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.

Is the issue here OVERALL weight training or just leg weight training? If you're weak in your CORE or Upper body, I've heard over and over that it will make you more prone to injury.

As a triathlete, it's crucial for me to be "balanced" all over or else one area will suffer but for the pure cyclists, I can't but help think that a LOW intensity, HIGH REP weight problem would help tone and keep you from LOOSING muscles that you already have. It totally makes sense that you don't want to ADD muscle mass for the sake of it, unless you live in San Francisco and have to hit those hills every day!

just my 2cents, very interested as this entire thread is SO different than what I hear in the Tri circles. They all say weight training MANDATORY, year round. Winter time, build some muscle and expand capacity and Summer time purely to maintain balance and tone. Biking doesn't hit ALL muscles. I would think if you ONLY bike you will get VERY strong in the key "bike" muscles but "not strong" (relative of course) elsewhere. That's a recipe for disaster if you need to function doing anything other than biking isn't it?

Originally posted by pcs_ronbo
Is the issue here OVERALL weight training or just leg weight training? If you're weak in your CORE or Upper body, I've heard over and over that it will make you more prone to injury.


i don't know of any evidence or reason to support this. in fact i know more people who get injured through weight training than anything else!

for instance, to support yourself on the bike, the forces are exceedingly low. therefore, very little core strength is required. if you *really* needed to increase your core strength to be able to sit on a bike etc., you're just not going to be worried about bike racing or triathlons.



As a triathlete, it's crucial for me to be "balanced" all over or else one area will suffer but for the pure cyclists, I can't but help think that a LOW intensity, HIGH REP weight problem would help tone and keep you from LOOSING muscles that you already have. It totally makes sense that you don't want to ADD muscle mass for the sake of it, unless you live in San Francisco and have to hit those hills every day!


you do not need increased muscle mass to ride up hill. the forces are low to moderate. as previously explained several posts above the force between *both* legs would've been about 250 N (~25 kg) to go top 5 on the Mont Ventoux stage. Most/all/anyone can generate that force.

additionally, people sprint harder than they ride for a sustainable period of time. during sprinting or standing starts the forces are highest still and we can already generate these.



just my 2cents, very interested as this entire thread is SO different than what I hear in the Tri circles. They all say weight training MANDATORY, year round. Winter time, build some muscle and expand capacity and Summer time purely to maintain balance and tone. Biking doesn't hit ALL muscles. I would think if you ONLY bike you will get VERY strong in the key "bike" muscles but "not strong" (relative of course) elsewhere. That's a recipe for disaster if you need to function doing anything other than biking isn't it?

there's several of us who post the same information in triforums. biking doesn't increase strength, and nor does triathlon. or any endurance sport -- apart from in certain sub sections of the population (e.g., frail old ladies, people with certain functional disabilities).

ric

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
Good luck!

i'll need it. i get motion sickness from the circles

thanks

I think the reason people get injured with weights is due to various factors. Some peoples' knees simply don't suit squatting but the real damage is caused by bouncing. A guy recently told me he had a bad knee and I happened to spot him squatting later on. Little wonder! He was bouncing at the bottom of the rep when what you should do is keep the head up, lower slowly, pause and drive. Squats are also a natural movement unlike leg extensions so the risk of injury is minimal.
The only other thing I should add has to do with gym ego. The reason we attend a gym is to use weights as a tool for progress but some guys get obsessed by how much they can lift. The major mistake I made over the years was to lift too heavy too often. Same applies to the bike since too much intensity leads to injury (part of my problem at present). These days I think it's important to stagger the intense training against easy sessions.




Originally posted by ricstern
i don't know of any evidence or reason to support this. in fact i know more people who get injured through weight training than anything else!

for instance, to support yourself on the bike, the forces are exceedingly low. therefore, very little core strength is required. if you *really* needed to increase your core strength to be able to sit on a bike etc., you're just not going to be worried about bike racing or triathlons.




you do not need increased muscle mass to ride up hill. the forces are low to moderate. as previously explained several posts above the force between *both* legs would've been about 250 N (~25 kg) to go top 5 on the Mont Ventoux stage. Most/all/anyone can generate that force.

additionally, people sprint harder than they ride for a sustainable period of time. during sprinting or standing starts the forces are highest still and we can already generate these.




there's several of us who post the same information in triforums. biking doesn't increase strength, and nor does triathlon. or any endurance sport -- apart from in certain sub sections of the population (e.g., frail old ladies, people with certain functional disabilities).

ric

Yes, I agree with you. I've had the same experiences.
Cycling (and all aerobics) are very anti-muscle. The more aerobics you do, the more muscle you may end up losing. Conversely if you put a lot of muscle on you'll be struggling on the bike for sure. The body is simply smart and knows what it needs to do and how it needs to adapt to meet the demands you place on it.
I think that only certain individuals could do both sports with some degree of success. The only reason I might be able to get away with it is because I can drop muscle so quickly and easily. Logic dictates that if you can maintain a certain percentage of aerobic fitness during weight-work, you can possibly drop weights all together at an appointed time, drop the muscle mass off the upper body and peak on the bike.
For many folks it wouldn't work. Some people hold on to muscle but for me I only have to cycle really hard and I lose up to 20 lbs bodyweight in a short period. My strength drops as well as you found in your own case. However, I can get the strength back very quickly by resting on aerobics and intensifying weight work.
The only reason I'm considering the issue is due to my cycling injury so I figure if I have to take a break from bike training I might as well do something to keep myself motivated till I get over the injury and resume bike activity.
Plus I wondered whether muscle has a kind of stamina memory.


Originally posted by menglish6
I'll let you know how trying to be decent in two opposing activities works out. I recently started training for cycle oregon (4-500 miles in 7 days), the first real cycling training I've ever done. Within a matter of weeks of starting to do longer rides my strength in some of the basic weight exercises I do (bench, clean, squat, pullups and deadlifts) had plummeted. So had my rowing. So now I'm trying to see if I can improve (or at least maintain) in three areas, rowing, cycling and weight training. Its turning out to be extremely difficult. I think that the long rides eat away at ones muscles and make it real difficult to maintain strength (I heard in longer rides you could get from 5-10% of your calories from protein). We'll see how well I can fight it.

Is the basic idea that what separates professional cyclists from the regular people is not (leg) strength but cardiovascular ability?

Originally posted by keydates
Is the basic idea that what separates professional cyclists from the regular people is not (leg) strength but cardiovascular ability?

In a nutshell, yes. There is no difference in leg strength between a cycling pro and a normal person. The differences are in heart, lungs and muscular adaptions for endurance (not strength).

Originally posted by keydates
Is the basic idea that what separates professional cyclists from the regular people is not (leg) strength but cardiovascular ability?
Absolutely. I knew a guy named Pete. He was a tall thin guy that smoked 3 packs a day. We used to go to the gym together 10 years ago. I remember the first time we went there I had been jogging for about 4 months and thought "boy, I'll show this guy up" thinking that because he was a sedentary person that smoked like a chimney. He blew me away! He literally ran circles around me. I couldn't believe it. I felt like a real putz being blown away by this skinny lankey smoking couch potato.

Of course, when it came to weights I was significantly stronger than he was no matter what exercise we were doing. But ... and here's where it gets interesting ... he could do 80% of his maximum for 15 - 20 reps whereas I could only do between 6 - 10 reps. My fast twitch muscles would burn out when his red twitch fibers were just getting started. I would have to drop down to around 50% of my max to do high rep sets like that. The weight I used on my high rep sets turned out to be what he could use on most of his heavier lifts of 6 - 8 reps.

Pete is the kind of guy that excels in endurance sports events, whether it's running, cycling, swimming or whatever. That's also when it hit me in the face that it was all about the genetics. There is just no amount of training, conditioning or steriods I could do to keep up with Pete at endurance activities. Period.

Another take on this strength vs. endurance thing is if you took 2 identical twins and each had the same strength levels, the better conditioned twin with greater endurance would have the competitive edge.

Conversly, if both identical twins had equal levels of endurance and conditioning, the stonger of the two would have the edge. That's why I think some cyclists (Armstrong, Ulrich) are into the weights. I don't think Tyler Hamilton has ever seen a weight room. ;)

DM,

as i said in the other thread, it wouldn't improve their cycling if one was stronger. In endurance cycling performance (i.e., anyone who races >90-secs) weights are not beneficial and are in some cases detrimental.

ric

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
In a nutshell, yes. There is no difference in leg strength between a cycling pro and a normal person. The differences are in heart, lungs and muscular adaptions for endurance (not strength).

additionally to that, in some cases untrained sedentary subjects will have *stronger* legs than some cyclists.

moral of the story: if you want to get strong don't bother with cycling as it won't help in that regard!

Here's a thought that really should be put to the test.
What would happen if you took a seasoned cyclist and a normally fit person who had engaged in zero sports activity? Then you would carry out a simple experiment. Both subjects would be introduced to barbell squats, their initial performance would be noted (rep ability and strength e.t.c.) The progress of both subjects would be monitored over, say, a two month period.
This is what I expect would actually happen, although unless the test is actually carried out I've no way of knowing whether I'm correct:
My estimation is that both subjects would appear to have the same strength on the first day of introduction to the exercise. Both candidates would probably experience the same difficulties of balance e.t.c. However, my theory is that the cyclist would go on to improve in the exercise far more rapidly than the non-athlete. My hunch is that the more conditioned legs of the cyclist would make rapid improvements in the squat, with regard to strength and endurance. I may be wrong, of course, but my hunch is that cycling does build a degree of strength or adaptability for strength in a sense.
On a personal note, though, When I lived in northern Spain (same province as Indurain as it happens) I got involved in a kind of contest with a very fit cyclist called Tomas. I hadn't touched a weight for maybe 3 months or so and Tomas had only cycled at an intense level but had never squatted. At that time I myself didn't cycle at all.
A group of us went into the spare-room where there was a barbell with about 40 kg in total. The wives busied themselves with the kids in the living-room. I went first with the objective of banging out as many reps as possible and I'd been warned Tomas wouldn't allow himself to be beaten as he was stubborn and proud. Don't recall how many reps I banged out but it was tough going. The first twenty began to burn somewhat and then it got ever harder. I finished to a few cheers and a round of applause for my efforts and a very determined Tomas got under the bar with a stony expression. I was hoping the guy would throw in the towel early on but he somehow managed to do 1 rep more than myself and then collapsed in a heap. The next day I was limping around and hardly able to walk. Friends informed me Tomas own legs weren't even sore but he had only been heard of via telephone and people assured me was probably limping as well.
The fact is we both drew even, more or less. If we had stuck 80 kg on the bar I'm certain I'd have won the contest hands down, drawing on raw strength fibres. But however the case may be the Spanish cyclist's effort was exceptional since, having never squatted before, he matched me on the higher rep scale.

Ricstern, you don't think that having a large anaerobic reserve to draw upon for an attack or at the end of a long stage race is advantageous? If a group that you've been drafting behind sprints away because of powerful anaerobic capabilities than you will lose the drafting advantage if your well developed aerobic capabilities can't generate enough power to catch up to a breakaway.

If you seriously think that TdF riders don't have stronger legs and overall anaerobic power than an untrained sedentary individual than you are on something. I'm sure every TdF competitor can sprint to at least 55 km/h, and very few untrained cyclists, even fairly physically strong cyclists, can hit that speed. In Toronto (3 million people), if I hit 55 km/h I'd pass every cyclist close to me, and fast, regardless of if they were sprinting or not., which I did regularly. That's just typical for a TdF competitor, and the great hour record holders have kept up a pace of 50 km/hr + for 1 hour . Boardman, at 56 km/hr held a speed for 1 hr that would not be matched by the cyclists on the streets of Toronto for one second, never mind that he used a great aero position and super bike, he could still do 48+ on a regular road bike in a slightly aero position for maybe 10 minutes, which barely anybody I've seen could match for even a few seconds . If anything, a requirement for cycling is to have good muscle power (and strength, for you can't be powerful without being fairly strong) combined with such an incredibly well developed aerobic system that it can feed those muscles enough oxygen.

As for forces involved, I can generate near 143 N-m of torque on my 180 mm cranks just by standing on one pedal and not using any muscles except to hold myself up straight. A Toyota Corolla 2003 maxes at 180 N-m, which is not much more force, but can hold that torque at 6000 rpm while my human engine would probably lose torque at 200 rpm and could never exceed 275 rpm. Nevertheless, the Toyota can climb at 2.5 vertical meters per second while weighing 1250 kg. If anybody here can ride their bike up a hill climbing at 2.5 meters per second for 4 minutes, I think they deserve a medal (hehehe). It's power that matters, and having stronger muscles helps generate more power. Of course you have to have the aerobic system to go along with it.

I do concede that in a steep uphill TT, a lighter, less *muscle bound* (snicker) rider would probably outdo a heavier, more powerful flat TT'er, as hill power output varies (almost) linearly with weight while flat speed depends on power output and frontal area, where a heavier more powerful cyclist, if he's in good shape, can generate more power relative to the frontal area increase from his bodyweight. Indurain is a great example of a heavier, great time trialer and TdF winner.

Originally posted by bikeguy
Ricstern, you don't think that having a large anaerobic reserve to draw upon for an attack or at the end of a long stage race is advantageous? If a group that you've been drafting behind sprints away because of powerful anaerobic capabilities than you will lose the drafting advantage if your well developed aerobic capabilities can't generate enough power to catch up to a breakaway.


i feel that you're confusing several issues. I have not ever said that having a reasonably high anaerobic capacity isn't useful, but that's different to increasing strength/weight training. AC is developed by doing e.g., 30-sec all-out efforts, while, on the other hand, weight training increases strength.



If you seriously think that TdF riders don't have stronger legs and overall anaerobic power than an untrained sedentary individual than you are on something.


obviously, i'm on something! however, the fact remains, that on average, elite riders are no stronger and often weaker than age, gender, and mass-matched healthy controls. As aerobic fitness is increased, which is a primary requisite of being an elite endurance rider then aerobic machinery replaces contractile proteins, thus reducing the force potential of the muscles.


I'm sure every TdF competitor can sprint to at least 55 km/h, and very few untrained cyclists, even fairly physically strong cyclists, can hit that speed.


not anywhere have i mentioned speed. primarily, this is because environmental and topographical conditions will exert their effect on the outcome. there is also the fact that the pros will likely be travelling at a faster starting speed.


That's just typical for a TdF competitor, and the great hour record holders have kept up a pace of 50 km/hr + for 1 hour . Boardman, at 56 km/hr held a speed for 1 hr that would not be matched by the cyclists on the streets of Toronto for one second, never mind that he used a great aero position and super bike, he could still do 48+ on a regular road bike in a slightly aero position for maybe 10 minutes, which barely anybody I've seen could match for even a few seconds .


the average power output of the World Hour Record in the "Superman" position (56+ km) has been estimated as 442 W, by Chris Boardman's coach Peter Keen. Whilst, i can't at present, recall the exact cadence used by Chris during the record, it was most likely around the 105 revs/min level. This works out at a force requirement of ~ 236 N, assuming 170-mm cranks. That's ~ 24 kg, between *both* legs. I think you'll agree that pretty much anyone can generate that force. Additionally, you'd be hard pressed to find a healthy male of roughly the same size as Boardman who couldn't generate 442 W.




If anything, a requirement for cycling is to have good muscle power (and strength, for you can't be powerful without being fairly strong) combined with such an incredibly well developed aerobic system that it can feed those muscles enough oxygen.


being very aerobically powerful (e.g., like an elite endurance rider), has nothing whatsoever to do with being very strong.

Even during an incremental test to exhaustion, using a moderately fast increment such as 20 W/min, the most elite riders will barely touch 600 W. Assuming that they're pedalling at ~ 100 revs/min and using 170-mm cranks that's a force requirement of 337 N, or ~ 34 kg, between *both* legs. Obviously, most people can generate that.

To put it another way, by definition, you can sprint at a higher power level than you can generate at the end of a max test.



It's power that matters


this is correct. sustainable 'aerobic' power.


, and having stronger muscles helps generate more power. Of course you have to have the aerobic system to go along with it.


having stronger muscles does not help, because most people (trained or not) can generate more power than a pro can at the end of e.g., a VO2max test, which in turn is somewhat greater power than that, which can be sustained maximally while e.g., climbing/TTing.




I do concede that in a steep uphill TT, a lighter, less *muscle bound* (snicker) rider would probably outdo a heavier, more powerful flat TT'er, as hill power output varies (almost) linearly with weight while flat speed depends on power output and frontal area, where a heavier more powerful cyclist, if he's in good shape, can generate more power relative to the frontal area increase from his bodyweight. Indurain is a great example of a heavier, great time trialer and TdF winner.

for some reason, you keep confusing having moderate amounts of aerobic power with requiring high levels of strength. this isn't the case.

Indurain, excelled because he had a high VO2max and associated power and a high LT. It had nothing whatsoever to do with strength. I never saw him competing in the Olympic Power lifting events!

ric

i feel that you're confusing several issues. I have not ever said that having a reasonably high anaerobic capacity isn't useful, but that's different to increasing strength/weight training. AC is developed by doing e.g., 30-sec all-out efforts, while, on the other hand, weight training increases strength.

This demonstrates that in fact you have confused a issue. You seem to think that heavy/moderate (heavy >90% 1 RM, moderate 65-80% 1 RM) weight training only increases strength, but not power or anaerobic power as well. I grant that >90% 1 RM is probably pretty useless for developing anaerobic power, but 65-80% is just great for it. Indeed , this is an all out effort with the weights for 20-30 seconds. Now some people tend to see more strength increase than power, but some see good anaerobic power increase too, nevertheless there is almost always a concomitant increase in sustainable anaerobic power if strength increases. There are studies that show that weight training actually increases the neuromuscular efficiency of all fibers activated, and that includes the slow twitch red endurance fibers, which are used in pure endurance events. I can't be bothered to locate them, but I've seen them.

As regards Boardman, I don't think the watts measured (what by wind tunnel measurements, not exactly accurate as we know) reflect the power used to raise the recovering leg, at 1.75 rev/sec, and Boardman at 66.67 kg, I assume half his mass in his thighs or 33.33 kg raised 0.30 meters or so 1.75 (105 rpm) times a second yields an additional 171 watts of power. That's 613 watts of real power and is why efficiency drops off at high rpm, because you have to raise that leg so many more times per second = more power required. 613 watts is 62.55 kg m-s, of which 17.45 kg m-s is for the upstroke leg, just enough to unweight the recovering leg, and 45.1 kg m-s on the downstroke leg. This downstroke is 23.48 kg force applied at a velocity of 1.92 m/s (1.75 rev x pi*0.35 m, for 175 mm cranks) on one leg. However, this is not the same as applying 23.48 kg to an unyielding object. Just standing on solid ground yields a force of (for Boardman) 67 kg under his feet, but he does no work and there is no power associated with 67 kg of force at zero velocity (by definition, P=FxV). Boardman generated 23.48 kg at 1.92 m/s of velocity on the downstroke leg, and is equivalent power to 47 kg moved at 0.98 m/s,or 94 kg moved at 0.47 m/s. Because this is an average value over the crank cycle, the actual forces would be much higher than this and this becomes quite a high force applied over a fairly short range of motion (I don't know what the effective percentage is over the crank cycle) but since the recovery leg does no real work on the crank (although work is needed to lift it), the work is done exclusively in the first half of the revolution. Now, how many men can leg press 2x23.48 kg on one leg at an average velocity of 1.92 m/s (this doesn't include the acceleration zone) including reversals of direction in between (must need high RFD (rate of force development for cycling, as well)) for more than 30 repetitions? This is a high power output, and Boardman did it for an hour! At 105 rpm = 6300 equivalent leg presses on one leg at 47 kg force at 1.92 m/s at least, not counting acceleration zone, not counting time to activate fibers coming over top, not counting that component of force Frad robs useful power from said force anywhere where the crank is less than 90 degrees or more.

You mentioned OL, great way to train your muscles to develop power, at high loads or low!

Originally posted by bikeguy
[B]This demonstrates that in fact you have confused a issue. You seem to think that heavy/moderate (heavy >90% 1 RM, moderate 65-80% 1 RM) weight training only increases strength, but not power or anaerobic power as well. I grant that >90% 1 RM is probably pretty useless for developing anaerobic power, but 65-80% is just great for it. Indeed , this is an all out effort with the weights for 20-30 seconds. Now some people tend to see more strength increase than power, but some see good anaerobic power increase too, nevertheless there is almost always a concomitant increase in sustainable anaerobic power if strength increases. There are studies that show that weight training actually increases the neuromuscular efficiency of all fibers activated, and that includes the slow twitch red endurance fibers, which are used in pure endurance events. I can't be bothered to locate them, but I've seen them.


as i've repeatedly pointed out gains from neuromuscular increases do not transfer to a different modality. they only occur at the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained. there's classic papers on this, where they would train people with one type of weight training exercise, and see something like a 100% increase in weight they could move, and then compare them to an isometric contraction using the same muscles doing a different exercise, and they end up with a 1% or no statistically different increase in weight (pre and post weight training isometric contraction).




As regards Boardman, I don't think the watts measured (what by wind tunnel measurements, not exactly accurate as we know) reflect the power used to raise the recovering leg, at 1.75


it was measured with an SRM


rev/sec, and Boardman at 66.67 kg, I assume half his mass in his thighs or 33.33 kg raised 0.30 meters or so 1.75 (105 rpm) times a second yields an additional 171 watts of power. That's 613 watts of real power and is why efficiency drops off at high rpm, because you have to raise that leg so many more times per second = more power required. 613 watts is 62.55 kg m-s, of which 17.45 kg m-s is for the upstroke leg, just enough to unweight the recovering leg, and 45.1 kg m-s on the downstroke leg. This downstroke is 23.48 kg force applied at a velocity of 1.92 m/s (1.75 rev x pi*0.35 m, for 175 mm cranks) on one leg. However, this is not the same as applying 23.48 kg to an unyielding object. Just standing on solid ground yields a force of (for Boardman) 67 kg under his feet, but he does no work and there is no power associated with 67 kg of force at zero velocity (by definition, P=FxV). Boardman generated 23.48 kg at 1.92 m/s of velocity on the downstroke leg, and is equivalent power to 47 kg moved at 0.98 m/s,or 94 kg moved at 0.47 m/s. Because this is an average value over the crank cycle, the actual forces would be much higher than this and this becomes quite a high force applied over a fairly short range of motion (I don't know what the effective percentage is over the crank cycle) but since the recovery leg does no real work on the crank (although work is needed to lift it), the work is done exclusively in the first half of the revolution. Now, how many men can leg press 2x23.48 kg on one leg at an average velocity of 1.92 m/s (this doesn't include the acceleration zone) including reversals of direction in between (must need high RFD (rate of force development for cycling, as well)) for more than 30 repetitions? This is a high power output, and Boardman did it for an hour! At 105 rpm = 6300 equivalent leg presses on one leg at 47 kg force at 1.92 m/s at least, not counting acceleration zone, not counting time to activate fibers coming over top, not counting that component of force Frad robs useful power from said force anywhere where the crank is less than 90 degrees or more.


yes, peak crank forces are higher than the average. however, i repeat, you'd be hard pressed to find a matched male who couldn't generate 442 W. 613 W would be way beyond what any human is capable of sustaining for any period of time (e.g., > 2-mins).

practically anyone can generate 442 W. it's sustaining it for an hour that's the issue. this has nothing whatsoever to do with strength (assuming you can generate it in the first place, which practically anyone can). it's about your aerobic ability and having a very high VO2max, and LT, which are goverened by convective O2 delivery, and primarily cardiac output.

Ric, you've completely missed my point. The 442 watts generated by Boardman is equivalent to raising roughly 47 kg against gravity at a rate of 1.92 m/s, most sedentary or even fit 67 kg males couldn't raise that weight at 1.92 m/s for 30 sec, let alone 3600. Boardman's aerobic system is more powerful than almost all sedentary 67 kg males anaerobic systems! He can do 56 km/hr for 1 hr, I'm sure he could do 64 km/hr peak, and nobody can say that a typical sedentary 67 kg male can just jump on a track bike with cleats and even hit 56 km/hr let alone 64 km/hr. Boardman's more powerful, period over any distance from 0 m to 56,000 m he could out accelerate and reach far higher speeds than a sedentary 67 kg male (or even 100 kg males), since power is related to strength particularly in this range of force-velocity I am most certain Boardman is stronger .




"yes, peak crank forces are higher than the average. however, i repeat, you'd be hard pressed to find a matched male who couldn't generate 442 W. 613 W would be way beyond what any human is capable of sustaining for any period of time (e.g., > 2-mins)."

Depends with what mechanical efficiency. If the motion is inefficient and the muscles have to work double time to do it, generating much wasted heat, than generating 447 watts may be impossible. As I pointed out, the raising of the recovery leg takes power which makes Boardman's real power output at about 613 watts, for the unweighting of the leg makes no contribution to the power to move the bicycle forward (except that if he didn't do it the bike wouldn't move far, heh) but still costs in power output.



"as i've repeatedly pointed out gains from neuromuscular increases do not transfer to a different modality. they only occur at the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained. there's classic papers on this, where they would train people with one type of weight training exercise, and see something like a 100% increase in weight they could move, and then compare them to an isometric contraction using the same muscles doing a different exercise, and they end up with a 1% or no statistically different increase in weight (pre and post weight training isometric contraction)."


What have isometric movements got to do with cycling? Anyway,
you're referring to isometric strength training, which some studies have showed that increases in strength at a particular joint angle in isometric training transfers best to the full range of motion at the same joint angle. You've completely reversed what the studies showed, which was that isometric strength training had little carryover to the full range of motion lift, ie. that doing isometric squats had little effect on strength in the full range lift. An increase in a full range lift however (i.e barbell squat), will definitely show an increase in strength in almost all points of the ROM if tested isometrically. Personally, I have found that isometrics not having any carryover isn't true, but that's a different topic altogether and regards training for max strength. Increases in load lifted in full range of motion, explosive lifts most certainly DO carry over to increase anaerobic power output in sport specific movements unless sheer mass, speed or flexibility is a limiting factor, e.g, you may never be able to throw a fastball at 90+ mph even if your triceps, shoulders, upper back and forearms are exceedingly strong.

I will come up with a number of references shortly to show that explosive weight training improves sport specific anaerobic power.

However, for sports with a comparatively moderate degree of speed, and where anaerobic power needs to be improved (and you agreed Ric, that anaerobic power is beneficial even for endurance cyclists), than a weight training program should compromise a small part of the overall cycling program. Weights should be 60-80% of 1 RM and should be lifted explosively for high reps, 20-30 range, and should use all the largest muscle groups, in particular for cyclists, the muscles of the legs although I think having strong upper back muscles and core benefits too.


As for neuromuscular improvements, weight training (particularly performed in an explosive manner) increases the percentage of fibers that fire simultaneously be they fast or slow twitch. Fibers that don't fire simultaneously have different relative velocities and generate friction between each other. Fibers that do fire simultaneously have the same relative velocity and generate less internal friction. Overall result, more usable power is generated and less heat.

Of course, most of your training should revolve around improving the V02 uptake and LT threshold in the specific sport, cycling, to feed the more powerful engine that you will have from the explosive weight training.

Originally posted by bikeguy
Ric, you've completely missed my point. The 442 watts generated by Boardman is equivalent to raising roughly 47 kg against gravity at a rate of 1.92 m/s, most sedentary or even fit 67 kg males couldn't raise that weight at 1.92 m/s for 30 sec, let alone 3600.


what are you going on about? i've never said untrained individuals could generate 442 W for 3600 secs.

in simple english, virtually any male can generate 442 W. in fact most males of that size can generate >1000 W


Boardman's aerobic system is more powerful than almost all sedentary 67 kg males anaerobic systems! He can do 56 km/hr for 1 hr, I'm sure he could do 64 km/hr peak, and nobody can say that a typical sedentary 67 kg male can just jump on a track bike with cleats and even hit 56 km/hr let alone 64 km/hr.


most males can generate > 1000 W

whilst i know what Boardmans, peak power is/was, i don't believe it's in the public domain. It is/was lower than my peak power, and isn't very high at all.



Boardman's more powerful, period over any distance from 0 m to 56,000 m he could out accelerate and reach far higher speeds than a sedentary 67 kg male (or even 100 kg males),


this is complete rubbish! most people could outsprint Boardman. Heck, even i could (i can generate more peak power). I often joke that dead people can sprint with more power than myself.




since power is related to strength particularly in this range of force-velocity I am most certain Boardman is stronger .


sustainable power isn't related to strength or at least you don't need to be excessively strong or very strong to generate the power required to excel in RRs. in other words untrained people can generate the forces required (with a few exceptions as noted). PERIOD!


Depends with what mechanical efficiency. If the motion is inefficient and the muscles have to work double time to do it, generating much wasted heat, than generating 447 watts may be impossible. As I pointed out, the raising of the recovery leg takes power which makes Boardman's real power output at about 613 watts,


what are you waffling about? the power required by Boardman to set the Hour Record was 442 W. that's 442 W, not 613 W. NOT 613 W. but 442 W.


What have isometric movements got to do with cycling? Anyway,
you're referring to isometric strength training, which some studies have showed that increases in strength at a particular joint angle in isometric training transfers best to the full range of motion at the same joint angle. You've completely reversed what the studies showed, which was that isometric strength training had little carryover to the full range of motion lift, ie. that doing isometric squats had little effect on strength in the full range lift. An increase in a full range lift however (i.e barbell squat), will definitely show an increase in strength in almost all points of the ROM if tested isometrically.


what are you wittering about?

i said that people are tested prior to weight training with an isometric test, and a test of strength in whatever exercise movement is going to be trained. at the end of the training period, there's a huge increase in strength in the trained movement, and none in the isometric contraction, which shows that the gains are neuromuscular in nature and do not transfer to a different modality. lots of research on this.


I will come up with a number of references shortly to show that explosive weight training improves sport specific anaerobic power.


you won't find any for trained endurance cyclists


However, for sports with a comparatively moderate degree of speed, and where anaerobic power needs to be improved (and you agreed Ric, that anaerobic power is beneficial even for endurance cyclists), than a weight training program should compromise a small part of the overall cycling program.


anaerobic capacity and power is trained on the bike.


Of course, most of your training should revolve around improving the V02 uptake and LT threshold in the specific sport, cycling, to feed the more powerful engine that you will have from the explosive weight training.

apart from increasing peak power by weight training, which occurs at the detriment of aerobic power, weights don't make you more powerful

ric

cycling, in most cases is an aerobic sport. weight training will NOT make you climb mtns faster. it also WON'T make you TT faster.

weight training for cycling is only beneficial if you concerned with very high power efforts, anything under one minute in duration.
this includes sprints, and short steep hills ridden at maximum intensity for no longer than 1 minute.

simply stated, you are much better off focusing your time on the bike, than in the gym.


here is something to consider if you like sprinting. when doing sprints or jumps i can feel my weak upper body hurting. i need to hit the gym. not only for upper body strength but i also want to increase leg strength for sprinting.

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
In a nutshell, yes. There is no difference in leg strength between a cycling pro and a normal person. The differences are in heart, lungs and muscular adaptions for endurance (not strength).

this is mostly true. but if you were to take a pro road sprinter such as petacchi and then take a sedentary male of the same age and size, and put them on a leg press machine, who do you think is going to push the most for a 1 rep max?
although road cycling is an aerobic sport, there are strength componets to it as well, such as sprinting.

i lifted weights for one winter, 2 years ago. friends of mine could not come close to the weight i was leg pressing.

better yet, i will give a better example.
I am 19, my brother is 21. i am definetely a lot skinnier and more lean than my brother. he is 30lbs more than me at the same height, and all muscle. neither of us lift weights, but he is naturally strong from his job and lifestyle. i am a toothpick compared to him. he is certainately not sendentary. and i am by no means a pro cyclist.
i had him ride my bike with the powertap on it. he was able to hit a max wattage in the 1300s. my best is in the 1700s.

are you going to tell me that cycling doesn't increase your strength over sedentary people?

case closed.