The Lifting Apologists....

But aren't the recreational riders the ones that do get better by lifting?

No clue on the Lance/Friel stuff through. I always wondered if Armstrong was ever telling the truth about what he did to train.

normZurawski said:

But aren't the recreational riders the ones that do get better by lifting?

Well when I say recreational I mean people from serious club riders to people who race non-professionally but who all have regular, non-cycling jobs.

People riding an hour here or there, trying to lose weight, burn calories, etc I think of as just casual and for them, yeah lifting (or anything else) would help.

That debate is still opened in my opinion.

Quoted post said:

I have seen results with my athletes time and time again, I don't care what the 'experts' say.

Hunter

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=3048835&postcount=2

Not that I need Hunter's voice to speak out what I think, I quoted him just because the voices *in favor* of weight lifting are somehow rare on this forum. That doesn't mean that the few who advocate it are wrong.

For season 2006-2007, I didn't send any athletes in the gym. I didn't even suggest that they should. But I do respect those who do though. And moreover, I believe them when they report that they've been successful in their approach. In the same time, I think I can be successful with mine too.

i *guess* people buy into the weights make you a better cyclist theory because
1) people think you need to be stronger to be faster (this is because people use the word strength interchangeably with power)
2) when you do certain efforts (e.g. uphill) it can *feel* like you're strength limited
3) people don't (or didn't) know what the forces involved in cycling were
4) doing weights makes you more athletic/more attractive to whatever gender you're interested in, sooooo it must be good for cycling

ric

SolarEnergy said:

That debate is still opened in my opinion.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=3048835&postcount=2

Not that I need Hunter's voice to speak out what I think, I quoted him just because the voices *in favor* of weight lifting are somehow rare on this forum. That doesn't mean that the few who advocate it are wrong.

For season 2006-2007, I didn't send any athletes in the gym. I didn't even suggest that they should. But I do respect those who do though. And moreover, I believe them when they report that they've been successful in their approach. In the same time, I think I can be successful with mine too.

Hunter wrote: "I personally believe in weight work in the winter, that's why I have had all my athletes do weights for over 10 years now that I have been coaching. I think it helps to balance muscle groups, prevent chronic overuse injuries, helps to stabilize weak muscle groups, and also provides a nice mental change for the winter, helping to re-charge the the desire to train hard on the bike"

I don't *think* there's any evidence that weights prevents injuries (and there's *probably* some that shows it causes injuries -- like the flexibility issue).

It definitely provides a mental change, whether that's good, bad, or indifferent i can't say other than for myself. (i've been biking/racing for 22 seasons and never been bored with it or needed a change).

ric

I think those are all fairly common reasons that I've come across.

The thing I observe is that the likes of Carmichael/Friel have a lot of sway because of their following/popularity. When people go beyond sticking to the bike trails or whatever, they are likely to pick up books/programs from the above.

If instead of reading material from some folks in this forum, (Coggan, Stern, many others - who are sports scientists, not just coaches), I had gone the CTS or Friel route, I'd be grinding out squats somewhere, convinced that was the key to getting faster or going up a long hill.

ric_stern/RST said:

i *guess* people buy into the weights make you a better cyclist theory because
4) doing weights makes you more athletic/more attractive to whatever gender you're interested in, sooooo it must be good for cycling

ric

24 years of lifting and it hasn't done a thing for making me more attractive😄

Or

I must have really started in a deficit and 24 years later I worked my way up to "below average looking".😄

Ric, I have an immense respect for your take on weight. You're probably the one on this site who has spent the highest amount of time and energy digging into this subject as deep as one might go.

I don't hesitate to quote your articles on this topic on a regular basis. I'd say that you're one of the reason why I feel that weight resistance training is a choice, not an obligation to acheive high performance.

Cheers for that.

And Oh(!) BTW, what's your take on this document here... http://www.coachesinfo.com/category/strength_and_conditioning/236/

Well if you have time, or if you already have an opinion on it.

Thanks

Lucy_Aspenwind said:

Why do these people continue to espouse these views in light of no real evidence in favor of lifting weights and quite a bit to the contrary?

At the risk of making an ass of myself (too late, I know), I'll take a stab at this. Note that I do this as a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of weight lifting for cycling performance; I haven't seen the inside of a weight room in two years, and don't intend to go back until I'm a good deal older.

Consider the "target audience" of Carmichael, Friel, etc. At the risk of over-generalizing, I think the average person plunking down cash for a copy of "The Cyclist's Training Bible" is a male, 35+ cat 3.

Year-round cycling, to the exclusion of all other fitness activities, might present a problem or two for this audience, physiologically. Heavy endurance training lowers testosterone levels. The mid-30's to early 40's is a time when these levels are dropping anyway, and most guys aren't happy about it. Weight-training (and perhaps more importantly, the reduced volume of endurance training that weight-training implies) increases testosterone levels. So, even if you lose cycling fitness by taking a month or two to push around iron, you might be a happier person all around. If enhanced all-around well-being keeps you in the sport for say, five or six more years than you could could handle training year-round, then you might get closer to your genetic potential with a built-in break (to "lift weights", but you could just as well play dodge ball, work on your golf swing, etc.). Even pros have lives outside cycling, and when they neglect them too much they pay the price just like us working stiffs.

Along these lines, cycling is extremely catabolic. Again, guys in their 30's and 40's are losing muscle mass naturally anyway, and attenuating those losses probably translates to a more active, healthier lifestyle in a decade or two.

So, even though weights will not make you a faster endurance cyclist, I think there are legitimate reasons for a coach dealing with the "whole athlete" to prescribe weights. If you're a "mass media" coach like Carmichael or Friel, preaching to lots and lots of frankly inexperienced cyclists, and more experienced, but somewhat older athletes, a blanket recommendation for weights might do more good than harm.

kmavm said:

At the risk of making an ass of myself (too late, I know), I'll take a stab at this. Note that I do this as a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of weight lifting for cycling performance; I haven't seen the inside of a weight room in two years, and don't intend to go back until I'm a good deal older.

Consider the "target audience" of Carmichael, Friel, etc. At the risk of over-generalizing, I think the average person plunking down cash for a copy of "The Cyclist's Training Bible" is a male, 35+ cat 3.

Year-round cycling, to the exclusion of all other fitness activities, might present a problem or two for this audience, physiologically. Heavy endurance training lowers testosterone levels. The mid-30's to early 40's is a time when these levels are dropping anyway, and most guys aren't happy about it. Weight-training (and perhaps more importantly, the reduced volume of endurance training that weight-training implies) increases testosterone levels. So, even if you lose cycling fitness by taking a month or two to push around iron, you might be a happier person all around. If enhanced all-around well-being keeps you in the sport for say, five or six more years than you could could handle training year-round, then you might get closer to your genetic potential with a built-in break (to "lift weights", but you could just as well play dodge ball, work on your golf swing, etc.). Even pros have lives outside cycling, and when they neglect them too much they pay the price just like us working stiffs.

Along these lines, cycling is extremely catabolic. Again, guys in their 30's and 40's are losing muscle mass naturally anyway, and attenuating those losses probably translates to a more active, healthier lifestyle in a decade or two.

So, even though weights will not make you a faster endurance cyclist, I think there are legitimate reasons for a coach dealing with the "whole athlete" to prescribe weights. If you're a "mass media" coach like Carmichael or Friel, preaching to lots and lots of frankly inexperienced cyclists, and more experienced, but somewhat older athletes, a blanket recommendation for weights might do more good than harm.

I have no idea if you are right, as we are basically expressing opinions on why these coaches have certain views.

However, right or wrong, candor can potentially be refreshing and constructive.

Good thing for me those testosterone levels started dropping around, what, conception? Else I'd have to go get under a squat rack and that sounds none too pleasant.....😄

The trouble with cycling is that it interfers with my weight lifting. Those hours spent cycling could be better spent lifting more weights.

kmavm said:

At the risk of making an ass of myself (too late, I know), I'll take a stab at this. Note that I do this as a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of weight lifting for cycling performance; I haven't seen the inside of a weight room in two years, and don't intend to go back until I'm a good deal older.

Consider the "target audience" of Carmichael, Friel, etc. At the risk of over-generalizing, I think the average person plunking down cash for a copy of "The Cyclist's Training Bible" is a male, 35+ cat 3.

Year-round cycling, to the exclusion of all other fitness activities, might present a problem or two for this audience, physiologically. Heavy endurance training lowers testosterone levels. The mid-30's to early 40's is a time when these levels are dropping anyway, and most guys aren't happy about it. Weight-training (and perhaps more importantly, the reduced volume of endurance training that weight-training implies) increases testosterone levels. So, even if you lose cycling fitness by taking a month or two to push around iron, you might be a happier person all around. If enhanced all-around well-being keeps you in the sport for say, five or six more years than you could could handle training year-round, then you might get closer to your genetic potential with a built-in break (to "lift weights", but you could just as well play dodge ball, work on your golf swing, etc.). Even pros have lives outside cycling, and when they neglect them too much they pay the price just like us working stiffs.

Along these lines, cycling is extremely catabolic. Again, guys in their 30's and 40's are losing muscle mass naturally anyway, and attenuating those losses probably translates to a more active, healthier lifestyle in a decade or two.

So, even though weights will not make you a faster endurance cyclist, I think there are legitimate reasons for a coach dealing with the "whole athlete" to prescribe weights. If you're a "mass media" coach like Carmichael or Friel, preaching to lots and lots of frankly inexperienced cyclists, and more experienced, but somewhat older athletes, a blanket recommendation for weights might do more good than harm.

You know my age so I won't repeat it. I might be wrong but I think somewhere in there you are saying that testosterone through a natural diminishing process is a negative thing. I don't know what you're implying, but if you are saying this reduction in one's testosterone level means impaired sexual desire/performance, and weight training helps to restore testosterone levels to a certain degree, then all I can say is, I'd better lay off the weights completely as I'm as horny as hell after my workouts on the bike (and light weights). In fact I've started taking "Niagara" pills to compensate.😄

Sillyoldtwit said:

You know my age so I won't repeat it. I might be wrong but I think somewhere in there you are saying that testosterone through a natural diminishing process is a negative thing.

All sex jokes aside, losing muscle mass and bone density are bad news in the grand scheme of a long, healthy life. Both have a lot to do with what sucks about getting older, and are well-established consequences of long-term, intensive pursuit of cycling for older athletes. Weights are an effective remedy for both (though there might be more effective ones for bone density).

Lucy_Aspenwind said:

Why do these people continue to espouse these views in light of no real evidence in favor of lifting weights and quite a bit to the contrary?

I can't say why they do it, but in fairness to them and the coaches that do prescribe weight training, in fields where information is not openly shared there is a tendency for practical learning to lead peer-reviewed 'evidence' by some margin. You see it in auto racing all the time where one team will try something new and have good results with it. The next week everyone is trying to figure out what they did and how to do it to the rest of the cars.

It's especially true in cycling, where elite riders are simply not going to take time to participate in studies, nor release accurate details of their training programs for academic studies. There's certainly room for a particular sports-scientist, coach, or athlete to stumble upon something which is valid, yet has not been sufficiently confirmed by study to be called 'evidence.'

Edit: I'm not saying it's true in *this* case, but that it's a reason to experiment outside of what has already been proven to work, or possibly listen to those who do.

SolarEnergy said:

Ric, I have an immense respect for your take on weight. You're probably the one on this site who has spent the highest amount of time and energy digging into this subject as deep as one might go.

I don't hesitate to quote your articles on this topic on a regular basis. I'd say that you're one of the reason why I feel that weight resistance training is a choice, not an obligation to acheive high performance.

Cheers for that.

And Oh(!) BTW, what's your take on this document here... coachesinfo.com236Open ↗

Well if you have time, or if you already have an opinion on it.

Thanks

I'm not Ric, and didn't really read the whole article, just had a quick look on it. Anyway, the "classic" questions arise:
1) If, instead of the weight training, the study participants would have done corresponding amount of specific anaerobic training, as L6, L7 workouts for cyclists, or corresponding sprints for the runners, how had their performance matched with the weight training groups?
2) If some ~30% of specific training volume is replaced by the less specific weight training, is there some peak training ongoing?

Lucy_Aspenwind said:

I think so many newbies and even experienced riders buy into that rhetoric – I believe it sets back the whole sport, at least recreationally, quite a bit.

I guess these people believe that weights work, their belief born of their own experience or a lack of knowledge of the scientific evidence. Similarly their clients (disciples :p ) believe (probably because, as Ric says, a lot of people confuse strength with power) that they are better riders for hitting the weight room. In a clinical, scientific world this is inneficient use of their training time and is limiting their progress as a comeptitive cyclist. However, consider a situation where everyone in the winning break is suffering. If a rider believes they are stronger/more powerful because they've been squatting XXXKg in the gym then they might just eek out the extra effort when it counts. Of course the rider who wins/finds that little bit extra might do it because they've spent their time on the bike instead of the weight room( 😄 ).

My point is cycling involves a lot of suffering and your beliefs play a big part in being able to tolerate that (Sean Kelly said the difference between a good cyclist and a great cyclist is often the ability to suffer just that little bit more). If lifting weights makes you believe you are a better rider then it may just help you get that little bit more out of yourself. (Similarly if riding with one leg on the trainer makes you believe you can ride faster for longer because your favourite pro says they do it then away ye go, Long John Silver.)

Just my two penneth on why people insist on ignoring the evidence.

meandmybike said:

a lot of people confuse strength with power

About every 6 months, I present what I call a "Training Chalk Talk" to my club. It's actually a PowerPoint presentation, but chalk talk sounds better. In the presentation, I explode a lot of myths about training for increased performance and I can predict in advance the slide that is going to draw the most looks of disbelief. It is the slide where I debunk the idea that cycling requires strength. I can look at their faces and I can tell that there are a few who are saying to themselves, "No way. This can't be true." I've tried many different approaches to trying to create understanding of this crucial point, but I'm absolutely sure there are still several who just refuse to accept my arguments. Fortunately, those who buy into my suggestions for training and who have applied the ideas to their own training are going up the climbs like little rockets. I especially take joy out of the progress of a couple who attended the presentation twice and took copious notes both times. They are now just scampering up the climbs and have now decided to go do rides in Utah and California that they said they would never have dreamed they could do a year ago. And they have not been near a weight room. As for those that I was unable to persuade, we wait patiently for them at the tops of long climbs.😄

RapDaddyo said:

About every 6 months, I present what I call a "Training Chalk Talk" to my club. It's actually a PowerPoint presentation, but chalk talk sounds better. In the presentation, I explode a lot of myths about training for increased performance and I can predict in advance the slide that is going to draw the most looks of disbelief. It is the slide where I debunk the idea that cycling requires strength. I can look at their faces and I can tell that there are a few who are saying to themselves, "No way. This can't be true." I've tried many different approaches to trying to create understanding of this crucial point, but I'm absolutely sure there are still several who just refuse to accept my arguments. Fortunately, those who buy into my suggestions for training and who have applied the ideas to their own training are going up the climbs like little rockets. I especially take joy out of the progress of a couple who attended the presentation twice and took copious notes both times. They are now just scampering up the climbs and have now decided to go do rides in Utah and California that they said they would never have dreamed they could do a year ago. And they have not been near a weight room. As for those that I was unable to persuade, we wait patiently for them at the tops of long climbs.😄

I bet the ones who refuse to accept your arguments believe they are just not climbers. 😄

sidewind said:

I'm not Ric, and didn't really read the whole article, just had a quick look on it. Anyway, the "classic" questions arise:
1) If, instead of the weight training, the study participants would have done corresponding amount of specific anaerobic training, as L6, L7 workouts for cyclists, or corresponding sprints for the runners, how had their performance matched with the weight training groups?
2) If some ~30% of specific training volume is replaced by the less specific weight training, is there some peak training ongoing?

Makes sense.

I haven't visit a training room for a while now, but I feel somehow guilty about it. I guess I'll wait until my arms becomes the same size as my wrists 🙁

For the records, the document I quoted isn't a study but a review. Though I think that there's some evidence in favor of weight training being benificial for endurance sports, the issue is that this evidence is contested.