Did you guys check out that link I put into my last link.
It really deserves a good look.
here it is again: http://www.fitnessworld.com/info/info_pages/library/strength/strength0697.html
That article (and a book I have by the same guy) make me feel that a lot of the so called "cycling specific" strength training programs espoused by the likes of Edmund R Burke and Joe Friel are really no more likely to give "cycling specific" results than other strength training programs
just about any type of strength-training program has the potential to produce favorable results
from the link above.
The effects that strength training has on your physique are largely genetic - people with a lot of fast twitch muscle fibres are going to gain bulk a lot more quickly than someone who has a lot of slow twitch fibres.
At 175cm and 66kg I'm guessing Nicholas is pretty good in the hills and isn't very muscular.
That probably means that you're physically incapable of bulking up Arnie style.
And that's just tough I'm afraid. You're going to have to content yourself with whupping (fat) ass up the hills.
Here's another (rather massive i admit) quote from the same author. The link for this (there's more to this article too) is: http://www.fitnessmanagement.com/info/fr/articles.html
It is said that free weights are more advantageous for building muscular size and strength, while machines are merely for toning and shaping muscles. But is this a reasonable asserton?
To examine this matter, it's first necessary to understand the requirements for increasing the size and strength of muscles. First, a resistance (or "load") must be applied to a muscle. Second, the resistance must be made progressively more challenging from one workout to the next. It's that simple. Certainly, other ingredients are also important in weight training, but to improve muscular size and strength, these are the two basic requirements.
What about the nature of the resistance? A number of studies show that muscle development occurs the same way, whether using free weights or machines. A 10-week study compared groups training three times per week with either free weights or machines.5 Both groups significantly increased strength and lean body mass and deceased body fat. There were no significant differences between the groups. Similar results were found in another 10-week study examining a group using machines and a group using free weights.4
The bottom line is that muscles cannot possibly "know" whether the source of the resistance is a barbell, a dumbbell, a selectorized machine, a plate-loaded machine or a cinder block. The sole factors in determining muscular response from weight training are genetic makeup and level of intensity -- not the equipment used.
Athletic specificity. The second area of controversy generally pertains to specificity. Some individuals feel that specific sports skills can be improved by simulating them with added resistance. Unfortunately, the motor-learning literature does not seem to support this assertion. In one study, competitive swimmers were filmed while sprinting the butterfly.3 The films were digitized and analyzed by computer. Among other things, it was found that swimming using resistance was done with noticeably different -- and less effective -- stroke mechanics compared to swimming without added resistance. In effect, the swimmers were performing different strokes.
The same result occurs when attempting to mimic the movement pattern of a particular sports skill in the weight room with a barbell or dumbbell. No exercise done in the weight room -- with a barbell, dumbbell or machine -- will help improve specific sports skills. At best, this is a waste of time and energy.
Another related argument is that balancing a barbell or a dumbbell is advantageous because this balance will carry over to sports skills. Once again, the relevant research does not appear to confirm this claim. In one study, six tests of dynamic and static balance were examined, and it was found that the abilities supporting one test of balance were separate from those supporting another.1 In other words, the ability to balance a barbell is quite different from the ability to balance the body during a handstand or any other skill requiring balance. Adds John Thomas, the strength and conditioning coach at Penn State, "[Using] free weights may develop general balance, but not specific sport skills."
While watching a basketball game, volleyball match or any other athletic event, try to figure out which teams use free weights, which use machines, which use a combination and which use nothing at all. Obviously, it would be impossible to tell since the source of resistance matters very little, if any, in a person's response to weight training. [/size]
Now that makes sense to me.
So, my opinion is that if you are a match sprinter you go into the weights room to develop the size of the muscles so that they are large enough to produce the force required to win match sprints. Once the muscles are large enough it is necesary to train them to pedal. (that's very simplified I know but that's the general idea right CJ?)
Any weight training program is going to have a larger, more visible, effect on a track sprinter than a small climber purely because they are physiologically very different animals.
Simply put - the sprinter has more potential to gain muscle than a skinny roadie like Nicholas who, try as he might, is unlikely to ever get that "ripped" look.
As a roadie, the need to add bulk is minimal - the consensus being that "what you gain on the flat you'll lose uphills" - in most cases (e.g. after a lay-off through injury some strength training will be usefull to get the muscles back up to size). That's why very few euro pros do weight training.
What it comes down to is whether you want to do weights to improve your bike riding or to give you a more balanced, attractive (go on, admit it, you all want bay-watch six packs!
) If you want to improve your speed and sprinting ability I would reccomend getting down to a velodrome and doing some racing there - you'll soon learn the tactics of sprinting and get used to pedalling fast too.
right, i'm off for a lie down..........
[linked fixed - Vo2]
