SolarEnergy said:
Are you entirely sure about this? I know nothing about gymnastic.
Aside from injury rehab, very few world class gymnasts utilize weights in their training. Why should they? The loads they place on their muscles from gymnastic training itself often exceeds what is even possible in the weight room. When is the last time you saw a body builder who could do an iron cross, or even an elementary skill like a muscle up? Its a very specific type of strength required so they train specifically for what they need to do. There is a coach out of Arizona who occasionally throws his kids in the weight room to see how strong they are, and they are crazy strong in the weight room on a per kg basis, but they don't weight train per se. IOW, gymnastics training translates into real measurable strength in the weight room, but weight training does not translate into the type of functional strength you need to perform a national class gymnastics routine. The same is true of most wrestlers by the way; we aren't slouches in the weight room, but the lifter would get owned by kids 30 - 40 pounds lighter on the mat. At some mass difference, the absolute strength difference becomes dificult to overcome with just technique, but you would be surprised how strong a 120 pound wrestler is.
Not sure there's one single top level sprint swimmer that doesn't train dry land. These sessions are very wide spread, usually conducted by the head coach. Those who like to stick to relative specificity will definitely use swim cords and medicine balls. The idea, at least in our world, is to burn triceps and lats. Every one with no exception will overload internal external rotators in some ways etc... Abs...
Yeah, I think that I have conceded that weight training could complement sprint training in some disciplines, provided it doesn't come at the expense of the track or pool time they need for the event. Usain Bolt does a weight routine that involves some weighted lunges, squats, and plyometics, but I doubt that any events over 800 meters involve any real weight training. I could see how some sensible strength training could conceivably be part of a sprint cyclists routine, but I think you are crazy to think that Bolt got fast because of what he did in the gym. At the levels these guys are, they are really looking for the extra 1% to make them faster, and maybe the weights can help, but evidence is more antedotal than conclusive; but the 99% that got them real fast in the first place was related to choosing their parents well and practicing their event over and over.
What you need to show me is the converse. A body builder who has taken his bodybuilding fitness and translated it into some other discipline with great success. Because that would prove your point, you are showing someone who did a lot of gym work and then translated those skills on some functional level outside the gym. Pointing to world class athletes who got fast in their sport and then incorporated some strength training after they basically maxed out on anything they could do in the pool, bike, or track, is different from saying to us slobs that we should weight train to go faster, rather than train smarter in the discipline.
Listen, I love basic conditioning and hate when my wrestlers came into the gym looking out of shape, but I will tell you that 60 minutes of hard intense wrestling was far more beneficial to wrestling than 20 minutes of calistentics followed by 40 minutes of intense wrestling. Now, if you are a pro, and time is not a precious commodity, I could see taking on some basic fitness program involving weights. IOW, if I had the kids for 3 hours a day, I would incorporate some calistentics, only because they would be passed the point where they could wrestle with any intensity at the 2 hour mark, so it would make sense to do something different or cross train. I might have them jog steps, or do suicides, but it is more a mental conditioning than anything else. Anything less than 2 hours, I am going to keep them on the mat, drilling or wrestling live.
The lists of benefits related to training with weights in many sports disciplines is long. It's therefore only natural that people looks for this sort of magic in cycling too.
Think about downhill skiers, even speed skaters, divers, sprinters (running), jumpers, hockey player, footballers all these folks live partly on weights.
For some of these folks, weights could be seen as hyper specificity. Or over specificity. It targets one hyper specific angle, or area, or moment in a gesture to strengthen, or straiten it. Weights are sometimes more specific than plain specificity. They can be used to target specific antagonist muscles to either avoid posture issues (very important for endurance runners, got to get those shoulders back in place) or to improve efficiency of the gesture.
And applied to road cycling. For one that really needs to *learn* (proprioception etc) to recruit more glutes, weiths (maybe 8-12 weeks) to learn to deliver more power in different situations, different angles, at lower speed can help the brain feeling this effort little more at 90rpm in the summer. That's not only a matter of bike fit.
Just the fact of triggering DOMS by weights, your brain might remember this and can probably reproduce the effort that triggered the DOMS. Or what about triggering gym induce glutes DOMS and riding on them for few days after. Will the brain remember little better how to perform the gesture the way that triggers the pain?
"Weights" is a tool. It doesn't have a brain.
Again, I think this is wishful thinking. Assuming that training time is unlimited, and an athlete can complete everything he needs to do in his or her discipline, then there might be some marginal return on strength training, provided it doesn't interfere with discipline specific training. Or, in a case like bull riding, downhill skiing, or football, where it is dificult to practice the event at a certain level of intensity for prolonged periods without a serious risk of acute injury, weight training has a role. But, for most of us local studs and weekend warriors, it becomes the same calculus I make when I have kids for one hour; do I spend it doing what they need to do to succeed in their sport, or to I reduce that time to do something that is only tangentially related. If you have a two hour a day window to train, I'm just skeptical that it is best spent 90 minutes on bike/30 minutes in gym v. 120 minutes on bike. At an hour a day to train, the formula becomes even easier, 60 minutes on the bike is going to be much better than 30/30. And when you start using necessary recovery time to do gym work, it really becomes something that becomes detrimental.
But that would be the study that would be useful. Have two groups of cyclists spending an equal amount of time training, one doing a mix of strength training and cycling; and another just cycling; then look at relative improvements. My guess is that the cycling only group, provided the training routine was similar except for duration, would be faster across almost every event over a few minute sprint. The results could be different if you are talking about daily training blocks of 3 hours or more, which most of us who aren't pros, just don't have.
Personally, I don't need to do such a study; I know that I would be faster, if I spent the 2 hours a week I strength train on the bike training appropriately. And if you talk to guys like Felt and JS who also strength train, they would agree that it is a tradeoff. None of us delude ourselves into thinking that we are faster because we can squat more than the average cyclist. The evidence is there everytime we see the pure smart training cyclist who couldn't squat his own weight if his life depends on it beats us up the hill.
And again, I'm not giving up strength training, because I think it has its own benefits for overall health and fitness. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE YOU FASTER ON THE BIKE (with very limited and minor exceptions).
