gyming to improve power

ric_stern/RST

A coach can help you with a programme and get you on track. The input from a coach is invaluable, and will help move your performance forward. If you contact me at ric@cyclecoach.com, either myself of one of my coaches will be able to help you -- we offer several different levels.

cheers
ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Carrera

The word you quoted comes from "Sequor" "secutus". It's also in the present tense "non sequitur" = it doesn't follow.
Sorry, I probably posted something that may seem a bit vague. My problem is I'm still working nights, trying to get in my riding and then logging on the internet. So, sometimes I forget to put more context into my post.
What I was referring to was the fact the Russian space program had incorporated weight-training specifically for endurance purposes, namely prevention of excessive muscle loss during long periods spent on space stations e.t.c. The same system then became more widely incorporated in sports, namely in East Germany and the U.S.S.R. It was quite common for East German and Russian athletes to use weight-training as an auxiliary aid to various sports, including running and cycling. I know for a fact weight-training was a big part of Ullrich's training, himself being East European.
Therefore, I was drawing a comparison between the demands made on the body in, say, cycling and periods spent in space. In both cases (cycling, swimming, space), there's a tendency to drop mass due to stresses endured by the body. So, I'm pointing out that weight-training hasn't been specifically designed to improve cycling performance but it's more the case of negating any possible loss of power over the long term. That is, cyclists need to maintain their overall power and prevent excessive muscle loss e.t.c.
I also feel the argument over strength and cycling may be overcomplicated a little. It's true anyone can meet the forces to power a bike but strength can be measured in so many different ways. How about overall power? How about increased testosterone?
Again, boxers do skipping, road-running, situps and various activities. None of these has been specifically proven to help a boxer be a better boxer. Why not just spar or box? What happens is, at the end of the day, it's hoped all the training as a whole will add up.
I'll need to take more time to read some of Ric's published studies and I'm sorry I haven't been able to go through these more thoroughly. I have this eternal problem of trying to do a 70 hour working week and keep up with all my other activities but I'll do my best to get to grips with the arguments raised.
Cheers folks.

Roadie_scum

Ain't that true...



Happens to all of us.




It may or may not be correct that Eastern bloc nations incorporated weight training into their athletes programs. I'm pretty sure that a lot of them got their primary competitive advantage from performance enhancing drugs, though. I'm not sure how it is relevant that they did or did not use a particular training method.

How do you know Ullrich's training? Are you his coach? Did you see him lifting weights? Or is it just that all East Europeans go to the gym because it's in their culture ever since the space program?

Weight training in the off season won't really help your cycling, but it may help your strength - if you want to improve this to increase your general level of fitness and performance in other sports, fair enough. Weight training to build muscle 'wasted' won't improve cycling performance.



Astronauts drop muscle because of a lack of stresses on their body. That is, they don't have to support their weight, so their muscles waste. Cyclists use cycling specific muscle almost daily. This is quite enough activity to maintain that muscle if you eat properly. The power most cyclists are concerned with is endurance power, and that will increase - not decrease - over the long term, provided proper training is followed. Weight training has nothing to do with it.



How about the maximum force that can be generated by a muscle?

Overall power? Over what time frame? Greater than two minutes and strength won't come into it.



The specific attributes that need to be trained for boxing are very different to those that need to be trained for cycling. Some of the elements that are required include sport specific skill (drills, sparring, etc), aerobic fitness and capacity for recovery (road running would help), strength, stability, etc. It is far from remarkable that different modalities are used to train these capacities. Similarly for a cyclist, different kinds of training sessions are prescribed to train different capacities - very few coaches would advocate training only by racing. The reason the sum of the activities the boxer completes make him/her better are that they specifically train capacities required from his/her sport. The same is true for the cyclist, and strength is not a capacity the cyclist needs.



Thank god I'm a student! Good luck with it.

Carrera

I'm afraid that was one of life's strange coincidences that happen every so often. Had you quoted a phrase in French or Greek you'd have caught me out. However, apart from cycling, I happen to be a Latin student (been at it for several years). I guess most people would find that a bit boring, though, but I'd kind of love to take my bike to Italy, do some riding and view Pompei while I'm there. So, if anyone wants a Latin inscription on a T-shirt or bike, I'll do my best.
Enough of that.
Ric obviously has a big advantage in sports science since this is his particular field of research. I'll also have to take time to re-read some of these posts and your own points till I can get back to you all.
I don't think the gap is so huge, though. Both yourself and Rick have said before that some weight-training is O.K. and your main argument has been that strength-development via weights won't improve cycling. But I think most of the pro-weight group hasn't specifically argued that former view. We all know that if muscle was the key to cycling, Arnold S would be on the podium in France and not Lance A.
Even so, let's consider that men have a very slight edge over women in cycling because men are technically stronger (all around strength such as tendons, ligaments, muscle e.t.c. . One expert suggested the best way for a female cyclist to beat a male cyclist would be to spin and work in lower gears, taking advantage of her lighter bodyweight. The gap is really very small in cycling so women can do really well in the sport.
Therefore, if overall, proportional strength gives a slight advantage to males over females, wouldn't this suggest that some degree of strength does make a slight difference? Or more importantly, the fact women are recommended to adopt a different style and spin would indicate that, in cycling, technique and approach tend to compensate for any strength deficit.
For example, my boss is female and used to cycle for a big cycling manufacturer till arthritis knocked her out of competition. She has climbed one particular hill I can't get up myself (there's only one). The difference in strength between us must be phenomenal. Put her under a 200 lb barbell for a squat and she'd be flattened under it since she only weighs about 8 stone max to my 13 and a half. Yet she was a good climber and an excellent cyclist.
I never asked her but, at a guess, I'll bet she worked in lower gears and, as Ric pointed out, her ratio of strength to size may be higher than my own. This is why I explained that muscle power has been a factor for me in the past on a 25% climb - I have to lug a lot of weight uphill as opposed to my female boss's 8 stones. Plus I work in bigger gears.
However, I often feel there are various ways to climb a big hill and strength needn't be a factor for some cyclists. This is important to consider. Some guys churn their way up a hill slow and steady. Other guys honk their way up, banging their bodyweight from side to side and using terrific technique. Other guys power their way uphill using their legs more.
Oops I have to go now but I'll try and get back on some of these points later and read some of Ric's technical points. Cheers.

ric_stern/RST

i've said that weight training will improve performance in untrained or low fitness groups (i.e., if you [endurance] race or have the potential to race it won't work). additionally, i've also said it'll improve performance in track sprinters.

I haven't said that "some" weight training is okay, because that sounds like you're saying that for anyone some is okay.



as i stated before, this isn't the reason (at least in cycling) -- it's to do with cardiovascular, and haematology.





stop confusing power and strength. i've never mentioned anything about someone's strength ratio. power and strength aren't interchangeable, they're two different issues.



strength isn't important for anyone (in general in this context). riding up a hill is way below the maximum force you can generate. it's to do with your power output, if you struggle uphill, it's because you're not fit enough and can't generate the power required to go at the velocity you need, and thus, your cadence is too low. if you're not fit enough, increasing your strength won't help, you need to improve your cardiovascular system -- increasing your VO2max and LT. these are trained on the bike.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

the brother

There is a whole list of reasons why women are at a disadvantage to men if they stand on the start line together.
higher body fat %(generally)
lower blood volume
lower blood Hg content
lower VO2max.
Infact women tend to be closer, relatively, to mens performance in the power events like sprints than they are in the longer events(for running anyway, I don't have the figures for cycling).

Women and men are not a good comparison to use to back up your argument. Sorry.

Having said that. I have been wondering about the cadence side of things in relation to strength. Check out the thread on cadence,strength and economy.

Carrera

"How do you know Ullrich's training? Are you his coach? Did you see him lifting weights? Or is it just that all East Europeans go to the gym because it's in their culture ever since the space program?"

There was a full article on Jan Ullrich in procycling.com in their pre-tour magazine. It pointed out that Ullrich started out as a typical East European where sport was heavily influenced by the old Soviet system. Yes, it clarifies he lifted weights and lifted pretty hard at that.

I hope to be able to get back to some of these points soon as I can but I'm absolutely swamped with work and even finding it hard to steal time on the bike. I was forced to rain in wind and pouring rain the other day since the weather over here is lousy at present. In between that, it's just filling in for other folks who are off work on holiday or ill.

I'll read through more of these points when I can and answer some of the questions you guys raised if I can sort out some answers.

gntlmn

I had to lift weights recently to build up my shoulder after an injury. I lifted only a 25 lb dumbell for a lot of reps and did some incline pushups and back exercises against the wall. I did this for 2 weeks, and then quit because my shoulder was feeling pretty good again. But I gained 5 lbs. I was cycling the whole time. It happens every time I lift even small weights. It seems that I am in a semi muscle starvation mode when I ride without lifting. This is why it only takes a little bit of weights to pack on the weight.

I can't believe this would help me in distance cycling, even if it all went to my legs. 5 lbs is a lot more weight to carry over the mountains. By the way, I am rather naturally muscular. When I try to keep my weight down, I'm trying to keep the muscle off for the most part. I think a lot of top cylists, like Lance Armstrong, Greg Lemond, Davis Phinney have had similar problems. I'm sure there are many more.

Mex

Nice forums. I'm a new member here and I thought I'd give my 2 cents on this topic, well part of it. First a bit of info about me: I'm a casual bike rider. I ride both road and mountain (prefer road). I lift weights as well. I'm 5'5", 205lbs. I can deadlift 420, squat 375 and bench 275. Obviously I'm not the typical bike rider.

I can't really comment on if weights can improve power. I really do not know enough about the subject to really make any kind of case. I have personal experience but that really doesn't count. I would like to comment on weight training and weight gain.

Weight training alone does not make you bigger/heavier. This is a myth and there are tons of articles/studies to prove this is a myth. Weight gain/loss is a function of diet. If you are in caloric surplus, you gain weight. If you are in caloric deficit, you lose weight. Exercise plays an important role because the type of exercise you do will determine what kind of weight you gain/lose.

For a person to gain 5 lbs in 2 weeks is fairly impressive. Considering it takes roughly an excess of 3500 calories to gain 1 pound of muscle or fat, that's an impressive amount of food to be eating. That's an extra 2500 cals on top of what he eats to maintain his weight. Makes me wonder what he was eating during those 2 weeks.

The case I can make for lifting is this: you will build a sturdier body. Stronger muscles, joints and bones.

Carrera

The skill lies in guaging how much weight you can gain to your advantage or disadvantage.
I'm the opposite of you since muscle mass doesn't cling to my body. In fact my problem is that I risk losing too much weight when I cycle a lot and I, therefore, lose power if I'm not careful. A tour de France would strip me to the bone within 3 days.
Even when I continue to weight-train and cycle a lot, I find I drop heaps of muscle. This just happens naturally as a consequence of my body-type and cycling.
When I first started sports I did so since I was really skinny at school. In order to gain weight I had to eat a lot more, train heavy with weights and sleep sufficiently. All my weight gain was kind of artificial. Therefore, when I cycle hard my body gladly obliges by returning to the natural ectomorph state I was born with genetically. Lately I've dropped so much muscle mass it's amazing. despite weight-training.
Maybe I'm built better for cycling since I have dense musculature but light bones. I may weigh around 180 pounds but little of this is made up of bone and I'm hardly muscle bound at present either. Most of the weight is muscle around my legs and glutes as things stand.
You're right about Lance Armstrong. he confesses in his book he's a natural athlete and, most probably a mesomorph. Muscle clings to his body quite naturally and he had to work against nature to keep himself lean. Upper body weight-training for LA could prove fatal.

Aztec

5 lbs in 2 weeks? Not of muscle tissue. Zero chance of that. Picture 5 lbs of lean steak... that's a LOT of meat. Much more likely is a combo of water for some reason, a small amount of muscle, a little fat, and the timeliness of when you were weighed (i.e., you were dehydrated and 'empty' when weighed 'before', then weighed 'after' full of water and food and nowhere near any time when you had ridden).

gntlmn

Long ago, I was 5'7" and weighed 151 lbs. I could bench 255 lbs. I was leery about trying squats and dead lift, but I did hack squats with a lot of 45 plates. I could shrug 550 lbs for about 12 reps at a time. I also did sets of 15 pullups with a 25 lb dumbell between my legs. I kept lifting and got quite a bit stronger, but I didn't try to max out anymore because I didn't want to injure myself. There was no need. When I decided I wanted to gain, I put on 25 lbs in 6 months by eating more carbohydrates. The weight gain was mostly muscle. At the time, I wasn't cycling. I kept that weight for quite a while, and then I started cycling because I tired of weight training over the years, and I enjoy much more the fresh air and outdoor exercise.

My weight went down to 143 at one point, and I think this is my ideal cycling weight. But I laid off for quite a long time, and it went back up again. Now I'm about 158 or so. I'd like to get back down to the 143. Believe me, you cycle a lot better at the lower weight. I have been both ways, and the difference is enormous.

For example, one time I went into the gym while I weighed 143 and put the stairmaster on the top level and stepped for 2 1/2 hours without holding on for support--in other words, with my hands free. Big, musclebound guys just can't do that. They would try and fail because the weight they carry is not counterbalanced by extra aerobic power. If you put on muscle, you do not gain aerobic power. Your heart/lungs remain the same size and function. Also, it's harder to stay cool with extra body mass. You get miserably hot and fail while the slightly built guy looks like he's taking a stroll in the park.

Now that my muscles have been at one point much bigger, it takes virtually no effort to bulk up, even when I don't want that to happen. So this is what happens now. The old adage, "muscle memory" seems to come into play.

gntlmn

It's the fat that takes a lot of Calories per lb, not the muscle. Fat is composed of 9 Calories per gram. Protein is 6 Calories per gram. Furthermore, muscle is composed of not just protein, but also muscle glycogen displaced by water. It doesn't take much calories for a lb of muscle, especially when your musculature is in a depleted mode.

I guess for you to imagine how fast this can happen, don't imagine putting on 5 lbs as you are now. First imagine yourself losing 50 lbs of bodyweight, and then imagine putting on 5 lbs from there. Don't you agree that it would go on right away? I suppose if you never do this, you will never know.

gntlmn

Your lean steak has been dripped of the fluids before it goes into the shrink wrapped package you look through at the grocery store. See my discussion in the above post.