Re: Cycling - Gym workouts?

[Guest guest]

Chip Conrad wrote:

> Am I selling them bunk?

Not intentionally. I'm challenging your authority, but I don't

question your integrity in the least. I think you're doing the best

you can with the knowledge you have.

> Are you trying to say that a strength program needs to be so sport

> specific that we need to isolate certain joint angles, ranges of

> motion and velocities to create maximum benefit? Do you practice

> this?

No, you're missing the point. I'm saying that for bicycle racers,

the main benefit of strength training is to offset some of the un-

healthful bodily stresses caused by long hours in the saddle. To a

lesser extent, strength training may aid supra-LT efforts. And no,

I'm not saying that a strength program " needs " to be so sport

specific that it must consider joint velocity, ranges of motion,

etc. What I am saying is that the more those variables are taken

into account, the more effective and efficient the program will be.

Apparently you haven't fully considered these things, even though

you've read Dr. Siff's book, Supertraining. See section 1.1.1, page

12 of the 2000 edition (listing factors to be considered in designing

a strength training program) and see message # 35783 for an example

of a strength training program that considers these factors.

When it comes to strength training for efforts at or below LT, sure

you can do high-rep, low force training in the gym, but how could in-

the-gym endurance training be more effective than on-the-bike

training? At best it would be a draw, and the cyclist could choose

one or the other based on other criteria, such as the desire for

variety, or a preference for cycling over gym work. If you knew more

about cycling, you'd be familiar with Köchli, who eschewed gym

workouts and instead prescribed on-the-bike strength training by

specifying grade, gearing, cadence, duration of work interval and

duration of recovery interval. In case you're wondering, Köchli

was the coach of numerous professional cyclists, including Greg

Lemond, the two-time winner of the UCI World Championship, and three-

time winner of the Tour de France.

Do I practice this? In an earlier post, I wrote a brief overview of

the strength training I used when I raced as an amateur. I lifted

weights for years when I began to race, but I achieved my best

performances after completely ceasing strength training.

> My question to you, then,

> is how would you train a cyclist? How do you prescribe force

> development? And why?

I coached myself, but I don't presume to coach others. In an earlier

post, I mentioned the book by and Coggan. It offers plenty of

info that would improve your understanding of the physiological

demands of bicycle racing, and in turn, improve your ability to

design strength training programs for cyclists. I believe you're

earnest in your desire to serve your clients, so you may find it a

very satisfying read.

Regards,

s

Ardmore, PA

[Guest guest]

I agree with the essence of s' response here. Elite track

sprint cyclists have a solid weights program, including heavy squats,

but the core opinion and evidence seems to be that for endurance

cyclists, weights may offer cross training or off-season relief or

perhaps some upper body and core strength utility, but little

performance advantage, and perhaps even disadvantage when the

business gets serious.

I note that in a recent interview, Robbie McEwen explained how

earlier in his career he took some time and mostly went to gym to

build himself up. Yet even though he's a road sprinter we still have

no way of knowing if that ultimately gave him any advantage. The Tour

sprinters still need to go the stage distance to be around for the

sprint at the end -- and the green jersey. They can't afford to

sacrifice too many type 1s.

We need to look at the overall data on these issues. Exercise science

is still a science.

Gympie, Australia

>

> > > > Last week while in the gym I noticed a young girl,

> > > > about 15, doing a pseudo squat. [snip]

> > > > I actually

> > > > showed her a real squat and explained her dangerous

> > > > errors. She then told me that she is part of a

> > > > biking club and that she was strength training on

> > > > the off season as prescribed by her coach. She

> > > > didn't have the flexibility or ability to do a real

> > > > squat but this young cyclist said her coach told her

> > > > to immitate a pedaling movement and that was what

> > > > she was doing! I asked her if her back hurt and she

> > > > said yes but she was " tuffing it out " . After

> > > > explaining the dangers of what she was doing, she

> > > > thanked me politely for my time, explained to me

> > > > that she was not a lifter like myself and continued

> > > > to the next station as prescribed by her coach.

>

> Dr. Ralph Giarnella responded:

>

> > > For the last several days the above post kept coming

> > > back to me and each time I would shake my head in

> > > disbelief that in this day and age with all the

> > > access to sports science there are still individuals

> > > (such as the coach of this young cyclist) who take on

> > > the task of coaching youngsters without the basic

> > > rudimentary knowledge of the sport they are coaching.

> > > There is nothing wrong with a 15 year old lifting

> > > weights. [snip]

> > > However, in my opinion, there is absolutely no role

> > > for using weights, especially squatting, for a young

> > > cyclist male or female.

>

>

> *****

> I wouldn't say there's no role at all, but I would agree that the

> beneficial effects of lifting weights for bicycle racers has been

> exaggerated to the extent that it can have severe negative

> consequences for aspiring racers. I'll offer my own experience as

an

> example.

>

> I started cycling competitively at the age of 31. This was in the

> early 1990s, when Harvey Newton was the strength coach for the USCF.

> He seemed very qualified to me--after all, he was a former power

> lifter, and besides, why would the USCF hire a strength coach who

> didn't have a state-of-the-art understanding of exercise science?

So

> I dutifully read Newton's book and followed his strength training

> prescriptions. I barely improved.

>

> Then Joe Friel's first book, The Cyclist's Training Bible, hit the

> shelves, and I bought a copy right away. Friel had a master's

degree

> in exercise physiology and he cited the sources at the end of each

> chapter, so when I read his material on strength training, I trusted

> that it was based upon reliable scientific research. Again, I

> dutifully followed his strength training prescriptions, but again, I

> barely improved.

>

> A couple years later, Carmichael became famous as the coach of

> Lance Armstrong. He had his own strength training prescriptions,

> which were published on the internet. They were very poorly

written,

> but I dutifully followed them as well as I could--after all, how

> could Lance Armstrong's coach be wrong? Again, I barely improved.

> This was around 1998, I was 36 years old, and my personal best for a

> 40k TT was a dismal 1:05--a long, long way from my dream to get

below

> one hour for that event.

>

> In 1999, I began to read my wife's old exercise physiology textbook

> (the one written by McArdle, Katch & Katch). Then I read Wilmore &

> Costill's textbook. They certainly seemed to contradict the

strength

> training advice given by Carmichael, Friel and Newton. Then I found

> a cycling discussion forum that was technically oriented. Among the

> participants was Coggan, Ph.D., an exercise physiologist who

> had earned a spot on the podium for the time trial at the USCF

> master's national championships. Dr. Coggan patiently answered

> questions by myself and others about strength training, and I

learned

> a lot.

>

> Based on the textbooks and Dr. Coggan's posts, I came to understand

> that strength training might improve sprint performance, and it

might

> help a cyclist to avoid certain types of injuries caused by long

> hours in the saddle, but I found that there was almost no evidence

to

> support the idea that in-the-gym strength training was better than

on-

> the-bike strength training when it came to improving the amount of

> power a cyclist could deliver when climbing long hills or pedaling

on

> flat terrain in road races and time trials. That's when I decided

to

> stop lifting weights and train on the bike exclusively.

>

> In 2000, I rode a 40k TT in 1:00:06, over five minutes faster than

my

> previous best effort. I hoped to shave seven seconds off that time

> and finish under one hour the next season, but little did I know how

> much faster I was going to get after cutting strength training. In

> 2001 I rode the NJ state 40k TT championship in 57:12, finishing

25th

> out of about 200 of the best time-trialists in the region. I

> followed that a couple months later with a 57:19 in a rolling TT in

> the MD master's 40k TT championship, finishing second in my age

group

> by only 13 seconds. I had not lifted weights in two years at that

> point, and I was 40 years old, yet my performance had drastically

> improved over the 1:05 I had ridden when I was in my mid thirties.

I

> had smashed my goal, and I was satisfied to quit racing bikes and

> take up strength training for a change.

>

> I don't point to my own story as anecdotal evidence that cutting the

> weight training from my cycling regiment caused the increase in my

> performance. There is plenty of scientific evidence that shows the

> limited benefits of strength training for road cyclists and other

> endurance athletes. However, there is a very important point to be

> gained from my story.

>

> The popular literature and internet chat forums are full of people

> who tout strength training as an essential part of training for

> bicycle racers. Some of those advocates seem to have impressive

> credentials, while others are simply " Cat 3 know-it-alls " and others

> are guys who do a lot of strength training but do little or no

> cycling, and don't know much about the sport, yet still presume to

> offer strength training advice to aspiring bike racers. As a

> beginning bike racer in my early thirties, I allowed myself to be

> persuaded by folks such as those, and in doing so I spent years of

> frustratingly slow improvement. I cannot imagine how much faster my

> 40k TT performance would have been if I'd trained in my early 30s

> like I did when I was 40. What a waste. I hate to think of

aspiring

> new bike racers being led to waste their limited time with unfounded

> stories about the wonderful improvement they could make if they

would

> only cut back on their cycling so they can incorporate weights

> lifting into their training program.

>

> So this message is for Farmer, if he's still reading the

> messages on this thread, and for any other aspiring bike racers.

> There are lots of places where cyclists are told to lift weights.

> There are only a handful of internet forums where cyclists can learn

> the limited benefits of strength training, such that they can decide

> for themselves if/how to incorporate strength training into their

> training programs. As far as I know, the wattage forum at Google

> Groups is the best of them, which is why I have kept mentioning it

in

> my posts in this thread.

>

> Regards,

>

> s

> Ardmore, PA

>

[Guest guest]

Farmer wrote:

> I could positively, absolutely prove that for

> my indiviual physique, strength training makes a world of difference

> in my cycling strength. It's like night and day for me.

If you're a trackie and you do well in crits, I understand. I'm on

the opposite end of the spectrum. My first race as a Cat 5 was Mt.

Nebo--dropped my chain on the final climb but still managed to finish

sixth. Followed that the next week with third place at Manor

Township--let two guys go up the road in order to ride within myself,

then dropped the only other guy remaining in the breakaway group on

the final climb. I was a skinny climber at the time, weighing 142

even while lifting weights. Bulked up to 150 after I STOPPED lifting

weights and focused on time trialing. (Hypertrophy of type-I fibers

due to heavy endurance training is often underestimated or overlooked

by strength trainers.) I still weigh 148-50 after quitting cycling

and taking up weight lifting three years ago (focusing on " Olympic "

weightlifting). Still can only front squat 215 and DL 300 lb. after

all that time. Funny thing is, even when I cycle down to focus on

1RM, my 1RMs are no more than 5 lb over my 3RM, and my 3RMs are no

more than 5 lb over my 5RM. Meanwhile, two or three times a year I

can still get on the bike and pop out a leisurely 55 mile ride

without breaking a sweat. You're probably getting the idea that I'm

predominantly slow-twitch....

Regards,

s

Ardmore, PA

[Guest guest]

Geeze! I didn't mean to let the dogs out of the junkyard!

So much for lurking...here we go...

, thanks for the info and I'm glad you like to read. However, as

I think you know, you cannot judge one time trial performance against

another. There are too many variables: weather, temperature, road

conditions, whether or not you took shit that day.

Having read all the books too, sometimes I find science too boring.

Science is nice if you are able to implement it. Many are not,

because it does not translate well into the reality of a 40 hour work

week and a family life.

My humble opinion is, that it doesn't really matter what all the

books, studies, gym Gods, and training trends of the month say, if

you don't get the workouts in.

It comes down to what motivates you the most. At least for me it

does.

I was trained in power lifting by a 930lbs squatter who blew out his

rotator cuff trying out for the olympic team. So, I learned from him

to hit the weights heavy. No b***shit, just lift the damn weight. I

found that very motivating, and it worked for me mostly b/c I hate

b***shitting in the gym. When I got back into cycling, the cyclists

in the gym were (frankly) wimps by comparison.

Can't tell you how many lifting partners (cyclists) I have gone

through, who can't handle the lifting routine.

Anyway, my point is that it really is a personal decision as to what

will work for any individual.

You may quote the big names, expound pages of data, and tell stories

of how fast you went on the third Sunday of July, but it doesn't

really matter does it? What works you you, I bet won't work for me,

and visa-versa.

Muscle type is personal. Training is personal. This is why when

people subscribe to guys like Carmichel, they are more often

than not, disatisfied by the results. Why, because the training

templates they use cover the broad spectrum of athletes, not

individuals.

These big " Coaching houses " exist to make lots of money on someone

dumb enough to not find a great local coach that they could actually

sit down and talk face to face over lunch with.

I'm getting away for the topic...

When I was training for world championships, I was STRONGLY

encouraged to lift weights. (At that level, you think we might know

what we're doing, huh?) However, with a job/family situtation, I

was lucky to keep that together without adding the additional stress

of weightlifting.

Did I get fast without weights? Yes.

Would I have been faster with weights? Probably.

It depends on what your personal (there's that P word again) goals

are. I like to sprint, so weights are good for me. Some like to

climb, so weights might be just ok, in extreme moderation.

My point is, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... and don't

knock the next guy just because he believes something different.

Gotta get back to work.

Respectfully to all,

Farmer

Fogelsville, PA

[Guest guest]

Powerlifting has never been an olympic sport.

ibike2win wrote:

>

>

> I was trained in power lifting by a 930lbs squatter who blew out his

> rotator cuff trying out for the olympic team.

>

>

>

--

Hobman

Saskatoon, CANADA

[Guest guest]

Farmer wrote:

> My point is, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... and

don't

> knock the next guy just because he believes something different.

, you've missed the point of my posts on this thread. Have I

stated anywhere on this thread that sprinters shouldn't lift? (Or

kilo or pursuit guys, for that matter?) Have I stated anywhere in

this thread that we should ignore individual differences when

designing training programs?

I haven't knocked anyone for anything except making assertions

without being able to clearly demonstrate a causal link, either with

published scientific literature or anecdotal data. That's what

Supertraining is all about, and what makes this forum different from

so many others. The proof I asked from Chip Conrad is little

different from the proof that is asked of many other people who post

here. You'll see what I mean if you check out any of the threads in

which Scherger has posted his opinions on the relation

between " spinal alignment " and athletic performance, or in which Mike

Yessis posted his opinions on training for sprinting (running).

At this point, people can read the exchanges between Chip Conrad and

me and they can decide for themselves what to believe. If " I know it

works for me " or " I know it works for my clients " is sufficient proof

of anything for you, then you're missing the value of this forum.

Regards,

s

Ardmore, PA

[Guest guest]

" While both disciplines demand high levels of force production,

weightlifting actually focuses more directly on the rapid force

produced by dynamic efforts, meaning that " powerlifting " is really

something of a misnomer. "

Must I be so specific to say Olympic weightlifting? You know what I

mean.

Farmer

Fogelsville, PA

>

> >

> >

> > I was trained in power lifting by a 930lbs squatter who blew out

his

> > rotator cuff trying out for the olympic team.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Hobman

> Saskatoon, CANADA

>

[Guest guest]

Let's see what research says and where it might be lacking. The

studies discussing wattage and weight training are... virtually non-

existant for serious competitive cyclists, at least in the journals

I perused. When there is something listed, it more often involves

VO2 max or HR training, which, although correlated, is NOT the same

thing. Maybe I need to mosey to the local college to read every

journal they have, but what I'm seeing mostly is extracted

information about how traditional bodybuilding stlye weight training

doesn't help VO2 max levels.

This was exactly the point I made earlier. Researchers have no idea

about the spectrum of possibilities with weight training and are

still stuck in bodypart/machine training that every coach or trainer

worth their weight hasn't been practicing for years. In fact almost

every study I read was still using leg extensions as a main leg

exercise.

Then there's the slew of journal studies mentioning weight training

increasing power output on the bike, but these don't make a strong

case for my side since the subjects are usually UNTRAINED

SUBJECTS!! Aw c'mon, we were so close.

These studies inevitably end with the researchers saying that this

may not correlate with elite cyclists, but (and they all say this

without a fault) more research is needed.

Yeah, because that study sure didn't help.

THEN, in perusing numerous cycling websites, there we are, having

the same debate, but with different names. I've been in this

training game awhile, having worked with, under and for some amazing

coaches and trainers (including Mel Siff). My grasp of physiology

and conditioning is not only pretty good, but discerning.

So I decided to talk to some cyclists themselves.

I had an interesting day yesterday. I decided to ask some cyclists

about their training, Granted, I had very limited time, got no

names and asked really quick questions, but learned a few things.

I was at the end of the Sacramento stage of the Tour of California,

so, from what I gathered, these were serious cyclists. Being a poor

investigative reporter, I didn't get names, as I simply barged up to

some racers and asked a few questions, but I did get some

interesting responses from the very small cross section I talked to

(about 4 racers, not a 'scientific study' by any means, but I think

a decent account of the 'word on the street')

Are my methods at all reliable? Probably not, but here's what I

asked and what I received:

Do you weight train to help your cycling?: All 4 said yes. One

mentioned that made up a large part of his off season training.

How does wattage training come into play?: All used it, but to

varying degrees. Then it got interesting. One mentioned he wouldn't

be able to train using wattage concepts WITHOUT the weight training

to bring up his power. Another rider replied " ah, the cult of

watts,' which I did persue, but then he quickly said 'yeah, it's a

good tool, but not the only one.'

Then I looked at the program for the race and saw an endorsement for

weight training (in the program) from a rider on the team from

Health South (I believe, I'll have to get the program to confirm

this). Three times a week was his recommendation, printed on the

program for the race.

I chatted a bit with Steve Rex, a conversation I will pursue more.

Well known bike designer with a history in riding that dates back to

hanging out with Fisher, Steve has a pretty good finger on the

racing pulse. I've trained Steve in the past and have worked with

his wife to a larger extent, so I'd be interested to learn more on

his view of the riding community's view of training, which according

to him so far, is pro-weight training. Education is fun.

Also, after perusing google and a bunch of links regarding watts,

almost every site I looked on also had information about, surprise,

weight training.

> No, this is not a game, and it's not my turn. You made some

> unsubstantiated claims. I asked you to support them. You

responded

> with anecdotal support. I critiqued your response. You presented

a

> rebuttal of my critique. At this point, people can read our

> conversation and decide for themselves how much weight to give to

> your claims.

Yep, and since almost every biker I've talked to recently, or have

read about on the internet supports weight training, I don't feel in

such bad company. And, as mentioned above, since no one else is

stepping up the the plate to answer the original post about what to

do in the gym for his cycling, then our poor original poster is

stuck between one guy with ideas and one guy who's wants to

discredit them.

>

> Now you're asking me to " present a program for dissection. " For

> what: MTB racing? Road racing? What kind of road racing--hilly

> road races, criteriums, time trials? Track racing? What kind of

> track racing--mass start, match sprints, kilo, pursuit? For what

> type of rider--one whose strong suit is a relatively high power at

> lactate threshhold but who has a comparatively weaker anaerobic

> capacity? Or one whose strong suit is a high anaerobic capacity

but

> who has a comparatively weaker power at lactate threshhold? The

> challenge you propose shows that there's a lot more to cycling

> performance than you're aware of.

Now you're making assumptions about my ability and knowledge.

Granted, I haven't really given a bunch of info about how I train

folks (my first post was pretty vague), but with your assumption

that each client, each cyclist, isn't treated as an individual

process of program design, perhaps I needed to be more specific.

BUT, dropping every racing term in the dictionary into your post

again deosn't lend credence to your side of a debate. So much of a

cyclists training, the great majority, still is done in the saddle,

so if you're suggestion every little factor you mentioned above

needs serious consideration (mass start versus pursuit? C'mon.),

then that's where we'd disagree. Consideration, yes, but

nitpickiness? No.

>

> I know a lot about cycling and exercise physiology that you

> apparently don't know or don't use, but unlike you I don't presume

to

> offer coaching advice to cyclists. Nevertheless, that doesn't

mean I

> can't ask a person to support unfounded claims, nor does it mean

that

> I can't point out when such support is obviously weak.

>

Did you really try to lend credibility to your debate by writing

that you know more than I do? Your dad can probably beat up mine as

well. So far you've offered a critique of my training. That's

allowed, and welcome. I say give me a cyclist and I'll have a good

chance of improving his or her time. You say nay. I presented a

challenge to come up with some better ideas. You denied, saying it

would take a whole book.

No, it wouldn't.

Force development, in my training and experience, has proven to be

much more exciting than the by-the-book understanding of it that

many arm-chair coaches and 'physiology' writers seem to think, and

I'm always willing to pursue it further. In fact if I ever think

that I offer the best program I can, then it is time for a client to

move on. I need to evolve so my clients do. I've been lucky enough

not only to train with great folks and teachers, but to compete both

in the world of endurance and strength (competitive powerlifting and

weightlifting).

Force development comes in all shapes and sizes, or levels and

intensities, if you'd rather. Finding ways to develop it further in

the gym will help on the bike, as long as the cycling training is

also up to par (heck, in untrained folks, time on the cycle doesn't

even matter, according to a few strange studies). If you'd rather

stick to one tool, wattage, then that will work for you.

Chip Conrad

Bodytribe Fitness

Sacramento, CA

www.physicalsubculture.com

[Guest guest]

,

My bias, admittedly, might come from my love of sprinting and

climbing, and, like you mentioned, those benefit from weight

training. In fact, any ride I've ever done, with any level of

rider, from Elite racer to average hack like myself, I'll usually

keep up on climbs, often in a slightly larger gear.

And, maybe you've experienced this yourself, it just feels good to

be strong. Whether there is direct transfer or not, there most

certainly is a psychological one. That is one of the biggest

benefits I've found to strength training, and I mean REAL strength

training, the stuff that puts hair on the chest, scrapes on the

shins and sometimes a little bile in the back of the throat (sounds

like you've had the pleasure of knowing this).

Once you've been under a seriously loaded bar, and conquered it,

climbing a hill or sprinting upfront seems less daunting, less

intimidating then it might have without that experience under the

bar. This is what most exercise scientists have NEVER known, and it

is blatantly reflected in their research.

But, also as you pointed out, not everyone wants to play that way.

So be it.

Chip Conrad

Bodytribe Fitness

Sacramento, CA

www.physicalsubculture.com

>

> Geeze! I didn't mean to let the dogs out of the junkyard!

>

> So much for lurking...here we go...

>

> , thanks for the info and I'm glad you like to read. However,

as

> I think you know, you cannot judge one time trial performance

against

> another. There are too many variables: weather, temperature, road

> conditions, whether or not you took shit that day.

>

> Having read all the books too, sometimes I find science too boring.

> Science is nice if you are able to implement it. Many are not,

> because it does not translate well into the reality of a 40 hour

work

> week and a family life.

>

> My humble opinion is, that it doesn't really matter what all the

> books, studies, gym Gods, and training trends of the month say, if

> you don't get the workouts in.

>

> It comes down to what motivates you the most. At least for me it

> does.

>

> I was trained in power lifting by a 930lbs squatter who blew out

his

> rotator cuff trying out for the olympic team. So, I learned from

him

> to hit the weights heavy. No b***shit, just lift the damn

weight. I

> found that very motivating, and it worked for me mostly b/c I hate

> b***shitting in the gym. When I got back into cycling, the

cyclists

> in the gym were (frankly) wimps by comparison.

>

> Can't tell you how many lifting partners (cyclists) I have gone

> through, who can't handle the lifting routine.

>

> Anyway, my point is that it really is a personal decision as to

what

> will work for any individual.

>

> You may quote the big names, expound pages of data, and tell

stories

> of how fast you went on the third Sunday of July, but it doesn't

> really matter does it? What works you you, I bet won't work for

me,

> and visa-versa.

>

> Muscle type is personal. Training is personal. This is why when

> people subscribe to guys like Carmichel, they are more often

> than not, disatisfied by the results. Why, because the training

> templates they use cover the broad spectrum of athletes, not

> individuals.

>

> These big " Coaching houses " exist to make lots of money on someone

> dumb enough to not find a great local coach that they could

actually

> sit down and talk face to face over lunch with.

>

> I'm getting away for the topic...

>

> When I was training for world championships, I was STRONGLY

> encouraged to lift weights. (At that level, you think we might

know

> what we're doing, huh?) However, with a job/family situtation, I

> was lucky to keep that together without adding the additional

stress

> of weightlifting.

>

> Did I get fast without weights? Yes.

>

> Would I have been faster with weights? Probably.

>

> It depends on what your personal (there's that P word again) goals

> are. I like to sprint, so weights are good for me. Some like to

> climb, so weights might be just ok, in extreme moderation.

>

> My point is, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... and

don't

> knock the next guy just because he believes something different.

>

> Gotta get back to work.

>

> Respectfully to all,

>

> Farmer

> Fogelsville, PA

>

[Guest guest]

Chip,

We talk the same language.

, I understand you are trying to get to the scientific core of

factual knowledge.

However, I find your highly-verbose, confrontational, and overly

analytical posts most painfull to read.

And I'm new here...

Cheers,

Farmer

Fogelsville, PA

>

> ,

>

> My bias, admittedly, might come from my love of sprinting and

> climbing, and, like you mentioned, those benefit from weight

> training. In fact, any ride I've ever done, with any level of

> rider, from Elite racer to average hack like myself, I'll usually

> keep up on climbs, often in a slightly larger gear.

>

> And, maybe you've experienced this yourself, it just feels good to

> be strong. Whether there is direct transfer or not, there most

> certainly is a psychological one. That is one of the biggest

> benefits I've found to strength training, and I mean REAL strength

> training, the stuff that puts hair on the chest, scrapes on the

> shins and sometimes a little bile in the back of the throat (sounds

> like you've had the pleasure of knowing this).

>

> Once you've been under a seriously loaded bar, and conquered it,

> climbing a hill or sprinting upfront seems less daunting, less

> intimidating then it might have without that experience under the

> bar. This is what most exercise scientists have NEVER known, and

it

> is blatantly reflected in their research.

>

> But, also as you pointed out, not everyone wants to play that way.

> So be it.

>

> Chip Conrad

> Bodytribe Fitness

[Guest guest]

Why do you mention his squat then, instead of his C & J? And rotator

injuries are far more common to powerlifting.

I compete in both and I'm a little incredulous that an olympic

weightlifter would do a 930 lb squat. Because his is hi-bar, extremely

deep without using gear. What was the name of this olympic team hopeful?

ibike2win wrote:

> " While both disciplines demand high levels of force production,

> weightlifting actually focuses more directly on the rapid force

> produced by dynamic efforts, meaning that " powerlifting " is really

> something of a misnomer. "

>

> Must I be so specific to say Olympic weightlifting? You know what I

> mean.

>

> Farmer

> Fogelsville, PA

>

>

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > I was trained in power lifting by a 930lbs squatter who blew out

> his

> > > rotator cuff trying out for the olympic team.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Hobman

> > Saskatoon, CANADA

> >

>

--

Hobman

Saskatoon, CANADA

[Guest guest]

I hope I don't come across unappreciative (). Email is funny

that way you know.

I'm from the old school dicipline of " Less talk, more work " .

When people start spouting off everything they read, talking more

about themselves and listening less to others, (who may have a valid

point) I tend write them off as another know-it-all.

I personally know many of those types and refrain from ever training

with them. What I can accomplish in 30 gym minutes, takes them 2

hours, and they only have 1/2 the results to show. Or on the bike, I

can have better results in one hour of training than most have in 3-4

hours.

I've been training at one thing or another for 27 years...so none of

this is new to me. When I stated this thread, I was curious to see

what was going on in this forum and to see what people knew.

For some (like me) it's all about approach, motivation, and knowing

your body. Anyone can shout " Science! " at the top of their lungs,

but sometimes it falls on intentionally closed ears.

My philosophy is simple. You can research all you want (which is

GREAT!), but without actual means of implementing into your own

situation, you are wasting time.

Putting you money (or muscle) where your mouth is, makes more of a

statement to me than 99.9% of university studies. This is why when

we look for coaches, we seek those who have succeded in their

discipline, not some text book geek.

Anywho, Not here to step on toes,

Respectfully,

Farmer

Fogelsville, PA

[Guest guest]

Farmer wrote:

> Email is funny

> that way you know.

Yes. And sometimes we project our own preconcieved ideas of what

others think onto the things they write...and we completely

misinterpret the meaning of the words and the purpose of why the

person wrote it...seeing what we *expect* to hear, and not what was

actually said. Was anyone doing that in this thread?

> I'm from the old school dicipline of " Less talk, more work " .

Golly, I'm not! I've never injured myself from lifting too much,

never come close to blacking out from a 1RM attempt, never puked

during a hard workout, never seen my lifts go down after pushing too

long without enough recovery days, never had to screw up my courage

to get under a PR snatch, clean or jerk, never struggled and

persevered for years to improve at a sport that's totally unsuited to

my genetic potential <grinning>

> Putting you money (or muscle) where your mouth is, makes more of a

> statement to me than 99.9% of university studies. This is why when

> we look for coaches, we seek those who have succeded in their

> discipline, not some text book geek.

Coaches? Try Sam Callan. He's a USCA-licensed coach who has written

some very thoughtful stuff in favor of weight training for cyclists.

He's written it at the wattage forum on Google Groups. I figured

that you'd find it pretty quickly if you went there and searched the

archives. But if you don't want to see for yourself whether the

wattage forum might be a better place for you to find the info you're

looking for, you can just search Sam Callan's name on the internet,

get his contact info, and hire him as your coach.

Otherwise, there's the AIS weight training program for its track

team, posted in Supertraining Message # 35783 (which I've now

referenced three times on this thread) and of course, the " loose

template " that Chip Conrad wrote for you. Neither of those programs

was written by a " text book geek, " we can all be sure of that.

> Anywho, Not here to step on toes

No offense taken, . Hope you read the messages here critically

and carefully so you can get the most out of this forum--it does have

a lot to offer, regardless of the impression you may have gotten from

this thread.

Regards,

s

Ardmore, PA

[Guest guest]

Chip Conrad wrote:

> So I decided to talk to some cyclists themselves.

Great idea--talk to some people who actually know about bicycle

racing AND lift weights. Who do you think you're going to find at

the wattage forum???

Every winter at the wattage forum, the topic of strength training for

cycling is discussed by highly competitive cyclists (track, road and

MTB) and coaches (many of whom are also Cat II or higher bicycle

racers). Some are not in favor of lifting weights, but some are.

Scientific literature is used to support some of the assertions, but

much support is also drawn from hard data collected by the riders

themselves--anecdotal evidence drawn from power meters, which is the

most accurate method of measuring changes in cycling fitness at this

time. Anyone can go there, read the archives and decide for

themselves how to use that info. Heck, they could even post a

question or two if they had questions that the archives didn't answer.

That's why, starting with my first post on this thread, I recommended

the wattage forum over Supertraining. If you look at the people who

post on this forum, almost all of them know a lot about strength

training, but almost none know much about bicycle racing. If you go

to the wattage forum, you'll find people who know a lot about both.

Regards,

s

Ardmore, Pa

[Guest guest]

A power meter might measure cycling fitness at that point in time,

but, and I'm sure this just opens another can of worms that might

just be a waste of time, but I honestly think the most accurate data

for measuring progress would be race times. There is no

psychological element to a power meter.

The power meter can't be denied as a solid training tool, and,

although still not universally accepted by every rider (I'm done

some more homework), it is considered an essential tool by many if

not most, especially in the elite circles. BUT, strict adherence to

wattage training seems to be less accepted as THE gold standard,

since as any competitor in any sport will tell you, there are too

many variables and an awful lot of mind games.

Plus, many riders, depending on their natural disposition for speed

or power, find that wattage traiing alone, or even in the saddle

traiing alone simply will not help them develope the force needed to

increase certain riding skills. And they know this through testing

themselves on a power meter. They can't get the numbers they want

in the saddle, so they train with iron.

More than once have I come across the term wattage cult (or some

variation). It reminds me of what I used to call the kettlebell

cult, folks who trained exclusively with kettlebells (or any single

tool) thinking that that one tool was the answer to all their needs

and vehemently swallowing all hyperbole (often masked as science) to

that extent. That is how more than a few riders seem to view folks

who praise wattage and power meter training as the lone tool of

success.

As with the kettlebell cult, when spending time on their forums, a

reader will come to believe it is universally accepted as the most

wonderful thing ever. I've also seen this on Clubbell forums,

martial arts forums and all sorts of other training forums. So for

someone like me, perusing the info their would be beneficial, but a

rider who stays there too long might need to see what the rest of

the world is doing.

Will I continue to learn more? Absolutely. I'll make that

commitment.

Meanwhile, my rider's times keep getting better (and, surprise, so

does their power meter performance) and I guarantee their

psychological game is increasing as well. I'm not sure what 'proof'

you keep demanding, but we've got ours.

Chip Conrad

Bodytribe Fitness

Sacramento CA

www.physicalsubculture.com

>

> > So I decided to talk to some cyclists themselves.

>

> Great idea--talk to some people who actually know about bicycle

> racing AND lift weights. Who do you think you're going to find at

> the wattage forum???

>

> Every winter at the wattage forum, the topic of strength training

for

> cycling is discussed by highly competitive cyclists (track, road

and

> MTB) and coaches (many of whom are also Cat II or higher bicycle

> racers). Some are not in favor of lifting weights, but some are.

> Scientific literature is used to support some of the assertions,

but

> much support is also drawn from hard data collected by the riders

> themselves--anecdotal evidence drawn from power meters, which is

the

> most accurate method of measuring changes in cycling fitness at

this

> time. Anyone can go there, read the archives and decide for

> themselves how to use that info. Heck, they could even post a

> question or two if they had questions that the archives didn't

answer.

>

> That's why, starting with my first post on this thread, I

recommended

> the wattage forum over Supertraining. If you look at the people

who

> post on this forum, almost all of them know a lot about strength

> training, but almost none know much about bicycle racing. If you

go

> to the wattage forum, you'll find people who know a lot about both.

>

> Regards,

>

> s

> Ardmore, Pa

>