Upper Body and Power

acoggan said:

I imagine that Ric said "likely" because it is based on a logical extrapolation of the known adaptations to resistance training - which it is.

Please give us the data to prove your point of view. I see nothing "logical" in the contention that proper weight training is injurious to cyclists.

bozy said:

Please give us the data to prove your point of view. I see nothing "logical" in the contention that proper weight training is injurious to cyclists.

Weight training would be injurious to cyclists if they trained hard on the bike and hard in the gym: it would just be too much.
Reducing road work to allow you to train with weights as well would reduce race performance.
If you are not competing, then do both, but don't overdo it.

Don Shipp said:

Weight training would be injurious to cyclists if they trained hard on the bike and hard in the gym: it would just be too much.
Reducing road work to allow you to train with weights as well would reduce race performance.
If you are not competing, then do both, but don't overdo it.

Interesting, but where's the data to support this point of view?

Don Shipp said:

Try climbing without pulling to save your back. Concentrate on technique. Make sure that you are not in too high a gear.

I agree. Today called for climbing intervals on a rolling hills course (grades ranging from 2% to 10%). I didn't wrap my fingers around the bars or hoods, so as to avoid the tendency to pull with my arms. It forced me to focus exclusively on applying power from the waist down. I was definitely able to generate as much power and my back didn't get sore. I think it's just a matter of avoiding the instinct to try to use my upper body. Until it's second nature, I'll continue to avoid wrapping my fingers around the bars and hoods. I don't think I'm pushing too much gear as I'm still spinning at 80+ cadence.

bozy said:

Interesting, but where's the data to support this point of view?

Are we discussing only competetive cycling here, or cycling generally?
Personally I believe that a balanced excercise program for overall fitness would include some upper body training, although not necessarily with weights. But competetive cyclists only have reason to exercise the muscles they use in racing.
The original question mentioned pulling on the bars to help climb hills; this is a matter of technique and weight training to enable a stronger pull would be less effective than correcting the technique or training on the bike by climbing more hills.
What sort of data are you asking for?

well, my joking and silliness aside, I do think a strong upper body is very usefull in some places cycling. Especially mtb biking, dont know if that counts for this thread, but the feet of travel you get out of your arms helps dramatically if you have stronger springs. Plus anything you need to lift your wheels over is easier if you are stronger. On the road I would tend to think the balance you get from a non-emaciated upper body would help, and if you are racing in a tight pack, well, I would rather stronger arms to stabalize the inevitable jostling. If not racing, then technique is not as important as fun, and out of the saddle sprinting is fun, and its about feel too, if you feel stronger everywhere, your brain would be more likely to apply more power than if it felt weak somewhere. I have no data, no research or studies, and I understand how little arms work into the act of pushing a bike along, but I know riding is almost always better these days after I've gained strength in my arms from the gym(the bike is my lower body work out). but I dont race, and dont plan to

ServiceDano said:

well, my joking and silliness aside, I do think a strong upper body is very usefull in some places cycling. Especially mtb biking, dont know if that counts for this thread, but the feet of travel you get out of your arms helps dramatically if you have stronger springs. Plus anything you need to lift your wheels over is easier if you are stronger. On the road I would tend to think the balance you get from a non-emaciated upper body would help, and if you are racing in a tight pack, well, I would rather stronger arms to stabalize the inevitable jostling. If not racing, then technique is not as important as fun, and out of the saddle sprinting is fun, and its about feel too, if you feel stronger everywhere, your brain would be more likely to apply more power than if it felt weak somewhere. I have no data, no research or studies, and I understand how little arms work into the act of pushing a bike along, but I know riding is almost always better these days after I've gained strength in my arms from the gym(the bike is my lower body work out). but I dont race, and dont plan to

I would tend to agree with the mountainbiking thory above (most mountain bikers I've seen are pretty built upper body-wise), and it also seems to me that sprinters are often larger in their upper bodies than other races.

I'm asking for established scientific data to support the notion, promulgated by Stern, that resistence training is harmful to endurance cyclists.
Not unexpectedly, Coggin suddenly chimed in to support Stern's opinion-but still no data.

Don Shipp said:

The obvious answer is that if resistance training was helpful to competetive cyclists, then they would do it. If they are doing it, they can't be doing much because they all have skinny arms.
Cyclists train the muscles that they use and neglect the ones they don't. Any unnecessary muscle is dead weight and competes with the others for oxygen and fuel, reducing performance.

But they are doing it-and doing it properly so that strength, not bulk, is increased.
This very fact flies in the face of Stern's whim that strength training is injurious to endurance cyclists.

ServiceDano said:

well, my joking and silliness aside, I do think a strong upper body is very usefull in some places cycling. Especially mtb biking, dont know if that counts for this thread, but the feet of travel you get out of your arms helps dramatically if you have stronger springs. Plus anything you need to lift your wheels over is easier if you are stronger. On the road I would tend to think the balance you get from a non-emaciated upper body would help, and if you are racing in a tight pack, well, I would rather stronger arms to stabalize the inevitable jostling. If not racing, then technique is not as important as fun, and out of the saddle sprinting is fun, and its about feel too, if you feel stronger everywhere, your brain would be more likely to apply more power than if it felt weak somewhere. I have no data, no research or studies, and I understand how little arms work into the act of pushing a bike along, but I know riding is almost always better these days after I've gained strength in my arms from the gym(the bike is my lower body work out). but I dont race, and dont plan to

A strong upper body has benefits but road racers sacrifice all for speed.

bozy said:

But they are doing it-and doing it properly so that strength, not bulk, is increased.
This very fact flies in the face of Stern's whim that strength training is injurious to endurance cyclists.

I am sure that the little bit of muscle up top that they allow themselves is as fit as it can be.
Overtraining is injurious.
Training should be specific to purpose, cyclists train by cycling. This way they build up ull the muscle and strength they need, and none that they don't.
If they are doing weights, it can only be a small part of their whole training program.

bozy said:

But they are doing it-and doing it properly so that strength, not bulk, is increased.
This very fact flies in the face of Stern's whim that strength training is injurious to endurance cyclists.

Now I see that Stern did not claim that strength training is injurious to endurance cyclists, but that it is detrimental to endurance cyclists performance. This would be an overall effect, with the sum of all the various disadvantages that have been mentioned being more significant than sum of all the advantages.
Of course, some upper body and core strength is required, but this can be developed on the bike.

Don Shipp said:

I am sure that the little bit of muscle up top that they allow themselves is as fit as it can be.
Overtraining is injurious.
Training should be specific to purpose, cyclists train by cycling. This way they build up ull the muscle and strength they need, and none that they don't.
If they are doing weights, it can only be a small part of their whole training program.

Good post
Same as the discussion on the worthiness of stretching.

The main factor is Time that used efficiently for sport specific training.

Time for sports specific training
Time for nutritional needs (eating properly)
Time for recovery (rest)

.....and for the average Joe

Time for family
Time for career

What time is left after that in the normal cycle of the day or week?

I am advocate for weight training (except in this forum - I agree on physiology pertaining to cycling). I skirt the thin line between weight training and cycling, but my goals are not for competitive cycling. I say skirt the line because I am in a state of barely recovering from doing both without the use of PED's and yet I will not be able to excel greatly at either.

Yesterday morning I trained legs which included squats and yesterday afternoon I did 22 miles on the road bike and attempted interval training. Needless to say I could not hang with the guy I train with for cycling. It's not just my extra lean mass that causes me to be slower it is also my slower recovery rate from trying to juggle too much.

To become a real competitor that is set on improving one may have to get tunnel visioned and become very sport specific.

Felt_Rider said:

Good post
Same as the discussion on the worthiness of stretching.

The main factor is Time that used efficiently for sport specific training.

Time for sports specific training
Time for nutritional needs (eating properly)
Time for recovery (rest)

.....and for the average Joe

Time for family
Time for career

I am advocate for weight training (except in this forum - I agree on physiology pertaining to cycling). I skirt the thin line between weight training and cycling, but my goals are not for competitive cycling. I say skirt the line because I am in a state of barely recovering from doing both without the use of PED's and yet I will not be able to excel greatly at either.

Yesterday morning I trained legs which included squats and yesterday afternoon I did 22 miles on the road bike and attempted interval training. Needless to say I could not hang with the guy I train with for cycling. It's not just my extra lean mass that causes me to be slower it is also my slower recovery rate from trying to juggle too much.

To become a real competitor that is set on improving one may have to get tunnel visioned and become very sport specific.

Most people who train underestimate the time that their bodies take to recover from exercise to get the full benefits.
To become a real competitor you have to sacrifice something else that you enjoy doing.

bozy said:

Interesting, but where's the data to support this point of view?

Type "interference effect" into PubMed and you'll turn up several studies that have found that attempting to simultaneously train for both strength and endurance can be detrimental to the development of either. Not all studies have observed this, however, which has led to the hypothesis that it depends on the overall training load. IOW, it seems likely that an athlete attempting to maximize their endurance cycling performance will not be able to do so if they simultaneously perform resistance training. This conclusion is consistent with data showing that the muscular adaptations to resistance training - in particular, hypertrophy leading to a reduction in capillary and mitochondrial density - are antithetical to endurance.

(And if you don't like that answer, how about this one: where's the data supporting the claim that resistance training improves the performance of endurance cyclists? 😄 )

bozy said:

But they are doing it-and doing it properly so that strength, not bulk, is increased.
This very fact flies in the face of Stern's whim that strength training is injurious to endurance cyclists.

I gather you've never heard the saying "never copy the training program of a champion, because you don't know if they are a champion because of, or in spite of, their training program"?

I find it very disturbing that reasoning logically from accepted facts is no longer considered a valid way of proving an idea.

i.e All body mass requires energy to maintain and to move through space. Only a subset of body parts are utilized in propelling the bike. Adding mass to the non bike propelling parts consumes resources. Humans can produce only a finite amount of power. Therefore adding mass to non bike propelling parts is detrimental to cycling performance.

Don Shipp said:

Now I see that Stern did not claim that strength training is injurious to endurance cyclists, but that it is detrimental to endurance cyclists performance. This would be an overall effect, with the sum of all the various disadvantages that have been mentioned being more significant than sum of all the advantages.
Of course, some upper body and core strength is required, but this can be developed on the bike.

A lady at work shared an article awhile back that outlined ways for women to work on arm strength outside of weight rooms and bicycling was one of the top activites. The pulling and the resistance of being in the drop postion was mentioned as the factors for shapely arms. So, not sure how much a man would benefit from the same activity. I think I'd work on the core outside of just the bike if I was racing though.

acoggan said:

Type "interference effect" into PubMed and you'll turn up several studies that have found that attempting to simultaneously train for both strength and endurance can be detrimental to the development of either. Not all studies have observed this, however, which has led to the hypothesis that it depends on the overall training load. IOW, it seems likely that an athlete attempting to maximize their endurance cycling performance will not be able to do so if they simultaneously perform resistance training. This conclusion is consistent with data showing that the muscular adaptations to resistance training - in particular, hypertrophy leading to a reduction in capillary and mitochondrial density - are antithetical to endurance.

(And if you don't like that answer, how about this one: where's the data supporting the claim that resistance training improves the performance of endurance cyclists? 😄 )

First of all you're conflating issues-that is simultaneously training for strength and endurance was never the issue I posed. Let's forget about that for now to prevent further confusion of a simple issue.
The idea that weight (or resistance) training will lead to an increase in muscle mass alone without an increase in maximum power is plainly false. Properly applied, weight training will bring about an increase in maximum power, an increase in type IIa fibers, growth of muscle fibers, and increase endurance capacity.
Just a few articles reflecting these facts are:
Ahtianen, et al, European J. of Applied Physiology 89, 6:555-63
Tanaka, Sports Medicine 25, 3:191-200
Campos, et al, European J. of Applied Physiology 88, 1-2:50-60
Hoff, Scandanavian J. of Medicine and Science in Sports 12, 5:288-295

As I suspect you know, there are many others.

I don't believe you can provide any data based evidence to the contrary. If so, please give us the references.

acoggan said:

I gather you've never heard the saying "never copy the training program of a champion, because you don't know if they are a champion because of, or in spite of, their training program"?

You're quite right, I've never heard the saying, nor have I ever heard a lot of other things that are presented here as facts without the slightest scientific basis.