Weight Training Article

[Veronica]

I've seen some references to studies showing that weight training is not neccessary to improve your cycling.

Being an inquiring sort of person, I wanted to read the article for myself.

So here is what I found.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern

Happy Reading!

V.

[han-grrl]

I know there is a lot of debate over weight training and cycling...the thing is most of the "experiments" are on some pretty high level athletes. They are already very fit and extra leg presses or the like don't help.

BUT, there are many many many more cyclist on the planet who aren't elite and who don't have strong core or legs or may have some issues with muscle fire sequencing (ie piriformis muscle taking over for glutes). in this case, strength training is necessary to build up muscle mass to handle the load for required for cycling.

I would be interested in seeing NON racers being tested before and after a strength routine. especially those non racers who only picked up biking in their 30's and beyond.

my two cents

H

[Bike Goddess]

I know there has been a lot of conversation on this topic.

I'm been going to the weight room for 2 years now. I generally go 2-3 times a week. I have found that it is helpful for strengthening abs, glutes, and core muscles. Whether this has helped my cycling, I can't tell you. I do know that I can ride long distances without lower back pain. I believe this is due to ab exercises (I do the "captain's chair).

The women who designed my program is a cyclist herself as well as a trainer at the gym (a former Velogirl racer). Occasionally she will redesign my program to give me variety.

I also do weight training to help keep osteoporosis at bay. I currently have some in my neck, but not critical yet. Not sure what I can do for that area other than take calcium supplements (EZorb) and hope I don't have to do Fosamax.

A pro racer came to our club meeting a few months back to talk about training. He says that doing weights (especially during the off season) helps keep your body in condition. He also said that reps were more important than heavy weights. He recommended 3x a week in the gym for no longer that about 45 mins.

[Velobambina]

BUT, there are many many many more cyclist on the planet who aren't elite and who don't have strong core or legs or may have some issues with muscle fire sequencing (ie piriformis muscle taking over for glutes). in this case, strength training is necessary to build up muscle mass to handle the load for required for cycling.



H---Piriformis Syndrome ended my distance running "career." Could you please provide more details on the piriformis taking over for the glutes? I suspect that weaker hips/glutes caused my problem, which, occasionally will flare up and result in awful sciatica in my left hamstring. Since I stopped running in '96, I have been pretty serious about weight training. I have started running again, but I am sticking to shorter distances. That said, I love the half marathon and someday, would love to run them again.

[han-grrl]

I am just still learning about this. Apparently my piriformis is trying to do some of the work of my glute max. i was able to tell my left ehmmm cheek wasn't contracting on demand, and it seemed to be weak. my physio figured out that my piriformis was over doing it.

i should also mention i have a scoliosis in my low spine along with shearing between L3-L5 which doesn't help things either.

[velogirl]

The women who designed my program is a cyclist herself as well as a trainer at the gym (a former Velogirl racer). Occasionally she will redesign my program to give me variety.

Hey Bike Goddess! Who is the trainer you're working with? Debbie H?

[Cassandra_Cain]

I know there is a lot of debate over weight training and cycling...the thing is most of the "experiments" are on some pretty high level athletes. They are already very fit and extra leg presses or the like don't help.

BUT, there are many many many more cyclist on the planet who aren't elite and who don't have strong core or legs or may have some issues with muscle fire sequencing (ie piriformis muscle taking over for glutes). in this case, strength training is necessary to build up muscle mass to handle the load for required for cycling.

I would be interested in seeing NON racers being tested before and after a strength routine. especially those non racers who only picked up biking in their 30's and beyond.

my two cents

H


I posted references from the article mentioned above a while back ago during yet another weight lifting thread.

For people who are low fitness, then basically any form of exercise, including weight training, is going to improve their conditioning.

For those that ride their bikes 4-6x/week and do so consistently with a sensible plan, then I doubt any benefit would come from weight lifting. Plus weight lifting and endurance cycling combined have been shown to cause what's called an interference effect, which further limits the benefits. Moreover, weight lifting diminishes mitochondrial capacity in muscles which also decreases endurance ability.

Endurance cycling, (tdf, giro for example) don't require high strength at all, the forces are low. I've said this ad nauseum here but some still want to think otherwise despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

High strength is a requirement for track events like the 200m, 500m, and the kilo to a lesser extent. Look at Chris Hoy or Anna Mears, they lift weights and need to have high strength in their legs, torso, and even arms, to excel at their events

For everything else, if your goal is to be faster on a bike, then you are better off spending your training time, which is a limited resource for us all, on your bike.

[velogirl]

I think it's unfair to emphatically say that strength isn't important to cycling. There is no black and white (except maybe in accounting and even that's questionable). Science evolves dramatically and if you review information from a decade ago it will be different than information from today or information from two decades ago. Gosh, how many of you remember when doctors endorsed cigarette smoking on television and in magazine ads? My point being that while there is some evidence that points toward little/no benefit of resistance training, there is other evidence that points to definite benefits. And given that most of the studies performed on cyclists wrt resistance training are completed with athletes at a very high level, it's unfair to advise athletes at a more recreational level based on that research.

I'm a cycling coach. I do this for a living. I've studied this sport extensively since 2000 (including a resistance training for cyclists three-day clinic presented by USA Cycling at the Olympic Training Center). I'm also active on a handful of coaching forums and email groups where there are other coaches, exercise scientists, biomechanists, and some of the greatest minds in the cycling science world. There is strong debate about this subject in the cycling science world. Obviously USAC and USOTC still believe there are gains in performance due to resistance training or they wouldn't be teaching it in their curriculum or training their resident athletes in resistance training.

Here's my opinion (no more or less important than anyone else's on this forum).

Most of the women on this forum, including the competitive athletes, would benefit from resistance training. Now, here's my rationale. Some of these reasons are performance-related and some are health-related. Knowing the demographic of most of the women on this forum, I absolutely believe they would benefit from resistance training.


Adding lean muscle mass and reducing adipose will improve your power to weight ratio.
Adding lean muscle mass will help you reduce adipose by increasing your rmr, thus also improving your power to weight ratio.
Improved cycling (increased strength and decreased injury) depends on a strong core (abs, back) and strong upper body. Resistance training will improve both of these.
Most women do not create enough testosterone to gain strength benefits without overload.

Most cyclists don't train in a manner that generates overload (ie there's lots of soft-pedalling going on). Most cyclists also don't train enough hours to create overload.
From a health perspective, resistance training is one of the best things women can do to prevent osteoporosis and osteopenia.

Most cyclists do not train with enough variety or intention to continue performance gains past their first 2,000 hours of cycling.
Many cyclists aren't able to train sufficient hours in the winter to maintain base fitness and strength. Resistance training is a great alternative to losing fitness.

[velogirl]

Plus weight lifting and endurance cycling combined have been shown to cause what's called an interference effect, which further limits the benefits.

Current studies (one study, actually) indicate that this is only true if you are participating in maximum strength and/or power phases of resistance training at the same time as you're working on aerobic endurance. If an athlete is following a periodized resistance training plan, any detriment to aerobic endurance disappears once those two phases of training have been completed.

And I don't have time to find the ref for this, but my understanding is there is only one study that even indicates this might be true. Nothing is black and white, remember?

[Veronica]

What is this overwhelming evidence?

You say cyclists don't have the same leg strength as the average dude on the street. I'd like to see the average dude propel himself up a 17% grade. You're telling me climbing like that is all VO2 Max and lactate threshold?

No, I don't believe that.

Veronica

[Cassandra_Cain]

Current studies (one study, actually) indicate that this is only true if you are participating in maximum strength and/or power phases of resistance training at the same time as you're working on aerobic endurance. If an athlete is following a periodized resistance training plan, any detriment to aerobic endurance disappears once those two phases of training have been completed.

And I don't have time to find the ref for this, but my understanding is there is only one study that even indicates this might be true. Nothing is black and white, remember?

The only way to NOT be doing strength and endurance training at the same time is if you completely EXCLUDE one or the other. So yes, if the choice is to sit on the couch all winter or lift weights, then weights wins hands down. Then again, anything is better than being sedentary or if one is low fitness, I said that before.

If the choice is lift weights or ride, then I'm going to choose riding.

Many people here live in warm enough climates to ride year-round and even those that don't can have access to trainers. There is no reason you can't ride seriously 12 months/year. Whether they choose to or not, is their preorogative.

Whether you are a coach, athlete, or the fairy godmother, saying strength is important in endurance cycling again and again doesn't make it true. Strength requirements for an endurance cyclist are low, it is basic physics, I repeat, basic physics not magic, or some esoteric study I secretly conducted. Check your powertap files if that's what you need to be convinced. Show me forces are any higher than doing a basic step-up. I have many PT files, i've looked at them, i've studied them, I know the physics and that's how it works. Whether you chose to accept that or not, that's not my issue.

Riding at 300 watts requires no more strength than climbing stairs 2 at a time. So if you feel your core is weak for cycling, where forces are low, then, by that logic, you might as well start doing weights to strengthen your core to bring in the groceries from the car or carry your 2 your old around the mall.

Inducing hypertrophy in a gym means you have to haul that same muscle up any climb. While that extra muscle may improve your 5-second power (NM), that same muscle isn't going to to a darn thing for your FT, improve your vo2 max, or AWC. 5s power may win 200 meter sprints, but it sure as heck won't get you up a long climb.

If somebody rides for fun, to lose weight, for appearance, or for general fitness, raising money for charity, reducing pollution, than lift weights, do pilates, stretch do - whatever you like.

If somebody rides with a goal of being the best, fastest cyclist they can be and win races, then that goal is best realized by training on the bike.

Sorry but I come across more nonsense in this forum than any other when it comes to training methods. I give up, people can believe whatever they want, no matter how ridiculous it is.

[velogirl]

I think anger management might also improve your endurance cycling. Or at least the number of friends you make on a forum like this.

If this forum is full of nonsense, batgirl, why don't you hang out on the wattage forum. They debate the same thing "ad nauseum." Only difference is they have advanced degrees in exercise science an have been successfully training athletes for decades. Oh, and a few of them have written books, like Joe Friel, Andy Coggan, and Hunter Allen.

If I recall from your earlier posts, you started riding in July or August? This year? I'm sure you're a smart girl but I also know you've got a lot to learn. People skills should be at the top of that list.

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

Everyone else, forgive me for being blunt, but I get tired of the holier-than-though attitude she imparts on others here.

[velogirl]

Just read the original article, which interestingly enough, was authored by Ric Stern. One of Ric's claims to fame in the cycling science world is that he feels strongly that doing any intensity whatsoever at all during a base period will negate the effects of base training. He semi-retracted that statement about a month ago stating that he felt the same way but that the reasons he stated were wrong.

Of course, the rest of the world has moved onto sweet spot training year round (even Friel now recommends keeping some intensity in your base training to keep your high end fresh).

Wish I could find the article, but I think it was in an email blast and I can't find it on Ric's site.

He's a smart one, but his views are definitely controversial.

[Cassandra_Cain]

Anger management? Instead of just engaging in a charming bit of ad hominem against me, why don't you address what I actually said?

Show me, and everyone else who is reading this, how cycling forces are high and how we therefore need to lift weights. Show us how hypertrophy in the gym is going to get us up a climb faster, boost your vo2 max, and increase your FT.

Friel and Allen are not sports physiologists, they are coaches, and there is a difference.

And since you mentioned Andy Coggan....why don't you ask him what he thinks of weight training in endurance cycling for anybody other than low fitness people.

I already know the answer since the topic has been discussed but please, do ask him and post the response here specifically to what I have shown in italic print.

You may say I engage in some holier than thou attitude, but your attitude here is that since you are a coach and I haven't been riding for 20 years, that my views are irrelevant.

[Cassandra_Cain]

What is this overwhelming evidence?

You say cyclists don't have the same leg strength as the average dude on the street. I'd like to see the average dude propel himself up a 17% grade. You're telling me climbing like that is all VO2 Max and lactate threshold?

No, I don't believe that.

Veronica

Everyone's favorite cycling hero, Lance Armstrong, won on Alpe D'huez exerting a total force of 25kg between both legs while en route to his win on that stage.

This is the TdF, the ultimate prize in endurance cycling and the most famous stage race in the world. Is that good enough for you?

Can you do 25kg between both legs? If you can so much as climb stairs then you can.

What people can't do, outside of elite riders, is ride at 400+ watts for an hour, and it has nothing to do with strength.

Power and strength are not the same thing.

That's physics, if you chose not to believe it, then hey, don't believe it.

[SadieKate]

Lorri and Cassandra, I am only speaking for myself so others may disagree but both of you have said things in the past I perceived as condescending and unnecessarily chastising of others. I did not respond as I felt the thread would degenerate into a juvenile squabble. You both have information of value but have let your difference of opinion prompt personal attacks and devalue the content.

For the sake of the thread, would you please take your toys into opposite corners for awhile and, when you’re ready, talk to each other offline?

I, for one, am having a difficult time understanding the discussion due to the personal confrontation.

[velogirl]

I'm done, SK. Thanks for the reminder.

My apologies, ladies.

[bcipam]

And just think the Church thread stayed civil!!!! :rolleyes:

It's interesting to see two so passionate viewpoints. Not certain if I understood either. I am of the firm belief but have no scientific data to back up my argument that light weight training is helpful for cycling and everything else I do. I have a good friend who is very tall and slim. She rides a ton, almost every day. Has done numerous centuries and doubles but, she can't get faster. She can go a decent steady speed forever and ever, but on the flats can't keep up with me and others and we are all just pikers. Her trainer determined it was the lack of muscle mass. You still need to develop muscle fiber to put out power. She started weight training 6 months ago and has noticed her speed is slowly increasing. Sortof just makes sense doesn't it?

[equus123]

I wanted to add my two cents to this thread. I enjoy the debate. I've been an athlete my whole life, I was on a Division 1 track team in college for the javelin and I rowed on the crew team for a year while I was there. After graduating I got really into lifting and researched it to death. I got bored because of the lack of goals or incentive and found the sport of cycling. I'm hooked for the rest of my life now...

With that being said, I would like to add some comments into the mix here because I think they're important. They refer to lifting (i.e. strength training, weight lifting, whatever).

One extremely important point I think people are forgetting or excluding are about # reps, # sets, tempo, and rest between sets. An example of this is on trainingpeaks.com (which I use to track and log my workouts), Friel has his strength training workouts on there for 4 different "phases". On each one of the files, they say do 6-12 or 20-30 reps, 3-4 sets, 2-4 minutes rest between sets. For anybody who is serious about lifting, bodybuilding, or body sculpting, they would be able to tell you that those numbers are absolutely ridiculous and vague. There is a HUGE difference between the type of workout you get by lifting 6x4, 4'' RI and 12x4, 2' RI. Pretty much everything that I've read about recommended lifting programs for cyclists are too vague and do not address what you should be doing in order to improve overall strength and prevent imbalance while keeping muscle gain to a minimum.

Another thing that I don't agree with is the arguement against lifting because of "lugging all this muscle" around. Come on. If you want to be worried about lugging muscle then you should stop lifting 4 reps of 5 sets with 90 seconds rest - because that's how you lift in order to do that. Absolutely nothing above 8 or 10 reps builds muscle enough to effect riding or climbing. If you're worried about your body weight then lose some body fat...or get better...or make your bike lighter. Building too much muscle mass is not a valid argument, in my opinion, because cyclists don't lift in the manner to build it.

I don't appreciate that people can argue against something they clearly know nothing about. At least educate yourself about the subject before you knock it.

Lifting can be modified in absolutely any way to get what you want out of it. It all has to do with the number of sets, number of reps, temp of your lift (i.e. how fast on the eccentric and concentric movements), and the amount of rest time between sets. And I'll keep it at that.........

[missymaya]

I agree with equus123,
I also rowed Division 1 in college for 4 years and I lifted for over 7 years. I lifted for other sports such as swimming, track, running, and especially rowing and I lifted competitively for a short time. There is a definate difference in lifting for another sport and different sports (i.e, lifting for swimming is very different than lifting for rowing) and lifting as a competitor. They differ in the focused muscle groups, the amount being lifted both number of times a week and weight and reps and kinds of lifts. I remember for swimming we would focus on the smaller shoulder muscle groups and do lighter weights for more reps and for rowing, the legs were the focus with heavy weight, low rep. I know that for rowing, those who could lift heavy on their squat test (deep squats where the hips went below 90 degrees without the knees going over the ankles) also scored well on their erg test and rowed in the top seats of the team, both for long distances and short.
This being said, I think lifting can have a definate positive for cyclists, whether you're a high performance cyclist or a commuter or a century rider or whatever. It's just what's being lifted, how often, and what's being focused on that's key. But, I'm not a coach or a sports specialist, I'm just an athelete who has experienced different forms of training and experienced the results, both good and bad.

[equus123]

Exactly :)

[Wahine]

I'm going to try to keep this brief but I'm another one in favor of wt training and here's why:

- The body will preferentially fire certain muscle fibers in a muscle group. This is related to neurological hardwiring. Without overload of some sort, the body will keep firing those same muscle fibres and not use others. In endurance sports, what prevents fatigue is the body's ability to recruit different muscle fibres at different times to allow individual fiber groups to recovery. So while you may only need to contract 5 % of your quads to produce a pedal stroke, you do need to change which 5 % you are using at any one time in order to continue to produce thousands of pedal strokes. This can be achieved through long hours on the bike, forcing your muscles to fatigue and thereby learn to use other muscle fibres and change your hard wiring, or you can do it with weights in conjunction with cycling. Wts can provide the overload to train the nervous system to use different fiber groups in a single muscle. Since most of us can't ride 6 hours a day like Lance did to train, strength training is a good option.

- Strength training increases the tensile strength of body tissue making it more resistent to damage from overload or overuse. This is also a matter of physics. Biophysics.

- Last and most important IMO is that it is well documented in the medical literature that osteoporosis is a problem in the elite cyclist. Cycling does not protect bone mass. Strength training does. As this a forum of women that I hope wish to contine a good quality of life, this is a very important point. Osteoporosis is devistating.

In summary, physics can not be taken out of the context of muslce physiology, neurology and biochemistry if you're discussing a living, moving creature. Equus said it well, strength training can be adapted for any goal. But it also has a bearing on health and the risk of osteoporosis in women and cyclists can not be ignored.

I'd also like to say that many good points were made on this thread. And I feel that TE is a discussion forum of high quality.

[emily_in_nc]

Excellent post, Wahine! Agreed completely....

Emily

[kelownagirl]

I am confused about the reps/weight/sets etc. Would any of you experienced cyclist/weight lifting ladies be willing to share a basic workout that I should do (I'm 46) ? I want to work the body parts that don't get attention when I'm cycling, and maybe strengthen my legs (at least in the winter) - I want to define and sculpt. Should I use a weight that fatigues my muscles after 8 reps, 12 reps, 20 reps?

Should I do more sets/reps, lighter weight, or heavier weight, fewer reps/sets.

I know the basic lifts I should do ie bicep curls etc. Just not sure how many, how heavy, etc:confused:

[equus123]

I am confused about the reps/weight/sets etc. Would any of you experienced cyclist/weight lifting ladies be willing to share a basic workout that I should do (I'm 46) ? I want to work the body parts that don't get attention when I'm cycling, and maybe strengthen my legs (at least in the winter) - I want to define and sculpt. Should I use a weight that fatigues my muscles after 8 reps, 12 reps, 20 reps?

Should I do more sets/reps, lighter weight, or heavier weight, fewer reps/sets.

I know the basic lifts I should do ie bicep curls etc. Just not sure how many, how heavy, etc:confused:

I'll help :) So if you would like to stengthen the rest of your body as well as define then that means compound exercises are the best to do because they require less exercises and less time for similar results (if not better) and you need to focus on the way in which you move the weight.

Compound exercises are generally defined as those in which 2 or more joints are involved for the movement of the lift. A great example would be squats. When squatting, your ankle, knee, and hip joints move. Compound exercises are great because they not only strengthen the target muscle groups but they also strengthen the joints and connective tissue. Conversely, single-joint exercises are okay to do but not recommended. They take up too much time if you're targeting several muscles/groups and they usually create muscle imbalances on the body as a whole. An analogy being what I call "the upside-down weeble wobble". lol Those are the guys that only lift chest, shoulders, and bi's. They do no leg work at all an as a result, they're completely disproportioned. So with all that being said....if you would like to strengthen the muscles other than those in your legs used while cycling, here are some example exercises that you can do:

Low back >> back extensions, straight leg dead lifts, sumo-style dead lifts, DB (dumbbell) single-leg straight leg dead lifts
Upper back >> seated rows, lat pull downs, DB bent-over rows
Core >> exercise ball sit ups, decline sit ups (my fav!!), iron cross, captain's chair
Delts/Traps >> inch worms, high pulls, cuban snatches (silly name, i know), i forget what they're called but the movement is with a bar and you go from collarbone behind head and back
Pecs >>bench press, incline bench press, push ups
(I've listed a lot of exercises and it would take me forever to describe each one. You can google search the names to find the details on how to do them or you can pick ones out that you would like me to help you with.) But one thing you may notice is that I don't have "bi's", "tri's", and all that other crap. The great thing about compound exercises is that your bi's, tri's, etc get used when you do them so you never need to waste time and focus on them.

So if you now want to get more defined there are two things you need to do to achieve that goal. The first and most effective way is to lose more body fat. You'll notice how incredibly cut male cyclists are, for example, because they have lower body fat than the average person and all of the edges and fibers of their muscles are visible. The second way to get your muscles more defined is to focus on the way that you lift. In lifting, there's 2 movements - concentric and eccentric. One is the push of the weight itself and the other is the recoil or the negative movement. By doing slow, controlled movements on both the concentric and eccentric movements while squeezing hard for 1 second once you reach max extension will help define your muscles. This will burn and hurt but that's the only way you can get those kinds of results.

I think if you do 3 sets x 10-12 reps with 90 seconds rest between is a good start. To define the "slow" movement - make the concentric and eccentric a 3 second count in your head. The correct weight is your judgement. It should be enough so that it shouldn't really feel that hard but the magic of it is that you're going to *make* it feel hard because of the slow movement and squeezing at the end of the lift. Make sense? It should be the amount of weight that if you were to lift it at a moderate speed (i.e. normal or 1.5 second count in your head), you could get 15-18 reps out.

I think I've tackled your questions in entirety. I understand that its difficult when you're new or don't understand something so I'd rather give too much information than not enough. This way you can take out of it what you want. Good luck with everything and let me know if you have more questions.

[kelownagirl]

Thank you so much for taking to time explain it so thoroughly and to give me specific examples. What you've said all makes sense and I do recognize many of the exercises and have access to info if I need to figure out any of the ones that I don't know.

The only question I want to clarify is with the timing part. I count to 3 while lifting, hold for a second, and count to 3 again while lowering? Or is the whole rep. a 3 second thing - lift (1), hold (2), lower (3)?

Thank you again!

barb

[equus123]

lol, you know what? right after I posted that, I reviewed the count part and said "does that make sense? will she understand that I mean 3 seconds eccentric and then 3 seconds concentric?"

anywho...now that I have a minute to review (and after lifting last night), I'm going to change it to 2 seconds. So do 2 seconds - squeeze for 1 second - 2 seconds.

[Andrea]

OK, this is gonna be long, but I'd like to clear up a little terminology that the author of the article seems to have misinterpreted as well as the muscle-weight gain misconceptions...

First, about the article...
-Specificity: There is an Astrand citation that is grossly misinterpreted by both individuals in the article. When he speaks of "specificity" of training, he is referring to biomechanical specificity. This means that you analyse the activity which you desire to improve for things like muscle groups involved, joint angles, and movement velocity, and you attempt to base your strength program off of these variables. What specificity does NOT mean is that you should ONLY train the specific activity you wish to improve, or that you should modify that activity in an attempt to build "specific" strength"

-Mr. Stern also cites a Jones and Carter article that refers to the "4 key parameters of aerobic fitness." He interprets the parameters as not being affected by strength training. On the contrary, exercise economy is shown by countless peer-reviewed sources to improve with strength training.(Exercise economy being the body's ability to move itsself efficiently) This involves extensive neurological changes in how the brain is able to signal the motor units in the muscle to contract.

Muscle-weight gain...
Weight gain as a result of strength training would only be a concern in males (and the VERY VERY rare female) that gain large amounts of muscle mass in response to ANY weight training regimen. Women don't have enough testosterone to gain more than a few pounds of muscle in response to the type of weight training program that would assist in cycling.
Also, Muscle growth is seen almost exclusively in Type II (aka Fast Twitch) muscle fibers. An elite cyclist is where he (or she) is, in part, because of the large number of Type I (Slow Twitch) muscle fibers he/she was born with. What does this mean? No matter how much a person lifts, if they don't have many Type II fibers, they aren't getting any bigger! Stronger, yes, bigger, NO.
Strength is just as much (if not more) a result of neurological changes between the brain & muscle. Here's where I'm about to get everybody... the best training for these neurological changes is with high-load training in combination with high-speed training.
If you look at the strongest drug-free people in the world- Olympic Weightlifters- you'll notice that they aren't really that big- especially the women! Their training programs are almost exclusively low reps/high weight as well as low, but very fast reps with light weight. Now, take a look at the biggest people in the world- Bodybuilders- These guys live for muscle mass. They abide by high rep workouts... sometimes going as high as 30 or 40 reps.

So what does all this mean?
1. Strength training specificity for cycling would encompass things like parallel-depth front squats and back squats, step ups, good mornings, and ab exercises such as weighted situps.
2. Low repetitions of BOTH high speed and high load training are important to gain strength without size. Your program should include low-load exercises in which the concentric phase is performed as fast as possible (in speed squats, for example, you'd lower yourself at a "normal" rate, but raise the weight quickly), as well as high-weight exercises (enough weight to bring you close to failure in those few repetitions).

Hopefully noone fell asleep reading this. Maybe someone even learned something!

[Wahine]

That's a great post Andrea. Thanks for clearing some things up.

[missymaya]

Thanks for clearing things up Andrea. I just started weight training again to gain some strength back in my arms and core (I had stopped for almost 2 years now and find myself unable to pick up things I usually could :mad: ) I don't want to lift like I did when I was rowing but just get some strength back and this helps give some ideas on what I should do.