On the bike strength training

[50000tears]

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]

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]

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

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

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.