Increasing leg strength
Comments
-
dennisn wrote:Sorry, don't buy it. Upper level and world class athletes will do whatever it takes to gain an edge. Whether that involves weights, stretching, hypnosis, divorce, seeing a shrink,
diet, or any of a thousand other things, they are usually inclined to do it. Every little bit of help counts. The possibilty of something helping a paticular person, whatever it may be,
is not to be overlooked and no one can say for certain that something is no good for someone else. You or I or anyone can't possibly know how another persons body will react to weight training. You make too much of a blanket statement.
Marvellous. I've personally found, in a non-double blinded and non-controlled experiment, that w*nking into a pot noodle, leaving it for a week then eating it has improved my cycling strength by 40%. I've knocked 10 minutes of my time up Alpe d'Huez! Can I interest you in the method? In the interests of bulding bridges, I've got one thats been stewing for 3 days already - send me your address and I'll get it over to you by Sunday., free of charge.0 -
This thread can be summed as Ignorance vs Arrogance.
Arrogance has it by a nose.0 -
StageWinner wrote:This thread can be summed as Ignorance vs Arrogance.
Arrogance has it by a nose.
YES! Get in.
One might also note that it is rather arrogant to assume that one knows better than the collective work of sports scientists over the last century.0 -
Just had the opportunity (!) to review the evidence on this as I had to write an essay on the compatibility or lack thereof of combined strength and endurance training.
I think a lot of the disagreement here is a misuderstanding of training to increase strength and training most people call 'strength training'. If you want to increase strength you have to increase muscle mass (as Alex so succintly explained) which has little benefit to the cyclist. However, there is good evidence that if you replace about 15% of your endurance training with 'strength' work your cycling improves, both your endurance performance and your ability to sprint away from a group, accelerate uphill and win bunch sprints.
There are a number of reasons this works including a subtle change in the type and distribution of muscle fibre types and improved muscle efficiency. Interestingly all this happens with no measurable increase in muscle size or body weight.
Important things are it must be a replacement of endurance training not in addition to it and should only be 15%. It should also mirror the biomechanics of cycling so low cadence high force intervals on a bike or half squats are good. Also the benefit accrues in 6-10 weeks and then reaches steady state, hence do your hard interval and rep work immediately prior to competition season and then move to a gentler once a week maintenance programme.0 -
Stick8267 wrote:Just had the opportunity (!) to review the evidence on this as I had to write an essay on the compatibility or lack thereof of combined strength and endurance training.
I think a lot of the disagreement here is a misuderstanding of training to increase strength and training most people call 'strength training'. If you want to increase strength you have to increase muscle mass (as Alex so succintly explained) which has little benefit to the cyclist. However, there is good evidence that if you replace about 15% of your endurance training with 'strength' work your cycling improves, both your endurance performance and your ability to sprint away from a group, accelerate uphill and win bunch sprints.
There are a number of reasons this works including a subtle change in the type and distribution of muscle fibre types and improved muscle efficiency. Interestingly all this happens with no measurable increase in muscle size or body weight.
Important things are it must be a replacement of endurance training not in addition to it and should only be 15%. It should also mirror the biomechanics of cycling so low cadence high force intervals on a bike or half squats are good. Also the benefit accrues in 6-10 weeks and then reaches steady state, hence do your hard interval and rep work immediately prior to competition season and then move to a gentler once a week maintenance programme.
Interesting. Your evidence?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Because they might simply be a better athlete to start with.dennisn wrote:mattshrops wrote:Lets face it if you train all winter riding 4 days per week- or riding 4 days per week plus 2 days weights ,well it aint gonna do you any harm is it?. But if your goal is purely improvement in cycling ability then you'd do better to do 6 days on the bike.no?
Not sure you can make a blanket statement like that. I know a few triathletes who don't ride all that often and yet they are faster than some cyclists who ride daily. Can you explain???? Surely the swimming and running are hindering their abilities on the bike????
After all, all you need to do is ride, or so say more than a few people. Is it possible that they are stronger because they do other excercises? Hmmmmmmm
Or it might be because they do different excercises along with cycling??? Could it possibly be that doing other forms of training actually helps your cycling? i.e. these people are better trained / in better condition than cyclists in general?0 -
dennisn wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Because they might simply be a better athlete to start with.dennisn wrote:mattshrops wrote:Lets face it if you train all winter riding 4 days per week- or riding 4 days per week plus 2 days weights ,well it aint gonna do you any harm is it?. But if your goal is purely improvement in cycling ability then you'd do better to do 6 days on the bike.no?
Not sure you can make a blanket statement like that. I know a few triathletes who don't ride all that often and yet they are faster than some cyclists who ride daily. Can you explain???? Surely the swimming and running are hindering their abilities on the bike????
After all, all you need to do is ride, or so say more than a few people. Is it possible that they are stronger because they do other excercises? Hmmmmmmm
Or it might be because they do different excercises along with cycling??? Could it possibly be that doing other forms of training actually helps your cycling? i.e. these people are better trained / in better condition than cyclists in general?
Oooh, is this where we make up unverifiable worthless anecdotes to support our beliefs? I know someone who has never lifted a weight in his life and got up the Ventoux in less than an hour. Also, I raced Ronnie Coleman up the Izoard (and this guy can leg press 1,000kg or summat) and I beat him.
Check. Mate.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:dennisn wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Because they might simply be a better athlete to start with.dennisn wrote:mattshrops wrote:Lets face it if you train all winter riding 4 days per week- or riding 4 days per week plus 2 days weights ,well it aint gonna do you any harm is it?. But if your goal is purely improvement in cycling ability then you'd do better to do 6 days on the bike.no?
Not sure you can make a blanket statement like that. I know a few triathletes who don't ride all that often and yet they are faster than some cyclists who ride daily. Can you explain???? Surely the swimming and running are hindering their abilities on the bike????
After all, all you need to do is ride, or so say more than a few people. Is it possible that they are stronger because they do other excercises? Hmmmmmmm
Or it might be because they do different excercises along with cycling??? Could it possibly be that doing other forms of training actually helps your cycling? i.e. these people are better trained / in better condition than cyclists in general?
Oooh, is this where we make up unverifiable worthless anecdotes to support our beliefs?
Check. Mate.
No, it was a question or two. Got an answer????0 -
just to add to this , didnt robert millar , sean kelly ,graham obree do weights, the latter, what he called on the bike strength work ?0
-
P_Tucker wrote:Stick8267 wrote:Just had the opportunity (!) to review the evidence on this as I had to write an essay on the compatibility or lack thereof of combined strength and endurance training.
I think a lot of the disagreement here is a misuderstanding of training to increase strength and training most people call 'strength training'. If you want to increase strength you have to increase muscle mass (as Alex so succintly explained) which has little benefit to the cyclist. However, there is good evidence that if you replace about 15% of your endurance training with 'strength' work your cycling improves, both your endurance performance and your ability to sprint away from a group, accelerate uphill and win bunch sprints.
There are a number of reasons this works including a subtle change in the type and distribution of muscle fibre types and improved muscle efficiency. Interestingly all this happens with no measurable increase in muscle size or body weight.
Important things are it must be a replacement of endurance training not in addition to it and should only be 15%. It should also mirror the biomechanics of cycling so low cadence high force intervals on a bike or half squats are good. Also the benefit accrues in 6-10 weeks and then reaches steady state, hence do your hard interval and rep work immediately prior to competition season and then move to a gentler once a week maintenance programme.
Interesting. Your evidence?
I was surprised and intrigued too. Lots of papers (quoted about 30 in the essay itself and left a bunch behind) happy to send you a copy although I will happily admit it's not been marked yet!!0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Marvellous. I've personally found, in a non-double blinded and non-controlled experiment, that w*nking into a pot noodle, leaving it for a week then eating it has improved my cycling strength by 40%. I've knocked 10 minutes of my time up Alpe d'Huez! Can I interest you in the method? In the interests of bulding bridges, I've got one thats been stewing for 3 days already - send me your address and I'll get it over to you by Sunday., free of charge.
Jeez - 1256 post in 11 months. Helpful/informative/interesting posts - about 6?
Cue post 1257 - arrogant, sarcastic and/or abusive? Take your pick... :roll:ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
meanredspider wrote:P_Tucker wrote:Marvellous. I've personally found, in a non-double blinded and non-controlled experiment, that w*nking into a pot noodle, leaving it for a week then eating it has improved my cycling strength by 40%. I've knocked 10 minutes of my time up Alpe d'Huez! Can I interest you in the method? In the interests of bulding bridges, I've got one thats been stewing for 3 days already - send me your address and I'll get it over to you by Sunday., free of charge.
Jeez - 1256 post in 11 months. Helpful/informative/interesting posts - about 6?
Cue post 1257 - arrogant, sarcastic and/or abusive? Take your pick... :roll:
Ooooh, a challenge. My posts might be all of those things, but they do reflect the balance of sceintific opinion - that is to say, I'm right. This can be contrasted with your posts, which are invariably utter bolleaux.
I think that covers everything.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:My posts might be all of those things, but they do reflect the balance of sceintific opinion.
Do you really believe that's what your posts do? Read your last 5 or 6 posts. Scientific opinion? What have they added to anybody's understanding of anything? Anybody?ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
meanredspider wrote:P_Tucker wrote:My posts might be all of those things, but they do reflect the balance of sceintific opinion.
Do you really believe that's what your posts do? Read your last 5 or 6 posts. Scientific opinion? What have they added to anybody's understanding of anything? Anybody?
Okay, some of them reflect the balance of scientific opinion, others mock those who wilfully ignore science. Moreover, I think they contributed to everyones understanding that arguing from personal anecdote leaves you open to being ridiculed.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Okay, some of them reflect the balance of scientific opinion, others mock those who wilfully ignore science. Moreover, I think they contributed to everyones understanding that arguing from personal anecdote leaves you open to being ridiculed.
That's probably one of the most balanced things I've ever seen you write.
Honestly, if you get frustrated (which you seem to) by the seeming stupidity of people like me, think for a minute if some people are arguing black is white simply to satisfy the urge to be on the opposite side of the argument to you.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
It's a shame there is so much silly vitriol and testosterone littering the thread, thanks Alex for some factual information. What I wold be intersted to know, is what length (time or even distance) would strength training help - by that I don't know if an anaerobic track effort benefits from additional strength training (hypertrophy). This is in the context of track riding, but specifically short distance events such as 750m TT. Perhaps even generally, what are the physiological differences between 100% anaerobic (such as a stranding tack start) and to say 50% such as in a points race sprint (I just plucked an arbitrary figure, it's probably not that high in reality). I would imagine that some calculus might be involved, by examining a delta F over a delta T at a given (and differering) starting power output etc.0
-
Pokerface wrote:Denis - You'll gain more by dedicating your training time to riding and not to pumping iron in the gym. As Alex will tell you - if you have the time and want to get into the gym to do some weights, if for nothing else than to change your training a bit - he wouldn't discourage you. But there's no scientific evidence to show that it will actually help you.
Dennis - in the thread that I linked to earlier I asked for help on how I could climb some nasty 20% hills in the North York Moors. I was advised by CoachFerg and Markac to do the following:
* go and ride hills
* ride at different cadences, power outputs and HR levels
* go and ride hills
So I did, but it wasn't full-on super-intensive training by any stretch of the imagination. The majority of the higher intensity riding I did was short sharp intervals on my seven mile commute home from work, occasionally I'd extend the commute to 18 miles to take in my local hills (max 8-10%) and ride them at threshold level and very occasionally I'd go and do 2 x 10 minute intervals at my max pace. And when I went and rode those horrible hills I got up them, without any practice on them or having done a single leg press or going anywhere near a gym.
Good luck if you go and do your Rockies ride again...0 -
meanredspider wrote:P_Tucker wrote:Okay, some of them reflect the balance of scientific opinion, others mock those who wilfully ignore science. Moreover, I think they contributed to everyones understanding that arguing from personal anecdote leaves you open to being ridiculed.
That's probably one of the most balanced things I've ever seen you write.
Honestly, if you get frustrated (which you seem to) by the seeming stupidity of people like me, think for a minute if some people are arguing black is white simply to satisfy the urge to be on the opposite side of the argument to you.
Yeah, but I honestly don't care if I change people's opinions. The facts are the facts, if people let something as trivial as not liking the person who's relaying them get in the way then that's their problem. Those people who listen to what coachferg, Alex (and to a far lesser extent I) have to say will most likely have more success with their cycling, however they choose to define success (even if they, with their eyes open, still choose to do weights - I do). I honestly don't care either way - I just like mocking people who are arrogant enough to think that they know better than the collective research of hundreds of scientists based on their personal experiences of riding a bike. We've all got problems eh?
*mast**bates furiously*
You'll also notice that when Stick claimed to have produced a paper coming to a different conclusion, my reaction wasn't to say "you're full of sh!t, this is what I think and you're WRONG". If his evidence is compelling (and I'm not qualified to know either way) then it will doubtlessly be published and coachferg, Alex and I will all change our minds and advocate strength training. Alex might even be able to offer an opinion based on his existing knowledge, which is why I suggested that Stick send it to him.
Science. Its awesome.0 -
whilst i would agree that mr p. tucker does do a remarkable impression of a balloon knot from time to time....
on this occasion i'd have to agrrrr. sorry try again i'd have to agggggg. ahh sod it im off to do some squats
Death or Glory- Just another Story0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Yeah, but I honestly don't care if I change people's opinions. The facts are the facts, if people let something as trivial as not liking the person who's relaying them get in the way then that's their problem. Those people who listen to what coachferg, Alex (and to a far lesser extent I) have to say will most likely have more success with their cycling, however they choose to define success (even if they, with their eyes open, still choose to do weights - I do). I honestly don't care either way - I just like mocking people who are arrogant enough to think that they know better than the collective research of hundreds of scientists based on their personal experiences of riding a bike. We've all got problems eh?
*mast**bates furiously*
You'll also notice that when Stick claimed to have produced a paper coming to a different conclusion, my reaction wasn't to say "you're full of sh!t, this is what I think and you're WRONG". If his evidence is compelling (and I'm not qualified to know either way) then it will doubtlessly be published and coachferg, Alex and I will all change our minds and advocate strength training. Alex might even be able to offer an opinion based on his existing knowledge, which is why I suggested that Stick send it to him.
Science. Its awesome.
Science IS awesome. I earn a living from it.
I don't actually disagree with what you've written. But, TBH, the threads would go a lot smoother if you wrote posts a bit more like your last 2 or 3 and cut back on the mocking and abuse. Learning is about asking the stupid questions. We don't all know everything about everything and the clever guys can explain stuff to even the most stupid of us.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Didn't really need the rest did you?P_Tucker wrote:I just like mocking people
0 -
meanredspider wrote:I don't actually disagree with what you've written. But, TBH, the threads would go a lot smoother if you wrote posts a bit more like your last 2 or 3 and cut back on the mocking and abuse. Learning is about asking the stupid questions. We don't all know everything about everything and the clever guys can explain stuff to even the most stupid of us.
Even dennis?
He wouldn't change his mind if Jesus Christ returned to earth and told him he was wrong.
And lets not forget your response to my posts was along the lines of "no, this is what I personally think the answer is based on my experiences". You can't argue with a flat denial based on personal opinion. If you'd responded with "I've read the science, but I disagree, and here is why" then I'd have done a bit of research and debated without recourse to mockery and ridicule, as difficult as I would doubtlessly have found it.0 -
StageWinner wrote:This thread can be summed as Ignorance vs Arrogance.
Arrogance has it by a nose.
LOL. Good one. 0 -
Did a sort of Internet search yesterday for books related to "Weight Training for Cyclists".
To say that it yeilded more than a few books on the subject would be an understatement.
Now, given that the reason for publishing a book is "MONEY" we can assume that most of the authors are doing it for just that. However, some of these authors are well known in cycling and racing circles as notable coaches and trainers. This leads me to believe that there has got to be a bit of truth in what they promote. There seems to be a group of people on this forum that, for whatever reason, can't accept that someone might be able to get a little stronger, a little faster, in a little better condition, and maybe gain some usable strength and power by pumping iron. Pardon my use of the words strength and power as I obviously have no understanding of them. That's reserved for a select few.0 -
A lot of books about hobbits and elves too but I'd be careful about taking them at face value too.0
-
Davey C wrote:A lot of books about hobbits and elves too but I'd be careful about taking them at face value too.
Oh, absolutely. Yet these books are out there for sale and I'm going to assume that they have their fair share of facts a figures to prove their cases. Not unlike more than a few people on this forum who quote things to support their views. I'm not against facts and figures or charts and graphs. They have their place, but I can tell you for sure that they won't help you get up those mountains. When you're climbing the big stuff you're not thinking "Gee, the charts indicate that if I pedal at X RPM's with a power output at Y then....". No, you're thinking, between gasp for air, "Man, I hope my body holds out".
When every part of you aches from the effort you might just be thankful that you did
those sets of curls and bench presses as opposed to trying to cram more facts and figures into your head.0 -
-
Friend of mine started doing bicep curls to try and improve his dart skills. 6 months on and he still cant hit the trebles for sh*t, but his guns are f*cking awesome.
Please let this thread die. Its more painful than watching a donky cry0
