Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.)
Quote | Reply
Paulo sent me the complete paper, which you can download HERE. Let me be the first to say I find this paper very interesting. And the conclusions would definitely indicate that my previous beliefs were, in fact, wrong. I guess I'm off to do some heavy squats. However, let me remind everyone that strength still means the same thing it always did... ;)

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Oct;20 Suppl 2:39-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01197.x.
Effects of strength training on endurance capacity in top-level endurance athletes.
Aagaard P, Andersen JL.

Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. paagaard@health.sdu.dk
Abstract
The effect of concurrent strength (S) and endurance (E) training on adaptive changes in aerobic capacity, endurance performance, maximal muscle strength and muscle morphology is equivocal. Some data suggest an attenuated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal response to combined E and S training, while other data show unimpaired or even superior adaptation compared with either training regime alone. However, the effect of concurrent S and E training only rarely has been examined in top-level endurance athletes. This review describes the effect of concurrent SE training on short-term and long-term endurance performance in endurance-trained subjects, ranging from moderately trained individuals to elite top-level athletes. It is concluded that strength training can lead to enhanced long-term (>30 min) and short-term (<15 min) endurance capacity both in well-trained individuals and highly trained top-level endurance athletes, especially with the use of high-volume, heavy-resistance strength training protocols. The enhancement in endurance capacity appears to involve training-induced increases in the proportion of type IIA muscle fibers as well as gains in maximal muscle strength (MVC) and rapid force characteristics (rate of force development), while likely also involving enhancements in neuromuscular function.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dude...you are an admin...and you start THIS fight? ;-)

I shall order you a salad (with Baco's) to enjoy while we watch this unfold.

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [R10C] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Damnit Chip beat me to the first post. I wasn't logged in... ANYWAY

I'll give it a read.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So my whole thread yesterday asking this exact question has now been blown out of the water and I have to ask again..should I be doing wieghts on my legs to improve my bike? I guess I am just going to have to try and see what happens :)

http://longwaytogo-ironman.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [johanandbex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i wouldn't be so quick to do an about face due to a single study that seems to be at odds with many previous ones =)


In Reply To:
So my whole thread yesterday asking this exact question has now been blown out of the water and I have to ask again..should I be doing wieghts on my legs to improve my bike? I guess I am just going to have to try and see what happens :)



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's really not at odds with previous research.

The message is still the same, traditional weight training does not improve endurance performance.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I know...something inside me just tells me that it makes sense to build strength in my legs, arse etc (eg squats) as these are what I use for cycling... I know its different but the main groups are there. On the other hand my expreince level is very low and I am still quite new to this so I try to listen to the wise as much as I can. Are there any studies done by 1 day cycle racers? people who race 180 ish km in a day to win? not 3 week tours as its not the same. Im not trying to a Schleck I just want to do a 5:15 ish 180k and then be able to run!

http://longwaytogo-ironman.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [johanandbex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Simple...then go out and ride your bike and run. I know that I am not a coach and that seems too simple. I have however had some good coach's including Eddie B at camps at OTC Springs years ago...we did many things - squats was not one of them. I am not sure if that would have changed if I was racing Keirin or not...but, in my many plans - be it from MultiSports.com and many others, squats was just not one of the things prescribed.

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [johanandbex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it is.

the muscles are the same yes, but the ENERGY SYSTEMS are entirely different. When you train your body to get stronger anaerobically, you are triggering completely different adaptations than the ones you trigger through aerobic work.

in fact some of those adaptations will be at odds with each other!

think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT

it...is...an..aerobic....sport...damnit!!




In Reply To:
I know...something inside me just tells me that it makes sense to build strength in my legs, arse etc (eg squats) as these are what I use for cycling... I know its different but the main groups are there. On the other hand my expreince level is very low and I am still quite new to this so I try to listen to the wise as much as I can. Are there any studies done by 1 day cycle racers? people who race 180 ish km in a day to win? not 3 week tours as its not the same. Im not trying to a Schleck I just want to do a 5:15 ish 180k and then be able to run!



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"it...is...an..aerobic....sport...damnit!!"

Yes, it is.

And type IIA muscles fibers operate both anaerobically and aerobically, with a high density of mitochondria, large oxidative capacity, good capillary feeding, and a major storage fuel of glycogen.

Their motor nerves are smaller than the faster more explosive muscle fibers, and the type IIa's have a longer time to fatigue.

Could come in handy in an "aerobic" sport...

Ben Greenfield

Ben Greenfield

Nutrition & Human Performance Advice
http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It's really not at odds with previous research.

The message is still the same, traditional weight training does not improve endurance performance.


Maybe not, but check out Fig 2 and what it does for HR and Lactate....whoa!


Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [pacificfit] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But aren't IIA still considered a 'fast twitch' flavor of muscle fiber?


"Triathlon?!? I play a real sport, I don't want to be the best at exercising." ~Kenny Powers
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it is.

the muscles are the same yes, but the ENERGY SYSTEMS are entirely different. When you train your body to get stronger anaerobically, you are triggering completely different adaptations than the ones you trigger through aerobic work.

in fact some of those adaptations will be at odds with each other!

think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT

it...is...an..aerobic....sport...damnit!!


Perhaps, but my lungs don't hurt and I'm not breathing hard from my race on Sunday. On the other hands, my legs are sore as hell.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Im really quite tempted to just try it and see what happens. Spend the winter mixing turbo sessions and heavy lifting (well in my case we could just call it lifting) and see how I do in the spring when I get back on my bike. I know from this year that my avg pace over a flat 180k course is between 31kph and 34kph, I would like to that to be 36 to 38 kph. Im guessing that it also depends on the individual, some people are built more for power and some for endurance (or am I wrong about that too? im not sure about much anymore).

If anyone wants to use me as a test case and pay me to train for the next year please feel free ;)

http://longwaytogo-ironman.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar,
You mean you don't follow Mike Boyle? 1 leg squats have been all the rage for some time now...

Mike Ricci
2017 USAT World Team Coach
USAT National Coach of the Year
Coaching Triathletes since 1992.
Last edited by: Mike Ricci: Sep 30, 10 4:42
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Mike Ricci] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And you know what else?

Squats cure cancer...
http://startingstrength.wikia.com/...dom_of_Mark_Rippetoe
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [johanandbex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Im really quite tempted to just try it and see what happens. Spend the winter mixing turbo sessions and heavy lifting (well in my case we could just call it lifting) and see how I do in the spring when I get back on my bike. I know from this year that my avg pace over a flat 180k course is between 31kph and 34kph, I would like to that to be 36 to 38 kph. Im guessing that it also depends on the individual, some people are built more for power and some for endurance (or am I wrong about that too? im not sure about much anymore).

If anyone wants to use me as a test case and pay me to train for the next year please feel free ;)


Here's my $0.02, which is about all you are likely to get paid to do this ;-)

You claim to be time-constrained (not sure who in the world isn't, but anyway) - and you want to improve your biking in a limited amount of training time.
There is only ONE thing you should be doing - BIKING.

IF you are training to be a TRACK SPRINTER, then it may indeed make some sense to do some heavy lifting.
Assuming you are a triathlete (you're posting here instead of JuiceHeads.com), then you'll get minimal to zero benefit to lifing.
SBR baby. Hold the S. :)


float , hammer , and jog

Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It's really not at odds with previous research.

The message is still the same, traditional weight training does not improve endurance performance.


Not arguing either side here, but I don't recall the word "traditional" showing up in a lot of posts regarding this subject. I'm not playing semantic games here, but is this not massaging the message a bit post argument?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PS - when I first read the subject line, I thought this had to do w/ the toilet. Wasn't really sure what that had to do w/ ST... ;-)


float , hammer , and jog

Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How strength training impacts someone like Paulo or Jordan is one thing but for a 53 YO I can say with conviction that it does play a positive role.

I had some hip flexor issues develop after a bike accident (chain snapped and flew into spokes--ouch). My body adapted to a small Hamstring tear by shutting down my flexors. Lots of imbalances ensued.

10 weeks of 3X PT required to fix problem. PT involved lots of functional movements with weights--especially targeted at my core region. Many, many squats and lunges were involved.

I was incredibly weak at these in the beginning but steadily progressed as the sessions wore on. I now feel much stronger and more balanced and less prone to all the niggly injuries I usually get as part of IM training (especially my lower back and ITB).

It's still too early to tell about long-term impact, but after Kona, I plan to continue a version of this regime. I do believe that it will have the effect of reducing training impacting injuries which should contribute to better fitness. So I think this type of training does have a role as you get older in helping you maintain the ability to do heavy, IM level training...just my 2 cents worth.

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.
Last edited by: rcmioga: Sep 30, 10 4:48
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [rcmioga] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rehab is a different discussion really.

Good luck though, and hope it works well for you.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh sweet God... and here I thought I was going to be bored at work this week... Slowtwitch Delivers entertainment all week!

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [rcmioga] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm kind of the same. I've been squatting for years (love it) and although it'd be foolish to say it made me a better bicyclist, I can without hesitation say that my knees and hips feel stronger and I can ride for longer without knee issues.

So, maybe it's good as a form of preventative PT. I know that during the summer I slack off on my weights and by fall my knees are usually angry at me for it... a few weeks back into it this fall and my knees are feeling great.

--
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful."
-Anton LaVey
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
i wouldn't be so quick to do an about face due to a single study that seems to be at odds with many previous ones =)

My thoughts exactly. This study is the start of something, not the end of it.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Now we know why denmark is producing so many good cyclists, despite that it is such a small country and that they have the most shitty weather of europe. I am going to the gym tonight to incorporate the findings of this review in my training program. I think especially this is very interesting:

Taken together, the available data suggest that a high muscle loading intensity (85–95% 1RM) and/or a large volume of strength training need to be performed before a benefit on long-term endurance performance can be achieved.

and

Experimental data demonstrate that strength training can lead to enhanced long-term (430 min) and short-term (o15 min) endurance capacity both in well-trained individuals and highly trained top-level endurance athletes, especially (but not exclusively) when high-volume, heavy-resistance strength training protocols are applied.


The top right graph in figure 2 totally convinces me to go do some strength endurance training mixture. It suggests that with only endurance training you need more oxygen/kg for the same power! Very bad to cycle only.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You ever see a little kid playing with a puzzle or toy they cant figure out, and then watch as they grow frustrated and declare "its busted, this doesnt work!"

Yeah, its like that.



persequetur vestra metas furiose
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It's really not at odds with previous research.

The message is still the same, traditional weight training does not improve endurance performance.

I think you look at this the wrong way. The strength endurance trained athletes of the ronnestad et al 2010 paper have significantly lower rates of perceived exertion on the Borg RPE scale during the second test. Strength training could potentially make endurance events significantly more fun!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But, in the off season, it's safe to say that most of us are not able to ride 12 hours + per week. Therefore, strength training supplements the aerobic base we try to keep during the off season. During the winter, we are unable to ride as much, as hard, as we can during the summer. Therefore, I think it is safe to think that we lose some muscular strength during the winter months. By lifting, we are able to retain some of that strength.

What muscles do you use when you ride? Quads, glutes, hammies. So if you lift during the off season, those muscles will be stronger heading into pre season training. I think this would have to allow you to perform better than if you had not lifted at all. So ride as much as you normally would over the winter and supplement with lifting, you are going to be better off if you had just rode. I understand there is not a 100% correlation, but any improvement seen from lifting would be beneficial.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [johanandbex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
So my whole thread yesterday asking this exact question has now been blown out of the water and I have to ask again..should I be doing wieghts on my legs to improve my bike? I guess I am just going to have to try and see what happens :)

And I suggested that I suspect my past bodybuilding is to thank for my current cycling ability......
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[in reply to]
think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT


If this is so, why is it that a 'hand cyclist' with strong arms, a lower more aeoro position, can not compete with a decent cyclist in a 40k TT?

Not a good example i realize but could you quanitfy your assertion above?

If a cyclist is putting out say 400 watts, doing 85 rpm, only applying power for about 60-90* of the stroke - say 8" then how much would he be lifting if he was doing a seated leg press, only extending for the last 8" of press? can this be quantified?

IOW, The force put on a pedal by lance for the distace he pushes the pedal (not the average for a complete revolution) would push an X lb. weight the same distance?

Thanks

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
[in reply to]
think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT


If this is so, why is it that a 'hand cyclist' with strong arms, a lower more aeoro position, can not compete with a decent cyclist in a 40k TT?

Not a good example i realize but could you quanitfy your assertion above?

If a cyclist is putting out say 400 watts, doing 85 rpm, only applying power for about 60-90* of the stroke - say 8" then how much would he be lifting if he was doing a seated leg press, only extending for the last 8" of press? can this be quantified?

IOW, The force put on a pedal by lance for the distace he pushes the pedal (not the average for a complete revolution) would push an X lb. weight the same distance?

Thanks

400W is on the order of about 40-50 pounds. Not very much for a few reps, which is why anyone can do it on a bike. Just not for very long.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


The message is still the same, traditional weight training does not improve endurance performance.

High-volume, heavy resistance (e.g. lifting a lot of heavy stuff) is "non-traditional?" Maybe you like to power-walk with little hand-weights, but when I go to the gym, I go big. Sometimes I even use the 45-pound plates.

I take a different message from the article: that the protocols of prior studies tended to look at untrained people, and used insufficient training volume to tease a signal out of the noise. Both of which results in ambiguous data for the highly-trained ST crowd.

I agree with the other poster who says this just brings the debate back to life.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sure, that's easy to figure out. High-Tech Cycling has a study of 17 riders at 350w at 90rpm. Average *PEAK* normal (perpendicular to the pedal) force is 400N. That's the equivalent of 90lbf. That's the MAX force that is applied to the pedal (so for like 1deg).

The average force during the peak 90deg of power application at 350w is ABOUT 300N or so, or maybe 65lbf (67.XX if you want to be super particular). The distance traveled during 90deg, assuming 175mm cranks, is 175mm*pi*1/2 = 274mm.

Or, put another way, each pedal stroke at 350w @ 90rpm, you are moving a 65lb weight about 12inches.

Time, of course, is essential, for power calculations, so you really need to move a 65lb weight 12inches in
0.167seconds.

And, of course, there is momentum involved in both cycling and weight lifting, which makes it even harder to really say "X is like Y." Because what most people will equate that force with is how hard it is to start the weight moving - accelerating it - not keeping it moving.

However, as Jack said, all a child needs to do is to lean their body weight on a pedal and it'd be as much force as an elite cyclist generates during the peak 1/4 of a pedal stroke.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wonder what's the percentage of people posting on this thread that actually read the paper...?

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm gonna compare IP addresses of the posts with the IP addresses in my website log file of who downloaded the file (and when). Why do you think I hosted it myself? That's not a definitive answer to your question, but I'd be surprised - and I'll let you know - about who replied to the thread that even bothered to *download* the paper.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I love it.

Ben Greenfield

Nutrition & Human Performance Advice
http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [big slow mover] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
The top right graph in figure 2 totally convinces me to go do some strength endurance training mixture. It suggests that with only endurance training you need more oxygen/kg for the same power! Very bad to cycle only.

Wow, talk about overreacting!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
have you seen the graph?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We could have just opened it at work and then printed it out. It's easy to read something like that at your desk without raising suspicion or having to put it away when the boss walks by, it looks very "official" :-)



Portside Athletics Blog
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [big slow mover] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
have you seen the graph?

Yes, I looked at the graph. It certainly appears to show something dramatic!

However, taking a single, new study and completely flipping the common view of something based on it and nothing else... that's not good science. There's certainly something to pay attention to here but any reaction over 'wait and see what happens next' is an overreaction.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wish Aagard & Andersen would be a little more specific as to what their test subjects actually did for strength training..

Note this was preceded by
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460997

which is cited in the new paper, and came to much the same conclusion..

CONCLUSION: Maximal strength training for 8 wk improved running economy and increased time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic speed among well-trained, long-distance runners, without change in maximal oxygen uptake or body weight.
Last edited by: doug in co: Sep 30, 10 8:49
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

it...is...an..aerobic....sport...damnit!!

My sport isnt (road racing, cycling that is).

That explains why my legs are shredded from yesterday's leg workout, in my quest to improve my >1 min power.

No expectations for it to help my FTP, that's what the trainer is for :)

-Physiojoe

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think Ronnestad et al show that you can do 12 weeks endurance training without improvements.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [big slow mover] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The earth is flat and will always be flat. Why can't you all accept this?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
have you seen the graph?


Yes, I looked at the graph. It certainly appears to show something dramatic!

However, taking a single, new study and completely flipping the common view of something based on it and nothing else... that's not good science. There's certainly something to pay attention to here but any reaction over 'wait and see what happens next' is an overreaction.


I think you've mischaracterized the "new study" and the "common view". Read the report. There are many citations to older studies that corroborate the findings in this one and so this is simply not a case of "a single, new study". With respect to the common view re: the effects of weight training. It may be your "common view" that weight training is ineffective for improving performance in endurance sports, but in sports science circles this is just not the case as evidenced by the many cites to the contrary in the new study.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [SwBkRn44] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
We could have just opened it at work and then printed it out. It's easy to read something like that at your desk without raising suspicion or having to put it away when the boss walks by, it looks very "official" :-)

I'm confused, are you saying that you can print a PDF from a website without the webserver noticing that it has served the PDF?



Erik
Strava
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [mcdoublee] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Guess you're right, I just opened it from Rappstar's page and printed it out from there.

When he said "downloaded" I guess I took it as "saved".



Portside Athletics Blog
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Paulo sent me the complete paper, which you can download HERE. Let me be the first to say I find this paper very interesting. And the conclusions would definitely indicate that my previous beliefs were, in fact, wrong. I guess I'm off to do some heavy squats. However, let me remind everyone that strength still means the same thing it always did... ;)

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Oct;20 Suppl 2:39-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01197.x.
Effects of strength training on endurance capacity in top-level endurance athletes.
Aagaard P, Andersen JL.

Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. paagaard@health.sdu.dk
Abstract
The effect of concurrent strength (S) and endurance (E) training on adaptive changes in aerobic capacity, endurance performance, maximal muscle strength and muscle morphology is equivocal. Some data suggest an attenuated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal response to combined E and S training, while other data show unimpaired or even superior adaptation compared with either training regime alone. However, the effect of concurrent S and E training only rarely has been examined in top-level endurance athletes. This review describes the effect of concurrent SE training on short-term and long-term endurance performance in endurance-trained subjects, ranging from moderately trained individuals to elite top-level athletes. It is concluded that strength training can lead to enhanced long-term (>30 min) and short-term (<15 min) endurance capacity both in well-trained individuals and highly trained top-level endurance athletes, especially with the use of high-volume, heavy-resistance strength training protocols. The enhancement in endurance capacity appears to involve training-induced increases in the proportion of type IIA muscle fibers as well as gains in maximal muscle strength (MVC) and rapid force characteristics (rate of force development), while likely also involving enhancements in neuromuscular function.



High-volume, heavy resistance strength training?
I never heard of that before... I thought that heavy resistance strength training by definition is a low-volume execution. Otherwise it´s simply not heavy enough!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
]I'm gonna compare IP addresses of the posts with the IP addresses in my website log file of who downloaded the file (and when). Why do you think I hosted it myself? That's not a definitive answer to your question, but I'd be surprised - and I'll let you know - about who replied to the thread that even bothered to *download* the paper.
y
Since I'm confident that I'll show up on the right list after your crack analysis of server logs, I'll ask - did you actually read the full paper? I don't mean the glorified summary in your link, but the full paper that was still in peer review when the summary was published.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I had finished IMoo and was taking a break from training while doing some other workouts. My brother was big into crossfit and wanted to show me what a "real" workout looks like (don't worry, I've read all the threads), and I so I said "sure, let's go do a work out." It was some crazy combination of things but the last peice we did was some combination of dead lifts followed by a treadmill run repeated like 7 times or something. About half way through I got on the treadmill and started running and commented, "Hey my legs feel just they do when I get off the bike after 80 miles and then try to run a quick 3 mile brick." It was interesting that I got to a similar feeling point in about 10 minutes when it took me hours in my IM training.

I am not coach, I finish solidly in the 50%tile, and I am not implying that this works. I know it's not really training the same aspects of my system, but I just thought it was an odd awareness. I wondered if there might be something applicable in that experiecne from a training pespective and related to the article you have presented.

Brad
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [johanandbex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
yes, do weights. Let me ask you this...will the weight training really HURT you? no. I don't understand why people think spending a little bit of time with weights (to provide balance for your body) is bad. Think about this. With triathlon what direction is your body always moving-forward. We rarely use any other muscles than going forward. You need to develop and balance your body to handle the stress and pressures...
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wonder what's the percentage of people posing as sports science experts who actually have an academic background in the field...?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jstatham] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I wonder what's the percentage of people posing as sports science experts who actually have an academic background in the field...?

Oh, that was such a clever burn... is it all you got?

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, you're also a poopy head.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [SlayerHatebreed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey, at least I can pronounce my last name...

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [littlefoot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
yes, do weights. Let me ask you this...will the weight training really HURT you? no. I don't understand why people think spending a little bit of time with weights (to provide balance for your body) is bad. Think about this. With triathlon what direction is your body always moving-forward. We rarely use any other muscles than going forward. You need to develop and balance your body to handle the stress and pressures...

It's simply a time management issue. Are you cycling enough that you are maxing out your gains on the bike? For most people I would guess that's probably well over the 20hrs a week range.

Most of us aren't riding that much. We need to be on our bikes. Maybe you have more free time than I do.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Murphy'sLaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
PS - when I first read the subject line, I thought this had to do w/ the toilet. Wasn't really sure what that had to do w/ ST... ;-)


And I thought is was real estate.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I hate to say this, but I agree with Rappstar and have known this for a few years now (see first link). There are many studies like this that tell the same tale, not sure how you can deny the benefits of strength training for endurance athletes. Of course none that I've seen improved Vo2 Max, but they have improved many other things.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460997

http://journals.lww.com/...ling_Economy.26.aspx

As a personal example, I have never been a biker and havent biked much at all in many years, but I was a jumper in track&field. I constantly did heavy squats, deadlifts, cleans, and snatches, not to mention other explosive activites like starts, flys, etc. I recently quit track and started training for triathlons. After only training a max of three ~hour cycles per week for about 7 months before this summer my bike mph range was from 23.1mph at the beginning of the year to 25.6mph at the end of the year. I find that evidence in favor of lifting heavy.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Sure, that's easy to figure out. High-Tech Cycling has a study of 17 riders at 350w at 90rpm. Average *PEAK* normal (perpendicular to the pedal) force is 400N. That's the equivalent of 90lbf. That's the MAX force that is applied to the pedal (so for like 1deg).

The average force during the peak 90deg of power application at 350w is ABOUT 300N or so, or maybe 65lbf (67.XX if you want to be super particular). The distance traveled during 90deg, assuming 175mm cranks, is 175mm*pi*1/2 = 274mm.

Or, put another way, each pedal stroke at 350w @ 90rpm, you are moving a 65lb weight about 12inches.

Time, of course, is essential, for power calculations, so you really need to move a 65lb weight 12inches in
0.167seconds.

And, of course, there is momentum involved in both cycling and weight lifting, which makes it even harder to really say "X is like Y." Because what most people will equate that force with is how hard it is to start the weight moving - accelerating it - not keeping it moving.

However, as Jack said, all a child needs to do is to lean their body weight on a pedal and it'd be as much force as an elite cyclist generates during the peak 1/4 of a pedal stroke.


Rappstar, thank you very much for the informative response. So, it's difficult to be exact because of acceleration/inertia but basically we are talking about moving a 60lb weight 12 inches.
Jack said 'think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT' I think this would imply that the child is not 'leaning' in the pedal but turning it while holding it. I don't know any, maybe Jack does, small children who can handle what is probably about their body weight that easily. In fact i wonder how my single arm curls with a 60lb weight most adult male triathletes can manage.

Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling. Not that it isn't easily overstated but a dose of reality would be better.

Kind Regards

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I'm gonna compare IP addresses of the posts with the IP addresses in my website log file of who downloaded the file (and when). Why do you think I hosted it myself? That's not a definitive answer to your question, but I'd be surprised - and I'll let you know - about who replied to the thread that even bothered to *download* the paper.
y
Since I'm confident that I'll show up on the right list after your crack analysis of server logs, I'll ask - did you actually read the full paper? I don't mean the glorified summary in your link, but the full paper that was still in peer review when the summary was published.

I read - as regards this particular topic - what I posted a link to. Nothing more. Nothing less.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling.

You sound... confused.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So thinking back to the type of strength training I was coached to do while swimming in college, skimming the article, and your response - my initial thought was that the type of lifting required for this is stuff along the lines of clean and jerks. high weight, explosive, etc.

Than I skimmed some more and found the reference to explosive lifting had an effect on 5k times, but not really longer stuff.

Than I though more about the lifting I did in college - rather than the 3x10 stuff that is traditional expoused - we tended more towards doing 10-8-3x6 - high volume in terms of lift, and when you get down to the 6 rep sets - pretty damn high resistance.

That's my guess on a possible protocol they exercised, but I really don't know - need to spend some more time digesting this.





The question(s) from me is - so high volume, high resistance Strength training concurent with endurance training is shown to have a roughly 8% increase in a 45 minute TT power, over aerobic training alone.
Did the study account for increased body mass in the study - power output was greater but was w/kg ?

Has anybody caught how long the concurrent training should occur - and what type of maintenance is needed to keep the gains intact?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [mntriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I did that without any lifting or any serious sports background of any kind.

what you experienced is just a sign of having some biking talent, which could be for any number of reasons.



In Reply To:
After only training a max of three ~hour cycles per week for about 7 months before this summer my bike mph range was from 23.1mph at the beginning of the year to 25.6mph at the end of the year. I find that evidence in favor of lifting heavy.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As if this thread is not contentious enough....

I know I risk getting hammered for saying this, but is anyone concerned that this paper is supposed to be available only to readers who have paid for access to it? Isn't posting it in this manner a form of piracy? If the publisher has made it freely available to all or if I've missed something, then...never mind.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Fatdoggy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
As if this thread is not contentious enough....

I know I risk getting hammered for saying this, but is anyone concerned that this paper is supposed to be available only to readers who have paid for access to it? Isn't posting it in this manner a form of piracy? If the publisher has made it freely available to all or if I've missed something, then...never mind.

Paulo gave the paper - which is a summary (a relatively complete summary, but still a summary) - to me. Given that he works in academia - and publishes such papers - I would expect that he would be sensitive to the intellectual property concerns of posting it. I asked if I could post it for download, and he said yes. I took that as being express confirmation that it would NOT be piracy to share this. Obviously, as the person who manages this site, I'm very sensitive to these issues. But to the best of my knowledge, I'm not sharing something which I should not be.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:


Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling.


You sound... confused.


then help me understand, please. I'd really like to know.

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I think it is fair to say I was wrong, you would need a medium sized child =)


i don't know. how old were you when you were able to knock out a few reps of 60 lb single arm curls?
I would have trouble now.........

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:


Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling.


You sound... confused.


then help me understand, please. I'd really like to know.

Sure...

You seem to have mixed up "force" with "power". If you did, you are wrong, because the estimates of force that were presented above are accurate.

If you didn't, you do not understand that "the power requirement of cycling" is individual and based on the level of performance that is required.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I wonder what's the percentage of people posing as sports science experts who actually have an academic background in the field...?


Oh, that was such a clever burn... is it all you got?

Bazinga!!!!!! ;)
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you, yes i did mix up 'force' with 'power' in that statement. Sir Newton would surely be upset.
I will find AC's statement on the precise use of percise terminology are write it 50 times.
But i did not comment on the accuracy of the statements by rappstar. I took them as accurate.

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
As if this thread is not contentious enough....

I know I risk getting hammered for saying this, but is anyone concerned that this paper is supposed to be available only to readers who have paid for access to it? Isn't posting it in this manner a form of piracy? If the publisher has made it freely available to all or if I've missed something, then...never mind.


Paulo gave the paper - which is a summary (a relatively complete summary, but still a summary) - to me. Given that he works in academia - and publishes such papers - I would expect that he would be sensitive to the intellectual property concerns of posting it. I asked if I could post it for download, and he said yes. I took that as being express confirmation that it would NOT be piracy to share this. Obviously, as the person who manages this site, I'm very sensitive to these issues. But to the best of my knowledge, I'm not sharing something which I should not be.

It says in the very first post "Paulo sent me the complete paper, which you can download HERE." The link is to a pdf of the full paper. If you try to access the full text of the same paper from the publisher (Wiley) website here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...38.2010.01197.x/full

and you are not recognized as having access you are told:


You do not have a subscription to this Journal or Article. Please contact your librarian for details. Options for accessing this content:
  • If you have access to this content through a society membership, please first log in to your society website.
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
  • You can purchase online access to this Article for a 24-hour period (price varies by title)
    • If you already have a Wiley Online Library or Wiley InterScience user account: login above and proceed to purchase the article.
    • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.
Bottom line is I know you and Paulo did not intend to do anything wrong, but seems to me this article was not meant to be distributed in this manner.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Fatdoggy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Who's watching the hallway while you're posting here?

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Fatdoggy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Looking forward to seeing traithletes with "Chris Hoy Legs" next season. That guy's thighs are insane!


http://rogersroadrash.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So since this issue is now settled can we all finally agree that forefoot striking is also better :) ???



When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [original PV] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Squats can be good for endurance, but what is better than squats? Doing hill repeats on the bike. Why do weightlifters do more and more weight (and reps) with Squats? To get stronger. A cyclist can do squats if he wants, maybe not as much as a weight lifter, but if a cyclist wants to get stronger, than why not add resistance to cycling? Up a mountain, up hills (repeats), etc. This will make you stronger at your own discipline.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [cbcooler1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Some strength training is good for any athlete - multisport, cyclist, boxer, soccer, etc. Strength training conditions your entire body, helps prevent injury (runners knee anyone?), and makes you stronger overall. Nobody would advocate a bodybuilder workout regimen or frequency for an endurance athlete, but one day a week on the weights is definitely productive. There's so many ways to incorporate strength training, it's almost limitless. I venture the vast majority of elite level athletes in any sport do at least some weight training. Read Rule #2 here - http://www.mensfitness.com/...reation/athletes/215
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [cbcooler1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Squats can be good for endurance, but what is better than squats? Doing hill repeats on the bike. Why do weightlifters do more and more weight (and reps) with Squats? To get stronger. A cyclist can do squats if he wants, maybe not as much as a weight lifter, but if a cyclist wants to get stronger, than why not add resistance to cycling? Up a mountain, up hills (repeats), etc. This will make you stronger at your own discipline.


I don't think anybody would disagree with that. I think the debate comes in when one chooses to lift for specific reasons. For example, I’m a time strapped office worker training for an IM, i have an hour for lunch and there's a gym downstairs. If i do a weight session is it worthwhile or am i wasting my time; or am i making it worse by tiring out my muscles. If i can even come close to getting improvement for this very convenient workout then it's a big boost to my overall training in terms of time and scheduling.

Also, Is it sometimes better to have a focused weight workout and do the long steady rides when time is limited?
Do i want to spend a whole ride going to a place where i can safely do hill repeats?

I know many who opt to do their most focused workouts on spin bikes and computrainers. No traffic issues, no weather issues, no worries about daylight/lights, easier on family possibly (hey, you can ride in the basement and still be watching the kids!!)

Stuff like that.

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Azr43l] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
*facepalm*
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Let's suppose...if a person plateaus...and let's face it, we all do...then why not mix up your training to see what might happen? Lifting will not kill you or give you some adaption you can't back out of later. It has always seemed to me that there are enough good riders out there who lift regularly (maybe a mesocycle per year or even all year) that it's worth a shot against a fitness stalemate. I already decided to give it a try this winter. If it doesn't work, so what? If it does, awesome.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [mntriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
After only training a max of three ~hour cycles per week for about 7 months before this summer my bike mph range was from 23.1mph at the beginning of the year to 25.6mph at the end of the year. I find that evidence in favor of lifting heavy.

Over what distance? Any number of people on this board can "average" 25.6 mph...the distance is what matters. My mother can "average" 25.6 mph over a half a mile. You're no faster then my mother and she doesnt ride a bike or lift weights.

What you state is not evidence. I'm not placing myself in one camp or the other, or really adding anything to this topic for that matter. I just find it hard to read what you wrote and have it stand as evidence.

"One Line Robert"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rapp,

Finally read the last bit today.

Do you have any idea of what kind of program and frequency the authors used with the athletes? Pretty much we get this as a guide:

Taken together, the available data suggest that a high muscle loading intensity (85-95% 1 RM) and/or a large volume of strength training need to be performed before a benefit on long-term endurance endurance can be achieved.

In an ideal training situation, how should one treat this? Go to the gym a few times a week, and put out nothing but near max efforts?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [miwoodar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Let's suppose...if a person plateaus...and let's face it, we all do...then why not mix up your training to see what might happen? Lifting will not kill you or give you some adaption you can't back out of later. It has always seemed to me that there are enough good riders out there who lift regularly (maybe a mesocycle per year or even all year) that it's worth a shot against a fitness stalemate. I already decided to give it a try this winter. If it doesn't work, so what? If it does, awesome.


I think this is a great approach, my question would be - is it better to address a plateau with more volume in that specific sport, or with non-specific exercise?

The latter is firmly at odds with the principle of specificity.

Additionally - for every GOOD rider you can find me who lifts regularly, I bet I can find a GREAT rider who does nothing but ride his bike.
Last edited by: gbot: Sep 30, 10 13:53
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [wsrobert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
both were 21 miles.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Paulo sent me the complete paper, which you can download HERE. Let me be the first to say I find this paper very interesting. And the conclusions would definitely indicate that my previous beliefs were, in fact, wrong. I guess I'm off to do some heavy squats. However, let me remind everyone that strength still means the same thing it always did... ;)

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Oct;20 Suppl 2:39-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01197.x.
Effects of strength training on endurance capacity in top-level endurance athletes.
Aagaard P, Andersen JL.

Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. paagaard@health.sdu.dk
Abstract
The effect of concurrent strength (S) and endurance (E) training on adaptive changes in aerobic capacity, endurance performance, maximal muscle strength and muscle morphology is equivocal. Some data suggest an attenuated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal response to combined E and S training, while other data show unimpaired or even superior adaptation compared with either training regime alone. However, the effect of concurrent S and E training only rarely has been examined in top-level endurance athletes. This review describes the effect of concurrent SE training on short-term and long-term endurance performance in endurance-trained subjects, ranging from moderately trained individuals to elite top-level athletes. It is concluded that strength training can lead to enhanced long-term (>30 min) and short-term (<15 min) endurance capacity both in well-trained individuals and highly trained top-level endurance athletes, especially with the use of high-volume, heavy-resistance strength training protocols. The enhancement in endurance capacity appears to involve training-induced increases in the proportion of type IIA muscle fibers as well as gains in maximal muscle strength (MVC) and rapid force characteristics (rate of force development), while likely also involving enhancements in neuromuscular function.

Jordan, any possibility of seeing the S training protocol used in the Ronnestad paper?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [cbcooler1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
you don't even need hills.

you can just go really fast.

In Reply To:
Squats can be good for endurance, but what is better than squats? Doing hill repeats on the bike. Why do weightlifters do more and more weight (and reps) with Squats? To get stronger. A cyclist can do squats if he wants, maybe not as much as a weight lifter, but if a cyclist wants to get stronger, than why not add resistance to cycling? Up a mountain, up hills (repeats), etc. This will make you stronger at your own discipline.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [miwoodar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Let's suppose...if a person plateaus...and let's face it, we all do...then why not mix up your training to see what might happen? Lifting will not kill you or give you some adaption you can't back out of later. It has always seemed to me that there are enough good riders out there who lift regularly (maybe a mesocycle per year or even all year) that it's worth a shot against a fitness stalemate. I already decided to give it a try this winter. If it doesn't work, so what? If it does, awesome.


NOOOOO! Only specificity will ever make you faster - please do not attempt to ever change up your regimen or add anything other than swim/bike/run to your programming. You risk going back in time and meeting your former self and throwing the universe out of balance...

Besides, everyone on ST will be very mad at you. I'm begging you, man, reconsider your course of action... lives hang in the balance.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [smugfit] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's really a simple matter of time managment. Say my weekly training schedule looks something like this:

M - rest day
T - Hard intervals
W - recovery ride
T - hill workout
F - recovery ride
S - long ride
S - tempo ride

Which workout am I 'pulling' to replace with a weight training session?

Not pulling the long ride, obviously.

If I pull either of the recovery rides, am I compromising the key workout the day after?

That leaves the intervals, the hill workout, and the tempo ride. All of these are fairly integral elements of a well-rounded training week and they all serve different but important purposes. So is the weight training session going to provide something better than any of these 3?

That's the question that needs to be answered.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I wonder what's the percentage of people posting on this thread that actually read the paper...?


Probably proportional to, if not highly predicted by, the percentage of people who "actually train" for triathlon as opposed to buying gimmicks, fast equipment and lifting weights in the hope of going fast in triathlon.


Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jdw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 

Do you have any idea of what kind of program and frequency the authors used with the athletes?


I don't believe the full journal article has been published yet, from my library database search. The "literature review" linked in the OP is just the author advertising his upcoming article and leaking intriguing tidbits.

That's why I was surprised that Paulo/Rappstar appeared to jump to conclusions. We don't know the protocol. We don't know the volume. We don't know whether the lifts involved sport-specific movements or were general olympic lifts. We don't know how many athletes were in the control vs. experiment.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

That's why I was surprised that Paulo/Rappstar appeared to jump to conclusions. We don't know the protocol. We don't know the volume. We don't know whether the lifts involved sport-specific movements or were general olympic lifts. We don't know how many athletes were in the control vs. experiment.


Agreed. Additionally what I am missing in the article (correct me if it is in there) was any mention of the original training volume vs. the S&E training volume. If an athlete is riding a bike 20hrs a week and adds 2 hrs of strength training to this, I would find it very plausible that they could indeed reap some benefits. The question really just becomes, are they compromising recovery. In this case, if we take the study as accurate, it appears that the upside of the additional training volume outstrips any downside of compromised recovery.

On the other hand, if they are actually removing existing endurance work to replace it with some strength work - that is more interesting in my opinion and would require a bit of re-thinking for those in the 'specificity' camp.

The former scenario really has little relevance to your average recreational triathlete or cyclist, who is likely not putting in 'maximal' training hours in S/B/R.
Last edited by: gbot: Sep 30, 10 15:23
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
That's why I was surprised that Paulo/Rappstar appeared to jump to conclusions.

I jumped to conclusions? Where?

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Let's suppose...if a person plateaus...and let's face it, we all do...then why not mix up your training to see what might happen? Lifting will not kill you or give you some adaption you can't back out of later. It has always seemed to me that there are enough good riders out there who lift regularly (maybe a mesocycle per year or even all year) that it's worth a shot against a fitness stalemate. I already decided to give it a try this winter. If it doesn't work, so what? If it does, awesome.


I think this is a great approach, my question would be - is it better to address a plateau with more volume in that specific sport, or with non-specific exercise?

The latter is firmly at odds with the principle of specificity.

Additionally - for every GOOD rider you can find me who lifts regularly, I bet I can find a GREAT rider who does nothing but ride his bike.


I expect that you're absolutely right and the vast majority of GREAT riders do nothing but ride the bike. I don't care about them though. We are all N=1. The fact is that there ARE anomolies. Who's to say I won't end up being one? I'm going to continue planning mesocycles with emphasis on FTP (many of these), VO2 max, and going long/steady as well. But a few weeks of trial and error never killed anyone (ahem, track your data unless you want to waste your time). Make sure to go back to the bread and butter afterwards.

As long as we're talking anomolies - against the common wisdom, I tried a 'pedal circles FTP mesocycle' and added 15 watts to my FTP. I'm not going to tell the next guy to pedal circles though...the studies don't appear to support it as a general rule...but this small block of focus fixed something in *my* pedal stroke. Maybe I improved conditioning in some muscles that hadn't been paying attention. Maybe I had a hiccup that I had never identified. I really don't know.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

That's why I was surprised that Paulo/Rappstar appeared to jump to conclusions. We don't know the protocol. We don't know the volume. We don't know whether the lifts involved sport-specific movements or were general olympic lifts. We don't know how many athletes were in the control vs. experiment.


Agreed. Additionally what I am missing in the article (correct me if it is in there) was any mention of the original training volume vs. the S&E training volume. If an athlete is riding a bike 20hrs a week and adds 2 hrs of strength training to this, I would find it very plausible that they could indeed reap some benefits. The question really just becomes, are they compromising recovery. In this case, if we take the study as accurate, it appears that the upside of the additional training volume outstrips any downside of compromised recovery.

On the other hand, if they are actually removing existing endurance work to replace it with some strength work - that is more interesting in my opinion and would require a bit of re-thinking for those in the 'specificity' camp.

The former scenario really has little relevance to your average recreational triathlete or cyclist, who is likely not putting in 'maximal' training hours in S/B/R.

Ummm...the paper Jordan posted is a REVIEW paper of OTHER papers already published. The respective protocols are detailed in the specific papers ALL listed in the bibliography. If you want to know the protocols, then you need to look in the respective papers...hence my question to Jordan above, since I assumed he already had seen them.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
That's why I was surprised that Paulo/Rappstar appeared to jump to conclusions.


I hope you didn't really think I was going to go do heavy squats. I haven't altered my training, and I don't plan to, certainly not without exactly what you are asking for. I was simply pointing out that the conclusions of the paper *seemed* to starkly contrast what I believe based upon what else I have read. So I hope that you don't really think I jumped to any conclusions. As my title states **MAYBE**. I hardly consider that jumping to conclusions...

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [miwoodar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh, I'm not saying you shouldn't give it a shot. What's at stake? We're not pro athletes (at least you and I aren't), we're not trying to put food on the table through race results. If you want to go lift weights, absolutely try it out. My interest in this is purely academic. I actually do a few months of strength training every fall. Not to make me faster on the bike, more for injury prevention and power on the ski hill - but if it does make me faster then great. If I'd actually be faster if I sweated it out on the trainer instead - well, I do this for fun.

I do find that in season, I definitely don't have time for anything but riding my bike, and fitting anything else in seems like insanity.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I do find that in season, I definitely don't have time for anything but riding my bike, and fitting anything else in seems like insanity.


Agreed.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

That's why I was surprised that Paulo/Rappstar appeared to jump to conclusions. We don't know the protocol. We don't know the volume. We don't know whether the lifts involved sport-specific movements or were general olympic lifts. We don't know how many athletes were in the control vs. experiment.


Agreed. Additionally what I am missing in the article (correct me if it is in there) was any mention of the original training volume vs. the S&E training volume. If an athlete is riding a bike 20hrs a week and adds 2 hrs of strength training to this, I would find it very plausible that they could indeed reap some benefits. The question really just becomes, are they compromising recovery. In this case, if we take the study as accurate, it appears that the upside of the additional training volume outstrips any downside of compromised recovery.

On the other hand, if they are actually removing existing endurance work to replace it with some strength work - that is more interesting in my opinion and would require a bit of re-thinking for those in the 'specificity' camp.

The former scenario really has little relevance to your average recreational triathlete or cyclist, who is likely not putting in 'maximal' training hours in S/B/R.

Ummm...the paper Jordan posted is a REVIEW paper of OTHER papers already published. The respective protocols are detailed in the specific papers ALL listed in the bibliography. If you want to know the protocols, then you need to look in the respective papers...hence my question to Jordan above, since I assumed he already had seen them.

Aoooo damn it I'm stupid. That's what I get for reading the first half at 1 am. . . It all makes sense now. Off to scour the bibliography for the papers I want to see. . .
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Ummm...the paper Jordan posted is a REVIEW paper of OTHER papers already published. The respective protocols are detailed in the specific papers ALL listed in the bibliography. If you want to know the protocols, then you need to look in the respective papers...hence my question to Jordan above, since I assumed he already had seen them.

I realize that. My point is that the protocols are important, and without knowing what they were it's hard to properly evaluate this review.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

I jumped to conclusions? Where?[/reply]
You didn't. My bad.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Had to add this bit of flavor to this thread as CrossFit and CrossFit Endurance loves to squat! Fire away!

http://library.crossfit.com/...aster_LakePlacid.wmv

Max
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It's really a simple matter of time managment. Say my weekly training schedule looks something like this:

M - rest day
T - Hard intervals
W - recovery ride
T - hill workout
F - recovery ride
S - long ride
S - tempo ride

Which workout am I 'pulling' to replace with a weight training session?

Not pulling the long ride, obviously.

If I pull either of the recovery rides, am I compromising the key workout the day after?

That leaves the intervals, the hill workout, and the tempo ride. All of these are fairly integral elements of a well-rounded training week and they all serve different but important purposes. So is the weight training session going to provide something better than any of these 3?

That's the question that needs to be answered.

I think you could replace whatever workout most closely replicates what the weights are doing for you. Some of these studies state that the strength training was in addition to, but I also found a paragraph where endurance runnign was replaced by weights:

An improved 5K running time
(18.3–17.8 min) was observed in well-trained runners
(VO2max of 68 mL/min/kg) when about 30% of their
normal running training was changed into explosivetype
strength training; however, no measures of longterm
(430 min) endurance capacity were obtained
(Paavolainen et al., 1999).


So it seems like you would be fine changing up your regime a bit. I think if you were to think of it on a larger scale it would make more sense. Assuming you are going short to long, replacing a few workouts with weights in the beginning of your plan makes total sense to me. If it ultimately makes you a stronger rider, then you can build off of that added strength when you drop the weights and move into more specific prep.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [mntriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How about you read Paavolainen et al (1999) before making assumptions about its content?

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [mntriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Doesn't the study you reference mostly talk about plyometric-style exercises and short sprints? I didn't see anything about weights in there.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Who's watching the hallway while you're posting here?

Dunno. Why don't you go back to smoking in the boys room?

I work for a publisher similar to Wiley, so I may be a bit more sensitive to this then you'd like.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is a bizarre paper. It's billed as a review article, but the presented data (Figs 1 -4) all come from just 2 studies, neither of which had been published (one in press, the other under peer review) when the review went to press. That's not what 'review paper' means in my corner of academia. Rather, this looks more like padding a CV by squeezing multiple publications out of one piece of research.

Can't comment on the science, but I'm not impressed by either the authors' or editors' professional standards.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hold the phone.

Triathletes (or cyclists for that matter) squatting at 90% of their 1RM?

So much for the theory of weight training reducing injury rates.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
any possibility of seeing the S training protocol used in the Ronnestad paper?

They did half-squat in a Smith-machine, leg press with one foot at a time, one-legged hip flexion and toe raise. During the first 3 weeks they trained with 10 RMsets at the first session and 6 RM sets at the second weekly session. During the next 3 weeks the sets were adjusted to 8 and 5 RM. During the final 6 weeks the sets were adjusted to 6 RM and 4 RM. The numbers in each excersise was 3. The strength training was conducted with the intention of maximal acceleration of the load during the concentric phase, while the eccentric phase was performed more slowly.
In case strength training and endurance training was performed on one day, the strength training was done first.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [big slow mover] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In case strength training and endurance training was performed on one day, the strength training was done first.

That right there might be the key.
I was just reading the thread about people doing a recovery run the same day as a long run. This link was posted by rexcoltrain:
http://www.active.com/...ry_runs.htm?cmp=1747

Basically, the article says that muscles that exercise in an already fatigued state make the most adaptations. The theory is that the brain might recruit "fresh" fibers not previously recruited in order to continue performing.

There is not a ton of detail in the article about the studies, so it is hard to say if there are other potential causes (such as perhaps the exercise sessions were not hard enough on their own, so only those that got two sessions were enough to make adaptations at all).

Anyway, it might apply.


Get Set Go Sports
Get Set Go Sports Website, Facebook Page, Blog
Last edited by: GetSetGoSports: Oct 1, 10 5:04
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [GetSetGoSports] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The only thing that significantly improved in the Ronnestad paper was RPE, so that shows that the PERCEPTION of the participants changed after the strength exercises. That puts the effect of the strength training in the same list as having a cold beer waiting for you at home when you do a tempo run. The perception of suffering can change but objectively seen, it has no effect on performance.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Who's watching the hallway while you're posting here?


That is exceptionally funny! It's on my short list for post of the year.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why would I need to? The abstract tells me enough information to post what I posted.

and I did read it.
Last edited by: mntriguy: Oct 1, 10 15:22
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [mntriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, I believe it was mostly short sprints, plyos, and lighter, eccentric type weights. So, therfore it DOES talk about weights, but that is just a piece of the obvious over arching theme of their workouts, which are eccentric, fast movements. It would be at the opposite end on the force-velocity curve of heavy squats, but still intense and explosive. I can see where both eccentric (light olys) and concentric (heavy squats) movements would benefit an endurance athlete. This study states that "improvement was due to improved neuromuscular characteristics that were transferred into improved VMART and running economy". Neural adaption generally occurs early in the adaptation phase of resistance training and is in line with theory on resistance training. If runners who dont normally do resistance training, start doing resistance training, it makes sense that they could improve their running economy through the use of resistance training, whether that is eccentric or concentric movements, with neural adaptation.
Last edited by: mntriguy: Oct 1, 10 15:35
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [big slow mover] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
The only thing that significantly improved in the Ronnestad paper was RPE, so that shows that the PERCEPTION of the participants changed after the strength exercises. That puts the effect of the strength training in the same list as having a cold beer waiting for you at home when you do a tempo run. The perception of suffering can change but objectively seen, it has no effect on performance.
I believe HR also went down significantly during the last half of the 185min cycling test for the strength trained group whereas no change occured for the endurance only group.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Was Jan Ullrich into weights? Serious question. If so I want his program minus the doping protocol.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [DC Pattie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Was Jan Ullrich into weights? Serious question. If so I want his program minus the doping protocol.

Im assuming if he did, that it would be rather impossible to put up his numbers or perhaps do the workouts w/o the doping....
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interesting.

A few points of clarification/question

I can't find any mention of the actual training protocols for strength training (or indeed endurance training as in number of hours, intensities etc).

They mention that heavy is 85 to 95% of 1RPM

But the use of the word volume is not what we would traditionally think. It refers to the long term use of the training protocol, i.e. the number of weeks/months and not the volume in a single workout/session or weekly volume.

There is no mention I can find of actual training protocol in terms of the strength training workouts/sessions.....???

They do quote themselves a fair bit throughout........
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [The Real Animal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Had a bit more of a think about this...

The comment about "volume" meaning the length of time, as in weeks/months etc...

Over in Aus here we had an import European coach working with some T&F athletes. The first year of their tenure they introduced a program of real heavy lifting - and made it clear that the athletes would not see the benefits this season, but the season after....

They were right, the athletes had ordinary 1st seasons, then the year after were on fire...

They were 400m runners though.

But I wonder about this "volume" concept and that possibly a lot of research in this area hasn't been done over a long enough time frame...
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Sure, that's easy to figure out. High-Tech Cycling has a study of 17 riders at 350w at 90rpm. Average *PEAK* normal (perpendicular to the pedal) force is 400N. That's the equivalent of 90lbf. That's the MAX force that is applied to the pedal (so for like 1deg).

The average force during the peak 90deg of power application at 350w is ABOUT 300N or so, or maybe 65lbf (67.XX if you want to be super particular). The distance traveled during 90deg, assuming 175mm cranks, is 175mm*pi*1/2 = 274mm.

Or, put another way, each pedal stroke at 350w @ 90rpm, you are moving a 65lb weight about 12inches.

Time, of course, is essential, for power calculations, so you really need to move a 65lb weight 12inches in
0.167seconds.

And, of course, there is momentum involved in both cycling and weight lifting, which makes it even harder to really say "X is like Y." Because what most people will equate that force with is how hard it is to start the weight moving - accelerating it - not keeping it moving.

However, as Jack said, all a child needs to do is to lean their body weight on a pedal and it'd be as much force as an elite cyclist generates during the peak 1/4 of a pedal stroke.


Rappstar, thank you very much for the informative response. So, it's difficult to be exact because of acceleration/inertia but basically we are talking about moving a 60lb weight 12 inches.
Jack said 'think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT' I think this would imply that the child is not 'leaning' in the pedal but turning it while holding it. I don't know any, maybe Jack does, small children who can handle what is probably about their body weight that easily. In fact i wonder how my single arm curls with a 60lb weight most adult male triathletes can manage.

Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling. Not that it isn't easily overstated but a dose of reality would be better.

Kind Regards

As others have pointed out, there are some terminological issues here, but more to the point, peak power (along with other things) has been studied in children, somewhat carefully, so we don't need to speculate here.

First, 'leaning against the pedal' won't produce even close to 400W. Or rather, it depends a lot on what one means by 'leaning'. For example (just to make it extreme), a child certainly can produce 400W by being dropped onto the pedal from a great height ('leaning hard'). Gently resting against the pedal will likely not produce 400W.

Second, yes 'medium sized' children can produce 400W on a bike for a very short time (a few seconds). There is obviously a huge age-dependence (among other things), but for example this study shows 13-year olds with peak power (over 1s on an ergometer) of around 450W. (In that study, there was a big difference between 12yo and 13yo children. It isn't totally clear why, but definitely the relationship between age and power is not linear. One more example: this study shows 9-year olds producing around 300W PP.)

Or, if you want to be even more impressed by children's athletic prowess, you can have them do a vertical jump test. You don't have to get very far off the ground to be producing a whole lot of watts, albeit for an extremely short time.

In general, I'd say that the numbers really do support the contention that pretty much anyone can do for a few seconds what pro cyclists can do for hours. I won't 'weigh in' on the strength training part.


----
Michael
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Experior] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Sure, that's easy to figure out. High-Tech Cycling has a study of 17 riders at 350w at 90rpm. Average *PEAK* normal (perpendicular to the pedal) force is 400N. That's the equivalent of 90lbf. That's the MAX force that is applied to the pedal (so for like 1deg).

The average force during the peak 90deg of power application at 350w is ABOUT 300N or so, or maybe 65lbf (67.XX if you want to be super particular). The distance traveled during 90deg, assuming 175mm cranks, is 175mm*pi*1/2 = 274mm.

Or, put another way, each pedal stroke at 350w @ 90rpm, you are moving a 65lb weight about 12inches.

Time, of course, is essential, for power calculations, so you really need to move a 65lb weight 12inches in
0.167seconds.

And, of course, there is momentum involved in both cycling and weight lifting, which makes it even harder to really say "X is like Y." Because what most people will equate that force with is how hard it is to start the weight moving - accelerating it - not keeping it moving.

However, as Jack said, all a child needs to do is to lean their body weight on a pedal and it'd be as much force as an elite cyclist generates during the peak 1/4 of a pedal stroke.


Rappstar, thank you very much for the informative response. So, it's difficult to be exact because of acceleration/inertia but basically we are talking about moving a 60lb weight 12 inches.
Jack said 'think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT' I think this would imply that the child is not 'leaning' in the pedal but turning it while holding it. I don't know any, maybe Jack does, small children who can handle what is probably about their body weight that easily. In fact i wonder how my single arm curls with a 60lb weight most adult male triathletes can manage.

Sorry to be obtuse, my point is some people on the board seem to grossly underestimate the power requirement of cycling. Not that it isn't easily overstated but a dose of reality would be better.

Kind Regards


As others have pointed out, there are some terminological issues here, but more to the point, peak power (along with other things) has been studied in children, somewhat carefully, so we don't need to speculate here.

First, 'leaning against the pedal' won't produce even close to 400W. Or rather, it depends a lot on what one means by 'leaning'. For example (just to make it extreme), a child certainly can produce 400W by being dropped onto the pedal from a great height ('leaning hard'). Gently resting against the pedal will likely not produce 400W.

Second, yes 'medium sized' children can produce 400W on a bike for a very short time (a few seconds). There is obviously a huge age-dependence (among other things), but for example this study shows 13-year olds with peak power (over 1s on an ergometer) of around 450W. (In that study, there was a big difference between 12yo and 13yo children. It isn't totally clear why, but definitely the relationship between age and power is not linear. One more example: this study shows 9-year olds producing around 300W PP.)

Or, if you want to be even more impressed by children's athletic prowess, you can have them do a vertical jump test. You don't have to get very far off the ground to be producing a whole lot of watts, albeit for an extremely short time.

In general, I'd say that the numbers really do support the contention that pretty much anyone can do for a few seconds what pro cyclists can do for hours. I won't 'weigh in' on the strength training part.


Experior,
Thanks for the clarification and interesting information. I am 'impressed by children's athletic prowess'.
It would appear that indeed 9 year olds can produce mean power in the area of 223w for 20 seconds. Something that if most adult triathletes could do for 6hrs would probably put them at the FOP. Depending on position and age group of course.
With the study on 12 year olds able to produce 450W for 1 second it seemed to indicate that it was very weight dependent. Possibly indicative of the excellent positioning a bike affords to provide mechanical advantage.

So, i think we can feel comfortable that assertions such as that made by Jack ('think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT') are pretty absurd. And the statement made by Rappstar (However, as Jack said, all a child needs to do is to lean their body weight on a pedal and it'd be as much force as an elite cyclist generates during the peak 1/4 of a pedal stroke.) is a pretty gross exaggeration. Maybe we should say something more along the lines of 'if a heavy 12 year old jumped up as high as he could and landed on a pedal he would put out as much force as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT'

Thanks

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Last edited by: bermudabill: Oct 6, 10 7:22
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
So, i think we can feel comfortable that assertions such as that made by Jack ('think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT') are pretty absurd. And the statement made by Rappstar (However, as Jack said, all a child needs to do is to lean their body weight on a pedal and it'd be as much force as an elite cyclist generates during the peak 1/4 of a pedal stroke.) is a pretty gross exaggeration. Maybe we should say something more along the lines of 'if a heavy 12 year old jumped up as high as he could and landed on a pedal he would put out as much force as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT'

I did the math out for you. A 12 year child simply STANDING on the pedals generates as much FORCE as Lance does. Jumping up and landing on the pedal would generate way more FORCE.

You still seem to be struggling to grasp the difference between "force" and "power."

Experior also seems to be missing the point. I never said leaning against a pedal would generate 400w. I simply said leaning on the pedal would produce as much force as a typical cyclists generates while producing 400w.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Has anyone read this book Running Anatomy?
http://www.amazon.com/...01#reader_0736082301

After desribing how almost all of the muscles of the body are somehow involved in running mechanics, it recommends various weight training exercises to strengthen both the upper and lower body.

So what if you take this advice seriously and you end up piling on an additional 5-10 lbs of lean body mass? what is that going to your performance?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It's really a simple matter of time managment. Say my weekly training schedule looks something like this:

M - rest day
T - Hard intervals
W - recovery ride
T - hill workout
F - recovery ride
S - long ride
S - tempo ride

Which workout am I 'pulling' to replace with a weight training session?

Not pulling the long ride, obviously.

If I pull either of the recovery rides, am I compromising the key workout the day after?

That leaves the intervals, the hill workout, and the tempo ride. All of these are fairly integral elements of a well-rounded training week and they all serve different but important purposes. So is the weight training session going to provide something better than any of these 3?

That's the question that needs to be answered.


And it's easy to answer that question with another: Are those integral elements necessary year round -- 52 weeks?

As much as I'd like to ride 20+ hour weeks year round, my sanity requires an off season. I still ride during this "off season" but only 2 or three times a week. And I'm not sedentary during those other days. I could do something completely unrelated to cycling. Or I could lift, which at least (I believe) has some beneficial relationship with cycling. When I'm done lifting and start raming up the cycling, I feel like I'm starting a fresh, new season.

So here's approximately my off season schedule:

1. One week free of any physical activity -- I watch tv and overeat.

2. Two week exclusive weight lifting (2x per week, Tuesdays and Fridays).

3. 9 to 11 more weeks of weight lifting (2x per week, Tuesdays and Fridays). For the first 6 weeks, I add long easy (converstational pace) climbing rides on Wednesdays and Saturdays. About 3 weeks in I add a high rpm workiout on Mondays. After those first six weeks, I change the Saturday ride to a fast (race) paced, group ride. At some point, I'll add a Thurday or Sunday ride.

4. After the off season program, weight training is over, and I have a recovery week. With Tuesdays and Fridays no freed up, I can focus on training for the season, and it feels like I'm doing something new and different.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Physiojoe925] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:


it...is...an..aerobic....sport...damnit!!


My sport isnt (road racing, cycling that is).

That explains why my legs are shredded from yesterday's leg workout, in my quest to improve my >1 min power.

No expectations for it to help my FTP, that's what the trainer is for :)

-Physiojoe

WHAT?
Do I misunderstand what you have written or do you believe that road racing (yes cycling) is not an aerobic sport?

You do know the context of the "it's an aerobic sport damnit" quote right?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Quote:
So, i think we can feel comfortable that assertions such as that made by Jack ('think of it this way, a small child, with a single hand, can put as much force on a pedal for a few reps as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT') are pretty absurd. And the statement made by Rappstar (However, as Jack said, all a child needs to do is to lean their body weight on a pedal and it'd be as much force as an elite cyclist generates during the peak 1/4 of a pedal stroke.) is a pretty gross exaggeration. Maybe we should say something more along the lines of 'if a heavy 12 year old jumped up as high as he could and landed on a pedal he would put out as much force as lance does with each pedal stroke in a 40k TT'

I did the math out for you. A 12 year child simply STANDING on the pedals generates as much FORCE as Lance does. Jumping up and landing on the pedal would generate way more FORCE.

You still seem to be struggling to grasp the difference between "force" and "power."

Experior also seems to be missing the point. I never said leaning against a pedal would generate 400w. I simply said leaning on the pedal would produce as much force as a typical cyclists generates while producing 400w.

I didn't misunderstand you. I misunderstood what point bermudabill was still questioning. I thought that the force issue was granted (by him), and the open question (for him) was wattage.

Anyway, I think we all agree that it doesn't take much to be a 'pro' for a few seconds. Doing it for hours is another matter entirely.


----
Michael
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [vo3 max] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

I think you've mischaracterized the "new study" and the "common view". Read the report. There are many citations to older studies that corroborate the findings in this one and so this is simply not a case of "a single, new study". With respect to the common view re: the effects of weight training. It may be your "common view" that weight training is ineffective for improving performance in endurance sports, but in sports science circles this is just not the case as evidenced by the many cites to the contrary in the new study.


I think that you are the one mischaracterizing things here.

When it comes to trained cyclists, the "many cites" to which you refer consist of only one study (other than the yet-to-be-published paper(s) by the review's authors, that is), which is Sunde et al.

In contrast, several studies both cited by Aagard and Andersen (e.g., Bastiaans et al.) and suprisingly ignored by them (e.g., Bishop et al.) have failed to show any performance benefit.

Thus, even in the most charitable light the best one can say is that the jury still seems to be out...
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [wesley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
This is a bizarre paper. It's billed as a review article, but the presented data (Figs 1 -4) all come from just 2 studies, neither of which had been published (one in press, the other under peer review) when the review went to press. That's not what 'review paper' means in my corner of academia.

Indeed, you could easily make the argument that this paper represents the prior (original) publication, such that the various in-press and under review articles should never be published. Given the lack of detail in the review, though, that would certainly create even more problems.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Oct 6, 10 14:16
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [S McGregor] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
check out Fig 2 and what it does for HR and Lactate....whoa!

Whoa is right: the E and E+S groups start in different places, but end up being essentially the same.

Thus, one interpretation of the results is that the data reflect a type I error, i.e., the E+S subjects weren't as fit as the E subjects coming into the study, and hence improved as a result of the E training, not the +S training.

The above would fit with the fact that the E+S subjects had a measurable number of type IIX fibers initially (cf. Fig. 4), which were converted to type IIA, whereas no changes were seen in the E group (the data from which are strikingly omitted the review).
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Oct 6, 10 14:28
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My GAWWWWWWD!!!! what is the discussion about!?!?! if you think squats work for you, do them. If you dont, dont. Am I missing something here? As a marathoner for over 30 years I can NEVER recall a message board for runners that debates the innane as much as this group. Everyone is different. Clearly running like a Kenyan does not work for everyone. We should not ALL be running barefoot, and if you think beta alanine works for you, take it. The bottom line is working out is better than not working out. There. Settled. Its like parliament. Or worse...congress!

Having said all that. Continue. I am quite enjoying the arguments. But I do wonder, Max...how many squats were you doing when you were blowing sub 10 ironman races?
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [sinkinswimmer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Everyone is different.

This is one of the most often quoted reasons for doing things, and I think it's probably one of the worst. Everyone is NOT different. In fact, it is a MUCH truer statement for me to say "Everyone is the same," than for you to say, "Everyone is different." In fact, it is our sameness that makes us all humans. The belief that we are all "beautiful and unique snowflakes" is a flaw of ego and hubris. You want to hit a golf ball straight and far off a tee? Hit it like Tiger Woods. And if you want to run a fast marathon, train and run like a Kenyan.

You & Gebrsellasie have way, way, way more in common than you have differences.

The biggest difference among people is probably their ability to recognize how UN-special they are.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [sinkinswimmer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Everyone is different.

You're right. But everyone is a mammal.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Everyone is different.


You're right. But everyone is a mammal.

According to some of my students, I'm actually a reptile.


----
Michael
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wouldn't every pro golfer hit like Tiger then and be the same? As would the runners? How do you account for different performances across professionals? Especially now where the 20 somethings are trying to be like Tiger, you can tell with their swings, but even in most of their soon to be best years, will never be him. What about basketball? You would think most would be like Mike at this point, why aren't they? There are too many subtle differences in humans, especially at the highest levels of any kind of performance (sport or academic, etc...) that we are all different... or at the very least, the best of the best would be the same.

In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Everyone is different.

This is one of the most often quoted reasons for doing things, and I think it's probably one of the worst. Everyone is NOT different. In fact, it is a MUCH truer statement for me to say "Everyone is the same," than for you to say, "Everyone is different." In fact, it is our sameness that makes us all humans. The belief that we are all "beautiful and unique snowflakes" is a flaw of ego and hubris. You want to hit a golf ball straight and far off a tee? Hit it like Tiger Woods. And if you want to run a fast marathon, train and run like a Kenyan.

You & Gebrsellasie have way, way, way more in common than you have differences.

The biggest difference among people is probably their ability to recognize how UN-special they are.



The Rat Snake:
A Tribute Race at Gilbert Lake State Park, Laurens, NY May 16 2015
Follow the Rat Snake on Twitter
Last edited by: dforbes: Oct 6, 10 17:00
Quote Reply
Post deleted by lschmidt [ In reply to ]
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
check out Fig 2 and what it does for HR and Lactate....whoa!


Whoa is right: the E and E+S groups start in different places, but end up being essentially the same.

Thus, one interpretation of the results is that the data reflect a type I error, i.e., the E+S subjects weren't as fit as the E subjects coming into the study, and hence improved as a result of the E training, not the +S training.

The above would fit with the fact that the E+S subjects had a measurable number of type IIX fibers initially (cf. Fig. 4), which were converted to type IIA, whereas no changes were seen in the E group (the data from which are strikingly omitted the review).


Well, that's quite a delayed effect. I guess nobody picked up on the sarcasm. Oh well.


Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ahh, I thought this was a thread about "Adverse Possession!"
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The biggest difference among people is probably their ability to recognize how UN-special they are.

I like the formulation: "You're unique, just like everybody else" :)

Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [dforbes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Wouldn't every pro golfer hit like Tiger then and be the same? As would the runners? How do you account for different performances across professionals? Especially now where the 20 somethings are trying to be like Tiger, you can tell with their swings, but even in most of their soon to be best years, will never be him. What about basketball? You would think most would be like Mike at this point, why aren't they? There are too many subtle differences in humans, especially at the highest levels of any kind of performance (sport or academic, etc...) that we are all different... or at the very least, the best of the best would be the same.

In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Everyone is different.

This is one of the most often quoted reasons for doing things, and I think it's probably one of the worst. Everyone is NOT different. In fact, it is a MUCH truer statement for me to say "Everyone is the same," than for you to say, "Everyone is different." In fact, it is our sameness that makes us all humans. The belief that we are all "beautiful and unique snowflakes" is a flaw of ego and hubris. You want to hit a golf ball straight and far off a tee? Hit it like Tiger Woods. And if you want to run a fast marathon, train and run like a Kenyan.

You & Gebrsellasie have way, way, way more in common than you have differences.

The biggest difference among people is probably their ability to recognize how UN-special they are.

I think it depends on how you look at things. People tend to focus on the one or two things that top pros do differently, rather than focusing on the 99 things that they do the same. Break down every element of the driver swing of every guy on the PGA tour. There will be a few differences. But there will be WAY more similarities than there will be differences. The folly that most people make is thinking that the differences are what is important, rather than realizing it is what is the same which is important.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
People tend to focus on the one or two things that top pros do differently, rather than focusing on the 99 things that they do the same.

I am proud of you padwan :)

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

People tend to focus on the one or two things that top pros do differently, rather than focusing on the 99 things that they do the same.


I am proud of you padwan :)

Yep, the differences are between the ears, not between the joints!
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The difference is between the ears... but we all must understand that that is the biggest difference, that's why we are all NOT the same.



The Rat Snake:
A Tribute Race at Gilbert Lake State Park, Laurens, NY May 16 2015
Follow the Rat Snake on Twitter
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [dforbes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
The difference is between the ears... but we all must understand that that is the biggest difference, that's why we are all NOT the same.



classic ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I find the article intriguing because I LOVE going to the gym and, as an 'old guy' I'm interested in minimizing the muscle loss that occurs with age. If it doesn't hinder, and possibly improves my performance, better still.

A little extra FORCE might help me get around without a cane (or power my wheelchair) in my dotage.

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.
Quote Reply
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [NateC] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:


it...is...an..aerobic....sport...damnit!!


My sport isnt (road racing, cycling that is).

That explains why my legs are shredded from yesterday's leg workout, in my quest to improve my >1 min power.

No expectations for it to help my FTP, that's what the trainer is for :)

-Physiojoe


WHAT?
Do I misunderstand what you have written or do you believe that road racing (yes cycling) is not an aerobic sport?

You do know the context of the "it's an aerobic sport damnit" quote right?

Oops, should have said "<1 min power." I have no allusions that lifting will help my FTP, or even my 5 min power- neither of which are really my weakness. Both 5 min and 1 hour power are highly aerobic. Maximal 15 second power, maximal 30 second power are my weakness when it comes to racing. I have a VO2 well into the 70's, yet my 30 sec power is only 675!

I am trying to remedy this by weight training. We'll see how it works- my maximal power at all durations under 2 minutes were actually higher in 2009, compared with 2010. My FTP was way up in 2010, and most other power values were as well (even 3 hour). I didn't weight train before the 2010 season, but I did before the 2009 season.

We'll see what happens to my 5 sec, 30 sec, 1 minute power in 2011, after weight training this off-season.

-Physiojoe

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels
Quote Reply