On the bike strength training

[Citius]

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]

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]

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]

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.....

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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).