 reps on the leg press helps to build good leg strength. A max of 24 reps per session

    Now if you found a 3 minute, ten 10% hill and purposely rode in a gear that gave you a low cadence of 45 rpm that would be total of 135reps. In gym terms that would be a pretty ineffective work out to gain strength. However done quite regularly it may well nudge up your VO2max and possibly lactate threshold - consequently in bike slang you'd be "stronger". IOW able to ride a bit faster in endurance events.

    But in true 'strength' terms - maximum forced excerted by a set of musles" your gains would be negligible. Speaking anecdotally six years ago (pre serious cycling) I could not have ridden up a ten percent hill on a mountain bike even though I was a regular gym rat. A few weeks ago I rode up our local 10% hill on my 11 year old son's bmx just for a laugh. Cardiovascular speaking I'm obviously much fitter, am i stronger than my gym days? - no way!
  • BlackHelmet
    BlackHelmet Posts: 113
    Matchstick Man wrote:
    BlackHelmet wrote:
    [That's true. But studies have shown that strength training improves running economy. Improved economy at the same lactate threshold translates to running faster. Though I'm guessing such 'economy' gains aren't a factor in cycling.

    so in one quote you say that tempo runs are at the heart of the training of the most successful runners in recent history and then you say that strength training improves running economy.
    I'm struggling a bit here to find out which you believe in more - weight training to bring about an increase in VO2 or tempo training to bring about an increase in VO2?

    Erm, as I understand it, weight training can improve economy whilst tempo running can increase VO2. The two aren't mutually exclusive and either or both could help make me a faster runner.

    Do you believe I've claimed that weight training can increase VO2? If so, can you please let me know where?
  • BlackHelmet
    BlackHelmet Posts: 113
    Matchstick Man wrote:
    mmm, maybe not the greatest link to prove your point?

    Please see my previous post. I think you're getting confused...
  • Matchstick Man
    Matchstick Man Posts: 565
    BlackHelmet wrote:
    Erm, as I understand it, weight training can improve economy whilst tempo running can increase VO2. The two aren't mutually exclusive and either or both could help make me a faster runner.
    Economy is measured during the aerobic endurance test on the treadmill and is expressed simply as the volume of oxygen (VO2), relative to your body weight (ml/kg/min), that your body requires in order to run at a submaximal speed

    from http://www.eis2win.co.uk/gen/news_runningeconomy.aspx

    seems that VO2 and running economy are closely linked to me. So if weight training doesn't improve VO2, which your studies proved, how can it improve running economy?
    Tempo running does increase VO2, which would directly improve the running economy of an athlete.

    This, I wager, would hold the same for cycling wouldn't it?
  • Matchstick Man
    Matchstick Man Posts: 565
    BlackHelmet wrote:
    Do you believe I've claimed that weight training can increase VO2? If so, can you please let me know where?

    You're quite correct here, you haven't claimed weight training can increase VO2 at all. You've supported the theory that weight training will make you stronger and will improve your economy.
    However, from one of your sources http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0253.htm
    there is this at the bottom of the research:
    In a separate, often-mentioned study, E. J. Marcinik and colleagues at the University of Maryland asked 10 males to participate in strength training for 12 weeks, while eight males served as a control group, taking part in no resistance training at all. The strength-trained group improved their endurance while riding on an exercise bicycle by 33 per cent and also boosted their cycling lactate thresholds by an average of 12 per cent, while the control group made no gains at all. This study is often cited as providing 'proof ' that strength training can enhance lactate threshold in experienced athletes, but in fact it does nothing of the kind, because all of the subjects were previously untrained. This means that any form of activity might have lifted threshold -- and that there's no real evidence that a real-live athlete would get a lactate-threshold uptick from strength training. In fact, in the New Hampshire research, although resistance training had a strong effect on economy, it had no impact on lactate threshold at all
    So what's the bottom line? Many runners just run when they train, avoiding resistance training like the plague. The most current research indicates that this is a bad idea, because strength training can ameliorate economy and trim time from race efforts. However, it's important to bear in mind that the runners who will benefit the most from strength training are the ones who haven't carried it out systematically in the past. Individuals who have been conducting strength training for at least a few months are likely to achieve smaller gains.

    so the conclusions they reach are that for the majority of people who read this board (well trained aerobic athletes), weight training will have no impact on lactate threshold which is the main point isn't it? LT is what we should be looking at increasing, whether you're a clubman doing 10 mile TT's, a roadie looking at creating a gap or working hard in a break, or a sportif rider looking at climbing up mountains quicker
  • BlackHelmet
    BlackHelmet Posts: 113
    Matchstick Man wrote:
    ...weight training will have no impact on lactate threshold which is the main point isn't it? LT is what we should be looking at increasing...

    Yes, but not exclusively. I would think as your training increases LT the law of diminishing returns will apply and as we all have limited time available, we shouldn't discount other aspects of improvement like economy. Personally, I like to remain open to new and/or different approaches to maximise the training time I have whilst not forgetting longevity, variety and enjoyment.
  • Ric_Stern/RST
    Ric_Stern/RST Posts: 267
    i can't recall if in the study i'm thinking of that weight training affected running economy, but it did improve endurance running by (<desperately tries to drag data from brain before i shoot off on holiday>) [i think] increasing the stiffness of the muscles and creating a better 'spring'. however, this applies to running, and not cycling (there's no evidence to show that weights increase endurance performance in trained cyclists and some evidence to show it's detrimental).

    if anyone wants to search pub-med, it's a paper by Millet, G

    ric
    Professional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
    www.cyclecoach.com
  • Matchstick Man
    Matchstick Man Posts: 565
    BlackHelmet wrote:
    Personally, I like to remain open to new and/or different approaches to maximise the training time I have whilst not forgetting longevity, variety and enjoyment.

    I quite agree. It's just a bugbear of mine about weight training that's all but it's good that we all have different views eh?
  • BlackHelmet
    BlackHelmet Posts: 113
    :) Yeah, me too. Just the opposite opinion :)

    Rik - yes, the studies have indicated that weights & economy was running specific.
  • sloboy
    sloboy Posts: 1,139
    Ric_Stern/RST wrote:
    To give you an idea, very quickly calculations show that the forces required to win on an Alpine climb in the TdF can be met by just about anyone. A 70 kg winner would need an average force of ~ 28 kg (between both legs; i.e., around 14 kg each leg).

    Even if you ride at a low cadence, the forces are too low to induce changes in strength

    ric

    Although the forces are low - are they as low as this ? 28Kg would be about right for a constant force - 90 rpm has the force moving at about 1.5m/s, giving about 420W. But how constant are the forces ? For a rank eejit like me I would have thought:

    - I have one leg alomost totally dominating at any point
    - Each leg is probably only good for may be a third of the rotation, on the downstroke bit.

    So for me, getting out 420W on that calculation basis would mean a leg force of 42kg operative in each leg for a third of the time.
  • Ric_Stern/RST
    Ric_Stern/RST Posts: 267
    sloboy wrote:
    Ric_Stern/RST wrote:
    To give you an idea, very quickly calculations show that the forces required to win on an Alpine climb in the TdF can be met by just about anyone. A 70 kg winner would need an average force of ~ 28 kg (between both legs; i.e., around 14 kg each leg).

    Even if you ride at a low cadence, the forces are too low to induce changes in strength

    ric

    Although the forces are low - are they as low as this ? 28Kg would be about right for a constant force - 90 rpm has the force moving at about 1.5m/s, giving about 420W. But how constant are the forces ? For a rank eejit like me I would have thought:

    - I have one leg alomost totally dominating at any point
    - Each leg is probably only good for may be a third of the rotation, on the downstroke bit.

    So for me, getting out 420W on that calculation basis would mean a leg force of 42kg operative in each leg for a third of the time.

    very quickly, as i'm getting ready to go on holiday :-)

    that's 28 kg between both legs, so 14 kg each.

    Pedalling works in a sinusoidal manner, where peak forces occur at ~3o'clock. the forces involved in pulling up, are a fraction of the downstroke (with better riders -- elite) pulling up *less* than less good riders (who thus pull up more).

    peak forces are ~1.8x's avg force, so that's about 25 kg each leg

    given that most people can walk indefinitely (and thus an average male is supporting about 70 kg), or you can stand up out of chair, you'll have sufficient strength for cycling.

    ric
    Professional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
    www.cyclecoach.com
  • bigmug
    bigmug Posts: 58
    Well, can't say I have understood all this but it certainly has been interesting stuff. I trust you guys know what you're taling about so I'll accept the conclusion that for normal cycling leg weights/big gear work is not worth the time - spend it improving your cardio-vacular system instead. Thanks for the contributions - makes this site worth reading.
  • Mike Willcox1
    Mike Willcox1 Posts: 311
    bigmug wrote:
    Well, can't say I have understood all this but it certainly has been interesting stuff. I trust you guys know what you're taling about so I'll accept the conclusion that for normal cycling leg weights/big gear work is not worth the time - spend it improving your cardio-vacular system instead. Thanks for the contributions - makes this site worth reading.

    i'm not convinced.

    It is accepted by everyone that strength is required for events up to 1000m in length. Why is that? Well my guess is it is because acceleration power and speed is more of a proirity than endurance for short events.

    On the other hand acceleration and power and speed is still necessary in longer events; to make a break, to close a break or to make a sprint for the line. I only do TT's but still use my strength to to power up the hills. The argument that you don't need core strength if you are sitting in the saddle and your arms on the handlebars and feet in the pedals does not apply as soon as you climb out of the saddle. Try doing that after a gym workout, I have and you definitely can feel the difference.

    Someone mentioned a cadence of 45 rpm. If you are pedaling at the rate then it is very difficlut to maintain good form i.e. keeping the body still and generating all the power into the pedals. Without core stability forget it.

    If anyone has cycled with an injury to their arm, back neck or shoulder will know just how much power they lose on the bike. Why should this be if you don't need the strength in the first place. Nah!

    I'm not going to betray my beliefs just yet.
  • Mike Willcox1
    Mike Willcox1 Posts: 311
    Ric_Stern/RST wrote:
    Johnpsanderson wrote:
    big gear reps don't make you stronger.
    But isn't it giving the same effect as weight training? And doesn't weight training make you stronger?

    I may be walking into a pit here in terms of what "strength" actually is - but I can relate the feeling of pushing a big gear up a hill to the feeling of squats or leg presses, i.e slow reps and an intense burning feeling!!! . Isn't it a similar thing?

    see the article i linked to above.
    the forces are still too low to increase strength.

    ric


    :D:D:D
  • bigmug
    bigmug Posts: 58
    "i'm not convinced"

    Mike. I was reaching my conclusion about general racing cycling and time spent, I think all the exceptions to the conclusion - short sprints, injury recovery, huge accelerations that you mentioned have been covered. I still find that weightraining makes me 'feel' stronger and more powerful on the bike and as though there are greater reserves in my muscles.
  • Ric_Stern/RST
    Ric_Stern/RST Posts: 267
    Mike Willcox1 wrote:
    It is accepted by everyone that strength is required for events up to 1000m in length. Why is that? Well my guess is it is because acceleration power and speed is more of a proirity than endurance for short events.

    strength accounts for 25% of the differences in power output in elite track sprinters doing standing starts.
    On the other hand acceleration and power and speed is still necessary in longer events; to make a break, to close a break or to make a sprint for the line. I only do TT's but still use my strength to to power up the hills.

    no you don't (use strength to power up the hills). You use _power_ to power up the hills, which is a cardiac and metabolic issue.
    The argument that you don't need core strength if you are sitting in the saddle and your arms on the handlebars and feet in the pedals does not apply as soon as you climb out of the saddle. Try doing that after a gym workout, I have and you definitely can feel the difference.

    you don't need [to increase] your strength to get out of the saddle (you obviously need some strength), but i don't know anyone who can't get out of the saddle (except one or two riders with a disability).
    Someone mentioned a cadence of 45 rpm. If you are pedaling at the rate then it is very difficlut to maintain good form i.e. keeping the body still and generating all the power into the pedals. Without core stability forget it.

    see the article i linked to.

    ric
    Professional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
    www.cyclecoach.com
  • Mike Willcox1
    Mike Willcox1 Posts: 311
    Ric_Stern/RST wrote:
    Mike Willcox1 wrote:
    It is accepted by everyone that strength is required for events up to 1000m in length. Why is that? Well my guess is it is because acceleration power and speed is more of a proirity than endurance for short events.

    strength accounts for 25% of the differences in power output in elite track sprinters doing standing starts.
    On the other hand acceleration and power and speed is still necessary in longer events; to make a break, to close a break or to make a sprint for the line. I only do TT's but still use my strength to to power up the hills.

    no you don't (use strength to power up the hills). You use _power_ to power up the hills, which is a cardiac and metabolic issue.

    FFS. Staying out of the saddle requires muscle endurance as well as CV fitness.


    The argument that you don't need core strength if you are sitting in the saddle and your arms on the handlebars and feet in the pedals does not apply as soon as you climb out of the saddle. Try doing that after a gym workout, I have and you definitely can feel the difference.

    you don't need [to increase] your strength to get out of the saddle (you obviously need some strength), but i don't know anyone who can't get out of the saddle (except one or two riders with a disability).

    FFS. Staying out of the saddle (again)
    Someone mentioned a cadence of 45 rpm. If you are pedaling at the rate then it is very difficlut to maintain good form i.e. keeping the body still and generating all the power into the pedals. Without core stability forget it.

    see the article i linked to.

    You really are quite annoying. I've absolutely no intention of reading any more bollox if it's more of the same!!!

    ric
  • Mike Willcox1
    Mike Willcox1 Posts: 311
    http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... bing--1034

    Seems like Cadel Evans and Trent Lowe believe that core and upper body strength are pretty important for climbing. Who would have thought eh Ric?
  • Ric_Stern/RST
    Ric_Stern/RST Posts: 267
    Mike Willcox1 wrote:
    http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/power-climbing--1034

    Seems like Cadel Evans and Trent Lowe believe that core and upper body strength are pretty important for climbing. Who would have thought eh Ric?

    in all honesty i've just gotten up and am drinking some espresso to wake up. however, at first glance the article only says that TL believes in core strength training. I'm not sure, but i don't know if TL has a degree in exercise physiology.

    The article also champions Chris Boardman, who mainly didn't use weight training etc. (i was under the tutelage of his coach).

    Ric
    Professional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
    www.cyclecoach.com
  • Mike Willcox1
    Mike Willcox1 Posts: 311
    Ric_Stern/RST wrote:
    Mike Willcox1 wrote:
    http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/power-climbing--1034

    Seems like Cadel Evans and Trent Lowe believe that core and upper body strength are pretty important for climbing. Who would have thought eh Ric?

    in all honesty i've just gotten up and am drinking some espresso to wake up. however, at first glance the article only says that TL believes in core strength training. I'm not sure, but i don't know if TL has a degree in exercise physiology.

    The article also champions Chris Boardman, who mainly didn't use weight training etc. (i was under the tutelage of his coach).

    Ric

    Depends on your definition of weight training and the word "mainly".

    I don't; never have done; nor will I; do any weight training (lifting free weights or using power machines). Nor have I "mainly" done core strength or upper strength exercises, but use them to supplement riding the bike, which I advocate as the "main"thing to do, particularly on the road.

    I made a statement somewhere on this forum that I won more races in dreadful windy conditions than I ever did in good conditions. I put that down to the attention I made to off the bike exercises building upper body and core strength which I think is more scientific than suggesting that perhaps I was somehow more motivated than the other riders. Even in Championships? Come on!

    I was told that taking statins was good for me by experts. My own experience showed otherwise and now I notice that there is increasing concern about them. You shouldn't ignore what your own body is telling you just because an "expert" is telling you the opposite. I would take the experiences of TDF riders instead of theorists any day.
  • Ric_Stern/RST
    Ric_Stern/RST Posts: 267
    Mike Willcox1 wrote:
    I was told that taking statins was good for me by experts. My own experience showed otherwise and now I notice that there is increasing concern about them. You shouldn't ignore what your own body is telling you just because an "expert" is telling you the opposite. I would take the experiences of TDF riders instead of theorists any day.

    Quick reply as i'm just off out...

    Anyway, it's clear you don't understand scientific methodology. That is, while there is a hypothesis, it needs to be tested... so it isn't just a theory.

    Ric
    Professional cycle coaching for cyclists of all levels
    www.cyclecoach.com
  • Mike Willcox1
    Mike Willcox1 Posts: 311
    Ric_Stern/RST wrote:
    Mike Willcox1 wrote:
    I was told that taking statins was good for me by experts. My own experience showed otherwise and now I notice that there is increasing concern about them. You shouldn't ignore what your own body is telling you just because an "expert" is telling you the opposite. I would take the experiences of TDF riders instead of theorists any day.

    Quick reply as i'm just off out...

    Anyway, it's clear you don't understand scientific methodology. That is, while there is a hypothesis, it needs to be tested... so it isn't just a theory.

    Ric

    I understand what works and what doesn't. Call it what you want.
  • RyanBrook
    RyanBrook Posts: 195
    Really interesting debate this one with lots of valuable input from Ric and a few others. There's almost a paradox.

    Just like to add if you look at many of the sprinters in the pro tour it's clear that they lift weights...Mcewan, Zabel, Hushovd, Boonen etc. There upper body muscularity proves beyond doub that they lift weights year-round, yet they are not track sprinters they have all completed tours and won Green jerseys. So the decrease in mitocondria and capillary density while I'm sure does occur doesn't prevent them from completing and winning stages. Obviously their climbing will be effected detrimentally but I'm sure they can still put in decent times on mountain stages.

    So if you were an amatuer riding flat stages then surely weight training has a place in your regime in order to get increased leverage and peak power in that sprint finish. Do the strength benefits that help the riders pull up on the handlebars and transfer the weight from leg to leg not result in an increase in peak power? I would think so.
  • binlinus
    binlinus Posts: 305
    RyanBrook wrote:
    Just like to add if you look at many of the sprinters in the pro tour it's clear that they lift weights...Mcewan, Zabel, Hushovd, Boonen etc. There upper body muscularity proves beyond doub that they lift weights year-round, yet they are not track sprinters they have all completed tours and won Green jerseys.

    Really? Beyond doubt? Here's a pic of Boonen with his top off (don't get excited!)
    http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/8808/tomboonena3kc.jpg
    Now, to me he looks like he has got very little fat on him so his musculature looks good. But those are not big muscles on his arms, chest and core, are they?

    Bin
  • ut_och_cykla
    ut_och_cykla Posts: 1,594
    Bin - they are not big muscles - he's a leader in an endurance sport - but I'm not sure you'd get what he's got ONLY from riding the bike either - the trapezius in particular looks surprisingly well developed.
  • Mike Willcox1
    Mike Willcox1 Posts: 311
    ut_och_cykla wrote:
    Bin - they are not big muscles - he's a leader in an endurance sport - but I'm not sure you'd get what he's got ONLY from riding the bike either - the trapezius in particular looks surprisingly well developed.

    You don't get Abs like that either from just sitting in the saddle and pedalling.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Yes, it's amazing what can be done with computer graphics too. Do any of you really believe the posed photos you see in magazines are actually faithful representations of the face/body in question?
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • Mike Willcox1
    Mike Willcox1 Posts: 311
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Yes, it's amazing what can be done with computer graphics too. Do any of you really believe the posed photos you see in magazines are actually faithful representations of the face/body in question?

    You guys are wonderful. You come out with a load of old gumph and then when someone comes along and points out that just maybe there is another point of view with supporting evidence you claim foul. Talk about losing the plot!

    :lol:
  • Ste_S
    Ste_S Posts: 1,173
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Yes, it's amazing what can be done with computer graphics too. Do any of you really believe the posed photos you see in magazines are actually faithful representations of the face/body in question?

    Funniest post I've read all year. While I've no doubt the cover 'stars' of FHM etc are air brushed to infinity, claiming a pic of Boonen has been doctered to support your theory is proper :lol:
  • peanut
    peanut Posts: 1,373
    here we go :lol::lol::lol:
    light the touch paper and stand well back :roll:

    why does every discussion have to turn into `I know more than, / better than,you because ........etc

    Because someone has a differing point of view to you doesn't necessarily mean that your viewpoint is wrong ...or even right.It just means that because science doesn't really know the absolute truth of an issue there might be elements of truth in several differant suggested solutions.
    Truth is we don't know anything for sure .Thats why we have science and spend billions of £ worldwide every year testing and researching our theories.

    What we do know is that more often than not observed evidence flies in the face of scientific `fact'/ theory like Obree for example. World class athlete who found his own way to train and compete but his methods wouldn't suit everybody .

Categories