"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - another periodization question - anyone do a 3 week cycle?

seems most common for riders to adopt a 4 week cycle, where 3 weeks build and the 4th week is a less intense week to rest and recover. the beauty of this is that it matches the calender month fairly well, and it seems natural to think in 4 week blocks.

however, i find myself getting a little burnt out in the the middle of the 3rd week when it's supposed to be the highest training week of the cycle. not necessarily now (because i'm doing mostly preperation) but i'm remembering how it was last season. i would almost always be dragging at work, over sleeping, and not enthusiastic about training.

i'm trying to figure out if a 3 week cycle would work better for me, allowing me more frequent times to recover, or if i should tough it out with the "regular" 4 week plan.

any thoughts on this?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say give it a try for cycle or two and see how you feel. You're still early enough that you won't cause any long-term issues, in my opinion. Part of your training should be experimenting to improve and keep yourself from hitting a plateau, anyway.

I've done a 5-4-3 week cycle before with good results, for example.

i spent some time today at work thinking more about this. i wrote two training plans, one using a 4 week cycle and one using a 3 week cycle over 3 months and compared them.

i will still end up with the exact same training time over that duration, the only difference is that i don't cut back as much for the recovery weeks. but i get one more week of recovery than i would otherwise.

i think your approach makes sense. perhaps i'll try it for my base1 training and see how it feels.

I've tried two types of training cycles: 3 weeks on, 1 week recovery and 2-2.5 weeks on, 1 week recovery.
Both have worked well for me, but I use them under different circumstances.

when I am focusing on endurance training or things specific to TT prep, then I tend to go with the 3 week on, 1 week off plan. That's because my body is naturally suited to endurance and TT (ie great efficiency and high lactate threshold) and those workouts don't tire me out too much. HOWEVER, when I am doing things that involve sprint workouts, crit drills, then I tend to shorted the ON periods because I need more recovery.

Now that I have the powertap, I look at the TSS scores, IF, and compare that to how I feel and make adjustments accordingly. It's a lot easier now for me to tell when I am approaching my limit and to back off a bit.

when I am focusing on endurance training or things specific to TT prep, then I tend to go with the 3 week on, 1 week off plan. That's because my body is naturally suited to endurance and TT (ie great efficiency and high lactate threshold) and those workouts don't tire me out too much. HOWEVER, when I am doing things that involve sprint workouts, crit drills, then I tend to shorted the ON periods because I need more recovery.


this is very interesting. last season i was doing a ton of intervals, sprints, hill repeats, etc. and not much long endurance riding. i think those types of workouts wore me out enough that i had trouble just getting to the recovery week. i even needed to take a couple of longer breaks from the bike because i kept feeling like i couldn't get enough rest.

the more i think about this, the more i think a 3 week cycle makes sense for me.

3-week cycles seem to work better for me. I tended to work too hard on week 2 when using a 4week cycle, making week 3 of much lower quality than it should have been. This does lead to more recovery weeks but it also allows for more revisits to “the edge.”

For women I would suggest basing the cycle on their menstrual cycle. The hardest week should be around ovulation when hormone levels are in their favor (LH) and the recovery week should be right around/after menstruation when the bodies ability to recover is reduced, due to the rebuilding going on in the reproductive organs.

Side note... not only is the 4 week cycle arbitrary (based on a month) the 7 day block is not really based in science. It is used because athletes’ lives are based on weeks and exercise has to fit into that schedule. Some preliminary work with pros suggests a 10 day block is better for adaptation. However, only pros can screw with their schedule that much… for the rest of us life gets in the way.

Or avoid "institutionalized overtraining" by avoiding pre-planned rest periods altogether. Train as long as you're making progress, rest when you have to. http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/rushall7.html

Or avoid "institutionalized overtraining" by avoiding pre-planned rest periods altogether. Train as long as you're making progress, rest when you have to. http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/rushall7.html

Stage racers need to train the overreaching ability. How well would that guys athletes compete when both they and the competition feel like trash? A periodizer would have experience working in that state. “Been there, done that.”

Stage racers need to train the overreaching ability. How well would that guys athletes compete when both they and the competition feel like trash? A periodizer would have experience working in that state. “Been there, done that.”
First of all nothing in what I wrote or cited in any way addressed the question of periodization, we are only talking about the best way to incorporate rest into a training plan. Is it more beneficial to train this "overreaching ability" as you call it or to increase fitness at a faster rate? One of the basic principles of training is overload and if someone is fatigued, she can't stress her body beyond what it has done previously and so there is no overload; just further accumulation of fatigue. By training as hard as possible up to the point where no further overload is seen and then resting until training can resume at a level where overload is once again possible would allow the fastest rate of improvement.

Then again, I don't understand this concept of "overreaching ability". What exactly is this and how is it improved by training in a fatigued state? It seems to me the objective for training for a stage race is to minimize the fatigue generated each day while riding at the speed necessary to be succesful. The most effective way to do this is to minimize the amount of energy expended and increase fitness to accumulate the lowest TSS (to use the terminology from power-based training) for the required effort.
We know from power data from professional riders that they never accumulate as much fatigue in training leading up to a three-week tour as they do in the final week of the race. Rather, they control fatigue so that they can continue training to raise their fitness to the highest possible level at the start of the race so that fatigue will be minimized during the competition.

Overreaching ability could be oversimplified as mental toughness. The psychological aspect of being able to work through discomfort, even at sub par performance levels due to built up fatigue, is only a small part. The other aspect of mental toughness is subconscious. During states of fatigue the central governor will only activate muscle fibers if it “knows” that the body will not suffer permanent damage by continuing. In reality your muscles never really get tired, the body just senses markers of muscle damage and fuel depletion and ceases work to protect itself – the muscle could still fire. You can train the central governor to go into damaging levels of workload if you promise to pay it back with an unloading period. The power of the subconscious brain and biochemical feedback patterns cannot be underestimated.

Friel suggests that older cyclists may benefit from a 3-week cycle because they need more recovery than younger cyclists.

Bob

You scare the **** out of me!!!! No wonder why I always have very "fullfilling" dreams whenever I am on my rest week or even on a rest day. To the point that I would tell myself "this isn't happening" or "the dreams can't be real" or "this would be so nice if it can actually happen." For the original poster, you don't want to overload your 2 weeks training week with a 3 weeks of workload. Yeah, you can recover sooner but you also increase more stress on your body during the 2 weeks. Your solution is either to train it through. Yes, the only time your legs aren't tired is during the end of your recovery period or when you peak. If you race bikes and train, your legs will always be tired somewhat. You have to work on your recovery. You need to eat food that can speed up your recovery, period. I won't tell you what I eat. :D I can be 90% recovered the next day after a 3 hours of high tempo ride. Another option is obviously cutting down your work load volume or intensity in order to "make it" to the 4th week. If you lift weight, stop it now. It only tires you and does nothing good on the bike.

Well, I train with a power meter so I know how much stress I am putting on my body. I guess that's the beauty with training with a power meter. BTW, the 4 weeks cycle is arbitrary. Personally, I have trained through 2 6 weeks blocks. In another words, I haven't taken a week of rest for 6 weeks straight. Only took 1 week off on the 7th week. I see that this is the off season and my training isn't that intense. So, there is no need for me to rest on the every 4th week.



Overreaching ability could be oversimplified as mental toughness. The psychological aspect of being able to work through discomfort, even at sub par performance levels due to built up fatigue, is only a small part. The other aspect of mental toughness is subconscious. During states of fatigue the central governor will only activate muscle fibers if it “knows” that the body will not suffer permanent damage by continuing. In reality your muscles never really get tired, the body just senses markers of muscle damage and fuel depletion and ceases work to protect itself – the muscle could still fire. You can train the central governor to go into damaging levels of workload if you promise to pay it back with an unloading period. The power of the subconscious brain and biochemical feedback patterns cannot be underestimated.

i'm not too concerned about tire or sore legs at this point. at the level i'm riding, any leg fatigue is gone within a day at the most.

my diet is much improved, and i've developed some good eating habits over the past few months that have really stuck with me. it does make me feel better all around.

i really agree with this:


3-week cycles seem to work better for me. I tended to work too hard on week 2 when using a 4week cycle, making week 3 of much lower quality than it should have been. This does lead to more recovery weeks but it also allows for more revisits to “the edge.”

just looking at this month, i can already see that i'm going to have trouble logging in more training time than i did last week (2nd week). so, unless i really ride a lot this weekend, my 3rd week may end up a little on the weak side.

my natural tendency is to train when i feel the strongest, and that always occurs in the second week and never in the third week. i believe the 4 week cycle is just too long for me and if it's reducing my performance then i need to rethink it. thankfully i have time now to experiement.

thanks for the all good replies so far.

thankfully i have time now to experiement.

thanks for the all good replies so far.

+1 The most important thing is to listen to your body. What works for one person won't necessarily
work for someone else. For me, I do best when I have a full 7 days of rest with mostly easy spin rides alternating with days off. When I do that I can peak correctly and sustain that peak for a while. One of my friends absolutely can't do that or his performance numbers (ie SRM/powertap) suffer. He needs to do something every couple of days (throwing in some short but hard efforts) otherwise he gets really slow.

I think the important thing everyone is saying is "listen to your body." Recover smartly when you do recover, regardless of HOW you recover or WHEN you recover.

Right now I don't have a "real" recovery week planned until the end of February, beginning of March. I am smartly planning my days to allow recovery between hard/shorter workouts and the long rides so that I get the most out of each, with 1 guaranteed complete day off each week.

Like others have said, a lot of this is easier to quantify when you switch to training with a powermeter, but the numbers aren't everything so you still have to listen to your body. Watch your resting heart rate, speed of weight loss - if any, RPE from training ride to training ride.

As far as 2 on 1 off goes, I'd be curious to see how it works for you if you make that switch. Mostly because 2 weeks on seems definitely on the short side to me. Look forward to hearing your successes with whichever plan you succeed with.

Like others have said, a lot of this is easier to quantify when you switch to training with a powermeter, but the numbers aren't everything so you still have to listen to your body. Watch your resting heart rate, speed of weight loss - if any, RPE from training ride to training ride.


no power meter here, and no plans to get one just yet. i'll be assigning RPE to each workout and mutiplying it by the duration to come up with an estimated workload. as long as i'm consistent in how i assign RPE, the workload should be accurate enough to determine the weeks training load. i think, for my needs, that will be adequite. i want to try to keep it simple, yet useful enough that i can chart my progress. regular testing during the "recovery" weeks will help with feedback. i have easy access to a park loop which will work perfectly for the tests.

it's fun to think about this stuff in the off season. helps keep boredom at bay. now all i have to do is follow through with it all. :)

I've used RPE up until last winter/spring when I got my first HRM. Comparing RPE to the HR zones, I was actually very close....

I've used RPE up until last winter/spring when I got my first HRM. Comparing RPE to the HR zones, I was actually very close....

i use an HR every once in a while to find my LT level, but i don't use it for most of my rides. you're right - you can get very close by feel. RPE is pretty useful, as long as you're being consistent.

The problem I've always had with RPE, and I'm curious to know how you guys deal with it, is things like quantifying interval workouts.

I can pretty much "RPE" a steady tempo ride, or longer threshold days. But those days I go out to go hammer up and down a hill, I usually have to ride 10-20 miles home after the intervals. By that time, the legs have recovered from the repeats, and my mind gets to thinking "Well, that wasn't so bad" and I think I'd underestimate my RPEs.

The problem I've always had with RPE, and I'm curious to know how you guys deal with it, is things like quantifying interval workouts.

I can pretty much "RPE" a steady tempo ride, or longer threshold days. But those days I go out to go hammer up and down a hill, I usually have to ride 10-20 miles home after the intervals. By that time, the legs have recovered from the repeats, and my mind gets to thinking "Well, that wasn't so bad" and I think I'd underestimate my RPEs.

Yeah....you always think that after a hard workout. Your body has this wonderful ability to not completely remember pain. I could be absolutely DYING on a climbing repeat workout, and then 10 minutes afterwards on the way home, think to myself that it wasn't THAT bad.

I don't plan any rest weeks into my training. I am forced to take time off the bike due to work and family often enough that I don't need any planned rest weeks. I up my training for a week or a few days before business or family trips that keep me off the bike.

If you lift weight, stop it now. It only tires you and does nothing good on the bike.

This, of course, runs contrary to what most good coaches will tell you and contradicts part of LA's off season workout program, but believe it if you want. I've seen weight and strength work add several hundred watts to a sprint, but that's something measurable, and should be avoided. The fact that track sprinters use anabolics and weights to go faster would have no bearing on cycling either.

Timmhaan, You might want to look at your intra weekly cycle and perhaps further lighten your "light" days during the week. Those are essentially small recovery periods, in your case you might be doing too much on those days and it's adding to your fatigue level. Folks tend to be a bit more fixated on the total at the end of the week than the quality of work during.

And I've found, for me at least, that having downloadable data has been pretty illuminating. My own RPE hasn't correlated very well to my actual TSS/IF scores for the sum total of my rides, especially the longer ones where, as mentioned earlier, you tend to have a selective memory about the efforts. You can pick up Polar HRM's with download functions and equipment on Ebay for around $100. Might be worth it, at least you could track time in zones.

If you lift weight, stop it now. It only tires you and does nothing good on the bike.
.

Where does this information come from!?

In the last few days I've heard that lifting weights does nothing to improve your on bike performance. Base miles are useless. A smooth circular pedal stroke is not as good a square rough pedal stroke. This is all counter to what my coach has me doing.

Before I hired my coach, I never lifted weights or even stepped foot in a gym. I just rode 'lots' with out any care to what I was doing on the bike. My pedal stroke was more akin to a rectangle than a circle.

Since I hired a coach he's had me in the gym, I now use periodization which includes base miles and he's had me work hard to smooth out my pedal stroke. What has all this useless instruction got me? More power, more endurance, and a much higher LTHR. Man what a waste of time and money ;)

^ That's money better spent on a set of aero wheels.

If you lift weight, stop it now. It only tires you and does nothing good on the bike.

This, of course, runs contrary to what most good coaches will tell you and contradicts part of LA's off season workout program, but believe it if you want. I've seen weight and strength work add several hundred watts to a sprint, but that's something measurable, and should be avoided. The fact that track sprinters use anabolics and weights to go faster would have no bearing on cycling either.
I've never heard any good, or even moderately competent, coach say weights will improve endurance cycling, which is all R600DuraAce wrote. Sure there are benefits to weight lifting, but none of them relates to endurance cycling. The closest thing to a benefit from weights I've heard any coach suggest is that for riders who drop all anaerobic work in the winter, weight lifting reduces the rate of decline in anaerobic capacity. Even he admitted, though, that this was not really a direct benefit because simply replacing some of the time in the gym with anaerobic work would provide much greater benefits.

What track sprinters do (remember this means 500 m or less, the 1000 m is considered an endurance event) has no bearing on endurance cycling. The force/power profile for sprinters is very different from road cyclists and is the one extreme case where strength is a limiter to performance.

I've never heard any good, or even moderately competent, coach say weights will improve endurance cycling, which is all R600DuraAce wrote. Sure there are benefits to weight lifting, but none of them relates to endurance cycling. The closest thing to a benefit from weights I've heard any coach suggest is that for riders who drop all anaerobic work in the winter, weight lifting reduces the rate of decline in anaerobic capacity. Even he admitted, though, that this was not really a direct benefit because simply replacing some of the time in the gym with anaerobic work would provide much greater benefits.

What track sprinters do (remember this means 500 m or less, the 1000 m is considered an endurance event) has no bearing on endurance cycling. The force/power profile for sprinters is very different from road cyclists and is the one extreme case where strength is a limiter to performance.

Right, so when I read about top tour and classic riders using weights they have all been led down the path of destruction. I suppose the guys coaching these athletes are not even moderately competent.

To directly quote the great sage and eminent top local racer 600DA, If you lift weight, stop it now. It only tires you and does nothing good on the bike. This is patently untrue, there are many weight bearing exercises that will improve your on bike performance.

Where does this information come from!?

In the last few days I've heard that lifting weights does nothing to improve your on bike performance. Base miles are useless. A smooth circular pedal stroke is not as good a square rough pedal stroke. This is all counter to what my coach has me doing.

Before I hired my coach, I never lifted weights or even stepped foot in a gym. I just rode 'lots' with out any care to what I was doing on the bike. My pedal stroke was more akin to a rectangle than a circle.

Since I hired a coach he's had me in the gym, I now use periodization which includes base miles and he's had me work hard to smooth out my pedal stroke. What has all this useless instruction got me? More power, more endurance, and a much higher LTHR. Man what a waste of time and money ;)
This information comes from exercise physiologists who perform controlled experiments and subject their results and conclusions to peer review and confirmation. I also believe it is part of the USCF level 1 and 2 coaching curricula.

It's good that you've been succesful with your coach, but it's clear from what you wrote, that you went from unstructured training to a carefully thought out plan that includes weights and pedaling work. While it's clear that the total package has resulted in good progress, there's no evidence that any single part of the program is accelerating that progress or slowing it down compared to what it could be. But if you doubt what you see here, why not go to your coach? Ask him for the actual data showing strength training or circular pedaling improves endurance cycling performance. Then ask why you're doing those workouts.

This information comes from exercise physiologists who perform controlled experiments and subject their results and conclusions to peer review and confirmation. I also believe it is part of the USCF level 1 and 2 coaching curricula.

It's good that you've been succesful with your coach, but it's clear from what you wrote, that you went from unstructured training to a carefully thought out plan that includes weights and pedaling work. While it's clear that the total package has resulted in good progress, there's no evidence that any single part of the program is accelerating that progress or slowing it down compared to what it could be. But if you doubt what you see here, why not go to your coach? Ask him for the actual data showing strength training or circular pedaling improves endurance cycling performance. Then ask why you're doing those workouts.

That line says it all. It's part of the total package, which is what you and a couple of others seem to neglect when saying this or that does nothing to help you on the bike. One of my coaches great strengths is that he explains why he's having me do the program I'm doing, so yes I fully understand the big picture.

Just lifting weights, or just riding base or smoothing out your pedal stroke won't on there own make a drastic improvement in you cycling. But when you combine all these elements it does. I find it very frustrating to read that doing A is useless without explaining that it's only true if done on it's own.

Right, so when I read about top tour and classic riders using weights they have all been led down the path of destruction. I suppose the guys coaching these athletes are not even moderately competent.

To directly quote the great sage and eminent top local racer 600DA, If you lift weight, stop it now. It only tires you and does nothing good on the bike. This is patently untrue, there are many weight bearing exercises that will improve your on bike performance.
You really have to read all the words and try to understand them. To help let's look at what I wrote.

I've never heard any good, or even moderately competent, coach say weights will improve endurance cycling, which is all R600DuraAce wrote.
No one knows why these riders you referred to lifted weights so to cite their lifting to refute what I wrote has no bearing whatsoever. I do know this: one well respected coach has told me that he has clients lift in the winter because they insist it will help their cycling and rather than argue with them, he includes it in their program (he also includes it for reasons other than improving their cycling).

That line says it all. It's part of the total package, which is what you and a couple of others seem to neglect when saying this or that does nothing to help you on the bike. One of my coaches great strengths is that he explains why he's having me do the program I'm doing, so yes I fully understand the big picture.
Either you didn't get what I meant or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. My point is that going from just riding around to a structured program helped your performance in spite of including some exercises which do you no good and might be slowing down your progress. Specifically, I believe that replacing the time spent lifting weights with exercises to increase endurance or functional threshold would mean you would be making faster progress.

/\ I understood what you wrote completely. I quoted DA exactly and he never used the caveat of endurance cyclist, you did. So what Vinokurtov wrote is true. The blanket statement that weight training has no positive effect on cycling is just not true. A lot of the weight training I do has to do with my core and if you are going to tell me that a strong core does nothing to improve on bike performance I'm going tell you know you are dead wrong.

A lot of the weight training I do has to do with my core and if you are going to tell me that a strong core does nothing to improve on bike performance I'm going tell you know you are dead wrong.
I'm not going to tell you one way or the other. You say core training has benefits. Fine, show me the data.

I've never heard any good, or even moderately competent, coach say weights will improve endurance cycling, which is all R600DuraAce wrote.

You might want to quit adding words and misquoting. My response did not mention endurance cycling, nor did Dura's.

His EXACT quote was "If you lift weight, STOP IT NOW. It only tires you and does nothing good on the bike".

Repeat: "It only tires you out and does nothing good on the bike"

Not, "it will not help your endurance cycling".

Again: "and does NOTHING good on the bike"

He is advising someone to stop weight training because he says it has no value.

I would counter: Ben Johnson won 100m Olympic gold by taking lots of steroids and lifting lots of weights to increase his explosive power over a ten second sprint. I believe that during a cycling race where explosive power would be of value, be it during a power climb, a sprint, or a short bridge to name a few, weight training, properly applied, will produce gains in this type of power. I do not recommend the use of steroids though they have been shown to increase gains.

You and some others are welcome to believe differently and give whatever advice you like based on whatever you believe. But please stop adding words and misquoting to bolster your case.

You might want to quit adding words and misquoting. My response did not mention endurance cycling, nor did Dura's.
But the contex of this discussion (especially the original post) is so clearly directed at road cycling and the number of cyclists specializing in track sprint events is so small that the exclusion can readily be assumed. But if you want to discuss training for event less than 500m then and only then there might be some benefit to weight training.

I believe that during a cycling race where explosive power would be of value, be it during a power climb, a sprint, or a short bridge to name a few, weight training, properly applied, will produce gains in this type of power.
I'm a little confused by this sentence. "Climb" and "bridge" clearly refer to endurance events, but when you write "sprint" are you referring to road or track sprints? If it's the latter, I refer to this article to explain why strength has nothing to do with performance http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp, specifically the discussion of Figure 10. If you mean track sprints, I'm baffled why you would mix this in with your other examples from endurance cycling.

Hmmm....weight training and bike racing??? :D Another heated debate over how much weight train can carry over to bike racing. When the pros talk about weight training just to make sure they are not pulling a PR thing on us. All I can see that weight training only tires you out and leave little left in you to train on your bike. Imagine that you only have 10 hours to train. Adding weight training in your plan, how much time left for you to get some quality training on the bike.

I'm a little confused by this sentence. "Climb" and "bridge" clearly refer to endurance events, but when you write "sprint" are you referring to road or track sprints? If it's the latter, I refer to this article to explain why strength has nothing to do with performance http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp, specifically the discussion of Figure 10. If you mean track sprints, I'm baffled why you would mix this in with your other examples from endurance cycling.

I have no idea of what your definition of "endurance cycling" refers to. Again, you are the first person to use it in this thread, which is under the heading "Road Bike Racing", encompassing criteriums, road races, circuit races, stage races, and time trials. I'll assume you're unfamiliar with these races, and try to help you understand them.

In all but Time Trials, there are occasions where 5-10 second maximal power will determine the outcome of a race, when anywhere from 2 to 20 or more riders apply their maximal 5-10 second power to be first to a point on the course in what is known as a "sprint". Sometimes valuable prizes are offered in the course of the race known as "primes", these are also determined by the aforementioned "sprints".

There are of course many factors that come into play to win a "sprint", power being important, but not the sole determinant. To use an extreme example, a three year old who can leg press 15 pounds will be unlikely to "outsprint" a man who can leg press 450 pounds, even though the three year old might benefit from faster muscle contractions, or greater strategic sense and positioning.

Sometimes a small group or individual might attempt to ride off from the pack during one of these events, in which case one or more riders might need to "bridge", that is to catch up to the riders; this might require a very short, intense burst of energy (essentially a sprint) or a longer sustained effort, depending on the time it takes the rider to react and the speed of the attempt to ride off (5-10 second power can also benefit those attempting to ride off).

During some events there are very short hills that require 5-10 second efforts, and are sometimes referred to as "power climbs", where larger, more powerful riders can keep up with smaller, lighter riders by virtue of their greater power. I would refer you to this video:

http://one.revver.com/watch/?id=24753

You'll notice a wide disparity in the size of the various riders, yet they have ridden off from the chasing pack.

As it relates to our weight training discussion, here's the applicable information from the very article you refer to: "velocity of muscle contraction (as indicated by cadence) is only one of two determinants of power, with the other of course being force"

force n. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.

There is a vast body of scientific evidence that asserts that lifting weights will increase strength.

Therefor it can be assumed that there could be, under certain circumstances during a road racing event, a benefit to having lifted weights during a prescribed period in a proper manner under the supervision of a knowledgeable individual.

I can't speak to your "endurance" events, but if they are events where 5-10 second power has no bearing on the outcome, I would agree (that weight training may produce no benefit).

I have no idea of what your definition of "endurance cycling" refers to. Again, you are the first person to use it in this thread, which is under the heading "Road Bike Racing", encompassing criteriums, road races, circuit races, stage races, and time trials. I'll assume you're unfamiliar with these races, and try to help you understand them.
My definition of endurance cycling is the same as that used in the ex phys. literature and adopted by the USCF coaching program; so before being so condescending, you might want to at least be familiar with common terminology. Endurance cycling refers to all road cycling events and those track events 1 km and longer (for men). As you so insightfully point out, this is the Road Cycling Forum.

As to the rest, while it has a lot to do with power, it has nothing to do with strength as properly defined.

there is some literature that suggests there is no positive link between strength training and performance in cycling. however, i gotta go with what i deal with in real situations. which are a lot of sprint finishes, and a lot of sprints up short hills to generate a break. core strength training has already cured me of a sore lower back over long distances, and i'm confident it will help me generate more force in short bursts. which is something i desperately need.

i will have plenty of time on the bike later in the winter and spring, so i'm not at all concerned with strength training taking away valuable bike time. in fact, i welcome the reduced bike time now to do something a bit different.

however, i gotta go with what i deal with in real situations. which are a lot of sprint finishes, and a lot of sprints up short hills to generate a break. core strength training has already cured me of a sore lower back over long distances, and i'm confident it will help me generate more force in short bursts. which is something i desperately need.
I've referred to this article before in this thread. http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp While you may need to generate more force (though really it's power) in certain situations strength is not the limiter holding you back. It is either lack of aerobic power or anaerobic capacity. The forces involved in road cycling are well below the maximum potential of the muscles (which is the definition of strength).

All I can see that weight training only tires you out and leave little left in you to train on your bike. Imagine that you only have 10 hours to train. Adding weight training in your plan, how much time left for you to get some quality training on the bike.


That’s just it; if you trade off bike-time with weight-time a reduction in performance will occur. But the addition of weights to equal cycling increases performance. I will agree that it is hard on the athlete to do both; but that is why weights are generally only scheduled a small portion of the year. Furthermore, weight training corrects a chronic muscle imbalance cyclists experience. The vastus lateralis tends to become stronger than the vastus medialis leading to PFPS. Weight training increases the strength of the VM, thus allowing the cycling trained VL to grow even stronger without pain.

I think most on this board don’t know the difference between an exercise physiologist and a coach.

I think most on this board don’t know the difference between an exercise physiologist and a coach.

I think it's deeper than that. I'm reminded of back when I was motorcycle racing of the guy who had the ubber trick motor secrets. Blew up every time. Yet he was so convinced in his own superiority of knowledge that he'd argue engine building with guys who had produced several world titles. He could quote lots of engineering papers, yet could never finish a race, and was always slow.

Yet he knew.

so I'd ask a simple yes or no question: Do you believe that weight work can/could produce any benefit to 5-10 second power numbers (as measured in watts)?
While your question is simple it isn't well posed. 5-10 second power at what cadence? The answer depends on whether you mean 0-20 rpm or 60-160 rpm. Also, are you talking about working from a recovered state or with some degree of fatigue? Again, the answer depends on which you're talking about.

I can say this. Weight work only benefits strength (maximum force produced by muscles). Muscles only produce maximum force at 0 rate of contraction. The maximum force produced by muscles decreases with increasing rate of contraction. So for a rider in a sprint track event where high power has to be produced at low cadences from a rested state, weight work produces a benefit to performance. For a road racer who needs to produce high power from a high cadence in a fatigued state where maximum force is 1/3 or less of maximum, there is no benefit to weight training

While your question is simple it isn't well posed. 5-10 second power at what cadence? The answer depends on whether you mean 0-20 rpm or 60-160 rpm. Also, are you talking about working from a recovered state or with some degree of fatigue? Again, the answer depends on which you're talking about.

I can say this. Weight work only benefits strength (maximum force produced by muscles). Muscles only produce maximum force at 0 rate of contraction. The maximum force produced by muscles decreases with increasing rate of contraction. So for a rider in a sprint track event where high power has to be produced at low cadences from a rested state, weight work produces a benefit to performance. For a road racer who needs to produce high power from a high cadence in a fatigued state where maximum force is 1/3 or less of maximum, there is no benefit to weight training

There are large holes in your reasoning, mostly having to do with the starting point of muscle strength. The greater the starting strength, the greater the residual strength, even as rate of contraction or fatigue increases. The power formula is clear. Force matters. Frontal area being equal, a 1500w sprinter will beat a 1200w sprinter side by side every time. If they are 50% fatigued it's 750 v. 600.

I know of a half dozen specific examples that would seem to contradict your opinion (my own increase in 5-10 max and sprinting success included), and dozens of successful (at the professional level) coaches and racers who would disagree with you.

Again, there is proof, and there is pudding.

There are large holes in your reasoning, mostly having to do with the starting point of muscle strength. The greater the starting strength, the greater the residual strength, even as rate of contraction or fatigue increases. The power formula is clear. Force matters. Frontal area being equal, a 1500w sprinter will beat a 1200w sprinter side by side every time. If they are 50% fatigued it's 750 v. 600.

I know of a half dozen specific examples that would seem to contradict your opinion (my own increase in 5-10 max and sprinting success included), and dozens of successful (at the professional level) coaches and racers who would disagree with you.

Again, there is proof, and there is pudding.
It's easy to say there are holes, so why not say what they are. The data are clear; power matters, strength does not. Force may matter, strength does not. Your very example dealing with watts (power) is a perfect illustration. The 1500 W rider beats the 1200 W one, but their ability to produce this power is independent of their strength. Who's to say whether the more powerful rider is the stronger. Based on the published literature, there is little doubt that I'm stronger than Lance Armstrong.

You say you increased your sprint power (again I note you revert back to power rather than strength or even force). Very good. Let's use that as an example. Prove this increase in power came about as a result of increased strength rather than increases in functional threshold, anaerobic work capacity, or neuromuscular power (independent of strength increase).

Finally, it's sweet that you call my statements "opinions", but if you do a little work, you can find publications supporting everything I wrote. You can search PubMed if you want the primary references, or go to the wattage list at Google to read summaries and discussions of the articles.

Actually the weight lifting track sprinter is a great example...... If your doing 100 mile hilly roadraces, sure.. that extra bulk is going to slow him down overall..

But if you race moderate to dead flat crits? as a lot of us do. Don't worry if there is a big bulky muscled track sprinter in the field or in the break.. he won't be any good in the last couple of hundred meters.... yeah.. right.. And just becuase he rides a lot of track sprints, spends a lot of time in the gym, and has monster strong thighs..doesn't mean he can't sit in for an hour in a flat crit. You can throw the medical journals at him as he unloads his 1800 watts in the last 100 meters and takes the win.

Did his overly muscled physique cost him time in the mountin? what mountians.. Did all his time in the gym, away from his bike cause him difficulty as the race entered its 5th hour? WTF It's a 60 min crit...Did he win the TdF? no.. but he whipped a lot of know it all fattie master asses.

Asgelle, I will not say that you are right or wrong. I will merely ask you to consider the following. I have many other studies that I have collected that I can provide you if you like. This is just the most recent I have come across. I have included the info on the article and excerpted what I believe to be poignent info.

Training adaptations in the behavior of human motor units.
J Appl Physiol. 2006; 101(6):1766-75

Excerpt:


It has been demonstrated, however, that training can increase both the rate of torque development and the discharge rate of motor units. Furthermore, both strength training and practice of a force-matching task can evoke adaptations in the discharge characteristics of motor units. Because the variability in discharge rate has a significant influence on the fluctuations in force during submaximal contractions, the changes produced with training can influence motor performance during activities of daily living.

While this is specific to ADLs, your argument that most endurance cycling is submaximal contraction (though in fact with heavy accelerations muscular force can be quite a bit higher than the drivetrain output) is true. However, it is well known that what I will call "gym work" (resistance exercise) causes through various means activation of both larger and greater numbers of motor units. This in turn will promote Strength in acceleration as well as increased power in all forms of racing.

In addition, no one has yet discussed the importance of musculoligamentous hardening or "strengthening" associated with gym work. It is reasonable to state that strength training (albeit slowly) does result in stronger musculoligamentous and ligamento-osseous connections. The strength of these connections dirrectly relates to ability to withstand trauma both macro and micro. Microtrauma when symptomatic is what one might call an overuse injury and it is obvious the decrease in performance that occurs when one has a patellar tenosynovitis (or variation). However, nociceptors are activated during microtrauma which is sub-symptomatic threshold. There is a fair amount of literature which shows that nociception provides neurological feedback which inhibits force and speed of muscular contraction. This all means less Maximal and less submaximal force generated.

While this might be a little tech heavy, I assume you have some education to be talking about various studies and physiology and so perhaps followed my simplistic explanation above. How this relates to cycling is even more simple. Strength training provides strength on many different levels. This results in better performance, higher lactate tolerance, more motor unit control, higher firing rates, greater musculoligamentous tensile resistance to load and overall better performance. So while strength training will benefit cardiovascular capacity and the main mechanisms for pure endurance, there should be no question of it's benefit for cycling which includes many facets outside of cardiovascular capacity.

So when DA makes a statement that is so obviously incomplete and patently ridiculous, please do not jump so quickly to defend him. And while I hate to use this card, the fact is that results matter. When I start seeing his improve above what they have been, I may begin to take him a bit more seriously.

"Defending????" Hahahaha... :D I do advice you to read up on many weight training and bike racing discussions on the web. Half of the people believe in specificity and the only way to get faster on the bike is to train on the bike. The other half thinks you need the overall package and fitness and somehow weight work can translate into faster on the bike. Gee, you think I made it up. How pathetic. Hell......I care less if you can leg press 400lb. Do people actually care if you weight train or not..... I certainly don't.



Asgelle, I will not say that you are right or wrong. I will merely ask you to consider the following. I have many other studies that I have collected that I can provide you if you like. This is just the most recent I have come across. I have included the info on the article and excerpted what I believe to be poignent info.

is that results matter. When I start seeing his improve above what they have been, I may begin to take him a bit more seriously.

For what is worth, Tim, in one of the last PP races I attacked the field at the bottom of the hill and flying up at 28 mph, 670w. 40sec effort. At the top my legs weren't dying. I had to slow down because I had to "catch my breath." My FT wasn't that high and so I was caught not long after curising at 26mph. If after your weight training and you can pull that kind of effort on that mole hill, good for you.


there is some literature that suggests there is no positive link between strength training and performance in cycling. however, i gotta go with what i deal with in real situations. which are a lot of sprint finishes, and a lot of sprints up short hills to generate a break. core strength training has already cured me of a sore lower back over long distances, and i'm confident it will help me generate more force in short bursts. which is something i desperately need.

i will have plenty of time on the bike later in the winter and spring, so i'm not at all concerned with strength training taking away valuable bike time. in fact, i welcome the reduced bike time now to do something a bit different.

% of occlusion (impairment of blood flow) to active muscles has been shown to be directly proportional to the % of maximum force (or torque) that the muscle is undergoing. Occlusion means less ability to perform aerobic metabolism and less ability to clear the by-products of anaerobic metabolism.

If you're muscles can put out more maximum force (an outcome easily achieved with resistance training) then they will have less occlusion when pushing higher gears and will be able to operate at a higher power output for a greater period of time.

This is one of many pathways that weight training can improve cycling performance.

Added muscle bulk (a common side effect of weight training for maximal strength gains) obviously has its disadvantages.

If applying force to the pedals is a limiter, which commonly correlates with 'do your legs feel sore before your breathing?', then weight lifting will make you a faster cyclist in the majority of circumstances.