Off the bike strength work

Froomes Edgar

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.

The consensus of scientific opinion at this time is that in general strength training does not help a reasonably fit endurance cyclist increase his sustainable power.

As for why Joe Friel chose not to reflect this in his book, you'll have to ask him.

ric/rstsport

Derek48 wrote:

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!!!

for some reason, i can't send you a PM...?

derek48

PM received Ric. Thanks for your time

derek48

Froomes Edgar wrote:

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.

The consensus of scientific opinion at this time is that in general strength training does not help a reasonably fit endurance cyclist increase his sustainable power.

As for why Joe Friel chose not to reflect this in his book, you'll have to ask him.

derek48

Derek48 wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

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.

The consensus of scientific opinion at this time is that in general strength training does not help a reasonably fit endurance cyclist increase his sustainable power.

As for why Joe Friel chose not to reflect this in his book, you'll have to ask him.

As to consensus, I'll draw my own conclusions. A preliminary, very cursory search of the literature suggests that it's by no means as straightforward as might be suggested.

imposter2.0

Derek48 wrote:

As to consensus, I'll draw my own conclusions. A preliminary, very cursory search of the literature suggests that it's by no means as straightforward as might be suggested.

In which case, you're either not reading it properly, or you haven't understood it. If you've found any evidence supporting strength work, I'd be keen to see it?

derek48

I'm very proficient at both reading and understanding. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

imposter2.0

Derek48 wrote:

I'm very proficient at both reading and understanding. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Done that already, ta. Just wanted to see the bits you felt might be ambiguous, that's all...

Froomes Edgar

Derek48 wrote:

As to consensus, I'll draw my own conclusions. A preliminary, very cursory search of the literature suggests that it's by no means as straightforward as might be suggested.

Indeed. I'm about to conduct a similar exercise with general relativity - all these science types are after is the next lot of funding. Good luck!

Froomes Edgar

Derek48 wrote:

As to consensus, I'll draw my own conclusions. A preliminary, very cursory search of the literature suggests that it's by no means as straightforward as might be suggested.

Ric wrote:

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.

derek48

I didn't come down on one side or the other, just that its not as straightforward as some might suggest, mainly because of poor experimental design, limited sample numbers and very narrowly defined cohort.

Froomes Edgar

No-one said it's cut and dried. Cut and dried questions don't get argued about endlessly on the interweb

richa

And now Cycling Weekly have thrown their hat in the ring backing squats...

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/healthan ... -fast.html

imposter2.0

RichA wrote:

And now Cycling Weekly have thrown their hat in the ring backing squats...

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/healthan ... -fast.html

embarrassing...it's even got little sketches of people lifting weights...