weight training

[quote="kmavm"]
The fascinating thing is that from cat 3's and GT champions, the ideal TSS seems to fall in a narrow range between 100-150TSS/day. Over the last month, I've averaged something like 110 TSS/day. So, yes, there are guys like me who fight hard every weekend to be a factor in the nowheresville crit 4/5 field, who train almost as much as grand tour winners.
QUOTE]

I'm certain that the nearly all of cat 4/5s don't put nearly as much stress on their bodies from training as do grand tour winners do in training. If you in fact are, perhaps you are in the wrong sport, because something is clearly not working. Yes, genetics are a factor in success, but let's be real here.


I am no pro roadie, and I could just ride for the mere fun of riding (not specifically train) and be in enough shape to race well with the 4/5s.

velomanct said:

I'm certain that the nearly all of cat 4/5s don't put nearly as much stress on their bodies from training as do grand tour winners do in training. If you in fact are, perhaps you are in the wrong sport, because something is clearly not working. Yes, genetics are a factor in success, but let's be real here.

I am no pro roadie, and I could just ride for the mere fun of riding (not specifically train) and be in enough shape to race well with the 4/5s.

Kmavm was talking specifically about TSS which is a metric that accounts for an individuals threshold power. Therefore, the training stress it measures is relative to that of the individual. I went on a cruisy 3 hour ride the other day which averaged ~200W and got a TSS of about 140. For someone who is relatively untrained and lacks natural talent that ride would have netted a TSS of about 280 (and been borderline impossible). So the point is not that the absolute stress (which might be measured in, eg, energy expenditure) is as great for Cat 4s as GT winners, but that the relative stress (time over an individual's threshold, etc) is approximately the same for everyone. That is, relative to their individual fitness level, people tend to tolerate a similar training load.

My point is that a cat 4/5 who is not making real improvment is not stressing their body to the level that a pro will, for weeks and months. For a single ride? Sure. But their average TSS over a month won't be as high. If it were, they wouldn't be able to do the other things in life, like work a full time job, family etc.

A cat 4/5 who has not made significant improvement does not stress their body as much as a top level pro will.

I don't think it would be fair to say a grand tour winner is putting in the same effort on the bike, over the entire season as a low level amatuer who is not making improvement (i.e. a racer who has many other commitments in life which do not allow for adequate training. that is what I percieve to be the average cat 4/5 who is not making improvements)

It has been said that nearly the entire heathly population has the genetics to become a div 3 level pro cyclist if they were to train and live like a pro. (assume simular ages)

velomanct said:

It has been said that nearly the entire heathly population has the genetics to become a div 3 level pro cyclist if they were to train and live like a pro. (assume simular ages)

Who said that?

velomanct said:

My point is that a cat 4/5 who is not making real improvment is not stressing their body to the level that a pro will, for weeks and months.

True, but a cat 4/5 who is not improving probably isn't at the "ideal" training stress anyway.

Roadie_scum said:

Who said that?

I think one of the coaches on this site. I'm not 100% certain though.

It does make sense. It's not impossible.

I want to make a couple of quick points about sub-maximal strength efforts. It was stated that the loads required are similar to those going up stairs or were easily achieved by untrained athletes.

First, many people, even those in good shape, will breathe hard or experience some level of fatigue even after climbing the number of stairs in a typical two-story house.

Second, lets take the example of submaximal effort in a nearly pure strength exercise like bench press. Assume, for the moment, that your max is 200lbs. If you decided to bench press 40lbs as many times as you possibly could you would, eventually, be too tired to continue. Now assume your max was 400. Do you think that you would fail at the same point? I can tell you, from my experience, that you do not. So, even though the load has not changed, the lower relative load can account for greater endurance.

Additionally, with proper weight training, the extra muscle mass as compared to strength gained can be relatively low.

runnerj said:

First, many people, even those in good shape, will breathe hard or experience some level of fatigue even after climbing the number of stairs in a typical two-story house.

Yes, but not because of strength.

runnerj said:

Second, lets take the example of submaximal effort in a nearly pure strength exercise like bench press. Assume, for the moment, that your max is 200lbs. If you decided to bench press 40lbs as many times as you possibly could you would, eventually, be too tired to continue. Now assume your max was 400. Do you think that you would fail at the same point? I can tell you, from my experience, that you do not. So, even though the load has not changed, the lower relative load can account for greater endurance..

The ability to repeat a well-submaximal effort is tied to aerobic abilities, etc, not 1-rep max. Have you searched some of the old posts on this subject? I think I remember one post where Andy, Ric, or someone thoroughly described this.

runnerj said:

Additionally, with proper weight training, the extra muscle mass as compared to strength gained can be relatively low.

Any gains in strength that occur through weight training and does not result in greater mass will not transfer to the bike in any way since the gains are neuromuscular and are specific to speed and joint angle trained. (Thanks Ric)

whoawhoa said:

Any gains in strength that occur through weight training and does not result in greater mass will not transfer to the bike in any way since the gains are neuromuscular and are specific to speed and joint angle trained. (Thanks Ric)

This was the arguement I was using in my thread a few weeks ago. The main goal of increasing muscle mass, for improved sprint power. The fastest sprinter in my area (a friend of mine), he is easily the most muscular rider at the races. I want someone to tell me that this rider would be just as fast of a sprinter without that extra muscle.

I know muscle is not the only important ingrediant in sprinting, but it certainly helps, over being skinny.

velomanct said:

It has been said that nearly the entire heathly population has the genetics to become a div 3 level pro cyclist if they were to train and live like a pro. (assume simular ages)

I am a bit sceptical on that.

What may have been stated though, is that heathy population has sufficient leg strenght level to ride pro, without having to comit in a weight lifting program.

It is also too broad a statement that based on a visual muscular appearance that one is who is more muscular has more explosive strength. While generally this can be true it is not always true.

The example can be seen at a powerlifting meet.
The strongest lifters in each class do not all have the same muscularity.

Pound for pound some of the lighter weight classes are stronger than some of the super heavy weights and yet they are significantly smaller in musclar stature.

It would be my guess that it would be true for cycling as well that perhaps many sprinters do look more muscular than endurance cyclist, but there may be days when a less muscular sprinter may show up and surprise everyone.

My thoughts are not providing to the debate of resistance training as applied to sprint training, but I have just learned my lesson that you cannot judge athletic performance or ability on visual appearance. A sprinter may be able to gain significant strength under the squat bar, but may not have the propensity to gain muscular size as someone else. This doesn't mean that this person cannot gain strength or be stronger than the competition just because there is a lesser degree of muscular growth.

i disagree. weight training can only improve fitness. overall fitness is what wins races. everybody is pounding out the intervals and miles on the bike. you need that edge that singles you out. i lift heavy weights 4-5 days a week along with the 150-250 miles i log in on the bike. because of the large amounts of cardio, you will not become "big". i also race mountain bikes. in my opinion.... and thats all this is, my stregnth on the final lap (while everyone else is getting tire) comes from the gym. on the road,,, my stregnth on the hills comes from the gym. you cannot develop many muscles on a bike and in certain dispiplines, you need the entire package. one caveat to lifting,, there is no residual fitness. meaning, the lifting i do in the off season does not carry over towrad the warmer months. if you don't stick with it, you lose it and there are no additional benefits. if your going to lift, it needs to be year round. this is where the argument of lifting is debatable.

deiberson said:

i disagree. weight training can only improve fitness. overall fitness is what wins races. everybody is pounding out the intervals and miles on the bike. you need that edge that singles you out. i lift heavy weights 4-5 days a week along with the 150-250 miles i log in on the bike. because of the large amounts of cardio, you will not become "big". i also race mountain bikes. in my opinion.... and thats all this is, my stregnth on the final lap (while everyone else is getting tire) comes from the gym. on the road,,, my stregnth on the hills comes from the gym. you cannot develop many muscles on a bike and in certain dispiplines, you need the entire package. one caveat to lifting,, there is no residual fitness. meaning, the lifting i do in the off season does not carry over towrad the warmer months. if you don't stick with it, you lose it and there are no additional benefits. if your going to lift, it needs to be year round. this is where the argument of lifting is debatable.

Prove it!

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

deiberson said:

i disagree. weight training can only improve fitness. overall fitness is what wins races. everybody is pounding out the intervals and miles on the bike. you need that edge that singles you out. i lift heavy weights 4-5 days a week along with the 150-250 miles i log in on the bike. because of the large amounts of cardio, you will not become "big". i also race mountain bikes. in my opinion.... and thats all this is, my stregnth on the final lap (while everyone else is getting tire) comes from the gym. on the road,,, my stregnth on the hills comes from the gym. you cannot develop many muscles on a bike and in certain dispiplines, you need the entire package. one caveat to lifting,, there is no residual fitness. meaning, the lifting i do in the off season does not carry over towrad the warmer months. if you don't stick with it, you lose it and there are no additional benefits. if your going to lift, it needs to be year round. this is where the argument of lifting is debatable.

Just giving you a heads up, since you're new here. Many on this forum are going to disagree with what you just said.

But if it works for you... that's all you need.

deiberson said:

in my opinion.... and thats all this is

'nuff said.

"If we completely remove weight training from, for example, Lance's yearly training program, would we see a decrease in his performance in races?"

So far as I'm aware, Lance's coaches had Lance and the team do seasonal weights sessions in the off season to replace lost muscle tissue during the season after the stresses of heavy racing. That's the idea behind it, I think.
The other debate centres around whether or not increased strength in the legs e.t.c. would lead to an improvement in cycling performance and here Ric and Michael pointed out the forces we need to use to power the bike are low and can be met by anyone - so strength isn't a factor.
This is true, I think. You only need so much strength in the leg area to meet the requirements of the sport and you have to weight up the effects weight-training will have on your recuperation abilities if you mix it up with cycling sessions.
So, really I'm in the middle of the 2 points of view. My guess is that weights are O.K. at intervals to replace lost muscle while recuperating from a hard period of racing. To peak for a race, I would guess no weights need to be done at all otherwise the results would be negative.
But I'm no expert and don't know that much about sports science so this is just opinion.

Orange Fish said:

Some thoughts on this topic:
1) Regarding Lance and other pro cyclists using weights...these guys have the best of the best when it comes to coaches, so the weight training that is being prescribed for them is appropriate in intensity, duration, total volume, and timing. Please read on before writing a rebuttal to this point...

2) The studies that were looking at ECP and weight training were done on varied populations, during different phases of periodization, and by (in my honest opinion) relatively inexperienced researchers. By "inexperienced" I mean researchers who do not have a specific background in strength and conditioning. I just don't see their [the researchers] qualifications in being able to take a varied population and devise a periodized program by taking into consideration all of the strength training principles (i.e. specificity, individuality, progressive overload, recovery, among others) In short, I think the studies are all quite flawed and quite useless for trained populations like most of the cyclists in this forum. I think they are quite useless in general actually.

3) These studies cannot devise a general program for a small cohort of subjects and expect to see results that can be generalized to a larger population.

4) Now, we see guys like Lance and other pros who use weight training for a multitude of reasons. Like I stated before, they have the best of the best for coaches. Something has to be said for the benefits of weight training. This begs the question of:
If we completely remove weight training from, for example, Lance's yearly training program, would we see a decrease in his performance in races?
I cannot see how anyone can say no to this. Although, I think it would be an interesting study. 1 pro on a top-notch strength & conditioning program completely removed from any weight training for 1 year. See what happens.
Keep in mind that by performance, I am not only talking about power at threshold, fatigue, time trial performance, etc., but am also talking about other benefits associated with weight training such as developing muscular balance, bone mineral density improvements, injury prevention, and body composition maintenance to name a few.

Weights have no place in training for endurance events at all? Or are you speaking specifically to cycling?

Weight training 1 out of every 4 days, depending on your routine, will always be a shock to the body. That's only weight training 1 day out of the week...not enough to stimulate a response from the body, and too much recovery to allow the body to expect (and prepare for) another weight training session within 1-2 days. When you impose a stress on your body sufficient to cause it to respond, it will recover and prepare for another bout of that stress/exercise.

It's like if you do one 4-hour ride per week at a high intensity...you will be wiped out the next day. Over the next 7 days, your body will recover, begin to adapt, waiting for another stimulus. However, by day 7 you'll be completely recovered. So when you go to do your intense 4 hour ride again, you'll basically be starting from scratch, imposing that huge stress on your body all over again, and causing it to go through the same adaptation, recovery cycle...never being prepared for the next bout and never gradually adapting to the imposed stress.

I do not find that unusual at all. I would completely expect that. Bodybuilding and cycling are completely different, so loosing some of that maximal strength that you had as a bodybuilder will be very noticable on the bike.
When you train once a week, do you still do a bodybuilding-type of routine that you're used to doing? How many days per week did you weight training in your bodybuilding days?

Bottom Line:
I do not think that anyone can say that weight training is useless for cycling and ECP. There is evidence out there that shows (through flawed studies) that general, un-periodized, weight training programs that do not account for individual differences in subjects do not show improvements in ECP. However, professional cyclists who have the best coaches available and who participate in well-designed weight training programs are very successful. Whether or not that success is at all determined by their weight training or not, we cannot say. This is a topic that needs MUCH MUCH more research before any of us can say one way or another. And the thread that everyone keeps talking about is, in my mind, useless as well becasue it comes from unsubstantiated opinions based on flawed research. We should provide a holistic view of weight training to forum posters, avoid referring them to the "Gymming to Improve Power" thread, and allow them to make their own fully informed decisions.

Carrera said:

So, really I'm in the middle of the 2 points of view. My guess is that weights are O.K. at intervals to replace lost muscle while recuperating from a hard period of racing.

For what it's worth, I've had some bad experience in the past, with athletes loosing muscle mass.

Back from a month training camps from Colorado/Arizona/Florida, everyone in the club would be surprised and would go... "Oh my god, what happened, you lost so much weight!"

I have always thought it was mainly due to feeding too low on protein. And it was probably the case. You know, during these camps, feeding is not a priority for these guys (I know, it should !)

But I've seen it only with athletes training in a range of 20 to 30 hours a week.

When you train 10-15 hr, I am not sure this should be a concern.

Carrera said:

So far as I'm aware, Lance's coaches had Lance and the team do seasonal weights sessions in the off season to replace lost muscle tissue during the season after the stresses of heavy racing. That's the idea behind it, I think.

Wasn't it the loss of 7-10kg of muscle mass that made Lance a TdF-champion in the first place? (combined with some efficiency improvements)

_________
CycleFast

This is a theory but to be honest he doesn't look slight to me compared with other cyclists regardless. Can you really argue Lance is so good due to his being slight when he's one of the better built pro-riders in the TDF?
So, I suspect Lance was exaggerating a bit when he talked about this post cancer transformation - he seemed to put the weight back on again eventually.

CycleFast said:

Wasn't it the loss of 7-10kg of muscle mass that made Lance a TdF-champion in the first place? (combined with some efficiency improvements)

_________
CycleFast

Carrera said:

This is a theory but to be honest he doesn't look slight to me compared with other cyclists regardless. Can you really argue Lance is so good due to his being slight when he's one of the better built pro-riders in the TDF?
So, I suspect Lance was exaggerating a bit when he talked about this post cancer transformation - he seemed to put the weight back on again eventually.

There's an article from Edvard Coyle (don't have a link here) where weight loss and muscular efficiceny are found to be the two main determinants for his improvements.

I'm not arguing Lance is slight, but I am arguing that he improved when he lost muscle mass...

_________
CycleFast