Weight training with Strava Fitness & Freshness

penski

Does anybody know generally how weight lifting affects fitness & fatigue?

With Strava, they have improved functionality of their fitness & freshness chart so that any activity with a heart rate monitor can be added. I am wondering how useful/accurate this may be?

I am currently trying to do per week:

2/3 days on the bike
2 days a short run (3-4 miles)
2/3 days strength training (1 hour of lifting weights; barbells/dumbells etc)

bobmcstuff

HR readings are basically useless for weight training IME. Since you're doing only short bursts the HR does not respond quickly enough to give you anything useful (a bit like how sprints or anaerobic work doesn't really get picked up very well on HR due to lag).

Based on my experience, HR can be affected by quite a lot of factors and isn't necessarily consistent from workout to workout.

However to your first question, I'd suggest that doing weight training when you're already carrying fatigue from running and cycling would impair your recovery. If you're just doing the weights for appearance etc. then it's a simple trade off between how much you want those benefits and how much it might be affecting your running and cycling.

TrainerRoad talked about this too, they basically said the same thing. Seems quite logical to me though.

craigus89

What is the purpose of your weight training? If it's to look good then fair enough, if its to improve your cycling you'd be better off riding.

fenix

Really cant see this being accurate at all.

penski

Craigus89 wrote:

What is the purpose of your weight training? If it's to look good then fair enough, if its to improve your cycling you'd be better off riding.

It's to have some strength for football and to have a better physique.

I don't think I've mastered cross training..I seem to be fatigued quite often with little niggles popping up. But I don't know if this is because it is relatively new to me doing it all together (I have focused on different disciplines before just past the beginner stage).

VamP

The Strava metrics have their origin in the Banister training impulse model developed specifically for aerobic exercise, so it would be a stretch to apply to non-aerobic activities as well. Even when using the evolved Coggan metrics based around power measurement, you need to apply a lot of interpretation to use the model well, take away the accuracy of power and replace with HR, and you have a much more noisy set of data, then replace half the training with non-aerobic exercise and you have useless noisy mess. So no I wouldn't bother

Vodkachaser

Hi, some interesting responses there VamP is quite right that you will get a lot of noise in terms of data by trying to use power and HR. I would argue though that your heart rate response when doing weights should not be so slow as to make the HR useless as suggested above. When I work out in the gym I can clearly get a good quick enough response when doing tri-sets with HR getting to 160 - 165. A 1 minute rest gets HR back down to 130 and doing another tri gets you back to 160. So over the 45 minutes your in the gym you can very clearly see a pattern and get some information about your HR and cals. Then translate that back to your bike and HR whilst riding and you get a bigger picture of whats going on. What you will find with fitness and freshness though is the freshness doesn't quite match what your muscles feel as the anerobic effect isn't measured accurately enough doing weights as stated above. But if you wear an activity tracker with HR, and wear it with a chest strap whilst at the gymand on the bike then you get a more rounded picture of all your activity.

Penno

Penski wrote:

Does anybody know generally how weight lifting affects fitness & fatigue?

With Strava, they have improved functionality of their fitness & freshness chart so that any activity with a heart rate monitor can be added. I am wondering how useful/accurate this may be?

I am currently trying to do per week:

2/3 days on the bike
2 days a short run (3-4 miles)
2/3 days strength training (1 hour of lifting weights; barbells/dumbells etc)[/quote

What about rest days?? If you are training 6 days per week, I would suggest an extra rest day to allow for efficient recovery and reduce the occurrence of injury. You need to be aware of over training. There is a difference between over reaching and over training! wanting to enhance your fitness, which alone is a vague term is only to be applauded, but try give your body time to replenish energy stores and allow disturbed factors to recover as it may take two days or more and you may be pushing too hard.

With regards fatigue, it can be the result of many factors each related to specific exercise demands. Generally there are four components involved in voluntary muscle contraction.
1) central nervous system
2) peripheral nerves
3) neuromuscular junction
4) muscle fibre type
Fatigue results if this chain of events is interrupted.
Significant reduction in muscle glycogen is related to fatigue during prolonged sub maximal exercise. This nutrient fatigue occurs even when there is sufficient oxygen available to generate energy via aerobic pathways.
Dehydration may cause fatigue due to reduction in plasma volume and reduction blood flow to the muscles.
In short term maximal activity it is thought fatigue is associated with lack of oxygen and lactic acid accumulation and significant increase in hydrogen ion concentration and reduction in high energy phosphate of ATP and CP.
Fatigue at the neuromuscular junction may occur when the action potential fails to cross the synaptic cleft from neutron to muscle fibre. The precise mechanism of this neural fatigue is not fully understood.

penski

Penno wrote:

What about rest days?? If you are training 6 days per week, I would suggest an extra rest day to allow for efficient recovery and reduce the occurrence of injury. You need to be aware of over training. There is a difference between over reaching and over training! wanting to enhance your fitness, which alone is a vague term is only to be applauded, but try give your body time to replenish energy stores and allow disturbed factors to recover as it may take two days or more and you may be pushing too hard.

With regards fatigue, it can be the result of many factors each related to specific exercise demands. Generally there are four components involved in voluntary muscle contraction.
1) central nervous system
2) peripheral nerves
3) neuromuscular junction
4) muscle fibre type
Fatigue results if this chain of events is interrupted.
Significant reduction in muscle glycogen is related to fatigue during prolonged sub maximal exercise. This nutrient fatigue occurs even when there is sufficient oxygen available to generate energy via aerobic pathways.
Dehydration may cause fatigue due to reduction in plasma volume and reduction blood flow to the muscles.
In short term maximal activity it is thought fatigue is associated with lack of oxygen and lactic acid accumulation and significant increase in hydrogen ion concentration and reduction in high energy phosphate of ATP and CP.
Fatigue at the neuromuscular junction may occur when the action potential fails to cross the synaptic cleft from neutron to muscle fibre. The precise mechanism of this neural fatigue is not fully understood.

Thanks Penno - You have made a valid point, I actually felt a few weeks back like it was too much too soon and I cut back. I had reached a point where my HR wouldn't exceed 150, took a week off and was back to normal.

Penno

Penski wrote:

Penno wrote:

What about rest days?? If you are training 6 days per week, I would suggest an extra rest day to allow for efficient recovery and reduce the occurrence of injury. You need to be aware of over training. There is a difference between over reaching and over training! wanting to enhance your fitness, which alone is a vague term is only to be applauded, but try give your body time to replenish energy stores and allow disturbed factors to recover as it may take two days or more and you may be pushing too hard.

With regards fatigue, it can be the result of many factors each related to specific exercise demands. Generally there are four components involved in voluntary muscle contraction.
1) central nervous system
2) peripheral nerves
3) neuromuscular junction
4) muscle fibre type
Fatigue results if this chain of events is interrupted.
Significant reduction in muscle glycogen is related to fatigue during prolonged sub maximal exercise. This nutrient fatigue occurs even when there is sufficient oxygen available to generate energy via aerobic pathways.
Dehydration may cause fatigue due to reduction in plasma volume and reduction blood flow to the muscles.
In short term maximal activity it is thought fatigue is associated with lack of oxygen and lactic acid accumulation and significant increase in hydrogen ion concentration and reduction in high energy phosphate of ATP and CP.
Fatigue at the neuromuscular junction may occur when the action potential fails to cross the synaptic cleft from neutron to muscle fibre. The precise mechanism of this neural fatigue is not fully understood.

Thanks Penno - You have made a valid point, I actually felt a few weeks back like it was too much too soon and I cut back. I had reached a point where my HR wouldn't exceed 150, took a week off and was back to normal.

Your'e welcome. you could give yourself a de load week every 4th week to allow for recovery and adaptation. The effects of training is an interesting topic. Look up
Selyes Theory and super compensation. If you are thinking long term try to implement periodisation. Also as your football season begins I would cut back on the weights as the neuromuscular movements are different for both activities. With regards your running and cycling are you working to HR zones?

penski

I wear my HRM for runs but dont train my running according to it. Literally I just go out and run. Somehow it's not something I've considered. I am going to have to look into this, I guess it will be similiar to training with a power meter or HR zones on the bike which I am getting more familiar with.

Zwift makes it all easy - follow a training plan, all you need to do is turn up.

ExCyclist

Well up until this morning I was doing the Stronglifts 5x5 routine and I can wholeheartedly say that prior to my lower lumbar injury this morning whilst doing rows the strength conditioning was doing absolutely nothing for me. In fact I'd say it made me slower on the bike.

The only way to get stronger on the bike is to cycle more. IMHO.

TonyJams

ExCyclist wrote:

Well up until this morning I was doing the Stronglifts 5x5 routine and I can wholeheartedly say that prior to my lower lumbar injury this morning whilst doing rows the strength conditioning was doing absolutely nothing for me. In fact I'd say it made me slower on the bike.

The only way to get stronger on the bike is to cycle more. IMHO.

Thing is he doesnt want to get stronger on the bike, he wants to get a better physique and stronger at football. (Intelligent) weight training is probably the best way to do this

joey54321

There are some recent studies suggesting weight training can very much improve cycling performance (VeloNews did a fasttalk podcast on the subject a while back).

imposter2.0

joey54321 wrote:

There are some recent studies suggesting weight training can very much improve cycling performance (VeloNews did a fasttalk podcast on the subject a while back).

Got a link to the studies?

ExCyclist

TonyJams wrote:

ExCyclist wrote:

Well up until this morning I was doing the Stronglifts 5x5 routine and I can wholeheartedly say that prior to my lower lumbar injury this morning whilst doing rows the strength conditioning was doing absolutely nothing for me. In fact I'd say it made me slower on the bike.

The only way to get stronger on the bike is to cycle more. IMHO.

Thing is he doesnt want to get stronger on the bike, he wants to get a better physique and stronger at football. (Intelligent) weight training is probably the best way to do this

I stand corrected

joey54321

Imposter wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

There are some recent studies suggesting weight training can very much improve cycling performance (VeloNews did a fasttalk podcast on the subject a while back).

Got a link to the studies?

Can't remember the studies but it's discussed here

http://www.velonews.com/2016/11/news/ro ... ing_424891

imposter2.0

joey54321 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

There are some recent studies suggesting weight training can very much improve cycling performance (VeloNews did a fasttalk podcast on the subject a while back).

Got a link to the studies?

Can't remember the studies but it's discussed here

http://www.velonews.com/2016/11/news/ro ... ing_424891

Sounds like they are talking about the same old studies which have been discussed/dismissed on here ad nauseam..

joey54321

Imposter wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

There are some recent studies suggesting weight training can very much improve cycling performance (VeloNews did a fasttalk podcast on the subject a while back).

Got a link to the studies?

Can't remember the studies but it's discussed here

http://www.velonews.com/2016/11/news/ro ... ing_424891

Sounds like they are talking about the same old studies which have been discussed/dismissed on here ad nauseam..

Yeah, possibly. This post isn't meant to be an 'attack' on you in anyway, though it might come across like it.

Whenever I look it up all the 'experts'/pro team coaches/science papers/ professional training blogs (Trainingpeaks etc...) say weights are good, I have done weights in the past and found them good, and I know lots of people who do weights as part of cycling training and find they go better for it. On the flip side I have read lots of post from people on internet forums saying they are useless. I think its largely each to their own but I think there are a lot of people that stick to the 'weights are bad' school of thought just because they always have, without really researching it or, better yet, giving it ago.

If you had done a sustained block of decent S&C work and found no benefit then fair enough.

imposter2.0

Lots of those studies say 'weights are good' but the intervention group in those cases usually ends up doing more training than the control group, so you are never comparing like with like. Interestingly, that most recent study found no increase in VO2Max, which is mostly what it's about anyway.

I'd be interested to know what specific performance benefits you got from your S&C work - and whether you felt those improvements could not have been gained through the equivalent time spent on some more bike-specific work?

joey54321

Imposter wrote:

Lots of those studies say 'weights are good' but the intervention group in those cases usually ends up doing more training than the control group, so you are never comparing like with like. Interestingly, that most recent study found no increase in VO2Max, which is mostly what it's about anyway.

I'd be interested to know what specific performance benefits you got from your S&C work - and whether you felt those improvements could not have been gained through the equivalent time spent on some more bike-specific work?

So there are two points to this.

1) after 15 hours of cycling a week (not every week, but at my peak i'll be doing that, including 1.5 hours commuting ~4 times a week) I actually look forward to doing something off the bike.
2) VO2Max is not the focal point of cycling, VO2 max alone doesn't make you quick. A lot of previous studies on weights have been discredited because they assumed that the only way to test the effectivness of weights was VO2Max. However, a lot of studies have found other gains, such as better efficiency, neuromusclar benefits and preserving fasttwitch fibres for longer (useful for sprint finishes).
3) I feel I can generate more power through more of the pedal stroke.

imposter2.0

joey54321 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Lots of those studies say 'weights are good' but the intervention group in those cases usually ends up doing more training than the control group, so you are never comparing like with like. Interestingly, that most recent study found no increase in VO2Max, which is mostly what it's about anyway.

I'd be interested to know what specific performance benefits you got from your S&C work - and whether you felt those improvements could not have been gained through the equivalent time spent on some more bike-specific work?

So there are two points to this.

1) after 15 hours of cycling a week (not every week, but at my peak i'll be doing that, including 1.5 hours commuting ~4 times a week) I actually look forward to doing something off the bike.
2) VO2Max is not the focal point of cycling, VO2 max alone doesn't make you quick. A lot of previous studies on weights have been discredited because they assumed that the only way to test the effectivness of weights was VO2Max. However, a lot of studies have found other gains, such as better efficiency, neuromusclar benefits and preserving fasttwitch fibres for longer (useful for sprint finishes).
3) I feel I can generate more power through more of the pedal stroke.

1) Agreed, fair enough.
2) Agree, it's not all about VO2 max, but increases in sustainable/average power are probably the most obvious measures of benefit. I think it is accepted that weights can/will improve peak power, for obvious reasons.
3) 'feel' takes us back to anecdote/personal opinion and the ubiquitous "it works for me" type arguments, unfortunately. While I'm not disputing your own experience, it's not enough for me to rip up my training plan and start again.

joey54321

Imposter wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Lots of those studies say 'weights are good' but the intervention group in those cases usually ends up doing more training than the control group, so you are never comparing like with like. Interestingly, that most recent study found no increase in VO2Max, which is mostly what it's about anyway.

I'd be interested to know what specific performance benefits you got from your S&C work - and whether you felt those improvements could not have been gained through the equivalent time spent on some more bike-specific work?

So there are two points to this.

1) after 15 hours of cycling a week (not every week, but at my peak i'll be doing that, including 1.5 hours commuting ~4 times a week) I actually look forward to doing something off the bike.
2) VO2Max is not the focal point of cycling, VO2 max alone doesn't make you quick. A lot of previous studies on weights have been discredited because they assumed that the only way to test the effectivness of weights was VO2Max. However, a lot of studies have found other gains, such as better efficiency, neuromusclar benefits and preserving fasttwitch fibres for longer (useful for sprint finishes).
3) I feel I can generate more power through more of the pedal stroke.

1) Agreed, fair enough.
2) Agree, it's not all about VO2 max, but increases in sustainable/average power are probably the most obvious measures of benefit. I think it is accepted that weights can/will improve peak power, for obvious reasons.
3) 'feel' takes us back to anecdote/personal opinion and the ubiquitous "it works for me" type arguments, unfortunately. While I'm not disputing your own experience, it's not enough for me to rip up my training plan and start again.

Sure, feel is subjective. But how much of your training methods aren't based on subjective feelings? How often do you attempt to run double blind experiments of your own training methods for periods of 8 weeks to scientifically prove that '2x20 mins are more effective than 5 x 5 mins @ VO2 max on tuesday'?

Also, is adding/swapping one sessions/week (or even ~10 days) really ripping up your training plan?


I should say for anyone with < 6-8 hours/week, I probably wouldn't advise weights unless it fits in more convientily (e.g. lunch time gym etc...).