Racing & Training with a Powermeter - Strength training comments



fergie

Member
Apr 10, 2004
1,924
24
38
51
Even I gave Swampy the thumbs up for that one.

Main cause for non traumatic injury in cycling: poor bike set up = bad technique. Followed by too high or low a cadence and too rapid a progression in freq, intensity, time and type of exercise.

But the big issue is technique which often stems from poor bike set up.
 

mullerrj

New Member
Mar 26, 2007
117
0
0
Hi Doc..long time no talk to. Glad to see you're still on the forum sharing your expert knowledge. It's what keeps me coming back. Question re: your statement. I think I understand why neural adaptations don't transfer well to other movements..but what about hypertrophy? If I engage in a cycling specific resistance training program that exceeds 6 weeks or more, where hypertrophy is responsible for the increase in strength, isn't any of that strength transferable to the bike? Even if it's just a tad? When I say "cycling specific resistance training program" I'm talking about a program designed specifically for the bike where the exercises include multiple joint movements similar to the bike- as much as possible that is. Granted, I realize there is no substitute for riding the bike and improving cycling performance. Thanks Rob
 

fergie

Member
Apr 10, 2004
1,924
24
38
51
I had a rider switch from road to track (Kilo and Teams Pursuit) and over a 6 month stint he put on 5kg of muscle in his thighs and he improved his Kilo from 1:11 to 1:05 in that time. The issue with hypertrophy for any road cyclist is that you must climb with that extra weight and it does increase frontal area. So it's a trade off between how powerful you want to be verses how you want to get over climbs or how aero you need to be and many cyclists fear that extra abdominal muscle will prevent them from achieving as low a position required.
 

bbrauer

New Member
Feb 27, 2007
102
0
0
Boy! I'd have to rate that post as about an 8-10 on the Borg Scale of Perceived Condescension. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

I'm sure you're a fine coach, and by all means continue practicing a system that works for your athletes, but I've found that these types of internet arguments are less an endeavor in knowledge sharing and more an exercise in comparative quantitative penis analysis for the sake of ego enhancement.

In my experience - and I've been in the game a long time, too - strength training done sensibly and with a particular objective does indeed convey benefits to the endurance athlete that don't necessarily translate to increased performance in his respective discipline, but create a better, overall, more balanced athlete that is able to withstand the rigors of his sport and resist breaking down because of specific overuse issues and muscle imbalances. This has been borne out in practice, forms the basis of all strength and conditioning regimens as well physical therapy, is supported by the literature, and is just simply common sense.

A cyclist I know was training a year ago - commuting to work, actually - got out of the saddle to perform a jump and heart a pop and felt a burning sensation in is abdominal area. A year later, he's scheduled to have surgery for a hernia that won't heal. You think if his core was stronger that would've happened? Some good news, however. I recently rode a local 9-mile off-road hillclimb that I've been doing for the better part of 15 years. It's always caused my lower back to fatigue and for me to lose power and even stop. My back felt fantastic this last ride. Was able to comfortably attack the last section, and my only limiter was aerobically. I honestly haven't been riding much outside anymore, and certainly don't do as many sustained hillclimbs. What's the difference? - I'd most certainly say it's the strength endurance of my core that I've developed.

I'm not a zealot with regards to the notion that weight lifting improves endurance performance or TT performance. In fact, in my experience, there are other things one ought to be doing in the saddle to develop cycling specific strength. However, this got me interested in checking out the latest research on the subject, and what I found opened my eyes a little. Tell you what. I'll post some links to share and I'll let other readers here check out the links and come to their own conclusions.

Actually, what I found that was particularly interesting about these studies as opposed to previous studies on the subject was that: a. they were quite recent; and b. They studied trained athletes and competitive cyclists. The major flaw with previous studies on the subject was that they used untrained subjects.

Some interesting stuff.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855311
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378915 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12458369 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12383074 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046343 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20799042 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18071742
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473854

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19903319

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20072042


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473854
 

fergie

Member
Apr 10, 2004
1,924
24
38
51
Originally Posted by bbrauer .

Boy! I'd have to rate that post as about an 8-10 on the Borg Scale of Perceived Condescension. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

Well I have done more than read abstracts off Pubmed.

I'm sure you're a fine coach, and by all means continue practicing a system that works for your athletes, but I've found that these types of internet arguments are less an endeavor in knowledge sharing and more an exercise in comparative quantitative penis analysis for the sake of ego enhancement.

All the studies you have listed below each have flaws that don't actual provide any support to your argument.

In my experience - and I've been in the game a long time, too - strength training done sensibly and with a particular objective does indeed convey benefits to the endurance athlete that don't necessarily translate to increased performance in his respective discipline,

If it's not making you a faster bike rider then why do it?

but create a better, overall, more balanced athlete that is able to withstand the rigors of his sport and resist breaking down because of specific overuse issues and muscle imbalances.

I did a lit review and muscle imbalances don't feature in the causes of non traumatic cycling injury. Poor bike set up, too high or too low a cadence and improper progression of training.

This has been borne out in practice, forms the basis of all strength and conditioning regimens as well physical therapy, is supported by the literature, and is just simply common sense.

Study more!

A cyclist I know was training a year ago - commuting to work, actually - got out of the saddle to perform a jump and heart a pop and felt a burning sensation in is abdominal area. A year later, he's scheduled to have surgery for a hernia that won't heal. You think if his core was stronger that would've happened?

Sorry I don't base my coaching off one case study!

Some good news, however. I recently rode a local 9-mile off-road hillclimb that I've been doing for the better part of 15 years. It's always caused my lower back to fatigue and for me to lose power and even stop. My back felt fantastic this last ride. Was able to comfortably attack the last section, and my only limiter was aerobically. I honestly haven't been riding much outside anymore, and certainly don't do as many sustained hillclimbs. What's the difference? - I'd most certainly say it's the strength endurance of my core that I've developed.

I don't base my coaching off anecdotes either.

I'm not a zealot with regards to the notion that weight lifting improves endurance performance or TT performance. In fact, in my experience, there are other things one ought to be doing in the saddle to develop cycling specific strength. However, this got me interested in checking out the latest research on the subject, and what I found opened my eyes a little. Tell you what. I'll post some links to share and I'll let other readers here check out the links and come to their own conclusions.

Most used poorly randomised groups, low study numbers and measures that are not relevant to cycling performance.

Actually, what I found that was particularly interesting about these studies as opposed to previous studies on the subject was that: a. they were quite recent; and b. They studied trained athletes and competitive cyclists. The major flaw with previous studies on the subject was that they used untrained subjects.

Where you would expect to see bigger improvements in performance because of greater capacity to improve but this was not the case.

Some interesting stuff.

All been covered before. Might I suggest reading the entire paper.
 

fergie

Member
Apr 10, 2004
1,924
24
38
51
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855311
Improved time to exhaustion, we don't race like this. Hmmmm, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research where every study recommends the use of "drum roll" strength and conditioning for every athlete. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378915 Cross country skiing? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12458369 Cross country skiing? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12383074 Cross country skiing? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046343 Running and used sports students as subjects. Big assumption that sports students are trained or even active. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20799042 The experimental group made marginal improvements in power but the control group got worse performing "conventional" training. I would repeat this study using a control group with a coach who knew how to improve people as I have seen similar or better improvements in power relative to their goal events than the experimental group and certainly as riders have entered the season have never lost power. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18071742 Both groups improved their performance in a 30min test.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473854

Strength training prevented a decrease in cadence in a 2hr test but no difference in performance or metabolic parameters.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19903319

Same issues as Ronnestad's paper above and the other two his group has published in the last two years.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20072042

A review paper from the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research proclaiming that athletes need to do strength and conditioning. Will wait for one of the journals with a higher impact factor and less bias to see if they draw the same conclusions.