Cycling Training · Public discussion

Maximum strength and cycling performance

Started by dominikk85 · · Last activity · 340 posts · 198,117 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Training
Published
7 November 2012
Last activity
4 May 2024
Original author
dominikk85
Posts
340
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
198,117
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 101–120 of 340
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by fergie [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    Clearly no idea of what science is about. Also why would a person without a background in sport get involved in sport science? The pay is pretty [censored] and there is little glory.

    I am involved in both coaching and sport science and the first thing a coach does is never let the sport scientists anywhere near the athletes. They are not trained to coach and a coach is not trained (unless you are both) to test theories and relay back to the coach to provide a practical application.

    Well of course they have a sports background but rarely an elite background in preforming and coaching.

    they are doing a good job (I'm a biologist myself) but in science you have to create a very controlled environment and reduce the problem to something very specific. you need to do that to get significant results however that problem then is so narrow that it doesn't really have a lot of meaning in the real world.

    also very few scientists study the very best in the world (normally it is "15 healthy male subjects..."😉

    maybe sometime it will be possible some day for science to answer those questions but to date there is no single study that can really say whether weight training increases performance or not.

    until that day training methods will still be developed by trial and error of elite athletes and then later described by scientists

  2. fergie said:

    Clearly no idea of what science is about. Also why would a person without a background in sport get involved in sport science? The pay is pretty [censored] and there is little glory.Â

    I have no idea, but I think your claim about "no idea of what science is about" is misplaced. Science is what I do and have been doing for quite a while, so I've pretty good idea of how science works. Perhaps your bias against science is unfounded.

    Quoted post said:

    I am involved in both coaching and sport science and the first thing a coach does is never let the sport scientists anywhere near the athletes. They are not trained to coach and a coach is not trained (unless you are both) to test theories and relay back to the coach to provide a practical application.

    Rejecting science out of hand is just stupid. There is excellent that has been done and is done in sport science. Just because you're either not experienced that or are not aware of that is not justification for tossing science aside. To repeat another point, the history of coaching sport has many examples of things taught or coaching methods that turned out to not do what they were thought to do.

  3. dominikk85 said:

    they are doing a good job (I'm a biologist myself) but in science you have to create a very controlled environment and reduce the problem to something very specific. you need to do that to get significant results however that problem then is so narrow that it doesn't really have a lot of meaning in the real world.

    That's a conclusion--"...however the problem then is so narrow that it doesn't have any meaning in the real world."--for which there is no support. In fact, it does seem to show a misunderstanding of the process itself. Experiments are done. Results are achieved. Results are verified or refuted when others repeat experiments. After a while, a consensus is built. People then take those results and interpret them and/or apply them to the real world. That maybe doesn't happen right away. What is certain is that there is no way to absolutely say the research is worthless or has no meaning. Just because you don't see the meaning yet doesn't that others don't see it or that it won't be seen down the line. Perhaps you'd like to review the history of science so that you can learn of all of the instances wherein research was done, and results were obtained whose meaning was not readily apparent but became apparent/useful somewhere down the line. It's a very long history and is something that most scientists actually understand full well. Coaching is quite often good, as is obvious, but coaching at least sometimes makes correlations that don't actually have anything to do with causation. Coaching and science are both necessary for improvement of human performance. Were either erased from history, what is known about human performance now would be less. Ignoring either or pissing on either is more than just ignorant: it's a waste of effort and time.

  4. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by dominikk85 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    Well of course they have a sports background but rarely an elite background in preforming and coaching.

    they are doing a good job (I'm a biologist myself) but in science you have to create a very controlled environment and reduce the problem to something very specific. you need to do that to get significant results however that problem then is so narrow that it doesn't really have a lot of meaning in the real world.

    also very few scientists study the very best in the world (normally it is "15 healthy male subjects..."😉

    maybe sometime it will be possible some day for science to answer those questions but to date there is no single study that can really say whether weight training increases performance or not.

    until that day training methods will still be developed by trial and error of elite athletes and then later described by scientists


    That is the nonsense suggestion that unless you are a top rider how can you coach top riders. Guess coaching riders to six world titles when I am at best a Cat 3 was just a fluke.

    There is a huge amount of work being done with elite athletes on a daily basis. The issue is very little gets published. When I am involved with BikeNZ projects we sign a confidentiality agreement and talking with other Countries this year they said the work may be published after the Olympics but would probably be kept in house as 4 years goes pretty fast.

    I agree there is no study showing weight training improves performance better than evidence based training methods. But to say that all high performance sport is trial and error is very naive.

  5. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by fergie [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    That is the nonsense suggestion that unless you are a top rider how can you coach top riders. Guess coaching riders to six world titles when I am at best a Cat 3 was just a fluke.

    There is a huge amount of work being done with elite athletes on a daily basis. The issue is very little gets published. When I am involved with BikeNZ projects we sign a confidentiality agreement and talking with other Countries this year they said the work may be published after the Olympics but would probably be kept in house as 4 years goes pretty fast.

    I agree there is no study showing weight training improves performance better than evidence based training methods. But to say that all high performance sport is trial and error is very naive.

    you are pretty quick throwing around terms like nonsense, stupid etc. aren't you?

    Of course there is not much trial and error now. but this is because there was about a century of trial and error to find that out so that modern coaches do not have to experiment a lot anymore.

    yes some methods have been proven by science but none was invented in the lab. any of the modern training methods have been invented by athletes in the field. intervall training for example was made famous in the 1950s by emil zatopek and any athlete uses it now.

  6. dominikk85 said:

    Of course there is not much trial and error now. but this is because there was about a century of trial and error to find that out so that modern coaches do not have to experiment a lot anymore.

    Given you can't know to where or to what level human performance and training might evolve, you absolutely cannot say experimentation isn't needed much any more. As improvements start to slow in human performance and new improvement become harder to gain, more information will be necessary, and that information will very likely need science behind it. It's entirely feasible that the evolution of training might follow a similar curve (as a function of egineering/science/experimentation to the evolution of bicycles. Bicycles for a long time didn't see much in the way of science or engineering based developments, but relatively recently as gains in bicycle performance have become more narrow, we've seen the need for scientific testing (aero testing, for example) to provide the base for making the desired incremental gains.

  7. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by dominikk85 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    you are pretty quick throwing around terms like nonsense, stupid etc. aren't you?


    If the shoe fits.

  8. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by fergie [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    If the shoe fits.

    well you obviously you know a lot more about cycling than I do but still I think that this is no proper way to communicate between adults. but whatever...

  9. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by dominikk85 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    well you obviously you know a lot more about cycling than I do but still I think that this is no proper way to communicate between adults. but whatever...


    There is an explanation for this behaviour, he misses Frank, who has always been a target for his abusive comments.

  10. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by n crowley [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    There is an explanation for this behaviour, he misses Frank, who has always been a target for his abusive comments.


    He has been rather quiet lately. At least he has a rational for spouting his nonsense. What is your excuse?

  11. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by fergie [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    He has been rather quiet lately. At least he has a rational for spouting his nonsense. What is your excuse?

    Blessed are those who believe, yet have not seen.

  12. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by n crowley [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    Blessed are those who believe, yet have not seen.


    Belief based evidence. Frank Day asked people to take a leap of faith.

    Keep believing[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif[/IMG]

  13. Oh guys please be quiet otherwise you summon FD here...

  14. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by frost [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    Oh guys please be quiet otherwise you summon FD here...


    Think you have to say his name 5 times in succession before he makes an appearance.

  15. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by fergie [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    Think you have to say his name 5 times in succession before he makes an appearance.


    Frank, frank, frank, frank......nup can't do it.

  16. With a God complex like his I expect he Google's himself or Gimmickcranks.

  17. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by danfoz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    "Going to the gym". What does that even mean? The consensus is that strength training is a less than ideal allocation of time to get faster on the bike. There is great benefit to working the core and no one has claimed anything to the contrary. Core can be trained at the gym, my living room floor seems to do fine for me. If you want to go to the gym and get stronger just do it, but you are gonna have a tough time getting validation from anybody that bench presses will help your cycling.

    Isn`t weorking on ones core, strength training?

    But what if you have the time to do strength training, in addition to alle the cycling you need to do, can strength training benefit cycling performance?

    Where have I mentioned bench pressing?

  18. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by fergie [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    Belief based evidence. Frank Day asked people to take a leap of faith.


    Ask not what your cranks can do for you, ask what you can do with your cranks. You sit back and laugh at FD and his PC's, I could sit back and laugh at you because you have a set of cranks and don't know how to use them (through the dead spot). It is said muscle training is more effective if done on the bike and for circular pedalers there is no better equipment than PC's. The difficulty arises when mashers train with these cranks because if they are not prepared to learn a new technique, they are only wasting their time using these cranks. If willing to learn this new technique, they have to memorize the changes and objectives in the use of muscles so that they can retain this new technique when they return to standard cranks. Don't forget there are three different pedaling techniques and there is an ideal time and place for each of them. Circular pedaling is the first step to the semi circular TT technique.

  19. n crowley said:

     Ask not what your cranks can do for you, ask what you can do with your cranks. You sit back and laugh at FD and his PC's, I could sit back and laugh at you because you have a set of cranks and don't know how to use them (through the dead spot). It is said muscle training is more effective if done on the bike and for circular pedalers there is no better equipment than PC's. The difficulty arises when mashers train with these cranks because if they are not prepared to learn a new technique, they are only wasting their time using these cranks. If willing to learn this new technique, they have to memorize the changes and objectives in the use of muscles so that they can retain this new technique when they return to standard cranks. Don't forget there are three different pedaling techniques and there is an ideal time and place for each of them. Circular pedaling is the first step to the semi circular TT technique.

    So you claim, again, without proof of anything. Either back up your claims after all these years or give it a rest. That you've failed to offer any data after all these years is really a measure of the worth of your hypotheses. This is typical behavior of people that offer quack theories, no matter the field.

  20. Quoted post said:

    Originally Posted by POGATA [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

    Isn`t weorking on ones core, strength training?

    But what if you have the time to do strength training, in addition to alle the cycling you need to do, can strength training benefit cycling performance?

    Where have I mentioned bench pressing?


    If this discussion was on a Strength related forum like T-Nation you would see a good bit of talk toward having a strong core, but a strong core is a factor in the equation of performing other specific lifts. I typically get into a lot of discussions with my chiropractor, who was a competitive powerlifter, knows anatomy and physiology better than anyone in my local social circle, knows strength training better than most in my social circle and the two of us have just about identical thoughts on strength training. When we talk about core strength it is absolutely necessary to support the structure while performing most lifts and with a lesser degree to seated or bench presses, but even then the core is involved.

    But as others have noted, those that seem to have lifting experience, that doing squats, deadlifts, standing military presses typically stress the core more than most focused core exercises. I still do focused core training, and please note this it is not for cycling performance. But I feel like there are certain specific exercises, such as, squats, standing overhead presses where I can feel my core being stressed to a greater degree. It is common practices for powerlifters to not use a belt on the warm up sets. Back in my prime I would not use a belt until I went over 225 and I probably could have gone higher, but did not want to risk a hernia, which is a devastating and potentially career ending injury to a lifter.

    All the core strength a cyclists needs to perform at a high level is equivalent to what others state as the strength needed for a cyclist. We have seen the top cyclists gurus state that all the strength that is needed is enough to climb a set of stairs and almost any healthy human in a fairly sedentary state can climb stairs. Same with core "strength". When we stand our core is being stimulated otherwise we would all just be a blob of flesh and bones laying on the ground. Even sitting in a chair with good posture is stimulating the core enough to the point where that is enough to sit on a bike.

    To answer your question if one has time to do strength training and is it necessary for cycling.

    Several of us have been trying to state for several pages now that strength training is not important for cycling. If you are calling core training strength training and that is all you are doing that it probably will not impact cycling training one way or another depending on how it is done. If say your daily schedule is pretty packed, but you sit and watch TV for an hour or so each evening you could easily use that time to put in some core movements like planks and abdominal that will not have a negative impact to your cycling training. The core group of muscles are constantly being stimulated in daily living and are a muscle group that can be trained daily. Many will not experience hypertrophy from working the core so there is little threat of gaining excess weight hurting the watts/kg factor and it again it will have very little impact to the recovery time of the cycling training. But if time and schedule is absolutely at a limit for those aspiring Cat level cyclists or triathletes then the program needs to stay focused on specificty and many Cat level cyclists training 15 to 20 hours per week, holding down a job and spending time with kids or wife do not have much more spare time to give and core is not an absolutely necessary attribute to winning or performing well in bike racing. Again daily living typically stimulate the core enough. As I sit here typing this note I am sitting upright with my back away from the chair back and I can feel my core holding my upper body erect. That is enough to keep my core strong enough to sit on a bike for a few hours and one must consider that all that needs to be stimulated for cycling performance is being stimulated while riding the bike anyway - if that makes sense.

    I can also look at a coworker that helps me see this model specifically for this discussion. Here I am with 30 solid years of strength training and over 10 years of competition compared to a female coworker that looks like she belongs on the fashion supermodel runway. We are drastically different in body types and gender hormones. Everything about her appearance is that of fragile and the last thing you would think when you see her is strength. She is the model of feminine and does no core or strength training. She has placed in the top 3 of her AG in every triathlon she has entered this year. But here is the kicker. She trains exclusively with guys that compete in cycling and can drop most of them if she chooses. She often has to stop and wait for most of them and I have tried to hold her wheel on a couple of rides and cannot. She climbs the most challenging moutain climbs with a 53/39 crankset 11-25 cassette where I am using a 34T / 28 cog on the same climbs and she will have to wait for me at the top. I can out squat her by a large margin because she doesn't train at the gym at all. Is she held back from dropping guys on the flats or on climbs when her strength in body or core is obviously far less than than some of us guys?

    Even if I am wrong in my knowledge of evidence based training I can look around and observe the typical high performing model of a cyclist compared to a strength athlete. I doubt Voekler would care that my legs are far bigger than his and that I can squat more than him. Most of my friends that I train with on weekend cycling could careless that I have greater strength even though I often get comments on the muscularity of my legs it matters very little to them when I am the last one to the parking lot.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 6 guests ·0 bots ·6 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.