gyming to improve power

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

IT PROBALY IS DUE TO ATROPHY. THATS MUSCLE WASTING SINCE THE MUSCLE ISN'T BEING REQUIRED, ITS STILL THERE, OR RATHER THE STORAGE POTENTIAL IS STILL THERE.

IF YOU WHERE TO REQUIRE FUEL FOR A 10 MILE JOURNEY IN A CAR YOU WOULDN'T PUT 100MILES WORTH OF FUEL INIT, CAUSE IT AIN'T REQUIRED. OUR MUSCLE GROUPS ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. IF WE CALL UPON FUEL STORES REQUIRING LARGE AMOUNTS OF FUEL THEN THE BODY WILL STORE THIS FOR THE NEXT POSSIBLE JOURNEY. THE MORE REGULAR YOU CALL UPON THIS FUEL STORE, THE BODY GETS TRAINED "IF YOU LIKE" TO STORING THAT FUEL SOURCE, THEN WHEN WE DON'T CALL UPON IT WE GO THROUGH DE-TRAINING WHICH LEADS TO MUSCLE LOSS, SINCE MUSCLE FUEL STORES AREN'T REQUIRED.

BUT WHEN YOU START TRAINING AGAIN AND THE MUSCLE GROUPS ARE CALLED UPON. THEN MORE POTENTIAL ENERGY IS STORED IN AND AROUND THE MUSCLE GROUPS THAT ARE BEING CALLED UPON AGAIN. THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT UNFORTUNATELY, SO RETAINING SOME KIND OF MUSCULAR WORK REQUIRING A SIMILAR AMOUNT OF ENERGY, WEATHER AEROBIC OR ANOEROBIC WILL PREVENT ATROPHY.
I know this is way off topic.....but your cApS key seems to be stuck :eek:

cheers

I know this is way off topic.....but your cApS key seems to be stuck :eek:

cheersI NOTICED AFTER WRITING THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, but its off now, there you go....:D

lovely weather for ducks again here! gosh how i love british weather, if it ain't force 10 gales its raining.

Steve Fleck, Ph.D., former sports physiologist in charge of strength training research in the division of sports medicine at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, states that this study shows, "A higher lactate threshold means that an athlete can ride at a higher intensity before fatigue sets in and causes a reduction in cycling speed. Their findings indicate that strength training improves endurance performance independently of changes in oxygen consumption. This improvement appears to be related to increases in lactate threshold and increased leg strength." Put simply, Fleck is stating that endurance training and strength training are not mutually exclusive. Both may be needed for improved performance.


Thoughts Ric?

Steve Fleck, Ph.D., former sports physiologist in charge of strength training research in the division of sports medicine at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, states that this study shows, "A higher lactate threshold means that an athlete can ride at a higher intensity before fatigue sets in and causes a reduction in cycling speed. Their findings indicate that strength training improves endurance performance independently of changes in oxygen consumption. This improvement appears to be related to increases in lactate threshold and increased leg strength." Put simply, Fleck is stating that endurance training and strength training are not mutually exclusive. Both may be needed for improved performance.


Thoughts Ric?

What study do you mean? You haven't referenced anything!

however, there's no research showing an increase in performance in trained and/or elite cyclists (unless something came out in the last few days while i was on vacation!). it's highly unlikely that strength/weight training will increase endurance cycling performance, as the forces involved are so low that practically anyone can generate them.

ric

Steve Fleck, Ph.D., former sports physiologist in charge of strength training research in the division of sports medicine at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, states that this study shows, "A higher lactate threshold means that an athlete can ride at a higher intensity before fatigue sets in and causes a reduction in cycling speed. Their findings indicate that strength training improves endurance performance independently of changes in oxygen consumption. This improvement appears to be related to increases in lactate threshold and increased leg strength." Put simply, Fleck is stating that endurance training and strength training are not mutually exclusive. Both may be needed for improved performance.


Thoughts Ric? weights builds mass, mass includes mitochondria, mitochondria means more energy to use,thus a greater lactate threshold, sice lactate is generated due to energy demands and usage far exceed ......you know the rest..

but as for lactate thresholds, these important requirements make the belief that the accumulation of hydrogen ions within the muscles (from the production of lactate) could limit both the production and the utilisation of energy particularly appealing.

there is infact considerable evidence that the end product of energy production could slow down the synthesis of ATP (and hence of itself) by inhibiting the activities of enzymes within the energy production pathways.

it has been demonstrated that this accumulation of hydrogen ions may limit the capacity to form cross bridges between actin and myosin thus reducing the ability to generate force or the inability for the limbs to complete the desired range of motion.

weights builds mass, mass includes mitochondria, mitochondria means more energy to use,thus a greater lactate threshold, sice lactate is generated due to energy demands and usage far exceed ......you know the rest..

increasing mass via e.g., weight training, actually causes a relative decrease in mitochondrial and capillary density. this is one reason why weights (to increase endurance cycling performance) is a waste of time. this has been mentioned on numerous occasions throughout this and other threads.

ric

increasing mass via e.g., weight training, actually causes a relative decrease in mitochondrial and capillary density. this is one reason why weights (to increase endurance cycling performance) is a waste of time. this has been mentioned on numerous occasions throughout this and other threads.

ricA study, published by the Journal of Applied Physiology in 2001, looked at a group of males and females.


Researchers had them do six months of either endurance training or weight training. After six months, the quadriceps muscles in the weight-training group showed large improvements in oxidative capacity and had more mitochondria. Mitochondria are the main source of energy to the cell. If you have more mitochondria, (which are increased through exercise) then your muscle can get more energy and a more powerful muscle contraction. The subjects also had an increase in the muscle size.

but i guess it depends upon on what you define as weight training, in the sence of power lifting or weights of higher repetitions such as supersets supersets wouldn't at 65% high repetitions, or circuit training with weights.

ohh another random link..
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0129.htm ohhh increased by the hormone thyroxin from iodine by the thyroid.... "t3 + t4 it don't increase, density or help assist speed up metabolism, thats experiments in rats and birds we aren't rats are birds there musscle fibres aren't like ours there made up different"... i'll save you the typing hey!

A study, published by the Journal of Applied Physiology in 2001, looked at a group of males and females.

apologies, i was talking about trained and/or elite cyclists (i.e., those that race). this study, if memory serves me correctly was untrained individuals, where any exercise helps increase pereformance in (e.g.) cycling

ric

apologies, i was talking about trained and/or elite cyclists (i.e., those that race). this study, if memory serves me correctly was untrained individuals, where any exercise helps increase pereformance in (e.g.) cycling

rictrained or untrained, the only difference is that an higher intensity is being used, high repertition of weights builds muscle and increases mitochondria, plus enough repetitions of repeated exercise will generate large amounts of lactic acid, but power lifting alone won't cut it.. train to burn opposed to train to fail doing 1 or 2 reps will build strength and maybe increase capilary density, but the higher the repetitions with adequate rest periods and enough protein intake will build muscle mass, plus more mitochondria.

ohh and the link was rats used during experiments, if you look down the left hand side there a number of links to sports, and performance regiems.

eg... cycling / interval training ..............etc

read this as weight training....... http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0106.htm

trained or untrained, the only difference is that an higher intensity is being used, high repertition of weights builds muscle and increases mitochondria, plus enough repetitions of repeated exercise will generate large amounts of lactic acid, but power lifting alone won't cut it.. train to burn opposed to train to fail doing 1 or 2 reps will build strength and maybe increase capilary density, but the higher the repetitions with adequate rest periods and enough protein intake will build muscle mass, plus more mitochondria.


i suggest you either bother to read this thread and the others (to do with weights, gym work, strength training etc) in their entirety and look for postings by 2Lap, Roadie Scum, Andy Coggan, and myself or look at the peer reviewed literature that pertains to trained cyclists and additionally understand first principles.

ric

i suggest you either bother to read this thread and the others (to do with weights, gym work, strength training etc) in their entirety and look for postings by 2Lap, Roadie Scum, Andy Coggan, and myself or look at the peer reviewed literature that pertains to trained cyclists and additionally understand first principles.

ricpeer reviewed literature that pertains to trained cyclists and additionally understand first principles? what the hell are you reffering to, is there a cryptic clue in there somewhere, most i have read that you have posted is miss information, maybe you need to read more than you are, or from other sources.

thats just it i do understand! i know how it works. i've been doing it for the past 10yrs plus, cycling, running + weight circuits, i earlier came back from a ride of 65miles in little over 3hrs, however i did have to drop the pace not only for headwinds but also because i had managed to get lost and couldn't remember where i had come from. Don't tell me i'm wrong or it don't work, it does and has for me!

ohhh if the cyclist that gave me directions earlier that pointed me in the right direction is reading, thankyou very much i made it home. 15miles more than planned but what the hell, could have done with another bottle.

back to weight training.

what is the optimum range of reps(squats) for the best strength developement for long sprints? i know it is good to mix up the number of reps you do every couple weeks, but i am just looking for an idea of what i should be aiming for.
would 3 sets of 15-20 reps be about right? i don't have the best knees, so i think i should stay away from the real heavy weight for under 6 reps. not to mention i don't own enough plates for more than 325lbs :Di have about 900lb in plates + 300lb in plastic weights in the garage going to waste along with one set of squat stands, one leg ext, standing or lying bicepe machine, plus 1 leg press capable of holding a 900lb stack.:D

peer reviewed literature that pertains to trained cyclists and additionally understand first principles? what the hell are you reffering to, is there a cryptic clue in there somewhere, most i have read that you have posted is miss information, maybe you need to read more than you are, or from other sources.One thing every new reader learns is that Ric thinks that there is ONE way, and ONLY ONE WAY, for a cyclist to get better. And that is to get on the bike. There's not a lot of room in his life for multiple approaches. He's very into specificity of training effect, discounting everything else that has to do with cycling performance including injury prevention, attitude and motivational factors, weather restrictions, personal circumstances, increasing athletic performance in the context of group settings or with training partners or friends, removing or decreasing adaptive limitations caused by increased capabilities, program staleness, combingin cycling with non-cycling fitness or performance, or the possible benefits of things like improved power, strength, balance, core stability, or aerobic capacity developed off the bike.

And by discounting I mean that he thinks that the best, if not the only, way is through riding.

When he says things like "even a 55-year old grandmother has all the strength they will ever need for cycling" (paraphrasing) it's pretty apparent how black and white his views are.

peer reviewed literature that pertains to trained cyclists and additionally understand first principles? what the hell are you reffering to, is there a cryptic clue in there somewhere, most i have read that you have posted is miss information, maybe you need to read more than you are, or from other sources.

i'm talking about the literature that refers to weights etc and trained cyclists, and the underlying principles involved.

if you think i'm posting misinformation then you don't have a good understanding of the work in this area, which doesn't surprise me considering that you think your diet is good (your wife is correct).

i suggest you go back and read some of the earlier pages of this thread especially those around page 5 and 6, where we talk more about the mechanisms involved (see posts by Roadie Scum, Andy Coggan, and myself). If you search through the archives of this forum and look for posts by 2Lap as well.

ric

One thing every new reader learns is that Ric thinks that there is ONE way, and ONLY ONE WAY, for a cyclist to get better. And that is to get on the bike.

i've said the best way is to ride a bike, because this is true. i've also said that if you can't ride your bike then any exercise is better than no exercise. however, you'd be far better off doing an aerobic exercise (e.g., running) versus something like weights.



There's not a lot of room in his life for multiple approaches. He's very into specificity of training effect, discounting everything else that has to do with cycling performance including injury prevention


if you're referring to weights and injury prevention then as i've pointed out the data is very equivocal on this.


, attitude and motivational factors, weather restrictions, personal circumstances, increasing athletic performance in the context of group settings or with training partners or friends, removing or decreasing adaptive limitations caused by increased capabilities, program staleness,


Lol! i don't think you've read my posts correctly!


combingin cycling with non-cycling fitness or performance, or the possible benefits of things like improved power, strength, balance, core stability, or aerobic capacity developed off the bike.


i've never said you can't do these things - all i've said is that in trained cyclists they do not increase performance, because simply they don't. training in one modality does not transfer well to a completely different one. of course, as i have mentioned on many occasions, if for some reason you can't cycle due to e.g., inclement weather then any exercise is better than (periods) of no exercise.


And by discounting I mean that he thinks that the best, if not the only, way is through riding.


this is because the best way of developing the most power for endurance cycling performance (e.g., TT, RR, MTB XC, track endurance etc) is through on the bike training. feel free to exercise in other modalities, but for trained and elite cyclists (i.e., those that race) the best way is through on the bike training, with other modalities not increasing performance or even impairing cycle performance (obviously, if another exercise mode is your only option then it's better than no exercise at all).



When he says things like "even a 55-year old grandmother has all the strength they will ever need for cycling" (paraphrasing) it's pretty apparent how black and white his views are.

I actually said that frail old ladies were the exception.

ric

One thing every new reader learns is that Ric thinks that there is ONE way, and ONLY ONE WAY, for a cyclist to get better. And that is to get on the bike. There's not a lot of room in his life for multiple approaches. He's very into specificity of training effect, discounting everything else that has to do with cycling performance including injury prevention, attitude and motivational factors, weather restrictions, personal circumstances, increasing athletic performance in the context of group settings or with training partners or friends, removing or decreasing adaptive limitations caused by increased capabilities, program staleness, combingin cycling with non-cycling fitness or performance, or the possible benefits of things like improved power, strength, balance, core stability, or aerobic capacity developed off the bike.





When he says things like "even a 55-year old grandmother has all the strength they will ever need for cycling" (paraphrasing) it's pretty apparent how black and white his views are.




It depends on how you interpret his statements. What he writes about
power training is true but only if you have the safe pedalling technique for
such training as it protects the lower back. Remember, that 55 or 85 year old
grandmother has enough power in her leg to support her own weight when
walking or climbing a stairs; a cyclist uses far less pedal pressure once initial
acceleration is complete and that can be done out of the saddle.
(Track sprinters are excluded because for them the mashing style is a necessity.)

It depends on how you interpret his statements. What he writes about
power training is true but only if you have the safe pedalling technique for
such training as it protects the lower back. Remember, that 55 or 85 year old
grandmother has enough power in her leg to support her own weight when
walking or climbing a stairs; a cyclist uses far less pedal pressure once initial
acceleration is complete and that can be done out of the saddle.
(Track sprinters are excluded because for them the mashing style is a necessity.)
What about in criteriums or attacks on hills on the flat, exiting corners when you need to accellerate hard to catch up with other riders. How big are the forces you would use then?

Regards,

Mark

I have a feeling this thread is destined to stay at the top of discussion...


First I need to give a little of my background. I've spent the vast majority of my life weight training. It has been on again off again for sure but that doesn't detract from the overall gains, as well as the experience(s) it's given me. For me, it's been a fabulous way to feel better, feel stronger, stay healthier (mentally and physicallya), etc. I'd also like to say that I've never participated in any steroid use, or any other performance enhancing drug either.

I used to play raquetball for my aerobic exercise, which worked okay. I also use to spend some time on a recumbent stationary bike. No SERIOUS aerobic exercise though, at least as a rule.

Now to cycling...

As of 7/16 of this year, I've taken up cycling. I've done it before, but only sporadically. I've never looked at it seriously. My career has become one in which I spend most of my time sitting on my arse and quite frankly, I just needed something to do in order to get more exercise.

Since then, I've cycled approximately 800 miles (300 on trainer, 500 on the road). I can EASILY say that no exercise I've ever done makes me feel better than bicycling. I have more energy than I know what to do with. I'm up at 5am every morning basically looking for things to do. It's been a LONG time since I felt that way.

I'm getting off the subject so....

I understand that cycling is about power, and the ability of the rider to generate power. I've also read the statement that muscular strength, or the ability to create force against the pedals, has nothing to do with generating that power. I've having a really hard time buying/understanding this.

I DO understand that weight training/bicycling are very different exercise and that while they may use the same muscles, they don't necessarily use the same muscle fibers.

I THINK I understand that the muscle fibers used primarily (slow twitch) are much more affected by aerobic capacity than by any short term strength gains.

Is this the basis for the idea that weight training gives you no appreciable gain in cycling (outside of sprinting)?


I have more questions regarding the "generation of power", but this is a good place to start.

Thanks!

John

What about in criteriums or attacks on hills on the flat, exiting corners when you need to accellerate hard to catch up with other riders. How big are the forces you would use then?

Regards,

Mark




When seated, using normal pedalling, you cannot use a force greater than
your own bodyweight.

When seated, using normal pedalling, you cannot use a force greater than
your own bodyweight.
Plus the additional downward force generated by the other leg. This "opposing" force serves to keep you in the saddle despite using enough force to normally lift your weight with the other leg.

Incidentally, I find myself on very steep climbs getting as far back on the saddle as comfortably possible. It "seems" as if I'm then able to use my arms for leverage, and generate MUCH more power at the top of the stroke (almost pushing directly forward) It also seems to involve different muscle groups that for whatever reason feel fresher. I refrain from doing this as I'm trying to work on my cadence more.