On the bike strength training

[Drago]

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]

Who said anything about not getting stronger?

Er, you did. See below...

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Er, you did. See below...



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



I already explained to you why that study didn't cut it.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?