The Lifting Apologists.... - Page 2

I'm not Ric, and didn't really read the whole article, just had a quick look on it. Anyway, the "classic" questions arise:
1) If, instead of the weight training, the study participants would have done corresponding amount of specific anaerobic training, as L6, L7 workouts for cyclists, or corresponding sprints for the runners, how had their performance matched with the weight training groups?
2) If some ~30% of specific training volume is replaced by the less specific weight training, is there some peak training ongoing?

I guess these people believe that weights work, their belief born of their own experience or a lack of knowledge of the scientific evidence. Similarly their clients (disciples ) believe (probably because, as Ric says, a lot of people confuse strength with power) that they are better riders for hitting the weight room. In a clinical, scientific world this is inneficient use of their training time and is limiting their progress as a comeptitive cyclist. However, consider a situation where everyone in the winning break is suffering. If a rider believes they are stronger/more powerful because they've been squatting XXXKg in the gym then they might just eek out the extra effort when it counts. Of course the rider who wins/finds that little bit extra might do it because they've spent their time on the bike instead of the weight room( ).

My point is cycling involves a lot of suffering and your beliefs play a big part in being able to tolerate that (Sean Kelly said the difference between a good cyclist and a great cyclist is often the ability to suffer just that little bit more). If lifting weights makes you believe you are a better rider then it may just help you get that little bit more out of yourself. (Similarly if riding with one leg on the trainer makes you believe you can ride faster for longer because your favourite pro says they do it then away ye go, Long John Silver.)

Just my two penneth on why people insist on ignoring the evidence.

__________________
'Voigt? Pfff. If they show that guy a parcours consisting of 200kms of sand he’d still give it the go-ahead.' Tom Boonen

About every 6 months, I present what I call a "Training Chalk Talk" to my club. It's actually a PowerPoint presentation, but chalk talk sounds better. In the presentation, I explode a lot of myths about training for increased performance and I can predict in advance the slide that is going to draw the most looks of disbelief. It is the slide where I debunk the idea that cycling requires strength. I can look at their faces and I can tell that there are a few who are saying to themselves, "No way. This can't be true." I've tried many different approaches to trying to create understanding of this crucial point, but I'm absolutely sure there are still several who just refuse to accept my arguments. Fortunately, those who buy into my suggestions for training and who have applied the ideas to their own training are going up the climbs like little rockets. I especially take joy out of the progress of a couple who attended the presentation twice and took copious notes both times. They are now just scampering up the climbs and have now decided to go do rides in Utah and California that they said they would never have dreamed they could do a year ago. And they have not been near a weight room. As for those that I was unable to persuade, we wait patiently for them at the tops of long climbs.

I bet the ones who refuse to accept your arguments believe they are just not climbers.

__________________
'Voigt? Pfff. If they show that guy a parcours consisting of 200kms of sand he’d still give it the go-ahead.' Tom Boonen

Makes sense.

I haven't visit a training room for a while now, but I feel somehow guilty about it. I guess I'll wait until my arms becomes the same size as my wrists

For the records, the document I quoted isn't a study but a review. Though I think that there's some evidence in favor of weight training being benificial for endurance sports, the issue is that this evidence is contested.

ding-ding-ding..........I believe we have a winner. (IMO)


This happens in most sports.
There are lines of legality that coaches and athletes search to incorporate into training that might give an edge. You can't fault the searching as long as it stays with the limits of rules, but there are those who "stumble" into success and then say, "it was because I added "_______" to my training. But if it is not a real study how can one determine that this one thing is responsible for the improvement?

Lately I have been seeing that very popular cycling coach writing a short article for a cycling magazine. I know the article does not reveal the whole person, but I have to say I am not impressed with the tid bits of "basic" knowledge. I have yet to see him write more technical articles and yet he is referred to as a cycling "guru". To the fairness of CC I realize that the audience in the magazine is for the mainstream recreational cyclist.

When I ventured into cycling I never expected my years of weight training to be applicable to cycling. I expected to be a struggle because I have spent many years training at the opposite end of the spectrum from endurance cycling. I feel as if my knowledge in physiology gave me that insight that I was going to have an uphill battle because even though I have trained consistently for 24 years with great discipline I never cared about VO2max, LT or FTP. My concentration was heavy resistance and low reps. My strength is pretty good, but my power and FTP are low and I don't need a PM to tell me that.

Sports specific training is very important to those who desire to compete and excel. Anything else is a distraction and makes it more difficult to recover. The body can only handle so much "naturally" and it is necessary to become efficient with the training stradegy in and out of the season. This is not to say that in some sports there is cross training in sports specific training, but for endurance cycling I can see where a tunnel vision for cycling is important.

Now I disagree with the terms of "recreational" or "club cyclist". Those to me are loose terms and neither implies competitive. To me those individuals fall in a huge range of people and each can decide to their own personal goals and how they choose to train. There are people in our club that have no desire to improve as a cyclist. They are happy having a well rounded life doing a variety of activities.

Competitive = certain rules of specificity
Recreational = no rules / just having fun

Just my opinion

Your missing the point. Lift if you enjoy it. Improving in lifting, i.e. lifting heavier weights, brings its own benefits and joys. You will change your body, usually look better aesthetically, and it can be fun. Could you get more riding related benefits by using the same time riding, probably? I don't expect to improve my squat by riding, and I don't see a lot of power lifters riding bikes. But lifting is a superb and efficient way to improve health. I think you are missing something in real human terms if you are simply a one dimensional athlete. Look at Lance, running and lifting with the Hollywood pretty boys. That's making up for lost time being committed to a singular goal to the exclusion of all else.

I doubt that anybody disputes the benefits of doing multiple sports or the specific benefits of lifting. But, this is a cycling forum and many, many people are of the opinion that lifting will benefit their cycling because they are under the impression that their cycling performance is strength-constrained. So, a generic argument for lifting is equivalent to a generic argument for, say, bowling. But, I'm guessing that not many are under the impression that bowling will improve their cycling performance.

To paraphrase Dave Harris: "I'll lift when I'm dead."

Most pro athletes are lifting to enhance general fitness, baseball players and cyclists alike, which they hope has a collateral or secondary benefit in their athletic performance. Recreational athletes tend to follow the lead. I agree the science doesn't directly support this issue, even for hitting a baseball, the science suggests that superior binocular vision and depth perception may be the all important factor. But man, Bonds and company did improve their hitting and weight training (along with steroids) probably did contribute. I will also agree that the science supporting lifting over cyling to improve cycling "power" doesn't support lifting for that reason. Otherwise, great powerlifters would dominate cycling. But, no pro athletes are bowling to improve their athletic performance so I think you do trivialize the whole issue. Lifting does provide general health benefits that appear to improve athletic performance over a much broader spectrum than bowling. I think the comparision is the value of time spent lifting versus the same time spent cycling. Not, given equal time riding a similar training routine (assuming no overtraining) could most riders see some improvement if they incorporated lifting. That is the issue for most of the recreational riders who would patronize a cycling forums. Otherwise, start a hard core forum called "cycling racers."

And I have heard counterpart comments from hard core lifters about endurance sports like running and cycling. "I lift so I don't have to run from anyone."

Being one dimensional can be a virtue or vice depending upon how you keep score.

Would you advise a recreational rider who wants to rider faster and further and has a little extra time in his schedule to incorporate lifting, or to ride more?

How would suggesting more riding instead of lifting constitute hard core race training?

So Lucy, what were you after when you started this thread?

__________________
Training Log

I would probably advise a recreational rider to lift. The incremental benefits to riding, from an extra 40 minutes of riding per week, probably do not outweigh the overall fitness and health benefits from incorporating 2 weight sessions a week of 20 minutes each. With lifting, a little goes a long way. Hit the core areas twice a week, and the average joe is going to see real improvement in overall health and strength. By contrast, my guess is that the extra 40 minutes of riding is not going to have the same overall benefit to a recreationalist's cycling, but I think it might to the elite racer. At certain levels, dropping 20 or thirty seconds off your best time trial is huge. I am willing to concede that the racer in training that devotes the extra 40 minutes per week over a season might see that benefit. Just look at elite cyclists, they are relatively fragile guys -- very prone to infections from dieting, relatively week in the upper body. They are basically one dimensional atheletes. Why would your typical average joe who is not getting a fat paycheck, want to emulate this type of one dimensional fitness? Look at LA, he is cross training now. It is a healthier way to live.

And, it is a common mistake to assume that what works for the freakishly gifted world class athelete will work for the average joe. Sports science is still in its infancy. Most of the studies have fairly small sample sizes. I think we will eventually get there, but 10 years ago, most of these so called experts thought HRM were the grail. Would it surprise you in 10 years if an athelete came along with a different type of routine and made a quantum leap in cycling? The last 20 years showed how aerodynamic postioning, diet, and more focused training could change the field. The unknown is how much less reputable science, i.e. performance enhancing drugs, have made a difference. Don't assume that we won't continue to see conflicting studies and reports about lifting until we start to get a large enough population study that we can start to draw broad conclusions like: "Lifting will never improve cycling power." It may depend upon what kind of lifting, how frequently. In the meantime, the health benefits of lifting along the broad spectrum of health and fitness is pretty undeniable.

I'm neutral on this issue.

But most pro athletes (from a coaching perspective) have more room to schedule weight resistance training.

You know, if an average talented rider wants to weight lift, he has to recover from each wl session. He has to schedule the wl session and the recovery within a time-limited training plan (limited by family obligation and other time constraints). For this average talented rider that may have a "blurrying" effect on the overall workload manipulation.

This problem isn't as important for pros obviously. 1th, they generally have a better recovery rate, better working capacity, and almost unlimited time to train.

That's why I find that the *pro athletes do it so let's all do it* can be misleading.