strength training improvements?

kom14

Read quite a bit of stuff recently on strength training being beneficial for performance on the road. Ive been doing it for a few weeks now and am hitting power pb's on the wattbike. Anyone else doing strength training in preseason? What kind of things you doing in your sessions? And any more thoughts?

kom14

Seems to be a typical response from many cyclists, but some very credible research coming out showing big improvements in lactate threshold and cycling efficiency. Certainly something I'll be continuing with.

imposter2.0

kom14 wrote:

Seems to be a typical response from many cyclists, but some very credible research coming out showing big improvements in lactate threshold and cycling efficiency. Certainly something I'll be continuing with.

Got any links to this research?

dw300

kom, you gota take into account that someone far from their potential could do nearly any type of training and improve their PBs. Whereas if a pro was to try strength training he would likely not benefit at all and should stick to just training on the bike. Lots of the studies are done using very averagely fit people.

If you have 60% slow twitch muscle, then generally converting the other 40% to behave like slow-twitch will yield far more useful muscle mass than trying to hypertrophy via strength training, and it won't take away from your power to weight ratio either. So just build endurance in your fast-twitch via interval training, and you're effectively gaining more muscle, or at least can use more of your existing muscle for more of the time.

okgo

kom14 wrote:

Seems to be a typical response from many cyclists, but some very credible research coming out showing big improvements in lactate threshold and cycling efficiency. Certainly something I'll be continuing with.

Been done to death on here and numerous, respected coaches have all said its a waste of time for cycling, which, beyond a few scenarios in track cycling is not dependant on leg strength.

scarbs85

In one of his bookd, Wiggo says he was doing gym work in preparation for the tour in 2012. Can't be all that bad for you. I don't know how beneficial it is but there is also quite a lot on weightroom work in Joe Friels Training Bible (mountain bikers). Its met with scepticism on here though.

rjh299

Lance did a bit of gym work, it must help.

buckles

rjh299 wrote:

Lance did a bit of gym work, it must help.

phreak

It's a time thing too isn't it? Pros have all the time to train. Most amateurs don't, and if you have a finite amount of time then you want to spend it where you'll get the most benefit. For cycling that's probably going to be spent cycling, but if you want general fitness as well then it's unlikely weights is going to slow you down (just providing you do your normal bike work as well)

ric/rstsport

rjh299 wrote:

Lance did a bit of gym work, it must help.

he had to spend a lot of time getting rid of the muscle he put on.

kom14

dw300 wrote:

kom, you gota take into account that someone far from their potential could do nearly any type of training and improve their PBs. Whereas if a pro was to try strength training he would likely not benefit at all and should stick to just training on the bike. Lots of the studies are done using very averagely fit people.

This is certainly an area met with scepticism and to be fair everyone has got to do what they think is best for their own training. A growing number of pro's however are realising that if they start doing their strength training in the off-season when the time on the bike isn't as important they can start to make gains quickly in strength from a couple of sessions per week. This can be carried through pre-season without the muscle soreness associated with resistance training (Because they are now used to it). Here are some links to recent research. All using elite and high standard cyclists and published in scientific journals. The amount of this training reduces in amount as you approach the season and gains can be reportedly maintained with 1 session per week in season for up to 13 weeks.

The main improvements in performance are seen in improved lactate threshold and in cycling efficiency of each pedal stroke. Because the cyclist can now apply more force to the pedal with each stroke they can effectively conserve energy (Cycling efficiency). The benefits are reported to be seen in the last hour in the saddle. As someone else mentioned strength training can also improve sprint ability which is important at the end of a road race and with a higher lactate threshold they can also ride at a higher power output for longer as in time trialling. Concurrent training (Weights on cycling) also shown not to increase body mass, but to reduce body fat.

I personally think there are some great gains to be made for endurance performance from strength training, but wouldn't knock anyone that feels otherwise. Everyone has their own views and experiences. The International Cycling Conference (Road cycling Conference) in Leeds this year has a dedicated symposium and key speaker on strength training...maybe there is something in it after all? Certainly some food for thought anyway.

Links to research:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false Inigo worked with the Euskaltel Team until the end of last season.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 010-1622-4 by Ronnestad (Norwegian researcher) lots of research in cycling.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false Improved TT performance in young elite riders

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Performance-Cyc ... er+cycling Book by hopker (Well respected British Cycling Researcher based in Kent...involved in ICC conference...chapter on strength training by Ronnestad)

http://www.muscle-fitness.co.uk/digital/specialreports Good little review article for a lot of this research...puts it in basic terms for us mortals.

Enjoy and any other links appreciated.

kom14

Sorry 'Concurrent training' is weights and cycling not weights on cycling...that would be crazy. Squatting whilst riding??!!

imposter2.0

Nothing in any of those studies provides a compelling case for weights. The Ronnestad one always gets trotted out in these discussions, but all it shows is that a group which did more training did better than a group which did less training. As for the other links.....jesus.....

ric/rstsport

kom14 wrote:

Read quite a bit of stuff recently on strength training being beneficial for performance on the road. Ive been doing it for a few weeks now and am hitting power pb's on the wattbike. Anyone else doing strength training in preseason? What kind of things you doing in your sessions? And any more thoughts?

undoubtedly, strength (etc) training will improve fitness, when your fitness is low to start with. This is because *any* exercise will provide sufficient stimulus to increase your fitness.

there is significant potential for strength training to help sprint power, as maximal force that can be generated is proportional to muscle cross sectional area

there is *some* research showing that well trained cyclists can improve aerobic cycling performance via strength training. however, some of the experimental design isn't good because those who did strength training did more total exercise than those who didn't. In other words it's impossible to tell whether it was the increased strength training that caused an improvement, or the fact that these people trained for longer than the others.

there is *some* research showing that well trained cyclists do NOT improve cycling performance via strength training

first principles suggest that strength training may very well be detrimental to cycling performance - due to
a) fatigue from these sessions may adversely impact on cycle training time
b) strength training can cause a 'dilution' of mitochondial and capillary density which is needed for improved aerobic performance
c) increased mass (i.e. muscle) requires more work to be done when going uphill

other research tends to show that focussed interval type training provides a greater positive increase in power output than the strength training studies.

These discussions are circular. Weight/strength training for cycling has been advocated as improving performance since the year dot. some years it's in favour and others it isn't.

Ric

MartinGT

rjh299 wrote:

Lance did a bit of gym work, it must help.

Is that why Wiggins did some? The guy who he never raced with

kom14

Thanks Ric. Yes there some studies out there showing no improvement from strength training, but many of these use testing protocols which are potentially not long enough in duration to highlight gains or use strength training protocols without enough volume, intensity and / or duration ie <8wks. What is interesting though is that there are no reported negative effects on cycling performance in response to doing strength training and endurance training alongside each other (Concurrent method). The issues around weight gain for endurance cyclists from strength has been shown not to occur due to the high amount of time spent on the bike. Any gains in muscle mass are offset by reductions in body fat. This may obviously be different in track cycling where time on the bike may not be as much.

One of the key points raised in the improvement in cycling efficiency for 3-5 hour races. This is an area where large gains could be made. Mujika discusses it in his article. See previous link.

Imposter thanks for the contribution to the discussion. I'm presuming you're not an advocate of this type of training, but if I turn the discussion on it's head, what is the scientific basis for strength training not being effective?

ric/rstsport

kom14 wrote:

Thanks Ric. Yes there some studies out there showing no improvement from strength training, but many of these use testing protocols which are potentially not long enough in duration to highlight gains or use strength training protocols without enough volume, intensity and / or duration ie <8wks. What is interesting though is that there are no reported negative effects on cycling performance in response to doing strength training and endurance training alongside each other (Concurrent method).

off the top of my head, that's correct. there's no reported negative effects in the studies undertaken to concurrent training. however, that doesn't mean that there are no negative effects. it just means that the studies undertaken may not have looked for this or not been optimal in the first place, as pointed out.

The issues around weight gain for endurance cyclists from strength has been shown not to occur due to the high amount of time spent on the bike. Any gains in muscle mass are offset by reductions in body fat. This may obviously be different in track cycling where time on the bike may not be as much.

but in the real world, where people are left to their devices, it's often possible that people increase their food intake out at a different rate to their energy expenditure where things are more controlled in a study.

One of the key points raised in the improvement in cycling efficiency for 3-5 hour races. This is an area where large gains could be made. Mujika discusses it in his article. See previous link.

really?

Imposter thanks for the contribution to the discussion. I'm presuming you're not an advocate of this type of training, but if I turn the discussion on it's head, what is the scientific basis for strength training not being effective?

i've already suggested.

the data is equivocal on it's use. there is very little to say it's definitely useful. and my main point is that time spent of doing more focussed cycling training on the bike leads to better on the bike gains.

looking at successful cycling nations, which in part is anecdotal of course, one can see that GB enduro riders achieved success with no supplemental training (other than as rehab from some injuries) for recent olympic campaigns.

of course though there is also Sky, and they've advocated this (strength) as being a success factor, but
1) we've seen failings in the team (e.g. it was supposed to help Wiggins, but last year it didn't appear to do much)
2) we see some stuff appear in the media which is obviously designed to try and upset rivals and give a psychological advantage (just like the Australians did when they pretended they had a wind tunnel that could test multiple riders at once for the Team Pursuit. except that they didn't)
3) Sky has also employed other new tactics to training, so you've no idea which one it is that is causing the changes.

My take is that
1) people should spend as long as possible on the bike for E bike performance up to certain limits
2) weight training appears to negatively affect people in terms of fatigue and being recovered for subsequent cycling sessions
3) your best bang for you buck especially if you are training less than 20 hrs a week is cycling
4) some small amounts of supplemental body weight type exercises are probably a good idea for general athletic conditioning and being able to help with non-cycling issues
5) cycling (e) is a really low force sport, such that (virtually) anyone can already produce the peak forces required to win at major elite cycling events (e.g. i'm as a weak as a kitten, but i can significantly exceed the peak forces required to win the Tour de France overall).

ric/rstsport

as an aside, i *think* that this will be my last post here. I've enjoyed my time and discussing things with everyone here, whether you've agreed with me or not. but my time is limited, and it's better spent writing articles or answering questions for the RST Sport newsletter.

Everyone is welcome to ask me questions there

Cheerio and hope you all have a great 2014
Ric

imposter2.0

kom14 wrote:

Imposter thanks for the contribution to the discussion. I'm presuming you're not an advocate of this type of training, but if I turn the discussion on it's head, what is the scientific basis for strength training not being effective?

The scientific basis for strength training *not* being effective is the overwhelming argument that no study has managed to conclusively demonstrate that it *is* effective. There are also a whole load of other counter-arguments, based on both science and simple logic - I'm sure they'll come out in the next few pages...but like Ric, I'm not sure I can be bothered to get involved. It would be easier to do a search for the topic here - it has been covered many times and the arguments on this thread will almost certainly be identical to the arguments presented in all previous threads.

kom14

Thanks Ric and Imposter, it's good to get some proper discussions going on this topic and though I may not agree I certainly respect your reasons for not advocating strength training to improve endurance cycling performance.

Re research there is always going to be the possibility that some findings may not be reported, be they negative or positive. I don't necessarily buy into the argument that because some studies did strength training in addition to cycling vs a cycling control group, that the group doing more training automatically improve or the group doing strength training instead of a portion of endurance training automatically improves. This goes against what a lot of people have suggested on the thread. Study design can be an issue of course, but the guys producing this research are not honours degree students and have 50+ published pieces of research. I'm not saying they are definitely right, but I'd certainly be inclined to thinking that there's something in this.

The issue you suggest around weight gain from eating too much is as much an issue without doing strength training. Does your average cyclist need 2-3 energy gels / bars / drinks and a slice of cake at the café on a 2-3 hour ride?
Although a one off strength training session may not use as many kj as say a cycling session it certainly increases metabolic rate over a period of time and assists in reducing body fat + small increase in muscle mass.

Re cycling economy Sunde et al 2010 and Ronnestad et al 2011 found improvements in endurance performance of highly trained cyclists by including strength training in their training prog. Some evidence to suggest strength training may be beneficial.

The key thing here is that there havn't been huge amounts of studies done in this area. Maybe more will come out over the next few years, but certainly an interesting discussion point.

kom14 wrote:

My take is that 1) people should spend as long as possible on the bike for E bike performance up to certain limits

Certainly don't disagree that time on the bike is important as you have to get the miles in. If strength training can improve endurance performance especially in lesser trained groups (as people have stated)then why not do a couple of short sessions pre-season and 1 session in season to maintain strength. Injury prevention also key and strength training may help to keep you on the bike for longer.

kom14 wrote:

2) weight training appears to negatively affect people in terms of fatigue and being recovered for subsequent cycling sessions

Yes if your training programme isn't planned effectively, but shouldn't be an issue if started in off-season and carried through in a properly structured programme.

kom14 wrote:

3) your best bang for you buck especially if you are training less than 20 hrs a week is cycling

Quite a subjective view. Does 1-2 hours per week less in Zone 1-2 for example have a negative impact? Again some evidence to suggest replacing a portion of endurance training with strength training is beneficial. Sunde et al 2010 for example.

kom14 wrote:

4) some small amounts of supplemental body weight type exercises are probably a good idea for general athletic conditioning and being able to help with non-cycling issues

Certainly a good place to start before going into heavier weighted training. Body weight step-ups, squatting, core work, press-ups all useful for the time on the bike.

kom14 wrote:

5) cycling (e) is a really low force sport, such that (virtually) anyone can already produce the peak forces required to win at major elite cycling events (e.g. i'm as a weak as a kitten, but i can significantly exceed the peak forces required to win the Tour de France overall).

Agree on a low eccentric force sport, but is a highly concentrically force focussed sport. Surely training to improve force production through these ranges would be beneficial. Not sure many outside of the elite riders could produce 20w/kg + at the end of a 5 hr stage race!?

As I say thanks for your contributions to the discussion. Very interesting stuff.

kom14

As I eluded to in a previous post some links I've found useful.

Links to research:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false Inigo worked with the Euskaltel Team until the end of last season.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 010-1622-4 by Ronnestad (Norwegian researcher) lots of research in cycling.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false Improved TT performance in young elite riders

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Performance-Cyc ... er+cycling Book by hopker (Well respected British Cycling Researcher based in Kent...involved in ICC conference...chapter on strength training by Ronnestad)

http://www.muscle-fitness.co.uk/digital/specialreports Good little review article for a lot of this research...puts it in basic terms for us mortals.

Thanks for reading and contributing

imposter2.0

kom14 wrote:

Not sure many outside of the elite riders could produce 20w/kg + at the end of a 5 hr stage race!?

They probably could if they trained their aerobic capacity for 25-30hrs per week, like the pros do. I doubt if pro riders achieve that w/kg through pushing weights.

kom14

Imposter wrote:

kom14 wrote:

Not sure many outside of the elite riders could produce 20w/kg + at the end of a 5 hr stage race!?

They probably could if they trained their aerobic capacity for 25-30hrs per week, like the pros do. I doubt if pro riders achieve that w/kg through pushing weights.

Maybe they could push 25w/kg if they did.

imposter2.0

kom14 wrote:

Maybe they could push 25w/kg if they did.

Except that stronger legs are of no benefit in producing power, outside of track standing starts. Until you have a better understanding of that, this will go nowhere. Seriously, do a search.

Here's one to get started with..

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/126133/g ... rove-power

kom14

Sorry but that comment makes no sense at all. Muscular power is a product of muscular strength. Who would win a bunch sprint between 2 cyclists with everything else the same except that 1 is stronger? Who would be the better climber when everything else was the same except that 1 cyclist was stronger? Who would be the better time trialist?

What you're saying makes no sense at all. Seriously do a search.

Think we'll agree to disagree on this one Imposter

imposter2.0

kom14 wrote:

Sorry but that comment makes no sense at all. Muscular power is a product of muscular strength. Who would win a bunch sprint between 2 cyclists with everything else the same except that 1 is stronger? Who would be the better climber when everything else was the same except that 1 cyclist was stronger? Who would be the better time trialist?

What you're saying makes no sense at all. Seriously do a search.

Think we'll agree to disagree on this one Imposter

If you were correct, then all endurance cyclists would have legs like Arnold - except they don't, not even close. I really can't be bothered with this again. I'm out.

kom14

The legs like Arnold comment is ridiculous Imposter, but it is your opinion so I respect that. I have stated in previous posts that muscle mass gain is minimal from strength training using the concurrent training method. Legs like Arnold just wouldn't happen from what has been suggested.

So in answer to my question on who would be the better in a sprint finish at the end of a stage race, on a climb or in a TT when everything else was the same except that one rider was stronger. Your answers would be?

Tom Dean

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

as an aside, i *think* that this will be my last post here. I've enjoyed my time and discussing things with everyone here, whether you've agreed with me or not. but my time is limited, and it's better spent writing articles or answering questions for the RST Sport newsletter.

Everyone is welcome to ask me questions there

Cheerio and hope you all have a great 2014
Ric

Thanks for your input Ric!

Tom Dean

kom14 wrote:

Muscular power is a product of muscular strength.

Outside of standing starts on the track, no it isn't. This is fundamentally wrong.

wallace_and_gromit

kom14 wrote:

So in answer to my question on who would be the better in a sprint finish at the end of a stage race, on a climb or in a TT when everything else was the same except that one rider was stronger. Your answers would be?

I think the key point is that if you two identical physical specimens with limited training time then if one did weights for 10% of their training time and they both did aerobic training at all other times then on a climb or TT, the weight training guy would be too far behind for his 5 seconds of peak power advantage to be any use due to having an inferior aerobic capacity.

At the end of a road stage, the weight training guy would potentially have an advantage as he'd have more anaerobic capability, assuming he'd not been dropped for lack of aerobic capacity! Imposter or RSTRic made the point though that the anaerobic capabilities required for sprinting can potentially be most optimally developed on the bike doing intervals.

In my rowing days (and rowing is a heavily aerobic sport) we did a lot of weights, but the heavy weights were aimed at developing the ability to sprint off the start, for which there is no equivalent requirement in most bike races. Rowing does have higher peak forces, so you do need to be reasonably strong to do it. (I'd certainly back a lightweight rower over a cyclist in an arm-wrestling competition!) All the same, most weight training was low weights / high reps as an alternative to rowing when rivers were unrowable in the winter and static machines weren't available. Best results were achieved by rowing miles and miles in the aerobic zone.

The exception to this was the guys who specialised in 500m sprints, where sheer brute force was crucial, much like a trck sprinter, I guess.

kom14

To be fair my comment re power being a product of strength is too general

Strength: "The maximal force that a muscle or muscle group can generate at a specified velocity" (Knuttgen & Kraemer)
Power: "The time rate of doing work" where work is the product of the force exerted on an object and the distance the object moves in the direction in which the force is exerted. Power = work / velocity.

Force is the key point here and specifically Rate of Force Development (RFD) in order to realise the potential of having greater force production abilities via increased 'strength'. If a greater amount of force can be applied quickly to a specific movement then power increases. If strength improves then the potential to improve power is increased. Of course the quicker this force can be applied then the bigger the power achieved. You could achieve a 200w average power from pedalling at a higher rpm with low force or from pedalling at a lower rpm and applying more force. If you could be more efficient in the movement over a long period of time by applying a lower % of max force at a lower velocity then it's happy days.