Sport Science/Strength & Conditioning For Cycling

philw80

Afternoon guys & girls, I'm a second year applied sports science student at university and was wondering if any one on here from the North East/North Yorkshire area would be interested in any sport science support I can provide (free). Obviously I would benefit by enhancing my practical skills, and anyone interested could look at strength and conditioning, training to power advice etc? If you are intersted, feel free to comment on here or send a PM and I will get in contact from there.
I am based in Ripon, North Yorkshire and at Teesside for uni and can travel to meet if close enough to either of those two, but can also provide advice and training programs etc online too if required.
I am not charging for this service at the moment, all that I ask is that you give some consideration to being a subject for my dissertation in the summer, where I will be looking at the effects of concurrent strength training on cycling performance.

Cheers Phil

Tom Dean

Out of interest, what specifically is meant by 'conditioning' in this context? You don't hear the term that much in cycling. I'm never sure what it means.

philw80

Tom Dean wrote:

Out of interest, what specifically is meant by 'conditioning' in this context? You don't hear the term that much in cycling. I'm never sure what it means.

To be honest 'conditioning' in any context should effectively mean analysing the needs of the sport/athlete/performer, assessing current standards, considering goals and targets and planning training interventions to close the gaps between current and aspirational/ideal standards, whether that be specific areas of fitness, strength, coping strategies etc. unfortunately, many S&C professionals (not all, by any means though) just concentrate on the 'strength' aspect.

This is just one aspect I am willing to look at-field based testing is an option, as is biomechanical assessments and coping strategies and mental exercise to help with boredom on the bike in turbo sessions or such like.

cyco2

How would you tell a rider to train for cycling strength ?

philw80

cyco2 wrote:

How would you tell a rider to train for cycling strength ?

It's not necessarily about 'cycling strength' it's about strengthening weak areas of the body to assist in performance. For example, the lower back,abs&obliques are crucial in holding the body stable, especially in a flexed riding position

cyco2

Well ok, what about 'strength for cycling' then. How would you tell somebody to get that ? Go in the gym first and then ride the bike ?

philw80

cyco2 wrote:

Well ok, what about 'strength for cycling' then. How would you tell somebody to get that ? Go in the gym first and then ride the bike ?

No, concurrent strength training (considering that most cyclists arent likely to train for hypertrophy) should not detract from endurance therefore there is no reason not train alongside each other.

If someone is already cycling, strength work alongside is beneficial. If you had a novice athlete, all the time in the world etc and were in an 'ideal world' then of course you would look to get that athlete strong first, as this would likely aid economy and efficiency, but the likelihood of that situation arising is pretty minimal

mikenetic

I've recently had some core/back strength assessments, alongside flexibility measurements and I've had a corrective/basic conditioning exercise program worked out for me.

I'm all for it, it's really helping me on the bike. I'm going to write up my experience on the forum properly over the weekend.

Froomes Edgar

philw80 wrote:

If someone is already cycling, strength work alongside is beneficial.

Your evidence?

Alex_Simmons/RST

philw80 wrote:

If someone is already cycling, strength work alongside is beneficial. If you had a novice athlete, all the time in the world etc and were in an 'ideal world' then of course you would look to get that athlete strong first, as this would likely aid economy and efficiency, but the likelihood of that situation arising is pretty minimal

In your OP, I thought you said you were doing a study on this. Are going into the study with a pre-conceived bias?

There is no exercise regime more effective for improving one's cycling fitness than cycling. Unless one has a substantial functional issue preventing them from riding (and needs rehabilitation so they can ride a bike), the best thing anyone can do for their bike fitness is to get a good bike fit and to ride their bike.

philw80

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

philw80 wrote:

If someone is already cycling, strength work alongside is beneficial. If you had a novice athlete, all the time in the world etc and were in an 'ideal world' then of course you would look to get that athlete strong first, as this would likely aid economy and efficiency, but the likelihood of that situation arising is pretty minimal

In your OP, I thought you said you were doing a study on this. Are going into the study with a pre-conceived bias?

There is no exercise regime more effective for improving one's cycling fitness than cycling. Unless one has a substantial functional issue preventing them from riding (and needs rehabilitation so they can ride a bike), the best thing anyone can do for their bike fitness is to get a good bike fit and to ride their bike.

No bias-a scientist can't afford to be closed minded. Whilst I understand your point, re:just get out and ride, there are also other ways to improve fitness. Specificity is important, but transfer of benefit is also key.

Trev The Rev

philw80 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

philw80 wrote:

If someone is already cycling, strength work alongside is beneficial. If you had a novice athlete, all the time in the world etc and were in an 'ideal world' then of course you would look to get that athlete strong first, as this would likely aid economy and efficiency, but the likelihood of that situation arising is pretty minimal

In your OP, I thought you said you were doing a study on this. Are going into the study with a pre-conceived bias?

There is no exercise regime more effective for improving one's cycling fitness than cycling. Unless one has a substantial functional issue preventing them from riding (and needs rehabilitation so they can ride a bike), the best thing anyone can do for their bike fitness is to get a good bike fit and to ride their bike.

No bias-a scientist can't afford to be closed minded. Whilst I understand your point, re:just get out and ride, there are also other ways to improve fitness. Specificity is important, but transfer of benefit is also key.

Sorry here, but Alex is correct. Unless there is an injury or some underlying weakness that makes cycling difficult and needs strengthening, the time would be better spent cycling. Cycling is different to almost every other sport, your weight being supported and the movements being so exactly repeatable in the same plains of movement.

There may be an exception with kilo and match sprint though but Alex would be best placed to advise on that one.

Not saying it is not a good idea to do other forms of exercise to build general strength and fitness for other sports or general well being but it won't help with your cycling as much as cycling.

philw80

Froomes Edgar wrote:

philw80 wrote:

If someone is already cycling, strength work alongside is beneficial.

Your evidence?

'Effect of heavy strength training on thigh muscle cross sectional area, performance determinants and performance in well trained cyclists' Ronnestad, Hansen & Raastad 2009 " adding strength training to usual endurance training improved determinants of cycling performance." Mean power over 40km trial and peak power in a wing ate test(similar to a sprint) both were improved in this study.

'Combing explosive and high resistance training improves performance in competitive cyclists' Paton & Hopkins 2005 " addition of explosive training and high resistance training of already well trained cyclists produces major gains in sprint and endurance performance." 1km power, 4km power, peak power and efficiency were all improved here.

'In season strength training increases well trained cyclists performance' Ronnestad, Hansen & Raastad 2010 " strength maintenance training in a competition period preserves leg strength gained from previous prep phase and FURTHER improved cyclists performance." Here, increased peak power, power output at lactate levels of 2mmol, maximum aerobic power output were all increased.

'The effects of replacing a portion of endurance training by explosive strength training on performance in trained cyclists' Jeukendrup, Baastians, Veneberg & van Diemen 2001 "it is concluded that by replacing a portion of endurance training with explosive strength training prevents decrease in short term performance without compromising other gains in endurance performance." In this study, endurance only training had resulted in a decrease in endurance performance.

philw80

Trev The Rev wrote:

philw80 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

philw80 wrote:

If someone is already cycling, strength work alongside is beneficial. If you had a novice athlete, all the time in the world etc and were in an 'ideal world' then of course you would look to get that athlete strong first, as this would likely aid economy and efficiency, but the likelihood of that situation arising is pretty minimal

In your OP, I thought you said you were doing a study on this. Are going into the study with a pre-conceived bias?

There is no exercise regime more effective for improving one's cycling fitness than cycling. Unless one has a substantial functional issue preventing them from riding (and needs rehabilitation so they can ride a bike), the best thing anyone can do for their bike fitness is to get a good bike fit and to ride their bike.

No bias-a scientist can't afford to be closed minded. Whilst I understand your point, re:just get out and ride, there are also other ways to improve fitness. Specificity is important, but transfer of benefit is also key.

Sorry here, but Alex is correct. Unless there is an injury or some underlying weakness that makes cycling difficult and needs strengthening, the time would be better spent cycling. Cycling is different to almost every other sport, your weight being supported and the movements being so exactly repeatable in the same plains of movement.

There may be an exception with kilo and match sprint though but Alex would be best placed to advise on that one.

Not saying it is not a good idea to do other forms of exercise to build general strength and fitness for other sports or general well being but it won't help with your cycling as much as cycling.

Opinions will always conflict on an issue like this, but the scientific evidence that I have come across points to improvements in performance through additional strength training

Trev The Rev

philw80 wrote:

Opinions will always conflict on an issue like this, but the scientific evidence that I have come across points to improvements in performance through additional strength training

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have some evidence to ram down Dr Andrew Coggan's throat (and a few others throats) but can you tell me what evidence you have come across which proves additional strength training improves performance in cycling?

Sorry missed your previous post.

I await Alex's reply - shame Coggan isn't on this Forum - he is adamant strength training is of no benefit to cyclists.

http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/UR ... 202010.pdf


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11820327
It is concluded that replacing a portion of endurance training by explosive strength training prevents a decrease in STP without compromising gains in endurance performance of trained cyclists.

Love it. Must admit I was convinced by Coggan and others arguments that strength training was of no benefit to cyclists. I'm now not sure.

You just made my day, could accepted power meter dogma and training methods be coming under serious threat?

However, these studies say otherwise.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17313261

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378917

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11820327

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826297

I would like strength training to be proved to be of benefit to cyclists - it really would be very funny to see Coggan proved wrong.

manxshred

My opinion is that the view that strength training does nothing for cycling is short sighted and misguided.
Most people on here are NOT professionals, but people with limited time and very different goals. A lot of people do really benefit from correcting muscle imbalances and weaknesses.

Most of us also have lives outside of cycling, so a bit of overall strength training is of massive benefit.
For the OP, I wish I was near there to take you up on the offer.

Trev The Rev

The problem some cycling coaches and sports scientists have with strength training using weights is that you can't use a power meter to measure it. To them power is all that matters and if you can't measure it with a power meter in watts it is of no use whatever.

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

I await Alex's reply - shame Coggan isn't on this Forum - he is adamant strength training is of no benefit to cyclists.

Coggan is now. Should make things a bit more interesting....

phreak

The problem many amateur cyclists seem to have is that they feel the need to mimic the physiques of professional cyclists. There's almost this idea that a few bench presses are going to ruin our chances of glory. It leads to anyone that does go in the gym being critisized by riders and coaches alike on here as something bordering on simple, as though its heretic to have health/life interests outside of cycling.

It's all a bit OCD.

Trev The Rev

GiantMike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I await Alex's reply - shame Coggan isn't on this Forum - he is adamant strength training is of no benefit to cyclists.

Coggan is now. Should make things a bit more interesting....

Is he? We will have to get Tim Noakes on here too, and Dehydrated Horse.

To quote Dr Andrew Coggan PhD, "Strength is irrelevant."

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

philw80

Trev The Rev wrote:

The problem some cycling coaches and sports scientists have with strength training using weights is that you can't use a power meter to measure it. To them power is all that matters and if you can't measure it with a power meter in watts it is of no use whatever.

It can still be measured though-reps/sets/load, all still great tools, thar like you say, some coaches & SS are blinkered to

Trev The Rev

philw80 wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The problem some cycling coaches and sports scientists have with strength training using weights is that you can't use a power meter to measure it. To them power is all that matters and if you can't measure it with a power meter in watts it is of no use whatever.

It can still be measured though-reps/sets/load, all still great tools, thar like you say, some coaches & SS are blinkered to

Performance in many sports can be measured. In effect many sports have always trained with power or at least accurately measured performance. Some cycling coaches who use power meters behave as if they are the only people who know anything about measuring performance / power but in fact it is cycling that is decades behind because they had difficulty accurately measuring performance on the bike there being so many variables, inclines, wind, aerodynamics etc. Then one day they discovered they could measure power and thought that measuring and recording power data was the be all and end all of cycle training. Cadence, heart rate, force, strength all became irrelevant. Power numbers infested their brains like a viral infection.

philw80

Trev The Rev wrote:

philw80 wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The problem some cycling coaches and sports scientists have with strength training using weights is that you can't use a power meter to measure it. To them power is all that matters and if you can't measure it with a power meter in watts it is of no use whatever.

It can still be measured though-reps/sets/load, all still great tools, thar like you say, some coaches & SS are blinkered to

Performance in many sports can be measured. In effect many sports have always trained with power or at least accurately measured performance. Some cycling coaches who use power meters behave as if they are the only people who know anything about measuring performance / power but in fact it is cycling that is decades behind because they had difficulty accurately measuring performance on the bike there being so many variables, inclines, wind, aerodynamics etc. Then one day they discovered they could measure power and thought that measuring and recording power data was the be all and end all of cycle training. Cadence, heart rate, force, strength all became irrelevant. Power numbers infested their brains like a viral infection.

Indeed. Power is another excellent tool for measuring performance-but that is all, really-ANOTHER tool.

philw80

Trev The Rev wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I await Alex's reply - shame Coggan isn't on this Forum - he is adamant strength training is of no benefit to cyclists.

Coggan is now. Should make things a bit more interesting....

Is he? We will have to get Tim Noakes on here too, and Dehydrated Horse.

To quote Dr Andrew Coggan PhD, "Strength is irrelevant."

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

Really? I'd take a strong athlete over a weak one of the same ability just about every time, unless the weak one had something outstanding that could negate the deficit

Tom Dean

If they were of the same ability it wouldn't make any difference would it? Anyway, good luck finding someone for your free coaching!

Trev the Rev, you make some reasonable points but hijacking every thread is really spoiling things around here. Bitching about usernames from another forum you have flounced off from is pathetic.

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

If they were of the same ability it wouldn't make any difference would it? Anyway, good luck finding someone for your free coaching!

Trev the Rev, you make some reasonable points but hijacking every thread is really spoiling things around here. Bitching about usernames from another forum you have flounced off from is pathetic.

Tom,

Who is it you claim I'm bitching about? Who is it spoiling things for?

But to stay on topic, what is your opinion, is strength training beneficial?

Trev.

Tom Dean

'Dehydrated Horse' :roll: I don't know what your grievances are with Coggan or anyone else, some of your points are perfectly reasonable. I don't feel it is fair to keep turning threads to your own agenda when people are asking questions looking for genuine advice.

I can only speak for myself.

edit

Trev The Rev wrote:

But to stay on topic, what is your opinion, is strength training beneficial?

I don't see any reason to think it is, particularly for amateurs who don't train many hours each week.

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

'Dehydrated Horse' :roll: I don't know what your grievances are with Coggan or anyone else, some of your points are perfectly reasonable. I don't feel it is fair to keep turning threads to your own agenda when people are asking questions looking for genuine advice.

I can only speak for myself.

edit

Trev The Rev wrote:

But to stay on topic, what is your opinion, is strength training beneficial?

I don't see any reason to think it is, particularly for amateurs who don't train many hours each week.

I was Dehydrated Horse. I find the agenda many people have on here unfair. The constant pushing of sports drinks & gels for a start. I also don't like the agenda of some who push training with power. I don't think I have the right to tell them when and where they can post their opinions though. The original poster was not asking for advice, others chose to question the validity of what he was proposing to do.

My 'feeling or instinct' is that if you get strong and can shift a very heavy weight easily you will find it easier to shift a smaller weight faster and more often. As to the science and who is right and who is wrong about the benefits of strength training to cyclists I keep an open mind. I admit I was convinced by the science that it was not beneficial but I'm wavering.

For Kilo, Match Sprint, Keirin and even Points Races where repeated sprints and accelerations are required I would say strength training is beneficial. For Time Trials probably not and road races - perhaps, if it is the difference between getting dropped when there is a surge. But would the time be better spent on a bike?

ric/rstsport

philw80 wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

philw80 wrote:

If someone is already cycling, strength work alongside is beneficial.

Your evidence?

'Effect of heavy strength training on thigh muscle cross sectional area, performance determinants and performance in well trained cyclists' Ronnestad, Hansen & Raastad 2009 " adding strength training to usual endurance training improved determinants of cycling performance." Mean power over 40km trial and peak power in a wing ate test(similar to a sprint) both were improved in this study.

'Combing explosive and high resistance training improves performance in competitive cyclists' Paton & Hopkins 2005 " addition of explosive training and high resistance training of already well trained cyclists produces major gains in sprint and endurance performance." 1km power, 4km power, peak power and efficiency were all improved here.

'In season strength training increases well trained cyclists performance' Ronnestad, Hansen & Raastad 2010 " strength maintenance training in a competition period preserves leg strength gained from previous prep phase and FURTHER improved cyclists performance." Here, increased peak power, power output at lactate levels of 2mmol, maximum aerobic power output were all increased.

'The effects of replacing a portion of endurance training by explosive strength training on performance in trained cyclists' Jeukendrup, Baastians, Veneberg & van Diemen 2001 "it is concluded that by replacing a portion of endurance training with explosive strength training prevents decrease in short term performance without compromising other gains in endurance performance." In this study, endurance only training had resulted in a decrease in endurance performance.

Phil, the Paton & Hopkins paper shows that plyometrics combined with intense interval training improves cycling performance. Other data has shown that intense interval training improves cycling performance (and often to a higher level cf to the Paton paper). Thus, this paper doesn't "prove" anything (no paper proves anything). You can't use these data to show they improve cycling performance (because you don't know whether it's the plyometrics, or the cycling intervals) and additionally, when tested alone cycling intervals improved cycling performance more!

the Baastians paper is a somewhat flawed paper and doesn't show the conclusion it suggests that it does. There Wingate forced the cyclists to pedal at 60 revs/min (iirc) and additionally the control groups fitness decreased (when it shouldn't have) thus the significant difference in Wingate power post testing comes from that.

The other papers (think they're Norwegian) have some methodological errors in them (from memory - actually, this whole post is from memory!) thus sort of negating what they suggest. (apols it's a while since i've read all these and other papers).

Furthermore, from first principles, you'd expect that weight training to be detrimental to endurance cycling performance. i can't think of a good paper that definitively shows increased endurance cycling performance from weight training in well-trained cyclists (on the other hand there's lots of papers showing increase endurance performance in e.g. running, but that's something entirely different).

ric

Tom Dean

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was Dehydrated Horse.

I knew there was some connection... I stand by my general point though.

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was Dehydrated Horse.

I knew there was some connection... I stand by my general point though.

No problems, at least you have not called me a troll like Coggan just did over on another thread.