squats and leg-presses?

1356723

Comments

  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Imposter wrote:
    which is the reason track sprinters are all built like Arnold and stage race riders are all built like hunger strikers.

    Indeed, but interestingly (and this may shed further light on this discussion), the British 2012 Olympic track team were all actually much slimmer and less muscle bound than their US/French/german/Aussie, etc. competition. Especially the girls.

    And they kicked butt!
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Strength isn't useful for cyclists blah blah blah

    oh wait..........
    So Wiggins went back to the gym this winter and did a strength and conditioning programme building the muscles in his core that cycling can't reach, to the depth he needed. He also did specific bike training, like high-intensity intervals with varying rest, designed to help him mount powerful anaerobic attacks and recover from them, and cope when others make them, which is crucial.
    Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... YTCW4OF.99
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Any professionals training 30+ hours a week reading this, take note! :roll:
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Mettan wrote:
    it's not explosive power that is then going to enable them to sustain that effort, but aerobic fitness.

    I don't dispute that. But the explosive power can give you a short boost and help you gain distance between your rivals.
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Bustacapp wrote:
    building the muscles in his core that cycling can't reach

    I thought we were talking specifically about LEG muscles (squats and leg-presses)?

    Core stuff is different (back/shoulders/stomach) etc. and concerns your posture and comfort on the bike; useful perhaps, but off topic?
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Any professionals training 30+ hours a week reading this, take note! :roll:

    Oh so it won't make any difference for a 'normal' cyclist then? Only if you are a sponsored pro?















    ok.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm going to assume that you don't lift. If you don't and have never tried it how would you know whether or not it worked for you? Or anyone for that matter? I'm thinking that you don't know, but that doesn't stop you from claiming
    to be something of an authority on the subject. Me? I never claimed it did or didn't work. Only that some people enjoy pushing the poundage around . You're sort of lost in the world of "All you need to do is ride". What about stretching? No value I suppose? Good nutrition? Naw. All you need is to ride? Plenty of rest? Rest? H*ll no. You can rest when you're dead. Nothing but riding ever has or ever will make a difference? :roll:

    Great post!
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Bustacapp wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm going to assume that you don't lift. If you don't and have never tried it how would you know whether or not it worked for you? Or anyone for that matter? I'm thinking that you don't know, but that doesn't stop you from claiming
    to be something of an authority on the subject. Me? I never claimed it did or didn't work. Only that some people enjoy pushing the poundage around . You're sort of lost in the world of "All you need to do is ride". What about stretching? No value I suppose? Good nutrition? Naw. All you need is to ride? Plenty of rest? Rest? H*ll no. You can rest when you're dead. Nothing but riding ever has or ever will make a difference? :roll:

    Great post!

    Not really. Noone is talking about resting, stretching, nutrition. If we were we'd never see the wood for the trees.

    We're talking about whether doing gym exercises to increase leg strength is a good idea or not. Remember?
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Any professionals training 30+ hours a week reading this, take note! :roll:

    Oh so it won't make any difference for a 'normal' cyclist then? Only if you are a sponsored pro?
    []
    ok.
    Basically, yes. It may make a difference, but that does not mean it is the best way to train - training optimally depends on various constraints and those constraints are different for full-time riders working at the limits of their potential, and amateur riders who race for a hobby.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    We're talking about whether doing gym exercises to increase leg strength is a good idea or not. Remember?

    So I take it you now agree about core training being beneficial? Excellent. Since core strength comprises leg strength, lower back and abdominal strength then you might as well now concede that leg strength is indeed beneficial for certain aspects of cycling. Ok?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Strength isn't useful for cyclists blah blah blah

    oh wait..........
    So Wiggins went back to the gym this winter and did a strength and conditioning programme building the muscles in his core that cycling can't reach, to the depth he needed. He also did specific bike training, like high-intensity intervals with varying rest, designed to help him mount powerful anaerobic attacks and recover from them, and cope when others make them, which is crucial.
    Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... YTCW4OF.99

    Core strength a completely different discussion. We are talking about leg strength.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    edited May 2013
    Bustacapp wrote:
    We're talking about whether doing gym exercises to increase leg strength is a good idea or not. Remember?

    So I take it you now agree about core training being beneficial? Excellent. Since core strength comprises leg strength, lower back and abdominal strength then you might as well now concede that leg strength is indeed beneficial for certain aspects of cycling. Ok?

    You obviously have a different definition of 'core' to most other people.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Basically, yes. It may make a difference, but that does not mean it is the best way to train - training optimally depends on various constraints and those constraints are different for full-time riders working at the limits of their potential, and amateur riders who race for a hobby.

    I suspect the main reason most of the anti-weightlifting cyclists are anti-weightlifting is because they abhor the idea of taking out a gym membership just to do some squats to aid in their cycling. I can fully understand that. However it doesn't mean that it will not make a positive difference.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Basically, yes. It may make a difference, but that does not mean it is the best way to train - training optimally depends on various constraints and those constraints are different for full-time riders working at the limits of their potential, and amateur riders who race for a hobby.

    I suspect the main reason most of the anti-weightlifting cyclists are anti-weightlifting is because they abhor the idea of taking out a gym membership just to do some squats to aid in their cycling. I can fully understand that. However it doesn't mean that it will not make a positive difference.

    Have you read all the science relating to 'strength training for cyclists' ? Or are you just making this up as you go along ?
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    Imposter wrote:
    You obviously have a different definition of 'core' to most other people.

    Lower back, abdominals and upper legs(including glutes/hip area).

    What's your definition. Biceps?
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Bustacapp wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Basically, yes. It may make a difference, but that does not mean it is the best way to train - training optimally depends on various constraints and those constraints are different for full-time riders working at the limits of their potential, and amateur riders who race for a hobby.

    I suspect the main reason most of the anti-weightlifting cyclists are anti-weightlifting is because they abhor the idea of taking out a gym membership just to do some squats to aid in their cycling. I can fully understand that. However it doesn't mean that it will not make a positive difference.
    I don't dispute that it may make a difference. If you have the time and energy in your life to do everything that makes a difference that's great. I don't, and I am interested in making the best use of the time and energy I have.
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Bustacapp wrote:
    I suspect the main reason most of the anti-weightlifting cyclists are anti-weightlifting is because they abhor the idea of taking out a gym membership just to do some squats to aid in their cycling.

    You don't need a gym membership to do squats.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    You don't need a gym membership to do squats.

    Granted. You need to at least 'be arsed' though.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Bustacapp wrote:
    You don't need a gym membership to do squats.

    Granted. You need to at least 'be arsed' though.

    How long have you been gyming, busta ?? Presumably your legs are very strong now ? If so, would it therefore be reasonable to assume that your cycling performance is also at a very high level ??
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Bustacapp wrote:
    You don't need a gym membership to do squats.

    Granted. You need to at least 'be arsed' though.

    i would have thought you'd need a lot more 'to be arsed-ness' to ride 160km than to do 20 minutes of squats.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Bustacapp wrote:
    You don't need a gym membership to do squats.

    Granted. You need to at least think they are beneficial though.

    FTFY.

    Or is this just one of those teenage boy "I work out at the gym so I'm more of a real man than you" internet things?
    3otq29.jpg
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    bompington wrote:
    FTFY.

    Or is this just one of those teenage boy "I work out at the gym so I'm more of a real man than you" internet things?
    3otq29.jpg

    someone sounds insecure..
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Yes, but who?
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    i would have thought you'd need a lot more 'to be arsed-ness' to ride 160km than to do 20 minutes of squats.

    Sounds silly to me. Why not do squats on a day when you don't cycle?
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    bompington wrote:
    Yes, but who?

    you12.jpg
  • iPete
    iPete Posts: 6,076
    Imposter wrote:
    Bustacapp wrote:
    You don't need a gym membership to do squats.

    Granted. You need to at least 'be arsed' though.

    How long have you been gyming, busta ?? Presumably your legs are very strong now ? If so, would it therefore be reasonable to assume that your cycling performance is also at a very high level ??

    Be warned, he can rip the cleats from his shoes such is his squat to power cycle ratio.
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Bustacapp wrote:
    i would have thought you'd need a lot more 'to be arsed-ness' to ride 160km than to do 20 minutes of squats.

    Sounds silly to me. Why not do squats on a day when you don't cycle?

    After plenty of kms of riding, I'd rather rest or maybe stretch a little, my legs.

    The only time I've done squats is when I really can't get out on my bike (poor weather, holiday), and even then fast ones, with no weight, and even then, I'd probably just go for a light jog.
  • ooermissus
    ooermissus Posts: 811
    Bustacapp wrote:
    If a professional cycling coach won't convince you then sorry but there's no point me staying in this thread.

    Bye.

    If you storm out of a thread in a huff, why come back?
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    ooermissus wrote:
    If you storm out of a thread in a huff, why come back?

    My spirits were lifted when I noticed the thread wasn't exclusively populated by lemmings?
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Bustacapp wrote:
    i would have thought you'd need a lot more 'to be arsed-ness' to ride 160km than to do 20 minutes of squats.

    Sounds silly to me. Why not do squats on a day when you don't cycle?
    Pay attention: Because it takes time and generates fatigue, without benefitting performance in a significant way for an amateur cyclist. If you have the time and can handle the fatigue, go ahead and train like Wiggins. Not many of us are in that position.
This discussion has been closed.