5Live special on Super Coaches

bahzob

If you have an interesting in sports training this is worth a listen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pbjfb/5_live_Sport_5_live_Track_and_Field_US_Super_Coaches/

Its about athletics but muchof the content is far more general and I, at least, think it's great to hear from those actually know about what they are talking about and have delivered. It certainly makes a change from some here..

I'll admit to having a slight agenda. Alerto Salazar makes many interesting points amongst them:
- His success is down to being smarter than his opponents. That means not just doing more miles but doing fewer of higher quality.
- He cites strength training as the single biggest factor in Mo Farah's transition from also ran to winner. Hopefully let this bring an end to any future claims that endurance athletes don't benefit from weights.

Herbsman

Cool, ta.

But as for the strength training thing... :roll:

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

Hopefully let this bring an end to any future claims that endurance athletes don't benefit from weights.

Running ain't cycling. Muscle contractions and forces in running are significantly different to cycling, such that any consideration of such information on runners being applied to cycling needs to be considered with a lot of care.

ric/rstsport

Additionally, there is significant evidence to show that weights help runners, but not by making them stronger. I'll leave it up to others to suggest why. (Alex can't play this game!)

Trev The Rev

bahzob wrote:

If you have an interesting in sports training this is worth a listen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pbjfb/5_live_Sport_5_live_Track_and_Field_US_Super_Coaches/

Its about athletics but muchof the content is far more general and I, at least, think it's great to hear from those actually know about what they are talking about and have delivered. It certainly makes a change from some here..

I'll admit to having a slight agenda. Alerto Salazar makes many interesting points amongst them:
- His success is down to being smarter than his opponents. That means not just doing more miles but doing fewer of higher quality.
- He cites strength training as the single biggest factor in Mo Farah's transition from also ran to winner. Hopefully let this bring an end to any future claims that endurance athletes don't benefit from weights.

How many sports have you competed in or coached at international level?

I agree Salazar's achievements with Mo Farrah and Galen Rupp at Nike Oregon Project are impressive, living in the 'Altitude House' would also have helped with Farah's transition.

bahzob

None. I just listen and learn from those who have. (though I did compete at national level as a swimmer a long long time ago.)

Previously it has been stated as a blanket fact that weight training does not help endurance sports period.

Alberto Salazar's opinion puts an end to that fallacy. Period.

In fact it would appear that cycling is the only sport where, according to some, weight training is not necessary, which would be strange indeed.

You only need to look at Mo Farah to understand how stupid it is to think that, necessarily:
weight training>>muscle mass>>getting heavier.

It clearly does not. A well designed focused program will address weaknesses without compromising other aspects of performance.

And all the above is taken in the context of Bradley Wiggins also citing weight training as a key part in his success this year.

keef66

"Alberto Salazar's opinion..."

So not a peer reviewed scientific study then?

keef66

"Bradley Wiggins also citing weight training as a key part in his success"

where / when did he say that? I want to read it in context. Can anyone post a link?

Trev The Rev

keef66 wrote:

"Alberto Salazar's opinion..."

So not a peer reviewed scientific study then?

To be fair, in the real world, many peer reviewed scientific studies are not worth the paper they are written on, particularly when the sample is small and it was not a double blind study, or conducted by independent scientists.

Alberto Salazar's opinion (if it really is his opinion and not a little bit of smoke and mirrors) is worth a lot. I notice he does not talk much about the 'altitude house' and other methods.

phreak

Google really is great

viewtopic.php?t=12891788&p=18005288

Trev The Rev

bahzob wrote:

In fact it would appear that cycling is the only sport where, according to some, weight training is not necessary, which would be strange indeed.

Cycling is the only sport which trains with power the way it does. It thinks it is the only sport that can measure improvements in performance accurately. Other sports have in effect trained with power since the clock was invented.

God knows how some cycling 'experts' would cope in sports that require technique, skill, speed and endurance. Look how some on here complicate pressing harder and faster on pedals. Some of them even think you need a power meter to choose a power before you can even press harder or faster on the pedals.

Tom Dean

Are you arguing for or against accurate measurement?

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

Look how some on here complicate pressing harder and faster on pedals.

Ahh, yes, people like you, you mean?

keef66

phreak wrote:

Google really is great

viewtopic.php?t=12891788&p=18005288

Many thanks!

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

Are you arguing for or against accurate measurement?

I am not a number I am a free man.

buckmulligan

Trev The Rev wrote:

keef66 wrote:

"Alberto Salazar's opinion..."

So not a peer reviewed scientific study then?

To be fair, in the real world, many peer reviewed scientific studies are not worth the paper they are written on, particularly when the sample is small and it was not a double blind study, or conducted by independent scientists.

Alberto Salazar's opinion (if it really is his opinion and not a little bit of smoke and mirrors) is worth a lot. I notice he does not talk much about the 'altitude house' and other methods.

As a research scientist in a medical field (although admittedly not in sports science) I completely agree with this. To further these points, scientific studies will often only study a small number of very specific parameters or measurements (e.g. how lower leg angle affects power transfer to pedals) and then speculate on their wider implications (e.g. an increase in performance). Studies that involve long-term participation of subjects and adherence to strict regimes are very expensive and usually small sample sizes, so the data from them should be taken with great caution.

Furthermore, when the media/wider public pick up on these studies they're often oversimplified or mis-represented (and deliberately so in the case of some of the more brazen media outlets). Whenever I see 'peer-reviewed' science reported in the media, I can spot a mile off which statements would have been in the original paper and those that the journalists have put in themselves. Scientists are extremely careful about the words they choose and the conclusions they make, but the media gloss over this very crudely and often completely miss the point of the original study. Therefore, people citing peer-reviewed studies based on media reports and without having read the original paper are about as useful as the opinion of your mate down the pub.

IMO the training advice of a coach who has achieved at a high level counts for a lot. I know this is completely hypocritical given my criticism of small sample sizes, but at least the results are 'from-the-field' so to speak!

Trev The Rev

Well said sir.

buckmulligan

I'm listening to this 5Live special now and it's very interesting! Lots of interview time with the coaches and athletes and it's interesting to hear what they have to say. It seems as though there are a lot of parallels between training programmes for long distance running and cycling. And strong echoes of the Dave Brailsford philosophy of marginal gains, training smarter rather than harder, altering biomechanics to prevent injuries and addressing any injuries quickly.

It looks as though this philosophy is starting to pervade most sports now, once again cycling leads the way!

mattshrops

Surely the weight training for cyclists argument is based on 2 different scenarios-

1) full time athlete, obv cannot ride for 40 hrs per week therefore other forms of training ,stability,weights etc may be of some value.

2) part time athlete, may have any where between 5-15 hrs available and would therefore BENEFIT THE MOST by riding their bike.

Not hard to see the massive difference between the two.

Tom Butcher

Some on here have been rather more absolute in their faith that weight training has no performance benefit for endurance athletes than that.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Tom Butcher wrote:

Some on here have been rather more absolute in their faith that weight training has no performance benefit for endurance athletes than that.

Who?

All I've ever said is that body of evidence for the benefits of strength training to endurance cycling performance is equivocal to negative, and that the physiological adaptations from strength training are not consistent with those most desirable for ECP. That's quite different to the above statement.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

Some on here have been rather more absolute in their faith that weight training has no performance benefit for endurance athletes than that.

Who?

All I've ever said is that body of evidence for the benefits of strength training to endurance cycling performance is equivocal to negative, and that the physiological adaptations from strength training are not consistent with those most desirable for ECP. That's quite different to the above statement.

Weight training has it's place, recovery from injury, injury prevention, correcting a weakness which might impinge on performance, movement or posture, for sprinters, (particularly on the track - standing start in kilo, match sprint), but strength training does not really help with endurance cycling performance in the way Alex so eloquently put it above. Weight training can also make you feel better mentally as well as physically.

Tom Butcher

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

Some on here have been rather more absolute in their faith that weight training has no performance benefit for endurance athletes than that.

Who?

All I've ever said is that body of evidence for the benefits of strength training to endurance cycling performance is equivocal to negative, and that the physiological adaptations from strength training are not consistent with those most desirable for ECP. That's quite different to the above statement.

Who said I was referring to you ?

Fwiw though what you've just said isn't quite different to the above statement - there may be a slight difference of emphasis - if you look at the post I'm replying to your statement is taking a stronger line about the (lack of) value of weight training to ECP than that.

NJK

bahzob wrote:

None. I just listen and learn from those who have. (though I did compete at national level as a swimmer a long long time ago.)

Previously it has been stated as a blanket fact that weight training does not help endurance sports period.

Alberto Salazar's opinion puts an end to that fallacy. Period.

In fact it would appear that cycling is the only sport where, according to some, weight training is not necessary, which would be strange indeed.

You only need to look at Mo Farah to understand how stupid it is to think that, necessarily:
weight training>>muscle mass>>getting heavier.

It clearly does not. A well designed focused program will address weaknesses without compromising other aspects of performance.

And all the above is taken in the context of Bradley Wiggins also citing weight training as a key part in his success this year.

That's rubbish to be honest! Wiggins broke his collarbone and needed strength work for rehab. Running and cycling are like chalk and cheese... Does cycling use the elastic properties of muscle and therefore benefit from plyometric work?

cyco2

I do think that weight training to increase overall fitness is of benefit. Low to moderate weights and high reps. to increase core strengths. No need for a gym though because the weights and instructions are easily obtained and mean's you can do it when ever you like.
I have always found that leg strength is best done on the bike. A lot easier ( not really) and more meaningful than pushing weights in a gym. Knocking off a few hundred sprints over a period of training sessions can have have an amazing effect on your speed, fitness and endurance. Weights don't have this effect. I also find that a lot of riders don't include this in their 'core cycle training' but would have found it highly beneficial. I once joined runners in a weight training session doing squats and found my strength far superior to theirs.
Don't ask me to qualify some of my statements because I have only learnt these things through practice and without professional help.

ric/rstsport

just to clarify, endurance cycling tends to decrease strength. this is because aerobic machinery replace contractile proteins.

cyco2

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

just to clarify, endurance cycling tends to decrease strength. this is because aerobic machinery replace contractile proteins.

Yes that may/will be the case but nobody told them* that.

*Riders in TDF, Giro, Vuelta, etc..

Also, the expression 'tends to' means it doesn't happen to every rider and may not happen to many at all.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Tom Butcher wrote:

Who said I was referring to you ?

Fwiw though what you've just said isn't quite different to the above statement - there may be a slight difference of emphasis - if you look at the post I'm replying to your statement is taking a stronger line about the (lack of) value of weight training to ECP than that.

I didn't, which is why I asked the question, as well as restate what I have said in the past. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone make the claim as stated. IMO it's an argument based on a false premise but I'm happy to be pointed to examples of who has said such a thing let alone be portrayed as a common statement by many on this forum.

Weight training and strength training are not necessarily the same thing, which is why I make the distinction.

Strength training on a bike is an oxymoron.

cyco2

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Strength training on a bike is an oxymoron.

If you have to use force to make a bike move then strength is needed so why is it an oxymoron?

Trev The Rev

http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/w ... ce-anymore

Not about weights but related to strength and interesting.

Alex_Simmons/RST

cyco2 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Strength training on a bike is an oxymoron.

If you have to use force to make a bike move then strength is needed so why is it an oxymoron?

Because the forces we exert on a bike in endurance cycling are sub-maximal* and insufficient to induce changes in strength (unless you are completely untrained, when just about any training will see an improvement).

Keep in mind that strength is defined as maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles.

A person's strength is not correlated with their endurance cycling ability.


* as an example, the average forces applied on a bike at my threshold power (even my 5-min max pursuit power) are less than 1/10th of those I can exert in the gym doing a free squat (well what I could do in a gym before my leg amputation). So, would you expect that doing reps at less than 1/10th of my 1RM is likely to result in a strength gain? I don't know anyone that recommends doing strength training at 1/10th of 1RM.

Yet even after having a leg amputation, I was able to increase my threshold power output even though I am significantly weaker as my max force capability has reduced by a lot. Why? Because endurance cycling performance is not force limited, but is limited by our aerobic abilities.

Even the forces applied in maximal sprint efforts are sub-maximal (they must be by definition as maximal pedal force and velocity are inversely proportional). The closest one gets to the sort of force we are maximally capable of is the first pedal stroke in a standing start (and even then it's still sub-maximal) and the forces decline from then very rapidly each pedal stroke.

A quadrant analysis of maximal pedal forces and velocities will demonstrate this principle pretty clearly.