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

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.

How about you read Paavolainen et al (1999) before making assumptions about its content?

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

Doesn't the study you reference mostly talk about plyometric-style exercises and short sprints? I didn't see anything about weights in there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

That is exceptionally funny! It's on my short list for post of the year.

Why would I need to? The abstract tells me enough information to post what I posted.

and I did read it.

No it doesn't.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

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.

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.

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....

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........

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...

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

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"

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

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?

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.

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?