weight training

lancer_dancer01 said:

How often do u guys lift weights. With my training schedule i am lifting about 3 times a week, and do 3 sets of 15 reps with about 70% of my maximum weight. My goal is to lose about 10 lbs before racing season, i am currently 150. do u think i am lifting too much to lose this weight?

If you're training for endurance cycling, you probably shouldn't be lifting at all. Read "gyming to improve power", the sticky at the top of the board.

lancer_dancer01 said:

How often do u guys lift weights. With my training schedule i am lifting about 3 times a week, and do 3 sets of 15 reps with about 70% of my maximum weight. My goal is to lose about 10 lbs before racing season, i am currently 150. do u think i am lifting too much to lose this weight?

Why would you be doing resistance training at all if your goal is to lose weight? That's not the optimum way to lose bodyweight.

If you want to lose bodyfat, then one can do resistance training keeping in mind that they will gain lean body mass while losing bodyfat. The reason behind this is because muscle is a very inefficient tissue and burns quite a few calories. The more lean muscle mass one has the more calories they burn even while at rest. This is only if the diet is kept under control, however.

Edit: Also, 3 sets of 15 reps 3x per week is not a very optimum way to train unless one is at the beginning stage and/or is very deconditioned for lifting. Being deconditioned can also include a lengthy layoff.

Perhaps this describes your situation but after a break in period (3 months for some, 6 for others), such training will most likely not be effective anymore as you will adapt to the routine and the number or reps will be too high.

Over time as one's training age increases in order to stimulate an adaptive response (larger stronger muscles) they will need to lower the number of reps they perform and increase the intensity (the amount of weight as a % of 1 rep max). At these higher intensities it is not effective to train each muscle group 3x per week as there just won't be enough recouperation time.

The exception to this is Olympic lifters who may train certain lifts anywhere from 2 to 10 times per week. They are training lifts, however, and are training other factors (such as technique) rather than just trying to increase mass.

Also, as a beginner one will notice quite a bit of an increase in the amount of weight they can lift, however, much of this adaptation is neural drive and not due to increased muscle proteins. These adaptations take time.

Best not to lift weights. It's all been covered before.

The only thing that can provide the right resistance for hypertrophy is probably power starts or stomps.

If, as you say, you want to lose weight, then just ride! Just avoid that catabolism -- she's a cruel one. ;-)

lancer_dancer01 said:

How often do u guys lift weights. With my training schedule i am lifting about 3 times a week, and do 3 sets of 15 reps with about 70% of my maximum weight. My goal is to lose about 10 lbs before racing season, i am currently 150. do u think i am lifting too much to lose this weight?

I do sets of 20-30 reps at about 50% of my max. This gives me a good balance of strength and endurance without excessive muscle gain. I find that this lifting also greatly enhances weight loss.

So far as we are aware, there is no evidence that can specifically prove weight-training improves endurance cycling performance. Of course, for a novice (as I was not too long ago) it would seem logical to assume that having stronger legs means you can pedal faster - but it doesn't really work quite like that.
Funnily enough, my legs are actually weaker now than when I started cycling but I can turn a bigger gear now than before. By that I mean that in the days when I squatted 300 pounds for deep reps, I couldn't turn as big a gear uphill as I can today. Yet today I can only squat 200 pounds for reps so this is quite mysterious. I'm weaker on squats but push fairly huge gears and with no knee problems at all.

Catabolic_Jones said:

Best not to lift weights. It's all been covered before.

The only thing that can provide the right resistance for hypertrophy is probably power starts or stomps.

If, as you say, you want to lose weight, then just ride! Just avoid that catabolism -- she's a cruel one. ;-)

Carrera said:

So far as we are aware, there is no evidence that can specifically prove weight-training improves endurance cycling performance. Of course, for a novice (as I was not too long ago) it would seem logical to assume that having stronger legs means you can pedal faster - but it doesn't really work quite like that.
Funnily enough, my legs are actually weaker now than when I started cycling but I can turn a bigger gear now than before. By that I mean that in the days when I squatted 300 pounds for deep reps, I couldn't turn as big a gear uphill as I can today. Yet today I can only squat 200 pounds for reps so this is quite mysterious. I'm weaker on squats but push fairly huge gears and with no knee problems at all.

There may not be definitive evidence that weight-training directly correlating weight-training to endurance training of any kind but, anecdotally, I have seen in myself and fellow athletes that weight-training, especially the type that is similar to the movement for your sport, pays tremendous dividends when do intelligently and as a supplement to training. For endurance, you have to keep the reps up but not so much as to detract from the cycling. The example of squatting more may show that other aspects of your condition compensate for weaker quads and if you could, in fact, squat 300 now you may be even stronger on the bike.

runnerj said:

There may not be definitive evidence that weight-training directly correlating weight-training to endurance training of any kind but, anecdotally, I have seen in myself and fellow athletes that weight-training, especially the type that is similar to the movement for your sport, pays tremendous dividends when do intelligently and as a supplement to training. For endurance, you have to keep the reps up but not so much as to detract from the cycling. The example of squatting more may show that other aspects of your condition compensate for weaker quads and if you could, in fact, squat 300 now you may be even stronger on the bike.

I suggest you take a look at the "gyming to improve power" thread at the top of this page. This comes up pretty often. Please read the discussion there; if you feel you have something new to add that isn't covered there, I look forward to hearing it.

So far as I'm aware, no actual evidence has been presented on this forum that weight-training improves cycling performance per se. As Rick and Michael pointed out too, if you're not careful weights can actually damage your cycling performance.
Of course, we ought to bear in mind that Lance Armstrong claims weights has helped him but this is basically speculation and Lance's own opinion. It's the specific scientific proof that is lacking.
These days my own position is that weights probably don't directly improve your cycling and can even screw you up if you're not careful. However, some pro-cyclists do use weights in the off-season to regain lost muscle (i.e. to restore what they have lost during heavy competition).
I don't think my former 300 pound squats would help me at all endurance wise. The opposite in fact. It would be too taxing on my system. Climbing big hills in small gears would be better for fitness.

runnerj said:

There may not be definitive evidence that weight-training directly correlating weight-training to endurance training of any kind but, anecdotally, I have seen in myself and fellow athletes that weight-training, especially the type that is similar to the movement for your sport, pays tremendous dividends when do intelligently and as a supplement to training. For endurance, you have to keep the reps up but not so much as to detract from the cycling. The example of squatting more may show that other aspects of your condition compensate for weaker quads and if you could, in fact, squat 300 now you may be even stronger on the bike.

Hmmm, I don't want to sound mean, but newbies should surf the forums and check out the sticky threads.

It's amazing how many people are so misinformed about resistence training. I see this topic posted all the time on other bike forums too. (I hope no one takes this as bashing)

velomanct said:

Hmmm, I don't want to sound mean, but newbies should surf the forums and check out the sticky threads.

It's amazing how many people are so misinformed about resistence training. I see this topic posted all the time on other bike forums too. (I hope no one takes this as bashing)

Uhm, you mean like that thread entitled "gyming to improve power" that's sitting right on top of everything? 🙄 Hard to miss isn't it. So is the secret search button.

Weights definitely have their place. Just not in training for endurance events.

runnerj said:

There may not be definitive evidence that weight-training directly correlating weight-training to endurance training of any kind but, anecdotally, I have seen in myself and fellow athletes that weight-training, especially the type that is similar to the movement for your sport, pays tremendous dividends when do intelligently and as a supplement to training. For endurance, you have to keep the reps up but not so much as to detract from the cycling. The example of squatting more may show that other aspects of your condition compensate for weaker quads and if you could, in fact, squat 300 now you may be even stronger on the bike.

I speculate from your handle - 'runnerj' - that you are or have been a runner before you were a cyclist. There is scientific evidence that weights improve running performance but the same is not true for cycling. Whilst some training concepts transfer between running and cycling, not all of them do.

From everything I've read about weight training and cycling, (not only in this forum) it seems that working on the legs in the gym does not improve your cycling, in fact may have the reverse effect. As for upper body work, I imagine that won't improve your capabilities on the bike either, unless of course you have a very weak upper body or a definite imbalance between upper and lower.

Having said all this, if cycling is not everything in your life (and perhaps you are in your 60s like me) and you have nothing to prove, only to see an improvement (on the bike) for your own self satisfaction, then like me there is no harm in going to the gym 3 times a week and pumping iron. As RD said, it helps to impress the ladies (and at my age, I need all the help I can get 😉 )

Sorry if this all sounds very amateurish and is not of the high standard reply expected of this forum's users. But for what it's worth that's my opinion.

I still weight train about once every 4 days. Of course, a workout with weights is a tremendous shock to the body compared with a cycle ride. I can ride a bike for nearly 3 hours and wake up in the morning feeling fine but weights sessions require I take the next day off as my muscles will usually feel stiff.
The unsual factor here is that I'm now so much weaker in the gym than in my old days as a bodybuilder. My strength has diminished a heck of a lot now I focus on cycling.
O.K. my squats are still not too bad (about 225 pounds for 3 sets of deep squats) but my bench press has really gone down.
Still, what I lost in strength I made up for by increased fitness so it's a decent trade-off.

Sillyoldtwit said:

From everything I've read about weight training and cycling, (not only in this forum) it seems that working on the legs in the gym does not improve your cycling, in fact may have the reverse effect. As for upper body work, I imagine that won't improve your capabilities on the bike either, unless of course you have a very weak upper body or a definite imbalance between upper and lower.

Having said all this, if cycling is not everything in your life (and perhaps you are in your 60s like me) and you have nothing to prove, only to see an improvement (on the bike) for your own self satisfaction, then like me there is no harm in going to the gym 3 times a week and pumping iron. As RD said, it helps to impress the ladies (and at my age, I need all the help I can get 😉 )

Sorry if this all sounds very amateurish and is not of the high standard reply expected of this forum's users. But for what it's worth that's my opinion.

Sillyoldtwit said:

From everything I've read about weight training and cycling, (not only in this forum) it seems that working on the legs in the gym does not improve your cycling, in fact may have the reverse effect. As for upper body work, I imagine that won't improve your capabilities on the bike either, unless of course you have a very weak upper body or a definite imbalance between upper and lower.

Having said all this, if cycling is not everything in your life (and perhaps you are in your 60s like me) and you have nothing to prove, only to see an improvement (on the bike) for your own self satisfaction, then like me there is no harm in going to the gym 3 times a week and pumping iron. As RD said, it helps to impress the ladies (and at my age, I need all the help I can get 😉 )

Sorry if this all sounds very amateurish and is not of the high standard reply expected of this forum's users. But for what it's worth that's my opinion.

Couldn't agree more 😄 I go to the gym usually about 3 times a week as I enjoy lifting weights and for the added satisfaction that its a positive input for my body overall.

As long as I can still hang with the younger guys (I'm almost 50) I'll keep 😉 going to the gym (I've never been a big fan of the scrawny upper body look anyway 😉

I don't find that lifting weights adversely affects my performance on the bike (I actually feel it helps) but then again, I'm not aiming to ride the TDF either :p

Carrera said:

Of course, we ought to bear in mind that Lance Armstrong claims weights has helped him but this is basically speculation and Lance's own opinion. It's the specific scientific proof that is lacking.
However, some pro-cyclists do use weights in the off-season to regain lost muscle (i.e. to restore what they have lost during heavy competition).

Some thoughts on this topic:
1) Regarding Lance and other pro cyclists using weights...these guys have the best of the best when it comes to coaches, so the weight training that is being prescribed for them is appropriate in intensity, duration, total volume, and timing. Please read on before writing a rebuttal to this point...

2) The studies that were looking at ECP and weight training were done on varied populations, during different phases of periodization, and by (in my honest opinion) relatively inexperienced researchers. By "inexperienced" I mean researchers who do not have a specific background in strength and conditioning. I just don't see their [the researchers] qualifications in being able to take a varied population and devise a periodized program by taking into consideration all of the strength training principles (i.e. specificity, individuality, progressive overload, recovery, among others) In short, I think the studies are all quite flawed and quite useless for trained populations like most of the cyclists in this forum. I think they are quite useless in general actually.

3) These studies cannot devise a general program for a small cohort of subjects and expect to see results that can be generalized to a larger population.

4) Now, we see guys like Lance and other pros who use weight training for a multitude of reasons. Like I stated before, they have the best of the best for coaches. Something has to be said for the benefits of weight training. This begs the question of:
If we completely remove weight training from, for example, Lance's yearly training program, would we see a decrease in his performance in races?
I cannot see how anyone can say no to this. Although, I think it would be an interesting study. 1 pro on a top-notch strength & conditioning program completely removed from any weight training for 1 year. See what happens.
Keep in mind that by performance, I am not only talking about power at threshold, fatigue, time trial performance, etc., but am also talking about other benefits associated with weight training such as developing muscular balance, bone mineral density improvements, injury prevention, and body composition maintenance to name a few.

Doctor Morbius said:

Weights definitely have their place. Just not in training for endurance events.

Weights have no place in training for endurance events at all? Or are you speaking specifically to cycling?

Carrera said:

I still weight train about once every 4 days. Of course, a workout with weights is a tremendous shock to the body compared with a cycle ride. I can ride a bike for nearly 3 hours and wake up in the morning feeling fine but weights sessions require I take the next day off as my muscles will usually feel stiff.

Weight training 1 out of every 4 days, depending on your routine, will always be a shock to the body. That's only weight training 1 day out of the week...not enough to stimulate a response from the body, and too much recovery to allow the body to expect (and prepare for) another weight training session within 1-2 days. When you impose a stress on your body sufficient to cause it to respond, it will recover and prepare for another bout of that stress/exercise.

It's like if you do one 4-hour ride per week at a high intensity...you will be wiped out the next day. Over the next 7 days, your body will recover, begin to adapt, waiting for another stimulus. However, by day 7 you'll be completely recovered. So when you go to do your intense 4 hour ride again, you'll basically be starting from scratch, imposing that huge stress on your body all over again, and causing it to go through the same adaptation, recovery cycle...never being prepared for the next bout and never gradually adapting to the imposed stress.

Carrera said:

The unsual factor here is that I'm now so much weaker in the gym than in my old days as a bodybuilder. My strength has diminished a heck of a lot now I focus on cycling

I do not find that unusual at all. I would completely expect that. Bodybuilding and cycling are completely different, so loosing some of that maximal strength that you had as a bodybuilder will be very noticable on the bike.
When you train once a week, do you still do a bodybuilding-type of routine that you're used to doing? How many days per week did you weight training in your bodybuilding days?

Bottom Line:
I do not think that anyone can say that weight training is useless for cycling and ECP. There is evidence out there that shows (through flawed studies) that general, un-periodized, weight training programs that do not account for individual differences in subjects do not show improvements in ECP. However, professional cyclists who have the best coaches available and who participate in well-designed weight training programs are very successful. Whether or not that success is at all determined by their weight training or not, we cannot say. This is a topic that needs MUCH MUCH more research before any of us can say one way or another. And the thread that everyone keeps talking about is, in my mind, useless as well becasue it comes from unsubstantiated opinions based on flawed research. We should provide a holistic view of weight training to forum posters, avoid referring them to the "Gymming to Improve Power" thread, and allow them to make their own fully informed decisions.

Orange Fish said:

However, professional cyclists who have the best coaches available and who participate in well-designed weight training programs are very successful.

And in the '30's, professional cyclists who smoked cigarrettes before the climbs to "open up the lungs" were very successful. Other secrets of their success included strychnine and brandy to alleviate fatigue, and training without water to get accustomed to dehydration. Isn't it possible that Lance, et al., succeed in spite of their training, not because of it, just as was true of previous generations of cyclists?

With our achievement-oriented culture, and the personalities that endurance sports attract, it's hard for most athletes to fully get their heads around how much more important genetics are at the super-elite level than training. If you've got the genes, almost any training program that provides enough stress and enough recovery will do. Look at the history of, say, British running in the 19th century. Some of those guys' "training programs" consisted of walking 4 miles, three times a week. They still pounded out some crazy fast times, at distances from the mile to the ultramarathon.

Even granting, for the sake of argument, that lifting weights benefits pros who race 100 days a year and have annual training volumes over 1000 hours, why on earth should I care? When I want to improve my photography, or my juggling, or my guitar playing, I don't do exactly as the world's most talented, dedicated practitioners of those skills do. What's important and worthwhile for them to improve is unlikely to be what's important for me to improve. Since I have limited time, energy, and talent to devote to them, I consider my weaknesses (which are huge compared to those of the pros) and try to address them in the most time-efficient way possible. This is whay mystifies me about the "...but the pros do it!" argument; I'm not a pro! I, like almost all other amateur cyclists, can make gigantic strides in my performance with relatively simple, on-bike work; why should I not keep it simple, when all available evidence suggests that it's the most efficient use of my time if improving cycling performance is the goal?

kmavm said:

And in the '30's, professional cyclists who smoked cigarrettes before the climbs to "open up the lungs" were very successful. Other secrets of their success included strychnine and brandy to alleviate fatigue, and training without water to get accustomed to dehydration. Isn't it possible that Lance, et al., succeed in spite of their training, not because of it, just as was true of previous generations of cyclists?

And we later found out through a great deal of research that smoking is in fact hazardous to our health. That was the 1930s. This is 2006. Which is the point of my last post. We may find out someday that weight training is, in fact, useless and detremental to ECP. But until that time, there is absolutely not enough research to back up a statement like that in 2006.

Quoted post said:

With our achievement-oriented culture, and the personalities that endurance sports attract, it's hard for most athletes to fully get their heads around how much more important genetics are at the super-elite level than training. If you've got the genes, almost any training program that provides enough stress and enough recovery will do. Look at the history of, say, British running in the 19th century. Some of those guys' "training programs" consisted of walking 4 miles, three times a week. They still pounded out some crazy fast times, at distances from the mile to the ultramarathon.

Can you provide me with the research that shows undoubtedly how much more genetics play a role beyond what we can achieve in training? Where did you hear this? I've heard it plenty of times that there are great athletes who are just great because they picked the right parents. But can you honestly say (and back up with research) that every single one of the professional cyslists out there were just "gifted" and didn't have to put in days, hours, months, and years of damn hard training to get to where they are today???

Quoted post said:

Even granting, for the sake of argument, that lifting weights benefits pros who race 100 days a year and have annual training volumes over 1000 hours, why on earth should I care? When I want to improve my photography, or my juggling, or my guitar playing, I don't do exactly as the world's most talented, dedicated practitioners of those skills do.

Why not? Where do we get all of these training methods and ideas from? We get them from coaches (typically ex-pros themselves), scientists who have tested these theories, and even current professionals who share what worked for them. What we end up doing is taking what we can from all of these sources and applying it to what we want to accomplish. Why does everything have to have a peer journal attached to it??? That's the beauty of cycling, training, and coaching. We can use the forgotten "art" of training to help individuals achieve their maximal physical potential. In my opinion it's very myopic to say that "this" [weight training for cycling] simply doesn't work and is a waste of time. If we all had that opinion, where would we ever get in this world?

Quoted post said:

What's important and worthwhile for them to improve is unlikely to be what's important for me to improve. Since I have limited time, energy, and talent to devote to them, I consider my weaknesses (which are huge compared to those of the pros) and try to address them in the most time-efficient way possible. This is whay mystifies me about the "...but the pros do it!" argument; I'm not a pro! I, like almost all other amateur cyclists, can make gigantic strides in my performance with relatively simple, on-bike work; why should I not keep it simple, when all available evidence suggests that it's the most efficient use of my time if improving cycling performance is the goal?

To answer your question about "why should you NOT keep it simple"????
Because how long can you "keep it simple" until you just start to see diminishing returns on your training? Sure, for beginners, simple is good. It gives them an easy way to get involved in a great sport. But as we progress (and who doesn't in our 'achievement-oriented' society), we need to look at other ways to improve ourselves. So why discount something that obviously works for some people just because a few flawed stuies suggest so???😕

Orange Fish said:

And we later found out through a great deal of research that smoking is in fact hazardous to our health. That was the 1930s. This is 2006. Which is the point of my last post. We may find out someday that weight training is, in fact, useless and detremental to ECP. But until that time, there is absolutely not enough research to back up a statement like that in 2006.

Can you provide me with the research that shows undoubtedly how much more genetics play a role beyond what we can achieve in training? Where did you hear this? I've heard it plenty of times that there are great athletes who are just great because they picked the right parents. But can you honestly say (and back up with research) that every single one of the professional cyslists out there were just "gifted" and didn't have to put in days, hours, months, and years of damn hard training to get to where they are today???

Why not? Where do we get all of these training methods and ideas from? We get them from coaches (typically ex-pros themselves), scientists who have tested these theories, and even current professionals who share what worked for them. What we end up doing is taking what we can from all of these sources and applying it to what we want to accomplish. Why does everything have to have a peer journal attached to it??? That's the beauty of cycling, training, and coaching. We can use the forgotten "art" of training to help individuals achieve their maximal physical potential. In my opinion it's very myopic to say that "this" [weight training for cycling] simply doesn't work and is a waste of time. If we all had that opinion, where would we ever get in this world?

To answer your question about "why should you NOT keep it simple"????
Because how long can you "keep it simple" until you just start to see diminishing returns on your training? Sure, for beginners, simple is good. It gives them an easy way to get involved in a great sport. But as we progress (and who doesn't in our 'achievement-oriented' society), we need to look at other ways to improve ourselves. So why discount something that obviously works for some people just because a few flawed stuies suggest so???😕

Besides, without weight training you would look like a "girly man", would you want to look like a "girly man"?😄

Orange Fish said:

And we later found out through a great deal of research that smoking is in fact hazardous to our health. That was the 1930s. This is 2006. Which is the point of my last post.

The only reason we "know" anything more in 2006 than we did in the '30's is because we've paid attention to science; we only know what we don't refuse to learn. Many exercise physio types have tried to show some sort of benefit to strength-training for cyclists, and none have done so convincingly so far.

Quoted post said:

We may find out someday that weight training is, in fact, useless and detremental to ECP. But until that time, there is absolutely not enough research to back up a statement like that in 2006.

The burden of proof rests with the advocates of strength training for cycling. Since the strength requirements of riding very powerfully up a very steep hill are easily met by sedentary members of the population (they're about the same as climbing a set of stairs, Andy C. reckoned in another thread), the claim that strength training will help cycling is extraordinary, and so requires proof before reasoning people accept it. I could substitute "fudge sundaes" for "weight training" in your reasoning, and it would make no less sense.

Quoted post said:

Can you provide me with the research that shows undoubtedly how much more genetics play a role beyond what we can achieve in training? Where did you hear this? I've heard it plenty of times that there are great athletes who are just great because they picked the right parents. But can you honestly say (and back up with research) that every single one of the professional cyslists out there were just "gifted" and didn't have to put in days, hours, months, and years of damn hard training to get to where they are today???

It's complicated. For a given individual, the most important determining factor for his performance is obviously training.

However, in a population containing individuals with different levels of ability, being "gifted" is a more useful advantage than being perfectly trained. To take a ridiculous example, Lance's VO2Max right after cancer, with cobwebs still covering his bike, was in the mid-60's, a number I may never see (I'm in the mid-50's trained and very, very lean). Therefore, in endurance competitions, lasting, say, 5-20 minutes, an untrained Lance will take my lunch money, even if I trained like an olympic champion. Once Lance does even a few months of training, and gets his peripheral muscles adapted to the point that it's a threshold event, he'll beat me in every endurance event, period, no matter how hard I train.

This is less controversial in, e.g., the world of running, where some gifted individuals will run a 3:30 marathon in their first attempt after nine months of training, while for other individuals 3:30 is a lifetime goal. The tactical nature of road cycling obscures this difference somewhat, but if you look at, e.g., 40k time trials, there are individuals who can turn out sub-55 minute times with modest training, while for others, breaking an hour is a goal requiring many years of focused training.

Obviously professionals put a lot of effort and thought into their training. It is, after all, the most important determinant under their control. However, it might be a bit of a myth that they train so much more than amateurs. Andy Coggan posted an interesting tidbit about TSS on the topica wattage list this week. TSS is a power-based metric of cycling training that includes both volume and intensity to create an integrated "stress" score; the model underlying it seems reasonably well-founded, and in practical evaluation by lots of cyclists, TSS seems to work well.

The fascinating thing is that from cat 3's and GT champions, the ideal TSS seems to fall in a narrow range between 100-150TSS/day. Over the last month, I've averaged something like 110 TSS/day. So, yes, there are guys like me who fight hard every weekend to be a factor in the nowheresville crit 4/5 field, who train almost as much as grand tour winners.

Quoted post said:

Why not? Where do we get all of these training methods and ideas from? We get them from coaches (typically ex-pros themselves), scientists who have tested these theories, and even current professionals who share what worked for them.

But most cyclists get better most seasons. No matter what they do. So, everything "works" for everybody, by your standards of evidence.