squats and leg-presses?
Comments
-
City Boy wrote:NeXXus wrote:
How will working anaerobically improve aerobic endurance?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!
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.
Please read the following article:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/wiggy1.htm0 -
Mullet52 wrote:City Boy wrote:NeXXus wrote:
How will working anaerobically improve aerobic endurance?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!
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.
Please read the following article:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/wiggy1.htm
I've read the article and agree that this type of volume training would increase strength and muscular endurance (although I'm not overly convinced by this one).
However I would respectfully suggest that your advice isn't an accurate representation of the principles described in the article. You have suggested starting with a load that would result in near muscular failure at rep 4 in the first set and then work to 30 second rest intervals.
This is not what is recommended in the article. The author clearly differentiates between working at a lighter load (65%1RM), a load most people (who have already done some resistance training) could lift around 15-20 times before failure, with shorter rest periods or a higher load (85%1RM) with longer rest periods. He does not make any reference to hitting near muscular failure in the first set. In fact in his own personal example he didn't reach failure until set 13 with 65%1RM and 2 reps per set!
As I said, I am aware of the benefits of high volume intensity weight training although I think a system such as German Volume Training as described here in this link would be more effective.
http://www.charlespoliquin.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/441/German_Volume_Training.aspx
I am still of the view that to train as you describe is, at best, potentially dangerous.Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0 -
City Boy wrote:Mullet52 wrote:City Boy wrote:NeXXus wrote:
How will working anaerobically improve aerobic endurance?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!
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.
Please read the following article:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/wiggy1.htm
I've read the article and agree that this type of volume training would increase strength and muscular endurance (although I'm not overly convinced by this one).
However I would respectfully suggest that your advice isn't an accurate representation of the principles described in the article. You have suggested starting with a load that would result in near muscular failure at rep 4 in the first set and then work to 30 second rest intervals.
This is not what is recommended in the article. The author clearly differentiates between working at a lighter load (65%1RM), a load most people (who have already done some resistance training) could lift around 15-20 times before failure, with shorter rest periods or a higher load (85%1RM) with longer rest periods. He does not make any reference to hitting near muscular failure in the first set. In fact in his own personal example he didn't reach failure until set 13 with 65%1RM and 2 reps per set!
As I said, I am aware of the benefits of high volume intensity weight training although I think a system such as German Volume Training as described here in this link would be more effective.
http://www.charlespoliquin.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/441/German_Volume_Training.aspx
I am still of the view that to train as you describe is, at best, potentially dangerous.
I can tell the BB.com link was hurriedly googled And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
Yahoo I got a pb on my local steep hill on Sunday and it was all due to leg strength.
Hooray for squats and boo to the naysayers!!0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Yahoo I got a pb on my local steep hill on Sunday and it was all due to leg strength.
Hooray for squats and boo to the naysayers!!
orsum.0 -
<insert facepalm pictures>And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0
-
Imposter wrote:In any case, it actually doesn't matter about the professional quals of any of these coaches. The simple fact is that there is no science to suggest that strength training has any positive effect on endurance cycling.
Can't figure out what you're saying about "professional quals". People are either qualified to teach things subjects to others or they are not. They are called "teachers". It's as if you are saying that none of them(pro or con weights) know what they are talking about. Who should we listen to then? You? :roll:
If we are supposed to place all our faith in your knowledge please let us know what your qualifications are. What studies on the subject have you conducted? Where have these studies been published? Have they been peer reviewed? How many Pro athletes are you presently coaching? How can I visit your training website? Where did you get your degree(s)
in exercise physiology?0 -
dennisn wrote:Imposter wrote:In any case, it actually doesn't matter about the professional quals of any of these coaches. The simple fact is that there is no science to suggest that strength training has any positive effect on endurance cycling.
Can't figure out what you're saying about "professional quals". People are either qualified to teach things subjects to others or they are not. They are called "teachers". It's as if you are saying that none of them(pro or con weights) know what they are talking about. Who should we listen to then? You? :roll:
If we are supposed to place all our faith in your knowledge please let us know what your qualifications are. What studies on the subject have you conducted? Where have these studies been published? Have they been peer reviewed? How many Pro athletes are you presently coaching? How can I visit your training website? Where did you get your degree(s) in exercise physiology?
More facepalms please.....
Dennis is there something wrong with you? All I am saying is that the claims of various coaches for/against don't actually matter - and their authority (or lack of it in some cases) is not really relevant. All that matters is the actual evidence - and there isn't any conclusive evidence that weights improve ECP.
You seem to be really struggling under the misapprehension that it is me making these claims. I'm simply referring people like you to the evidence presented by those that have made them. You seem very keen on shoooting the messenger because you don't like (or more likely refuse to understand) the message.0 -
Three years on and nothing has changed.And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0
-
Imposter wrote:Dennis is there something wrong with you? All I am saying is that the claims of various coaches for/against don't actually matter - and their authority (or lack of it in some cases) is not really relevant. All that matters is the actual evidence.
Presumably the better funded coaching operations have increasingly sophisticated data on how their own cyclists react to various training programs and use that to make decisions rather than rely on published studies. Doesn't mean they lack evidence, just they use a different evidence base.0 -
ooermissus wrote:Imposter wrote:Dennis is there something wrong with you? All I am saying is that the claims of various coaches for/against don't actually matter - and their authority (or lack of it in some cases) is not really relevant. All that matters is the actual evidence.
Presumably the better funded coaching operations have increasingly sophisticated data on how their own cyclists react to various training programs and use that to make decisions rather than rely on published studies. Doesn't mean they lack evidence, just they use a different evidence base.
which 'better funded coaching operations' are you thinking of ??0 -
Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:Imposter wrote:In any case, it actually doesn't matter about the professional quals of any of these coaches. The simple fact is that there is no science to suggest that strength training has any positive effect on endurance cycling.
Can't figure out what you're saying about "professional quals". People are either qualified to teach things subjects to others or they are not. They are called "teachers". It's as if you are saying that none of them(pro or con weights) know what they are talking about. Who should we listen to then? You? :roll:
If we are supposed to place all our faith in your knowledge please let us know what your qualifications are. What studies on the subject have you conducted? Where have these studies been published? Have they been peer reviewed? How many Pro athletes are you presently coaching? How can I visit your training website? Where did you get your degree(s) in exercise physiology?
More facepalms please.....
Dennis is there something wrong with you? All I am saying is that the claims of various coaches for/against don't actually matter - and their authority (or lack of it in some cases) is not really relevant. All that matters is the actual evidence - and there isn't any conclusive evidence that weights improve ECP.
You seem to be really struggling under the misapprehension that it is me making these claims. I'm simply referring people like you to the evidence presented by those that have made them. You seem very keen on shoooting the messenger because you don't like (or more likely refuse to understand) the message.
So, you're not making any claims? "The simple fact is that there is no science.....". That's not a claim that you made?
To be honest I doubt anyone is listening to you. Least of all me. You haven't said anything that would lead me to believe that you have any scientific knowledge on the subject. Tell me truthfully that you know any more about the subject than what you've glossed over and read some snippets of on the Internet and I'll give you a bit of your due. Tell all of us about your training methods, the famous pro's you've trained, and your vast experience on the subject.0 -
Imposter wrote:ooermissus wrote:Imposter wrote:Dennis is there something wrong with you? All I am saying is that the claims of various coaches for/against don't actually matter - and their authority (or lack of it in some cases) is not really relevant. All that matters is the actual evidence.
Presumably the better funded coaching operations have increasingly sophisticated data on how their own cyclists react to various training programs and use that to make decisions rather than rely on published studies. Doesn't mean they lack evidence, just they use a different evidence base.
which 'better funded coaching operations' are you thinking of ??
The ones that people like Mark Simpson and Martin Evans - both mentioned in this thread, I think - are involved in, maybe?0 -
dennisn wrote:
So, you're not making any claims? "The simple fact is that there is no science.....". That's not a claim that you made?
To be honest I doubt anyone is listening to you. Least of all me. You haven't said anything that would lead me to believe that you have any scientific knowledge on the subject. Tell me truthfully that you know any more about the subject than what you've glossed over and read some snippets of on the Internet and I'll give you a bit of your due. Tell all of us about your training methods, the famous pro's you've trained, and your vast experience on the subject.
Dennis - I've read the science and (to the best of my understanding) I then formed the opinion that training with weights to make your legs stronger will not make you a better endurance cyclist.
My 'training methods', 'famous pros I have trained' - seriously WTF ?0 -
ooermissus wrote:
The ones that people like Mark Simpson and Martin Evans - both mentioned in this thread, I think - are involved in, maybe?
Do I have to trawl through the thread to find their names, or can you provide links ?0 -
Imposter wrote:ooermissus wrote:
The ones that people like Mark Simpson and Martin Evans - both mentioned in this thread, I think - are involved in, maybe?
Do I have to trawl through the thread to find their names, or can you provide links ?
Simpson: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Lq5v ... 22&f=false
Evans: https://twitter.com/MartinE1981_SC/stat ... 0877438976 and http://www.eis2win.co.uk/Pages/news_str ... lists.aspx0 -
Rehab purposes mainly.ooermissus wrote:
Wow! anaerobic training improved anaerobic efforts. Sweet deal
Advocates what everyone else refers to as "core strength" Not an issue in discussion here.And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
ooermissus wrote:
^^ This link talks about using the gym for rehab after a collarbone break, and core strength.ooermissus wrote:
The first study there has been talked about a lot elsewhere. All it shows is that a group that did more training hours did better than a group that did less training hours. The second link is just an article which talks about core strength and a bit about squats as discussed in cycling weekly.
We are just going over the same old (boring) ground.
Edit - NeXXus has beaten me to it. He's obviously been working on his strength..
0 -
Imposter wrote:ooermissus wrote:
^^ This link talks about using the gym for rehab after a collarbone break, and core strength.
Does leg presses too.0 -
Where do you think the lower body eventually attaches to?ooermissus wrote:Imposter wrote:ooermissus wrote:
^^ This link talks about using the gym for rehab after a collarbone break, and core strength.
Does leg presses too.And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
It also seems that certain people hear lifitng weights and seem to be assuming we are talking about trying to get big. There is a difference between lifting lighter weights with more repetition to boost strength, and simply lifting to become a tank (track cyclists in a way).
I'll go off what the experts say who are trainers. They recommend it, you see lots of people lifting who do endurance type things, so it makes sense. While running may not be exactly cycling, or rowing over long distances, or whatever other endurance efforts you can have, if it works well for all those other disciplines, what makes you think it makes no difference, or causes problems to performance, in cyclists?
And Nexxus, are you that daft? Leg strength and core strength are 2 different things.0 -
I never said they were the same.MountainMonster wrote:
And Nexxus, are you that daft? Leg strength and core strength are 2 different things.And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
NeXXus wrote:
Where do you think the lower body eventually attaches to?ooermissus wrote:Imposter wrote:ooermissus wrote:
^^ This link talks about using the gym for rehab after a collarbone break, and core strength.
Does leg presses too.
This is implying that doing leg presses and core strength are one in the same because the lower body attaches to the core. Hmmmm.0 -
No it's asking a question you clearly didn't understand.MountainMonster wrote:NeXXus wrote:
Where do you think the lower body eventually attaches to?ooermissus wrote:Imposter wrote:ooermissus wrote:
^^ This link talks about using the gym for rehab after a collarbone break, and core strength.
Does leg presses too.
This is implying that doing leg presses and core strength are one in the same because the lower body attaches to the core. Hmmmm.And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
NeXXus wrote:
No it's asking a question you clearly didn't understand.MountainMonster wrote:NeXXus wrote:
Where do you think the lower body eventually attaches to?ooermissus wrote:Imposter wrote:ooermissus wrote:
^^ This link talks about using the gym for rehab after a collarbone break, and core strength.
Does leg presses too.
This is implying that doing leg presses and core strength are one in the same because the lower body attaches to the core. Hmmmm.
Explain to me your question then? As I see it you are either implying my aforementioned statement, or you genuinely do not realise that your legs attach to your core. Which of the 2 is it?0 -
You really are making a meal of this. Read the posts you quoted and have a good think about the words within them.MountainMonster wrote:NeXXus wrote:
No it's asking a question you clearly didn't understand.MountainMonster wrote:NeXXus wrote:
Where do you think the lower body eventually attaches to?ooermissus wrote:Imposter wrote:ooermissus wrote:
^^ This link talks about using the gym for rehab after a collarbone break, and core strength.
Does leg presses too.
This is implying that doing leg presses and core strength are one in the same because the lower body attaches to the core. Hmmmm.
Explain to me your question then? As I see it you are either implying my aforementioned statement, or you genuinely do not realise that your legs attach to your core. Which of the 2 is it?
I've bolded bits to give you a clue. Now re-read my question and consider the significance of pointing out "does leg presses too"And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
The use of the words "core" and "core strength" seem to really be big buzz words in this day and age. I would be sincerely interested in hearing what people thought that this "core" thing actually means. A quick look on the Internet doesn't seem to resolve much. One site said it's a head to toe concept and another seems to think along the lines of abs and glutes. To me it sounds more like a word that someone came up with to sell some product or service. Sort of an answer to a problem that doesn't exist? :? Remember, I'm pretty skeptical so you would expect me to think that way. 0
-
NeXXus wrote:
You really are making a meal of this. Read the posts you quoted and have a good think about the words within them.MountainMonster wrote:NeXXus wrote:
No it's asking a question you clearly didn't understand.MountainMonster wrote:NeXXus wrote:
Where do you think the lower body eventually attaches to?ooermissus wrote:Imposter wrote:ooermissus wrote:
^^ This link talks about using the gym for rehab after a collarbone break, and core strength.
Does leg presses too.
This is implying that doing leg presses and core strength are one in the same because the lower body attaches to the core. Hmmmm.
Explain to me your question then? As I see it you are either implying my aforementioned statement, or you genuinely do not realise that your legs attach to your core. Which of the 2 is it?
I've bolded bits to give you a clue. Now re-read my question and consider the significance of pointing out "does leg presses too"
I was going off what was posted in the thread, I have only read 6 or 7 pages below the linked quote, and have no interest in reading more. From what I have read though, this person lacked the explosive power he needed when climbing and someone attacked, of which leg presses with weights will give him more power.
How about simply stating what you are implying rather than beating around the bush, or are you just trying to think of giving in. By my standards you are implying that leg presses and core training are one in the same, which is completely false.0 -
Core strength is just strength of the muscles that stabilise the abdomen in order to partially resist forces being generated by the limbs. The most important core muscle is probably the transversus abdominus, but other muscles, e.g. in the lower back, are also involved. That's my understanding anyway.dennisn wrote:The use of the words "core" and "core strength" seem to really be big buzz words in this day and age. I would be sincerely interested in hearing what people thought that this "core" thing actually means. A quick look on the Internet doesn't seem to resolve much. One site said it's a head to toe concept and another seems to think along the lines of abs and glutes. To me it sounds more like a word that someone came up with to sell some product or service. Sort of an answer to a problem that doesn't exist? :? Remember, I'm pretty skeptical so you would expect me to think that way.
Do some planks - the the muscles you feel burning are the core muscles.0
This discussion has been closed.
