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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 wonder what's the percentage of people posting on this thread that actually read the paper...?

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.

That's why I was surprised that Paulo/Rappstar appeared to jump to conclusions.

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.

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.

That's why I was surprised that Paulo/Rappstar appeared to jump to conclusions.

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.

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.

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.