squats and leg-presses?
Comments
-
Bustacapp wrote:I think it must be you struggling with reading comprehension as the discussion is about whether or not weights benefit climbing. You and your cronies keep modifying the 'argument' to suit yourselves.
What do you think 'climbing' is ?? Unless you are 'sprinting' up your fabled 30m, 45deg ramp you mentioned earlier, climbing is an endurance discipline. Keep up.0 -
Imposter wrote:Bustacapp wrote:I think it must be you struggling with reading comprehension as the discussion is about whether or not weights benefit climbing. You and your cronies keep modifying the 'argument' to suit yourselves.
What do you think 'climbing' is ?? Unless you are 'sprinting' up your fabled 30m, 45deg ramp you mentioned earlier, climbing is an endurance discipline. Keep up.
And because it is a endurance discipline automatically means no strength training can benefit it? When I was in very good shape back in Austria I knew my times on specific climbs, and wanted to improve these, so I hit the gym. What resulted was minutes shaved off each set of climbs. Just because it is branded "endurance" doesn't mean strength or explosive power does not play a part, but your blind to that fact.0 -
MountainMonster wrote:
And because it is a endurance discipline automatically means no strength training can benefit it? When I was in very good shape back in Austria I knew my times on specific climbs, and wanted to improve these, so I hit the gym. What resulted was minutes shaved off each set of climbs. Just because it is branded "endurance" doesn't mean strength or explosive power does not play a part, but your blind to that fact.
What 'fact' - that was an anecdote. Listen to yourself. There are always going to be people utterly convinced (like yourself) that pushing weights somehow helped them improve their aerobic endurance threshold. Belief is not evidence or proof.0 -
Sadly, the article fails to mention weight training, but hell guys, that doesn't matter, does it?0 -
Imposter wrote:MountainMonster wrote:
And because it is a endurance discipline automatically means no strength training can benefit it? When I was in very good shape back in Austria I knew my times on specific climbs, and wanted to improve these, so I hit the gym. What resulted was minutes shaved off each set of climbs. Just because it is branded "endurance" doesn't mean strength or explosive power does not play a part, but your blind to that fact.
What 'fact' - that was an anecdote. Listen to yourself. There are always going to be people utterly convinced (like yourself) that pushing weights somehow helped them improve their aerobic endurance threshold. Belief is not evidence or proof.
If I am riding at the same speed for over a year, doing the same thing for that time period and afterwards start a new version of training or add to my previous training and then see an improvement in my times I am certain it was from that.
Nor is disbelief evidence or proof either. What "facts" can you provide to me that this increase in speed was not due to the single factor which trained in my regime? The fact is runners who are endurance athletes lift weights for benefits, mountain bikers lift weights for benefits, track cyclists lift weight for benefits, endurance swimmers lift weights for benefits, almost every sport lifts weights for benefits, but it seems you think the roadie is the only person immune to the positive effects as the word endurance is there.
Wisen up bro, or show us a Cambridge University study that has proved it has no benefit to cycling what-so-ever, in any capacity. Oh wait you can't because you even openly admitted that it can have side benefits, but are still refusing to give in. It must be like banging your head on a wall trying to argue with you in real life.0 -
MountainMonster wrote:If I am riding at the same speed for over a year, doing the same thing for that time period and afterwards start a new version of training or add to my previous training and then see an improvement in my times I am certain it was from that.
How can anyone possibly provide an opinion on something you may or may not have done several years ago, on the strength of the information you have provided?MountainMonster wrote:The fact is runners who are endurance athletes lift weights for benefits, mountain bikers lift weights for benefits, track cyclists lift weight for benefits, endurance swimmers lift weights for benefits, almost every sport lifts weights for benefits, but it seems you think the roadie is the only person immune to the positive effects as the word endurance is there.
Road cycling is fairly unique in that respect. You cetainly cannot compare it to running, or swimming - or even track cycling - the demands are totally different. Lots of discussion on this in the links provided within this thread - if you bother to read them.MountainMonster wrote:Wisen up bro, or show us a Cambridge University study that has proved it has no benefit to cycling what-so-ever, in any capacity. Oh wait you can't because you even openly admitted that it can have side benefits, but are still refusing to give in. It must be like banging your head on a wall trying to argue with you in real life.
Not sure why you are singling out 'Cambridge University' here - but there are lots of links to studies littered throughout this thread which show the results you are asking for. Presumably you haven't read them, or you wouldn't be asking.0 -
Imposter wrote:What do you think 'climbing' is ?? Unless you are 'sprinting' up your fabled 30m, 45deg ramp you mentioned earlier, climbing is an endurance discipline. Keep up.
See! You even admit that weight training can benefit climbing in the above sentence. To make it easier for you, I have highlighted it in bold. Even if you think that this is a miniscule part of climbing, you are actually in agreement and don't even realise!
Do keep up!!
0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Imposter wrote:What do you think 'climbing' is ?? Unless you are 'sprinting' up your fabled 30m, 45deg ramp you mentioned earlier, climbing is an endurance discipline. Keep up.
See! You even admit that weight training can benefit climbing in the above sentence. To make it easier for you, I have highlighted it in bold. Even if you think that this is a miniscule part of climbing, you are actually in agreement and don't even realise!
Do keep up!!
FFS - a race up a 30m incline is a sprint, not an endurance event - a bit like comparing the 100m to the marathon. Nobody is talking about sprint disciplines - we are (and always have been) talking about endurance. Poor effort - even by your bizarre standards.0 -
I know guys who do weights in an attempt to improve their cycling capabilities and to be fair I have noticed a definite improvement in their ability to ride longer and harder on sprints though they still struggle on hills (maybe more so) and still slow markedly on the last 20 of any 80-100 milers we do. I think it is fine as long as you dont allow it to bulk you up to the point the weight is having a detrimental effect on your over all cycling. Chris Hoy is a perfect example of a guy who does weights to improve his chosen form of cycling but he wouldnt fair well over large distances would he.the deeper the section the deeper the pleasure.0
-
neeb wrote:
No, it's not actually leg strength (in the strict sense) that's limiting you here - it's aerobic capacity (or anaerobic if you are talking about shorter efforts). Your legs start to feel weak in a higher gear because you are asking your muscles to perform at a level that requires more oxygen and energy than your metabolism can deliver to them, so lactic acid builds up and your legs appear to lack strength. This is different from the near instantaneous strength you gain by lifting weights however.NITR8s wrote:Cant be bother to read all these pages, however I have a question.
I feel that the reason I cant cycle faster on the flats is because i find it hard to keep a high cadence in a higher gear, now I can push a high cadence in a lower gear but feel that my legs arnt strong enough to push the same cadence as i go into a higher gear.
Now is this limitation not due to the strength in my legs and not cardiovasular fitness? There are two ways to cycle faster increase cadence or shift to a higher gear and keep the same cadence. Physical speaking there is only so fast you can increase the cadence to so eventually you have to shift to a higher gear, which requires strength in order to do.
Or am i completely off here?
Thank you for the response, I am speaking in regards to TTs by they way. So basically i need to work on increasing my lactic threshold, what would you recommend in order to do so, for example interval training etc.0 -
NITR8s wrote:neeb wrote:
No, it's not actually leg strength (in the strict sense) that's limiting you here - it's aerobic capacity (or anaerobic if you are talking about shorter efforts). Your legs start to feel weak in a higher gear because you are asking your muscles to perform at a level that requires more oxygen and energy than your metabolism can deliver to them, so lactic acid builds up and your legs appear to lack strength. This is different from the near instantaneous strength you gain by lifting weights however.NITR8s wrote:Cant be bother to read all these pages, however I have a question.
I feel that the reason I cant cycle faster on the flats is because i find it hard to keep a high cadence in a higher gear, now I can push a high cadence in a lower gear but feel that my legs arnt strong enough to push the same cadence as i go into a higher gear.
Now is this limitation not due to the strength in my legs and not cardiovasular fitness? There are two ways to cycle faster increase cadence or shift to a higher gear and keep the same cadence. Physical speaking there is only so fast you can increase the cadence to so eventually you have to shift to a higher gear, which requires strength in order to do.
Or am i completely off here?
Thank you for the response, I am speaking in regards to TTs by they way. So basically i need to work on increasing my lactic threshold, what would you recommend in order to do so, for example interval training etc.
Short and brutal interval training, preferably on a turbo for safety reasons.the deeper the section the deeper the pleasure.0 -
Cav (Weight trains)= fast sprinter = terrible climber.0
-
pride4ever wrote:Short and brutal interval training, preferably on a turbo for safety reasons.
Are we talking Revolver here, 1 min normal pace - 1 min killing my self. repeat for 50 mins.0 -
MountainMonster wrote:Chapeu! He is one of those guys who just refuses to give in, and keeps clinging to his little argument so he doesn't give up. Shame some people are like that.
I know. Sadly he has his merry band of yes men who try to undermine the path of the righteous with mockery and purile comments!0 -
Imposter wrote:MountainMonster wrote:If I am riding at the same speed for over a year, doing the same thing for that time period and afterwards start a new version of training or add to my previous training and then see an improvement in my times I am certain it was from that.
How can anyone possibly provide an opinion on something you may or may not have done several years ago, on the strength of the information you have provided?MountainMonster wrote:The fact is runners who are endurance athletes lift weights for benefits, mountain bikers lift weights for benefits, track cyclists lift weight for benefits, endurance swimmers lift weights for benefits, almost every sport lifts weights for benefits, but it seems you think the roadie is the only person immune to the positive effects as the word endurance is there.
Road cycling is fairly unique in that respect. You cetainly cannot compare it to running, or swimming - or even track cycling - the demands are totally different. Lots of discussion on this in the links provided within this thread - if you bother to read them.MountainMonster wrote:Wisen up bro, or show us a Cambridge University study that has proved it has no benefit to cycling what-so-ever, in any capacity. Oh wait you can't because you even openly admitted that it can have side benefits, but are still refusing to give in. It must be like banging your head on a wall trying to argue with you in real life.
Not sure why you are singling out 'Cambridge University' here - but there are lots of links to studies littered throughout this thread which show the results you are asking for. Presumably you haven't read them, or you wouldn't be asking.
Who said I was asking for an opinion on my training plan? I am telling you the improvements I saw directly from leaner muscles through weight training. I now lack the power for the short bursts needed to fly up hills here in Cambridge, and that is purely down to power/strength. If I weight trained for this I would improve that part of my cycling on our hills, which improves my climbing, which improves my cycling performance. But I guess that doesn't count in your eyes.
What if this 30m sprint uphill is in the middle of a 100 mile route? Does that still mean it is not part of an endurance event. If you improve that part of your cycling you will see an improvement overall. Simply because the part it has helped on is a sprint uphill does not mean it is not part of a endurance event. When I ride with the club around here we often have sprints at different points of the ride, which are normally a minimum of 60km long. If I improved those sprints I am improving my cycling, but this seems to be going in one ear and out the other because the time it helps is not just cranking away the miles.0 -
Imposter wrote:FFS - a race up a 30m incline is a sprint, not an endurance event - a bit like comparing the 100m to the marathon. Nobody is talking about sprint disciplines - we are (and always have been) talking about endurance. Poor effort - even by your bizarre standards.
No, no and no.
Riding up a 30m steep incline that's part of a 5km climb is - unfortunately for you - actually part of climbing.
You can't argue this point at all. The argument was about weight lifting benefiting climbing, not aerobic endurance.
FFS just stop backtracking and squirming. Admit you are wrong and we can all get on with our lives!0 -
:roll:MountainMonster wrote:power/strength0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
:roll:MountainMonster wrote:power/strength
Well productive addition to the discussion. You must be so proud of your debating skills. 0 -
Bustacapp wrote:NITR8s wrote:Cav (Weight trains)= fast sprinter = terrible climber.
Silly comparison. He's an out and out sprinter so will always be bulkier than a climber.
Get a climber to gain strength in his legs and not put weight on and it can only be of benefit!!
Extra stength = extra muscle mass = More weight. It is impossible to gain muscle strength without gaining weight.
Sports science 101. Muscle weighs more than fat.0 -
A perfectly reasonable scenario. What you are not understanding though is that if you go to an effort level where your strength is a factor, you will not make the 5kms.Bustacapp wrote:Riding up a 30m incline that's part of a 5km climb is - unfortunately for you - actually part of climbing.
If you are able to keep the hard aerobic effort all the way up, there is no way you were going all out on the steep 30m.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:MountainMonster wrote:Chapeu! He is one of those guys who just refuses to give in, and keeps clinging to his little argument so he doesn't give up. Shame some people are like that.
I know. Sadly he has his merry band of yes men who try to undermine the path of the righteous with mockery and purile comments!
ironic.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:No, no and no.
Riding up a 30m steep incline that's part of a 5km climb is - unfortunately for you - actually part of climbing.
You can't argue this point at all. The argument was about weight lifting benefiting climbing, not aerobic endurance.
FFS just stop backtracking and squirming. Admit you are wrong and we can all get on with our lives!
There is no part of a '5km climb' where improved strength would benefit your ability to deliver power aerobically - because by definition you will never use anything close to your maximal strength during an aerobic effort. Increasing power output on steeper parts of the climb still does not place a maximal demand on leg 'strength'. Seriously, this has already been covered several pages ago.0 -
NITR8s wrote:
Sports science 101. Muscle weighs more than fat.
Last time I checked, 1lb of muscle weighed the same as 1lb of fat. Muscle has more density though.
0 -
Right, but you could if you wanted to. So maybe if your cycling goal is to ride very slowly part way up a climb then smash out a maximal sprint to 'beat' your mate, then stop for a rest, strength training could helpImposter wrote:There is no part of a '5km climb' where improved strength would benefit your ability to deliver power aerobically - because by definition you will never use anything close to your maximal strength during an aerobic effort. Increasing power output on steeper parts of the climb still does not place a maximal demand on leg 'strength'.
0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
Right, but you could if you wanted to. So maybe if your cycling goal is to ride very slowly part way up a climb then smash out a maximal sprint to 'beat' your mate, then stop for a rest, strength training could helpImposter wrote:There is no part of a '5km climb' where improved strength would benefit your ability to deliver power aerobically - because by definition you will never use anything close to your maximal strength during an aerobic effort. Increasing power output on steeper parts of the climb still does not place a maximal demand on leg 'strength'.
Depends how you are defining 'maximal'. Maximal strength can only be applied against a stationary/fixed object - so by definition a pedal (which is movable), will never receive a maximal load on it (except perhaps for a split second at the start of a track pursuit, or similar). Even at Vo2 max you are not anywhere close to maximal strength, although you are obviously close to 'maximal effort' which is different entirely. The average pedal forces being pushed out by a pro during a mountain stage of the tour will be something like 25kg through both pedals. If you think about it, that is a considerable way off anyone's maximal leg strength capability. On that basis, increasing your 'maximal' strength capability is a bit pointless.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:A perfectly reasonable scenario. What you are not understanding though is that if you go to an effort level where your strength is a factor, you will not make the 5kms.
If you are able to keep the hard aerobic effort all the way up, there is no way you were going all out on the steep 30m.
I disagree. The difference would probably be the stronger athlete going up the 30m section in the saddle with the weaker standing up and using more energy.0 -
Having more strength does not mean you use less energy.Bustacapp wrote:Tom Dean wrote:A perfectly reasonable scenario. What you are not understanding though is that if you go to an effort level where your strength is a factor, you will not make the 5kms.
If you are able to keep the hard aerobic effort all the way up, there is no way you were going all out on the steep 30m.
I disagree. The difference would probably be the stronger athlete going up the 30m section in the saddle with the weaker standing up and using more energy.
You simply cannot put in a maximal, strength-based effort in the middle of a hard aerobic effort without needing to recover. How strong you are makes no difference to this. Being aerobically fitter means there is less chance of needing to try.0
This discussion has been closed.
