# Winter Strength training



## solidthegreat (19 Nov 2013)

So now the winter is closing in, I reckon its time to start planning for a few visits to the gym. Does anyone have any specific weight training exercises that could help improve my overall strength and power to weight ratio without gaining too much weight or muscle mass that it counteracts sportive riding.


----------



## Dusty Bin (19 Nov 2013)

And so beginneth another 16-page thread on strength training for endurance cyclists.... 

Seriously, I don't know if you have researched this at all - but there is very little evidence to equate improved leg strength to improve cycling performance. Go to the gym if you like, but don't go there on the expectation of improving your cycling fitness.


----------



## ColinJ (19 Nov 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Go to the gym if you like, but don't go there on the expectation of improving your cycling fitness.


Some good spinning sessions wouldn't hurt!


----------



## Dusty Bin (19 Nov 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Some good spinning sessions wouldn't hurt!



aye, that's true enough - but it ain't weight training


----------



## Albert (19 Nov 2013)

I go to the gym (90 minute session once a week) and do some weights, rowing and running because I am told that cycling is not good for bone density.
In the gym you get to use of non-cycling muscles and gradually strengthen weaknesses - in my case the lower back and groin area.
As long as you do easy weights, you will not bulk up. I do the Full Monty of static weight machines alternating arms and legs and do 2 sets of 15 reps on each.
I don't do free weights, as good technique is needed to avoid the risk of injury.
Not very scientific, but this works for me.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (20 Nov 2013)

Posture, Stability and flexibility are issues which often impact cyclists. Many cyclists have a weak core and lack flexibility in the hip flexors in particular.
These are area worth working on for all aspects of your well-being imho.


----------



## SquareDaff (20 Nov 2013)

Get this weeks Cycling Weekly - there's a series of 10 exercises in there.


----------



## michaelcycle (20 Nov 2013)

If you want to improve cycle specific adaptations you have to do do cycle specific training ie on bike.

However, you can supplement this if you have time with certain weight training which targets specific areas like the quads, hamstrings, glutes, lower back and shoulders which can prove to be problem areas for cyclists for a variety of reasons.

So, stuff like squats, lunges, hamstring raises, lever raises / trunk extensions, shoulder presses or extensions would be good.

If you want to avoid adding mass then don't work within the hypertrophy range (around 8-12 reps per set) and high volume training (so multiple sets.) 

You can either go really heavy to work neuromuscular adaptations (so 3-5 reps) or light to work endurance (15-20). I favour really heavy myself. 

I also think weights are great for bony injury prevention as it improves bone mineral density.


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Nov 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> If you want to improve cycle specific adaptations you have to do do cycle specific training ie on bike.
> 
> However, you can supplement this if you have time with certain weight training which targets specific areas like the quads, hamstrings, glutes, lower back and shoulders which can prove to be problem areas for cyclists for a variety of reasons.
> 
> ...



This seems a bit confused. You start by saying (correctly) that cycle-related training is best done on a bike. But then you talk about gym work improving endurance. Can you clarify that?


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Nov 2013)

SQUAT!


----------



## michaelcycle (20 Nov 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> This seems a bit confused. You start by saying (correctly) that cycle-related training is best done on a bike. But then you talk about gym work improving endurance. Can you clarify that?



Eh? I didn't mean for the purpose of improving endurance. Apologies if it wasn't clear.

I meant weights for improving general muscular conditioning to prevent injury or niggles that are common to cyclists - like the rounding of the upper back, or weak structures around the knees, over tight hamstrings due to over use of the quads.

You can have all the conditioning in the world but if you are injured and off the bike it won't be much use.

ETA: just read my initial post again and I can see why it was confusing given that my comments about weights followed directly on from the cycle specific training bit!


----------



## fossyant (20 Nov 2013)

For those of us getting a little older, some gym work is beneficial, especially for bone density - I've started early

It can't do any harm, but don't expect to be faster on your bike. You need to ride it.


----------



## Kevin Alexander (20 Nov 2013)

solidthegreat said:


> So now the winter is closing in, I reckon its time to start planning for a few visits to the gym. Does anyone have any specific weight training exercises that could help improve my overall strength and power to weight ratio without gaining too much weight or muscle mass that it counteracts sportive riding.



Why not ask a personal trainer at the gym what they recommend?


----------



## michaelcycle (20 Nov 2013)

Kevin Alexander said:


> Why not ask a personal trainer at the gym what they recommend?



I think a cycling coach would be better rather than a PT at a commercial gym. They can be a bit clueless unfortunately...


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Nov 2013)

Kevin Alexander said:


> Why not ask a personal trainer at the gym what they recommend?



No offence to any personal trainers out there, but I would be very suprised if a gym personal trainer did NOT recommend gym work. Any gym-based PT who said "stay out of the gym - ride your bike" would probably get fired


----------



## Kevin Alexander (20 Nov 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> No offence to any personal trainers out there, but I would be very suprised if a gym personal trainer did NOT recommend gym work. Any gym-based PT who said "stay out of the gym - ride your bike" would probably get fired



You mentioned that you wanted to build up your overall strength and power ratio. Although they work in a Gym they could help with general advice.


----------



## Dusty Bin (20 Nov 2013)

Kevin Alexander said:


> You mentioned that you wanted to build up your overall strength and power ratio. Although they work in a Gym they could help with general advice.



I didn't mention anything of the sort. But the OP did. In any case, road cycling is not a 'strength' sport, so improving your strength is not going to improve your cycling.


----------



## ayceejay (20 Nov 2013)

The problem or at least one of the problems with a winter off the bike is motivation and a tendency to apathy when faced with a choice of going out and freezing or being bored to death on the turbo. If a regular trip to the gym gets you over this then you have achieved something valuable.
Michael's advice re _general muscular conditioning to prevent injury or niggles that are common to cyclists_ is sound in my opinion.


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Nov 2013)

Kevin Alexander said:


> You mentioned that you wanted to build up your overall strength and power ratio. Although they work in a Gym they could help with general advice.



They probably couldn't offer much worthwhile advise and I certainly wouldn't be paying for some beefcake with a nice tan and big guns to tell me how to get better at cycling.

Also agree, in general, cycling is not a strength sport, if it is, then anyone who I beat really must be weak...


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> They probably couldn't much worthwhile advise and I certainly wouldn't be paying for some beefcake with a nice tan and big guns to tell me how to get better at cycling.
> 
> Also agree, in general, cycling is not a strength sport, if it is, then anyone who I beat really m


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Nov 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


>



Wow, wtf did I just write, edited to actually say something now, lol! That's what I get for texting someone at the same time as posting on here, lol


----------



## Hacienda71 (20 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Wow, wtf did I just write, edited to actually say something now, lol! That's what I get for texting someone at the same time as posting on here, lol


You were probably put off by the massive squat you were in the middle of...


----------



## montage (20 Nov 2013)

Weights are fine, and at lot of coaches and top athletes advocate them * BUT* it can never be a ride replacement, and a proper weights schedule would see you coming to the end of your cycle fairly soon, at least for the legs. A proper schedule will see you doing about 10-12+ weeks of Adaptation, hypertrophy, strength then power. Hitting the weights with not structure will do more harm than good, it is NOT about the most you can push.

We had a guy on the team hit the squat rack hard the day before a big training ride - the result? He flagged big time, and wasn't able to get the most out of the ride on the climbs etc. He then had to miss the next day as well to recover. He won't be touching the squat rack again.

I started off keen to do weights this year, but I am very time constrained, so weights have gone out the window and been replaced with on the bike stuff.


----------



## madpensioner (3 Dec 2013)

I have noted that some people are saying that cycling is not a strength sport .
All sports involve Speed ,Stamina and Strength - in varying degrees - the skill is knowing how to develop each of these for the particular sport 
we are involved in. For example a 100 mile road race will involve a high degree of all the three. But someone who just wants an easy 100 mile
ride without a care for how long it takes and takes a break whenever a pub looms up - will only require a minimal amount of stamina end strength
compared with the road racer .
Cheers - Leigh


----------



## Dusty Bin (3 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> I have noted that some people are saying that cycling is not a strength sport .
> All sports involve Speed ,Stamina and Strength - in varying degrees - the skill is knowing how to develop each of these for the particular sport
> we are involved in. For example a 100 mile road race will involve a high degree of all the three. But someone who just wants an easy 100 mile
> ride without a care for how long it takes and takes a break whenever a pub looms up - will only require a minimal amount of stamina end strength
> ...



Pretty much every sport involves 'strength' to some degree or other. The question is, does it involve any more strength than we already have. How much strength would you say is required in, say, road racing?


----------



## madpensioner (3 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> How much strength is required in, say, road racing?


This depends on the individual - I repeat myself - " the skill is knowing how to develop each of these " - and is dependent
on the strength and weaknesses of the individual


----------



## Dusty Bin (3 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> This depends on the individual - I repeat myself - " the skill is knowing how to develop each of these " - and is dependent
> on the strength and weaknesses of the individual



What about an individual that is already capable of getting up out of a chair on their own, or one that is already capable of walking up some stairs?


----------



## jdtate101 (3 Dec 2013)

solidthegreat said:


> So now the winter is closing in, I reckon its time to start planning for a few visits to the gym. Does anyone have any specific weight training exercises that could help improve my overall strength and power to weight ratio without gaining too much weight or muscle mass that it counteracts sportive riding.



You mean something like this:

http://www.training4cyclists.com/12-week-strength-program-for-cyclists/


----------



## madpensioner (3 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> What about an individual that is already capable of getting up out of a chair on their own, or one that is already capable of walking up some stairs?


You again - for goodness sake - where is this conversation going -
I am losing the will to live


----------



## Dusty Bin (3 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> You again - for goodness sake - where is this conversation going -



Where's it going? I'm just asking you to explain what you said. If you come out with this stuff, you ought to be able to explain it.


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Where's it going? I'm just asking you to explain what you said. If you come out with this stuff, you ought to be able to explain it.


I have allready established what your aim in life is from a previous thread - someone who goes on CC looking for an argument - if you dont
understand what i have said what is the point in continuing with this thread - from the resent conversations you obviously know exactly what i am talking
about - I am too long in the tooth to be fooled by the likes of you - now run away and play.


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> And so beginneth another 16-page thread on strength training for endurance cyclists....
> 
> Seriously, I don't know if you have researched this at all - but there is very little evidence to equate improved leg strength to improve cycling performance. Go to the gym if you like, but don't go there on the expectation of improving your cycling fitness.


I see you have done it again - critical critical critical - but no construction -- tut tut


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> I have allready established what your aim in life is from a previous thread - someone who goes on CC looking for an argument - if you dont
> understand what i have said what is the point in continuing with this thread - from the resent conversations you obviously know exactly what i am talking
> about - I am too long in the tooth to be fooled by the likes of you - now run away and play.



I do understand what you have said. But unfortunately, what you have said is materially incorrect. The fact that you won't (or can't) explain yourself kind of sums it up. It's a shame you can't reply in a more cordial manner.



madpensioner said:


> I see you have done it again - critical critical critical - but no construction -- tut tut



ok - unsuprisingly, you're not making any sense. Perhaps you could stay off the thread now and leave it to those who actually have some clue what they are talking about.


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> I have allready established what your aim in life is from a previous thread - someone who goes on CC looking for an argument - if you dont
> understand what i have said what is the point in continuing with this thread - from the resent conversations you obviously know exactly what i am talking
> about - I am too long in the tooth to be fooled by the likes of you - now run away and play.


 
Sorry dude, but you're the one who's sounding like you don't have anything constructive to add. If you want to put forward a fairly controversial proposition demonstrating that cycling is in fact a strength sport, then you should be able to a) bring some evidence, and b) be prepared to defend it robustly. It seems that you are prepared for neither.


----------



## Venod (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> Sorry dude, but you're the one who's sounding like you don't have anything constructive to add. If you want to put forward a fairly controversial proposition demonstrating that cycling is in fact a strength sport, then you should be able to a) bring some evidence, and b) be prepared to defend it robustly. It seems that you are prepared for neither.



I don't think cycling is a strength sport neither does madpensioner, he is saying you need strength as well as stamina and speed which is true ie you need a certain amount of leg strength to weight ratio to get up that hill quicker than the next guy, you can get up the hill with high cadence but weather that is quicker than the guy pushing a higher gear (maybe strong enough to push the higher gear at high cadence) is a whole other argument, I have not read anything of substance from Dusty Bin and I do think he is coming across as arguing for arguing s sake.

Have a read of this as another point of view.

http://www.thetallcyclist.com/2013/02/myths-about-weight-lifting-and-cycling/


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> I don't think cycling is a strength sport neither does madpensioner, he is saying you need strength as well as stamina and speed which is true* ie you need a certain amount of leg strength to weight ratio to get up that hill quicker than the next guy, you can get up the hill with high cadence but weather that is quicker than the guy pushing a higher gear (maybe strong enough to push the higher gear at high cadence) is a whole other argument*, I have not read anything of substance from Dusty Bin and I do think he is coming across as arguing for arguing s sake.
> 
> Have a read of this as another point of view.
> 
> http://www.thetallcyclist.com/2013/02/myths-about-weight-lifting-and-cycling/



Strength is not equal to power, do not confuse the two. You need to have a higher POWER to weight ratio to go up hills quicker than the next guy. Not higher strength. Power can be generated in more than one way, additionally, some ways of generating power are more efficient than others.

Absolute strength is of little concern for an endurance cyclist.


----------



## Venod (4 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Strength is not equal to power, do not confuse the two. You need to have a higher POWER to weight ratio to go up hills quicker than the next guy. Not higher strength. Power can be generated in more than one way, additionally, some ways of generating power are more efficient than others.
> 
> Absolute strength is of little concern for an endurance cyclist.



Yes I agree and reading my post I can see the reason for your reply, but strength does play a part (that's what Madpensioner was saying) as Power = Strength x Speed.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> Yes I agree and reading my post I can see the reason for your reply, but strength does play a part (that's what Madpensioner was saying) as Power = Strength x Speed.



Strength does play a part, there is no way to get around that, however, the degree to which it plays a part and thus the degree to which you ought to worry about/focus on it is the quandary. Ultimately, unless you are particularly puny (as in you are unable to walk up stairs or get out of a chair) or for other reasons such as physical imbalance or whatever, then you should be able to get all the necessary "strength" training required on the bike by simply riding your bike at various intensities. Given than most people have limited time to train, then it is more efficient to train on the bike. Especially since weight training often influences how well you can perform bike sessions in the following days.

At the end of the day, riding a bike, even riding a bike fast, is a series of many hundreds/thousands of hugely sub-maximal repetitions, even in short efforts. Take for example, a 3 minute Hill Climb, in 'The Rake' Hill Climb (very steep) i.e. a race (in which I was so farked, I had to be removed from my bike at the end), I averaged 75rpm for ~3.25 minutes, that is a single set of ~244 reps. On the 'Peaslows' HC, I did ~246 reps. In the National HC Champ's (a longer climb than the other two), ~808 reps. You can see, even from these basic numbers how absolutely sub-maximal each rep is. For reference (and incase anyone wants to work out the torque values), the average power for the above races was 496W, 492W & 398W respectively. I use 175mm cranks. Racing weight was 76kg.

This is not to say that strength or weight training has no benefit to general health etc, because, clearly it does! Especially for those partaking in none weight baring sports and those cracking on a bit.


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> Yes I agree and reading my post I can see the reason for your reply, but strength does play a part (that's what Madpensioner was saying) as Power = Strength x Speed.


 
It's aerobic power we are after Afnug, the amount of strength required is very low. Less than what you need to be able to walk up steps. So adding more strength beyond that does not help with the power generation. The only cyclists who benefit from weight training for leg strength are track sprinters, and even there the benefits of weight training do not translate easily to performance.

@Dusty Bin has already explained this, so I am not sure why you are singling him out as being unconstructive.

The Tall Cyclist link you brought BTW is nonsense. He's clearly of the 'cardio burns muscle' persuasion. He provides no evidence (and can't spell).


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> Yes I agree and reading my post I can see the reason for your reply, but strength does play a part (that's what Madpensioner was saying) as Power = Strength x Speed.



Your definition of power is wrong. Power is defined as the rate at which work is done, or the rate at which energy is transferred - look it up. The majority of the population - whether cyclists or not - already have sufficient 'leg strength' to win the TdF. Whether they also have the required aerobic capacity and highly-developed CV fitness is another matter.

'madpensioner' did state that 'a 100 mile road race would involve a high degree of leg strength' - the truth is it would not require any additional 'leg strength' beyond the capability of someone with normal leg function.


----------



## Venod (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> It's aerobic power we are after Afnug, the amount of strength required is very low. Less than what you need to be able to walk up steps. So adding more strength beyond that does not help with the power generation. The only cyclists who benefit from weight training for leg strength are track sprinters, and even there the benefits of weight training do not translate easily to performance.
> 
> @Dusty Bin has already explained this, so I am not sure why you are singling him out as being unconstructive.
> 
> The Tall Cyclist link you brought BTW is nonsense. He's clearly of the 'cardio burns muscle' persuasion. He provides no evidence (and can't spell).



I will have to disagree if you can't raise enough strength to walk upstairs you won't be able to generate enough power to ride the bike comfortably, I didn't say Dusty Bin was unconstructive I said I had not seen anything of substance from him. Madpensioner was not saying cycling is a strength sport he was saying its part of the equation as I have pointed out, Power = Strength x Speed, I agree its aerobic power that matters most but strength still has to be in the equation and again refering to Madpensioner it depends on the individual how much strength V speed produces the best power output for that individual.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> I will have to disagree if you can't raise enough strength to walk upstairs you won't be able to generate enough power to ride the bike comfortably, I didn't say Dusty Bin was unconstructive I said I had not seen anything of substance from him. Madpensioner was not saying cycling is a strength sport he was saying its part of the equation as I have pointed out, Power = Strength x Speed, I agree its aerobic power that matters most but strength still has to be in the equation and again refereeing to Madpensioner it depends on the individual how much strength V speed produces the best power output for that individual.



Like I said earlier - your definition of power is just plain wrong. If you disagree about the leg strength issue, you obviously need to do some more reading on the issue. And if you have missed my substance on the issue, then you clearly haven't bothered to read the thread, or the other identical thread on this page.


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> I will have to disagree if you can't raise enough strength to walk upstairs you won't be able to generate enough power to ride the bike comfortably, I didn't say Dusty Bin was unconstructive I said I had not seen anything of substance from him. Madpensioner was not saying cycling is a strength sport he was saying its part of the equation as I have pointed out, Power = Strength x Speed, I agree its aerobic power that matters most but strength still has to be in the equation and again refereeing to Madpensioner it depends on the individual how much strength V speed produces the best power output for that individual.


 
Take a deep breath, have a think about what you are trying to say, and start again.


----------



## Venod (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Like I said earlier - your definition of power is just plain wrong. If you disagree about the leg strength issue, you obviously need to do some more reading on the issue. And if you have missed my substance on the issue, then you clearly haven't bothered to read the thread, or the other identical thread on this page.



Would you care to read the article in the link, and what makes you an expert ?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Training/General_Physiology/Measuring_Power_and_Using_the_Data_302.html


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> I will have to disagree if you can't raise enough strength to walk upstairs you won't be able to generate enough power to ride the bike comfortably, I didn't say Dusty Bin was unconstructive I said I had not seen anything of substance from him. Madpensioner was not saying cycling is a strength sport he was saying its part of the equation as I have pointed out, Power = Strength x Speed, I agree its aerobic power that matters most but strength still has to be in the equation and again refereeing to Madpensioner it depends on the individual how much strength V speed produces the best power output for that individual.



Your definition of power requires some revision/clarification. If you are going to use analogous terms, you need to point this out and explain why you think this is correct.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> Would you care to read the article in the link, and what makes you an expert ?
> 
> http://www.slowtwitch.com/Training/General_Physiology/Measuring_Power_and_Using_the_Data_302.html



Even that link suggests that you are using the wrong definition. It even gives you a more cycling-specific defitnition straight after...


----------



## Venod (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Even that link suggests that you are using the wrong definition. It even gives you a more cycling-specific defitnition straight after...



If you don't recognize its the same equation using different terms,, I suggest its you who needs to do more reading.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> If you don't recognize its the same equation using different terms,, I suggest its you who needs to do more reading.



If you're going to talk about power in cycling terms, you obviously need to be specific. Not sure why someone pointing that out would upset you so much. Anyway, now we have arrived at the correct definition, perhaps you could move on to explaining why leg strength is so important for cycling?


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2013)

There may be some psychological benefits to doing weights? Breaks up the boredom of endless turbo/roller sessions and all those bulging leg muscles will look great in Lycra and scare your opponents. (Isn't that the real reason most club riders shave their legs)?

I do the odd track session, and it is clear that the sprinters do a LOT of weights, but they do struggle at the endurance events.

edited due to shocking spelling!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Dec 2013)

> bulging leg muscles will look great in Lycra and scare your apponents. (Isn't that the real reason most club riders shave their legs)?


 Club riders have opponents?


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Club riders have opponents?



Yeah, his name is Strava Dickhead and he pings off the front of the group randomly, leading to a few confused Larry's chasing him and the group going to pieces. He is every club riders opponent! You use your calves and quads to let him know, that ain't cool bro!


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> There may be some psychological benefits to doing weights? Breaks up the boredom of endless turbo/roller sessions and all those bulging leg muscles will look great in Lycra and scare your apponents. (Isn't that the real reason most club riders shave their legs)?



A lot of the 'shaved legs' I race against are distinctly 'unscary', in as much as there is hardly a scrap of muscle on them anywhere to be seen. Doesn't stop them winning races though...


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> Sorry dude, but you're the one who's sounding like you don't have anything constructive to add. If you want to put forward a fairly controversial proposition demonstrating that cycling is in fact a strength sport, then you should be able to a) bring some evidence, and b) be prepared to defend it robustly. It seems that you are prepared for neither.


OK - I will give you some of my experiences provided by my training
a - best marathon at 43 yrs of age - 3hrs : 32mins
b - at the age of 50 i walked 50 miles on my birthday
and continued doing this up to the age of 64
c - at the age of 51 to raise money for a local cause
i walked from Leyland in lancashire to Bowness in 
the Lake district and back again - 110 miles in 2 days
d - at the age of 52 i walked from leyland to the top of Scafell
Pike and back again - 138 miles in 69 hrs
e - every year from the age of 70 i have cycled twice my age
on my birth day - i am 73 yrs of age
f - I am currently training to raise money next year on behalf
of a young woman who is terminaly ill by cycling 500 miles
in 7 days - finishing on my 74th birthday

I rest my case - the proof of the pudding is in the eating !!!!!!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Yeah, his name is Strava Dickhead and he pings off the front of the group randomly, leading to a few confused Larry's chasing him and the group going to pieces. He is every club riders opponent! You use your calves and quads to let him know, that ain't cool bro!


Know a few


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Club riders have opponents?



Sorry I meant 'opponents'. And to be clear I mean club racers, although most club rides I have been on have one or two sprints. Even if its just to be first to the pub at the end.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> OK - I will give you some of my experiences provided by my training
> a - best marathon at 43 yrs of age - 3hrs : 32mins
> b - at the age of 50 i walked 50 miles on my birthday
> and continued doing this up to the age of 64
> ...


Anecdote is not evidence


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> OK - I will give you some of my experiences provided by my training
> a - best marathon at 43 yrs of age - 3hrs : 32mins
> b - at the age of 50 i walked 50 miles on my birthday
> and continued doing this up to the age of 64
> ...



Congrats n all that - but none of that has any relevance whatsoever to the point in question. No offence. I once scored the winning goal for my cubs football team, but that doesn't qualify me to offer coaching advice to Roy Hodgson.


----------



## ColinJ (4 Dec 2013)

In the course of 2 weeks last year, I lost almost all of my strength and almost all of my power. I not only could not walk up one flight of stairs, I got so bad that I could not even crawl up one. Riding a bike was out of the question.

Once I started to recover from my illness though, I soon got my strength back. I could walk up stairs, climb ladders, and do 10 mile walks over 1,500 ft Pennine hills, but I couldn't go far on my bike unless I rode very slowly. I just couldn't sustain power for any length of time.

It was crystal clear to me that I was not being limited by lack of strength on the bike. It was my heart and lungs that were the problem.

I think that some strengthening of back and core muscles might be useful, but unless you are a sprinter then (as others have suggested) your legs probably develop adequate strength from just riding your bike and walking around.


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Anecdote is not evidence



Not just that, but there is no reason to suspect or evidence given that he might not have done all these things without weight training.

My grandad was running 3 hour marathons well into his sixties and be never saw the inside of a gym in his life. Hah counter that @madpensioner .

Of course it means nothing. Just like your evidence means nothing. They are just anecdotes. If you want to carry on doing weights - knock yourself out. It can be fun, and may/may not be good for your general health. But if you think it's improving your on bike performance you are fooling yourself.


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Anecdote is not evidence


I rest my case - the proof of the pudding is in the eating


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> I rest my case - the proof of the pudding is in the eating



Showing your age!


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Congrats n all that - but none of that has any relevance whatsoever to the point in question. No offence. I once scored the winning goal for my cubs football team, but that doesn't qualify me to offer coaching advice to Roy Hodgson.


I rest my case - the proof of the pudding is in the eating


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Congrats n all that - but none of that has any relevance whatsoever to the point in question. No offence. I once scored the winning goal for my cubs football team, but that doesn't qualify me to offer coaching advice to Roy Hodgson.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> I rest my case - the proof of the pudding is in the eating



You really can't support anything you've said, can you?


----------



## ColinJ (4 Dec 2013)

Doing weights could be useful for helping combat osteoporosis in cyclists but that isn't the same thing as making them better cyclists.

I might be on Warfarin for life. Osteoporosis is a known side-effect of the drug, so doing some weight-bearing exercise would be a good idea for people like me. (I have a chin-dip station which I can use for my upper body. I reckon regular walks over the steep local hills and rugged terrain do enough for my legs.)


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> You really can't support anything you've said, can you?



He can eat a lot of pudding though!


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> You really can't support anything you've said, can you?


I rest my case - the proof of the pudding is in the eating


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Doing weights could be useful for helping combat osteoporosis in cyclists but that isn't the same thing as making them better cyclists.
> 
> I might be on Warfarin for life. Osteoporosis is a known side-effect of the drug, so doing some weight-bearing exercise would be a good idea for people like me. (I have a chin-dip station which I can use for my upper body. I reckon regular walks over the steep local hills and rugged terrain do enough for my legs.)


Yes i agree - but before using any weights i would seek the advice of medical experts

good luck - Leigh


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> He can eat a lot of pudding though!



shall we just pretend he's not here.. ?


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

How many of you are in your 60s ? When you get to that age, then perhaps you can tell the mad one he's ...erm mad ? Untill then I'd get back to your 24/7 internet browsing


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> How many of you are in your 60s ? When you get to that age, then perhaps you can tell the mad one he's ...erm mad ? Untill then I'd get back to your 24/7 internet browsing


Cheers


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Doing weights could be useful for helping combat osteoporosis in cyclists but that isn't the same thing as making them better cyclists.
> 
> I might be on Warfarin for life. Osteoporosis is a known side-effect of the drug, so doing some weight-bearing exercise would be a good idea for people like me. (I have a chin-dip station which I can use for my upper body. I reckon regular walks over the steep local hills and rugged terrain do enough for my legs.)


 
Stength training could also prevent injuries, as well as longer term problems, but these wippersnappers won t find that out untill they 're into there 60's ...erm.....


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Stength training could also prevent injuries, as well as longer term problems, but these wippersnappers won t find that out untill they 're into there 60's ...erm.....


Cheers


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

Does eating a lot of pudding help with strength?


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> Does eating a lot of pudding help with strength?



If you lift the spoon with the opposite hand to your self-gratifying hand, you will reduce muscle imbalances!


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> Does eating a lot of pudding help with strength?



I'm writing a scientific paper on that topic right now. When I get to 18 stone I should have some verifiable results.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> How many of you are in your 60s ? When you get to that age, then perhaps you can tell the mad one he's ...erm mad ? Untill then I'd get back to your 24/7 internet browsing



I'm pretty sure it's already been said that there are valid reasons why someone of 73 might want/need to push weights. More generally though, the guy has singularly failed to explain why increasing leg strength is a good thing for everyone else. The 'prevention of injury' thing doesn't really cut it, if you think about it.


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> How many of you are in your 60s ? When you get to that age, then perhaps you can tell the mad one he's ...erm mad ? Untill then I'd get back to your 24/7 internet browsing


 
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am multitasking 

Edited: Seriously though, do I need to be a certain age to understand it's physiological implications? Nobody is disputing that there may be other reasons for a bit of strength training. The discussion is centred around cycling performance.


----------



## uclown2002 (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> I rest my case - the proof of the pudding is in the eating



So far in 2013 I've cycled 10,627 miles in 625 hrs @ 17mph. Now I'm 50 year old and have not done any weight training for 15 years.
I'm not blowing my own trumpet as there are many people my age faster and can ride longer so I'm merely setting the scene. *Will weight training give me ANY benefit in terms of my cycling? What will it enable me to do that I can't do now? *Your main protagonists in this thread will maintain it is of little value to me; and I'm with them as things stand.

I'm not, and I don't think anyone else is, disputing the general long term health benefits of resistance training, but I simply don't have the time as I prioritise my cycling. If you can demonstrate it will improve my cycling then perhaps I need to focus on it more.


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> I'm pretty sure it's already been said that there are valid reasons why someone of 73 might want/need to push weights. More generally though, the guy has singularly failed to explain why increasing leg strength is a good thing for everyone else. The 'prevention of injury' thing doesn't really cut it, if you think about it.


You seem to be quite upset by the fact that you cant understand me - didums


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> I'm pretty sure it's already been said that there are valid reasons why someone of 73 might want/need to push weights. More generally though, the guy has singularly failed to explain why increasing leg strength is a good thing for everyone else. The 'prevention of injury' thing doesn't really cut it, if you think about it.


 Well i think everybody has jumped in a bit here as usual, the OP as i read it, was gym routines for strength and to improve power to weight ratio, not strength to improve power to weight ratio, or have i read it wrong? I'm sure most of you will agree they are 2 different things, but then again on the other hand knowing you lot....

The prevention of injury depends on a lot of things, but strengthening the core helps to support large leg muscle, not that you have any as you ve told us, unfortunately I do and will pay the price for a weak core over the years.


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Well i think everybody has jumped in a bit here as usual, the OP as i read it, was gym routines for strength and to improve power to weight ratio, not strength to improve power to weight ratio, or have i read it wrong? I'm sure most of you will agree they are 2 different things, but then again on the other hand knowing you lot....


Cheers


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> I'm writing a scientific paper on that topic right now. When I get to 18 stone I should have some verifiable results.


 
How many stones do you have now?  I think you've thrown a few


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Well i think everybody has jumped in a bit here as usual, the OP as i read it, was gym routines for strength and to improve power to weight ratio, not strength to improve power to weight ratio, or have i read it wrong? I'm sure most of you will agree they are 2 different things, but then again on the other hand knowing you lot....



That's how I read it! 

But just to stir it up a bit more, a recent study has shown that replacing a portion of endurance training by explosive strength training prevents a decrease in short-term performance without compromising gains in endurance performance of trained cyclists.


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> That's how I read it!
> 
> But just to stir it up a bit more, a recent study has shown that replacing a portion of endurance training by explosive strength training prevents a decrease in short-term performance without compromising gains in endurance performance of trained cyclists.


 
Careful with terms like _strength_ and _power_. They are very different things.

Share a linky and we'll analyse criticize it for you


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I am multitasking
> 
> Edited: Seriously though, do I need to be a certain age to understand it's physiological implications? Nobody is disputing that there may be other reasons for a bit of strength training. The discussion is centred around cycling performance.


I know its been turned into that 'centred around cycling performance' [reads racing], but that was the point I was making about the OP s question I'm still not sure what strength he is looking to gain, are you ?


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Well i think everybody has jumped in a bit here as usual, the OP as i read it, was gym routines for strength and to improve power to weight ratio, not strength to improve power to weight ratio, or have i read it wrong? I'm sure most of you will agree they are 2 different things, but then again on the other hand knowing you lot....



The OP would have to clarify that, but I took it to mean 'gyming to improve power'. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the OP posts once and is then never seen again.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> And so beginneth another 16-page thread on strength training for endurance cyclists....
> 
> Seriously, I don't know if you have researched this at all - but there is very little evidence to equate improved leg strength to improve cycling performance. Go to the gym if you like, but don't go there on the expectation of improving your cycling fitness.


 The assumption was made here, the first answer, the assumption you lot allways make by the way.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

who is 'you lot' ? - Do you mean 'people with an interest in improving their performance on a bike'?


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I know its been turned into that 'centred around cycling performance' [reads racing], but that was the point I was making about the OP s question I'm still not sure what strength he is looking to gain, are you ?


 
@madpensioner is not the OP. The thread has moved on some from the OP.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> You seem to be quite upset by the fact that you cant understand me - didums



This may sound odd, considering you are 73, but grow up.


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I know its been turned into that 'centred around cycling performance' [reads racing], but that was the point I was making about the OP s question I'm still not sure what strength he is looking to gain, are you ?


Im not looking to gain something - I HAVE gain by using weights - you can see what i have gained - try it and you will be able to do what i am do in my mid 70s
- if you dont like what i am doing then dont do it - if you try it and it doesnt work for then stop - simples


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> Careful with terms like _strength_ and _power_. They are very different things.
> 
> Share a linky and we'll analyse criticize it for you



Here's a good one that might be useful to the OP as he is a sportive rider:

http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstrea...ge_17676/1/Raastad ScandJMedSciSport 2011.pdf

Argues that strength training, combined with endurance training increases mean power output during a 5 min effort after 185 min of sub maximal riding.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> The OP would have to clarify that, but I took it to mean 'gyming to improve power'. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the OP posts once and is then never seen again.


 I wonder why ?


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Here's a good one that might be useful to the OP as he is a sportive rider:
> 
> http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_17676/1/Raastad ScandJMedSciSport 2011.pdf
> 
> Argues that strength training, combined with endurance training increases mean power output during a 5 min effort after 185 min of sub maximal riding.


 
All I can read is the title, and as that does not make sense, I am assuming it's a poor translation. Can you link to the actual paper?


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> who is 'you lot' ? - Do you mean 'people with an interest in improving their performance on a bike'?


That maybe, but the lot I am referring to are those that don't read the question or misread it on purpose and spout off on their own agenda. Is that clearer for you?


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> @madpensioner is not the OP. The thread has moved on some from the OP.


 He was dealt with some time ago


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> All I can read is the title, and as that does not make sense, I am assuming it's a poor translation. Can you link to the actual paper?



Its working on my machine.

have you scrolled down from the title page?


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Did your hear about the old bull and the young bull at the top of a hill - the young bull said lets run down the hill and make love to one of those cows
- the old bull said lets walk down and do the lot.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> Im not looking to gain something - I HAVE gain by using weights - you can see what i have gained - try it and you will be able to do what i am do in my mid 70s
> - if you dont like what i am doing then dont do it - if you try it and it doesnt work for then stop - simples


 You 're not the OP you 're the OAP  [ I give up ]


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

Reading forum for yoos lot !!!!


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Here's a good one that might be useful to the OP as he is a sportive rider:
> 
> http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_17676/1/Raastad ScandJMedSciSport 2011.pdf
> 
> Argues that strength training, combined with endurance training increases mean power output during a 5 min effort after 185 min of sub maximal riding.



The same old studies get trotted out every time this subject comes up. All that proves is that a group who did more training, did better than a group which did less training.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> The assumption was made here, the first answer, the assumption you lot allways make by the way.



If the assumption was incorrect, then maybe the OP should have clarified then, no?


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> The same old studies get trotted out every time this subject comes up. All that proves is that a group who did more training, did better than a group which did less training.



the point is the extra training was 'strength' training. loaded squats if understand the methods.

As you say in you first post " there is very little evidence to equate improved leg strength to improve cycling performance". i would argue that this study is one piece of evidence that shows leg strength improves cycling performance. (a very specific type of cycling admittedly)


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> the point is the extra training was 'strength' training. loaded squats if understand the methods.
> 
> As you say in you first post " there is very little evidence to equate improved leg strength to improve cycling performance". i would argue that this study is one piece of evidence that shows leg strength improves cycling performance. (a very specific type of cycling admittedly)



It doesn't, because there is no evidence to show that the group would not have gone even better had they not focussed their additional sessions on cycle-specific training. Of course stressing the body causes an adaptation, but nothing in there suggests that weight training is more effective than the equivalent amount of cycling.

In any case, the entire study is based on a false premise that increased leg strength would promote cycling economy (ie be easier to pedal) - which is already demonstrated to be nonsense, given the relatively minimal pedal forces involved.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> Im not looking to gain something -* I HAVE gain by using weights - you can see what i have gained *- try it and you will be able to do what i am do in my mid 70s
> - if you dont like what i am doing then dont do it - if you try it and it doesnt work for then stop - simples



You will struggle to validate this assertion! Your "pudding" is essentially you saying "I did stuff".


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Its working on my machine.
> 
> have you scrolled down from the title page?


 
Ah my bad. I can see it now. This is the (in)famous Ronnstad paper that no-one else has been able to replicate. I think the consensus is that the methodology is flawed....

This is what Dr Coggan had to say about it:

_Whoa is right: the E and E+S groups start in different places, but end up being essentially the same. 
Thus, one interpretation of the results is that the data reflect a type I error, i.e., the E+S subjects weren't as fit as the E subjects coming into the study, and hence improved as a result of the E training, not the +S training. The above would fit with the fact that the E+S subjects had a measurable number of type IIX fibers initially (cf. Fig. 4), which were converted to type IIA, whereas no changes were seen in the E group (the data from which are strikingly omitted the review).


_


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> You will struggle to validate this assertion! Your "pudding" is essentially you saying "I did stuff".


I do not wish to validate anything - it has worked for me - I dont have to prove any thing to anyone - now please do not make contact with me again


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)




----------



## Crackle (4 Dec 2013)

The continuing story of a thread gone to the dogs.......


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> Ah my bad. I can see it now. This is the (in)famous Ronnstad paper that no-one else has been able to replicate. I think the consensus is that the methodology is flawed....
> 
> This is what Dr Coggan had to say about it:
> 
> ...



Thats an interesting argument, and certainly one that could explain the results.

Nice to have a post answered with some evidence to back it up


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

I rode up a hill once, got Strava to prove it, must have been the squats!


----------



## michaelcycle (4 Dec 2013)

Wow, this has moved on huh?

In the context of weight lifting strength has a different application than in cycling. It is neuromuscular meaning the ability of your central nervous system and recruitment of contractile muscle tissue to move a maximal load over short periods of time generally in the absence of oxygen (anaerobically.) In cycling strength is the ability to move a very light load over multiple revolutions per minute over much longer periods of time by the use of mainly the cardiovascular system in the presence of oxygen (aerobically.) They are opposite ends of the spectrum really and opposing goals. However, if you have the "strength" to walk then you have sufficient "strength" to cycle because the load bearing requirement is very small (and hence why endurance cyclists are more at risk of osteopenia etc)

Does weight training confer any additional benefit to cycle performance than doing just cycle specific training? It's possible but in reality highly doubtful. Specificity will always be the trump card. As an addition to a cycling program if you have time it may be of some use for a variety of non performance related issued (also IIRC there is a study where adding weight training on to an endurance programme increases the amount of mitochondria more than endurance training alone although the reasons were not really known) However, this does not necessarily equate to an increase in performance.

Anecdotally, if someone has seen a positive influence on their chosen sport by cross training that is terrific. However, that does not mean simply because there is a correlation that it was causative of that improvement.


----------



## michaelcycle (4 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I rode up a hill once, got Strava to prove it, must have been the squats!



I wish that were the case. I can squat 2x my BW for reps but the bloke rolling backwards down a hill? That would be me...


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> I wish that were the case. I can squat 2x my BW for reps but the bloke rolling backwards down a hill? That would be me...


 
He was responding to the flounce above by the oddbod OAP.


----------



## michaelcycle (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> He was responding to the flounce above by the oddbod OAP.



Lol - I got that it was tongue in cheek mate 

However I know first hand that having a high degree of neuromuscular strength adaptation doesn't account for a hill of beans generally in being a proficient cyclist. Which kinda sucks...


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> In the context of weight lifting strength has a different application than in cycling. It is neuromuscular meaning the ability of your central nervous system and recruitment of contractile muscle tissue to move a maximal load over short periods of time generally in the absence of oxygen (anaerobically.) In cycling strength is the ability to move a very light load over multiple revolutions per minute over much longer periods of time by the use of mainly the cardiovascular system in the presence of oxygen (aerobically.) They are opposite ends of the spectrum really and opposing goals.



Rather than confusing things by attempting to subdivide different meanings of the word, I just prefer to use the dictionary definition of 'strength' - ie _the quality or state of being physically strong_, or _our ability to generate force_. Your definition of strength in cycling terms is actually a definition of aerobic capability, and not a definition of 'strength' at all.


----------



## Hacienda71 (4 Dec 2013)

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/giving-advice.123087/


----------



## michaelcycle (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Rather than confusing things by attempting to subdivide different meanings of the word, I just prefer to use the dictionary definition of 'strength' - ie _the quality or state of being physically strong_, or _our ability to generate force_. Your definition of strength in cycling terms is actually a definition of aerobic capability, and not a definition of 'strength' at all.



Fair point but I guess that is where most of the issue arises - what springs to people's minds when talking about a "strong" cyclist. Obviously there is a legitimate strength requirement in cycling but it is very low but it relates more to a highly conditioned aerobic capacity.


----------



## Moderators (4 Dec 2013)

Please try to avoid personal attacks on each other.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> Fair point but I guess that is where most of the issue arises - what springs to people's minds when talking about a "strong" cyclist. Obviously there is a legitimate strength requirement in cycling but it is very low but it relates more to a highly conditioned aerobic capacity.



Certainly the word is regularly mis-used, no doubt about that. But in the context of this thread, the meaning is certainly more closely related to the OED definition, hence the references to gym work...


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

Moderators said:


> Please try to avoid personal attacks on each other.



Would also be nice if you could prompt people not to keep posting the same thing over and over!


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

And cookies, cookies would be nice...


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> And cookies, cookies would be nice...



As long as you aren't expecting Maryland! There is a shortage as I ate all the Maryland on the shelves in the week after the National HC!

I am currently working on the Malted Milk situation...


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> As long as you aren't expecting Maryland! There is a shortage as I ate all the Maryland on the shelves in the week after the National HC!
> 
> I am currently working on the Malted Milk situation...



Given that I'm currently starving myself in an attempt to reach race weight by Sunday for the regional champs in Ipswich, any cookies at all would be amazing.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Dec 2013)

I'll be thinking of you at our coffee stop later Vamp


----------



## VamP (4 Dec 2013)

I hate all you knuts whose season's are now finished!


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> Wow, this has moved on huh?
> 
> In the context of weight lifting strength has a different application than in cycling. It is neuromuscular meaning the ability of your central nervous system and recruitment of contractile muscle tissue to move a maximal load over short periods of time generally in the absence of oxygen (anaerobically.) In cycling strength is the ability to move a very light load over multiple revolutions per minute over much longer periods of time by the use of mainly the cardiovascular system in the presence of oxygen (aerobically.) They are opposite ends of the spectrum really and opposing goals. However, if you have the "strength" to walk then you have sufficient "strength" to cycle because the load bearing requirement is very small (and hence why endurance cyclists are more at risk of osteopenia etc)
> 
> ...


I thankyou very much indeed for your feed back - weight training has provided me with core strength mainly - and i have read many scripts that indicate older sportsmen benefit from weight
training than the younger. I also found that high reps. has improved my breathing. the weights i use are cycling specific and only involve two exercises - squats and lats pull downs - the additional
exercises are rowing and crunches ( I am very fortunate to have my own gym ). I do realize that it does not on its own improve my cycling - however the increased core and leg strength has given me a
greater ability to improve .
Again - thankyou - Leigh


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> I thankyou very much indeed for your feed back - weight training has provided me with core strength mainly - and i have read many scripts that indicate older sportsmen benefit from weight
> training than the younger. I also found that high reps. has improved my breathing. the weights i use are cycling specific and only involve two exercises - squats and lats pull downs - the additional
> exercises are rowing and crunches ( I am very fortunate to have my own gym ). I do realize that it does not on its own improve my cycling - however the increased core and leg strength has given me a
> greater ability to improve .
> Again - thankyou - Leigh



So you start out by patronising anyone who asked you a question - and you finish up by agreeing with everyone. I can't wait to get to your age, it's gonna be awesome.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Dec 2013)

I love these threads. They never fail to amuse.

IMO there are two sides to the argument but for some reason neither party concedes this. One is right, not both.

Well IMO both are correct.
Cycling alone will not provide the best possible core from which the power will ultimately derive from. Core specific training is not done on the bike. Core training is widely known to aid power transfer and cycling efficiency, not to mention helping the ability to endure serious time in the saddle.
One could also argue, though not proven that i am aware of, that a cyclist can only train the muscles directly related to cycling. The result being that the cyclist is prone to muscle imbalance and/or future injuries that might otherwise be avoidable with a more rounded training program. Some cyclists add running etc to their training to prevent bones becoming brittle and have a more general fitness rather than cycling specific. Specific stretching also can be applied to ones training. Little of the above is "weight training" but it is not just "riding a bike" either.

End of the day though one could manage to become a very good cyclist just through cycling alone, with not one other bit of training at all. I don't think that person would be reaching their potential as an injury free cyclist or even utilising their power most efficiently, but that's just my opinion. It just happens to be fortunate for me that it also happens to be the similar view of the "strength and conditioning" GB cycling coach. The same guy who has all the cyclists in team GB partake in core strength training and adding dreaded "weights" to their schedule. Not just the track guys either. 

FWIW, i ONLY do core training and do not subscribe to the view that weight training your legs will make you a better/faster cyclist. It MAY, i speculate, help to better balance muscle groups, if done correctly, but i do not personally find this a worthwhile or desirable end product.


----------



## montage (4 Dec 2013)

Can we just get a weight training thread locked to the top?
It would save people going to the trauma of having to search, and seeing as it is a pretty ongoing topic...


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> IMO there are two sides to the argument but for some reason neither party concedes this. One is right, not both.
> 
> Well IMO both are correct.



errr, what? 



montage said:


> Can we just get a weight training thread locked to the top?
> It would save people going to the trauma of having to search, and seeing as it is a pretty ongoing topic...



It's a good idea in principle - but whatever was in the thread, nobody would agree with it.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

This 'core' argument always puzzles me a bit. Can someone explain to me why (from a cycling p.o.v) it would be necessary to train muscles that may not already get sufficient stimulus from cycling? And if they don't get sufficient stimulus from cycling alone, why is it necessary to train them for cycling purposes?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> errr, what?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good idea in principle - but whatever was in the thread, nobody would agree with it.


You should read that as each party thinks they are correct and do not concede both have a point. 


Dusty Bin said:


> This 'core' argument always puzzles me a bit. Can someone explain to me why (from a cycling p.o.v) it would be necessary to train muscles that may not already get sufficient stimulus from cycling? And if they don't get sufficient stimulus from cycling alone, why is it necessary to train them for cycling purposes?


The core argument is quite obvious imo. Better to push off an unflinching, non-flexing base than a weak base. Also cycling does not directly improve core muscles, so the time taken to achieve a solid core from cycling alone would be far more substantial than adding core training to part of your schedule.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> The core argument is quite obvious imo. Better to push off an unflinching, non-flexing base than a weak base.



Surely this base already gets a workout whilst cycling? In which case, why does it need more stimulus than any other muscle which gets a workout from cycling? Surely the act of cycling itself is sufficient to train these muscles?



Pedrosanchezo said:


> Also cycling does not directly improve core muscles, so the time taken to achieve a solid core from cycling alone would be far more substantial than adding core training to part of your schedule.



If cycling does not directly improve core muscles, then surely that would suggest that core muscles are not critical to cycling performance, no? It all sounds like a bit of a self-defeating argument to me...a bit like training your fingers to work the gear shifters better...


----------



## Smurfy (4 Dec 2013)

Wow! Seven pages in, and not one mention of the usefulness of fixed-wheel in building strength and suppleness!


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

YellowTim said:


> Wow! Seven pages in, and not one mention of the usefulness of fixed-wheel in building strength and suppleness!



No mention of the Nazis, either - what's going on...?


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

It s believed that core fatigue alters the mechanics below the core, increasing the risk of injury. Now its for everybody to decide for themselves the point at they reach core fatigue and whether they are prepared to risk an imbalance or not. Any cycling will increase muscle development to a certain degree, (can you quantify cycling performance because it means different things to different people.) Im not aware of any study that points to on the bike training that develops the core?


----------



## Smurfy (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> No mention of the Nazis, either - what's going on...?


What?


lukesdad said:


> It s believed that core fatigue alters the mechanics below the core, increasing the risk of injury. Now its for everybody to decide for themselves the point at they reach core fatigue and whether they are prepared to risk an imbalance or not. Any cycling will increase muscle development to a certain degree, (can you quantify cycling performance because it means different things to different people.) Im not aware of any study that points to on the bike training that develops the core?


Fixed-wheel and single-speed are both excellent for building core strength (you can't ride up hills on FW or SS without core strength).


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

YellowTim said:


> What?
> 
> Fixed-wheel and single-speed are both excellent for building core strength (you can't ride up hills on FW or SS without core strength).


 No thats a load bearing exercise, apparently that doesn't count cycling is not a load bearing exercise  and you would need core strength before you entertained fixed


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Im not aware of any study that points to on the bike training that develops the core?



Any on-bike training activity will train all muscle groups involved in riding a bike - by definition. If those muscles aren't trained _by_ riding, then my view is they aren't worth training _for_ riding. Why would you train a muscle that you don't use while riding?


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

YellowTim said:


> What?



Godwin's Law states that in any internet discussion, it is only a matter of time before someone mentions the nazis...


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Any on-bike training activity will train all muscle groups involved in riding a bike - by definition. If those muscles aren't trained _by_ riding, then my view is they aren't worth training _for_ riding. Why would you train a muscle that you don't use while riding?


 So that you could continue riding as you do now for as long as you may wish....maybe ?


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> So that you could continue riding as you do now for as long as you may wish....maybe ?



Indeed - and by definition that could include training every single muscle in the human body. But I thought we were talking about training muscles which improved cycling performance? As opposed to training muscles which might - just might - give us some gip when we're all 85....


----------



## Smurfy (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> and you would need core strength before you entertained fixed


Which comes first, chicken or egg?


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Indeed - and by definition that could include training every single muscle in the human body. But I thought we were talking about training muscles which improved cycling performance? As opposed to training muscles which might - just might - give us some gip when we're all 85....


 You still havn't defined cycling performance ! Now this might come as a bit of a shock to you but not everybody who contributes to this thread is a hotshot road racer, I know hard to take in but thats how it is. Now lets take my immeadiate requirement for cycling performance shall we? I need to get to work 4 days a week 42 miles away on me bike carrying a 10kg rucksack. Poncing about on a turbo in me living room for an hour ain't going to help me one bit is it ?


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)

YellowTim said:


> Which comes first, chicken or egg?


 Quite so.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

lukesdad said:


> You still havn't defined cycling performance ! Now this might come as a bit of a shock to you but not everybody who contributes to this thread is a hotshot road racer, I know hard to take in but thats how it is. Now lets take my immeadiate requirement for cycling performance shall we? I need to get to work 4 days a week 42 miles away on me bike carrying a 10kg rucksack. Poncing about on a turbo in me living room for an hour ain't going to help me one bit is it ?



'Cycling performance' = performance-oriented cycling. In other words, anything which helps you get from A-B quicker than you already do - that might include road racing, as you very astutely point out, but it could also include TT, MTB, or sportives - or even just leisure cyclists who want to ride faster just for the hell of it. But unless your journey time is an issue on your commute, then you needn't be worrying yourself on this thread, by the sound of it.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2013)




----------



## 50000tears (4 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Strength does play a part, there is no way to get around that, however, the degree to which it plays a part and thus the degree to which you ought to worry about/focus on it is the quandary. Ultimately, unless you are particularly puny (as in you are unable to walk up stairs or get out of a chair) or for other reasons such as physical imbalance or whatever, then you should be able to get all the necessary "strength" training required on the bike by simply riding your bike at various intensities. Given than most people have limited time to train, then it is more efficient to train on the bike. Especially since weight training often influences how well you can perform bike sessions in the following days.
> 
> At the end of the day, riding a bike, even riding a bike fast, is a series of many hundreds/thousands of hugely sub-maximal repetitions, even in short efforts. Take for example, a 3 minute Hill Climb, in 'The Rake' Hill Climb (very steep) i.e. a race (in which I was so f***ed, I had to be removed from my bike at the end), I averaged 75rpm for ~3.25 minutes, that is a single set of ~244 reps. On the 'Peaslows' HC, I did ~246 reps. In the National HC Champ's (a longer climb than the other two), ~808 reps. You can see, even from these basic numbers how absolutely sub-maximal each rep is. For reference (and incase anyone wants to work out the torque values), the average power for the above races was 496W, 492W & 398W respectively. I use 175mm cranks. Racing weight was 76kg.
> 
> This is not to say that strength or weight training has no benefit to general health etc, because, clearly it does! Especially for those partaking in none weight baring sports and those cracking on a bit.



The problem that is always created with these threads is that everyone wants to talk in absolutes "Yes, weight training is needed" "No, you don't need more strength then you already have"

I quote Rob3rt's post because for me at least it best sums up the reality of the argument. Improved strength is most certainly an aspect of becoming a better cyclist, you use it mostly in climbing and sprinting as part of the whole 'power' package but it also is a part of developing as a cyclist. As a relatively new cyclist I can attest to the more defined muscles in my legs through my first few months of training, my quads in particular are certainly more defined and bigger than they were before. My legs are most without doubt stronger than when I started. My legs can now take longer and more intense rides than they could in the summer without aching the next day. 

Whilst the many of you who have been cycling for many years are far more powerful cyclists than me, can put that down mostly due to superior aerobic conditioning, SOME of it is also strength. When we talk of power to weight ratio, strength may not be the primary consideration but neither can it be ignored completely.

Any discussion should not be about whether you need more strength than it takes to walk up stairs to be able to cycle as the answer is no. But to be a very fit cyclist who is always looking to improve then you will gain strength naturally and the question is as to whether adding weight training adds additional benefit. For my view I do do a bit of core work, mostly as I have had lower back problems in the past so want to have a strong core to allow me to be as injury free as possible so I can cycle more! The is also an argument to do some hamstring work as you use your quads primarily in cycling and it helps prevent a leg imbalance due to weaker hamstrings which can again make you more injury prone. I don't do this though.

Again in my opinion most strength improvements come from just riding and are 99% of all most people will need. Strength training for me is all based around injury prevention, which it can then be argued that my cycling is bettered by not being laid up for 4 or 5 weeks a year if I do have injuries that could have been avoided.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> Again in my opinion most strength improvements come from just riding and are 99% of all most people will need.



Good post, mostly - but here's a thought. No strength improvement comes from cycling, because cycling is 100% sub-maximal, so you will never see gains in actual 'strength'. The gains you are referring to are all aerobic. All of them.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Good post, mostly - but here's a thought. No strength improvement comes from cycling, because cycling is 100% sub-maximal, so you will never see gains in actual 'strength'. The gains you are referring to are all aerobic. All of them.


The confidence with which you write your posts is quite striking. I won't judge right or wrong but you seem to leave no room for error, further learning or differing opinion. I could ask, for example, if you believe that cyclist A is a skinny 21 year old who can leg press 20kg's once before cycling. Cyclist A then does everything exactly the same for 6 months except for cycle 5 hours a week for 6 months. Are you suggesting cyclist A can still only leg press exactly 20kg's?? 



Dusty Bin said:


> Indeed - and by definition that could include training every single muscle in the human body. But I thought we were talking about training muscles which improved cycling performance? As opposed to training muscles which might - just might - give us some gip when we're all 85....


That's not the point. The point is that the power produced comes from the core, hence strengthening this area will effect every single aspect of cycling - position, endurance, power, handling, climbing, sprinting etc etc. To strengthen this area purely by cycling alone would see a rider with poor core muscles take much longer to improve than someone who concentrated more specifically on the area. Strengthen ones weaknesses as it were.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> The confidence with which you write your posts is quite striking. I won't judge right or wrong but you seem to leave no room for error, further learning or differing opinion. I could ask, for example, if you believe that cyclist A is a skinny 21 year old who can leg press 20kg's once before cycling. Cyclist A then does everything exactly the same for 6 months except for cycle 5 hours a week for 6 months. Are you suggesting cyclist A can still only leg press exactly 20kg's??



I've no idea, as I know sod-all about weights. However, if 'cyclist A' is keen to improve as a cyclist, then I would suggest that 'cyclist A' measures his improvement on the bike, as opposed to whatever he can press in the gym.



Pedrosanchezo said:


> That's not the point. The point is that the power produced comes from the core,



Can I stop you there? Power produced comes from the amount of force you can exert on the pedals, and for how long. By your definition, someone with higher core strength should be able to produce more power and I don't believe there's a correlation there at all. There is no obvious reason why someone with normal body/motor function should have anything other than nominal core strength - and I don't believe there is any evidence (I haven't seen any) to show that developing your core beyond its existing 'nominal' capacity enables you to produce more power than it would otherwise. I'm open-minded though - so if you've got any studies, or anything (not anecdote please, I've had enough of them today) then I'd be keen to see it.


----------



## 50000tears (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Good post, mostly - but here's a thought. No strength improvement comes from cycling, because cycling is 100% sub-maximal, so you will never see gains in actual 'strength'. The gains you are referring to are all aerobic. All of them.



Not so. Just because something is sub-maximal it does not make all the gains purely aerobic. Now if I was lucky enough (or unfortunate enough depending on perspective) to live in a completely flat area then a huge majority of my gains are going to be aerobic unless I wait for a windy day and try to push a big gear into it. 

Now this next bit may open up a whole new can of worms but ............

....... when I hit many of the hills around my way I sometimes end up grinding up them either cause I have run out of gears or I am just too pig headed to change down. Now you could argue about my riding style or attacking the hills too hard but that is that other can of worms I mentioned. But as a result of this by not spinning up the tougher hills, due to whatever reason you want to imagine, my legs are being worked hard and they are getting stronger. My improved muscle definition is not imagined, it is a physical fact, my legs are getting stronger. Many years ago when I ran a lot over mid-long distances my legs got better defined then too and even attracted comments from the fairer sex. Although running does place more stress on leg muscles there are times when cycling hard does that too.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> ....... when I hit many of the hills around my way I sometimes end up grinding up them either cause I have run out of gears or I am just too pig headed to change down. Now you could argue about my riding style or attacking the hills too hard but that is that other can of worms I mentioned. But as a result of this by not spinning up the tougher hills, due to whatever reason you want to imagine, my legs are being worked hard and they are getting stronger. My improved muscle definition is not imagined, it is a physical fact, my legs are getting stronger. Many years ago when I ran a lot over mid-long distances my legs got better defined then too and even attracted comments from the fairer sex. Although running does place more stress on leg muscles there are times when cycling hard does that too.



Sorry - they are not getting stronger. This is a common misconception. You are simply getting fitter, that's all. Definition is another matter - but definition does not = strength.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> I've no idea, as I know sod-all about weights. However, if 'cyclist A' is keen to improve as a cyclist, then I would suggest that 'cyclist A' measures his improvement on the bike, as opposed to whatever he can press in the gym.





Dusty Bin said:


> Sorry - they are not getting stronger. This is a common misconception. You are simply getting fitter, that's all. Definition is another matter - but definition does not = strength.



They are getting stronger! Strength increase is a byproduct of physical activity. Forget muscle size or mass, i am talking strength. To go from not cycling at all to cycling often up hills (especially low cadence, big gear) and not gaining strength is simply not possible.

I would suggest to you that cyclist A would see an increase in strength from cycling after 6 months. Simply because he/she has gone from doing no resistance training to 5 hours a week of resistance training. The result will no doubt be improved strength as the muscles react to the stress placed on them through exercise and then adapt through recovery.

A pointless argument in my mind but you have stated that cycling does not make you stronger in any way shape or form. This after suggesting that cycling alone was enough to "stimulate" ones core. You are not going to "strengthen" a weak area with stimulation.


----------



## 50000tears (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Sorry - they are not getting stronger. This is a common misconception. You are simply getting fitter, that's all. Definition is another matter - but definition does not = strength.



Not going to go back and forth over this as internet rows are no fun but we will have to agree to differ on this one. To say that your legs do not get stronger through the prolonged exertion of the many different training efforts we subject them to is to deny the obvious. You are beyond any doubt a far stronger cyclist than me and as said before most of this cycling strength is not pure strength but aerobic fitness. But I cannot agree that you possess the exact same leg strength now as you did before you ever sat on bike as this isn't the case.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Can I stop you there? Power produced comes from the amount of force you can exert on the pedals, and for how long. By your definition, someone with higher core strength should be able to produce more power and I don't believe there's a correlation there at all. There is no obvious reason why someone with normal body/motor function should have anything other than nominal core strength - and I don't believe there is any evidence (I haven't seen any) to show that developing your core beyond its existing 'nominal' capacity enables you to produce more power than it would otherwise. I'm open-minded though - so if you've got any studies, or anything (not anecdote please, I've had enough of them today) then I'd be keen to see it.



Just for starters........pay more attention to the sources, not the article.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/healthandfitness/538109/strong-to-the-core.html

"When you cycle, you need to be able to create force from your legs, and transfer that force through your trunk and through to your upper body. If you think of your trunk as a cylinder, you have a number of dial-ups coming off, which are the muscles. Think of how many muscles are attached in that area. All of them need to be up to a certain level to be able to stabilise the trunk optimally. And that's how I envision it. We try and cover the whole cylinder.

"What I explain to the endurance riders is that if they can increase the total amount of force they can create from their hips and extensors, then they should become more efficient when riding as they won't be pushing as hard." 
Martin Evans, strength and conditioning coach at British Cycling


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Dec 2013)

This study shows that core fatigue directly affects cycling mechanics - mostly technique from the hips down. Injury becomes more likely.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18076271

According to the study, which was printed in the November issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2007; 21 [4], 1300–1304), “a core fatigue workout altered the mechanics of the lower extremity,” increasing the risk of injury and indicating that core strength development might be a vital training component for cyclists. Study authors suggested that cyclists “integrate a year-round core conditioning program into current training to promote lower extremity alignment while cycling.” Not only might this help performance, the authors suggested, but it could also be essential for injury prevention


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (4 Dec 2013)

I thought this was interesting and could contribute to the discussion.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533967/bradley-wiggins-s-tour-de-france-training.html



> So Wiggins went back to the gym this winter and did a strength and conditioning programme building the muscles in his core that cycling can't reach, to the depth he needed.



To me that suggests Sky see value in gym work and a strong core


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> They are getting stronger! Strength increase is a byproduct of physical activity. Forget muscle size or mass, i am talking strength. To go from not cycling at all to cycling often up hills (especially low cadence, big gear) and not gaining strength is simply not possible.



Fitness is generally a by-product of physical activity - not strength. If you say it's not possible, then you clearly don't understand the adaptions that are taking place.



Pedrosanchezo said:


> You are not going to "strengthen" a weak area with stimulation.



What do you mean? Of course you are. Do you even understand what the word 'stimulation' means?


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> Not going to go back and forth over this as internet rows are no fun but we will have to agree to differ on this one. To say that your legs do not get stronger through the prolonged exertion of the many different training efforts we subject them to is to deny the obvious. You are beyond any doubt a far stronger cyclist than me and as said before most of this cycling strength is not pure strength but aerobic fitness. But I cannot agree that you possess the exact same leg strength now as you did before you ever sat on bike as this isn't the case.



It's quite possible that you could bench press a bigger weight than me - right now. How would you explain that?


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Just for starters........pay more attention to the sources, not the article.
> 
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/healthandfitness/538109/strong-to-the-core.html
> 
> ...



That's anecdote. If you are going to start quoting sources, then you need to do your research first. If you did, you would see that the evidence for 'core strength' is equivocal at best. Obviously, if your core is deficient in some way, then strengthening it would be beneficial - but for those whose core is already 'normal', then benefits of core work are at best unproven, as far as I can tell. It's a great sales pitch at the gym though...


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> This study shows that core fatigue directly affects cycling mechanics - mostly technique from the hips down. Injury becomes more likely.
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18076271
> 
> According to the study, which was printed in the November issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2007; 21 [4], 1300–1304), “a core fatigue workout altered the mechanics of the lower extremity,” increasing the risk of injury and indicating that core strength development might be a vital training component for cyclists. Study authors suggested that cyclists “integrate a year-round core conditioning program into current training to promote lower extremity alignment while cycling.” Not only might this help performance, the authors suggested, but it could also be essential for injury prevention



Of course fatigue would affect it. But 'strengthening' your core will not help much. Aerobic conditioning, however, will. Suprised you can't see that. It's a bit like saying that the best solution for leg fatigue is stronger legs - which of course, it isn't.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Fitness is generally a by-product of physical activity - not strength.



If someone undertakes a physical activity say for example weight training, are you saying they only gain fitness and not strength?
Just curious.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> If someone undertakes a physical activity say for example weight training, are you saying they only gain fitness and not strength?



Sorry - just to be clear, in case there was any doubt - I'm talking about cycling. You know - cycling forum n all that...


----------



## 50000tears (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> It's quite possible that you could bench press a bigger weight than me - right now. How would you explain that?



Well that is randomly irrelevant, don't see how an upper body exercise bears any relation the point in discussion. I would add though that even if I could squat or leg press a bigger weight than you would that would be irrelevant too. The basic fact is that when you cycle you use certain muscles in certain ways and that is where they are forced to become stronger when put under strain. It is your bodies way of dealing with the demands we place on it.

To be clear we are separated in viewpoint here by the finest of margins. Cycling is without doubt for the vast majority of the time an aerobic activity and that is where every cyclist should aim most of their efforts in improving, but strength is not the irrelevant bystander you try to paint it as.


----------



## 50000tears (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> That's anecdote. If you are going to start quoting sources, then you need to do your research first. If you did, you would see that the evidence for 'core strength' is equivocal at best. Obviously, if your core is deficient in some way, then strengthening it would be beneficial - but for those whose core is already 'normal', then benefits of core work are at best unproven, as far as I can tell. It's a great sales pitch at the gym though...



OK just to flip this over. You keep asking for evidence and then dismissing all that is presented. Can you produce a shred of evidence that strength plays no part in cycling? You said earlier that you are open minded but are proving to be anything but.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> Well that is randomly irrelevant, don't see how an upper body exercise bears any relation the point in discussion. I would add though that even if I could squat or leg press a bigger weight than you would that would be irrelevant too. The basic fact is that when you cycle you use certain muscles in certain ways and that is where they are forced to become stronger when put under strain. It is your bodies way of dealing with the demands we place on it.
> 
> To be clear we are separated in viewpoint here by the finest of margins. Cycling is without doubt for the vast majority of the time an aerobic activity and that is where every cyclist should aim most of their efforts in improving, but strength is not the irrelevant bystander you try to paint it as.



Sorry, I meant leg press. Like I say, I know nothing about weights.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> OK just to flip this over. You keep asking for evidence and then dismissing all that is presented. Can you produce a shred of evidence that strength plays no part in cycling? You said earlier that you are open minded but are proving to be anything but.



I've already said that the average forces through the legs in a typical TdF mountain stage are something like 25kg - or around 12.5kg through each leg. That is significantly less than the amount that most untrained individuals could already leg press and massively less than the amount of weight that we can already support if we hopped on one leg, walked upstairs, or got up out of a chair. So you tell me - how will having stronger legs than we already have help us to perform better as cyclists?

Being open-minded is not the same as agreeing with you, by the way.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI


----------



## Doyleyburger (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> The OP would have to clarify that, but I took it to mean 'gyming to improve power'. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the OP posts once and is then never seen again.


The OP is probably sitting back watching all this unfold and thinking wtf have I just started. This thread is compelling to say the least.
Brilliant !


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> So you tell me - how will having stronger legs than we already have help us to perform better as cyclists?


We already have? A bit broad isn't it? We do not all share the same leg strength.



Dusty Bin said:


> That's anecdote. If you are going to start quoting sources, then you need to do your research first. If you did, you would see that the evidence for 'core strength' is equivocal at best. Obviously, if your core is deficient in some way, then strengthening it would be beneficial - but for those whose core is already 'normal', then benefits of core work are at best unproven, as far as I can tell. It's a great sales pitch at the gym though...


Anecdotal? From someone slightly more qualified on the subject than you. Could we at least pretend that he has a degree in sport science and works in one of the highest positions in the sport, for one of the top teams in Europe? From there can we deduce that his opinion is worth more than nothing? Can we also assume that some of his opinions are based on research and not rumour or hearsay?



Dusty Bin said:


> Of course fatigue would affect it. But 'strengthening' your core will not help much. Aerobic conditioning, however, will. Suprised you can't see that. It's a bit like saying that the best solution for leg fatigue is stronger legs - which of course, it isn't.


Your core is not an area, in cycling, that is used in an aerobic capacity! It is used for stability, hence the need to strengthen. Can't believe you don't "see" that.



Dusty Bin said:


> Fitness is generally a by-product of physical activity - not strength. If you say it's not possible, then you clearly don't understand the adaptions that are taking place.


Think you have misunderstood. I stated that strength increases with resistance training - which cycling is.


----------



## 50000tears (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> I've already said that the average forces through the legs in a typical TdF mountain stage are something like 25kg - or around 12.5kg through each leg. That is significantly less than the amount that most untrained individuals could already leg press and massively less than the amount of weight that we can already support if we hopped on one leg, walked upstairs, or got up out of a chair. So you tell me - how will having stronger legs than we already have help us to perform better as cyclists?



Ah I understand now where your confusion is now based. You have simplified this down to the fact that you need X amount of strength to climb a mountain, we already have more strength than that therefore everything else must be aerobic.

This however just not deal with basic human physiology and how it reacts to certain stimulus. To simplify when you put your body through the stress of cycling, uphill in this example, you body adapts to the stimulus by becoming better able to complete the task it was set. This is largely aerobic but it also strengthens the legs in order to make the task easier next time. 

To play devils advocate why do we improve aerobically? Why has my 1 hour mph figure got better in the last month? I could already cycle aerobically for that hour so why did my body feel the need to improve me further? It is my body making the task easier. When I cycle my body wants to make it hurt less next time, the fact that I already had the strength to climb that hill or the aerobic capacity to cycle hard for an hour does not mean I stop improving in either area.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> We already have? A bit broad isn't it? We do not all share the same leg strength.



Obviously, if you weigh less than 25kg and you are unable to lift your own bodyweight, then cycling is probably not your number 1 problem.



Pedrosanchezo said:


> Anecdotal? From someone slightly more qualified on the subject than you. Could we at least pretend that he has a degree in sport science and works in one of the highest positions in the sport, for one of the top teams in Europe? From there can we deduce that his opinion is worth more than nothing? Can we also assume that some of his opinions are based on research and not rumour or hearsay?



Is this the same guy that says 'a solid core is important, but only up to a point?' Dunno - you'd have to ask him. I can only go with what I know and the info that is already out there. If he knows better, then get him on here. it's well known that Wiggins did some core/upper body work after his collarbone break though - which is not unreasonable.



Pedrosanchezo said:


> Your core is not an area, in cycling, that is used in an aerobic capacity! It is used for stability, hence the need to strengthen. Can't believe you don't "see" that.



Your 'core' is a group of muscles which respond to aerobic input and stimulus in exactly the same way as any other muscle group.



Pedrosanchezo said:


> Think you have misunderstood. I stated that strength increases with resistance training - which cycling is.


 Strength does indeed increase with resistance training - but cycling really isn't a resistance-based activity in the sense that you think it is. The forces involved are way too low.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> Ah I understand now where *your confusion* is now based. You have simplified this down to the fact that you need X amount of strength to climb a mountain, we already have more strength than that therefore everything else must be aerobic.



My confusion..?? 



50000tears said:


> This however just not deal with basic human physiology and how it reacts to certain stimulus. To simplify when you put your body through the stress of cycling, uphill in this example, you body adapts to the stimulus by becoming better able to complete the task it was set. This is largely aerobic but it also strengthens the legs in order to make the task easier next time.



Explain to me why you think increased leg strength is the product of a low-impact aerobic activity?



50000tears said:


> To play devils advocate why do we improve aerobically? Why has my 1 hour mph figure got better in the last month? I could already cycle aerobically for that hour so why did my body feel the need to improve me further? It is my body making the task easier. When I cycle my body wants to make it hurt less next time, the fact that I already had the strength to climb that hill or the aerobic capacity to cycle hard for an hour does not mean I stop improving in either area.



Most likely because you have not been cycling long and you are still some way off achieving your optimum potential in relation to the type and intensity of your riding. My fitness is still improving and I've been riding for 20+ years. However, I'm fairly certain that I'm no stronger now than when I started.


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> So you start out by patronising anyone who asked you a question - and you finish up by agreeing with everyone. I can't wait to get to your age, it's gonna be awesome.


It is evident from your behavior that you are not my age - its a pity you did not respond like Michaelcycle when i made my initial contribution - did you notice how constructive he was
- remember for every action in life there is an equal and opposite reaction


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I love these threads. They never fail to amuse.
> 
> IMO there are two sides to the argument but for some reason neither party concedes this. One is right, not both.
> 
> ...


You have taken the words out of mouth - cheers


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2013)

I can't believe this is still going

Nice quote from that 'ok' cyclist mark cavendish. Looks like even he hits the gym..

"I don’t do a lot of cross-training as such. I do core work for the supportive strength I can’t get from pushing the pedals round, and just a bit of upper body training in the gym"


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> The confidence with which you write your posts is quite striking. I won't judge right or wrong but you seem to leave no room for error, further learning or differing opinion. I could ask, for example, if you believe that cyclist A is a skinny 21 year old who can leg press 20kg's once before cycling. Cyclist A then does everything exactly the same for 6 months except for cycle 5 hours a week for 6 months. Are you suggesting cyclist A can still only leg press exactly 20kg's??
> 
> 
> That's not the point. The point is that the power produced comes from the core, hence strengthening this area will effect every single aspect of cycling - position, endurance, power, handling, climbing, sprinting etc etc. To strengthen this area purely by cycling alone would see a rider with poor core muscles take much longer to improve than someone who concentrated more specifically on the area. Strengthen ones weaknesses as it were.


brilliant !!!


----------



## solidthegreat (4 Dec 2013)

Doyleyburger said:


> The OP is probably sitting back watching all this unfold and thinking wtf have I just started. This thread is compelling to say the least.
> Brilliant !



Lol, I feel like I have started world war 3!!! I simply wanted to know if doing weights twice a week would benefit my cycling in general. I am riding paris Roubaix in April. I know the pros complete miles and miles in the saddle, but I also know they do weight sessions from reading media, but to what level I have no idea. I don't want legs like Chris Hoy, but Cancellara's would suffice.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> SQUAT!


Wrong. I'm skinny with a belly. Anything but squat.


----------



## Dusty Bin (4 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> I can't believe this is still going
> 
> Nice quote from that 'ok' cyclist mark cavendish. Looks like even he hits the gym..
> 
> "I don’t do a lot of cross-training as such. I do core work for the supportive strength I can’t get from pushing the pedals round, and just a bit of upper body training in the gym"



Did you get that from 'Mens Health' magazine..? It's the first result that comes up on google. Further down the results page, there's a link to another interview with him where he says he doesn't go to the gym at all and does all his training on the bike... 

*



Do you work on your calf muscles in the gym?

Click to expand...

*


> I don’t go to the gym. I get the workout I need on the bike. The only exercise I do away from my bike is stretching – I never used to stretch, but the older I get the more my body is torn into weird shapes. Other cyclists have their own workouts; the Scandinavian guys go cross-country skiing in the winter.


----------



## madpensioner (4 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> OK just to flip this over. You keep asking for evidence and then dismissing all that is presented. Can you produce a shred of evidence that strength plays no part in cycling? You said earlier that you are open minded but are proving to be anything but.


Fantastic !!!


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Did you get that from 'Mens Health' magazine..? It's the first result that comes up on google. Further down the results page, there's a link to another interview with him where he says he doesn't go to the gym at all and does all his training on the bike...



Not highbrow enough for you ....... Try this one

http://www.rappstar.com/pdf/StrengthTrainingEnduranceAthletes.pdf

Experimental data demonstrate that strength training can lead to enhanced long-term (>30min) and short-term (<15min) endurance capacity both in well-trained individuals and highly trained top-level endurance athletes, especially (but not exclusively) when high-volume, heavy-resistance strength training protocols are applied. As summarized in Fig. 5, the enhancement in long-term endurance capacity appears to involve training-induced increases in the proportion of type IIA muscle fibers as well as gains in maximal muscle strength (MVC) and rapid force characteristics (RFD), while also likely involving enhanced neuromuscular function.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> it's well known that Wiggins did some core/upper body work after his collarbone break though - which is not unreasonable.



Best i can tell most professional cyclists do some form of core work off the bike. It's quite easy to find this information on the web. 


Dusty Bin said:


> Your 'core' is a group of muscles which respond to aerobic input and stimulus in exactly the same way as any other muscle group.


Maybe if you are doing aerobic input with them. Would you consider sitting on a bike aerobic stimulus for your core?


Dusty Bin said:


> Strength does indeed increase with resistance training - but cycling really isn't a resistance-based activity in the sense that you think it is. The forces involved are way too low.


So you wouldn't class gravity, wind, and body weight (when climbing) resistance? Interesting. I don't know why we bother with protein after a hard session on the bike as it seems there is nothing to repair.


----------



## madpensioner (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Sorry, I meant leg press. Like I say, I know nothing about weights.


I dont believe what you have just said


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Not highbrow enough for you ....... Try this one
> 
> http://www.rappstar.com/pdf/StrengthTrainingEnduranceAthletes.pdf
> 
> Experimental data demonstrate that strength training can lead to enhanced long-term (>30min) and short-term (<15min) endurance capacity both in well-trained individuals and highly trained top-level endurance athletes, especially (but not exclusively) when high-volume, heavy-resistance strength training protocols are applied. As summarized in Fig. 5, the enhancement in long-term endurance capacity appears to involve training-induced increases in the proportion of type IIA muscle fibers as well as gains in maximal muscle strength (MVC) and rapid force characteristics (RFD), while also likely involving enhanced neuromuscular function.



You've not read it then? That's just a review of other studies on the general topic of strength/endurance - a lot of those papers aren't even cycle-specific. The bits that do cover cycling are fairly equivocal, as previously mentioned and covered earlier. Sorry.


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

madpensioner said:


> I dont believe what you have just said



I don't believe you are still posting on this thread, while offering nothing of any practical interest or relevance other than a few pointless cheap shots.


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Best i can tell most professional cyclists do some form of core work off the bike. It's quite easy to find this information on the web.



Great - 'the pros do it' - if that's good enough for you, then great.



Pedrosanchezo said:


> Maybe if you are doing aerobic input with them. Would you consider sitting on a bike aerobic stimulus for your core?



While cycling - yes. Wouldn't you?? What else would it be?



Pedrosanchezo said:


> So you wouldn't class gravity, wind, and body weight (when climbing) resistance? Interesting. I don't know why we bother with protein after a hard session on the bike as it seems there is nothing to repair.



They are certainly forces which work against you while on the bike - but they're hardly what I would specifically refer to as 'resistance training' - any more than 'standing up' or 'walking down the street' can be classed as resistance training.


----------



## bianchi1 (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> You've not read it then? That's just a review of other studies on the general topic of strength/endurance - a lot of those papers aren't even cycle-specific. The bits that do cover cycling are fairly equivocal, as previously mentioned and covered earlier. Sorry.



Cycle specific one...

http://www.hokksund-rehab.no/filark...AXIMAL_STRENGTH_TRAINING_IMPROVES_CYCLING.pdf


----------



## madpensioner (5 Dec 2013)

solidthegreat said:


> Lol, I feel like I have started world war 3!!! I simply wanted to know if doing weights twice a week would benefit my cycling in general. I am riding paris Roubaix in April. I know the pros complete miles and miles in the saddle, but I also know they do weight sessions from reading media, but to what level I have no idea. I don't want legs like Chris Hoy, but Cancellara's would suffice.





Doyleyburger said:


> The OP is probably sitting back watching all this unfold and thinking wtf have I just started. This thread is compelling to say the least.
> Brilliant !


I am thoroughly enjoying it - this is as you say - brilliant !!!!


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Cycle specific one...
> 
> http://www.hokksund-rehab.no/filark...AXIMAL_STRENGTH_TRAINING_IMPROVES_CYCLING.pdf



Look - you're obviously desperate to prove something, but it's not going to work. That study, once again, simply proves that a group which did more overall training performed better than a group which did less. We went through all this on previous pages and I can't be arsed to repeat myself - just go back and have a read of all the relevant comments that myself and others made - it will save you wasting a lot of time trawling through PubMed.


----------



## madpensioner (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> I don't believe you are still posting on this thread, while offering nothing of any practical interest or relevance other than a few pointless cheap shots.


I Think everybody thinks the same about you - and remember it was my contribution that started you ranting


----------



## bianchi1 (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Look - you're obviously desperate to prove something, but it's not going to work. That study, once again, simply proves that a group which did more overall training performed better than a group which did less. We went through all this on previous pages and I can't be arsed to repeat myself - just go back and have a read of all the relevant comments that myself and others made - it will save you wasting a lot of time trawling through Pubmed.




Annoying stuff all this peer reviewed, experiment driven evidence isn't it...all these folk could have saved their time and just asked you. 

Actually I'm meant to be participating in a study investigating the effects of serial versus acute Sodium Bicarbonate (NAHCO3) loading upon a 10k cycle ergometer time trial performance....but if you could let me know the answer it will save a lot of bother


----------



## madpensioner (5 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Annoying stuff all this peer reviewed, experiment driven evidence isn't it...all these folk could have saved their time and just asked you.
> 
> Actually I'm meant to be participating in a study investigating the effects of serial versus acute Sodium Bicarbonate (NAHCO3) loading upon a 10k cycle ergometer time trial performance....but if you could let me know the answer it will save a lot of bother


 Brilliant !!!!


----------



## PK99 (5 Dec 2013)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...eemed-a-failure/story-fniiw3ie-1226755914805#


> *As Cavendish says*, history may show one day that the 2013 Tour was the turning point in his career. Maybe, then, its next few chapters will be all the more fascinating as he sets about proving otherwise. "It just means I need to change a few things," he says, almost too casually.
> 
> Such as? "I've never been in the gym in my life and *I've just started strength and conditioning.*"
> 
> ...


----------



## bianchi1 (5 Dec 2013)

PK99 said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...eemed-a-failure/story-fniiw3ie-1226755914805#



This is not going to make pleasant reading for a certain @Dusty Bin


----------



## madpensioner (5 Dec 2013)

I am definitely inviting a Dusty Bin to my funeral - it will be held in my gym - mind you he will not know that - he says he knows nothing about weights !!!


----------



## ayceejay (5 Dec 2013)

Oh, what the hell.
If you start with the premise that a cyclists objective is to get faster on the bike you will arrive at a different conclusion than if you started with the objective that a persons objective is to live to 73.
And to further muddy the already murky water, I think it is quite possible that training on the bike and only on the bike to be good at riding a bike may be detrimental to other areas of ones physical well being.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Great - 'the pros do it' - if that's good enough for you, then great.


No i look at the big picture and make a decision based on many expert opinions, studies and my own conclusions. 

One gathers you can't do anything unless there is a satisfactory study out there that allows you to make a decision. Tricky too as this study will have to please your dismissive standards. 


Dusty Bin said:


> While cycling - yes. Wouldn't you?? What else would it be?



So your core is getting an aerobic workout whilst sitting on a bike? I'd venture to say that one would "stimulate" ones core more with 60 sit ups in 2minutes than with 60 minutes on the bike. I don't have a scientific study for that though, sorry. [/quote]




Dusty Bin said:


> They are certainly forces which work against you while on the bike - but they're hardly what I would specifically refer to as 'resistance training' - any more than 'standing up' or 'walking down the street' can be classed as resistance training.



Remember to get your protein shake after standing up for too long. Assuming it has the same impact on your muscles as cycling you're going to need to rebuild the damage done especially if it has been interval standing! You know like 2 minutes standing followed by one minute sitting. Try that 12 times and be sure to warm down.


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Annoying stuff all this peer reviewed, experiment driven evidence isn't it...all these folk could have saved their time and just asked you.



I'm sure all those studies had a purpose - but in terms of offering compelling evidence which supports your proposition, they fall a long way short, as others and myself have already explained. Like I say, the evidence is at best equivocal, and in some cases, flawed. But if you want to base a performance training program on material like that, then by all means crack on.



PK99 said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...eemed-a-failure/story-fniiw3ie-1226755914805#



Seriously - you're offering an interview with Cav in an Australian newspaper as scientific evidence? That interview already contradicts what others have already offered as evidence elsewhere..


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> So your core is getting an aerobic workout whilst sitting on a bike? I'd venture to say that one would "stimulate" ones core more with 60 sit ups in 2minutes than with 60 minutes on the bike. I don't have a scientific study for that though, sorry.



On the bike, my core is getting a workout sufficient for me to be able to ride a bike - nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is arguing that situps won't make your abs stronger. But stronger abs are not required in order to ride a bike faster.



Pedrosanchezo said:


> Remember to get your protein shake after standing up for too long. Assuming it has the same impact on your muscles as cycling you're going to need to rebuild the damage done especially if it has been interval standing! You know like 2 minutes standing followed by one minute sitting. Try that 12 times and be sure to warm down.



I see you're now misquoting your own posts, so I guess you are running out of constructive points. Nobody said that standing had the same impact as cycling. Why would it? However, if your objective was to be good at standing, then standing would certainly be a good thing to do regularly.


----------



## 50000tears (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty given your single ability to disregard every link thrown at you, and also that not another single forum member supports your view that cycling does not condition your body including your legs, makes me wonder if you are really this stubborn or just messing with us all. You cannot throw up a single link to support your claim of the strength in your legs not improving with cycle training, but rather base your own argument on your seriously flawed misunderstanding of basic science.

Maybe you just lack the character to admit when you are wrong. I dunno, you will probably try and convince us that the world is flat next.


----------



## VamP (5 Dec 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Annoying stuff all this peer reviewed, experiment driven evidence isn't it...all these folk could have saved their time and just asked you.
> 
> Actually I'm meant to be participating in a study investigating the effects of serial versus acute Sodium Bicarbonate (NAHCO3) loading upon a 10k cycle ergometer time trial performance....but if you could let me know the answer it will save a lot of bother


 
The thing is for every study like that, there's ten saying strength training has no positive or even a negative impact.


----------



## VamP (5 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> Dusty given your *single ability to disregard every link thrown at you, and also that not another single forum member supports your view* that cycling does not condition your body including your legs, makes me wonder if you are really this stubborn or just messing with us all. You cannot throw up a single link to support your claim of the strength in your legs not improving with cycle training, but rather base your own argument on your seriously flawed misunderstanding of basic science.
> 
> Maybe you just lack the character to admit when you are wrong. I dunno, you will probably try and convince us that the world is flat next.


 
You would be wrong in making those assumptions.


----------



## 50000tears (5 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> The thing is for every study like that, there's ten saying strength training has no positive or even a negative impact.



I agree I personally am not convinced of the need for any but the top 1% of cycling athletes to hit the gym for leg training, after all cycling is mostly aerobic. 99% of what you will need to become a strong rider will be gained on the road.


----------



## 50000tears (5 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> You would be wrong in making those assumptions.



Knew I setting myself up there! But seriously though I don't follow why it is hard to understand that if a good proportion of my training is plowing up hard hills and my legs enter an anaerobic state as a result that my body is not going to respond by giving a slight increase in leg strength. I mean Dusty is trying to argue that my own muscular definition and size improving in my legs is not leg strength but something else!! Really???

This may have been linked already so apologies if so

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/page/latest-news/?id=89355#.UqA6GidZjjY


----------



## VamP (5 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> Knew I setting myself up there! But seriously though I don't follow why it is hard to understand that if a good proportion of my training is plowing up hard hills and my legs enter an anaerobic state as a result that my body is not going to respond by giving a slight increase in leg strength. I mean Dusty is trying to argue that *my own muscular definition and size improving in my legs is not leg strength but something else!! Really???*
> 
> This may have been linked already so apologies if so
> 
> http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/page/latest-news/?id=89355#.UqA6GidZjjY


 

Really. Reduction in fat content and increase in volume of muscle and blood capillary tissue can be accounted for entirely by sub-maximal efforts. And have no direct relationship to any increase (or decrease) in your leg strength.

The author of your link also spends a huge chunk of his article banging on about Lance's cadence. Honestly, it's garbage.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Dec 2013)

We are still doing this? Please no-one make me laugh, a bit sore from core training last night!


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> Dusty given your single ability to disregard every link thrown at you, and also that not another single forum member supports *your view that cycling does not condition your body including your legs*,



What? That is not my view. My view is actually the exact opposite. However, perhaps you could define 'condition' for me in that context? There is also a difference between 'disregarding' the links and offering perfectly reasonable critique as to why the links do nothing to prove what others claim they do.



50000tears said:


> You cannot throw up a single link to support your claim of the strength in your legs not improving with cycle training, but rather base your own argument on your seriously flawed misunderstanding of basic science.



How is my 'understanding of basic science' flawed? Please explain. None of these studies can reliably and reasonably demonstrate causation between improving leg strength (or core strength) and cycle performance - and because that does not fit in with your own misunderstanding of the issue, you think my understanding is flawed. Bravo.

Try googling 'cognitive dissonance' when you have a minute. Seriously.


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> But seriously though I don't follow why it is hard to understand that if a good proportion of my training is plowing up hard hills and my legs enter an anaerobic state



Because your legs do not enter an anaerobic state - simple. Just because your CV system goes anaerobic, does not mean your legs are. Short of doing a kilo sprint on the track from a standing start, your legs will probably never go anaerobic, and even then only for a split second, because - as I'm sure you learned in GCSE physics - it is impossible to exert a maximal force on a moving object (ie a pedal).


----------



## VamP (5 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> We are still doing this? Please no-one make me laugh, a bit sore from core training last night!


 
Ah, you're wasting your time!


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

Guess what - here's a study which shows that cyclists who push weights become worse cyclists but......wait for it.......they become better at pushing weights!! Who knew???!! 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826297


----------



## Venod (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> What? That is not my view. My view is actually the exact opposite. However, perhaps you could define 'condition' for me in that context? There is also a difference between 'disregarding' the links and offering perfectly reasonable critique as to why the links do nothing to prove what others claim they do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very interesting the 'cognitive dissonance link' the majority of the references you have been referred to support some kind of strength training for cyclist and outweigh the evidence against, but you have dismissed them all, this thread has been very entertaining but to bring it to an amicable conclusion, how about following this advice.

*How to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance*
There are three key strategies to reduce or minimize cognitive dissonance:


Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.
Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.
Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

Afnug said:


> Very interesting the 'cognitive dissonance link' the majority of the references you have been referred to support some kind of strength training for cyclist



They do indeed support it - but the processes they used in order to arrive at those conclusions are flawed and inconsistent, as has been pointed out ad nauseam. Seriously, have you not read the studies, or this thread?


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> Ah, you're wasting your time!



Not really, earned myself a milkshake innit!


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

I knew I'd get round to posting this eventually. An article by Dr Andrew Coggan - maybe some of you have heard of him. Worth a read.

http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/why-we-dont-use-strength-endurance-anymore


----------



## Doyleyburger (5 Dec 2013)

Just to mix things up. 
-from this month's cycling plus magazine ha ha


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

yeahhbut, what to the GB team know 

Great thread...


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

Doyleyburger said:


> Just to mix things up.
> -from this month's cycling plus magazine ha ha



Yep - that's why track sprinters push weights...and also explains why the majority of them are built like brick sh1thouses. Forstermann's thighs are so big, he has to rotate his hips when he walks, ffs...


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Dec 2013)

I think the most interesting part of that is the bit about the track start... one for those that think going clipless will suddenly turn you into a monster on the bike!


----------



## montage (5 Dec 2013)

http://www.ridethetrack.com/pdf/train_paulrogers.pdf

A must read - from the Aussie track team, dates a couple of years back mind.
Read and make up your own minds?


----------



## michaelcycle (5 Dec 2013)

Doyleyburger said:


> Just to mix things up.
> -from this month's cycling plus magazine ha ha



What does it say after the "improving muscle" bit of the last sentence? Does it also clarify that the same improvements could not be obtained through on bike training - in other words is there something unique in weight training which cycle training cannot provide?


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> What does it say after the "improving muscle" bit of the last sentence? Does it also clarify that the same improvements could not be obtained through on bike training - in other words is there something unique in weight training which cycle training cannot provide?



The Paul Rogers PDF which Montage posted kind of answers that bit, in as much as it agrees that for endurance events, the best training is on the bike.


----------



## michaelcycle (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> The Paul Rogers PDF which Montage posted kind of answers that bit, in as much as it agrees that for endurance events, the best training is on the bike.





> A little bit of gym regularly helps to maintain the structural integrity of the body, prevent imbalances and prepare you for crashes, but the real gains come on the road. Racing is the best training. All our best track enduros race on the road in Europe.They come together for camps to touch up their track skills, but all of that was learnt as juniors and in domestic track racing on the way up. For strength endurance on the bike, ride up hills in the saddle on bigger gears. That was the only strength work out team pursuit did for the last three years and they won everything there was to win with a bucket load of world records to boot. Incidentally, they are also the fastest starters."



Sounds about right.


----------



## VamP (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> The Paul Rogers PDF which Montage posted kind of answers that bit, in as much as it agrees that for endurance events, the best training is on the bike.


 
That's not even for road riders, but endurance event track riders. Quite a specialized group, although of course not as specialized as the elite track sprinters who are his real focus.


----------



## solidthegreat (5 Dec 2013)

Taxi!!! I'm confused as a confused confusy thing on national confused day. Sod it. I'm just going to ride lots and do a few leg weights. Thanks all for the advice, everyone's opinion, is just that, opinion and I am grateful for it.


----------



## michaelcycle (5 Dec 2013)

solidthegreat said:


> Taxi!!! I'm confused as a confused confusy thing on national confused day. Sod it. I'm just going to ride lots and do a few leg weights. Thanks all for the advice, everyone's opinion, is just that, opinion and I am grateful for it.



Lulz - there's nothing wrong with trying things out for yourself, seeing what suits you and doing that. The problem comes when people start extrapolating a general trend from that and basing advice on it.

Many coaches and trainees do work off the power of anecdote and that's not necessarily a bad thing. By multiple trial and error and assessing results over time they come up with a training philosophy which quite possibly isn't supported by existing scientific evidence. That does not mean to say it is without a legitimate basis or can get results as many times what happens in the lab lags well behind what is happening in the field. So being guided by what science has to say but also keeping one eye on anecdotal evidence is definitely a possibility.

However, in my view, strength training directly improving cycle performance where you spend less time on cycle specific training as a result is a bit of a non starter. As an add on though it could have some use.


----------



## 50000tears (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> None of these studies can reliably and reasonably demonstrate causation between improving leg strength (or core strength) and cycle performance - and because that does not fit in with your own misunderstanding of the issue, you think my understanding is flawed. Bravo.
> 
> Try googling 'cognitive dissonance' when you have a minute. Seriously.



Please when aiming stuff at me try and remember my position. At no point have I advocated additional leg gym work for cyclists. The only point I was trying to make was that the actual process of cycling does offer conditioning to the legs which improves their ability to perform the task in hand. And yes conditioning is the same as strengthening.


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> Please when aiming stuff at me try and remember my position. At no point have I advocated additional leg gym work for cyclists. The only point I was trying to make was that the actual process of cycling does offer conditioning to the legs which improves their ability to perform the task in hand. And yes conditioning is the same as strengthening.



Not sure what you mean by your 'position'..? You will not become physically stronger through cycling though - I'm not sure why you are persisting with this. In some cases, pro cyclists have actually ended up physically weaker than before they extended/increased their training. That won't stop them increasing their aerobic power, threshold, VO2 max and muscular endurance though. Google some pics of Michael Rasmussen and tell me he looks 'strong'.

Think about it - muscles are normally strengthened through consistent overload, such as pushing or lifting very heavy weights with near or maximal efforts. As already pointed out earlier in the thread, cycling is a 'low strength' activity where you are never likely to overload your leg muscles to anything like the point where strength adaptions begin to take place.

You may certainly feel 'stronger' in a more general sense of the word (ie not the OED definition), but in effect that is another way of saying that you have 'increased aerobic fitness', or a 'better power/weight ratio', or both - but not actual, physical strength.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Dec 2013)

Looking strong and being strong are not the same thing.

On the other hand, I know loads of cyclists who can't do even a handful of press-ups! Myself included. I know a few who can't even do one (including some very good climbers, a discipline which works your upper body much more than others)! As for leg strength, never bothered to ask people "how much do you squat?" their legs do the talking on the ride! 

Surprisingly, press-ups come up much more often in conversations between cyclists than squats do! Usually making fun of themselves for how weak they are!


----------



## VamP (5 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> ... I know a few who can't even do one...


 
That is amazing really. I guess if you only ever cycled then it's possible, but I have always found it pretty straightforward to knock out a set of 60, back in the day, and even recently, not having done any in about 10 years I still managed 3 sets of 30 with good form quite comfortably.

And I have never been a gym rat.

Considering that these guys are probably quite light in the first place...


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Dec 2013)

I tried doing them to failure and got to 8 and I hurt like hell for days afterwards.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> On the bike, my core is getting a workout sufficient for me to be able to ride a bike - nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is arguing that situps won't make your abs stronger. But stronger abs are not required in order to ride a bike faster.


Right, first off by core i don't mean just sit ups, but i think you know that. Core is a group of muscles.

More importantly, not everyone has a core strong enough for cycling - be it for sportives, road racing, TT'ing or a Saturday ride. The link that you so easily dismissed suggested that core fatigue massively affects cycling mechanics and performance. For this reason the rider who can only manage an hour in a aggressive position before suffering could benefit from core exercises to strengthen problem areas. Or the rider who is placing to much weight on their hands for example.

Similar to the reason Wiggins worked in the gym to strengthen his core and upper body after his collar bone break, it is incorrect to assume that merely cycling alone would be the fastest and most efficient way to improvement or recovery. In Wiggins' case back to his original status before the break and in the cyclist with a weak core area, strengthening with core specific exercises. This would be far quicker a remedy than just riding your bike until the problem/s disappear or worsen.


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Right, first off by core i don't mean just sit ups, but i think you know that. Core is a group of muscles.
> 
> More importantly, not everyone has a core strong enough for cycling - be it for sportives, road racing, TT'ing or a Saturday ride. The link that you so easily dismissed suggested that core fatigue massively affects cycling mechanics and performance. For this reason the rider who can only manage an hour in a aggressive position before suffering could benefit from core exercises to strengthen problem areas. Or the rider who is placing to much weight on their hands for example.
> 
> Similar to the reason Wiggins worked in the gym to strengthen his core and upper body after his collar bone break, it is incorrect to assume that merely cycling alone would be the fastest and most efficient way to improvement or recovery. In Wiggins' case back to his original status before the break and in the cyclist with a weak core area, strengthening with core specific exercises. This would be far quicker a remedy than just riding your bike until the problem/s disappear or worsen.



Look, you're obviously a big advocate of 'core strength' so it's not something you are going to concede easily. 

Unless you have a diagnosed weakness or deficiency in your core (and some people do), then core strenght is highly unlikely to prove a limiting factor in your on-bike performance. If you do have functional issues in your core where you are unable to support such a relatively light, repetitive motion such as cycling, then riding a bike is probably the least of your problems, to be frank. The bBiomechanical issues you mention such as hand pressure, or an overly-aggressive position are better solved by a correct and appropriate fit, as opposed to simply diving into the gym and working on the 'core'. 

I don't expect you to agree with this, however - but all of the issues you describe are not 'core' related - they can all be explained via other, more conventional means.


----------



## VamP (5 Dec 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I tried doing them to failure and got to 8 and I hurt like hell for days afterwards.


 
Have you tried again since? 

More generally on this subject of core. I do some core work, not a lot, but enough to keep some spinal issues I have under control. I am not sure that it has much of an impact on my cycling, good or bad, although it probably helps in cyclocross. A bit. But that's more to do with the running and the transition piece.

I can see that having a good TT shape demands some core adaptations, but I suspect that they are best achieved on the bike.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Dec 2013)

VamP said:


> *Have you tried again since? *
> 
> More generally on this subject of core. I do some core work, not a lot, but enough to keep some spinal issues I have under control. I am not sure that it has much of an impact on my cycling, good or bad, although it probably helps in cyclocross. A bit. But that's more to do with the running and the transition piece.
> 
> I can see that having a good TT shape demands some core adaptations, but I suspect that they are best achieved on the bike.



No! lol


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Look, you're obviously a big advocate of 'core strength' so it's not something you are going to concede easily.
> 
> Unless you have a diagnosed weakness or deficiency in your core (and some people do), then core strenght is highly unlikely to prove a limiting factor in your on-bike performance. If you do have functional issues in your core where you are unable to support such a relatively light, repetitive motion such as cycling, then riding a bike is probably the least of your problems, to be frank. The bBiomechanical issues you mention such as hand pressure, or an overly-aggressive position are better solved by a correct and appropriate fit, as opposed to simply diving into the gym and working on the 'core'.
> 
> I don't expect you to agree with this, however - but all of the issues you describe are not 'core' related - they can all be explained via other, more conventional means.


I accept/respect your stance on the matter. I disagree - c'est la vie. 

There are many ways to skin a cat.


----------



## madpensioner (5 Dec 2013)

I have found by experience that multi- joint exercises in the gym in winter are helpful in cycling ( I had better change the wording - I dont want to cause another argument ) are helpful to ME in cycling.There are only 4 and 3 of those involve weights.

Squats - lateral pull-downs - rowing - trunk curls. Because of the cold winter weather i also put my bike in a turbo trainer.My plan runs from the begining of Oct to the end of feb
One hr turbo sessions 3/4 days a week and my gym twice a week. The turbo sessions involve easy and hard 5 min reps.the gym sessions involve 6 phases - starting with heavy weights - low reps
slowly reversing in the final phase low weights - high reps . I am currently squatting with 45kg 6 x 8 - lats 30kg 6 x 6 - trunk curls 10kg 4 x 15 - rowing 15 mins. The gym session take one hr.
So in winter i am only training one hr a day - 5/6 days a week - from the end of feb to the end of sept - road cycling only - 150/200 miles per week - including 50/100 mile events. 


Now i know from reading all the comments that its not every bodies cup of tea - there are a number of people who i cycle with who dont do weights - all i can say is that i have been doing weights for
40ys for three different sports - and it benefits me

Cheers - Leigh
( I am now going to have a very large whisky )


----------



## 50000tears (5 Dec 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Not sure what you mean by your 'position'..?



I mean my stance in the argument. 



Dusty Bin said:


> You will not become physically stronger through cycling though - I'm not sure why you are persisting with this. In some cases, pro cyclists have actually ended up physically weaker than before they extended/increased their training. That won't stop them increasing their aerobic power, threshold, VO2 max and muscular endurance though. Google some pics of Michael Rasmussen and tell me he looks 'strong'.



Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding (or just not reading) what I have said. I have never suggested that cycling will give you massive legs or that you will be able to leg press or squat more weight as a result of cycling. Cycling is an almost entirely aerobic exercise the conditioning and strengthening you get are to make your cycling more efficient. This would not translate to your legs being able to lift heavier weights as the muscles stimulated are those you use to turn the cranks which is a fairly unique movement for the body to make. For the same reason if a body builder thought that as he had really muscle bound powerful legs that he would be great at cycling or running he would be sorely disappointed.

I do understand a bit about how bigger muscle is built and the ultra-high repetitive endurance nature of cycling is never ever going to build big muscles. You need heavy weights with a reg range of 6-12 to build big muscles and only then if you have the right body type to build such muscles. I have a slim frame so even when I worked hard my muscles were always fairly compact. The physical improvement and conditioning I have seen in my own legs will certainly be limited and whilst I expect them to be better suited to the task of cycling as I progress they will never be muscular looking in the terms that most think of when it comes to being muscular.

OK the technical bit

There are two basic muscle fiber types, type 1 - slow twitch, type 2 - fast twitch. Type 1 the slow twitch ones are what us cyclist use and "train". These are not mass building but after stimulus the muscle responds by increasing its ability to resist fatigue. This is where the strengthening in the muscle is felt, not by being bulky but by becoming more able to cope with the demands we place on them. These slow twitch muscles will then expand whilst the type 1 muscles due to not being used will atrophy, meaning that more of the muscular whole is be taken up by the slow twitch fibers that we use than the fast twitch that we don't. In a non cyclist the balance my be 50/50 between the two fiber types but in a cyclist it may be 65/35 in favour of the type 1 fibers.



Dusty Bin said:


> Think about it - muscles are normally strengthened through consistent overload, such as pushing or lifting very heavy weights with near or maximal efforts. As already pointed out earlier in the thread, cycling is a 'low strength' activity where you are never likely to overload your leg muscles to anything like the point where strength adaptions begin to take place.
> 
> You may certainly feel 'stronger' in a more general sense of the word (ie not the OED definition), but in effect that is another way of saying that you have 'increased aerobic fitness', or a 'better power/weight ratio', or both - but not actual, physical strength.



When you write like this it really appears that we are splitting hairs and arguing over so little. The only part in all of this you will not accept is that your legs do get conditioned through cycling despite the fact that I could provide you with 100 links (if I had the time which I don't) saying that they do, many from experts in the field of cycling fitness. That you accept that your heart and lungs get fitter as a result of cycling but not the legs just flies in the face of common sense. 

Anyway we have gone round in circles for too long on this so I am jumping off here. You know that you are right 100% and I know I am right 100%. We will agree to differ and kiss and make up! Read up on slow twitch muscles though, I doubt it will change you mind as that seems set, but at least it might get you thinking about other possibilities.


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

50000tears said:


> Anyway we have gone round in circles for too long on this so I am jumping off here. You know that you are right 100% and I know I am right 100%. We will agree to differ and kiss and make up! Read up on slow twitch muscles though, I doubt it will change you mind as that seems set, but at least it might get you thinking about other possibilities.



Strange as it may seem, the slow twitch/fast twitch thing doesn't really interest me. But having said that, it does seem like the only major point of disagreement here is on our definitions of the work 'strength' - and whether I agree with your use of the word or not, I can actually see where you are coming from. So, that'll do for me too


----------



## ayceejay (5 Dec 2013)

You and Yellow & Black would have a real ding dong over this Dusty.


----------



## Dusty Bin (5 Dec 2013)

ayceejay said:


> You and Yellow & Black would have a real ding dong over this Dusty.



Nah - I think we would have been in broad agreement, tbh...


----------

