Maximum strength and cycling performance

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by POGATA [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Poster on a norwegian forum claims to have been at a lecture with Fredrik Mohn(Edvald Boasson Hagens coach for the last seven years), and claims that Mohn there claimed that Hagen did deadlifts followed by riding in level 2 with a rpm of 45-60. Is it just [censored], is it to confuse competitors/fools like myself, is it just mind games the coach is playing on Hagen, or might there be some benefit for a cyclist to lift weights?

Yes I base my coaching on cycling forums and mass media publications[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif[/IMG]

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by dominikk85 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

what weight and reps? without that the story is just an annecdote.

Quote:
Was recently on a lecture about bike training with Fredrik Mohn such as trained Boasson Hagen and Nordhaug and we got to see parts of the training program that they had used. The driving force pedaling in zone 2 with cadence 45-60 in combination with weight training and the mongrel session with weights first. If I remember correctly: 12 rep deadlift. so 9 rep. and finally 5 rep. at maximum load. Thats. that when they had lifted five times in the last scene, then they should not be able to lift a 6 time when it is too heavy. But personally I like to run very heavy pedaling force (45-60) and is enough when in zone 3 Feeling like I turn two birds with one stone then and doing cardio "free" with the purchase :-)

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by fergie [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Yes I base my coaching on cycling forums and mass media publications[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif[/IMG]

OK, but can a cyclists performance on the bike improve as a result of lifting weights?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by POGATA [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

OK, but can a cyclists performance on the bike improve as a result of lifting weights?

How many times are you going to ask the same question to this same audience that has answered virtually the same way each time?
Why not go to a CrossFit forum and ask the question if you are seeking someone to agree with you? Or is this a form of trolling?

Or like others have said why not just lift weights like you want? I lift on a regular basis, but as stated many times before I do not lift with the thought that it improves cycling performance. In fact I believe I could do much better in cycling if I stopped lifting. As my muscle mass starts to atrophy and weight begins to decrease hopefully with proper cycling training my watts/kg is going to improve. Hopefully the drag/force will be reduced. I could improve my cycling training volume and intensity, which should improve my FTP because there will not be shared recovery time or the fact that I often train subpar in cycling not being able to hold those submaximal intervals levels because DOMS caused by lifting.

So if you are so convinced that cycling is not good enough and must be supplemented with other forms of training than why don't you answer this question.
What is your thought on a lifting schedule for strength to improve cycling performance? Include specific exercise movements, reps, progressive plan and schedule.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

How many times are you going to ask the same question to this same audience that has answered virtually the same way each time?
Why not go to a CrossFit forum and ask the question if you are seeking someone to agree with you? Or is this a form of trolling?

Or like others have said why not just lift weights like you want? I lift on a regular basis, but as stated many times before I do not lift with the thought that it improves cycling performance. In fact I believe I could do much better in cycling if I stopped lifting. As my muscle mass starts to atrophy and weight begins to decrease hopefully with proper cycling training my watts/kg is going to improve. Hopefully the drag/force will be reduced. I could improve my cycling training volume and intensity, which should improve my FTP because there will not be shared recovery time or the fact that I often train subpar in cycling not being able to hold those submaximal intervals levels because DOMS caused by lifting.

So if you are so convinced that cycling is not good enough and must be supplemented with other forms of training than why don't you answer this question.
What is your thought on a lifting schedule for strength to improve cycling performance? Include specific exercise movements, reps, progressive plan and schedule.

I`m not saying that strength training makes a cyclist go faster on a bike, I just think it`s weired that several professianal/elite cyclists and their coaches claim that they lift weights(and it presumably benefits their performance), when fergie claims that it`s completely useless for a cyclist to lift weights as a means to ride a bike faster. Can you explain why it`s trolling to point out the discrepancy between the pro cyclists/their coaches and fergie?

The point is that fergie is extreme in his views against strength training(no benefit at all/whatsoever, no question, 100 % sure etc), while the best cyclists in the world/their coaches claim they use strength training or actually do so for a fact, so I don`t think fergie should be allowed to convey his views on this public forum, without me pointing out he`s probably not an all-knowing cycling coach.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by dominikk85 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

couldn't be one effect of weight training that it you are pushing with a smaller part of your maximum strength in cycling?

I know you don't need maximum strength but even if you only push with like 40% of your 1RM when you ride 400 watts you could push that maybe down to 25% with increases strength (both numbers are made up but you get the point).

theoretically you should be able to work longer at 25% than at 40% just like a fat slob who can deadift 700 pounds will outperform a super fit cross fitter with a max of 350 when there is a competition in dead lifting 300 pounds for reps (because it is a sissy weight for him).

I'm not sre that is applicable to cycling though. when the weight was 200 the cross fitter would probably win easily.

The body doesn't work that way. The body can only generate large amounts of power for a short time because generating that power uses up short-term energy reservoirs (creatine, glycogen, etc). Once those reservoirs are emptied, the body must rely on the energy refilling processes (i.e. aerobic processes) to generate power. The refilling processes are limited in their ability to supply energy, so the body is limited in the amount of power than it can produce regardless of its potential max power (i.e. strength). See my water reservoir analogy above. I thought of it while visiting the Hoover Dam last weekend.

Now like I said, there is a small possibility that strength training causes adaptations other than hypertrophy and that those adaptations might help endurance sports, but the jury is still out on that one and it doesn't look good.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by fergie [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That would be relevant only if you used the same muscle fibres that you performed at 100% as you used at 40%. Which you don't. And if you strengthened them in exactly the same way you intended to use them in performance (hmmmm what exercise could one do to train the muscles the same way one did when riding a bike).

I've been agreeing with everything you said, but I am losing you here. Are you claiming that increasing the max contractile force of a type I fibers will increase cycling performance?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by gudujarlson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I've been agreeing with everything you said, but I am losing you here. Are you claiming that increasing the max contractile force of a type I fibers will increase cycling performance?

no he says the opposite. he says that slow twitch fibres are mainly responsible for riding fast a long time and max lifting recruits a lot of FT fibres because they can exert more force.

so he basically says you are training the wrong fibres and the gained strength will have limited carryover to cycling. doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by POGATA [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I`m not saying that strength training makes a cyclist go faster on a bike, I just think it`s weired that several professianal/elite cyclists and their coaches claim that they lift weights(and it presumably benefits their performance), when fergie claims that it`s completely useless for a cyclist to lift weights as a means to ride a bike faster. Can you explain why it`s trolling to point out the discrepancy between the pro cyclists/their coaches and fergie?

The point is that fergie is extreme in his views against strength training(no benefit at all/whatsoever, no question, 100 % sure etc), while the best cyclists in the world/their coaches claim they use strength training or actually do so for a fact, so I don`t think fergie should be allowed to convey his views on this public forum, without me pointing out he`s probably not an all-knowing cycling coach.

An idiot and a troll.

In Christchurch local athletes can apply for scholarships to join the academy of sport. Part of this is compulsory strength training sessions. They have no choice in this and neither does the coach if they want to benefit from the other aspects (nutrition, psychology, body composition analysis etc).. So one could make the claim that all elite junior athletes in Christchurch do strength training not that this is a scientific validation of strength training for sports specific performance. In just the same way Chris Boardman or Bradley Wiggins claiming they do a form of strength training is not a scientific validation of strength training.

Which then raises the questions of once you decide that strength is important to the sport:, how do you train it?

-Hypertrophy training 3-10 sets of 8-12 reps
-Strength Training 3-12 sets of 1-3 reps
-Power Training 3-15 sets of 1-2 reps
-Crossfit 1 set to high rep failure
-HIT 1 set to low rep failure
-German Volume Training 10sets of 10 reps
-Conjugate approach Mixing Speed and Strength Sessions
-Periodization
-Machine weights V Free Weights
-Power training at 30% of 1Rm V 70% of 1RM
-Plyometrics
-Recreating Movements in the Gym by tying a cable from bike to weight stack
-Recreating Joint Angles from the bike in the gym
-Recreating Movement Speeds in the Gym
-Pilates
-Yoga

Where does it end and does this process take precedence over that other thing cyclists do to improve to ride the bike?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by dominikk85 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

no he says the opposite. he says that slow twitch fibres are mainly responsible for riding fast a long time and max lifting recruits a lot of FT fibres because they can exert more force.

so he basically says you are training the wrong fibres and the gained strength will have limited carryover to cycling. doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Yes, I understand Fergie is saying that, but the beginning phrase "that would be relevant only if" implies that if strength training did increase the max contractile force of type I (slow twitch) fibers, it would lead to increased cycling performance, and that is where I start to get confused.

By the way, I'm pretty sure I read one study that observed hypertrophy of both type I and type II fibers after strength training, but more so for type II. So I am actually doubly confused.

It will takes a lot of abs and squat training to reach 30mp for short time.I did it last year after not riding over 29 years.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by deyon [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

It will takes a lot of abs and squat training to reach 30mp for short time.I did it last year after not riding over 29 years.

Yes, endless amounts of those. However with proper interval training and having a good (aerodynamic) position on bike it is much easier and eventually you can even maintain that speed for some time.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by frost [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Yes, endless amounts of those. However with proper interval training and having a good (aerodynamic) position on bike it is much easier and eventually you can even maintain that speed for some time.

There is an interesting book about some English rider who attempted the hour a few years ago. I can find the title if anyone interested but point being, when he first attempts the pace he is required to hold for the record, 31+mph (at this point he is a few months out from the attempt), he can do so for about 2 and half minutes. Two and a half minutes!

Besides his training (which includes not lifting a single weight), the biggest gains he made were from fiddling with his position (wich was quite a trial considering the UCI regs).

Pace or Power? Unless you have a heated indoor track to ride on maintaining WR pace is going to be a mission.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by fergie [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Pace or Power? Unless you have a heated indoor track to ride on maintaining WR pace is going to be a mission.

If you were commenting my post, emphasis on some time where that some is obviously very short for us mere mortals but a bit more than just reaching the pace.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by frost [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

If you were commenting my post, emphasis on some time where that some is obviously very short for us mere mortals but a bit more than just reaching the pace.

Hehe I wasn't sure if Fergie was commenting on my post too - I had mentioned pace as well but it was meant more figuratively than literally.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by frost [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

If you were commenting my post, emphasis on some time where that some is obviously very short for us mere mortals but a bit more than just reaching the pace.

you also have to consider that while you might not need a lot of watts to hold 30 mph you will need to pedal those watts for quite some time to reach those speeds. So you either need to pedal those watts for like 2 minutes to reach 30 mph or if you want to accelerate faster you will need a lot more watts.

road sprinters have similar final speed than match sprinters (maybe like 2 mph less or so) but they create 1000 less watts. this is because track sprinters have to accelerate from a stand still while road sprinters start in a paceline moving at 35 mph going into the last 300 meters. so road sprinters mainly need to maintain speed while track sprinters need to accelerate like a rocket. thus track sprinters train like weightlifters and road sprinters not so much.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by dominikk85 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

you also have to consider that while you might not need a lot of watts to hold 30 mph you will need to pedal those watts for quite some time to reach those speeds. So you either need to pedal those watts for like 2 minutes to reach 30 mph or if you want to accelerate faster you will need a lot more watts.

I seem to remember somebody posting on another thread that one neeeded an FTP of around 240 to do 25 miles in an hour. Or something in that ballpark.

The original post was a little more detailed and specified watts/kg etc. I know there are certainly other variables like wind, barometric pressure, etc, but does anyone know if there is any meaningful watts/kg # that would translate into 30mph to hold the speed over distance, or is it just to vaque of an extrapolation to make?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by danfoz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I seem to remember somebody posting on another thread that one neeeded an FTP of around 240 to do 25 miles in an hour. Or something in that ballpark.

The original post was a little more detailed and specified watts/kg etc. I know there are certainly other variables like wind, barometric pressure, etc, but does anyone know if there is any meaningful watts/kg # that would translate into 30mph to hold the speed over distance, or is it just to vaque of an extrapolation to make?

I have read somewhere that merckx was supposed to do about 500 watts when he did like 31 mph for his hour record. but he was doing that in the drops. it was certainly a very aero drops position-so an amateur rider will likely have to push a little more to do 31 in an hour but I think with a triathlon bar you can do it with a lot less (maybe 450 watts or so).

but you certainly need to do quite a bit over 400 to do 30 miles.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by danfoz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I seem to remember somebody posting on another thread that one neeeded an FTP of around 240 to do 25 miles in an hour. Or something in that ballpark.

The original post was a little more detailed and specified watts/kg etc. I know there are certainly other variables like wind, barometric pressure, etc, but does anyone know if there is any meaningful watts/kg # that would translate into 30mph to hold the speed over distance, or is it just to vaque of an extrapolation to make?

On flat roads watts/m^2 of frontal area or watts/CdA is more important than watts/kg.

Here's a nice illustration of the watts/CdA you'd need and what that means in terms of pure watts and CdA to hold certain speeds on flat terrain in calm conditions at sea level with some assumptions for things like rolling resistance. I believe Rchung put together this particular graphic.
[IMG]cyclingforums.com1000Open ↗[/IMG]

Based on this it takes roughly 1000 watts/CdA or 1000 watts per meter squared of effective frontal area to sustain 25 mph on a calm 68 degree f day at sea level. Two hundred and forty watts implies a CdA of roughly .24 which is a decent but not crazy fast TT bike position with good gear (e.g. aero helmet, deep wheels, skinsuit, etc.). Alex coached a client a couple of years ago who broke the masters world hour record on not much more power but his CdA was crazy low like 0.19 or something in that range IIRC. On the other extreme it's not unusual to see CdAs up in the 0.3 to 0.35 range for road cyclists riding in their drops which would take another fifty to seventy watts to hold the same 25 mph speed under these conditions.

IME, many good masters class time trialists are in the 1300 w/CdA range or higher, some a lot higher. Whether they get there via more power or better position or a good balance of both varies.

-Dave