Physiology behind high HR when cycling AFTER weight training?



Doctor Morbius

New Member
Mar 15, 2004
1,792
2
0
AmpedCycle said:
I've got a question for you, doctor morbius, since you seem to have a general idea about the question I'm going to ask, even though it doesn't relate to your post.
I've lost muscle mass and strength in the gym over the last 3 months as a result of decreased gym time. In may, for instance, I was working out 3 times per week. This switched to once per week "to maintain" (in the words of the atheltic coach at the gym) from that point until now. During this time period, my cycling has been relatively constant in terms of frequency, duration, and exertion.
The routine I was on used the same exercises repeated three times per week. I see that your own workout program has you hitting body parts once per week (or one body part per 5 days).
How can my frequency decline at the gym account for such a dramatic decrease in strength and size? I'm sure you'll remember me... I've had some conversations on here before with you through the message network. I'm the 24 year old guy, 165 pounds, 200 miles/week average (or maybe 220).
Sure I remember. You're that young chap that left my cheese out in the wind! :D

I did make a final response on that thread a while back. I don't know if you've read it ... http://www.cyclingforums.com/t278030-.html

I've tried many weight training routines over the years and have felt that none of them were optimum at everything but they may have been good at some things.

I've tried the once per week method and never made any progress on it at all unless it was at the beginning of a period where I'd had mucho time off. It was just way too much time (for me) between training the vast majority of bodyparts, the exception being quads, hamstrings and lower back. They tended to do alright on such a program. However, arms, abs, calves, delts, chest, traps and even lats were undertrained on a once a week program.

Note that some people tend to thrive on this type of program but I never did. A noted strength coach, Charles Poliquin, says that training each bodypart once a week is OK for some people for hypertrophy but it is too long between bouts to increase strength. In my case it was too long for either to improve. Felt_Rider who occasionally posts on this board and was once a competitive bodybuilder seems to like it, however.

I've also tried training each bodypart three times per week and found it to be valuable for short time frames for upper body work only. I did it one summer and looked harder and more sculpted but in the long run it was too frequent to maintain and I also ended up with a shoulder injury.

Basically, no matter how you split up your weight routine something is going to suffer so it becomes a kind of a circus act trying to juggle the various routines in order to try and give each muscle group it's fair shake. Doing my current 5 day routine (outlined above) I feel like most bodyparts are getting worked at an almost optimum level. Upper legs could use an extra day of rest and arms need to be worked more frequently. Everything else seems to like what I'm doing. And it's been especially good for overall recovery.

In your case, doing 200+ miles of cycling per week and trying to lift, it becomes a real circus act. Instead of just juggling some bowling pins it's more like those guys who spin about 20 plates on the poles and keeping them all spinning without falling down and breaking.

As I recall you had lost about 12 lbs of bodyweight? Although that may sound like quite a bit it really isn't. I've already gained 5 lbs just in 2 1/2 weeks just because I started lifting again. So if you plan to cut back on cycling for Winter and hit the gym a little more you will easily gain back the weight you lost.

When you do start lifting more, instead of just doing each bodypart 3 times a week, and cut back on cycling some I would suggest doing a split routine like push/pull and doing it this way...

Week A:
Monday: Push - chest, delts, triceps
Wednesday: Pull - lats, biceps, abs
Friday: Push

Week B:
Monday: Pull
Wednesday: Push
Friday: Pull

Repeat Week A:

This way each bodypart will be worked every 4 to 5 days. This should work out fairly well for you especially if you plan to train only upper body and abs and save your legs for cycling. Try to focus on compound movements and see what happens.
 

AmpedCycle

New Member
Dec 29, 2004
271
0
0
Doctor Morbius said:
Sure I remember. You're that young chap that left my cheese out in the wind! :D

I did make a final response on that thread a while back. I don't know if you've read it ... http://www.cyclingforums.com/t278030-.html

I've tried many weight training routines over the years and have felt that none of them were optimum at everything but they may have been good at some things.

I've tried the once per week method and never made any progress on it at all unless it was at the beginning of a period where I'd had mucho time off. It was just way too much time (for me) between training the vast majority of bodyparts, the exception being quads, hamstrings and lower back. They tended to do alright on such a program. However, arms, abs, calves, delts, chest, traps and even lats were undertrained on a once a week program.

Note that some people tend to thrive on this type of program but I never did. A noted strength coach, Charles Poliquin, says that training each bodypart once a week is OK for some people for hypertrophy but it is too long between bouts to increase strength. In my case it was too long for either to improve. Felt_Rider who occasionally posts on this board and was once a competitive bodybuilder seems to like it, however.

I've also tried training each bodypart three times per week and found it to be valuable for short time frames for upper body work only. I did it one summer and looked harder and more sculpted but in the long run it was too frequent to maintain and I also ended up with a shoulder injury.

Basically, no matter how you split up your weight routine something is going to suffer so it becomes a kind of a circus act trying to juggle the various routines in order to try and give each muscle group it's fair shake. Doing my current 5 day routine (outlined above) I feel like most bodyparts are getting worked at an almost optimum level. Upper legs could use an extra day of rest and arms need to be worked more frequently. Everything else seems to like what I'm doing. And it's been especially good for overall recovery.

In your case, doing 200+ miles of cycling per week and trying to lift, it becomes a real circus act. Instead of just juggling some bowling pins it's more like those guys who spin about 20 plates on the poles and keeping them all spinning without falling down and breaking.

As I recall you had lost about 12 lbs of bodyweight? Although that may sound like quite a bit it really isn't. I've already gained 5 lbs just in 2 1/2 weeks just because I started lifting again. So if you plan to cut back on cycling for Winter and hit the gym a little more you will easily gain back the weight you lost.

When you do start lifting more, instead of just doing each bodypart 3 times a week, and cut back on cycling some I would suggest doing a split routine like push/pull and doing it this way...

Week A:
Monday: Push - chest, delts, triceps
Wednesday: Pull - lats, biceps, abs
Friday: Push

Week B:
Monday: Pull
Wednesday: Push
Friday: Pull

Repeat Week A:

This way each bodypart will be worked every 4 to 5 days. This should work out fairly well for you especially if you plan to train only upper body and abs and save your legs for cycling. Try to focus on compound movements and see what happens.
I see what you're saying, it's starting to make sense. I read the other post you linked, as well. The more knowledge I get about weightlifting, the better...
This push/pull idea -- it sounds right. What exactly is it, though? I'm a novice at weightlifting, so if I were at the gym, what kinds of exercises does this translate to? I'm familiar with anatomy (muscular), and can understand the concepts of contractions (eccentric, isotonic, concentric).
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
"Something I've noticed is that these high heart rates have occured on both leg days and back days when weight training. Haven't done the cycing part of the workout on chest days yet so I can't say what would happen, but I would assume the higher HR occurs after training chest as well."

I found something odd yesterday. I did my usual 3 sets of high rep squats which I do once a week. After the session I cooled down and then went home. But I opted to cycle home rather than walk with my bike uphill (which I usually do after a heard squat session). The thing is I was rushing to get some food from the Chinese and cycling would be quicker.
But soon as I tried to pedal uphill, I became washed out. My heart rate soared.
I can only conclude that the squats made heavy inroads into my recuperative abilities and the effects of this are immediate.
Usually I'm fine after 24 hours rest, or when my leg muscles are no longer sore.



Doctor Morbius said:
Yes I've noticed that my ambient (taken while sitting in front of the computer) HR is now around 70 - 75 BPM whereas it used to be around 68 - 60 BPM. I attribute part of this to not riding as much as I had a month ago. Some of this may in part be attributed to a metabolic effect.


Yes I've read where the difference in boosted metabolism can be as much as 200 calories per day, which over time can be the difference between weight loss and not. This is one of the reasons I'm doing this type of program but I think it takes about an hour's worth of weight training to be effective and not ~25 min as I'm currently doing. It'll be a couple more months before I work up to that as I plan on working up nice and smooth. Sudden jumps have always led to problems for me mostly in the form of fatigue.


I don't know how it would directly benefit cycling fitness in it's strictest sense as the goal in cycling fitness is to increase sustained power on the bike. However, it may be a catalyst for cardio fitness as (at least in my case) it seems pretty easy to sustain fairly high heart rates this way without pedaling hard (i.e. moderate intensity only), thus perhaps saving the legs and minimizing the chances of overtraining.

A better question may be "would this pre-exhaust method be suitable for exercising the heart and increasing the heart's efficiency without the risk of overtraining as one would do if they sustained similar heart rates while exclusively training via cycling?"

If there is a lesser risk of overtraining using this method it may be something a fitness rider could do to sustain 85% max heart rates for an hour for four to five days per week. This is based on the assumption that the human body can recover more easily from repeated bouts of sustained higher heart rates than it can from hard efforts to the legs. I don't know if that assumption is true but I've read statements to that effect from some posters on this forum. It could be a training myth.


Something I've noticed is that these high heart rates have occured on both leg days and back days when weight training. Haven't done the cycing part of the workout on chest days yet so I can't say what would happen, but I would assume the higher HR occurs after training chest as well.

On back days there may be lactate in the blood stream but it isn't in the legs as there is 2 days between the two workouts and lactate only takes about 90 minutes to clear on it's own.

When doing the weight portion of the workout (thanks to doing supersets and taking very brief rest periods) my HR averages ~68% max on chest & arm days, ~75% on quad, hams & calf days, and ~75% on back, delt & trap days. I'm assuming that as these workouts get longer than their current 25 minutes that these numbers may be higher.
 

Doctor Morbius

New Member
Mar 15, 2004
1,792
2
0
Carrera said:
I found something odd yesterday. I did my usual 3 sets of high rep squats which I do once a week. After the session I cooled down and then went home. But I opted to cycle home rather than walk with my bike uphill (which I usually do after a heard squat session). The thing is I was rushing to get some food from the Chinese and cycling would be quicker. But soon as I tried to pedal uphill, I became washed out. My heart rate soared. I can only conclude that the squats made heavy inroads into my recuperative abilities and the effects of this are immediate.
That's been my experience. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have a good "physiology text book" reason why this happens (except for Solar Energy's response). It is my understanding that lifting weights - even when doing 15 to 20 reps - works white twitch fibers. That should leave the red twitch fibers fairly fresh to perform endurance related work. However, if the red twitch fibers are relatively fresh, then why is cycling AFTER weights (even when doing upper body only) so much more work?

Last night I did 3 sets of 15 slow strict reps for squats using light weights. My HR was as high as 172 BPM after the third set. That's 90% of my cycling max! After doing some hamstring and calves I did 20 minutes of cycling on the fluid trainer at an average of 84% of max without working very hard. I could have pushed it up closer to 90% for an average but it was late and I didn't want to work that hard before going to bed as it often keeps me awake.
 

SolarEnergy

New Member
Aug 15, 2005
1,503
0
36
Carrera said:
....I found something odd yesterday. I did my usual 3 sets of high rep squats which I do once a week. After the session I cooled down and then went home. But I opted to cycle home rather than walk with my bike uphill (which I usually do after a heard squat session). The thing is I was rushing to get some food from the Chinese and cycling would be quicker......
Well, a weight lifting session is absolutely excellent for motor unit recruitment. So, it is normal to fell that low effort cycling would be quicker, as a greater percentage of your muscles get recruited. It feels more confortable. Specially if you did not fatigue the Fast Twitch Type IIA fibers. These are the strange animals that can act either as a ultra-powerfull red fiber, or as a limited power white fiber.

Carrera said:
Carrera said:
But soon as I tried to pedal uphill, I became washed out. My heart rate soared. I can only conclude that the squats made heavy inroads into my recuperative abilities and the effects of this are immediate.

Usually I'm fine after 24 hours rest, or when my leg muscles are no longer sore......
Again, when you climb, or push at near your anaerobic threshold level (LT), you rely HEAVILY on Fast Twitch Type IIA fibers. These work very well in presence of oxigen. They have even more potential compare to their conterpart red fibers. And during a weight lifting session, you use them a lot.

But even more important, the Peripheral nervous system, namely the motor units (links between the nerves and the muscle fibers) get a lot of stress during a weight lifting session. In big muscle mass, a single motor unit can be connected to as many as 1500 muscle fibers. So these very thiny structures (as thick as hairs) basically get injured by these sessions. So even if you want to push hard on cycling afterward, some protection mechanisms that are part of the CNS prevent you to do so.

Doctor Morbius said:
....... It is my understanding that lifting weights - even when doing 15 to 20 reps - works white twitch fibers. That should leave the red twitch fibers fairly fresh to perform endurance related work.......
This is, by large, quite true. But a weight lifting session, when you take a closer look, is a bit more complex.

Take a simple movement for example : The Shoulder press. The delto muscles do most of the job, and if you put heavy resistance, the TypeIIB fibers will probably be recruited... at least at first. But as the set goes throught rep #7-8 and more, TypeIIB are getting tired, TypeIIA will get involved. And you know, when you start to slow down considerably, and you may even have help from someone to complete 1 or 2 very slow and painfull reps,, TypeI fibers get fired. The reason why the last reps are so slow, specially when you push to the limit, is that slower muscle twitch get involve. And that's because faster twitch fibers are already exhausted.

Also, everybody recommand to use free weight, as it recruits more muscle to work simultanously. Well, all those muscles don't have to push (or pull) to the limit of their capacity. Many muscles are needed just to stabilize the movements. Lower threshold fibers will get fired under those circunstances.:)

PS- I know I'm doing a lot of grammar mistakes. Can't help it, I'm a frenchie that learn English listening to radio and TV. Hope you don't mind to much:eek:
 

SolarEnergy

New Member
Aug 15, 2005
1,503
0
36
Sorry, just to make a little correction from my previous post (above).
You should read Motor Neurone, or Motor Nerve instead of Motor Unit :eek:
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
Weights are very aggressive on the body. They make a massive demand on your recuperative abilities. This is why I always avoid riding the day after squats as my legs still ache and my body needs time to bounce back. I think it's crazy to cycle the day after squats.
Then when I cycle again, I'm very strong on the bike.
I can do 3 hours hard riding on the bike and feel fresh in the morning. But the day after weights I may feel tired.
Yes, I agree with you. I squatted very hard, deep reps with 220 on the bar in front of the mirror. To my surprise I had nothing left to power a bike after that. My legs didn't have the power and my heart rate was wroking twice as hard.

Doctor Morbius said:
That's been my experience. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have a good "physiology text book" reason why this happens (except for Solar Energy's response). It is my understanding that lifting weights - even when doing 15 to 20 reps - works white twitch fibers. That should leave the red twitch fibers fairly fresh to perform endurance related work. However, if the red twitch fibers are relatively fresh, then why is cycling AFTER weights (even when doing upper body only) so much more work?

Last night I did 3 sets of 15 slow strict reps for squats using light weights. My HR was as high as 172 BPM after the third set. That's 90% of my cycling max! After doing some hamstring and calves I did 20 minutes of cycling on the fluid trainer at an average of 84% of max without working very hard. I could have pushed it up closer to 90% for an average but it was late and I didn't want to work that hard before going to bed as it often keeps me awake.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
You seem to have studied your physiology. Interesting feedback!

SolarEnergy said:
Well, a weight lifting session is absolutely excellent for motor unit recruitment. So, it is normal to fell that low effort cycling would be quicker, as a greater percentage of your muscles get recruited. It feels more confortable. Specially if you did not fatigue the Fast Twitch Type IIA fibers. These are the strange animals that can act either as a ultra-powerfull red fiber, or as a limited power white fiber.

Again, when you climb, or push at near your anaerobic threshold level (LT), you rely HEAVILY on Fast Twitch Type IIA fibers. These work very well in presence of oxigen. They have even more potential compare to their conterpart red fibers. And during a weight lifting session, you use them a lot.

But even more important, the Peripheral nervous system, namely the motor units (links between the nerves and the muscle fibers) get a lot of stress during a weight lifting session. In big muscle mass, a single motor unit can be connected to as many as 1500 muscle fibers. So these very thiny structures (as thick as hairs) basically get injured by these sessions. So even if you want to push hard on cycling afterward, some protection mechanisms that are part of the CNS prevent you to do so.

This is, by large, quite true. But a weight lifting session, when you take a closer look, is a bit more complex.

Take a simple movement for example : The Shoulder press. The delto muscles do most of the job, and if you put heavy resistance, the TypeIIB fibers will probably be recruited... at least at first. But as the set goes throught rep #7-8 and more, TypeIIB are getting tired, TypeIIA will get involved. And you know, when you start to slow down considerably, and you may even have help from someone to complete 1 or 2 very slow and painfull reps,, TypeI fibers get fired. The reason why the last reps are so slow, specially when you push to the limit, is that slower muscle twitch get involve. And that's because faster twitch fibers are already exhausted.

Also, everybody recommand to use free weight, as it recruits more muscle to work simultanously. Well, all those muscles don't have to push (or pull) to the limit of their capacity. Many muscles are needed just to stabilize the movements. Lower threshold fibers will get fired under those circunstances.:)

PS- I know I'm doing a lot of grammar mistakes. Can't help it, I'm a frenchie that learn English listening to radio and TV. Hope you don't mind to much:eek:
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
This is why I find one hard weights session per week works for me in conjunction with my cycling. I can't explain why but some of my harder cycling sessions that come later seem to make up for the large gap between weights sessions so that my weekly session works well.
I never used Mentzer style training in the past as a bodybuilder but as a cyclist I find Mentzer principles work for me. Except I do higher reps than Mentzer suggested. But all in all, 2 - 3 sets of squats once a week is fine for me. Any more and my cycling performance would suffer, I think.
Put it this way, my legs are still sore even now.
I don't know whether the high pulse rate you get from the squats is of any use for fitness or not. I know that squats don't improve my cycling endurance or fitness specifically. All the squats do is strengthen my leg muscles and lower back and condition me somewhat for short bursts on the bike.
But maybe the fact your pulse goes up squatting is better than, say, just doing no exercise at all on that day?
 

SolarEnergy

New Member
Aug 15, 2005
1,503
0
36
Carrera said:
You seem to have studied your physiology. Interesting feedback!
Thanks Carrera, it's a passion for me. But I did study it by my own.

I use to coach in a University, most of my athletes where students registered in Phys Ed related programs.

After eight years in studying, and applying these concepts on a daily basis, I still find that it's difficult to evaluate the real benefit of weight lifting programs amoung endurance athletes. One thing is sure, you won't ear me yealing that weight lifting is bad, or is good. It's complex enough to be evaluated on a case per case basis, each individual being very different from the other. On top of that, I find that senior athletes are intelligent enough to make their own opinion on the matter.

Cheers:)
 

Doctor Morbius

New Member
Mar 15, 2004
1,792
2
0
SolarEnergy said:
Well, a weight lifting session is absolutely excellent for motor unit recruitment. So, it is normal to feel that low effort cycling would be quicker, as a greater percentage of your muscles get recruited. It feels more comfortable. Specially if you did not fatigue the Fast Twitch Type IIA fibers. These are the strange animals that can act either as a ultra-powerfull red fiber, or as a limited power white fiber.
I've heard these refered to as pink fiber types as they can mimick either/or depending on how they are trained.


Again, when you climb, or push at near your anaerobic threshold level (LT), you rely HEAVILY on Fast Twitch Type IIA fibers. These work very well in presence of oxygen. They have even more potential compared to their counterpart red fibers. And during a weight lifting session, you use them a lot.

But even more important, the Peripheral nervous system, namely the motor neurons (links between the nerves and the muscle fibers) get a lot of stress during a weight lifting session. In big muscle mass, a single motor unit can be connected to as many as 1500 muscle fibers. So these very thiny structures (as thick as hairs) basically get injured by these sessions. So even if you want to push hard on cycling afterward, some protection mechanisms that are part of the CNS prevent you from doing so.

This is, by large, quite true. But a weight lifting session, when you take a closer look, is a bit more complex.

Take a simple movement, for example: The Shoulder press. The deltoid muscles do most of the job, and if you put heavy resistance, the TypeIIB fibers will probably be recruited... at least at first. But as the set goes throught rep #7-8 and more, TypeIIB are getting tired, TypeIIA will get involved. And you know, when you start to slow down considerably, and you may even have help from someone to complete 1 or 2 very slow and painfull reps, TypeI fibers get fired. The reason why the last reps are so slow, specially when you push to the limit, is that slower muscle twitch get involve. And that's because faster twitch fibers are already exhausted.

Also, everybody recommends to use free weight, as it recruits more muscle to work simultanously. Well, all those muscles don't have to push (or pull) to the limit of their capacity. Many muscles are needed just to stabilize the movements. Lower threshold fibers will get fired under those circumstances.:)
Thanks. I appreciate your input.


PS - I know I'm doing a lot of grammar mistakes. Can't help it, I'm a frenchie that learned English listening to radio and TV. Hope you don't mind to much :eek:
No problem. I fixed a few spelling errors for ya! :D
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I seem to be reading more these days about weight training applied to runners. I was surprised that even Paula Radcliffe has a weights coach and she generally runs marathons these days.
However, most running coaches feel weights is more relevant for the milers, sprinters or shorter distance runners. It's interesting since I also read Seb Coe felt he needed to lift tons of weights while Steve Ovett never needed to do so. But Seb needed it to improve his kick on the mile.
I did do some basic biology once but it isn't really my field. But I read lots of books on other sports and, although I don't run, I do read books on running such as Roger Bannister's book on the sub 4 minute mile that I found interesting.
I'm not really a distance cyclist and maybe I'm somewhere between sprinting and endurance - which is odd.
P.S. I passed by France many times on the way to Pamplona in Spain. I remember Bourdeax quite well. Also the early morning joggers in Paris.

SolarEnergy said:
Thanks Carrera, it's a passion for me. But I did study it by my own.

I use to coach in a University, most of my athletes where students registered in Phys Ed related programs.

After eight years in studying, and applying these concepts on a daily basis, I still find that it's difficult to evaluate the real benefit of weight lifting programs amoung endurance athletes. One thing is sure, you won't ear me yealing that weight lifting is bad, or is good. It's complex enough to be evaluated on a case per case basis, each individual being very different from the other. On top of that, I find that senior athletes are intelligent enough to make their own opinion on the matter.

Cheers:)
 

SolarEnergy

New Member
Aug 15, 2005
1,503
0
36
Carrera said:
I seem to be reading more these days about weight training applied to runners. I was surprised that even Paula Radcliffe has a weights coach and she generally runs marathons these days.
However, most running coaches feel weights is more relevant for the milers, sprinters or shorter distance runners.....
Well, that's what I mean. Very difficult to issue ONE general statement about weight lifting an endurance sport.

Some coaches, my boss was part of this group, some coaches think that by raising the level of strength of a muscle group, you basically make each pedal stroke a smaller percentage (%) of the muscle group's limit, thus potentially making each pedal stroke more confortable.

I would not be surprise if comming studies on the subject, ultimately lead to opposite results from time to time.
Carrera said:
P.S. I passed by France many times on the way to Pamplona in Spain. I remember Bourdeax quite well. Also the early morning joggers in Paris.
Sorry, I must have used a wrong term. I said I was a Frenchy because I speak French. But in fact I live in Montreal - PQ, Canada. Sounds like you travel a lot. If ever you plan a trip up to Montreal, msg-me. We often train on the Circuit Gilles-Villeneuve (Formula One). It's a lot of fun!
 

Trainingwheelz

New Member
Sep 16, 2005
35
0
0
I think you simply need to give your body time to adjust to the new type of exercise you are preforming. You may think that your weight session is aerobic but your body may interpreting the session differently. 20 minutes on the bike afterward will not be enough for your body to fully adjust from the weight session to the new kind of demands being placed on it. I think the 85% HR is the combined effect of the body's adjustment to the new type of exercise and the flushing of all the waste products from the weight session (lactic acid, H+ ions, etc.).
 

Doctor Morbius

New Member
Mar 15, 2004
1,792
2
0
Trainingwheelz said:
I think you simply need to give your body time to adjust to the new type of exercise you are preforming. You may think that your weight session is aerobic but your body may interpreting the session differently.
I agree that there is always a bit of a break in period as one becomes conditioned to a new type of exercise, especially if one is severely deconditioned for that type of exercise. However, weight training can be very aerobic provided the routine is fashioned to produce those results. Admittedly, that type of routine - circuit training, for example - may not be optimized to produce the most strength or hypertrophy gains. But circuit training can definitely be aerobic. On non-heavy training days the crowd at Westside Gym supersets everything in order to enhance their GPP levels.


20 minutes on the bike afterward will not be enough for your body to fully adjust from the weight session to the new kind of demands being placed on it. I think the 85% HR is the combined effect of the body's adjustment to the new type of exercise and the flushing of all the waste products from the weight session (lactic acid, H+ ions, etc.).
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I have mixed feelings about it all.
There was a guy in this area who had won a Mr Universe title or a Mr Britain or something like that and he winded up training with a young Arnold S. He wrote down the routine in a local mag back in the seventies. I no longer have the mag.
But he winded up being sick as Arnold trained so fast back then and he was also on speed (amphets). They were supersetting squats and bench press, flyes and leg-curls, dips and leg-extensions and there was no stopping.
This guy called Frank Richards threw up. It was move, move, move, faster and faster.
Of course, I know from experience that wouldn't have helped Arnold on a bike. Maybe Arnie would have had a 52 pulse back then but his muscle mass would have prevented him keeping up with a team of roadies.
It's simply the case you tend to adapt and be good at what you do.


Doctor Morbius said:
I agree that there is always a bit of a break in period as one becomes conditioned to a new type of exercise, especially if one is severely deconditioned for that type of exercise. However, weight training can be very aerobic provided the routine is fashioned to produce those results. Admittedly, that type of routine - circuit training, for example - may not be optimized to produce the most strength or hypertrophy gains. But circuit training can definitely be aerobic. On non-heavy training days the crowd at Westside Gym supersets everything in order to enhance their GPP levels.
 

Doctor Morbius

New Member
Mar 15, 2004
1,792
2
0
Carrera said:
I have mixed feelings about it all.

There was a guy in this area who had won a Mr Universe title or a Mr Britain or something like that and he winded up training with a young Arnold S. He wrote down the routine in a local mag back in the seventies. I no longer have the mag. But he winded up being sick as Arnold trained so fast back then and he was also on speed (amphets). They were supersetting squats and bench press, flyes and leg-curls, dips and leg-extensions and there was no stopping. This guy called Frank Richards threw up. It was move, move, move, faster and faster.
Arnie was a big druggie back in his youth in spite of the image he may want to convey. Also, you have to take whatever was printed in a magazine with a grain of salt. I remember some of the dopey articles that came out. As a youth I ate it up. As a more knowledgeable adult I know they had to come up with something new every month to sell magazines. Weider's Muscle & Fashion (or was it Fitness) was the worst.

Anyway, the idea behind supersetting weights like that is threefold.

1) It builds muscle
2) It is aerobic
3) It saves time in the gym

What more could anybody want? It's perfect. Now those guys obviously didn't care about aerobic conditioning or GPP as it's not really going to help them on stage. However, they did care about minimizing their bodyfat which is where the aerobics come in. Westside Gym is a big proponent of such supersets as is Charles Poliquin. Hatfield doesn't seem to care much for GPP training or athletic carryover. I think he's more of a purist. NOTE: By athletic carryover I'm talking about something like American football just so the cycling pundits stay at bay!! :)

For people like myself that aren't concerned with becoming the greatest cyclist they can be and are more interesting in just being healthy and fit there's no reason to spend 10 hours a week on the bike. And I don't even represent the vast majority of people in the world. The vast majority are content with being couch potatoes.

I don't know why you would have mixed feelings. What would you have mixed feelings about?
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
This was in a local, small-time magazine. Arnold apparently said that only Sergio could really push him in the gym since Sergio was so fast.
A friend of mine trained with Serge Nubret who competed against Arnold and Lou Ferrigno. The stuff about Serge's high reps was true, at least when he was refining for a contest.
Serge did his bench presses 20 reps at a time into the neck with light weights.


Doctor Morbius said:
Arnie was a big druggie back in his youth in spite of the image he may want to convey. Also, you have to take whatever was printed in a magazine with a grain of salt. I remember some of the dopey articles that came out. As a youth I ate it up. As a more knowledgeable adult I know they had to come up with something new every month to sell magazines. Weider's Muscle & Fashion (or was it Fitness) was the worst.

Anyway, the idea behind supersetting weights like that is threefold.

1) It builds muscle
2) It is aerobic
3) It saves time in the gym

What more could anybody want? It's perfect. Now those guys obviously didn't care about aerobic conditioning or GPP as it's not really going to help them on stage. However, they did care about minimizing their bodyfat which is where the aerobics come in. Westside Gym is a big proponent of such supersets as is Charles Poliquin. Hatfield doesn't seem to care much for GPP training or athletic carryover. I think he's more of a purist. NOTE: By athletic carryover I'm talking about something like American football just so the cycling pundits stay at bay!! :)

For people like myself that aren't concerned with becoming the greatest cyclist they can be and are more interesting in just being healthy and fit there's no reason to spend 10 hours a week on the bike. And I don't even represent the vast majority of people in the world. The vast majority are content with being couch potatoes.

I don't know why you would have mixed feelings. What would you have mixed feelings about?
 

biker-linz

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
216
0
0
SolarEnergy said:
Some coaches, my boss was part of this group, some coaches think that by raising the level of strength of a muscle group, you basically make each pedal stroke a smaller percentage (%) of the muscle group's limit, thus potentially making each pedal stroke more confortable.
Unfortunately this *theory* doesn't have much support from a genuine physiological perspective. The forces involved in cycling are generally well below the threshold where strength plays any part at all; muscular adaptation for cycling is mostly a biochemical process.

L.
 

biker-linz

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
216
0
0
SolarEnergy said:
After eight years in studying, and applying these concepts on a daily basis, I still find that it's difficult to evaluate the real benefit of weight lifting programs amoung endurance athletes. One thing is sure, you won't ear me yealing that weight lifting is bad, or is good. It's complex enough to be evaluated on a case per case basis, each individual being very different from the other. On top of that, I find that senior athletes are intelligent enough to make their own opinion on the matter.

Cheers:)
Well said! I do think that it's worth trying to keep pointing out to people that weight training will probably not improve endurance cycling performance (or at least the data suggest not). I get accused of being anti-weight training, and yet I'm qualified as a 'strength coach' at the same level as I am a cycling coach, and wouldn't hesitate to prescibe weights for any number of reasons. One of my favourite off-season sessions involves running with our dogs in the forest. I do a loop with a 'station' every 5 minutes of so (a tree branch for pull-ups or a patch of leaves for abdominal work etc.). I know it won't help my cycling one iota, but I enjoy it and it's *really* good for me; it also helps keep the weight off when I just don't have time to ride my bike.

L.