How to train for 15%+ hills
Comments
-
Lookyhere wrote:well, a quick Google will show that renowned cycling coaches do recommend gym work and plenty of Pro's work out too.
Without knowing which coaches you are referring to (post some links) or what or why they recommend whatever it is they recommend, it is impossible to comment. Lots of people do gym work for all kinds of reasons.Lookyhere wrote:anyhow, i m not saying Imposter is wrong, i just dont understand how leg strength is of no importance to a cyclist who can squat down on one leg and it is ALL CV, doesnt add up.
The 'one leg' thing is an analogy, designed to underline the point that the actual strength of our legs is already far greater than is needed for cycling. Which why I'm trying (and apparently failing) to help you understand that you don't need to make your legs 'stronger' than they already are in order to be a better cyclist. Either you understand the rationale that cycling is a 'low strength' activity - or you don't. It sounds like you don't, for some reason.
There are lots of links within this and the other threads which will be useful if you could take the time to read and understand them. Just to be clear though - these are not my theories or claims - I'm simply relaying what I understand to be the general consensus within sports science, which you will see if you read some of the links. Perhaps an actual sports scientist might comment- although I wouldn't blame them if they didn't.0 -
Hee hee, popcorn time again.
Ability to go fast uphill: good power to weight ratio.
Ability to go fast along the flat: good power to drag ratio.
Your engine's ability to delivery oxygen and glycogen to the muscle as well as remove CO2 is critical. The fitter you are, the better you can fuel the muscle and better you can minimise the accumulation of lactic acid.
The fitter you are (as already mentioned) the more dilated the fine capillary's in the muscle are - this allows better fuelling (oxygen and glycogen) and scavenging (release/discharge of CO2) in the muscle.
Chris Froome has a superb engine, high cadence, excellent fitness and combined, he can sustain a high output over a long period of time going uphill.
Mark Cavendish can sustain a hell of a lot of power but only over a very short period of time (12 secs for a sprint) but only on flattish ground.
Chris Hoy has massive muscle mass which is great for raw power but that muscle mass is heavy and detrimental to climbing up a hill. Large muscle mass requires huge amounts of fuel and oxygen which is physiologically less sustainable than low muscle mass in terms of time over effort. Chris Hoy at peak probably produces 10 times the watts (300 watts per hour vs 2700(?) watts per minute*) than Chris Froome can produce during peak exertion. It's a trade off.
*Some poetic license there for ease of explanation.
Runners and cyclists use different muscle groups.
There aren't any hills in the UK that a large cyclist couldn't have a great day and power up. Greipel had a good day in the TdF today until he cracked. Eros Poli won a very hilly stage in the TdF some years ago and he was huge. Thor Hushovd had a great day in very hilly terrain to keep the green jersey in the face of a Cavendish consistently chucking wobblies and pi$$ing everybody off.
However, these guys cannot and never consistently go uphill quickly.
Sagan beat Froome yesterday easily because they are physiologically very different.
Cancellara went up the Muur de Hoy like a greyhound (once or twice) but cannot go up the big cols at a competitive pace.
Loosing 1kg of body fat will disproportionately increase your ability to climb.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
You sayin im FAT Pinno ???? lol!
Hunter Allen, Joe Friel and TrainingPeaks all recommend gym work for the endurance athlete, esp as you get older, they are not talking about becoming charles Atlas btw.
Sunde et al. (2010) examined the effect of eight weeks of strength training on competitive cyclists. They reported increased rate of force development, increased work efficiency, increased cycling economy and increased time to exhaustion. They found no change in VO2 max, which again mirrors results of similar studies in running, i.e. strength training improves efficiency but doesn’t tend to significantly improve cardiovascular fitness.
i m not saying you cannot get very good by not doing any strength training but there are adv in lessening injuries and the above, it is my exp anyhow.0 -
Yep - gym work is gym work - people do it for all kinds of reasons - but the issue here is 'strong legs', or specifically, making them stronger in order to go faster - the benefits of which in sports science at least, remains unproven as far as I know.
The Sunde study didn't really prove much, as you say, but it also gave the two groups an unequal work load, where the intervention group did more training/exercise hours than the control group. So not really a surprise that the intervention group showed some improvement over the control.0 -
I recovered from nearly 300 hours of chemo, 2 hours of total body irradiation and 3 hip replacements.
I have a suppressed immune system. I have an underactive thyroid. I have no functioning spleen.
On my way 'back'*, I plateau'd very quickly and without the gym work, I doubt I would be still cycling. I did the Etape Caledonia 6 years ago. I also want to do the Marmotte. I cannot comprehend those who dismiss the gym as "a waste of time, you should go out and pedal more" brigade.
In the gym you can work on balance, core stability, strength, flexibility and upper body stamina that you cannot replicate on a bike. Even on the BR homepage they underline the benefits of gym work - especially in winter.
*In a manner of sorts.
Are you a fatty Mamba? pics please
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Hang on - 3 hip replacements? Are you a biped?
0 -
I might suggest that your sample of 1 is maybe not quite your typical BR cyclist, and that maybe people with three replacement hips could benefit from gym work more than others...Pinno wrote:Imposter wrote:Hang on - 3 hip replacements? Are you a biped?
One went wrong. Technically, I have had 2 hip-replacements and 1 'revision'. Same f*cking procedure.0 -
Imposter wrote:Yep - gym work is gym work - people do it for all kinds of reasons - but the issue here is 'strong legs', or specifically, making them stronger in order to go faster - the benefits of which in sports science at least, remains unproven as far as I know.
this is all i'm saying isnt it? i'm with you that its unproven and that what works for one doesnt for another, nothing new in that!
i just dont go along with the absolute that developing stronger legs is a waste of time, obviously if your time limited and dropping time on the bike to go to the gym, that might not be the best use of your time for general riding.0 -
Sounds like you've been reading some of the links, which is good....0
-
In 6 months since I first got my road bike in January I have dropped 1:30 minutes from an 8 minute 10 sec climb near me (average 8%, max ~17%). My legs look more muscular but as a keen mountain biker before I don't think my over all max 'power' has changed a create deal (I imagine I could squat about the same in the gym as before but I've not tested it because gyms are nasty places). I have lost 11lbs in this time and feel like I can keep going at a much higher speed for much longer. Along with learning how to pace myself properly I have got way faster on the road and the mountain bike. Plus my heart rate is much more controlled.
Not quite sure how that fits with the arguments above? It might help the OP in some way though0 -
Imposter wrote:Sounds like you've been reading some of the links, which is good....
i dont hold black an white views on anything really and i didnt read the links, i ve just gone on common sense and my own and others experiences over maybe 35 years.
You also seem to have softened your stance too.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
I might suggest that your sample of 1 is maybe not quite your typical BR cyclist, and that maybe people with three replacement hips could benefit from gym work more than others...Pinno wrote:Imposter wrote:Hang on - 3 hip replacements? Are you a biped?
One went wrong. Technically, I have had 2 hip-replacements and 1 'revision'. Same f*cking procedure.
Marco Pantani:
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Imposter wrote:Sounds like you've been reading some of the links, which is good....
i dont hold black an white views on anything really and i didnt read the links, i ve just gone on common sense and my own and others experiences over maybe 35 years.
You also seem to have softened your stance too.
So you don't hold 'black and white' views on anything, but you refuse to study information which may alter your perspective - righto. If you won't take the time to read-up for your own benefit, then I don't understand why you are wasting your time on this discourse. Next, you'll be telling me you are 'open-minded'...
My stance hasn't changed at all, not sure why you think that. It might change if someone ever proves that stronger legs will make you a faster endurance cyclist - but until it does, I will stick with the science. Common sense is not that common, unfortunately.0 -
Two observations, Pinno:Pinno wrote:Marco Pantani:
1) That doesn't look like any weight training machine I've seen (do you think they might have just been measuring strength?)
2) In any case, if you're a pro, and have almost limitless time to train, maybe some resistance work can form a useful part of a comprehensive regime.0 -
Pantani broke his leg in 95, so given that pic looks very 90s, maybe that's a pic of him in rehab or something.0
-
Imposter wrote:
My stance hasn't changed at all, not sure why you think that. It might change if someone ever proves that stronger legs will make you a faster endurance cyclist - but until it does, I will stick with the science. Common sense is not that common, unfortunately.
thats a shame, as you are now saying its "not proven" i assumed you d changed from the "science doesnt support it" view?0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Imposter wrote:
My stance hasn't changed at all, not sure why you think that. It might change if someone ever proves that stronger legs will make you a faster endurance cyclist - but until it does, I will stick with the science. Common sense is not that common, unfortunately.
thats a shame, as you are now saying its "not proven" i assumed you d changed from the "science doesnt support it" view?
Science tends not to support things that aren't proven.0 -
...and, of course, all hypotheses and theories are always subject to challenge, and subsequent refinement or overturning... but science is based on getting the best answer from current accumulated knowledge. That's the best we can ever do.0
-
briantrumpet wrote:
Two observations, Pinno:Pinno wrote:Marco Pantani:
1) That doesn't look like any weight training machine I've seen (do you think they might have just been measuring strength?)
That's a leg curl machine. They are common. Shows you how often you lot have been in a gym.
briantrumpet wrote:2) In any case, if you're a pro, and have almost limitless time to train, maybe some resistance work can form a useful part of a comprehensive regime.
That does not mean that some form of gym work couldn't be beneficial.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
-
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Perhaps we should make the distinction that 'Gym work' is some form of resistance training and that it may not be necessary to 'go to the gym'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTPzazK0lOkseanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Imposter wrote:Lookyhere wrote:Imposter wrote:
My stance hasn't changed at all, not sure why you think that. It might change if someone ever proves that stronger legs will make you a faster endurance cyclist - but until it does, I will stick with the science. Common sense is not that common, unfortunately.
thats a shame, as you are now saying its "not proven" i assumed you d changed from the "science doesnt support it" view?
Science tends not to support things that aren't proven.
eh? you said it wasnt proven, therefore science doenst support your opinion? is that what your saying?
anyhow, you also said that cycling doesnt grow muscle, most of the cyclists i know, have developed big thigh muscles, having gone no where a gym, inc me, how did this happen? and no i dont take hgh0 -
An Abstract taken from the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Work
Abstract
Sunde, A, Støren, Ø, Bjerkaas, M, Larsen, MH, Hoff, J, and Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training improves cycling economy in competitive cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 24(8): 2157-2165, 2010-The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of maximal strength training on cycling economy (CE) at 70% of maximal oxygen consumption (V̇o2max), work efficiency in cycling at 70% V̇o2max, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power. Responses in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and rate of force development (RFD) in half-squats, V̇o2max, CE, work efficiency, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power were examined. Sixteen competitive road cyclists (12 men and 4 women) were randomly assigned into either an intervention or a control group. Thirteen (10 men and 3 women) cyclists completed the study. The intervention group (7 men and 1 woman) performed half-squats, 4 sets of 4 repetitions maximum, 3 times per week for 8 weeks, as a supplement to their normal endurance training. The control group continued their normal endurance training during the same period. The intervention manifested significant (p < 0.05) improvements in 1RM (14.2%), RFD (16.7%), CE (4.8%), work efficiency (4.7%), and time to exhaustion at pre-intervention maximal aerobic power (17.2%). No changes were found in V̇o2max or body weight. The control group exhibited an improvement in work efficiency (1.4%), but this improvement was significantly (p < 0.05) smaller than that in the intervention group. No changes from pre- to postvalues in any of the other parameters were apparent in the control group. In conclusion, maximal strength training for 8 weeks improved CE and efficiency and increased time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power among competitive road cyclists, without change in maximal oxygen uptake, cadence, or body weight. Based on the results from the present study, we advise cyclists to include maximal strength training in their training programs.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I thought everyone, and their brother, had seen a leg curl leg extension machine.briantrumpet wrote:
Two observations, Pinno:Pinno wrote:Marco Pantani:
1) That doesn't look like any weight training machine I've seen (do you think they might have just been measuring strength?)
2) In any case, if you're a pro, and have almost limitless time to train, maybe some resistance work can form a useful part of a comprehensive regime.Pinno wrote:An Abstract taken from the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Work
Abstract
Sunde, A, Støren, Ø, Bjerkaas, M, Larsen, MH, Hoff, J, and Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training improves cycling economy in competitive cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 24(8): 2157-2165, 2010-The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of maximal strength training on cycling economy (CE) at 70% of maximal oxygen consumption (V̇o2max), work efficiency in cycling at 70% V̇o2max, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power. Responses in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and rate of force development (RFD) in half-squats, V̇o2max, CE, work efficiency, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power were examined. Sixteen competitive road cyclists (12 men and 4 women) were randomly assigned into either an intervention or a control group. Thirteen (10 men and 3 women) cyclists completed the study. The intervention group (7 men and 1 woman) performed half-squats, 4 sets of 4 repetitions maximum, 3 times per week for 8 weeks, as a supplement to their normal endurance training. The control group continued their normal endurance training during the same period. The intervention manifested significant (p < 0.05) improvements in 1RM (14.2%), RFD (16.7%), CE (4.8%), work efficiency (4.7%), and time to exhaustion at pre-intervention maximal aerobic power (17.2%). No changes were found in V̇o2max or body weight. The control group exhibited an improvement in work efficiency (1.4%), but this improvement was significantly (p < 0.05) smaller than that in the intervention group. No changes from pre- to postvalues in any of the other parameters were apparent in the control group. In conclusion, maximal strength training for 8 weeks improved CE and efficiency and increased time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power among competitive road cyclists, without change in maximal oxygen uptake, cadence, or body weight. Based on the results from the present study, we advise cyclists to include maximal strength training in their training programs.0 -
Does anyone have an login for the Journal of Sports Science? It's the most well researched and credible source of useful information.
I say this because there are reams of Abstracts on this very thing but that is as far as it will let you go.
I feel a poll coming on...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Lookyhere wrote:eh? you said it wasnt proven, therefore science doenst support your opinion? is that what your saying?
The evidence for strength training being of benefit to cyclists is unproven and equivocal, to the point where it would be of dubious worth incorporating strength work into a structured regime. So the available science does not appear to support it. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to rely on the science, rather than a few people's anecdotes.Lookyhere wrote:anyhow, you also said that cycling doesnt grow muscle, most of the cyclists i know, have developed big thigh muscles, having gone no where a gym, inc me, how did this happen? and no i dont take hgh
I have no idea how they developed 'big' thigh muscles. Or maybe they have lost weight through cycling and what they think is increased muscle size is actually just improved toning and definition. But you would have to explain to me how exercising your legs at a submaximal level would bring about such a large increase in hypertrophy.
If you want to base your training regimes on anecdotes and misconceptions, then that's fine.0 -
Pinno wrote:An Abstract taken from the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Work
Abstract
Sunde, A, Støren, Ø, Bjerkaas, M, Larsen, MH, Hoff, J, and Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training improves cycling economy in competitive cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 24(8): 2157-2165, 2010-The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of maximal strength training on cycling economy (CE) at 70% of maximal oxygen consumption (V̇o2max), work efficiency in cycling at 70% V̇o2max, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power. Responses in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and rate of force development (RFD) in half-squats, V̇o2max, CE, work efficiency, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power were examined. Sixteen competitive road cyclists (12 men and 4 women) were randomly assigned into either an intervention or a control group. Thirteen (10 men and 3 women) cyclists completed the study. The intervention group (7 men and 1 woman) performed half-squats, 4 sets of 4 repetitions maximum, 3 times per week for 8 weeks, as a supplement to their normal endurance training. The control group continued their normal endurance training during the same period. The intervention manifested significant (p < 0.05) improvements in 1RM (14.2%), RFD (16.7%), CE (4.8%), work efficiency (4.7%), and time to exhaustion at pre-intervention maximal aerobic power (17.2%). No changes were found in V̇o2max or body weight. The control group exhibited an improvement in work efficiency (1.4%), but this improvement was significantly (p < 0.05) smaller than that in the intervention group. No changes from pre- to postvalues in any of the other parameters were apparent in the control group. In conclusion, maximal strength training for 8 weeks improved CE and efficiency and increased time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power among competitive road cyclists, without change in maximal oxygen uptake, cadence, or body weight. Based on the results from the present study, we advise cyclists to include maximal strength training in their training programs.
Pinno, that study has been covered on here many times (as have many others like it). Someone already referred to it a couple of pages back and I commented on it there.0 -
Seeing as we are all just posting the same stuff now that we've already posted before, I'm just going to post a link to this discussion again and leave it at that. viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=127538750
