GYM
Comments
-
Did I not just answer it ?0
-
Imposter wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Sky and BC do see a role for weight training. I don't claim any expertise but I'd ask why Stannard was quoted earlier this year crediting gym work for making him a more punchy rider or Wiggins saying he was in the gym putting on several kgs of muscle for the team pursuit in Rio?
Either they are lying, poorly advised or it does have a place at least for some endurance riders.
People train with weights for all kinds of valid reasons. But making your legs 'stronger' in order to 'put more power through the pedals' (which is what the OP was suggesting) is not one of them..
I get that extra muscle=extra weight so overall speed will stay more or less the same for a given distance, but why would it not inherently result in 'more power through the pedals', making the rider more 'punchy' for hard acceleration and attacks?
Most pro rider's legs are far far bigger than mine, doing the right gym work to make mine bigger would surely help to some extent? (Although the time would be better spent doing hill reps on a bike as previously mentioned). Don't worry, I won't be stepping into a gym anytime soon, but extra training to get an unattainable peak power of 2000 watts will inevitably have cycling benefits for most amateurs would it not?
As with most advice on here, 'more time on the bike' is the best advice, I was just wondering from a hypothetical point of view0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Of course if you have 8-10 hours a week to train it may not be a priority but that is a practical question of designing a training programme, by the same logic if you only have £500 to spend get a bike rather than a top end skin suit, it doesn't mean top end skin suits don't work.
I thikn we are probably in agreement, as that analogy of the skinsuit is perfect.
If you only had £500 to spend on bike kit, a skinsuit would be an absolute waste unless you already had all the top end gear and were advanced enough to be able to hold an aero positon etc. At that point it may be beneficial, but not for MOST riders. It's the same with weight work.0 -
Altogether now, one more time...
STRENGTH ≠ POWER
STRENGTH ≠ POWER
STRENGTH ≠ POWER
STRENGTH ≠ POWER
STRENGTH ≠ POWER
STRENGTH ≠ POWER
STRENGTH ≠ POWER0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Sure it may not be I'm just asking the question why Sky and BC riders would appear to use strength training for performance gain?
Can you provide some kind of link that info..?0 -
0
-
HaydenM wrote:I get that extra muscle=extra weight so overall speed will stay more or less the same for a given distance, but why would it not inherently result in 'more power through the pedals', making the rider more 'punchy' for hard acceleration and attacks?
Because - as pointed out above - strength is not the same as power. A quick search through the numerous other threads on this topic would answer your question, but...unlike the power demands, the strength demands of cycling are extremely low, to the point that almost anyone who can get up out of a chair and walk around, already has sufficient strength to win the TdF. The amount of force needed to turn pedals - even on a mountain climb, works out at an average of no more than approx 13-15kg/f - which is well within the capability of almost anyone. The key is being able to repeatedly apply that pressure at an appropriate frequency for 30mins, or 60mins, or however long you need to - ie the power demand. The mechanisms by which you do that are not strength-related - they are aerobic.HaydenM wrote:Most pro rider's legs are far far bigger than mine, doing the right gym work to make mine bigger would surely help to some extent?
Help with what? Difficult to answer without knowing what your legs are like, but 'pro-riders' come in all shapes and sizes. Froome or Rasmussen are highly unlikely to have 'bigger' legs than most people. Outside of a standing track start, or the initial burst of acceleration in a track sprint (about the only times that 'strength' ever comes into the equation), the principal ingredient in terms of endurance cycling performance is sustainable power, which is generated aerobically.0 -
0
-
Imposter wrote:HaydenM wrote:I get that extra muscle=extra weight so overall speed will stay more or less the same for a given distance, but why would it not inherently result in 'more power through the pedals', making the rider more 'punchy' for hard acceleration and attacks?
Because - as pointed out above - strength is not the same as power. A quick search through the numerous other threads on this topic would answer your question, but...unlike the power demands, the strength demands of cycling are extremely low, to the point that almost anyone who can get up out of a chair and walk around, already has sufficient strength to win the TdF. The amount of force needed to turn pedals - even on a mountain climb, works out at an average of no more than approx 13-15kg/f - which is well within the capability of almost anyone. The key is being able to repeatedly apply that pressure at an appropriate frequency for 30mins, or 60mins, or however long you need to - ie the power demand. The mechanisms by which you do that are not strength-related - they are aerobic.HaydenM wrote:Most pro rider's legs are far far bigger than mine, doing the right gym work to make mine bigger would surely help to some extent?
Help with what? Difficult to answer without knowing what your legs are like, but 'pro-riders' come in all shapes and sizes. Froome or Rasmussen are highly unlikely to have 'bigger' legs than most people. Outside of a standing track start, or the initial burst of acceleration in a track sprint (about the only times that 'strength' ever comes into the equation), the principal ingredient in terms of endurance cycling performance is sustainable power, which is generated aerobically.
I didn't say strength is the same as power, I was interested as to whether strength training would have an inherent impact on power, which is a valid question. From what I can find, it does to a limited extent but not enough to justify taking time away from normal training for the majority. It depends what kind of rider you are and your required outcomes as to whether that very specific benefit is worth it.
Good point about Froome's legs, I should have said a big sprinter rather than most pros, I was wrong. The fact people with small legs can go on big punchy attacks highlights your point, but I was wondering whether the OP would gain anything for cycling almost as a byproduct
EDIT: Essentially if he upped his leg strength it would presumably impact on his absolute 5 second power, but according to that cycling weekly article it wouldn't help overall0 -
Well British Cycling certainly think that there is benefit to be had from leg strength training.
Interview with Chris Froome in Men's Health.
What’s your typical training routine?
"I train on the bike and I get into the gym five times a week, mainly to work on my core stability, leg strength, and some back work. A lot of squats and lunges, no heavy weights – more about building strength than muscle. We also weave some yoga postures into our stretching." - and he ain't no sprinter
Either these people are wasting their time, or there are real benefits to be had.
From a long-term health perspective everyone should do some resistance training. Cycling is very good for training your CV system and your Quads, but pretty useless for training any other aspects of fitness. If you want to prolong your health and fitness then strength training is essential. This doesn't mean that you have to get in the gym, you can do a lot with body weight exercises and Yoga.0 -
Tanita smart scales suggested my body fat dropped from nine to seven per cent although my weight increased from 70 to 72kg. Fitting in key, quality on-bike training sessions around gym work proved very challenging. I attempted to do my most intense bike sessions on the same day as my hard gym workout, my thinking being that I could get it all done before the delayed onset muscle soreness set in. This pattern worked for the first four weeks, but after that I found it too hard to sustain.
On standard Sunday club runs, I felt like a sprinter in the Tour de France Queen Stage – desperately trying to cling on to make the time-cut. I found myself getting dropped more often than a post-2011 Andy Schleck, and constantly making excuses to my friends for my plunge deep into the murk of cycling mediocrity.
Once I had finally finished the eightweek weights programme I was keen to see the benefits. I was able to resume intense training on the bike, but it quickly became evident from my power data that my aerobic fitness had declined. The reason for this, I’m sure, is that I neglected high-intensity sessions on the bike in favour of weight training.
How about my peak power? Had eight weeks of weights given me the legs of Robert Forsterman? Disappointingly, no. It appears that sprinters are in fact born, not made. Although the amount of weight I could lift and push improved signifi cantly, this didn’t translate into big wattage improvements on the bike. One week prior to the strength training, I produced 913w for five seconds in a sprint.
Post-training, I hit 1,038w for five seconds. I am no sprinter; Marcel Kittel will not be quaking in his lederhosen. Even so, it was an improvement. Evans explained: “If we improve force output, it doesn’t necessarily all transfer onto the bike, as there is a skill element to pedalling and cadence. You still need to develop skill.”
A month after finishing the eight-week block of weights, I took part in a number of time trials. The power I was able to produce over 20 minutes to an hour was significantly less than it had been in the past — and definitely less than it would have been had I simply completed three months of structured bike training without lifting any weights.
I also rode the 2016 Fred Whitton challenge, an event and route I have ridden a number of times before. In the past, the event’s frequent, brutal climbs had caused me pain in my lower back. This time, I had no such issues and recorded my fastest ever time. Through working on foundational movements and core strength, I had significantly improved my core
Does anyone need much more evidence than that?
Substituting time on the bike for gym work won't make you faster. It might help if you have low back pain.0 -
Craigus89 wrote:Tanita smart scales suggested my body fat dropped from nine to seven per cent although my weight increased from 70 to 72kg. Fitting in key, quality on-bike training sessions around gym work proved very challenging. I attempted to do my most intense bike sessions on the same day as my hard gym workout, my thinking being that I could get it all done before the delayed onset muscle soreness set in. This pattern worked for the first four weeks, but after that I found it too hard to sustain.
On standard Sunday club runs, I felt like a sprinter in the Tour de France Queen Stage – desperately trying to cling on to make the time-cut. I found myself getting dropped more often than a post-2011 Andy Schleck, and constantly making excuses to my friends for my plunge deep into the murk of cycling mediocrity.
Once I had finally finished the eightweek weights programme I was keen to see the benefits. I was able to resume intense training on the bike, but it quickly became evident from my power data that my aerobic fitness had declined. The reason for this, I’m sure, is that I neglected high-intensity sessions on the bike in favour of weight training.
How about my peak power? Had eight weeks of weights given me the legs of Robert Forsterman? Disappointingly, no. It appears that sprinters are in fact born, not made. Although the amount of weight I could lift and push improved signifi cantly, this didn’t translate into big wattage improvements on the bike. One week prior to the strength training, I produced 913w for five seconds in a sprint.
Post-training, I hit 1,038w for five seconds. I am no sprinter; Marcel Kittel will not be quaking in his lederhosen. Even so, it was an improvement. Evans explained: “If we improve force output, it doesn’t necessarily all transfer onto the bike, as there is a skill element to pedalling and cadence. You still need to develop skill.”
A month after finishing the eight-week block of weights, I took part in a number of time trials. The power I was able to produce over 20 minutes to an hour was significantly less than it had been in the past — and definitely less than it would have been had I simply completed three months of structured bike training without lifting any weights.
I also rode the 2016 Fred Whitton challenge, an event and route I have ridden a number of times before. In the past, the event’s frequent, brutal climbs had caused me pain in my lower back. This time, I had no such issues and recorded my fastest ever time. Through working on foundational movements and core strength, I had significantly improved my core
Does anyone need much more evidence than that?
Substituting time on the bike for gym work won't make you faster. It might help if you have low back pain.
That's why I posted it, big trade of for a very small increase in max 5s power. Obviously this makes people (not necessarily idiots) wonder why the pros are doing it? Presumably pros are looking for both the tiny increase in very short term power without the negative impact as they have more time to train?
A scorn-free discussion would be good
0 -
HaydenM wrote:That's why I posted it, big trade of for a very small increase in max 5s power. Obviously this makes people (not necessarily idiots) wonder why the pros are doing it? Presumably pros are looking for both the tiny increase in very short term power without the negative impact as they have more time to train?
A scorn-free discussion would be good
I would suggest that the pros are doing it because they don't work full time jobs like many amateurs do and they have the time to do gym work without having to substitute time that could be spent on the bike, as has been said very early on.0 -
HaydenM wrote:I didn't say strength is the same as power, I was interested as to whether strength training would have an inherent impact on power, which is a valid question.
In sports science terms, strength is defined as the application of force, typically in a 1RM scenario. Given that the strength demands of cycling are so low, it follows that 'strength' training is not going to have any meaningful impact on producing power in cycling terms. Weight training for conditioning purposes might be useful to prevent/recover from injury, or to correct some kind of imbalance, but it's effect on performance outside of the scenarios described previously is going to be largely ineffective - at least the that's what the balance of research evidence to date suggests...0 -
Craigus89 wrote:HaydenM wrote:That's why I posted it, big trade of for a very small increase in max 5s power. Obviously this makes people (not necessarily idiots) wonder why the pros are doing it? Presumably pros are looking for both the tiny increase in very short term power without the negative impact as they have more time to train?
A scorn-free discussion would be good
I would suggest that the pros are doing it because they don't work full time jobs like many amateurs do and they have the time to do gym work without having to substitute time that could be spent on the bike, as has been said very early on.
Lighten up.
It was, but in a slightly different context. There is a suggestion that it has absolutely no benefit, but there is some info that in some instances it does. I was interested in a discussion.0 -
davebradswmb wrote:Well British Cycling certainly think that there is benefit to be had from leg strength training.
Except that what they are describing there has more in common with 'conditioning' - not 'strength' training in the conventional sense, as mentioned earlier.davebradswmb wrote:Interview with Chris Froome in Men's Health.
What’s your typical training routine?
"I train on the bike and I get into the gym five times a week, mainly to work on my core stability, leg strength, and some back work. A lot of squats and lunges, no heavy weights – more about building strength than muscle. We also weave some yoga postures into our stretching." - and he ain't no sprinter
Either these people are wasting their time, or there are real benefits to be had.
From a long-term health perspective everyone should do some resistance training. Cycling is very good for training your CV system and your Quads, but pretty useless for training any other aspects of fitness. If you want to prolong your health and fitness then strength training is essential. This doesn't mean that you have to get in the gym, you can do a lot with body weight exercises and Yoga.
The bit in bold is completely contradictory. If you are not using 'heavy weights' then by definition, it is not strength training in the conventional sense. It's 'conditioning', which is another matter entirely. It's quite likely that 'Men's Health' (hardly a peer-reviewed' journal) has either misunderstood this, or misquoted him.0 -
Noooooo! All this time I've been convinced that if I keep on reading it I'll get abs like the guys on the coverImposter wrote:'Men's Health' (hardly a peer-reviewed' journal) has either misunderstood this, or misquoted him.
0 -
Imposter wrote:HaydenM wrote:I didn't say strength is the same as power, I was interested as to whether strength training would have an inherent impact on power, which is a valid question.
In sports science terms, strength is defined as the application of force, typically in a 1RM scenario. Given that the strength demands of cycling are so low, it follows that 'strength' training is not going to have any meaningful impact on producing power in cycling terms. Weight training for conditioning purposes might be useful to prevent/recover from injury, or to correct some kind of imbalance, but it's effect on performance outside of the scenarios described previously is going to be largely ineffective - at least the that's what the balance of research evidence to date suggests...
That makes sense, I was wondering where the line is in terms of trade off for the OP. Between what the CW article says and what we think the pros it's interesting, clearly it's at the 'pro' end of the scale and then it's some sort of marginal gain. Cheers0 -
It's a nonsense to suggest that what Froome describes is conditioning rather than strength training, he's doing weighted squats, he may not be body building but he says himself he is working on strength.
Also there is conflicting evidence in the peer reviewed research. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... tic_Review
So for me it it still seems to be an open question but one that Sky and BC seem to have come down on the side of incorporating strength training into their programme.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
There are lots of things the pros do. I remember hearing an interview with Froome a year or two ago where he spoke about how in the off-season he often will spend the afternoon lying with his legs up against a wall to maximise his recovery.
Maybe we should all start doing that too?0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:It's a nonsense to suggest that what Froome describes is conditioning rather than strength training, he's doing weighted squats, he may not be body building but he says himself he is working on strength.
It isn't 'nonsense' - and where does he say he's doing 'weighted squats..? In that interview he says he is doing 'no heavy weights' - although there's obviously no actual definition of what constitutes 'heavy' in this context. If the weights aren't 'heavy', then they will not induce hypertrophy and will not lead to strength gains in the conventional sense. Either way, I think we can dismiss 'Men's Health' as a serious exercise science journal.DeVlaeminck wrote:Also there is conflicting evidence in the peer reviewed research. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... tic_Review
That's just a round-up of other studies. You would need to look into the testing methodology of each of those studies independently to see what they established, and how. All it proves, otherwise, is that evidence is equivocal, at best.DeVlaeminck wrote:So for me it it still seems to be an open question but one that Sky and BC seem to have come down on the side of incorporating strength training into their programme.
Again, what evidence do you have for saying this? If you are referring to the YT clip mentioned earlier, then that is self-evidently not 'strength' work.0 -
Craigus89 wrote:There are lots of things the pros do. I remember hearing an interview with Froome a year or two ago where he spoke about how in the off-season he often will spend the afternoon lying with his legs up against a wall to maximise his recovery.
Maybe we should all start doing that too?
A few years back, a couple of mags ran interviews with Cav. In one, he said he never used weights. In the other, he said he did. So either Cav didn't actually know whether he used weights or not (unlikely), or the mags got it wrong (more likely), or the writers simply wrote what they thought their readers wanted to hear (even more likely). This is why quoting from magazine articles is not always a good idea.0 -
Craigus89 wrote:There are lots of things the pros do. I remember hearing an interview with Froome a year or two ago where he spoke about how in the off-season he often will spend the afternoon lying with his legs up against a wall to maximise his recovery.
Maybe we should all start doing that too?
If it has an effect on the average rider then yes...? My point about what the pros do was that if there is a benefit there, how small is it, and how far down the pro to beginner scale does it become negated by other factors.
Obviously the pros have quite different requirements to normal people.0 -
Most magazine articles are b*ll*cks. They exist to help you look at the adverts, ask anyone who's been in the magazine publishing business for a while. Rags like Men's Health aren't worth the paper (or pixels) they're written on.Imposter wrote:A few years back, a couple of mags ran interviews with Cav. In one, he said he never used weights. In the other, he said he did. So either Cav didn't actually know whether he used weights or not (unlikely), or the mags got it wrong (more likely), or the writers simply wrote what they thought their readers wanted to hear (even more likely). This is why quoting from magazine articles is not always a good idea.
Your last sentence is the most important one. A World Tour pro rider's lifestyle/training and race programme is very different, even compared to an elite domestic rider in the UK, never mind an amateur noodling about at weekends. Is the OP going to start attending month-long altitude camps? Copy the gym workouts of Sagan or Nino Schurter? Race 200-250km on around 100 days a year? (that's racing BTW, not riding) No. So his/her training does not need to emulate that of a pro rider.HaydenM wrote:My point about what the pros do was that if there is a benefit there, how small is it, and how far down the pro to beginner scale does it become negated by other factors.
Obviously the pros have quite different requirements to normal people.
If you do weights/gym work for a while and find it helps, great. If you find it counterproductive then consider doing less. Research suggests cyclists are likely to have lower bone density than people doing weight-bearing exercise so doing some resistance work may help for this reason alone.
I wish I lived near a velodrome as I'm sure a winter of weekly track sessions would see me much faster in the spring.Aspire not to have more, but to be more.0 -
joey54321 wrote:Imposter wrote:
The evidence for strength work being beneficial for endurance cyclists (in terms of a performance benefit) is equivocal at best - which you will see if you delve back into previous threads on this topic. If you have new 'compelling' information, I think we'd all be keen to see it.
Ah Yes, why rely on peer-reviewed studies and meta-studies that examine 10 years of research when I can listen to some random people posting on an internet forum. How silly of me.Killerclown wrote:The easiest way to look at it is to work out what effects the terms that get waved about all over the place, without realising what those terms actually mean.
The faster a given rider wants to go, with given conditions and given kit, the more power they have to produce.
Power is simply Force x distance x pedal revolutions divided by time. Force is driven by strength, the distance component is mostly governed by technique and fitness, the pedal revolutions divided by time ( cadence ) is ultimately mostly driven by fitness and technique. So to put it simply, fitness and technique, count for more than raw strength. Working on fitness ( specifically VO2 max, and lactate threshold, primarily) by following a regime designed to do this, and working on technique, which is really only do-able on the bike ( be it turbo, or preferably real world ) will yield better results for a cyclist, than sitting in a gym, moving bits of metal about, primarily to increase muscle strength.
That is indeed how weight training was perceived as before i.e. what change to VO2max does it elicit, none, therefore it doesn't improve cycling which is why a lot of older studies found no benefit, as they were looking for the benefit in the wrong place. As far as I understand it, the more recent studies which have looked at, for example, TTE or TT performance and found a benefit have been looking at the ability of the muscle to resist fatigue i.e. you can apply more strenth for longer (power), even when that longer means several hours.
This is it from me, I've said what I wanted to, unfortunately, multiple times. Now down to the OP/other reads to make up their mind.
Yep, that’s it in a nutshell.0 -
Killerclown wrote:Yep, that’s it in a nutshell.
What? - no it isn't. He's disagreeing with what you said. Did you even bother to read it?0 -
Imposter wrote:Killerclown wrote:Yep, that’s it in a nutshell.
What? - no it isn't. He's disagreeing with what you said. Did you even bother to read it?
No he isn’t.0 -
Killerclown wrote:Imposter wrote:Killerclown wrote:Yep, that’s it in a nutshell.
What? - no it isn't. He's disagreeing with what you said. Did you even bother to read it?
No he isn’t.
You are saying (correctly for once) that increased muscular strength is not helpful for endurance cycling. He is saying there is evidence that it is. To be fair, you don't seem to hold any firm opinions on anything else, so there's no reason why this topic should be any different I guess...0 -
It depends on what sort of distances you do the sort of strength work that might be more suitable.
Core work ( all the way round including transverse work) is useful in any case. It can help prevent back pain also.
I am assuming you are fit and well and have no injuries.
If you are a distance cyclist you don't need big muscles. If you are a road sprinter it's different. Track different still.
If you have an off season i would place gym work during off season.
Out on the road you can do single leg training for example also.0 -
I'll try to cover what i've read so far (here!).
1) there are lots of world tour pros who don't do weight training, or do it for a very short period of time (e.g. a month after their road season finishes)
2) up to a few years ago BC did NOT use weights for the track endurance squad. This was something that was mentioned by a variety of their performance staff. then recently they have. while times have come down, we can't be sure whether that's aerodynamics, power output (from training), ergogenic aids (legal or not), or track craft, etc
3) Sky (at least) have said some things to do with training that they use, that have absolutely no basis in fact and are somewhat laughable (e.g. Brailsford just recently mentioned the usefulness of low cadence training)
4) lots of people mention things that are knowingly wrong, on purpose. this is part of the psychology to try and confuse their competitors...!
5) the forces involved in endurance cycling are really low, and can be met by virtually everyone. in fact if you can't meet the forces required then there is something seriously wrong with you, such that you're unlikely to be concerned with cycling performance
6) average pedal force between both legs to win up say Alpe d'Huez in the TdF requires an average force (converted to kg to make it more understandable) of about 26 kg
7) some evidence exists to show that weight training increases aerobic power output in cycling, but the data is equivocal, and not necessarily well-matched (e.g. the Ronnestaad work, apols on spelling).
8) in terms of Oliver Bridgwood's (sp?) article in CW, this is essentially similar to suggestions i made back in the day with this article http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/ ... engthstern
There are though some reasons to do weight training/S&C work -- it might be useful for everyday life, or for vanity, etc. There is some evidence it may also help with increases in lean mass, etc.
RicCoach to Michael Freiberg - Track World Champion (Omnium) 2011
Coach to James Hayden - Transcontinental Race winner 2017, and 2018
Coach to Jeff Jones - 2011 BBAR winner and 12-hour record
Check out our new website https://www.cyclecoach.com0
