On the bike strength training

[50000tears]

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]

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

 

[Citius]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
study by Støren et al. (29) using the same study design but for
running.
The maximal strength training intervention improved CE
when expressed independent of body mass, relative to body
mass raised to the power of 0.67, and relative to full body
mass. The average 5% improvement in CE in the present
study is in agreement with results shown in cross-country
skiing of 9–23% (13,24), soccer of 5% (15), and running of 5%
(29). The results from the present study are also in agreement
with results on cycling from Loveless et al. (20), who showed
a significant improvement in CE of approximately 12%
measured as
D_ VO2 /DWR among previously untrained subjects
but only at intensities above the gas exchange threshold
(which was about 50% _ VO2max).

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The results from this study show an improvement in CE
without any decline in maximal oxygen consumptions. This
means that maximal strength training improves cycling
performance, which is also shown by an improvement in
time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power. A 5% improvement
in CE should actually account for a 5% improvement in
time performance over a given distance. Therefore, we advise
cyclists at both recreational and higher levels to include
maximal strength training as a supplement to their endurance
training program.We suggest a protocol of 4:4 RM2–3 times
per week using half-squats. This training session only takes
about 20 minutes to perform, it ensures maximal activation of
the neural-muscular system, and it has been shown to give no
or minimal weight gain and does not affect maximal oxygen
consumption.

 

[Citius]

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.