Re-thinking Strength Training for Cycling Performance

mattshrops

:twisted:

markac

mattshrops wrote:

so what did you guys decide then? :?

It was decided that I didn't change CoachFerg's or Alex's mind on this, but nor did they reverse my thinking.

What's important is what others thought of the weight (pardon the pun) of evidence, and if any new light on the argument was shed--causing a change in thinking in one or more minds.

CoachFerg

markac wrote:

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.

Some don't care what others think only what the data shows us.

Canterbury Track Cycling Championships and all of my riders put up great first time rides over 500m or 1000m or made huge improvements over last year. None do any gym training, all specific work on the bike for health and fitness, conditioning and as was proved last night for performance!

markac

CoachFerg wrote:

Some don't care what others think only what the data shows us.

Gosh, if that is meant to be a parting shot, let's survey the corroborating evidence/data we've each posted:

CoachFerg:

1. Gardiner and Martin studies (no links) stating that high peak power results in lower Wingate Fatigue Index
--I rebutted with my interpretation of the insignificance of that compared to having both higher Wp and Wa,
--And asked you a direct question in this regard, which you didn't answer

2. The Levin 2009 study (again no link) pertaining to decreased performance in 60s TT
--I responded that Aagaard rebutted the value of that study, but ceded I couldn't dispute it myself, but I'll give Aagaard's PHd. higher standing the Master's Thesis by Levin

3. Your Coggan article--which I generally agreed with, but added that Coggan was saying his workouts were "roughly" like weight training


So, you've posted no controverting data whatsoever, but I'll give you half credit for the Gardner, Martin, and Levin citations.

The remainder of your argument was all personal belief, anecdotal evidence (and mostly from personal observation), a lot of semantics, and plenty of negative quips toward me.

You have brought very little to this debate in the way of data, scientific theory, or scientfically-backed rebuttal to my points.


markac:

http://bit.ly/htAOjd A recent study, with data, showing a 7.8% gain in 5-min. all out performance after 185 minutes at 44% of VO2 max

http://bit.ly/gO8r5Y A study demonstrating the relationship of strength and power (not to mention the direct relationship in the science of Physics)

http://bit.ly/ehuAj7 A review of studies, with lots of data, including specific rebuttals to the Levin study you posted, still concluding that strength training improves cycling performance

http://bit.ly/gSK0ne The ACSM position paper, which includes their recommendation for optimal development of muscular power

http://bit.ly/5Q2Izg and http://bit.ly/ebvgY Power training exercises supported by well respected coaching companies

http://bit.ly/ibuyfb Physiological information about sequential motor unit recruitment

http://bit.ly/bZVSKg A study, with data, showing that resistance training increases performance in both short and long term endurance capacity

http://bit.ly/gCQn3P A study which shows resistance training significantly increased time to exhaustion at 120% of VO2 max,

http://bit.ly/fZ7qgt and http://bit.ly/gj4mIr Studies pertaining to the erroneous use of O2 deficit as a measure of anaerobic capacity (contrary to your belief)

Direct quotes from these physiological textbooks:

Exercise Physiology, Theory and Application fo Fitness and Performance, Scott Powers, Edward Howley
Exercise Physiology--Exercise, Performance, and Clinical Applications, Robert Robergs, Scott Roberts
Principles and practice of resistance training, Michael H. Stone, Meg Stone, Bill Sands
Physiology of Sport and Exercisce, Wilmore, Costill, and Kenney


I don't claim to know any more about this than you or others, but you can't argue that there isn't any data or evidence that supports my position.

mattshrops

so what did you ...... ah forget it

mattshrops

so what did you ...... ah forget it

mattshrops

oops sorry to go on :oops:

markac

mattshrops wrote:

oops sorry to go on :oops:

Sort of...but now the subject has changed, so now we can go on and on about what makes for good debate.

One of the hazards of forums.

mattshrops

no offense pal, i was refering to my mistake double posting as going on. Go on smile it wont bost your face( as me dear old nan used to say)

markac

mattshrops wrote:

no offense pal, i was refering to my mistake double posting as going on. Go on smile it wont bost your face( as me dear old nan used to say)

None taken...was just making a little light of what seemed like exasperation on your part.

CoachFerg

No parting shots, I have been coaching for 18 years, worked with several World Champions and five Olympic Medallists. I'm here for the long haul. If I don't correct your misunderstanding immediately it is only because I am busy down at the track coaching riders to go really fast!

CoachFerg:

1. Gardner and Martin studies (no links) stating that high peak power results in lower Wingate Fatigue Index
--I rebutted with my interpretation of the insignificance of that compared to having both higher Wp and Wa,
--And asked you a direct question in this regard, which you didn't answer

If peak watts goes up that is nice but not necessary and as mentioned (repeatedly) sprint performance is best assessed from ave watts.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/u ... 3/art00014

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19255451

2. The Levin 2009 study (again no link) pertaining to decreased performance in 60s TT
--I responded that Aagaard rebutted the value of that study, but ceded I couldn't dispute it myself, but I'll give Aagaard's PHd. higher standing the Master's Thesis by Levin

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cg ... ext=theses

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

May be the publication of his Master's work but at least he brings data to the table. Aaggaard has yet to publish his data.

3. Your Coggan article--which I generally agreed with, but added that Coggan was saying his workouts were "roughly" like weight training

Seeing Andy is not a advocate of weight training I think you may be misinterpreting him.

So, you've posted no controverting data whatsoever, but I'll give you half credit for the Gardner, Martin, and Levin citations.

There is heaps there, others seem to be able to understand it, pull your head out of the sand and read what is there.

The remainder of your argument was all personal belief, anecdotal evidence (and mostly from personal observation), a lot of semantics, and plenty of negative quips toward me.

Personal belief, ha ha too funny. Provide some real evidence of your assertions. Everything you have put forward I have challenged. Main thing is I have brought data.

You have brought very little to this debate in the way of data, scientific theory, or scientfically-backed rebuttal to my points.

Ha ha keep telling yourself that, while I am actually out there coaching real sprinters. Let me guess another wannabe personal trainer trying to talk himself up on the forums. "Oh yeah, strength is crucial to cycling, come and see me for training programmes".

markac:

http://bit.ly/htAOjd A recent study, with data, showing a 7.8% gain in 5-min. all out performance after 185 minutes at 44% of VO2 max

Ronnestad, already debunked this, The control group went slower so no real comparison. 7.8% gain, Alex and I can provide far better improvements than that from interval training alone.

http://bit.ly/gO8r5Y A study demonstrating the relationship of strength and power (not to mention the direct relationship in the science of Physics)

Oh please, we are not throwers.

http://bit.ly/ehuAj7 A review of studies, with lots of data, including specific rebuttals to the Levin study you posted, still concluding that strength training improves cycling performance

Peer review but still nothing more than an opinion piece that few agree with. Will await to see the data from his forthcoming study.

http://bit.ly/gSK0ne The ACSM position paper, which includes their recommendation for optimal development of muscular power

A very general review, not sport specific and anyone who would use this as a basis for training cyclists obviously has never seen a SRM file from a sprint cyclist.

http://bit.ly/5Q2Izg and http://bit.ly/ebvgY Power training exercises supported by well respected coaching companies

Ha ha hilarious. Both show an gross misunderstanding of the physiology of cycling. Shocking considering Testa is Doctor, sure he got better results from teaching riders how to use EPO. CTS is more marketing than actual coaching. I don't get my information from company websites.

http://bit.ly/bZVSKg A study, with data, showing that resistance training increases performance in both short and long term endurance capacity

A review, not a study.

http://bit.ly/gCQn3P A study which shows resistance training significantly increased time to exhaustion at 120% of VO2 max,

Untrained athletes and we don't compete to exhaustion. Again showing you actually know very little about the physiology of cycling.

http://bit.ly/fZ7qgt and http://bit.ly/gj4mIr Studies pertaining to the erroneous use of O2 deficit as a measure of anaerobic capacity (contrary to your belief)

Again not studies, review papers.

Direct quotes from these physiological textbooks:

Exercise Physiology, Theory and Application fo Fitness and Performance, Scott Powers, Edward Howley
Exercise Physiology--Exercise, Performance, and Clinical Applications, Robert Robergs, Scott Roberts
Principles and practice of resistance training, Michael H. Stone, Meg Stone, Bill Sands
Physiology of Sport and Exercisce, Wilmore, Costill, and Kenney

All good books and I am sure none will have a physiological basis for cycling being a strength limited sport.

I don't claim to know any more about this than you or others, but you can't argue that there isn't any data or evidence that supports my position.

But I do, try harder!

Mr Dog

Gents please don't let this thread end in a slagging match or trumpet session. The data has been first class, and I have learned from it. The theory quickly spiralled beyond my limits but fair play to those who have posted. Is there a paper which explains the basic physiology of cycling?
I still can't get my head around why strength programs are redundant in cycling when they are used in just about every other atheltic endevour you can think of.
Great thread. Thanks again. 8) [/b]

CoachFerg

Mr Dog wrote:

Is there a paper which explains the basic physiology of cycling?
I still can't get my head around why strength programs are redundant in cycling when they are used in just about every other atheltic endevour you can think of.

I can't speak for other sports but in cycling the careful perusal of a power file or a thousand will make things pretty clear why strength is not a limit to cycling performance beyond the first 2-3 pedal strokes of a short distance sprint.

Good books...

High Performance Cycling: Juekendrup
High Tech Cycling: Burke
Road Cycling: Conconi
Racing and Training with a Power Meter: Allen and Coggan

KnightOfTheLongTights

sorry if this repeats a point above but don't have the time - or private office - to catch up on the whole thread:

I'd've thought the sort of strength training that most closely resembles the demands of the cycling action would be the most benefitial: i.e., low / no weight, high volume of repetitions?

For instance, faced with trying to get in shape for fell-running while living in London, I chose to do army-style ciruit training: apart from the obvious aerobic / CV benefits the large volume of squats / lunges / jumps etc and core work turned out to be as good prep as you could expect for running up and down big hills.

My leg muscles were conditioned in a way vaguely resembling the demands that would be put on them. But if I'd had the hills, I'd've trained by running up and down hills!

Wouldn't think such training is all that useful for cycling, but if you're going to spend time in the gym, I'd've thought spin / exercise bike on high resistance was time better spent.

CoachFerg

That has been my suggestion to riders who due to circumstance or weather conditions have to do what they can do. If it's exercise bikes in the gym then using a variety of programmes there then do that. If the only option is weights then circuit training has a general effect on aerobic capacity and if done interval fashion even anaerobic capacity. But the ideal is cycling.

markac

CoachFerg wrote:

strength is not a limit to cycling performance beyond the first 2-3 pedal strokes of a short distance sprint

I'll reply to a couple of your other comments later, but let's focus on this one above for a minute.

This tells me that you do believe strength is important for a second or two. That strength plays a role in generating cycling power, but just for a few seconds.

I think we both agree that strength is NOT a factor for long term endurance.

These are two data points, then, which we could chart on a graph. Let's call it Average Power in an All Out Cycling Effort as a Function of Maximal Strength.

In the first 2-3 pedal strokes, average power is a very strong function of strength.

In two hours, average power is a very weak function of strength.

We can chart these two points on a graph, and discuss what happens in between the two points.

Here's the graph:


I think we both agree on the end points of this line. The big question is what happens to the line for efforts between 2-3 seconds and 2 hours?

Your argument is that it immediately drops to zero. My argument is it is some exponential decay function, much like most things biology and physics (http://bit.ly/fDOOa6).

I don't pretend to know the exact formula for that logarithmic equation, but the line I've drawn does represent this type of phenomenon.

Zooming into a 5-min. scale, such a function would imply that the importance of maximal strength is equally important to other factors at just under 100 seconds. And still somewhat important well beyond that.


If you don't agree with this analysis:

1) do you not agree on the two endpoints?

2) do you not agree with the line's mathematical function? If not, what sort of line would you recommend?

3) if you don't buy this analysis altogether, how would you instead relate the two endpoints?

CoachFerg

Made up graphs do nothing to support your argument as much as trawling through Pubmed for abstracts fails to back your assertions.

Anyone who has assessed a few SRM files, done quadrant analysis, performance profiles, fatigue profiling, looked at critical power calculations all of which assess real data can show you how performance in cycling is underpinned by biochemical adaptations not increases in maximal strength.

Your biggest mistake is failing to understand what cycling is about. The above tools which all have a physiological basis can help coaches understand the demands of cycling. One of the major ones is sustaining energy supply to maintain power relative to the goal event.

This is why peak power is not relevant to sprinting let alone track endurance or road. It is why functional threshold (60min power) is a better predictor of pursuit performance than peak power.

Each person is born with a set proportion of muscle fibres and within reason they can not be altered to a great degree. Chris Hoy was able to increase his Kilo power to move to sprints but as mentioned his peak squat is significantly behind even the best women in his weight category. With his proportion of type IIx fibres it is unlikely that he will ever contend in a pursuit or a road race.

One would argue that Jack Bobridge has a high proportion of type IIa fibres and through a high volume of road racing has trained them to take on aerobic characteristics that allow him to sustain 500-550 watts for a staggering 4:10 seconds over 4000m. One of his comments is interesting where he said that his approach of road racing and not being on the track since Oceania Games in November works for individual pursuit it doesn't translate to Teams Pursuit where the power may still average 550 watts but riders attain higher power pulling turns and drop below the ave power taking shelter at the back. Likely that a road race will include sections where power may stay high for 3-5 mins but unlikely that power will surge for 13sec every 60seconds as it does in a teams pursuit.

One would then argue that riders like Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador possess very few type II fibres at all and are just aerobic monsters. Even to the extent that in a flat TT Contador will lose time to a bigger rider like Cancellara with bigger power to frontal area but as in 2009 add a 3km climb to the final TdF TT and Contador's power to weight allows him to take the win (or maybe he had some Spanish meat before the start).

So muscle fibre type is pretty set and training can only alter this to a degree. One can induce hypertrophy of the fibre. This will increase strength but comes at a cost of lower power to weight and greater frontal area (Hoy laments the size of his quads as they cause quite a bit of drag at 70kph). You can train recruitment. This has to be tempered as well. The greater the strength the higher the fatigue. Not an issue for a shot putt or Javelin thrower but for a sprinter whose 10sec power will drop off by 100-300 watts from peak power the focus on higher peaks comes at the cost of average power. One also has to argue that training one movement (squat) will not improve the ability to perform another movement.

There may be a general learning effect. Learning to speak French does mean you will be able to speak Japanese but learning to learn a language may mean you learn Japanese faster having already learnt a previous language. Same with gym training, people do pick up some good habits and I find that people who have learnt to lift properly in the gym take technical advice on board faster. But they can also pick up bad habits just the same as someone trying to learn Spanish and Portuguese will struggle because of the similarities of the languages.

So the data shows us that strength plays no major role in cycling, It may not be published yet as tools like performance profiling, quadrant analysis, fatigue profiling are still relatively new but the data is valid and reliable and helping us to direct riders towards the forms of training that prepare them for the real demands of cycling. None of which are strength. A simple test with a power meter can show a rider they have all the strength they need.

pollys_bott

I've found this thread fascinating, even if it has gone way over my head on many occasions. I'm curious about what CoachFerg says below...

CoachFerg wrote:

So the data shows us that strength plays no major role in cycling

... in this context: I did the Ryedale Rumble last year and couldn't get up the two major climbs of Boltby and Blakey Banks. I'm going back for another crack at it this year and want to be able to ride up the buggers all the way rather than walk a lot of it. When I ran out of gas last year, surely it was because my leg muscles weren't strong enough? If not, then... what? CV system not able to fuel muscles optimally?

Also, if I have the choice of a session in the gym or riding up hills then the latter will help me more, right? But if the gym is the only option then it's better than nothing?

Sorry if the questions are dumb, any advice gratefully received...

CoachFerg

Pollys Bott wrote:

in this context: I did the Ryedale Rumble last year and couldn't get up the two major climbs of Boltby and Blakey Banks. I'm going back for another crack at it this year and want to be able to ride up the buggers all the way rather than walk a lot of it. When I ran out of gas last year, surely it was because my leg muscles weren't strong enough? If not, then... what? CV system not able to fuel muscles optimally?

Weight
Optimal Gearing
Conditoning
Specific Preparation for the Hills

I assume this are some rather steep hills which would necessitate a low gear. Most new bikes do not come equipped with the gearing for many to successfully climb hills.

Yes inability to supply energy to the working muscle is the most likely cause of fatigue. The bigger IIx fibres will get you going for the first few strokes then these will fatigue and you drop down through the scale of IIx fibres to IIa and eventually as you go past 3-5 mins will stop using the type I fibres that do not produce a huge amount of power but can sustain exercise for long periods.

Training the bigger type IIx fibres will only prolong maximal intensity for an extra 1-2 seconds. Training these fibres is very intensive, risky (the best exercises like squat, deadlift or powerclean can be the most dangerous if not done perfectly) and takes a long period (2 - 14 days) to recover from which is a lot of time that you could have been spending working on sustained power up a climb.

My suggestion is break the climbs into quarters and start with goal pace for the first quarter. When you can sustain this pace for 6-8 reps then try 1/2 distance and when you can sustain 4-6 reps try 3/4 distance for 2-4 reps then full distance at goal pace for 1-2 reps.

Also, if I have the choice of a session in the gym or riding up hills then the latter will help me more, right? But if the gym is the only option then it's better than nothing?

Yes but if the gym has exercise bikes I would hit those first than the weights.

pollys_bott

Thanks Ferg: am 5' 9" and 164lbs, carrying a bit of excess around the middle compared to a decade ago (am 38 in May) but not an awful lot to shift there. My bike has a triple chain ring on so can't use inadequate gearing as an excuse for my failings I'm not able to train on the hills in question cos they're 2 1/2 hours up the A1 from me . They are, from memory, at least a mile of 20%. There are plenty of smaller hills around here, best about 3/4 mile and 8-12% I think - would your suggestion of doing a quarter at a time still be valid given I would be training on shorter and less steep hills?

CoachFerg

Eeeeek 20%, not easy for anyone. Contador used a 34 x 30 combination in a Giro uphill TT that finished up a ski access road.

Trust you can see that you will be hitting the hills without specific preparation. This is why the Brit's train indoor on Manchester all the time, Lance used to ride the climbs and TTs of the Tour at least ten times in preparation. But using your local hills will be the next best option. Assuming a lower cadence on the goal climb this is one occasion where I would suggest riding up hills in a bigger gear than is appropriate for that climb.

If your local climbs are not as long as the goal climb you would just increase the number of reps performed.

Mr Dog

thanks for info CoachFerg.. my strength habit is hard to break. My background is football, another multi sprint sport, with active recovery. Seems I have alot to learn about cycling. Be careful you don't become an advice centre 8)

CoachFerg

Will try my best 8)

It's a good day, an earthquake closed our library at the Uni I was doing a few papers at and they put a lot of print books and journals online. Just found the International Journal of Sports Medicine is online while it is not online at the School of Medicine where I am toiling away at my Masters.

Yes understanding the sport goes a long way. Cycling has been given such a huge leg up by the introduction of on bike power meters. Most coaches I meet are insanely jealous of the information we can gain.

Not football but when I (shamefully) did the personal trainer thing I trained a young Rugby player and we just did a wide range of fitness drills and he was the only person in his team to go the whole season uninjured. 10 years later he is now an All Black.

markac

CoachFerg wrote:

Made up graphs do nothing to support your argument as much as trawling through Pubmed for abstracts fails to back your assertions.

Well, of course you must know that all graphs ever created were made up. Some of the made up graphs turned out to have meaning and some didn't. But the most wise people in history would think about and debate the merits of an idea instead of just immediately dismissing it.

Would you like to think about or discuss the merits of the concept I presented?

I'm happy to abandon it if you can come up with some valid rationale to debunk its merit.

CoachFerg

Better things to do than debate your imagination.

Present some real data as I have done...

-My own
-A World Champion Track Cyclist
-Actual studies on cyclists (not reviews)
-Actual studies on performance measure relevant to cycling (not time to exhaustion)
-Actual studies on trained cyclists (not untrained or on athletes from different sports)

One wee hint, you will need to find more than just abstracts off Pubmed.

markac

CoachFerg wrote:

Better things to do than debate your imagination.

Every bit of science ever created started in someone's imagination (or was discovered inadvertently). But, OK, no need from me to have you deny or confirm this concept with rational thinking.

Anyone else out there with any technical or scientific inclination, that might want to discuss it?

I think it has good potential to put what common ground we have in this debate, into a quantifiable framework--perhaps moving us forward in resolving for some minds.

P.S. CoachFerg, I'm glad you didn't have better things to do earlier in the debate, made me think a lot and clarify some thoughts that were bubbling around in my brain.

CoachFerg

What do you propose the chap who wants to attack the 20% gradient hills better. I have put forth my suggestion.

What is yours?

markac

CoachFerg wrote:

What do you propose the chap who wants to attack the 20% gradient hills better. I have put forth my suggestion.

What is yours?

Assuming that is directed at me, I'd much rather settle this with arm wrestling. Or maybe a game of chess; I'm good at that too.

Seriously? I didn't bring this up to challenge yours or anyone's coaching ability. And from the sound of it, I'm sure you're a better cyclist than I am.

In fact, it sounds like you have a lot of coaching knowledge, and I probably wouldn't question a lot of things you recommend.

I brought up this topic because I think it has been an overlooked and misunderstood component of cycling training, and thought I was bringing some fresh ideas to the table for discussion.

And we did have some good discussion at first, but then it digressed and transformed, and now you're suggesting somehow that proof of who is a better coach will tell us all who is right.

So really, I'm done with this unless you want to rationally debate the concept of average power of an all-out cycling effort being some function of strength.

Good luck with your coaching endeavors.

CoachFerg

So you mean you think we are all missing strength from our cycling but have no idea how to solve this chaps dilemma. No suggestions how strength training will improve his climbing or how to implement weight training into a overall training plan. No bright ideas on when to schedule weight training sessions so they don't hinder the actual bike riding.

You just think we are missing strength training in cycling :roll:

pollys_bott

CoachFerg wrote:

Eeeeek 20%, not easy for anyone. Contador used a 34 x 30 combination in a Giro uphill TT that finished up a ski access road.

Trust you can see that you will be hitting the hills without specific preparation. This is why the Brit's train indoor on Manchester all the time, Lance used to ride the climbs and TTs of the Tour at least ten times in preparation. But using your local hills will be the next best option. Assuming a lower cadence on the goal climb this is one occasion where I would suggest riding up hills in a bigger gear than is appropriate for that climb.

If your local climbs are not as long as the goal climb you would just increase the number of reps performed.

No, they're not easy; not many got all the way up. I get the concept of training specificity, but how does that then square with the fact that the Dutch ruled Alpe d'Huez for a while, when there ain't many Alpine-esque hills in Holland to train on? Would their next best training benefit have been stomping into a howling head-wind for example, and getting their HR up to threshold that way? Please correct me if I'm wrong ( I only have a basic grasp of physiology from my years coaching rowing), but I need to train just under my anaerobic threshold to increase it and maximise the length of time I cycle aerobically up these climbs? If so then I could do this on a bike in the gym or on the turbo in the garage but the absolute ideal would be actually riding hills (joint angles etc)?

markac wrote:

CoachFerg wrote:

What do you propose the chap who wants to attack the 20% gradient hills better. I have put forth my suggestion.

What is yours?

Assuming that is directed at me, I'd much rather settle this with arm wrestling. Or maybe a game of chess; I'm good at that too.

Seriously? I didn't bring this up to challenge yours or anyone's coaching ability.

Come on Markac, I don't think Ferg is suggesting that you are challenging his coaching ability; he's just asking what training you would recommend for me to ride steep nasty climbs better. You're both obviously intelligent chaps, Ferg has kindly turned his theoretical knowledge into practical advice - can you?