Leg workouts at the gym - Good idea?
Comments
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Who said it serves no purpose at all?Pokerface wrote:As to the whole argument over core workouts, etc - I find it mind-boggling that so many of the world's top cyclists, with all their access to the best coaches and technology, are doing this type of exercise if it serves no purpose at all. I don't see it as 'just what's always been done'.
People do strength and flexibility work for many reasons. Heck I've done plenty of yoga (quite physical and lot of core work in that) in my time and have also done strength work in the gym. Not since accident though.
But I never did core work to go faster on a bike (and neither did it help me with that). And my sprint performance declined as I got stronger (strength clearly wasn't my limiter). My sprint did however improve the more I rode and did sprints.
OK - now you're just being pedantic. We are discussing doing core work in the context of improving cycling performance. You (and others) seem to feel that core work will not aid in this endeavor - therefore it 'serves no purpose'.
And again - the mind boggles that top cyclists would bother to do any exercises that don't increase their ability to ride their bikes better/faster, etc.0 -
The limiting factor is the rate of ATP production/turnover.jp1985 wrote:If we assume a constant cadence (velocity) then the limiting factor to performance is the ability to exhibit force within the time constraints of the pedal stroke. So what is really important is the ability to express a high degree of force in a short period of time which is rate of force development.
It's an aerobic sport.0 -
The mind boggles at lots of what of top cyclists do.Pokerface wrote:And again - the mind boggles that top cyclists would bother to do any exercises that don't increase their ability to ride their bikes better/faster, etc.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
The mind boggles at what lots of top cyclists do.Pokerface wrote:And again - the mind boggles that top cyclists would bother to do any exercises that don't increase their ability to ride their bikes better/faster, etc.
Maybe you and my coach can sit down over a beer after the racing in Sydney and arm-wrestle it out or something. I don't think he'll believe me when I tell him I'm not going to do any supplemental strength work and why. 8)0 -
Murr X wrote:This really is another hillarious thread, must say it's very entertaining when I can get over the frustration of good information falling on deaf ears.
Dennis,dennisn wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
That's simple - because cycling is not a strength sport.dennisn wrote:I don't believe that anyone is saying that lifting weights will make you a better / stronger bike rider as opposed to actually riding a bike, one compared to the other. I just can't believe that anyone would doubt that lifting weights would not make you a stronger rider. People lift weights and they get stronger. How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face? How can anyone say that becoming stronger is a bad thing or not helpful?
Even track cycling match sprinters don't need a huge amount of strength. Like all cyclists, what they require is power.
Too often strength and power are wrongly equated. They are not the same thing. Not by a long way.
Strength / power? Whatever. Now you're telling me that weight training doesn't increase the available power in your body? It only increases your strength? People who lift weights haven't gained any power in all the years they have been doing it? And why is that cycling doesn't benefit from strength? Why is cycling this "special sport" and is so different from all the others, or at least you seem to say? What works in other sports doesn't do a thing for a cyclist? We're special?
I recall explaining why this is to you in adequate detail in the past and you seem to have forgotten all about it. I have no conclusion to draw other than that is a topic you can not get your head around and until you can it is probably best not to argue with somebody knowledgeable like Alex Simmons who incidentally has also been quite the gentleman spending his precious time here sharing information worth listening to.
Like many here you have more to learn than to contribute to this.
Murr X
Try to remember, if you will, that's it's not the answers that are important. Getting the answers is the easy part, anyone can do it. Asking the right questions, now that's the hard part. Everyone seems to have all the answers yet no one answers my questions.
That tells me something. In your minds you all believe I'm an idiot because all I do is ask dumb questions, yet for all the answers you claim to have you're not "getting through" to me because I'm an idiot and don't understand all this tech training. If you're all so smart why can't you get through to a moron like me?
0 -
dennisn wrote:Murr X wrote:This really is another hillarious thread, must say it's very entertaining when I can get over the frustration of good information falling on deaf ears.
Dennis,dennisn wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
That's simple - because cycling is not a strength sport.dennisn wrote:I don't believe that anyone is saying that lifting weights will make you a better / stronger bike rider as opposed to actually riding a bike, one compared to the other. I just can't believe that anyone would doubt that lifting weights would not make you a stronger rider. People lift weights and they get stronger. How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face? How can anyone say that becoming stronger is a bad thing or not helpful?
Even track cycling match sprinters don't need a huge amount of strength. Like all cyclists, what they require is power.
Too often strength and power are wrongly equated. They are not the same thing. Not by a long way.
Strength / power? Whatever. Now you're telling me that weight training doesn't increase the available power in your body? It only increases your strength? People who lift weights haven't gained any power in all the years they have been doing it? And why is that cycling doesn't benefit from strength? Why is cycling this "special sport" and is so different from all the others, or at least you seem to say? What works in other sports doesn't do a thing for a cyclist? We're special?
I recall explaining why this is to you in adequate detail in the past and you seem to have forgotten all about it. I have no conclusion to draw other than that is a topic you can not get your head around and until you can it is probably best not to argue with somebody knowledgeable like Alex Simmons who incidentally has also been quite the gentleman spending his precious time here sharing information worth listening to.
Like many here you have more to learn than to contribute to this.
Murr X
Try to remember, if you will, that's it's not the answers that are important. Getting the answers is the easy part, anyone can do it. Asking the right questions, now that's the hard part. Everyone seems to have all the answers yet no one answers my questions.
That tells me something. In your minds you all believe I'm an idiot because all I do is ask dumb questions, yet for all the answers you claim to have you're not "getting through" to me because I'm an idiot and don't understand all this tech training. If you're all so smart why can't you get through to a moron like me?
I'm sure Albert Einstein couldn't explain theoretical physics to me and I have a genius IQ.0 -
Zoomer37 wrote:Would like to know your views on including specific leg exercises (leg press, dead lifts etc) at the gym to help improve power/stamina for riding
Unnecessary if your riding regularly? Or a good thing to do for improving the above?
I don't know, but considering it. When I'm trying to climb a decent hill I'm out of the saddle and it's the cardiovascular which takes the hit, so more cycling up hills will improve this.
When I'm on the flats aerodynamics against the air is critical (double the speed you quadruple the power required), so maintaining (practicing) a good aero bike position on the drops is the most important.
I'm no scientist or racer, but I'd say your diminishing time is better spent enjoying riding your bike.0 -
I'm looking forward to that beer. Honestly this is all such a storm in a beer mug.Pokerface wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
The mind boggles at what lots of top cyclists do.Pokerface wrote:And again - the mind boggles that top cyclists would bother to do any exercises that don't increase their ability to ride their bikes better/faster, etc.
Maybe you and my coach can sit down over a beer after the racing in Sydney and arm-wrestle it out or something. I don't think he'll believe me when I tell him I'm not going to do any supplemental strength work and why. 8)
Where you staying?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Strength and force are not the same thing.jp1985 wrote:Strength= The ability to produce force
Power = Force x Velocity
If strength and force are synonymous then strength must be linked to power in some way
The forces one can apply are intrinsically linked to the velocity of the motion. Once the rate of movement goes up, then the forces decline accordingly.
By definition, strength (maximal force) occurs at zero velocity.
It is a physical impossibility to apply maximal force (strength) at non-zero or almost non-zero velocity (as is the case when pedaling a bike when the motion is fairly rapid).
The only time we approach this scenario is the initial pedal stroke of a track cyclist TT or BMX standing start. Even on the second down stroke the forces are no longer maximal and drop away quite rapidly from there.
Peak force actually occurs at negative velocities... however if you use that definition then it removes the limitations of isometric conditions and allows us to discuss strength/force production under a range of conditions e.g. from 0-100% and at movement velocities form 0-100%and the ability to produce force is a product of movement velocity so what becomes important is the ability to express a high level of force in short periods of time (e.g. 250ms)... However i'm not sure this is relevant as Im in agreement that absolute peak force isn't worth training for in and of itself.
No one is arguing that cycling isn't a predominantly aerobic sport, and that aerobic factors explain a very high percentage of performance, but what about the final few percent, why just ignore this area?
The ability of the aerobic system determines the sustainable level of force that can be produced at a muscular level, but neural factors will contribute to how this is expressed at the pedals so potentially effecting performance0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:I'm looking forward to that beer. Honestly this is all such a storm in a beer mug.
Where you staying?
Novotel Sydney Olympic Park - I assume this is close to the race location?
And for a change, we're staying an extra day after the racing so can go out after the final night and not have to worry about getting up at 5:00 the next morning to catch a flight!0 -
Pokerface wrote:dennisn wrote:Murr X wrote:This really is another hillarious thread, must say it's very entertaining when I can get over the frustration of good information falling on deaf ears.
Dennis,dennisn wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
That's simple - because cycling is not a strength sport.dennisn wrote:I don't believe that anyone is saying that lifting weights will make you a better / stronger bike rider as opposed to actually riding a bike, one compared to the other. I just can't believe that anyone would doubt that lifting weights would not make you a stronger rider. People lift weights and they get stronger. How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face? How can anyone say that becoming stronger is a bad thing or not helpful?
Even track cycling match sprinters don't need a huge amount of strength. Like all cyclists, what they require is power.
Too often strength and power are wrongly equated. They are not the same thing. Not by a long way.
Strength / power? Whatever. Now you're telling me that weight training doesn't increase the available power in your body? It only increases your strength? People who lift weights haven't gained any power in all the years they have been doing it? And why is that cycling doesn't benefit from strength? Why is cycling this "special sport" and is so different from all the others, or at least you seem to say? What works in other sports doesn't do a thing for a cyclist? We're special?
I recall explaining why this is to you in adequate detail in the past and you seem to have forgotten all about it. I have no conclusion to draw other than that is a topic you can not get your head around and until you can it is probably best not to argue with somebody knowledgeable like Alex Simmons who incidentally has also been quite the gentleman spending his precious time here sharing information worth listening to.
Like many here you have more to learn than to contribute to this.
Murr X
Try to remember, if you will, that's it's not the answers that are important. Getting the answers is the easy part, anyone can do it. Asking the right questions, now that's the hard part. Everyone seems to have all the answers yet no one answers my questions.
That tells me something. In your minds you all believe I'm an idiot because all I do is ask dumb questions, yet for all the answers you claim to have you're not "getting through" to me because I'm an idiot and don't understand all this tech training. If you're all so smart why can't you get through to a moron like me?
I'm sure Albert Einstein couldn't explain theoretical physics to me and I have a genius IQ.
Maybe he couldn't explain it to you but without him asking you the questions you would be out of a job, so to speak. Look around you, the people who ask the questions are the movers and shakers of the world. Their "what ifs", "what's happening here and why" are what make things progress. Maybe you do know everything but without someone asking the right questions it's all useless.
Here's a question for you-
dictionary.com defines strength as "the quality or state of being strong; bodily or muscular power; vigor". Hmmm, power being used to define strength and yet the two of them are completely separate. Nothing to do with each other?
Explain????0 -
JGSI wrote:This is an interesting thread and what it needs is a LABRAT to help with all the strength and conditioning and core theories that have abounded.
This weekend I am on a Les Mills Body Pump 3 day course ( a fitness class that is more or less hits the definition of strength conditioning squarely in the eyes along with a fair amount of core) followed by a number of classes that I will have to teach in the following week... then ,.. here's the rub
I am racing again on April 26th...
previous race last week I got shelled at the 25mile mark but finished the 44 mile race with a few stragglers...
Will I have a better time of it on the 26th?
Bike time is going to be restricted... but will manage a few training sessions to help with balance.
All i know is apart from this thread having gone off the rails majestically.. is that after 2 days of Pump. and 1 to go .. my legs are feck all use for cycling at the mo
8)0 -
How?jp1985 wrote:The ability of the aerobic system determines the sustainable level of force that can be produced at a muscular level, but neural factors will contribute to how this is expressed at the pedals so potentially effecting performance
And what does weight/strength training have to do with that when neural adaptation is even more specific to the joint angles and velocities involved, something best done on a bike (e.g. sprint training).0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
How?jp1985 wrote:The ability of the aerobic system determines the sustainable level of force that can be produced at a muscular level, but neural factors will contribute to how this is expressed at the pedals so potentially effecting performance
And what does weight/strength training have to do with that when neural adaptation is even more specific to the joint angles and velocities involved, something best done on a bike (e.g. sprint training).
Through influencing the summation of force production through rate coding (frequency of motor unit activation), and synchronisation of motor unit recruitment.
As i mentioned earlier It could be done on a bike, what is important is that the efforts are maximal (for 1-10sec) to provide a stimulus for adaptation, but there will be transfer from other forms of maximal training using similar joint angels.0 -
and velocities?jp1985 wrote:As i mentioned earlier It could be done on a bike, what is important is that the efforts are maximal (for 1-10sec) to provide a stimulus for adaptation, but there will be transfer form other forms of maximal training using similar joint joint angels.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
and velocities?jp1985 wrote:As i mentioned earlier It could be done on a bike, what is important is that the efforts are maximal (for 1-10sec) to provide a stimulus for adaptation, but there will be transfer form other forms of maximal training using similar joint joint angels.
As long as the intention is to move as quickly as possible the the actual movement speed isn't so important in producing these adaptations.0 -
So help me if I get this wrong:jp1985 wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
and velocities?jp1985 wrote:As i mentioned earlier It could be done on a bike, what is important is that the efforts are maximal (for 1-10sec) to provide a stimulus for adaptation, but there will be transfer form other forms of maximal training using similar joint joint angels.
As long as the intention is to move as quickly as possible the the actual movement speed isn't so important in producing these adaptations.
You are saying that maximal efforts of 1-10 seconds, that may or may not involve actually moving a joint (provided the intent is there), or at least not moving it at the specific velocities used in cycling, will help improve sustainable aerobic power beyond what one can do with on the bike training?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
So help me if I get this wrong:jp1985 wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
and velocities?jp1985 wrote:As i mentioned earlier It could be done on a bike, what is important is that the efforts are maximal (for 1-10sec) to provide a stimulus for adaptation, but there will be transfer form other forms of maximal training using similar joint joint angels.
As long as the intention is to move as quickly as possible the the actual movement speed isn't so important in producing these adaptations.
You are saying that maximal efforts of 1-10 seconds, that may or may not involve actually moving a joint (provided the intent is there), or at least not moving it at the specific velocities used in cycling, will help improve sustainable aerobic power beyond what one can do with on the bike training?
no thats not what i've said...
There needs to be movement through a specific range of motion (e.g. concentric contraction not isometric). The speed of that movement isn't important in producing adaptations in RFD. For example if you perform a step up with a 100kg load then the movement velocity will be slow due to the force-velocity relationship but if the individual performs this attempting to move as quickly as possible under the conditions then rfd will increase. This increase in rfd may increase efficiency, if this happens sustainable aerobic power would be enhanced... As i said this has been observed in other sports and there are studies which have shown rfd to be related to cycling efficiency efficiency.
As i have said quite a few times before this could be achieved on a bike.
Whether or not this is more beneficial than traditional cycling training in would likely be dependent on the individual, their training history and current training.0 -
Anyone willing to tackle my previous question? If strength and power are two completely different things, as stated earlier, why do dictionaries use the word power in the definition of strength and use the word strength in the definitionof the word power?0
-
dennisn wrote:Anyone willing to tackle my previous question? If strength and power are two completely different things, as stated earlier, why do dictionaries use the word power in the definition of strength and use the word strength in the definitionof the word power?
Dennis - in your case we all recommend you spend as much time as possible in the gym.
That will leave less time for you to derail threads on the forum. 8)0 -
Pokerface wrote:dennisn wrote:Anyone willing to tackle my previous question? If strength and power are two completely different things, as stated earlier, why do dictionaries use the word power in the definition of strength and use the word strength in the definitionof the word power?
Dennis - in your case we all recommend you spend as much time as possible in the gym.
That will leave less time for you to derail threads on the forum. 8)
So you're saying you don't know the answer? OK
Anyone else want to try? I'd really like to know.0 -
dennisn wrote:Anyone willing to tackle my previous question? If strength and power are two completely different things, as stated earlier, why do dictionaries use the word power in the definition of strength and use the word strength in the definitionof the word power?
I'll give it a go
Strength in cycling training is often used as a synonym for torque; that is, the force which one can exert through one pedal stroke. Someone very "strong" in the weight-lifting muscular sense will be able to exert a large Nm twisting force through the crank.
Power is the rate of production of torque. To increase power you have to either increase torque (big gear, low revs, push harder, like a diesel engine) or increase the rate of production of torque (same torque, spin faster, rev higher like a race car)
Does that sound like a workable distinction?
jon0 -
cookiemonster wrote:dennisn wrote:Anyone willing to tackle my previous question? If strength and power are two completely different things, as stated earlier, why do dictionaries use the word power in the definition of strength and use the word strength in the definitionof the word power?
I'll give it a go
Strength in cycling training is often used as a synonym for torque; that is, the force which one can exert through one pedal stroke. Someone very "strong" in the weight-lifting muscular sense will be able to exert a large Nm twisting force through the crank.
Power is the rate of production of torque. To increase power you have to either increase torque (big gear, low revs, push harder, like a diesel engine) or increase the rate of production of torque (same torque, spin faster, rev higher like a race car)
Does that sound like a workable distinction?
jon
Sounds reasonable to me. All I'm trying to do is establish a link between strength(from weightlifting) to the production of cycling power. I just can't wrap my brain around the theory that gaining extra strength from weights is NOT helpful in cycling. The thought of gaining strength (from pumping iron) yet seeing no gains in power output makes no sense to me. Of course you can find bunches of academic studies leaning both ways, I'm sure, but what do they have to do with a rider struggling up a steep mountain pass or a long, long day in the saddle when a little extra strength, power, or any other thing that helps turn the pedals starts to come into short supply. The academics of A+B=C tend to have little or no meaning in these cases. Power, strength, whatever you want to call it is what's needed and whatever reserves of whatever you have will be called into action.
I don't recall, while climbing a long pass in the Rockies, wondering if it was strength or power or idiocy that kept me going. I just know that it wasn't some "study" by some college students trying to get their masters or PhD.0 -
The Allen/Coggan book has a section entitled "strength versus power" that may be worth a read if you're interested (Ive just picked it up now, after my reply above). Their definition is strength refers to the maximal force-generating capacity of a muscle; power is defined as rate at which work is being done (so I'm alright then!) Their main contention as discussed elsewhere is that the strength required to produce a power (lets say you're kicking out 300w at 100rpm) is a fraction (35% say) of your absolute maximal strength. So increasing your maximum strength via weightlifting just means that you're using 30% of your total strength rather than 35%, which makes no great difference when compared to the various aerobic and lactate clearance mechanisms you need to employ to do this for more than 30 seconds!
I think though its a more complicated subject than is apparent from many of the responses to these types of questions. To be fair to the responses though, many of the questions are vague and generic in the first place, and leave us all "filling in the gaps" with our assumptions of the riders abilities, goals and time constraints - the first post on this thread is a perfect example. We all end up answering what we assume to be the original question, but which may differ from what others assume. For example there are at least three answers to the question that kicked off this thread:
1. Yes, there is a place for specific leg exercises in a gym within a cyclists training routine as witnessed by the many pros and track riders that include these form of exercises within their training regimes
2. No, the majority of amateur road cyclists with time constrained training will gain far greater benefit from cycling and cycle-based workouts than they could ever hope to gain from weight lifting
3. Maybe - tell us about your abilities, your goals, your time constraints, your access to a bike, even a static bike, during the week, etc and you'll get some more relevant guidance
I'd guess that these are all "correct" answers to the original question.
Even the Allen/Coggan book falls into this trap. The have a whole section shooting apart strength training both off the bike and on the bike ("big gear" training, muscle tension intervals and the like - low cadence, high force). Their arguments are compelling in a very black and white way.
However, a few pages later we meet "Bob" (chapter 9). Bob has a thin build and small muscles and therefore "lacks the power he needs for an explosive snap", his "muscles are just not trained well enough to handle sustained power outputs". Therefore, the first thing Allen/Coggan prescribe in the week 1-4 training plan is "start addressing his limiter of muscular power by incorporating some big gear work"
Which, despite their earlier arguments to the contrary, suggests that even Allen & Coggan reckon there are times when "strength" training may be advantageous!
jon[/list]0 -
the dictionary is not written for people specialising in sports training. to your average person strngth, power andforce are the same thing- that doesnt mean they are right.Death or Glory- Just another Story0
-
Because Dennis regular dictionary definitions generally don't include those specific to a particular branch of science (e.g. in this case exercise physiology) but rather cover a multitude of uses, specific or otherwise.dennisn wrote:Anyone willing to tackle my previous question? If strength and power are two completely different things, as stated earlier, why do dictionaries use the word power in the definition of strength and use the word strength in the definitionof the word power?
In some cases they may include general science definitions, e.g. if you look up power you usually see a physics definition about it being "the rate of doing work or energy transfer" amongst about 20 other definitions.
When we are going to discuss a specific topic, we need to use the specific definitions, otherwise discussion is pointless.
No point having a discussion about shades of blue, when your definition of blue is related to a colour and mine is a state of mind. It would make no sense. Much like equating strength and power when discussing exercise.0 -
That's because the limiters are aerobic metabolic ones, not strength/force related. It's the ability to generate a significantly sub-maximal forces, frequently over a period of time that limits our ability on a bike.dennisn wrote:Sounds reasonable to me. All I'm trying to do is establish a link between strength(from weightlifting) to the production of cycling power. I just can't wrap my brain around the theory that gaining extra strength from weights is NOT helpful in cycling.
That is a function of our ability to process/turnover ATP (the chemical that provides the energy inside our muscles). The more of that we can turnover, the more power we can sustain.
Yet that is what the balance of studies actually demonstrates, indeed it can have a detrimental impact on ability to generate sustainable power.dennisn wrote:The thought of gaining strength (from pumping iron) yet seeing no gains in power output makes no sense to me.
Put it this way, if it were the case, then why are the strongest men in the world not the fastest bike riders?0 -
SOP is where the TT will be. It's a strange course they have mapped out.Pokerface wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:I'm looking forward to that beer. Honestly this is all such a storm in a beer mug.
Where you staying?
Novotel Sydney Olympic Park - I assume this is close to the race location?
And for a change, we're staying an extra day after the racing so can go out after the final night and not have to worry about getting up at 5:00 the next morning to catch a flight!
The road race is about 20-30 min drive from there.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
SOP is where the TT will be. It's a strange course they have mapped out.Pokerface wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:I'm looking forward to that beer. Honestly this is all such a storm in a beer mug.
Where you staying?
Novotel Sydney Olympic Park - I assume this is close to the race location?
And for a change, we're staying an extra day after the racing so can go out after the final night and not have to worry about getting up at 5:00 the next morning to catch a flight!
The road race is about 20-30 min drive from there.
Looks like the TT passes right outside our hotel! Technical course with 13 corners times 4 (roughly).
Can you tell me - are the two courses relatively flat? Course profile for TT is and the RR seems to have a couple little digs? But nothing too hard?0
