Winter Strength training

[PK99]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...eemed-a-failure/story-fniiw3ie-1226755914805#

As Cavendish says, history may show one day that the 2013 Tour was the turning point in his career. Maybe, then, its next few chapters will be all the more fascinating as he sets about proving otherwise. "It just means I need to change a few things," he says, almost too casually.

Such as? "I've never been in the gym in my life and I've just started strength and conditioning."

Really? Did Team Sky, the marginal-gains obsessives, never suggest it? "No," he says. "I'd won the World Championships. I must have been doing something right. They didn't need to suggest it; I was winning."

So there is a delicious little nugget: the best sprinter of a generation does not have a marginal gain yet to reap, he has a significant one. It certainly makes the forthcoming rivalry with Kittel ever more intriguing. The German is bigger and more powerful.

"Dolph Lundgren on a bike," according to Cavendish, who will not reveal what he will be attempting to achieve in the gym in order to beat Kittel, although strength is clearly a part of it.

 

[bianchi1]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...eemed-a-failure/story-fniiw3ie-1226755914805#

This is not going to make pleasant reading for a certain @Dusty Bin

 

[madpensioner]

I am definitely inviting a Dusty Bin to my funeral - it will be held in my gym - mind you he will not know that - he says he knows nothing about weights !!!

 

[ayceejay]

Oh, what the hell.
If you start with the premise that a cyclists objective is to get faster on the bike you will arrive at a different conclusion than if you started with the objective that a persons objective is to live to 73.
And to further muddy the already murky water, I think it is quite possible that training on the bike and only on the bike to be good at riding a bike may be detrimental to other areas of ones physical well being.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Great - 'the pros do it' - if that's good enough for you, then great.

No i look at the big picture and make a decision based on many expert opinions, studies and my own conclusions.

One gathers you can't do anything unless there is a satisfactory study out there that allows you to make a decision. Tricky too as this study will have to please your dismissive standards.

While cycling - yes. Wouldn't you?? What else would it be?

So your core is getting an aerobic workout whilst sitting on a bike? I'd venture to say that one would "stimulate" ones core more with 60 sit ups in 2minutes than with 60 minutes on the bike. I don't have a scientific study for that though, sorry. [/quote]

They are certainly forces which work against you while on the bike - but they're hardly what I would specifically refer to as 'resistance training' - any more than 'standing up' or 'walking down the street' can be classed as resistance training.

Remember to get your protein shake after standing up for too long. Assuming it has the same impact on your muscles as cycling you're going to need to rebuild the damage done especially if it has been interval standing! You know like 2 minutes standing followed by one minute sitting. Try that 12 times and be sure to warm down.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Annoying stuff all this peer reviewed, experiment driven evidence isn't it...all these folk could have saved their time and just asked you.

I'm sure all those studies had a purpose - but in terms of offering compelling evidence which supports your proposition, they fall a long way short, as others and myself have already explained. Like I say, the evidence is at best equivocal, and in some cases, flawed. But if you want to base a performance training program on material like that, then by all means crack on.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...eemed-a-failure/story-fniiw3ie-1226755914805#

Seriously - you're offering an interview with Cav in an Australian newspaper as scientific evidence? That interview already contradicts what others have already offered as evidence elsewhere..

 

[Dusty Bin]

So your core is getting an aerobic workout whilst sitting on a bike? I'd venture to say that one would "stimulate" ones core more with 60 sit ups in 2minutes than with 60 minutes on the bike. I don't have a scientific study for that though, sorry.

On the bike, my core is getting a workout sufficient for me to be able to ride a bike - nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is arguing that situps won't make your abs stronger. But stronger abs are not required in order to ride a bike faster.

Remember to get your protein shake after standing up for too long. Assuming it has the same impact on your muscles as cycling you're going to need to rebuild the damage done especially if it has been interval standing! You know like 2 minutes standing followed by one minute sitting. Try that 12 times and be sure to warm down.

I see you're now misquoting your own posts, so I guess you are running out of constructive points. Nobody said that standing had the same impact as cycling. Why would it? However, if your objective was to be good at standing, then standing would certainly be a good thing to do regularly.

 

[50000tears]

Dusty given your single ability to disregard every link thrown at you, and also that not another single forum member supports your view that cycling does not condition your body including your legs, makes me wonder if you are really this stubborn or just messing with us all. You cannot throw up a single link to support your claim of the strength in your legs not improving with cycle training, but rather base your own argument on your seriously flawed misunderstanding of basic science.

Maybe you just lack the character to admit when you are wrong. I dunno, you will probably try and convince us that the world is flat next.

 

[VamP]

Annoying stuff all this peer reviewed, experiment driven evidence isn't it...all these folk could have saved their time and just asked you.

Actually I'm meant to be participating in a study investigating the effects of serial versus acute Sodium Bicarbonate (NAHCO3) loading upon a 10k cycle ergometer time trial performance....but if you could let me know the answer it will save a lot of bother

The thing is for every study like that, there's ten saying strength training has no positive or even a negative impact.

 

[VamP]

Dusty given your single ability to disregard every link thrown at you, and also that not another single forum member supports your view that cycling does not condition your body including your legs, makes me wonder if you are really this stubborn or just messing with us all. You cannot throw up a single link to support your claim of the strength in your legs not improving with cycle training, but rather base your own argument on your seriously flawed misunderstanding of basic science.

Maybe you just lack the character to admit when you are wrong. I dunno, you will probably try and convince us that the world is flat next.

You would be wrong in making those assumptions.

 

[50000tears]

The thing is for every study like that, there's ten saying strength training has no positive or even a negative impact.

I agree I personally am not convinced of the need for any but the top 1% of cycling athletes to hit the gym for leg training, after all cycling is mostly aerobic. 99% of what you will need to become a strong rider will be gained on the road.

 

[50000tears]

You would be wrong in making those assumptions.

Knew I setting myself up there! But seriously though I don't follow why it is hard to understand that if a good proportion of my training is plowing up hard hills and my legs enter an anaerobic state as a result that my body is not going to respond by giving a slight increase in leg strength. I mean Dusty is trying to argue that my own muscular definition and size improving in my legs is not leg strength but something else!! Really???

This may have been linked already so apologies if so

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/page/latest-news/?id=89355#.UqA6GidZjjY

 

[VamP]

Knew I setting myself up there! But seriously though I don't follow why it is hard to understand that if a good proportion of my training is plowing up hard hills and my legs enter an anaerobic state as a result that my body is not going to respond by giving a slight increase in leg strength. I mean Dusty is trying to argue that my own muscular definition and size improving in my legs is not leg strength but something else!! Really???

This may have been linked already so apologies if so

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/page/latest-news/?id=89355#.UqA6GidZjjY

Really. Reduction in fat content and increase in volume of muscle and blood capillary tissue can be accounted for entirely by sub-maximal efforts. And have no direct relationship to any increase (or decrease) in your leg strength.

The author of your link also spends a huge chunk of his article banging on about Lance's cadence. Honestly, it's garbage.

 

[Rob3rt]

We are still doing this? Please no-one make me laugh, a bit sore from core training last night!

 

[Dusty Bin]

Dusty given your single ability to disregard every link thrown at you, and also that not another single forum member supports your view that cycling does not condition your body including your legs,

What? That is not my view. My view is actually the exact opposite. However, perhaps you could define 'condition' for me in that context? There is also a difference between 'disregarding' the links and offering perfectly reasonable critique as to why the links do nothing to prove what others claim they do.

You cannot throw up a single link to support your claim of the strength in your legs not improving with cycle training, but rather base your own argument on your seriously flawed misunderstanding of basic science.

How is my 'understanding of basic science' flawed? Please explain. None of these studies can reliably and reasonably demonstrate causation between improving leg strength (or core strength) and cycle performance - and because that does not fit in with your own misunderstanding of the issue, you think my understanding is flawed. Bravo.

Try googling 'cognitive dissonance' when you have a minute. Seriously.