ric_stern/RST said:
I just assumed that either:
(i) the grade was wrong
(ii) the speed was wrong OR
(iii) the distance was wrong
Can OP clarify?
The Lifting Apologists....
- Thread starter Lucy_Aspenwind
- Start date
I just assumed that either:
(i) the grade was wrong
(ii) the speed was wrong OR
(iii) the distance was wrong
Can OP clarify?
You guys are the stereotypical endurance cyclists. Sure, lifting may add muscle mass, but only if you are doing it in a way that contradicts what you are working towards in cycling. You do not want to be a hunkazoidal, chest shaving (I shave my legs, not my chest!) bodybuilder, no you want to be cyclist. And besides, if not lifting, what do you do in the off-season- sure an occasional ride in 5' deep snow can be fun, but it's just not practical, trainering is hella boring, but must be done on occasion, but that still does not take place of going to the gym on a regular basis. Also, if you race, you have to have some degree of type two, fast twitch fibers in your muscles, and they can not be built up by riding alone. If you have none, you will not be able to jump onto a wheel that starts a break, and might lose out, getting caught in no-man's-land for it. You won't be able to participate in Crits, nor bunch sprints, which can offer, even for the GC man in a stage race valuable bonuses.
I should know this- I am 135 lbs., and I bet I can kill any of you up a hill, but I can beat most other Cat. 1 racers around in a sprint. Look at Ullrich, a great all-arounder and ttist- he won the Olympic Gold Medal a while ago in a four man sprint. You can bet he lifts regularly, and, as I do, XC skis. Be more open minded to cycling training- go to the gym, lest thou art afraid.
I should know this- I am 135 lbs., and I bet I can kill any of you up a hill, but I can beat most other Cat. 1 racers around in a sprint. Look at Ullrich, a great all-arounder and ttist- he won the Olympic Gold Medal a while ago in a four man sprint. You can bet he lifts regularly, and, as I do, XC skis. Be more open minded to cycling training- go to the gym, lest thou art afraid.
Hey, and by the way, for those of you lifting skeptics, who would rather die than lift weights because a) it might injure knees b) it builds up type two fibers, which are "unneeded for cycling"-lie, by the way-, here are some things you can do to add the muscles of lifting while actually helping the knees, building Type 1 (slow twitch fibers), and taking less time- as little as ten, as much as thirty minutes three times a week-, oh, and also, they are focused on improving flexibility and core strength, and need no weights:
1) hindu squats
2) hindu push-ups
3) bridges- for back
4) sit ups, crunches, and trunk curls
5) pull-ups
6) push ups
1) hindu squats
2) hindu push-ups
3) bridges- for back
4) sit ups, crunches, and trunk curls
5) pull-ups
6) push ups
I don't think strength training will hurt your cycling. I get my riders to
do gym work as part of their overall development. I don't for a second
consider it a method of improving their on the bike performance, especially
over event specific interval training.
I work on the philosophy that a rider should maximise all the components of
fitness and gym work tackles the strength side of things. A roadie will not
need to do much gym work to maximise their strength potential as they will
have little strength potential. Track sprinters will have far more potential
for strength development and therefore need to spend more time in the gym or at least lift more.
Under this philosophy Track Sprinters should maximise their aerobic
capacity. Again they will not have much aerobic potential to begin with and
this work will be a minimal part of the programme.
This is all base stuff but as long as we remember that building power over
our goal duration/s is the physiological priority.
As far as research on strength training I have to say that most of the
research has used gym training protocols that are focused on hypertrophy
(3-10 sets of 8-15 reps), muscle endurance (2-5 sets of 15-200reps) or power
(2-3 sets of 1-5 reps at 30-60 of 1RM) whereas there seems to be little
research on strength training below 5reps that targets absolute strength.
This is where I focus on in the gym and leave the endurance and power to the on the bike training. At no point is hypertrophy a focus for my riders, even the sprinters.
Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach
do gym work as part of their overall development. I don't for a second
consider it a method of improving their on the bike performance, especially
over event specific interval training.
I work on the philosophy that a rider should maximise all the components of
fitness and gym work tackles the strength side of things. A roadie will not
need to do much gym work to maximise their strength potential as they will
have little strength potential. Track sprinters will have far more potential
for strength development and therefore need to spend more time in the gym or at least lift more.
Under this philosophy Track Sprinters should maximise their aerobic
capacity. Again they will not have much aerobic potential to begin with and
this work will be a minimal part of the programme.
This is all base stuff but as long as we remember that building power over
our goal duration/s is the physiological priority.
As far as research on strength training I have to say that most of the
research has used gym training protocols that are focused on hypertrophy
(3-10 sets of 8-15 reps), muscle endurance (2-5 sets of 15-200reps) or power
(2-3 sets of 1-5 reps at 30-60 of 1RM) whereas there seems to be little
research on strength training below 5reps that targets absolute strength.
This is where I focus on in the gym and leave the endurance and power to the on the bike training. At no point is hypertrophy a focus for my riders, even the sprinters.
Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach
fergie said:
Because of this, your sprinters are suffering. Or, alternatively, perhaps your sprinters aren't suffering enough.
bikedude40k said:
On the contrary: only by inducing hypertrophy do you have any hope of improving your cycling performance.
bikedude40k said:
XC skiing, running, speed or inline skating are all more likely to positively benefit endurance cycling performance than lifting, and three of the four can be done in practically any weather. (Of course, many cyclists can ride year round as well.)
bikedude40k said:
Sorry, but this is patently incorrect.
bikedude40k said:
The vast majority of road cyclists do not lift in a manner that is likely to improve these abilities, and if they did, they may compromise their endurance performance as a result of, e.g., carrying extra mass.
BtonRider said:
You're right, substrate metabolism/skeletal muscle characteristics are really far more my speciality. However, that doesn't mean that I don't know my way around strength testing/training, e.g.:
35. Urban RJ, Bodenburg YH, Gilkison C, Foxworth J, Coggan AR, Wolfe RR, Ferrando A. Testosterone administration to elderly men increases skeletal muscle strength and protein synthesis. Am J Physiol 1995; 269:E820-E826.
37. Alway SE, Coggan AR, Sproul MS, Abdujalil AM, Robitaille P-M. Muscle torque in older untrained and endurance trained men. J Geront 1996; 51A:B195-B201.
Perhaps more to the point, as the ultimate form of intergrative physiologist (i.e., as an exercise physiologist) it is my job to understand how, e.g., muscle responds and adapts to all forms of activity, including resistance training. However, even accepting your implication - i.e., I don't know what I'm talking about because I haven't personally published any studies of weight training of cyclists - the question then becomes, why are you voicing your opinion? That is, you've provided no evidence that you possess any expertise at all in this particular area, despite being specifically asked by Ric Stern to do so.
BtonRider said:
Two points:
1. The squat is a closed-chain kinetic exercise that recruits practically all of the major muscle groups of the lower body, in particular the gluteals, quadriceps, and hamstrings. These are the same muscles that provide most of the power when pedaling, and as such the squat is a perfectly appropriate "bread-and-butter" movement when attempting to use weight training to improve cycling performance, e.g., among track sprinters. For example, if you dig around the web a little bit you should be able to find pictures of Tournant (world record holder in the kilo) performing squats in the infield of the velodrome at which the French national team trains.
2. Your expectation of transfer to strength gains achieved via lifting to increases in power when cycling are highly overblown, probably because you don't sufficiently appreciate the importance of specificity principle. The article here outlines the issues in more detail:
BtonRider said:
Nonetheless, the potential still exists for resistance training to compromise gains in endurance performance, for the reasons outlined by Ric and as discussed in the recent symposium published in Med Sci Sports Exerc.
BtonRider said:
You need to brush up on your statistics: the magnitude of intersubject variability really tells you nothing about the probability of statistical significance in a repeated measures design.
BtonRider said:
Assuming said training is performed on the bike and also assuming that by "benefit" you mean an improvement in endurance performance, my answer would be no.
Ouch, Bton. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. It is not often that your typical internet troll gets whacked so hard by the real deal. Coggan is the real deal.acoggan said:
Again, most of us lift because we like lifting and it gives us health benefits that are important to us in other areas. But just as cycling isn't going to help your squat significantly, squatting is not really going to change your cycling. I cerainly don't see a lot of evidence that it is a plus or any substitute for specificity. As to whether lifting is a wash or an actual detriment to cycling, I will leave it to the scientists, but the trend of the studies seems to be that it might even be detriminental for endurance athletes.
Bton's efforts to critique the individual studies might be valid, but that is the nature of these types of experiments. Sample size, demographics of the sample, the fit of the experiment, and quality of the peer review are always issues. At some point, scientists will begin publishing meta studies, or studies of the studies, and we will be able to draw broader conclusions and an overall consensus will be reached. But at this point, Bton, you are not really examining science objectively. You're fishing for a study that supports the view you want to hear, like Rush Limabaugh critiquing the general consensus that global warming isn't real, or a proponent of Intelligent Design who critiques evolution. Call Joe Wieder and ask him to do a study, and my geuss is that his study will show lifting and eating his supplements will make you win the tour de France.
There is nothing I would like to hear more than that the key to cycling success is following the routine that I like to follow, which includes lifting two days a week and leisurely weekend rides with my slow fat middle age buddies. If someone can find a study that suggests that regularly eating cheese steaks enhances cycling, it would make this Philadelphian very happy. Unfortunately, the consensus suggests that my limited success is probably due more to regular (3x week) brief (40-90 minutes) interval training following some periodization plan, as well as better than average genetics, which allow me to recover reasonably quickly, and compensate adequately for more upper body bulk that is optimal. Dropping 15 pounds would probably change the equation as well, but that would play havoc on my bench press. If I wanted to compete in cycling at the national level, I would have to heed the writing that appears to be on the wall. As it stands now, if I can't catch the 135 pound cycling weenie on the ride or up the hill, I have to just challenge him to a wrestling match, where my extra thirty pounds and upper body strength is a distinct advantage.
Honestly, do you think Coggan or Stern have real dogs in this fight? If the data showed that lifting improved performance significantly, why wouldn't these guys want to advocate lifting for the athletes they train? You either have to assume that they are just close minded, or that they are part of an evil consortium of skinny nerdy guys who are just trying to get revenge for all the middle school wedgies.
Below find the info I got from last years top finishers:Roadie_scum said:
The race is 1k. The infamous "manayunk wall" from the USC in Philly is widely reported to be 17%. Whether it is 17% for the whole 1k is doubtful. It probably runs from 7% to 17% throughout the 1k portion. I have been trying to find the markers, stop and start from last year to see the actual stop and start points. I will tell you that the winners time is absolutely screaming fast up this hill
MANAYUNK HILL CLIMB TIME TRIAL[size=+1]9 June 2006 - Philadelphia, PA [/size][size=+1]RESULT: Time Trial[/size]
[size=-1]Average Speed of Winner 25.86 MPH 41.62 Km/H[/size]
Pl Bib Name Team Time Behind 1 349 MOLLOY, Kevin CRCA/Axis 01:27.98 1:27.98 2 334 SANDBERG, Colin Meredith Group-GPOA- 01:27.99 @ 0.01 3 352 ESMONDE, Michael Route 1 Velo 01:28.08 @ 0.10 4 348 TOTARO, Chad Human Zoom! 01:30.45 @ 2.47 5 315 AVANCINI, Henrique Fuji Bikes Brazil 01:30.53 @ 2.55 6 332 HENDRIKS, Aaron Main Line Cycling 01:30.71 @ 2.73 7 346 ARNAL, Alvaro Human Zoom! 01:31.31 @ 3.33 8 358 ROYAL, Jon Tri State Velo 01:31.54 @ 3.56 9 335 GODSHALL, Jim 01:32.46 @ 4.48 10 323 JACOBY, Brett Gotham Cyclist 01:34.32 @ 6.34 11 343 PRICE, Harlan Trophy Bikes/Indepen 01:34.47 @ 6.49 12 333 LENART, John Main Line Cycling/Cy 01:36.13 @ 8.15 13 351 SLATTERY, Desmond Quaker City Wheelmen 01:36.19
Here are the results:ric_stern/RST said:
MANAYUNK HILL CLIMB TIME TRIAL[size=+1]9 June 2006 - Philadelphia, PA [/size][size=+1]RESULT: Time Trial[/size]
[size=-1]Average Speed of Winner 25.86 MPH 41.62 Km/H[/size]
Pl Bib Name Team Time Behind 1 349 MOLLOY, Kevin CRCA/Axis 01:27.98 1:27.98 2 334 SANDBERG, Colin Meredith Group-GPOA- 01:27.99 @ 0.01 3 352 ESMONDE, Michael Route 1 Velo 01:28.08 @ 0.10 The infamous manayunk wall, part of the US Cycling Championship course, is reported to be a 17% grade at parts, my geuss is that the 1k course ranges form 7% to 17%. I am looking for last years markers to get a better idea because the actual hill itself is longer than 1k. I do welcome any advice on getting in shape for this type of event. I am a pretty strong hill climber on the local level and will be 41 at the time of the race.
Here is a description of the "Manayunk Wall from Wickipedia which lists its grade as 17%.Roadie_scum said:
Manayunk Wall
In bicycling terminology, a "wall" is a relatively steep incline. The "Manayunk Wall," located by Jerry Casale and David Chauner when they were laying out the course for its commencement in 1985 as the (former, as of 2006) USPRO championship race, refers to two streets along the race's course in the northwest section of Philadelphia, Levering Street and Lyceum Avenue. The bottom of the "wall" begins at Main Street and Levering Street in the neighborhood of Manayunk, proceeds shortly on the well-worn cobblestone Cresson Street under the elevated railway, then proceeds back onto Levering Street.
Some confusion can occur among media broadcasters covering the race, as most of the Wall is part of Levering Street, but suddenly becomes Lyceum Avenue at Silverwood Street (at N40 01.631 W75 13.313). The steepest section, a 17-percent grade, commences just after the slight left turn (when going up) at the intersection with Tower Street (N40 01.652 W75 13.277), and ends at the intersection with Fleming street (N40 01.726 W75 13.226). It becomes slightly less steep on the stretch with "O'Brien's" as it crosses Manayunk Avenue. It nearly flattens out and is considered to end at Pechin Street in Roxborough, which is where most of the news crews set up for broadcasting. The right turn off Lyceum Avenue onto Pechin Street (N40 01.847 W75 13.069) begins "The Fall from the Wall." Manayunk Avenue also happens to mark the traditional boundary between the neighborhoods of Manayunk and Roxborough, causing some broadcasters to be uncertain of which neighborhood they are reporting from.
On June 5th, 2002, Manayunk officially designated the 17-percent grade as "the Manayunk Wall" with a plaque dedicated to indicate "The Wall" is enshrined in Domestic and International cycling lore. Olympic gold medalist Marty Nothstein was among the participants in the 2002 ceremony, presenting the plaque.
Take it easy! I wasn't suggesting you didn't know what you were talking about. Your credentials say you’re an outspoken advocate of power training. I assumed this meant you had some experience with power training and weight training as well (which apparently you do). My question was intended as a respectful inquiry, not a dig on your competence. The simple fact you can back up your statements with scientific evidence means you’ve addressed my previous problem with the majority of statements made here, which aren’t backed up by anything more than opinion. Regardless of whether you perform the experiments yourself or not, you can interpret the data presented and make a cogent argument based on the data. That all I’m doing. And that’s the kind of discussion (not argument) I think we need here.acoggan said:
It appears something got cut off.acoggan said:
I’m actually pretty well versed in statistics. Admittedly though, I don’t know what you mean by “probability of statistical significance in a repeated measures design.” In general though, if the inter-sample variance is greater than the variance between populations a trend or bias can’t be established unless the F factor from the ANOVA test is greater than the variance between populations. The authors of the paper don’t report using the ANOVA test so I was forced to look at the standard deviation of the measurement. The variance of the final measurement is so large it encompasses the initial measurement. Therefore, the confidence limit of the final population not belonging to the original population is less than 68%, and it looks like even less than 50% (+/-0.67sigma).acoggan said:
acoggan said:
Let me clarify my question. I’ve had the position (started in other threads and then following up here) we have to have an option to riding the bike during the off season. Like BikerDude said, “an occasional ride in 5' deep snow can be fun, but it's just not practical,” so that’s why so many of us cross train. The books say it’s a good time to integrate SOME weight training (presumably to improve your short term performance, and not your endurance). It’s been recommended here and elsewhere the only “beneficial” cross training for a “trained cyclist” is on a bike (i.e. mountain biking, velodrome, etc). I don’t get the impression this is your opinion. Okay with that said, I think we can all agree weight training won’t increase your VO2 (Max). What about your sprint? Will your endurance suffer by integrating weight training? Basically, will you become a better all-around cyclist by integrating SOME weight training to an existing endurance focused program?
You are right we do think a lot alikekopride said:
If all the squats I have done through the years would have been able to transfer to cycling I would be real cocky, but I humble myself before those who are incredibly fast while sporting those 13" arms and legs.
kopride said:
I think Coggan and Stern have formed opinions on what training techniques makes a good cyclist. Those opinions contradict opinions I've read elsewhere (e.g. Carmichael & Friel). This whole discussion (or apparently the argument) came about when I asked Stern for some references that support his position. To that point I had only read a handful of papers that supported either position, and all of them had some questionable testing procedure or data interpretation. My position had been that integrating a reasonable strength training program into an endurance program during the off season, could make you a stronger rider. I've never suggested it will be the difference between a century and a double century but rather it could help you win a sprint. Since then Coggan has joined the discussion and given me references that I had not previously seen. I'm grateful for that. I've listed one article earlier and one of the paper Coggan refers to support my position. At the very least the additional references give me something to think about. The whole point is there isn't a consensus, so it's worth discussing.
Let's face it, if someone's going to tell you how to train and they refer to "recent research" wouldn't you like to read that research for yourself? Without that all you have is word of mouth and opinion.
It is always good to read the actual source materials. But you have to wonder from your posts whether you are interested in the research or shopping for an opinion suggests what you want it to prove. Guys like Charmichael and Jacobson are great coaches and motivators. There is a lot of coaching that may not be based on hard science. I coach wrestling and include 10 minutes of dodge ball at the end of practice for the guys to blow off steam and break things up. We also run wind sprints and do calistentics. In my head, I know that if you want to be a better wrestler, there is no substitute for wrestling. In other words, the time is probably better spent on the mat. This is stuff for the head and the mental part of the game. The guys that will gut it out on a sprint, are usually the guys that will not let themselves got pinned in a tough match. But there are lots of good sprinters that can beat my best wrestlers. My sense is that is where some of the resitance training comes in for these elite cyclists. Again, there is not going to be a definitive answer for a while, and sometimes the minority viewpoint gets proven and accepted over the consensus. And I think that lifting's overall health benefits have been well established, it is just a question of whether it improves the performance of endurance athletes. So , no, there is no problem with questioning authority, but it became a bit of a personal smack down between you two over the prevailing research; and my only thought that is if you are going to get into it over research, you might want to choose someone other than an eminently respected and published researcher to get into a smack down with, because at the end of the day you are probably not going to win, or look any smarter. And, if you truly wanted to just learn, then the discussion would not have become such a personal slap fight.BtonRider said:
Hey guys, her is something that you might not have known: YOU DO NOT LIFT TO IMPROVE ENDURANCE, BUT RATHER TO INCREASE EXPLOSIVE TYPE STRENGTH!!!!!! That is where you are getting confused- you don't lift as a substitution for riding, but along with riding to build explosive power. Even in the off season, one must do some endurance work, sure, but the thing is that you also, more so in the winter, have to develop power along with the endurace you speak of. And besides, if you think only of endurance, why do you even do sprint work, hard intervals, or Lactate Threshold or more training? There is a lot more to cycling that putting in endurace mileage- you must have both that and speed endurace as well as power. My results show I'm right, and I don't care what you say!How many of you guys have been to Olympic Training Training Camps for the past three years- since I was 15-? How many are being scouted by Semi-Pro teams right now?
bikedude40k said:
I hope you're packing on the pounds:
http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html
I have always worn pink jersey's when hitting my very best peak sprint numbers.
Since n=1 is the new gold standard of scientific evidence and because my sprint numbers are world class....
I therefore deem that top sprint numbers can only be achieved while wearing a pink jersey. My results show I'm right, and I really don't care what you say......
Since n=1 is the new gold standard of scientific evidence and because my sprint numbers are world class....
I therefore deem that top sprint numbers can only be achieved while wearing a pink jersey. My results show I'm right, and I really don't care what you say......
