's Forum Archives - Racing

Archive Home >> Racing(1 2 3 )

My thoughs and results about WEIGHT TRAINING(13 posts)

My thoughs and results about WEIGHT TRAININGCyclorocket
Oct 26, 2001 2:45 PM
A climber shouldn't do weight lifting at all, it increases muscular mass but makes him lose his quads muscular coordination, witch is VERY important.

If you are a sprinter(or want to do better on crits, perhaps me!) Go for it, you will make a big loss of endurance and a big loss in climbs (building muscle means adding weight + losing muscular coordination). The best for you is to do Leg pulls on a bench-press adaptor that only cost 100$ MAX, take some medium weight, after YOU MUST do a coordination exercices (such has going at 105rpm on a 10milesTT else then 80rpm, go at 120rpm for 15sec with a easy outpout 150w on the trainer, roller)

I tried that on august till now (my physical education at high school told me that technique), The results were ok.

There was no loss BUT no gain on TT's, the climbing were just a bit better, BUT hell the sprints were boosted by 5kph (I'm still just going to 57kph...but hey you never saw my climbing rocketed legs in action...) final speed on 200m and short accelerations are a real joke. Holding top speed is easier then before.

It's up to you to decide who much time you can invest in your training.

I never tried 53-12 on the trainer...but the weight exercices combined with coordination training IS productive for boosting accelaration.

I don't know if I agree with thisfiltersweep
Oct 27, 2001 8:16 AM
First- explain how lifting "reduces coordination"- also, unless someone cuts most of the cardio during off-season and only lifts and goes WAY out of their way to gain muscle mass, they really won't add that much weight (unless they are juicing). A ten lb. gain in muscle mass is actually quite substantial- and most people who are trying to gain mass also gain fat since you need to eat so much to gain muscle mass (look at bodybuilders who get big and fat, then cut the fat- hopefully leaving most of their muscle mass intact). It is quite difficult to gain just muscle mass while doing a ton of cardio.
Muscular Coordinationcyclomoteur
Oct 27, 2001 9:45 AM
Every physical work is based on muscular coordination (writing)
Cycling uses Quads and Triceps (twins)
quads are 4 layer of muscle, Triceps are 3.
Coordinatiing those 7 mass can make a huge difference since clip pedals CAN make u use all 7 layers.

Know how to use those masses.

Building Muscles (weightlifting) is making new muscular fibre and reinforcing htose before. Every time you do build-up muscle you DO lose coordination, since there is new fibres and old ones that got modified can lose that coor.

Ask a 3rd Grade University in human bio or whatever if you don't it ! Hey, I ain't teaching !!!

(I agree with you about adding weight but, has I know people they chose between muscular or aerobic. So they do get big and strong AND fat. Yes the best would be losing this extra fat that you get by eating like a pig.)
Well not really...Wayne
Oct 29, 2001 8:00 AM
Cycling uses far more than 7 muscles and your central nervous system operates at the level of the motor unit not the muscle, anyway. You do not make new muscle fibres (cells) when you lift weights, you increase the contractile proteins within fibres, thereby increasing their force producing ability. So you're CNS does not have to contend with learning how to coordinate the recruitment of additional muscle fibres because you're stronger, it does have to deal with the forces of the motor units changing though. But this is always occuring, even day to day, as cells are fatigued or damaged from use and repaired, etc yet your CNS still manages to produce coordinated movements. Changes in cell proteins take weeks and months, I'm sure if you're CNS can contend with the day to day variability in force producing ability from motor units it can contend with a gradual increase over months from additional contractile proteins. Plus, how much coordination does it take to ride a bike? Do you think if a world class pianist started strengthening their hand and forearm muscles they would lose their ability to play the piano expertly? That's a task that requires immense coordination, and would be a good test model. But I can't imagine by getting stronger you're coordination would be affected in any significant way such that you couldn't spin circles along a constrained path to such a degree that you're power output decreased and you weren't as fast!
thank you! - nmfiltersweep
Nov 1, 2001 5:54 PM
Well not really...Jon
Nov 12, 2001 6:36 PM

You're correct with the exception of one caveat. The strength you gain is very specific to the velocity at
which you've gained it. Strength gained, for instance, at a velocity of 30 reps per min will not
necessarily transfer to a velocity of 90 reps per min. So from a sport specific perspective there
is a large neural aspect to the strength equation. Getting strong in the weight room certainly
isn't going to make one slower on the bike, but it won't necessarily or even probably make you
dramatically faster either unless your training accommodates direct strength gains in pedalling
motions and at common cycling velocities. There's a growing body of research which substantiates
Well not really...Wayne
Nov 13, 2001 7:09 AM
I'm not quite sure where I implied that getting stronger in the gym would necessarily transfer to the bike. I was just talking about getting stronger affecting you're coordination. I agree with you 100%. You get stronger for two reasons: neuromuscular adaptations and muscle mass gains. The former are probably almost unique to the movement (including position (squat vs. leg press, type of contraction (isometric vs. isovelocity vs. concentric, etc.), and speed). Increased muscle mass would transfer across exercises (a muscle's force producing ability is directly proportional to its physiologic cross-sectionional area), so for a new movement you just need to get the neuromuscular recruitment issue sorted out. But if you're riding all the time, I would think the muscle mass gains would be occuring so slowly and you're neuromuscular adaptations to the cycling movement would already be so well developed that a loss of "coordination" wouldn't be an issue. So if you're going to lift weights to improve you're cylcing just worry about getting more muscle mass, because the specific strength gains in any exercise in the gym will only transfer to the bike in so much as these gains are due to an increase in size. This all begs the question whether you getting stronger (bigger) cycling specific muscles would improve your cycling performance and I don't think there is a clear answer to that question.
Well not really...Jon
Nov 13, 2001 9:25 AM
Wayne I realize that. I was just amplifying on the general topic. The initial poster seemed to think that
gaining muscle mass would be accompanied by a loss of co-ordination, which you correctly refuted.
On the flip side of the issue a lot of people think that getting stronger will make you faster, which according
to most of the specificity research is not so, due to the neuromuscular factor. It's also a fact that
most of us endurance types with a predominance of Type I fibres aren't going to gain much muscle
mass regardless of what we do; we'll just get stronger. I would add that in order to transfer strength
gains from the gym to the bike, you need to perform specific strength workouts on the bike in the power
phase of your training program, such as standing starts, big gear work on hills, and hill sprints.
Well not really...Wayne
Nov 13, 2001 9:52 AM
I agree that there is a misconception that getting stronger in the gym will make you faster. I doubt this is the case. I think you're absolutely right that if you're looking to increase your max power, or sprint power on the bike than you should be doing some kind of on the bike workout. Why waste time in the gym? Weightlifting is best for injury prevention or addressing some obvious problem (like low back weakness) or just because it adds to your overall health, but it's probably a very poor way to try to make yourself faster on the bike. I'd be surprised if we compared your average recreational or amateur competitive cyclist to the average weightlifter if we'd find any major fiber type differences (Type I vs. Type II). I'm not sure that variability in fiber types explains why some one takes up weightlifting vs. cycling or even if they have any success at them. I'd imagine hormonal factors explain the largest amount of variation between individuals in muscle mass gains from weightlifting (steroids work so well). As far as endurance exercise I think it's largely you're oxygen delivery system (hence EPO's effectiveness) that determines your ability not you're fiber type. I think I could even make the case that you'd be better off with a large percentage of Type IIa (or fast/oxidative, depending on what fiber type classification system you're using) than Type I fibers for a sport like cycling.
Well not really...Jon
Nov 13, 2001 11:53 AM
This is an interesting, if not exotic subject, for research. I think Tim Noakes, et al might disagree
with you on the fibre type question. Having lots of trainable Type IIA fibres for sure is going to be a
help, but also somewhat refutes your position over the unimportance of fibre type distribution. If
you train the IIA fibres they will increase their oxidative capacity, hence increase your VO2 max. I
recall reading some research recently--and don't ask me to name it, cause I didn't take notes!--which
indicated that central, delivery system capacity, e.g. heart and lungs, were not the big limiter
that is commonly thought. I believe the researchers were able to stimulate aerobic enzymes with
the result being that the subjects were able to significantly increase their O2 utilization. Something
like that. Your thoughts?
Well not really...Wayne
Nov 13, 2001 12:50 PM
The fiber type distribution that I was minimizing the importance of is Type I vs. Type II (and I very well may be wrong about this), but I would think it would be very important to have most of you're Type II fibers being the IIa (oxidative) type rather than the IIx (glycolytic). But this transition should occur with endurance training, although I don't know how complete it would be. As far oxygen delivery vs. oxygen utilization being the limiter, the effectiveness of EPO points to the latter and I think that is the traditional viewpoint, but I'd like to see that paper you refer to if you can find out the authors. It also would open up a whole new realm of doping if they increased the oxidative enzymes with drugs. Most doping techniques now rely on oxygen delivery enhancement (EPO, traditional blood boosting), or recovery products (Growth hormone, anabolic steroids) or substrate utilization/motivational drugs (corticosteroids, amphetamines, caffeine, belgian pot).
Well not really...Jon
Nov 13, 2001 1:26 PM
If I come across the abstract I'll refer you to it. The study I believe was an animal study and no
drug intervention was involved. I believe the training protocol involved very short intervals run at vVO2
max or higher. At the end velocity, time to exhaustion and VO2 max all improved dramatically, with
the theory being that oxidative enzyme production was enhanced allowing the subjects to utilize
more fully existing O2 delivery capacity and mitochondrial capacity.

From my minimal knowledge of Ex. Phys. I think you're right about the convertability of IIA fibres, but
the jury is out as to the extent of this, something like a 2 -4% diff. I believe. Bottom line? I'm
still trying to figure out how to ride my bike faster...and blaming my parents for my total lack
of genetic endowment!!
Nov 13, 2001 1:28 PM
I think all the hoopla over the Japanese hornet juice product is its presumed effect on aerobic
enzyme production and/or activity.