Your thoughts on strength training for the legs



fergie said:
Frank, I mean does he dance?

I mean if he can't figure out that riding a hill maximally for a duration shouldn't require any more strength than riding maximally on the flat for a similar duration then one should question the suggestion of needing strength training to ride hills.

"DANCE MONKEY DANCE!!!"

Sure, I use PowerCranks.

Sure, I'm fat just like you.

But unlike you I've popped out 320+watts for two hours and could have kept it going had the sun not started to set... I got the data (as posted a few times) to prove...

... but you come on here waxing the prose that you're the 'almighty coach of all the New Zealand talent" and yet you change your tune, with regards to whats good for coaching, faster than a school girl changes her taste in fashion. What gives big boy?
 
swampy1970 said:
Sure, I use PowerCranks.

Sure, I'm fat just like you.

But unlike you I've popped out 320+watts for two hours and could have kept it going had the sun not started to set... I got the data (as posted a few times) to prove...

... but you come on here waxing the prose that you're the 'almighty coach of all the New Zealand talent" and yet you change your tune, with regards to whats good for coaching, faster than a school girl changes her taste in fashion. What gives big boy?

I think I have remained pretty consistent over the years...

-Specificity rules (hence while max power on a climb is nice it won't make you a better 16km TT rider than focused flat efforts)

-Any form of auxillary training will not improve performance better than training in a similar manner to how you intend to perform. So whether it's weights or gimmickcranks your wasting your time. 320 watts, so what. I don't coach people to win **** measuring contests on forums I train them to win races which they have been doing rather well. 16 years of coaching and this has been my best year yet.

-May want to ask Frank about your power improvements, he has been w**king on about Jose's on Slowtwitch claiming an increase in FTP from 270 to 404. Yet again caught in a lie, dude hadn't calibrated his Powertap so it was more like 325watts. But full credit to Frank he kept plugging on ignoring all the people with a real understanding of power resolute that his man had made huge gains using gimmickcranks. F**king lame.
 
fergie said:
I think I have remained pretty consistent over the years...

... hmmm, no.

fergie said:
-May want to ask Frank about your power improvements, he has been w**king on about Jose's on Slowtwitch claiming an increase in FTP from 270 to 404. Yet again caught in a lie, dude hadn't calibrated his Powertap so it was more like 325watts. But full credit to Frank he kept plugging on ignoring all the people with a real understanding of power resolute that his man had made huge gains using gimmickcranks. F**king lame.

I don't read into other folks measurements. Thankfully my old coach was a stickler for accuracy. Tire pressures and roll down times always checked on his ergo-bike. Likewise I always check tire pressures before rides and always zero before tests and during training rides where there's a big differential in temperature since the last ride. There's no point in spending that kinda cash to build an internet ego when you could be using that tool to train well...

I can't speak for anyone elses data, but from past years testing both with/without powercranks I've spotted a good improvement with them. The hill used in testing is pretty sheltered from the wind, has a reasonable surface and compares to the infamous Angliru. Of course, recent data was taken from a power meter whereas prior data was gained from a Polar Sportstester. Your mileage may vary...

... hopefully it won't vary as much as your current theories on training and equipment. You still recommending toothpick sized cranks to all your riders because there was a single study that said that maximal power was obtained on cranks |---------------------| < that big?
 
swampy1970 said:
hopefully it won't vary as much as your current theories on training and equipment. You still recommending toothpick sized cranks to all your riders because there was a single study that said that maximal power was obtained on cranks |---------------------| < that big?

Remind us where Hamish Ferguson's method of crank length determination was written?

Your improvements are meaningless because there are multiple variables at play. That is what guys like Frank and Noel don't seem to get is that cycling performance isn't one factor it's a huge range of factors. So claiming any success is due to one factor only continue to make them look foolish.

I have been consistent on specificity of training and the futility of auxiliary training of any form since my days on rec.bicycles.racing and the old coaching forums when I started posting on the net in 1993.

The issue at hand is why does a cyclist need extra strength to ride hills? Would this extra strength not also be useful for track cycling or in road time trials?
 
fergie said:
Remind us where Hamish Ferguson's method of crank length determination was written?

Your improvements are meaningless because there are multiple variables at play. That is what guys like Frank and Noel don't seem to get is that cycling performance isn't one factor it's a huge range of factors. So claiming any success is due to one factor only continue to make them look foolish.

I have been consistent on specificity of training and the futility of auxiliary training of any form since my days on rec.bicycles.racing and the old coaching forums when I started posting on the net in 1993.

The issue at hand is why does a cyclist need extra strength to ride hills? Would this extra strength not also be useful for track cycling or in road time trials?

Your 'gem' of a singular 'scientific paper' that poured forth the wonders of shorter than average cranks is back in the 'pealing...' thread. I'm not about to trawl through those pages for that link... That the paper was aimed at maximal efforts and not endurance didn't seem to phase you.

Multiple variables aye. So if I pretty much do the same training year after year and I notice bigger gains during the one year that I did something different, what would that 'suggest'? Maybe it was the fact that I was taking more iron and positioned by trainer in the garage to be facing North. It's all due to electromagnetisism... ;)
 
Just a thought what if instead of strength training, you train with a heavier bike would that have any benefits?
 
Just weighing your bike down would make some difference in the training effect I imagine, but I doubt that effect would be as important as getting a well planned program written out for yourself.
 
swampy1970 said:
Your 'gem' of a singular 'scientific paper' that poured forth the wonders of shorter than average cranks is back in the 'pealing...' thread. I'm not about to trawl through those pages for that link... That the paper was aimed at maximal efforts and not endurance didn't seem to phase you.

Multiple variables aye. So if I pretty much do the same training year after year and I notice bigger gains during the one year that I did something different, what would that 'suggest'? Maybe it was the fact that I was taking more iron and positioned by trainer in the garage to be facing North. It's all due to electromagnetisism... ;)

It was a Jim Martin paper showing that changes in crank length had little impact on performance. I don't recall it or myself suggesting any method of crank length determination.

I really don't care what you or Frank think improves performance, it's what you can show improves performance.
 
Enriss said:
Just weighing your bike down would make some difference in the training effect I imagine, but I doubt that effect would be as important as getting a well planned program written out for yourself.


It changes the dynamics of riding. I remember as a kid working all summer to get a set of really light track wheels. They were built up for race day and the effect of going from a light set of wheels to a very light set of wheels with silk tyres was me bouncing round the track as I wasn't used to riding the bends that fast.

The easiest way to add resistance to the programme is to ride hills, use a bigger gear or into headwinds but if this is not specific to how you intend to perform it is not as valuable as dedicated efforts.
 
Has this thread started intermingling power output and strength? :)

Back to the OP if you still happen to be around. You stated that you were looking for balance between strength and endurance as your goal. That can be accomplished with the understanding that you will be balanced. Not really reaching the pinnacle of either, but perhaps gravitating to one side or the other depending on your genetic makeup.

Pure strength training requires certain specificity just as pure endurance. I observe the postings here and elsewhere that the definitions strength must have a broad range and it does. My definition of strength training is extreme because that is where I come from. Most of the world class lifters that I have been fortunate to train with and around are like the cycling purist here in that they do not do cardio. It is a conflict of their goals. I am not saying that many do not do cardio at all and some do it only because they have to meet a certain weight class. For the most part they save all their energy and effort working on improving the 1 rep maximum. Training in the 85% range of the the 1 rep maximum and above for strength training cannot afford to share recovery time with cardio if done properly and I see the cycling purist here have the same thought in that focus is on the bike. I am in total agreement of training specificity regarding the goal.

I feel as if am one of the few here that has a very focused goal on being balanced. I work on strength in the gym and I work on the bike for endurance. I have to say my strength has gone down and my endurance has gone up because I used to train exclusively for strength and that excelled when it was specific. Now I have to balance recovery time between the two so it is near impossible to be in a progressive overload mode for both.

Steve, the balance you desire is the definition you make personally. It will probably not look like my training or anyone elses. You can take some ideas like Tony suggested and apply those or like Fergie says and apply those. The beauty of being content not being a competitor is not having to be that specific with your training. You can make the rules if you have an understanding of your genetics, physiology, nutrition and managing stress and begin to shape your own program.
 
A couple months ago I attended a local bike shop customer appreciation day. While I was there they had a little fun event using a BMX type of bike chained to a weighted wooden pallet. The event was to see who could pull the pallet up a sloped pavement.

What I observed during this little fun exercise was the only ones able to go half way or more to the finish line were the stockier (muscular) built cyclist. I would assume one end of force velocity curve (high force, low velocity) was in full effect because the amount of strength it required to start turning the crank from a dead stop going up hill. Being that the finish line was only a 100 feet or so uphill the amount of aerobic conditioning was not a huge factor.

Can you guess who was not able to even get the bike started?

There was a pro cyclist there and surprisingly to me he actually attempted to give it a try. Although he got some razzing from the onlookers because he could not budge the pallet, the point who cares because strength or power output at such a low velocity is probably meaningless to him for making a paycheck. I doubt this pro, at least I hope not, went away that day thinking you know what I need to work on my strength so I can pull a weighted pallet a 100 feet up a paved hill. :)

Nothing interesting about this post other than seeing a bit of the force velocity thing being played out. :)
 
Glad this is getting back on topic. Lets try to keep it that way maybe?

This is pretty simple IMO. Strength is just another word for Force. Powerlifters are strong and lift heavy weights. The missing part is speed or how fast you lift (aka velocity). Thats what separates olympic lifters (the guys that do cleans, clean & jerk, ****** lifts) from others that lift weights. I know of olympic lifters with vertical jumps over 35 inches (doubt there are many bodybuilder/buff gym guys doing bench presses that can do 35" vertical jump) That's what power is, strength & velocity or for bikes: power = force (on the pedal) x angular velocity (rpms). I know weight lifting back in the day made me stronger but probably slow because I am not a great bike sprinter. maybe olympic style lifts would help that or maybe not.

Guess the 'to lift or not to lift question' depends on a persons cycling goals - lifting might or might not clash with them. Does the person do bike races? Does the person ride for fitness/fun only? How much time do they have availabe to train?
 
Thanks again for your further inputs Felt_Rider and DancenMacabre. That story you related was a perfect example of what I am looking for, Felt_Rider. I am trying to find the balance between strength and endurance where one won't cancel out the other.
The road riding I do is mostly for endurance and fun/relaxation, just to answer your question Dancen.
 
stevegreer said:
Thanks again for your further inputs Felt_Rider and DancenMacabre. That story you related was a perfect example of what I am looking for, Felt_Rider. I am trying to find the balance between strength and endurance where one won't cancel out the other.
The road riding I do is mostly for endurance and fun/relaxation, just to answer your question Dancen.

Then just ride the bike. Strength is not a limiter to endurance cycling. If you need strength for something else like work or another sport and like some, you just enjoy lifting weights then do so.
 
DancenMacabre said:
This is pretty simple IMO. Strength is just another word for Force. Powerlifters are strong and lift heavy weights. The missing part is speed or how fast you lift (aka velocity). Thats what separates olympic lifters (the guys that do cleans, clean & jerk, ****** lifts) from others that lift weights.

Guess the 'to lift or not to lift question' depends on a persons cycling goals - lifting might or might not clash with them. Does the person do bike races? Does the person ride for fitness/fun only? How much time do they have availabe to train?

I would disagree about your comparison between powerlifters and olympic lifters. The big three for power lifters (squat, bench press and deadlift) do require good form and technique but can not be compared to an olympic lift. An olympic lift require alot more technique and training. They are really two totally different type of lifters and even body make up.

Also strength training and endurance training train two entirely different systems of the body. And require different muscle types, the slow twitch vs. fast twitch argument.

So really training both at the same time really as Felt said make you a jack of all trades...I am sure Felt or ko can go more into detail about the muscle types and the types of lifting.

-js
 
It will be interesting to see if Frost reports back. I have not heard from him in a while, but the last we chatted he was deadlifting over 300 and working on some other things as well.

I suppose Frost is the only one to publicly complete the Winter Duathon challenge.
Js, Ko and myself all seem to get injured more often.:( If we were just a bit younger we could give him a run for the money. :)
 
Hmm, I think you're confusing the terms & physics behind it. Powerlifters can & do lift as slowly as needed - that means less power. Good luck doing a 'slow' clean & jerk, it doesn't happen - not with real weight on the bar anyway. The velocity/speed & distance of the olympic lifts requires more power than that of powerlifting. That's why I would say powerlifters are stronger, but olympic lifters are more powerful. Most people think powerful = strong but that's not true.

There are no different muscle types. There are muscles made up of more fast twitch or slow twitch depending on the person & muscle. All muscles have some slow twitch, some fast twitch - the %'s differ by person & by muscle. The calf muscle usually has high slow-twitch content in most people. It could be you have hella fast twitch thighs and run like the wind, but you wont have 100% fast twitch type IIb fibers even then. You still will have some slow twitch fibers.

Do agree that olympic lifts require lots more technique & form. Probably should be done only with a coach or someone who knows'em. Not like squats or bench presses where most people can learn to do these right quickly. Also agree that they train you to do good at diff things - olympic lifts involve muscles firing fast. Probably thats why olympic lifters usually have good vertical leaps. Traditional weight training involves high force and you can do it with low, low velocity. So you might lift a ton, but you may not be fast.

Strength training & enduro training might train diff. things to some level, depending on how/what you do. Problem is you still have to recover, whether it is weights or bike work. You think doing 5 sets of heavy squats in the morning or even day or two before you bike ride wont affect your bike riding later, just because the bike riding is a 1 hour 'enduro' ride??? Try it sometime. Plus most people who work only have limited time, so if you have 8 hours then you have 8 hours and you have to divy them into 2 sports/activities rather than 1. Guess you might get injured too doing heavy weight so thats one more risk. So you might be a great bike rider or a great weight lifter/power lifter/olympic lifter but I bet you wont be a great lifter & great rider.

jsirabella said:
I would disagree about your comparison between powerlifters and olympic lifters. The big three for power lifters (squat, bench press and deadlift) do require good form and technique but can not be compared to an olympic lift. An olympic lift require alot more technique and training. They are really two totally different type of lifters and even body make up.

Also strength training and endurance training train two entirely different systems of the body. And require different muscle types, the slow twitch vs. fast twitch argument.

So really training both at the same time really as Felt said make you a jack of all trades...I am sure Felt or ko can go more into detail about the muscle types and the types of lifting.

-js
 
DancenMacabre said:
Hmm, I think you're confusing the terms & physics behind it. Powerlifters can & do lift as slowly as needed - that means less power. Good luck doing a 'slow' clean & jerk, it doesn't happen - not with real weight on the bar anyway. The velocity/speed & distance of the olympic lifts requires more power than that of powerlifting. That's why I would say powerlifters are stronger, but olympic lifters are more powerful. Most people think powerful = strong but that's not true.

If Powerlifters had to hoist the weight above their heads as Olympic Lifters do then I suspect the gaps in absolute weight lifted would disappear. Most Olympic Lifters can probably deadlift or squat more than they ****** or Clean and Jerk but that is not the aim of the sport.
 
fergie said:
If Powerlifters had to hoist the weight above their heads as Olympic Lifters do then I suspect the gaps in absolute weight lifted would disappear. Most Olympic Lifters can probably deadlift or squat more than they ****** or Clean and Jerk but that is not the aim of the sport.

That is true and right there shows the fine line of similar genetics adapting to slightly different but specific training programs. More than likely you can take an Olympic Lifter and convert them into a power lifter and vice versa by changing to very specific routines. I trained at Coffee's Gym (google it if you want) back in the late 80's and through the 90's had world class power lifters like Dave Passenella and Curtis Leslie and also had top notch Olympic Lifters. One of my old roomies was one of the top female lifters of that time in her weight class and though she was training in Olympic Lifting she could also do well in Power Lifting meets, but she had to go through weeks of specific preparation to switch.

Going back to the Force Velocity Curve this is indication of where each of these specific lifting events fall into the curve. Power Lifting is a slower velocity higher force than Olympic Lifting, where it is crucial to have much higher explosive speed to finish the lift. Technique in both are crucial, but each is trained different and thus the body adapts to the training.

These two different events though are much closer on the Force Velocity Curve compared to endurance events like cycling and running. The body, based on genetic ability, has a wonderful ability to adapt and adjust.
 
DancenMacabre said:
That's why I would say powerlifters are stronger, but olympic lifters are more powerful. Most people think powerful = strong but that's not true.

Yes I agree that power does not equal strong. But to say that powerlifters do not have as much power as an olympic lifter I would argue. Since I believe a powerlifter can lift alot more weight than an olympic lifter even though a powerlifter is only concerned with three exercises they have a hell of alot of power when you do the math. This really comes down to what felt wrote below and fergie said in terms of training for a specific event. I do believe either could switch and probably be pretty good at both cause I have found in my experience that for powerlifting more genetics involved while olympic more technique involved. I have seen some very average looking folks who can clean and jerk quite a bit of weight when well trained in technique but they can not match a power lifter in raw numbers.

DancenMacabre said:
There are no different muscle types. There are muscles made up of more fast twitch or slow twitch depending on the person & muscle. All muscles have some slow twitch, some fast twitch - the %'s differ by person & by muscle. The calf muscle usually has high slow-twitch content in most people. It could be you have hella fast twitch thighs and run like the wind, but you wont have 100% fast twitch type IIb fibers even then. You still will have some slow twitch fibers.

Yes that is what I mean by the genetic make up of the muscle of fast twitch vs. slow twitch. Depending on the make up you will be better at different events. But if you look at a classic powerlifter he really is not a pretty sight. He usually weighs a ton and actually looks fat, has a big bone structure, usually not that tall and has hands the size of catcher's glove. To be good at powerlifting you really need this make up but Olymoic lifters are very different in their look and makeup. Most I have seen come closer to Bodybuilders. Genetics is much more important in powerlifting.


DancenMacabre said:
Strength training & enduro training might train diff. things to some level, depending on how/what you do. Problem is you still have to recover, whether it is weights or bike work. You think doing 5 sets of heavy squats in the morning or even day or two before you bike ride wont affect your bike riding later, just because the bike riding is a 1 hour 'enduro' ride??? Try it sometime. Plus most people who work only have limited time, so if you have 8 hours then you have 8 hours and you have to divy them into 2 sports/activities rather than 1. Guess you might get injured too doing heavy weight so thats one more risk. So you might be a great bike rider or a great weight lifter/power lifter/olympic lifter but I bet you wont be a great lifter & great rider.

Actaully I did try it and you can check out the thread here soemwhere. I enjoy weight lifting alot and was able to get my deadlift past 300lbs but never had the chance to get my watts past 300 ftp. I was stuck at about a 260~270. Now as far as the injury goes I did get injured from a bad fall freaky accident in a parking lot as it screwed up my back. I do wonder if frost ever did both and tony said he could easily do both I believe but did not want to take the chance. Trying to be best at both these worlds is quite difficult and like Felt said you have to be settling for a jack of all trades. But IMHO once you get past 40 you are best served by staying in that category but for folks like us who post on this board that will probably lead to boredom...

-js