SolarEnergy said:
All details provided in this particular page are fairly accurate. There are no scientific data available on this topic at this point, at least not one single paper that I know about.
41
Doesn't really matter does it? All of them except a few must be done dry land. The purpose of this argument that we're having (for what it's now worth) is to confirm that non specific (dry land in the case of swimming) exercising has its relevance in several sports discipline. That the conclusion expressed by certain members stating that weights won't make you better at your sport no matter the discipline is not founded. Swimming (which is the one I used to illustrate this principle since it's one I know) is no exception. If you spend all your time in a pool, relying on specificity, specificity, specificity (the title of your last and only album) you will be a slower swimmer. Period. That's why no one does that.
I also stand by my assumption made for other disciplines such as Alpine Skiing, diving, 100m sprint (track and field), football/rugby, Ice Hockey and the remaining of the very long list.
.
The one area where weight training excels, more than any other activity, is adding on muscle mass. In sports like long distance cycling, running, etc; increased body mass, even lean muscle mass, is a distinct disadvantage. In sports like Rugby, football, ice hockey, and even downhill skiing, increased lean muscle mass has no real downside. If I were coaching American football or rugby players, I would have them lifting. Being big on the field is a distinct advantage in most positions. I don't know how increased muscle mass effects swimming, since some it is largely displaced, but it might not be the kg per kg detriment it is in cycling (--again beyond the sprint events.) Again, in wrestling and sports like gymnastics, the goals is to get stronger, without really increasing gross body mass. For a wrestler, increased mass means you can't make weight; for a gymast, its more mass you have to move. So weight training becomes an activity that can both help and hurt your ability to compete, depending upon you body composition. As soon as our body fat percentage dips to a certain level, strength gains by lifting will only come at the expense of extra body mass.
Again, one of the issues with resistance/strength training is the issue of increased body mass. One of the reasons why I did not join the family branch who are swimmers was due in part to significant differences in body type and shape. While the family swimmers are very tall and long (male 6'2" plus with very long arms and legs; and females close to 5'10"), I was built much different. As a group, they are also not nearly as lean as me and my brother who were wrestlers. Although the swimmers were very impressive athletes, I would venture to say that their body fat percentage was a bit higher than the wrestling branch, and certainly another brother who was a very competitive national class distance runner. Even a phenom like Phelps is carrying around a lot more body mass and a higher body fat percentage than any endurance cyclist. He's certainly not "fat" by any definition, but swimmers are not as lean as some other racers.
I can say that the typical weight trained athlete sinks like a stone. This has been empirically and scientifically proven on every ocassion that the swimming branch of the family took revenge on me through a "friendly" game of water polo. Body builders and other very lean heavily muscled athletes have very little natural bouancy. By very little, I mean none-- so we are treading water constantly to stay afloat. I had the misfortune of having to do lifeguard training during spring wrestling tournament season and practically drowned because the "rescuer" could not get me off the bottom of the pool. I can't see how freakishly low body fat percentages which are prized in sports like wrestling or cycling translates as well in sports requiring some level of bouancy.
So, without getting into you and Fergie's sand throwing contest, I do think that making an argument like weight training is good for swimming, therefore its good for cycling, is specious. It is certainly good for events where increased body mass is a net benefit to the sport; Am football, basketball, hockey, etc; and it might even be relatively neutral or have a slight positive effect for certain sports like sprinting and swimming. But in sports where body mass is a net detriment, like endurance cycling, long distance running, or horse jockey, I don't think that your argument holds much water. At a minimum, you are working two totally separate and inconsistent goals, mass loss v. strength gain. As a wrestler, I am acutely aware of the close correlation between body mass and strength. It is very dificult to lift heavy and not get heavier. It's a natural response to the stress you are placing on your body. Its also why we have weight classes. An extra 6 kg of body mass in the middle weight categories translates into a huge strength advantage that is almost insurmountable. In the lower weight classes, the differences are only 3 or 4 kgs. The same is true in competitive lifting events.
And in swimming, its not just mass, its where the mass is located. If you look at world class swimmers, most of them are very long, not just tall, but they have very long extremities, and have a very high percentage of body fat in comparison to other world class athletes. And they look nothing like the cyclists on the tour or really like any other athlete in Olympic competition. Just like I could probably pick out the basketball players from a crowd, it would be very easy to pick out the swimmers. You couldn't differentiate between long distance runners or cyclists.
Your training techniques for swimming might be and probably is very sound. But cycling is not a gravity neutral sport; and body mass matters. Investing in an activity that increases strength, but at an increase of body mass, might not be the best approach.
