5Live special on Super Coaches

cyco2

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Strength training on a bike is an oxymoron.*

(unless you are completely untrained, when just about any training will see an improvement)**

* I don't agree.

** I agree. For so many of us strength training on a bike,i.e. is sprinting or alternatively bang it in a high gear on a flattish course and push on the pedals until the eyeballs sweat will increase strength. But doing this on a hill is even more interesting. Now to do this if you weren't that strong to start with then you certainly would be after a few sessions. It's also a lot more 'fun' than pushing weights in a gym.

okgo

Good post Alex. Makes it pretty simple. I have said many times how ditching the Gym has had no ill effects. I'm still amazed that people think to ride fast for an hour or 4 you need to have 'strong legs'.

Alex_Simmons/RST

cyco2 wrote:

or alternatively bang it in a high gear on a flattish course and push on the pedals until the eyeballs sweat will increase strength. But doing this on a hill is even more interesting.

I'm sorry but this sort of riding has absolutely no positive influence on maximal force generation capacity (i.e. strength) of a trained rider. If anything, enough of it may in fact reduce maximal force capacity due to fibre type conversion.

cookiemonster

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

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

At least some of the confusion on this topic comes from using this definition without being explicit as to your use. No matter how correct (or not) this definition is, it is by no means used consistently

When Salazar uses the terms "strength" and "strength training" when he refers to the work he did with Mo Farrah he's talking about Mo having enough "strength" at the end of the race to keep his body in alignment. This does not sound like he is using the above definition of strength and strength training. Likewise, when we talk about "core strength" we're generally not referring to the maximal force generation of the transversus abdominis.

The wiki definition of strength training is broader than maximal force, referencing anaerobic endurance "Strength training is the use of resistance to muscular contraction to build the strength, anaerobic endurance, and size of skeletal muscles" and the Oxford dictionary, ironically, has a broad definition "quality or state of being physically strong: cycling can help you build up your strength" where "strong" again is defined in general terms.

You are defining a fairly broadly used word in narrow terms. Perhaps you could use something like "maximal muscle strength" which relates to one rep maximal lifting ability, to distinguish from the more broadly used "strength"

jon

Trev The Rev

cookiemonster wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

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

At least some of the confusion on this topic comes from using this definition without being explicit as to your use. No matter how correct (or not) this definition is, it is by no means used consistently

When Salazar uses the terms "strength" and "strength training" when he refers to the work he did with Mo Farrah he's talking about Mo having enough "strength" at the end of the race to keep his body in alignment. This does not sound like he is using the above definition of strength and strength training. Likewise, when we talk about "core strength" we're generally not referring to the maximal force generation of the transversus abdominis.

The wiki definition of strength training is broader than maximal force, referencing anaerobic endurance "Strength training is the use of resistance to muscular contraction to build the strength, anaerobic endurance, and size of skeletal muscles" and the Oxford dictionary, ironically, has a broad definition "quality or state of being physically strong: cycling can help you build up your strength" where "strong" again is defined in general terms.

You are defining a fairly broadly used word in narrow terms. Perhaps you could use something like "maximal muscle strength" which relates to one rep maximal lifting ability, to distinguish from the more broadly used "strength"

jon

Well said.


There is a tendency for some on here to contradict very valid opinions and statements by applying terms in their strictest scientific sense.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

cyco2 wrote:

or alternatively bang it in a high gear on a flattish course and push on the pedals until the eyeballs sweat will increase strength. But doing this on a hill is even more interesting.

I'm sorry but this sort of riding has absolutely no positive influence on maximal force generation capacity (i.e. strength) of a trained rider. If anything, enough of it may in fact reduce maximal force capacity due to fibre type conversion.

Which might or might not be your objective. It will certainly make you stronger if you accept 'stronger' to mean what most people in every day life mean by the word.

NJK

Again, Running & Cycling are totally different. This is a cycling forum and it doesn't matter what Salazar said about Farah in regards to strength training, totally DIFFERENT to cycling!

cookiemonster

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

cyco2 wrote:

or alternatively bang it in a high gear on a flattish course and push on the pedals until the eyeballs sweat will increase strength. But doing this on a hill is even more interesting.

I'm sorry but this sort of riding has absolutely no positive influence on maximal force generation capacity (i.e. strength) of a trained rider. If anything, enough of it may in fact reduce maximal force capacity due to fibre type conversion.

Hello

In "Racing and Training with a Power Meter" 2nd Ed., A&C introduce Bob. One of Bobs issues is "Below average muscular strength", on p173 they prescribe:

"Second, to improve Bobs ability to create more force so that he can improve both his explosive sprints and time trialing , we will use big-gear power efforts and have him climb some steep hills using a harder gear than he normally would choose. We will also make sure he gets plenty of practise on his time trial bike mashing a big gear for short periods"

Allen and Coogan also have "Jill", their next imaginary cyclist, doing big gear intervals to "improve her neuromuscular power"

This seems to me to be the same to that which cyco2 is suggesting (if somewhat more detailed!).

Is your issue then purely with the use of the term "strength"? If cyco2 had said "...eyeballs sweat will increase muscular endurance" would you agree with him? Or do you disagree with A&C in their prescribing big gear intervals in the first place?

(For what its worth I ask these questions in good faith. I think this is both an interesting and complicated subject that I by no means fully understand)

jon

Alex_Simmons/RST

It indeed can be a semantic argument and for the most part once the issue of semantics is resolved, much of the argument sublimates.

I am using an exercise physiology definition of strength, because:

i. once we start to use an imprecise or broad definition, we are then unable to convey precise meaning

ii. use of imprecise definitions leads to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, can confuse and lead one to draw incorrect conclusions (such as being able to lift heavier weights will lead to improved sustainable power on a bike, or that high gear/low cadence efforts will result in one being able to lift heavier weights)

iii. we are discussing matters pertaining to exercise physiology and so an exercise physiology definition is the appropriate one (and is why I clarified it to ensure people are not mistaken or confused).


I do also use the word "strength" in other contexts (e.g. - "his strength of character"), but it is the context that is vitally important.


As for the Allen & Coggan book, the use of the term "below average muscular strength" is likely misleading in a precise exercise physiology sense (and would not have been written by the scientist of the author pair). But thereafter, the terms relate to power and forces in context of cycling, which are not strength related, but related to maximal force-velocity capacity when cycling.

It's important to understand that our maximal force capacity in a given exercise modality is very closely tied into the joint angles and velocities, as well as the nature of muscle contractions (eccentric and concentric) and whether a force is a result of an impact or not.

In cycling, muscle contractions are wholly concentric in nature and do not involve impacts (unlike in running which involves various combinations of eccentric and concentric muscle contractions which can readily change with terrain for example), and so maximal forces in cycling can only be exerted at zero velocity*. Hence cycling does, by definition, involve only sub-maximal forces since we are never at zero velocity except at the initial moment of a standing start.

Neuromuscular power is the correct terminology and is not strength, and any interpretation of NMP as such is an error of the reader. It would be akin to the error of saying power = force.

Now the above is not a discussion of why lifting heavy weights (designed in a manner to improve one's strength) is not helpful to endurance cycling performance, nor of why endurance cycling is not helpful when one wants to improve the lifting of heavy weights. But it is also why I distinguish between strength training and the terms "going to the gym", or "lifting weights" which may or may not have anything to do with strength.


* the rare exception to wholly concentric contractions is when riding on a fixed gear and one attempts to slow down by opposing the upward pedal, but this is not exactly something one trains to improve other than perhaps dedicated fixie riders who insist on not using a handbrake. As any track rider how much they hate "back pedalling" - it can even really hurt the legs if you do it forcefully enough.

Trev The Rev

Page 139 to 141 of Coggan & Allen's book explains what Alex is saying very clearly. Presumably this part was written by Coggan.

Tom Butcher

It seems to me we are narrowing the debate unnecessarily. If we accept that many top class cyclists do incorporate gym work into their training - weight training or just body weight exercises - then are they mistaken or are there benefits ? These may not be direct benefits in sustainable power but they could still be important - otherwise why are Wiggins et al wasting their time ? That seems to me the real issue here.

Elsewhere the argument has been made that as far as posture or core stability goes if cycling requires these attributes then cycling itself will provide sufficient training. That begs the question then why would running benefit from weight training - why would not "just running" provide the training stimulus to increase core stability, postural control or whatever else running requires ? Why would the type of muscle contraction required by running benefit from gym training on top of just running? If we accept some sports benefit from weight training then the interesting discussion should focus on what aspects of cycling might benefit ?

Personally I'm agnostic on the issue - I don't weight train so I've no axe to grind but it does seem to me that there is a wider discussion about the possible benefits of weight training (and stuff like core stability training ) that is never really had - at least on this forum.

Trev The Rev

Agnostic too.

Wiggins claims he was weight training to strengthen his upper body after injury (broken collar bone) which was affecting his ability to climb effectively (at his level) out of the saddle on the steepest slopes.

Pros have more time to train and weight training to strengthen muscles & tendons they hardly use when cycling might be a good move as a preventative measure.

I suffered pain in a shoulder for years after an injury, weight training cured it, but a cortisone injections did not. Weight training helped me recover from serious knee and hip injuries.

Weight training is no substitute for specific training in any sport, I personally think there has been a tendency to overestimate the benefits in weight training for runners, even sprinters, many of whom I think bulk up too much. Weight training is only really a supplementary activity. Most athletes would benefit better by spending the time on the bike, running or swimming etc.

As for cycling, unless you do kilo, team sprint or sprint events I doubt weight training helps, other than as a preventative strengthening measure or to help recover from injury.

I have a suspicion pro cyclists collar bones brake so easily because their upper bodies are very weak. I wonder if weight trainers brake collar bones less often?

phreak

And of course we have to remember that we're not pro cyclists. Personally speaking I'm not too keen on having a sparrow like upper body, so do some weight work to maintain a bit of upper body strength. I'm still 57kg so even if it knocks a little bit off of my climbing performance it's no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

mattshrops

Yep if i was 57kg i would do weights. But at the skinniest i've been for 30 yrs at 70kg i dont need em.

phreak

That's just it though. I dare say most of us have plenty of fat we could lose. a bit of muscle will do no harm.