weight training

[quote author=Blimp link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=0#msg23944 date=1041585934]<br />C'mon guys, settle.<br /><br />In a balanced program, surely some form of weight training has some merit? After all, who wants to end up with big thighs and skinny arms...<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />Well the program I talk about wonth help much for that as its concentrated around leg excercises with cyling specific movements, its aimed at cycling progress and is based on the program Rabobank uses for his pro and youth teams. 🙂<br /><br />The thing why I'm going on about this is that I 'am really convinced rick isn't really vieuwing what I mean, mainly caused by the fact that my english isn't that great so that I can't always express correctly my point and the fact that the only resume which Rick has acces to only concentrates around point 1 as endurances is around point 2MLSS and 3TT who are only more tackled in the real(fiets original and comlete study) article. Thats also why I offered to fax him the complete so that he also could read the whole and maybe order the complete study and so can extend his knowledge(which probabely is way bigger than mine on this subject), he doesn't need to agree but reading other points of vue can make you learn a lot sometimes.

Maarten,<br /><br />i'm most appreciative and understand that you are speaking to me in english, and not flemish (?). i truly appreciate this, and am first to admit that my foreign language skills are 'poor' :-(.<br /><br />I will check the full article when i go back to university shortly (i'm doing a PhD in cycling performance/physiology).<br /><br />The abstract, always, states the salient points, and would always include the significant effects of the study, which in this case only show that 30-sec performance doesn't decline with weight training.<br /><br />The training volume in this study is only ~ 8 hrs per week, which doesn't suggest that the study is being undertaken by pro cyclists -- unless it was in the off-season, with a considerable fitness loss.<br /><br />One of the authors of the paper Asker Jeukendrup, who recently wrote a review article on &quot;Improving cycling performance: how we should spend our time and money&quot; (Sports Med 2001), doesn't suggest using weight training as an adjunct to increasing cycling performance.<br /><br />Furthermore, in a conference on cycling perfomance that Asker organised in 2000, at the University of Birmingham, no mention is made of weight training, and in the handouts the same points are made that i've previously stated, i.e., aerobic performance is limited by aerobic metabolic pathways, and increases in e.g., capillary density, oxidative enzymes, increased type i fibres, and efficiency, etc.<br /><br />Points 2 and 3 aren't statistically significant, and it isn't mentioned that they even tend to significance. Thus the large increase in % may have been caused by an outlier, e.g., an untrained or low fitness cyclist may have increased fitness (at a very high rate), simply because they were very unfit and as i've previously pointed out, in this group (unfit/untrained/etc) *any* form of exercise will cause an increase in fitness. This is because in low fitness groups, any exercise will stimulate aerobic pathways.<br /><br />Again, i'll point out that the bulk of the scientific literature does not show a performance effect with cross training, in trained individuals. Those data, support the rule of specificity. <br /><br />I have a more indepth article at cyclingnews.com, which should be up in the next few days (??).<br /><br />I fully agree, that we are all continually learning, and i am no exception. However, first look at that paper does NOT convince me to change my mind or make suggestions that weight training has a beneficial effect on trained individuals for cycling performance. Indeed, the only conclusion that the authors make is that explosive weight training prevents a decline over 30-sec all-out performance over a 9 week training regimen, when compared to a group who did a very small (volume) amount of endurance training.<br /><br />There are many other papers that show that cycle specific training (i.e., riding a bike) and mirroring the performance demands show an *increase* (not a prevention in decline) in cycle performance.<br /><br />Accordingly, i feel that it would be folly to suggest that explosive weight training is as good as cycle training considering the very limited data that you are offering to support your idea.<br /><br />The theory of specificity has been around for a while, and is for instance well covered in texts such as Textbook of work physiology: Physiological bases of exercise, by Astrand and Rodahl.<br /><br />Weight training will increase strength, but endurance cycling requires very little strength, as power during even elite races is low to moderate at best. Thus, in trained individuals who are looking for performance gains, i (and many other scientists) believe that it would be erroneous to suggest that cross training will affect the primary modality of exercise.<br /><br />Ric

You say power outputs are low? what is the average power output for a flat race that averages 40kph? (300watts?) <br /><br />cheers!

[quote author=Steve link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg23960 date=1041595521]<br />You say power outputs are low? what is the average power output for a flat race that averages 40kph? (300watts?) <br />[/quote]<br /><br />Actually even if its 400watts, thats quite low considering most of us could lay down 1500 watts sprinting for the finish line 😉 ignore my last question, I agree average power outputs are very low.<br /><br />cheers!

quote<br />The abstract, always, states the salient points, and would always include the significant effects of the study, which in this case only show that 30-sec performance doesn't decline with weight training.<br /><br />Well simple reason the abstract is concluding about the fact of weight being better than duration. I Thought the original poster wanted to know if substitution is possible(not directly the subjet of this paper). And the numbers of the study show that partly substitution(For whatever reason you want to do it, for normal people with not already an extrordinary level of fitness who Jazz Imo is) is possible with the same results.<br /><br />the 8 hours its a test with competition riders but not pro's and as I remember in the early pre season phase <br /><br />the poster IMO seems not be be a pro but just recrational cyclist or amateur in the build up phase partly substitution IMO is possible If he wants to I'll give him the exercises and the number of repetitions. If talking for a Pro or the ultimate workout conclusion could be indeed different. His goal is completion of a ride which means I think he's just<br />preparing general condition(building up), not looking for perfectioning his form.<br /><br />I sadly have not the time to look into the references you gave as its study time for me at university right now, I ll maybe get to you later(And I don't think we disagree this much Its IMO more another point off vieuw to subject).

[quote author=Steve link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg23960 date=1041595521]<br />You say power outputs are low? what is the average power output for a flat race that averages 40kph? (300watts?) <br /><br />cheers!<br />[/quote]<br /><br />The power output would be dependent upon several factors, including, CdA of the rider, mass of the rider, environmental conditions, and most importantly whether the race is bunched or a time trial.<br /><br />For a flat road race, an 'average' sized rider (1.75m and 67kg) would *likely* require a power output of ~ 160 - 200 W average. However, with careful drafting skills, this figure could be much lower, such that data available from Asker Jeukendrup, when he was with the Rabobank team, shows that a flat stage in the *TdF* required an average power output of 98 W. and no that isn't a typo!<br /><br />400 W would be the approximate power required to win or go top 5 in a TdF TT for an average sized rider. The 'Superman' Hour record, set in 96 (i think??), required Chris Boardman to ride at an average of 442 W, whereas the 'Athlete' Record (also held by CB) required a power output of ~ 400 W.<br /><br /><br />1500 W would be an excellent peak power for a road sprinter.<br /><br />Accordingly, that's why i state that power required for endurance cycling is low to moderate, but must continued for long periods of time (e.g., up to 7hrs in a classic). That's why weight training isn't beneficial to endurance cycling.<br /><br />Ric

[quote author=maarten link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg23964 date=1041597393]<br />quote<br />The abstract, always, states the salient points, and would always include the significant effects of the study, which in this case only show that 30-sec performance doesn't decline with weight training.<br /><br />Well simple reason the abstract is concluding about the fact of weight being better than duration. I Thought the original poster wanted to know if substitution is possible(not directly the subjet of this paper). And the numbers of the study show that partly substitution(For whatever reason you want to do it, for normal people with not already an extrordinary level of fitness who Jazz Imo is) is possible with the same results.<br /><br />the 8 hours its a test with competition riders but not pro's and as I remember in the early pre season phase <br /><br />the poster IMO seems not be be a pro but just recrational cyclist or amateur in the build up phase partly substitution IMO is possible If he wants to I'll give him the exercises and the number of repetitions. If talking for a Pro or the ultimate workout conclusion could be indeed different. His goal is completion of a ride which means I think he's just<br />preparing general condition(building up), not looking for perfectioning his form.<br /><br />I sadly have not the time to look into the references you gave as its study time for me at university right now, I ll maybe get to you later(And I don't think we disagree this much Its IMO more another point off vieuw to subject). <br />[/quote]<br /><br />The abstract (or even the study) does *NOT* conclude that weight training is better than endurance. I suggest you reread it.<br /><br />Whilst, in part i agree with you, that someone with low fitness will benefit from *any* training (rather than the principle modality), the fact of the matter remains that training via cycling will *always* give better results for cycling.<br /><br />Whilst, the original poster may have been looking for alternatives, the poster may have been under the impression that weight training (or other forms of cross training) may have been beneficial to their cycling performance. If the original poster is a low fitness rider, then while that maybe true, it would still be better for them to do their training through cycling as the increases will be better. Plus, part of the training needs to be to build up 'saddle time'. If they are time limited, then taking time away from cycling to spend it on something else, just isn't good time management.<br /><br />The goal of the poster is to ride 160-km bike rides (i'm not sure if these are races, touring rides, or just riding the bike), but the fact of the matter is that the strength requirements for this activity are *exceedingly low*, such that *any* healthy (and sedentary) person would have the necessary strength. The original poster will require endurance and thus increases in aerobic metabolism to better cope with the activity. This will be best trained by cycling. If, on the other hand (and understandably so) the poster wants an alternative method of training over the winter months (because they can't ride outdoors, and can't face indoor trainer work), then far better options of exercise would be ones that stimulate aerobic pathways, e.g., running, X-C skiing, swimming, skating, hiking, or even team sports such as soccer. Weight training is way down the list of importance.<br /><br />Ric

Gentleman, Thank you for your feedback, both scientific and otherwise. As per Ric's comment, yes I was looking for alternatives to cycling during the winter months as road work is limited to either weather or unsafe road conditions. My fitness level can be described as medium to high ( high during summer months June-August)<br /><br />My goal to ride 160 km rides is, for just riding the bike, however, I would like to set persoanl time goals for this distance.<br /><br />I like your suggestion of X-C skiing. I have been alpine skiing for a number of years so this would be a good alternative. I will also add indoor trainer workouts as well. Hopefully this will help me maintain my present level of fitness until I can get back on the road.<br /><br />Once agian, thank you for your feedback.<br /><br />

quote:<br />The abstract (or even the study) does *NOT* conclude that weight training is better than endurance. I suggest you reread it.<br /><br />I never had the intention to prove it as being better(there is no scientific proof for that as I mentioned several times earlier but to as giving benefit to aerobic and beiing a possibility for substitution It thought I empasized this thoroughly en there is proof for this, I suggest you reread my words.<br /><br />quote myself:<br />I Thought the original poster wanted to know if substitution is possible(not directly the subjet of this paper). And the numbers of the study show that partly substitution(For whatever reason you want to do it, for normal people with not already an extrordinary level of fitness who Jazz Imo is) is possible with the same results.<br /><br />the same isn't better I thorouglh mentioned several times there indeed is no proof of it beiing better, the proof for it beiing beneficial to aerobic work and about of equal benefit as duration is present(maybe not in the abstarct but certainly in the article I have and whit the numbers I mentionned).<br /><br />No Hard feeling seems to be a misread of my words by you or maybe not totally clear sentence from me<br /><br /><br /><br />Seems to me that it can be added to the list with running and others , just to what you like most or have better acces to.

*takes deep breath and wades into the fray*<br /><br />I have a number of thoughts on this subject based on my experiences in personal training.<br /><br />1. The foundation of all human movement is a degree of limit strength. Even marathon runners and long distance cyclists need strength to run or ride and therefore limit strength training should be included in the base mesocycle of any periodised plan.<br /><br />2. However the development of excess muscle mass to the requirements of any sport is detrimental. Particularly in a sport such as cycling where extra weight must be carried up hill.<br /><br />3. Therefore the aim of a cyclist training program should be to maximise the gains in strength from neuro muscular facilitation while avoiding muscular hypertrophy.<br /><br />To achieve this a general preparatory mesocycle of weight training should be undertaken before moving into a program of explosive lifting to develop the mind muscle link.<br /><br />So what does this mean for the average cyclist?<br /><br />1. The majority of training should still be time on the bike.<br /><br />2. Bodybuilding style programs of 8-12 reps with up to 80% of max weight should be avoided like the plague because they will promote muscle mass and not strength.<br /><br />3. Your program should be designed and supervised by a competent professional because working out with weights explosively is a little more risky than just pumping iron<br /><br />PHEW!!<br /><br />Time to grab a drink and prepare for the inevitable onslaught :P

Duckwah wrote:<br />1. The foundation of all human movement is a degree of limit strength. Even marathon runners and long distance cyclists need strength to run or ride and therefore limit strength training should be included in the base mesocycle of any periodised plan.<br /><br />The strength required to perform such tasks as cycling and running are minimal. Endurance cycling is limited by lactate threshold and VO2max. Untrained, (but healthy) age and sex matched individuals can easily ride at the power output requirements that are required for racing. However, they cannot sustain the effort for long enough, nor can they complete the work at a lower enough intensity. There is no difference in strength between untrained age and sex matched individuals, and cyclists.<br /><br />Strength is *NOT* a limiting factor in endurance cycling for healthy cyclists. The limiting factors are aerobic metabolism and associated pathways, i.e., VO2 max, lactate threshold, oxidative enzymes, capillary density, type i fibres, etc.<br /><br />2) is correct<br /><br />3) I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but if you mean that you're going to transfer strength gains made in the gym to cycling then you're wrong as this *doesn't* happen.<br /><br />Depending of course on what you mean by the average cyclist (this may very well differ between countries), then i don't believe that weight training is of any use performance wise to a cyclist.<br /><br />Even in fun and fitness riders (whose fitness may be 'low' compared to a racing cyclist), while weight training may have a beneficial effect (as would any exercise modality), the *best* gains would come from cycle training.<br /><br />If you're short of time -- ride your bike<br />if you want to get better at cycling -- ride your bike<br />if you want to get better at racing -- ride your bike<br /><br />Ric

One question ricstern, what is the consensus on strengthening stabiliser muscles? I know that in a lot of sports now they are concentrating on exercises to strengthen these and they appear to have some good effect? Surely exercises to strengthen the stomach and back muscles a little beyond a normal persons levels would be useful in providing support to the leg muscles and allowing them to be more efficiently used?<br /><br />

Endurance cycling is a really low strength sport, and is also one that requires little in the way of motor skills. Sure, there is some requirement to being able sit in one position on a bike for [censored] number of hours, but this requires very little strength. The effort of sitting on the bike is a very small percentage of your strength, and as such is best trained by riding your bike.<br /><br />Adaptations, take place at the specific joint and angle velocities that they are trained at. For instance, the classic test of this is to do weight training, and over a period of ~ 6 weeks the amount of weight that you can lift can double (e.g., if when you start you can lift 40 kg, after 6 weeks it maybe 80 kg). This would look like an impressive increase in strength. However, when you use the same muscles, but in a different exercise pattern, there is either no increase in strength (from baseline) or a very small increase. What this means is, is that the muscle has only learnt to increase it's 'strength' at the angle and velocity it was trained at -- this is a neuromuscular adaptation.<br /><br />Therefore, trying to increase the strength of (e.g.) abdominal or back muscles won't actually help being on the bike, or for that matter doing (e.g.) leg presses.<br /><br />There are reasons for doing weight training, e.g., you have other tasks to do that may require strength (e.g., lots of manual work such as lifting), you want to look 'muscley', or you may be recovering from an injury that has caused an impairment such as a broken arm. <br /><br />The skill required in pedalling a bike, is basically the simplest motor skill that can be learnt in terms of sport. Because our legs/feet are fixed around a revolving point (fixed to pedal, revolve around b/brkt), efficiency is *very* similar between untrained, unfit, never ridden a bike before people, and elite athletes who could/have won the TdF. From memory, untrained people have an efficiency of ~ 18% (at a relative low effort), whilst, well trained elite (at the same relative low effort, different absolute level) would be about 22 - 25% efficient.<br /><br />It's also worth bearing in mind that efficiency doesn't really change with the style of pedalling, but decreases at higher cadences (at a given workload) and increases at higher absolute workload (i.e., as power increases).<br /><br />In endurance cycling, it is all about being able to increase your (aerobic) power output, which is trained by targetting increases in (e.g.) VO2 max, lactate threshold, capillary density, % type I fibres, mitochondrial density etc., and not strength.<br /><br />Most people are limited by the amount of time that they have to train (because e.g., school, work, family, etc), and any time that you spend away from the bike on another exercise modality will hurt your cycling performance. <br /><br />Cyclists often say to me, (e.g.), &quot;i've only got 45-mins to train during weekday evenings, surely it's better to do a tough weight session&quot;. To which i reply, &quot;no, you can do far better with a tough (or even moderate) bike session in that time.&quot;<br /><br />

duckwah says:<br />2. Bodybuilding style programs of 8-12 reps with up to 80% of max weight should be avoided like the plague because they will promote muscle mass and not strength.<br /><br /><br />There is more to weight lifting and fitness exercises than that Rabobank use 30 reps series and seems to have excellent results with it.<br /><br />rickstern says:<br /><br />Most people are limited by the amount of time that they have to train (because e.g., school, work, family, etc), and any time that you spend away from the bike on another exercise modality will hurt your cycling performance. <br /><br />There are theories who also says that variing between ways of training keeps your mind clear because its less monotonous which gives you the ability to sustain more training mentally. And that if you don't vary enough monoynous training make's you reach a progression stop way earlier. Any comment one this?<br /><br />A non cycling question kan I extend this Cyclist needs to cycle to other sports? Ice skaters who seem to train a lot on bicyles are they wasting their time. Soccer players seem to do running exercises without their Ball are they wasting there time? And cyclists are people like Eadie and Tournant wasting their time in fitness centers, should they lways be racing on the track? <br /><br />My point is in my opinion you seem to have a problem with all forms of weight training or even other cross training. I think you are somewhat wrong over there and certeinly extending cyclist need to cyle to all the variations whe have in cycling and certainly with track cyling seems way to drasctic to say.<br /><br />

[quote author=ricstern link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg24042 date=1041963769]<br />Most people are limited by the amount of time that they have to train (because e.g., school, work, family, etc), and any time that you spend away from the bike on another exercise modality will hurt your cycling performance. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />[quote author=maarten link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg24042 date=1041963769]<br />There are theories who also says that variing between ways of training keeps your mind clear because its less monotonous which gives you the ability to sustain more training mentally. And that if you don't vary enough monoynous training make's you reach a progression stop way earlier. Any comment one this?<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />Sure, burnout could be a problem, but it's unlikely to happen to happen to someone who is time limited, and with a good training routine. But, that's a completely separate issue to that which was being pursued originally.<br /><br />[quote author=maarten link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg24042 date=1041963769]<br />A non cycling question kan I extend this Cyclist needs to cycle to other sports? Ice skaters who seem to train a lot on bicyles are they wasting their time. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />When you talk about ice skaters, i'm not sure if you're referring to figure skaters or speed skaters. If you're talking about figure skating, while i don't have any figures or research to hand, then my intuition suggests that figure skaters are 'low' fitness compared to trained cyclists, and thus as previously mentioned, in low fitness groups any exercise increases fitness.<br /><br />Whilst, i don't coach speed skaters, and therefore, don't know overly much, perhaps they x-train with cycling in the summer to avoid the monotony of circling a rink, which would have definite shades of burnout/boredom as you previously mentioned above. furthermore, as cycling is an aerobic activity and as i guess some speed skating events are endurance base there will be cardio vascular crossover -- unlike weight training which isn't an aerobic activity.<br /><br />[quote author=maarten link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg24042 date=1041963769]<br />Soccer players seem to do running exercises without their Ball are they wasting there time? <br />[/quote]<br /><br />Are you just being daft here? Soccer, has an endurance aspect - hence the run training and a skill (therefore, running with ball).<br /><br />[quote author=maarten link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg24042 date=1041963769]<br />And cyclists are people like Eadie and Tournant wasting their time in fitness centers, should they lways be racing on the track? <br />[/quote]<br /><br />Reread what i said. I said endurance cycling. 1-km TT is something else....<br /><br />[quote author=maarten link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg24042 date=1041963769]<br />My point is in my opinion you seem to have a problem with all forms of weight training or even other cross training. I think you are somewhat wrong over there and certeinly extending cyclist need to cyle to all the variations whe have in cycling and certainly with track cyling seems way to drasctic to say.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />I said that the *bulk* of the *primary* scientific literature does not support x-training or weight training to help endurance cycling. Apart from the previous study you mentioned, (which shows that weight training signifcantly prevents a decline in 30-sec all out effort), what other *primary research* shows your point of view? On the other hand the *bulk* shows no effect or detrimental.<br /><br />Ric<br /><br /><br />fixed up quotes - steve

There is also talk of power beiing a limiting factor in cycling. The comparisions made are between the average power needed. Well isn't a limit important in refference with the max power needed. for recreational riding this shouldn't make a lot of difference, but when we go to racing shouldn't it maybe be important, whats the power Cipo need to do a sprint wind head on, whats the power Musseeuw needs to attack on the Muur, Bettini needs on la Redoute. Seems to me power needed here is significantly higher than the average, does anoyone has an idea of the power developped here?<br /><br />Why I made this tought is that lots of competition cyclist do power training some in fitness centra, others on there stationary trainer and other uphil or wind head on. As they and there trainers seem in to this might there not be a serious reason?

Peak power attained during a maximal effort, such as a 5-sec ergometer test is greater than the peak power obtained during (e.g.) a road race sprint, but would be the same/non-significantly different as that, that occurs during a 200-m track sprint.<br /><br />During a road race/criterium/kermesse etc., fatigue occurs that tends to limit either the peak power obtained, or the average power that may occur over a 30-sec all-out effort. For instance, completing a Wingate test of anaerobic power after a road race, you'd produce lower figures than after a good warm up.<br /><br />The rate of fatigue and the change in efficiency occurs even after moderately low, constant load ergometry. For instance, in a study by Passfield and Doust (2000) MSSE, a significant decrease in 5-min average power and 30-sec Wingate power was noted when subjects performed a workload that elicited a 60% of VO2 peak for ~ 60-mins.<br /><br />Although, i don't know Cipollini's peak power output, we could safely assume it to be in the region of ~ 1600 - 1900 W, with true match sprinters (track) producing ~ 2000 - 2400 W.<br /><br />Although, as i've previously noted track sprint cycling will be helped by weight training, it's also, been shown (papers escapes me at present) that peak power can be increased with cycle training.<br /><br />Furthermore, pursuiant to the above, it's likely, that to sprint well at the end of a road race or criterium, etc., part of the skill is to have used as little energy as possible, and what energy that has to be used, should be at a small a % of maximum as possible. Accordingly, by increasing VO2 max and LT (which are trained through aerobic exercise -- e.g., cycling, and not weights) you can relatively spare your energy.<br /><br />When you (Maarten) suggest the power to attack on e.g., the Muur, or La Redoute, do you mean the highest peak power achieved or, the average power that the rider must produce over the Berg or the hill?<br /><br />The peak power in itself is of little importance in such an attack, as by definition it only occurs for a very short period of time. On the other hand the average power that must be produced over the entire length of the hill will be important.<br /><br />The average power (~ 500 W) will be produced via aerobic pathways, a) because the event continues and isn't a match sprint, and b) because the duration of the Muur is (what???) &gt; 30-secs, and La Redoute must be several minutes. Even in an all-out 1-km TT (by a Kilo specialist) around 30% of the energy is produced by aerobic pathways (hence the need for even track specialists to complete a large volume of endurance work). Yes, the power is higher, but it's still produced aerobically in these races.<br /><br />Maarten, i'm not entirely sure i understand your last paragraph: I have no complaint with riders doing indoor training on a wind trainer / ergometer (so long as they use their bike or a position that replicates it). I use (and coach) riders both out on the road, on trainers, uphill and into a headwind.<br /><br />All that i'm saying is that weight training won't have a favourable outcome on endurance cycling performance. There *are* reasons to do weight training, which include, &quot;looking better&quot;, being physically stronger, possibly preventing decreases in bone mineral density, after some form of atrophy (e.g., broken bone) or track sprinting. I don't and have not disagreed on this.<br /><br />The bulk of the literature, clearly states that there is little or no crossover between different exercise modalities. Allied to this, is the fact the endurance cycle racing (and thus fitness/touring is even further down the line) requires very little strength. What strength that is required can be more than adequately trained by on the bike training, with e.g., sprint exercises (to increase peak power), and submaximal work (to increase endurance). <br /><br />Furthermore, because in even moderately trained people weight training doesn't effect a stimulus that causes aerobic adaptations, it therefore can't increase (e.g.) VO2 max, LT, etc. Primarily, VO2 max, and LT are the limiting factors in endurance sport, and this is where the majority of (endurance) cyclists training should be aimed at. Any sprint training that needs to take place is best achieved on the bike (and by the way can't be achieved on any indoor trainers that are commercially available -- at least not that i've ever seen :-)). By completing the sprint training on the bike, it's a) specific, and b) can often be incorporated into a skill session as tactics are very important (e.g., when to come off a wheel, etc.).<br /><br />Ric<br /><br /><br />[quote author=maarten link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg24049 date=1041973249]<br />There is also talk of power beiing a limiting factor in cycling. The comparisions made are between the average power needed. Well isn't a limit important in refference with the max power needed. for recreational riding this shouldn't make a lot of difference, but when we go to racing shouldn't it maybe be important, whats the power Cipo need to do a sprint wind head on, whats the power Musseeuw needs to attack on the Muur, Bettini needs on la Redoute. Seems to me power needed here is significantly higher than the average, does anoyone has an idea of the power developped here?<br /><br />Why I made this tought is that lots of competition cyclist do power training some in fitness centra, others on there stationary trainer and other uphil or wind head on. As they and there trainers seem in to this might there not be a serious reason?<br />[/quote]

ricstern,<br /><br />The peak power in itself is of little importance in such an attack, as by definition it only occurs for a very short period of time. On the other hand the average power that must be produced over the entire length of the hill will be important.<br /><br />I meant the actual peak, as its often decisive like with Cipo its indeed just a few secs maybe but these secs desides who's over the line first or who's with lead group over the muur and who isn't as for instant Musseeuw attacks.<br /><br />Last paragraph was just an extra question no refference to what you said earlier just whanted to know what you tought about it.<br />

[quote author=maarten link=board=19;threadid=2823;start=20#msg24062 date=1042018880]<br /><br /><br />I meant the actual peak, as its often decisive like with Cipo its indeed just a few secs maybe but these secs desides who's over the line first or who's with lead group over the muur and who isn't as for instant Musseeuw attacks.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Maarten,<br /><br />There's two issues there<br />1) Cipollini (or anyone else) sprinting for the finish<br />2) Bettini/Musseeuw attacking on a berg<br /><br />In the case of 1 the peak is of extreme importance. Peak power is the major determining factor in raw sprinting ability. (although, as we all know tactical importance is also very important).<br /><br />In case 2 the peak is of little importance. The peak, by definition, would be the greatest power recorded, and would thus last up to 1-sec. Although, this will move the cyclist along. such a short time period over a much longer period of time (e.g., 30+ secs) won't have that much importance. Furthermore, as an attack isn't a sprint, the power will be much less, and the average power of the climb is the important aspect here. Because power has to drop rapidly from a peak to a sustainable effort, the sustainable effort is of importance. This is simply because the physiological response follows the velocity - time curve, i.e., the longer the duration, the lower the workload, or the shorter the duration the higher the workload.<br /><br />I don't believe peak power obtained during an attack to be of importance, my feeling is that peak power in an event by someone such as Bettini etc in Liege, would be no different, to an age and sex matched individual's peak power obtained during the local RR of e.g., 3rd cats.<br /><br />Ric

To everyone,<br /><br />Prior to joining this thread about weight training, i'd already written an article for cyclingnews.com about these issues. It's just gone up there and hopefully, you'll find it interesting or of use.<br /><br />I'm sure it'll turn up some more queries, so feel free to give me a shout!<br /><br />http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern<br /><br />Ric