Regarding Weigh lifting - Page 2

You're right. I saw Lance Armstrong on TV prior to the tour de France being interviewed by Alastair Campbell. The latter seemed a giant compared with Lance and seemed taller as well as far heavier.
Of course, there's always a difference in bulk when someone is in competition training. In the off-season many of these guys pile a few pounds back on.
For cyclists it doesn't matter how you look so long as performance is good.
I don't think we'll ever see mucle-bound cyclists either. I also think it would be kind of amusing to see Arnold Schwarzennegger competing against LA on a tour climb but I rate Arnie's chances pretty slim.

armstrong would beat arnie in a sprint too. not to mention i doubt arnie has spent much time on bike. armstrong can put in a decent sprint (i.e. tour of georgia). if armstrong wanted to he could train more for sprints and be alongside pettachi at the finishes.

David,

If I can make a suggestion, I would recommend that you buy "The Cyclist's Training Bible" by Joe Friel and read it. Twice. I've read a bunch of the threads on this list about the use of weights in cycling, and I'm frankly unimpressed; people are so entrenched in who's right and who's wrong, that study results are interpreted and reinterpreted to suit each side's point, and any worthwhile information is lost in the war of words.

From your post it sounds as though you are interested in racing bicycles and want to know how you can get better at it. Cutting through all the crap here about whether weights help or harm cyclists, whether you can gauge fitness without a power meter, or whether or not you're getting enough protein in your diet, you first need to understand the specific demands of bike racing. Friel does a good job laying out (with plenty of references for those of you demanding scientific proof) the specific demands of different types of races (RR, crits, TT, stage races, euro vs american style races, etc.) and follows with a well-designed plan to help you assess your strengths and weaknesses, then lay out both short and long term plans to address them as they relate to the type of racing you're likely to be doing. From my own experience (all I have, lacking fancy degrees and credentials), I increased my average pace for a 30-40 mile solo ride from 15-16 to 19-20 mph in three months following his guidelines (something I'd been unable to do in any of my previous 15 years of riding.) For what it's worth, he advocates a weight regimen as part of an overall training plan, but generally limits this to early season (November - February, here in NH, USA.) He is an advocate of power meters, but works with HRMs for those unable to afford or justify the cost. I'd be happy to fill in a little more about the program, although I freely admit the ideas are not mine; they are simply the principles I learned reading his book and from subsequent informal study.

No, the reason so many pros look like they have huge leg muscles is because they have big-ass legs. They look ripped because they have very little fat, but that is not why their legs look big. Haven't you ever since some scrawny dude with no muscles and no fat? He had a washboard stomach, but he didn't have big legs. Body builders reduce fat to accentuate the definition of their muscles, they lift weights to make them bigger.

I do have the "Cyclists Training Bible" and a couple others. There's so much to read I guess I havn't got to it yet. What pages are you talking about? Since this is my first year, should I concentrate on just riding to get a good aerobic base or is it good to throw in weight training?

Actually I read all Armstrongs's and Schwarzennegger's biographies. Surprisingly, when Arnie was just a teen living in Thal in Austria his only means of getting to the gym was on a bike. This was quite a ride and I think it took him maybe 3 hours to complete there and back.
Apparently the first time he did his weight session at this gym, he then tried to cycle back home to Thal but fell off his bike repeatedly as his legs had completely gone. He attended his gym 5 times a week so he would have been cycling several hours weekly to commute.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that the young Arnie would have been as good as we roadies on this forum (on his old clapped-out bike) but I suppose he'd have developed some degree of fitness.

it appears that you haven't read the research pertaining to weights and cycling and may not understand the first principles involved. However, in part, this is my job (reading these research papers). There is *no* evidence to support the use of weights in trained cyclists. Period. There is evidence to show that they work in untrained people (but any exercise increases cycling performance in this group). However, it is clearly obvious, that training specifically (i.e., cycling) in both untrained and trained people that the quickest and best gains will be made via cycle training.

Unfortunately, the data in the book is quite clearly incorrect in relation to weight training and other section(s) (e.g., nutrition).

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

And yet his athletes continue to compete at very high levels in cycling, triathlon, including national and international-level championships... Are you saying they win despite his coaching and that he deserves no part of the credit? I was at the US Olympic training center last spring and watched the women's cycling team putting up impressive weights, under the guidance of their coaches... I've seen film clips of US Postal working out in the gym as a team... Are you saying that all these high-level, successful athletes and coaches are wrong, and you are right? I don't get it. From my own N-of-1 study, a focused, correctly-timed weight program made a big difference in my cycling (and I had been cycling for 15 years prior to that.)

But my original point is that this argument doesn't serve the original poster at all. He wants to know how to get faster, and I saw nothing in your posts that would serve him well. I was simply trying to give him concrete advice that would contain enough specifics to help him build a periodized and focused training plan.

But since you've stirred me up, I'm curious:

1. You repeatedly describe "endurance cycling." Do you separate this from traditional racing? Ie crits, road races? Are you limiting your discussion to training for Brevits and other ultradistance rides, or do you include these shorter efforts as well. Because a 40 minute crit involves *much* more than endurance: power, anaerobic endurance, rapid recovery are big players. When you describe endurance, are you focusing this on muscular endurance, aerobic endurance, the ability to endure high lactate levels for long periods? A rider who gets dropped during an anaerobic tempo period is not failing due to lack of muscular endurance, but due to his inability to clear lactate or to tolerate the high lactate as do the other riders.

2. You have said that "strength" is not a limiter. What do you mean by strength? Do you mean force? Do you mean muscular endurance? Do you mean mental strength? This is a very imprecise term and is too open to interpretation to be the basis of much discussion. If you mean force, then absolutely it can be a limiter. I can hang with a pack all day long on level ground or small rollers- there is no problem with my endurance. But when the hills get steep (even if they are short), and the leaders accelerate, I can not accelerate as well as they do, no because I tire, but because I can't generate enough force. This can be in the first 15 minutes of a ride or at the end of a century. Remember high school physics? Force = mass x acceleration? Yeah, yeah, I know, all this garbage about cadence and using gearing prevents force from being the limiter, but when the hills get steep, and I am in my 39-25, grinding a 60-70 rpm cadence, it is my inability to apply more force to the pedal that prevents me from accelerating. I am not arguing (at this moment) about whether weights or on-the-bike force workouts are the best way to improve force, but you have stated that it is definatively never a limiter, and that's just not true.

Take this for what it's worth; it's my own opinion and recommendation. I'm new to this forum, and clearly it's an area where people have strong opinions - someone will almost certainly tell you I'm full of crap and that their way is better. I won't presume to tell you that I have the gospel, but I think this would help you. In terms of TCTB, the first half of the book is more theoretical, discussing the demands of racing and what one does to prepare for these demands. The second half gives detailed instructions to map out a year-long training cycle, complete with macrocycles and microcycles (long and short training blocks).

What to do right now depends on a few things. Where do you live? Will you be able to ride through the winter (are you coming into summer?) or, like me, is your season drawing near a close? How far out to your first race (for me, it will be next April)? How long until your first "important" race? (May). Do you have a strength training background? If you plan to start racing next spring, I would focus now on technique (high cadence, smooth spin, quiet upper body). If you can ride through the winter, one could argue that force work would be better done on the bike through specific low-cadence workouts. I'll be snow-bound from December to March, so I'll do force workouts in the gym, which means I'm starting soon to prepare my tendons and ligaments for the heavier work ahead (I'm doing 3 light sessions per weeks, very gradually increasing weights. If you can comfortably ride 2-3 hours, then simple endurance won't be much of a problem for you in low-level racing, but if you can't, I'd throw in 1 long ride per week, trying to work up to a 3-4 hour ride at low-medium intensity. My formal, structured training will start 16 weeks out from my first big race and will involve 4 4-week blocks. Within each block, my volume will increase from week 1 to 3, then week 4 will be low-volume recovery. Each of the 4-week blocks will increase in intensity, so that the 3rd week of the 4th block (about 1-2 weeks before my bigger races) will be the most difficult to complete. This just comes from Friel's book - you can easily map out a similar program in an hour or so with a pen and paper. I hope this helps. Let the flames begin.

I'd just say that he's wrong on a few points, or that he intentionally fails to publish 100% accurate information in his books to better serve his top clients.

Do you want a medal?

That is what he's saying, yes. And he's right. Ric is a high level, successful coach of high level, successful athletes. Are you saying that he is wrong? Why, by the way, would you think that the athletes have a good understanding of this?

Clearly.

You must have been so weak that you were verging on functionally disabled. Or you are a trackie and thus are force limited. Or the other adjustments you made to your training benefited you. (Hang on, there's no control of variables at all in an N=1 'study' - that's why they are a load of horse ****).

Yes, a periodised and focused training plan will help him. Getting a coach will ultimately provide a better return than buying a book, even if it's more expensive absolutely.

Endurance cycling is any event over about 2-4 minutes. Could you define muscular endurance for me please? No one else can...

Actually, why not provide a physiological/scientific definition of all the terms you have used: power, anaerobic endurance, rapid recovery, muscular endurance, anaerobic tempo?

Strength = the maximum force that can be generated by a muscle.

Gear down. What? You're still not with them? Here, borrow my triple... hang on, you've been dropped again! Your limiter is the ability to produce power over different periods of time, which is in turn limited by various elements of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Strength is only a limiter in very short events, especially those from a standing start.

How long are the hills by the way? The short ones, say?

Remember high school physics?

Power=energy/time. Work=forceXdistance.

Therefore:

Power= ForceXDistance/Time.

And:

Distance/Time=Speed.

So Power= (leg)SpeedXForce

BUT If you do the maths, you will find that even at the power you can't maintain on short hills, and even at a leg speed of 60RPM, the force requirement will be significantly smaller than your 'strength' (maximal force).

Sustaining force production has nothing to do with strength.

i'm saying he's wrong about what he states in his books about weights (and nutrition). i believe he may have altered his ideas about weights recently to come more in line with what i (and otheres, e.g., Andrew Coggan) state.


there's myths galore in cycling. assuming the women and/or others weren'yt on the track sprint or MTB DH squad then they may well have been wasting their time. there are studies looking at elite women and strength training and effects on cycling performance (e.g., Bishop et al 1991, iirc) and this showed no increase in fitness.

that and some other references are in my article here http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern


an n=1 is unfortunately completely meaningless as there's no control. additionally, and without wishing to sound rude, going from ~ 15 to 20 mph takes you from a low level of fitness to a moderate one, assuming these are maximal efforts. at that fitness level any exercise helps.


concrete, weights, and cycling shouldn't be in the same sentence. it's really a waste of time. he needs to do specific on the bike training.
But since you've stirred me up, I'm curious:

endurance performance is anything greater than ~90-secs, as by this time duration the majority of energy expended comes from aerobic sources. Thus in cycling terms any event from say a 2-km TT upwards

recovery from efforts in e.g., criteriums are entirely dependent upon aerobic metabolism, in other words they're limited by MAP and LT

in cycling no one endures high lactate levels for long periods of time. although in all honesty i don't what you mean by "high" and "long" (in other words you could be defining them differently to me).


strength is a clearly defined word within the scientific literature, and i have gone to pains to clarify it on numerous occasions at this board. it is, the maximal force or tension a muscle or group of muscles can generate.

unless you are totally mismatched to your group or you have a functional disability this just isn't true. you'd need to be either 40kg (i.e., small and low strength) or very large (e.g., 100 kg) to struggle to produce the required forces for your mass. for e.g., to win the TT or place in say the top 5, if you were the same mass as LA, you'd need to produce a force of ~ 250 N (~ 25 kg) between *both* legs. I don't personally know any 70 odd kg people who can't produce that (and additionally i know much smaller people who can).

The reason you can't keep up with your compatriots on the hill is not being force limited, but most likely being limited in the power for your mass. this is a cardiovascular and metabolic issue.

this is untrue although admittedly, if you were riding a very steep hill, e.g., 33% and going very slowly, e.g., < a couple of mph, or trying to start from stationary then forces here maybe limiting, but this isn't a situation that you're ever likely to meet in e.g., a race

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com