gyming to improve power
- Thread starter franco1
- Start date
if you're an endurance racing cyclist (e.g., RR, TT, MTB, XC, Track endurance, etc) it's a waste of time (unless you've just started exercise and cycling). Lots of threads on this!!
ric
Hi Ric
No I've been riding for 18 years, 5 of those years where semi pro and then as an elite. Now I race jnr vet's 30-34.
I'm coming back from an injury (sciatica) and I've been off the bike for 3.5months and I've got an important race coming up at the end of July and its a very hilly coarse of 150km long.
So I thought gyming would help me build strength which I would need, I try and do power/strength workout on my bike on a wind trainer in the mornings and gym at night.
Talking about workouts, on wind trainer what workouts can I do to improve my power?
Glad to hear you're making a comeback!
Going to the gym and doing e.g., weight training *will* help build strength. However, [ECP] endurance cycling performance (e.g., RR, TT, MTB, etc) is *not* limited by strength, unless you have a functional disability.
Force requirements for ECP are quite low, and can be met by untrained, sedentary, healthy, age, gender, and mass matched controls. Additionally, peak power tends on average to not vary between racers and healthy, non-trained controls.
Riding at typical race speeds and powers, can be met by most people (untrained). Strength, is defined as the maximal force or tension a muscle or group of muscles can generate, and thus as described by Hill's Force-Velocity curve maximal force (strength) can only be generated at 0 (or very close to it) velocity. In other words, Hills F-V curve shows that force and velocity are inversely proportional to each other -- at high (crank) velocity, force is very low (or zero), and very high force can only be generated at zero velocity (think of pushing against an immovable object such as a brick wall). At normal pedalling velocity (or even at low cadences e.g., 30 revs/min) forces are very low.
Power (output) is the sum of all the forces that are required to move your bike forward at a given velocity under given conditions. ECP requires low to moderate power, which most people can meet. however, these powers need to be maintained for long periods of time, and it is this that causes the difficulty. In other words, you/i/others can ride at the same power as e.g., Amstrong/Simoni/Ullrich (whoever) on climbs such as Alpe d'Huez, however, we won't be able to sustain that power for as long (unless you're in with a chance of winning the TdF). For example, an untrained person, might last for 30-secs, i can do about 5-mins and obviously, the likes of Armstrong manage it for 38-mins.
Therefore, none of our performance is limited by strength in ECP, but by limits of lactate threshold and VO2max. these are trained by cycling from a period of several minutes to several hours.
Intervals that increase VO2max and maximal aerobic power (MAP) are 4-mins at above 10-mile TT effort. Sustainable power is developed with intervals of one to four x 15 to 30-mins, and you also want/need to do sustained efforts of 90+ mins at a fairly brisk effort.
If you need any help fitting all that together or some coaching give me a shout!
Ric
Originally posted by franco1
Some light on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
I do most of my training on a wind trainer as I mentioned from Monday to Thursday and get on the road on a Friday till Sunday.
Thanks
if you're looking for some coaching then please contact me by PM or by [email protected]. if you just want some general advice, then ask away with a question!
cheers
ric
Ric-
What are the advantages of 90+min 'brisk' efforts (tempo rides) as opposed to long intervals at around threshold? I tend not to have enough days in the week to schedule tempo rides as I do intervals twice a week and race once a week. The rest of my riding time is spent maintaining endurance / recovering with long-ish but fairly gentle rides.
Lindsay.
What are the advantages of 90+min 'brisk' efforts (tempo rides) as opposed to long intervals at around threshold? I tend not to have enough days in the week to schedule tempo rides as I do intervals twice a week and race once a week. The rest of my riding time is spent maintaining endurance / recovering with long-ish but fairly gentle rides.
Lindsay.
Ric-
What are the advantages of 90+min 'brisk' efforts (tempo rides) as opposed to long intervals at around threshold? I tend not to have enough days in the week to schedule tempo rides as I do intervals twice a week and race once a week. The rest of my riding time is spent maintaining endurance / recovering with long-ish but fairly gentle rides.
Lindsay.
What are the advantages of 90+min 'brisk' efforts (tempo rides) as opposed to long intervals at around threshold? I tend not to have enough days in the week to schedule tempo rides as I do intervals twice a week and race once a week. The rest of my riding time is spent maintaining endurance / recovering with long-ish but fairly gentle rides.
Lindsay.
I use them in place of 20-min efforts at just below TT power, when doing lots of zone 5 work.
ric
ric
From Charmichael Training Systems website ...
http://www.trainright.com/page.asp?...content=A-8&CategoryID=66&ArticleID=7#article
Yeah, putting on muscle weight just bugs the **** out of me too.
Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
From Charmichael Training Systems website ...
http://www.trainright.com/page.asp?...content=A-8&CategoryID=66&ArticleID=7#article
Yeah, putting on muscle weight just bugs the **** out of me too.
the studies cited in this article use untrained or low fitness people, and thus, as i've mentioned before weight training *will* increase fitness in these groups. in fact *any* exercise will pretty much increase fitness in these groups.
if memory serves me correctly, this article was thoroughly discussed by myself and andy coggan in one of the previous threads about weight training and cycling performance.
bottom line is: if you're a trained cyclist who races or can keep up with racers in endurance events (i.e., > 90-secs) then weight training is highly unlikely to be beneficial and is likely to be detrimental.
if you're untrained or not race fit, then it'll *possibly* be beneficial, but then so would any exercise.
additionally, if you're short of time (and not e.g., race fit) then you're way better off concentrating on cycle training as this will provide the biggest benefits.
ric
Direct quote from article (reprinted without permission)...
"The initial study on the compatibility of weight training and aerobic conditioning surprised a few people. Hickson and colleagues from the University of Chicago studied the impact of adding heavy resistance training to increase leg strength in eight running and cycling trained subjects who had already been training for several years. Strength training was performed for 3 days per week for 10 weeks, while all subjects continued their normal endurance training."
Also, in the book The Lance Armstrong Performance Program, Chapter 10, page 100 outlines a weight lifting routing used by Lance Armstrong . Here's a quote from page 111 under the section "What would Lance do?" ...
"By late winter, after I've been lifting steadily for 3 months, here's what I can do."
Leg press: 400 pounds
Hamstring curl: 80 pounds
Leg extension: 120 pounds
Biceps curl: 50 pounds
Abdominal crunches: 200 pounds per set
Bench press: 125 pounds
Ric, I'm not trying to argue with you but why would Charmichael have Armstrong do this? He certainly wasn't an untrained cyclist at the time this book was written.
Call me insanely cynical, but do you really think Lance's exact program or abilities gets published and distributed to all his competitors? I had a couple of degree qualified strength trainers (one of whom is also a cyclist and a level 1 coach) look over the strength training program in Lance's book. They described it as 'straight out of the 70's', and a 'total joke'.
even *if* that was his programme i can't possibly see the reason why it would be beneficial, as these weights are way above the forces involved when (e.g.) climbing Alpe d'Huez (~ 24 kg between both legs).
in the study cited whether or not the 'cyclists' had been training for a few years, they weren't trained (i.e., they were low fitness).
ric
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you here Ric. Incidentally, how do you define trained? Is there a convenient metric for finding out if someone is within or outside this category?
i know you weren't disagreeing. maybe my bad, i'd just got in from training!
what i meant was, that even if LA did those sessions there'd be no point to them (in terms of cycling performance).
trained: i don't have a strict definition, but generally i'd say if you race (say Cat 4 or above) or you could keep up if you were to race then that's trained.
ric
You are right on the money, Roadie_scum.
No professional athlete or professional coach is going to unlock the vault of their training secrets for the public, competitors and other professional coaches.
On the other hand, it is in their competitive and professional interest to mislead their opposition up the wrong path with misinformation and, through hyperbole of statistics, provide a psychological edge.
Unless there is independent observation to confirm, I would take with a grain of salt a lot of these disclosures from coaches about their charge's training statistics (Vo2 Max, watts per kg power, weights they are pumping, etc).
Fact is that if you get on a bike and ride you will improve. Any training program that provides for volume with bouts of intensity will result in improvements. Improvements result in customer satisfaction that the training program works. Anyone on a Friel, Carmichael or whoever training program out of a book will swear by it.
Hi franco,
Everything is a compromise. Your body can only divert so much energy to healing damaged (stressed) systems. If you're racing, you won't want to do heavy lifting during the season. It'll divert energy from healing that stressed aerobic machine of yours. People usually do the weight training in the winter months and then transition more and more to the bike, so that the newly gained strength is carried over. There are several phases to resistance training. Hypertrophy training, (more repetitions)where the muscles gain size; strength, where the muscles are basically just trained to produce more work, and then the power phase, where the resistance is reduced and the speed of contraction is increased in order to transform that new strength into something useable on the bike. There are physiological changes that occur when you do resistance training. That increased mass shouldn't be a concern if trained correctly; it'll more than make up for itself in increased power on the bike. The key is to do a lot of long, low intensity riding in order to "cardiovascularize" that new muscle tissue. Long, slow rides should increase the capillaries that permeate that new tissue. Then as you transition into the higher intensity training, you'll start to increase the mitochondria count as well. I believe weight training does have a place in cycling, but make sure you do your homework first... best of luck!
Everything is a compromise. Your body can only divert so much energy to healing damaged (stressed) systems. If you're racing, you won't want to do heavy lifting during the season. It'll divert energy from healing that stressed aerobic machine of yours. People usually do the weight training in the winter months and then transition more and more to the bike, so that the newly gained strength is carried over. There are several phases to resistance training. Hypertrophy training, (more repetitions)where the muscles gain size; strength, where the muscles are basically just trained to produce more work, and then the power phase, where the resistance is reduced and the speed of contraction is increased in order to transform that new strength into something useable on the bike. There are physiological changes that occur when you do resistance training. That increased mass shouldn't be a concern if trained correctly; it'll more than make up for itself in increased power on the bike. The key is to do a lot of long, low intensity riding in order to "cardiovascularize" that new muscle tissue. Long, slow rides should increase the capillaries that permeate that new tissue. Then as you transition into the higher intensity training, you'll start to increase the mitochondria count as well. I believe weight training does have a place in cycling, but make sure you do your homework first... best of luck!
strength is only carried over is there is an increase in muscle sectional area. however, the amount carried over for 'bike use' will be much less than amount gained via weight training
if there's no increase in muscle cross sectional area then the gains are neuromuscular in nature and these are not transferred. this is because the adaptations are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained
if there's an increase in mass, then it most likely will be *detrimental* to endurance cycle racing, as e.g., you'll have more mass to lug uphill
the gains that are made in trained riders from weight training only increase sprint power. thus it won't make up for itself unless you can sprint up the hill
capillarisation and mitochondria are better trained at higher intensities (approaching VO2max).
increased mass from the hypertrophy will just slow you down. additionally, the forces required in endurance cycle racing are so low that virtually anyone can meet them (there's a few exceptions to this).
it (weights) is pretty much a waste of time if you're trained cyclist
ric
Ok, I'd like to clear a few things up in my mind (with help from those here) regarding the notion that the strength requirements of cycling (and I think I've heard the same for other sports as well) can be met by the average sedentary schmoe.
My initial reaction to this statement is that it can't be true. But, the more I thought about it, the more sense it makes. The problem with the statement that I percieve is that it creates the false impression that lance armstrong is no stronger than joe-bag-of-doughnuts who sits on the couch all day.
This was my thought process (please correct it if you find flaws). Say the power and strength requirements of a certain uphill climb at an elite speed are equivalent to doing a leg press with 150 lb in 2/3 of a second (90rpm). In all likelyhood most healthy adults can do this. The difference is, they can't do it continuously for 20-30-60 minutes. If I went into the gym and leg pressed 400lb, and then the next guy came by and leg pressed 400lb for 20 minutes, no one would try to say that we had similar strength. Maybe this isn't quite what is being said with the comparisons to the average sedintary adult, but I suspect it is.
Now if you go in the gym and train your muscles to be able to handle medium weights at high rates and high reps, that will have an effect on your ability to spin a slightly more difficult gear up the hill next time I'd think. That type of weight training is very different than basically anything you'd see people at a gym in the US doing. The type where you do 10 sets of 10 reps, where the 10 reps are done in maybe 15 seconds, and then maybe only 15 seconds of rest. That type of thing will get your legs and lungs burning like a good hill.
I guess it would be more accurate to say that cyclists need (have) great muscle endurance rather than strength. This is definately something that can be trained at the gym though.
My initial reaction to this statement is that it can't be true. But, the more I thought about it, the more sense it makes. The problem with the statement that I percieve is that it creates the false impression that lance armstrong is no stronger than joe-bag-of-doughnuts who sits on the couch all day.
This was my thought process (please correct it if you find flaws). Say the power and strength requirements of a certain uphill climb at an elite speed are equivalent to doing a leg press with 150 lb in 2/3 of a second (90rpm). In all likelyhood most healthy adults can do this. The difference is, they can't do it continuously for 20-30-60 minutes. If I went into the gym and leg pressed 400lb, and then the next guy came by and leg pressed 400lb for 20 minutes, no one would try to say that we had similar strength. Maybe this isn't quite what is being said with the comparisons to the average sedintary adult, but I suspect it is.
Now if you go in the gym and train your muscles to be able to handle medium weights at high rates and high reps, that will have an effect on your ability to spin a slightly more difficult gear up the hill next time I'd think. That type of weight training is very different than basically anything you'd see people at a gym in the US doing. The type where you do 10 sets of 10 reps, where the 10 reps are done in maybe 15 seconds, and then maybe only 15 seconds of rest. That type of thing will get your legs and lungs burning like a good hill.
I guess it would be more accurate to say that cyclists need (have) great muscle endurance rather than strength. This is definately something that can be trained at the gym though.
Similar threads
