It's really not at odds with previous research.

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

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 :)

[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

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.

have you seen the graph?

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

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.

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" :-)

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.