leg gym work
Comments
-
The top result (the CE one) is from 2010 and - like the others - has also been discussed on here ad nauseam, which is why I assumed you weren't referring to it. It follows a similar pattern to the other 'discounted' studies in that it involves one group (the intervention group) undertaking more training hours (ie supplemental gym work) than the other group (the control group). TLDR - the study is not comparing like with like.davebradswmb said:
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.
What it does demonstrate is that increasing the amount of exercise you do leads to an improvement in fitness - but I don't think that's a particularly startling revelation. If the control group had undertaken the same amount of supplemental training hours on their bikes in parallel to the intervention group's additional hours in the gym, then that would be an interesting study.
0 -
What's the difference?joeyhalloran said:
I thought he wanted to improve performance not a training number?
1 -
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.
Completely valid point and I would agree that the health benefits of weight training to aid physical health are well documented. Purely in terms of Ugo's goals though, he is after an improved hill climb performance, and there is little to no study based evidence that gym work will help him.1 -
Well that's relevant to me as I can fit weight training in at a time that I couldn't find any cycling in, so you're confirming there is scientific backing to proceed with this?imposter2.0 said:
The top result (the CE one) is from 2010 and - like the others - has also been discussed on here ad nauseam, which is why I assumed you weren't referring to it. It follows a similar pattern to the other 'discounted' studies in that it involves one group (the intervention group) undertaking more training hours (ie supplemental gym work) than the other group (the control group). TLDR - the study is not comparing like with like.davebradswmb said:
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.
What it does demonstrate is that increasing the amount of exercise you do leads to an improvement in fitness - but I don't think that's a particularly startling revelation. If the control group had undertaken the same amount of supplemental training hours on their bikes in parallel to the intervention group's additional hours in the gym, then that would be an interesting study.
One is meaningless and the other is very important. I don't quite see how you cant understand that??imposter2.0 said:
What's the difference?
0 -
Surely if you can find time for, say, a 1hr gym session - you can also find time for a 1hr turbo session? Additional training hours are always useful and it might be that additional turbo training is more beneficial than additional weight training - but we don't know that from this study. But if you want to assume that additional gym work is going to be more beneficial than a similar amount of additional cycling - based on zero evidence - then go for it.joeyhalloran said:Well that's relevant to me as I can fit weight training in at a time that I couldn't find any cycling in, so you're confirming there is scientific backing to proceed with this?
So you're saying that improved training metrics will not lead to improved cycling performance? What training metrics do you use?joeyhalloran said:
One is meaningless and the other is very important. I don't quite see how you cant understand that??
0 -
No, I can do weights in the evenings but can't do any on the bike training.imposter2.0 said:
Surely if you can find time for, say, a 1hr gym session - you can also find time for a 1hr turbo session? Additional training hours are always useful and it might be that additional turbo training is more beneficial than additional weight training - but we don't know that from this study. But if you want to assume that additional gym work is going to be more beneficial than a similar amount of additional cycling - based on zero evidence - then go for it.
So you're saying that improved training metrics will not lead to improved cycling performance? What training metrics do you use?
That's obviously not what I am saying and the fact you can't see the difference really undermines your credibility on anything training related tbh.
0 -
Not sure what my 'credibility' has to do with anything. I was just asking you to clarify what you said - but all you did was reply with an ad hominem.joeyhalloran said:
No, I can do weights in the evenings but can't do any on the bike training.
That's obviously not what I am saying and the fact you can't see the difference really undermines your credibility on anything training related tbh.
Also - is there some practical reason why you can do weights in the evening, but not a turbo session?0 -
I’m usually too tired from my morning turbo session 😉imposter2.0 said:
Not sure what my 'credibility' has to do with anything. I was just asking you to clarify what you said - but all you did was reply with an ad hominem.joeyhalloran said:
No, I can do weights in the evenings but can't do any on the bike training.
That's obviously not what I am saying and the fact you can't see the difference really undermines your credibility on anything training related tbh.
Also - is there some practical reason why you can do weights in the evening, but not a turbo session?0 -
tried deadlift with around 40kg, which is a light load… I kept my back perfectly straight, but it’s not easy. l got the impression if I go heavier there is a more than zero chance to get it wrong and injure my back… decided it’s not worth it.
Maybe a trap bar would make it easier? They don’t seem to have one at my wife’s uber expensive club
left the forum March 20230 -
If a more than zero chance of injury is too much best stay out of the gym entirely, and off your bike for that matter.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
good comment, but next time refrain. It’s always worth asking yourself what type of reception your comment would receive from a stranger… if a punch in the mouth is more likely than a cheer of approval, it is a good idea to keep it for yourself
left the forum March 20230 -
I'm being serious. Of course you could injure yourself doing deadlifts, just as you could using weight machines. Plenty of videos of people hurting themselves using machines.
Do you often punch people in person?
Do you often get cheers of approval for comments in person?
Suspect the answer to both is no.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
The trap bar doesn't really allow good form. I would advise continuing at 40kg until you are comfortable to move the weight up and in the meantime work on your form, make sure you stick your ass out, bend at the hips and get a concave curve in your lower spine, chest up. Watch some videos on Youtube. I am currently at 70kg and tentatively moving to 80kg, still no great weight, I used to be able to do 100kg, and I'm roughly the same weight as you.
There are very good reasons for doing proper dead lifts rather than using leg press machines and the like, it's all about strengthening the complete system.
0 -
Yes I think I'd stick with 40kg and see how it goes. You can do them early in the session and keep the machine stuff in later.
Agree you don't want to risk a back injury.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1
