Weights routine for cycling

mrc1

Escargot wrote:

Why ? because they make me feel like throwing up if I do them properly and I mean backside close to the floor not the 45 degrees from vertical BS that most people do.

Thighs should be square to the floor at the bottom but any lower and your knees will soon go kapput

Alex_Simmons/RST

dennisn wrote:

No, YOU suggested that's what I said. So maybe you're out of line.
As for cycling and weight training and which one is harder. I see millions of people riding bikes but few and far between is the person who has it in him / her to do squats on a regular basis. You can prove this by going to any gym. Lots of spin classes and a goodly portion of people pumping iron. Especially men. However, if you look closely you'll notice
that most of them have fairly well developed upper bodies, yet chicken legs. This is because they can't, won't, don't want to, or just plain don't have it in them to do the really tough stuff(squats). Squats are one of the hardest exercises you can do but they will give more results because of this than pretty much any other single exercise. I would ask you what exercise gives you more overall fitness, strength, and power than squats? Riding a bike? I doubt it.

OK, so when you say "...are people who haven't got it in them to do that kind of work(i.e. weak). Not tough enough to do squats, etc.", what else are we supposed to think?

If you really believe doing squats is going to improve sustainable aerobic power on a bike, then you are mistaken.

But let's make one thing clear. Just about any meaningful exercise will improve an untrained rider. But once they become reasonably trained, well then to improve sustainable power, you'll need to do the hard yards on a bike, not in a gym.

And yes, I have the gumption for it, although not since having a leg amputated. Before then I was well capable of sets of 10 free standing squats with 2.5 x body mass on the bar. But as a cyclist it did nothing to improve my sustainable power.

In fact it didn't nothing to improve my sprint (5-10 second maximal) power either. That's because strength was not a limiter for my sprint (something that analysis with power meters can show you).

And strength sure isn't a limiter for endurance cycling. The forces are just too low (nearly an order of magnitude less than our maximal force generation ability).

ut_och_cykla

peanut1978 wrote:

Thanks for the responses so far.

Current regime consists of the following

Hang Cleans
Back Squats
Stiff Leg Dead Lift
Power Shrugs
Bench Press
Chin Ups

Try to kep a whole body approach as much as possible, keeping the majority of exercises explosive.
I am 6'2 and about 14st at the moment, so defo not a climber, trying to train more towards TT/sprinting and see what happens.

Cheers

Might suggest you add
bent over row - good for lower back/mimics bike position somewhat - be careful tho'
deadlift - back/legs
and lunges with dumbells for good depth of movement
and skip or reduce hang cleans & power shrugs, replace bench press with pressups for what I personally consider to be a better mix for cycling... but others will almost certainly disagree.... :-)

dennisn

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No, YOU suggested that's what I said. So maybe you're out of line.
As for cycling and weight training and which one is harder. I see millions of people riding bikes but few and far between is the person who has it in him / her to do squats on a regular basis. You can prove this by going to any gym. Lots of spin classes and a goodly portion of people pumping iron. Especially men. However, if you look closely you'll notice
that most of them have fairly well developed upper bodies, yet chicken legs. This is because they can't, won't, don't want to, or just plain don't have it in them to do the really tough stuff(squats). Squats are one of the hardest exercises you can do but they will give more results because of this than pretty much any other single exercise. I would ask you what exercise gives you more overall fitness, strength, and power than squats? Riding a bike? I doubt it.

OK, so when you say "...are people who haven't got it in them to do that kind of work(i.e. weak). Not tough enough to do squats, etc.", what else are we supposed to think?

If you really believe doing squats is going to improve sustainable aerobic power on a bike, then you are mistaken.

But let's make one thing clear. Just about any meaningful exercise will improve an untrained rider. But once they become reasonably trained, well then to improve sustainable power, you'll need to do the hard yards on a bike, not in a gym.

And yes, I have the gumption for it, although not since having a leg amputated. Before then I was well capable of sets of 10 free standing squats with 2.5 x body mass on the bar. But as a cyclist it did nothing to improve my sustainable power.

In fact it didn't nothing to improve my sprint (5-10 second maximal) power either. That's because strength was not a limiter for my sprint (something that analysis with power meters can show you).

And strength sure isn't a limiter for endurance cycling. The forces are just too low (nearly an order of magnitude less than our maximal force generation ability).

All I can say is, who's going to break this bad news to all the pro, semi pro, and amateur athletes around the world who DO weight train. I'll tell Lance, George H., and Chris Hoy that what they are doing is useless if you will tell, oh, what was that swimmers name, you know, won a few golds at the Olympic Games? Michael something? Tell him that he might as well quit pumping the iron because it's a waste of time. After all, anyone can win a couple of gold medals and 6 or 7 TDF's. All they have to do is buy a power meter. Sorry, couldn't resist that last dig.

Murr X

dennisn wrote:

I've always thought that squats were one h*ll of a mental challenge too. Doing them 2 or 3 times a week is just as hard on your brain(to KEEP doing them) as it is on your body.
If you can tolerate squats, you can do pretty much do anything.

There is the idea in the bodybuilding and weight lifting community that squats are a "hard mans" exercise that most can not do with the intensity that is required. Of course the difficulty of doing them is limited by how hard much effort you are putting in to it, period. Like cycling it is not the particular exercise that is hard as such - just how much you force things. You can do squats easily too if you really wish.

Dennis if you think you have the "toughness" then try to ride as hard as a track kilo specialist for 60 seconds. :twisted: Assuming it is all out for the entire minute you will probably feel worse than squatting all out for 60 seconds to failure. Now not every cyclist wishes to ride an all out minute effort and many will end up performing well below what they are capable off due to mental reasons (lack of will / willingness to suffer enough).


Murr X

Alex_Simmons/RST

dennisn wrote:

All I can say is, who's going to break this bad news to all the pro, semi pro, and amateur athletes around the world who DO weight train. I'll tell Lance, George H., and Chris Hoy that what they are doing is useless if you will tell, oh, what was that swimmers name, you know, won a few golds at the Olympic Games? Michael something? Tell him that he might as well quit pumping the iron because it's a waste of time. After all, anyone can win a couple of gold medals and 6 or 7 TDF's. All they have to do is buy a power meter. Sorry, couldn't resist that last dig.

This just reiterates your lack of understanding of the differences in physiological demands between the nature of events those athletes participate in (with the exception of Armstrong and Hincape) as well as the nature of training performed by most pros.

Toks

dennisn wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No, YOU suggested that's what I said. So maybe you're out of line.
As for cycling and weight training and which one is harder. I see millions of people riding bikes but few and far between is the person who has it in him / her to do squats on a regular basis. You can prove this by going to any gym. Lots of spin classes and a goodly portion of people pumping iron. Especially men. However, if you look closely you'll notice
that most of them have fairly well developed upper bodies, yet chicken legs. This is because they can't, won't, don't want to, or just plain don't have it in them to do the really tough stuff(squats). Squats are one of the hardest exercises you can do but they will give more results because of this than pretty much any other single exercise. I would ask you what exercise gives you more overall fitness, strength, and power than squats? Riding a bike? I doubt it.

OK, so when you say "...are people who haven't got it in them to do that kind of work(i.e. weak). Not tough enough to do squats, etc.", what else are we supposed to think?

If you really believe doing squats is going to improve sustainable aerobic power on a bike, then you are mistaken.

But let's make one thing clear. Just about any meaningful exercise will improve an untrained rider. But once they become reasonably trained, well then to improve sustainable power, you'll need to do the hard yards on a bike, not in a gym.

And yes, I have the gumption for it, although not since having a leg amputated. Before then I was well capable of sets of 10 free standing squats with 2.5 x body mass on the bar. But as a cyclist it did nothing to improve my sustainable power.

In fact it didn't nothing to improve my sprint (5-10 second maximal) power either. That's because strength was not a limiter for my sprint (something that analysis with power meters can show you).

And strength sure isn't a limiter for endurance cycling. The forces are just too low (nearly an order of magnitude less than our maximal force generation ability).

All I can say is, who's going to break this bad news to all the pro, semi pro, and amateur athletes around the world who DO weight train. I'll tell Lance, George H., and Chris Hoy that what they are doing is useless if you will tell, oh, what was that swimmers name, you know, won a few golds at the Olympic Games? Michael something? Tell him that he might as well quit pumping the iron because it's a waste of time. After all, anyone can win a couple of gold medals and 6 or 7 TDF's. All they have to do is buy a power meter. Sorry, couldn't resist that last dig.

Dennisn, Alex totally "owned' you in this debate and predictably you're bowing out on the "strawman" rebuttal. Well done mate, nice work :roll:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-straw ... gument.htm

Eddy S

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

This just reiterates your lack of understanding of the differences in physiological demands between the nature of events those athletes participate in (with the exception of Armstrong and Hincape) as well as the nature of training performed by most pros.

Alex, why can't you just explain why you think that the strength training many road pros and teams use (I'm looking at a picture of Edvald Boasson Hagen doing squats as I type...) doesn't/can't apply to all road riders instead of hiding behind generalisations as you and Dennis exchange blows?

andrewgturnbull

Hi there.

I see it this way... If I was a pro with 30 or 40 hours a week to train then I would supplement the bike riding with weight training. As it is, If I'm going to be sneaking in 15 hours around work and family then I'm going to stick with the basics*

Cheers, Andy

*Which for me is run, bike, swim and core....

CarbonCopy

Which exercises are useful to cyclist?well,the leg press,the squat,the step up,the leg pull and of course,strength training on the bike all fulfill the criteria and can be combined in a strength training program.you should do the leg press single legged because evidence shows that the force in the bilateral(i.e,two legged) maximal contraction is less than the sum of the force produced in unilateral muscle contractions.It is possible to reduce the strain of the eccentric phase by using both legs during flexion.With each leg,
Do 30 repetitions while trying to intiate the movement as explosively as possible -thats,apply your maximal force as quickly as possible.Do not extend your leg fully,because the maximal knee angle should be approximately the same as the maximal knee angle when your cycling.You should set the resistance so that during the first 20 repetitions your efforts result in a high speed movement but during the last 10 reps the velocity of the movement decreases.If you can finish the series without a decrease in velocity,you need to increase the resistance.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Toks wrote:

Dennisn, Alex totally "owned' you in this debate and predictably you're bowing out on the "strawman" rebuttal. Well done mate, nice work :roll:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-straw ... gument.htm

I'm not interested in "owning" anyone. Just discussing the bases of exercise that are relevant and providing some info of value.

Training myths do abound though.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Eddy S wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

This just reiterates your lack of understanding of the differences in physiological demands between the nature of events those athletes participate in (with the exception of Armstrong and Hincape) as well as the nature of training performed by most pros.

Alex, why can't you just explain why you think that the strength training many road pros and teams use (I'm looking at a picture of Edvald Boasson Hagen doing squats as I type...) doesn't/can't apply to all road riders instead of hiding behind generalisations as you and Dennis exchange blows?

Because, as I suggested in my very first response to this thread:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... 9#16066449
by looking through the previous weight/strength training threads the information has already been discussed ad nauseum. I'm not hiding anything. All the information is freely available in good exercise physiology texts, and the sum of research to date.

It might surprise you to learn that pros still do dumb things.

But if you want the snapshot version, here's another copy of what I've no doubt posted elsewhere in various forms...

BTW - I'm not rigidly against doing leg weights.

What I am for is doing training that is specifically going to aid cycling performance. The type and nature of events that you are targeting will dictate whether specific strength work done with weights makes sense or not.

For example, I would have some riders focused on track TT & sprint do weights. Even then the nature of the weights performed and balance with bike training needs to be considered. Many are actually better off not doing weights at all and focusing their sprint work on the bike.

Problem is, the physiological adaptations induced by real strength/weights work run counter to those required to improve endurance cycling performance (ECP). e.g.
- it adds mass for no gain in aerobic power output,
- increases diffusion distance for exchange of key metabolites and gases at the cellular level,
- reduces mitochondral volume and does not stimulate capillary growth/density,

i.e. runs counter to all things necessary to improve sustainable power.

There is a low correlation between strength, speed and endurance.

The other point which seems to keep being missed is that the forces involved in ECP are really quite low, significantly lower than our strength (nearly 1/10th in some cases). e.g. riding at 300W requires an average effective pedal force of ~ 18kg exerted by both legs. Increasing our maximal force generation ability does not enable us to sustain the very frequently repeated sub-maximal forces involved in cycling.

IOW - "it's an aerobic sport, dammit"

By all means do weights for other reasons but a claim they aid ECP doesn't stack up physiologically, nor is it supported by the body of evidence which shows that strength training does not aid and in many cases is detrimental to ECP.


Nevertheless, some exercise is better than none.

For those that can't ride, then anything that engages a large muscle mass in an aerobically meaningful manner is preferred. Walking, jogging, running, stairs, elliptical machine (my pick), rowing machines X-C skiing etc etc.

Alex_Simmons/RST

CarbonCopy wrote:

Which exercises are useful to cyclist?well,the leg press,the squat,the step up,the leg pull and of course,strength training on the bike all fulfill the criteria and can be combined in a strength training program.you should do the leg press single legged because evidence shows that the force in the bilateral(i.e,two legged) maximal contraction is less than the sum of the force produced in unilateral muscle contractions.It is possible to reduce the strain of the eccentric phase by using both legs during flexion.With each leg,
Do 30 repetitions while trying to intiate the movement as explosively as possible -thats,apply your maximal force as quickly as possible.Do not extend your leg fully,because the maximal knee angle should be approximately the same as the maximal knee angle when your cycling.You should set the resistance so that during the first 20 repetitions your efforts result in a high speed movement but during the last 10 reps the velocity of the movement decreases.If you can finish the series without a decrease in velocity,you need to increase the resistance.

I would suggest that these sorts of routines are of most value to a cyclist with high neuromuscular power demands, such as in track sprint & BMX, and be of limited benefit in improving sustainable aerobic power which is the primary physiological determinant of performance in endurance cycling.

Alex_Simmons/RST

andrewgturnbull wrote:

I see it this way... If I was a pro with 30 or 40 hours a week to train then I would supplement the bike riding with weight training.

Actually I'd be looking for ways to recover better, than doing more damage in the gym.

huuregeil

Alex,

I'm interested in the research, and wondered if you can comment on a couple of things. I have in front of me Ronnestad et al, "Effect of heavy strength training..." European Journal of Applied Physiology. (published online in 2009, in print a month ago or so).

The subjects conisted of 23 "well trained cyclists competing at a national level" in Norway. They were split into two groups: one followed standard endurance training; the others replaced a portion of endurance training with resistance training over a 12 week pre-season period. They were roughly doing 12hr a week training and, prior to intervention, pushing 150kg average in a half-squat, so they're these are pretty strong guys to start with. I'll cut to the chase:

"In conclusion, adding heavy strength training to usual endurance training twice a week increased thigh muscle cross-sectional area and leg strength in well-trained cyclists without compromising the development of V02max. Of even larger practical importance to the cyclists, the strength training also resulted in improvement in parameters relevant for performance in the more vigorous parts of the cycle race, including Wingate peak power and Wmax. Futhermore, the cyclists who added strength training improved power output at 2mmol/l [la-], a parameter traditionally related to long-term endurance cycling performance, as well as performance in 40-min all-out trial. The only apparent improvement for cyclists performing usual endurance training only was increased V02max and a tendency for improved performance in the 40-min all-out trial."

This is a pretty clear conclusion - there are clear benefits to doing a small but dedicated amount of weights during the off season, with no downsides, and this is in addition to the injury prevention aspects discussed.

As you've said, if un-trained, any exercise is better than none.

I'm in complete agreement that in-season, weights are detrimental because they simply impact regular training and recovery *far* too much - keep the gym for the winter.

Thus, in the absence of specific individual factors, a central position applicable to the average cyclist - essentially relevant to people who pop up on here asking, "should I do weights?" - should be to incorporate a couple of hours of gym work per week during the winter. A position backed up by research.

Would you agree? If not, I'm genuinely interested in the reasons why not - while not a sports scientist, I am a scientist and so am interested an evidence-based approaches to all aspects of life!

Regards,

Alex_Simmons/RST

huuregeil wrote:

Alex,

I'm interested in the research, and wondered if you can comment on a couple of things. I have in front of me Ronnestad et al, "Effect of heavy strength training..." European Journal of Applied Physiology. (published online in 2009, in print a month ago or so).

Haven't read that one - but from what you've posted I don't see a conclusion that shows endurance cycling performance was improved in the strength group. The endurance trained group tended to have improved VO2 max and 40km TT performance. If TT performance was better in the endurance / control group v strength group then not sure how you can draw the opposite conclusion.

I would want to know what controls were in place, how actual workload was measured/managed before drawing too many conclusions.

Also, people should, for the purposes of debate on strength training for ECP, divorce consideration of what is good training for endurance cycling performance and what's good training for general health.

For sake of expediency, I have copied below some info recently posted by scientist / exercise physiologist Dr Andrew Coggan which covers relevant studies on trained cyclists:

The studies listed below are the only ones of which I am aware that 1) used trained cyclists, and 2) investigated training with weights in isolation (vs. combined with high intensity intervals). None of them found any improvement in endurance performance or in physiological markers thereof:

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

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

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

Note that proponents of weight training often incorrectly cite the last study as evidence of a benefit. In fact, however, the subjects in that group failed to show any improvement in performance, even though the exercise test (i.e., a 30 s Wingate at only 50 rpm) was designed in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of finding one. Instead, the "control" group inexplicably showed a non-significant decline in performance, leading to a group x time interaction effect.

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

Interestingly, no improvement in even sprint performance was observed in this study...

Andy Coggan

incog24

At what point would you classify an rider as 'trained' and so no longer benefiting from the weights? Are we talking a 22/20/19min 10mile? Or a percentage of your potential?

neeb

Just watched "The Road to Roubaix" film tonight... There's an extended scene at the end of the riders stripping off in the famous showers, and if any of them have done any significant upper body weights training it's certainly not showing...

Alex_Simmons/RST

incog24 wrote:

At what point would you classify an rider as 'trained'

A reasonable club level rider, say a Cat 3/4 level racer.

incog24 wrote:

and so no longer benefiting from the weights? Are we talking a 22/20/19min 10mile? Or a percentage of your potential?

Even when "untrained" or "under-trained", riding a bike is still far, far better for developing bike fitness than anything you'll do in a weights room.

Again, people may have excellent reasons for doing weight work, nothing wrong with that. Just it's not going to improve your sustainable aerobic power, which is what matters for performance in endurance cycling (i.e. anything longer than a 3km individual pursuit).

dennisn

In the end it all boils down to one side saying no don't do it. It won't help. Then the other side saying just the opposite. Almost a Campy vs Shimano type of thing with neither side
having much more than opinions. My problem with the anti weight faction is "How can you believe that doing something that makes you stronger(weight training) will have NO POSITIVE EFFECT on your cycling?". This seems to be what you're saying. It is a complete waste of time. Yet I find it hard to fathom why so many athletes at all levels, especially at the pro and Olympic level seem to be pumping up. Surely it's not so they look buffed. These people are not bodybuilders. They are people trying to be world champs and will use ANY AND ALL methods(yes, drugs included) to attain this goal. Why do these people use weights if not to IMPROVE their performance?

Pokerface

Dennis - I think you may have bought into marketing hype when it comes to some of these pro cyclists and weight training.

Guys like Lance and George - sure they do weights when the cameras are on them - and it helps them sell books and promote various bits of exercise gear, but I honestly don't think they do it as part of their regular training.

Lance did lots of weight training when he retired from cycling, but since he came back I'd be surprised if he's done anything more than ride his bike.

Track cyclists - that's a different story. Weigh lifting clearly helps their discipline. Which is why many of them are built like brick sh!thouses.

Yes - some weights in your routine can help the recereational cyclist and helps break the monotony of cycling. But it isn't going to improve your cardiovascular system which is one of the biggest determining factors in (endurance) cycling performance.


This isn't a Shimano vs Campy debate - it's a fact vs fiction debate.

dennisn

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

dennisn wrote:

OK, so when you say "...are people who haven't got it in them to do that kind of work(i.e. weak). Not tough enough to do squats, etc.", what else are we supposed to think?

What else are we.....?

You're supposed to think that people have weakness's. We all have them. You, me, them.
Lots people just don't have it in them to do the really tough stuff. I'll take that back and say that lots of people are unwilling to do the tough stuff. Maybe we all have it in us but bringing it out is the hard part. In any case I don't do squats anymore. Fused C4, C5, C6
vertebrae put an end to that, or so says the Doctor. I miss doing them, although leg presses seem to be OK.
My opinion of squats is that they are one of the finest exercises you can do. Adds strength to your entire body like nothing else. I also think that the vast majority of people find them too difficult to do, period. Can't argue with that. Done properly they are as hard an exercise as was ever devised.

dennisn

Pokerface wrote:

Dennis - I think you may have bought into marketing hype when it comes to some of these pro cyclists and weight training.

Guys like Lance and George - sure they do weights when the cameras are on them - and it helps them sell books and promote various bits of exercise gear, but I honestly don't think they do it as part of their regular training.

Lance did lots of weight training when he retired from cycling, but since he came back I'd be surprised if he's done anything more than ride his bike.

Track cyclists - that's a different story. Weigh lifting clearly helps their discipline. Which is why many of them are built like brick sh!thouses.

Yes - some weights in your routine can help the recereational cyclist and helps break the monotony of cycling. But it isn't going to improve your cardiovascular system which is one of the biggest determining factors in (endurance) cycling performance.


This isn't a Shimano vs Campy debate - it's a fact vs fiction debate.

I haven't seen any cyclist's promoting exercise gear. Other than bikes. Well, Lance does sell beer.
I noticed you said you don't "think" or "you'd be surprised" if these guys use weights.
Isn't that saying that you're not sure whether they do or don't??
I would also ask if you thought that pro bodybuilders had have made NO improvements in their cardiovascular system from the time they started lifting to the present?
I would also ask that if lifting does no good why stretch? Doesn't help with your CV. So why bother? What good is it? Why bother with nutrition? Doesn't help your CV either. I feel that most of the weight training deniers are way off base. If something makes you stronger it WILL have positive effect on your cycling.

Murr X

dennisn wrote:

Done properly they are as hard an exercise as was ever devised.

And what about riding a bike "properly" then? Are you saying that is not very hard?

With all due respect (admittedly not very much) you are way out of your depth here and do not vaguely understand what you are talking about when it comes to cycle training, period.


Murr X

dennisn

Murr X wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Done properly they are as hard an exercise as was ever devised.

And what about riding a bike "properly" then? Are you saying that is not very hard?

Murr X

No, that was your take on what I said, not what I said. I sort of get the impression that
you think that BECAUSE YOU RIDE, riding is therefor the toughest sport in the world.
Gotta be tough 'cause I do it. Sports are as tough as what you put into them.

Pokerface

I bet if I said the sky is blue, Dennis would argue that it wasn't.

Murr X

dennisn wrote:

Murr X wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Done properly they are as hard an exercise as was ever devised.

And what about riding a bike "properly" then? Are you saying that is not very hard?

Murr X

No, that was your take on what I said, not what I said. I sort of get the impression that
you think that BECAUSE YOU RIDE, riding is therefor the toughest sport in the world.
Gotta be tough 'cause I do it. Sports are as tough as what you put into them.

I was just asking you a question that's all.

Actually I am also a reasonably experienced weightlifter but do not compete in competition (unlike many I know well) nor do I intend to. I do have a great deal of knowledge in physiology as it has interested me since a young age. In particular training for physical sports (mainly cycling) is the one area I have accumulated very much knowledge on which does takes many years.

I don't say things here which I don't believe to be true and I try to put the points across in a way hopefully most people can understand them.

This thread is for no good reason turning into a fight. I still can't see why this needs to be anything other than a grown up, civil forum where people want to genuinely learn about cycling training and pass on relevant advice when required.


Murr X

dennisn

Pokerface wrote:

I bet if I said the sky is blue, Dennis would argue that it wasn't.

Today. Here. Yes, I would argue.

dennisn

Murr X wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Murr X wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Done properly they are as hard an exercise as was ever devised.

And what about riding a bike "properly" then? Are you saying that is not very hard?

Murr X

No, that was your take on what I said, not what I said. I sort of get the impression that
you think that BECAUSE YOU RIDE, riding is therefor the toughest sport in the world.
Gotta be tough 'cause I do it. Sports are as tough as what you put into them.

I was just asking you a question that's all.

Actually I am also a reasonably experienced weightlifter but do not compete in competition (unlike many I know well) nor do I intend to. I do have a great deal of knowledge in physiology as it has interested me since a young age. In particular training for physical sports (mainly cycling) is the one area I have accumulated very much knowledge on which does takes many years.

I don't say things here which I don't believe to be true and I try to put the points across in a way hopefully most people can understand them.

This thread is for no good reason turning into a fight. I still can't see why this needs to be anything other than a grown up, civil forum where people want to genuinely learn about cycling training and pass on relevant advice when required.


Murr X

Pretty much everyone knows I'm an idiot of sorts and tend to spout off somewhat. Just ask frenchfighter and bikingbernie. Particularly about things I believe in. I know it's not an excuse. More of an explanation of who I am. Getting older and more arrogant as time goes by. Sorry if I offend on occasion. I always regret it but don't seem able to control it. Especially if I believe strongly. And I do believe very strongly about "pumping iron"(as you probably have guessed by now). I offer my apologies to any who were offended and will try(and I've said this before) to be a bit "calmer and use more reasoning" about things.
And I know you're all saying "Yeah, sure, right, we've all heard this before", but it's the best I can offer. :oops: :oops:

Alex_Simmons/RST

dennisn wrote:

In the end it all boils down to one side saying no don't do it. It won't help. Then the other side saying just the opposite. Almost a Campy vs Shimano type of thing with neither side having much more than opinions.

I disagree. I am not posting opinion. I have posted information on the fundamental physiological (and physical) principles, as well as the science performed on the very topic with trained cyclists.

Whether or not one chooses to ignore such information and the science is up to them.