Another point of view???

dm69 said:

Ok here goes...lately I have become a little sick of this forum (that time of month :p ) and I have explored other routes of feeding my brain and my cycling training questions.

In my search I found this thread- weightweenies.starbike.comviewtopic.phpOpen ↗

have a read and feel free to bash me up.

BTW this ZAKEEN dude is Adam Hansen (t-mobile) 😉 😄 :p .

It seems I am not alone in the belief that science doesn't beat years of trial and error...make of it what you will.

Read the very last post ATM post #21 i think it is.

Not going to bash you up...

but all I really found on that thread you posted (apart from the odd voice of reason)was a group of guys happily posting about what they think is correct with no back up at all and no "scientists or physiologists" to argue with them (which they seem to be happy about) and mostly based on what somebody else has told them is good.

The presence of a young pro rider and his limited knowledge in the field of physiology adds little in the way of credibility - just because his coach says to do something it must be right ?

There will always be guys who do not like the fact that science and physiology provide the backbone to all of our training and that this may mean that something they may be doing is not that useful to performance.

As a sport steeped in tradition, with many top riders doing well in spite of themselves, there will always be two voices, and two approaches, but from what I can see, there is a strong tendency towards a more scientific approach at the top level.

dm69 said:

It seems I am not alone in the belief that science doesn't beat years of trial and error...make of it what you will.

If I remember correctly, you are still a fairly young guy (apologies if that's not correct), with many riding/racing years still ahead of you. If you'd like to spend those years doing trial and error, then I doubt anyone here would try to stop you. OTOH, I believe that a few months of study on these forums, and on the articles and studies that are discussed here, will get a person pretty darn close to what the pros have spent their years of trial and error achieving.

That may not mean as much to younger riders, but for those of us that are getting a little long in the tooth and would still like to do our best, it means a lot. 🙂

dm69 said:

Ok here goes...lately I have become a little sick of this forum (that time of month :p ) and I have explored other routes of feeding my brain and my cycling training questions.

In my search I found this thread- weightweenies.starbike.comviewtopic.phpOpen ↗

have a read and feel free to bash me up.

BTW this ZAKEEN dude is Adam Hansen (t-mobile) 😉 😄 :p .

It seems I am not alone in the belief that science doesn't beat years of trial and error...make of it what you will.

Read the very last post ATM post #21 i think it is.

It is deeply ironic that "this ZAKEEN dude is Adam Hansen (t-mobile)" and will therefore have his training monitored and peaks planned using the PMC and the rest of the cyclingpeaks analysis tools, as all t-mobile riders will. This software was pioneered by a major contributor to this forum (thanks Andy) and several of the beta testers also contribute here (thanks Ric, Alex, and anyone else I've forgotten).

I started my life here arguing with Ric (those were the days... search my post history...) but when I has the opportunity to really do the research and work out what was going on, I realised he was on the money. It really is a great privilege to be able to learn from guys like Ric and Andy. They share their knowledge for free under, are under no obligation to do so whatsoever, and they are amongst the best in the world at what they do. Thanks fellas...

Roadie_scum said:

It is deeply ironic that "this ZAKEEN dude is Adam Hansen (t-mobile)" and will therefore have his training monitored and peaks planned using the PMC and the rest of the cyclingpeaks analysis tools, as all t-mobile riders will. This software was pioneered by a major contributor to this forum (thanks Andy) and several of the beta testers also contribute here (thanks Ric, Alex, and anyone else I've forgotten).

I started my life here arguing with Ric (those were the days... search my post history...) but when I has the opportunity to really do the research and work out what was going on, I realised he was on the money. It really is a great privilege to be able to learn from guys like Ric and Andy. They share their knowledge for free under, are under no obligation to do so whatsoever, and they are amongst the best in the world at what they do. Thanks fellas...

i was just thinking about the first paragraph, and how ironic it was...

the interesting point, is that in general i make pains to put out the caveats in my discussion point -- that e.g., weights don't positively affect endurance cycling performance (and thus may effect other issues). admittedly, i may (??) forget that sentence occasionally, but i've posted it often enough for people to get the general idea. outside of ECP weights, may or may not help people...

someone here (and somewhere else) got all upset with me, because he was suggesting that weights would help him to move house and not put his back out lifting heavy boxes (or some such). i did find it a rather peculiar discussion point given that this is a cycling forum, and that
1) i've seen removal men who've obviously never been near a gym in their life
2) i'm only discussing cycling performance
3) i don't really know what people do in their spare time (unless they tell me -- i'm not a mind reader).

In the WW discussion i like that someone suggests that endurance is only one of 3 points in the 3 cornered training theory of endurance, training and speed by Friel. The 'funny' point is that on average the most elite endurance cyclists are no stronger than on average untrained, healthy, gender and mass matched sedentary people. Apart from in a couple of bizarre exceptions we just aren't strength limited for cycling.

interestingly, like most people here, and way before i read the science which isn't decided prior to writing, i too did weight lifting with free weights. i spent years every winter going to a gym or working out at home, with complicated routines including stretching, core this, core that, weights the other, etc.

And you know what? do you know what makes me cycle better (i.e., score more points in RR, or TT faster)? Answers on a postcard to my address, and the first person to send the correct answer will win a prize (an RST t-shirt if i have some in stock or something else). If you're anti-science or whatever, you can burn it with an effigy of me.

Roadie Scum, Coggan, Biker_lindz, and several others aren't allowed to enter.

Scum, did we really argue in the beginning? i don't recall!

And, lastly if someone wants to show me some actual evidence to support the their idea, then i'm all eyes (ears?).

Cheers
Ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Coggan...and several others aren't allowed to enter.

🙁 😉 😄

Roadie_scum said:

It is deeply ironic that "this ZAKEEN dude is Adam Hansen (t-mobile)" and will therefore have his training monitored and peaks planned using the PMC and the rest of the cyclingpeaks analysis tools, as all t-mobile riders will.

Agreed. What I find funnier still, though, is dm69's whining about being "shouted down" on this (or any other) forum. IMO, unless your posts are being actively censored or you've been banned from a forum entirely*, the responsibility for getting one's point across on the web rests entirely on one's own shoulders.

*There are, of course, close-minded folks who will resort to such tactics.

dm69 said:

Ok here goes...lately I have become a little sick of this forum (that time of month :p ) and I have explored other routes of feeding my brain and my cycling training questions.

In my search I found this thread- weightweenies.starbike.comviewtopic.phpOpen ↗

have a read and feel free to bash me up.

BTW this ZAKEEN dude is Adam Hansen (t-mobile) 😉 😄 :p .

It seems I am not alone in the belief that science doesn't beat years of trial and error...make of it what you will.

Read the very last post ATM post #21 i think it is.

why would I bash you. At the end of the day, chances are that I indirectly compete against you.

Em I going to start bashing all those against whom I compete, just because they don't train using the same means as the one I use when I coach?

Enjoy your weight resistance session mate !

SolarEnergy said:

why would I bash you. At the end of the day, chances are that I indirectly compete against you.

Em I going to start bashing all those against whom I compete, just because they don't train using the same means as the one I use when I coach?

Enjoy your weight resistance session mate !

Yeah I will 😉

BTW new study just in: Sleeping is a waste of time and should be better spent riding a bike.
another new study just in: indepently studied by the cattle farmers union of australia- Eat lots and lots of meat it increases performance by 723.15% in trained athletes.

Do you get my point? These scientific studies had a conclusion before they even started testing. You will find studies to prove anything it doesn't mean there the gospel! Should 100 years of trial and error be thrown away because a fat pimply science student wanted to get a phd?

The info on this site is great and I recommend atleast trying out different approaches from coggan, stern etc. See if it works for you! If you find weight training doesn't do anything to your performance then drop it! Try something else and move on.

I am a bit lucky in the fact im only 16 so I have a good 4-5 years of finding what works for me or what doesn't. I just recommend other ppl on the forum shouldn't be scared to try whats worked for people for decades. Science will keep improving and eventually training programs should improve aswell but do we credit that to trial and error or a bunch of lab rats???

Have a really hard look on the web and I guarantee you will find many studies for and against every training principle we know of! The AIS is for weight training and ultimately thats where I want to get to, my coach also recommends a bit. ATM i dont have a PM but eventually I would also like to test that idea out aswell: what have I got to lose? (besides money 😉 ) maybe a PM will not work but then again it might become my most valuable piece of equiptment.

TRIAL AND ERROR!!! Science can prove anything!

dm69 said:

TRIAL AND ERROR!!!

Just so we're clear, are you recommending just trying *everything* to see what works? Or are you suggesting following the recommendations of people who say they've already discovered what works and are suggesting it to you?

I'd consider the former to be 'trial and error', while the latter to be 'belief-based training'. The question of belief-based training is, of course, whom to believe.

frenchyge said:

I'd consider the former to be 'trial and error', while the latter to be 'belief-based training'. The question of belief-based training is, of course, whom to believe.

Is this not part of the entire 'belief-based' vs. 'evidence-based' coaching/training question?

Oh and did you hear the one about the 'fat, pimply' Ph.D grad that qualified for the Olympic time trials a while back?

dm69 said:

BTW new study just in: Sleeping is a waste of time and should be better spent riding a bike.
another new study just in: indepently studied by the cattle farmers union of australia- Eat lots and lots of meat it increases performance by 723.15% in trained athletes.....
Do you get my point? These scientific studies had a conclusion before they even started testing. You will find studies to prove anything it doesn't mean there the gospel! .......Have a really hard look on the web and I guarantee you will find many studies for and against every training principle we know of!

Don't confuse bad science with a failure of the scientific method. Have the studies you cite been peer reviewed? Do they stand up to rigorous critique? There are lots of "studies" out there that fall apart under even casual scrutiny. It might be the methods, the population studied, lack of a control, or a number of other things but that doesn't condemn the scientific process. Don't blindly accept studies without applying some critical thinking skills, but likewise don't condemn good science because some bad "studies" have been foisted upon us.

Quoted post said:

... my coach also recommends....

That's probably the most important point you make. Once you agree to a coaching arrangement it's best to trust the coach's judgement and follow their plan. If the plan doesn't sit well with you or bring the desired results over time then consider a new coach but it doesn't pay to second guess your coach while you're on his program. A plan, even a suboptimal plan, is better than random training. If the weight training or other methods work for you, then go with it. If in time you lose your faith (and without independent evidence to support your coach it is faith we're talking about) then you should find a new coach. There's nothing worse than coaching a mutinous athlete who doesn't believe in your methods.

There's ample evidence of talented athletes reaching the highest levels of sport with dodgy training methods but I suspect equally many cases of folks that never achieved their potential due to poor training. Relying on tradition alone makes it hard to sort out those that suceeded despite themselves. Trust your coach, but open your mind to well structured research and new findings. Please don't condemn all scientific methods based on some lousy published papers.

Good luck,
Dave

ric_stern/RST said:

someone here (and somewhere else) got all upset with me, because he was suggesting that weights would help him to move house and not put his back out lifting heavy boxes (or some such). i did find it a rather peculiar discussion point given that this is a cycling forum, and that
1) i've seen removal men who've obviously never been near a gym in their life
2) i'm only discussing cycling performance
3) i don't really know what people do in their spare time (unless they tell me -- i'm not a mind reader).

Cheers
Ric

whoa nellie....I didn't 'get all upset' now...I was simply making a case for a brief strength and resistance program!

Trust me, we're in the same camp with respect to lifting, and it's direct benefits on cycling. I was simply making a case that there could *possibly* be *some* indirect benefits (do I have enough qualifiers in there??).

As far as it being a peculiar argument? I took a look at the training logs of 7 riders over a 3 year period. 5 of said riders ended up missing workouts (from as few as 3 to as many as 14!) over that period due to basic household chore related injuries. Would they have had the same injuries if they had been lifting? Hard to say. The "lifting" control group of 2 missed zero due to household chore injuries--but 2 workouts because of weight-room injuries (me dropping a weight on someone's foot....).

I know this is purely anecdotal--and in the end it means little. Still, I maintain that if done correctly, a brief resistance training regimen may prevent a rider from missing an on-bike workout here or there...with little cost.

I also think that if you trade a bike workout for a trip to the gym (or if gyming makes you too sore to perform at your best in your workouts)--then you're making a mistake.

To your points above:
1) red herring....professional movers move lots of stuff--they don't need to go to the gym! The average person who has a sedendary job and then helps his buddy move some 4'x8' sheets of plywood?? That's the guy who has troubles....
2) me too! But training doesn't happen in a vacuum

3) Isn't part of coaching anticipating the bone-headed mistakes your riders will make before they make them?? (or looking at past bone-headed mistakes and trying to learn from them??).

Again, we're on the same page here--really. The only benefit in lifting, as I see it, is if it creates MORE time to ride--not if it takes the place of it.

And, as I said in my old post, I think a 20 minute twice a week strenght/flexibility regimen is probably better than a periodized box-moving/weed-pulling protocol. Plus, at only 50-100CTL, it's easy for the athletes to fit that in!😄

Lastly, I'll leave you with this little gem, in response to a question about "why do you lift??" Can you guess the author??:

"I could use a little extra strength when performing many of life's daily activies"

dm69 said:

Yeah I will 😉

BTW new study just in: Sleeping is a waste of time and should be better spent riding a bike.
another new study just in: indepently studied by the cattle farmers union of australia- Eat lots and lots of meat it increases performance by 723.15% in trained athletes.

Do you get my point? These scientific studies had a conclusion before they even started testing. You will find studies to prove anything it doesn't mean there the gospel! Should 100 years of trial and error be thrown away because a fat pimply science student wanted to get a phd?

Your point is reasonable (I'm being generous). Studies need to be interpreted, some are biased, suffer from poor controls, small sample sizes, etc. Good thing Ric and Andy are very qualified to do just that.

Quoted post said:

The info on this site is great and I recommend atleast trying out different approaches from coggan, stern etc. See if it works for you! If you find weight training doesn't do anything to your performance then drop it! Try something else and move on.

I am a bit lucky in the fact im only 16 so I have a good 4-5 years of finding what works for me or what doesn't. I just recommend other ppl on the forum shouldn't be scared to try whats worked for people for decades. Science will keep improving and eventually training programs should improve aswell but do we credit that to trial and error or a bunch of lab rats???

The problem with trial and error is you never really know what made you improve. I think a bit of self-analysis and trial of error is valuable - that's the art of coaching. (Who said coaching is an art and a science? Smart man/woman). The good thing about doing this within the parameters provided by science is that it takes out a lot of the trial and error - someone else has done it for you.

You know what you'll find after much trial and error? To perform at a high level on the road, you need to be able to tolerate a high training load, which means you need to build up to that over a number of years. You need a very solid base of L2/L3/L4 work to push your threshold as high as it can go. You need a high VO2max, so you don't limit the potential for your LT/FT. You'll also find you have an advantage if you push your anaerobic work capacity up as well as your neuromuscular power. These things mean a steady diet of short, intense intervals will be very useful as you near your target events. Have I told you what macro-structure to use? No. Have I told you how to train? No. But if you aren't working within these parameters you might as well go to the beach instead of training.

Quoted post said:

Have a really hard look on the web and I guarantee you will find many studies for and against every training principle we know of! The AIS is for weight training and ultimately thats where I want to get to, my coach also recommends a bit. ATM i dont have a PM but eventually I would also like to test that idea out aswell: what have I got to lose? (besides money 😉 ) maybe a PM will not work but then again it might become my most valuable piece of equiptment.

When I talked to a physiologist and medical doctor who works with the AIS about weight training that wasn't what he told me. Some athletes at the AIS do a bit of weight training (small amount) coming out of their off season. Plenty don't. The AIS doesn't encourage it, but they are loathe to mess with an athletes psychological sense of well-being from doing the training, if they are only going to do it for a couple of weeks. If you want me to follow up with any queries about what they do I will do so with the aforementioned physiologist/doc and John Hawley (both AIS) when I see them for a study I'm doing in a couple of weeks.

Again, irony. The AIS has founded itself on the belief that sports and exercise science will provide the key performance advantages. It's this we have to thank for the unwieldy sack full of gold medals that means elite Australians have to pay excess baggage on the way back from any Olympic Games or World Championship (jk).

Just to prove I'm no ogre - I'm interested in junior and developing athletes in Australia and have a powertap I am lending out to just such people at the moment. I think 16 is a little young to be getting too obsessive about training, but if you want to send me a Private Message on these boards and let me know who you are and what level you race at, we could talk. It's going to a rider preparing for U23 nationals RR at the moment. Maybe in bottom age U19 you can borrow the PT. The only condition I have is that people fix what they break and that they train 'sensibly'. This doesn't mean exactly how I want it to be, but if your training isn't at least within coo-ee of correct and you don't know how to modify it based on the data you're getting, what's the point? Other Aussie's feel free to pm me too... 21 or under, or older but with limited time in the sport...

My theory is that, until you're about 17, riders should be developing a skills base and trying a lot of different events without obsessing too much about training. Do some MTB, road, track. Learn tactics. Learn to ride in a group. Learn to take a bump. Once you have that down, you're a little older, a little more resilient mentally and physically, you can start working on your motor a little more earnestly.

Quoted post said:

TRIAL AND ERROR!!! Science can prove anything!

It's OK that you don't understand science, but I'd love to talk you out of it at some stage.

[quote="ric_stern/RST"]
And you know what? do you know what makes me cycle better (i.e., score more points in RR, or TT faster)? Answers on a postcard to my address, and the first person to send the correct answer will win a prize (an RST t-shirt if i have some in stock or something else). If you're anti-science or whatever, you can burn it with an effigy of me.

Roadie Scum, Coggan, Biker_lindz, and several others aren't allowed to enter.[quote]

*sniff* you're so mean to me ric 😄

Quoted post said:

Scum, did we really argue in the beginning? i don't recall!

Roadie_scum said:

Your point is reasonable (I'm being generous). Studies need to be interpreted, some are biased, suffer from poor controls, small sample sizes, etc. Good thing Ric and Andy are very qualified to do just that.

Sorry, just to make it clear: they are qualified to interpret the studies, not to bias them and give them poor design. Although, thinking about it, if they were more nefariously minded they could probably do that as well. :p

RipVanCommittee said:

whoa nellie....I didn't 'get all upset' now...I was simply making a case for a brief strength and resistance program!

calm down, calm down! (he said in his best Scouse accent). weren't we discussing gardening? (we may have also discussed house moves as well, i don't remember), but the person i was referring to about house moves, got *really* upset with me (i.e., nuisance phone calls, barrage of email abuse). Unless that was you? (i hope not).

Quoted post said:

3) Isn't part of coaching anticipating the bone-headed mistakes your riders will make before they make them?? (or looking at past bone-headed mistakes and trying to learn from them??).

this point didn't refer to people i coach, but people on forums.

Quoted post said:

Again, we're on the same page here--really. The only benefit in lifting, as I see it, is if it creates MORE time to ride--not if it takes the place of it.

i coach up to 20 people at a time, for the last 8 years. i can't think of anyone who has had time off the bike that could have been prevented by weights.

Quoted post said:

And, as I said in my old post, I think a 20 minute twice a week strenght/flexibility regimen is probably better than a periodized box-moving/weed-pulling protocol. Plus, at only 50-100CTL, it's easy for the athletes to fit that in!😄

last winter i did quite a bit of supplemental work (core stuff with a ball, sit ups, press ups/push ups, tricep dips, etc). off the top of my head i did this 3 or 4 times per week. The only difference i found it made was that after time off the bike (when i was ill) i had no joint pain in my wrist and elbows when i got back on my bike (this have previously gone in about a fortnights riding after time off). i also had my worse season ever (such that i ditched racing this year for the 1st time in 21 or 22 years). i don't really think the two are connected!

ric

dm69 said:

Yeah I will 😉

BTW new study just in: Sleeping is a waste of time and should be better spent riding a bike.
another new study just in: indepently studied by the cattle farmers union of australia- Eat lots and lots of meat it increases performance by 723.15% in trained athletes.

dm, I wasn't trying being sarcastic sorry.

I can understand very much what you mean. And I challenge you to find one single post on this forum where I issue a statement for or against this topic.

And if your purpose is to express a point of view in favor of weight resistance I say great. Not easy to go against the strong current.... opinion wise I mean.

Lucy_Aspenwind said:

Is this not part of the entire 'belief-based' vs. 'evidence-based' coaching/training question?

It certainly could be, although I wasn't trying to pigeon-hole him if he really had something else in mind.

frenchyge said:

then again I thought they were all fat and pimply.... 😉

Olympic time trial qualifiers?😕 Just kidding.😄

RapDaddyo said:

Olympic time trial qualifiers?😕 Just kidding.😄

Dang it! :eek: I thought I got away with editing that out before anyone saw.... LOL :p