Weight Lifting & Cycling??

[edd]

: quote: Because your strongest bits want to do most of the work, if you want your weaker bits to contribute, you have to isolate and develop them
- This is like the ankling/power cranks debate - does using more muscle make a difference? The jury seems to be out indefinitely.

No it isn’t - the more muscles recruited the more power you will produce. Loose the toe clips and see what happens to your power output. - the calf muscles are recruited in knee and ankle flexion - the calf muscles are being recruited in the cycling action

: Think you bulleted my question wrong there. Max (ANaerobic) power occurs at muscle contraction speeds that are pretty quick ie not like those you get with heavy weights.

What are you talking about ? The fastest men on the planet are power lifters.

It may look like a heavy weight is being lifted slowly. But the neuromuscular message is get it up there really fast.

When you throw a ball, muscle fibers are recruited very differently then when you do push ups. One is explosive power. The other is a sustained force. ( I’m not a cycling coach so I am willing to be challenged on specific comments I might make about cycling training.) It appears to me cycling is mainly a sustained force. I don’t see the relevance of doing any kind of explosive training other then that which you do on a bike.

: This is the explanation that is often given, but it sounds woolly to me.

It seems to suggest that cyclists "cores" (which are mainly used to provide support for the legs to push against) dissipate energy because the muscles are not capable of producing enough tension to remain in isometric contraction (and are so forced into the more wasteful excentric contraction).

(Incidentally an elastic "core" would not necessarily be such a bad thing for the same reasons that frame flex isn't as bad as it seems. You would get a "wind up" followed by a "pay back" with a wee bit of loss in the process)

nice theory, good luck with it

I believe Lance did core strength work to remedy back pain.

: So you're not talking about weights for pure hypertrophy, you're talking about improving neuromuscular patterns.

How does the scheme you describe work?

I not sure how beneficial this would be for you specifically. The whole squat thing was an example of how you might change the neuromuscular patterns, the benefit is not a known, the principle is.

For runners or swimmers for example, their technique is relevant to their performance. If you can extend a runners stride by a few centimeters they may run a lot faster. This requires changing neuromuscular patterns. Now lets magnify this concept a little so there is no change in the actual action just the way the muscle a contributing to the action. What happened the first time you put toe clips on your bike ? All of a sudden you could get more hamstring and hip flexor contribution into the pedaling action. Now here’s the question, what are you using the most, your hipflexors or your hamstrings ? And can we effect this.

The concept is based on being able to incrementally increase a single set resistance exercise (over time) immediately before executing another exercise/activity that can not be incrementally increased. These activities need to recruit the same muscles in a similar way. The first one sets up to make the second seem easier. and you therefore gradually work harder and harder in the second exercise/activity

What we really need now is for a cycling coach to step in and say works great for a shot putter no benefit ( or otherwise) to a cyclist

 

[Aztec]

Edd -- Despite not having some of Arnold's assets, you are without question gifted gentically (if muscle mass is what you'd want, that is!). That's what has allowed you to keep/gain mass despite the time on the bike. I've probably known 100s of lifters through the years who couldn't gain an ounce if they so much as ran more than 2 times/week. 6 hours on the bike is a proven muscle mass killer. No one on this board, if they are training for competitive cycling, needs to be even the slightest bit concerned about gaining weight from lifting.

Me? I'm in my late 30s now, but when I was in college, it was in Southern Cal where probably 50-75% of the males lifted, mostly under bodybuilding-style routines. Granted, many were grossly overtraining and killed anything more than minor results that way. Stack on cardio work and they'd backtrack.

In my most serious times, I would do the following:
Squats -- 3x6-12, or 1x20 all out do-or-die set
Bench or incline -- 2x8
Dip -- 2x6-10 (w/ up to 100lbs added to bodyweight)
Chins (varied routines) and/or dumbbell rows 3x8 (up tp 100 lbs)
Overhead press of some sort
Back extensions, Abs, Calves

I know quite a bit about the right way to train and to get results. I've studied enough to qualify for any number of certifications here (which I think other than ASCM and NSCA are junk). As a strength coach, you probably know about Stuart McRobert's work. I've more or less been along his line of thinking for the last 15 years (compound exercises, avoid overtraining, moderare reps, get stronger).

 

[andrewbradley]

Originally posted by edd

: quote: Because your strongest bits want to do most of the work, if you want your weaker bits to contribute, you have to isolate and develop them
- This is like the ankling/power cranks debate - does using more muscle make a difference? The jury seems to be out indefinitely.

I missed the word "groups" out of the sentence but even then it wasn't a great one. What i should have said is that muscles are bound to contribute in different amounts, what basis is there for changing the balance between muscle groups?

What are you talking about ? The fastest men on the planet are power lifters.
It may look like a heavy weight is being lifted slowly. But the neuromuscular message is get it up there really fast.

What about the Hill curve? (More contraction speed = less force)

I find it hard to imagine someone doing squats or leg press with heavy weights at the sort of contraction speeds of the sprinter in full flight. Standing starts are a different matter.

Of course, you can get the perfect contraction speeds on the bike for both phases. Are you saying you can't develop the best neuromuscular function on the bike alone?

The concept is based on being able to incrementally increase a single set resistance exercise (over time) immediately before executing another exercise/activity that can not be incrementally increased. These activities need to recruit the same muscles in a similar way. The first one sets up to make the second seem easier. and you therefore gradually work harder and harder in the second exercise/activity

Is this theory backed up by studies?

 

[edd]

: Is this theory backed up by studies?

No, a common training technique for power and plyometrics training regimes, ie: shot-put, hurdles etc.

As a technique for sprint cycling training ? I don’t know, I don’t think so.
We ventured into new territory in the hope that a cycling coach might step to the plate with some insight.

As for the ongoing muscle mass debate, The longer you train the harder it is to put on muscle mass. In the initial six to twelve months, you’ll put on a few kilos for sure,

 

[edd]

: Dip -- 2x6-10 (w/ up to 100lbs added to body weight)
Chins (varied routines) and/or dumbbell rows 3x8 (up to 100 lbs)
Overhead press of some sort
Back extensions, Abs, Calves

What ! - You have already got some serious muscle mass. I’d like to see any top cyclist do 10 dips with 100 lbs strap to them. Make that 1 dip.

 

[Aztec]

Originally posted by edd

: Dip -- 2x6-10 (w/ up to 100lbs added to body weight)
Chins (varied routines) and/or dumbbell rows 3x8 (up to 100 lbs)
Overhead press of some sort
Back extensions, Abs, Calves

What ! - You have already got some serious muscle mass. I’d like to see any top cyclist do 10 dips with 100 lbs strap to them. Make that 1 dip.

No, no, no. I've only done 7 reps with 100 lbs. And right now I'm more like 10 reps with 60 lbs, as the bike has eaten some of my power away. Either way, I definitely don't have serious mass. I'm 5-10", 159 lbs, and just a tad soft in the middle (waist pinch is around 1.25"). I've also squatted (the RIGHT way, deep!) 185 for 17 reps, stiff-leg deadlifted 235x8, and yet only have 21" thighs. My muscle mass is very 'normal' for whatever reason, despite my above average power. I hope to one day be a 'stealth sprinter'. ;-)

 

[oldbluejeans]

I read so many different cycling sources, eg VeloNews, Bicycling, the internet, etc that I can't recall where I read this: "the average pro cyclist can do partial squats with weights ranging between 300 up to 800 pounds." Chris Carmichael, and a host of other coaches recommend weight training. So for me, I work out with free weights twice a week.

Originally posted by ffvelazquezh
It is true that the weight lifting gives us some improvement in cycling. I can find enough information about the best exercises regarding with the main involved muscles, but I would want to know a little bit more based in personal experiences on the exercises that have worked better, mainly the recommended frequency, because I train cycling at least 4-5 days per week and I ignore the best way to mix both exercise types, since I would have to decide among diminishing distance and intensity in order to practice both in the same day or, to maintain intensity and distances diminishing the days dedicated to the cycling and to dedicate them to the strength training, how many days are the minimal/maximal recommended.??

I know that the best thing is the personal experimentation in order to define how adapts our own body better, but I look for some kind of orientation based on past personal experiences that helps me to decide but quickly what would work better

 

[Larry B Corthel]

Someone above said something to the effect that weight training is not likely to increase strength.

You are completely misinformed and need to study the subject before making a statement like that.

 

[Aztec]

Originally posted by Larry B Corthel
Someone above said something to the effect that weight training is not likely to increase strength.

You are completely misinformed and need to study the subject before making a statement like that.

You are likely referring to me. And you completely misread my statements. So, I'd insert my own "eyes rolling" emoticon if I knew how.

What I DID say, and pay attention this time, %&*$, was that you are unlikely to gain MASS. The bike -- in any volume that a self-respecting cyclist would do -- absolutely KILLS your ability to add muscle. Sure, some genetic freaks will slap on more than a few pounds of muscle. But such athletes are rare.

As for strength, what you really mean is power. Sure, you can get more powerful. But NOT MUCH. Just like mass gains are squashed, so are your power gains limited. If you've never lifted before, you'll get some gains. Minor gains. And then you'll quickly stop gaining. While riding 8+ hours per week, you just aren't going to go from a 185 bench to a 225 bench, or a 185x10 squat to 225x10. Period.

If you have, then you can just count yourself as one of the lucky .01%.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Aztec
You are likely referring to me. And you completely misread my statements. So, I'd insert my own "eyes rolling" emoticon if I knew how.

What I DID say, and pay attention this time, %&*$, was that you are unlikely to gain MASS. The bike -- in any volume that a self-respecting cyclist would do -- absolutely KILLS your ability to add muscle. Sure, some genetic freaks will slap on more than a few pounds of muscle. But such athletes are rare.

As for strength, what you really mean is power. Sure, you can get more powerful. But NOT MUCH. Just like mass gains are squashed, so are your power gains limited. If you've never lifted before, you'll get some gains. Minor gains. And then you'll quickly stop gaining. While riding 8+ hours per week, you just aren't going to go from a 185 bench to a 225 bench, or a 185x10 squat to 225x10. Period.

If you have, then you can just count yourself as one of the lucky .01%.

I'm not sure what time frame you're looking over, but in this study looking at endurance trained women doing 12 weeks of strength training, they increased their strength by 35%
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10378917&dopt=Abstract

Ric

 

[Aztec]

Ric -- suddenly you are a proponent of lifting? No, because you aren't saying that power increase is useful.

Sure, some studies show that power gain. But actually, is 35% much when the base is so low? If you could only do pulldowns with 40 lbs for 10, and now you can do them w/ 55, is that 1) noticable at all, and 2) really anything other than from neuromuscular adaptation?

I meant gains that last, absolute (rather than %) gains that are material.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Aztec
Ric -- suddenly you are a proponent of lifting? No, because you aren't saying that power increase is useful.

only for sprint track events. they increased strength in the study, not power

Sure, some studies show that power gain. But actually, is 35% much when the base is so low?

i think you've confused strength and power

If you could only do pulldowns with 40 lbs for 10, and now you can do them w/ 55, is that 1) noticable at all, and 2) really anything other than from neuromuscular adaptation?

so only gains that you think are important, are important, right?!

I meant gains that last, absolute (rather than %) gains that are material.

in the study they gained 35% on 1RM over 12 weeks, i've no idea how long it lasted at the end of the study? presumably no one really cared as it didn't increase cycling performance!

ric

 

[Aztec]

Ric, I think it is you who confused strength and power. We erroneously use those terms interchangably in this thread. Raising your 1RM is an increase in power. I'm not referring to power on the bike, rather power as measured by lifting a weight.

Agreed on the sprint exception, as noted many times in the thread.

As for gains being important, yeah, absolute gains are important, % gains aren't likely to be since the base is so low and the cap from so much aerobic work so constricting. Instead of adding 35% to lifting power, try adding 75 lbs to your bench (no can do).

And to be precise about which gains are preferable, I meant that a neuro adaptation isn't going to be as restricted by cycling. You can probably get that. It's beyond that pop (which, by the way, will be WAY less than 35% for most trainees, especially otherwise fit men) which would be squashed by aerobic activity in the 8+ hour range. Thus, neuro gains are cheap! ;-)

 

[edd]

Strength =
- the ability to apply a given force or lift a specific weight.

Power =
- the ability to apply a given force or lift a specific weight at a specified speed (or acceleration rate)

Power =
- Strength + Speed

Usable Strength =
- Strength that will translate to a measured improved performance in a given sport, ie: TT

Usable Power =
- Strength + Speed + ( relative endurance ) that will translate to a measured improved performance in a given “facet” of a sport, ie: Sprint to the finish

Muscle Mass =
- Lumps that appear on your body that add weight to your bike and give you confidence at the dance club.

Endurance =
- the ability to keep coming back to this tread and rambling on.

 

[andrewbradley]

Originally posted by edd
Strength =
- the ability to apply a given force or lift a specific weight.

You mean max force and max weight you can lift.

Power =
- Strength + Speed

Usable Strength =
- Strength that will translate to a measured improved performance in a given sport, ie: TT

Usable Power =
- Strength + Speed + ( relative endurance ) that will translate to a measured improved performance in a given “facet” of a sport, ie: Sprint to the finish

Trouble with these definitions (apart from being at variance with physics) is that they give the impression that the ingredients for great power are great speed and great strength when reality is more like max (anaerobic) power = 30%strength X 30%top speed.
And aerobic power correlates very poorly with speed or strength.

It's the speed, strength, endurance mantra again.

 

[edd]

explosive endurance ?????

explosive strength ??????

expolsive POWER .... ha... this one fits

apart from being at variance with physics)

How insightful, please explain.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by andrewbradley
You mean max force and max weight you can lift.

Trouble with these definitions (apart from being at variance with physics) is that they give the impression that the ingredients for great power are great speed and great strength when reality is more like max (anaerobic) power = 30%strength X 30%top speed.
And aerobic power correlates very poorly with speed or strength.

It's the speed, strength, endurance mantra again.

OK, the definitions are slightly out of whack with the physics. But Edd's right that if you increase the speed or the force applied, the power goes up. The only thing wrong with the physics is an addition sign, not multiplication.

Here it is folks... the correct physics... essentially showing Edd to be on the right track:

Power=Energy expended/Time
AND
Energy expended = ForceXDistance
Therefore
Power=ForceXDistance/Time
AND
Speed=Distance/Time
Therefore
Power=ForceXSpeed

So when you ride at a given power at a lower cadence, you apply more force, and vice versa, etc etc.

This stuff is so basic it's hard to believe anyone is bothering to argue about it. Can we get our definitions right and move on? I actually don't see that it's in any way relevant to anything. The point is more, what kind of power do we need for road cycling, how long do we have to be able to maintain it for, etc. This comes down to physiology not physics.

 

[edd]

Okay guys this has become a long-ish thread and the point made about the discussion becoming lost in semantics is not lost on me.

Has anyone learnt anything from this thread ?

I keep coming hear and reading to learn things about how serious cyclists train.

The thing with weight training as with any sort of training - when it comes to the performance analysis of the benefits - in terms of (strength, power, endurance)

A simple truth emerges - the muscles learn to perform the training action more “effectively”

So.... doing ten reps teaches the muscle ( hypertrophy aside ) - how to perform ten reps.

The question remains, regardless of the science, ie: ( aerobic/anaerobic contribution/ fast twitch/slow twitch muscle fibre contribution).

The question remains - will this improve my cycling ability ?

The negative - is/was/being disputed/ that additional muscle mass gain will add weight to the bike and slow you down.

The positive - is/was/being discussed/ that some benefit can be achieved if the training is specific to the individual cyclist needs

A road cyclist, however appears (deduction from previous discussion) to be an endurance athlete and enhancement from a weights room is still a matter of conflicting opinion.

Now I am a seriously inadequate cyclist, though I have ridden a bike on a regular basis for some 38 years. - Reason

Cycling was not my prime sport - I cycled for aerobic conditioning - I was primarily an anaerobic sports man. I retired form the other sport some ten years ago but still cycle regularly. The legacy I have inherited from all those years training in an anaerobic sport is - a natural explosive energy that runs out rather quickly.

Should I be riding with a pack ( recreational yet secretly competitively ) and say we are grinding up a bloody big hill, some (hell who am I kidding - all ) of them will ride away from me. However if I can see the top of the hill and know in my heart I can make it in under 2 minutes, I can explode and nail the entire group by an impressive distance. - Problem

I am now in serious oxygen debt, excessively fatigued,

Now I can recover from this condition quite quickly ( 10 minutes ) however by then I have a lot of catching up to do. ( if I do this a number of times the recovery will slip out to half an hour )

Self analysis - If I maintain this anaerobic ability and learn to use it wisely - AND improve my aerobic endurance I should be able to ride with this group without dropping off the back pack.

Now I’m thinking - most young road cyclists are possibly in the exact opposite condition and some ( small amount ) of specific resistance training might be beneficial,

It my case - the years of resistance training is hurting me.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by edd
The question remains, regardless of the science, ie: ( aerobic/anaerobic contribution/ fast twitch/slow twitch muscle fibre contribution).

The question remains - will this improve my cycling ability ?

as a coach and sports scientist, i'll state that weight training does not increase performance in endurance cycling events (that's anything over about 75-secs). there's no evidence to suggest that it does, and no basis in science to think that it would. there's exceptions to the above, these being things such as someone with a functional disability, untrained/unfit people, etc.

the forces encountered at the pedal are remarkably low, and can be generated by virtually anyone. i usually add a caveat such that the anyone to match an elite cyclists force needs to be age, gender, mass matched etc.

The negative - is/was/being disputed/ that additional muscle mass gain will add weight to the bike and slow you down.

along with the fact that as the muscles hypertrophy theres a relative decrease in mitochondrial and capillary density, which would impair aerobic performance

The positive - is/was/being discussed/ that some benefit can be achieved if the training is specific to the individual cyclist needs

only in certain, generally unusual circumstances (e.g. track sprint, functional disability, etc)

A road cyclist, however appears (deduction from previous discussion) to be an endurance athlete and enhancement from a weights room is still a matter of conflicting opinion.

there's very little conflicting opinion on this in sports science/exercise physiology

Should I be riding with a pack ( recreational yet secretly competitively ) and say we are grinding up a bloody big hill, some (hell who am I kidding - all ) of them will ride away from me. However if I can see the top of the hill and know in my heart I can make it in under 2 minutes, I can explode and nail the entire group by an impressive distance. - Problem

this is still nothing to do with strength, but more to do with anaerobic capacity.

I am now in serious oxygen debt, excessively fatigued,

this is the same for the well conditioned cyclist too (this may not be apparent for the reason, that most cyclists learn the value of pacing quite quickly, so will rarely make these types of efforts except at crucial times, e.g. end of race)

Now I can recover from this condition quite quickly ( 10 minutes ) however by then I have a lot of catching up to do. ( if I do this a number of times the recovery will slip out to half an hour )

recovery from these (or really any efforts) is entirely dependent upon aerobic metabolism

Self analysis - If I maintain this anaerobic ability and learn to use it wisely - AND improve my aerobic endurance I should be able to ride with this group without dropping off the back pack.

yes. as you get fitter (e.g. increase in VO2 max, lactate threshold) your performance increases. again, for clarity, weights aren't going to help you here

Now I’m thinking - most young road cyclists are possibly in the exact opposite condition and some ( small amount ) of specific resistance training might be beneficial,

no. this is because we can almost all generate huge peak forces and powers, and in lots of cases 'average' amateur riders can already generate bigger forces and powers than elite TdF riders. the problem that arises is the continual effort of doing repeated sub max efforts or just riding at a moderate sustained effort. for example, we know that elite TdF riders in the leading group can sustain ~ 400 W going up passes. it's possible that most trained amateurs can too with the difference being the duration that it can be sustained for, i.e. i can sustain that effort for about 5-mins whereas the pros do it for ~ 60-mins. the difference between us is our LT/TTpower/sustainable power (which is governed by aerobic metabolism. most of us can attack at the same power as a pro (bearing in mind gender, age, and mass matched).

ric

 

[andrewbradley]

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
But Edd's right that if you increase the speed or the force applied, the power goes up.

If Edds post was just about that then of course there's no issue. If he was thinking more "increase your strength or your (foot)speed to increase your power" then we need to go into it deeper because that doesn't follow from the definitions.

This stuff is so basic it's hard to believe anyone is bothering to argue about it. Can we get our definitions right and move on?

You are right that these definitions should be givens (although I've seen power referred to as "the rate of force production" in two high profile coaching books by different authors. My point wasn't about the physics though.

I actually don't see that it's in any way relevant to anything. The point is more, what kind of power do we need for road cycling, how long do we have to be able to maintain it for, etc. This comes down to physiology not physics.

You are spot on of course. I need much more convincing that working at the extremes represented by "strength" and "speed" is a good way to improve what happens in the middle ground where power lies. I admit to guessing that this is what Edd feels.