Forum home Road cycling forum Training, fitness and health

Cycling economy

Posts

  • amaferangaamaferanga Posts: 6,789
    I doubt many people will have access to the full article (I can't even get it through Sheffield Uni).
    More problems but still living....
  • jacsterjacster Posts: 177
    For those that can't..

    Abstract
    Sunde, A, Storen, O, Bjerkaas, M, Larsen, MH, Hoff, J, and Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training improves cycling economy in competitive cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 23(x): 000-000, 2009-The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of maximal strength training on cycling economy (CE) at 70% of maximal oxygen consumption ([latin capital V with dot above]o2max), work efficiency in cycling at 70% [latin capital V with dot above]o2max, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power.
    Responses in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and rate of force development (RFD) in half-squats, [latin capital V with dot above]o2max, CE, work efficiency, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power were examined.
    Sixteen competitive road cyclists (12 men and 4 women) were randomly assigned into either an intervention or a control group.
    Thirteen (10 men and 3 women) cyclists completed the study. The intervention group (7 men and 1 woman) performed half-squats, 4 sets of 4 repetitions maximum, 3 times per week for 8 weeks, as a supplement to their normal endurance training.
    The control group continued their normal endurance training during the same period. The intervention manifested significant (p < 0.05) improvements in 1RM (14.2%), RFD (16.7%), CE (4.8%), work efficiency (4.7%), and time to exhaustion at pre-intervention maximal aerobic power (17.2%).
    No changes were found in [latin capital V with dot above]o2max or body weight. The control group exhibited an improvement in work efficiency (1.4%), but this improvement was significantly (p < 0.05) smaller than that in the intervention group.
    No changes from pre- to postvalues in any of the other parameters were apparent in the control group. In conclusion, maximal strength training for 8 weeks improved CE and efficiency and increased time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power among competitive road cyclists, without change in maximal oxygen uptake, cadence, or body weight.
    Based on the results from the present study, we advise cyclists to include maximal strength training in their training programs.

    (C) 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
  • amaferangaamaferanga Posts: 6,789
    Anyone can view the abstract, but you really need to see the full paper if you want to understand the research properly.
    More problems but still living....
  • BronzieBronzie Posts: 4,927
    amaferanga wrote:
    Anyone can view the abstract, but you really need to see the full paper if you want to understand the research properly.
    ..........and have a PhD in Sports Science....... :lol:
  • redddraggonredddraggon Posts: 10,862
    Try this link:

    http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS ... 480&NEWS=n

    It works on the Manchester Uni network
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • amaferangaamaferanga Posts: 6,789
    Try this link:

    http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS ... 480&NEWS=n

    It works on the Manchester Uni network

    No full text available through Sheffield Uni :x

    (which is normal IME - they must have fewer subscriptions than most)
    More problems but still living....
  • Will try to have a look later today, Teesside Uni are pretty good usually for journal subs.
    "A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"

    PTP Runner Up 2015
  • CONCLUSIONS

    Eight weeks of maximal strength training improved CE, work
    efficiency, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power
    among competitive road cyclists in spite of a decrease in total
    weekly cycle training. There was no concurrent increase in
    body weight or maximal oxygen uptake.

    If anyone would like the full document drop me a PM.
    "A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"

    PTP Runner Up 2015
  • chrisw12chrisw12 Posts: 1,246
    What does this mean?

    Based on the results from the present study, we advise cyclists to include maximal strength training in their training programs.

    (C) 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association


    Was this an independent study? or a study by the N S C A?
  • chrisw12 wrote:
    What does this mean?

    Based on the results from the present study, we advise cyclists to include maximal strength training in their training programs.

    (C) 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association


    Was this an independent study? or a study by the N S C A?

    Well it's for a scientific journal to do with strength and conditioning, so by the NSCA I guess.

    It doesn't make it's findings any less valid however.
    "A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"

    PTP Runner Up 2015
  • jp1985jp1985 Posts: 434
    The Journal of strength and conditioning is the peer reviewed journal of the NSCA. The study would have been completed independently and then submitted to the Journal of strength and conditioning to be peer reviewed and then published.
  • chrisw12chrisw12 Posts: 1,246
    chrisw12 wrote:
    What does this mean?

    Based on the results from the present study, we advise cyclists to include maximal strength training in their training programs.

    (C) 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association


    Was this an independent study? or a study by the N S C A?

    Well it's for a scientific journal to do with strength and conditioning, so by the NSCA I guess.

    It doesn't make it's findings any less valid however.

    Doesn't it? I don't know, I've never done research.

    How about a final sample size of 13 (8 vs 5) is that regarded as good science then?
  • jp1985jp1985 Posts: 434
    Three of the authors (Hoff, Storen and Helgerud) have all published work investigating the effect of resistance training on endurance exercise performance (x country skiing and running) and have seen similar results i.e improved economy and performance no change in VO2maxbody mass and composition. I've assessed these studies for Risk of Bias and Methodological quality in completing my MSc and all were fine so I would be pretty sure that this study will be the same.

    The NSCA has no vested interest in promoting strength training to endurance athletes. It is the same as any other peer reviewed journal in that it publishes studies that attempt to find answers to questions that are relevant to the practice of strength and conditioning coaches. It is just as important to discover if interventions do not work as it is to discover those that do. If these studies were of poor quality and likely to contain significance risk of error they would fail the peer review process.

    Sample size is a potential source of error but this is the nature of studies in sports science. So it is important to look at a body of evidence rather than a single study. This is why I performed a meta-analysis investigating the effect of resistance interventions on endurance exercise performance as my MSc dissertation. The results of which indicated that running and x country skiing economy and performance were significantly enhanced through resistance training with no adverse effects to VO2max lactate threshold or body composition. The findings of this study suggest that these findings may also be applied to cycling.
  • ut_och_cyklaut_och_cykla Posts: 1,594
    At last (I think!)- some reasonable research which shows that if youre going to do weights do 'em heavy, (low reps) as relevant as you can to your sport and at best it will help and at worse it wont make things worse (ie heavier or slower) ... is that the right understanding ? Having spent a couple of months lifting at 4-6 reps i sincerely hope so!
  • jgsijgsi Posts: 5,027
    The NSCA are commercial... a worthy organisation where their fitness quals have a 'weight' , no pun intended, in the fitness industry...
    however
    so big weights = better at cycling?
    fine
    until the 'next' study 'sponsored' by Les Mills (Body Pump etc etc)group of companies shows that
    lo weights hi reps shows an equivalent positive response...
    AND so it goes on .. and on and on
  • amaferangaamaferanga Posts: 6,789
    I haven't read the full paper, but one possible source of error (which perhaps the authors addressed?) is that if you go out trying to recruit cyclists for a study looking at improving strength you may be more likely to recruit cyclists who think/know they are lacking in strength.

    So interesting as it may be I don't think I'll be doing weights based on this study of n=13.
    More problems but still living....
  • jp1985jp1985 Posts: 434
    At last (I think!)- some reasonable research which shows that if youre going to do weights do 'em heavy, (low reps) as relevant as you can to your sport and at best it will help and at worse it wont make things worse (ie heavier or slower) ... is that the right understanding ? Having spent a couple of months lifting at 4-6 reps i sincerely hope so!

    Yes, although studies of this nature are typically short term (6-12weeks). Not sure if longer interventions would show different results.
    The NSCA are commercial... a worthy organisation where their fitness quals have a 'weight' , no pun intended, in the fitness industry...
    however
    so big weights = better at cycling?
    fine
    until the 'next' study 'sponsored' by Les Mills (Body Pump etc etc)group of companies shows that
    lo weights hi reps shows an equivalent positive response...
    AND so it goes on .. and on and on

    The study wasnt completed by the NSCA, it was completed by an educational institution who recieved no funding to complete the study. It was just published in their journal. Would you show the same doubt of the findings of studies in the British Medical Journal or the Lancet?
  • jgsi wrote:
    so big weights = better at cycling?
    fine until the 'next' study 'sponsored' by Les Mills (Body Pump etc etc) group of companies shows that lo weights hi reps shows an equivalent positive response...
    AND so it goes on .. and on and on

    Yeah it could be said that this study shows that doing something different/in addtion to your usual training gives a benefit not that big weights is best.

    So I agree it would be nice if a study compared high weights & low reps, med weights & med reps, low weights & high reps with a no change group, so it could say which was the best way.
  • jgsijgsi Posts: 5,027
    jp1985 wrote:
    The study wasnt completed by the NSCA, it was completed by an educational institution who recieved no funding to complete the study.

    Pardon my cynicism, that will be a first then.
    I am not actually disputing the findings... I am sure that many would however who are cyclists and are quite happy with their performance not lifting heavy weights about..
    it is just that fitness theories abound and change with the wind so often that the wolf has consumed itself by crying.
  • eheh Posts: 4,854
    How about a final sample size of 13 (8 vs 5) is that regarded as good science then?

    For sports "science" yes, for any proper worthy science no. Unfortunatly there are too many poor researchers within the area of sports science, they may understand sport but understand little on how to do proper controlled experiments. Yet this junk somehow keeps getting published. You'd be far better off listening to Alex if he still hangs around here IMO.
  • amaferangaamaferanga Posts: 6,789
    There's nothing wrong as such with the sample size (though larger would be better obviously), its the bold conclusions they make that are dubious.
    More problems but still living....
  • jacsterjacster Posts: 177
    eh wrote:
    Unfortunatly there are too many poor researchers within the area of sports science, they may understand sport but understand little on how to do proper controlled experiments. Yet this junk somehow keeps getting published. You'd be far better off listening to Alex if he still hangs around here IMO.

    I thought Alex relied on scientific studies? :?
  • chrisw12chrisw12 Posts: 1,246
    eh wrote:
    How about a final sample size of 13 (8 vs 5) is that regarded as good science then?

    For sports "science" yes, for any proper worthy science no. Unfortunatly there are too many poor researchers within the area of sports science, they may understand sport but understand little on how to do proper controlled experiments. Yet this junk somehow keeps getting published. You'd be far better off listening to Alex if he still hangs around here IMO.

    I think you're spot on. I see the students we churn out (in school) and the sport science boys are not going to be winning any Nobel prizes..

    As I said I've never done any research but I'd presume that a very good mathematical/statistical background would be essential?

    Generalisations, yes, I'm sorry and I suppose there must be some talented sport science students.
  • jacsterjacster Posts: 177
    Doesn't say much for your teaching Chris :wink:
  • chrisw12chrisw12 Posts: 1,246
    jacster wrote:
    Doesn't say much for your teaching Chris :wink:

    No it doesn't, you're right.

    My maths A level boys are excellent. I and we do a good job, if they go onto research I'd say good, they'd probably do some believable work. Trouble is in 15 years of teaching that standard of pupil NEVER does sport science.

    The pupils who leave me at Gcse standard, who do go onto to do sport science usually have to take their shoes off to count past ten.

    Problem with teaching or a problem with a system that allows higher education for all.


    and yes I'm an educational snob. Maths, physics, chemistry are difficult, most of the rest are a joke. :wink:
  • BeaconRuthBeaconRuth Posts: 2,086
    chrisw12 wrote:
    and yes I'm an educational snob. Maths, physics, chemistry are difficult, most of the rest are a joke. :wink:
    Oooo............. How glad am I that I'm a physicist so that Chris doesn't think I'm stupid...........

    Ruth
  • Peoples attitudes on this forum baffle me. Research is disregarded, seen as having vested interests, then the actually researchers mocked. No discussion involved. Why bother reading?

    Jesus censored Christ. You may as well not bother training, as research has shown this can significantly improve performance on a bike :roll:
    "A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"

    PTP Runner Up 2015
  • amaferangaamaferanga Posts: 6,789
    Peoples attitudes on this forum baffle me. Research is disregarded, seen as having vested interests, then the actually researchers mocked. No discussion involved. Why bother reading?

    Jesus ******* Christ. You may as well not bother training, as research has shown this can significantly improve performance on a bike :roll:

    Trouble is that people often point to one study that supports whatever it is they want to believe :roll:
    More problems but still living....
  • jacsterjacster Posts: 177
    ShockedSoShocked is spot on..and to take up Amaferanga's point those who don't want to believe will pick holes in the research, regardless of its qualities.
  • jacsterjacster Posts: 177
    chrisw12 wrote:


    The pupils who leave me at Gcse standard, who do go onto to do sport science usually have to take their shoes off to count past ten.

    Blimey Chris, you must really be censored ! :wink:

    It's no wonder those kids want to get out of your lessons at GCSE level!
Sign In or Register to comment.