Weight Lifting & Cycling??

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by zakeen
Having a max reading and saying that you can produce the same amount of power as are pro..... I dont think thats a good point to have. A power output reading is only a reading! Its the time it takes to get that max power reading!

You have no drama producing 520w just like chris boardman But I bet you he can get to that reading a lot quicker then what you can! This is how torque comes into power bands and they use it for cars because it shows a true power reading! KW is very missleading! Its the strength that can get to that power reading the quickest! VO2Max wont help you there, its all strength!

I'm not sure you understand what's happening, especially as i believe you've never used a power meter. As it happens i can produce more power than Chris and get there quicker.

Nonetheless, strength wouldn't help you get there quicker whether or not, as strength isn't measured in time.

Ric

 

[VeloFlash]

Originally posted by zakeen
Having a max reading and saying that you can produce the same amount of power as are pro..... I dont think thats a good point to have. A power output reading is only a reading! Its the time it takes to get that max power reading!

Correct me If I have misinterpreted you. Are you saying by relating time to get to a nominated power, eg 520w, as the determining comparative factor separating greatness from mediocrity?

Does not that mean acceleration? I can go past 520w in a fraction of a second and I don't get paid to race!

 

[redstorm]

Having used a Power Meter or not, I think that it is farely obvious that the reason why your breathing frequency and heart rate go up during big efforts is because your body is trying to supply fuel to your muscles.

As for acceleration, perhaps having bigger muscles that can exert more force on the pedals will give a little more acceleration but as was said before the real trick is being able to settle in a steady pace at that intensity that is the real problem. To test this just try catching up to a fast rider that just blew past you, surely you can push hard and be able to settle on his tail but if the rider has a pace faster than you can handle, you will eventually have to fall back and try to find a more convenient pace.

It would'nt make any sense that doing weight lifting could somehow compensate for poorer cardio vascular capacity?

 

[VeloFlash]

Originally posted by zakeen
Having a max reading and saying that you can produce the same amount of power as are pro..... I dont think thats a good point to have. A power output reading is only a reading! Its the time it takes to get that max power reading!

Correct me If I have misinterpreted you. Are you saying by relating time to get to a nominated power, eg 520w, as the determining comparative factor separating greatness from mediocrity?

Does not that mean acceleration? I can go past 520w in a fraction of a second and I don't get paid to race!

 

[archie]

Originally posted by Aztec
Actually, Ric, I want to differ with you on one point, and I'm uncertain about another.

1) No difference in strength among elite endurance cyclists and untrained people. I would be willing to bet that cyclists are WEAKER in the upper body than untrained civilians!!! The elite riders are truly waif-like. I think there's value to resistance training, even if it doesn't improve performance. Posture benefits alone (i.e., from training your upper back, back, hamstrings, etc.) are worth it. But that's not the question the original poster asked.

2) You mentioned that sprinters need hypertrophy. Is this really accurate? I would think that hypertrophy wouldn't be the answer, but rather the rider simply wants more power (which doesn't always require more mass). I think of the powerlifters who increase their squat poundages dramatically over time and yet don't add much mass (i.e., 135 lb guys squatting 450, etc).

of course weight trainig for cycling will have benifits, all athletes include weight training in their training programs. weight training increases bone density etc etc this has to be good. you just have to be careful with the power to weight ratio. the stronger your muscles are the better, they dont have to be huge, just stronger.

if you just cycle and dont weight train in any way shape or form(this might mean only using your own body weight eg push ups, chin ups, abdominal crunches), then you are not going to be competitive with the guy or girl who does.

highs reps, low weight is the right way to go, also core strenghth and abdominals are very overlooked when these muscles are stronger endurance is better, no doubt.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by archie, i responded with >>

of course weight trainig for cycling will have benifits
>>what proof do you have for this?

, all athletes include weight training in their training programs

>>All...? Are you sure? You're joking right?

. weight training increases bone density etc etc this has to be good.

>>data for this is very equivocal

you just have to be careful with the power to weight ratio.

>>not sure i understand this

the stronger your muscles are the better, they dont have to be huge, just stronger.

if you just cycle and dont weight train in any way shape or form(this might mean only using your own body weight eg push ups, chin ups, abdominal crunches), then you are not going to be competitive with the guy or girl who does.

>>are you sure? I know world champions who don't weight train


highs reps, low weight is the right way to go, also core strenghth and abdominals are very overlooked when these muscles are stronger endurance is better, no doubt.

>>strength isn't important for (endurance) cycling. it isn't a strength limiting sport, because of the joint velocities involved. At the velocities encountered during cycling, force requirements are very low, see Hills Force-Velocity curve

Ric

 

[archie]

power to weight ratio ric, too much muscle bulk- muscle is heavy-
its easy to build large large muscles you just need the right program-but this isnt what cyclist need, they need strong muscles. data is equivocal? tell that to the ais

improved bone density means better ligamental/tendon attachment, isnt this critical in a sprint? some how i think so, ask any cyclist whos tendons/ligaments have torn aaway from the bone.

cycling isnt all endurance ric, there are many different stages a cyclist goes through in a race eg sprinting, climbing out of the saddle.
these all impose different forces upon the body.

im saying you cant be black and white about this.

technically, a cyclist when riding is weight training, weight training is all about resistance is it not?
what happens to you when you get on your bike ric? resistance.
resistance from the gearing, road surface, gradient, and even gravity mate. think about it.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by archie, i responded with >>

power to weight ratio ric, too much muscle bulk- muscle is heavy
ts easy to build large large muscles you just need the right program-but this isnt what cyclist need, they need strong muscles.

>>endurance cycling **DOES NOT** require strong muscles. There is no evidence to support this in trained athletes, and in fact, because of the velocity of movement, forces cannot be high in cycling

data is equivocal? tell that to the ais
>>not sure if you're referring to what i was. i was referring to data for weight training increasing BMD etc, which is equivocal (if you read the research on it).

improved bone density means better ligamental/tendon attachment, isnt this critical in a sprint? some how i think so, ask any cyclist whos tendons/ligaments have torn aaway from the bone.

cycling isnt all endurance ric, there are many different stages a cyclist goes through in a race eg sprinting, climbing out of the saddle.

>>when i say endurance cycling, i mean any event that is > ~ 2-mins in duration. I'm aware of all the components of racing!


these all impose different forces upon the body.

im saying you cant be black and white about this.

technically, a cyclist when riding is weight training, weight training is all about resistance is it not?

>>when cycling you're weight training????


what happens to you when you get on your bike ric? resistance.
resistance from the gearing, road surface, gradient, and even gravity mate. think about it.

>>LOL! i'm not saying there's no resistive forces involved in cycling (we'd all be able to cycle as fast as we liked then, and float off into space to boot!). I'm saying that the forces at the pedal are very low in endurance cycling.

>>Strength (maximal force) can only be achieved at zero or very low velocity. As the velocity of movement increases then force has to decrease, because the muscles cannot fire rapidly and forcefully enough. Even at very low cycle cadences (e.g., 30 revs/min) the forces are still low because the velocity is quite fast.

>>I'm not saying you shouldn't train hard/intensely. Any of the people i coach will tell you that! what i am saying is that increased strength isn't required for endurance cycling performance. The limiting factors here are VO2 max, LT, efficiency, and VO2 kinetics

ric

 

[rkohler]

Originally posted by ricstern
Whether weight training has a beneficial effect is dependent upon what sort of cyclist yopu are: e.g., track sprint or kilo = weight training good), recreational cyclist/keep fit (maybe), beginner (any exercise will make you better at cycling), endurance racing cyclist (e.g., road, mtb, TT) then no it won't help and may well be detrimental.

some research summed up here http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern


Ric

Ric, I agree with everything up to your last statement. How can you say that for an endurance racing cyclist, strength training won't help? Mountain bikers won't benefit from both upper and lower body strength training when much of their sport requires quite a bit of power to maneuver over obstacles? And TT riders wouldn't benefit from a strength program designed to increase lower body strength, power, and/or strength endurance? Sure, if the strength program is not designed correctly or designed by a professional then it could certainly have detrimental effects on that rider. But a strength training routine tailored to an individual's needs and paird appropriately with his periodized cycling program will only help him to get better.
Ryan

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Ryan,

Good to have you here. Always good to have many viewpoints.

Assuming, that by strength training we're talking about gym work (i.e., resistance, weights) then, yes, these exercises *do* increase strength. However, within cycling (and indeed most endurance sports) strength requirements are very low. At the typical velocities encountered during cycling (e.g., 70 to 110 revs/min pedal cadence) the forces *have* to be very low, even at high power outputs (even at non typical cadences velocity is still high, e.g., 30 revs/min). Maximal force (which is the definition of strength) can only occur at low or zero velocity (e.g., isometric contraction). if you imagine pushing against an immovable object such as a brick wall with your legs/feet far more force can be generated than while pedalling.

During TTs even elite cyclists generate very little force (i'm not saying they don't generate any force, because patently they do).

Research shows that strength is no different between age, mass and gender matched healthy non training controls and elite endurance riders. in fact, there's no reason why a similar sized and aged non training male couldn't generate the forces that Lance generates when TTing. I can quite happily generate Lance's TT power (and my mass is less than his), but, for not as long.

It's this aspect that's important and needs training (ability to ride at *** watts for yyy minutes). Heck, i can generate > 800 W (i.e., my force is okay), but i just can't do it for long enough.

Please see, http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern

Ric

 

[rkohler]

Originally posted by ricstern
Ryan,

Good to have you here. Always good to have many viewpoints.

Assuming, that by strength training we're talking about gym work (i.e., resistance, weights) then, yes, these exercises *do* increase strength. However, within cycling (and indeed most endurance sports) strength requirements are very low. At the typical velocities encountered during cycling (e.g., 70 to 110 revs/min pedal cadence) the forces *have* to be very low, even at high power outputs (even at non typical cadences velocity is still high, e.g., 30 revs/min). Maximal force (which is the definition of strength) can only occur at low or zero velocity (e.g., isometric contraction). if you imagine pushing against an immovable object such as a brick wall with your legs/feet far more force can be generated than while pedalling.

During TTs even elite cyclists generate very little force (i'm not saying they don't generate any force, because patently they do).

Research shows that strength is no different between age, mass and gender matched healthy non training controls and elite endurance riders. in fact, there's no reason why a similar sized and aged non training male couldn't generate the forces that Lance generates when TTing. I can quite happily generate Lance's TT power (and my mass is less than his), but, for not as long.

It's this aspect that's important and needs training (ability to ride at *** watts for yyy minutes). Heck, i can generate > 800 W (i.e., my force is okay), but i just can't do it for long enough.

Please see, http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern

Ric

Hey Ric,
Good points. So I definitely understand everything you said about being able to generate Lance's TT power and about the key being the ability to ride at X power for Y minutes.

That's where strength training would come into play (at the appropriate time of course). There would have to be the obvious TT specific cycling training, but wouldn't you agree that in the "off-season" (even there's no such thing a real off season), gym workouts that produce increases in strength and/or power would help the future bike workouts? Also, building on those workouts to make them more specific to developing speed/power endurance would help even more with the TT specific cycling workouts.

If a TT racer can generate X amount of power for a 40K TT for example because his muscles allow him to produce that from all the training that he did, then going into the weight room to do one of the following will help him in the season to come:
1. Build muscle
2. Increase muscular strength and power
3. Increasing strength/power endurance
Coming into the new season with improved strength endurance will not only make last year's TT workouts at X power seem easier, but they will signal that it's time for an increase in the workload, showing that he can produce more power in the TT races.

For example, you can train for TT's by doing intervals of gradually increasing distance uphill in progressively smaller rear cogs to get stronger. But what happens when you get into the 56-11 and can get up a hill with a 25% grade or more without a problem (this is theoretical of course)? The next progression would be to add more resistance, but if this rider can already overcome any amount of resistance that he encounters on the bike, how can he make it harder for himself? This is where strength training can come in. You can really add an almost infinite amount of weight to continuously stress his muscles and make him stronger. So how does this fit into the big picture?

With any cyclist, they can take their training to the next level by going on harder and harder terrain or training their body to spin in progressively harder gears, but what if the terrain isn't available or the higher gears cause knee problems because of too much tension on the patellar tendon for example? The next best way to do this is to add weight in the gym.

Whew, that was a long one.

 

[Aztec]

Ric, I think your argument is too narrow. You are limiting your analysis to output of force.

I would argue that strength (as opposed to power) throughout the body allows for a greater application of force on the bike over a longer period of time. For example, weight training is frequently prescribed for correcting poor posture. But good posture doesn't require more strength than bad posture (or does it?).

I'm not a huge believer in wieght training the lower body for cycling. When I do, recovery really suffers, and I don't necessarily feel a great benefit (if I were a match sprinter, that would be different, of course). The bike should sufficiently build what you need there. But I do believe that strength training the upper body has benefits that, while not going to influence a short endurance ride, will benefit a longer or more intense ride.

 

[rkohler]

Originally posted by ricstern
Ryan,

Good to have you here. Always good to have many viewpoints.

Assuming, that by strength training we're talking about gym work (i.e., resistance, weights) then, yes, these exercises *do* increase strength. However, within cycling (and indeed most endurance sports) strength requirements are very low. At the typical velocities encountered during cycling (e.g., 70 to 110 revs/min pedal cadence) the forces *have* to be very low, even at high power outputs (even at non typical cadences velocity is still high, e.g., 30 revs/min). Maximal force (which is the definition of strength) can only occur at low or zero velocity (e.g., isometric contraction). if you imagine pushing against an immovable object such as a brick wall with your legs/feet far more force can be generated than while pedalling.

During TTs even elite cyclists generate very little force (i'm not saying they don't generate any force, because patently they do).

Research shows that strength is no different between age, mass and gender matched healthy non training controls and elite endurance riders. in fact, there's no reason why a similar sized and aged non training male couldn't generate the forces that Lance generates when TTing. I can quite happily generate Lance's TT power (and my mass is less than his), but, for not as long.

It's this aspect that's important and needs training (ability to ride at *** watts for yyy minutes). Heck, i can generate > 800 W (i.e., my force is okay), but i just can't do it for long enough.

Please see, http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern

Ric

The following is taken from www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern :

This can be illustrated; e.g., a good ability rider might score a power output of ~400 W at the end of an incremental test to exhaustion (e.g. VO2max/peak test), and might be able to produce an average power over ~1 hour of ~300 W. However, that same rider might be able to generate > ~ 1000 W in a sprint. This would require far more force being applied to the pedals than the other power outputs. Likewise, untrained, healthy, age and gender matched controls will be able to produce these power outputs, but for shorter periods of time, i.e. it is endurance that they lack rather than force. Similarly, in matched controls cyclists are no stronger than others.

Since untrained, healthy, age and gender matched controls will be able to produce those power outputs for shorter periods of time, then it wouldn't it stand to reason that it's not only endurance that they lack, but strength endurance, which can be accomplished (sometimes faster or easier) with an appropriate strength training program?

I was reading some of the messages on the first page, towards the beginning of this discussion, and it looks like I, and some others, may be missing the point of the discussion. Maybe someone can narrow the topic down to the big question so we can dial in on it.

Thanks!
Ryan

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by rkohler, i responded with >>

That's where strength training would come into play (at the appropriate time of course). There would have to be the obvious TT specific cycling training, but wouldn't you agree that in the "off-season" (even there's no such thing a real off season), gym workouts that produce increases in strength and/or power would help the future bike workouts?

>>No. Some research has looked at this. Adaptations occur at the specific joint and angle velocities that they're trained at. When people do one set of exercise with (e.g.) they're arms and then do a different exercise using the same muscles there's no transfer to the new exercise. thus, when you do some weight training exercise which won't be anywhere near similar to cycling there's no going to be no transfer. there's quite a lot of research looking at weight training and cycling and there's no benefit in trained in cyclists (in untrained people any exercise benefits).


Also, building on those workouts to make them more specific to developing speed/power endurance would help even more with the TT specific cycling workouts.

If a TT racer can generate X amount of power for a 40K TT for example because his muscles allow him to produce that from all the training that he did, then going into the weight room to do one of the following will help him in the season to come:
1. Build muscle
2. Increase muscular strength and power
3. Increasing strength/power endurance
Coming into the new season with improved strength endurance will not only make last year's TT workouts at X power seem easier, but they will signal that it's time for an increase in the workload, showing that he can produce more power in the TT races.

>>I don't follow this at all. The forces required at the pedals are really low, and are a very small % of the maximal force that can be generated, such that increasing strength is just a waste of time (for endurance riders). For example, at 270 W, a good power for an amateur at 90 revs/min on 170mm cranks the force requirement is a very low 169 Newtons (or 17 kg)


For example, you can train for TT's by doing intervals of gradually increasing distance uphill in progressively smaller rear cogs to get stronger. But what happens when you get into the 56-11 and can get up a hill with a 25% grade or more without a problem (this is theoretical of course)?

>>see above

>>okay, lets assume that Lance or a top pro TTs at 440 W (this is Superman Hour Record power), at 110 revs/min. The force at the pedals is a whoppingly big 225 Newtons (or just under 23 kg)


The next progression would be to add more resistance, but if this rider can already overcome any amount of resistance that he encounters on the bike, how can he make it harder for himself?

>>However, as demonstrated above, strength is not a limiting factor in endurance cycling


This is where strength training can come in. You can really add an almost infinite amount of weight to continuously stress his muscles and make him stronger. So how does this fit into the big picture?

>>strength training makes you stronger. no doubt about that

Ric

 

[acoggan]

Originally posted by rkohler
Since untrained, healthy, age and gender matched controls will be able to produce those power outputs for shorter periods of time, then it wouldn't it stand to reason that it's not only endurance that they lack, but strength endurance, which can be accomplished (sometimes faster or easier) with an appropriate strength training program?

First, how are you differentiating "strength endurance" from just plain old "endurance"?

Second, what evidence is there that "...an appropriate strength training program..." provides a faster, easier, and/or better way of improving the performance of cyclists than just plain ol' on-the-bike training? (To answer my own question: none that I am aware of.)


BTW: for those seeking greater insight into the role of force, velocity, strength, etc., as determinants of cycling power and hence performance, there are some useful graphs here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/quadrant_analysis

 

[Squint]

I really wish you would stop telling people that weight lifting doesn't help road racing. I have to race against these people and the more time they waste, the better.

I like to encourage people to stop riding completely, lift weights, buy the lightest, most unaerodynamic wheels; and spend countless hours trying to perfect their spin, etc.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Squint
I really wish you would stop telling people that weight lifting doesn't help road racing. I have to race against these people and the more time they waste, the better.

I like to encourage people to stop riding completely, lift weights, buy the lightest, most unaerodynamic wheels; and spend countless hours trying to perfect their spin, etc.

Now THAT is funny. why didn't i think of that, i have to race against them too.

Hey everyone lard sandwiches, doughnuts, and no cycling is the best way you can improve

Ric

 

[rkohler]

Originally posted by acoggan
First, how are you differentiating "strength endurance" from just plain old "endurance"?

Second, what evidence is there that "...an appropriate strength training program..." provides a faster, easier, and/or better way of improving the performance of cyclists than just plain ol' on-the-bike training? (To answer my own question: none that I am aware of.)


BTW: for those seeking greater insight into the role of force, velocity, strength, etc., as determinants of cycling power and hence performance, there are some useful graphs here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/quadrant_analysis

First, how are you differentiating "strength endurance" from just plain old "endurance"?

I think my last post came out the wrong way and may have been a bit confusing (I was in a rush to leave the house), so anyway, back to the topic at hand.
Strength is the ability to apply force to something...it can be for 1 repetition, like a 1 rep max or it can be force applied to the pedal on the downstroke for example. Strength endurance is being able to apply that force for some length of time. There's no doubt that there's a difference between the two though. For example, a marathon runner who's trying to lower his overall time but fades towards the end (or bonks, hits the wall, etc) needs strength endurance. He needs to be able to apply the same or more force to the ground to propel himself forward for a longer period of time. If he could do it for 100 meters, that's great, but it's the strength endurance part, or the ability to produce that force for up to 26.2 miles that will determine if he can lower his time.

I guess I was shooting for the same thing with my last post, but looking more at time trial riders (40K for example). Sure, for what Ric is talking about with endurance riders (Tour riders maybe...doing 100+ miles in a day?) then I agree that strength training for strength or strength endurance might not help that much for some riders. I do think that an endurance program would work where they are doing high reps with lower weight before and during (as a maintenance thing) a race season. But for the other type of endurance rider...a TT rider for example...I think strength training can work well. At one point or another in a TT you're going to be applying quite a bit of force to the pedals, so the ability to apply that force for a longer period of time will help, whether it's coming off the start block and getting out faster, or getting that final kick to the finish...you might be able to start your final sprint earlier...it's at these two points in this type of endurance race that you would be applying high amounts of force to the pedals and where the ability to produce more force would come into play.

Then the question of specificity comes into play. There are great workouts on the bike that you can do, but developing raw power in the weight room can help a rider such as a TT racer since that last kilometer or so is just a balls to the wall effort.

Second, what evidence is there that "...an appropriate strength training program..." provides a faster, easier, and/or better way of improving the performance of cyclists than just plain ol' on-the-bike training?

So many people follow strength training programs that are worth **** because they're not designed by professionals or by people who take into consideration what the athlete is doing along with the strength training (i.e. his on the bike training). For some people who are genetically gifted or untrained enough to see big strength gains from resistance training in the gym, strength training can be a faster/easier way to get that strength to help them on the bike. For others who aren't as lucky genetically, working out in the weight room may not help them at all when they get on the bike. So I think it's a matter of individualizing the strength training to the athlete and seeing what works. Sure, you might have him/her do power lifting and find that it doesn't work...then stick to on the bike training. For someone else it might give them the power they need for the sprint at the end of a crit or at the end of a longer race...they wouldn't need to call on that reserve for the entire race since it's an endurance event, but producing just a bit more power could mean the difference between getting 1st or 5th in the final sprint just because you have that little reserve in the back.

It's like any type of training. If you do only endurance training, you're going to loose speed and strength. If you do only speed or strength training, you're going to loose endurance adaptations. Nearly any endurance cycling race you look at will have some sort of speed/strength component to it (except maybe RAAM).
Tour de France - many stages have a final sprint that means a stage win or loss for various countries
Crits - "sprint - draft - sprint - draft" and so on...the race goes to the guy who has the strength in the end to outsprint the guys next to him
TT's - same as i mentioned above
hill climbs - strength for a strong finish


My take on it is that there's nothing wrong with having strength, even if it means increasing your body weight a little bit...but only if you do it properly and can increase the strength to weight ratio. If you just put on useless muscle or add fat, then who needs it? But if it's more muscle that can produce more power, there's nothing wrong with having it. Your body will adapt and it can only make you better.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by rkohler, i responded with >>

Strength is the ability to apply force to something...it can be for 1 repetition, like a 1 rep max or it can be force applied to the pedal on the downstroke for example.

>>strength has a specific, scientific definition, which should be adhered to. whilst, i realise that the general public may not be acutely aware of an exact definition or use it interchangeably with another term (e.g. power) incorrectly, i feel that someone who is trained scientifically or works in a coaching environment should go out of their way to use this term (and others) correctly.

>>Strength is defined as "the maximum force or tension generated by a muscle (or muscle groups)" (see: McArdle, Katch, and Katch, 1991, p. 452).


Strength endurance is being able to apply that force for some length of time. There's no doubt that there's a difference between the two though. For example, a marathon runner who's trying to lower his overall time but fades towards the end (or bonks, hits the wall, etc) needs strength endurance.

>>I prefer to *not* use such terms as "strength endurance" as these are what i refer to as "fuzzy" terms, which have no specific definition, and can mean different things to different people. This can lead to confusion

He needs to be able to apply the same or more force to the ground to propel himself forward for a longer period of time. If he could do it for 100 meters, that's great, but it's the strength endurance part, or the ability to produce that force for up to 26.2 miles that will determine if he can lower his time.

>>I'm not sure you've correctly understood what i wrote previously. We stated that strength training increases strength (that's maximal force). I then said that someones strength/maximal force is *way* in excess of what they generate for long periods of time (irrespective of whether it's a marathoner or a cyclist). To illustrate that, i showed exactly how much average force (over one pedal rev) must be applied to the pedals to ride at specific power outputs.

>>Looking at these data we can see that the force is very low. We know that virtually anyone can generate these forces (and power outputs). The difficulty in cycling (and other endurance sports) is to maintain these very low forces for long periods of time. This is trained on the bike (or run) with specific sessions that may replicate the force and power of the goal being aimed for.


I guess I was shooting for the same thing with my last post, but looking more at time trial riders (40K for example).

>>i'm talking in general about endurance sports, which by definition is anything > ~ 2-mins

Sure, for what Ric is talking about with endurance riders (Tour riders maybe...doing 100+ miles in a day?) then I agree that strength training for strength or strength endurance might not help that much for some riders.

>>forces in 40km (or most TTs) is very low. The limiting factor in these endurance events is not force, were looking at 17 to 20 odd kg (< 230 Newtons) for most riders including the worlds best riders. virtually everyone could move that


I do think that an endurance program would work where they are doing high reps with lower weight before and during (as a maintenance thing) a race season. But for the other type of endurance rider...a TT rider for example...I think strength training can work well. At one point or another in a TT you're going to be applying quite a bit of force to the pedals

>>you're not applying "quite a bit of force to the pedals". it's a very small amount. when you look at the numbers or Andys QA you can clearly see this.

, so the ability to apply that force for a longer period of time will help, whether it's coming off the start block and getting out faster, or getting that final kick to the finish...you might be able to start your final sprint earlier...it's at these two points in this type of endurance race that you would be applying high amounts of force to the pedals and where the ability to produce more force would come into play.

>>even if you up the pace approaching the finish, the forces will be very low unless you drop your cadence to about zero!

Then the question of specificity comes into play. There are great workouts on the bike that you can do, but developing raw power in the weight room can help a rider such as a TT racer since that last kilometer or so is just a balls to the wall effort.

>>it can't

So many people follow strength training programs that are worth **** because they're not designed by professionals or by people who take into consideration what the athlete is doing along with the strength training (i.e. his on the bike training). For some people who are genetically gifted or untrained enough to see big strength gains from resistance training in the gym, strength training can be a faster/easier way to get that strength to help them on the bike. For others who aren't as lucky genetically, working out in the weight room may not help them at all when they get on the bike. So I think it's a matter of individualizing the strength training to the athlete and seeing what works. Sure, you might have him/her do power lifting and find that it doesn't work...then stick to on the bike training. For someone else it might give them the power they need for the sprint at the end of a crit or at the end of a longer race...

>>road sprint training is best trained with sprints on the road

It's like any type of training. If you do only endurance training, you're going to loose speed and strength.

>>i'm not sure if this refers to me, but, i've never said that. i believe that a variety of efforts should be included in training that are specific to the riders goals. these may include efforts at LT, TTpower, VO2 max, and peak power

If you do only speed or strength training, you're going to loose endurance adaptations. Nearly any endurance cycling race you look at will have some sort of speed/strength component to it (except maybe RAAM).

>>strength requirements in endurance cycling (anything > 2-mins) is very low. Even if you look at the highest intensity endurance cycle racing (i.e., 4-km pursuit) the forces are very low. At world record power the force is ~ 240 odd Newtons (guessing on a 170mm crank and 120 revs/min) which is less than 25 kg

Tour de France - many stages have a final sprint that means a stage win or loss for various countries

>>Even at world class 200m track sprint level (which you'll agree is a higher intensity than the sprint at the end of a TdF stage) the forces at the pedal are only about 950 Newtons (or 96 kg). At TdF level or similar you're looking at about 600 ish N, which is about 61 kg


Crits - "sprint - draft - sprint - draft" and so on...the race goes to the guy who has the strength in the end to outsprint the guys next to him

>>the ability to recover from sprint efforts is entirely determined by aerobic ability

My take on it is that there's nothing wrong with having strength, even if it means increasing your body weight a little bit...but only if you do it properly and can increase the strength to weight ratio.

>>if you increase your mass, then you'll need more power in the hills. if you cause hypertrophy to gain strength then there'll be a dilution of mitochondrial density and decreases in aerobic fitness

Ric

 

[TTer]

Originally posted by ricstern
>>if you increase your mass, then you'll need more power in the hills. if you cause hypertrophy to gain strength then there'll be a dilution of mitochondrial density and decreases in aerobic fitness

I've seen this mentioned before Ric. Weight training (I'm staying away from terms like strength if even Ryan gets mixed up ) increases muscle size (hypertrophy? ) and the mitochondria are then more distributed within the muscle. Will the body be able to produce more mitochondria to 'fill the gaps' now there is space for more (forgive the laymans description )? I seem to recall reading this somewhere and wondered about it's accuracy.