Off the bike strength work
Comments
-
Silence. Marvellous0
-
Froomes Edgar wrote:Silence. Marvellous
Ive just checked this now. My life doesnt revolve around this endless debate where people continue to misinterpret what I say
Ive studied physiology and dont need convincing.0 -
Gabbo wrote:Ive just checked this now. My life doesnt revolve around this endless debate where people continue to misinterpret what I say
Ive studied physiology and dont need convincing.
Hmm, I know what you mean - I've studied lots of things that I'm still not an expert in either.
What aspect of 'you don't need stronger legs to be a better cyclist' do you still need convincing on?0 -
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Weight training (done properly) leads to increased strength primarily via two mechanisms:Gabbo wrote:Mind to elaborate on what you mean by neurological improvement. Improve what exactly? Proprioception? Firing of motor nerves? Improving latency time? What?
i. neural adaptation improvements in synchronicity (simultaneous activation of multiple motor units) and activation (more force from the same muscle)
ii. hypertrophy (increasing muscle cross sectional area) i.e. bigger muscles
Of those, the neural adaptations are primarily responsible for most strength gained (at least in the short-medium term), however such gains don't translate well to other exercise modalities, as application of force is very dependent on the joint angles, speeds and other considerations specific to that modality.
Hence when you want to best train for high force application in a given exercise modality (e.g. cycling), the very best training one can do is hard efforts that replicate that modality (e.g. sprints on a bike).
While the neural gains from gym based strength training don't translate well to the bike, the hypertrophy aspect of strength gains do have a positive impact on cycling power (more muscle mass = more power in general), which is why track sprinters will seek to strength train for long enough to induce a hypertrophic response.
However keep in mind the other consequences of the hypertrophic response from strength training that was pointed out in my previously quoted response (impacts that run counter to those desirable for endurance cycling performance, i.e. reduced rate of sustainable generation of ATP leading to decreased sustainable power to body mass ratio). IOW - name me one sprint cyclist who enjoys hill climbs?
Added to this is another limiting factor - training long and hard enough in a gym in order to induce hypertrophy will mean you will be too fatigued to properly develop your aerobic capabilities, or lose a lot of valuable training time and simply play catch up when you do start to train properly.
Of course, endurance cycle training also induces some hypertophy in slow twitch muscle fibres (as does sprint training in faster twitch fibres), so weight training per se is not necessary for this adaptation, you get it from doing enough hard cycling.
Now all this is not to say you wouldn't do gym/strength training for other (valid) reasons. Rehab, enjoyment, general fitness, vanity, functional correction, better than doing nothing, a change up, and so on.
Thank you very much. Hypertrophy (increase in skeletal muscle size) was probably the more appropriate word I was after in this sense.0 -
Gabbo wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:Silence. Marvellous
Ive just checked this now. My life doesnt revolve around this endless debate where people continue to misinterpret what I say
Ive studied physiology and dont need convincing.
And where is your scientific rebuttal to Alex's post? 0 -
Gabbo wrote:Thank you very much. Hypertrophy (increase in skeletal muscle size) was probably the more appropriate word I was after in this sense.
'skeletal muscle' :?:0 -
this is all getting very complex...0
-
-
Froomes Edgar wrote:
Excuse me for this minor life changing mistake, pedant! Please forgive me!!!0 -
-
-
Imposter wrote:
Nothing, I just don't buy this opinion of yours (opinion being the key word).0 -
0
-
Gabbo wrote:Nothing, I just don't buy this opinion of yours (opinion being the key word).
ok - but it's not 'my' opinion
0 -
Gabbo wrote:Still not forgiven me then?
Boohoo
Forgiven you for what?
Anyway, keep going. If there's one thing I love more than arrogant people being wrong on the internet, it arrogant people trying to argue from authority being wrong on the internet.0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:Gabbo wrote:Still not forgiven me then?
Boohoo
Forgiven you for what?
Anyway, keep going. If there's one thing I love more than arrogant people being wrong on the internet, it arrogant people trying to argue from authority being wrong on the internet.
Keep going? What a hypocrite. At least Alex Simmons had the decency to come up with a well structured response, whereas you've continued to be a wind up merchant, twice calling me arrogant and have had the confidence (too much - which is essentially arrogance) to think you are a perfect judge of my character.0 -
I never said I wasn't arrogant - do try to keep up. Helps if you're right though, which in this case I am.0
-
Froomes Edgar wrote:I never said I wasn't arrogant - do try to keep up. Helps if you're right though, which in this case I am.
I'm honoured. Been called many things in the past but arrogance wasn't one of them. I was going to call you a word consisting of four letters, beginning with C, ending with T, with U & N being the 2nd and 3rd letters, but I assume you've been called that many a time! ;-)0 -
Splendid. Reduced to name-calling much earlier than usual on a leg strength thread. Good work, boys.0
-
briantrumpet wrote:Splendid. Reduced to name-calling much earlier than usual on a leg strength thread. Good work, boys.
My bad, though I did only have intentions to remain relevant to the topic opposed to labelling people as arrogant or generally being a wind up merchant.0 -
Always much better if you can stick to the science and attack what you perceive the faults in the arguments therein, rather than rise to the bait and let it turn personal. If you want to see how that is done, just read Alex Simmons's posts. Always on topic, never personal, and based on extensive scientific research.Gabbo wrote:briantrumpet wrote:Splendid. Reduced to name-calling much earlier than usual on a leg strength thread. Good work, boys.
My bad, though I did only have intentions to remain relevant to the topic opposed to labelling people as arrogant or generally being a wind up merchant.
EDIT: if you don't manage to engage with the scientific research, but continue to make claims one way or another, don't be surprised if you get challenged. You need more than faith to win an argument.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Always much better if you can stick to the science and attack what you perceive the faults in the arguments therein, rather than rise to the bait and let it turn personal. If you want to see how that is done, just read Alex Simmons's posts. Always on topic, never personal, and based on extensive scientific research.Gabbo wrote:briantrumpet wrote:Splendid. Reduced to name-calling much earlier than usual on a leg strength thread. Good work, boys.
My bad, though I did only have intentions to remain relevant to the topic opposed to labelling people as arrogant or generally being a wind up merchant.
EDIT: if you don't manage to engage with the scientific research, but continue to make claims one way or another, don't be surprised if you get challenged. You need more than faith to win an argument.
I don't mind being challenged, and I certainly don't mind being wrong. What I do mind is people having the nerve to call me arrogant because I wasn't in full agreement with what was said. I am still convinced that I have been misinterpreted to an extent.
Alex Simmons stated that cycling in itself can induce muscular hypertrophy. This is what I was looking for. If strength is the wrong word, then my bad.
I don't know who Alex Simmons is, but I heard that he has credibility in this field so am therefore happy to listen to his views. He gave a well structured response of which I respected.0 -
Unless I've misunderstood your OP, that's not what you were after. You were after what leg strengthening exercises people do off the bike, to which the answers from posters were "none", as strength is not a limiting factor for anyone other than for real track sprinters. (I know that some people will claim that weights improve their cycling power, but they are in a small minority, and haven't yet posted on this thread.) Alex merely said that hard cycling can induce muscular hypertrophy, but he didn't suggest it was a good thing.Gabbo wrote:Alex Simmons stated that cycling in itself can induce muscular hypertrophy. This is what I was looking for. If strength is the wrong word, then my bad.
If you haven't read those two longish threads I quoted earlier, I really do suggest you do. You might come out wiser, in more ways than one.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Unless I've misunderstood your OP, that's not what you were after. You were after what leg strengthening exercises people do off the bike, to which the answers from posters were "none", as strength is not a limiting factor for anyone other than for real track sprinters. (I know that some people will claim that weights improve their cycling power, but they are in a small minority, and haven't yet posted on this thread.) Alex merely said that hard cycling can induce muscular hypertrophy, but he didn't suggest it was a good thing.Gabbo wrote:Alex Simmons stated that cycling in itself can induce muscular hypertrophy. This is what I was looking for. If strength is the wrong word, then my bad.
If you haven't read those two longish threads I quoted earlier, I really do suggest you do. You might come out wiser, in more way than one.
Ideally yes I was after some leg strengthening exercises. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Tony Martin strengthen his legs with weight exercises? It's what he said in an interview, and claimed it should improve his TT results.
No one can be 100% right about anything though. There are always new theories contradicting one another. Sciences always changes, unsurprisingly. Hence why active research is so common nowadays0 -
Gabbo wrote:Ideally yes I was after some leg strengthening exercises.
There's lots of ways of strengthening your legs, if that is what you are after. But no evidence that any of them will make you a better endurance cyclist.
Do you have a link to the Tony martin interview, I haven't heard of it before.0 -
Indeed, and is also why we need to consider the body of evidence, and avoid anecdotal reports (and the plural of anecdote is not evidence).Gabbo wrote:No one can be 100% right about anything though. There are always new theories contradicting one another. Sciences always changes, unsurprisingly. Hence why active research is so common nowadays
And just because available evidence and our interpretation of it can change, does not imply that it will, nor that new evidence as it becomes available will overturn present understanding.
The simple fact that not everyone uses the term "strength" in the proper context for these discussions, nor that moving weights in a gym automatically equates to strength training, should be sufficient reason alone to treat such comments as those from a Pro (or anyone really) with large grains of salt.
Of course studies in these fields are often subject to various flaws and there can be a tendency to cherry pick data, rely on the summaries or conclusions made by authors, or quote isolated studies. Nevertheless when one inspects the data so far available from the published research, and our present understanding of the physiological changes induced from such training, then the evidence that gym weight training specifically designed to increase leg strength improves endurance cycling performance is equivocal to negative.
Compounding this is the fact that empirically there is nothing that stands out as obvious wrt strength and endurance cycling performance. IOW people can quote anecdotes until they are blue in the face about some riders that do and some that don't.
Even if we assume for a moment that doing some strength work did result in improvement, then we must ask ourselves the following:
Does the prospective training intervention demonstrate a clear improvement in cycling performance beyond that attainable by cycling itself and/or lead to an improvement more efficiently obtained (e.g. can be obtained from less training effort)?
People should never interpret what I say as something to dissuade them from going to a gym.
and I would prefer if people stuck to the content of the discussion and refrained from ad hominem, as tempting it may be to throw one in every now and then 0
