Re-thinking Strength Training for Cycling Performance

Mr Dog

.... but we have all seen pictures of track stars deadlifting. :shock: Surely its possible to to condition power rather than maximal strength using weights? ( forgive me if this is a silly question, but feel free to set me right. )

CoachFerg

Pollys Bott wrote:

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?

Pretty sure Steven and Gert didn't do all their training in Holland.

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?

I would expect so.

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)?

Yes training at or slightly above threshold is one of the better ways to raise it. Climbs of those nature will test ones max aerobic power and anaerobic capacity so building up to the big day would include some shorter more intense efforts.

[quote/]Ferg has kindly turned his theoretical knowledge into practical advice - can you?[/quote]

One of the new areas in exercise biochemistry is protein signalling and when I emailed one of the leading researchers in the area of RAMP and mTOR he suggested my cyclists perform sets of leg extension for 25 sets. Didn't even ask what type of cyclists I trained or what level they were at. A good reminder that there is as much art to coaching as there is science.

CoachFerg

Mr Dog wrote:

.... but we have all seen pictures of track stars deadlifting. :shock: Surely its possible to to condition power rather than maximal strength using weights? ( forgive me if this is a silly question, but feel free to set me right. )

I have never seen a Sprinter Deadlift. It's my favourite exercise. They tend to squat, low bar seems in vogue at present. The AIS sprinters do one leg leg press and other one leg exercises. All raises the question about exercise selection, rep range, % of 1RM, lifting speed, number of sets, rest between sets, frequency of training, effect of resistance training, especially if done properly, was training a 16 year old female sprinter who would squat 100kg (deep) with me spotting but 40kg if training by herself.

By training power with weights are you saying that it is better to try and simulate the cycling movement in the gym than to just ride the bike a little harder?

pollys_bott

CoachFerg wrote:

One of the new areas in exercise biochemistry is protein signalling and when I emailed one of the leading researchers in the area of RAMP and mTOR he suggested my cyclists perform sets of leg extension for 25 sets. Didn't even ask what type of cyclists I trained or what level they were at. A good reminder that there is as much art to coaching as there is science.

If I may play Devil's advocate, what use are sets of leg extensions to a cyclist? Leg press benefit is obvious in terms of replicating - to a greater or lesser extent - the downstroke of the pedal but I'm confused as to how leg extensions would benefit... can you enlighten me please?

Next time I'm out on my local hills I'll concentrate on keeping my HR at my AT and train my CV system. Question - whilst I'm doing this though, what is physically happening to my leg muscles? Surely the fibres are breaking down with the effort of pushing the pedals round and then later will regenerate / repair and ultimately the muscle is stronger, because at the end of the day isn't me climbing a hill for four minutes in a relatively high gear more or less the equivalent of doing 350+ single leg presses in the gym? If so then isn't some gym leg work good? If not, then... what?!

If I'm missing something bleedin' obvious then I apologise, but am a tad confused... :?

Mr Dog

Have seen images of Pendleton with a load of around 80kg, unless she was going to clean it? The single leg approach appeals as I'm returning from a knee op. As mentioned previously the Aussies favour it.
I can see how just riding a bike will produce improvements in pure functional power. However I don't enough about biomechanics to comment upon the tranference of power during the pedal stroke relating to the muscles involved, and therefore if weight training can mirror this. Indeed does it need to?
However imbalances may result, for example footballers are prone to hamstring injuries which may result from over developed quads. Compound exercises tend to balance the opposing groups.

CoachFerg

Pollys Bott wrote:

If I may play Devil's advocate, what use are sets of leg extensions to a cyclist? Leg press benefit is obvious in terms of replicating - to a greater or lesser extent - the downstroke of the pedal but I'm confused as to how leg extensions would benefit... can you enlighten me please?

Wish I knew, I trust this chap has a better handle on exercise biochemistry. I discussed protein signalling with other exercise physiologists and they said early days and one would never base a training programme on such a narrow aspect of such a complex organism such as "us".

Next time I'm out on my local hills I'll concentrate on keeping my HR at my AT and train my CV system.

Not sure I would focus just on one aspect. The goal is to get up that hill. I think the problem is where one tries to target each fitness aspect and then piece them together on the big day. We have our regional champs and riders have been doing speed work behind the motor bike, strength work in the gym or riding hills on big gears and power work doing time trials and race distance efforts in training. My riders are focused on the goal; pursuiting, sprinting, time trials, scr races, teams pursuits and once fit have been racing events (helps that I run a monthly omnium) so they can focus on what they intend to perform in.

Question - whilst I'm doing this though, what is physically happening to my leg muscles? Surely the fibres are breaking down with the effort of pushing the pedals round and then later will regenerate / repair and ultimately the muscle is stronger, because at the end of the day isn't me climbing a hill for four minutes in a relatively high gear more or less the equivalent of doing 350+ single leg presses in the gym? If so then isn't some gym leg work good? If not, then... what?!

Well as you hit the hill in response to the sudden change in resistance I would expect the type IIx fibres get recruited pretty quick but then fatigue just as rapidly before your type IIa fibres start taking the load. Depending on the training you have done these will either be adapted to more anaerobic or aerobic type exercise and seeing the nature of the climb you will be hoping it is more aerobic otherwise the oxygen debt incurred after 30-60sec of climbing through non-oxidative glycolysis means you will slow down rather rapidly.

There was a suggestion that Kilo riders do 60reps sets and Pursuiters do 300 rep sets in the gym but in that case why not just ride the bike. Train the message from the CNS to the specific working muscle. One can achieve hypertrophy from riding the bike. I mentioned a rider who went from road racing in January to riding Kilo and Teams Pursuit in August and put on 5kg of lean mass from cycling alone.

CoachFerg

Mr Dog wrote:

Have seen images of Pendleton with a load of around 80kg, unless she was going to clean it? The single leg approach appeals as I'm returning from a knee op. As mentioned previously the Aussies favour it.

I would be picking the powerclean.

I can see how just riding a bike will produce improvements in pure functional power. However I don't enough about biomechanics to comment upon the tranference of power during the pedal stroke relating to the muscles involved, and therefore if weight training can mirror this. Indeed does it need to?

I would argue yes you do, why train a fitness quality that is never used. At our local Uni the Engineering dept has an annual competition where the engineers have to build a bridge that can support two people but must fail as soon as a third person steps on (bridges are put over the stream running through campus and beer is involved, lots of beer) but the principle is why use resources ($$$ and time) to develop a bridge so strong (that could take 100 cars) when only 20 cars can possibly be on the bridge at any one time.

However imbalances may result, for example footballers are prone to hamstring injuries which may result from over developed quads. Compound exercises tend to balance the opposing groups.

I can't speak for football but a review of the literature from the last 10 years shows that these imbalances are not a factor in cycling injuries. The biggest causes of injury are poor riding position (saddle too high or low), poor cadence selection (again too high or too low) or too rapid a progression in training.

pollys_bott

Thanks for all the contributions Ferg - lots to think about... cheers

markac

Pollys Bott wrote:

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?

Sure, I'll take a crack at it since you asked.

First, 1 mile at 20%, being over 320m of ascent will probably take an average competitive cyclist 25 minutes or more to complete. At 25 minutes, you have to rely primarily on long duration sustainable power to complete these types of hills. If your goal is to just get over the hill all you'll need to do is develop the aerobic power that is required AND have gearing that enables you to work at a level of intensity which you can sustain aerobically (which it sounds like you do).

So, you'll need some traditional aerobic capacity intervals, as well as some hill work to adjust for the different loads and body positions. With that in mind I'd do the following:

1) normal FTP intervals on the flats and steady climbs that are not very steep (6% max)
-- Depending on your fitness these are 10-15 minutes in duration with 5 min. rest in between, with 3-5 sets per session
-- Done once or twice per week

2) VO2 max intervals--all on your local hills
-- All out efforts for 3-5 minutes with equal time rest between intervals, 3-5 sets per session
-- Be sure to do some of these OUT OF THE SADDLE, as a 20% climb will have you out of the saddle a lot, and with the
different joint angles and different degrees of fiber contraction, there will be some beneficial adaptations that
you can't get with just seated intervals
--These should be done only once per week

3) After 3 weeks of these intervals, take 4-7 days off with no high-intensity riding

4) Periodization -- you can only do these types of interval workouts for 12-16 weeks before you need a break of a couple of weeks, so you have to time the start of a 12-16 week session(s) with your event

5) At go time, when you hit these hills, just be sure to get into a sustainable rhythm right away--don't worry about hitting it hard at the beginning

All that said, if it is a race and you have a chance of winning, let me know and I'll recommend some strength training that will help you make a decisive attack toward the end, or stomp out the last 200m ahead of the guy next to you.

pollys_bott

Thankyou Markac - much appreciated. Sorry for my ignorance, but what are 'FTP intervals'?

markac

Pollys Bott wrote:

Thankyou Markac - much appreciated. Sorry for my ignorance, but what are 'FTP intervals'?

Functional Threshold Power. Some call it Lactate Threshold or Anaerobic Threshold.

You can either get that measured in the lab or you can estimate it in a number of ways.

pollys_bott

Thanks.

Anaerobic Threhold - 80-85% max heart rate? Very rough I know...

markac

Mr Dog wrote:

.... but we have all seen pictures of track stars deadlifting. :shock: Surely its possible to to condition power rather than maximal strength using weights? ( forgive me if this is a silly question, but feel free to set me right. )

Surely you can. For example, say your 1RM on a leg press is 200kg, and you can do 10 reps of 160kg in 20 seconds (10s extension/10s retraction). The extenstion part of the 10 reps would have a measurable power output, in Watts, of (1600 x distance)/10. If the distance was 1 meter, the average power for the extension motion would be (1600 x 1)/10 = 160W.

So, now you go off and do some strength training on the leg press, and after 6 weeks your 1RM is 240kg, and that 160kg feels lighter to your stronger legs, so you can now do 10 reps of 192kg in 20 seconds. More work, same time equals more power.

(1920 x1)/10 = 192W

Strength training just improved you average power in a 20 second lifting exercise.

Relative values and percentages of improvement are certainly not linear, but the phenomenon of maximal average power being a function of maximal strength is certain.

CoachFerg

markac wrote:

Mr Dog wrote:

.... but we have all seen pictures of track stars deadlifting. :shock: Surely its possible to to condition power rather than maximal strength using weights? ( forgive me if this is a silly question, but feel free to set me right. )

Surely you can. For example, say your 1RM on a leg press is 200kg, and you can do 10 reps of 160kg in 20 seconds (10s extension/10s retraction). The extenstion part of the 10 reps would have a measurable power output, in Watts, of (1600 x distance)/10. If the distance was 1 meter, the average power for the extension motion would be (1600 x 1)/10 = 160W.

So, now you go off and do some strength training on the leg press, and after 6 weeks your 1RM is 240kg, and that 160kg feels lighter to your stronger legs, so you can now do 10 reps of 192kg in 20 seconds. More work, same time equals more power.

(1920 x1)/10 = 192W

Strength training just improved you average power in a 20 second lifting exercise.

The faulty logic here is that the same muscle fibres that achieve a 1RM are the same muscle fibres that are used to achieve a 10RM or a 250RM. Bigger type IIx fibres will be used for a 1RM. Smaller IIx for a 10RM. IIa for a 250RM

Under this logic all one would need to do is train their maximum strength and their power at VO2 and Threshold would increase.

Relative values and percentages of improvement are certainly not linear, but the phenomenon of maximal average power being a function of maximal strength is certain.

Pray tell the physiological basis for that unless you mean maximal average power for 1-2 seconds.

Mr Dog

Have to say thanks to you both for improving my training. At moment I spend as much time in the gym as I do on my bike after an op.( which hopefully should change soon ). The info here has helped me train better and has kept me motivated. If I had the cash I would get a coach cos this stuff is inspirational.
.... and a power meter sounds like an essential

CoachFerg

A power meter is very handy, but anyone can use the information gained from the use of them to shape the way they train and race. On hills or for time trials the meter shows us the cost of going out too hard. Many riders hit the climbs at speed using their IIx fibres that fatigue fast, incur an oxygen debt and then have to slow down dramatically. I saw this yesterday at our regional pursuit champs where those that started their first two laps too hard tied up badly towards the end.

A power meter shows this rather well. I did two 2000m efforts and on the second effort I completed the first lap just 9 watts less but this led to a time that was 5 seconds faster. But for those without a powermeter it's a matter of simple coaching to teach people to not go out too hard in pursuits, times trials and on climbs.

jgsi

I have dipped in and out of this thread, but have to admit have lost which direction it has gone in completely.

So to try and focus it back into reality...
if one had said client with poor endurance at present and in 5 months wanted to give a bronze standard time in Acte 1 etape a good attempt, would one advise 2 or 3 gym resistance workouts per week or dedicate vast majority of time to bike riding and CV stamina building?

CoachFerg

Try to prepare the rider for the demands of the event.

The Etape would be almost entirely a slow twitch affair so there would no point at all in wasting time training fast twitch fibres and with the long recovery time from resistance training missing out on days that could be devoted to pushing up the aerobic thresholds.

Alex_Simmons/RST

JGSI wrote:

I have dipped in and out of this thread, but have to admit have lost which direction it has gone in completely.

So to try and focus it back into reality...
if one had said client with poor endurance at present and in 5 months wanted to give a bronze standard time in Acte 1 etape a good attempt, would one advise 2 or 3 gym resistance workouts per week or dedicate vast majority of time to bike riding and CV stamina building?

Spend your available training time riding.

physiosteve

Hey guys really interesting thread, clearly some knowledgeable ppl out there. CoachFerg you’ve given some good reasons for cyclists from a variety of disciplines and ability levels not to have resistance training, in the form of hypertrophy in their program. And I definitely see why genuine hypertrophic gains might have negative effects on cycling performance in certain situations.

I’d be really interested to hear whether you think a training program of concurrent cycling specific endurance and lower body resistance training (traditional hypertrophy rep/set/rest/freq); performed over a 3-4month macrocyle, actually produced an overall negative effect on potential race performance, compared to cycling training alone, assuming that the appropriate pre race taper to enable full recovery was observed, . And if so what you believe the mechanisms to be. Given that genuine hypertrophy of any note is unlikely to occur over a macrocycle of this duration when the majority of time is being allocated to endurance training, but some strength gains may well be observed through neuromuscular adaptation without an increase in muscle size

markac

I'm sure people are getting tired of this, but since we've moved into the realm of logic, thought I'd give another go.

To be clear, I've never advocated ONLY resistance training for any competitive cyclists. In fact, I didn't recommend it at all for the chap wanting to get over the one-mile 20% hills.

About faulty logic, while there wasn't any logic presented in the leg press anecdote, below is the rest of the logical argument. Decide for yourselves if there is anything faulty about it.

In the context of this thread, a simple argument I'd make is "strength training added to a traditional endurance training program will increase average power in a 10 second sprint from a standing start" (I believe it does much more than that, but let's keep it simple.)

The first offered premise of the argument is that you can improve average power in a 10 second maximal leg press exercise by strength training alone (10s being half of the 20s of extension/retraction).

Anyone with access to a leg press and a calculator can prove out the premise. Anyone that doesn't think it is valid, please tell us why.

With a premise that is accepted, we can make an inference of the premise's application to the argument: "because the muscle action in the push down motion of bicycle pedaling is similar to the muscle action of a leg press, we can infer that strength training in the same motion as that used in cycling will increase average power in a 10 second maximal cycling exercise"

I think it's a valid inference from an easily provable premise.

So, makes sense, but are there any pitfalls? As cycling is a largely endurance sport, one might ask if strength training degrades aerobic performance. We can talk about that, but I believe it is generally accepted that strength training does not degrade aerobic performance. In fact, from what I've reviewed, endurance training does inhibit maximal strength gains, but not vice versa.

Another thing to ask is if there is something better than strength training to improve performance in a 200m sprint? We have these, SFR's, standing starts and seated stomps that a lot of coaches prescribe (which by the way, are indeed forms of resistance training), but are they a better or more optimal form of training for maximal average power in a 200m sprint? They might be, compared to leg presses, squats and lunges (due to the specificity violation), but going back to the chain attached to a weight stack idea, according to very basic principles of physiology this would be a more optimal training modality than the gym exercises or the power exercises performed on a bike (the ones roughly like weight lifting).

Alex_Simmons/RST

markac wrote:

With a premise that is accepted, we can make an inference of the premise's application to the argument: "because the muscle action in the push down motion of bicycle pedaling is similar to the muscle action of a leg press, we can infer that strength training in the same motion as that used in cycling will increase average power in a 10 second maximal cycling exercise"

I think it's a valid inference from an easily provable premise.

I don't.

A 10 second maximal sprint effort might involve 40 to 50 single leg presses. One simply cannot, no matter what you think, apply maximal forces at those velocities. Sprint efforts are about delivering force at speed. Learning to generate higher forces at low velocities does not readily transfer.

CoachFerg

physiosteve wrote:

I’d be really interested to hear whether you think a training program of concurrent cycling specific endurance and lower body resistance training (traditional hypertrophy rep/set/rest/freq); performed over a 3-4month macrocyle, actually produced an overall negative effect on potential race performance, compared to cycling training alone, assuming that the appropriate pre race taper to enable full recovery was observed, . And if so what you believe the mechanisms to be. Given that genuine hypertrophy of any note is unlikely to occur over a macrocycle of this duration when the majority of time is being allocated to endurance training, but some strength gains may well be observed through neuromuscular adaptation without an increase in muscle size

I would expect a negative effect. Mixed training = mixed results. I fail to see how applying a variety of training stimuli is all going to lead to a common result.

Any neuromuscular gains from resistance training will lead to improvements in the lifts performed. These gains are quire specific which is why weightlifters train differently to powerlifters and these two groups train differently to strongman athletes. In my experience and backed up with SRM data we can see on the bike that training adaptations are specific. Just because a rider can ride 500 watts up a hill doesn't mean they can deliver the same power on the track in a different position and at a different cadence.

CoachFerg

markac wrote:

To be clear, I've never advocated ONLY resistance training for any competitive cyclists. In fact, I didn't recommend it at all for the chap wanting to get over the one-mile 20% hills.

I find that interesting seeing one could argue that a higher torque is required. We had a similar debate with examples given from singlespeed off road racing where gear selection dictates cadences from 20rpm to 140rpm and periods of very high torque riding. Not that I would advocate strength training in this circumstance either.

In the context of this thread, a simple argument I'd make is "strength training added to a traditional endurance training program will increase average power in a 10 second sprint from a standing start" (I believe it does much more than that, but let's keep it simple.)

Not sure why an endurance rider would do sprint training when SRM data indicates that most road sprints are won at 70-80% of maximal power and the priority should always be to develop the aerobic capacity to get to the finish to use whatever anaerobic capacity they have left.

The first offered premise of the argument is that you can improve average power in a 10 second maximal leg press exercise by strength training alone (10s being half of the 20s of extension/retraction).

Anyone with access to a leg press and a calculator can prove out the premise. Anyone that doesn't think it is valid, please tell us why.

Have already done that, type IIx fibres generate the power for maximal efforts. RM charts are a very crude formula. If you use a power profile chart in WKO+ you will see that 5 sec power has no influence on 60sec power let alone 5min power or 60min power. Do you think highly fatigable IIx fibres are going to generate power in >60sec effort.

With a premise that is accepted, we can make an inference of the premise's application to the argument: "because the muscle action in the push down motion of bicycle pedaling is similar to the muscle action of a leg press, we can infer that strength training in the same motion as that used in cycling will increase average power in a 10 second maximal cycling exercise"

Completely dissimilar. The differences in EMG between a deadlift and squat are huge let alone any form of resistance exercise and cycling.

So, makes sense, but are there any pitfalls? As cycling is a largely endurance sport, one might ask if strength training degrades aerobic performance. We can talk about that, but I believe it is generally accepted that strength training does not degrade aerobic performance. In fact, from what I've reviewed, endurance training does inhibit maximal strength gains, but not vice versa.

Some of us prefer evidence based practice over belief based practice.

Another thing to ask is if there is something better than strength training to improve performance in a 200m sprint? We have these, SFR's, standing starts and seated stomps that a lot of coaches prescribe (which by the way, are indeed forms of resistance training), but are they a better or more optimal form of training for maximal average power in a 200m sprint?

Just a whacky idea but you may want to try performing sprint training to improve sprint ability.

They might be, compared to leg presses, squats and lunges (due to the specificity violation), but going back to the chain attached to a weight stack idea, according to very basic principles of physiology this would be a more optimal training modality than the gym exercises or the power exercises performed on a bike (the ones roughly like weight lifting).

Or you could just do sprint training. Three weeks out from Nationals and my sprinters will be doing standing starts, moto accelerations and sprinting past me on the motorbike.

Hooking a crank arm to a weight stack fails to recreate the speed of movement involved, especially for a sprinter who delivers optimum power at 130 rpm and will often be pedalling up to 160rpm.

markac

CoachFerg wrote:

physiosteve wrote:

I’d be really interested to hear whether you think a training program of concurrent cycling specific endurance and lower body resistance training (traditional hypertrophy rep/set/rest/freq); performed over a 3-4month macrocyle, actually produced an overall negative effect on potential race performance, compared to cycling training alone, assuming that the appropriate pre race taper to enable full recovery was observed, . And if so what you believe the mechanisms to be. Given that genuine hypertrophy of any note is unlikely to occur over a macrocycle of this duration when the majority of time is being allocated to endurance training, but some strength gains may well be observed through neuromuscular adaptation without an increase in muscle size

I would expect a negative effect. Mixed training = mixed results. I fail to see how applying a variety of training stimuli is all going to lead to a common result.

Any neuromuscular gains from resistance training will lead to improvements in the lifts performed. These gains are quire specific which is why weightlifters train differently to powerlifters and these two groups train differently to strongman athletes. In my experience and backed up with SRM data we can see on the bike that training adaptations are specific. Just because a rider can ride 500 watts up a hill doesn't mean they can deliver the same power on the track in a different position and at a different cadence.

Ok, but anything specific, physiologically, that would produce a negative effect? I think that was his first question.

Too tired to address all your points in the other post, but I'll say this:

1) I'm not saying that RT should replace sprint training--I fully realize that in a sprint much higher contraction velocities are required, than can be achieved even with plyometric exercises; and being that so many muscle groups are involved in the entire motion, training the transitions at velocity is also important

2) Whether you recognized it or not, the standing starts and any other form of quick acceleration training IS a form of resistance training, and I'd argue you get the most benefit from those exercises in the first 3-10 seconds, as after that momentum removes most of the resistance.

CoachFerg

markac wrote:

Ok, but anything specific, physiologically, that would produce a negative effect? I think that was his first question.

Spending time training an aspect of fitness unrelated to the goal event.

1) I'm not saying that RT should replace sprint training--I fully realize that in a sprint much higher contraction velocities are required, than can be achieved even with plyometric exercises; and being that so many muscle groups are involved in the entire motion, training the transitions at velocity is also important

So instead of training the actual movement you propose training each part of the movement in isolation. Uh huh.

2) Whether you recognized it or not, the standing starts and any other form of quick acceleration training IS a form of resistance training, and I'd argue you get the most benefit from those exercises in the first 3-10 seconds, as after that momentum removes most of the resistance

.

All one needs to be concerned with is is the training method relevant to the goal event?

jgsi

Thanks for the confirmation of 'riding' lads. I do want my client to get his bronze time (for purely selfish reasons ) so I was advising just bike time anyways, cheers tho'....

markac

Going back to the logic question, which wasn't actually proven as false (CoachFerg and Alex were arguing an alternative proposition, not whether or not the argument I proposed was true), let me ask for your inputs another way:

Without deciding what modality of training is ideal for improving average power in a 10s all-out effort, can you prove with logic (or with scientific evidence) that strength training WILL NOT improve average power in a maximal 10s sprint?


P.S. CoachFerg, you still haven't answered with physiological evidence why strength training might produce a negative result. "Spending time training an aspect of fitness unrelated to the goal event" has no physiological terms whatsoever.

CoachFerg

markac wrote:

Without deciding what modality of training is ideal for improving average power in a 10s all-out effort, can you prove with logic (or with scientific evidence) that strength training WILL NOT improve average power in a maximal 10s sprint?

The question is what is the BEST (man it feels good to unleash the fury of caps lock) training stimulus to achieve the intended training stimulus. That is to perform 10sec efforts in the position, cadence, competitive environment, track/roads, weather, equipment etc that the rider intends to perform in. Then the question is if one can't find the same conditions how to best simulate them. This is why the EIS and AIS biggest allocation of funding for Sprinters is on buying track time for riders to train or Enduros to race often or like the Australians buying spots for their younger riders on Pro Teams.

P.S. CoachFerg, you still haven't answered with physiological evidence why strength training might produce a negative result. "Spending time training an aspect of fitness unrelated to the goal event" has no physiological terms whatsoever.

Assuming a rider is training with appropriate overload then a correctly performed strength session will take anything from 3-14 days to recover from. This is time they can't devote 100% effort to more specific forms of training.

From a neurological perspective the rider will only become better at the movements they use in training. Performing deadlifts make you better at performing deadlifts and there is no carry over to the squat and even though both exercises involve hip and knee extension. And neither exercise, nor the powerclean or one leg leg press that are popular translate to the body position or movement speed involved in any form of cycling where 10sec power is a main determinant of performance.

Sprinters like to do weights because the feedback is instantaneous (you perform the lift or not) while measuring 10sec power requires a power meter, you generally go a whole session, then download, and minutes to hours later find out if your training efforts were on target. This is also why sprinters obsess over peak power or peak speed as this information is easy to view even gives instant feedback even if it not a main determinant of sprinting performance (in cycling this is more a function of 18-30sec power).

markac

CoachFerg wrote:

The question is what is the BEST (man it feels good to unleash the fury of caps lock) training stimulus to achieve the intended training stimulus. That is to perform 10sec efforts in the position, cadence, competitive environment, track/roads, weather, equipment etc that the rider intends to perform in. Then the question is if one can't find the same conditions how to best simulate them. This is why the EIS and AIS biggest allocation of funding for Sprinters is on buying track time for riders to train or Enduros to race often or like the Australians buying spots for their younger riders on Pro Teams.

Not asking what is best with this proposition--only if strength training can improve a 10s sprint.

Here's another way to deal with the exact question I ask, presented in more real world terms:

Event - 200m Standing Start Sprint, best time wins

Athlete I - Chris Boardman I -- Trains only with standard dose of FTP and VO2max intervals

Athlete II - Chris Boardman II -- Adds strength training to Chris Boardman I, in the form of two 15 minute strength training sessions per week, on a geometrically-correct bike with the chain attached to the weight stack and six exercises performed: seated push-down, standing push-down, and seated pull-up (both left and right sides)

Note the strength training is only strength training and not power training, which would necessitate changes in movement velocities and %1RM. (Just looking for the strength association).

Who wins, Chris Boardman I or Chris Boardman 2?

And no Chris Boardman III who employs standing starts or seated stomps; we can debate if II or III is better after eliminating Boardman I. :-)

Assuming a rider is training with appropriate overload then a correctly performed strength session will take anything from 3-14 days to recover from. This is time they can't devote 100% effort to more specific forms of training.

Thank you...perfectly valid. I believe you can adjust the training protocols, however, to not elicit a need for that long of a recovery. It also goes, that more of this type of training should be done in the off-season for maximum build up, but shouldn't be abandoned due to reversibility issues--some type of maintenance to mitigate loss of strength gains.

And you're right about the different types of exercises not carrying over. Which is why I keep going back to doing this on a bike with the chain connected to a weight stack--with that you can train strength in the exact same patterns and body geometries.