Weight training - useful or not?

If there are any exercise physiologists out there I'd like to know your opinion about how useful weight training is for improving cycling power. I'm also interested in the experiences of TE members in general!

I read recently that cycling is good cross training for runners because cycling requires short explosive muscle contractions that translate directly into improved running performance. The opposite, apparently, is not true. Running does not necessarily improve cycling power (might improve your aerobic fitness in general, but it doesn't appear to directly impact power/endurance on the bike).

So then I started thinking about weight lifting. I lift in the winter and then taper off when outdoor riding starts. I focus on cycling specific muscles...hamstrings, quads, calf, butt, abdominals and some limited arm/shoulder stuff. For the big leg muscles it seems to me that a traditional lifting style (lift to a count of two, lower to a count of 4) won't do that much to build the contractile efficiency and power that is important to improvements on the bike.

Carmichael Training Systems and others have suggested that plyometrics is a good way to improve cycling power because this kind of excercise promotes the recruitment of muscle fibers needed for strong contractions. My challenge is that my knees are toast from past years of Tae Kwon Do training. The impact of jumping that plyometrics requires would, I'm afraid, set me up for knee surgery rather than cycling power!

So here is my question (finally!)... If I do my squats, dead lifts, and leg presses with a "forceful" motion up rather than a slowish steady count of 2 will this recruit more of the same kind of muscle fibers that plyometrics would recruit?

I'm not talking about an accelerated lifting style that would hyperextend my knee joint....just with more force than the slow, steady lifting motion that I'm used to.

Traveller, there was a "spirited" discussion of this topic a little over a year ago. Here's a link: http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showt...highlight=goat

The answer? It beats the heck out of me. Since I don't train to race, I decided to approach my non-cycling activities more holistically. As in, is this good for me irrespective of cycling? If the answer is yes, then I just leave it at that. My poor lil' brain started to overload trying to figure out the various studies!

That said, it's still a very interesting question.

eek! Just read through the old thread and it's amazing how protective people get of their opinions. (I'm sure I'm guilty of this on occasion too, of course).

I can't answer the specific question you ask.

I can say though, that I do find weight training to be helpful for both running and cycling. Many of the arguments AGAINST weight training in that thread could be plausibly made against including weights in training for endurance running, and yet in my experience it really helps my running, and I'm doing strictly distance running. I find that when I lift consistently, I can tackle fairly steep hills without breaking pace much -- that extra power is as important as aerobic fitness. Or perhaps more clearly, muscular power is as much of a limiting factor as aerobic fitness, at least for me when I'm trying to run up hills ;). (The lifting I do, when I do it, focuses on power rather than endurance, so few reps + heavy weights, but I haven't experimented with "explosive" lifts so I can't comment on that, although it makes intuitive sense to me).

I think the same applies to cycling. Of course this is a great oversimplification of "training metrics", and I'm not claiming a preponderance of scientific evidence backs this view (although I don't think there is a preponderance against it either). I'm just sharing my personal experience.

Good luck!

Oh just one more thing -- I would want to take an "explosive" program really slow at first, to make sure all of the supporting/stabilizing muscles were conditioned and up to the task before putting a lot of new kinds of forces on them.

I'm not an exercise physiologist either - but as a group fitness instructor, I don't think I would advise anyone to attempt that type of workout without direct coaching. I think it can be done safely, but not based on text advice over the Internet. There's a huge chance of injury. You might want to look into kettlebells (also with direct coaching).

PS when I returned to cycling three years ago after a 10 year absence, I am positive that the strength training I'd been doing is what allowed me to jump in and hang with some moderately advanced riders. My terrain is similar to Indy's - the hills aren't high, but for that very reason the engineers don't bother to put a grade on them - trucks can climb them without burning out their engines. As for cyclists, it sometimes takes all my strength to turn over the pedals, and no one can convince me that super-slow 220-lb leg presses don't help with that.

Indysteel,
thanks for the pointer to the previous post. There was a reference in that thread that led me to a Master's thesis entitled "Ballistic Training: The Effectiveness of Maximal Power Training on Physical Performance" that has some interesting stuff in it. It doesn't answer my question exactly but it was still interesting. One of the conclusions of the research relative to cycling was that for maximum benefit of ballistic training as a means to improve cycling there needs to be a period of strength training prior to the ballistic (power training) phase....which leads to a thanks to....

Liza..because your point about needing to first strengthen connective tissue and stablizing muscles before lifting heavier weights or moving into some kind of power training is often overlooked. I completely agree with you that performing any kind of "ballistic" movement right off the bat is a recipe for disaster.

OakLeaf you also bring up a good point about getting coaching from an experienced trainer before doing stuff like this.

I'm still really interested in finding out more about the specific physiological responses to ballistic training (in terms of the types of muscle fibers that are recruited) so my search continues.....unfortunately I'm finding most exercies physiology studies are done with young folks (20 somethings) and probably the response in middle age people like myself will be different.

I have a good book on plyometrics called "High Powered Plyometrics" by James Radcliffe and Robert Farentinos. (Sounds a little obscure but should be available at your local Borders or Barnes & Noble). In addition to pictures and descriptions of various exercises and exercise progressions, there are detailed sections on the "science" behind plyometrics and how one should approach periodization, etc. I bought it because I saw it recommended in a number of running books by seemingly reputable folks (Alberto Salazar, etc). I know you're not looking specifically at plyometrics, but it might be worth a look for background info.

I read somewhere that in the Soviet Union, when plyometrics were first being used in a systematic way, athletes weren't permitted to start plyometric training until they could squat 1.5 times body weight (which I always interpreted to mean that a 120lb woman would need to squat with a bar loaded with 180 lbs). I don't think this guideline is followed anymore, but it does suggest that one should not underestimate the stress plyometrics can put on the body.

I know there are so many arguments for an against.

Here is my own experience and observations, based on my clients, who are relatively fit, but trying to train for riding stronger and racing...mountain bike mostly, yes i know, not the same as road, but fitness is fitness and these clients were using road riding for cross training.

I noticed that when they were consistent with their training, they could ride better and stronger. When they stopped their training, they tended to get lots of minor injuries. My own opinion - they are MOSTLY fit, but certainly not any where near elite level. They kept thinking that riding more and more would make them better riders, but inherent weaknesses would creep up and prevent huge improvements.

Plyometrics requires a HUGE amount of core stability. Most people don't have this. I think most people would benefit MORE from a good core program, than plyos.

Be well

H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by han-grrl

Plyometrics requires a HUGE amount of core stability. Most people don't have this. I think most people would benefit MORE from a good core program, than plyos.

---

H- I think this is very true. I was able to climb Mt. Washington in N.H. four times last summer (all of the races up the mountain were cancelled last year because of weather --but there were still opportunities to ride up for fun). What I noticed was that my muscle strength per se was not a limiting factor in how fast I could climb...it was my lower back and my core region in general that seemed to limit my ability to turn over the pedals at the cadence I was seeking. So I've been working hard this winter to build and maintain a much stronger core and this work (plus yoga) is far more important to my training program this year than is any of the weight lifting.

I have a masters in this stuff :D

Research, as usual, is very mixed, but it seems that there are a few things that seem to really stick out:
1. Most of the time, an effective weight training program improves performance in any sport, including cycling (that takes us to #2).
2. Most of the available research that says weight training doesn't work for cycling has a severe flaws in their training programs (poor program design, no progression, too short, unsupervised, etc.)
3. Choice of subjects has an effect on the outcome: The biggest improvements are seen in people who are either novices and/or of below average strength. A research study using highly trained subjects may not see statistically significant differences in cycling ability. (caveat- as we all know, sometimes the difference between 1st & 2nd place isn't statistically significant, either!)

So, what does this mean?
1. You should lift weights
2. You need an effective training program. My advice would be to talk to someone with a CSCS (certified strength and conditioning specialist) certification. NOT your run-of-the-mill personal trainer, and NOT a cycling coach (even if they're awesome for training you on your bike, you need to talk to someone who is trained in strength and conditioning for sport). A CSCS will prescribe the right amounts of strength and power exercises at the right times in order to maximize your performance.
3. If you are generally a bit weak or haven't been training for long, you're going to see bigger improvements than if you are a very seasoned rider (see caveat above, though).

Weight training improves cycling (and running) in a couple of ways. The obvious way is by increasing the ability to produce force. This will have the greatest impact on things like sprinting and climbing. Almost more importantly, strength training makes your movements more efficient. You make the muscle stronger, so each pedal stroke (or stride) requires less physiological effort from your body, conserving energy.

Hopefully this helps. I didn't read the "spirited" discussion posted above because I have probably had the same one with some of my cycling buddies :p

Andrea,

Great input. Thanks! I live in a small rural town in Maine so I'm not sure there are many CSCS's running about but I'll see if I can track one down. There are lots of athletes around and lots of personal trainers...but finding someone with the credentials you mention may not be so easy.

I'll continue to lift for many of the reasons you list. Hopefully find someone locally who can figure out a specific lifting plan for me that would be appropriate and specific to building cycling power. In the meantime, I'll not worry to much about it and just enjoy riding my bike :)

So I was one of the posters in the original spirited discussion. And I'm going to comment on a few of the things I said there, here:

1) resistance training is very important for bone mass
2) also important for increasing the tensile strength of tendons and ligaments to prevent injury with forceful movements (someone else mentioned this here as well)
3) is an effective way to increase the number of muscle fibres available for recruitment during cycling, that is, there is a beneficial neuromuscular effect to increase endurance that cannot easily be obtained another way unless you're willing to ride 6 hours a day like Lance did

New things that I would add specific to this discussion:
4) plyometric and ballistic movements when lifting weights are beneficial for increased effective use of fast twitch fibres that give you that short burst of speed when you need it (eg sprint end to a race)
5) I would reiterate the importance of core training for two reasons. You're likely to hurt yourself with ballistic motion or plyo if you don't have a strong core and a strong core translates into better application of power to the pedal (it's like having a stiff sole on your cycling shoe vs a squishy sole)

So in the end, yes I believe lifting weights is a good thing but I don't agree with ballistic lifting unless you are trying to increase sprinting power. Slightly faster lifts may be more beneficial in that you are recruiting the muscles at a speed closer to what you would use in cycling.

There are a bunch of people out there doing crossfit workouts, these are great, they combine better core work and faster movements (but not necessarily ballistic). I think these are very good workouts but you definitely need to be careful to modify the weights used to allow you to do the movements safely. I know a crossfit coach that recommends at least 3 months of doing the workouts with a bar only for things like squats and deadlifts while focusing completely on form, before you ever think of doing anything adding more weight than this.

^I also do Crossfit workouts! They definitely take some instruction to learn the Olympic lifts and some of the other more complex movements involved with a lot of the workouts, but are a great combo of strength, endurance, and power exercises.
I've noticed an improvement in my cycling since starting them, but since Crossfit isn't research-proven as of yet, I'm hesitant to tell everyone that it's the best thing for cyclists since STI shifters and clipless pedals.

Well, since joining this forum, I have learned a bit about weight training and women and cycling... and I understand now that it has a place (Thankyou people like Wahine, Hann and Andrea)

I do crunches (when I remember) to make my tummy stronger.

I have known for years that as we get older, weight-bearing exercise is increasingly important.
This is not always easy on a bike (depending on how you ride I guess) and certainly not as effective as something like low impact aerobics, or weights.

Having said that, I still stand by what I say every time this discussion comes up. If you want to get fit for cycling, you ride a bike.

My favourite discipline is time trialling, so I try to train smart. I am improving my performance in time-trials by the types of training rides I do.
I do my power-training on my time trial bike... so I do intervals in my biggest (or big as possible depending on conditions) gear - so my heart rate does not get really high, and the cadence is very slow but my legs get REALLY tired! I do hill reps on moderate gradient hills - seated and on my aero-bars...

I am not an exercise specialist, and maybe (probably, by what our experts have explained) if I had a gym workout I could improve my power output, but I don't have a coach/trainer with this expertise, and what I am doing is working for me.

And I think that is the key... experiment. Find what you like doing, what you have time for, and what you can afford.
(I like riding outside, I don't like gyms/ I have to fit my life around work, kids and the long drive to&from work - I don't have time to go to the gym / I can't afford to belong to a gym...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

... is this good for me irrespective of cycling? If the answer is yes, then I just leave it at that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadRaven

Having said that, I still stand by what I say every time this discussion comes up. If you want to get fit for cycling, you ride a bike.

---

I'm with youse guise.
enjoy the ride.

Wahine, that must have been a different spirited thread on this subject -- I don't think you're quoted in the one linked to here.

This discussion is entirely too civil ;). No one has yet resorted to citing 20 different journal articles at the end of their post to prove for once and for all that they are right and everyone else is stupid.

(Thank goodness :o...).