Weight-training for sprint power

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
The last well-defended bastion for weight-training in cycling seems to be track sprinting (should we extend that to the kilo or other events?).

As weight training is always going to be less specific than bike work as regards muscle contraction speeds and joint angles the main argument for it seems to be that it can induce more hypertophy than bike training alone.

While this is surely true, on-bike work will presumably have to be reduced from what it could otherwise have been.

So just how important is weight training for sprinters? Data will be very welcome. Any comments on the pros, cons and methods?
What about the kilometer tt?

The 1 km would be the longest of the sprint events and definately one where weights would help. Similarly BMX.

The senior pursuit is an endurance event, however the masters pursuit at 2000 m for 50 year olds is somewhat shorter and I often wonder whether the riders should train as sprinters or endurance. From experiance of watching, it seems that both populations of riders do well.

An olympic 1 km rider will produce more than 2000 watts from the standing start for a very short period (seconds). Many elite endurance riders struggle to produce 1500 watts, personaly I have only produced 1200 watts from a standing start when my TT form has been at its best (although I was only national standard at best).

This last point goes to demonstrate the power and force production characteristics of the two different types of events sprint v's endurance.

Obviously, hypertrophy from weight training is perhaps the easiest way of increasing force production potential via increased muscle volume and cross sectional area.

It would appear that the times when a sprinter needs to produce the largest amounts of force/power are from standing start as in the 1km, olympic sprint and match sprint (where the rider can go from walking pace to flat out in only a short space of time). These are velocities and forces that can be replicated in the gym; the first contractions are 'almost' isometric.

Finaly, upper body strength is a requirement in sprinting too. Whereas a pursuit rider can control their bikes by 'resting' on tri bars, sprinters often talk about 'holding' their bikes down on the track. Upper body strength may even hold biomechanical and physiological benefits like opposing the forces from the legs, 'muscular balance' and joint/core stability when under large stresses.

All endurance riders, even MTBer's, don't need the upper body of the sprinter as the forces are many times smaller.

Hope this gets the discussion flowing. I'll post some more later.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
on-bike work will presumably have to be reduced from what it could otherwise have been.

If I were coaching a sprinter (or any non-endurance track racer), I'd have them in the gym more in the off-season and less in-season for this very reason.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
Obviously, hypertrophy from weight training is perhaps the easiest way of increasing force production potential via increased muscle volume and cross sectional area.

I'm not overly convinced by this (wording at least) because it seems to me that if the benefit of hypertrophy via weights were considered to be peak force production then advantage would be slight considering the very brief period when anything like peak force is in the picture, the fact that more bulk requires more force to accelerate, and that on-bike standing starts are likely to produce more specific neuromuscular adaptations.

Do you not feel that the extra muscle volume would have to beneficial to the whole sprint to make a significant difference (most of which is at low force compared to pedal stroke one)?

Do the bulky riders accelerate much faster before wind resistance kicks in?

Quoted post said:

It would appear that the times when a sprinter needs to produce the largest amounts of force/power are from standing start as in the 1km, olympic sprint and match sprint (where the rider can go from walking pace to flat out in only a short space of time). These are velocities and forces that can be replicated in the gym; the first contractions are 'almost' isometric

How well does "specific" work correspond with a maximum hypertrophy regime? The specific stuff can be trained on bike although you can't isolate muscle groups on the bike as in the gym. Do the weight trainers believe advantage is gained in isolating the muscle groups?

Quoted post said:

Finaly, upper body strength is a requirement in sprinting too. Whereas a pursuit rider can control their bikes by 'resting' on tri bars, sprinters often talk about 'holding' their bikes down on the track. Upper body strength may even hold biomechanical and physiological benefits like opposing the forces from the legs, 'muscular balance' and joint/core stability when under large stresses.

It's an interesting question as to where the "weak link" is during the inital few pedal strokes (back, arms, grip, legs?). I'm pretty convinced that once seated it is the legs.
Repeated standing starts would seem to locate and train this weak point in a very specific way.

Some great points, I'll try to reply below.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
I'm not overly convinced by this (wording at least) because it seems to me that if the benefit of hypertrophy via weights were considered to be peak force production then advantage would be slight considering the very brief period when anything like peak force is in the picture, the fact that more bulk requires more force to accelerate, and that on-bike standing starts are likely to produce more specific neuromuscular adaptations.

Do you not feel that the extra muscle volume would have to beneficial to the whole sprint to make a significant difference (most of which is at low force compared to pedal stroke one)?

I think its my wording. Simply, muscle size (and therefore hypertrophy) limits the muscle's potential to produce force. Bigger the muscle, bigger potential to produce force. The force produced by the muscle is then limited by neuromuscular adaptations (explaining why small muscles can be stronger) and metabolic factors (i.e. the primary limiting factor in endurance). A sprinter therefore needs to have big muscles and a high level of neuromuscular adapations.

While neuromuscular adaptations would allow all riders to increase their ability to produce force; the maximum increases in force via this route would be limited (directly by the size of the muscle). Beyond this point hypertrophy would be essential to allow further increases in strength.

The increases in strength would benefit the rider beyond the first pedal revs, particularly in the shorter sprints which are limited less by metabolism (i.e. match sprint; 1km is also limited by anaerobic glycolysis). Via hypertrophy and specific on the bike training for neuromuscular adaptations, positive changes to the force/velocity curve could be made. The rider would be able to produce more force at any given velocity (cadence in cycling) resulting in more power for the duration of the event (unless limited by another factor like metabolism).

Without the hypertrophy, force production across the range of cadences would be limited. At 60kg I would be never be able to produce the 2000+ watts required of an olympic sprinter without increases in specific muscle mass, although I can climb!

Weight training is beneficial as it is the 'fastest' way to create the hypertrophy required. By doing weight training, the need for hypertrophy is trained specificaly. On the bike training is required for neuromuscular adaptation.

Unfortunatley this doesn't apply to endurance cycling, whereby force production is limited by metabolic factors rather than strength.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
Do the bulky riders accelerate much faster before wind resistance kicks in?

Wind resistance is most related to the frontal surface area of the rider. Increases in mass, don't result in the same increase in frontal surface area. For example, the frontal surface area of a 20 stone rider isn't two times that of a 10 stone rider. Its a different story when gravity is involved.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
How well does "specific" work correspond with a maximum hypertrophy regime? The specific stuff can be trained on bike although you can't isolate muscle groups on the bike as in the gym. Do the weight trainers believe advantage is gained in isolating the muscle groups?

Yes, thats exactly where the advantage is. The muscles can be isolated and a rate of hypertrophy acheived in a gym that can not be acheived on a bike. The hypertrophy is 'specificaly' targeted, within exercises that support the cycling activities (i.e. joint angles, velocities, etc. where possible). Specific doesn't only mean 'on the bike' it means training a targeted characteristic (i.e. stretching is specific to flexibility).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
It's an interesting question as to where the "weak link" is during the inital few pedal strokes (back, arms, grip, legs?). I'm pretty convinced that once seated it is the legs.
Repeated standing starts would seem to locate and train this weak point in a very specific way.

I think the weak point is usualy with the legs throughout the sprint; unless there is inexperiance (i.e. skill) or a specific weak body part (caused by poor training or injury) or mental issue.

I think there needs to be some balance to avoid injury, for good technique, to use skills, etc. Having watched Quealy (1km) and Staff (matched sprint + BMX) struggle to keep their bike in a straight line when sprinting, there is a very clear demand for upper body strength to keep the bike in a straight line even when seated.

While I think that sprint drills, like standing starts, could be used to isolate and train weaknesses; there are probably better and more direct ways of training weaknesses when they are identified.

Sorry long post.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
So just how important is weight training for sprinters? Data will be very welcome. Any comments on the pros, cons and methods?

Weight training is pretty much essential for true sprinters, as a way to induce hypertrophy.

Obviously, it could have a detremental effect on performance so needs to be done primeraly out of season and well planned.

For the new sprinter lots of gains could be made by specific on the bike training, however at some point the rider would be limited by muscle size.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
I think its my wording. Simply, muscle size (and therefore hypertrophy) limits the muscle's potential to produce force. Bigger the muscle, bigger potential to produce force.

Right, although I think the presentation would be simplified by noting that muscle volume is generally related to power (although in this case it does relate equally well to force).

Quoted post said:

Wind resistance is most related to the frontal surface area of the rider. Increases in mass, don't result in the same increase in frontal surface area.

That's right, so on this basis hypertrophy (representing extra power with extra weight) should make it's prescence felt more after the early acceleration which is mainly weight dependent.

Quoted post said:

Having watched Quealy (1km) and Staff (matched sprint + BMX) struggle to keep their bike in a straight line when sprinting, there is a very clear demand for upper body strength to keep the bike in a straight line even when seated.

Well it certainly sounds like they need more practice on the bike!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
Weight training is pretty much essential for true sprinters, as a way to induce hypertrophy.

It would be lovely to have some numbers on all this, but I suppose you could say that about a lot of training priciples.

Quoted post said:

Obviously, it could have a detremental effect on performance so needs to be done primeraly out of season and well planned.

Let's make a thread of it then 2Lap - why could the high octane hypertrophy work be detrimental and have to be focused on the off season? Has it been tried the other way round?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
Right, although I think the presentation would be simplified by noting that muscle volume is generally related to power (although in this case it does relate equally well to force).

The use off mass v's cross section data, is often a measurement issue. While cross sectional area requires simple ultrasound techniques, measurements of volume can either be estimates which tend to be poor or use expensive and complex MRI.

I'm all for a simpler way of getting these concepts across; I alaways end up writing an essay and still not covering every point.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
Well it certainly sounds like they need more practice on the bike!

Its not often you hear that about olympic and world champions! I guess their increased mass and momentum, requires greater force to change direction and so greater strength is required. All sprinting techniques are hardly techniques that encourage a straight line, particularly on a bend.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
It would be lovely to have some numbers on all this, but I suppose you could say that about a lot of training priciples.

I agree, it would be nice. In coaching its quite common to apply data from two very different sources to a problem recognising its limitations. As a result while there may be no data specificaly sprint cycling and weight training; you might be able to look at data from weight training and sprint training alone. This would give you a good idea of the changes in each characteristic and the rate of change. This may be worth doing in this case, as there the data is vary scarce.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
Let's make a thread of it then 2Lap - why could the high octane hypertrophy work be detrimental and have to be focused on the off season? Has it been tried the other way round?

You could try this question the other way round, 'what benefits are there of 'in season' weight training'? Weight training may lead to fatigue, reduced on the bike time, non transferable neuromuscular adaption, etc. that may not be desired at times of the year.

What kind of riding do you do Andrew?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
You could try this question the other way round, 'what benefits are there of 'in season' weight training'?

Well from the info presented so far, I'd say peak hypertrophy for competition. We've set the goal of hypertrophy + neuromuscular adaptation and asserted that bike alone won't do the best job of hypertrophy. We haven't yet got to the bit of information that logically puts the hypertrophy in the off season.

I'll make you work for it 2Lap. Is muscle mass much easier to maintain than neuromuscular adaptations? Data on that?

Quoted post said:

What kind of riding do you do Andrew?

With the missus at approx 10mph, although she sometimes tries to come past so this thread could be useful. Whether or not this activity should be classed as an endurance event is an interesting point.

Back in the dim and distant I road raced in France. I did a lot of winter weights in my early days (before it was that fashionable) and would go as far as to claim that this helped my lack of sprint, although the hypertrophy didn't last far into the season. However my riding improved greatly once I focused on being lean and mean rather than big and beefy (ie no weights). In fact that would be my tip to the British riders I had the pleasure of racing with a couple of years back (along with some stuff about tactics and attitude).

Quoted post said:

All sprinting techniques are hardly techniques that encourage a straight line, particularly on a bend.

I'm convinced its a skill thing though. Riders may feel they are holding the bike in line or even "down" with great strength as you mentioned earlier but that's like picking yourself up in a bucket.

I just thought I’d throw this into the discussion.....

When your train a muscle to complete failure, you strip muscle fibres similarly to shaving the hair on your face, they grow back thicker and as we all know a bigger muscle is potentially a stronger muscle.

The problem with simply doing squats and other various weight training regimes to build muscle. You may not necessarily build ALL the muscles recruited in cycling or standing starts or manic sprint action.

Notably I have observed that a lot of cyclists ( as opposed to sprint runners ) have under developed calf muscles.

Another curious observation is:
Muscle biopsies were taken on 100 metre runners and compared to that of body builders and it was found that the runners had mainly fast twitch muscle fibres but they were mainly fatigue resistant fast twitch fibres ( type III and IIII ) as opposed to the body builders which were mainly just type II FT fibres.

This would suggest that the sprint runners trained differently then the body builders and hence acquired a different training effect. They didn’t just grow a bigger muscle they grew a muscle better suited to their needs.

Now I find this curious because a 100 metre runner only has to sustain a sprint for 10 seconds and a standard set of 12 reps on any weights training programme is going to sustain the muscle under load for at least 20 seconds.

This suggests that placing the body under different stresses ( intensities ) has a different training effect. Isolating a single muscle group and training them independently will not achieve the same intensity, even though the outward appearance is hypertrophy, ( muscle growth )

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
Well from the info presented so far, I'd say peak hypertrophy for competition. We've set the goal of hypertrophy + neuromuscular adaptation and asserted that bike alone won't do the best job of hypertrophy. We haven't yet got to the bit of information that logically puts the hypertrophy in the off season.

I'll make you work for it 2Lap. Is muscle mass much easier to maintain than neuromuscular adaptations? Data on that?

Sorry, I'm lacking on my numbers but this is outside my usual interest and research. I fear that all of my posts may come out a bit 'wooly' for you.

The neuromuscular adaptations are far more transient than the hypertrophy. I have seen some graphs showing that at the onset of weight training most of the strength gains for the first month can purely be put down to neuromuscular adaptations. When the wait training stops, the neuromuscular adaptations are also lost quickest. If you consider the structures built and chemical changes that occur during hypertrophic adaptations are more robust than neuromuscular adapations.

As neuromuscular adaptations don't transfer too well between different activities due to specificity, unlike hypertrophy which has greater transfer. Cycling only (or with only a little weights training) in the season therefore means that hypertrophy gains are not significantly comprimised and the neuromuscular adaptations are in favour of cycling.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
I'm convinced its a skill thing though. Riders may feel they are holding the bike in line or even "down" with great strength as you mentioned earlier but that's like picking yourself up in a bucket.

I agree completely. I think skill is most important factor in controling the bike, unless there is insufficent strength to execute the skill.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
I just thought I’d throw this into the discussion.....

When your train a muscle to complete failure, you strip muscle fibres similarly to shaving the hair on your face, they grow back thicker and as we all know a bigger muscle is potentially a stronger muscle.

The problem with simply doing squats and other various weight training regimes to build muscle. You may not necessarily build ALL the muscles recruited in cycling or standing starts or manic sprint action.

Notably I have observed that a lot of cyclists ( as opposed to sprint runners ) have under developed calf muscles.

I agree completely and as for any athlete doing weights their program needs to be well planned. I'm not sure how you determined that the calfs were under developed or what implications that had for the sprint cyclists?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
I just thought I’d throw this into the discussion.....
Another curious observation is:
Muscle biopsies were taken on 100 metre runners and compared to that of body builders and it was found that the runners had mainly fast twitch muscle fibres but they were mainly fatigue resistant fast twitch fibres ( type III and IIII ) as opposed to the body builders which were mainly just type II FT fibres.

This would suggest that the sprint runners trained differently then the body builders and hence acquired a different training effect. They didn’t just grow a bigger muscle they grew a muscle better suited to their needs.

There are two types of fast twitch fibres (2a or b, also known as 2 or 2x) and there are slow twitch fibres (type 1). Fast twitch fibres tend to switch easily between a and b (intermediate fibres (2I) can often be identified by looking for fibres with type 2a and b characteristics). Last time I looked I don't think I found any decent evidence that suggests that type 1 change to type 2 (slow to fast) or vice versa. People who do little exercise tend to have more 2b (fatigable) and with more exercise these change to 2a (fatigue resistant).

It is likely that the two groups fibre types differed because the sprinters do more aerobic training and anaerobic running training than the body builders who tend to restrict themselves to weights. While I haven't seen the study myself its difficult to exclude the effects of genetic factor and sampled muscles on the biopsy results.

Your point is exactly right, by doing specific training they have created the muscles they need to do their event well. Despite the two forms of exercise appearing to be similar. Just goes to show an unstructured weights program and weights on its own will not make a sprinter.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
Now I find this curious because a 100 metre runner only has to sustain a sprint for 10 seconds and a standard set of 12 reps on any weights training programme is going to sustain the muscle under load for at least 20 seconds.

This suggests that placing the body under different stresses ( intensities ) has a different training effect. Isolating a single muscle group and training them independently will not achieve the same intensity, even though the outward appearance is hypertrophy, ( muscle growth )

This is exactly the case and why any weight training should be made as specific as possible. As well as intensity, weight training can be different due to; joint angular velocity, load, joint positions, muscles used, loading patterns, fatigue characteristics. All of these need to be considered when devising the training.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
Notably I have observed that a lot of cyclists ( as opposed to sprint runners ) have under developed calf muscles.

You are probably right for cyclists in general, not sure about the track sprinters.
The reason is simple: the calves are not required to do much work in cycling. There was a study showing blood flow in the calves during cycling to be less than the rest of the leg as opposed to running where it was the same.

To suggest that riders practice traditional ankling (like me) in order for the calves to share the workload does not go down too well, the argument being that there is enough muscle working in the rest of the leg (same goes for Powercrank training).

Have you noticed how the riders who really do have "no calves" tend to pedal "toe-down" which reduces calf tension?

Heresay has it that track-sprinters ankle more (and depth of ankling tends to increase significantly out-of-saddle).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
.
The reason is simple: the calves are not required to do much work in cycling. There was a study showing blood flow in the calves during cycling to be less than the rest of the leg as opposed to running where it was the same.

Or maybe it's not that simple if we assume road cycling doesn't allow hypertrophy as some have proposed.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
Or maybe it's not that simple if we assume road cycling doesn't allow hypertrophy as some have proposed.

Not sure what you are suggesting here.

When Edd mentioned 'underdeveloped' calf muscles, I assumed he mean't 'not developed enough' rather than 'small' or 'less developed' than another.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
Not sure what you are suggesting here.

When Edd mentioned 'underdeveloped' calf muscles, I assumed he mean't 'not developed enough' rather than 'small' or 'less developed' than another.

I assumed he was using eyeball method to compare thigh/calf "balance", maybe he will clarify.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
You are probably right for cyclists in general, not sure about the track sprinters.
The reason is simple: the calves are not required to do much work in cycling. There was a study showing blood flow in the calves during cycling to be less than the rest of the leg as opposed to running where it was the same.

To suggest that riders practice traditional ankling (like me) in order for the calves to share the workload does not go down too well, the argument being that there is enough muscle working in the rest of the leg (same goes for Powercrank training).

Have you noticed how the riders who really do have "no calves" tend to pedal "toe-down" which reduces calf tension?

Heresay has it that track-sprinters ankle more (and depth of ankling tends to increase significantly out-of-saddle).

I ride foot parallel to the ground for the whole of the pedaling action, just a little rocking action. It’s just what I do, it’s comfy.

I was reading on a site, ( link on this forum somewhere ), that the effective length between the pedal axle and the axis of the knee had a biomechanical advantage ( calf strength issue ) if you rode flat footed ?

On the whole weight training thing: Your training should have a performance emphasize, strength, speed, endurance. Hypertrophy should not be your focus, hypertrophy will just happen and as a sprinter this is not going to bother you at all, However if I was lighter then you and could generate more power and speed, what then ?

Detraining effects are significant in fitness and strength after two weeks of no training, this depends on the individual, but can be as much as 10%

Training should be incremental, continually getting heavier, harder over a three week period then cutting back to 50% on the forth week, The fifth week would be harder then the third week.

Start at less then your maximum, a single rep per set added each session is all the increments need to be, hit a wall, vary something else.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andrewbradley
I assumed he was using eyeball method to compare thigh/calf "balance", maybe he will clarify.

Simple test in a gym, strength imbalance, can squat a small cow can't even calf raise a lamb. From that I eye ball cyclists and note strength imbalance.