Weight Training Article

[velogirl]

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

My apologies, ladies.

[bcipam]

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

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