PaulRivers

I started doing a popular beginner program everyone online claimed was great.

After I got injured I started thinking more critically about what I was reading and I realized a lot of the "popular" beginner programs online make a lot of bad choices in the pursuit of making the program "sound cool" rather actually being good. Sometimes they seem to make bad decisions based on a principle that people will argue about it and they'll get free publicity out of it.

I ran across a video interview of Boris Sheiko (that I posted earlier) - he coaches winning powerlifting competitors rather than most authors who are just internet personalities - and he was saying that he prefers that people have not done beginner programs before they come to him for coaching because beginner programs condition the body in the wrong way for optimal results and he basically has to decondition them and retrain how they lift.

I know more advanced lifters use a periodized schedule which has you lifting closer to your max some days and less than your max other days. He also talked about how he almost never has his lifters lift above about 85%-90% of their max unless it's in a competition. It's unecessary and far more injury prone to go above that.

Does this apply to you? Eh, I don't know, it depends on what you're doing. It's a lot less likely to matter for simpler things like lat pulldowns, and more likely to get your in trouble with more complex lifts like squats where you're doing a ton of weight, there's a whole chain of muscles where anything going wrong can mess you up, and you're dealing with huge amounts of weight.

The bigger point is - you don't have to go through horrid constant soreness or exhaustion. You can just train without going to the max every time and that is actually how professionals who show what that they know what they're doing by coaching people who win competitions have their people train. The whole "have to max it out every time" is about said because of sales and psychology (people think it sounds exciting), it's not the way pro's train or anyone has to train to get good results.

OBoile

Explosive lifting for powerlifting is kind of similar to lifting weights for cycling. There's some debate about whether it is effective or not. The main pro-explosive lifting is the Westside (a famous gym run by Louis Simmons) gym and their followers. They call it the Dynamic Effort method. They have a very large influence, particularly in the USA. However they tend to compete in federations that allow steroid use (which are mainly in the USA), so their influence is somewhat less internationally. In the largest federation, the IPF, which is the one recognized by the IOC, speed work is less popular. Personally, I never had a strong opinion one way or the other. I guess I never trained with it really, so that would imply I didn't think it was valuable, but there certainly a lot of successful lifters who feel it is important.
IIRC, the sports scientist that is on GCN from time to time also feels that focusing on bar speed is important for cycling improvement.

PaulRivers

I spent all day today with my leg hurting in my seat at work. It's pretty much been that way for the last 5 years since I injured it doing squats. I have a $1,000 physical therapy bill I need to pay this week because I gave it another shot at fixing it because it bothers me all the time. Didn't help much. Weirdly I can bike just fine. I just can't stand up or sit in a chair without pain or discomfort though. It's hurt my career as well as when I sleep on it wrong I kinda give off this painful vibe for the rest of the day and people think I don't like them or something.

Around the same time my coworker like I said messed up his back doing a squad and couldn't sit in a chair without pain. His career is a desk job. I lost touch with him after a year.

Another friend I met through mutual friends we talked about lifting, he hurt his shoulder doing the bench press in a way that can't be fixed and he's just stuck with it.

Another friend was posting about his surgery about while getting injured lifting at home...

This real life experience is far more proof than I personally need.

There is a discussion on which lifts are effective, less injury prone with the same results, and ways to exercise with a lower rate of injury. Unfortunately lifting on the internet is mostly about ego-posting, ego-lifting, and ego-arguing. Like I said it's a pattern from the online pro-lifting crowd - they know people get injured lifting, so they loudly tell everyone that it's healthy and injury free, people get injured, then they attack anyone who talks about it to try to silence them. Like I said it's something done by people who know they face no consequence for giving bad advice.

You can occassionally find a rational discussion about training from people who do face consequences if they get someone injured, and have both education and experience in actually knowing how to train in ways other than "whatever sounds good when I tell people". It's kind of amazing how what they say has little overlap with the first crowd though and how they recommend training is often the opposite.

My options are either that I'm part of some incredibly statistically anomolous group - or that you're just pushing same obviously flawed narrative that's "I don't care if people get hurt as long as push this" - I do not think it's the first one.

Carbonfiberboy 

That last bit goes back to my powerlifter's discussion of fiber recruitment, and well, my talk about fiber recruitment as the main objective for the cyclist. Here are a couple of links from a neurophysiologist talking about fiber recruitment:
https://www.t-nation.com/training/ma...ent-training-1
https://www.t-nation.com/training/ma...ent-training-2

After reading these, I'm going to consider altering my programs.

OBoile

It's the first one.
Odd that it didn't happen to any of these guys: https://ontariopowerlifting.org/wp-co...oships2017.pdf and no, the vast majority of them aren't "special". They're just people who like to lift.

Not to mention the numerous people who have posted on this very thread without issue.

wphamilton

"Max" was the maximum I could do for 6-10 reps, I don't know that I ever tried for my absolute maximum lift during that time. My "weight lifting" phase was before everything was online, so probably none of this applies to me. Library research, talked to a couple of people, made a basic routine.

Nowadays it's infrequent, similar but not as intense. I would be very careful when increasing the weights, and base that on how I recovered rather than what I could do. Because, aging.

Hermes

I have had a lot of injuries over the years as a life long athlete. I can tick off a few of them such as tennis elbow, sprained ankles from tennis, shoulder strain (tennis and lifting). plantaris tear (walking down the banking at the velodrome), back fracture (genetic defect), golfer's elbow, wrist sprain (golf), knee tweak (skiing), elbow sore (weight lifting) pulled hamstring / tendon (sprinting bicycle). I could keep going. The harder one pushes the envelop in sports competition the more one will increase the chance of injury.

I race track and everyone seems injured in some way - especially the sprinters. And many are so quad centric and have their shoulders rolled forward that they develop what physical therapists call the old man's walk. And then there is falling off your horse. If one crashes while riding, it is all bad with potentially fatal outcomes.

For me, I have had the least injury from weight training and I have been doing it consistently for a long time. At the better gyms, there are trainers and members can get help and personal training to advise them in the correct form and put together a program to meet their goals. IMO, strength training has kept me in the game so its benefits far outweighs its risks.

There are people, with the best intentions, that want to focus on what can go wrong and has gone wrong with them. I was at a cycling camp and one of the cyclists was a famous researcher who worked on strength of joints. So at dinner, he did a presentation of his research and had a lot of videos breaking knees in the laboratory (sheep), data in the strength of joints and videos of power lifters with their knees failing during a lift. It was AWEFUL and PAINFUL to watch and sometimes I had to look away it was so bad. What was his goal? God only knows.

My take away was that the human knee is pretty amazing and strong but has limits. Objective: Stay within the limits.

My experience with soft tissue injuries is that they take a long time to heal - months. Avoid these.

I really like OPs premise of pitting Coggan against Friel. I thought it was interesting and kudos to OP. I like that it was positive and generally received positive responses that one could make actionable after due diligence and applicability check for individual situations.

@Carbonfiberboy is going to try box jumping. Great. I assume he will do his own due diligence on jumping and learn the correct technique. I am not his father and do not have to point out all the things that can go wrong when a 70+ year old jumps into the air. But how about all the things that can go right if he does and is successful?

Back to Coggan and Allen versus Friel...I am highly confident that Coggan and Allen completely understand the role of strength training in making muscles more fatigue resistant. I think they think it is immaterial and the benefit is too small for the energy and time consumed. Friel, on the other hand, is more about periodizing the strength work into the training cycle to capture its benefit even if it is small and consumes time and energy. For the athlete, it is probably what works for the individual, what the individual is willing to do and the results will vary.

joelcool

This thread is like researching fitness on line. Everyone has an opinion and they all contradict each other. But, there's good reason for that. Everyone is different, and what works for one individual may, or may not, work for someone else. The trick is to figure out what works for you, and do that.

My only contribution can be what I've done, starting at about 48 years old. I lift because I enjoy it, and I cycle because I enjoy it. I do not compete in either. When I started this journey I made a firm commitment to myself that I was only going to make small, sustainable changes that I could live with for the rest of my life. For the most part I've been good with that commitment. I've moved away from dead lifts and squats because I don't want to load my spine that heavy. But I do enjoy lifting heavy - 315# is my 1RM for bench (125# dumbbell bench press is no joke), again because I enjoy it. How does my weight lifting affect my cycling? Probably does not help much, if at all, but then I don't care. I enjoy both, and will continue doing both.

I've also been very systematic about what I eat, but that's a different thread .

Carbonfiberboy 

I think some here may misunderstand what "max" means and also how and why lifters plan their workouts. When lifters want to specify their maximum possible lift, they'll say "1RM," meaning 1 repetition maximum. Here's a 1RM calculatior: https://strengthlevel.com/one-rep-max-calculator
from which one can determine one's probable 1RM from the number of reps one is doing, also the percentage of 1RM. So say I'm squatting 145, which is what I'm actually doing right now, 12 reps of full depth squats, my body weight. My 1RM calculates at 203, and I'm at about 73% of 1RM. That's not a big weight partly because of age, partly because I haven't done this routine in a year and this is my first week for it. There's no way I'd attempt a 1RM - I'd tear the crap out of my hams. Nonetheless, 145 is my max for that lift in this program. By midsummer, when I get down to 5 reps of half-squats, I'll probably be squatting 245, which would make my 1RM 275, which I could do. So I'd be lifting about 88% of 1RM. Powerlifters do a lot of 5 rep work, with 3 rep work getting close to contest time. They stop when they know they couldn't do another rep, for sure. IOW, they're maxing it out. Right before a contest, they'll do some 1RM lifts. That's not their usual diet, but they need to know about where to start their contest series.

I don't see anyone at our gym who doesn't follow these approximate procedures w/r to max weights. I usually max it out, not every time, but usually. Right now, I couldn't do a 13th rep, for sure. 145 is my current max for that lift.

I think the links I put up in post 129 give a good sense of the how's and why's.

As others have said, injuries among lifters are quite rare. It's terrible that folks get injured. However, the fact that some people get injured riding their bikes doesn't stop me from advocating bike riding. Statistically, one comes out way ahead health-wise for both cycling and lifting. Thinking about my friends who ride and lift, I'd say cycling injuries are more common than lifting injuries, plus I'm pretty sure that some of those cyclist broken bones could have been prevented by lifting regularly.

Going back to the OP, Friel's book is pretty good about lifting for cyclists. You do your adaptation period of high reps, then gradually move the number of reps down and the weights up.

woodcraft

Wow.

I'm off to work, where I will again lift more than 1/2 my body weight multiple times as I have for 40 yrs.

If you don't see any posts from me in the next couple of days, it may be from a heart attack

or that my joints wore down so I can't walk.

Campag4life

Make sense. You can always communicate by carrier pigeon.

Campag4life

In bold above. Pretty certain this is true. I have dropped too many muscle bound guys to prove it.
The guy on the right in the picture I am quite sure can drop the more famous guy on the left. But in the gym? No comparison.

KraneXL

Everybody is different but the fundamentals are universal: exercise works for person A just as it does for person B. Approaches may vary in the peripherals but not in the fundamentals. For example, ratios and timing may differ for different diets but they're all based on the same macro-nutrient -- fat, proteins and carbohydrates.

OBoile

Just to expand on part of what was, IMO, an excellent post, the training principle here is one mentioned several times by Friel when discussing programming and periodization. As you get closer to your competition, your training should get closer and closer to what you're going to be doing in the competition. Also, doing "singles" doesn't necessarily mean you have to do 100% of your 1RM. Generally, in training you wouldn't attempt what your goal weight is at a contest. The heavy singles would generally be done in the 90 to 95% range. This is for a few reasons:
1. You're likely not as strong due to the absence of contest driven adrenaline and also not having done a taper as you would before the contest.
2. Doing a true all-out max is too taxing relative to the training adaptions it gives you.
3. Doing weights close to your max will give you a similar training effect (the main thing is practice - lifting heavy weights is a skill) and you can do several such reps in a session.
4. Less risk of failure and injury.

Campag4life

You know your stuff about weight lifting but your comment in bold above about male lifters having a period to me is beyond the pale. This would suggest an extreme shift in male hormone make up and based upon what I know, this shift isn't conducive to lifting more weight.

Siu Blue Wind

lol

Carbonfiberboy 

I appreciate the comments from those who know that weight training is bad for cyclists. Keep it coming, Makes my job hanging with riders 15 years younger than I a lot easier.

rubiksoval

Please. That's such a ridiculous statement and you know it.

rubiksoval

That IS periodization.

General -> specific.

Applicable to nearly anything.

Carbonfiberboy 

Yes it is. I've been on the steepening downslope for a while, and 10 years younger is pushing it now.

PaulRivers

Like I've been saying - you're super sensitive about high injury rate so you attack people who talk about it. Whatever tactic you think will work to attack. You got injured? "didn't happen" "your fault" etc etc anything to deflect blame.

Come to think of it, that is why online lifting advice is so absolutely pointless and awful. It's built through a process that doesn't care who it hurts, it just cares how it sounds.
- Which lifts should we do? Well the heaviest and most injury prone ones sound the coolest. What about injuries? - who cares we'll just tell them it didn't happen or it was their fault.
- Should we include warming up? Bro, that's just extra words that take away from sounding cool.
- What about a good progression scheme? Man...that's complicated to describe. Just stay with the simplest mediocre way to do it.
- What about practicing form with low weight...Does that sound cool? No. You know what sounds cool? Slam the max weight you can possibly handle onto the bar right away. 200lbs right on your spine...yeaaaah.
- What about mobility...Omg dude do you know how complex that is to describe? No way. Who cares if people get messed up, it does not sound cool.
- Well what about this research that says to keep your shoulders healthy you need to do as many pulling exercises as pushing...Do you think "lat pulldowns" sounds as cool as squats? Bench press? No way. Slam 200lbs onto their spine or shoulders, messes them up, that's their problem.

It...does actually kind of make sense how online lifting advice ended up so terrible.

That's obviously rediculous but this makes a good point about how this goes this way.

Let's we have a few people:
PersonA: Born with genetics issues that keep them from even walking
PersonB: Born with genetics that are bad for heavy weight and lifting though they walk around and are otherwise fine
PersonC: Good genetics for exercise, but they live a lethargic lifestyle and work a desk job so they're no longer able to move around freely enough to do big lifts with good form
PersonD: Good genetics, grew up with active lifestyle, but reckless mentality
PersonE: Good genetics, active lifestyle, parents were professional coaches so they avoided the trash heap of the internet for training and actually grew up getting good advice

Everyone is interested in joining a lifting competition.
PersonA - unfortunately can't even walk so they know they're not going to be able to compete so they skip it.
PersonB - goes to the gym, works out, puts 200lbs on their back - and pulls something awful around their spine in their back. They don't show up to the competition, as they can barely walk or leave the house.
PersonC - goes to the gym, seems to be going well - then they pull something in their leg. Not being a total idiot they realize this is pretty risky for them, so they also don't show up at the competition.
PersonD - goes to the gym, one day does something very stupid - throws an extra 50lbs on the bar to deadlift - throws out their back. Doesn't show up to the competition.
PersonE - goes to the gym, their genetics, mobility with an active lifestyle, and professional of training all come together and they train fine without injury. They go to the competition.

It would make sense that if you only looked at the injury rate at a competition, that people prone to injury have already been taken out by injuries before they got there. People without the combination of good genetics, good mobility, and good knowledge in training were weeded out before the competition began.

How do these people end up years later? Well...ironically, the guy in the wheelchair is fine because he avoided it. The guy who did something to his spine is stuck with that injury and pain for the rest of his life. The last guy wins the competition and entertains himself. Years later he stopped lifting, at which point he loses all of his gains because that's how it works - you stop lifting and you lose your gains.

With that philosophy you start a skydiving business. Give half the people a parachute, the other half an empty backpack and push them out of the plane. When people complain that you're killing people point at the people who survived and say "See? Some people survived - so everyone survived!"

------------------------------------

There's a big difference in lifting advice from people who face responsibility if they give their clients bad advice and get injured, vs the completely different "injuries don't happen and we attack anyone who says otherwise! Jump into the gym and put hundreds of pounds on your spine right away!" people. I've had to hobble around for the last 5 years because I took advice from the really wrong people, and so did several other people I know. And for what? So if everything went right I'd be marginally stronger. What a tradeoff.

Dean V

Putting aside whether lifting can benefit your cycling performance there is no doubt that more than just cycling needs to be done to keep muscle mass and mobility as we age.
Is lifting even the best way of doing this?
I would imagine exercises/stretches just with your own bodyweight could achieve it.
My daughter did gymnastics for a number of years and they achieve great core strength, flexibility, and quite good overall strength as well. With no weights used.
Yes, there is no shortage of injuries in gymnastics but it isn't usually from the "conditioning" as they call it.

Campag4life

Does anybody believe this guy spent much time in the gym during his peak riding years? Look at him. Btw, Eddie and I are/were identical height, size and shape and I hate gym's too. Our musculature is just about identical including riding weight in our prime. Eddie was faster of course.

But, does anybody believe the cannibal would have been faster if he had been a gym rat? No.

Eddie routinely rode 150 mile training days. He could ride all day like the wind. A freak of nature who was strong enough who could spin the cranks faster with more force longer than other more ordinary men. Muscling up his body likely would have slowed him down. He was perfect then and why perhaps the greatest cyclist who ever lived.

Last note. Check out how narrow the handlebar is in the picture. I just went to a narrow bar on my fast road bike.



Most of you have seen the following. But still a fascination. Some wonder about Eddie's freakish speed. His ability to spin the cranks for a man his size was pretty unparalleled. I have ridden a lot with more muscled riders. None can spin the cranks like Eddie of course. The elasticity in his body to create tremendous speed was pretty unmatched and still is.

Campag4life

Of course you are right. I have always used the floor and gravity with only hand weights. What a gymnast does is repeatedly lift their body weight, whether on parallel bars, horse or rings.

Genetics and fitness objectives is huge of course. What is weightlifting good for? Because it is so isolated, lifting big weights...or can be.

Some know the history of the great running back Herschel Walker who was famous for not lifting weights when all football players do is lift weights.

Worth a look:
Football Fit: A look at Herschel Walker's workout routine - NFL.com

Of course, relative to what they are good at, like Eddie, Herschel has world class genetics which wins the prize at the fair and not how much time you spend in the gym unless your objective is to lift more weight and not excel as a cyclist or running back in the NFL.

Some may know that hitting a golf ball 300 yards is an athletic feat. Very few can do it. John Daley who never stepped foot in a gym was asked about his uncanny ability to hit a golf ball 350 yards. He strugged and said it was God given. Some know that weight lifting can actually impede flexibility and reduce distance off the tee for many players.

John was asked where he got his power from. He said he could throw a baseball or football farther than anybody who went to his high school including all the guys that beefed up in the gym.

OBoile

No, I'm "super sensitive" about people who ignore statistical evidence indicating the injury rate is not high in favour of their own anecdotal experience. You persist in making the same logical fallacy over and over. "It happened to me, so it MUST be common".

If injuries were half as common as you suggest, why haven't gyms been sued out of business? Why does Crossfit (which takes far more risks than are necessary IMO) still exist? Why are strength and conditioning coaches being fired for getting their athletes injured all the time? Why are coaches like Friel recommending lifting for competitive cyclists? Why is strength training being pretty much universally recommended by medical experts as a way to maintain health in your old age?
Ironic then, that when I do exactly what you did (posted unscientific, anecdotal evidence), albeit on a larger scale, you call it ridiculous.