climbing, force/power required

123578

Comments

  • Imposter wrote:
    Thanks Alex, much appreciated. Do we know what Forstermann's squat is in comparison? Just wondering if there is a justification for all that leg bulk..
    I don't, never had any particular interest in knowing.
    Just looking online (for what's that's worth) he's ~95kg and I saw him do a set of 10 squats at 210kg. That would put his 1RM at around 280kg. 280/95 = 2.95 which suggests to me that he has more strength than is really needed.
  • Ok Alex so if you have hypertrophy from cycling yet you don't want detrimental muscle where are we?! I hope you aren't actually training people with this rubbish. Instead try folks with a mix of weights plus cycling. You will get a shock surprise when they are suddenly able to climb better, sit at tempo at higher power, sprint faster, all of it. What's important about the article about Haas is he is showing what actually works to win the Tour of Britain! You guys are instead screaming in your own echo chamber. I know who I will follow.
  • okgo
    okgo Posts: 4,368
    gavt0333 wrote:
    Whilst I respect all of your views, power and strength in the broader sense are inextricably the same thing. No-one was ever discussing your 1-rep max although that can be helpful. None of the above even comes close to really understanding the true physiology and what it means to become a more powerful rider. I assure you the more power you output the stronger you're muscles must be. The key to understanding all of this is to realise that you can create the same power from cycling but weights short-cuts the process by enacting the fiber and nerve recruitment required in a much more intensive way. The aerobic aspect applies to ALL muscle fibers, and is an absolute neccesity for sports such as cycling. But w/kg will not change unless you over-stress your muscles.

    I think you need to look at what professional road cyclists are actually doing. Nathan Haas for example form the link below.

    http://www.menshealth.co.uk/fitness/how ... ad-cyclist

    "I assure you the more power you output the stronger you're muscles must be"

    Nope, I put out more power over all (inc peak) durations now than when I was a gym monkey. I could dead 180kg squat similar etc, so not silly strong, but a lot stronger than I am now, and all my numbers are higher now despite being 20kg lighter and devoid of large muscle mass.
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    gavt0333 wrote:
    Ok Alex so if you have hypertrophy from cycling yet you don't want detrimental muscle where are we?! I hope you aren't actually training people with this rubbish. Instead try folks with a mix of weights plus cycling. You will get a shock surprise when they are suddenly able to climb better, sit at tempo at higher power, sprint faster, all of it. What's important about the article about Haas is he is showing what actually works to win the Tour of Britain! You guys are instead screaming in your own echo chamber. I know who I will follow.
    IOW train more. Genius
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    gavt0333 wrote:
    Ok Alex so if you have hypertrophy from cycling yet you don't want detrimental muscle where are we?! I hope you aren't actually training people with this rubbish.

    I suspect what is meant is hypertrophy specifically acquired through cycling (ie useful), as opposed to hypertrophy acquired through pushing dead weights in the gym. You can see why acquiring one as a side-effect of cycling, would be more beneficial than specifically developing the other?
    gavt0333 wrote:
    Instead try folks with a mix of weights plus cycling. You will get a shock surprise when they are suddenly able to climb better, sit at tempo at higher power, sprint faster, all of it.

    What evidence do you have for this claim? Don't say the studies you linked to earlier, because they aren't.
    gavt0333 wrote:
    What's important about the article about Haas is he is showing what actually works to win the Tour of Britain! You guys are instead screaming in your own echo chamber. I know who I will follow.

    What's important with the article about Haas is that it is written with a (generally) exercise-illiterate, mass consumer audience in mind - let's be honest, 'Men's Health' is not exactly a peer-reviewed sports science journal. Besides, the title of the article shold give you all the clues you need as to its purpose. It should be obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of cycling that Haas (and indeed any other cyclist who trains for performance, at any level) would have done significantly more than just sit in the gym and push leg weights - yet the author chose to focus the entire piece on what Haas does in the gym, as opposed to what he does on the bike. I don't understand the desperate fascination with Haas either, if I'm honest.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,303
    gavt0333 wrote:
    You might like also to consider a link linked from there:

    "Adding strength to endurance training does not enhance aerobic capacity in cyclists."
    N. Psilander, P. Frank, M. Flockhart, K. Sahlin
    First published: 1 December 2014

    "The molecular signaling of mitochondrial biogenesis is enhanced when resistance exercise is added to a bout of endurance exercise. The purpose of the present study was to examine if this mode of concurrent training translates into increased mitochondrial content and improved endurance performance. Moderately trained cyclists performed 8 weeks (two sessions per week) of endurance training only (E, n = 10; 60-min cycling) or endurance training followed by strength training (ES, n = 9; 60-min cycling + leg press). Muscle biopsies were obtained before and after the training period and analyzed for enzyme activities and protein content. Only the ES group increased in leg strength (+19%, P < 0.01), sprint peak power (+5%, P < 0.05), and short-term endurance (+9%, P < 0.01). In contrast, only the E group increased in muscle citrate synthase activity (+11%, P = 0.06), lactate threshold intensity (+3%, P < 0.05), and long-term endurance performance (+4%, P < 0.05). Content of mitochondrial proteins and cycling economy was not affected by training. Contrary to our hypothesis, the results demonstrate that concurrent training does not enhance muscle aerobic capacity and endurance performance in cyclists."

    Now, I don't earn my living from training cyclists, or have time to trawl for all the scientific papers (and don't have the knowledge to understand them fully) but I'd tend to give weight to people who do, and have a proven track record. We're lucky to have one of those on this very forum.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,303
    Imposter wrote:
    What evidence do you have for this claim? Don't say the studies you linked to earlier, because they aren't.
    I'll admit I hadn't bothered to click on the links until you said this. And as you say, for instance...

    "It appears that "elite-national class" cyclists have the ability to generate higher "downstroke power", possibly as a result of muscular adaptations stimulated by more years of endurance training." Well, blow me down.
  • gavt0333 wrote:
    Ok Alex so if you have hypertrophy from cycling yet you don't want detrimental muscle where are we?! I hope you aren't actually training people with this rubbish. Instead try folks with a mix of weights plus cycling. You will get a shock surprise when they are suddenly able to climb better, sit at tempo at higher power, sprint faster, all of it. What's important about the article about Haas is he is showing what actually works to win the Tour of Britain! You guys are instead screaming in your own echo chamber. I know who I will follow.
    Not sure what your problem is but I and my colleagues have successfully coached and trained many cyclists for a long time including national and world champions, world record holders, professional riders as well as many club level riders to much success at their respective levels.

    You are seemingly falling for confirmation bias and cherry picking data to suit (hint, don't just pick items that suit your narrative, you also have consider all the data that don't). As for anecdotal reports, well they are meaningless in the context of understanding the issued at hand.
  • gavt0333 wrote:
    This suggests you misunderstand physiology and the findings of this study. Well it does if you think this has anything to do with strength. Indeed the original study did not even measure the strength of the test subjects.

    Note the differences in fractional utilisation of VO2max at threshold power (40km TT), on average, between the 2 groups (being basically national and state level elite riders). That's where the performance differences lie, i.e. in aerobic capabilities enabling one group to sustain a higher power output than the other.

    They did of course measure the torque profiles of the riders, and low and behold, we have an average effective pedal force for the elite national group which is equivalent to pushing about 20kg with both legs. Well blow me down with a strength training feather.

    So thanks for highlighting this classic study, because all it does is demonstrate the importance of cycling specific training and the nature of physiological adaptations that actually matter for such performance.
  • gavt0333 wrote:
    That's strike 2.

    This study just says the same as the Coyle et al paper does, i.e. that the main determinant of performance difference was the fractional utilisation of VO2max at threshold.

    And absolutely nothing to do with strength.
  • gavt0333 wrote:
    So in this study, the concurrent strength and endurance group did more training than the endurance group and this resulted in an improved performance for the SE group. Who'd a thunk it?

    Now I grant this small sample showed some potential, but:
    - it did not compare what's possible by undergoing specific cycling training as opposed to general endurance training

    and more importantly:
    - one study does not a body of evidence make and a decent assessment can't simply pick and choose the study it likes and ignore those it doesn't.

    So if you really want to assess such things, then I recommend reviewing all the relevant research, appraise the full study documents carefully (IOW don't rely on abstracts). When you do so, you'll find the evidence is fairly equivocal wrt to the impact of S training on endurance cycling performance, and no-one has ever found endurance cycling performance improvements from S training which are superior to those attainable from undertaking specific cycling efforts relevant to the particular cycling demand (e.g. targeted interval training where performance improvements dwarf those from even the S training studies that report some positive impact, and ignoring those studies that don't).
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    I still think strength training has a place in older athletes such as myself in their training and although I now understand the strength/power part and what it equates to in performance and training it's now easier to get the direction of such training correct once you understand that. I'm not convinced that as you get older it can't play an important part, far more than its being giving credit for. Theirs too much evidence into what happens as you age to say otherwise as to the benifets of strength training to so easily dismiss it as being irrelevant. Particularly for people like me close to age 60. The argument as to does it improve performance per se on the bike, personally I think it can make a difference as you age. As for other athletes all I can say is that theirs an awfull lot of athletes in all sorts of sports doing this stuff at all levels to simply say its of no benifet, they can't all be wrong
  • okgo
    okgo Posts: 4,368
    Point being, do your strength training to help bone density or whatever with some weights, not on the bike, as its not doing anything. And don't expect any of it to make you better at cycling. Many people make the mistake of looking at what pro cyclists do and try to relate it to their training regime, which is usually a 5th of the hours, and with all the other stresses that life entails. There's a lot of pro riders doing a lot of core work etc, I would imagine a lot of it is mainly because they're bored shitless having done their ride for the day with nothing else to do!

    Seems pretty simple to me.
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    reacher wrote:
    The argument as to does it improve performance per se on the bike, personally I think it can make a difference as you age.

    How will it make a difference? I'm trying to understand why you still think this, despite all the evidence to the contrary on this thread. Having understood the strength demands (which you claim to now understand), if you ever get to the point where you can't support 20kg on each leg, then I would suggest that riding a bike will be the least of your problems. Please explain though, I'm interested...
    reacher wrote:
    As for other athletes all I can say is that theirs an awfull lot of athletes in all sorts of sports doing this stuff at all levels to simply say its of no benifet, they can't all be wrong

    What other athletes in other sports may or may not do is generally of no relevance to cycling. Again, if you think differently, then please explain where you think the crossovers are, so they can be discussed.
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    Bear in mind that I'm talking about older people here and what happens as they age, in particular at my age as thats where I'm at, i cannot tell you what happens at other ages, i dont know how old you are. The difference is how you perform as an athlete which in turn lends itself to performance/ability to train harder/recovery and all the other myriad of attributes that help an athlete, older people dont or shouldn't make the lifting of weights a test of strength the weight I use to train with is irrelevant I'm not training to be stronger it's the effect of training that I'm after and what it does as I age. I agree it may or may not be relevant to a lot of cyclists I'm not an expert on it but their doing this work for a reason and not to pass the time of day as has been suggested, the crossover is as I have just explained for me at my age.
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    okgo wrote:
    Point being, do your strength training to help bone density or whatever with some weights, not on the bike, as its not doing anything. And don't expect any of it to make you better at cycling. Many people make the mistake of looking at what pro cyclists do and try to relate it to their training regime, which is usually a 5th of the hours, and with all the other stresses that life entails. There's a lot of pro riders doing a lot of core work etc, I would imagine a lot of it is mainly because they're bored shitless having done their ride for the day with nothing else to do!

    Seems pretty simple to me.


    Can I ask how old you are ? Also have you ever done any of this type of training for a sustained period ?
  • harry-s
    harry-s Posts: 295
    I'm in my sixties, and find gym work has no effect on my cycling ability. I'm not too sure why it should, if it's generally accepted that it doesn't help much with younger riders.
    My own experience, anecdotally obviously, is that time is better spent with cycling drills. Granted it's more difficult to put on muscle mass as you age, but I don't think muscle mass has a great deal to do with cycling, unless you're a track rider or sprinter. At an amateur level, I don't think that applies.
    My ftp and climbing ability will decrease from year to year, and there's not much I can do about that, apart from attempt to offset it by more endurance work and more time on the bike. If you want to head for the gym, go for it, try and make an accurate comparison to your performances from last year, and let us know how you get on. (I mean that seriously, I'm not being flippant.)
    Great posts from Alex, chapeau to you for sticking with it!
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    I'm actually not saying that it has any effect on my cycling ability, what I'm saying is it enables me to train better and harder lead a more productive life in general. The weight of evidence as regards the benifet to older people of strength work is so well documented that it doesn't need me to repeat what's out their to read.
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    Btw I'm not contradicting Alex, I'm only saying what works for me
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    Harry-S wrote:
    I'm in my sixties, and find gym work has no effect on my cycling ability. I'm not too sure why it should, if it's generally accepted that it doesn't help much with younger riders.
    My own experience, anecdotally obviously, is that time is better spent with cycling drills. Granted it's more difficult to put on muscle mass as you age, but I don't think muscle mass has a great deal to do with cycling, unless you're a track rider or sprinter. At an amateur level, I don't think that applies.
    My ftp and climbing ability will decrease from year to year, and there's not much I can do about that, apart from attempt to offset it by more endurance work and more time on the bike. If you want to head for the gym, go for it, try and make an accurate comparison to your performances from last year, and let us know how you get on. (I mean that seriously, I'm not being flippant.)
    Great posts from Alex, chapeau to you for sticking with it!

    Harry-s i know your not being flippant, however i will try to answer that, its hard to quantify to be honest as i have said you cant realy say what works and what does not work in my case because i'm throwing a lot at it in overall terms of training, its not going backwards on the bike thats for sure, however what i will say is its not a magic bullet and to be honest its a process that is ongoing. What i will admit is that with what Alex has given me its a lot more directed than it was, the work was not wasted i just have a better understanding to what i'm trying to do. I totally agree if its a bike session or gym work bike wins every time, you wont get me arguing that.
    i dont do normal training though in the gym my background allows me to do stuff that normal people cant do, although some of it is, the majority of its very specific to me, i'm not going in and doing basic stuff this is very high quality training thats taken years to get to this level.
    btw its not strength based, i have no interest in seeing how much weight i can move
  • ForumNewbie
    ForumNewbie Posts: 1,664
    Imposter wrote:
    reacher wrote:
    The argument as to does it improve performance per se on the bike, personally I think it can make a difference as you age.

    How will it make a difference? I'm trying to understand why you still think this, despite all the evidence to the contrary on this thread. Having understood the strength demands (which you claim to now understand), if you ever get to the point where you can't support 20kg on each leg, then I would suggest that riding a bike will be the least of your problems.
    Hi Imposter, supporting 20 kg on each leg sounds a lot but I've never been at the gym and tried it so I don't know. In view of what you're saying I guess it must be easier than it sounds.

    As regards this strength debate - when I get on part of a hill when the gradient gets over 20% even for a small distance, I find it a struggle just to turn the pedals, never mind keep up a decent cadence. I always thought that is because my legs are not strong enough rather than a lack of fitness. I would have thought a cyclist half my age would find it easier to turn the pedals in that situation down having younger stronger legs? Or of course a cyclist my age (late 50s) with the same level of fitness as me, but with stronger legs than me?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Hi Imposter, supporting 20 kg on each leg sounds a lot but I've never been at the gym and tried it so I don't know. In view of what you're saying I guess it must be easier than it sounds.

    Stand on one leg and hop, mate. If you can do that, you are already supporting well over 20kg on that leg. Now try the other one. There you go.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,303
    Imposter wrote:
    Hi Imposter, supporting 20 kg on each leg sounds a lot but I've never been at the gym and tried it so I don't know. In view of what you're saying I guess it must be easier than it sounds.

    Stand on one leg and hop, mate. If you can do that, you are already supporting well over 20kg on that leg. Now try the other one. There you go.
    Even if you're really skinny, like me? I took a selfie earlier while I did what you suggest...

    stickman-dancing-hi.png
  • reacher wrote:
    Bear in mind that I'm talking about older people here and what happens as they age, in particular at my age as thats where I'm at, i cannot tell you what happens at other ages, i dont know how old you are. The difference is how you perform as an athlete which in turn lends itself to performance/ability to train harder/recovery and all the other myriad of attributes that help an athlete, older people dont or shouldn't make the lifting of weights a test of strength the weight I use to train with is irrelevant I'm not training to be stronger it's the effect of training that I'm after and what it does as I age. I agree it may or may not be relevant to a lot of cyclists I'm not an expert on it but their doing this work for a reason and not to pass the time of day as has been suggested, the crossover is as I have just explained for me at my age.
    Training for performance in a specific sport/exercise modality is different to training for what might be good for your general health and well being.

    Once you understand what your priorities and motivations are, then the training that best supports those can be devised. For many people, lifting some weights may well be a very good thing to do.

    I have never said people should not lift weights. All I have done is deal with the (all too common) misconception about the impact such training will have on endurance cycling performance. What impact it might have on other things (health, well being, personal confidence etc) is another matter entirely.
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    Imposter wrote:
    reacher wrote:
    The argument as to does it improve performance per se on the bike, personally I think it can make a difference as you age.

    How will it make a difference? I'm trying to understand why you still think this, despite all the evidence to the contrary on this thread. Having understood the strength demands (which you claim to now understand), if you ever get to the point where you can't support 20kg on each leg, then I would suggest that riding a bike will be the least of your problems. Please explain though, I'm interested...
    reacher wrote:
    As for other athletes all I can say is that theirs an awfull lot of athletes in all sorts of sports doing this stuff at all levels to simply say its of no benifet, they can't all be wrong

    What other athletes in other sports may or may not do is generally of no relevance to cycling. Again, if you think differently, then please explain where you think the crossovers are, so they can be discussed.

    I'm the first to admit that I got strength and power confused no argument from me their, so it's not what I'm saying, personally for me I think training in a gym makes a difference in all sorts of ways that are well documented in their benifets to you as you age, so theirs no point in me listing them, theirs reams of information out their saying this and not one scrap of evidence to say don't go in a gym and train on strength work as you age its a waste of time, if their is and you can find it then I would be very interested to see it ? So the question is will improving yourself by doing gym work as you age be of any benefit to you as a cyclist ? Personally I think so but that's me, I've seen what happens to people as they age and don't do this training so it's not an experiment I'm inclined to conduct on myself, I like the way I feel and the stuff I can do.
    Crossovers in other sports ? Again I'm not qualified to say its relevant or not in cycling, clearly the weight of opinion is no, but then I don't know your age or how much you weigh your physical condition or how much it could be improved, for all I know you could look like Lance Armstrong at his best on epo, in which case then your right don't bother you will be just fine however if your 60 with a pot belly and 4 stone overweight my guess is you will benifet from some gym work, horses for courses as they say
  • reacher
    reacher Posts: 416
    reacher wrote:
    Bear in mind that I'm talking about older people here and what happens as they age, in particular at my age as thats where I'm at, i cannot tell you what happens at other ages, i dont know how old you are. The difference is how you perform as an athlete which in turn lends itself to performance/ability to train harder/recovery and all the other myriad of attributes that help an athlete, older people dont or shouldn't make the lifting of weights a test of strength the weight I use to train with is irrelevant I'm not training to be stronger it's the effect of training that I'm after and what it does as I age. I agree it may or may not be relevant to a lot of cyclists I'm not an expert on it but their doing this work for a reason and not to pass the time of day as has been suggested, the crossover is as I have just explained for me at my age.
    Training for performance in a specific sport/exercise modality is different to training for what might be good for your general health and well being.

    Once you understand what your priorities and motivations are, then the training that best supports those can be devised. For many people, lifting some weights may well be a very good thing to do.

    I have never said people should not lift weights. All I have done is deal with the (all too common) misconception about the impact such training will have on endurance cycling performance. What impact it might have on other things (health, well being, personal confidence etc) is another matter entirely.

    No argument from me their Alex, other than I think that it's a lot more intertwined than people think as you age, for me in all the years I have trained being able to adapt and being prepared to change has been important to continuing training and improving,
    what worked for me 40 or 30 odd years ago does not work now, personally the two have become closer as I have got older, for others it may not have
  • okgo
    okgo Posts: 4,368
    reacher wrote:
    okgo wrote:
    Point being, do your strength training to help bone density or whatever with some weights, not on the bike, as its not doing anything. And don't expect any of it to make you better at cycling. Many people make the mistake of looking at what pro cyclists do and try to relate it to their training regime, which is usually a 5th of the hours, and with all the other stresses that life entails. There's a lot of pro riders doing a lot of core work etc, I would imagine a lot of it is mainly because they're bored shitless having done their ride for the day with nothing else to do!

    Seems pretty simple to me.


    Can I ask how old you are ? Also have you ever done any of this type of training for a sustained period ?

    29, yes, I lifted weights for 5 years or so.
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com