Re-thinking Strength Training for Cycling Performance
Comments
-
Well I know which side of the fence I'm on, so I'm off out on my bike. It's free, set up perfectly for me, and I don't have to wipe somebody else's sweat off it first.0
-
a_n_t wrote: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.
To be fair, given that this is BikeRadar you were most likely arguing with morons. This Markac chap seems capable of constructing a decent argument and has some evidence for his POV; I don't know if he's right or not, but this is about the only thread on here with worthwhile debate.0 -
Mr Dog wrote: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.
I love this stuff. I probably pi55 off the narrow-minded folk on here with my questions and challenges but if I see something posted that doesn't stand up to scrutiny I'll challenge it - if only to learn myself. I tend to steer clear of the physiology stuff because I know next-to-nothing about it (though I'm learning) but the engineering stuff I have 30 years of proper professional experience behind me as well as race-car prep & development as a hobby.
I'm willing to be convinced either way but actually I'm even more sure that it's entirely inconclusive and is far more related to the subject of the training rather than just a training rule that says A is right or B is right.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
CoachFerg wrote: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.
To start, thanks for posting--you seem well read which is good for the discourse.
I haven't seen the Gardiner/Martin studies, but understand the point. Although the WANT fatigue calculation has some phsiological ramifications it is not, by itself, a good measure in the context of this discussion. For example, if strength training improved Wp by 25% and Wa by 18%, the result would be that the fatigue index dropped as a result of the training. Sounds bad, but look--Wp and Wa are both increased. That means more faster/longer sprints even though WANT AF measure decreased. It is interesting, however, phsiologically that this phenomena exists, and I'll guess it could be explained by a difference in the limitations of the energy systems and the limitations of the muscle tensioning action (actin/myosin sliding).
Would you agree that this ratio is less important than unequal rises in both metrics? (assuming that was the case in the studies)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.
Ok, while we don't race to exaustion, knowing that strength training increases time to exhaustion is something that I interpret as important.
As for interval training, I'm not saying that shouldn't be done, if you're alluding to that. In fact, I'm not saying that current training protocols should be changed at all, with the exception of ADDING strength training for better anaerobic/Type IIx/b performance.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.
Regardless, of where the anaerobic/aerobic ratio ends up, there is certainly some recruitment of IIx/b fibers, which are not adequately stimulated for adapatation by anything you can do on a bike, pedaling in circles. You can't, for example, go to positive muscle failure in any kind of sprint workout
For sure, the early rabbits/attackers fatigue more quickly than guys sitting in the bunch, but I don't see how that applies to what I'm saying. What I'd say about that, however, is that strength training would make those guys fatigue a little later, but still fall back to the bunch.
I'm focused on the effect of strength training at the end of the race--does improved IIx/b fibers give you more and better attacks and a faster finish?Did you per chance read the title of the study?
I did read the title and abstract, but you'll note that the investigators used maximal accumulated O2 deficit as their measure of anaerobic capacity. This method is now widely accepted to not be a good measure of anaerobic capacity (http://bit.ly/fZ7qgt and http://bit.ly/gj4mIr). I was focusing on the time to exaustion.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.
Really? You don't accept that if someone who could leg press 300lbs (1RM), and strength training improves that to 375lbs, that 300lbs couldn't then be pressed multiple times? That's the definition of LME, and it carries over very well to cycling, in that every push-down and pull-up of the pedals represents a load being repeatedly moved.Not been shown in the research, in fact Levin 2009 showed decreased performance in a 60sec time trial after weight training.
Yes, saw the Levin study when reading this: http://bit.ly/ehuAj7
I'm not qualified to say who wins between Levin and Aargaard on this, but the phsiology theory of strength training's effect on muscular endurance has me believing more in Aagaard's interpretations and conclusions of the reviewed studies.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.
It is a direct quote...bad typing copying from a book. Again, not qualified to say who is right on this, but I would like to know what adapations Maughan and Gleeson refer to specifically. Are they saying that better performance of the ATP-PC or glycolytic processes are responsible for the improvement? Meaning, that improvements arise out more available ATP? I don't spefically disagree with that, and think it might be a component of improved anaerobic performance. But I also think that a large portion of improvement comes from the addition of actin and myosin proteins to IIx/b fibers from strength training (which doesn't occur optimally via submaximal interval training--and remember even the hardest sprints are submaximal movements).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.
...
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.
I agree, strength training does little to nothing for Type I or IIa fibers. In fact, some studies have shown strength training to convert IIx/b fibers to IIa. I think that is why some studies have shown that strength training results in small improvements in aerobic capacity (don't have those studies handy, but can dig up if needed).
As for the Brits having done the cable to the weight stack thing, can you direct me to any literature on that? I'd really like to see what was done and to what effect.0 -
markac wrote:I haven't seen the Gardiner/Martin studies, but understand the point. Although the WANT fatigue calculation has some phsiological ramifications it is not, by itself, a good measure in the context of this discussion. For example, if strength training improved Wp by 25% and Wa by 18%, the result would be that the fatigue index dropped as a result of the training. Sounds bad, but look--Wp and Wa are both increased. That means more faster/longer sprints even though WANT AF measure decreased. It is interesting, however, phsiologically that this phenomena exists, and I'll guess it could be explained by a difference in the limitations of the energy systems and the limitations of the muscle tensioning action (actin/myosin sliding).
Would you agree that this ratio is less important than unequal rises in both metrics? (assuming that was the case in the studies)
Which is why I gave the example of the Aussies under Martin Barras who would train for peak speed, peak power and peak strength (fitness based criteria) and in Beijing got thrashed by those who trained with the event in mind (event specific criteria).Ok, while we don't race to exaustion, knowing that strength training increases time to exhaustion is something that I interpret as important.
The Aussie sprinters thought the logic of training for peak speed, strength and power was sound but it cost them in Beijing, cost their programme funding and cost Marv his job as sprint coach.As for interval training, I'm not saying that shouldn't be done, if you're alluding to that. In fact, I'm not saying that current training protocols should be changed at all, with the exception of ADDING strength training for better anaerobic/Type IIx/b performance.
I think all that would achieve is very well trained type IIx that we would never actually use in competition. I have SRM data from a NZ ex World Track Champion showing that even in the Flying 200m he doesn't hit his peak power. His starting power in a Kilo is lower than his 200m power, his starting power in a pursuit is lower than his Kilo power and so on. Why train a fitness parameter if it is not going to be used in competition?
Having paused from coaching cyclists to work in strength and conditioning, coach and compete in gymnastics I also learned that intense gym sessions leave one pretty wrecked. A hypertrophy session will leave you unable to train hard for days. A maximal strength or power session for up to 14 days. Fair enough if hypertrophy or maximal strength is your bread and butter but cycling is an endurance sport where if we hit out too hard, over-utilise those IIx fibres we fatigue far more rapidly whether it is a 200m sprint or a 21 day stage race.
That fatigue also means we are not in an ideal state to perform event specific intervals. One year for Kilo seeing an opportunity to improve starting strength I included 50m standing starts and my riders all improved their first laps considerably. All was well till they hit the final lap and the wheels fell off. They paid the price for training isolated components rather than looking at the event demands. Going the other way it was reported the Germans did 5000m efforts on the track at 80% of Teams Pursuit speed at race cadence. We had Simon Jones share the work he did with Bradley Wiggins leading into Athens where he felt this again was not targeting any event specific adaptations and the Brits focused on 3/4 distance efforts at goal pace.Regardless, of where the anaerobic/aerobic ratio ends up, there is certainly some recruitment of IIx/b fibers, which are not adequately stimulated for adapatation by anything you can do on a bike, pedaling in circles. You can't, for example, go to positive muscle failure in any kind of sprint workout
Positive muscular failure is a made up term from the gym industry and has nothing to do with any cycling event. Numerous EMG studies and muscle biopsy studies would challenge the notion that one can not recruit and fatigue type IIx fibres on the bike. You can achieve hypertrophy from bike training alone. I had a road rider shift to track and over a 6 month period he gained 5kg of lean muscle mass (confirmed through regular skinfold testing).For sure, the early rabbits/attackers fatigue more quickly than guys sitting in the bunch, but I don't see how that applies to what I'm saying. What I'd say about that, however, is that strength training would make those guys fatigue a little later, but still fall back to the bunch.
Yet to be born out in practice, we see it time and time again where the ones with the anaerobic capacity hit out too hard too soon and die a thousand deaths whether it is going in a Keirin as soon as the Derny leaves or the rider who attacks at 100% and is reeled in soon after.I'm focused on the effect of strength training at the end of the race--does improved IIx/b fibers give you more and better attacks and a faster finish?
It would be a trade off. A track sprinter will have a far higher proportion of IIx fibres but these will be wasted if they can't get to the finish. Very rare to see them compete in endurance events and while Theo Bos could win World Sprint, Kilo and Keirin world titles his shift to road has been less than impressive, same when Marty Nothstein went from Sprint to Criterium. Be interesting to see how Jason Queally progresses from Kilo champ in 2000 to being part of the British Teams Pursuit squad. But then he is fighting age, the Kilo is 50% aerobic and also of note he was a Sprint team rider who stopped using weight training in preparation for sprint events.Did you per chance read the title of the study?
I did read the title and abstract, but you'll note that the investigators used maximal accumulated O2 deficit as their measure of anaerobic capacity. This method is now widely accepted to not be a good measure of anaerobic capacity (http://bit.ly/fZ7qgt and http://bit.ly/gj4mIr). I was focusing on the time to exaustion.
Again no sporting event is determined by time to exhaustion.Really? You don't accept that if someone who could leg press 300lbs (1RM), and strength training improves that to 375lbs, that 300lbs couldn't then be pressed multiple times? That's the definition of LME, and it carries over very well to cycling, in that every push-down and pull-up of the pedals represents a load being repeatedly moved.
The load in cycling is very low, Quadrant Analysis shows us that even in sprinting the loading of the bigger IIx fibres is minimal and it is the anaerobic capacity (supply of energy to the working IIx fibre) than the size or the strength of those fibres. The trick in cycling is to pace yourself well enough so you don't recruit those fibres and induce fatigue.Yes, saw the Levin study when reading this: http://bit.ly/ehuAj7
I'm not qualified to say who wins between Levin and Aargaard on this, but the phsiology theory of strength training's effect on muscular endurance has me believing more in Aagaard's interpretations and conclusions of the reviewed studies.
Per is yet to show that strong type IIx fibres increase the endurance of IIa or I fibres which is what he is claiming will happen. When the Size Principle indicates that as intensity increases we start with type I fibres and progress's to type IIa and on how well trained IIx fibres assist type I performance.It is a direct quote...bad typing copying from a book. Again, not qualified to say who is right on this, but I would like to know what adapations Maughan and Gleeson refer to specifically. Are they saying that better performance of the ATP-PC or glycolytic processes are responsible for the improvement? Meaning, that improvements arise out more available ATP? I don't spefically disagree with that, and think it might be a component of improved anaerobic performance. But I also think that a large portion of improvement comes from the addition of actin and myosin proteins to IIx/b fibers from strength training (which doesn't occur optimally via submaximal interval training--and remember even the hardest sprints are submaximal movements).
No contraction occurs without the supply of ATP to the working muscle which is what Maughan and Gleeson are indicating.
Yes hypertrophy will make you stronger but there is a trade off. Chris Hoy has 66cm thighs but has conceded that they are awfully un-aerodynamic as he hurtles around the track at 70kph. Perhaps that 90kg would get off the line better if he gave up some muscle as we saw in Beijing he never got on to Staff and Kenny but once up to speed was able to hold off the French (anaerobic capacity > muscular strength).I agree, strength training does little to nothing for Type I or IIa fibers. In fact, some studies have shown strength training to convert IIx/b fibers to IIa. I think that is why some studies have shown that strength training results in small improvements in aerobic capacity (don't have those studies handy, but can dig up if needed).
Yes, I would like to see that data.As for the Brits having done the cable to the weight stack thing, can you direct me to any literature on that? I'd really like to see what was done and to what effect.
It was a photo from some British site, I think BCF. I should have saved a copy as I can't find it. Erin Hartwell had a photo of a similar set up but I fail to see how isolation training comes close to event specific training, Why settle for small gains, mostly unproven or using poor research protocols, in aerobic fitness when you can perform event specific intervals and make HUGE gains in performance?0 -
CoachFerg wrote:As for the Brits having done the cable to the weight stack thing, can you direct me to any literature on that? I'd really like to see what was done and to what effect.
It was a photo from some British site, I think BCF. I should have saved a copy as I can't find it. Erin Hartwell had a photo of a similar set up but I fail to see how isolation training comes close to event specific training, Why settle for small gains, mostly unproven or using poor research protocols, in aerobic fitness when you can perform event specific intervals and make HUGE gains in performance?
Would it be possible that this set up was used for rehab/physio after injury as opposed to actual training?
Some very interesting points coming out.
0 -
NapoleonD wrote:Would it be possible that this set up was used for rehab/physio after injury as opposed to actual training?
http://www.luescherteknik.com.au/web_im ... lement.pdf0 -
Christ, I'm going to get my thinking cap.0
-
Cool, ta. Thought it more of a possibility of that than actual training per se...0
-
CoachFerg wrote:
Which is why I gave the example of the Aussies under Martin Barras who would train for peak speed, peak power and peak strength (fitness based criteria) and in Beijing got thrashed by those who trained with the event in mind (event specific criteria).markac wrote:I haven't seen the Gardiner/Martin studies, but understand the point. Although the WANT fatigue calculation has some physiological ramifications it is not, by itself, a good measure in the context of this discussion. For example, if strength training improved Wp by 25% and Wa by 18%, the result would be that the fatigue index dropped as a result of the training. Sounds bad, but look--Wp and Wa are both increased. That means more faster/longer sprints even though WANT AF measure decreased. It is interesting, however, physiologically that this phenomena exists, and I'll guess it could be explained by a difference in the limitations of the energy systems and the limitations of the muscle tensioning action (actin/myosin sliding).
Would you agree that this ratio is less important than unequal rises in both metrics? (assuming that was the case in the studies)
Even if I knew how the Aussies trained as you mention, it doesn't really answer the question. I accept that there is some phenomena which causes some disproportionate drop in WANT AF as peak wattage increases, but do you agree or not with my interpretation that if both peak wattage and average wattage go up as a result of strength training, that such a result outweighs the lower WANT AF?
Anaerobic Capacity, as measured by WANT will go up with higher peak power and higher average power, and I think that is a much more useful thing to look at in this context.
Ok...but how did they train for peak speed, strength and power? And how does that rebut my assertion that time to exhaustion is important? I realize it may be less important for the 200m or 1k, but do think it is very important in road races, when most races are won with anaerobic capacity and/or peak power.
The Aussie sprinters thought the logic of training for peak speed, strength and power was sound but it cost them in Beijing, cost their programme funding and cost Marv his job as sprint coach.Ok, while we don't race to exhaustion, knowing that strength training increases time to exhaustion is something that I interpret as important.
Not sure I understand how that sprinter doesn't hit peak in the Flying 200m. In a Wingate test the measurement of peak power is the avg watts for the first 5 seconds of an interval (and usually the first interval is where the the high value occurs). Do you calculate peak power some other way? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I am curious why this guy's Flying 200m Wp wouldn't at least equal his WANT Wp.I think all that would achieve is very well trained type IIx that we would never actually use in competition. I have SRM data from a NZ ex World Track Champion showing that even in the Flying 200m he doesn't hit his peak power. His starting power in a Kilo is lower than his 200m power, his starting power in a pursuit is lower than his Kilo power and so on. Why train a fitness parameter if it is not going to be used in competition?Having paused from coaching cyclists to work in strength and conditioning, coach and compete in gymnastics I also learned that intense gym sessions leave one pretty wrecked. A hypertrophy session will leave you unable to train hard for days. A maximal strength or power session for up to 14 days. Fair enough if hypertrophy or maximal strength is your bread and butter but cycling is an endurance sport where if we hit out too hard, over-utilise those IIx fibres we fatigue far more rapidly whether it is a 200m sprint or a 21 day stage race.
That fatigue also means we are not in an ideal state to perform event specific intervals. One year for Kilo seeing an opportunity to improve starting strength I included 50m standing starts and my riders all improved their first laps considerably. All was well till they hit the final lap and the wheels fell off. They paid the price for training isolated components rather than looking at the event demands. Going the other way it was reported the Germans did 5000m efforts on the track at 80% of Teams Pursuit speed at race cadence. We had Simon Jones share the work he did with Bradley Wiggins leading into Athens where he felt this again was not targeting any event specific adaptations and the Brits focused on 3/4 distance efforts at goal pace.
Interesting about the 50m starts hurting the last lap. That's a head scratcher, and something I'll think about. That said, and relating to the "wrecking" aspect of strength training, my belief is that strength training protocols might need to be adjusted for cyclists. A guy that does only 200m races maybe utilizes the most intense protocols, while the guy going for the hour record does nothing.
I was just mentioning failure as an element of a protocol, and of course, it is really just a form of fatigue. That said, fully fatiguing the type IIx/b fibers is important, and I'd like to know more about how cycling recruits the fastest-twitch fibers. Can you post some of these studies? The reason I ask is that there is some disagreement about fast-twitch fiber typing--some say IIx are fastest, others IIb (which is why I put IIx/b), and I'd be curious to see if if this fits in somehow.Positive muscular failure is a made up term from the gym industry and has nothing to do with any cycling event. Numerous EMG studies and muscle biopsy studies would challenge the notion that one can not recruit and fatigue type IIx fibres on the bike. You can achieve hypertrophy from bike training alone. I had a road rider shift to track and over a 6 month period he gained 5kg of lean muscle mass (confirmed through regular skinfold testing).
As for achieving hypertrophy on a bike, I'm certain that is true. I'm not, however, seeking to achieve hypertrophy and certainly that would be detrimental to certain elements of cycling. From what I've read, hypertrophy is not a concern when endurance and strength training are combined.
Tell them not to do that. :-)Yet to be born out in practice, we see it time and time again where the ones with the anaerobic capacity hit out too hard too soon and die a thousand deaths whether it is going in a Keirin as soon as the Derny leaves or the rider who attacks at 100% and is reeled in soon after.
Totally agree. I understand that genetics plays a huge in role fiber type distribution, and training has genetic limits. While I follow road racing quite a bit, I don't follow track that much--out of the top 10 Flying 200m sprinters in the world, do any of them do any kind of strength training? (I know quite a bit of road pros do).It would be a trade off. A track sprinter will have a far higher proportion of IIx fibres but these will be wasted if they can't get to the finish. Very rare to see them compete in endurance events and while Theo Bos could win World Sprint, Kilo and Keirin world titles his shift to road has been less than impressive, same when Marty Nothstein went from Sprint to Criterium. Be interesting to see how Jason Queally progresses from Kilo champ in 2000 to being part of the British Teams Pursuit squad. But then he is fighting age, the Kilo is 50% aerobic and also of note he was a Sprint team rider who stopped using weight training in preparation for sprint events.
Then why all these academic types measuring time to exhaustion? :-)Again no sporting event is determined by time to exhaustion.
Seriously, even though we don't define any event as a time-to-exhaustion competition, it is indeed pre-mature exhaustion that loses a lot races, yeah? For example, any late solo attack in a mass start event which doesn't succeed, is a race that might have been won by increased time-to-exhaustion (just ask Phillipe Gilbert about this year's world's RR) :twisted:
If the loading is minimal in the bigger IIx fibers, I'd recommend a bigger gear.The load in cycling is very low, Quadrant Analysis shows us that even in sprinting the loading of the bigger IIx fibres is minimal and it is the anaerobic capacity (supply of energy to the working IIx fibre) than the size or the strength of those fibres. The trick in cycling is to pace yourself well enough so you don't recruit those fibres and induce fatigue.
Seriously, I think anaerobic capacity is some function of the muscular system to produce AND expend energy. ATP-PC and glycolysis product ATP (the energy) and the actin/myosin sliding expends it. Do you have any data that shows how anaerobic capacity is increased? Data that says it is increased via increased production of ATP?
Like I said before, I suppose this is possible, but I don't think it is responsible for the preponderance of the improvement--as the physiology books I've read characterize improved performance of type IIx/b fibers as a result of increased actin/myosin.
This isn't my profession so I don't read everything he's written, but in the paper I quoted he states "The enhancement in endurance capacity appears to involve training-induced increases in the proportion of type IIA muscle fibers as well as gains in maximal muscle strength (MVC) and rapid force characteristics (rate of force development), while likely also involving enhancements in neuromuscular function."Per is yet to show that strong type IIx fibres increase the endurance of IIa or I fibres which is what he is claiming will happen. When the Size Principle indicates that as intensity increases we start with type I fibres and progress's to type IIa and on how well trained IIx fibres assist type I performance.
That is different from what you're saying that he is trying to show. He's not saying the existing IIa fibers have more endurance, he's saying the strength training downconverts some faster twitch fibers to type IIa. This would result in higher mitochondrial capacity for that system, and hence more endurance.
I didn't ask if muscle contraction could occur without ATP. What I want to know is what percentage of improvement in anaerobic capacity is due to the fuel that is pumped into the engine (ATP) vs. how much more fuel the engine is able to burn (actin/myosin sliding).No contraction occurs without the supply of ATP to the working muscle which is what Maughan and Gleeson are indicating.
Yes hypertrophy will make you stronger but there is a trade off. Chris Hoy has 66cm thighs but has conceded that they are awfully un-aerodynamic as he hurtles around the track at 70kph. Perhaps that 90kg would get off the line better if he gave up some muscle as we saw in Beijing he never got on to Staff and Kenny but once up to speed was able to hold off the French (anaerobic capacity > muscular strength).
I know I could get more power by supercharging my E46 M3, but I sure would like to have that V8 in the current model.
I'll dig up and post tomorrow. (But I think a lot of it is in Per's paper.)Yes, I would like to see that data.
Thanks for that pic. I'm actually relieved I'm not the only one that thought of this.It was a photo from some British site, I think BCF. I should have saved a copy as I can't find it. Erin Hartwell had a photo of a similar set up but I fail to see how isolation training comes close to event specific training, Why settle for small gains, mostly unproven or using poor research protocols, in aerobic fitness when you can perform event specific intervals and make HUGE gains in performance?
It's a pic on a Facebook page (via fbcdn.net)--would you mind giving me the friend link that refers to the pic? Hoping to see if there is any commentary about it.0 -
markac wrote:Even if I knew how the Aussies trained as you mention, it doesn't really answer the question. I accept that there is some phenomena which causes some disproportionate drop in WANT AF as peak wattage increases, but do you agree or not with my interpretation that if both peak wattage and average wattage go up as a result of strength training, that such a result outweighs the lower WANT AF?
If that happened. As I said the Aussies trained peak power, speed and strength and it sent them backwards in the actual events.Anaerobic Capacity, as measured by WANT will go up with higher peak power and higher average power, and I think that is a much more useful thing to look at in this context.
If it happened like that. Have supervised enough Wingate Tests to know if one goes up it comes at the cost of the other. Gardner et al found that International Sprinters have a lower peak power but higher average power than National level riders.Ok...but how did they train for peak speed, strength and power? And how does that rebut my assertion that time to exhaustion is important? I realize it may be less important for the 200m or 1k, but do think it is very important in road races, when most races are won with anaerobic capacity and/or peak power.
Most of those tests to exhaustion were performed at aerobic levels where anaerobic capacity and certainly peak power were not a factor in the fatigue.
You are overestimating the role of anaerobic capacity in road cycling. Less than 1% according the rather large number of SRM files I have collected over the last 10 years.Not sure I understand how that sprinter doesn't hit peak in the Flying 200m.
Perhaps he understands that peak power can not be sustained for 200m.In a Wingate test the measurement of peak power is the avg watts for the first 5 seconds of an interval (and usually the first interval is where the the high value occurs).
We use a SRM erg and can measure every 10th of a second so can see time to peak, peak power, time at peak (usually less than a second) and then the drop off to 30sec average power.Do you calculate peak power some other way? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I am curious why this guy's Flying 200m Wp wouldn't at least equal his WANT Wp.
Not measured from a Wingate Test. Peak in these are usually lower than SRM use in the field. His data was from actual competition.Interesting about the 50m starts hurting the last lap. That's a head scratcher, and something I'll think about. That said, and relating to the "wrecking" aspect of strength training, my belief is that strength training protocols might need to be adjusted for cyclists. A guy that does only 200m races maybe utilizes the most intense protocols, while the guy going for the hour record does nothing.
For me at an early stage of my coaching career it was an eye opener on the importance of training specificity. What you train is what you get.I was just mentioning failure as an element of a protocol, and of course, it is really just a form of fatigue. That said, fully fatiguing the type IIx/b fibers is important, and I'd like to know more about how cycling recruits the fastest-twitch fibers. Can you post some of these studies? The reason I ask is that there is some disagreement about fast-twitch fiber typing--some say IIx are fastest, others IIb (which is why I put IIx/b), and I'd be curious to see if if this fits in somehow.
You could do 10m standing starts. BMX riders do this as their races are decided at the start. But if not a BMX rider (Elite BMX have far higher peak power than most track sprinters) then you would be training muscle fibres that are not used in competition.I understand that genetics plays a huge in role fiber type distribution, and training has genetic limits. While I follow road racing quite a bit, I don't follow track that much--out of the top 10 Flying 200m sprinters in the world, do any of them do any kind of strength training? (I know quite a bit of road pros do).
AFAIK they all do weight training.
Then why all these academic types measuring time to exhaustion? :-)Again no sporting event is determined by time to exhaustion.
To lazy to perform more valid tests. There is a push in academia to use tests that reflect actual sporting performance.Seriously, even though we don't define any event as a time-to-exhaustion competition, it is indeed pre-mature exhaustion that loses a lot races, yeah? For example, any late solo attack in a mass start event which doesn't succeed, is a race that might have been won by increased time-to-exhaustion (just ask Phillipe Gilbert about this year's world's RR) :twisted:
Poor pacing. Happens in everything from flying 200m to Tour de France.If the loading is minimal in the bigger IIx fibers, I'd recommend a bigger gear.
And fatigue earlier. Watch a rider overgear in a Individual Pursuit for real world evidence of this.Like I said before, I suppose this is possible, but I don't think it is responsible for the preponderance of the improvement--as the physiology books I've read characterize improved performance of type IIx/b fibers as a result of increased actin/myosin.
Myofibrillar hypertrophy and this is a trade off between the increase in strength and a drop in power to weight. Also for a cyclist a larger muscle = greater frontal area and depending on where the hypertrophy occurs can affect flexibility.This isn't my profession so I don't read everything he's written, but in the paper I quoted he states "The enhancement in endurance capacity appears to involve training-induced increases in the proportion of type IIA muscle fibers as well as gains in maximal muscle strength (MVC) and rapid force characteristics (rate of force development), while likely also involving enhancements in neuromuscular function."
Will await for him to publish the data to support this.That is different from what you're saying that he is trying to show. He's not saying the existing IIa fibers have more endurance, he's saying the strength training downconverts some faster twitch fibers to type IIa. This would result in higher mitochondrial capacity for that system, and hence more endurance.
Downconverts? If you perform a reasonable amount of endurance I sure you can downconvert a lot of of fast twitch fibres.It's a pic on a Facebook page (via fbcdn.net)--would you mind giving me the friend link that refers to the pic? Hoping to see if there is any commentary about it.
Nothing of real interest.0 -
Boy, I was ready to keep going on this until I got to that one.CoachFerg wrote:markac wrote:...out of the top 10 Flying 200m sprinters in the world, do any of them do any kind of strength training? (I know quite a bit of road pros do).
AFAIK they all do weight training.
I sense that a lot of cyclists do resistance training, but because there have been so many studies that tried and failed to show that it significantly improves aerobic endurance performance, we have a lot of people asking why train with weights. And the fact that squats, leg presses, lunges, etc. don't correctly replicate the pedaling motion just adds gas to the flame. Hence, why I posted in the first place.0 -
Interesting debate. For now I'm going to take the advice of the experienced coaches who have been there and done it and not rely on resistance training to boost my performance on the bike.0
-
I bet if I did strength training I'd get no faster. It'd be better using that time for proper training.0
-
Pross wrote:Interesting debate. For now I'm going to take the advice of the experienced coaches who have been there and done it and not rely on resistance training to boost my performance on the bike.
Ok...there are lots of experienced coaches, however, who do think strength training has benefits, and if you wanted to do a little of your own due diligence, just try the Testa workout for 4-6 weeks. It is done on your bike, and can easily be included in an LSD or LT interval ride (wouldn't recommend with a VO2 max interval session). Here's a link to some info on the workout: http://bit.ly/5Q2Izg
If your coach(es) will allow, twice a week--with 48 hrs. between such workouts--incorporate a hill in the middle or end of an LSD ride, or at the end of an LT interval ride (10 min. after the last interval). On the hill--preferably a 4-5 min. climb with an even grade--put it into a really big gear and pedal at only 30-40 rpm (focusing ONLY on the push-down segment--you can injure your hamstring if you pull up too hard). Be sure to push pretty hard on the down stroke--it needs to feel like you're lifting a weight, so gear selection will depend on how steep the hill is.
Myself and many road racers I know have benefitted greatly from this workout, and several coaches I've spoken with speak very highly of it--specifically citing the anaerobic performance benefits. Worth a try if you want to see for yourself.0 -
You can't build strength on a bike, even with such workouts. They don't involve enough force to build strength. Not that it matters all that much since it's sustainable power that we are most interested in developing.markac wrote:Pross wrote:Interesting debate. For now I'm going to take the advice of the experienced coaches who have been there and done it and not rely on resistance training to boost my performance on the bike.
Ok...there are lots of experienced coaches, however, who do think strength training has benefits, and if you wanted to do a little of your own due diligence, just try the Testa workout for 4-6 weeks. It is done on your bike, and can easily be included in an LSD or LT interval ride (wouldn't recommend with a VO2 max interval session). Here's a link to some info on the workout: http://bit.ly/5Q2Izg
If your coach(es) will allow, twice a week--with 48 hrs. between such workouts--incorporate a hill in the middle or end of an LSD ride, or at the end of an LT interval ride (10 min. after the last interval). On the hill--preferably a 4-5 min. climb with an even grade--put it into a really big gear and pedal at only 30-40 rpm (focusing ONLY on the push-down segment--you can injure your hamstring if you pull up too hard). Be sure to push pretty hard on the down stroke--it needs to feel like you're lifting a weight, so gear selection will depend on how steep the hill is.
Myself and many road racers I know have benefitted greatly from this workout, and several coaches I've spoken with speak very highly of it--specifically citing the anaerobic performance benefits. Worth a try if you want to see for yourself.
Why do something that you say might risk an injury when the benefits are not any more than simply riding at same power (hillclimb speed) in a regular self selected gear?
Want to build anaerobic capacity? - do some anaerobic workouts. I find that's a far more useful method for improving AC.0 -
I think I've said enough to defend my assertions from a physiological standpoint, so no plan to drag this on any further in that regard.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:You can't build strength on a bike, even with such workouts. They don't involve enough force to build strength. Not that it matters all that much since it's sustainable power that we are most interested in developing.
Why do something that you say might risk an injury when the benefits are not any more than simply riding at same power (hillclimb speed) in a regular self selected gear?
Want to build anaerobic capacity? - do some anaerobic workouts. I find that's a far more useful method for improving AC.
As for suggesting something with risk of injury, there is risk of injury just riding your bike--but like most things risky, negative consequences can be mitigated by care and attentiveness. And that's what I'm doing here, and I'll repeat: for anyone thinking of doing this workout, be careful to not pull hard in that segment of the pedaling motion--additionally, you may want to do this exercise with lower gears for just the pull-up motion, to strengthen the hamstrings and hip flexors.
Last, if anyone out there has done this type of high-resistance training, would be great to hear you chime in.0 -
Well you've all proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this is an endurance sport. Top marks for perseverance to all the main protagonists. Please tell me that tomorrow is a rest day!
Personally I'm persuaded by the arguments of the coaches Alex and Ferg; seems little point in training for something you'll never actually do on the bike.0 -
markac wrote:Pross wrote:Interesting debate. For now I'm going to take the advice of the experienced coaches who have been there and done it and not rely on resistance training to boost my performance on the bike.
Ok...there are lots of experienced coaches, however, who do think strength training has benefits, and if you wanted to do a little of your own due diligence, just try the Testa workout for 4-6 weeks. It is done on your bike, and can easily be included in an LSD or LT interval ride (wouldn't recommend with a VO2 max interval session). Here's a link to some info on the workout: http://bit.ly/5Q2Izg
If your coach(es) will allow, twice a week--with 48 hrs. between such workouts--incorporate a hill in the middle or end of an LSD ride, or at the end of an LT interval ride (10 min. after the last interval). On the hill--preferably a 4-5 min. climb with an even grade--put it into a really big gear and pedal at only 30-40 rpm (focusing ONLY on the push-down segment--you can injure your hamstring if you pull up too hard). Be sure to push pretty hard on the down stroke--it needs to feel like you're lifting a weight, so gear selection will depend on how steep the hill is.
Myself and many road racers I know have benefitted greatly from this workout, and several coaches I've spoken with speak very highly of it--specifically citing the anaerobic performance benefits. Worth a try if you want to see for yourself.
Why are you saying that the so called strength intervals should be at the end of the interval or after the last interval?0 -
LT intervals are typically prescribed with periods of intensity and periods of recovery in between intervals. Rather than mess with that rhythm, I'd suggest completing the intervals, recover for some amount of time then throw in the strength workout on your way home (assuming you have a suitable hill).NJK wrote:Why are you saying that the so called strength intervals should be at the end of the interval or after the last interval?
On LSD rides, you can just throw this in anywhere.0 -
Sorry, what physiological principles support your argument?
Can you also clarify how riding up a hill at 30-50% of your peak power can be claimed as strength training?0 -
The physiological support for these workouts is no different than what I've been saying earlier in this thread. The higher load associated with a very big gear, on a hill, is a simulation of a resistance training exercise (albeit non-optimal from the ACSM pov). And moderate to heavy resistance training is what is known to maximize strength and high power capacity.CoachFerg wrote:Sorry, what physiological principles support your argument?
Can you also clarify how riding up a hill at 30-50% of your peak power can be claimed as strength training?
The earliest known (to me) prescriber of these exercises is Massimo Testa of Mapei fame. Chris Carmichael also espouses this form of training, and has even broken it down into exercises of slower movement (strength) and quick accelerations (explosiveness).
We probably can't invite them to this debate, but I'm sure nobody here could convince them that these workouts are not efficacious.
As for the 30-50% of peak power, I think you mis-read that...the 30-50 refers to cadence. Much slower than normal cadence against a much higher than normal resistance (double or more the chain inches)0 -
markac wrote:The physiological support for these workouts is no different than what I've been saying earlier in this thread. The higher load associated with a very big gear, on a hill, is a simulation of a resistance training exercise (albeit non-optimal from the ACSM pov).
What gym programme attempts to build strength by training at 30-50% of 1RM? More likely 15-30% as one can get closer to their true maximal strength performing a deadlift or leg press.And moderate to heavy resistance training is what is known to maximize strength and high power capacity.
Strength and high power capacity are two very different fitness qualities.
How do you propose that moderate resistance exercise will increase strength?
How do you propose that heavy resistance exercise will improve sustained power when strength training targets type IIx fibres and prolonged exercise uses IIa and I fibres?The earliest known (to me) prescriber of these exercises is Massimo Testa of Mapei fame. Chris Carmichael also espouses this form of training, and has even broken it down into exercises of slower movement (strength) and quick accelerations (explosiveness).
Good for them. I hope one day they will provide a physiological rationale for their programmes rather than copy from Conconi and we all know how he got such good results from his riders.We probably can't invite them to this debate, but I'm sure nobody here could convince them that these workouts are not efficacious.
Testa has published a few studies, I welcome him to provide real evidence of the efficacy of SFR or SE efforts. Only thing that comes close to scientific analysis of this form of training is...
http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/w ... e-anymore/As for the 30-50% of peak power, I think you mis-read that...the 30-50 refers to cadence. Much slower than normal cadence against a much higher than normal resistance (double or more the chain inches)
Not at all, SE efforts are normally performed at L4 power around the FTP which is a long way off ones peak power, further off peak strength so how anyone claims them as a strength exercise is beyond me. The whole strength endurance concept is ludicrous. While we have average power, average speed or average HR are people saying there is something called average strength?0 -
I'll take this one first, in the hope we'll get closer together on this at the outset of my comments.CoachFerg wrote:Testa has published a few studies, I welcome him to provide real evidence of the efficacy of SFR or SE efforts. Only thing that comes close to scientific analysis of this form of training is...
http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/w ... e-anymore/
First, keep in mind, that I only recommended the Testa workouts as something to try, and stated it is a NON-OPTIMAL form of strength training. I advocated a different modality in my first post.
Without fully studying the detail of the Coggan article, it is clear they are demonstrating their type of workouts, "standing starts, or seated “stomps” in a large gear," are superior to the Testa workouts.
Guess what? I fully agree with Coggan. Those workouts are probably better for strength development due to the higher forces required.
But there is more there to support what I've been trying to say: "standing starts, or seated “stomps” in a large gear, are roughly comparable to those typically encountered when, e.g., training with weights. Consequently, this type of training would seem far more likely to result in increases in muscle size and strength, and hence possibly in maximal neuromuscular power."
"Roughly comparable...to training with weights."
That one statement pretty much substantiates what I've been trying to say all along. On-bike strength training is roughly comparable, but not identical, and I proffer that there would be at least a 3% gain, perhaps somewhat more, for performing power/strength training exercises in a non-roughly manner :-)
And here are the shortcomings that get us to "roughly": 1) the muscle groups have periods of rest during each rotation of the crank, 2) progressive overloading is limited, and 3) there is no eccentric muscle contraction (which is shown to improve strength over concentric-only contractions)
And the last place roughly is not optimal, according to physiologists, is that "regular" strength training, is necessary for optimal power development. Can't do that on a bike for reasons you and Alex have both stated.
Where do you keep getting that I've said 30-50% of 1RM? I said 30-50 "RPM"-rotations per minute. ACSM recommends 60-70% 1RM for novice to Intermediate trainees for strength (80-100% for expert), and for power it is recommended that concurrent with strength training, sessions at lower %1RM should be included, and should have more repetitions with higher velocity movements.What gym programme attempts to build strength by training at 30-50% of 1RM? More likely 15-30% as one can get closer to their true maximal strength performing a deadlift or leg press.
A little different, but not very: http://bit.ly/gO8r5YStrength and high power capacity are two very different fitness qualities.
"In addition, maximum strength is strongly associated with PP (peak power) even at relatively light loads such as those associated with sport-specific dynamic explosiveness"
This is universally accepted by physiologists. It's not the same thing, but it is trained almost identically, with variations for power lying largely in the repetitions and velocity of the exercises (but only as an ADDITION to strength training).
"Moderate" is a term that means something different for everyone...we can stick to the %1RM nomenclature if that helps.How do you propose that moderate resistance exercise will increase strength?
I don't propose this, if what you mean by sustained power, is referring to what many people call lactate-threshold power or functional threshold power. I'm only advocating strength training to optimally train the IIx fibers, for higher peak power and higher anaerobic capacity. Stronger, more powerful, type IIx fibers enable higher peak power and higher local muscular endurance.How do you propose that heavy resistance exercise will improve sustained power when strength training targets type IIx fibres and prolonged exercise uses IIa and I fibres?
This is probably semantic, given I agree that Coggan's standing starts and seated stomps are likely superior to the SE workout for power development.Not at all, SE efforts are normally performed at L4 power around the FTP which is a long way off ones peak power, further off peak strength so how anyone claims them as a strength exercise is beyond me. The whole strength endurance concept is ludicrous. While we have average power, average speed or average HR are people saying there is something called average strength?0 -
markac wrote:I'll take this one first, in the hope we'll get closer together on this at the outset of my comments.
First, keep in mind, that I only recommended the Testa workouts as something to try, and stated it is a NON-OPTIMAL form of strength training. I advocated a different modality in my first post.
Do you normally recommend "non-optimal" training modalities?
I see you still refer to it as strength training. What do you base this on?Without fully studying the detail of the Coggan article, it is clear they are demonstrating their type of workouts, "standing starts, or seated “stomps” in a large gear," are superior to the Testa workouts.
I suggest you study the details of article.Guess what? I fully agree with Coggan. Those workouts are probably better for strength development due to the higher forces required.
But there is more there to support what I've been trying to say: "standing starts, or seated “stomps” in a large gear, are roughly comparable to those typically encountered when, e.g., training with weights. Consequently, this type of training would seem far more likely to result in increases in muscle size and strength, and hence possibly in maximal neuromuscular power."
Well, more so than riding at 250-400 watts for 20min at 40rpm."Roughly comparable...to training with weights."
That one statement pretty much substantiates what I've been trying to say all along. On-bike strength training is roughly comparable, but not identical, and I proffer that there would be at least a 3% gain, perhaps somewhat more, for performing power/strength training exercises in a non-roughly manner :-)
I look forward to seeing the data to substantiate such a claim. I would take that as a hint that the necessary strength for cycling can be developed on the bike. The shortest event in cycling is the flying 200m TT and a Wingate test shows that we can not sustain the peak power that can be attained for longer than 1-2 seconds let alone the 9.5 to 10.8 seconds required to be a male or female World elite rider. This means we can easily train above our goal power for even the flying 200m and achieve the necessary overload required to progress in the sport.And the last place roughly is not optimal, according to physiologists, is that "regular" strength training, is necessary for optimal power development. Can't do that on a bike for reasons you and Alex have both stated.
See above, you can achieve overload on a bike. I have some funny photos of my riders losing their lunch after an intensive sprint session.
Where do you keep getting that I've said 30-50% of 1RM? I said 30-50 "RPM"-rotations per minute. ACSM recommends 60-70% 1RM for novice to Intermediate trainees for strength (80-100% for expert), and for power it is recommended that concurrent with strength training, sessions at lower %1RM should be included, and should have more repetitions with higher velocity movements.What gym programme attempts to build strength by training at 30-50% of 1RM? More likely 15-30% as one can get closer to their true maximal strength performing a deadlift or leg press.
I have said 30-50% of maximal power as the most common form of SE training as prescribed by Walsh, Testa, Sassi etc are 20min efforts on climbs at 35-50 rpm.
A little different, but not very: http://bit.ly/gO8r5YStrength and high power capacity are two very different fitness qualities.
Max Strength = Peak Power, no surprises there. But you will find in the lab and on the track peak power does not = peak performance in sprinting. In the NZ Sprint Team the riders with the highest peak powers are actually the poorest performers in the actual racing. It's an easy mistake, easy to get feedback on peak power or strength from a Wingate Test, what they lift in the gym or peak speed from a cyclecomputer. Without an expensive track SRM they don't really know what their power is in relation to the actual event.This is universally accepted by physiologists. It's not the same thing, but it is trained almost identically, with variations for power lying largely in the repetitions and velocity of the exercises (but only as an ADDITION to strength training).
They are not trained identically. Sprinters train differently from Gymnasts, Shot Put train different to Javelin, Powerlifters train different to Weightlifters. They all recognise the principles of specificity and event/sport specific overload. Seems that cycling is one sport that gets sucked into the S&C mantra that strength is everything.I don't propose this, if what you mean by sustained power, is referring to what many people call lactate-threshold power or functional threshold power. I'm only advocating strength training to optimally train the IIx fibers, for higher peak power and higher anaerobic capacity. Stronger, more powerful, type IIx fibers enable higher peak power and higher local muscular endurance.
Not that any event beyond 1000m uses type IIx fibres, that riders suited to events longer than 1000m will have a proportion of IIx fibres worth training and that excessive training of strength and peak power will reduce time that can be devoted to raising VO2 or FTP for track endurance or road/MTB events.
As shown above these IIx fibres can be trained on the bike. We can all ride above our 9.55 sec average power easily.
My peak power is 1331 watts and my 9 sec ave power is 1187 watts. This is the same for all of my riders (9sec power 100-300 watts lower than peak power) so there is huge scope to overload the IIx fibres on the bike.0 -
CoachFerg...rather than going on ad nauseam on this (I'll throw in the towel on trying to convince you of my position), can you answer two questions?
1) being that I support strength training for certain areas of cycling performance, and you have taken an opposite position, can you explain why the top 10 track sprinters in the world employ this modality of training? It appears that track is your focus in cycling, and you oppose the training modality, yet you say the best in the sport employ that very training method.
2) what is it about the Coggan workouts that are better than a combination of traditional strength/power training AND some form of very high-intensity, event-specific sprint training? (And with proper aerobic training that you'd include in a program.)0 -
markac wrote:1) being that I support strength training for certain areas of cycling performance, and you have taken an opposite position, can you explain why the top 10 track sprinters in the world employ this modality of training? It appears that track is your focus in cycling, and you oppose the training modality, yet you say the best in the sport employ that very training method.
No I coach road, track and Downhill.
I assume the top 10 sprinters in the World train with weights because that is what they have always done. This says nothing over whether it is right or wrong. There is the assumption that more strength is better even though there is no evidence of this. Chris Hoy's peak squat of 500lbs is 90lbs shy of the WR in the 90kg class for women. There is also the pursuit of hypertrophy, or muscularisation as the French call it but this just leads to reduced aerodynamics and poor flexibility on the bike.
I have spoken with enough National coaches to appreciate that science and good practice can play a very minor role in training. There are also big gaps in the influence of the programme on the riders. At a sport science conference the EIS Sprinters pretty much said they train themselves. A talented group of US sprinters tried the same and got nowhere. I think considering the wide variety of techniques employed by coaches and teams that the template for sprinting excellence still has some work to be done on it.2) what is it about the Coggan workouts that are better than a combination of traditional strength/power training AND some form of very high-intensity, event-specific sprint training? (And with proper aerobic training that you'd include in a program.)
Specificity and a measured level of overload. Mixed training = mixed results.0 -
Well, we agree to disagree then.CoachFerg wrote:I have spoken with enough National coaches to appreciate that science and good practice can play a very minor role in training. There are also big gaps in the influence of the programme on the riders. At a sport science conference the EIS Sprinters pretty much said they train themselves. A talented group of US sprinters tried the same and got nowhere. I think considering the wide variety of techniques employed by coaches and teams that the template for sprinting excellence still has some work to be done on it.
Specificity and a measured level of overload. Mixed training = mixed results.
Some think that RT has a role in cycling, some don't.
Some think specificity is defined as doing the sport and some think it is defined by how skeletal muscle is used in a sport.0 -
so what did you guys decide then? :?Death or Glory- Just another Story0
