Doge

I am saying x% more is by definition what you will not use for your cycling event.
So if you want x%, at what cost?

Other than the neurological part that is not understood by me, generally more ROM means more mass. And with that there is the cost/other side.

-Risk in the additional ROM (knees as you mentioned), fatiguing what you won't need.
-Time to develop vs time that could be on bike
-Recovery - that x%+ means x%+ more recovery time, fuel, rest etc.
-Fueling/feeding - the x%+ mass has needs. If it is not invoked in the event - why have it?
-Waste - the other side of fueling. Moving around lean muscle mass is not totally free.

So if it not really needed for the event, there is a value calculation to think about.

taras0000

A deep squat done to parallel puts much less stress on the knee than a partial squat. Going too deep is not good either. At the "too deep" end of squtting, the muscles of the calves and the hamstrings end up squishing against each other, and this creates a fulcrum between the knee and the hip that tries to separate (or open) the knee joint. A partial squat (or leg press), allows a much greater weight to be used because the muscles have more leverage around the joints. The problem with these exercises is they place a great amount of shear force on the knee joint. The knee angle in these exercises is the same knee angle that causes ruptured ACL ligaments in athletes.

Cycling does have an eccentric portion, and it's the whole backstroke. It's not physiologically possible to pull up as fast or as forcefully on the backstroke as much as one can on the downstroke. You adapt to it quickly enough, but there is definitely an eccentric component to the pedal stroke. Take a look at most pedal vector diagrams and you'll see what I mean.

If you look at the range of motion when a cyclist is seated, as well as when they are out of the saddle, you will see that both of those positions are encompassed by the ROM of a full squat.

Other than the neurological part that is not understood by me, generally more ROM means more mass.[/QUOTE]

More ROM does not equal more mass. Mass is a brought on by a combination of stress/strain on the muscle fiber, as well as the tearing of a muscle fiber. Heavy eccentric stress, extremely heavy loads (these are all relative to the trainee) and training to failure, are how this occurs. A muscle fiber can only take a certain amount of strain before it needs to get bigger to handle more strain. A muscle also increases in size when it has to repair the micro-tears in it brought on my eccentric stress.

Does more ROM mean more eccentric stress compared to a shorter ROM? Only if the weight is the same. If you decrease ROM and use the same weight, then you are wasting your time. If you increase the weight at expense of ROM, you are inviting injury. The first goal of weight training for sports is to decrease injury. The second one is to increase performance.

What ROM does increase is neural activation. This is the reason why once can get stronger without gaining any mass. In fact, if you look at athletes that deal with a huge range of motion, compared to those that don't, you will see that the decreased ROM results in athletes with more mass. Power lifters, and bodybuilders tailor their ROM and rep ranges to their specific needs to maximize the amount of strength within that ROM. Gymnasts and Olympic lifters, while muscular, are smaller than the above mentioned athletes, yet they train through a full range of motion, and alter their rep ranges to maintain or improve strength without an increase in weight.

-Like mentioned above, a proper ROM is safer than a shorter one.
-ROM won't alter how much time is spent away from the bike. For a Roadie or Enduro the weight training should be a focused block with maybe a little maintenance throughout the season (studies show that endurance athletes get more efficient as the season progresses, but get weaker as well).
-Again, ROM won't effect recovery. The types of rep ranges and exercises will influence this.
-Nuerological (power and strength) work won't adversely affect ones mass enough that it will be a hindrance. If the athlete starts to put on mass that is unwanted (some atheletes are predisposed to this, more on that later), calorie restriction takes care of that. It has also been proven that a stronger muscle is able to work longer before it reaches it's fatigue limits.

Really it all comes down to where the compromise lies in finding more power vs efficiency.

carleton

It is.

This is why an adequately deep squat is beneficial...even to road cyclists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard's_paradox


This explains why the deep squat (as opposed to shallow squat) also trains the hamstrings which are very useful in providing force to extend the let...as in cycling.

This also explains why the squat is considered to be a total leg exercise, working the anterior and posterior sides at the same time.

Anecdotal: I've generated over 2000W using only squats and on-bike as my leg exercises. No leg curls, leg extensions, calf raises, scissor kicks, etc...

As Steve Hill taught me: If you are pressed for time on your gym day, go in and do your squats and go on about your day. That's the most important and useful exercise.

carleton

+1 everything that Taras and Vance wrote.

Strength training the human body is a pretty mature science. There's nothing new under the sun. These things were figured out long ago. You can go in the gym and it looks like a Charlie Brown dance party with people doing all kinds of weird sh*t.



But to achieve solid, measurable results, you only need to do a few basic exercises. One of which is the proper squat.

carleton

Your son's knees are buckling here. This is not good. If you posted this to a weight training forum, they'd rip it to shreds for so many reasons (don't shoot the messenger).

Here's one of my pics:



Doing this (approximately 710lbs) FULL range of motion 3 sets of 5 would be more reasonable. And I used weightlifting shoes, not jogging shoes.



Loading up lots of weight and moving it 3 inches is also not good. You don't need to do that to stimulate growth, especially in beginner weight training athletes.

Most of us here (and your son) would be considered "beginners" in the weight training world.

Just because we go to the gym a lot doesn't progress us past the "beginner" stage any more than 3-day-a-week, 2 mile commuter progresses past the "beginner" stage of being a cyclist in the world cycling or making the same bacon and eggs for 15 years advances one past the "beginner" stage of cooking.

Doge

My point was on @x improvement without gaining mass.
He was somewhat of a beginner then. Trainer a 2X Mr Olympia (world) champion. He's not a beginner now by any measure - even in the weight training world. But he is a cyclist.

carleton

All I know about your son is what you show us. That pic was not a great example.

Unless your son is lifting 5-6x/week, he is a beginner. Period.

There is no way he's the national level cyclist you say he is and he lifts heavy 5-6x/week.

So, yeah, I'm calling bull**** on a lot of this

I'm sure you son is a lovely kid and all. But, he's not the superhero you make him out to be.

Boondocksaints

I 100% agree.

If I don't feel soreness, I feel like I haven't done a good job of working out.

Muscles getting sore = microtears in the fiber = muscles adapting and getting stronger.

carleton

Further BS:


So you are your son's coach and you are paying for all of these lessons from Mr. Olympia:

Yet you don't see the value of the proper Squat for cyclists?




BTW, don't be fooled by that Kerin rider in the video. That man did not get that big by doing those exercises you saw in that video

Doge

We were happy with the results and will continue with both. He is not a super hero, I never said he was. I was having a weight lifting discussion about power, not kid super hero. The most recent focus, shortly after that picture he took up rowing, along with cycling and being a college student rather than a pro.

Doge

How about what I tell you? As I said - not a super hero. He is an elite level cyclist. Can you take it a that? I am discussing and interested in weight lifting for those that are elite level cyclists.

carleton

I simply don't believe the things you tell me. They don't add up. Which is why I threw up the BS flag (as I think I've done before when you started posting a lot a few months ago).

Also, is any of this related to track racing?

brawlo

Cats and pigeons - just because people have been doing something one way for a long time doesn't make it the best way. There's been a lot of advances in muscle training for sport.

Forsti is a poster boy for those that like to lift weights and sprint. The stark thing is that he is far from being fast by today's standards despite his brute strength. Word out there in the world has it that the really fast guys aren't entertaining the notion of deep squats much these days......

Doge

If you have more info on the Word about that, I'd certainly like to know.
This was why I popped in. Other that your post, I pretty much always hear squats, full range, form etc. and an increase in mass is the way to go, along with strong disagreement to doing things differently.

My interest is because my kid is a climber/roadie/TTer attending college near a track. With the time it takes to do 110mile road races, tack - and lifting seem quite a bit more time efficient, and may provide more opportunity.
So if, to do track well, he needs to build much mass, the effect on road, climbing and TT is of concern. It is ultimately his choice, but I pay for the coaches - and sometimes the stuff. Last year time was a huge constraint But it gets better and he has access to the human performance lab too.

But I think maybe there can be bigger gains without increasing mass doing smaller ROM and not things like squats. There is nothing proving my conclusion. If I had proof I might not be here. The sampling is small. There are not a lot of serious cyclists who lift. But in the 3 cyclists I saw with the same trainer, along with some other sports (tennis, football), all gained huge strength without much mass. And their peers didn't. The cyclist power went up the last few seconds (as expected) but also in the 30 min range. Meaning, to me, they were able to feed their stronger muscles, which for their events matters more than a 20 sec burst.

warx

About eccentric in cycling; I see the only eccentric load is on the hamstring due to the paradox above. No other muscle sees heavy load while elongating right? There's no resisting, absorbing or lowering. The backstroke I'd consider concentric load of the hamstring, glutes then hip flexor etc.

And I think the paradox applies less in cycling than in a squat since the end points are constrained by some combination of the seat, bars and pedals. Much simpler lever actions. Another win for weights.

Doge

See post 814
The related to track racing is the weight training that supports being a hardcore roadie and track racer, and the body profile that comes with that. If hardcore roadies/TT guys that do strength training can be competitive on the track in some events, then track may start getting a new pool of riders coming in. The profiles of Ganna, Gaviria are riders that do both.

Also when rules change - how does or should training - particularly weight training change.
I'm first to admit I don't know much about track riding, but reading about the new UCI omnium changes with a tempo race sprinting every lap, scratch race, points, elimination sound to me to reward both strength and recovery. I'd be curious how the training should be different than before those rule changes. I think equipment might be different too - but that is off topic.

If it relates to the topic, let me know what it was.

VanceMac

First, no one who wants to be taken seriously holds up one person as a reason to do anything. Second, saying he is far from being fast is a bit disingenuous, no? You have to be in the top 3-4 in the world to be fast? Top 10 is slow? 9.7 is slow? Even though I'd wager the vast majority of world class sprinters are lifting heavy in some fashion, most including squats, that doesn't really concern me -- that is, what guys who are extreme outliers on the genetic spectrum are doing vs what most mortals (and this scrawny ectomorph) can do to get stronger/faster.

topflightpro

Figured I'd follow up on my previous comments about my issue with debilitating DOMS.

Many years ago, I partially tore my patella tendon. Part of my PT for that was stretching, and over the years, that stretching routine has evolved to the point that I spend about 30 min. each morning stretching my lower body and back. It has had a tremendous impact on my flexibility and substantially reduced my lower back issues.

Having read that stretching can exacerbate DOMS, I've recently stopped stretching the day after I lift. I've also substantially upped my intake of BCAAs. I now take about 4000mg after I lift, 2000 each of the two days after.

So far, this combination has had a profound affect reducing my DOMS. It's only been a couple of weeks, but I'll let you know if things get bad again.

warx

Cool! I always stretch every night (rear chain and quads) even the day of and day after weights (sore). I also use foam rollers every day. Maybe I'll try skipping both of those as it sounds like it could negatively effect the repairing. I have to stretch my calfs right before bed else they keep me up...

Curious as to the advantage of BCAAs are over regular [whey] protein. I have some but never remember to take it.

taras0000

There is nothing to prove your conclusion because smaller ROMS do not equate to less mass. You can gain lots of strength without putting on a gram of muscle if you train the nervous system. Look at the world class track sprinters of today versus 20 years ago. You will see that they are much smaller, because the peak forces they are putting out are smaller, even though they are going faster. Sprints now are high speed drag races that start from 30-40 km/h and go much longer than they used to. 20-30 years ago, sprinters were "cat and mousing" from near standstill when they launched their sprints about a lap and half from the finish. This required massive amounts of torque, and consequently puts a lot of strain on the muscle. Big thighs were a product of the training required for this type of effort. Now, the sprinters need to push less air and be more efficient (in an endurance aspect). Smaller ROMS are good for one thing, and that is training the nervous system in that specific ROM. Doing partial leg presses is only beneficial on the bottom portion of the downstroke while one is standing. What are you going to do to train the upper half and middle of the downstroke when seated? The hips are quite closed in this position? The hamstrings are a HUGE prime mover in this part of the stroke (because it is so similar to coming out of the hole in a parallel squat).

What you are seeing when it comes to improvements in these athletes with regards to weight training, is the fact that they are doing any sort of weight training at all. This makes them beginners. The definitition of a beginner when it comes to weightifting is someone who makes progress on a linear progression of load. In other words, if you continually make progress by upping the weights a little each week, then you are a beginner. If you max this out, and need to manipulate different loading, rest, and intensity schemes to make progress, you have progressed beyond a beginner. There are big, strong, and fast athletes who have been lifting for year and are still beginners because they advance on a linear progression program, even elite athletes. You can be a beginner for years as long as you are progressing. It has nothing to do with skill or knowledge of weightlifting.

Doge

@taras0000 Thanks for the input.

Do you think based on the UCI changes to the omnium and your comments about sprinting that road riders and track (omnium) riders are closer to the type of strength training they should do vs say before UCI changed the rules and 10 years ago?
What has changed in strength training, and what do these event rule changes drive?

If UCI changes rules and events I would expect changes in training. What are they?

brawlo

Not really just one person per se, but trying to point out how someone who is very outright strong is no longer at the top of the tree. I think the message could have been made better, but what I'm saying is it's not just about being strong anymore. It's about getting power down on the bike and while yes, those top of the tree guys are potentially pounding out big numbers, their training is far removed from even the recent past. They are finding better ways beyond just pounding out hours in the gym to get fast on the bike. More emphasis is being placed on working on the bike, and other innovative (but not necessarily new) ways of training. For me, I think the emphasis on gym time shouldn't be so for anyone outside of an elite athlete. As soon as life takes over, I think time is far better spent with minimal gym work and much more bike time.

taras0000

The biggest thing that has changed is that Enduros and Roadies have actually started to do some weight training, as well as borrowing a lot of tricks from the sprinters.

Prior to the introduction of the Omnium, most track Enduros were just road cyclists when they weren't on the track, and no one was really doing any weight training. There were maybe only 20 riders who's main focus was track. The rest of them did it because they were domestiques on the road, and it was a way to supplement their income during the winter months. The guys that make the best track Enduros tend to be very good road sprinters, but because of the relative obscurity of track between Olympic years, most of the road sprinters didn't bother. Many of them had track backgrounds when they were younger, but the demands of a Tour/Giro/Vuelta rider made track riding impossible. It was Mark Cavendish and the High Road team that allowed him to ride track that started the new wave of interest in track racing amongst endurance cyclists. Bradley Wiggins cemented that and made it a sure thing.

Once these two riders started winning, the rest of the roadies started to jump into track more seriously. When roadies started to train like track enduros, the track enduros started to train more like sprinters to stay ahead of the new guys. The new crop of track Enduros are EXTREMELY FAST. If you look at many of their Flying 250m times, and interpolate those results to equate with the F200, you'll see a few of them are able to attain speeds that would qualify them for the sprint rounds.

It used to be that only Road Sprinters did any speed work, and most of them used the old traditional "road bike only" methods, including some motorpacing. Once the influx into track racing started, then these guys started to get into motorpacing much more, and started to add explosive power work. They were doing overspeed work to train their nervous systems, and doing weight training to increase their power output. One allows you to pedal faster, the other allows you to pedal a larger gear. Marry these together and you get more speed.

It hasn't really been the changing events that brought about a change (on the enduro side), but the influx of many new, high caliber riders that forced the way these athletes trained (at least that's my opinion). With a deeper field where anyone was capable of winning, the riders were looking for any edge to get ahead, and this forced the change in training.

On the sprint side of things, Speed is what changed the game. Guys were getting faster, but it takes longer to get up to a faster speed, which requires more speed-endurance. The tactics became more subtle and the speeds started to creep higher, with the sprints starting earlier. This largely coincided with the removal of the Kilo from the Olympic program. You had Kilo specialists where were capable of hitting high speeds AND going long. Chris Hoy and Theo Bos were the guys who changed sprinting at this time. They were able to go to the front of a keirin or a sprint and keep ratcheting the speed higher and higher making it hard to pass.

carleton

Like so:

VanceMac

Most of what we have been discussing is just small and nuanced differences. But that statement I would sharply disagree with.


Most of what we have been discussing is just small and nuanced differences. But that statement I would sharply disagree with. A lot of variables, but I'd suggest most amateurs have the most to gain from adding gym time. I actually would rather not delineate between elite and amateur, but genetic predisposition. I think naturally big guys, who are predisposed to adding muscle even without lifting (you and Nate), like to eschew lifting because you have a very skewed perspective of the potential gains to be had in the gym. The other 90% of that bell curve have tremendous potential gains waiting for us there.