Your thoughts on strength training for the legs

[daveryanwyoming]

...Would anyone volunteer to destroy this study result?...

Well I won't try to destroy anything but the typical questions come up:

- Population of study: Only 13 athletes completed the study with 8 in the intervention group and 5 in the control group.

- The intervention group added the weight training to their normal endurance training and 'normal endurance training' wasn't defined in time or intensity terms

- The control group continued with their 'normal endurance training' again undefined in time or intensity terms.

IOW, the intervention group trained more each week while the control group trained less. Seems to me the question is whether the two groups when training for the same total weekly time but with different methods would have progressed similarly or differently. Sure if you go the gym while I sit on the couch I'd expect some additional benefit from your efforts. But if you lift weights while I do intervals then what?

Who knows they may have come across the reasons for weights (no increase in VO2 Max or any other parameters except their defined CE which is different than GME). But given that most cyclists are workout time and or recovery limited I've got to question the validity of the intervention group simply doing more weekly work while the control group rested.

-Dave

 

[Enriss]

But given that most cyclists are workout time and or recovery limited I've got to question the validity of the intervention group simply doing more weekly work while the control group rested.

-Dave

Wouldn't this study be even more convincing if both groups had been recovery limited? Wouldn't this study then suggest that recovery from brief high intensity bursts is different enough from "normal" training that you can recover from both at the same time? I think if the groups were both made up of recovery limited trainees, this study would put something of a dent in the idea of training stress score as a general indicator of training stress for any interval at any intensity.

 

[SolarEnergy]

Who knows they may have come across the reasons for weights (no increase in VO2 Max or any other parameters except their defined CE which is different than GME). But given that most cyclists are workout time and or recovery limited I've got to question the validity of the intervention group simply doing more weekly work while the control group rested.

-Dave

I agree. Thanks!

Wouldn't this study be even more convincing if both groups had been recovery limited? Wouldn't this study then suggest that recovery from brief high intensity bursts is different enough from "normal" training that you can recover from both at the same time?

Not sure I understand here. Are you trying to suggest that recovery from weight resistance training be faster than from *normal* (undefined) endurance training?

Oh wait a minute. You're suggesting that it would have been interesting to limit the recovery time (between workouts) for both groups just to evaluate if adding a touch of weights to an endurance based regiment has an impact (or not) on recovery time. Is that is?

this study would put something of a dent in the idea of training stress score as a general indicator of training stress for any interval at any intensity.

Here you really lost me. I don't understand what you meant. Sorry.

 

[Enriss]

Not sure I understand here. Are you trying to suggest that recovery from weight resistance training be faster than from *normal* (undefined) endurance training?

Oh wait a minute. You're suggesting that it would have been interesting to limit the recovery time (between workouts) for both groups just to evaluate if adding a touch of weights to an endurance based regiment has an impact (or not) on recovery time. Is that is?

No, I just don't know much about recovery from a biological standpoint, and I think the question and the lack of clarity reflects that.
The basis of the question is that I read a book once that mentioned intensity and volume induced overtraining as seperate concepts. That suggested to me that people might recover from different activities differently, allowing a rider who is "recovery limited" on the bike to still adapt to strength training. The strength training still taxes the cyclist's recovery ability, but maybe the recovery from strength training and the recovery from "normal training" are different enough that they don't interfere.
From there, the question about training stress score that followed was, if resistance training and "normal training" are different enough that one doesn't impact recovery from the other, is it possible that training stress score inappropriately lumps in the stress from long, slow efforts with brief, intense efforts.

In short, how does the body recover? Is it possible for the body to respond to different stress in different enough ways that the responses won't interfere with eachother, or will interfere less than we might expect?

 

[SolarEnergy]

In short, how does the body recover? Is it possible for the body to respond to different stress in different enough ways that the responses won't interfere with eachother, or will interfere less than we might expect?

OK now I understand thanks.

My take on stress score or bike score or any other score, is that it's not perfect, but it's probably as perfect as it can get.

Interesting take Enriss, thanks!

 

[Enriss]

OK now I understand thanks.

My take on stress score or bike score or any other score, is that it's not perfect, but it's probably as perfect as it can get.

Interesting take Enriss, thanks!

Yeah, and certainly for simplicity's sake it's much easier to calculate TSS as it is now than it would be to try to untangle the undoubtedly messy set of relations between intervals of different durations and intensities, especially since the difference in effect could be meaningless.

 

[baker3]

Wouldn't this study be even more convincing if both groups had been recovery limited?

Just what I was thinking, fraud at its finest.

 

[swampy1970]

No upper body muscles are involved in turning the pedals. One should use the bigger muscles (quads and glutes groups) to deliver power. While the notion of using more muscle to share the load it shouldn't be at the cost of the bigger muscles. Ie Gimmickcrank users emphasising the psoas at the cost of the glutes and quads.

The concept of using the upper body only happen in your imagination Noel. Another Tour de France champion suggested that if one has their position dialled in they should be able to play the piano while pedalling hard uphill. Steve Hogg suggests something similar when determining balance on the bike. You have it rights when you can pedal hard on the drops and be able to take your hands off the bars and stay in position and keep the power on.

PowerCranks actually helped me emphasise the use of the glutes and quads after the initial 6 week period of hell - not 'spare' their use - something that a decade of racing hadn't done. The psoas just gets hammered as a matter of course...

 

[fergie]

PowerCranks actually helped me emphasise the use of the glutes and quads after the initial 6 week period of hell - not 'spare' their use - something that a decade of racing hadn't done. The psoas just gets hammered as a matter of course...

And some people beleive in Aliens as well.

 

[alienator]

And some people beleive in Aliens as well.

And they're likely right. Given conservative statistics on the number of Earth-like planets in the Universe, the odds are there is some form of alien life elsewhere. This is buoyed by recent discoveries of Earth-like planets and by the discoveries of water on other planetary bodies, other than Earth.

Perhaps you'd be better off if you stuck with objective discussion.

 

[fergie]

And they're likely right. Given conservative statistics on the number of Earth-like planets in the Universe, the odds are there is some form of alien life elsewhere. This is buoyed by recent discoveries of Earth-like planets and by the discoveries of water on other planetary bodies, other than Earth.

Perhaps you'd be better off if you stuck with objective discussion.

That's deep!