Weight Training

by the way, im not saying a person should devote there time all to weight training to be a cyclists.. obviously you need to make things balance.. make your training as efficent as possible. (which from the study i quoted seems to include weight training 3 times a week)

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jagrazor
too add to this, I just can not see how weights can be a complete waste of time if if Lance Armstrong does weights. Now maybe he doesnt do exactly what they publish, but from the looks of him, he does do weights.. (why else would he weigh so much?) Otherwise he would look more like a marathon runner...(at least in his upper body)

What I'm saying is how can someone whos won the tour 5 times be doing something inefficent.. you can say genetic freak, but then again isnt everyone thats placing top 10 for GC a genetic freak?... or at least that's the way people might explain a person who's fitness is so far ahead of theirs it makes them feel bad :p

Lance was actually a larger statured person before his cancer. Back when he was into the triathlons he looked much broader than he does now. He lost that extra size/weight during his treatments. That's how hard they were on him.

Belive it or not, he actually has to watch what he eats to keep his weight down - even with all of the training he does!! And that's quite a bit.

I know about his being bigger, I read his book.

I know he became a better climber when he dropped a lot of un-needed weight.

All this means is that he was unnefficent (did too much work) before his cancer.. and he became more efficent afterwords .. with a new start in a sense (lost it all through chemo)

i dont know how to do quotes from other threads.. but i would like to quote this...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This just isn't true, unless you have a functional disability or are e.g., a frail old lady. the force requirements are low to moderate in endurance cycle racing, such that virtually anyone can meet them.

elite endurance cyclists are, on average, no stronger than untrained, sedentary, healthy, age, gender and mass-matched controls.

the average force requirement of *both* legs over each pedal rev can generally be met by anyone. for e.g., approximately, the force required for the *top 5 riders* in the recent Mont Ventoux mountain TT would have been ~ 250 Newtons (or 25 kg). Pretty much anyone can generate that. Obviously, sustaining that for the hour long period is a totally different matter -- but, that's not a strength issue, but to do with the factors that affect endurance performance, such as VO2max, and LT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

doesnt it take more power/force whatever to climb hills than it does to maintain a pace.

Doesn't it take more force/power/speed to respond to peleton accelerations/attacks (something definatly without a doubt needed to win a race)

probably, if you want to be fast and good at these things, more than the average joe, or even a semi active joe has for power.. ...

I think its crazy for any trainer to rule something out, since the idea of a trainer is to provide a training program personal to your specific needs, and to rule it out suggests fixed methods.

My personal experience is that during winter months, some weight training is beneficial for me.

The rest of the year I do situps,pressups and pull ups to keep my upper body in shape.

I cant see how anyone can criticise carmichael - http://www.trainright.com/page.asp?page_id=A-5&sub_page_id=B-18

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by steve007
I think its crazy for any trainer to rule something out, since the idea of a trainer is to provide a training program personal to your specific needs, and to rule it out suggests fixed methods.

My personal experience is that during winter months, some weight training is beneficial for me.

The rest of the year I do situps,pressups and pull ups to keep my upper body in shape.

I cant see how anyone can criticise carmichael - http://www.trainright.com/page.asp?page_id=A-5&sub_page_id=B-18

thats pretty much what im saying..

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
Jagrazor, already quoted this same web page (as have others).

Check this thread...

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t126133-15-1.html

Go down to the 10th and 12th posts. I even bolded where it stated "already been training for several years." He still won't budge.

I guess i didnt look through every post in the other threads .. but im glad someone else saw that 🙂

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
Jagrazor, already quoted this same web page (as have others).

Check this thread...

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t126133-15-1.html

Go down to the 10th and 12th posts. I even bolded where it stated "already been training for several years." He still won't budge.

just because someone has been training for several years, doesn't make them (well) trained. if that was the case i'd be TdF material :-)!!

basically, they were low fitness subjects where, *ANY* exercise will increase performance. I have clearly stated this all along: if you aren't up to racing, you do e.g., track match sprints and kilo etc., or you have some form of functional disability then weights may help you.

in terms of endurance cycling performance (racing that last >90-secs) there is no evidence that weight training is beneficial. There is evidence that it is detrimental. First principles shows it isn't warranted and would be detrimental.

in terms of low fitness subjects, weights (and any exercise will improve fitness). however, if it's cycling you really want to improve and you are time limited (as most people on these forums are as they go to work/school/have families/partners/etc.) then just cycling will lead to the fastest gains in improving cycling performance in low fitness cyclists.

if you're low fitness, then by all means do weights if you feel that gives you a more rounded fitness level.

in trained/well trained/elite/pro (endurance racers) only cycling will improve cycling performance.

just because LA might or might not do weights doesn't mean anything. we know that some pros do dubious things, and we could equally hold that pro up and say he/she does that, lets copy them.

to clarify: there is some research on this subject (weight training and cycling). in low fitness groups (e.g., non-racers) weights (or *any* exercise) increases cycling performance.

in trained/elite/pro (non-track sprint etc) there is no evidence that weights are beneficial and some evidence it's detrimental.

using first principles you can calculate the actual forces involved in cycling. these forces are low to moderate, such that (virtually) anyone can meet them. Usually, i include the caveat that they should be age, gender, and mass matched, healthy subjects. Elite cyclists are *NO* stronger than these people. Exceptions on caveat are e.g., frail old ladies, people with a functional disability.

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jagrazor
i dont know how to do quotes from other threads.. but i would like to quote this...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This just isn't true, unless you have a functional disability or are e.g., a frail old lady. the force requirements are low to moderate in endurance cycle racing, such that virtually anyone can meet them.

elite endurance cyclists are, on average, no stronger than untrained, sedentary, healthy, age, gender and mass-matched controls.

the average force requirement of *both* legs over each pedal rev can generally be met by anyone. for e.g., approximately, the force required for the *top 5 riders* in the recent Mont Ventoux mountain TT would have been ~ 250 Newtons (or 25 kg). Pretty much anyone can generate that. Obviously, sustaining that for the hour long period is a totally different matter -- but, that's not a strength issue, but to do with the factors that affect endurance performance, such as VO2max, and LT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read it. It was intended for Carrera and myself, who are pro-weight training.

Ric certainly has the credentials behind him. Weight training is just one of those things that he doesn't support. And there are studies to back up his position.

But there are others (such as Charmichael, Friel & Burke) who support the use of weights mostly during the off season.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jagrazor
[B]i dont know how to do quotes from other threads.. but i would like to quote this...
[/quote]

let's see if this makes sense:
press the reply button in the upper right of the message. the entire text of the person you quote appears in your message

find the section of text you want to highlight and insert square brackets and the text "quote" around the your highlighted choice like this

{quote} this is the text that is quoted from the last person {/quote}

change the curly brackets "{" to square ones "["

hope that helps

Quoted post said:

doesnt it take more power/force whatever to climb hills than it does to maintain a pace.

Quoted post said:

Doesn't it take more force/power/speed to respond to peleton accelerations/attacks (something definatly without a doubt needed to win a race)

Quoted post said:

probably, if you want to be fast and good at these things, more than the average joe, or even a semi active joe has for power.. ... [/B]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by steve007
[B]I think its crazy for any trainer to rule something out, since the idea of a trainer is to provide a training program personal to your specific needs, and to rule it out suggests fixed methods.
[/quote]

if you bothered to read what i said, i haven't ruled it out for some people.

Quoted post said:

My personal experience is that during winter months, some weight training is beneficial for me.

The rest of the year I do situps,pressups and pull ups to keep my upper body in shape.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
I read it. It was intended for Carrera and myself, who are pro-weight training.

Ric certainly has the credentials behind him. Weight training is just one of those things that he doesn't support. And there are studies to back up his position.

But there are others (such as Charmichael, Friel & Burke) who support the use of weights mostly during the off season.

my feeling is that prior to power meters being available in the field, people would have clearly thought that they were limited by 'strength' when e.g., climbing. it is apparent, however, when using a power meter (e.g., SRM, Power Tap, Ergomo, S720) that this isn't the case. as i've mentioned on numerous occasions, it's possible to work out the forces that are at the pedal when e.g., climbing. these forces are very low/low/moderate, such that most (see above for the caveats) can generate these forces. it's the ability to keep *sustaining* them that is the problem, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with strength, and everything to do with the rate limiting mechanisms of VO2max (which sets your upper limit) and sustainably your LT.

VO2max, and LT are trained (at least in people who race/could race - this was a caveat mentioned) for cycling performance only by cycling. the issue of VO2max and LT is limited by metabolic and cardiovascular issues, with the main limiting issue being convective O2 delivery.

ric

@Ric (note the @ sign)

Note the lack of @ric in my previous post!

Note i say ANY TRAINER.

It has improved the smoothness of my pedaling. Obviously as a trainer you will know the kind of stress the knee joint is under and the fact that the knee joint does its own little circles.

With regard to power output i dont believe that my reasons for weight training are specifically to increase power output, although there have been small gains. I've found that the type of weight training i do, coupled with the type of bike training i do has improved stability and strength.

Everyone is different - its as always down to the individual.

Ric i snipped the text below from another thread, are you sure this is not ruling it out:

--------
because there is no evidence that weight training is beneficial to endurance cycling performance. in fact the evidence would be that it is detrimental.

how do i know this? i've gone through the research available on the subject, and am currently writing a research paper on this very topic.
--------------

And maybe there is some confusion over benefits that are not performance related?

I love a good debate😉

I guess this is as interesting a debate as any. As has been said, in the final analysis much of this boils down to personal choice and you just have to respect everybody else's preferences or analysis. I also think there are so many other factors in cycling such as strategy, motivation, attitude, tactics e.t.c.
One thought that did hit me, though, concerns a book I'm reading at present. It's a really well-written, literary book concerning the fight in Zaire between Ali and Foreman (incidentally weight-training in boxing circles is even more taboo than it used to be in the cycling community, Evander Hollyfield being one of the few champs to endorse it).
To get to the point, the author gave some attention to the way Ali and Foreman trained and there are really a wide range of factors that contribute towards top-range condition. No weight-training was involved in Ali or Foreman's schedules. On the other hand, they skipped, shadow-boxed, hit the heavy bag and did lots of early morning road-running. But the point is they didn't just box or spar in the ring. They worked on their physical conditioning from a whole range of angles.
I suppose with cycling it's, more or less, the same. I wouldn't personally argue that weights will improve your cycling per se. I also take Ric's point that you don't need to be able to leg-press 400 lbs to power a bike. But, at the same time, you could also exclude road-running for boxers on the grounds that the kind of stress you experience in the ring (more physical exertion) isn't met by the demand of road-running. So, why road run? I could only respond that the road-running is useful for conditioning on a more general basis.
Sometimes I think a lot of it boils down to tradition. There is probably no scientific evidence that road-running or skipping prepares a boxer for 15 rounds of punching and jabbing.
Traditionally cyclists or boxers don't do weights but in running it's become more trendy to do squats. Now in cycling, all of a sudden, leg-presses are in because L.A. and Ullrich swear by them.
I personally use weights for the following purposes:
(1)Speeding up recovery from injury.
(2)As an aid to general physical condition.
(3)For purposes of gaining weight if I feel I've been losing too much weight through my bike-training.
However, I have a friend who swears that running is beneficial for cyclists since running up hills pushes the lungs really really hard. He never bothered with weights.
Final point on LA. Apparently he had a lot of problems with upper body bulk as he was probably a mesomorphic body-type, broad shoulders and a little stocky. In his book he shares he had real problems shedding this upper body muscle and his muscular weight held him back (prior to Cancer). This is why LA only does lower-body weight-training.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by steve007
@Ric (note the @ sign)

Note the lack of @ric in my previous post!

Note i say ANY TRAINER.

It has improved the smoothness of my pedaling. Obviously as a trainer you will know the kind of stress the knee joint is under and the fact that the knee joint does its own little circles.

With regard to power output i dont believe that my reasons for weight training are specifically to increase power output, although there have been small gains. I've found that the type of weight training i do, coupled with the type of bike training i do has improved stability and strength.

Everyone is different - its as always down to the individual.


Ric i snipped the text below from another thread, are you sure this is not ruling it out:

--------
because there is no evidence that weight training is beneficial to endurance cycling performance. in fact the evidence would be that it is detrimental.

how do i know this? i've gone through the research available on the subject, and am currently writing a research paper on this very topic.
--------------


And maybe there is some confusion over benefits that are not performance related?

I love a good debate😉

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Carrera
I personally use weights for the following purposes:
(1)Speeding up recovery from injury.
(2)As an aid to general physical condition.
(3)For purposes of gaining weight if I feel I've been losing too much weight through my bike-training.

Carrera, You left out
(4)Preventing Bone Loss
(5)Increasing Natural Testotsterone Levels

Cycling does neither of these.

Mike Tyson also did heavy resistance training.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
my feeling is that prior to power meters being available in the field, people would have clearly thought that they were limited by 'strength' when e.g., climbing. it is apparent, however, when using a power meter (e.g., SRM, Power Tap, Ergomo, S720) that this isn't the case. as i've mentioned on numerous occasions, it's possible to work out the forces that are at the pedal when e.g., climbing. these forces are very low/low/moderate, such that most (see above for the caveats) can generate these forces. it's the ability to keep *sustaining* them that is the problem, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with strength, and everything to do with the rate limiting mechanisms of VO2max (which sets your upper limit) and sustainably your LT.

VO2max, and LT are trained (at least in people who race/could race - this was a caveat mentioned) for cycling performance only by cycling. the issue of VO2max and LT is limited by metabolic and cardiovascular issues, with the main limiting issue being convective O2 delivery.

ric

So based on what your saying, i can train for the tour de france in a very flat area and the first reall hill that I ever go up can be in the race, and as long as I train right, I will be fine, because I create the same power as everyone of my opponents and I can climb just as good as them, ... Whats the point of hill workouts ?

I think cycling to an extent prevents bone loss. Probably not to the degree that weight lifting and running do though. I know there isn't as much weight bearing on the legs in cycling, but there is definatly some, and thats all thats required to build bone density right?

that is another debate completely though.. so lets not start 😉

maybe it doesnt effect bone density noticably or at all 🙂

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jagrazor
So based on what your saying, i can train for the tour de france in a very flat area and the first reall hill that I ever go up can be in the race, and as long as I train right, I will be fine, because I create the same power as everyone of my opponents and I can climb just as good as them, ... Whats the point of hill workouts ?

i'm not sure you've understood what i wrote? i said the forces when climbing are low to moderate, i didn't say they were the same as on the flat, and i didn't say you shouldn't do hill training.

ric

Forces when hill climbing will vary. There are those who get out of the saddle, those who do high cadence (easy gear), those who do low cadence (hard gear), so forces will surely vary with individual, style and gradient. But Ric is right about only low to moderate forces being present during climbing.

However I do think weight training is beneficial, if you follow a plan and keep weight low/moderate and do high reps.

One of the reasons i weight train is because of the extreme amount of weight/mass i lose during the summer months, but there are many non-performance (although it will affect overall ability) related reasons to weight train.

Although Ric is right that its VO2 and LT which govern performance. Weight training wont improve this.