# On the bike strength training



## 50000tears (19 Aug 2015)

Found this training page from Tinkoff-Saxo's head of sports science about improving leg strength by doing low cadence big ring hill reps.

Part 1

https://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/ridelikeapro-the-benefits-of-slow-tension-efforts-part-1-5652282

Part 2

https://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/ridelikeapro-the-benefits-of-slow-tension-efforts-part-2-5686613

I know there is some controversy on the forum around leg strength per say and if can climb a stair then you need no more strength and so forth. But given that this comes from a guy training a pro team suggests there is a lot of merit in on the bike strength training. Partially interesting for me was the purpose of much of the training was to develop full use of each leg for the full pedal rotation which I know I don't really do.

Has anybody else tried a variation to the training suggested and if so to what success?


----------



## Citius (19 Aug 2015)

Who knows why he is saying any of that. The first sentence on that first link though -



> It is generally accepted that to be a good road or track endurance cyclist you need to be strong.



- is simply not correct, because it certainly is not 'generally accepted'. So the whole thing starts from a false premise. If the guy is head of sports science, then I'd hope to see a bit more science behind it, to be honest. Until then we can just mark it down as someone's opinion.

And when someone else says "oh well, he must be right, cos he a pro trainer on a pro team" - then that would just be an 'appeal to authority'. Then the thread will probably start to go downhill from there. Some people will then start to insult each other and then the mods will step in and lock the thread.

To be fair though, most of the routines he is suggesting do seem to fit more into the 'conditioning' category, rather than 'strength' per se. So maybe the links would be better with different titles.


----------



## 50000tears (19 Aug 2015)

i think that one of the reasons people get hung up on the strength training is down to a perception of what is being talked about. Strength training for endurance is never about building muscle as a gym instructor would think of it but as Citius says, about conditioning the legs. What a cyclist is developing in this term is making the muscle fibres more resilient to stress and converting the neutral fibres to slow twitch etc. In simpler terms about delaying the onset of fatigue in the legs when on a long hard ride. Better conditioned legs are stronger legs in cycling terms.


----------



## Cuchilo (19 Aug 2015)

What baffles me is people saying you don't need leg strength to ride a bike fast and its all about breathing and then they say runners are no good at riding bikes because they don't have the right muscles in their legs 
Personally i think running will help my breathing and hill climbing will help my leg muscles . The problem is , i don't like running and i hate hills


----------



## Citius (19 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> What baffles me is people saying you don't need leg strength to ride a bike fast and its all about breathing



It's only baffling if you don't understand that endurance cycling is an aerobic sport - or if you haven't read any of the other threads on this topic.



Cuchilo said:


> and then they say runners are no good at riding bikes because they don't have the right muscles in their legs



Everyone has the same muscles in their legs, assuming they are actually human. Do you mean something different?


----------



## screenman (19 Aug 2015)

Obree used to do it as part of his training.


----------



## Citius (19 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> Obree used to do it as part of his training.



Do what?


----------



## jazzkat (19 Aug 2015)

When I switched to riding fixed exclusively it forced me to ride hard up hills, either that or walk, so I just dig in. A bit like using heavy weights in a gym, I guess. Now when I switch back to a geared bike I go much faster up hills. Maybe I've become stronger (I think I have) or maybe I've just reset my "pain barrier" for pushing up the hills.
It seems to me that sports science is pretty advanced (while I appreciate that new things are learnt all the time) yet some cyclists still seems to cling to the old thoughts and ways of training.


----------



## Citius (19 Aug 2015)

jazzkat said:


> Maybe I've become stronger (I think I have) or maybe I've just reset my "pain barrier" for pushing up the hills.#



Or maybe your aerobic capacity and lactate threshold has improved, from riding harder up hills?


----------



## jazzkat (19 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Or maybe your aerobic capacity and lactate threshold has improved, from riding harder up hills?


Yes, there has been a definite improvement in something!
In a pro athlete, I guess it's all about maximising each aspect of the athletes physiology. As we know climbers and sprinters are built differently.


----------



## ayceejay (19 Aug 2015)

To replicate in the gym the routine described in the first link seek out a Stair Climber.
I appreciate that you have brought this topic back to the board 50000tears as the question of leg strength for cycling is not settled as far as I am concerned.
Any leaned article on aerobic training talks about strengthening the heart as if it were a muscle to improve performance: are we to assume that this is the ONLY muscle that would be improved by strengthening ???


----------



## Citius (19 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> To replicate in the gym the routine described in the first link seek out a Stair Climber.



Or a flight of stairs, perhaps - enough said.



ayceejay said:


> Any leaned article on aerobic training talks about strengthening the heart as if it were a muscle to improve performance: are we to assume that this is the ONLY muscle that would be improved by strengthening ???



I'm going to assume you are being deliberately obtuse here, as I can't think of any other reason why you would attempt to misrepresent carviovascular fitness in such a way. Strength is a measure of how much force can be applied by a muscle, or muscle group - if you don't believe me, look it up yourself. Quite obviously, the heart does not exert any force like this. But it can be 'conditioned' to become more efficient in pumping blood, and more used to working at higher rates. But you cannot measure the 'strength' of the heart against the general definition of the word, quite obviously. 

Moving on from that (ie moving a bit closer to reality), if you genuinely believe that stronger muscles are of benefit to cyclists, then you are going to have to explain why, because the weight of scientific evidence does not support that premise. You obviously know better though.


----------



## 50000tears (19 Aug 2015)

Fitness is not just about aerobic conditioning but also adaptations which take part in the leg cycling muscles. This is proven and not open to debate. I can promise you that anybody who has cycled for a long time has a different balance of fibres within the leg muscles than when they started. As said before these both help delay the onset of muscle fatigue and help to carry the oxygenated blood more efficiently to where it is needed.


----------



## Citius (19 Aug 2015)

As a final word, I'm going to link to the other two threads on this topic (which are still on page 1) - and respectfully suggest that we only post new material and new links from now on. That should keep the page count down a bit.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/weight-training.182371/
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/squats.183923/


----------



## Citius (19 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> Fitness is not just about aerobic conditioning but also adaptations which take part in the leg cycling muscles. This is proven and not open to debate. I can promise you that anybody who has cycled for a long time has a different balance of fibres within the leg muscles than when they started. As said before these both help delay the onset of muscle fatigue and help to carry the oxygenated blood more efficiently to where it is needed.



Agreed, more or less. And those changes are all aerobic in nature, developed to support aerobic pathways and respond to aerobic demand.


----------



## 50000tears (19 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> As a final word, I'm going to link to the other two threads on this topic (which are still on page 1) - and respectfully suggest that we only post new material and new links from now on. That should keep the page count down a bit.
> 
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/weight-training.182371/
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/squats.183923/




Respectfully I disagree in linking those two unrelated threads. The OP was never about opening yet another discussion on what strength was needed in cycling. My thoughts are clear on this. It was specifically about the articles posted and whether anybody had tried anything similar. Yes I perhaps could have come up with a better title, but there is far more to the links I posted than the point it descended into.


----------



## ayceejay (19 Aug 2015)

The relevance of leg strength to cycling performance or enjoyment is not universally understood
and any claim at definitive knowledge on the subject is Quixotic.
Surely this is why teams such as those at the link are exploring ways to gain an advantage over
their competition?


----------



## Citius (19 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> The relevance of leg strength to cycling performance or enjoyment is not universally understood


That's certainly true in your case. Not universally though.


ayceejay said:


> and any claim at definitive knowledge on the subject is Quixotic



There is no definitive knowledge. Just the available evidence. Which is not in favour of strength work for cyclists. Maybe do your own study which comes up with a different conclusion?


ayceejay said:


> Surely this is why teams such as those at the link are exploring ways to gain an advantage over
> their competition?



If you actually read those links, you would understand that what is being promoted in those studies is categorically not 'strength' work, by definition. Do you really think if they'd discovered a 'competitive advantage' they'd plaster it all over the internet?


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

OK let's change tack. The last thing I remember reading on pulling on the upstroke of pedal rotation was that its benefits were unproven as any benefit was offset by the extra energy it demanded. That article was a year or two ogo though so things may have moved on from there. I perhaps could suppose as well that even if it does cost more energy it is still worth doing if most rides are short enough for the extra energy expended not to matter.

The other point of interest was of the training itself, whereby you slow climb a hill in a big gear, low cadence. This is something I have looked at myself for if you like "force" training. But admit that I am unsure as to whether this would hold benefit at my level where other training may well benefit me more for where my fitness currently is.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

I think the only area where 'pulling up' has been shown to have any usefulness at all is somewhere like the start of a team sprint, or similar, where every ounce of power is needed to get you going as quickly as possible. Those events are explosive though, and over in less than a few minutes - and are probably not much like the kind of day to day riding that anyone does on here.

As for 'force training' - _what _are you training? If you are training to ride up hills, then ride up hills. If you are training to ride fast on the flat, then ride fast on the flat. I personally don't see how climbing a hill in a big gear/low cadence could be more beneficial than riding up the same hill hard in your regular gear/cadence. To be fair, the articles linked to don't exactly explain that either.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

Let me ask this way then. If I were to do low cadence, high gear climbing hill reps rather than riding them as I normally would, would I be doing more of a leg conditioning workout than pure aerobic? If so would this translate over time to more force through the pedals and therefore more speed? As you stated the article is not clear but that is what it is alluding to.

Hard to quantify I know as my overall aerobic fitness is (hopefully) increasing all the time so most, if not all, of sustainable power would come from that. I guess only in a rider already highly trained doing the workout could any gains be measured in a meaningful way.


----------



## Sea of vapours (20 Aug 2015)

Whilst the articles talk about strength repeatedly, what those exercises seem to be emphasising is form or technique more than anything else. With any high speed repetitive exercise, training muscles to engage in just the right sequence and balance is easier at low speed, or low cadence in the case of pedalling. i.e. using a high gear / low cadence allows focus on that engagement and could perhaps develop a smoother, and thus possibly more effective, pedalling action. So, returning to normal / high cadence, 'muscle memory' from the low cadence exercise may lead to smoother, perhaps more effective, pedalling. 

The emphasis in the articles on core stability and minimising force / tension in the hands, shoulders and upper back also suggests that form is the thing being trained. And whilst the whole 'pulling up' thing is at best unproven, it does seem reasonable that at least unweighting the rising leg - thereby not allowing it to impede the power from the downstroke of the forward leg - ought to be a [probably very] marginal gain in overall effectiveness.


----------



## ayceejay (20 Aug 2015)

There is no room for discovery when an opinion is presented as definitive. Citius repeats the same old garbage regardless of any other input on the subject of training and consequently shuts down any thing anyone else has to offer making this part of the forum useless.
As sea of vapours says the 2nd article is focused in good form and the purpose is to _become stronger, (_so that_) you can start thinking about using gears greater than 53x13-17._


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> Let me ask this way then. If I were to do low cadence, high gear climbing hill reps rather than riding them as I normally would, would I be doing more of a leg conditioning workout than pure aerobic? If so would this translate over time to more force through the pedals and therefore more speed? As you stated the article is not clear but that is what it is alluding to.



The only thing that will, over time, translate to you putting more force through the pedals is increasing your aerobic power at the levels you want to ride at. There is a reason why the article is 'not clear' - because it is based on a false premise which remains unsupported by the available science.



50000tears said:


> Hard to quantify I know as my overall aerobic fitness is (hopefully) increasing all the time so most, if not all, of sustainable power would come from that. I guess only in a rider already highly trained doing the workout could any gains be measured in a meaningful way.



The trouble is, both those links refer to mostly discredited/unproven points of view, as I said before. The first link deals with making your legs stronger (science suggests this is not needed), while the second article effectively deals with 'pedal technique' and 'pulling up' - again, there is a distinct lack of evidence to support either of these position as being useful training interventions. If you look at where the articles appear, it might give you some understanding of who they are aimed at.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> There is no room for discovery when an opinion is presented as definitive. Citius repeats the same old garbage regardless of any other input on the subject of training and consequently shuts down any thing anyone else has to offer making this part of the forum useless.



All you have to do to prove me wrong, is prove me wrong. What you call 'garbage' I call relying on available evidence from the sports science community. The word 'garbage' is in itself quite 'definitive', so well done on demonstrating a good level of hipocrisy there. Nobody who has read your contributions in this forum should be suprised by that.

Unfortunately, your total misunderstanding of this topic just leads you to make 'confirmation bias' statements like this. You will never be able to argue effectively on topics like this because you will not take the time to understand them first. You would rather just jump in and shout 'garbage', which makes you precisely the kind of contributor that you have the nerve to criticise me for being.

Irony, ignorance and hipocrisy all in one post - well done.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

Sea of vapours said:


> And whilst the whole 'pulling up' thing is at best unproven, it does seem reasonable that at least unweighting the rising leg - thereby not allowing it to impede the power from the downstroke of the forward leg - ought to be a [probably very] marginal gain in overall effectiveness.



Unweighting the rising leg is part of the natural (albeit unconscious) pedalling movement to 99% of people anyway. Even where riders deliberately or inadvertently weight it on the upstroke, I believe it shows only miniscule differences in power output. Again, the question is do we want to concentrate on small, technicalities (you could almost call them irrelevances) like this, which may, or may not improve our power - or do we want to focus on techniques like threshold work and intervals, which we know will improve our power. For the amateur rider, I know where the answer should be.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

I would not disagree with any specific part of the accepted training wisdom you refer to Citius as I have not studied it extensively enough to do so. But to suggest that a training article written by the head of sports science at one of the top teams in the world is based on a false premise is somewhat arrogant to say the least! I know we are not bound to believe everything he says blindly, but I would suggest that the chances that you understand cycle training and what is beneficial and what is not better than him is somewhat slim.

I do agree that for the amateur rider then doing what is fully proven is likely best.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> I would not disagree with any specific part of the accepted training wisdom you refer to Citius as I have not studied it extensively enough to do so. But to suggest that a training article written by the head of sports science at one of the top teams in the world is based on a false premise is somewhat arrogant to say the least!



Why is it arrogant to say that his premise is simply not supported by the available evidence? It isn't. The overwhelming weight of evidence does not support the notion that weight training is beneficial to improving cycling performance. I can't think of any other way of saying that which would make it any clearer. It really doesn't matter who he is - and using that as evidence that he may be correct is something called an 'appeal to authority' which is something I alluded to in my first post.



50000tears said:


> I know we are not bound to believe everything he says blindly, but I would suggest that the chances that you understand cycle training and what is beneficial and what is not better than him is somewhat slim.



That maybe so, but unless he has access to new information which alters current thinking on the topic (in which case, he should publish it in a peer reviewed paper), then it doesn't make any difference. I have never claimed to know more than him (nor would I) - but it isn't about who knows more, it is about what current evidence tells us.


----------



## adscrim (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Why is it arrogant to say that his premise is simply not supported by the available evidence? It isn't. The overwhelming weight of evidence does not support the notion that weight training is beneficial to improving cycling performance. I can't think of any other way of saying that which would make it any clearer. It really doesn't matter who he is - and using that as evidence that he may be correct is something called an 'appeal to authority' which is something I alluded to in my first post.
> That maybe so, but unless he has access to new information which alters current thinking on the topic (in which case, he should publish it in a peer reviewed paper), then it doesn't make any difference. I have never claimed to know more than him (nor would I) - but it isn't about who knows more, it is about what current evidence tells us.


The weight of evidence appears to be shifting. That's articles from Saxo and Team Sky/British cycling sports scientists (along with a number of others from the 'Should I do squats' arguments) advocating strength work and overall body conditioning to improve endurance cycling performance. They are not talking about Chris Hoy type squats here, they are talking about relatively light strength training.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

Articles are articles though - they are just opinions. As far as I'm aware, the actual 'evidence' has not moved on at all. 'Light' strength training is, by definition, not 'strength' training. If we are going to call it anything, let's call it 'conditioning'. I thought that had been accepted already.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Why is it arrogant to say that his premise is simply not supported by the available evidence? It isn't. The overwhelming weight of evidence does not support the notion that weight training is beneficial to improving cycling performance. I can't think of any other way of saying that which would make it any clearer.



Please point me to the part where it is suggested to do weight training? To be clear I do not believe personally in weight training being beneficial for any cyclists bar track cyclists and sprinters. The premise is about strength training done on the bike which as you know is not the same at all. Please, if you can, link me to anywhere that it states that the ability to apply extra force through the pedals, which is I think the point of the training, cannot be improved by strengthening the legs. 

I do fear though that for every link you could put up proving it is not needed I could find another link that proves that is does add power. Just playing a little devil's advocate here.

We are in danger of coming full circle I fear.


----------



## adscrim (20 Aug 2015)

I would say that anything that increases strength in the muscles being trained is strength training.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> I would say that anything that increases strength in the muscles being trained is strength training.



Clearly. But then we have to ask why having stronger muscles than we already have would be beneficial.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> Please point me to the part where it is suggested to do weight training? To be clear I do not believe personally in weight training being beneficial for any cyclists bar track cyclists and sprinters. The premise is about strength training done on the bike which as you know is not the same at all. Please, if you can, link me to anywhere that it states that the ability to apply extra force through the pedals, which is I think the point of the training, cannot be improved by strengthening the legs.
> 
> I do fear though that for every link you could put up proving it is not needed I could find another link that proves that is does add power. Just playing a little devil's advocate here.
> 
> We are in danger of coming full circle I fear.



Resistance training/weight training - it comes in many forms. Cycling itself is a form of resistance training, but the issue in question is the potential value and benefit of placing any more resistance on the pedals (or feet) than you would normally do. And how that extra force demand is catered for.

Strength training - if we accept the definition of 'strength' as already given - can, (by the same definition) not be done on a bike in any case. Assuming you can already lift your own bodyweight (which most people can, very easily), then you do not need any more strength than you already have. Because it is not physically possible to exert more than the sum of your own body weight through the pedals anyway.

Anyway, I thought we'd both agreed on page 1 that the articles had more relevance to 'conditioning' than 'strength'.


----------



## adscrim (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Clearly. But then we have to ask why having stronger muscles than we already have would be beneficial.


 
And the answer would be that current evidence suggests that it will improve our endurance performance on the bike.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> And the answer would be that current evidence suggests that it will improve our endurance performance on the bike.



The available evidence suggests nothing of the sort though. It has been discussed on here and on many other forums ad nauseam. Have a look at the other two threads on this page for links to most of those studies.


----------



## adscrim (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> The available evidence suggests nothing of the sort though. It has been discussed on here and on many other forums ad nauseam. Have a look at the other two threads on this page for links to most of those studies.


 I didn't say available, I said current.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> I didn't say available, I said current.



If it is current, then you would have to assume it is available, because if it isn't, then it can't be current. If you mean the opinion articles referred to earlier, then they are not evidence, current or otherwise. The only thing realistically that anyone can fall back on is the science, which as far as I'm aware remains un-changed since the last time we all had one of these discussions.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

I did agree to the term conditioning which is why I said I was playing a little devil's advocate. 

Whilst it is correct that you cannot exert more force than your body weight it is also correct that the pedalling action is not done by body weight shifting unless out of the saddle. The pedalling action when seated is performed by the leg muscles. Can you provide any link, apart from just constantly referring to available evidence, which says that stronger legs do not produce more power? i.e. Surely stronger, better conditioned if you prefer, legs can push a bigger gear than weaker, less conditioned, ones.

As anecdotal unscientific evidence a friend who I cycle regularly with is not as fit as me but can push a faster pace over a reasonable distance than me on the flat. He can also power up some of the short sharp hills better than me. The ONLY reason for this is because he is more powerfully built and has stronger legs. There is no other explanation as like I said I am undoubtedly fitter.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> Whilst it is correct that you cannot exert more force than your body weight it is also correct that the pedalling action is not done by body weight shifting unless out of the saddle. The pedalling action when seated is performed by the leg muscles.



So by a simple process of elimination, we can deduce that when seated, we are therefore able to exert considerably less than our own bodyweight on the pedals. 15-20kg per leg rotation is the oft-quoted average recorded by TdF riders when riding up something like Alpe d'Huez. 20kg is well within the force generation capabilities of most people's frail grandmothers.



50000tears said:


> Can you provide any link, apart from just constantly referring to available evidence, which says that stronger legs do not produce more power? i.e. Surely stronger, better conditioned if you prefer, legs can push a bigger gear than weaker, less conditioned, ones.



I don't know what you are asking. Assuming you already understand that pedal force exertion on a bicycle comes mostly from aerobic pathways, and that endurance cycling is mostly concerned with sustainable power generation, and that the force demands of endurance cycling are very low, to the point that almost anyone already has sufficient leg strength, then you will already realise that leg strength is not a limiter in endurance cycling. If you don't realise that, then that is the first thing you have to understand.



50000tears said:


> As anecdotal unscientific evidence a friend who I cycle regularly with is not as fit as me but can push a faster pace over a reasonable distance than me on the flat. He can also power up some of the short sharp hills better than me. The ONLY reason for this is because he is more powerfully built and has stronger legs. There is no other explanation as like I said I am undoubtedly fitter.



Well, if you are measuring fitness in terms of cycling performance, then you clearly are not 'undoubtedly fitter' if your friend outperforms you both on the flat and up some climbs. He produces more sustainable power, but his power to weight ratio is possibly not as good as yours when climbing longer ascents. But you clearly have no basis whatsoever for claiming that you are 'undoubtedly fitter' - that's ridiculous.


----------



## adscrim (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> If it is current, then you would have to assume it is available, because if it isn't, then it can't be current. If you mean the opinion articles referred to earlier, then they are not evidence, current or otherwise. The only thing realistically that anyone can fall back on is the science, which as far as I'm aware remains un-changed since the last time we all had one of these discussions.


 
Yes, but evidence can also be available and non-current. Out-of-date you might say.

And articles are evidence. Take British cycling as the example. If they are advocating strength and conditioning training for cyclists of all levels, call it the 'perfect compliment to your riding, this is evidence that strength and condition is beneficial for riders of all levels.

Aside from that, and following on from numerous scientific articles that have linked to in the squats threads, the science has moved on. You not being aware of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Well, if you are measuring fitness in terms of cycling performance, then you clearly are not 'undoubtedly fitter' if your friend outperforms you both on the flat and up some climbs. He produces more sustainable power, but his power to weight ratio is possibly not as good as yours when climbing longer ascents. But you clearly have no basis whatsoever for claiming that you are 'undoubtedly fitter' - that's ridiculous.



Just to clarify. When I say he beats me over some short sharp climbs we are talking 30-40 metres max, nothing much beyond that. In suggesting I am undoubtedly fitter it is not bigging myself up as that has never been in my nature but a simple matter of fact. Unless his once or twice a week cycling is some secret magic training formula that we all somehow missed I can be certain. What is ridiculous is you suggesting I am not when you have no idea how good or bad either of us are! 

Anyway I did not say he produces more sustainable power in the strictest sense. In a typical 50 mile ride he will put a lot of power down in the first half and I have to work very hard to live with with the pace, but often on the back half I am doing most of the work and towing him home as he has overcooked himself. So over a long distance he will push too hard too early, but if we both did a flat 2-3 mile thrash he would toast me. 

Different builds produce different types of rider. Could a long distance World Champion runner beat a top Club level runner over 200 metres just because he is fitter?


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> Yes, but evidence can also be available and non-current. Out-of-date you might say.
> 
> And articles are evidence. Take British cycling as the example. If they are advocating strength and conditioning training for cyclists of all levels, call it the 'perfect compliment to your riding, this is evidence that strength and condition is beneficial for riders of all levels.
> 
> Aside from that, and following on from numerous scientific articles that have linked to in the squats threads, the science has moved on. You not being aware of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.


Sorry opinions are not evidence. Studies are. I'm sure you wouldn't accept that level of proof in any other situation. You say the science has moved on - show me the links to this science then. Check the other two threads first though...


----------



## adscrim (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Sorry opinions are not evidence. Studies are. I'm sure you wouldn't accept that level of proof in any other situation. You say the science has moved on - show me the links to this science then. Check the other two threads first though...


 
This is the first article that came up on a google search

https://www.antoniocgomes.com/wp-co...trength_Training_Improves_Cycling_Economy.pdf



> The major finding in this study is that maximal strength
> training significantly improved CE, work efficiency in
> cycling, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power.
> These results are in close agreement with the intervention
> ...


 


> PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
> 
> The results from this study show an improvement in CE
> without any decline in maximal oxygen consumptions. This
> ...


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

Thought you said the science had moved on, yet you dig up 5yr old papers which have already been discusse?d. Ho hum. As usual, that is one of the regular examples posted on here. All it shows is that a group that did more training did better than a group which did less training. there's nothing to say that the equivalent amount of cycling would not have achieved the same or even better results.

I'm really bored of this, so I'll just say good luck with the weight training.


----------



## adscrim (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> As usual, that is one of the regular examples posted on here. All it shows is that a group that did more training did better than a group which did less training. there's nothing to say that the equivalent amount of cycling would not have achieved the same or even better results.
> 
> I'm really bored of this, so I'll just say good luck with the weight training.


 
What it shows is a group who were already doing a significant amount of training on the bike improved their perfomance over a control group by doing a small amount of strength training off the bike (interestingly the improved performance was noted to come despite there being 'no concurrent increase in body weight or maximal oxygen uptake'.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> As usual, that is one of the regular examples posted on here. All it shows is that a group that did more training did better than a group which did less training. there's nothing to say that the equivalent amount of cycling would not have achieved the same or even better results.
> 
> I'm really bored of this, so I'll just say good luck with the weight training.



Selective reading to fit your own contentions? The only difference between the two groups were the low rep squats. If we are to argue that such an activity does not benefit cycling then it should have made no difference.

Before you completely sign off can I ask you once again to provide a link that supports your assertion that stronger legs have no bearing on an endurance cyclist? You do understand I assume that in conditioning your legs you are in effect making them stronger?

My original question was as to whether doing the type of work on the bike to deliberately overload the leg muscles was worthwhile. Is there nothing you can produce to show it is not rather than just "because I say so".


----------



## lukasran (20 Aug 2015)

i think the is expecting you to appeal to his authority.


----------



## ayceejay (20 Aug 2015)

Whenever the subject of the value of strength training for cyclists comes up elsewhere the ongoing discussion is described as a debate which I take to mean 'the jury is still out' and no verdict has been reached, for me this is the only sensible way to approach it.
When Percy Wells Cerutty had his trainees lifting weights and running up sand dunes he was called a crackpot, then when his runner Herb Elliot was winning everything people changed their tune. Cycling has never been very advanced in its training techniques being a little bit held back by the drug use as the main way to enhance performance and by comparison with other athletic endeavors has a way to go.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> What it shows is a group who were already doing a significant amount of training on the bike improved their perfomance over a control group by doing a small amount of strength training off the bike (interestingly the improved performance was noted to come despite there being 'no concurrent increase in body weight or maximal oxygen uptake'.



Bear in mind that study only looked at cycling economy (ie conserving power) anyway, not sustainable power - which is the main issue in performance cycling. But who is to say that the control group would not have experienced similar improvements had they committed a similar amount of extra hours to cycling? This has been discussed in other threads, so no point in flogging it any further here. To be fair, you did say that science had moved on, so I was really hoping to see something new, not a 5 year old study which you just found on google. Most of us with an interest in stuff like this had seen that 5 years ago.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> Selective reading to fit your own contentions? The only difference between the two groups were the low rep squats. If we are to argue that such an activity does not benefit cycling then it should have made no difference.



So one group does an extra work out, while the other group lays up. That's not selective reading, it's a genuine observation.



50000tears said:


> Before you completely sign off can I ask you once again to provide a link that supports your assertion that stronger legs have no bearing on an endurance cyclist? You do understand I assume that in conditioning your legs you are in effect making them stronger?



You want me to agree that something which we aren't calling 'strength' makes your legs stronger? The onus is on you to understand the topic - it is not for me to educate you. The info you require is all out there in the public domain - much of it is linked to in the other threads which I keep mentioning. Go find it.



50000tears said:


> My original question was as to whether doing the type of work on the bike to deliberately overload the leg muscles was worthwhile. Is there nothing you can produce to show it is not rather than just "because I say so".



It's not because I say so. It's because a lot of others say so and have provided the evidence for why they think that, and I'm inclined to agree with them rather than you. Like I said, go educate yourself - it's all out there.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

Citius you have a rep on here for rubbing people up the wrong way but it is in my nature to treat people as I find them and make my own decisions. It seems to me that you demand proof from others you are never prepared to present yourself whilst being 100% close minded to anything that does does not fit into your "known facts". If it is all out there then why cannot you produce one shred of evidence to support it? It is not about agreeing with me but the multitude of evidence out there that you see fit to dismiss for reason (a) or reason (b).

Your post above shows how you will distort the facts to suit your stubborn held beliefs because you are unwilling to learn anything new. To say that guys doing a few sets of squats is extra training so of course they are fitter when holding the view that the activity would not make you fitter is a ludicrous contradictory statement.

You dismiss any other argument you don't agree with as people been uneducated which is insulting in itself. You are unwilling to debate or look at a question objectively. It is no wonder you rile up so many with such a poor attitude. Perhaps you you like to contact the trainers at Sky, Saxo-Tinkoff and British Cycling and tell them that they are uneducated and training their guys wrong.

Now for one final time, link me just once to anything that I should be educating myself on in that strength is not needed in cycling. If it is all out there it shouldn't be too hard.


----------



## Cuchilo (20 Aug 2015)

From what i saw before i put him on ignore , he never actually adds anything to a discussion . Just takes it of course into his own argument and then the threads die as no one can be bothered to argue with him any more .
Its a shame the mods allow it .


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> Now for one final time, link me just once to anything that I should be educating myself on in that strength is not needed in cycling. If it is all out there it shouldn't be too hard.



You're right - it's not hard at all. In fact it's very easy, which is why I can't understand why you can't do it yourself. But anyway....

http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/why-we-dont-use-strength-endurance-anymore
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826297

Enjoy. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on them. And yours too, Cuchilo, …

EDITED BY MOD - No need to be rude.


----------



## adscrim (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Bear in mind that study only looked at cycling economy (ie conserving power) anyway, not sustainable power - which is the main issue in performance cycling. But who is to say that the control group would not have experienced similar improvements had they committed a similar amount of extra hours to cycling? This has been discussed in other threads, so no point in flogging it any further here. To be fair, you did say that science had moved on, so I was really hoping to see something new, not a 5 year old study which you just found on google. Most of us with an interest in stuff like this had seen that 5 years ago.



You are of course right. I should have reference an article that uses research from the 80s and 90s as you did.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> You're right - it's not hard at all. In fact it's very easy, which is why I can't understand why you can't do it yourself. But anyway....
> 
> http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/why-we-dont-use-strength-endurance-anymore
> http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern
> ...



I did try and find them but obviously used the wrong term in Google when searching.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

Well I have read the links now and apart from the 2nd one, which was not dated, they were pretty old. What was also evident was that the links either were one trainers opinion or the basis of single studies. The first one spoke about no muscle mass gains!! To even think there should be some in what amounted to super high rep resistance training suggests that he may have missed the point entirely.

The problem as you know Citius is that as has been said before, the evidence is perhaps still not clear of whether strength training on or off the bike has a benefit or not. I for one cannot see myself doing gym work as I choose to do or my training on the bike. I don't see how pushing/lifting weights would benefit cycling but am open to being proved wrong if science shows otherwise in the future.

However if pro teams and British cycling are using specific strength training for their endurance athletes then it is reasonable to assume that they ARE convinced of the benefits.

This thread is sadly going knowhere although I will repeat again that for every link showing that resistance training plays no part in cycling performance I could produce another 5 studies that shows that it does. It is not about educating ourselves when there is a wealth of studies out there that do not all reach the same conclusions.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> You are of course right. I should have reference an article that uses research from the 80s and 90s as you did.



I never claimed 'science had moved on' - you did. Still waiting for you to post something up-to-date.........


----------



## ayceejay (20 Aug 2015)

I think I have a problem, my common sense tells me to let this go but that little demon sitting on my shoulder insists I do this:
The links posted above as evidence (tee hee) of Citius's stand are
1) a commercial site with a particular point to make based on one coaches opinion
2) is one half of a debate so obviously not 'peer reviewed' but peer contested
3) comes from the same journal as that quoted by adscrim above and publishes alternative views with that same seriousness and references but with different conclusions, further evidence of the debating nature of this subject.
There is an old Chinese saying that goes something like - to advance understanding first define what your words mean. and one of the problems with threads like this and it seems the links used to back up arguments is that the meaning of 'strength', 'improvement' and so on shift about causing confusion. So that one statement that says quite categorically that strength training plays a part in making a cyclist ride faster is contradicted by another that says in highly trained cyclists weight lifting plays NO part in making them faster. So when someone claims that 'the science' universally accepts one narrow interpretation this is simply not true.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> The first one spoke about no muscle mass gains!!



I'm guessing you probably mis-read that.


50000tears said:


> This thread is sadly going knowhere although I will repeat again that for every link showing that resistance training plays no part in cycling performance I could produce another 5 studies that shows that it does



Do that then. As far as I am aware, they are all flawed in some aspect, in as much as they either use un-trained subjects, or unbalanced training regimen, or focus on producing peak power (in endurance cycling, average power is a far more useful metric), or attempt to show other benefits which don't really relate to endurance riding. So make sure you read them carefully before you decide they are actually relevant.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> So when someone claims that 'the science' universally accepts one narrow interpretation this is simply not true.



The weight of evidence and a number of sports science coaches, like Coggan, Stern and even Friel are equivocal on strength work, to say the least. With all this supposed evidence in favour of it, you would think they would be all over it - but for some reason they are not.


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> However if pro teams and British cycling are using specific strength training for their endurance athletes then it is reasonable to assume that they ARE convinced of the benefits.



Just to pick up on this. I don't believe they are using strength work. I have two friends who are on BC performance programmes and they tell me that the gym work they are given is light weights for conditioning purposes. No heavy stuff. So in other words, not 'strength' work. How you reconcile that with what you might have read on the BC website, I don't know. But that appears to be the truth of it.

Bear in mind that these people have all day to train. How the rest of us - with limited time - should not necessarily correlate with what the pros do. If you only have 10 hours or less every week, then that 10 hours would be better off spent on a bike, developing your sustainable or anaerobic power delivery.


----------



## adscrim (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> I never claimed 'science had moved on' - you did. Still waiting for you to post something up-to-date.........


Are you suggesting science stopped moving in the 90s?


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> Are you suggesting science stopped moving in the 90s?



Science only advances when new information comes along to advance it. E=MC2 has been around for over 100 years, but that doesn't mean it is no longer relevant. Below is what you said in an earlier post. So I was wondering where this 'new' science was.....



adscrim said:


> the science has moved on



So you say it's 'moved on' but the best you can do is find a paper from 2010 which is flawed anyway.


----------



## 50000tears (20 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> I'm guessing you probably mis-read that.



No I did not. Re-read it yourself if you like.




> Do that then. As far as I am aware, they are all flawed in some aspect, in as much as they either use un-trained subjects, or unbalanced training regimen, or focus on producing peak power (in endurance cycling, average power is a far more useful metric), or attempt to show other benefits which don't really relate to endurance riding. So make sure you read them carefully before you decide they are actually relevant.



It is amazing that all the studies reflecting your view are completely accurate whilst those that disagree are all flawed. You simply refuse to be wrong it what is only one side of an argument that even coaches and scientists far more qualified cannot agree 100% on. To have an opinion is fine, but to suggest that those who do not agree with it are somehow ill informed and not worth listening to, is plain silly. Must be great to live in a world where everything is so black and white.

I cannot waste more time on this but leave with this quote.

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows he is a fool"


----------



## Citius (20 Aug 2015)

All I've ever done on this thread is doubt the usefulness of strength work - and (crucially) explain why with thinking which is currently in line with established science on the topic.



50000tears said:


> No I did not. Re-read it yourself if you like.



Why not point out the 'error' directly with Dr Coggan?? He will either take your correction, or explain to you why you are wrong. One of the two.



50000tears said:


> It is amazing that all the studies reflecting your view are completely accurate whilst those that disagree are all flawed. You simply refuse to be wrong it what is only one side of an argument that even coaches and scientists far more qualified cannot agree 100% on.



You said you could provide a 5:1 ratio of my links to yours. I have provided three links so far - which means by your own estimates, you now owe me 15 links, please. Anyway, I don't think I have ever claimed that anything I have linked to is completely accurate, any more than you have. Simply an alternative point of view, which, I would argue, is based on better reckoning than trawling through and cherry-picking your favourite abstracts from pubmed. As I have said before, nobody will ever agree 100% on anything - people can't even agree 100% that the world is round, ffs. As I have never yet been lucky enough to view the Earth from space, the best I can do is make assumptions based on the available science.



50000tears said:


> To have an opinion is fine, but to suggest that those who do not agree with it are somehow ill informed and not worth listening to, is plain silly. Must be great to live in a world where everything is so black and white.



I've never suggested anything like that. I have pointed out the flaws in some of those studies, which are worth considering though. I haven't seen you point out any of the flaws in any of my links yet, assuming there are any, obviously.



50000tears said:


> It is amazing that all the studies reflecting your view are completely accurate whilst those that disagree are all flawed. You simply refuse to be wrong it what is only one side of an argument that even coaches and scientists far more qualified cannot agree 100% on.



Like I said, until something more convincing comes along, I'll stick with the balance of what we know that works. If someone ever comes up with a compelling study that shows me that weights work is more beneficial to cycling than riding a bike, I'll be first in the queue for the gym. Until then I'll stick with riding a bike.


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


----------



## reacher (21 Aug 2015)

Your wrong and your right citius when was the last time you saw a frail grandmother go in a gym strap a 20 kilo weight to their leg and move it around ? you won't , ever . Strap a weight like that to anyone's leg and ask them to perform repetitions of any sort . If you took 2 cyclists of exactly the same aerobic capacity etc and you made one stronger In a gym put them on a climb like the alpe d'huez which one will use a bigger gear and climb it fastest ? The stronger one will . The rest of the argument is basically true if you were to train the 2 identical guys one in the gym the other on the bike the guy the one on the bike would then win


----------



## adscrim (21 Aug 2015)

reacher said:


> if you were to train the 2 identical guys one in the gym the other on the bike the guy the one on the bike would then win


 
Yes, but if you had three identical guys, trained one in the gym, one on the bike and one on bike with complimentary strength and conditioning excercises, the one doing the comlimentary exercises would win. I think it's worth noting that the paper I linked to early was suggesting 20 min 2-3 times a week. I doubt you're going to get much improvement doing that little additional work on the bike but it appears you can see improvement from doing a relatively small amount on complimentary exercises off the bike.

If people don't believe that, we should change the question. Why are British Cycling lying to us? What do the people (in part) responsible for three of the last four TdF winners have to gain from recreational cyclists doing strength and conditioning exercises?


----------



## Spinney (21 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> Whilst it is correct that you cannot exert more force than your body weight...


Sorry to butt in chaps (and I only read this thread because a couple of posts got reported!) - but is the above really true? If you pull up on the handlebars as you push down, is it not possible to exert more force than your body weight?


----------



## Spinney (21 Aug 2015)

*This is from me as a moderator*:
A few posts have been deleted above, as they were purely personal insults.
Please avoid insulting each other and discuss things politely - you may have to just agree to disagree in the end.
If the sniping continues the thread will be closed (or the combatants given a thread ban). It would be a shame to have to close it because a lot of it looks like an interesting discussion.


----------



## reacher (21 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> Yes, but if you had three identical guys, trained one in the gym, one on the bike and one on bike with complimentary strength and conditioning excercises, the one doing the comlimentary exercises would win.


That's not realy relevant , the question is does it work or not , yes depending on what strength work you do how you do it when you do it how old you are and how good you are as a cyclist , natural ability on the bike will beat strength training all day long so will improving your aerobic capacity. Also you are trying to compare what the results of doing this training has on the likes of Chris froome compared to a middle age desk jockey who has done virtually no training his whole life


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

Sorry, this needs dealing with as there are a couple of misconceptions.



reacher said:


> Your wrong and your right citius when was the last time you saw a frail grandmother go in a gym strap a 20 kilo weight to their leg and move it around ? you won't , ever . Strap a weight like that to anyone's leg and ask them to perform repetitions of any sort .



If your grandmother weights more than 20kg (which is likely) - and if she can get up out of her chair without assistance - then she is already demonstrating the ability to exert at least 20kg of lift through her legs. Obviously you won't see many frail grandmothers in the gym, or riding in the alps, but the point is made to underline just how low the force demands of endurance cycling actually are. Practically anyone can push 20kg through their legs - and this is the average force that a pro rider would push through the pedals riding up an alpine Col. The question is, if they are only pushing 20kg, but can already push significantly more than that by default, why do they need 'stronger' legs to only push 20kg? The issue is the maintenance of that effort, not the effort generation itself. Cycling is significantly sub-maximal, and you will never need to exert maximal force on the pedals. It's not possible anyway. The only time you will ever come close to exerting anything like a maximal force is in a standing start in a very high gear - and even then only momentarily.



reacher said:


> If you took 2 cyclists of exactly the same aerobic capacity etc and you made one stronger In a gym put them on a climb like the alpe d'huez which one will use a bigger gear and climb it fastest ? The stronger one will . The rest of the argument is basically true if you were to train the 2 identical guys one in the gym the other on the bike the guy the one on the bike would then win



This is a complete misunderstanding of how force is generated. The activity you decribe is submaximal and aerobic. The differentiator will be aerobic capacity and lactate tolerance, not strength, because you are not exerting anything like maximal strength on the pedals. You need to understand the difference between strength (force application) and power (the rate at which force is applied, or the rate at which work is done).


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

Spinney said:


> Sorry to butt in chaps (and I only read this thread because a couple of posts got reported!) - but is the above really true? If you pull up on the handlebars as you push down, is it not possible to exert more force than your body weight?



Not while seated. If you are standing, then fractionally more in those circumstances perhaps, but it is physically very difficult to maintain such a maximal effort for longer than a few seconds, by definition. Remember we are talking about sustained aerobic efforts here, as opposed to sprint efforts, or standing starts. In other words, sustainable power, not peak power. Sustainable power, or average power, is what gets you places. 

This is why most power training programmes focus on improving FTP, rather than maximum numbers, because FTP is generally seen as the maximum 'average' power sustainable over an hour's effort


----------



## Spinney (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Not while seated. If you are standing, then fractionally more in those circumstances perhaps, but it is physically very difficult to maintain such a maximal effort for longer than a few seconds, by definition. Remember we are talking about sustained aerobic efforts here, as opposed to sprint efforts, or standing starts. In other words, sustainable power, not peak power. Sustainable power, or average power, is what gets you places.
> 
> This is why most power training programmes focus on improving FTP, rather than maximum numbers, because FTP is generally seen as the maximum 'average' power sustainable over an hour's effort


Yes, I meant when standing ... I guess the few newtons of extra force from pulling is pretty small in comparison to body weight.


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

Spinney said:


> Yes, I meant when standing ... I guess the few newtons of extra force from pulling is pretty small in comparison to body weight.



Something like that would only happen in maybe a standing start in a kilo sprint, or similar. Even in those circumstances, I'm not even sure that the riders are hitting maximal efforts, because as soon as the pedals start to move, it no longer becomes possible to exert a maximal force (you can't exert a maximal force on a moving object).


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> If people don't believe that, we should change the question. Why are British Cycling lying to us? What do the people (in part) responsible for three of the last four TdF winners have to gain from recreational cyclists doing strength and conditioning exercises?



Could it be your interpretation of the info is wrong? I already mentioned earlier that a couple of people I know are on BC performance development programmes. They do weights work (at least one of them does, so I'm guessing the other does too) - but this is only light 'conditioning' work, not designed to make their legs 'stronger' in any force generation sense (ie the dictionary definition of the word). 

Conditioning work is an entirely different issue and there's lots of sound reasoning behind why any athlete would want to do that.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (21 Aug 2015)

Take two comparable cyclists as has been mentioned. Send one of them to the gym for a couple of months of 'strength training'. 
Most likely outcome, IMO - the one who didn't go to the gym would climb better than the one who did.

I spend 6-7 hours a week lifting weights, so I'm not in any way biased against strength training. Just don't think it has any transferable benefits for the cyclist. And, if anything, the almost inevitable increase in muscle mass is going to impact negatively.

If you want to increase power on a bicycle, then work on a combination of big and small gears both to improve your aerobic system and to illicit adaptions at the neuro - muscular level.

Just my take on it.


----------



## adscrim (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Could it be your interpretation of the info is wrong? I already mentioned earlier that a couple of people I know are on BC performance development programmes. They do weights work (at least one of them does, so I'm guessing the other does too) - but this is only light 'conditioning' work, not designed to make their legs 'stronger' in any force generation sense (ie the dictionary definition of the word).
> 
> Conditioning work is an entirely different issue and there's lots of sound reasoning behind why any athlete would want to do that.


 
No, I don't believe my interpretation of the info is wrong. Weight work is strength work and conditioning work is for making the body stronger - I'm pretty sure BC don't advocate it so that people look better in lycra. Just because the purpose is not to increase a single rep maximum doesn't mean it's not strength work, and just because a squat isn't 150kg plus doesn't mean the exercise isn't making you stronger.

I believe the reason people bother to argue about this issue continually is that they see posters asking the question about squats and believe they are being given incorrect replies. If I was to come on here and say 'would my cycling benefit from me doing some gym work such as squats?', I believe (without checking) that they will be told no, squats are useless/you'll bulk up and actually be slower/no point you can't physically put any more weight through the pedals than you are carrying/etc

Actually I think the answer they should be getting is 'yes, strength and conditioning work can be complimentary to the cycling you are doing. It's highly probably that this will improve your cyling but should not come at the expense of time on the bike. Check the BC website, they have some excellent strength and conditioning exercises.'

In short, I think you might be hindering some peoples improvement with your black and white view of squats and strength work in general.


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> Weight work is strength work and conditioning work is for making the body stronger



This is probably where your misunderstanding is then. Weight work does not necessarily mean 'strength' work - it depends on what the objectives of the session are. Low weights would represent conditioning work because the exercise is sub-maximal, the objective is not hypertrophy and the result is not an increase in 1RM strength. Conditioning - as I said, that's different. Conditioning can be seen as improving the condition of the overall musculature, like working the muscles around the typical fibres used in cycling, or similar. If you could provide a link to the BC page, that would be useful.



adscrim said:


> Actually I think the answer they should be getting is 'yes, strength and conditioning work can be complimentary to the cycling you are doing. It's highly probably that this will improve your cyling but should not come at the expense of time on the bike. Check the BC website, they have some excellent strength and conditioning exercises.'



So explain how it is useful then. We can probably already agree that there is a place for conditioning work - but specifically how do you see strength work as being of benefit? And how are you defining strength?



adscrim said:


> In short, I think you might be hindering some peoples improvement with your black and white view of squats and strength work in general.



As I said - if you think I am mistaken, then point me to the evidence which demonstrates tangible benefit in strength work over the equivalent amount of time spent riding a bike at varying effort levels. The point that I am somehow responsible for holding people back because of this is utterly absurd...but well done for giving me my first laugh of the day...


----------



## reacher (21 Aug 2015)

Well theirs your answer you keep saying equivalant amount of time on the bike , no one is saying its better to strength train than ride a bike , you would have to be pretty clue less to say that any type of training such as core work or body conditioning or strength worth is not a benifet to a average cyclists ability to train better on a bike and age better as regards over all condition , if your Alberto contador than most would agree don't bother doing a squat session if your a middle aged desk jockey then yes it will improve your over all well being if your a natural talented 18 year old just get on the bike and ride And power is power strength is strength you can either use a bigger gear or spin a smaller one faster 2 exact abilitys make one guy stronger he will use a bigger gear there for go further with each turn of the pedal I can't see any other way to make that not work


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

reacher said:


> Well theirs your answer you keep saying equivalant amount of time on the bike , no one is saying its better to strength train than ride a bike , you would have to be pretty clue less to say that any type of training such as core work or body conditioning or strength worth is not a benifet to a average cyclists ability to train better on a bike and age better as regards over all condition



But that's not what we've been talking about. The assumption from many on here is that there is some kind of performance benefit from incorporating strength work into a training programme (I thought you were saying that too). So you are saying that there is none?


----------



## adscrim (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> But that's not what we've been talking about. The assumption from many on here is that there is some kind of performance benefit from incorporating strength work into a training programme (I thought you were saying that too). So you are saying that there is none?


 
Are you sure that not what we've been talking about? That sounds exactly like what I've been talking about - strength and conditioning exercises that don't replace time on the bike but compliment it.

From British Cycling - "Strength and conditioning work is a key component of the training plans of all top cyclists."


----------



## reacher (21 Aug 2015)

Depends on who you are if your name is Alberto then probably not if your a average person then you have to look at what you have , if your over weight and have legs that have sat in a chair all your adult life and have no core strength to speak of then yes it will compliment your ability to train better feel better and ultimately make you a better athlete . You can't just pigeon hole this type of training and say its useless or it works too many variables in terms of application to individuals , plus the training is very complex for example take a guy in a gym who can squat 200 kilos power lifter type big heavy super strong ask him to do a pistol squat and he will fall on his arse most likely , strength and power do not equate to weight moved in one direction it means many things in relation to what sport your in and what parts your trying to strengthen


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

reacher said:


> Depends on who you are if your name is Alberto then probably not if your a average person then you have to look at what you have , if your over weight and have legs that have sat in a chair all your adult life and have no core strength to speak of then yes it will compliment your ability to train better feel better and ultimately make you a better athlete . You can't just pigeon hole this type of training and say its useless or it works too many variables in terms of application to individuals , plus the training is very complex for example take a guy in a gym who can squat 200 kilos power lifter type big heavy super strong ask him to do a pistol squat and he will fall on his arse most likely , strength and power do not equate to weight moved in one direction it means many things in relation to what sport your in and what parts your trying to strengthen



I don't think I disagree with that. A couple of pages back, we were all talking about leg strength though (although possibly not you, tbf, as I don't think you had posted then)...


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> Are you sure that not what we've been talking about? That sounds exactly like what I've been talking about - strength and conditioning exercises that don't replace time on the bike but compliment it.
> 
> From British Cycling - "Strength and conditioning work is a key component of the training plans of all top cyclists."



I'm still trying to get you to define 'strength' - either you can't or you won't. Anyway, this is what you said a few pages back:



adscrim said:


> And the answer would be that current evidence suggests that it will improve our endurance performance on the bike.



Strength work in terms of performance was your point - you even tried posting links to papers to support this. Now, we are just talking 'conditioning', apparently. Either way, you are still yet to explain how it is useful, like I asked you. I also asked you to link to the BC page. You may be back-tracking, but you are leaving a trail...


----------



## adscrim (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> I'm still trying to get you to define 'strength' - either you can't or you won't. Anyway, this is what you said a few pages back:
> 
> 
> 
> Strength work in terms of performance was your point - you even tried posting links to papers to support this. Now, we are just talking 'conditioning', apparently. Either way, you are still yet to explain how it is useful, like I asked you. I also asked you to link to the BC page. You may be back-tracking, but you are leaving a trail...


 
How can this be both what I said a few pages back and be me back tracking? Strength - how strong you are. Strength training - increasing how strong you are. And to show I'm not back tracking I'll repeat that this doesn't have to be Chris Hoy squat reps. Just because the squats aren't 150kg plus, doesn't mean you aren't getting stronger.

I didn't try to post a link, I did post a link and it did support this. Go to the BC website, it's not difficult to find or have they somehow blocked you?


----------



## Drago (21 Aug 2015)

I've avoided this thread, but curiosity has got the better of me - how may of the people giving the benefit of their vast knowledge of strength training are actually weaklings who'd struggle to lift more than a knife and fork?

*Mod edit:* you don't have to be an athlete to understand training methods. All follow-up posts to this attempt at thread-derailment will be deleted.


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> How can this be both what I said a few pages back and be me back tracking? Strength - how strong you are. Strength training - increasing how strong you are. And to show I'm not back tracking I'll repeat that this doesn't have to be Chris Hoy squat reps. Just because the squats aren't 150kg plus, doesn't mean you aren't getting stronger.
> 
> I didn't try to post a link, I did post a link and it did support this. Go to the BC website, it's not difficult to find or have they somehow blocked you?



If you aren't getting stronger, how do you know if the weights are doing anything? You haven't ever articulated how more strength will improve your endurance cycling performance. That's all I'm asking. I can probably find the BC page, but if you provided a link, I would definitely know that we are both looking at the same document.

Let's try and get this done quickly before Drago's awesomeness dazzles us all....


----------



## huwsparky (21 Aug 2015)

What's the difference between strength and conditioning work? Are they not both effectively the same thing? As in exercises one would do OFF the bike to compliment training on the bike? 

Anyway, this is another cracker!!


----------



## adscrim (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> If you aren't getting stronger, how do you know if the weights are doing anything?


 
Eh? If a tree falls over in the woods... Who said anything about not getting stronger?



Citius said:


> You haven't ever articulated how more strength will improve your endurance cycling performance. That's all I'm asking.


 
I don't need to articulate it. You asked for a evidence, I provided evidence via a link (it was 5 years old but that was still more recent that anything posted in reply). Going on the pass this off as my own would be dishonest.


----------



## Drago (21 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> *Mod edit:* you don't have to be an athlete to understand training methods. All follow-up attempts to this attempt at thread-derailment will be deleted.



Excuse me! This is not an attempt at thread derailment. In my own inept I am enquiring after the gentleman's credentials in the field of strength training.

One does not need to be an athlete to understand the matter. However, if one is not an athlete and is claiming knowledge then it is quite reasonable to enquire as to where they acquired their knowledge and professed expertise.

I'm a strength athlete competing at a national level, if not a particularly competitive one for various reasons. I have first hand experience of training with the sole intention of increasing strength, and I have been mentored by a 4 times WSM finalist, and I disagree with much of what the gentleman is espousing. If he expects me or others to follow his advice it is quite reasonable to first establish from where he has derived his expertise or experience. If he has neither expertise (and thus genuine understanding) nor experience, then he has has only opinion.


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> Who said anything about not getting stronger?



Er, you did. See below...




adscrim said:


> Just because the squats aren't 150kg plus, doesn't mean you aren't getting stronger



How else would you measure the effectiveness of a strength routine?



adscrim said:


> I don't need to articulate it. You asked for a evidence, I provided evidence via a link (it was 5 years old but that was still more recent that anything posted in reply). Going on the pass this off as my own would be dishonest.



I already explained to you why that study didn't cut it. The training interventions favoured one group (who did more work than the other) and the goal of the study was not improved performance anyway - the goal was improved economy. The age of the data only matters if you say stuff like 'science has moved on' - which it effectively hasn't in this respect - so my links are no less valid for being 7-8 years old. They simply represent the most recent work done on the topic. If you know of newer stuff (which you implied you did when you said 'the science has moved on'), then I'm still waiting to see it.


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> I'm a strength athlete competing at a national level, if not a particularly competitive one for various reasons. I have first hand experience of train with the sole intention of increasing strength, and I have been mentored by a 4 times WSM finalist, and I disagree with much of what the gentleman is espousing. If he expects me or others to follow his advice it is quite reasonable to first establish from where he has derived his expertise or experience. If he has neither expertise (and thus genuine understanding) nor experience, then he has has only opinion.



Ya'll know, we're talking about the sport of cycling, not weightlifting, right? How other sports train is not particularly relevant here.


----------



## Moderators (21 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> Excuse me! This is not an attempt at thread derailment. In my own inept I am enquiring after the gentleman's credentials in the field of strength training.
> 
> One does not need to be an athlete to understand the matter. However, if one is not an athlete and is claiming knowledge then it is quite reasonable to enquire as to where they acquired their knowledge and professed expertise.



Perhaps, then, you should have asked that question instead of a sarcastic comment that invited (and got) off-topic replies.
The question, as you have put it in the 2nd para above, is perfectly acceptable.

And @Citius - please try to avoid letting this get personal again - just saying!


----------



## Drago (21 Aug 2015)

Ye Gods Citius, were on a cycling forum! How did I not notice that? Couldd it be that's an irrelevant comment intended to derail the thread?

If the goal is to increase strength the the physiological challenge is EXACTLY the same, and the principles for acquiring are also IDENTICAL. Indeed, the actual physical act of the training required is not that far removed between the two either. 

We are blessed with only one musculoskeletal system each and there is a means by which that system can be worked and trained to increase strength. The final intended application of that strength is of no interest to your body during the process of acquiring it.

There will be tertiary considerations, not directly related to the problem. One of my favourite complaints is the self inflicted 70lbs extra mass I now carry, having gone from a 42 to a 54/56 chest, and for a cyclist much of the effortnin gaining strength is negated for me by then loading myself with another 70lbs to lug around, so for a cycling perspective its a failure. I bitch and moan, but I live with it because that's my particular price for competing at my chosen sport

But the basic principles behind acquiring additional strength remain the same. Issues for a cyclist with unwanted hypertrophy are secondary issues.


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

huwsparky said:


> What's the difference between strength and conditioning work? Are they not both effectively the same thing? As in exercises one would do OFF the bike to compliment training on the bike?



If they _are_ the same thing, then we've just wasted seven pages worth of Cyclechat's server memory.. 

I can only give you the definitions as I see them: strength = your maximal force application in a typical 1RM scenario. Conditioning = your body's ability to transfer/convert/support such forces as you need to apply in order to get the job done. No idea if anyone on here would agree with that, but that certainly seems to be the consensus from the 'strength & conditioning' community. Open to other suggestions though. We should probably have had this conversation before the thread got fully underway...


----------



## adscrim (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Er, you did. See below...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think I understand the problem now - read the statement again, _'doesn't mean you aren't'_ isn't the same as_ 'you are not'_. Has this happened when you've been reading other posts?

And tell me again how comparing two groups, one just cycling and one cycling with the addition of strength training doesn't cut it when I was advocating cycling with complimentary strength and conditioning exercises above just cycling?


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

Moderators said:


> And @Citius - please try to avoid letting this get personal again - just saying!



If I ever do make a personal comment, I'll be sure to bear that in mind..


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> And tell me again how comparing two groups, one just cycling and one cycling with the addition of strength training doesn't cut it when I was saying advocating cycling with complimentary strength and conditioning exercises?



Because (as I said before) one group ended up doing more training hours than the other, so the difference in outcome should not be surprising. If the control group had put in the same amount of additional hours as the intervention group - but on a bike - there's nothing to say that such additional training would not have had the same effect. If you are going to test the effectiveness of something, you have to test it against an alternative - providing of course, that the alternative is not simply ' doing nothing' - which it was in this case.


----------



## adscrim (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Because (as I said before) one group ended up doing more training hours than the other, so the difference in outcome should not be surprising. If the control group had put in the same amount of additional hours as the intervention group - but on a bike - there's nothing to say that such additional training would not have had the same effect. If you are going to test the effectiveness of something, you have to test it against an alternative - providing of course, that the alternative is not simply ' doing nothing' - which it was in this case.


 But as you failed to realise before, they weren't doing training hours. They did 20 mins 3 time a week, of which I think you can assume at least 10 minutes was rest between sets. This resulted in a 5% increase in cycling efficiency. Are you saying that competitive cyclists would all show a 5% increase in cycling efficiency by doing and extra 30-60 minutes on the bike a week?


----------



## reacher (21 Aug 2015)

you could argue this forever which is what Citius is doing by taking each comment and stripping it apart , unless you are talking about a pro rider then its not relevant to the average cyclist anyway, so does leg strength improve your cycling for the average person ?
what happens as you age ? mostly you end up at some point going from a standard chain set to a compact, then bigger cassettes ultimately you finish up being no where near as strong or aerobically gifted as you once were, the simple reason being that you are getting weaker and your aerobic capacity, at some stage diminishes, what will diminish the most if you allow it to is strength, so yes for most people leg strength and core strength and to a degree upper body strength matter a great deal if not now in the future , so to say that its irrelevant not to train your body is just not the case , yes he is correct on its own it wont make you faster as such on a week by week basis but over time it will make you a better rider and athlete and prolong your days in the saddle far longer than a person who neglects to train his body.
However the fact remains that no matter which way you look at it if you improve your leg strength and the other guy does not then all other things being equal you will be in a bigger gear


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> But as you failed to realise before, they weren't doing training hours. They did 20 mins 3 time a week, of which I think you can assume at least 10 minutes was rest between sets. This resulted in a 5% increase in cycling efficiency. Are you saying that competitive cyclists would all show a 5% increase in cycling efficiency by doing and extra 30-60 minutes on the bike a week?



They weren't doing training hours? I beg to differ. 20mins x 3 is an extra hour - depending on how many hours cycling they were doing, that could be 10% or more increase in training load. You're assuming a lot, so you clearly haven't read the whole study in detail. We will never know if it would be possible for the control group to see the same improvement, unless someone repeated the study - but until they do, there is always going to be that un-answered question.


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

reacher said:


> However the fact remains that no matter which way you look at it if you improve your leg strength and the other guy does not then all other things being equal you will be in a bigger gear



You keep saying that - but it's nonsense. I've already explained why on previous pages, but you don't seem to have challenged it. Riding in a bigger gear requires more aerobic power, not more strength. Aerobic power is limited by Vo2max and lactate threshold - not leg strength.


----------



## adscrim (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> They weren't doing training hours? I beg to differ. 20mins x 3 is an extra hour - depending on how many hours cycling they were doing, that could be 10% or more increase in training load. You're assuming a lot, so you clearly haven't read the whole study in detail. We will never know if it would be possible for the control group to see the same improvement, unless someone repeated the study - but until they do, there is always going to be that un-answered question.


 No need to beg.


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

adscrim said:


> No need to beg.



So either you are trying to be funny - in a school playground sort of way - or you've got no valid response. Which is it?


----------



## Andrew_P (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> As a final word, I'm going to link to the other two threads on this topic (which are still on page 1) - and respectfully suggest that we only post new material and new links from now on. That should keep the page count down a bit.
> 
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/weight-training.182371/
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/squats.183923/


Well that went well? Final word  

I still maintain there is a net benefit to leg training, and there are far more scientific studies that support this notion than the few that counter it. 

I am in and then I am out of this thread.

This was my favourite one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855311


----------



## 50000tears (21 Aug 2015)

This thread is so horribly derailed beyond return! 

As the OP I would like to say that I did not want a discussion about gym or other weight work to strengthen legs as I don't believe in it anyway. If people can find there way back to page I was asking about on the bike low cadence training in order to greater condition (or strengthen if you prefer) the legs. But there was also a discussion to be had on any benefits if any to the notion of full rotation pedalling; although I did tend to agree with Citius on this one point at least!

The theory of having better conditioned legs is that they would take longer to fatigue thus allowing a bigger gear, more power, to be used for longer. So the question is would riding in a way to quickly overload and stress the legs create enough stress to cause the adaptation desired? From everything I have read over the last day of so and before that is that it is as yet unproven as to the benefits. Or at least no up to date study available either way.


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> This was my favourite one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855311



Lol - that's the same study we've just been discussing...


----------



## Andrew_P (21 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Lol - that's the same study we've just been discussing...


I know....


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> I am in and then I am out of this thread.



Well that went well? 



Andrew_P said:


> I know....



But you thought you'd repost it - in case anyone missed it. That's the second funniest thing I've seen today...


----------



## Citius (21 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> The theory of having better conditioned legs is that they would take longer to fatigue thus allowing a bigger gear, more power, to be used for longer. So the question is would riding in a way to quickly overload and stress the legs create enough stress to cause the adaptation desired?



I think the consensus is that it may do, but the adaptions and the outcome would not necessarily be any different than riding at normal cadence in a more appropriate gear. Either way, the same muscle fibres are recruited. So in other words, either would work. So on that basis, it would be logical to apply the rule of specificity and do the thing you would normally do, rather than do something different for the same effect. Coggan addressed this in one of the articles I linked to earlier.

It is also important to stress that the ability to ride in a bigger gear for longer is a function of sustainable power production (FTP, aerobic capacity, cardiovascular capability, Vo2 Max, lactate tolerance, etc, etc), not leg conditioning or leg strength, as I said before.


----------



## ayceejay (21 Aug 2015)

It seems that certain words are "inappropriate" on CC although name calling is fine it seems.

Anyway, as I said earlier what words and concepts mean is important so we must make a distinction between training and the race or event you are training for, the original question was regarding training.
i.e. would the on the bike exercise stated help in the training phase? Would this exercise help in building the capability to ride harder and faster on race day?


----------



## Hacienda71 (21 Aug 2015)

Whether to spin or to grind, that is the question .............


----------



## Spinney (21 Aug 2015)

*Mod note:* Off-topic posts have been deleted.



ayceejay said:


> It seems that certain words are "inappropriate" on CC although name calling is fine it seems.


@ayceejay - name calling is not fine, but it has to be reported before we can take action - the moderators do not read all threads.


----------



## Moderators (21 Aug 2015)

The Thread seems to have reached a reasonable/ acceptable level of agreement/ agreement to differ and this indicates a good time to Close it - before it descends into finer nit-picking, demands for more detailed references, complaints
about the references being too
old/ unsubstantiated/ 'misunderstood' or even name- calling or personal abuse … 

Thank you for your contributions.


----------

