squats and leg-presses?

1…34689…23

Comments

  • NeXXus
    NeXXus Posts: 854
    Imposter wrote:
    OK - you need to look at the conclusions of the Juekendrup study a bit more closely. Here's a quote from it:

    It is concluded that replacing a portion of endurance training by explosive strength training prevents a decrease in STP without compromising gains in endurance performance of trained cyclists. - hardly an advocate of weights. As ever, quoting only the bits you like rarely tells the full story.

    Anyway, those papers are all discussed in this link here, along with a few links to other studies which show different conclusions, so take your pick.

    viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12897721

    Like I said before, there is nothing out there which conclusively demonstrates that weights can improve performance. There might be one day, who knows...
    It certainly isn't an article in Cycling Weekly :lol:
    And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.
  • city_boy
    city_boy Posts: 1,616
    I think that's the the problem with many training theories in that there are always conflicting studies and opinions from very credible sources and qualified experts.
    My personal view FWIW is that it's not as straight forward as a definite 'yes it is' or ' no it isn't' conclusion. I have to admit that my experience of resistance training is significantly greater than my cycling experience as I only began cycling last year. I also agree that strength training will have zero effect on aerobic fitness or endurance. I do believe however that for certain people (not all) specific types of resistance training used in conjunction with 'on bike training' will benefit their cycling performance by improving their anaerobic endurance, raising their metabolic/lactate threshold, lactate tolerance and can also help to improve their cycling efficiency. It can also help address issues with muscle imbalances which can sometimes occur through 'just cycling' and therefore reduce risk of injury.

    I think one of the most important factors is an individual's confidence and belief in their own training methods whatever they may be. If you can then draw upon that belief and gain a degree 'mental endurance' to get you up that hill or through the last few miles then that it itself is a benefit to your cycling performance.
    Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    City Boy wrote:
    I think that's the the problem with many training theories in that there are always conflicting studies and opinions from very credible sources and qualified experts.
    My personal view FWIW is that it's not as straight forward as a definite 'yes it is' or ' no it isn't' conclusion. I have to admit that my experience of resistance training is significantly greater than my cycling experience as I only began cycling last year. I also agree that strength training will have zero effect on aerobic fitness or endurance. I do believe however that for certain people (not all) specific types of resistance training used in conjunction with 'on bike training' will benefit their cycling performance by improving their anaerobic endurance, raising their metabolic/lactate threshold, lactate tolerance and can also help to improve their cycling efficiency. It can also help address issues with muscle imbalances which can sometimes occur through 'just cycling' and therefore reduce risk of injury.

    I think one of the most important factors is an individual's confidence and belief in their own training methods whatever they may be. If you can then draw upon that belief and gain a degree 'mental endurance' to get you up that hill or through the last few miles then that it itself is a benefit to your cycling performance.

    If you are new to the sport, or otherwise untrained - then almost any exercise you do will benefit your cycling, even weights.

    Logically though, the argument for weights to improve endurance performance simply do not stack up. If you accept that endurance cycling is a 'low strength' activity, (in as much as the strength demands of it can already be met by practically anyone who can already stand, walk, jump, etc) - then it is difficult to see how increasing leg strength beyond the low levels already needed will make any difference to endurance performance.
  • NeXXus
    NeXXus Posts: 854
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Physiologically & physically speaking:

    Strength is the maximal force generating ability of a muscle or group of muscles.
    By definition it occurs at zero velocity. However, practically speaking and in the context of the primary muscles involved in cycling, we can define strength as the maximal mass lifted in a one rep free standing squat.

    Power is the rate of doing work, or of energy transfer.
    It can be also defined as a force x velocity
    Power can refer to very rapid acceleration activities taking only fractions of a second or a few seconds (e.g. throwing, sprinting) or to much longer duration activities (e.g. endurance cycling, running, swimming).

    For a start, force and power are not the same thing. You can apply a huge force to something (e.g. push hard against a brick wall) but unless it is also moving, then you are applying no power.

    Also by definition, the greater the rate at which we do something, the lower the force we are able to apply. Even in maximal sprint efforts on a bike, there is a linear relationship between maximal force applied to the pedals and the rate at which we are pedaling.

    Typically, the forces involved in endurance cycling are sub-maximal, significantly so.
    e.g. even at 300 watts, at regular cadences and crank lengths, the average effective pedal force is less than 20kg, which means that regular cycling (a vast majority of which is performed < 300W) requires forces roughly an order of magnitude less than (i.e. 1/10th of) our strength.

    What matters is being able to apply such low forces repeatedly for long periods and our limiting factor for that is not our maximal force generation ability but rather the biochemical processes going on in our muscle cells, i.e. our aerobic metabolism (ability to turnover ATP).

    Increasing strength (i.e. maximal force generation ability) has not been conclusively shown to result in ability to increase our sustainable power, which isn't all that surprising since the physiological adaptations resulting from training that increases strength (e.g. enhancing neurological recruitment, but more importantly, increasing muscle fibre cross sectional area via hypertrophy and associated mitochondral dilution) run counter to those that improve our ability to turnover ATP (i.e. increased mitochondral density and capillarisation inside the muscles, reducing the cell diffusion distance and so on).

    The density of mitochondria (which are the energy plants inside our muscle cells) and the ability to readily exchange gases (O2 & CO2) and key metabolites (e.g. glycogen) is the primary limiting factor in endurance cycling.

    Fewer mitochondria per kg of muscle mass = lower sustainable power to mass.

    To increase strength (beyond an initial neurological improvement which occurs in the first few weeks of such training) requires hypertrophy, which in turns reduces our power to mass ratio.

    Now if one is talking about training (with weights for example) that doesn't increase strength, then that's not strength training, and it's a different discussion.
    [/quote]
    :D
    And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.
  • city_boy
    city_boy Posts: 1,616
    edited May 2013
    Imposter wrote:
    Logically though, the argument for weights to improve endurance performance simply do not stack up. If you accept that endurance cycling is a 'low strength' activity, (in as much as the strength demands of it can already be met by practically anyone who can already stand, walk, jump, etc) - then it is difficult to see how increasing leg strength beyond the low levels already needed will make any difference to endurance performance.

    I agree that increasing leg strength by 'lifting weights' won't have any benefit regards improving endurance and I accept that cycling is predominantly a low strength activity. However there are times within most rides where the rider will transition between an aerobic and anaerobic state and muscular power and muscular endurance will play a part. (I know power and strength are different things). It is my belief that for some people, including more experienced cyclists could see some benefit from strength type training in these areas.

    There was a very balanced and interesting article on this very subject in a recent addition of Cycling Plus, and I'll refer to a few of the salient points if I may.....

    " 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

    "Efficiency is the ratio between the mechanical power output that you'd measure at the crank and the biological work that the person is putting in. The benefits seem to be quite significant and people who spend most of their time on the bike and haven't necessarily done a huge amount of other training are the people who could benefit most."
    "If you were to increase your one- rep maximum - the amount you could lift [squat] - each time you turn a pedal for a given power output you are using a smaller fraction of that maximum. Therefore fewer muscle fibres are used per pedal stroke, so it's going to take longer for the muscles to be fatigued and therefore your time to exhaustion increases. The 'rate of force development' - how fast the muscle can contract - also improves, so for any given contraction and relaxation cycle, if you can improve the contraction time then the relaxation time is greater, which gives recovery time throughout the process. Finally, the recruitment of the muscles improves as well. It's a kind of neural development and the body knows which muscles to fire up and when to fire them. All of this adds up to an increased time to exhaustion."
    John Metcalfe, a British Cycling coach and assessor and accredited member of the UK Strength and Conditioning Association

    As I have said, I accept strength training won't have any effect on endurance, especially aerobic endurance but I still believe that for some people it will still have a beneficial effect on other areas of cycling performance. My views are not based on the scientific evidence of others but just because it makes logical sense to me based on my limited knowledge. The above quotes just explain it better than I could.

    I certainly respect your views and opinions Imposter, and I am certainly not qualified enough to disprove them. I would be interested to know whether your opinions are based on the scientific evidence you refer to or through personal experience of training with weight/resistance?

    I am always open to being challenged too, I enjoy the debate!!

    Maybe we can just agree to differ :D
    Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    City Boy wrote:
    I certainly respect your views and opinions Imposter, and I am certainly not qualified enough to disprove your them. I would be interested to know whether your opinions are based on the scientific evidence you refer to or through personal experience of training with weight/resistance?

    I am always open to being challenged too, I enjoy the debate!!

    Maybe we can just agree to differ :D

    Of course we can agree to differ. But these are not my 'views & opinions' (well, they are in the sense that I agree with them) rather they are the views and opinions of a number of high profile and well respected sports scientists & cycle coaches. Not that their qualifications themselves should lend any more weight to the argument. There are already enough 'appeals to authority' out there from the pro-weights lot ;)

    Like I say, there has been heaps of discussion on this topic over the years on this and other forums (a lot of the links are already in this thread if you look) - and the case for weights remains completely unfounded in my opinion.
  • ooermissus
    ooermissus Posts: 811
    Imposter wrote:
    That's not to say weights won't have a positive effect on general health, core etc, but that's not what's been discussed here.

    Well it was, actually.
  • city_boy
    city_boy Posts: 1,616
    Fair enough. As you say, I guess it just depends on which group of
    Imposter wrote:
    high profile and well respected sports scientists & cycle coaches

    one chooses to agree with.

    :D
    Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    ooermissus wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    That's not to say weights won't have a positive effect on general health, core etc, but that's not what's been discussed here.

    Well it was, actually.

    Actually, you're right. I was talking about the ensuing discussion ;)
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    City Boy wrote:
    Fair enough. As you say, I guess it just depends on which group of
    Imposter wrote:
    high profile and well respected sports scientists & cycle coaches

    one chooses to agree with.

    :D

    Leaving aside the cheap shots, it mainly depends on whether you are interested in the science - or just anecdote. As I said, in scientific terms, it is unproven.
  • city_boy
    city_boy Posts: 1,616
    It wasn't meant as a cheap shot. Just that there are a number of respected authorities that provide sensible and considered arguments for both sides of the coin. I quoted two of them in my earlier post and what they say, in my view, makes sense from a scientific point of view. As I said, I respect your opinion and your right to have it and if you don't agree with what they say or feel you need more scientific evidence to substantiate it then that's your prerogative. I just hold a different view based on my own experience and on the arguments put forward by the likes of Dr Simon Jobson and John Metcalfe.
    Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,471
    Just to try to divert the debate into new ground...

    One thing that has often struck me about cycling is that it's not a "natural" activity. Our prehistoric ancestors doubtless walked, ran and swam, and so our bodies are adapted to these activities (especially the first two). If there IS any benefit to weights, core work etc, perhaps it isn't in the form of a direct benefit to cycling ability, but rather as a way of balancing out the slightly unnatural stresses we put on our bodies through very regular cycling. The bridge exercise, for example, is a great way of bending your spine back in the other direction after having it hunched over the bars for hours on end. Occasional pull ups and upper body exercises help to make sure your body isn't too extremely biased towards development below the waist. Cross training activities such as cross country skiing and inline skating, by using sideways leg motions rather than up & down ones, perhaps help to maintain balanced musculature and range of movement.

    These activities may indirectly benefit cycling ability by reducing stress on the body and helping it to function more holistically, i.e. there may be benefits that accrue through physiological emergent properties.

    All very speculative of course.
  • Mullet52
    Mullet52 Posts: 45
    Squats can be bad on the knee's if not done properly. Make sure your knee's never go ahead of your toes.

    For cycling you want to be doing strength endurance training. High sets with low reps, very intense.For example:

    15 sets of 4 reps. Heavy as you can. No more than 30 secs between sets. The 4th rep needs to be barely do able. Lower the weight each set if needs be. You will gain strength in your legs and because you're keeping it very quick and intense, endurance will be improved. Best of both worlds!
  • NeXXus
    NeXXus Posts: 854
    Mullet52 wrote:
    Squats can be bad on the knee's if not done properly. Make sure your knee's never go ahead of your toes.

    For cycling you want to be doing strength endurance training. High sets with low reps, very intense.For example:

    15 sets of 4 reps. Heavy as you can. No more than 30 secs between sets. The 4th rep needs to be barely do able. Lower the weight each set if needs be. You will gain strength in your legs and because you're keeping it very quick and intense, endurance will be improved. Best of both worlds!
    How will working anaerobically improve aerobic endurance?
    And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    In the end I think that IF you are looking for a personal trainer that you will most likely find a good selection of them who will disuade you from lifting weights. On the other side I think you'll find an somewhat equal amount of trainers who will have you doing weights or running or stretching or whatever. I'm also thinking that the trainers who don't want weights will have you doing something else / anything else to add a bit more fitness to your routine, other than strictly cycling.

    When it's all said and done a student of each will most likely find himself shaving some time off time trials, being able to hang on to the pack a bit better, and just generally able to ride harder longer.

    Of course this is all dependent on said riders actually listening and actually DOING what the trainer spells out. And that's where the failure comes in IMHO. If they do hire a trainer they soon revert back to their old ways of doing things, for whatever reason. They will rationalise that they don't really need the stretching or the weights or the rest time or the nutrition or whatever is prescribed because they don't like doing it.
    And bingo, they are right back where they started and then start wondering if ceramic bearing jockey wheels are the real answer for them.

    There are many things required of you if you want to be a top flight / best you can be athlete. Some of them you may not like(i.e. weights / whatever) but simply riding a bike around or doing swimming pool laps or whatever your sport is is not the way to improve yourself. All avenues of fitness must be explored to determine IF they will help in your quest. And if they do help, you've got to do them.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Mullet52 wrote:
    Squats can be bad on the knee's if not done properly. Make sure your knee's never go ahead of your toes.

    For cycling you want to be doing strength endurance training. High sets with low reps, very intense.For example:

    15 sets of 4 reps. Heavy as you can. No more than 30 secs between sets. The 4th rep needs to be barely do able. Lower the weight each set if needs be. You will gain strength in your legs and because you're keeping it very quick and intense, endurance will be improved. Best of both worlds!


    seriously - have you not read the thread, or any of the links, or any of the studies in the links ?
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Imposter wrote:
    Mullet52 wrote:
    Squats can be bad on the knee's if not done properly. Make sure your knee's never go ahead of your toes.

    For cycling you want to be doing strength endurance training. High sets with low reps, very intense.For example:

    15 sets of 4 reps. Heavy as you can. No more than 30 secs between sets. The 4th rep needs to be barely do able. Lower the weight each set if needs be. You will gain strength in your legs and because you're keeping it very quick and intense, endurance will be improved. Best of both worlds!


    seriously - have you not read the thread, or any of the links, or any of the studies in the links ?

    Maybe he's a track racer. In which case I guess I can see some merit in the approach. Road rider workout? Well, doesn't sound right but..........
    As an afterthought, if you get into a routine like this I'm pretty sure that your legs will look pretty good. If that's what you're after. After all, if you saw a guy with legs like Sir Chris show up at your local crit you might be just a little intimidated when he pulled up to the start line.

    And maybe, just maybe "Mullet 52" is strictly a crit / track rider and not interested in long events. I recall a rider, years ago, in our local club who was a national caliber speed skater. He did tons of squats and had legs that most bodybuilders would die for. Anyway, he raced with us during the summer and was rarely beaten for the sprint finish.

    In thinking about the people in our racing club, most of them don't really give a damn about long distance riding. They are into racing on the weekends and maybe winning a dollar or two at the local and or regional races. Most of which are crits and road races lasting an hour to an hour and a half. Most, if not all, of these guys are not interested in being labeled "endurance cyclist's". No, they RACE bicycles. Not for a living but simply to race. Every once in awhile they might do a long ride but not tours or 12 hour time trials or sportives. Waste of time to them. They need to develop
    explosive sprinting ability that will get them through the race. This endurance thing that everyone talks about is no big deal. Anyone can ride 100 miles with a little training. Now, keeping up with a bunch of guys who are determined to blow you out the back, at every corner, in a regional or national crit, that takes serious training.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    An 'endurance' event is anything which lasts longer than a few seconds, Dennis. ie - anything beyond anaerobic. Please don't fall back into abject ignorance again, you were doing so well...
  • ooermissus
    ooermissus Posts: 811
    So sprinters don't benefit from gym work either?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    ooermissus wrote:
    So sprinters don't benefit from gym work either?

    Track sprinters - of course they do. That's not what this is about though.
  • ooermissus
    ooermissus Posts: 811
    Imposter wrote:
    ooermissus wrote:
    So sprinters don't benefit from gym work either?

    Track sprinters - of course they do. That's not what this is about though.

    Oh right - I thought for a moment you'd classified any event over a few seconds as an endurance event. Must have misunderstood.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    ooermissus wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    ooermissus wrote:
    So sprinters don't benefit from gym work either?

    Track sprinters - of course they do. That's not what this is about though.

    Oh right - I thought for a moment you'd classified any event over a few seconds as an endurance event. Must have misunderstood.

    No, you didn't misunderstand. Google the definitions and see for yourself.
  • city_boy
    city_boy Posts: 1,616
    NeXXus wrote:
    Mullet52 wrote:
    15 sets of 4 reps. Heavy as you can. No more than 30 secs between sets. The 4th rep needs to be barely do able. Lower the weight each set if needs be. You will gain strength in your legs and because you're keeping it very quick and intense, endurance will be improved. Best of both worlds!
    How will working anaerobically improve aerobic endurance?

    Not only would this NOT improve aerobic endurance, training like this is dangerous.

    Training to failure with low reps (4-6) is an excellent way to train for muscular strength and hypertrophy but to combine this with such a high number of sets with short rest periods would cause overtraining, risk injury and put the central nervous system under dangerous levels of stress.
    Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    City Boy wrote:
    Not only would this NOT improve aerobic endurance, training like this is dangerous.

    Training to failure with low reps (4-6) is an excellent way to train for muscular strength and hypertrophy but to combine this with such a high number of sets with short rest periods would cause overtraining, risk injury and put the central nervous system under dangerous levels of stress.

    Nobody is disputing that training with weights will not make your legs stronger - of course it will. The only question is whether that increased strength will improve endurance cycling performance - and the weight of evidence (and logic) say it will not.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Imposter wrote:
    An 'endurance' event is anything which lasts longer than a few seconds, ......

    I think you make a whole lot more out of "endurance" riding than there is to it. An endurance "event", as you call it,
    is the easiest form of cycling. Simple to train for and most people who put in a bit of ride time can do it. You seem to want this moniker of being know as an endurance rider. Got a few friend's like that. They make sure that everyone knows that they are "endurance athletes". None of them ever won a bike race or even came close. Opps, forgot, one of them came in 18th in his age group in the Ironman. Me? I just kind of chuckle when they relate stories of their great conquests like that.

    I think there are three classes of bike riders.
    1.) The ones who just really love to get out and ride.
    2.)The ones who want to seem like racers and "DO" events(not racing). Then look for recognition as endurance riders.
    3.)The racers. The smartest / hardest working of them all. And if they win some money at it all the better.

    To be honest I don't even like the idea of being called an "endurance" rider. Much rather be either 1 or 3. Although these days it's gonna be 1.
  • city_boy
    city_boy Posts: 1,616
    Imposter wrote:
    City Boy wrote:
    Not only would this NOT improve aerobic endurance, training like this is dangerous.

    Training to failure with low reps (4-6) is an excellent way to train for muscular strength and hypertrophy but to combine this with such a high number of sets with short rest periods would cause overtraining, risk injury and put the central nervous system under dangerous levels of stress.

    Nobody is disputing that training with weights will not make your legs stronger - of course it will. The only question is whether that increased strength will improve endurance cycling performance - and the weight of evidence (and logic) say it will not.

    I know we've agreed to differ on the benefits or not with regards to cycling.

    My response was not connected to cycling, rather pointing out that to take advice suggesting 15 sets of squats to failure with 30 seconds rest between would be dangerous. This WOULD be detrimental to cycling, and probably standing up and walking too :D
    Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.
  • NeXXus
    NeXXus Posts: 854
    edited May 2013
    City Boy wrote:
    NeXXus wrote:
    Mullet52 wrote:
    15 sets of 4 reps. Heavy as you can. No more than 30 secs between sets. The 4th rep needs to be barely do able. Lower the weight each set if needs be. You will gain strength in your legs and because you're keeping it very quick and intense, endurance will be improved. Best of both worlds!
    How will working anaerobically improve aerobic endurance?

    Not only would this NOT improve aerobic endurance, training like this is dangerous.

    Training to failure with low reps (4-6) is an excellent way to train for muscular strength and hypertrophy but to combine this with such a high number of sets with short rest periods would cause overtraining, risk injury and put the central nervous system under dangerous levels of stress.
    I know :wink: He's also got it completely the wrong way round which won't help :lol:
    And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    dennisn wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    An 'endurance' event is anything which lasts longer than a few seconds, ......

    I think you make a whole lot more out of "endurance" riding than there is to it. An endurance "event", as you call it,
    is the easiest form of cycling. Simple to train for and most people who put in a bit of ride time can do it. You seem to want this moniker of being know as an endurance rider. Got a few friend's like that. They make sure that everyone knows that they are "endurance athletes". None of them ever won a bike race or even came close. Opps, forgot, one of them came in 18th in his age group in the Ironman. Me? I just kind of chuckle when they relate stories of their great conquests like that.

    I think there are three classes of bike riders.
    1.) The ones who just really love to get out and ride.
    2.)The ones who want to seem like racers and "DO" events(not racing). Then look for recognition as endurance riders.
    3.)The racers. The smartest / hardest working of them all. And if they win some money at it all the better.

    To be honest I don't even like the idea of being called an "endurance" rider. Much rather be either 1 or 3. Although these days it's gonna be 1.

    Dennis - I'm not sure what you're on about. An 'endurance' event is any type of event where the aerobic pathways are recruited as a primary energy source. That's not my fault - it's just how it is defined. If you want to define it differenty (and incorrectly) that's up to you.

    This has nothing to do with racing/non-racing or any other elitist shite like that. If you ride for longer than a minute or so, then you are - whether you like it or not - an endurance rider.
  • blablablacksheep
    blablablacksheep Posts: 1,377
    A lot of interesting comments here but I think people must remember this a internet forum thus everyone here has a degree in sports science and a masters in physiology...

    All i know is that my running performance increased hugely from gym sessions as it fixed many muscle imbalances I had from poor form/ weaker side.

    This can be applied to cycling too, unless your a pro cyclist with perfect form gym work if done correctly WILL improve your cycling and reduce injuries. (Plenty of research to support gym exercises to reduce injuries through sport)

    To sum up without going on and on; unless you have perfect form and never get injuries, any well structured gym session done consistently will improve your cycling/reduction in injuries.

    Doing massive weights though is another matter completely and people must understand difference between gym session and gym session =heavy weights.... Gym session can = dyno bands!!
    London2Brighton Challange 100k!
    http://www.justgiving.com/broxbourne-runners
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    blablablacksheep wrote:
    All i know is that my running performance increased hugely from gym sessions as it fixed many muscle imbalances I had from poor form/ weaker side.

    Running/cycling = not the same, with little or no cross-over. Just because it works for one sport is no indication that it will work in another, totally different sport.
    blablablacksheep wrote:
    This can be applied to cycling too, unless your a pro cyclist with perfect form gym work if done correctly WILL improve your cycling and reduce injuries. (Plenty of research to support gym exercises to reduce injuries through sport)

    To sum up without going on and on; unless you have perfect form and never get injuries, any well structured gym session done consistently will improve your cycling/reduction in injuries.

    Just to be clear - are you saying that gym work will reduce your potential for injuries (which is possible, but is also not the topic here) - or are you saying that gym will 'improve' your cycling? If so, how?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories