Notices
Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area Looking to enter into the realm of track racing? Want to share your experiences and tactics for riding on a velodrome? The Track Cycling forums is for you! Come in and discuss training/racing, equipment, and current track cycling events.

2014 Weight Lifting!!!!

Old 03-08-16, 06:50 AM
  #676  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,610
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Started experimenting with 10 reps on my squat at lower weight as opposed to 5 reps at higher weights.




I don't like it.
carleton is offline  
Old 03-08-16, 07:24 AM
  #677  
SprintzNKiloz
Senior Member
 
SprintzNKiloz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 97

Bikes: LOOK 675, Dolan DF4, Casati Gold Line, Litespeed Classic, Felt TR2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My typical routine is 2x10 at a low weight and 3x5 at heavy weight. I personally would trade the 3x5 sets for more 10 rep sets.
SprintzNKiloz is offline  
Old 03-08-16, 07:53 AM
  #678  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,610
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by SprintzNKiloz View Post
My typical routine is 2x10 at a low weight and 3x5 at heavy weight. I personally would trade the 3x5 sets for more 10 rep sets.
It seems that fatigue sets in towards the end. That makes it discouraging to finish.
carleton is offline  
Old 03-08-16, 07:56 AM
  #679  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,610
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
On a related note:

I've heard of weight training with reps according to time as opposed to rep count. Meaning: Do as many squats as you can for 20s as opposed to doing 5 reps to complete 1 set.

Any science or programs around that?
carleton is offline  
Old 03-08-16, 08:18 AM
  #680  
queerpunk
aka mattio
 
queerpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,503
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 304 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by carleton View Post
On a related note:

I've heard of weight training with reps according to time as opposed to rep count. Meaning: Do as many squats as you can for 20s as opposed to doing 5 reps to complete 1 set.

Any science or programs around that?
Are you familiar with the Tabata protocol? It's 20s high-intensity, 10s rest, repeat 8x. It can be applied to lots of things, including weight lifting I suppose - and there's some science on its effect on vo2max: Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. - PubMed - NCBI ... but if weights are involved they'd have to be pretty low weights in order to be tolerable and the kind of intensity that tabata is about.
queerpunk is offline  
Old 03-08-16, 10:26 AM
  #681  
VanceMac
Senior Member
 
VanceMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Socal
Posts: 4,318
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by carleton View Post
Do as many squats as you can for 20s as opposed to doing 5 reps to complete 1 set.
I would only consider this (any high rep scheme) if I gave up the bike. I don't believe in crossing the streams. Aerobic endurance: on bike. Anaerobic endurance: intervals on bike. Anaerobic power: weights.
VanceMac is offline  
Old 03-08-16, 02:32 PM
  #682  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,610
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by queerpunk View Post
Are you familiar with the Tabata protocol? It's 20s high-intensity, 10s rest, repeat 8x. It can be applied to lots of things, including weight lifting I suppose - and there's some science on its effect on vo2max: Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. - PubMed - NCBI ... but if weights are involved they'd have to be pretty low weights in order to be tolerable and the kind of intensity that tabata is about.
Originally Posted by VanceMac View Post
I would only consider this (any high rep scheme) if I gave up the bike. I don't believe in crossing the streams. Aerobic endurance: on bike. Anaerobic endurance: intervals on bike. Anaerobic power: weights.
Here's the thing, this would be a low-rep scheme. It takes about 20s to do 5 reps with heavy weights (like on a Starting Strength or 5x5 program).
carleton is offline  
Old 03-08-16, 03:21 PM
  #683  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,610
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
So, basically it's a "lift heavy" for 20s then rest for a full recovery.

When you think about it, a 500M is about 10-15s of anaerobic work then the other energy systems take over.
carleton is offline  
Old 03-08-16, 06:31 PM
  #684  
VanceMac
Senior Member
 
VanceMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Socal
Posts: 4,318
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by carleton View Post
When you think about it, a 500M is about 10-15s of anaerobic work then the other energy systems take over.
Grr.
VanceMac is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 02:31 AM
  #685  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,610
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts


Strength training offers a potent stimulus to ↘ fatigue during the last parts of a 10km run | By @YLMSportScience


You enduro nerds should go lift things up and put them down.


carleton is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 07:15 AM
  #686  
wens
Senior Member
 
wens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 3,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm too lazy to find the real study, but based on that infographic I think they increased training load for one group and maintained it for the control. That means they proved that increasing training works. They would have needed to provide an equal increase in aerobic training time in the control group to prove that lifting weights works better.

This is a lot of why coaching tends to be in front of sports science, it's difficult to design good studies, most of them use whatever random college kids they can recruit, and it's tough to normalize different types of training stimulus to each other.

Edit: with love from an Enduro nerd who put in a ten week block of picking up and putting down heavy stuff more than riding
wens is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 09:34 AM
  #687  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,610
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by wens View Post
This is a lot of why coaching tends to be in front of sports science, it's difficult to design good studies, most of them use whatever random college kids they can recruit, and it's tough to normalize different types of training stimulus to each other.
Yeah, that's what sucks about a lot of collegiate studies. The subjects are generally untrained, but healthy 18-24 year olds.

You are right that coaches probably have better insights into what works for trained athletes.
carleton is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 11:24 AM
  #688  
wens
Senior Member
 
wens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 3,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yeah, it's kind of funny actually, science will come along five or ten years behind a coaching advance and tell people why it worked, and at the same time wonder why coaches don't pay more attention to science.
wens is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 11:28 AM
  #689  
SprintzNKiloz
Senior Member
 
SprintzNKiloz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 97

Bikes: LOOK 675, Dolan DF4, Casati Gold Line, Litespeed Classic, Felt TR2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ok, how do you guys define "heavy" for your lifts? I realized reading this that I'm a gym noob and haven't given it much thought beyond "I can lift this much 10 times and Y times this much 5 times and not die."
SprintzNKiloz is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 11:45 AM
  #690  
VanceMac
Senior Member
 
VanceMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Socal
Posts: 4,318
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wens View Post
Yeah, it's kind of funny actually, science will come along five or ten years behind a coaching advance and tell people why it worked, and at the same time wonder why coaches don't pay more attention to science.
That's a bit of selection bias. I think the number of coaches who are clueless or (more likely) hopelessly entrenched in this or that conventional paradigm far, FAR outnumber ones who are genuinely at the forefront of their field.

I'm not singling out cycling coaches, it seems pretty consistent across all fields, though certainly strength coaches are a particularly ripe target considering most think they need to make something that is fairly simple into something much more complex to justify their role.
VanceMac is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 11:50 AM
  #691  
wens
Senior Member
 
wens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 3,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
But the coaches at the pointy end actually know what they're doing. They also tend to link up with applied scientists who recognize where real contributions can be made by science.

It was certainly a bit of a flippant comment, and I probably could be nicer about saying it, but the point does remain that coaching has more to teach science than vice versa about how to train optimal performance.
wens is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 12:15 PM
  #692  
VanceMac
Senior Member
 
VanceMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Socal
Posts: 4,318
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wens View Post
But the coaches at the pointy end actually know what they're doing.
We agree on that.

Originally Posted by wens View Post
but the point does remain that coaching has more to teach science than vice versa about how to train optimal performance.
We disagree on that.
VanceMac is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 12:17 PM
  #693  
Quinn8it
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Quinn8it's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 956

Bikes: Bianchi Pista, Bianchi Vigorelli

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Heavy= more than last time
Quinn8it is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 06:13 PM
  #694  
brawlo
Senior Member
 
brawlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by wens View Post
But the coaches at the pointy end actually know what they're doing. They also tend to link up with applied scientists who recognize where real contributions can be made by science.

It was certainly a bit of a flippant comment, and I probably could be nicer about saying it, but the point does remain that coaching has more to teach science than vice versa about how to train optimal performance.
Coaching is an applied science. There are many exercises that are proven to have beneficial outcomes. The good coach then needs to both recognise what might work for that athlete and experiment with known stimuli to conclude what will work for that particular athlete. That is scientific method ~ applied science
brawlo is offline  
Old 03-10-16, 12:32 AM
  #695  
JimiMimni
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wens View Post
I'm too lazy to find the real study, but based on that infographic I think they increased training load for one group and maintained it for the control. That means they proved that increasing training works. They would have needed to provide an equal increase in aerobic training time in the control group to prove that lifting weights works better.

This is a lot of why coaching tends to be in front of sports science, it's difficult to design good studies, most of them use whatever random college kids they can recruit, and it's tough to normalize different types of training stimulus to each other.

Edit: with love from an Enduro nerd who put in a ten week block of picking up and putting down heavy stuff more than riding

Good point about increased total training load! It's also worth noting that runners (and any other sport that has eccentric loading, which is everything EXCEPT cycling) react much more to strength training (this is conjecture based on personal experience, and some older literature. I don't have a citation for it!) than the concentric-only pedal stroke we all use. Because running involves ground-reaction forces, which are eccentric contractions, small increases in strength can create larger increases in total efficiency. Almost every study I've found shows a moderate to strong correlation between increased strength and increased performance in endurance sports.

Ideally your coaching staff and sports science staff should be working together. Your example in the academic research is awkward. A lot of "health" studies get branded as "sports" just to get the paper published. (No citation for this either, but ermahgerd, it's a thing.) Combine that with some performance experts taking a keen interest in maintaining their advantage, and the data can sit for years before it gets published. Lastly, the differences between elite (truly elite, Olympians and World Champions) athletes and their peers is so fractionally small that most statistical analyses of their training and programming wouldn't show significant differences. Small sample sizes are generally the bane of research, and elite athletes are by definition a small sample.

Originally Posted by VanceMac
That's a bit of selection bias. I think the number of coaches who are clueless or (more likely) hopelessly entrenched in this or that conventional paradigm far, FAR outnumber ones who are genuinely at the forefront of their field.

I'm not singling out cycling coaches, it seems pretty consistent across all fields, though certainly strength coaches are a particularly ripe target considering most think they need to make something that is fairly simple into something much more complex to justify their role.
This! You nailed it on the head. My alma mater restarted their football team, and the head coach literally, verbatim, told our sports science program that "We can't make them faster, we can't make the jump higher!" The old S&C coach for the entire school, was equally useless. Lots of shouting and precious little coaching. Strength and Conditioning coaches aren't really put in a place to succeed, without a lot of buy-in from the sport-coaches and athletes. So, they feel the need to glam up what they do to look important. It's like trying to fit five-syllable words in a paper to appear smart. Lipstick for the pig, if you will.

Originally Posted by SprintzNKiloz
Ok, how do you guys define "heavy" for your lifts? I realized reading this that I'm a gym noob and haven't given it much thought beyond "I can lift this much 10 times and Y times this much 5 times and not die."
Pick a set/rep scheme and find out what your maximum is. You can do a 1 rep max (1RM) or a 3RM, 5RM, 3x3RM, whatever you like, and anything above 90% of that final value is "heavy." The scale we used in grad school was 100-95% is VERY Heavy; 95-90% is Heavy; 90-85% is Moderate Heavy; 85-80% is Moderate, 80-75% is Light; 75-70% is Very Light. Under 70% is for cases of extreme fatigue.
JimiMimni is offline  
Old 09-17-16, 09:55 AM
  #696  
Rvair
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Is a 25% strength gain across the board worth a 3-4% weight gain as a sprinter?

I'm getting back into track after a 26 year hiatus ( as a MM60). I started as a weight lifter before my last period of competitive cycling, and then went back to it for fitness. To return to cycling, I will let some upper body muscle mass disappear and focus on bringing my legs back up to former spec. I am currently between 7 and 8% body fat and am maxed out on strength at my current weight. From past experience, I know that if I let myself gain another 6 to 8lb, my lower body strength will go up by 25%. Is this worth doing, considering I will be focusing on match sprint and 500M TT? Where is the limit for diminishing returns?
Rvair is offline  
Old 09-18-16, 04:14 PM
  #697  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 9,634

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2991 Post(s)
Liked 49 Times in 40 Posts
My 15 year old - 2014 (in line with thread topic). A roadie then. Looking to switch.

5 rep * 1,000lbs * 3 sets.
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment...1&d=1474236735
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
1000lbsLegPRess.jpg (91.5 KB, 72 views)
Doge is offline  
Old 09-18-16, 04:19 PM
  #698  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 9,634

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2991 Post(s)
Liked 49 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by Rvair View Post
I'm getting back into track after a 26 year hiatus ( as a MM60). I started as a weight lifter before my last period of competitive cycling, and then went back to it for fitness. To return to cycling, I will let some upper body muscle mass disappear and focus on bringing my legs back up to former spec. I am currently between 7 and 8% body fat and am maxed out on strength at my current weight. From past experience, I know that if I let myself gain another 6 to 8lb, my lower body strength will go up by 25%. Is this worth doing, considering I will be focusing on match sprint and 500M TT? Where is the limit for diminishing returns?
I don't know why the track guys have not responded. I am not one, so I'll answer for road and I believe this would transfer to track.

A strength gain is not a power gain. Or, it is, but not 1:1. Can you maintain that %gain for the length of your event? Do you have the upper body and core and bike that can transmit that power?
If so, sure. Take that all day.
Doge is offline  
Old 09-18-16, 04:37 PM
  #699  
taras0000
Senior Member
 
taras0000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 43.2330941,-79.8022037,17
Posts: 1,679
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Rvair View Post
I'm getting back into track after a 26 year hiatus ( as a MM60). I started as a weight lifter before my last period of competitive cycling, and then went back to it for fitness. To return to cycling, I will let some upper body muscle mass disappear and focus on bringing my legs back up to former spec. I am currently between 7 and 8% body fat and am maxed out on strength at my current weight. From past experience, I know that if I let myself gain another 6 to 8lb, my lower body strength will go up by 25%. Is this worth doing, considering I will be focusing on match sprint and 500M TT? Where is the limit for diminishing returns?
The limit for diminishing returns will be found out by you and you alone (or with a coach). We can't figure out personal training models for someone we know little about. If you've experienced strength gains from increased mass previously, then I would say it's safe to say to add the mass, but there is more to speed than increased strength. I would try to focus on doing what makes you faster, not necessarily what "may" make you faster.

Sprinters for the most part have been getting leaner over the years and drifting away from the "thunder thighs" look of the 80's and 90's. The trends have been more towards developing better 30s power than max wattage. On the other hand, as an MM60 racer, your events are going to be shorter, so max power is going to matter more to you than a younger racer.

Last edited by taras0000; 09-18-16 at 04:40 PM.
taras0000 is online now  
Old 09-18-16, 05:13 PM
  #700  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 9,634

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2991 Post(s)
Liked 49 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by taras0000 View Post
...
Sprinters for the most part have been getting leaner over the years and drifting away from the "thunder thighs" look of the 80's and 90's. The trends have been more towards developing better 30s power than max wattage. ...
I did not know that.
What W/kg for 30s?
As my kid ages his 5 sec W/kg goes down and his 30s goes up a bit.
Doge is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.