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.
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [original PV]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [cbcooler1]
[ In reply to ]
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
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [cbcooler1]
[ In reply to ]
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"
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Azr43l]
[ In reply to ]
*facepalm*
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar]
[ 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.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [mntriguy]
[ In reply to ]
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"
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar]
[ In reply to ]
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?
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?
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [miwoodar]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [wsrobert]
[ In reply to ]
both were 21 miles.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Rappstar]
[ In reply to ]
Jordan, any possibility of seeing the S training protocol used in the Ronnestad paper?
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [cbcooler1]
[ In reply to ]
you don't even need hills.
you can just go really fast.
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
you can just go really fast.
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
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [miwoodar]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [smugfit]
[ 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.
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.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa]
[ In reply to ]
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
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [jdw]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [trail]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [trail]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot]
[ 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.
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [trail]
[ In reply to ]
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
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [miwoodar]
[ In reply to ]
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.
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.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [gbot]
[ In reply to ]
Agreed.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Tom A.]
[ In reply to ]
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. . .
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Tom A.]
[ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Maybe We Should Be Squatting (New Paper. VERY Interesting.) [Paulo Sousa]
[ In reply to ]
I jumped to conclusions? Where?[/reply]
You didn't. My bad.