Sport Science/Strength & Conditioning For Cycling

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

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

Maybe he has just been reading what you have written...

Trev The Rev wrote:

I don't mind being called stupid, particularly when I'm saying things which are intended to wind up the usual suspects.

Trev The Rev wrote:

Trev The Rev did not really want time trialling banned - it was a joke. A deliberate wind up. Sorry.

etc

cyco2

philw80 wrote:

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

I have seen this on the track where a bigger and obviously stronger rider was buried by another smaller riders ability to spin faster. I guess wind resistance is also a factor when riding through air. The only way these riders could be compared is with a static test with power meters. However, this isn't racing.

I would have liked the OP title to be Sport Science/Power and conditioning for cycling because its more relevant to the way a cyclist develops.

ric/rstsport

cyco2 wrote:

I have seen this on the track where a bigger and obviously stronger rider was buried by another smaller riders ability to spin faster. I guess wind resistance is also a factor when riding through air. The only way these riders could be compared is with a static test with power meters. However, this isn't racing.

The bigger rider wasn't beaten by the smaller rider because the smaller rider spun faster, but because the smaller rider produced more power in relation to their CdA and/or used better tactics (i've no idea what the event was). This allowed the smaller rider to ride at a higher velocity.

If the two riders were using the same gear, then the faster rider was spinning faster. However, If it was just a case of faster spinning equalling more wins then people would gear down (but they obviously don't).

Why can the two riders only be compared in a static test?

Ric

Alex_Simmons/RST

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.

If you are going to quote the published science, then it behoves you to quote all relevant studies, not just those that might enable some cherry picking to support one position or another.

it will also help to critically assess the data in these studies to assess the validity of the reported conclusions.

If you did, then you'll find the evidence is equivocal to negative.

Alex_Simmons/RST

As for Coggan, or any decent scientist or evidence based practitioner, their views are guided by the science and evidence, in this case both published research and fundamentals of exercise physiology.

If sufficiently robust evidence exists to support a form of training invention as being both efficacious and/or superior, then you can be sure that they (and I) will say so.

However for endurance cycling performance, the case of strength training being efficacious or a superior form of training intervention than actual cycling, there really isn't anything compelling on that front.

Froomes Edgar

philw80 wrote:

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

Perhaps. Why do you think that "core" strength (which is I assume what you mean) is a limiting factor for the majority of people? The reason that people can't put out more power than they currently do for any period of time over a few minutes is because their legs/lungs hurt, the root cause of which is (lack of) aerobic fitness. AFAIK, no-one (without a specific issue) has ever failed an interval because their "core" gave out.

Now I don't expect that you propose that a few situps will improve cycling aerobic fitness, so presumably you'd say that it makes the rider more efficient. As I understand the evidence, cycling efficiency doesn't differ much from beginner to elite level, and there isn't much to say that it's trainable either. So what do you think the mechanism is?

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

As for Coggan, or any decent scientist or evidence based practitioner, their views are guided by the science and evidence, in this case both published research and fundamentals of exercise physiology.

If sufficiently robust evidence exists to support a form of training invention as being both efficacious and/or superior, then you can be sure that they (and I) will say so.

However for endurance cycling performance, the case of strength training being efficacious or a superior form of training intervention than actual cycling, there really isn't anything compelling on that front.

To clarify, do you exclude Match Sprint, Kilo, Team Sprint and Keirin from endurance cycling?

ric/rstsport

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

As for Coggan, or any decent scientist or evidence based practitioner, their views are guided by the science and evidence, in this case both published research and fundamentals of exercise physiology.

If sufficiently robust evidence exists to support a form of training invention as being both efficacious and/or superior, then you can be sure that they (and I) will say so.

However for endurance cycling performance, the case of strength training being efficacious or a superior form of training intervention than actual cycling, there really isn't anything compelling on that front.

To clarify, do you exclude Match Sprint, Kilo, Team Sprint and Keirin from endurance cycling?

not that i speak for Alex, but yeah he isn't including those. they're sprint events

Tom Butcher

What abut sprinting in a road race ?

Froomes Edgar

phreak wrote:

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.

No, anyone with half a brain realises that non-professional cyclists might have goals other than going as fast as they can on a bike. However, since this is a cycling forum then its hardly unreasonable that responses will be framed with a view to improving cycling performance - its for the reader to then work out what their priorities are.

For example, I do beach weights because I was fed up of all my holiday snaps looking like a sunny Belsen. Do these weights help me go faster on a bike? Nope. Am I comfortable with not being the best I can be on a bike? Yep.

Simple FFS.

ncr

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

As for Coggan, or any decent scientist or evidence based practitioner, their views are guided by the science and evidence, in this case both published research and fundamentals of exercise physiology.

Excluding sprinting, why does strength training not improve cycling performance. Has anyone answered that question ?

Froomes Edgar

1. It adds weight/frontal area
2. It takes training time away from cycling
3. It impairs recovery

For starters. So the burden of proof is on those that claim it's still worth doing in spite of the above

ncr

Froomes Edgar wrote:

1. It adds weight/frontal area
2. It takes training time away from cycling
3. It impairs recovery

For starters. So the burden of proof is on those that claim it's still worth doing in spite of the above

You will have to do better than that.

petemadoc

ncr wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

As for Coggan, or any decent scientist or evidence based practitioner, their views are guided by the science and evidence, in this case both published research and fundamentals of exercise physiology.

Excluding sprinting, why does strength training not improve cycling performance. Has anyone answered that question ?

Why does strength training improve performance?

I don't really understand why this subject gets so much attention. ride up a steep hill in a high gear out of the saddle. Job done.

Froomes Edgar

ncr wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

1. It adds weight/frontal area
2. It takes training time away from cycling
3. It impairs recovery

For starters. So the burden of proof is on those that claim it's still worth doing in spite of the above

You will have to do better than that.

No I won't

GiantMike

Well you've scared the OP off.

Froomes Edgar

GiantMike wrote:

Well you've scared the OP off.

Yer. Must be something about being torn to shreds by Alex and Ric

mattshrops

Trev The Rev wrote:

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.

Wow I'm sensing some issues here?

GiantMike

Trev has a Dr Coggan 2013 Calendar in his bedroom. I'm sensing that they used to be secret lovers but The Dr broke it off and Trev's having trouble coming to terms with it.

The Bounce

Froomes Edgar wrote:

1. It adds weight/frontal area
2. It takes training time away from cycling
3. It impairs recovery

For starters. So the burden of proof is on those that claim it's still worth doing in spite of the above

P_Tucker I presume? I can smell the bile and vitriol.

The Bounce

Froomes Edgar wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Well you've scared the OP off.

Yer. Must be something about being torn to shreds by Alex and Ric

Yeah, what a really classy and professional job some of you have done of encouraging the work of a sport science student :roll:

mattshrops

GiantMike wrote:

Trev has a Dr Coggan 2013 Calendar in his bedroom. I'm sensing that they used to be secret lovers but The Dr broke it off and Trev's having trouble coming to terms with it.

When you've had a taste of the doctor its tough to move on......

http://youtu.be/9iVZbGPk830

mattshrops

The Bounce wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

1. It adds weight/frontal area
2. It takes training time away from cycling
3. It impairs recovery

For starters. So the burden of proof is on those that claim it's still worth doing in spite of the above

P_Tucker I presume? I can smell the bile and vitriol.

Aah i miss P_Tucker and his fancy ways with a pot noodle

ShutUpLegs

The Bounce wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

1. It adds weight/frontal area
2. It takes training time away from cycling
3. It impairs recovery

For starters. So the burden of proof is on those that claim it's still worth doing in spite of the above

P_Tucker I presume? I can smell the bile and vitriol.

Who did you previously post as then :?:

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

To clarify, do you exclude Match Sprint, Kilo, Team Sprint and Keirin from endurance cycling?

Yes, I exclude those from my definition of endurance cycling as they are sprint events, and the primary physiological* components to performance success in such events are neuromuscular power and anaerobic work capacity.

In essence, once anaerobic energy demand becomes highly significant then you can consider it a sprint event. I'm not defining where "significant" is precisely, but on average, for example, an event lasting ~ 1-minute has roughly equal contributions from aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways, whereas one lasting 4-5 minutes it goes to more like 75-80 : 25-20 (give or take of course depending on the athlete) and so is dominated by aerobic endurance athletes - think of great individual pursuit riders - Obree, Boardman, Wiggins. You won't ever see Hoy winning an elite pursuit or TT.

Similarly, in track and field - the 100m and 200m races are sprints, the 800m and 1500m are not and the type of athletes (and physiological attributes) that would win one will most definitely not win the other.


The shorter and more explosive the event, the more likely that some strength work will be a component of one's training. But even then, strength is not the primary issue, power is. Once can be very strong but still not all that powerful, since it's the rate at which one can apply force, and how long one can maintain that rapid application of force that matters most. In essence, the best sprinters in the world need enough strength, but not more. I give a classic example - I used to be able to readily out squat Olympic sprint and Keirin champion Ryan Bayley, but in a 200m fly, I am 2.5 - 3 seconds slower.

In such sprint events of course you do use more upper body to aid in power production, and need to usefully transfer those forces through to the pedals, so that is a factor to consider in training.

Even so, the most effective and important training a sprint cyclist does is on the bike.



* there are of course other factors

Alex_Simmons/RST

Froomes Edgar wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Well you've scared the OP off.

Yer. Must be something about being torn to shreds by Alex and Ric

?
Not tearing anyone to shreds. This is a discussion of ideas, concepts and evidence.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Froomes Edgar wrote:

1. It adds weight/frontal area
2. It takes training time away from cycling
3. It impairs recovery

For starters. So the burden of proof is on those that claim it's still worth doing in spite of the above

In addition, once hypertrophy (IOW an increase in muscle cross sectional area) kicks in as the primary mechanism for increasing strength (as initial neural requirement improvements will have plateaued after several weeks of strength training), it will tend to dilute mitochdrial density (these are the energy production factories inside our muscle cells) and capillary density (which means blood has a harder time reaching the cells in need of fuel, O2 and waste removal) and increases the cellular diffusion distance, reducing the rate at which key metabolites and waste products can be exchanged at the cellular level, all of which reduce per kg of lean body mass the fundamental infrastructure that supports aerobic metabolism (which is the primary physiological element of performance in endurance cycling).

philw80

Froomes Edgar wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Well you've scared the OP off.

Yer. Must be something about being torn to shreds by Alex and Ric

Or could have been more to do with actually having a life etc...sorry guys, was out at the Revolution meet yesterday, so will reply as and when I've chance.

Trev The Rev

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

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

Are these papers any more flawed or have more methodological errors than most sports science papers?

ric/rstsport

Yawn