weight training



Hmm, ok, how about another poser ricster ;D<br /><br />Surely with increased muscle power the output produced to go at a certain speed is a lower percentage of one's possible max, and would thus lead to an increased time for fatigue?
 
[quote author=Rhodent link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=40#msg24068 date=1042031289]<br />Hmm, ok, how about another poser ricster ;D<br /><br />Sure!<br /><br />Surely with increased muscle power the output produced to go at a certain speed is a lower percentage of one's possible max, and would thus lead to an increased time for fatigue? <br />[/quote]<br /><br />I'm not entirely sure i understand your query, but i'll do my best! I'm assuming that when you mention speed you actually mean some form of power output, as if you want to increase your speed - u just ride down a hill :)!<br /><br />Maximum muscle power, allows you to produce very high peak power outputs, this will generally be in the range of ~800 to ~2000 W for most healthy, adult, males.<br /><br />Track sprinters, doing a 200-m match sprint will produce their peak power in race conditions. Road sprinters (i.e., endurance based riders) won't be able to replicate their peak power at the end of a race (due to fatigue).<br /><br />The power required to ride a road race for an average sized male (i.e., ~1.75 m, 72 kg) would be around 100 - 250 W. Obviously, this mean average is already a low percentage of peak power. Furthermore, because maximum muscle power power and peak power aren't generated through aerobic pathways, it follows that peak power has no bearing on aerobic power (else, riders such as Jason Queally, Chris Hoy, etc., would be excellent roadies).<br /><br />Not sure if that answers your query or if you meant something else...?<br />Ric
 
OK, my last little bit of nonsense richard. I'm a statistician by training and I think (though I could have forgotten a bit here) that in your cyclingnews article you have made the often mistaken link between correlation and causal effect. I notice that you mention that a number of researchers find a correlation between V02 peak and 5 minute average power output, this does not imply dependancy neccesarily (though in thius case we can probably assume that that is an ok assumption) and certainly doesn't imply sole dependancy?<br /><br />Of course I could be barking up the wrong hole given my complete lack of knowledge of all matters physiological. I just got the idea from the article of yours that it was more a statement of the benefits of endurance training and not, as much, a rebuttal (is that spelt wrong?) of the benefits of specific strength training (other than perhaps the mitochondria point which I can claim to understand to no degree whatsoever!!). <br /><br />Two points that seem to be in favour of strength training would perhaps be the ability to put out more power at V02 max and the mention at the beginning of the article of exercise economy. Is not exercise economy improved when doing an exercise at a lower percentage of max effort? this being an idea followed in weight lifting where one is told to lower the weight to improve one's form? (or in cycling, the way one trains the efficiency of one's pedal stroke at low load?)<br /><br />As I mentioned before this could all be my complete lack of knowledge and is very much a case of logic applied to &quot;old wive's tales&quot;<br /><br />P.s. nice article though richard, have you finished your PHD yet?
 
Ha Ha, all my queries shot down in flames one after the other!!... Good fun trying to find a chink in a sports science doctor's armour with no knowledge of the stuff whatsoever.... But I'll keep trying (of course, as always, it won't affect my training or lifestyle which is mostly determined by good tasting food and drink and what makes my body feel right!! and involves trying to juggle the desire to cycle, sail, play squash, gym, rock climb and be brilliant at all the above with no training and a work, sleep and party habit I'm finding hard to break :-\)
 
Arghh stats! :) :eek:<br /><br />5-min average power ouput is generated through aerobic pathways, it's ~ 80 - 90+% aerobic, depending on what happens before and after.<br /><br />VO2 max is the maximum amount of oxygen that can be utilised by the body. as such strength training has no effect on VO2 max (or VO2 peak). A power output that might elicit VO2max will be quite 'low' for people. For instance, a 2nd/3rd cat male rider, ~ 70kg, might elicit VO2max at ~ 320 - 350 W, whereas peak (sprint power) would be in the range of 800 - 1900 W.<br /><br />For a given workload (e.g., 200 W) it will require an oxygen uptake (VO2) that is same for all riders of the same size, i.e., 200 W for me will cost the same VO2 as it would for a TdF rider who was the same height and mass as me, so long as we both pedalled at the same cadence. This is because efficiency (this is thermodynamic efficiency) is pretty much fixed, simply because, a) cycling is about the simplest motor control sport possible, b) your legs are fixed to the pedals, and can only really follow the same pattern.<br /><br />Accordingly, the % of maximal *aerobic* power would drop with higher higher fitness at a given workload (i.e., 200 W is ~35 - 40 % of a pro's aerobic power, but closer to 50% for me). However, efficiency would be unchanged.<br /><br />Just starting my PhD!<br /><br />Not sure if that answers everything for you, let me know if it doesn't<br /><br />Ric<br /><br /><br /><br />[quote author=Rhodent link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=40#msg24071 date=1042034221]<br />OK, my last little bit of nonsense richard. I'm a statistician by training and I think (though I could have forgotten a bit here) that in your cyclingnews article you have made the often mistaken link between correlation and causal effect. I notice that you mention that a number of researchers find a correlation between V02 peak and 5 minute average power output, this does not imply dependancy neccesarily (though in thius case we can probably assume that that is an ok assumption) and certainly doesn't imply sole dependancy?<br /><br />Of course I could be barking up the wrong hole given my complete lack of knowledge of all matters physiological. I just got the idea from the article of yours that it was more a statement of the benefits of endurance training and not, as much, a rebuttal (is that spelt wrong?) of the benefits of specific strength training (other than perhaps the mitochondria point which I can claim to understand to no degree whatsoever!!). <br /><br />Two points that seem to be in favour of strength training would perhaps be the ability to put out more power at V02 max and the mention at the beginning of the article of exercise economy. Is not exercise economy improved when doing an exercise at a lower percentage of max effort? this being an idea followed in weight lifting where one is told to lower the weight to improve one's form? (or in cycling, the way one trains the efficiency of one's pedal stroke at low load?)<br /><br />As I mentioned before this could all be my complete lack of knowledge and is very much a case of logic applied to &quot;old wive's tales&quot;<br /><br />P.s. nice article though richard, have you finished your PHD yet?<br />[/quote]
 
OK, that does. Now what percent of 1 hour average power output is from aerobic pathways? If its close to 100% then the V02 max theory holds, but if its around 95% (I assume it would be a higher percentage than 5 min average) then that leaves 5% that comes from other sources (anaerobic?) Now if Anaerobic output is increased by 20% with no corresponding decrease in Aerobic capacity, that would be an increas in 1% in average power output?<br /><br />Of course this is me grasping at straws!!!
 
[quote author=Rhodent link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=40#msg24074 date=1042037469]<br />OK, that does. Now what percent of 1 hour average power output is from aerobic pathways? If its close to 100% then the V02 max theory holds, but if its around 95% (I assume it would be a higher percentage than 5 min average) then that leaves 5% that comes from other sources (anaerobic?) Now if Anaerobic output is increased by 20% with no corresponding decrease in Aerobic capacity, that would be an increas in 1% in average power output?<br /><br />Of course this is me grasping at straws!!!<br />[/quote]<br /><br />1-hour average power will be &gt; 99% aerobic...<br />Ric
 
Passfield and Doust (2000) found a strong correlation between 5 minute average power output, VO2peak (and maximal [aerobic] power output), and blood lactate threshold. Therefore, an intense 'all-out' time trial for 5 minutes is dependent on VO2max/peak, and not strength. <br /><br />I'll go with Rhodent for the correlation/causality part. <br />Causality is very hard to prove easyiest way is to get two samples ho just have differences on one single variable(impossible to find for a group of humans). Correlation is the fact that the numbers of the things you are comparing move in the same direction correlation with variance correction lies between -1 an 1; -1 moving in the exact opposite direction with the same size off difference. 1 same but identical direction. 0 move completely independant from each other.<br /><br />If you know the number of stocks listed on the stock exchanges, It must be possible to find a stock with almost perfect .95 or higher corelation to the progress a group of sportsmen make, very very likely there is no causality in this case.<br /><br />With statistics its important knowing whats tested and how. A handy statistician can easyly fool you even more when talking about graphs(maybe more later, but its a little to far of topic)<br /><br />So far todays moderate introduction on statistics(One of the first times I really find this stuff I had to follow at University udefull)<br /><br /><br />However, there is an overwhelming weight (pun intended!) of evidence to suggest that training adaptations need to be specific. This forms the rule of specificity. Åstrand and Rodahl (1986) state, &quot;when striving for muscle strength for a particular activity, the best training is that activity&quot; (p. 108).<br /><br />Nice selection of the fitness exercises and they way in doing them can make them cycling specific IMO.<br /><br /><br />There are indeed some research data to show that strength training will increase lactate threshold, and VO2max (etc.), however, almost exclusively these studies have been performed on untrained individuals. In untrained individuals, it is well accepted and understood that any training will induce change. <br /><br />The Rabobank system study I mentionned is with trained athletes<br /><br />I will ask a Friend who graduated on the differene in fitness and ergo strength training for his study(With trained cyclists) and mail you a resume(whatever his results are) can take some time need to get it first, read it and try to bald it corectly together in english.<br /><br />These are my modest remarks will make separate subject for a big remark<br /><br />
 
Ricstern<br /><br />You somehow put weight training in ONe group together and then point out that general evidence seems to make it none beneficial.<br /><br />Well I believe there are lots of ways in differentiating weight training just as in bicycle training(most studies compare with duration, but there are also intervals, resistance , maybe climbing and many other)<br /><br />I'll divide weight training already in 4(there are probabely even) more IMO significant different groups towards cyclist.<br /><br />Group ONE:<br />What most people still seem to look at as weight training<br />Low number of repetitons(in the line of 4 or 6 reps) and high weight(in refference to the max you can lift/pull/push/...) used<br />Kind of execises all as wel leg/back/leg exercises.<br /><br />Group TWO:<br />Low number of repetitons(in the line of 4 or 6 reps) and high weight(in refference to the max you can lift/pull/push/...) used<br />Kind of execises only or mostly exercises for te legs preferably close to the motions made in cycling<br /><br />Group Three:<br />High number of repetitons(in the line of 20 or 30 reps) and moderate or even low weight(in refference to the max you can lift/pull/push/...) used. Fixing the aim at speed of doing the repetitions and the correctness of them.<br />Kind of execises all as wel leg/back/leg exercises.<br />(What we use in our team with to aims balancing out the body and ameliorating endurance capabilities)<br /><br />Group Four:<br />High number of repetitons(in the line of 20 or 30 reps) and moderate or low weight(in refference to the max you can lift/pull/push/...) used<br />Kind of execises only or mostly exercises for te legs preferably close to the motions made in cycling<br />(System used in the study I mentionned earlier and used By Rabobank team)<br /><br />IMO these Groups are quite different in the way of using weights and therfor can't be put together in one group for comparing results. Also of importance the frequence weight training is done(once?, twice? a week, every day?)<br /><br />I see none or little reference in which Group of weight training you studied(or where used in studies you refer to). I fear that most use group one As this is the most known form. Where for examining cyclist my preference goes to Group 4 or maybe group 3 if you aim at more than improving your legs.<br /><br />Would be nice hearing from you which group the studies used.<br />The above is no prove of weight beiing better its my way of opening the spectrum of weight training and indicating that the used studies might have been comparing to not the best way of performing weight training and therfor the conclusion of it being to none of little benefit may be premature.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
 
Maarten,<br /><br />Apart from your colleagues Rabobank study, which didn't really prove very much, can you please try to show me some studies where well trained endurance cyclists have increased either their VO2 max/peak, LT, and the mechanical power outputs associated with these variables. Lots, of have studies have been performed, search Pub-Med. The bulk of the literature shows no effect or a detrimental effect of weight training on cycling, or X-training with another modality.<br /><br />I can't find any studies to support your argument of weight training increases endurance cycling performance in well trained cyclists.<br /><br />With such a paucity of data to support your case, which goes against the bulk of the primary peer reviewed scientific literature, the onus is on you to find a substantial amount of evidence to support your case.<br /><br />Ric
 
Ric<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />Apart from your colleagues Rabobank study, which didn't really prove very much, can you please try to show me some studies where well trained endurance cyclists have increased either their VO2 max/peak, LT, and the mechanical power outputs associated with these variables. Lots, of have studies have been performed, search Pub-Med. The bulk of the literature shows no effect or a detrimental effect of weight training on cycling, or X-training with another modality.<br /><br /><br />you are again pointing to someting I didn't said. You are using the data on weight beiing better than endurance to prove me wrong. My these is it beiing equal which is scientifically proven(I already pointed this difference out several times) I suggest you read the whole fiets article.<br /><br />I also didn't get an answer on the weight training system the studies you refer to use which seems to be to me of considerable importance.<br /><br />I recieved your e-mail, It was showing not much of respect, thats why I answered it thoroughly as I already did when you Tried to pull my these down with incorrect referrence.<br /><br />I am not the super expert, But when I make a these on something beiing equal an you repeatedly try to tear it down using the numbers for it beiing better I' am not impressed. Statistics use confidence intervals as you know and the difference between the intervals of beiing better or beiing equal for small groups as most of this investigations consist of are big. <br /><br />You have the right to prove me wrong and you might succeed to but do it in the right way with right evidence instead of proving wrong something I didn't said(this is of no use for both of us)<br /><br />Maarten
 
Bikerjoe,<br /><br />I have never argued that weight training doesn't increase strength, it does. <br /><br />Time to fatigue in muscles, assuming you mean &gt; 60-secs of exercise is primarily limited by aerobic pathways, such that endurance cycling is an aerobic sport. Thus, time to fatigue for these exercises is limited by aerobic metabolism, and weight training does not provide the stimulus required to activate aerobic pathways (i.e., it does not stimulate increases in VO2 max, LT, capillary density, type I fibre hypertrophy, etc., which are needed to increase exercise performance).<br /><br />The article at http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern gives further details.<br /><br />The reason why *some* pros weight train are possibly many, but may include:<br />1) weight training (along with other 'myths') is deeply entrenched in 'folk lore'<br />2) there *may* need to be a greater need to have a mental break from cycling if you are constantly training 20+ hours per week<br /><br />Furthermore, we know (some) pros do many things, such as take illegal drugs. That hardly means we should follow their examples.<br /><br />Unfortunately, i don't have time to address all the points raised in the CTS article, although some (many) of them are addressed in the cyclingnews article. Perhaps, if there's some specific points you felt you would like addressing, please let me know, and i'll try to respond to them.<br /><br />Ric<br /><br /><br />[quote author=bikerjoe link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=40#msg24125 date=1042197775]<br />I am totally for strength training, especially during the winter, and if done CORRECTLY, it increases strength, time to fatigue in muscles.If weight training was so unproductive for cyclists, why do so many pros use weight training during the winter?<br /><br />http://www.ridefast.com/ctscafe/articles/2002/05022002NSCA-PTJ50.htm<br /><br /><br />[/quote]
 
::) It's loads of theory and information here...<br />I'm happy that it's not the theory alone which makes winners.<br />I think -25c outdoor temperature doesn't make winners either :p