gyming to improve power

ric_stern/RST

best resistance exercise for cycling...? Unless you happen to be a track sprinter/500-m TT/1-km TT specialist, or have some form of functional disability then weights/resistance training isn't useful for endurance cycling performance, and will likely be detrimental to performance.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

ed073

for cycling? No.
for muscle hypertrophy? Yes.

It's my bodybuilding side coming though...SLDL is best hamstring exercise I've come across.

ric_stern/RST

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!!

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

coolworx

Well Ric, Lance disagrees.

While Lance's weight training program increases his lean body mass a little bit, the benefits of the strength improvements far outweigh the very small amount of lean body mass he gains. In truth, most of the gains he makes in the gym are due to neuromuscular development, as opposed to hypertrophy. Neuromuscular development refers to the nervous system's capacity for recruiting muscle fibers for action, while hypertrophy refers to increasing the size of muscle fibers. This neuromuscular development plays a larger role than hypertrophy in Lance's weight training program because of the amount of time he spends in the gym and the types of exercises he performs.

Source

danielwilgocki

I looked at my magic 8 ball and it told me: "The Correct answer lies somewhere inbetween."

Seriously tho. I hardly feel that we can argue that weight training will or will not help someones cycling without first finding out what kind of shape that person is in.
Additionally, Where does one begin to draw the line of being "fit enough?"

I bet you Lance won't tell you that he's "as fit as he needs to be." These guys are always looking for ways to improve every facet of physical fitness they can.

ric_stern/RST

and, thus, as the gains are neuromuscular they don't transfer to cycling performance, irrespective of what may or may not be written on that site.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

ric_stern/RST

We don't need to "argue" (it's actually a discussion), there's just no evidence it's beneficial in trained (endurance) cyclists, and no reason to think that there would be (a benefit).

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Carrera

I find when I climb with some riders who haven't weight-trained, they seem to slow down a lot on the very steep points of a hill. At this point I'm usually able to overtake.
I came across a rider the other day who seemed a little over confident. He overtook me and yelled "goodbye" as he rode past. It was really cool as we were approaching quite a steep hill and he must have thought he could easily maintain his lead. When he got to the hill, the steeper it got the more he slowed down. I was right behind and I realised I could probably treble his pace. So, I sprinted past him all the way to the top. He cussed at me as well - which I didn't think was the right attitude.
I defiinitely put this down to squatting in the past, plus loads of work climbing on my bike. I fear fast riders on the flat or descents but I see hills as friendly terrain - the steeper the better as for me it's an advantage.
I'm not saying squatting will make you a better cyclist but what it can do is determine what strengths and weaknesses you may have on a bike. While you gain an advantage here, you may lose an advantage there.

ric_stern/RST

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

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

coolworx

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.

ed073

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

ric_stern/RST

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

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

coolworx

Ric, weight training IS anaerobic.

Take it from The Sweet Science, which also depends primarily upon aerobics/conditioning.

Carrera

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.