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.

but the poster said "one of the best resistance exercise for better cycling", so as far as i'm aware we're not having a discussion on hypertrophy!!


That is true.....but we could start one!

Newtons aside, I still disagree with you (respectively of course).

If nothing else, anaerobic training creates a psychological tolerance to lactic acid burn.

No hill feels worse than my last rep of my last set of squats.

i didn't anywhere say that anaerobic training wasn't useful. thus, i'm not sure if you're suggesting that weights is a good substitute for anaerobic training (it isn't) or whether the short hill i was talking about in the previous reply was an anaerobic effort (which it wasn't as i assumed he didn't start from stationary as queried).

ric

i'm not sure if you're suggesting that weights is a good substitute for anaerobic training (it isn't) ric

Ric, weight training IS anaerobic.

Take it from The Sweet Science (http://www.rossboxing.com/thegym/thegym3.htm), which also depends primarily upon aerobics/conditioning.

Ric, if you recall my former posts you'll remember me sharing that aerobic fitness is my weak point. I've been hammering my training lately to try and deal with that problem.
However, my legs are stronger than many cyclists I ride with due to my background of very intense squatting and a disproportional amount of climbing in fairly big gears. If you have stronger leg muscles you can accelerate in higher gears. Some folks can accomplish the same efficiency in lower gears and higher cadence. However, that doesn't mean leg strength is useless or not relevant.
Today, for example, I was working on lots of climbing in big gears. This involves a heck of a lot of force, standing up and banging your way uphill. It involves grabbing the gear shifters tight and pulling. Physically it's as demanding as heavy squatting in my opinion. I find cycling can be damned hard on the body at times. I feel it in my body and my overall endurance.
Some cyclists develop other styles that suit themselves and excel with lower gears so they don't need strength.




i'm not sure what it is you don't understand, but none of this is to do with strength. if you out rode someone on a hill and didn't start the hill ffrom stationary after resting for a good few minutes, and the hill was longer than about 30-secs then the reason you beat him was that you're more *aerobically* fit than he is. as i've mentioned on numerous occasions to you, the forces are really quite low in cycling, and way below anything you'd squat, leg press, or lift. maybe as low as ~ 250 Newtons (~ 25 kg) between both of your legs.

ric

Ric, weight training IS anaerobic.

Take it from The Sweet Science (http://www.rossboxing.com/thegym/thegym3.htm), which also depends primarily upon aerobics/conditioning.

Ric knows more than the shmoes on that site. He is one of the best qualified and most considered sources of information about sports science and training on the net (that I've been able to find). This doesn't necessarily mean he's right about every single thing, but I'm with him on this one, and I think you might benefit if you re-read this thread (where all the points you raise have already been discussed), and then, if you continue to disagree, raise counterarguments instead of just referring to material which you don't necessarily comprehend yourself.

By the way Ric, I'm still interested to know if you asked Andy Coggan about whether the generally stated limits for metabolism of exogenous CHO (60g/h, 75g/h?) apply to everyone or if elites or the genetically strange can metabolise more. Confidence limits? Std dev? Anyway, if you've got time I'd be interested...

instead of just referring to material which you don't necessarily comprehend yourself

Wow, we are certainly living up to our moniker, aren't we?

Wow, we are certainly living up to our moniker, aren't we?

I'm not saying you don't understand it, just that you haven't demonstrated
(i) that you do understand it
(ii) that the material you linked to acts as a counterargument to what Ric has said
(iii) that it has any relevance whatsoever (we're talking about cyclists not boxers).

As for the insult... it's not my job to help you work through your personal issues. I'm sorry your mother didn't hug you enough. Just cry, man. Just cry.

I wasn't insulted... just taken back by your haughty snarkiness, is all.

Like I said, you're well named.

I wasn't insulted... just taken back by your haughty snarkiness, is all.

Like I said, you're well named.

Look, I don't care what you think of me. All that I ask is that you engage in considered discussion and flesh out your arguments rather than just posting to information which *seems* irrelevant when you don't explain its import, and bring up arguments which are addressed earlier.

Now, are you going to engage in this topic or are you just going to give me the run around again?

Look, I don't care what you think of me. All that I ask is that you engage in considered discussion and flesh out your arguments rather than just posting to information which *seems* irrelevant when you don't explain its import, and bring up arguments which are addressed earlier.

Now, are you going to engage in this topic or are you just going to give me the run around again?

I apologize if I failed to make it clear.

Basically, boxing is alot like bicycling (or basketball/soccer), in the sense that it's mostly an aerobic load on the body. But boxing/B-Ball and soccer players have ALL improved with a supplementary weight training regiment because all of those sports (including cycling) also involve bursts in the anaerobic zone - and weight training helps in recovery (I'm talking about immediate recovery, not after exercise).

Via other threads, it's apparent Ric is certainly knowledgeable - just not infallible.

Ask Lance why he's a part-time gymrat.

I apologize if I failed to make it clear.

Basically, boxing is alot like bicycling (or basketball/soccer), in the sense that it's mostly an aerobic load on the body. But boxing/B-Ball and soccer players have ALL improved with a supplementary weight training regiment because all of those sports (including cycling) also involve bursts in the anaerobic zone - and weight training helps in recovery (I'm talking about immediate recovery, not after exercise).

Via other threads, it's apparent Ric is certainly knowledgeable - just not infallible.

Ask Lance why he's a part-time gymrat.

All the sports you've mentioned require power, strength and agility in a way that endurance cycling does not. Weight training *may* help short term anaerobic recovery, but I can't see it would be better than training this attribute on the bike. (And I'd want to see some actual evidence that it does). Any gains made in anaerobic recovery (if they exist) will likely be outweighed by the detrimental effects of:
(i) an inability to recover from other training loads when weights are incorporated into a training program
(ii) loss of oxidative enzymes and capillary density
(iii) the interference effect which prevents full adaption to either strength or aerobic work when performed concurrently.

I apologize if I failed to make it clear.

Basically, boxing is alot like bicycling (or basketball/soccer), in the sense that it's mostly an aerobic load on the body. But boxing/B-Ball and soccer players have ALL improved with a supplementary weight training regiment because all of those sports (including cycling) also involve bursts in the anaerobic zone - and weight training helps in recovery (I'm talking about immediate recovery, not after exercise).


whilst for e.g., boxing may be an aerobic sport, you obviously need to weight train in that get stronger/bigger. there's no discussion there. we're unlikely to (e.g.) Tyler box someone like Mike Tyson (assuming they were the same weight category). you're looking at two completely different sports here. if you're unable to see that then i have a pair of spectacles i can lend you ;-)



Via other threads, it's apparent Ric is certainly knowledgeable - just not infallible.

Ask Lance why he's a part-time gymrat.


i have no idea how weight training would help recovery or what you mean by that? if i went training on the bike, came home and did some weights i'd be even more knackered than usual. if you mean that weights as adjunct at some other time helped in recovery, you'd be wrong, because recovery from intense supramaximal exercise (and anything less intense) is entirely dependent upon aerobic metabolism.

just because LA does weights doesn't mean anything. we don't know if he's good because of or inspite of those weights. if you apply such a discussion logically in an n=1 situation, you can come up with all sorts of really stupid ideas, e.g., you can only get good if you have cancer -- LA had it so it must work, or some pros take drugs so we should too (i'm not implying LA takes drugs i have no idea).

Sure, weights *do* increase peak power (e.g., 5-sec sprint) and may help with slightly longer, but short bursts of activity, however, they can *ONLY* help if you gain in muscle cross sectional area and thus gain weight. You'll then be heavier which will affect you going uphill, and you will have also decreased your muscle mitochondria and capillary density resulting in a decreased aerobic system. the increase in ower you get won't help in longer periods of activity, and will decrease the power that can be generated.

if you become stronger without an increase in muscle cross sectional area then there will be no transfer to a different modality. under neuromuscular adaptations the gains are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

allied to this, the gains that can be made for an endurance rider in weights for the above brief efforts can be matched and exceeded by on the bike training adaptations.

there's simply no evidence and no reason to think that weights would increase performance in trained/elite/pro endurance racing cyclists

ric

only if there's an increase in muscle cross sectional area, and then you have more mass to lug up hill. on the other hand you'd be better off doing some sprint training on your bike, you'll need to do it anyway.

ric
Strength can be gained from weightlifting without there being an increase in the muscle cross sectional area. This is do to nervous system adaptions.

The issue about strength training and cycling isn't just about performance. Most cyclists have overdeveloped quads compared to hamstrings. This imbalance can lead to knee injury. By strengthing the hamstrings we can correct this imbalance.

Strength can be gained from weightlifting without there being an increase in the muscle cross sectional area. This is do to nervous system adaptions.


maybe you should bother to read the thread!


The issue about strength training and cycling isn't just about performance. Most cyclists have overdeveloped quads compared to hamstrings. This imbalance can lead to knee injury. By strengthing the hamstrings we can correct this imbalance.

right...

maybe you should bother to read the thread!

Maybe our expectations are unreasonable Ric.



right...

By which I think you mean wrong... :)

Maybe our expectations are unreasonable Ric.





By which I think you mean wrong... :)


:) doesn't seem to much to read the thread, after all it's not that long!!

maybe you should bother to read the thread!


Are you saying that one can't increase his/her strength without hypertrophy (larger muscle cross-section)?

Are you saying that one can't increase his/her strength without hypertrophy (larger muscle cross-section)?

check 5 posts above your query!
ric

Are you saying that one can't increase his/her strength without hypertrophy (larger muscle cross-section)?

Ric: just above your query -


"if you become stronger without an increase in muscle cross sectional area then there will be no transfer to a different modality. under neuromuscular adaptations the gains are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained."

maybe you should bother to read the thread!
I did, lots of outdated misinformation


right...
yes