Off the bike strength work

Froomes Edgar

Gabbo wrote:

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.

Tony Martin, the renowned sports scientist? NB being really fast on a bike does not mean you know how to make others really fast on bikes.

bernithebiker

A casual observation;

Wiggins and Froome are super lean and don't appear to have any leg muscles at all. Froome especially can look like he's just escaped from a concentration camp at the end of a stage.

And I was amazed to see the UK Olympic Track squad destroying all the super beefy Dutch and French, whilst being significantly slighter than their opposition (especially the girls).

I'm only 63kg and fairly slight (thus good climber, crap into the wind) and have considered trying to beef up my legs. But on the basis of this unscientific observation, I think I probably won't bother.

How about just reps of 50 or so fast squats, just body weight?

napoleond

I do off the bike weight and strength work. Not to improve my cycling though. Having said that as I only have very limited time to get on the bike it helps as it helps me lose excess fat.

ric/rstsport

bernithebiker wrote:

A casual observation;

Wiggins and Froome are super lean and don't appear to have any leg muscles at all. Froome especially can look like he's just escaped from a concentration camp at the end of a stage.

And I was amazed to see the UK Olympic Track squad destroying all the super beefy Dutch and French, whilst being significantly slighter than their opposition (especially the girls).

I'm only 63kg and fairly slight (thus good climber, crap into the wind) and have considered trying to beef up my legs. But on the basis of this unscientific observation, I think I probably won't bother.

How about just reps of 50 or so fast squats, just body weight?

aerobic exercise is related to cardiovascular and metabolic fitness (i.e., VO2max and lactate threshold) and have nothing to do with strength (the maximal force generating capacity of a muscle). Anyone, that can stand up and walk upstairs has sufficient strength to excel at elite level cycling (i.e., when you are walking upstairs you are lifting your entire body mass whatever that may be -- but for arguments sake lets say you have a mass of 70kg. To win a mountain stage in the Tour de France, etc you'd need to climb and generate average forces of about 25kg for that 70kg rider). It's a super small force (that needs to be repeated many, many times -- which is related to cardiovascular and metabolic fitness for regenerating ATP).

the reason that many endurance athletes blood dope or take Epo is not to increase their strength, but to increase their cardiovascular and metabolic fitness. and yes, the elite level cyclists look like they could be beaten to a pulp by the average 6 yr old child in a fight. it's highly likely that they are significantly weaker than average, age and gender matched individuals.

ric

RowCycle

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

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.

Tony Martin, the renowned sports scientist? NB being really fast on a bike does not mean you know how to make others really fast on bikes.

That's a bit harsh. If one of the best time triallers in the works does it, then it's not a bad assumption to think that it might be something useful.

GiantMike

I don't know, but I'm willing to keep an open mind on the matter.

ric/rstsport

RowCycle wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

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.

Tony Martin, the renowned sports scientist? NB being really fast on a bike does not mean you know how to make others really fast on bikes.

That's a bit harsh. If one of the best time triallers in the works does it, then it's not a bad assumption to think that it might be something useful.

but some of the 'best' cyclists take drugs. would you do that too?

imposter2.0

RowCycle wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

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.

Tony Martin, the renowned sports scientist? NB being really fast on a bike does not mean you know how to make others really fast on bikes.

That's a bit harsh. If one of the best time triallers in the works does it, then it's not a bad assumption to think that it might be something useful.

This is why I asked for a link to wherever this was first mentioned - but none was forthcoming. If anyone else can find it? I've already tried (and failed).

mattshrops

Some of the best cyclists in the world also have all day every day to train. With that in mind they'll probably do a few weights, a bit of yoga, core work and maybe some balance type work too.
On limited time THE best training you can do is riding your bike.(Limited time=normal working person)

Also i dont think the pros will be doing much of the high weight low rep work due to the impact it has on subsequent training sessions. You're not doing much riding the next day with DOMS in the legs.

Can i also add my voice to the call for civility please.Lets play nice.

Eddy S

mattshrops wrote:

You're not doing much riding the next day with DOMS in the legs.

You can if you have to!

If I didn't train/ride with DOMS, I wouldn't get enough bike time. Welcome to my world of being a track sprinter. Embrace the pain and just keep working through it! 8)

Can i also add my voice to the call for civility please.Lets play nice.

+1

Froomes Edgar

mattshrops wrote:

Some of the best cyclists in the world also have all day every day to train. With that in mind they'll probably do a few weights, a bit of yoga, core work and maybe some balance type work too.
On limited time THE best training you can do is riding your bike.(Limited time=normal working person)

Also i dont think the pros will be doing much of the high weight low rep work due to the impact it has on subsequent training sessions. You're not doing much riding the next day with DOMS in the legs.

Can i also add my voice to the call for civility please.Lets play nice.

Yer. A few additional points:

1. If a pro really had a new method of training that made them faster than they would be by following the consensus of science, do you really think they would tell anyone? Particularly whilst they're still racing?

2. Without pointing fingers at any pro in particular, pros need to have a plausible sounding explanation for any sudden change in performance that they get when their doc gives them a nice new undetectable substance. Saying "I'm doing exactly what I did last year but I'm going 5% faster" won't impress the general public - talking about new methods of training will convince 90% of laymen every time.

3. As has been said, pros have all day every day to train. There is only so much riding you can do - after that they may well try a load of stuff that's unproven by science but might, MIGHT just add 0.01% to give them the smallest edge over their competition as long as it doesn't knacker them.

In short, there is no reason to believe anything pros tell us, and even if there was, there's no good reason to copy them.

ric/rstsport

additionally, lots of pros don't do weights, yoga, pilates, or any other supplemental stuff
ric

Gabbo

Imposter wrote:

RowCycle wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

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.

Tony Martin, the renowned sports scientist? NB being really fast on a bike does not mean you know how to make others really fast on bikes.

That's a bit harsh. If one of the best time triallers in the works does it, then it's not a bad assumption to think that it might be something useful.

This is why I asked for a link to wherever this was first mentioned - but none was forthcoming. If anyone else can find it? I've already tried (and failed).

My bad. He definitely said it though in an interview about the upcoming season with Team Omega Quickstep or whatever they are called. If I can find it, I'll post it. I remember him mentioning that it's improved his TT times but has impacted his times on the mountains. All I heard..

Strith

Just out of interest what sort of pedal forces do sprinters exert? I guess pro tour guys are putting out well over a 1000W during a final sprints. But what about track guys too?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Strith wrote:

But what about track guys too?

2 - 2.4kW for brief periods.

Gabbo

From training peaks; wattbike

Cat 2 female one-hour average tt - 213w
Cat 2 male one hour average tt 310w
World class male one-hour average tt - 448w
Bradley Wiggins 10 mile national champs tt - 476w
Cat 1 male one-minute average 716w
World class female peak power - 1068w
Mark Cavendish peak sprint wattage 1580w
Mario Cipollini peak sprint wattage - 1900w
Chris Hoy peak recorded wattage - 2200w
Highest ever recorded wattage on a wattbike 2372w

derek48

I've just been re-reading Joe Friel's 'The Cyclist's Training Bible', Chapter 12 'Strength'. Quote 'every successful athlete I have trained has lifted weights for at least part of the season'. Is he completely wrong??

Tom Dean

Er, they probably lifted weights because he told them to.

derek48

Why did he tell them to?

Froomes Edgar

Derek48 wrote:

I've just been re-reading Joe Friel's 'The Cyclist's Training Bible', Chapter 12 'Strength'. Quote 'every successful athlete I have trained has lifted weights for at least part of the season'. Is he completely wrong??

The world has moved on since that was published. Did you know that if you read astronomy textbooks from c.1200AD they'll tell you that the sun revolves around the earth?

derek48

Fatuous comment. The fourth edition was published in 2009- hardly centuries. I'm completely agnostic on this issue. I just want to know whether one of the best selling training books is completely wrong on this issue.

ric/rstsport

Joe often coaches triathletes, and, with triathlon (more specifically running) there is evidence to show that weight training helps running performance. The reason why it does, wouldn't work in cycling.

Previously, for many years weight training has been recommended for cycling, and so, some coaches have recommended weight training. I call this an old wives tale. However, recent research has bought weight training back into the public eye (of cycling) again (along with some infamous cyclists). Older research had shown an improvement in performance in cycling with weights - but used *untrained* people. It's also well understood that *any* training in un trained people will improve their performance...

The more recent research has used elite or semi-elite riders and shown some improvement. However, it's important to understand that there were methodological or in one case statistical issues in these data, which led to the research showing an 'improvement'. Thus, a brief skimming of the research may suggest that it works.

As regards Joe's anecdotes that all his riders have used weights who have been successful, i'm sure that you can find many, many successful athletes who haven't used weights. Additionally, you don't know if they're successful because of, or inspite of the training and what level these athletes were (were they cyclists, triathletes, or?). I've coached riders at elite world level who haven't used weights (and who have been extremely successful).

Ric

derek48

Thanks for that- so is he right or is he wrong or is it more nuanced than that. Those of us who rely on advice and guidance from people like Joe Friel, and who might want to follow the training programmes would feel more confident about the rest of the book if we were confident that he wasn't completely wrong on a major issue.

imposter2.0

Derek48 wrote:

Thanks for that- so is he right or is he wrong or is it more nuanced than that. Those of us who rely on advice and guidance from people like Joe Friel, and who might want to follow the training programmes would feel more confident about the rest of the book if we were confident that he wasn't completely wrong on a major issue.

It's kind of difficult to either prove or disprove an anecdote. On that basis, and regardless of what Joe Friel claims, the wider evidence seems to suggest that weight training to improve cycling performance is a waste of time.

Froomes Edgar

Derek48 wrote:

Thanks for that- so is he right or is he wrong or is it more nuanced than that. Those of us who rely on advice and guidance from people like Joe Friel, and who might want to follow the training programmes would feel more confident about the rest of the book if we were confident that he wasn't completely wrong on a major issue.

The statement "every successful cyclist I've coached used weights" is a very different statement from "doing weights makes you better at cycling". No-one is suggesting that doing weights catastrophically reduces your cycling ability - so in all likelihood those successful cyclists would have been successful whether they had used weights or not. The current balance of scientific opinion suggests that they might have been even more successful had they used the time doing weights riding their bikes.

I'm surprised that Friel is still going on about weights in a 2009 edition of his book. If I were a cynic, I might think that he's decided that admitting he was wrong would be more damaging to his reputation as a coach than hanging onto an idea which, whilst science doesn't support it, it's hardly conclusively against it either.

imposter2.0

Froomes Edgar wrote:

The statement "every successful cyclist I've coached used weights" is a very different statement from "doing weights makes you better at cycling".

If you substitute the phrase "..used weights" for "..had a pony tail" then it becomes clearer just how meaningless the statement is...

Froomes Edgar

Imposter wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

The statement "every successful cyclist I've coached used weights" is a very different statement from "doing weights makes you better at cycling".

If you substitute the phrase "..used weights" for "..had a pony tail" then it becomes clearer just how meaningless the statement is...

Even better - its fair to assume that every unsuccessful rider he's ever coached used weights too. Probably because he told them to. So, in summary, Joe Friel says "use weights - you'll definitely be either successful or unsuccessful".

derek48

In fairness, exactly the same statement could be made by a coach who said ' don't use weights, you'll either be successful or unsuccessful' This is getting us nowhere, and was not the point of my original post. I would expect that a book of this nature would have attracted a lot of feedback from a variety of sources, including exercise physiologists, over the course of its four editions. Valid criticism is what most authors respond to, and if presented with appropriate and convincing evidence, then subsequent editions would be modified, usually with explanations as to why certain sections had changed, and that more scientific evidence had become available. So my original question still stands. Has he got it completely wrong? I realise that, reading this thread, and many others of a similar vein, that there are immovably entrenched opinions on this subject so I will simply have to do my own search of the scientfic literature and come to my own conclusions.

mattshrops

Derek48 wrote:

In fairness, exactly the same statement could be made by a coach who said ' don't use weights, you'll either be successful or unsuccessful' This is getting us nowhere, and was not the point of my original post. I would expect that a book of this nature would have attracted a lot of feedback from a variety of sources, including exercise physiologists, over the course of its four editions. Valid criticism is what most authors respond to, and if presented with appropriate and convincing evidence, then subsequent editions would be modified, usually with explanations as to why certain sections had changed, and that more scientific evidence had become available. So my original question still stands. Has he got it completely wrong? I realise that, reading this thread, and many others of a similar vein, that there are immovably entrenched opinions on this subject so I will simply have to do my own search of the scientfic literature and come to my own conclusions.

Is the first bold section not partly answered by the second?

derek48

You may well be right, which is why I don't think there is any point in pursuing this question here. I will look at the original research and draw my own conclusions, which I may or may not share with you!!!