Re-thinking Strength Training for Cycling Performance

Alex_Simmons/RST

markac wrote:

Maximum power, or maximum power on a bicycle?

Muscular power is muscular power; how it is used does not matter.

It most certainly does matter. These are all joint angles and velocity specific.

markac wrote:

To train for optimal power, the American College of Sports Medicine categorically recommends a combination of traditional strength training and resistance training with lighter loads but higher velocities.

Optimal power on a bicycle?

markac wrote:

To apply this concept to cycling power, you have to separate the two muscle groups that provide pedaling force, and train them in isolation in the manner recommend. I realize this is a novel concept for a motion that seems to be occurring in a continuous 360 degree motion, but in fact each rotation of the crank is 4 separate muscular movements. Training each of these movements in isolation, in accordance with the ACSM recommendation is the only way to optimally develop peak cycling power.

I completely disagree.

If it were so, our cycling performance would be best improved by never riding a bike.

Alex_Simmons/RST

markac wrote:

I would agree if the resistance training is specific, like, say, riding a bike hard.

Yes, ride a bike hard--but "hard" doesn't mean anything physiologically. A cycling coach doesn't tell a client to ride hard. They tell clients to do intervals at some percentage of LT/VO2 max, and to combine that with some other things (and many include strength training--on-bike and off).

Wanna bet? I tell my clients to ride at a given level of intensity, typically defined by power output. Except when efforts are maximal, and that's exactly what you tell them to do, put in maximal effort for a given duration.

Mean maximal power means quite a bit, physiologically speaking.

markac wrote:

And if it's maximum power on a bike, do you mean maximal sustainable aerobic power, or peak sprint power? And if the latter, do you mean for a dedicated sprinter (like for track or BMX), or an endurance rider performing a sprint at the end of a 200km road race?

Just maximal peak sprint power. Aerobic power is well understood in the sport I think. But a high level of peak power means more than just top sprinting speed--it also means higher local muscular endurance, higher anaerobic capacity, and higher resistance to anaerobic fatigue. This benefits every cyclist, from the protected one-day specialist, to a TTer trying to maintain speed over a small steep hill.
<snip>
True, but again, maximum peak power is what enables sustainable power, in the form of muscular endurance--repeated contractions at a submaximal level (even though that sprint feels like maximal hell )

You have misunderstood the demands of sprint cycling I think.

Development of peak power most certainly does not mean improved anaerobic endurance, indeed the opposite may in fact occur where you develop a power profile with very high peak power but a much sharper drop as duration of effort lengthens.

Development of improved anaerobic endurance requires one to perform efforts specifically for that purpose. Typically these are lactate tolerance efforts of various types. Brutal, horrible, vomit inducing efforts.

It is aerobic fitness that enhances recovery and repeatability.

markac wrote:

The question is what the best training for developing cycling performance?
The answer is, cycling.

You are certainly free to believe this, but in the spirit of good debate, can you make some physiological arguments to support that?

What? The fundamental principle of specificty alone should be sufficient, but if you truly believe cycling performance is best improved by not riding a bike, but rather by doing something else, then I'm afraid I'm lost for words.

meanredspider

That peak torque actually surprises me in how high it is. Assuming a 170mm crank (for round numbers) that's more or less 45kgf through one leg at 90rpm

Alex_Simmons/RST

meanredspider wrote:

That peak torque actually surprises me in how high it is. Assuming a 170mm crank (for round numbers) that's more or less 45kgf through one leg at 90rpm

for ~ 50 milliseconds

incog24

But presumably more N, or a longer period when wattage increases? That graph is only for a 400w output isn't it?

keef66

keef66 wrote:
Close runner-up

"Something like attaching a bicycle chain to a weight stack would address this shortcoming"

BTW...wasn't just a quote; I've actually done this and can testify that it feels completely different than traditional gym/weight exercises.

It was a quote; I was quoting you!

You don't seem to appreciate the irony of what you are saying. I watched your YouTube clip; very ingenious machine you have there. I'm sure it does feel completely different from traditional gym/weight exercises. I imagine it feels like part of the pedal stroke on a bike, albeit a very slow one against a bloody great weight. It is part of the pedal stroke on a bike, so why not just hop on a bike, stick it in a high gear, and mash up a hill if that's the kind of leg workout you want to do??

meanredspider

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

That peak torque actually surprises me in how high it is. Assuming a 170mm crank (for round numbers) that's more or less 45kgf through one leg at 90rpm

for ~ 50 milliseconds

Yup - BUT that, presumably, is the resultant torque measured at the crank at the optimum points (I'm guessing at something close to a horizontal crank position). Additionally that's the point at which the pedal is moving away from the rider the fastest (the point at which it's hardest to apply force). Is there any data that shows the load that the pedal/shoe is seeing? I'd imagine that load is sustained for a longer period but it's only converted to torque by the crank.

The point I'm trying to make (possibly not very successfully) is that whilst the torque peaks in a short spike - the load on the leg is sustained for a longer period. I can't switch my leg on and off in 50ms

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

The point I'm trying to make (possibly not very successfully) is that whilst the torque peaks in a short spike - the load on the leg is sustained for a longer period. I can't switch my leg on and off in 50ms

Er, obv this is the case - that it's a short time period kinda follows from the definition of a "peak".

Keith47

A little off topic here, and I get the feeling I'm going to make myself look very stupid, but how on earth is it possible to do single leg squats with 165kg? I've been weight training (drug free) for 33 years and at my best I could only do regular squats with 200kg. The risk of lower back injury doing single leg squats doesn't bear thinking about!

meanredspider

P_Tucker wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The point I'm trying to make (possibly not very successfully) is that whilst the torque peaks in a short spike - the load on the leg is sustained for a longer period. I can't switch my leg on and off in 50ms

Er, obv this is the case - that it's a short time period kinda follows from the definition of a "peak".

Peak:the most extreme possible amount or value

(time period doesn't get a mention)

My point is, though, that whilst this particular peak is short ("50ms") the load producing it is not so short. Whilst I've not measured it, I suspect I'm pushing "hard" on the pedal for a quadrant which, at any cadence, is 15s in every minute. Trigonometry then converts this force to torque.

ut_och_cykla

Keith47 wrote:

A little off topic here, and I get the feeling I'm going to make myself look very stupid, but how on earth is it possible to do single leg squats with 165kg? I've been weight training (drug free) for 33 years and at my best I could only do regular squats with 200kg. The risk of lower back injury doing single leg squats doesn't bear thinking about!

Not sure where you got the figure from but I agree - one legged squats sound impossible - but leg presses in a machine wouldn't be.
As an aside a guy at my gym does 100kgs squat like exercises (not very parallel tho') on one of those balance discs!! :shock:

markac

keef66 wrote:

It is part of the pedal stroke on a bike, so why not just hop on a bike, stick it in a high gear, and mash up a hill if that's the kind of leg workout you want to do??

Here is why just pedaling a bike doesn't do an optimal job of developing peak power and anaerobic capacity:

1) under the universally accepted principle of sequential motor unit recruitment (http://bit.ly/ibuyfb), as the force requirement increases for any muscular motion, higher level muscle fibers are innervated to add force to the motion (so when you go from say, 300W on your bike to 800W, you move the workload from just Type I/IIa muscle fibers to also include Type IIx/b fibers)

2) if you improve the performance of the Type IIx/b fibers, it goes that you'll have higher peak power, and that is correlated with higher local muscular endurance, higher anaerobic capacity, and higher resistance to anaerobic fatigue--these are all physiological terms that quantify the concept of "matches"--so improved Type IIx/b fibers equals bigger and more matches

3) the universally accepted method to optimally train Type IIx/b fibers is resistance training--and performance gains are optimized when the training is done in the exact motion as that used in sport (http://bit.ly/gqFB4a with quote below), when there is resistance in the extension and retractive movements of the motion, and when muscle groups can be exercised in isolation (to enable constant load during the exercise)


This brings me back to the reason I think this concept is so hotly debated--which is that specificity of cycling training is almost universally interpreted to mean "just ride your bike". Just riding your bike will optimally train your Type I/IIa fibers, but not your IIx/b fibers. While there is certainly some development potential of Type IIx/b fibers on the bike, you cannot get optimal development for the reasons above.

Does anyone disagree with the 3 points made above?


P.S. Alex--your statement of "If it were so, our cycling performance would be best improved by never riding a bike." makes me think you're missing the point that I am only talking about improving a cyclists' anaerobic performance. The stuff I'm talking about is less than 30 minutes per week of my training time, which isn't a part of the 3 hours per week that I do LT/VO2 max interval rides, or my other riding. You also mentioned that peak power and anaerobic endurance are not necessarily correlated--I'll post something on later today when I get time.

---

Quote from above referenced survey of training principles:
"Positional specificity and movement, particularly pattern specificity are often overlooked aspects of strength testing. A high degree of intramuscular, and particularly intermuscular, task specificity exists. This means that during a particular movement, specific motor units are activated within a muscle in a specific time sequence, and that there is a specific activation pattern for prime movers, synergists, and stabilizers. These patterns can be altered by even slight changes in moment pattern and likely by changes in velocity."

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The point I'm trying to make (possibly not very successfully) is that whilst the torque peaks in a short spike - the load on the leg is sustained for a longer period. I can't switch my leg on and off in 50ms

Er, obv this is the case - that it's a short time period kinda follows from the definition of a "peak".

Peak:the most extreme possible amount or value

(time period doesn't get a mention)

My point is, though, that whilst this particular peak is short ("50ms") the load producing it is not so short. Whilst I've not measured it, I suspect I'm pushing "hard" on the pedal for a quadrant which, at any cadence, is 15s in every minute. Trigonometry then converts this force to torque.

Yes, I understand that, but what relevance does it have to the discussion?

meanredspider

P_Tucker wrote:

Yes, I understand that, but what relevance does it have to the discussion?

As a response to Alex's reply regarding 50ms. I'm guessing Alex is saying that high forces are instantaneous and therefore "strength" (or whatever we're calling it) is irrelevant. I'm responding by saying that the torque peak might be instantaneous but the applied forces are less so. I'd be interested to see measurements of load through the foot. I'll go look...

fish156

markac wrote:

The stuff I'm talking about is less than 30 minutes per week of my training time

One observation I find is that a weights session may only take 30 minutes (or two short 15 minute sessions) to complete, but needs a disproportionately large recovery time. If I do any gym work I really have to carefully plan my training week around those sessions otherwise it compromises the quality of my on-bike sessions.

So strength training may be useful but it comes at the cost of reduced flexibility in my training programme.

mattshrops

im with fish on this, stopped the weights cos i want to be riding not pumping. the rest of the discussion would part my hair if i had any.

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Yes, I understand that, but what relevance does it have to the discussion?

As a response to Alex's reply regarding 50ms. I'm guessing Alex is saying that high forces are instantaneous and therefore "strength" (or whatever we're calling it) is irrelevant. I'm responding by saying that the torque peak might be instantaneous but the applied forces are less so. I'd be interested to see measurements of load through the foot. I'll go look...

I don't think Alex is saying that at all.

meanredspider

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

That peak torque actually surprises me in how high it is. Assuming a 170mm crank (for round numbers) that's more or less 45kgf through one leg at 90rpm

for ~ 50 milliseconds

Seems pretty clear to me.

The data I found for a very similar test across an average of cyclists at this power and cadence on a 1-leg test showed pedal forces >400N (40kgf) for 60deg of crank angle (bookmarked the reference on another machine - sorry)

markac

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Development of peak power most certainly does not mean improved anaerobic endurance, indeed the opposite may in fact occur where you develop a power profile with very high peak power but a much sharper drop as duration of effort lengthens.

First of all if you have some study data or a quote from an ex. phys. book on that assertion, I'd like to see it--not calling you out, just want to determine the context, as that doesn't concur with what I've studied.

As for what I've come across:

1 - This study (http://bit.ly/bZVSKg) states that "resistance training or the addition of resistance training to an ongoing endurance exercise regimen, including running or cycling, increases both short and long term endurance capacity in sedentary and trained individuals"

Increasing short term endurance is can be interpreted "anaerobic capacity" (which is a term that wasn't created until the Wingate Anaerobic Test was created, and I think is meant to refer to that test exclusively). It goes, then, that resistance training improves both strength and anaerobic capacity.


2 - Another study which shows "significant increase in time to exhaustion for cycling at 120% VO2peak" (http://bit.ly/gCQn3P)

Another measure of anaerobic capacity improved by strength training


3 - An accepted tenet of Exercise physiology is that strength training improves muscular endurance (ability to make repeated contractions of a submaximal load)

A cycling sprint is a submaximal load--ergo, strength training improves a rider's ability to sprint, and I would presume, to perform multiple sprints, both having some limitation related to anaerobic capacity.

4 - From "Physiology of Sport and Exercisce" Wilmore, Costill, and Kenney; "The performance improvement noted with sprint-type anaerobic training appears to result more from strength gains than from improvements in the funtioning of the anaerobic energy systems"

The evidence is overwhelming to me, and I hope you are able to draw the same conclusion or rebut these points specifically with controverting data.

Keith47

ut_och_cykla wrote:

Keith47 wrote:

A little off topic here, and I get the feeling I'm going to make myself look very stupid, but how on earth is it possible to do single leg squats with 165kg? I've been weight training (drug free) for 33 years and at my best I could only do regular squats with 200kg. The risk of lower back injury doing single leg squats doesn't bear thinking about!

Not sure where you got the figure from but I agree - one legged squats sound impossible - but leg presses in a machine wouldn't be.
As an aside a guy at my gym does 100kgs squat like exercises (not very parallel tho') on one of those balance discs!! :shock:

In the long extract about Australian training methods it states " our best figures are 3 @ 165kg with each leg in the single leg squat....." I'm just baffled as to how this exercise could be performed. Single leg squats using only your bodyweight is a recognised movement, but how you add 165kg resistance is beyond me!! :?

amaferanga

What a pointless discussion this is. Surely everyone knows no consensus will be reached and that its even highly unlikely anyone will switch sides?

P_Tucker

amaferanga wrote:

What a pointless discussion this is. Surely everyone knows no consensus will be reached and that its even highly unlikely anyone will switch sides?

Yeah. Lets only discuss things we already know the answer to.

How can I lose weight for my upcoming sportive? EAT LESS YOU FAT F**KER.

Much better

amaferanga

P_Tucker wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

What a pointless discussion this is. Surely everyone knows no consensus will be reached and that its even highly unlikely anyone will switch sides?

Yeah. Lets only discuss things we already know the answer to.

How can I lose weight for my upcoming sportive? EAT LESS YOU FAT F**KER.

Much better

I see no evidence of anyone taking onboard the opposing argument. Its almost as tedious as a discussion of helmets....

P_Tucker

amaferanga wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

What a pointless discussion this is. Surely everyone knows no consensus will be reached and that its even highly unlikely anyone will switch sides?

Yeah. Lets only discuss things we already know the answer to.

How can I lose weight for my upcoming sportive? EAT LESS YOU FAT F**KER.

Much better

I see no evidence of anyone taking onboard the opposing argument. Its almost as tedious as a discussion of helmets....

Meh, I find it quite interesting and I haven't made my mind up either way. I can see flaws in both sides of the argument.

I don't find discussions on MTBs interesting, so I don't read that part of the forum. I invite you to exercise a similar strategy with regards to this thread.

amaferanga

P_Tucker wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

What a pointless discussion this is. Surely everyone knows no consensus will be reached and that its even highly unlikely anyone will switch sides?

Yeah. Lets only discuss things we already know the answer to.

How can I lose weight for my upcoming sportive? EAT LESS YOU FAT F**KER.

Much better

I see no evidence of anyone taking onboard the opposing argument. Its almost as tedious as a discussion of helmets....

Meh, I find it quite interesting and I haven't made my mind up either way. I can see flaws in both sides of the argument.

I don't find discussions on MTBs interesting, so I don't read that part of the forum. I invite you to exercise a similar strategy with regards to this thread.

Very kind offer, but no thanks. I'll still read it and like (almost) everyone else I'll stick on my side of the fence, but I won't add to the tedium by posting again.

P_Tucker

amaferanga wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

What a pointless discussion this is. Surely everyone knows no consensus will be reached and that its even highly unlikely anyone will switch sides?

Yeah. Lets only discuss things we already know the answer to.

How can I lose weight for my upcoming sportive? EAT LESS YOU FAT F**KER.

Much better

I see no evidence of anyone taking onboard the opposing argument. Its almost as tedious as a discussion of helmets....

Meh, I find it quite interesting and I haven't made my mind up either way. I can see flaws in both sides of the argument.

I don't find discussions on MTBs interesting, so I don't read that part of the forum. I invite you to exercise a similar strategy with regards to this thread.

Very kind offer, but no thanks. I'll still read it and like (almost) everyone else I'll stick on my side of the fence, but I won't add to the tedium by posting again.

Appreciated. FWIW a number of posters have commented along the lines of "this is the best thread in the training section", so its not just me.

CoachFerg

markac wrote:

First of all if you have some study data or a quote from an ex. phys. book on that assertion, I'd like to see it--not calling you out, just want to determine the context, as that doesn't concur with what I've studied.

Scott Gardiner and Jim Martin have published quite a few studies on track sprinters and have observed the phenomenon in Wingate tests that the higher the peak power the greater the fatigue index (peak power / ave power). In practical terms the Aussie sprinters (love how Craig Colduck's post to FGF has become Gospel as it will seem a recent news rag article on Victoria Pendleton's training) trained for peak speed, peak power and peak strength and forgot that it is average power that wins races and got creamed by the French and British riders in Beijing.

As for what I've come across:

1 - This study (http://bit.ly/bZVSKg) states that "resistance training or the addition of resistance training to an ongoing endurance exercise regimen, including running or cycling, increases both short and long term endurance capacity in sedentary and trained individuals"

Not a study, a review, dated at that. All of the studies in Tanaka were tests to exhaustion. We don't compete like that and when they mean trained they are talking of Hickson 1988 where trained = 2-3 cycle commuters and a couple of runners. Until 2009 there were no studies showing an improvement in trained competitive cyclists. Ronnestad has published 4 papers from the same study and has shown some improvements in performance over a control. What is notable is that the control group actually went worse as the riders went into the season. Even the worst coach should be able to see an improvement as riders go from winter to summer and start racing. The improvements the experimental group saw were pretty minimal by comparison to the research on interval training (Steptoe and others) and the claimed improvements that coaches like myself, Alex and Hunter Allen see in their riders.

Increasing short term endurance is can be interpreted "anaerobic capacity" (which is a term that wasn't created until the Wingate Anaerobic Test was created, and I think is meant to refer to that test exclusively). It goes, then, that resistance training improves both strength and anaerobic capacity.

I think "short term endurance" applies to even a flying 200m or standing 250m as we see a drop off in performance at the elite level. In the flying 200m at worlds no one completes the 2nd 100m faster than they perform the first 100m. What is notable is that the riders who try and use their max speed and complete the 1st 100m too fast drop of greater (as we see with fatigue index in Wingate Test) and seed in the bottom half of the results sheet. This is also observed with Kilo riders, Pursuiters, road TT and the riders who go ballistic in the first mountain stage of the Tour de France and fade towards the end of the ride.

It would appear that cycling is more of an endurance sport (even sprints) than we previously thought. Case in point the Kilo where we assumed it was 80% anaerobic and 20% aerobic. We now have adjusted this to 50% aerobic and 50% anaerobic.

2 - Another study which shows "significant increase in time to exhaustion for cycling at 120% VO2peak" (http://bit.ly/gCQn3P)

Another measure of anaerobic capacity improved by strength training

Did you per chance read the title of the study?

"Strength training improves supramaximal cycling but not anaerobic capacity"

-Untrained subjects
-No control group (mentioned in abstract)
-Test to exhaustion improved (not relevant to cycling performance)
-Subjects increased in strength on the exercises they performed (no surprises there)
-No improvement in MAOD = no improvement in ability to supply to energy to working muscle via anaerobic pathways (otherwise O2 debt would be higher)

3 - An accepted tenet of Exercise physiology is that strength training improves muscular endurance (ability to make repeated contractions of a submaximal load)

Not accepted.

A cycling sprint is a submaximal load--ergo, strength training improves a rider's ability to sprint, and I would presume, to perform multiple sprints, both having some limitation related to anaerobic capacity.

Not been shown in the research, in fact Levin 2009 showed decreased performance in a 60sec time trial after weight training.

4 - From "Physiology of Sport and Exercisce" Wilmore, Costill, and Kenney; "The performance improvement noted with sprint-type anaerobic training appears to result more from strength gains than from improvements in the funtioning of the anaerobic energy systems"

Considering the spelling mistake I take it that is not a direct quote. Maughan and Gleeson (2010) have a contrary perspective where they claim that sprint performance is primarily improved through increases in anaerobic energy systems.

The evidence is overwhelming to me, and I hope you are able to draw the same conclusion or rebut these points specifically with controverting data.

One observation I make from these arguments is that people believe that strength training (which targets type IIx fibres) will improve IIa and I fibres when strength training does nothing for these fibres. Some then believe that strength training allows for the strength trained fibres to operate at a lower workload and therefore sustain exercise for longer. But if the Size Principle is applied these fibres will not be used for anything less than supramaximal exercise.

When training we always have the option of riding at a higher power. If riding at our 60min power we can lift to our 30min power. When riding at our 10sec power we can lift to our 5 sec power. The rationale for interval training is performing a greater amount of work than in a one off effort. Experienced coaches know that there is a limit to this. If we trained a pursuiter with 50 x 5sec at 800 watts they may develop good starting power but it is better to do 60-180sec efforts at the 500 watts they aim to compete at and train the type I and IIa fibres that sustain efforts around the VO2max.

Just the same as the Aussies how trained to ride peak powers way past 2000 watts but found this did not help them sustain far lower wattages over 20-30 seconds that sprints, Keirins and Team Sprints run over.

Hooking a cable from a bike to a weight stack is nothing new. Brits have been doing it for years. I would argue that although it recreates the joint angles of part of the stroke it fails to target the portion where maximal force is delivered and will not come anywhere close to the movement speed of a sprinting pedalling anywhere from 120-180 rpm.

a_n_t

hope you've got a brick wall nearby coachferg, you'll be banging your head against it shortly!

I gave up arguing a while back.

manxshred

My thoughts on this are here at the of that Aus article:

Weight training for enduros - the same strategies apply but maximal strength
and power are less critical. All endurance riding, even the bunch sprint at
the end, is really submaximal. A little bit of gym regularly helps to
maintain the structural integrity of the body, prevent imbalances and
prepare you for crashes, but the real gains come on the road. Racing is the
best training. All our best track enduros race on the road in Europe. They
come together for camps to touch up their track skills, but all of that was
learnt as juniors and in domestic track racing on the way up. For strength
endurance on the bike, ride up hills in the saddle on bigger gears. That was
the only strength work out team pursuit did for the last three years and
they won everything there was to win with a bucket load of world records to
boot. Incidentally, they are also the fastest starters."

If you are doing 200m sprints, get as strong as possible. If you are doing anything endurance, ride more. Track endurance is shorter than road riding yet those are the best people for it.

Mr Dog

This stuff is great, two sides with evidence fighting it out. Whilst those with fixed views will get little out of the thread, those open minded onlookers like me can only marvel and take out what they need.( or in my case understand ).
I'm off to the gym.