Re: Maximum Strength and Endurance Performance?

January 11, 2007

--- Cowell wrote:

> Have any of you used maximum strength and/or power

> methods to improve

> the performance of endurance athletes? If so, to

> what result?

**********

When it comes to training a cyclist the coach has to

take into consideration the type of racing the cyclist

is intent on pursuing since not all cycling races are

the same. Just as you would not train 100 meter

sprinter with the same protocol as a marathoner,

likewise you would not train all cyclists with the

same protocol.

If you have ever followed the Tour De France closely

you will have noticed that the cyclists who are

winning the flat stage races in blazing 40+ mph

sprints over the last 200 meters are not the same

cyclists winning the long 150 mile mountain stages.

The most powerful cyclists in the Tour De France are

the sprinters who are capable of generating 1600-1800

watts of power during a short 200 meter sprinting.

These same powerful sprinters are nowhere to be seen

once the race gets into the mountains and do all that

they can to be able to finish the race.

When it comes to bicycle racing the track sprinters

who generally race 1/4 mile are heavy into resistance

training especially for their lower body strength.

Generally the shorter and the flatter the race course

the more absolute power comes into play on the other

hand the longer and the hillier the race the more

endurance and high VO2 max comes into play.

I have been cycling for the past 20 years and up until

10 years ago I also did some bicycle racing. I have

relatively powerful legs and have no trouble squatting

sets of 400+lbs. In a flat Criterium I can generally

hold my own but once a race goes from flat racing to

hill climbing I find myself struggling at the back of

the pack while the guys with the " skinny " legs fly up

the hill.

If a cyclist plans on racing on courses that have

hills they are better off doing their strength

training on the bike rather than in the gym. The best

strength training on the bike is to find a hill of 1+

mile in length and do climbing intervals. Some

cyclists have been known to add weights to their bike

to increase the strength training effect.

Why the hills and not the gym?

First of all because it is very specific to what the

athlete needs. No matter how hard you try there is no

way to use weights in a way that will strength the

muscles in a manner mimicking the sequential firing of

muscles in a single rotation of the pedal stroke.

Secondly in riding up a 1 mile hill the cyclist

pedaling at 60 rpm will probably perform 300

repetitions at 300-400 watts. If he/she climbs the

hill 10 times in a training session that is 3000 reps.

I don't think that you can duplicate that in a gym.

Is there a role for resistance training for the

endurance cyclists? Certainly but for general

conditioning in the off season, but only as long as

the training does not bring about hypertrophy. The

cyclists spend thousands of dollars to purchase the

lightest bikes they can afford and the extra weight

especially in the upper body will negate any advantage

a light bike will give them especially in the

mountains.

*********************

" An additional factor in Lance's improvement over the

years is that he has learned how to reduce his body

weight and body fat by 10 pounds (5 kg) prior to each

of his victories in the Tour de France. Therefore,

over all his power per kg of body weight has increased

a 18% while climbing-up the steep mountains in

France. "

( Lance Armstrong's Physiological Maturation

F. Coyle, Ph.D.; ProfessorDirector, Human Performance

Laboratory )

*****************

Just as the wrong type endurance training can an

adverse effect on a competitive weight lifter likewise

the wrong type of resistance training can have an

adverse effect on a competitive cyclists.

Just my opinion.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct, USA

January 11, 2007

--- Cowell wrote:

> Have any of you used maximum strength and/or power

> methods to improve

> the performance of endurance athletes? If so, to

> what result?

The following article from Carmichael Training System

website may shed some light on this question:

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct, USA

************************************

The Creatine Question

By Kendig, CTS Sports Dietitian

Question: I am a new cyclist, training for the MS 150.

A few of my buddies have been taking creatine to

improve their strength. Is this something that will

help me get through my goal event?

— Bob H., via e-mail

Answer:Good question, Bob. Creatine is one of the most

studied sports nutrition supplements around with

hundreds of studies having been published on it's

efficacy. The majority of them have focused on the

performance enhancing effects of the stuff.

What is creatine?

Creatine is a substance that is naturally produced in

the liver and kidneys and is stored mostly in the

muscles, heart, and other body cells. Once in the

cellular realm it morphs into creatine phosphate, a

compound utilized for energy production. Creatine

phosphate is used to fuel any activity that requires

short, fast bursts of power such as weight training.

This supplement is also used as a recovery aid since

it replenishes your cellular reserves of ATP, the fuel

that provides the power for muscle contractions.

But as a cyclist and an endurance athlete, here’s what

you need to know: Research shows that any benefit to

endurance exercise is absent or inconsistent.

Performance in sports such as running, cycling,

cross-country skiing, and swimming does not improve

with muscle mass gains, and performance can actually

be hindered with the decrease in flexibility and water

retention. (Several studies on creatine use

demonstrated increases in water weight gain and muscle

cramping in test subjects.)

Does it work?

The answer depends on the athlete. Creatine has indeed

been shown to improve performance in athletes that

involve repeated short bursts of high intensity

activity — Football, baseball players, and weight

lifters do benefit. In addition, active professionals,

such as firefighters, police officers, and

construction workers might also find creatine helpful

in their daily activities as they engage in quick

tasks involving bursts of power. But for runners,

cyclists, and triathletes, the current research

suggests that it’s not worth the time or money to use

the supplement.

January 11, 2007

Performance in endurance sports does not benefit from

weight gains, but weight gains are not necessarily the

caused by proper weight lifting particularly among

endurance athletes. Most endurance athletes are the

guys who have a hard time gaining weight no matter

what they do. Those who can put on weight quickly tend

to be built like the sprinters and, therefore, are the

sprinters.

Because we rarely see competitive weight lifting on

television and when we do it is only the heavyweights

(or body builders) we tend to forget that

weightlifting is a sport comprised of weight

classifications. There are very light weightlifters

who are incredibly strong. They would have little

reason to want to gain weight and get moved up to the

bottome of the next weight class.

In an effort to avoid gaining weight, some endurance

athletes lift light weights. Thinking they want to

improve strength endurance, they do lots of reps or

sets. This is more in line with classic body building

regimes where the goal is to gain mass. They would

probably be better off lifting more like Olympic

lifters in terms of using heavy weights and few reps.

I would expect that endurance runners and endurance

cyclists would not reap the same benefits from the

strength gains of heavy weight lifting since the

activities are quite different.

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

--- Ralph Giarnella wrote:

>

> --- Cowell wrote:

>

> > Have any of you used maximum strength and/or power

> > methods to improve

> > the performance of endurance athletes? If so, to

> > what result?

>

> The following article from Carmichael Training

> System

> website may shed some light on this question:

>

> Ralph Giarnella MD

> Southington Ct, USA

> ************************************

> The Creatine Question

>

> By Kendig, CTS Sports Dietitian

>

> Question: I am a new cyclist, training for the MS

> 150.

> A few of my buddies have been taking creatine to

> improve their strength. Is this something that will

> help me get through my goal event?

> — Bob H., via e-mail

>

> Answer:Good question, Bob. Creatine is one of the

> most

> studied sports nutrition supplements around with

> hundreds of studies having been published on it's

> efficacy. The majority of them have focused on the

> performance enhancing effects of the stuff.

>

> What is creatine?

> Creatine is a substance that is naturally produced

> in

> the liver and kidneys and is stored mostly in the

> muscles, heart, and other body cells. Once in the

> cellular realm it morphs into creatine phosphate, a

> compound utilized for energy production. Creatine

> phosphate is used to fuel any activity that requires

> short, fast bursts of power such as weight training.

> This supplement is also used as a recovery aid since

> it replenishes your cellular reserves of ATP, the

> fuel

> that provides the power for muscle contractions.

>

> But as a cyclist and an endurance athlete, here’s

> what

> you need to know: Research shows that any benefit to

> endurance exercise is absent or inconsistent.

>

> Performance in sports such as running, cycling,

> cross-country skiing, and swimming does not improve

> with muscle mass gains, and performance can actually

> be hindered with the decrease in flexibility and

> water

> retention. (Several studies on creatine use

> demonstrated increases in water weight gain and

> muscle

> cramping in test subjects.)

>

> Does it work?

> The answer depends on the athlete. Creatine has

> indeed

> been shown to improve performance in athletes that

> involve repeated short bursts of high intensity

> activity — Football, baseball players, and weight

> lifters do benefit. In addition, active

> professionals,

> such as firefighters, police officers, and

> construction workers might also find creatine

> helpful

> in their daily activities as they engage in quick

> tasks involving bursts of power. But for runners,

> cyclists, and triathletes, the current research

> suggests that it’s not worth the time or money to

> use

> the supplement.

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.

January 12, 2007

Cowell wrote:

> Any thoughts?

Well, my first thought is, " here we go again. " This topic has been

debated here several times before. The people who participate on

this forum tend to be much more knowledgeable in strength training

than endurance training, so it seems to be no coincidence that the

folks here are pretty sympathetic to the idea that increasing

strength will increase endurance performance. However, if you go to

the google group on wattage (a cycling discussion group) and raise

this topic, you'll find that this idea enjoys much less acceptance

among the people there who have studied endurance performance.

That said, here are some thoughts. The following qotations are from

the article at http://www.titansportsperformance.com/missinglink.html

> However as a cycling coach and strength and conditioning coach

> the goal in training the endurance athlete is producing greater

> amounts of sustainable power. The training should result in the

> athlete producing power outputs at or below lactate threshold that

> are a greater and greater percentage of VO2 max.

Okay, but why would non-specific exercise such as strength training

be more effective at doing this than the specific endurance task

itself? After years of participating in these debates, I have yet to

hear a scientific explanation for this. This article is a perfect

example of a person repeatedly making the assertion that strength

training improves endurance performance without offering any support

for it.

> For example,

> if during a long duration tempo ride (65-75% of VO2 max) the athlete

> is able to produce a greater amount of average power without

> exceeding the prescribed intensity the athlete will receives a

> greater overload during the same duration of time.

Well, that gets it exactly backwards. If the athlete is able to

produce a greater power output (relative to previous performances) at

the same percentage of VO2max, then the athlete has *demonstrated* a

performance increase. However, if the athlete used to be able to

maintain, e.g., 240 watts at 70% VO2max for three hours and is now

able to maintain, e.g., 250 watts at 70% VO2max for three hours, then

a three hour ride at 250 watts is not an " overload " at all--it's

still a three hour ride at 70% of VO2 max. It is merely maintaining

the new status quo.

It's also worth mentioning that 60-70% of VO2max isn't a " tempo "

workout at all, and that we really should be looking at a percentage

of VO2 at lactate threshhold or OBLA, and not a percentage of

VO2max. I mention these ideas only briefly to show that the author

of this article doesn't really know what he's talking about.

> Properly managed resistance

> training provides the athlete the ability to generate higher levels

> of sustainable power throughout sport specific training sessions.

Based on what theory or scientific evidence? The article never

supports this assertion.

> It is encouraging that the majority of research does support the

> benefit of strength training because most of the studies have only

> looked at the direct results in a 6-8 week strength program and how

> increases in absolute strength impact typical measurements of

> endurance sport performance (VO2max, anaerobic capacity,etc.)

> immediately following a strength training program.

This is specious reasoning: the majority of research supports the

author's conclusion because most of the studies were too " short term "

to demonstrate a benefit?

> The larger direct

> sports specific benefit outside of the immediate improvement in

> strength is the ability to achieve greater overloads in subsequent

> training than the pre-resistance trained endurance athlete.

Again, the author makes this assertion without supporting it.

> In addition if trained properly the ability to

> increase overloads in the specific sport are greatly enhanced by

> increases in power production.

Very vague, but if we assume he means that the use of resistance

training can increase power production in endurance sports, then he's

once again making this assertion without offering any support for it.

> In many cases the exercise protocol prescribe for endurance athletes

> leans more toward hypertrophy which will in the short run produce

> lower performance in most endurance training programs. This is

caused

> because as muscle tissue is added the percentage of capillary dense

> and mitochondria rich muscle is diminished. In other words this

> muscle has not been endurance trained.

Exactly. Notice how the author never explains how to design a

resistance training program that gets around this problem.

> Most endurance sport

> performance is driven by the ability to sustain maximum power....

Wrong. During endurance sport performance, muscles are working at a

fairly low percentage of maximum power--not even at VO2max.

> The goal in endurance training typically focuses on improving the

> maximum oxygen delivery (VO2 max) and the ability to efficiently

> utilize the oxygen that is being delivered. It is not always the

> highest VO2 max that wins the race. The ability to sustain power at

> the highest percentage of VO2 max is typically the major contributor

> to success in endurance events. It is with this in mind that a

> resistance training program should be developed. Therefore the goal

> of the resistance training should not necessarily be absolute

> strength but how added strength aids the athlete in producing

greater

> sustainable power sport specifically.

Yes, and this once again raises the question the author never

answers: why would non-specific exercise such as strength training

be more effective at doing this than the specific endurance task

itself?

> However, the simple tests can

> inform a coach about athletes and their competitive performance. For

> example: If you have a cyclist that shows tremendous power output

but

> does not win races you can look at other reasons other than ability

> to sprint that may be limiting their ability to win.

Yes, like maybe the athlete should be training to increase power at

LT/OBLA instead of power at and above VO2max. Again, how would

strength training increase power at LT/OBLA? The author never

explains this.

> THE MISSING LINK:

>

> A CYCLIST AS AN EXAMPLE

>

> THE REAL MEASUREMENT OF A GOOD RESISTANCE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR A

> CYCLIST OR OTHER ENDURANCE ATHLETE IS THAT IT CREATES A PLATFORM FOR

> THE ATHLETE TO PRODUCE GREATER POWER OUTPUT DURING SPORTS SPECIFIC

> TRAINING SESSIONS. THIS ALLOWS THE ATHLETES TO HAVE GREATER

OVERLOADS

> IN THEIR ACTUAL SPORT SPECIFIC TRAINING.

Okay, so how does resistance training do this? Sorry, but

capitalizing text for emphasis is no substitute for an explanation.

> This is the missing link that most of the research misses. Most of

> the research is looking for the direct correlation between strength

> and endurance performance. However the long term benefit, especially

> with elite athletes, of allowing the athlete to produce greater

> average power output throughout all training sessions leads to

higher

> overloads in the sports specific training, and subsequently higher

> levels of adaptation.

Okay, so how does resistance training do this? Still no explanation.

> Ex: A cyclist is conducting an interval session. He is producing an

> average of 400 watts of power over every three min session. If the

> athlete completes 8 intervals he has completed a total wattage of

> 8x400x3min=9600 watts of total power output. If the athlete through

> resistance training can produce a 15% increase in power through

> resistance training then the total overload is increased to 11,040

> watts during the session.

Did you see the author " put the rabbit into the hat " there? The

author now assumes that resistance training will enable the cyclist

to increase power during a short interval workout, but he still has

not produced any support for that assertion!

> During longer training bouts the average

> power output over the season starts to really compound and provide

> bigger and bigger benefits.

There he goes again.

> During longer tempo types of rides the

> athlete is able to produce greater average watts at a lower

> percentage of maximum wattage.

And again.

> Over time this ability to

> incrementally increase power output at lower than maximum levels is

a

> huge advantage for an elite endurance athlete's efficient production

> of sustainable power.

And again...

> Efficiency in oxygen utilization by longer

> duration stress at 60-80% of VO2 max is where a large percentage of

> an endurance athlete's gains are made. This is evidenced by the

> ability of older athletes to be at world-class levels of performance

> in endurance sports. The body will adapt to these greater overloads

> after a period of time and the athlete will see the increased

> performance results because of the increased overload and subsequent

> adaptation.

And again...is anyone else getting weary of this? The ironic thing

is that this goes against the author's assertion that resistance

training drives improvement in endurance performance.

> When evaluating winning race times and top quartile performance

times

> in endurance sports the disparity is typically separated by less

than

> 10%. In many cases the margin is even lower than 10%. A small

> increase in the ability to produce maximum sustained power can make

a

> top 15th to 20th place athlete move into a top 5 finish.

The author still provides no link between resistance training and

increased power output during the endurance performance.

> Research shows that there are a number of increases in anaerobic

> performance after a 6-8 week strength program, (Nokes 1988) however

> the bigger benefit comes later when the endurance athlete has had

> enough time to train at the higher power output over multiple

> training sessions.

Notice the author misspells " Noakes " and doesn't provide any citation

at all for his proposition that the trend observed by Dr. Noakes

continues. It's also important to note the lack of logic here in

attributing continuing increases in endurance performance to the

discontinued short-term strength program instead of the long-term,

continuing endurance training.

> SUMMARY:

>

> 1) Research shows that resistance training aids endurance athletes.

Again, this assertion has not been supported by the author.

> 2) Properly managed resistance programs goal should be focused on

> power development.

This is so vague that it's meaningless. What kind of power

development? Maximum power? Power at VO2max? Power at LT or OBLA?

And how does resistance training improve the latter two? What

exercises, what intensity, how many reps, sets, how much recovery

between sets, how many times per week?

> 5) Increased core strength and overall improvement in muscle

> imbalances helps prevent overuse injuries. This is in addition to

the

> added benefits of power production from appropriate resistance

> training programs.

This assertion was never discussed earlier in the article, so why is

it in the summary? Notice also that the author does not even bother

to support it.

Flame away.

-- s

Ardmore, PA

January 12, 2007

It seems that coaching bias plays a big role in the discussion of

this matter. Being a former Cat 1 road cyclist and a current

strength coach, I hear it from both sides. Some of the feedback I've

received is that yes, it does help, although not nearly as much with

trained cyclists (per se) and that the hard data on the matter is

sparse. A Pub Med search did well to find research but most was

relative to endurance nordic skiing performance. Most of those

studies concluded that max strength and power training did in fact

improve the skiers endurance performance. Another coach told me that

once an effort level falls below 30% of maximum, improving the

maximum will not effect the economy at that (below 30%) level. This

makes sense to me on an intuitive level but I haven't seen any

research supporting it.

My empirical evidence is that it does improve certain aspects of

bicycle racing, sprints, accelerations, jumps, starts, etc. Again, I

don't have hard data but the subjective feedback I get from riders is

that these tasks seem easier. The exercises we tend to use are

olympic variations, squats and deadlifts (for instance) with reps

anywhere in the 2-7 range with 5-10 sets with usually 3-5 minutes of

rest between sets. I realize these acute variables are actually not

so acute but are presented merely as insight into our programs.

I feel like improving performance at lower intensities is generally

best done on the bike. I haven't found a way to train at as high of

intensity (percentage of max strength and power, not heart rate) on

the bike as I can in the weight room.

Cowell

Raleigh, NC

January 12, 2007

Here's some references to the strength training and endurance

performance:

Maximal strength training improves work economy in trained female

cross-country skiers.

Applied Sciences

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 31(6):870-877, June 1999.

HOFF, JAN; HELGERUD, JAN; WISLOFF, ULRIK

Abstract:

Maximal strength training improves work economy in trained female

cross-country skiers. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 31, No. 6, pp.

870-877, 1999.

Purpose: The present study examines the hypothesis that maximal

strength training improves work economy and anaerobic threshold in

trained female cross-country skiers while working on a ski ergometer.

Methods: Fifteen female cross-country skiers (17.9 +/- 0.3 yr, 166.7

+/- 1.3 cm, 60.1 +/- 1.9 kg, and 55.3 +/- 1.3 mL[middle dot]kg-1

[middle dot]min-1) participated in the study. Eight skiers made up

the high-intensity strength-trained group, and seven served as the

control group. Endurance performance was tested on a specially

instrumented ski ergometer. Strength training and testing simulated

double poling in cross-country skiing.

Results: A significant (P < 0.001) improvement in double-poling

economy on the ski ergometer was observed among the strength-trained

group. Anaerobic threshold did not change during the experimental

period for either group. After a 9-wk training period, time to

exhaustion increased from 5.2 (+/-0.9) to 12.3 (+/-1.6) min (P <

0.001) and from 4.0 (+/-0.9) to 6.3 (+/-0.9) min (P < 0.01) for the

strength and control group, respectively. Time to exhaustion was

significantly higher (P < 0.001) for the strength group compared with

the control group after training. One repetition maximum increased

14.5% (1.8) (P < 0.001) in the strength group but was unchanged in

the control group. Expressed in relation to peak force at one

repetition maximum, strength training resulted in a significant

reduction in the relative available force employed working on the ski

ergometer (P < 0.01). Time to peak force at maximal aerobic velocity

on the ski ergometer was significantly reduced in the strength-

training group (P < 0.01).

Conclusions: It is concluded that maximal strength training in the

upper-body improved the double-poling performance by improved work

economy. Work economy was improved by a reduction in relative

workload and time to peak force while double poling.

Maximal Leg-Strength Training Improves Cycling Economy in Previously

Untrained Men.

Applied Sciences

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 37(7):1231-1236, July 2005.

LOVELESS, DANIELLE J.; WEBER, CLARE L.; HASELER, LUKE J.; SCHNEIDER,

DONALD A.

Abstract:

Purpose: This study examined cycling economy before and after 8 wk of

maximal leg-strength training.

Methods: Seven previously untrained males (25 +/- 2 yr) performed leg-

strength training 3 d[middle dot]wk-1 for 8 wk using four sets of

five repetitions at 85% of one repetition maximum (1RM). Body mass,

lean-leg muscle mass (LLM), percentage of body fat, and leg strength

(1RM) were measured at 0, 4, and 8 wk of training. Cycling economy

was calculated as the [DELTA][latin capital V with dot above]O2/

[DELTA]WR (change in the O2 cost of exercise divided by the change in

the power between two different power outputs).

Results: There were significant increases in LLM and 1RM from 0 to 4

wk of training (LLM: 25.8 +/- 0.7 to 27.2 +/- 0.8 kg; 1RM: 138 +/- 9

to 215 +/- 9 kg). From 4 to 8 wk of training, 1RM continued to

increase significantly (215 +/- 9 to 266 +/- 8 kg) with no further

change observed in LLM. Peak power during incremental cycling

increased significantly (305 +/- 14 to 315 +/- 16 W), whereas the

power output achieved at the gas-exchange threshold (GET) remained

unchanged. Peak O2 uptake and the O2 uptake achieved at the GET also

remained unchanged following training. Cycling economy improved

significantly when the power output was increased from below the GET

to above the GET but not for power outputs below the GET.

Conclusion: Maximal leg-strength training improves cycling economy in

previously untrained subjects. Increases in leg strength during the

final 4 wk of training with unchanged LLM suggest that neural

adaptations were present.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Jun;31(6):886-91.

The effects of strength training on endurance performance and muscle

characteristics.

Bishop D, DG, Mackinnon LT, McEniery M, Carey MF.

Department of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland,

Brisbane, Australia. dbishop@...

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of

resistance training on endurance performance and selected muscle

characteristics of female cyclists. METHODS: Twenty-one endurance-

trained, female cyclists, aged 18-42 yr, were randomly assigned to

either a resistance training (RT; N = 14) or a control group (CON; N

= 7). Resistance training (2X x wk(-1)) consisted of five sets to

failure (2-8 RM) of parallel squats for 12 wk. Before and immediately

after the resistance-training period, all subjects completed an

incremental cycle test to allow determination of both their lactate

threshold (LT) and peak oxygen consumption VO2). In addition,

endurance performance was assessed by average power output during a 1-

h cycle test (OHT), and leg strength was measured by recording the

subject's one repetition maximum (1 RM) concentric squat. Before and

after the 12-wk training program, resting muscle was sampled by

needle biopsy from m. vastus lateralis and analyzed for fiber type

diameter, fiber type percentage, and the activities of 2-oxoglutarate

dehydrogenase and phosphofructokinase. RESULTS: After the resistance

training program, there was a significant increase in 1 RM concentric

squat strength for RT (35.9%) but not for CON (3.7%) (P < 0.05).

However, there were no significant changes in OHT performance, LT,

VO2, muscle fiber characteristics, or enzyme activities in either

group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The present data suggest that increased

leg strength does not improve cycle endurance performance in

endurance-trained, female cyclists.

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Dec;88(3):255-63. Epub 2002 Oct 17

Osteras H, Helgerud J, Hoff J.

Department of Sport Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and

Technology, 7034 Trondheim, Norway. hos@...

Maximal strength-training with an emphasis on maximal mobilization

during cross-country skiing increases exercise economy when double-

poling. The aim of this experiment was to investigate whether the

mechanism of this increase is a change in the force-velocity

relationship and the mechanical power output. A group of 19 cross-

country skiers having an average peak oxygen uptake of 255 ml x kg

(-0.67) body mass x min(-1) or 61 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) were randomly

assigned to either a high resistance-training group (n=10) or a

control group (n=9). Upper body endurance was tested on a ski

ergometer. The high-resistance-training group trained for 15 min on

three occasions a week for 9 weeks. Training consisted of three

series of five repetitions using 85% of one repetition maximum (1RM),

with emphasis on high velocity in the concentric part of the

movement. Upper body exercise economy, 1RM and time to exhaustion

increased significantly in the high resistance-training group, but

was unchanged in the control group. Peak power and the velocities for

a given load increased significantly, except for the two lowest

loads. We conclude that the increased exercise economy after a period

of upper body high resistance-training can be partly explained by a

specific change in the force-velocity relationship and the mechanical

power output.

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2002 Oct;12(5):288-95.

The aim of this experiment was to examine the effects of maximal

strength training with emphasis on neural adaptations on strength-

and endurance-performance for endurance trained athletes. Nineteen

male cross-country skiers about 19.7 +/- 4.0 years of age and a

maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2 max)) of 69.4 +/- 2.2 mL x kg(-1) x min

(-1) were randomly assigned to a training group (n = 9) or a control

group (n = 10). Strength training was performed, three times a week

for 8 weeks, using a cable pulley simulating the movements in double

poling in cross-country skiing, and consisted of three sets of six

repetitions at a workload of 85% of one repetition maximum

emphasizing maximal mobilization of force in the concentric movement.

One repetition maximum improved significantly from 40.3 +/- 4.5 to

44.3 +/- 4.9 kg. Time to peak force (TPF) was reduced by 50 and 60%

on two different submaximal workloads. Endurance performance measured

as time to exhaustion (TTE) on a double poling ski ergometer at

maximum aerobic velocity, improved from 6.49 to 10.18 min; 20.5% over

the control group. Work economy changed significantly from 1.02 +/-

0.14 to 0.74 +/- 0.10 mL x kg(-0.67) x min(-1). Maximal strength

training with emphasis on neural adaptations improves strength,

particularly rate of force development, and improves aerobic

endurance performance by improved work economy.

J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Nov;19(4):826-30

Paton CD, Hopkins WG.

The Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, The Waikato Institute of

Technology, Hamilton, New Zealand. carl.paton@...

In several recent studies, athletes experienced substantial gains in

sprint and endurance performance when explosive training or high-

intensity interval training was added in the noncompetitive phase of

a season. Here we report the effect of combining these 2 types of

training on performance in the competitive phase. We randomized 18

road cyclists to an experimental (n = 9) or control (n = 9) group for

4-5 weeks of training. The experimental group replaced part of their

usual training with twelve 30-minute sessions consisting of 3 sets of

explosive single-leg jumps (20 for each leg) alternating with 3 sets

of high-resistance cycling sprints (5 x 30 seconds at 60-70 min(-1)

with 30-second recoveries between repetitions). Performance measures,

obtained over 2-3 days on a cycle ergometer before and after the

intervention, were mean power in a 1- and 4-km time trial, peak power

in an incremental test, and lactate-profile power and oxygen cost

determined from 2 fixed submaximal workloads. The control group

showed little mean change in performance. Power output sampled in the

training sprints of the experimental group indicated a plateau in the

training effect after 8-12 sessions. Relative to the control group,

the mean changes (+/-90% confidence limits) in the experimental group

were: 1-km power, 8.7% (+/-2.5%); 4-km power, 8.1% (+/-4.1%); peak

power, 6.8% (+/-3.6); lactate-profile power, 3.7% (+/-4.8%); and

oxygen cost, -3.0% (+/-2.6%). Individual responses to the training

were apparent only for 4-km and lactate-profile power (standard

deviations of 2.5% and 2.8%, respectively). The addition of explosive

training and high-resistance interval training to the programs of

already well-trained cyclists produces major gains in sprint and

endurance performance, partly through improvements in exercise

efficiency and anaerobic threshold.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991 Jun;23(6):739-43.

Links

Effects of strength training on lactate threshold and endurance

performance.

Marcinik EJ, Potts J, Schlabach G, Will S, Dawson P, Hurley BF.

Department of Kinesiology, University of land, College Park 20742.

To determine the effects of 12 wk of strength training on lactate

threshold (LT) and endurance performance, 18 healthy untrained males

between 25 and 34 yr of age were randomly assigned to either strength

training (N = 10) or control (N = 8) groups. Despite no changes in

treadmill VO2max or cycle peak VO2, a 33 +/- 5% increase (P less than

0.001) in cycling time to exhaustion at 75% of peak VO2 was observed

following training. No significant changes in cycling time were

observed in the control group. There were significant reductions in

plasma lactate concentration at all relative exercise intensities

ranging between 55 and 75% of peak VO2 training. The improved

endurance performance was associated with a 12% increase in LT (r =

0.78, P less than 0.001). The strength training program resulted in

significant improvements (P less than 0.001) of 31 +/- 5% and 35 +/-

7% in isokinetic peak torque values for leg extension and flexion,

respectively, at a velocity of 30 degrees.s-1. There were also

significant increases in 1-RM values of 30 +/- 4% (P less than 0.001)

for leg extension, 52 +/- 6% (P less than 0.001) for leg flexion, and

20 +/- 4% (P less than 0.001) for the bench press. These findings

indicate that strength training improves cycle endurance performance

independently of changes in VO2max. This improved performance appears

to be related to increases in LT and leg strength.

J Appl Physiol. 1988 Nov;65(5):2285-90.

Hickson RC, Dvorak BA, Gorostiaga EM, Kurowski TT, C.

Department of Physical Education, University of Illinois, Chicago 60680.

The impact of adding heavy-resistance training to increase leg-muscle

strength was studied in eight cycling- and running-trained subjects

who were already at a steady-state level of performance. Strength

training was performed 3 days/wk for 10 wk, whereas endurance

training remained constant during this phase. After 10 wk, leg

strength was increased by an average of 30%, but thigh girth and

biopsied vastus lateralis muscle fiber areas (fast and slow twitch)

and citrate synthase activities were unchanged. Maximal O2 uptake

(VO2max) was also unchanged by heavy-resistance training during

cycling (55 ml.kg-1.min-1) and treadmill running (60 ml.kg-1.min-1);

however, short-term endurance (4-8 min) was increased by 11 and 13%

(P less than 0.05) during cycling and running, respectively. Long-

term cycling to exhaustion at 80% VO2max increased from 71 to 85 min

(P less than 0.05) after the addition of strength training, whereas

long-term running (10 km times) results were inconclusive. These data

do not demonstrate any negative performance effects of adding heavy-

resistance training to ongoing endurance-training regimens. They

indicate that certain types of endurance performance, particularly

those requiring fast-twitch fiber recruitment, can be improved by

strength-training supplementation.

Cowell

Raleigh, NC

January 12, 2007

The following article may shed some light on the

problems of mixing strength training and endurance

training.

Unfortunately when I saved the below article to my

archives I failed

to include the authors name an credentials.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct, USA

*********************************

Concurrent Resistance Training and Aerobic

Training:?The Problem and the Science Behind the

Solution

The Problem

Resistance training provides numerous and important

health benefits through multiple mechanisms that may

reduce the risks for diabetes, heart disease, possibly

some cancers, and disabilities.

There is much more extensive and long-standing

evidence, however, about the benefits of aerobic

training and cardiovascular fitness and disease risk

reduction, particularly for reducing the risks of

heart disease and for premature death from heart

disease.

What has always been tricky for people primarily

interested in resistance training is how to

incorporate aerobic training into an overall program

without undermining strength development or

hypertrophy (gaining muscle mass).

The evidence shows that reaching some modest level of

cardiorespiratory fitness can substantially reduce

your risk of heart disease and early death even in the

face of other prominent risk factors such as a family

history of heart disease, high blood cholesterol, and

high blood pressure1.'1

I've tried almost everything under the sun from long

distance running to very brief, super high intensity

interval training.

There has never, however, been any combination

( " concurrent " ) of resistance training and aerobic

training that seemed to optimally work. Whatever I

devised and in whatever arrangement such as doing

resistance training and aerobic training on the same

or alternate days just didn't seem to work well over

an extended time.

Something was always not quite right and that even

pertains to my more recent use of the brief,

prescriptive Graded Exercise Protocol (GXP) for

aerobic training described on this site.

My problems - and perhaps yours - with concurrent

training are not unique. It's an area that has been

researched for many years.

The Science

Reviews of studies that have examined how aerobic

training when combined in the same training program

with resistance training can interfere with strength

gains and hypertrophy (muscle mass) have pointed out

that there is a great deal of inconsistency in this

area of research.

Sometimes strength gains and hypertrophy are blunted

and sometimes they're not. The studies though are

difficult to compare because across studies the

aerobic and resistance training protocols have used

different frequencies, intensities, and volume,

training has been on the same day or alternate days,

resistance training may or may not precede aerobic

training, there may be different rest periods between

resistance and aerobic training, and participants with

different characteristics have been used.

Theorists who have postulated such rationales for

interference as acute or chronic fatigue,

overtraining, or more basically, hormonal mechanisms,

are not only left with an inconsistently done set of

studies to try to fit into their theories, but they

also need to explain why some studies showed

interference and some did not.

Docherty and Sporer have recently attempted in an

extensive review article to advance the science by

postulating specific physiological mechanisms affected

by different training protocols that can predict when

there will and will not be interference between

aerobic and resistance training2.

They then saw if their predictions fit some recent

studies that have

shown no or minimal interference. Throughout their

article, the authors' insights and conclusions provide

some important training guidelines.

Docherty and Sporer noted that aerobic training to

increase maximum oxygen consumption and hence the

body's ability to transport and use oxygen is

dependent upon both a central component involving

adaptations in the cardiopulmonary system and a

peripheral component involving adaptations in muscle

tissues.

Central and peripheral adaptations are, in turn,

dependent upon different mechanisms. It does appear

that the higher the intensity of the stimulus used to

increase maximum oxygen consumption (e.g., high

intensity interval training), the greater the increase

in oxygen consumption.

However, the location of the adaptation to aerobic

training may shift depending upon the intensity of the

stimulus.

At lower levels of intensity, it appears that most of

the adaptations occur centrally. With higher intensity

training, more adaptations occur peripherally.'

Docherty and Sporer noted that research suggests that

training at between 70% to 80% of VO2max (70% to 80%

of heart rate reserve; about 80% to 85% of maximum

heart rate; just slightly below the anaerobic

threshold) results in maximal contractile force in the

heart and thus maximizes central adaptations important

for health benefits.

These findings are critical and suggest how concurrent

training can be optimized.

If you're using aerobic training to favorably

influence your health through central adaptations,

there may be no reason to train at levels that will

result in more peripheral adaptations.

The ability to perform at higher levels (e.g., run,

bike, or swim very fast) does require training at high

levels of intensity and specific peripheral

adaptations, but such performance levels are not the

goal of most people. I know that's not one of my

goals.

Aerobic training at very high intensities through its

effects on mechanisms associated with peripheral

adaptations may be the cause of blunting of strength

gains and hypertrophy when aerobic training is done

along with resistance training.

Docherty and Sporer then discussed the mechanisms that

appear involved in increasing strength and

hypertrophy.

The basic theory holds that high intensity aerobic

training such as interval training affects specific

mechanisms in peripheral adaptations such as those

involved in increasing a muscle's oxidative capacity

while a resistance training protocol for hypertrophy

would try to increase protein synthesis and also

stress the anaerobic energy system.

The combination of the two training protocols is

literally trying to force the muscles to adapt in very

different ways.

However, adaptations to steady state aerobic training

below the anaerobic threshold may be primarily central

and have little or no interference with strength or

hypertrophy since different mechanisms are involved.

The authors next reviewed several relatively recent

studies where concurrent training was done in order to

see if the interference model they developed was

supported by the outcomes of these investigations.

Although there was not a perfect fit to the model, it

did appear that steady state training below the

anaerobic threshold does not compromise strength

gains. There are not yet enough data on hypertrophy to

draw similar conclusions but this is likely to be the

case.

The Solution

Strength athletes and bodybuilders may be great at

high intensity interval training, but such training

may be contraindicated if our goals involve maximizing

strength and muscle mass while doing just enough

aerobic training to protect our health and prevent

disease

It appears that training just below the anaerobic

threshold, for example doing the several to

five-minute work part in the Graded Exercise Protocol

(GXP) at that level, is likely to provide health

benefits associated with increased transport and use

of oxygen through central adaptations and have minimal

or no compromising effects on strength and

hypertrophy.

Thus, if your primary reasons for doing aerobic

training revolve around health, there is a simple,

efficient, relatively stress free way to do aerobic

training that will allow you to still maximize

strength and most likely, hypertrophy.

So, given that I've been doing the GXP two to three

times per week for over a year, what was I doing wrong

that still created obvious interference with

resistance training?

It's really quite simple and once again exercise

science had the answer.

While really good endurance athletes can train just

below their lactate threshold at 80% and even 85% of

maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max; about 80% to 85%

of heart rate reserve, and about 90% of HRmax), those

of us not training for endurance events can not train

at those levels and still be in relative steady state.

As suggested by Docherty and Sporer and supported by

research3, a top level for steady state training is

likely to be about 75% of VO2max and heart rate

reserve - the same level that optimizes central

adaptations to the cardiopulmonary system.

Even with the GXP I was still training at too high a

level of intensity and experiencing interference

(namely soreness form mechanical stress) with my

resistance training.

Using the heart rate reserve method, I now do a

5-minute graded warm-up to 70% of heart rate reserve,

a five-minute steady state work segment at 75%, and

then do a 5-minute cooldown that reverses the warm-up.

You can easily experiment and find the appropriate

level for your steady state work piece. It's a level

that is challenging but one you could maintain for

longer than the 5 minutes (perhaps 7 or 8 minutes or

more) and where your heart rate is literally holding

steady or only very slowing climbing upward. Using an

old but still important heuristic, it's a level where

you still can talk ( " the talk test " ).

I've found that this slight alteration in my aerobic

training is paying big dividends. I no longer

experience any soreness or interference from aerobic

training.

It's also made aerobic training alot more flexible

because I can do it almost anytime. I can do aerobic

training after resistance training, or the next day,

early in the day or late in the day. It doesn't seem

to matter.

I still make aerobic training challenging and

interesting by having certain goals that I want to

achieve over time for the 5-minute work part of the

GXP that will indicate a good level of cardiovascular

fitness. But, armed with information from exercise

science I'll achieve this fitness goal without

interfering with resistance training.

References

1. P T. Physical fitness and activity as

separate heart disease risk factors: a meta-analysis.

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2001: 33:

754-761

2. Docherty D, Sporer B. A proposed model for

examining the interference phenomenon between

concurrent aerobic and strength training. Sports

Medicine. 2000; 30: 385-394.

3. McArdle WD, Katch FI, Katch VL. Exercise

Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance.

(4th edition). 1996; Baltimore: & Wilkins.

January 12, 2007

Ralph, many thanks. I believe the article may be found here:

http://ageless-athletes.com/concurrent_training.shtml

Newell

Boston

-------------- Original message --------------

>

> The following article may shed some light on the

> problems of mixing strength training and endurance

> training.

> Unfortunately when I saved the below article to my

> archives I failed

> to include the authors name an credentials.

>

> Ralph Giarnella MD

> Southington Ct, USA

January 12, 2007

Cowell wrote:

> My empirical evidence is that it does improve certain aspects of

> bicycle racing, sprints, accelerations, jumps, starts, etc.

No argument from me with regard to this point. It's important to

remember that sprinting, jumping off the front, surging out of a crit

corner, pursuit and kilo starts aren't " endurance activities " as that

phrase is typically used--they're fueled by anaerobic metabolism,

especially the PCr energy system. Regardless of whether it occurs at

the end of a 100+ mile road race, sprinting on the bike isn't an

endurance activity any more than sprinting 100m on the track.

Although road cycling is commonly considered an " endurance sport, " it

includes anaerobic efforts as well. But whether resistance training

will help anaerobic efforts in cycling isn't the question you asked

in your original post in this thread. If you're interested in

learning about the possible benefits of strength training for

cycling, follow the link below, join that group, search the archives

and ask some questions:

http://groups.google.com/group/wattage?lnk=srg

Regards,

s

Ardmore, PA

January 13, 2007

> Cowell wrote:

>

> > My empirical evidence is that it does improve

> certain aspects of

> > bicycle racing, sprints, accelerations, jumps,

> starts, etc.

>

> No argument from me with regard to this point. It's

> important to

> remember that sprinting, jumping off the front,

> surging out of a crit

> corner, pursuit and kilo starts aren't " endurance

> activities " as that

> phrase is typically used--they're fueled by

> anaerobic metabolism,

> especially the PCr energy system. Regardless of

> whether it occurs at

> the end of a 100+ mile road race, sprinting on the

> bike isn't an

> endurance activity any more than sprinting 100m on

> the track.

>

***

If we are going to discuss strength training as it

pertains to endurance performance perhaps we should

take a look at the training program of the the premier

endurance athlete of our time, Lance Armstrong.

Bicycle racers have used the off season to maintain

and improve physical fitness while off the bike during

the winter months. Amongst the activities cyclists

have participated in are Cyclocross, running, cross

country skiing and resistance training. Once the

bicycle training season begins in the spring those

activities are put aside and all energy and effort are

focused to on the bike training.

I have taken to liberty to excerpt the chapter on

strength training from the book <<The Lance Armstrong

Performance Program- by Lance Armstrong and Chris

Carmichael>>

For any one not familiar with Lance Armstrong and

cycling, Carmichael has been Lance's cycling

coach since his early years in professional cycling.

The bulk of the chapter discusses the various

exercises and how to perform them- I have left those

out- Lance's bench press routine is used to give an

example of progression of the program over 3 months.

*******************************

Chapter 10 Strength Training pgs. 100-112

“Strength training and cycling don’t mix when done

concurrently. the best time to do strength training

is during the late Autumn through winter- when most

cyclists cut back on their riding because of weather.”

“Lift lower weights at high repetitions, in the range

of 15-20, if you want to increase endurance. Lift

heavier weights at lower repetitions, in the range of

4-10 reps, if you want to increase strength.”

Transition Phase: 2-4 weeks

pushup, pull-ups and crunches

Conditioning Phase:

4-6 weeks

Light weights -high reps

For example:

Lance bench presses 100 lbs - `15-16 reps/ set 3

sets-

Foundation Phase: 4-6 weeks Heavier weights with

10-12 reps 3 sets

For example:

Lance increases his weight to 110 lbs 10-12 reps 3-5

sets per workout

Strength Phase:

4-6 weeks

Increase weight and decrease reps

For example-

Lance bench presses 120 lbs at 8-10 reps with 5-7 sets

per workout

“For my first strength workout after the racing season

is over, I sue the weight of the bar or machine for

the sets and go through the full range of motion for

each exercise. I’ve learned not to dive right back

into strength training. Otherwise, my muscles are too

sore the next day.

By late winter, after I’ve been lifting steadily for 3

months, here’s what I can do.

-8-10 reps 5-7 sets per workout

Leg press: 400 lbs

Hamstring curl: 80 lbs

Leg extension: 120 lbs

Biceps curl: 50 lbs

Bench press 125 lbs.

On The Bike Power Development phase

As the get longer and the winter turns to spring its

time to on-the-bike strength training. The Key to

cycling success is to ride,ride.ride. (at this point

Carmichael goes on to refer to a number of

workouts on the bike which lead to increased biking

strength.)

*****************************************************

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct, USA

January 14, 2007

> > Ex: A cyclist is conducting an interval session. He is producing an

> > average of 400 watts of power over every three min session. If the

> > athlete completes 8 intervals he has completed a total wattage of

> > 8x400x3min=9600 watts of total power output. If the athlete through

> > resistance training can produce a 15% increase in power through

> > resistance training then the total overload is increased to 11,040

> > watts during the session.

>

> Did you see the author " put the rabbit into the hat " there? The

> author now assumes that resistance training will enable the cyclist

> to increase power during a short interval workout, but he still has

> not produced any support for that assertion!

***

Not only that, but you can't add up wattage ratings as if they were measures

of quantities (sacks of potatoes). His first sum is 9600 watt x minutes of

total energy output or 576,000 joules of total work load. Also, what

determines if this number or the 662,400 joules of his hyothetical second

calcualtion

is an " overload " ? In either case the athllete has not " produced wattage "

during his summed intervals; wattage is the rate of work or energy production

over a time periood ( a speed measurement of sorts and not a summative

quantity).

>>Notice the author misspells " Noakes " and doesn't provide any citation

at all for his proposition that the trend observed by Dr. Noakes

continues. It's also important to note the lack of logic here in

attributing continuing increases in endurance performance to the

discontinued short-term strength program instead of the long-term,

continuing endurance training.<<

Noticed and agreed! What produced the increased work output for certain was

the application of increased energy to the input side of the cycle (pun

intended ). Attribution of this increase to resistance training is

hypothetical

in the argument, not proved.

>>Flame away.<<

Hopefully not so much on this site as on others

Best regards,

Boardman,

Chicago, US

January 14, 2007

Ralph Giarnella MD submitted some of Lance Armstrong's coach's

( " Carmichael has been Lance's cycling coach since his early

years in professional cycling. " )resistence training data from Lance's

off season program. I would like to bring up some points:

1. As I have noted in prior posts, if you give 30 strength coaches a

particular objective with the same athlete you're going to get 30

different training programs. Having said that I am frankly

disappointed and suprised at the lack of sophistication in

Carmichael's program. My program would call for all of Armstrong's

off season, non-cycling training to be ground based, closed chain

exercises. For example, I would never have Armstrong do leg

extensions. Why? Because I follow the " philosophy that an exercise

must utilyze 'Yes to the 4th power'.

YES 1: Is the exercise ground based, and are you standing up while

performing the exercise?

YES 2: Is the exercise a free weight exercise?

YES 3: Does the exercise work multiple muscle groups and surround

multiple joints?

YES 4: Is the exercise performend in an explosive manner?

If my program design adheres to Yes to the 4th power at least 75% of

the time then the program and exercises I select are good functional

exercises. "

- Mike Burgener's web site

Herein further explication of why I'd use closed chain exercises in a

passage from Chek:

" The knee extension is performed such that the thigh is fixed to the

machine,while the knee extension force generated by the quadriceps

serves to move the tibia across the femur. In a squat, the trunk, hip

and knee extensors act as prime movers, moving the femur across the

tibia, which is the fixed distal segment (along with the foot) in

this closed kinetic chain exercise. The relevance here lies in the

fact that the motor recruitment patterns for the knee extension are

180 degrees out of phase with the recruitment patterns activated by

the CNS to perform the squat. "

This a major point which must " be considered when designing

resistance training programs for athletes. If for example, you use an

open chain leg press in attempt to develop explosive strength for

sprinting, you will NEVER achieve optimal performance. To shed

further light on this potentially " very deep subject " , when training

a cyclist, you have carryover from both open chain and closed chain

exercises due to the very nature of cycling (pushing the pedal down

from a seated position vs. standing and driving a big gear or

during an intense hill climb). "

-

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 06:35:16 -0600 (MDT)

Subject: (Weights-2) Open vs Closed chain exercise

Link to Chek's full article:

http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/kinetic_chain2.txt

2. For Chek, the " grey area " of open and closed chain exercises and

how to use them to train cyclists is a big issue. It should be and it

is only one of many issues consider in determining the efficacy of

strength training for endurance athletes.

Further, endurance cycling itself may be easily bifurcated into

riders who are fast in the flats and strong hill climbers. So I am

concerned that cycling may not be a good sport to use when trying to

determine whether strength training is beneficial for endurance

athletes. For that matter, what endurance sport lends itself to a

simple analysis as to wether or not strength training improves

performance? There is also the problem of specificity of training.

For instance, are full range squats equally beneficial to runners and

cyclist? In order to achieve some level of precision it seems that we

are going to have to analyze each endurance event to determine what,

if any strength training, is beneficial and if so, what training

methods work best for each particular sport. An accurate, generalized

conclusion seems rather unlikely.

3. We all know that endurance training and power development are on

the opposite ends of the energy spectrum and therefor training for

both conflicts. My solution for developing cardiopulmonary fitness

without effecting power output in my power athletes is a combination

of Concept ll Rowing Ergometer sprints and both track and hill

sprints. The Erg training is for cardio and lactate threshold

training, the sprints for increased VO2 max and cardiopulmonary

training. The running sprints are never longer than 20 yds. That is

to minimize strength and power loss while maintaining a very high

level of cardiopulmonary fitness and muscular endurance. This

training is very effective for wrestlers and volleyball players,

among others. But wrestling and volleyball are not endurance sports.

Not having trained any marathoners or triathletes I would like to

know how strong they are. Perhaps some triathletes or runners and

their coaches who have strength programs might report their

experiences. At the very least, there is a changing perception of the

ultra endurance athlete due to two men who are running extreme

distances in very harsh conditions and neither sports the

stereotypical marathoner's physique (skinny). One of them is

Goggins, a Navy Seal who ran the 29th Annual Badwater 135-mile

Ultramarathon and Dean Karnazes, who once ran 350 miles in 3 days and

recently ran 50 marathons in 50 states in 50 days!

Both of these incredible ultra endurance athletes are carrying some

muscle mass in their upper bodies and legs. I have some familiarity

with their nutritional programs (I wouldn't want thier grocery

bill!), but have seen nothing in regard to their strength training or

if they even do any strength training. Intuitively one would think

some form of strength training would ultimately benefit any athlete,

that it's just a matter of determining the correct exercises.

It seems to me that we need to do a better job of defining our terms

and then focus on individual endurance and specific stength training

protocols in order to arrive at reasonable conclusions, if that's

even possible without being forced to resorting to western

reductionist style research. Surely we have enough experiential and

anecdotal data amongst us that we may arrive at substantial

conclusions and possibly recommendations for enhancing the

performance of a variety of endurance athletes through strength

training.

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego, Ca.

> >

> > > My empirical evidence is that it does improve

> > certain aspects of

> > > bicycle racing, sprints, accelerations, jumps,

> > starts, etc.

> >

> > No argument from me with regard to this point. It's

> > important to

> > remember that sprinting, jumping off the front,

> > surging out of a crit

> > corner, pursuit and kilo starts aren't " endurance

> > activities " as that

> > phrase is typically used--they're fueled by

> > anaerobic metabolism,

> > especially the PCr energy system. Regardless of

> > whether it occurs at

> > the end of a 100+ mile road race, sprinting on the

> > bike isn't an

> > endurance activity any more than sprinting 100m on

> > the track.

> >

>

> ***

> If we are going to discuss strength training as it

> pertains to endurance performance perhaps we should

> take a look at the training program of the the premier

> endurance athlete of our time, Lance Armstrong.

> Bicycle racers have used the off season to maintain

> and improve physical fitness while off the bike during

> the winter months. Amongst the activities cyclists

> have participated in are Cyclocross, running, cross

> country skiing and resistance training. Once the

> bicycle training season begins in the spring those

> activities are put aside and all energy and effort are

> focused to on the bike training.

>

> I have taken to liberty to excerpt the chapter on

> strength training from the book <<The Lance Armstrong

> Performance Program- by Lance Armstrong and Chris

> Carmichael>>

>

> For any one not familiar with Lance Armstrong and

> cycling, Carmichael has been Lance's cycling

> coach since his early years in professional cycling.

>

> The bulk of the chapter discusses the various

> exercises and how to perform them- I have left those

> out- Lance's bench press routine is used to give an

> example of progression of the program over 3 months.

>

> *******************************

> Chapter 10 Strength Training pgs. 100-112

>

> " Strength training and cycling don't mix when done

> concurrently. the best time to do strength training

> is during the late Autumn through winter- when most

> cyclists cut back on their riding because of weather. "

>

> " Lift lower weights at high repetitions, in the range

> of 15-20, if you want to increase endurance. Lift

> heavier weights at lower repetitions, in the range of

> 4-10 reps, if you want to increase strength. "

>

> Transition Phase: 2-4 weeks

>

> pushup, pull-ups and crunches

>

> Conditioning Phase:

>

> 4-6 weeks

> Light weights -high reps

> For example:

> Lance bench presses 100 lbs - `15-16 reps/ set 3

> sets-

> Foundation Phase: 4-6 weeks Heavier weights with

> 10-12 reps 3 sets

> For example:

> Lance increases his weight to 110 lbs 10-12 reps 3-5

> sets per workout

>

> Strength Phase:

>

> 4-6 weeks

> Increase weight and decrease reps

> For example-

> Lance bench presses 120 lbs at 8-10 reps with 5-7 sets

> per workout

>

> " For my first strength workout after the racing season

> is over, I sue the weight of the bar or machine for

> the sets and go through the full range of motion for

> each exercise. I've learned not to dive right back

> into strength training. Otherwise, my muscles are too

> sore the next day.

> By late winter, after I've been lifting steadily for 3

> months, here's what I can do.

> -8-10 reps 5-7 sets per workout

> Leg press: 400 lbs

> Hamstring curl: 80 lbs

> Leg extension: 120 lbs

> Biceps curl: 50 lbs

> Bench press 125 lbs.

>

> On The Bike Power Development phase

>

> As the get longer and the winter turns to spring its

> time to on-the-bike strength training. The Key to

> cycling success is to ride,ride.ride. (at this point

> Carmichael goes on to refer to a number of

> workouts on the bike which lead to increased biking

> strength.)

>

> *****************************************************

>

> Ralph Giarnella MD

> Southington Ct, USA

>

January 15, 2007

Since cycling is not ground based, does the strength training need to be?

Skip Dallen

Covina, CA

(Weights-2) Open vs Closed chain exercise