gyming to improve power

Carrera

All I can basically do is try to be as honest as possible and there are times when I've experienced near muscular failure on a climb. It kind of surprises me that not everyone has had the same experience. Of course, the female athlete who rode with me that day had a mountain bike so she had the option of using a lower gear.
Sorry to confuse people with stones and pounds but my guess is she weighed 8 stones. I weigh about 13 and a half. So I was probably carrying 5 stones more than she was. My difficulty wasn't cardio-related but had more to do with driving the bike. Sure, I kept a rhythm going but I'd guess my effort must have been around 85% of max.
The only way I could avoid such mauls I guess would be to lower my gears to mountain bike standards but, as things stand, I find myself pushing pretty hard on the pedals in cases where hills are very steep. Rolling, long hills are a different story. I can do the long, rolling hills in far higher gears and never find myself remotely straining.
It has been said on the forum that Eddy Merckx completed a very steep climb in a very big gear so he must have been stronger than the average guy to do this. I don't know what gear Merckx used but chances are if I attempted to duplicate his performance I'd probably not be able to do it. Either that or I imagine my knees would pack up on me the next day.
However the case may be, though, there is really no major dispute where I'm coming from. The best way to get good at cycling is to cycle. I do squats, of course, but squats won't specifically develop the same kind of strength (or power if you prefer) for the big hills. But what I do get out of squats, I think, is back strength, general conditioning and possibly a rise in natural testosterone levels in the body.
Soon I plan to add cycle relay work to improve my cardio so my sets and reps will be done on the bike once in a while. Of course, I'll make sure I have plenty of easy days to give my knees a break and not overdo things.
I'm in a minority since most cyclists who do choose to weight-train opt for leg-presses instead. LA's coaches don't let him do squats for fear of his knees getting injured.

bikeguy

Ric, please take a look at the following studies showing increases in V02 max and economy from concurrent strength and endurance training as compared to endurance only in trained endurance athletes. This should be applicable to endurance cyclists as their performance is to a great extent dependent on V02 max. This supports my claim that concurrent strength and endurance training can improve V02 max and certainly doesn't hinder aerobic performance.

4. Millet GP, Jaouen B, Borrani F, Candau R. Effects of concurrent endurance and strength training on running economy and .VO(2) kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Aug;34(8):1351-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=12165692

5. Hoff J, Gran A, Helgerud J. Maximal strength training improves aerobic endurance performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2002 Oct;12(5):288-95.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

Sports Med 2003: 33 (7) 530 - 552

"In summary, running economy can be improved with resistance
training and all endurance athletes studied performed resistance
training without causing a reduction in VO2max or other endurance measures, thereby dispelling the myth that resistance training will hinder aerobic performance. However more studies are needed in this area to support these observations in already highly trained runners. All future studies should also always include a measure of performance eg. Improved race time or time trial performance".

If one argues that added mass increases frontal area and since air drag is a big limiting factor in cycling while air drag is not a factor in endurance running, one can equally argue that hauling a bigger body around in running (which has the runners centre of gravity popping up and down like crazy) causes an equal increase in power requirements. However, strength training need not result in any significant increase in mass.

This cyclist (me) in training will keep training with weights.

ric_stern/RST

yep, both those articles are mentioned in the paper i'm writing, and neither of them are proof that weights work in cycling, sorry.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

acoggan

To add to Ric's comments: extrapolating the studies you cited to cycling is not warranted. First, the reported improvements in running economy are likely related to an increase (yes, that's right: an increase) in musculoskeletal stiffness, i.e., are a result of turning your legs into better "springs". This adaptation would not be beneficial during cycling, where the primary physiological factor determining efficiency is instead fiber type. Second, studies showing that "gyming" improves running economy have generally used training programs that are atypical, e.g., rely heavily on pliometrics, explosive movements, etc. I therefore don't believe that these studies support the conclusion that resistance training improves endurance cycling performance.

acoggan

" 2ndly, an increase in ability to lift a load for 1 RM or 10 RM concentrically in an isotonic movement, in general, automatically results in an increase in the amount of force you can generate in an isometric contraction at all points through the ROM of that movement (range of motion) unless you have severe muscle imbalances. Do you, or do you not agree with this statement?"

I don't.


"Why does Jeukendrup in "High Performance Cycling" recommend weight training for endurance cyclists?"

My friend Asker seems to have fallen under the spell of all the "true believers", because even his own data don't support the conclusion that weight training improves endurance cycling performance (despite his best attempt to design the study to show that it does).

"Prove there's a detriment to aerobic performance or at least show theres a good reason to think so."

I suggest you do a PubMed search using "interference effect" as one of your search terms. If you do, you'll see that there are at least a couple of studies showing that, if the training programs are intense enough, trying to train simultaneously using aerobic activities and weights results in smaller improvements than training with one just modality or the other.

"I haven't seen you site one reference through all of this."

Well, you've now cited a grand total of two, and neither one seems to support your conclusions, so I'm not sure why you want to go there.

"Furthermore, you admitted yourself that anaerobic ability may be beneficial to endurance trained cyclists. Weight training is the best way to develop anaerobic ability because it causes hypertrophy of those oh so anaerobically important type IIb muscle fibers, thereby increasing their total muscle glycogen, CP and ATP content. Common knowledge available in most sports science and physiology textbooks."

Hypertrophy, yes, but increases in phosphagen and glycogen stores, only maybe. Be that as it may, I challenge your conclusion that weight training is BEST way for a cyclist to develop anaerobic power or capacity. Indeed, there is no evidence that it is any better - or even just as good - as simply doing high intensity training on the bike.

"Yet you still don't think weight training (targeting areas specific to cycling) is beneficial to endurance cyclists? Why? What is your reasoning, what are your sources??"

Since Ric and I have both grown weary of fighting the misconceptions promulgated by well-known but apparently ill-informed coaches, we are presently writing a review article on the subject of resistance training for cyclists. Until it is finished, you will have to be satisfied with:

1) specificity, and

2) the published scientific literature

as answers to your questions.

acoggan

Of course they have. The mistake you are making is *assuming* that 1) this is due to inadequate strength, and/or 2) weight training is the best form of training to improve your performance (i.e., power output) under such circumstances. That's an easy conclusion to come to, since the feeling of muscular fatigue is comparable to that experienced when lifting weights - however, it is still the wrong conclusion nonetheless.

Roadie_scum

Well said! I think I tried to make this point earlier, but was nowhere near as articulate about it. Thanks resident experts.

Carrera

Weight-training in sports was, more or less, pioneered by the Russians. I have a Russian friend who worked as an engineer in satellite guidance systems and rocket technology e.t.c.
During the Soviet epoch, Russian astronauts specialised in prolonged research in space and, for this reason, long periods would be spent in orbit. The problem that faced astronauts was the notable loss of muscle that took place under these conditions. Therefore, astronauts adopted an aggressive weight-training program that would compensate for the significant muscle loss involved. So, weight-training was pretty fundamental to the Russian Space Program at that time.
Likewise the body had to be pushed to the limit in order to cope with the demands made during all such experiments.
The program Lance Armstrong used was probably designed or influenced by all of this research since demands made in races like the tour de France place massive stresses on the body. This also explains why the doping problem in sports is not going to fade away and why LA dropped so much weight from dehydration on a time trial.
The reasoning behind weight-training is to build and prepare the body for stresses endured during extreme sports competition but everyone is free to weigh up the research and decide.

acoggan

Yes, they are - and those that do just that for a living (such as myself) are of the opinion that resistance training is not beneficial to endurance cycling performance. Since you're presumably looking at the same scientific literature that I am (you are, aren't you?), the question is why you come to a different conclusion.

acoggan

BTW - what the h*** does Armstrong's reported problems with dehydration have to with the question at hand??

darnok

Where can I find information about this forces stuff? Numbers like "24 kg between both legs" are a total mystery to me and seem way too low. What does all this mean?

acoggan

It is a simple enough calculation: power at the crank (in W, or in Nm/s) is equal to the torque (in Nm) multiplied by the angular velocity (in rad/s). Thus, the average force being applied to the pedals is equal to the power divided by 2*Pi*cadence (since there are 2 Pi radians per 360 degrees). Divide by 9.81 (there being 9.81 N/kg) and by the crank length (in m, not mm), and voila - you have the average effective pedal force in kilograms (although technically, kilogram is a unit of mass, not force)!

(See http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/quadrant_analysis/ for details.)

acoggan

Oops! I see I left out a factor of 60 (there being 60 s in 1 min, you have to divide the cadence by that factor to arrive at rad/s). But anyway...

Roadie_scum

Dude.

I'm sorry.

But this post makes no sense.

Look up 'non sequitur' in a latin dictionary.

Can you see the argument now that the reason you are experiencing muscular failure on a hill isn't because you 1 rep max is too low? Is that why you have changed your tack to something that makes less sense again?