squats and leg-presses?
Comments
-
MountainMonster wrote:LOL, this shoot is still going on?
I have the answer to this question. The people who lack high amounts of power (strength< penis length, whatever you want to call it) will say that doing weights is of no benefit to cyclist because 90% of what we do is endurance.
The other normal ones will say that in those other 10% where power (or strength, or penis length, or whatever) is necessary will say that if you benefit that 10% of your riding your overall cycling has benefitted. End of, too many idiots on this thread.
Ironic. 16 pages in and possibly the most confused, crass, idiotic contribution yet. There's still hope for Busta...0 -
-
How about this then I can squat some v heavy weights and always have been able to but can't cycle for toffee. I'll go get my coffee0
-
Imposter wrote:NeXXus wrote:
Proof - if any were needed - that the earth is flat. He wouldn't have fallen off the end of it, otherwise...
My thoughts exactly. In any case there is a "Flat Earth Society", or something like that, that I found on the Internet.
At first I thought it was just people having some fun, and some or most of it was. But, but there seemed to be a few on there that well, I'm not sure how to put it. :roll: :shock:
:? 0 -
In the past six months I've been doing squats with weights (nothing huge) and one legged squats. My endurance has never been a major issue, but I struggled with climbs and I wanted to improve my average speed on the flats. The exercises have helped a lot...definitely worth it!0
-
TimInno wrote:In the past six months I've been doing squats with weights (nothing huge) and one legged squats. My endurance has never been a major issue, but I struggled with climbs and I wanted to improve my average speed on the flats. The exercises have helped a lot...definitely worth it!
How do you know the improved fitness (for that is what it is) has not come from riding your bike ??0 -
Imposter wrote:TimInno wrote:In the past six months I've been doing squats with weights (nothing huge) and one legged squats. My endurance has never been a major issue, but I struggled with climbs and I wanted to improve my average speed on the flats. The exercises have helped a lot...definitely worth it!
How do you know the improved fitness (for that is what it is) has not come from riding your bike ??
And that's the crux of this whole argument. How do you tell what's responsible for what? Maybe in the future someone will come up with a Strength-O-Meter that will tell you what percentage of your "improvement" came from what exercises.0 -
dennisn wrote:Imposter wrote:TimInno wrote:In the past six months I've been doing squats with weights (nothing huge) and one legged squats. My endurance has never been a major issue, but I struggled with climbs and I wanted to improve my average speed on the flats. The exercises have helped a lot...definitely worth it!
How do you know the improved fitness (for that is what it is) has not come from riding your bike ??
And that's the crux of this whole argument. How do you tell what's responsible for what? Maybe in the future someone will come up with a Strength-O-Meter that will tell you what percentage of your "improvement" came from what exercises.
You've missed the point (again) Dennis. Although I think you know perfectly well what I meant. At least I hope you did, after 16 pages.0 -
TimInno wrote:In the past six months I've been doing squats with weights (nothing huge) and one legged squats. My endurance has never been a major issue, but I struggled with climbs and I wanted to improve my average speed on the flats. The exercises have helped a lot...definitely worth it!
I'm afraid that because there is not some sort of theoretical equation available to confirm what you have actually experienced then you must be mistaken. It is simply not possible. :roll:0 -
Imposter wrote:Ironic. 16 pages in and possibly the most confused, crass, idiotic contribution yet. There's still hope for Busta...
Thanks for that 'positive contribution'. I've just recieved this warning via PM:
Since I am not allowed to comment unless I am in complete agreement with the majority then I'm afraid my involvement with this thread is over.Velonutter wrote:You need to review your attitude towards other members of the forum and don't go in on posts guns blazing in order to gain a reaction, that is trolling and against forum rules. Positive contributions are always welcome but generating negative responses is not what BikeRadar is about!0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Imposter wrote:Ironic. 16 pages in and possibly the most confused, crass, idiotic contribution yet. There's still hope for Busta...
Thanks for that 'positive contribution'. I've just recieved this warning via PM:
Since I am not allowed to comment unless I am in complete agreement with the majority then I'm afraid my involvement with this thread is over.Velonutter wrote:You need to review your attitude towards other members of the forum and don't go in on posts guns blazing in order to gain a reaction, that is trolling and against forum rules. Positive contributions are always welcome but generating negative responses is not what BikeRadar is about!
To be fair, there is a big gap between 'complete agreement' and 'breath-taking arrogance'. Your posts certainly seem to err towards the latter and you seem to find it hard to discuss things rationally - not just on this post, but on others too. If I was velonutter, I would probably have done exactly the same and if I over-step the mark, I would expect to get the same sort of warning.0 -
Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:Imposter wrote:TimInno wrote:In the past six months I've been doing squats with weights (nothing huge) and one legged squats. My endurance has never been a major issue, but I struggled with climbs and I wanted to improve my average speed on the flats. The exercises have helped a lot...definitely worth it!
How do you know the improved fitness (for that is what it is) has not come from riding your bike ??
And that's the crux of this whole argument. How do you tell what's responsible for what? Maybe in the future someone will come up with a Strength-O-Meter that will tell you what percentage of your "improvement" came from what exercises.
You've missed the point (again) Dennis. Although I think you know perfectly well what I meant. At least I hope you did, after 16 pages.
Run it by me again. I'm pretty stupid. How DO you tell what and or how much strength / power / endurance / whatever came from what type of exercise?0 -
Well, Dennis, now you've summed it all up so masterfully I'm not sure there's much more you need to say...dennisn wrote:I'm pretty stupid0 -
bompington wrote:
Well, Dennis, now you've summed it all up so masterfully I'm not sure there's much more you need to say...dennisn wrote:I'm pretty stupid
Which is precisely why it's not worth explaining it (again). It's all in the thread anyway.0 -
I'm no training expert, but my view if anyone is remotely interested is that resistance training in moderation will benefit your cycling. It's a no brainer surely! :?
Of course, muscle mass is heavy (heavier than fat), so you don't want to be carrying too much of it as a result of excessive weight training. However, in my opinion, it's not enough to have endurance alone to be a good all round cyclist. Unless you always ride below 70% of your MHR, which I'm sure most don't, then you will start to engage the fast twitch muscles used for power and strength. Certainly if you're sprinting out the saddle, or pushing at 90%+ on the flats chasing that avg speed goal, then you will be predominantly using those muscles. Surely then in makes sense to develop these muscles with resistance training of some kind.
As with all things though, moderation.
EDIT: Whilst I haven't been using weights or going to the gym, I have been doing short 10 mile sprints in the last couple of months, where I basically go flat out as fast as I can. By the end, I've got nothing left! This is less about endurance (slow twitch) and more power and strength (fast twitch), the latter being the case when resistance training. Whilst I can't prove it to you, these sprinting sessions have had a profound effect on my performance on normal rides. I'm now cycling further, with more climbing and a higher average speed. My cycling buddy, who is also a triathlete, agrees this improvement has come from increased strength and power.0 -
TheSmithers wrote:I'm no training expert, but my view if anyone is remotely interested is that resistance training in moderation will benefit your cycling. It's a no brainer surely! :?
Of course, muscle mass is heavy (heavier than fat), so you don't want to be carrying too much of it as a result of excessive weight training. However, in my opinion, it's not enough to have endurance alone to be a good all round cyclist. Unless you always ride below 70% of your MHR, which I'm sure most don't, then you will start to engage the fast twitch muscles used for power and strength. Certainly if you're sprinting out the saddle, or pushing at 90%+ on the flats chasing that avg speed goal, then you will be predominantly using those muscles. Surely then in makes sense to develop these muscles with resistance training of some kind.
As with all things though, moderation.
FFS - have you not read this thread, or followed any of the links???0 -
Imposter wrote:bompington wrote:
Well, Dennis, now you've summed it all up so masterfully I'm not sure there's much more you need to say...dennisn wrote:I'm pretty stupid
Which is precisely why it's not worth explaining it (again). It's all in the thread anyway.
There are fundamental differences between you and I. You read or are told something and if it seems to suit your thought processes then you go no further and proclaim that you have found the truth. Story over.
Me? When someone claims to have an answer that's the clue to my brain that "this can't be all there is to know about this subject, I still have more questions".
To you, someone who asks a lot of questions is stupid. To me someone who doesn't ask a lot is the stupid one.
A famous scientist once said something to the effect that "Answers are the easy part. Anyone can find them. It's the questions that are important."
I believe you have found the answers that you require but wonder why the answers haven't seemed to give you pause to ask a single question?0 -
Imposter wrote:TheSmithers wrote:I'm no training expert, but my view if anyone is remotely interested is that resistance training in moderation will benefit your cycling. It's a no brainer surely! :?
Of course, muscle mass is heavy (heavier than fat), so you don't want to be carrying too much of it as a result of excessive weight training. However, in my opinion, it's not enough to have endurance alone to be a good all round cyclist. Unless you always ride below 70% of your MHR, which I'm sure most don't, then you will start to engage the fast twitch muscles used for power and strength. Certainly if you're sprinting out the saddle, or pushing at 90%+ on the flats chasing that avg speed goal, then you will be predominantly using those muscles. Surely then in makes sense to develop these muscles with resistance training of some kind.
As with all things though, moderation.
FFS - have you not read this thread, or followed any of the links???
What you fail to note "Mr. Smithers" is that "Imposter" IS(or at least is trying to appear to be) a training expert.
0 -
Imposter wrote:FFS - have you not read this thread, or followed any of the links???
Nope. I got bored about 3 or 4 pages in, mostly by your 'know it all' posts. 0 -
TheSmithers wrote:Imposter wrote:FFS - have you not read this thread, or followed any of the links???
Nope. I got bored about 3 or 4 pages in, mostly by your 'know it all' posts.
If you're trolling, then by all means carry on. But the links I refer to are to posts/threads written by people with far more knowledge than me. The improvements you describe are all aerobic - and not 'strength' related. It's all pretty basic stuff - you don't need to be a biologist, a sports scientist or a coach to understand that.0 -
dennisn wrote:What you fail to note "Mr. Smithers" is that "Imposter" IS(or at least is trying to appear to be) a training expert.
Haha! Fair enough. I'm only interested in facts and putting across what little I know. I'm not interested in reading pages and pages of ranting about who is right or wrong, which I so often see on forums. And they usually emanate from one individual. I think I know who in this case! 0 -
Imposter wrote:TheSmithers wrote:Imposter wrote:FFS - have you not read this thread, or followed any of the links???
Nope. I got bored about 3 or 4 pages in, mostly by your 'know it all' posts.
If you're trolling, then by all means carry on. But the links I refer to are to posts/threads written by people with far more knowledge than me. The improvements you describe are all aerobic - and not 'strength' related. It's all pretty basic stuff - you don't need to be a biologist, a sports scientist or a coach to understand that.
Ok.
This is my last post on this thread now. Bye bye! 0 -
dennisn wrote:What you fail to note "Mr. Smithers" is that "Imposter" IS(or at least is trying to appear to be) a training expert.
I'm just linking to and referring to the evidence presented by those that are. By your own definition Dennis, you must also be a 'training expert' seeing as you are so vehemently disagreeing in the face of such compelling evidence, and yet failing to offer any such evidence of your own. Mind you, you did admit to being stupid earlier....0 -
This is so wrong it's gone way beyond funny. Do you really have no insight at all? In thread after thread you have posted hundreds, maybe literally thousands, of posts where you have trumpeted your prejudices and hunches, and steadfastly refused to listen (or possibly been unable to understand) the evidence presented to you by others.dennisn wrote:There are fundamental differences between you and I. You read or are told something and if it seems to suit your thought processes then you go no further and proclaim that you have found the truth. Story over.
And then when someone comes along using science, reason, logic, mathematics even, you have the nerve to accuse them of uncritical thinking?0 -
PS that should be "between you and me". See http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=129219880
-
bompington wrote:
This is so wrong it's gone way beyond funny. Do you really have no insight at all? In thread after thread you have posted hundreds, maybe literally thousands, of posts where you have trumpeted your prejudices and hunches, and steadfastly refused to listen (or possibly been unable to understand) the evidence presented to you by others.dennisn wrote:There are fundamental differences between you and I. You read or are told something and if it seems to suit your thought processes then you go no further and proclaim that you have found the truth. Story over.
And then when someone comes along using science, reason, logic, mathematics even, you have the nerve to accuse them of uncritical thinking?
Why are my "prejudices and hunches" any worse or better than your unquestioned and blind acceptance of proclamations and evidence from the Wizards on this forum. Didn't Dorothy and her friends believe what the Wizard said and yet in the end he couldn't even fly a balloon? I really liked his quote of "No, no I'm a good man, just a very bad Wizard".
In any case it would appear that you are headed in the right direction - you're starting to ask questions. It is, after all, about the questions. I can get the answers I've received thus far from any of 100's of places, all saying the same thing.
Whole bunches of people know the answers yet when challenged with a simple question, the answer for which might somewhat upset their beliefs, then the person asking must be just plain stupid. Thinking that you have some input on what pieces of the puzzle go where is all well and good but with all good jigsaw puzzles the box has a whole lot of pieces.0 -
What question are you asking, Dennis? Presumably it is one that is not already addressed within the previous 17 pages?0
-
Imposter wrote:What question are you asking, Dennis? Presumably it is one that is not already addressed within the previous 17 pages?
Have you given any thought to the ideas that what you have learned thus far in life might have a few glitches in it, a wrong conclusion or two, something not quite right, is possibly incomplete, that there is more you don't know than what you do now, that you don't know what you don't know? :?0 -
Good grief. -I don't know everything either, but I think it's better to base my training on what we do know rather than what we don't.
(What we 'know' means our best conclusion based on the currently available evidence.)0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Good grief. -I don't know everything either, but I think it's better to base my training on what we do know rather than what we don't.
(What we 'know' means our best conclusion based on the currently available evidence.)
Absolutely correct. How do you explain then, this difference in the perception of weight training benefits in cycling? :?
It would seem that there are more than a few people with opinions on both sides of the question. Many of them are people I would consider very qualified to talk on the subject. Then are many, many more people who aren't so "qualified" and they also have their beliefs(both ways). It seems that, on this forum, both sides are idiots, at least according to the other side.
I weight train because I like it. Always have. Was even a wanna-be bodybuilder in my teens. This most likely is the reason I tend to believe that it's a good thing to do. It's ingrained in me, sort of.
To be honest it appears to me that this anti weight thing is based more on some hidden issue that some people have with it as a sport or exercise than any real working knowledge of its uses in cycling. There also seems to be kind of an undercurrent that keeps saying that "cycling is special and somehow pure" and that the ideas or even the rules that govern pedaling a bike cannot be "tarnished" (for lack of a better word) by some other form of exercise.
Anyway, how do you explain the differences in perception? :?0
This discussion has been closed.
