weight training

Rhodent

OK, that does. Now what percent of 1 hour average power output is from aerobic pathways? If its close to 100% then the V02 max theory holds, but if its around 95% (I assume it would be a higher percentage than 5 min average) then that leaves 5% that comes from other sources (anaerobic?) Now if Anaerobic output is increased by 20% with no corresponding decrease in Aerobic capacity, that would be an increas in 1% in average power output?<br /><br />Of course this is me grasping at straws!!!

__________________
What do you mean there's no granny gear? How do you go up hills? Ahh, I see, you don't have hills.

ric_stern/RST

[quote author=Rhodent link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=40#msg24074 date=1042037469]<br />OK, that does. Now what percent of 1 hour average power output is from aerobic pathways? If its close to 100% then the V02 max theory holds, but if its around 95% (I assume it would be a higher percentage than 5 min average) then that leaves 5% that comes from other sources (anaerobic?) Now if Anaerobic output is increased by 20% with no corresponding decrease in Aerobic capacity, that would be an increas in 1% in average power output?<br /><br />Of course this is me grasping at straws!!!<br />[/quote]<br /><br />1-hour average power will be &amp;gt; 99% aerobic...<br />Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

maarten

Passfield and Doust (2000) found a strong correlation between 5 minute average power output, VO2peak (and maximal [aerobic] power output), and blood lactate threshold. Therefore, an intense 'all-out' time trial for 5 minutes is dependent on VO2max/peak, and not strength. <br /><br />I'll go with Rhodent for the correlation/causality part. <br />Causality is very hard to prove easyiest way is to get two samples ho just have differences on one single variable(impossible to find for a group of humans). Correlation is the fact that the numbers of the things you are comparing move in the same direction correlation with variance correction lies between -1 an 1; -1 moving in the exact opposite direction with the same size off difference. 1 same but identical direction. 0 move completely independant from each other.<br /><br />If you know the number of stocks listed on the stock exchanges, It must be possible to find a stock with almost perfect .95 or higher corelation to the progress a group of sportsmen make, very very likely there is no causality in this case.<br /><br />With statistics its important knowing whats tested and how. A handy statistician can easyly fool you even more when talking about graphs(maybe more later, but its a little to far of topic)<br /><br />So far todays moderate introduction on statistics(One of the first times I really find this stuff I had to follow at University udefull)<br /><br /><br />However, there is an overwhelming weight (pun intended!) of evidence to suggest that training adaptations need to be specific. This forms the rule of specificity. Åstrand and Rodahl (1986) state, &amp;quot;when striving for muscle strength for a particular activity, the best training is that activity&amp;quot; (p. 108).<br /><br />Nice selection of the fitness exercises and they way in doing them can make them cycling specific IMO.<br /><br /><br />There are indeed some research data to show that strength training will increase lactate threshold, and VO2max (etc.), however, almost exclusively these studies have been performed on untrained individuals. In untrained individuals, it is well accepted and understood that any training will induce change. <br /><br />The Rabobank system study I mentionned is with trained athletes<br /><br />I will ask a Friend who graduated on the differene in fitness and ergo strength training for his study(With trained cyclists) and mail you a resume(whatever his results are) can take some time need to get it first, read it and try to bald it corectly together in english.<br /><br />These are my modest remarks will make separate subject for a big remark<br /><br />

__________________
A winner is a loser who didn't quit!

maarten

Ricstern<br /><br />You somehow put weight training in ONe group together and then point out that general evidence seems to make it none beneficial.<br /><br />Well I believe there are lots of ways in differentiating weight training just as in bicycle training(most studies compare with duration, but there are also intervals, resistance , maybe climbing and many other)<br /><br />I'll divide weight training already in 4(there are probabely even) more IMO significant different groups towards cyclist.<br /><br />Group ONE:<br />What most people still seem to look at as weight training<br />Low number of repetitons(in the line of 4 or 6 reps) and high weight(in refference to the max you can lift/pull/push/...) used<br />Kind of execises all as wel leg/back/leg exercises.<br /><br />Group TWO:<br />Low number of repetitons(in the line of 4 or 6 reps) and high weight(in refference to the max you can lift/pull/push/...) used<br />Kind of execises only or mostly exercises for te legs preferably close to the motions made in cycling<br /><br />Group Three:<br />High number of repetitons(in the line of 20 or 30 reps) and moderate or even low weight(in refference to the max you can lift/pull/push/...) used. Fixing the aim at speed of doing the repetitions and the correctness of them.<br />Kind of execises all as wel leg/back/leg exercises.<br />(What we use in our team with to aims balancing out the body and ameliorating endurance capabilities)<br /><br />Group Four:<br />High number of repetitons(in the line of 20 or 30 reps) and moderate or low weight(in refference to the max you can lift/pull/push/...) used<br />Kind of execises only or mostly exercises for te legs preferably close to the motions made in cycling<br />(System used in the study I mentionned earlier and used By Rabobank team)<br /><br />IMO these Groups are quite different in the way of using weights and therfor can't be put together in one group for comparing results. Also of importance the frequence weight training is done(once?, twice? a week, every day?)<br /><br />I see none or little reference in which Group of weight training you studied(or where used in studies you refer to). I fear that most use group one As this is the most known form. Where for examining cyclist my preference goes to Group 4 or maybe group 3 if you aim at more than improving your legs.<br /><br />Would be nice hearing from you which group the studies used.<br />The above is no prove of weight beiing better its my way of opening the spectrum of weight training and indicating that the used studies might have been comparing to not the best way of performing weight training and therfor the conclusion of it being to none of little benefit may be premature.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

__________________
A winner is a loser who didn't quit!

ric_stern/RST

Maarten,<br /><br />Apart from your colleagues Rabobank study, which didn't really prove very much, can you please try to show me some studies where well trained endurance cyclists have increased either their VO2 max/peak, LT, and the mechanical power outputs associated with these variables. Lots, of have studies have been performed, search Pub-Med. The bulk of the literature shows no effect or a detrimental effect of weight training on cycling, or X-training with another modality.<br /><br />I can't find any studies to support your argument of weight training increases endurance cycling performance in well trained cyclists.<br /><br />With such a paucity of data to support your case, which goes against the bulk of the primary peer reviewed scientific literature, the onus is on you to find a substantial amount of evidence to support your case.<br /><br />Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

maarten

Ric<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />Apart from your colleagues Rabobank study, which didn't really prove very much, can you please try to show me some studies where well trained endurance cyclists have increased either their VO2 max/peak, LT, and the mechanical power outputs associated with these variables. Lots, of have studies have been performed, search Pub-Med. The bulk of the literature shows no effect or a detrimental effect of weight training on cycling, or X-training with another modality.<br /><br /><br />you are again pointing to someting I didn't said. You are using the data on weight beiing better than endurance to prove me wrong. My these is it beiing equal which is scientifically proven(I already pointed this difference out several times) I suggest you read the whole fiets article.<br /><br />I also didn't get an answer on the weight training system the studies you refer to use which seems to be to me of considerable importance.<br /><br />I recieved your e-mail, It was showing not much of respect, thats why I answered it thoroughly as I already did when you Tried to pull my these down with incorrect referrence.<br /><br />I am not the super expert, But when I make a these on something beiing equal an you repeatedly try to tear it down using the numbers for it beiing better I' am not impressed. Statistics use confidence intervals as you know and the difference between the intervals of beiing better or beiing equal for small groups as most of this investigations consist of are big. <br /><br />You have the right to prove me wrong and you might succeed to but do it in the right way with right evidence instead of proving wrong something I didn't said(this is of no use for both of us)<br /><br />Maarten

__________________
A winner is a loser who didn't quit!

bikerjoe

I am totally for strength training, especially during the winter, and if done CORRECTLY, it increases strength, time to fatigue in muscles.If weight training was so unproductive for cyclists, why do so many pros use weight training during the winter?<br /><br />http://www.ridefast.com/ctscafe/art...2NSCA-PTJ50.htm<br /><br />

ric_stern/RST

Bikerjoe,<br /><br />I have never argued that weight training doesn't increase strength, it does. <br /><br />Time to fatigue in muscles, assuming you mean &amp;gt; 60-secs of exercise is primarily limited by aerobic pathways, such that endurance cycling is an aerobic sport. Thus, time to fatigue for these exercises is limited by aerobic metabolism, and weight training does not provide the stimulus required to activate aerobic pathways (i.e., it does not stimulate increases in VO2 max, LT, capillary density, type I fibre hypertrophy, etc., which are needed to increase exercise performance).<br /><br />The article at http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern gives further details.<br /><br />The reason why *some* pros weight train are possibly many, but may include:<br />1) weight training (along with other 'myths') is deeply entrenched in 'folk lore'<br />2) there *may* need to be a greater need to have a mental break from cycling if you are constantly training 20+ hours per week<br /><br />Furthermore, we know (some) pros do many things, such as take illegal drugs. That hardly means we should follow their examples.<br /><br />Unfortunately, i don't have time to address all the points raised in the CTS article, although some (many) of them are addressed in the cyclingnews article. Perhaps, if there's some specific points you felt you would like addressing, please let me know, and i'll try to respond to them.<br /><br />Ric<br /><br /><br />[quote author=bikerjoe link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=40#msg24125 date=1042197775]<br />I am totally for strength training, especially during the winter, and if done CORRECTLY, it increases strength, time to fatigue in muscles.If weight training was so unproductive for cyclists, why do so many pros use weight training during the winter?<br /><br />http://www.ridefast.com/ctscafe/art...2NSCA-PTJ50.htm<br /><br /><br />[/quote]

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com