Periodization(Periodisation)

Orange Fish said:

on-the-bike strength training workout:
* hill repeats
* muscle tension intervals - similar effect to hill training, but you can do it on flat terrain by changing the gearing and cadence
* the very short (50m?) sprints that ric mentioned with longer rest intervals between

Running is completely different from cycling, but I'm not sure what you're saying with the rest of the quote. Can you elaborate?

Thanks

What i'm saying is a lot of very successful runners included strength training, specific and general in there programs.

They used sport specific Strength work to transition themselves from their base period to there specialization period.

Also, would you include all 3 kinds of strength in a schedule, or would you start with one and progress to another? If progression would it be short sprints, hill repeats, then tension?

jagrazor said:

Its pretty rare to be alone and not need to sprint vs anyone and you know that :P

In general, yes, but I was just making a flippant reply to your flippant statement

"keep in mind, you *need* to sprint to win"

jagrazor said:

Plus being able to sprint decently is easier to attain than being able to ride away from the field, even though the latter will be your goal eventually

Not for a TT specialist or a climber, or even a rider with a good LT, who can get in a break against other riders who can't sprint. It really depends on what level and type of racing you are talking about.

I know what you are saying though, so, no point in arguing about it. To me, learning how to sprint gives you the best bang for the racing buck in the short term.

Steve

Steve McGregor said:

In general, yes, but I was just making a flippant reply to your flippant statement

"keep in mind, you *need* to sprint to win"

Not for a TT specialist or a climber, or even a rider with a good LT, who can get in a break against other riders who can't sprint. It really depends on what level and type of racing you are talking about.

I know what you are saying though, so, no point in arguing about it. To me, learning how to sprint gives you the best bang for the racing buck in the short term.

Steve

then we agree, and we are also both sarcastic when someone speaks in absolute.

I often speak from my own point of view without thinking, in my case, i need to be able to sprint at least semi decent

jagrazor said:

What i'm saying is a lot of very successful runners included strength training, specific and general in there programs.

They used sport specific Strength work to transition themselves from their base period to there specialization period.

Also, would you include all 3 kinds of strength in a schedule, or would you start with one and progress to another? If progression would it be short sprints, hill repeats, then tension?

Gotcha. Good point. And it's all about the work being sport specific.

I would include all 3 kinds of strength in a schedule, but would make it specific, and would use gym training at the right time as well so as to compliment the on-the-bike training. I wouldn't really use those workouts as a progression, except for doing muscle tension before hill repeats most likely. The sprints not only train for that all-out strength, but also train your anaerobic system and I would include that in another phase, depending on the athlete's goals.

jagrazor said:

then we agree, and we are also both sarcastic when someone speaks in absolute.

Yep, pretty much.😉

jagrazor said:

in my case, i need to be able to sprint at least semi decent

Same here.

Orange Fish said:

There is obviously not enough research out to say one way or the other that strength training is good or bad for every cyclist. I don't know if any research in the sports science area is that conclusive yet, but I sure know that strength training for cyclists isn't 100% conclusive.
You guys are treating this topic as if every article out there has 100% proven strength training to be bad for cyclists. Just as there is not enough research to say that it's good for cyclists, there's just as much out there that says it's not good. So how we can even go and say that we shouldn't do it, is just wrong.

There is a consistent thread through all the research that gains in cycling performance made via strength training occur only in subjects that are not well trained. For these people almost any activity (weights, swimming, running, treadmill, playing social basketball) will improve their cycling. It's quite clear that if you are anywhere near a decent level of fitness weights are extremely unlikely to improve cycling performance - no more likely than any other non-specific form of training.

With regards to 'on-bike training' - it is not strength or resistance training if it is sustained for any period of time.

Roadie_scum said:

There is a consistent thread through all the research that gains in cycling performance made via strength training occur only in subjects that are not well trained. For these people almost any activity (weights, swimming, running, treadmill, playing social basketball) will improve their cycling. It's quite clear that if you are anywhere near a decent level of fitness weights are extremely unlikely to improve cycling performance - no more likely than any other non-specific form of training.

With regards to 'on-bike training' - it is not strength or resistance training if it is sustained for any period of time.

whatever you say

jagrazor said:

So you need strength.

Just not very much of it.

Would it be possible to make a chart showing how much strength you need to produce X amount of Power?

to produce 1000 watts, or 400 or 500 watts, how much.

keep in mind, you need to sprint to win.

The problem with such a chart is that it would be complicated. Power is the product of torque and cadence. Power can be kept constant by reducing torque and increasing cadence. This can be done in a variety of gears so the chart is a bit of a problem. However this may help. An endurance cyclist who is not sprinting requires about 10% of the max torque he is capable of. Suppose a strong person can develop 150 lb against a weight with one leg. He will not need much more than 15 lb to develop a significant pedal force. This (or its equivalent in torque) multiplied by his cadence will determine his power. The problem for the cyclist is not developing power but maintaining it. Thats where endurance training e.g. threshold, Vo2 etc comes in. However if all you need to sustain a respectable power is 10% of your max available torque why train strength?

I agree a sprint is necessary to win. There are many types of sprinters and in the Tour de France they are specialized individuals who mainly count on winning the flats with a sprint ending (or in Lances case a slow sprint uphill which really isn't a sprint).The situation is a bit difficult for local riders because they have to have a good sprint as well as endurance (not that the elites don't but they usually get a lot of help). However in most endurance racing the torque required in a sprint is still a small fraction of max torque that a rider can produce (I need to check the numbers). High sustainable cadence and good Renshaw inhibition (a neurological mechanism that prevents force overlap between the legs so that one does not oppose the other) goes a long way towards a good sprint which is a very technical business. It may be the case that the sort of sprinting required of an endurance rider does require some weight training (I don't really know).This is not necessarily to increase strength but to increase muscle size and the pool of creatine phosphate which as I pointed out in my post is of great importance to track sprinters. However I have a hunch that cadence is really important. An Australian sprint coach once remarked that after a session on the weights top sprinter take the chain off their bikes and spin at 300 rpm.It boggles the mind.

I once asked a young woman who was - some years ago, German junior national sprint champion- if she could give me some sprinting advice.Easy she said,"either youv'e got it or you haven't"!

It all boils down to the fact the bike racing ain't easy. Bridge.

🙂

jagrazor said:

*applause*

Anecdotal*SP* evidence. Lance does weight training :p

If one new what type of weight training he did we could deduce what might follow from this piece of anecdotal evidence.Bridge.

[quote="Orange Fish"]Unbelievable!

What exactly do you mean by unbelievable. It sounds mildy pejorative and if it concerns my post I would like the chance to repond to it. Bridge.

There is obviously not enough research out to say one way or the other that strength training is good or bad for every cyclist.

Hard to disagree. Science is always a frustrating mix of doubt and certainty. Bridge.

I don't know if any research in the sports science area is that conclusive yet, but I sure know that strength training for cyclists isn't 100% conclusive.

Again I agree. Bridge.

You guys are treating this topic as if every article out there has 100% proven strength training to be bad for cyclists.

I am not one of those guys. Bridge.

Just as there is not enough research to say that it's good for cyclists, there's just as much out there that says it's not good. So how we can even go and say that we shouldn't do it, is just wrong.

There is some extremely good research that indicates that max oxygen consumption cannot meet the demands of working large leg muscles in endurance cycling. Thus we have more muscle than we need. Hence why build more that you can't use. I am not saying that strength training is bad for cyclist per se I am simply saying that since the torque required for good endurance cycling can be met by just about anybody (about 10% of max available torque which is plenty in a healthy young or not so your person) why train to increase it unless you are a track sprinter. Even in this case the torque you apply is much lower than the max torque you could generate against a v.high resistance.However I would like to know a lot more about the contribution of strength training to track sprinting.It appears to be absolutely neccessary.I agree there is lots of good and bad work out there. The trick is to discriminate between to two and arrive at some reasonable conclusion which we can then test. Bridge.

What you don't seem to understand is that when done APPROPRIATELY, it can work for many cyclists.

This seems rather vague and you are right I don't understand it.Bridge.

If it doesn't work, then I'd love to know why nearly all of my athletes are currently strength training and why they're continuously improving...

To answer this question we would need more information.I don't know how your people train in the weight room and this is highly relevant. Weight training with low weights and high reps is essentially endurance training but a lot of people call it strength training. It will probably improve endurance but in my view not as effectively as other forms of endurance trainng. Weight training at max weight may have some of this effect. However there are much better ways of improving endurance and these include VO2 max training and threshold training (i.e.max sustainable power for appropriate durations). I don't doubt your cyclist are continually improving. Do you have a control group not using weights and if so what are their results? Anyway I would be interested to know what type of "strength" training you are doing and whether it is in fact tanamount to endurance training.How do you propose separating the effects of their weight training from the other types of training which I assume they are doing.Bridge.

It's because I use strength training during the correct phase of training and have them do the right amount of work in the gym and on the bike to see the improvements we're looking for. I have first hand experience with this and do it on a daily basis - and it works. But whatever, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you guys because this just gets frustrating when people are so narrow-minded about this topic.

I for one am open to any amount of discussion and I am not narrow- minded.In fact in my post I pointed out that we should be open- minded. Please avoid ad hominem attacks and please don't get frustrated because we may not agree with you. If you can explain what you are doing with your athletes and how you reach your conclusions I am sure we can enjoy a pleasant and constructive exchange. I suggest that if you think that our (my) disagreements with you are narowmindedness you are most certainly guilty of the same shortcoming.Would you prefer it if this whole issue came to and end , we all accepted that strength training as indispensible to endurance athletes , and adopted your method of training. I suggest you would be taking on a heavy burden of responsibility. Bridge.


Can't wait for the volume on efficiency!

In which case I suggest you read the one on strength first. Actually this was simply a tongue in cheek remark, something of an appology for a long post. I am sure you dislike sarcasm as much as I. If discussion of this nature exercises you to this extent you might try avoiding it. There is much physiolgy that we can learn from each other. Some of us are biophysicists, physologists, sport scientists and engineers as well as coaches. I doubt if any of us paricularly enjoy or will profit from discussions in an atmosphere laden with sarcasm. By the way if you would comment on the substance of my post I would not only be honoured but would find it interesting.



BTW, bridge, can you elaborate on why you know,

A close colleague and well repected sports scientist (with an engineering background) who was also a national masters sprint champion worked out with him quite a lot. This was some years ago. Maybe he has aquired great strength now (Lance that is). I doubt it. With some of the rumoured values of his 40 K sustainable power and his observable cadence +the probable values of his torque as a fraction of his max torque you can make a pretty reasonable calculation of his max strength. I am going to sit down and do this and I'll bet its not that high. Anyway none of this has any bearing on the substance of the discussion. I should not have made the remark and in retrospect I see it as silly and uneccessary. Please accept my regrets. Bridge.

and why we should trust you,

Absolutely no good reason that I can think of. Bridge.

Orange Fish said:

whatever you say

What does that mean? Do you disagree with some part of my post?

Roadie_scum said:

What does that mean? Do you disagree with some part of my post?

you were speaking in absolute. You can't say there are Zero studies out there that uses well trained athletes, because I have posted 2 myself.

Plus you just sound like the echo of Ric.

jagrazor said:

you were speaking in absolute. You can't say there are Zero studies out there that uses well trained athletes, because I have posted 2 myself.

Plus you just sound like the echo of Ric.

apologies for being brief, but there are *no* studies showing a positive effect using trained cyclists and weights

ric

Roadie_scum said:

What does that mean? Do you disagree with some part of my post?

I absolutely disagree with your posts. They are just echo's of what ric says.

ric_stern/RST said:

apologies for being brief, but there are *no* studies showing a positive effect using trained cyclists and weights

ric

Ric,
you missed the study by Hickson. In that study:

8 experienced cyclists strength trained for 3 days per week for a 10 week period. This was added to their regular endurance routines. Strength training included 5x5 squats, 3x5 squats, 3x5 knee flexion, and 3x25 calf raises with relatively heavy resistance increasing throughout the program as strength improved.

Time to fatigue when cycling at 80% VO2 max increased by 20% (from 71 to 85 minutes).

So, saying that "there are *no* studies showing a positive effect using trained cyclists and weights" is absolutely 100% wrong. You need to not make these blanket statements and just realize the fact that there is a benefit for certain, not all, cyclists to adopt a strength training routine (either in the gym, on the bike, or both) at the appropriate time of their training.

On a similar note, since running is an endurance sport but still different from cycling of course, there have been similar studies done on strength training and endurance performance & running economy. One such study examined hill running as a means to improve running economy. Before I go on, I'm not saying that there is a direct relationship between improvements in running economy by running hills and an improvement in cycling performance by cycling on hills. The point that the researchers made in this study was that the hill running, while building strength, simultaneously trained the aerobic system. At the end of the study, they found that running economy improved by 1-4% - they used elite runners in the study.
This hill running that the elite runners participated in improved their economy because they learned to run in a fashion that expended the least amount of energy. After all, running consumes enough energy, so when running hills, the last thing we want to do is waste energy.

In cycling, the same holds true. When we climb, who wants to waste energy with unecessary movements? Resistance training (i.e. hill training) on-the-bike not only improves our cardiovascular system and makes us stronger because of the slightly larger forces we have to apply to overcome the force of gravity, but also can improve our economy by minimzing wasted upper body movements and limiting "mashing" on the pedals (both are activities that waste energy in the long run).

jagrazor, can you point us in the right direction to find the two studies you produced on this topic? I'd like to read them 🙂.
Thanks!

Orange Fish said:

Ric,
you missed the study by Hickson. In that study:

8 experienced cyclists strength trained for 3 days per week for a 10 week period. This was added to their regular endurance routines. Strength training included 5x5 squats, 3x5 squats, 3x5 knee flexion, and 3x25 calf raises with relatively heavy resistance increasing throughout the program as strength improved.

Time to fatigue when cycling at 80% VO2 max increased by 20% (from 71 to 85 minutes).

So, saying that "there are *no* studies showing a positive effect using trained cyclists and weights" is absolutely 100% wrong. You need to not make these blanket statements and just realize the fact that there is a benefit for certain, not all, cyclists to adopt a strength training routine (either in the gym, on the bike, or both) at the appropriate time of their training.

On a similar note, since running is an endurance sport but still different from cycling of course, there have been similar studies done on strength training and endurance performance & running economy. One such study examined hill running as a means to improve running economy. Before I go on, I'm not saying that there is a direct relationship between improvements in running economy by running hills and an improvement in cycling performance by cycling on hills. The point that the researchers made in this study was that the hill running, while building strength, simultaneously trained the aerobic system. At the end of the study, they found that running economy improved by 1-4% - they used elite runners in the study.
This hill running that the elite runners participated in improved their economy because they learned to run in a fashion that expended the least amount of energy. After all, running consumes enough energy, so when running hills, the last thing we want to do is waste energy.

In cycling, the same holds true. When we climb, who wants to waste energy with unecessary movements? Resistance training (i.e. hill training) on-the-bike not only improves our cardiovascular system and makes us stronger because of the slightly larger forces we have to apply to overcome the force of gravity, but also can improve our economy by minimzing wasted upper body movements and limiting "mashing" on the pedals (both are activities that waste energy in the long run).

jagrazor, can you point us in the right direction to find the two studies you produced on this topic? I'd like to read them 🙂.
Thanks!

When you climb seated you don't move your upper body (Or shouldn't move your upper body). Your muscles are contracting isometrically and then strength you need to keep your upper still while climbing seated will be achieved by just riding and climbing hills. I don't know whether youv'e noticed but most clibers have no arms, no shoulders or any upper body mass and yet they seem to manage on 6 hr plus stages. Mashing on the pedals? Mmm.

NJK said:

When you climb seated you don't move your upper body (Or shouldn't move your upper body). Your muscles are contracting isometrically and then strength you need to keep your upper still while climbing seated will be achieved by just riding and climbing hills. I don't know whether youv'e noticed but most clibers have no arms, no shoulders or any upper body mass and yet they seem to manage on 6 hr plus stages. Mashing on the pedals? Mmm.

That should of read most climbers have no arms or shoulders.

Orange Fish said:

Ric,
you missed the study by Hickson. In that study:

8 experienced cyclists strength trained for 3 days per week for a 10 week period. This was added to their regular endurance routines. Strength training included 5x5 squats, 3x5 squats, 3x5 knee flexion, and 3x25 calf raises with relatively heavy resistance increasing throughout the program as strength improved.

Time to fatigue when cycling at 80% VO2 max increased by 20% (from 71 to 85 minutes).

So, saying that "there are *no* studies showing a positive effect using trained cyclists and weights" is absolutely 100% wrong. You need to not make these blanket statements and just realize the fact that there is a benefit for certain, not all, cyclists to adopt a strength training routine (either in the gym, on the bike, or both) at the appropriate time of their training.

On a similar note, since running is an endurance sport but still different from cycling of course, there have been similar studies done on strength training and endurance performance & running economy. One such study examined hill running as a means to improve running economy. Before I go on, I'm not saying that there is a direct relationship between improvements in running economy by running hills and an improvement in cycling performance by cycling on hills. The point that the researchers made in this study was that the hill running, while building strength, simultaneously trained the aerobic system. At the end of the study, they found that running economy improved by 1-4% - they used elite runners in the study.
This hill running that the elite runners participated in improved their economy because they learned to run in a fashion that expended the least amount of energy. After all, running consumes enough energy, so when running hills, the last thing we want to do is waste energy.

In cycling, the same holds true. When we climb, who wants to waste energy with unecessary movements? Resistance training (i.e. hill training) on-the-bike not only improves our cardiovascular system and makes us stronger because of the slightly larger forces we have to apply to overcome the force of gravity, but also can improve our economy by minimzing wasted upper body movements and limiting "mashing" on the pedals (both are activities that waste energy in the long run).

jagrazor, can you point us in the right direction to find the two studies you produced on this topic? I'd like to read them 🙂.
Thanks!

I guess i didnt post them, i remember writing the post.. I will get the url of the studies on here asap

NJK said:

When you climb seated you don't move your upper body (Or shouldn't move your upper body). Your muscles are contracting isometrically and then strength you need to keep your upper still while climbing seated will be achieved by just riding and climbing hills. I don't know whether youv'e noticed but most clibers have no arms, no shoulders or any upper body mass and yet they seem to manage on 6 hr plus stages. Mashing on the pedals? Mmm.

Maybe when you climb seated you don't move your upper body and that's great. But how many riders do you see actually climb the right way? I see just about as many climb while moving their upper bodies as those who do not...and just as many who mash on the pedals when climbing. Usually these two (rocking the upper body excessively and mashing on the pedals happen together - or at least that's what I've seen in many riders. I completely understand that it's the wrong way to climb, and I'm not saying that it's the right way. I was just using that as an example. And it depends on who were talking about here. If it's about elite riders, then this is the wrong discussion to be having, but I was talking about the majority of recreational and trained riders who make up much of the cycling population.

jagrazor said:

I guess i didnt post them, i remember writing the post.. I will get the url of the studies on here asap

man, lol i was mistaken, i posted studies on cross training, but they included weight training as one of the top ways to cross train.

can't remember what thread it was in.

Cross training-
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0384.htm (cycling/running)
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0234.htm (running)

Weights-
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0096.htm (runners)

These studies aren't as good as the one posted above.

--------------
Off topic ... check this out.. http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0322.htm