squats and leg-presses?

dennisn

I mentioned this a while back but didn't get much response. I sort of wonder whether the people who claim weight training is of no use have feelings of insecurity around bodybuilders? I think this is a real possibility. The very size of some of these guys intimidates them. They seem to have an inability to appreciate the amount of work that goes into this sport. This is evidenced by some people thinking that if they do a few bench presses, curls, and squats that they will "get big". How many times do you hear someone say "I don't want to get big"? Yet the reality is that they definitely won't. They simply don't understand and are fearful of bodybuilding and bodybuilders. I can understand it. There's this huge guy standing next to you with all the muscle in the world. It's bound to have an negative effect on many peoples egos and they hate the guy for it instead of seeing the work that it took to do it.

imposter2.0

City Boy wrote:

And what proves that Simon Jobson has got it so wrong?

I'm not aware of Jobson's study - is there a link?

city_boy

Imposter wrote:

Well, human physiology hasn't really changed much in that time.

It's not changed much since they used leeches to cure most illnesses, then science said that didn't work, now science is saying that they might have some benefits

bernithebiker

dennisn wrote:

I mentioned this a while back but didn't get much response. I sort of wonder whether the people who claim weight training is of no use have feelings of insecurity around bodybuilders?

Maybe you didn't get much response, because it's a totally ridiculous thing to say?

In fact, I think most pro bodybuilders look completely stupid, are on steroids and have small willies, so it's unlikely I would feel insecure around them.

city_boy

Imposter wrote:

City Boy wrote:

And what proves that Simon Jobson has got it so wrong?

I'm not aware of Jobson's study - is there a link?

I previously posted a quote from a recent article I read. Here's the quote again:

" It's only in the past 2 or 3 years that a couple of researchers have actually done some more rigorous and robust research and have found that strength training might be beneficial for endurance cyclists. The studies show that, somewhat surprisingly, there is an improvement in economy and efficiency. Traditionally the research has look at either strength training or endurance training, but in recent years the studies have looked at a combination of the two and have shown that one doesn't necessarily knock the benefits of the other. For cyclists that's crucial. It's an endurance sport and the focus should be on endurance training, but if you do a combination of the two then you definitely get improvements in economy and efficiency, and also in lactate threshold. These improvements in economy and efficiency are the principal findings of the research."
Dr Simon Jobson, Sport & Exercise Physiologist and author of Performance Cycling: The Science of Success

iPete

YIMan wrote:

I'm looking after my toddler son today so I might do a couple of hundred squats as I can't get out for a ride. This has zero benefit to cycling, right, so I would be as well off doing absolutely nothing?

If you are a proper cyclist you already ride 6 days a week, so yes, take it as a well needed rest day and you'll benefit more

dennisn

bernithebiker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I mentioned this a while back but didn't get much response. I sort of wonder whether the people who claim weight training is of no use have feelings of insecurity around bodybuilders?

Maybe you didn't get much response, because it's a totally ridiculous thing to say?

In fact, I think most pro bodybuilders look completely stupid, are on steroids and have small willies, so it's unlikely I would feel insecure around them.

You seem to have a few prejudices against them. Of course they look stupid and have small willies. That's how you, and many others, handle your insecurities and fear of them.

imposter2.0

City Boy wrote:

Imposter wrote:

City Boy wrote:

And what proves that Simon Jobson has got it so wrong?

I'm not aware of Jobson's study - is there a link?

I previously posted a quote from a recent article I read. Here's the quote again:

" It's only in the past 2 or 3 years that a couple of researchers have actually done some more rigorous and robust research and have found that strength training might be beneficial for endurance cyclists. The studies show that, somewhat surprisingly, there is an improvement in economy and efficiency. Traditionally the research has look at either strength training or endurance training, but in recent years the studies have looked at a combination of the two and have shown that one doesn't necessarily knock the benefits of the other. For cyclists that's crucial. It's an endurance sport and the focus should be on endurance training, but if you do a combination of the two then you definitely get improvements in economy and efficiency, and also in lactate threshold. These improvements in economy and efficiency are the principal findings of the research."
Dr Simon Jobson, Sport & Exercise Physiologist and author of Performance Cycling: The Science of Success

So you're posting his opinion (aka an anecdote). I would rather see the research he is referring to, especially considering the interesting use of the phrase in bold.

city_boy

Imposter wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Imposter wrote:

City Boy wrote:

And what proves that Simon Jobson has got it so wrong?

I'm not aware of Jobson's study - is there a link?

I previously posted a quote from a recent article I read. Here's the quote again:

" It's only in the past 2 or 3 years that a couple of researchers have actually done some more rigorous and robust research and have found that strength training might be beneficial for endurance cyclists. The studies show that, somewhat surprisingly, there is an improvement in economy and efficiency. Traditionally the research has look at either strength training or endurance training, but in recent years the studies have looked at a combination of the two and have shown that one doesn't necessarily knock the benefits of the other. For cyclists that's crucial. It's an endurance sport and the focus should be on endurance training, but if you do a combination of the two then you definitely get improvements in economy and efficiency, and also in lactate threshold. These improvements in economy and efficiency are the principal findings of the research."
Dr Simon Jobson, Sport & Exercise Physiologist and author of Performance Cycling: The Science of Success

So you're posting his opinion (aka an anecdote). I would rather see the research he is referring to, especially considering the interesting use of the phrase in bold.

Great answer. From someone so keen to post links to the opinions of others because they suit your argument.
You even refer to Coggan who performs a scientific study where he himself is the only subject and his written review of the findings is littered with phrases like " would imply that...." and "it is possible/probable that....". Hardly emphatic!

Notwithstanding all that, Jobson isn't proffering opinion or anecdote, he is explaining the outcomes of the findings of some more recent research, I've highlighted some in bold.

Although I don't know him personally and can't point you in the direction of which studies he is referring to, given that he shares the same profession as those to which you refer to, and given that he's authored a book on endurance cycling, I would be pretty confident that he is fairly knowledgable and well researched on the subject.

imposter2.0

City Boy wrote:

Great answer. From someone so keen to post links to the opinions of others because they suit your argument.
You even refer to Coggan who performs a scientific study where he himself is the only subject and his written review of the findings is littered with phrases like " would imply that...." and "it is possible/probable that....". Hardly emphatic!

Notwithstanding all that, Jobson isn't proffering opinion or anecdote, he is explaining the outcomes of the findings of some more recent research, I've highlighted some in bold.

Although I don't know him personally and can't point you in the direction of which studies he is referring to, given that he shares the same profession as those to which you refer to, and given that he's authored a book on endurance cycling, I would be pretty confident that he is fairly knowledgable and well researched on the subject.

I've always been very careful to separate science, anecdote and opinion. Unfortunately, without the science, all you have there is an opinion. I'm sure Mr Jobson knows his stuff, but then so do a lot of other people quoted on the thread too. If these studies genuinely show what you seem to think they do, I would be looking for them right now. Except I feel you may be disappointed - because as far as I am aware, there are no such studies which show (conclusively or otherwise) any correlation between leg strength and an improvement ECP. Happy to be proved wrong though.

city_boy

Imposter wrote:

I've always been very careful to separate science, anecdote and opinion. Unfortunately, without the science, all you have there is an opinion. I'm sure Mr Jobson knows his stuff, but then so do a lot of other people quoted on the thread too. If these studies genuinely show what you seem to think they do, I would be looking for them right now. Except I feel you may be disappointed - because as far as I am aware, there are no such studies which show (conclusively or otherwise) any correlation between leg strength and an improvement ECP. Happy to be proved wrong though.

Not what I think they show, more what he states they show.
But he might be making it up

He isn't specifically talking about leg strength and ECP, you do seem to be a little fixated with that.

MountainMonster

Tom Dean wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

It's 100% down to my weight training with regards to why I improved, and while I didn't do a study in a lab somewhere and write an article it is pretty easy to figure out that is the only reason they got bigger and I got faster considering it was the only variable that changed at the time. While not written out in a report, and definitely not conclusively proven in a lab, it is science enough to be able to figure out that if only one things changes in something, and this results in a change of performance or whatever metric you want to use, that this result is linked to the change that happened.

It may be enough for you, but there is nothing scientific about it.

Well let's see what science experiments look like.

You test something to get the performance of it, you keep all the variables the same bar one which you change, and the effect this has will be either negative, positive or no change at all. That is exactly what I did, I ran an experiment where only one metric was changed and saw positive results due to this change. Looks like a typical science experiment to me. This experiment, of course, carries no weight with you boys because it is contradictory to your own beliefs, but there seem to be a lot more people in this thread advocating the positive effects of weight training on their cycling compared to the nay-sayers, which appear to be around 4 different people in total.

Imposter- you have shown you are not happy to be proven wrong, so no point in lying!

imposter2.0

City Boy wrote:

He isn't specifically talking about leg strength and ECP, you do seem to be a little fixated with that.

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm only fixated on that because I thought that was the discussion topic. If you want to do strength work for other reasons, then crack on.

I can't really see this usefully going much further, so I'll sign off with a quote I lifted from a thread in the training forum (the thread is also linked here somewhere). If anyone disagrees with the following, (as far as I know, these are all undisputed physiological facts) then I suggest you take it up with the author - he is a regular contributor here.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Weight training (done properly) leads to increased strength primarily via two mechanisms:

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.

MountainMonster

Imposter wrote:

City Boy wrote:

He isn't specifically talking about leg strength and ECP, you do seem to be a little fixated with that.

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm only fixated on that because I thought that was the discussion topic. If you want to do strength work for other reasons, then crack on.

I can't really see this usefully going much further, so I'll sign off with a quote I lifted from a thread in the training forum (the thread is also linked here somewhere). If anyone disagrees with the following, then I suggest you take it up with the author - he is a regular contributor here.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Weight training (done properly) leads to increased strength primarily via two mechanisms:

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.

A couple of pages ago you were talking about climbing specifically and weight training. My how the topic has changed in your eyes. HAHAHA! What a joke.

I just thought of something, out of the saddle hard bursts while climbing will work much the same as weight lifting, and those help a hell of a lot on the bike, so I guess we have proved it on that!

imposter2.0

MountainMonster wrote:

A couple of pages ago you were talking about climbing specifically and weight training. My how the topic has changed in your eyes. HAHAHA! What a joke.

Learn to read, you ignorant oaf. The thread has always been about leg strength and ECP. Whether you are climbing or not is irrelevant. Climbing scenarios just provide a useful analogy that most people (apart from you) can understand.

MountainMonster wrote:

I just thought of something, out of the saddle hard bursts while climbing will work much the same as weight lifting, and those help a hell of a lot on the bike, so I guess we have proved it on that!

If you really did just think of that, then it proves you haven't been reading the thread. All of this has been covered. Like I said, send all your questions to Alex - he's very patient with idiots. I'm out.

Moderator comment, Calling someone an ignorant oaf is not what this forum is about, everyone play nice or the topic is locked, finally warning :roll:

MountainMonster

OOh someone is getting personal. I'm ignorant now, I love that bit!

And no, I have stated many times I barely read the thread. 27 pages of listening to you only proving your opinion and discarding every one elses is not very interesting. Seems i'm not ignorant one when not being open to new ideas.

Tom Dean

MountainMonster wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

It's 100% down to my weight training with regards to why I improved, and while I didn't do a study in a lab somewhere and write an article it is pretty easy to figure out that is the only reason they got bigger and I got faster considering it was the only variable that changed at the time. While not written out in a report, and definitely not conclusively proven in a lab, it is science enough to be able to figure out that if only one things changes in something, and this results in a change of performance or whatever metric you want to use, that this result is linked to the change that happened.

It may be enough for you, but there is nothing scientific about it.

Well let's see what science experiments look like.

You test something to get the performance of it, you keep all the variables the same bar one which you change, and the effect this has will be either negative, positive or no change at all. That is exactly what I did, I ran an experiment where only one metric was changed and saw positive results due to this change. Looks like a typical science experiment to me. This experiment, of course, carries no weight with you boys because it is contradictory to your own beliefs, but there seem to be a lot more people in this thread advocating the positive effects of weight training on their cycling compared to the nay-sayers, which appear to be around 4 different people in total.

Imposter- you have shown you are not happy to be proven wrong, so no point in lying!

..because a proper study would only involve one participant? :roll:

You don't do your argument any favours by claiming it is scientific, then displaying a complete lack of understanding of the scientific process.

There are some published studies out there that may support your position - see if you can find them, and have a read. You may conclude you were right all along, but right now it is as a result of dumb luck, rather than any process of critical reasoning

MountainMonster

Tom Dean wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

It's 100% down to my weight training with regards to why I improved, and while I didn't do a study in a lab somewhere and write an article it is pretty easy to figure out that is the only reason they got bigger and I got faster considering it was the only variable that changed at the time. While not written out in a report, and definitely not conclusively proven in a lab, it is science enough to be able to figure out that if only one things changes in something, and this results in a change of performance or whatever metric you want to use, that this result is linked to the change that happened.

It may be enough for you, but there is nothing scientific about it.

Well let's see what science experiments look like.

You test something to get the performance of it, you keep all the variables the same bar one which you change, and the effect this has will be either negative, positive or no change at all. That is exactly what I did, I ran an experiment where only one metric was changed and saw positive results due to this change. Looks like a typical science experiment to me. This experiment, of course, carries no weight with you boys because it is contradictory to your own beliefs, but there seem to be a lot more people in this thread advocating the positive effects of weight training on their cycling compared to the nay-sayers, which appear to be around 4 different people in total.

Imposter- you have shown you are not happy to be proven wrong, so no point in lying!

..because a proper study would only involve one participant? :roll:

You don't do your argument any favours by claiming it is scientific, then displaying a complete lack of understanding of the scientific process.

There are some published studies out there that may support your position - see if you can find them, and have a read. You may conclude you were right all along, but right now it is as a result of dumb luck, rather than any process of critical reasoning

I never said it was scientific, I said it was scientific enough. I seem to remember a few pages ago you or Imposter quoting a link which only had one participant as proof of your theories, so we are on a even playing field. Lots of great discoveries present themselves because of dumb luck, so thank you for that. I must be on to something great!

Tom Dean

MountainMonster wrote:

I never said it was scientific, I said it was scientific enough. I seem to remember a few pages ago you or Imposter quoting a link which only had one participant as proof of your theories, so we are on a even playing field. Lots of great discoveries present themselves because of dumb luck, so thank you for that. I must be on to something great!

This is meaningless I'm afraid. Like I said there is evidence out there to support your position. Since you don't recognise what reliable evidence is I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you aren't interested in it.

dennisn

bernithebiker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I mentioned this a while back but didn't get much response. I sort of wonder whether the people who claim weight training is of no use have feelings of insecurity around bodybuilders?

Maybe you didn't get much response, because it's a totally ridiculous thing to say?

Too ridiculous to talk about?
Or just way beyond how deeply the anti weight group, on this forum, want to look at themselves?

Most of the talk on this subject has been of the "I believe what I believe and you're a jerk if you believe something else" variety. It all seems to be just scratching the surface of why someone believes something.

Tom Dean

dennisn wrote:

Too ridiculous to talk about?

Yes. Pathetic.

MountainMonster

Tom Dean wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

I never said it was scientific, I said it was scientific enough. I seem to remember a few pages ago you or Imposter quoting a link which only had one participant as proof of your theories, so we are on a even playing field. Lots of great discoveries present themselves because of dumb luck, so thank you for that. I must be on to something great!

This is meaningless I'm afraid. Like I said there is evidence out there to support your position. Since you don't recognise what reliable evidence is I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you aren't interested in it.

I do recognise what reliable evidence is, but this is an amusement thread on Bike Radar, i'm just along for the ride

dennisn

Tom Dean wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Too ridiculous to talk about?

Yes. Pathetic.

Just realized something. The anti weights group seems to have painted themselves into a corner. Pretty much to a
person they have claimed "proof", while the barbell boys don't really seem to care if the anti's have any proof or not and mostly have simply said that they believe in weights. This is a real difference in thinking. The anti group has no way out. They have already proclaimed knowing the truth and can't change now. The weight boys don't really care what the truth is because they are going to lift anyway, no matter what the truth is. They seem much more open minded than the people with the proof. The proof people remind me of the Campy fanatics. There will never be anything better or even close to Campy's offerings. Not now, not in the future, not never, not possible. Free thinking is not something their minds can process.

briantrumpet

dennisn wrote:

Just realized something. The anti weights group seems to have painted themselves into a corner. Pretty much to a person they have claimed "proof", while the barbell boys don't really seem to care if the anti's have any proof or not and mostly have simply said that they believe in weights. This is a real difference in thinking. The anti group has no way out. They have already proclaimed knowing the truth and can't change now. The weight boys don't really care what the truth is because they are going to lift anyway, no matter what the truth is. They seem much more open minded than the people with the proof. The proof people remind me of the Campy fanatics. There will never be anything better or even close to Campy's offerings. Not now, not in the future, not never, not possible. Free thinking is not something their minds can process.

Wow, Dennis, just wow. I found understanding differential calculus hard.

MountainMonster

dennisn wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Too ridiculous to talk about?

Yes. Pathetic.

Just realized something. The anti weights group seems to have painted themselves into a corner. Pretty much to a
person they have claimed "proof", while the barbell boys don't really seem to care if the anti's have any proof or not and mostly have simply said that they believe in weights. This is a real difference in thinking. The anti group has no way out. They have already proclaimed knowing the truth and can't change now. The weight boys don't really care what the truth is because they are going to lift anyway, no matter what the truth is. They seem much more open minded than the people with the proof. The proof people remind me of the Campy fanatics. There will never be anything better or even close to Campy's offerings. Not now, not in the future, not never, not possible. Free thinking is not something their minds can process.

Quite possibly the best analyzation of this topic so far. I've well enjoyed how serious about this topic the antis have been, it has kept me thoroughly entertained. Thanks guys!

Tom Dean

Ok dennis, the ones who are not interested in the evidence are more open-minded.

pride4ever

Weight training will give you slight incremental benefits but personally time spent in the gym lifting/pushing weights is time Id rather spend on my bike lifting/pushing the bike/pedals.

Cleat Eastwood

Whats ECP, by the way?

A google of it brings up wiki a load of - i'm guessing - not too relevant definitions.

bompington

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Whats ECP, by the way?

A google of it brings up wiki a load of - i'm guessing - not too relevant definitions.

Don't worry, everyone on this thread just defines everything however they want anyway.

E.g "strength" apparently now means "having such an amazing physique from hard hours in the gym that all those puny cyclists are scared of you".

dennisn

Tom Dean wrote:

Ok dennis, the ones who are not interested in the evidence are more open-minded.

Exactly. You are the ones claiming to know all and see all. Knowing it all must mean that your minds are made up and therefore closed to any other ideas due to the fact that since you know it all there can't be anything else to know. Anything we say is simply mad ravings of idiots. To be honest I'd rather be a raving idiot than be so full of myself that I thought I knew it all. Besides teenagers are the only ones who really know it all.
Have I been talking to teenagers all along? :?