leg gym work
Comments
-
virtually every hill climber I know does squats and deadlift with heavy weights over the winter… they might be all wrong, but surely they would not bother if they didn’t see an improvement.
left the forum March 20231 -
Squatting 'heavy' weights ('heavy' is a completely non-specific measure of weight) will likely increase leg strength and associated hypertrophy - so you get 'stronger' legs, but with that also comes bigger - and therefore heaver - muscles. And making yourself heavier to go up hills quicker is completely counter-productive.ugo.santalucia said:virtually every hill climber I know does squats and deadlift with heavy weights over the winter… they might be all wrong, but surely they would not bother if they didn’t see an improvement.
The force applied to each pedal to get up one of the major cols is something like 13-15kg per side - and that kind of strength is well within the capability of almost anyone, of any age. So you can see that physical strength' is not the issue here. THe issue is the ability to apply that 15kg each side, repeatedly, and as frequently as you can, for the duration of the climb. TLDR - if you can't already push 15kg, then not winning a hillclimb is the least of your problems.
Like I said earlier, if you think it is 'strength' which gets you up hills, then you've misunderstood the issue. And if your hillclimb mates are doing this because they think it makes them faster, then we are just going round in circles. There's dozens of multi-page threads on here regarding this issue, with contributions from some very credible and experienced sports scientists and coaches (of which I am not one) - well worth seeking them out.
0 -
-
yeahbbut I need 650W for a minute up a 12% climb… probably a 2:1 ratio or slightly harder from a standing start FTW.
Probably the kilo is the closest thingleft the forum March 20230 -
Strength and power are entirely different measures. Velodromes are usually flat (unless you're riding straight up the banking), so the comparison is meaningless. There's a reason why Chris Hoy never won any hillclimbs.ugo.santalucia said:yeahbbut I need 650W for a minute up a 12% climb… probably a 2:1 ratio or slightly harder from a standing start FTW.
Probably the kilo is the closest thing
0 -
It certainly is worth seeking them out, many have disagreed with you, and you're views are becoming rather outdated. The top endurance athletes now recognise the benefits of strength training and incorporate it into their training regime. I do it, however, not because I think it will have a significant impact upon my cycling performance, but more because I believe in the long-term health benefits.imposter2.0 said:
Squatting 'heavy' weights ('heavy' is a completely non-specific measure of weight) will likely increase leg strength and associated hypertrophy - so you get 'stronger' legs, but with that also comes bigger - and therefore heaver - muscles. And making yourself heavier to go up hills quicker is completely counter-productive.ugo.santalucia said:virtually every hill climber I know does squats and deadlift with heavy weights over the winter… they might be all wrong, but surely they would not bother if they didn’t see an improvement.
The force applied to each pedal to get up one of the major cols is something like 13-15kg per side - and that kind of strength is well within the capability of almost anyone, of any age. So you can see that physical strength' is not the issue here. THe issue is the ability to apply that 15kg each side, repeatedly, and as frequently as you can, for the duration of the climb. TLDR - if you can't already push 15kg, then not winning a hillclimb is the least of your problems.
Like I said earlier, if you think it is 'strength' which gets you up hills, then you've misunderstood the issue. And if your hillclimb mates are doing this because they think it makes them faster, then we are just going round in circles. There's dozens of multi-page threads on here regarding this issue, with contributions from some very credible and experienced sports scientists and coaches (of which I am not one) - well worth seeking them out.0 -
as far as I know he never entered any… I am sure he would have done very well in the short ones and less so in the long ones.imposter2.0 said:
Strength and power are entirely different measures. Velodromes are usually flat (unless you're riding straight up the banking), so the comparison is meaningless. There's a reason why Chris Hoy never won any hillclimbs.ugo.santalucia said:yeahbbut I need 650W for a minute up a 12% climb… probably a 2:1 ratio or slightly harder from a standing start FTW.
Probably the kilo is the closest thing
Best guy in the 1-2 minute races happen to be a track cyclist. They generally have huge 1 minute W/kg output… 12-13.
left the forum March 20230 -
I would agree with this. There are any number of articles to support weight training for endurance athletes. The term “heavy weights” is specific to each individual, what is heavy for one is not the same for another and would refer to a weight which can be lifted for circa 4-6 repetitions. It is difficult to develop any significant hypertrophy which could have an adverse effect, unless you specifically target it, certainly training a two or three of times a week won’t do it, following a program for endurance strength.davebradswmb said:
It certainly is worth seeking them out, many have disagreed with you, and you're views are becoming rather outdated. The top endurance athletes now recognise the benefits of strength training and incorporate it into their training regime. I do it, however, not because I think it will have a significant impact upon my cycling performance, but more because I believe in the long-term health benefits.imposter2.0 said:
Squatting 'heavy' weights ('heavy' is a completely non-specific measure of weight) will likely increase leg strength and associated hypertrophy - so you get 'stronger' legs, but with that also comes bigger - and therefore heaver - muscles. And making yourself heavier to go up hills quicker is completely counter-productive.ugo.santalucia said:virtually every hill climber I know does squats and deadlift with heavy weights over the winter… they might be all wrong, but surely they would not bother if they didn’t see an improvement.
The force applied to each pedal to get up one of the major cols is something like 13-15kg per side - and that kind of strength is well within the capability of almost anyone, of any age. So you can see that physical strength' is not the issue here. THe issue is the ability to apply that 15kg each side, repeatedly, and as frequently as you can, for the duration of the climb. TLDR - if you can't already push 15kg, then not winning a hillclimb is the least of your problems.
Like I said earlier, if you think it is 'strength' which gets you up hills, then you've misunderstood the issue. And if your hillclimb mates are doing this because they think it makes them faster, then we are just going round in circles. There's dozens of multi-page threads on here regarding this issue, with contributions from some very credible and experienced sports scientists and coaches (of which I am not one) - well worth seeking them out.1 -
You make it sound as though 'my views' are somehow unique. They simply reflect what I understand as the current scientific position on strength training for endurance athletes (hill climbs are also an endurance discipline). I could be out of date though - so if you are aware of any new studies which update and/or alter the position, then let me know. However, none of that will change the fact that Ugo is confusing 'strength' with 'power'.davebradswmb said:It certainly is worth seeking them out, many have disagreed with you, and you're views are becoming rather outdated. The top endurance athletes now recognise the benefits of strength training and incorporate it into their training regime. I do it, however, not because I think it will have a significant impact upon my cycling performance, but more because I believe in the long-term health benefits.
The 'health benefits' of weights are probably beyond question - but that's not the issue here.
0 -
Calling someone a 'track cyclist' is not specific enough and further demonstrates that you don't really understand the issue. Sprint or endurance? The strength/power demands of each discipline are hugely different.ugo.santalucia said:as far as I know he never entered any… I am sure he would have done very well in the short ones and less so in the long ones.
Best guy in the 1-2 minute races happen to be a track cyclist. They generally have huge 1 minute W/kg output… 12-13.
0 -
In which case, you are not building 'strength' in the way I understand the term is measured in sports science. Typically, it is defined as your 1RM. Most pro endurance riders will have a weights regime built into their training plans, but I seriously doubt if it would be designed to increase their 1RM - or even their 4-6RM, as that would almost certainly be counter productive. More likely it will be designed to improve conditioning and resistance to injury.yellowv2 said:I would agree with this. There are any number of articles to support weight training for endurance athletes. The term “heavy weights” is specific to each individual, what is heavy for one is not the same for another and would refer to a weight which can be lifted for circa 4-6 repetitions. It is difficult to develop any significant hypertrophy which could have an adverse effect, unless you specifically target it, certainly training a two or three of times a week won’t do it, following a program for endurance strength.
0 -
… in which case I will save myself the burden of a gym membership and just use bigger gears instead… which is free!left the forum March 20231
-
You are quite right in saying that their training regime will not be designed to increase their 1RM Max, yet it will inevitably improve as a result of the training that they are doing. They will be keeping track of their 4 or 6RM Max if for no other reason than to be able to plan their sessions.imposter2.0 said:
In which case, you are not building 'strength' in the way I understand the term is measured in sports science. Typically, it is defined as your 1RM. Most pro endurance riders will have a weights regime built into their training plans, but I seriously doubt if it would be designed to increase their 1RM - or even their 4-6RM, as that would almost certainly be counter productive. More likely it will be designed to improve conditioning and resistance to injury.yellowv2 said:I would agree with this. There are any number of articles to support weight training for endurance athletes. The term “heavy weights” is specific to each individual, what is heavy for one is not the same for another and would refer to a weight which can be lifted for circa 4-6 repetitions. It is difficult to develop any significant hypertrophy which could have an adverse effect, unless you specifically target it, certainly training a two or three of times a week won’t do it, following a program for endurance strength.
This article on Training Peaks seems to summarise current thinking on strength training for endurance athletes. I do get the impression from what I have read that the benefits of strength training are not fully understood, but there is no doubt from empirical data that it does work.0 -
I wonder if an in door rowing machine translates? I don't want to Google cheat, the legs do the work, good for cardio and the core.
For something different and to mix it up a bit.0 -
That article might represent the current opinions of the author, but I don't see how it represents 'current thinking' from an endurance cycling perspective - especially as it seems to relate to triathletes and focuses on running, without really mentioning cycling. Either way, 'current thinking' is not necessarily 'established science'.davebradswmb said:
You are quite right in saying that their training regime will not be designed to increase their 1RM Max, yet it will inevitably improve as a result of the training that they are doing. They will be keeping track of their 4 or 6RM Max if for no other reason than to be able to plan their sessions.
This article on Training Peaks seems to summarise current thinking on strength training for endurance athletes. I do get the impression from what I have read that the benefits of strength training are not fully understood, but there is no doubt from empirical data that it does work.
If you have access to a new study which changes the established scientific view on strength training for cycling performance, then that would be interesting. Otherwise, it's just another circular discussion, like all the others.
0 -
Targetted ERG workouts would no doubt be better, but for the extra motivation of a virtual race, Zwift Academy 2023 race #2 is almost perfect for three 1-5min climb efforts per lap.
They're run everday until end of Zwift Academy, next one today is 1900.
https://zwiftpower.com/events.php?zid=3902397================
2020 Voodoo Marasa
2017 Cube Attain GTC Pro Disc 2016
2016 Voodoo Wazoo0 -
I did one… was a bit annoyed that folks with 3.4W/kg were dropping me up said climbs… it seems to be a bit of a video game, where you need the Tron bike and press the right boost button at the right time. Time trials are best, I did a couple on the Bologna course,nwhich is a nice climb, if a bit long at 9 minutes-ish.N0bodyOfTheGoat said:Targetted ERG workouts would no doubt be better, but for the extra motivation of a virtual race, Zwift Academy 2023 race #2 is almost perfect for three 1-5min climb efforts per lap.
They're run everday until end of Zwift Academy, next one today is 1900.
https://zwiftpower.com/events.php?zid=3902397
Is ERG mode a good idea for zone 6 to 7? I like it for zone 5, but doing 400W against a fixed resistance for a set time doesn’t seem to be right
left the forum March 20230 -
Science is constantly evolving. Just a quick google search throws up plenty of studies to support current views which is why these type of articles are constantly appearing. All coaching platforms are pushing them out, the article referred to above isn’t even the only one on Training Peaks.imposter2.0 said:
That article might represent the current opinions of the author, but I don't see how it represents 'current thinking' from an endurance cycling perspective - especially as it seems to relate to triathletes and focuses on running, without really mentioning cycling. Either way, 'current thinking' is not necessarily 'established science'.davebradswmb said:
You are quite right in saying that their training regime will not be designed to increase their 1RM Max, yet it will inevitably improve as a result of the training that they are doing. They will be keeping track of their 4 or 6RM Max if for no other reason than to be able to plan their sessions.
This article on Training Peaks seems to summarise current thinking on strength training for endurance athletes. I do get the impression from what I have read that the benefits of strength training are not fully understood, but there is no doubt from empirical data that it does work.
If you have access to a new study which changes the established scientific view on strength training for cycling performance, then that would be interesting. Otherwise, it's just another circular discussion, like all the others.0 -
Before long covid, my turbos (Direto and now H3) had no problem doing 400W in ERG mode, typically while doing ramp tests.ugo.santalucia said:Is ERG mode a good idea for zone 6 to 7? I like it for zone 5, but doing 400W against a fixed resistance for a set time doesn’t seem to be right
================
2020 Voodoo Marasa
2017 Cube Attain GTC Pro Disc 2016
2016 Voodoo Wazoo0 -
the trainer is fine, I just wish there was a way to turn it off with a button when you realise you can keep up no more. It lets you grind yourself to a halt, whereas one would like to spin out of the deadly cadence. In other news, I find trainers are great to keep threshold over a long timeframe, but not very good for short bursts at high power… maybe it’s the rocking thing that is missingleft the forum March 20230
-
Put the links up here - it would be good to catch up with some new studies on the topic.yellowv2 said:
Science is constantly evolving. Just a quick google search throws up plenty of studies to support current views which is why these type of articles are constantly appearing. All coaching platforms are pushing them out, the article referred to above isn’t even the only one on Training Peaks.
The number of 'articles' on TP is irrelevant. Especially if they are all like that one. Coaching platforms pushing out articles like this doesn't actually change the science. Would be good to see links to the studies...
0 -
Here you go, fill yer boots.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=study+cycling+strength+training&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart0 -
(ps, I only scan read the top result, it confirms that strength training improves cyclists' performance, you may find a study that confirms your bias. If so, please share)0
-
The 'top result'..? Presumably you mean the second from top, as the first one references cycling economy, not performance. Anyway, the second result is from 2015 and has already been discussed on here in previous threads (remember the ones I suggested you look up). TLDR - a group that did more training performed better than a group that did less training, so not clear if the 'e' group would have seen similar improvements with equal training hours.davebradswmb said:(ps, I only scan read the top result, it confirms that strength training improves cyclists' performance, you may find a study that confirms your bias. If so, please share)
In fact, most of those studies have been covered on here previously. There's a couple that haven't, as far as I'm aware as they're quite new. The 2019 study concludes that cycling-based training has more effect on average and peak power than strength-based training. Although the strength group did, unsurprisingly, improve their 1RM.
The 2020 study is actually a case study on a single rider, so difficult to conclude anything useful from that.
Seriously, go read the other threads, and then re-visit your own bias. There's nothing new on that link that changes the conversation significantly, as far as I can tell.
0 -
As I have said on this, and many other threads, like Imposter, I am in the camp that the science does not point to any significant correlation between leg strengthening weight lifting and improved cycling endurance.
I would be more focussed on studies that examine cycling specific training methods that are shown to improve endurance whether FTP, MAP, Vo2 max etc. as these are the cycling specific metrics that Ugo wishes to improve.
On a personal note, My one minute power has increased by around 8% this year which is huge. I do not train for it or target specific intervals. The only noticeable change I can point to is increased volume. I have averaged close to 400km per week this year, with many long blocks of high volume, combined with slightly better recovery. Logic would suggest that this accounts for the increase in power numbers.
I have said it on many occasions, but the only proven way to fully maximise cycling potential and performance is a combo of many hours on the bike, targeted intervals and recovery.0 -
You seem very entrenched in your views which don’t align with current coaching views, which is up to you. I don’t agree but that’s my prerogative.0
-
Given Ugo's not a pro athlete, I'd suggest the other benefits of a bit of weight training would outweigh any debatable cycling related pros or cons.0
-
"The results from this study show an improvement in CE without any decline in maximal oxygen consumptions. This means that maximal strength training improves cycling performance, which is also shown by an improvement in time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power. A 5% improvement in CE should actually account for a 5% improvement in time performance over a given distance. Therefore, we advise cyclists at both recreational and higher levels to include maximal strength training as a supplement to their endurance training program."imposter2.0 said:
The 'top result'..? Presumably you mean the second from top, as the first one references cycling economy, not performance. Anyway, the second result is from 2015 and has already been discussed on here in previous threads (remember the ones I suggested you look up). TLDR - a group that did more training performed better than a group that did less training, so not clear if the 'e' group would have seen similar improvements with equal training hours.
In fact, most of those studies have been covered on here previously. There's a couple that haven't, as far as I'm aware as they're quite new. The 2019 study concludes that cycling-based training has more effect on average and peak power than strength-based training. Although the strength group did, unsurprisingly, improve their 1RM.
The 2020 study is actually a case study on a single rider, so difficult to conclude anything useful from that.
Seriously, go read the other threads, and then re-visit your own bias. There's nothing new on that link that changes the conversation significantly, as far as I can tell.
This is a quote from the first one on cycling efficiency.
I thought he wanted to improve performance not a training number?MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:As I have said on this, and many other threads, like Imposter, I am in the camp that the science does not point to any significant correlation between leg strengthening weight lifting and improved cycling endurance.
I would be more focussed on studies that examine cycling specific training methods that are shown to improve endurance whether FTP, MAP, Vo2 max etc. as these are the cycling specific metrics that Ugo wishes to improve.
.
0 -
Yes,
I want to improve my 1-2 minutes power because I want to. target the shorter hill climbs, which are more fun, there are more of them within a reasonable distance and looking ahead, 2025 National will be a short one.
I am not too bothered about injury prevention… fingers crossed I never had an injury, so clearly I am doing something right in that department.
My best 1 minute was a mere 8.7 W/kg
2 minutes a meagre 6.3 W/kg
but my best 3 minutes is 6 W/kg which I am not too unhappy aboutleft the forum March 20230 -
No, I meant the top result, the one on cycling economy. The two main outcomes of the study are that cycling economy (measured as the power produced at a given amount of oxygen) improved by 4.8%, and time to exhaustion improved by 17.2%. If that doesn't relate to a signficant improvement in performance then I don't know what does.imposter2.0 said:
The 'top result'..? Presumably you mean the second from top, as the first one references cycling economy, not performance.davebradswmb said:(ps, I only scan read the top result, it confirms that strength training improves cyclists' performance, you may find a study that confirms your bias. If so, please share)
I am not going to waste my time reading any of the others, I am quite happy getting my information 2nd hand from respected coaches who have already made the effort.
This is not to say that I think that strength training is better than on the bike training for the average cyclist. If, like most of us, training time is limited it would probably be better spending that time on the bike than in a gym if our aim is to improve our cycling performance. Professional and aspiring cyclists are in a different position, there comes a point where time spent in the gym has more value than spending even more time on the bike.
I don't spend my time in the gym expecting any great benefit for my cycling. I hope that it helps slow the decline in performance over the winter months when I am no longer doing evening training sessions, but the main reason for spending my time in the gym is to slow the inevitable physical decline that comes with age.
1
