maybe i worded it bad... when i said check pub-med for evidence i didn't mean for my work (that's obviously going to say what i've been saying here, i am, afterall, hardly likely to contradict myself!). what i meant was check pub-med for the evidence of weights and endurance performance, and you won't find an increase in performance with trained cyclists.



lots of TT1 riders don't weight train. the point i was making is that weights don't increase performance (in trained endurance cyclists), aren't likely too, and there'd be no real reason to think they would (excluding in some instances of injured riders).

pros (and amateurs) do all sorts of things, good, bad, and downright stupid. it doesn't mean you should copy them!

ric

I could say that if it were just one cyclist to another, and they were counselling each other. But Robbie Ventura is also a coach with the USA Cycling organization, and he has quite a successful coaching program here, so I don't think he does all sorts of things that are downright stupid that people copy.

I also never said that endurance is increased from weight lifting. I do believe there is an increase in performance, but I know that endurance is not at all influenced in and of itself by strength training. If that were so, I'd never get on a bike- I'd just go to the gym and lift weights!

Having said that, I did do the search on Pub Med, and so far, this is what I've seen:

Early phase changes by concurrent endurance and strength training.

Balabinis CP, Psarakis CH, Moukas M, Vassiliou MP, Behrakis PK.

Department of Experimental Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Greece. cbalab@freemail.gr

To compare regimens of concurrent strength and endurance training, 26 male basketball players were matched for stature, body composition, and physical activity level. Subjects completed different training programs for 7 weeks, 4 days per week. Groups were as follows: (a) the strength group (S; n = 7) did strength training; (b) the endurance group (E; n = 7) did endurance training; (c) the strength and endurance group (S + E; n = 7) combined strength and endurance training; and (d) the control group (C; n = 5) had no training. The S + E group showed greater gains in Vo(2)max than the E group did (12.9% vs. 6.8%), whereas the S group showed a decline (8.8%). Gains were noted in strength and vertical jump performance for the S + E and S groups. The S + E group had better posttraining anaerobic power than the S group did (6.2% vs. 2.9%). No strength, power, or anaerobic power gains were present for the E and C groups. We conclude that concurrent endurance and strength training is more effective in terms of improving athletic performance than are endurance and strength training apart.

PMID: 12741884 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

It looks to me like this article promotes strength training in combination with endurance training.

Changes evaluated in soccer-specific power endurance either with or without a 10-week, in-season, intermittent, high-intensity training protocol.

Siegler J, Gaskill S, Ruby B.

Department of Health and Human Performance, The University of Montana Health and Human Performance Laboratory, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 87106, USA. jasonsiegler@unm.edu

The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in soccer-specific power endurance of 34 female high school soccer players throughout a season either with or without an intermittent, high-intensity exercise protocol. Thirty-four female high school soccer players were tested prior to the 2000 fall season and again 10 weeks later. The tests included an abridged 45-minute shuttle test (LIST), hydrostatic weighing, vertical jump, 20-m running-start sprint, and 30-second Wingate test. The experimental group (EG; n = 17, age 16.5 +/- 0.9 years) completed a 10-week in-season plyometric, resistive training, and high-intensity anaerobic program. The control group (n = 17, age 16.3 +/- 1.4 years) completed only traditional aerobic soccer conditioning. Statistical significance was set at alpha < 0.05. The experimental group showed significant improvements in the LIST (EG = delta 394 seconds +/- 124 seconds), 20-m sprint (EG = Delta-0.10 seconds +/- 0.10 seconds), increase in fat-free mass (EG = delta 1.14 kg +/- 1.22 kg), and decreases in fat mass (EG = Delta-1.40 kg +/- 1.47 kg) comparing pre- to postseason. This study indicates that a strength and plyometric program improved power endurance and speed over aerobic training only. Soccer-specific power endurance training may improve match performance and decrease fatigue in young female soccer players.

PMID: 12741882 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Although soccer (or football, as you know it) can be seen as an endurance event where players sometimes use high intensity power moves, I still see here that the scientists conclude that with strength training, there is definitely less of a tendency for soccer players to fatigue as quickly during events.

I also read the studies where they used strength training and cardiovascular training vs. only cardiovascular training (and the control with neither) for elderly patients. I did not really feel that this pertained to what we were talking about specifically, but even in those studies, the authors suggested that cardiovascular activity and strength training lead to less fatigue and higher performance overall than the cardiovascular only and the control group.

I did see one study here:

Physiology of aerobic fitness/endurance.

Chandler TJ.

Lexington Clinic Sports Medicine Center, Kentucky, USA.

Aerobic fitness and aerobic endurance are two separate components of aerobic metabolism. Aerobic fitness, best measured by VO2max, is a measure of oxygen transport and utilization. Aerobic endurance is not measured in a VO2max test because it does not measure the ability of the muscle to perform prolonged work. Endurance fitness may be a complementary measurement to VO2max, providing additional information regarding the capacity of the muscle for long-term work. The muscle is the primary site where increases in mitochondrial enzymes improve aerobic endurance capacity. Aerobic endurance may be more closely related to health-related fitness than aerobic fitness. conditioning must be specific to the sport or activity, progressing from general aerobic fitness in the off-season to sport-specific aerobic fitness/endurance during the playing season. Aerobic fitness/endurance decreases rapidly with detraining. Adequate, aerobic fitness/ endurance specific to a particular sport may help prevent injury in terms of delaying fatigue and improving the strength of the tendons and ligaments. A properly initiated sport-specific aerobic conditioning program is essential for maximal performance to be reached in most any sport.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 9097133 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This study is about as close to what you seem to be saying, but they don't take into account anything about strength training with following a fitness training program, so it's difficult to comment on how the weight training would have impacted the author's intent. Besides, I do know that what that author says is correct, and I agree with what he's saying. I'm sure most people would agree with what they said.

I've read through 8 pages on Pub Med for weights and endurance performance, and I haven't seen anything suggesting that there's absolutely no need to weight train. I tried again to look for any articles under your name, but I still haven't found anything out there. I did check out your forums, and it looks as though the other advisors contradict what you counsel.

Maybe we should agree to disagree? Unless you have some studies here for all of us to read? I think it's difficult to wrap your mind around something if there isn't anything there to tell us otherwise. I just haven't seen it. I've checked through my books by Dr. Ed Burke, Dr. Tudor Bompa, Dr. Joe Signorelie, USA Cycling books given to all their coaches, and consulted studies with Dr. Len Kravitz, and so far, I haven't seen anyone yet who hasn't suggested a strength training program, although they all have stressed to look at the type of activity (ie endurance dominated activity vs. power dominated activity) to determine what type of weight training they would do. Again, I do not say that endurance, aerobic activity, VO2 max, etc. is increased by weight training- that comes from doing cardiovascular activities in a solid, periodized program, but I do believe that to prevent injuries, to train the muscles to fire up faster, for neuromuscular adaptation and increased muscular strength, it is necessary to strength train.

To Robbie's credit, he did say that once the off season ends and they get back out there, they pretty much focus on the cardiovascular component and ride until their legs are just punished, then race (of course, all planned for how many times they will peak over the season). Then after they finish racing, he said they take a little time off, then hit the gym again. He also stressed concern for weight lifting to prevent injuries once they get into the cardiovascular portion of the training season. So he totally had some agreement with you there.

Koffee

I could say that if it were just one cyclist to another, and they were counselling each other. But Robbie Ventura is also a coach with the USA Cycling organization, and he has quite a successful coaching program here, so I don't think he does all sorts of things that are downright stupid that people copy.


and? lots of coaches promote old wives tales. doesn't mean they are correct? i'm sure if robbie wants to come here or any other forum, he can discuss it with me.


I also never said that endurance is increased from weight lifting. I do believe there is an increase in performance, but I know that endurance is not at all influenced in and of itself by strength training. If that were so, I'd never get on a bike- I'd just go to the gym and lift weights!


i don't recall saying that endurance is or isn't increased from weights. i said endurance cycling performance. however, it - endurance (as i have pointed out) is increased with weights in untrained/low fitness groups.


lthough soccer (or football, as you know it) can be seen as an endurance event where players sometimes use high intensity power moves, I still see here that the scientists conclude that with strength training, there is definitely less of a tendency for soccer players to fatigue as quickly during events.

I also read the studies where they used strength training and cardiovascular training vs. only cardiovascular training (and the control with neither) for elderly patients. I did not really feel that this pertained to what we were talking about specifically, but even in those studies, the authors suggested that cardiovascular activity and strength training lead to less fatigue and higher performance overall than the cardiovascular only and the control group.


none of these pertain to cycling. basketball, football and the elderly aren't cyclists. in this instance you can't compare to a different modality with those studies. there is research to show that weights may help running, due to improved economy, see Millet (can't recall the year off hand). but the point is, we're talking about cycling.


I've read through 8 pages on Pub Med for weights and endurance performance, and I haven't seen anything suggesting that there's absolutely no need to weight train.


you're unlikely to find such an article. however, if you do a search on pub med for cycling and weights (and there are studies) you won't find an increase in performance in trained cyclists. nor would you expect to. when you look at first principles, as i've continually pointed out, there'd be little reason for a scientist to do such a study.


I tried again to look for any articles under your name, but I still haven't found anything out there.


you've misunderstood, i don't have a weight training paper out now, it's still being written. i've never said it's in print.


I did check out your forums, and it looks as though the other advisors contradict what you counsel.


my forums? not sure where you mean. however, others have exactly the same opinion as me, e.g., see Andrew Coggan (if you don't know who he is do a Pub Med search on Coggan, A. R). there maybe some who have disagreed on e.g., cyclingnews, but when explained and shown the data they agree.


Maybe we should agree to disagree? Unless you have some studies here for all of us to read? I think it's difficult to wrap your mind around something if there isn't anything there to tell us otherwise. I just haven't seen it.


i've explained why and shown the data, either here or elsewhere. briefly, again
1) the forces in elite pro cycling (and therefore everything below it) are really low. For e.g., to climb Alp d'Huez at the same power as LA, you'd need to be able to generate about 250 Newtons between *both* legs (~ 25 kg). I don't know anyone who can't generate 25 kg

2) maintaining these forces is the difficulty -- this is a measure of your aerobic ability, i.e., your VO2max and LT. These are trained, in the elite trained/elite/pro by on the bike training *ONLY*. they can't be trained anyother way. It's to do with convective O2 delivery. It's the reason why taking Epo makes you faster immediately -- you haven't become stronger - you have more blood and hence oxygen to shift around

3) it's well known and understood, that weights increase strength -- either through increases in muscle cross sectional area (resulting in you weighing more) but increases peak (sprint) power output or through neuromuscular adaptations -- but these adaptations only occur at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained (the rule of specificity). increased cross sectional area, results in a decrease in muscle mitochondria and capillary density - decreasing or limiting VO2max

http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern for some studies/article


I've checked through my books by Dr. Ed Burke, Dr. Tudor Bompa, Dr. Joe Signorelie, USA Cycling books given to all their coaches, and consulted studies with Dr. Len Kravitz, and so far, I haven't seen anyone yet who hasn't suggested a strength training program, although they all have stressed to look at the type of activity (ie endurance dominated activity vs. power dominated activity) to determine what type of weight training they would do. Again, I do not say that endurance, aerobic activity, VO2 max, etc. is increased by weight training- that comes from doing cardiovascular activities in a solid, periodized program


that's what it means, when you increase cycling performance. thus if VO2max, LT, etc aren't increased then there's no increase in performance.


, but I do believe that to prevent injuries


although this is often quoted there's not a whole lot of evidence to support it. i've been coaching since 1990, and 99% of the injuries i've seen in TT1 to recreational level are 1) from crashes that weights wouldn't help, or 2) from uncoached people rapidly increasing training levels in a haphazard way. even in the masters athletes i coach i see no injuries that would be prevented by weights


, to train the muscles to fire up faster, for neuromuscular adaptation and increased muscular strength, it is necessary to strength train.


why would you need muscles to "fire" faster for cycling? increased muscular strength -- well of course weights increase that. why wouldn't they. i've never suggested otherwise -- just asked why would you need stronger muscles for endurance cycling performance (you don't)

ric

weights *will* increase peak power (that's 5-sec all-out efforts), however, it will be at the expense of your aerobic system.

No it won't be at the expense of your aerobic system. It supplements it. Fact.



additionally, for endurance riders (i.e., not 200-m, 500-m, 1-km, olympic sprint, etc on the track) peak power can be equally and possibly better trained via riding (i.e., doing sprint training)

I have actually seen Lance Armstrong w/ my own eyes lift weights, I guess you could call him a pretty good endurance rider, lol...


as you increase muscle mass - hypertrophy (increased muscle cross sectional area) which occurs from weight training and provides a true increase in strength (as opposed to neuromuscular adaptations), there will be a decrease in muscle capillary density and muscle mitochondrial density, which will both mean a decrease in aerobic and anaerobic performance. you will also have more weight to lug uphill with no corresponding increase in power, and this will make you slower all-round

ric

Again wrong & way off the mark. Muscle mass is all about how many calories you consume. Bodybuilders have alot of mass due to the disgusting amount of calories they consume per day (5000+, 7000+, w/very little cardio). If you don't consume the adequate amount of food/calories into your body, you can't gain muscle mass, its as simple as that.

I started lifting heavy weights 2 years ago weighing 158lbs, at 6'0 tall. I'm currently 149lbs and able to lift over 3x my own bodyweight which in turn took 40 mins off my century rides.

Bruce Lee weighed 150lbs at 5'8 before he started lifting weights at 20 years old. When he started filming Enter The Dragon (25+) he was lifting heavier than ever and was stronger than ever, he weighed 130lbs.

Weights don't increase muscle mass. Weights only increase muscle mass when your consuming more calories than what your burning. How can you grow when you aren't giving your body the amount of nutrients it needs for the muscle to grow.

So to conclude... Weight training INCREASES bodyweight-power ratio. WHY. Because Weights have made me and the likes of Bruce Lee 10x stronger BUT at the same time alot lighter in bodyweight. This is what every cyclist should be training for and what Lance Armstrong trains for. Simple as that.


i don't recall saying that endurance is or isn't increased from weights. i said endurance cycling performance. endurance (as i have pointed out) is increased with weights in untrained/low fitness groups.

Weights increase endurance, no $hit, a fact I have read many times from bodies very high in athlete development. No, endurance isn't just increased w/ weights in untrained/low fitness groups, the reason that is said is because of the adaptations of the body & CNS develop over time to lifting heavy weights. Simple put, the stronger your legs, the more force you can apply to the pedals which in turn = more speed (power) over time. All your talking about is strength endurance, which is developed by putting miles into your legs on the bike but then again, Weights increases this quality too...



3) it's well known and understood, that weights increase strength -- either through increases in muscle cross sectional area (resulting in you weighing more) but increases peak (sprint) power output or through neuromuscular adaptations -- but these adaptations only occur at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained (the rule of specificity). increased cross sectional area, results in a decrease in muscle mitochondria and capillary density - decreasing or limiting VO2max

Go back up fella & just read what I have written about about mass.


why would you need muscles to "fire" faster for cycling? increased muscular strength -- well of course weights increase that. why wouldn't they. i've never suggested otherwise -- just asked why would you need stronger muscles for endurance cycling performance (you don't)

Your 10 years behind the times. The days of just riding thousands of miles are long gone.


why would you need stronger muscles for endurance cycling performance (you don't)

why would you need stronger muscles for endurance cycling performance??????????????????????...

10 years fella, 10 years.

Also, Just to further my argument for the use of weights in cycling.

You wouldn't have happened to see the two back-to-back world cup races where there was two consecutive showdowns at the end of both stages between Davide Rebellin (ITA) Gerolsteiner & Michael Boogerd (NED) Rabobank???.... I think one of the races was the Amstel Race (NED) & forgot the other.

On both occassions Rebellin was able to dispatch Boogerd with absolute ease, yes and I'm talking about the uphill finish too on one of the stages. Now go back and look over them races. Look at the definition and muscle/muscle tone in Rebellin's legs compared to the stick thin "I don't use weights thus I don't have the strength to compete w/ Rebellin" Boogerd.

Simply put, All we saw was Rebellin put the hard work in the gym, gain masses of strength, thus had the strength to blow Boogerd out of the back door when he needed it the most.

Again, The days of riding thousands of miles per season are over.

No it won't be at the expense of your aerobic system. It supplements it. Fact.


provide a single solitary fact for a trained cyclist. i dare you, i double dare you!




I have actually seen Lance Armstrong w/ my own eyes lift weights, I guess you could call him a pretty good endurance rider, lol...


and? so what. there's lots of pros who take drugs, following on from your point, you could logically say you should take drugs to be better, because pro xyz does (i'm not suggesting that LA takes drugs just extending the discussion point). or, i know some really crappy cyclists that do weights -- therefore they must make you really bad. in other words, we don't know whether he's good because or in spite of his training.



Again wrong & way off the mark. Muscle mass is all about how many calories you consume. Bodybuilders have alot of mass due to the disgusting amount of calories they consume per day (5000+, 7000+, w/very little cardio). If you don't consume the adequate amount of food/calories into your body, you can't gain muscle mass, its as simple as that.


what are you talking about?


Bruce Lee weighed 150lbs at 5'8 before he started lifting weights at 20 years old. When he started filming Enter The Dragon (25+) he was lifting heavier than ever and was stronger than ever, he weighed 130lbs.


try reading what i wrote


Weights don't increase muscle mass. Weights only increase muscle mass when your consuming more calories than what your burning. How can you grow when you aren't giving your body the amount of nutrients it needs for the muscle to grow.


and? i've already mentioned neuromuscular adaptations


So to conclude... Weight training INCREASES bodyweight-power ratio. WHY. Because Weights have made me and the likes of Bruce Lee 10x stronger BUT at the same time alot lighter in bodyweight. This is what every cyclist should be training for and what Lance Armstrong trains for. Simple as that.


Lol! this is funny stuff



Weights increase endurance, no $hit, a fact I have read many times from bodies very high in athlete development. No, endurance isn't just increased w/ weights in untrained/low fitness groups, the reason that is said is because of the adaptations of the body & CNS develop over time to lifting heavy weights. Simple put, the stronger your legs, the more force you can apply to the pedals which in turn = more speed (power) over time. All your talking about is strength endurance, which is developed by putting miles into your legs on the bike but then again, Weights increases this quality too...


weights do not increase endurance in trained cyclists. period. full stop. i triple dare you to provide some solid evidence of such in trained cyclists.

of course, you're right - weight training makes you stronger and allows you to generate more force -- i don't disagree with you on that point. however, you need to take the time to look at the forces that need to be generated in elite pro cycling. virtually anyone can generate them. Around 250 Newtons to win up Alpe d'Huez (that's around 25 kg, between both legs)




Go back up fella & just read what I have written about about mass.


i did and it was drivel


Your 10 years behind the times. The days of just riding thousands of miles are long gone.


who said anything about thousands of miles? although if you're gonna race you gotta do thousands of miles


why would you need stronger muscles for endurance cycling performance??????????????????????...

10 years fella, 10 years.

LMAO!

ric

Stern, I did the research on Pub med exactly as you asked using the search terms specified. If I brought up other sports, it's because YOU were the one that specified the search terms. I did what you asked, and I am aware that these sports are NOT cycling, but sifted through the results to find some evidence of what you said.

Regardless of what you say, I read the forums you actively participate in, and you keep directing me back to your article, which I've already read. Of course, you are going to tout what you believe, so what does that show me? And when I read the other articles written by your peers, they seemed to indicate the opposite of what you believed.

As far as Robbie is concerned, there's nothing there that suggests you are any more valid than he is- you're writing an article that hasn't been published, no one I've spoken to has heard of you, and I haven't been able to find any information about your studies that you claim all the coaches are relying on to structure their training programs.

I don't disagree with your assessment that without an increase in VO2 max and lactate threshold, there will be no way to increase performance. Definitely the cardiovascular is the key to performance. With a low VO2 max and with a low lactate threshold, you couldn't get much done. That's not what I'm talking about.


No matter- I am going the route of the recognized authorities on this subject. No doubt you believe you are right, but I just don't view you as credible. I haven't talked to anyone yet in the cycling industry that hasn't said the opposite of what you claim (not necessary to weight train). Spout out your statistics, dog and pony your one article, whatever. At the end of the day, I still don't think your thinking is correct. If it were, not only would people be doing what you propose, you'd probably be one of those coaches out there training the professionals. If you're training such professionals, who are they? What is their progress? How long have they been working with you?

I don't say I'm like the greatest coach ever- that's why I go to conventions and seminars- I expect the professionals to help me decide what will work for me, then I take it back home. I expect that if you are the professional you claim to be, you would certainly 1) not discount the many professionals who have much more authority on the subject as you have with folks I mentioned such as Ed Burke and Tudor Bompa and 2) provide more of a compelling argument than showing us an article that you wrote, and talk about a paper that is not in existance. Had you been at one of my seminars, I would say you were lacking in research and not counted on your article as worth pursuing. I just don't see the compelling evidence you've offered, and it seems as though you just seem to be saying the same thing over and over. Perhaps once you publish this paper you're working on, we can resurrect this thread and do some discussion? Or I suppose you will be at one of the seminars held here in the USA for cycling coaches and fitness professionals so that I can see your research up close and listen to what you are saying? I assume you plan to back up what you are saying as other professionals have done and are currently doing.

I guess we will just disagree on things. Drop me a PM when that paper gets published.

Koffee

Ric, I will reply to your latest post some other time.

Again following on from my last post about Davide Rebellin and how his weight training affected the outcome of his races.

Did you watch the Giro this year???... Who was the overall winner???... I'll tell you, Damiano Cunego (ITA) Saeco. He came 2+ minutes ahead of the competetion.

I was wandering if you happened to spot the muscle development in his legs (Compared to his competitors). In particular his Hamstrings. I was looking at a guy who I know through experience lifts weights. Again, no amount of cycling training cannot produce that sort of development in the legs through bike resistance alone, Impossible. It can only be produced by doing such exercises like Snatch Grip Deadlifts, RDL's, Good-Mornings, etc etc and going heavy on them<<< Exercises that hit the posterior chain (Glutes, Hams, Hip Flexors etc).

The result, well he worked the hardest in the gym, had the most strength in his legs and was able to despatch his weaker competitors including the specialist mountain goats that had less bodyweight than himself. But the in the end, his superior leg strength won (even in the mountains). Again, a quality that cannot be produced through just bike resistance.

Could I please have you opinion on these posts...

Back soon...

The result, well he worked the hardest in the gym, had the most strength in his legs and was able to despatch his weaker competitors including the specialist mountain goats that had less bodyweight than himself. But the in the end, strength won (even in the mountains).

Your evidence is anecdotal IMHO and doesn’t prove anything. Did Cunego win because of weight training or despite weight training? Do you honestly think he was the only one hitting the weights? Or Lance? Or Rebellin?

Does Tyler Hamilton have the excessive leg strength you find so valuable? How about Mayo? Betinni? They’ve had pretty good results this year.

Mind you, I’m not saying you’re wrong; I don’t have the knowledge or experience to contradict you, but the evidence you site is little more than saying it rained after you did a little dance http://www.cripplefight.com/smileys/elephant.gif


Just found this article and thought it was interesting:

http://www.cptips.com/weights.htm

BUT WILL WEIGHTS INCREASE MY PERFORMANCE?
...
Conclusion: The present data suggest that increased leg strength does not improve cycle ENDURANCE performance in endurance-trained, female cyclists.

-murray

This will probably be my last post on this subject, far too time consuming. If people who view these forums sway one way or another to what advice/path they want to take, good luck to them, I hope they become the next big Tour winner.



[QUOTE]provide a single solitary fact for a trained cyclist. i dare you, i double dare you!

Just have. Look through my most recent posts. What your saying is... "weights *will* increase peak power (that's 5-sec all-out efforts), however, it will be at the expense of your aerobic system".

Right, So if I put 100 miles into my legs, the day after I have a recovery day, then after my recovery day I'm going lift weights, what your saying is... It will be at the expense or deteriate my areobic system in someway. What happens during that time???... Do my lungs shrink, heart become weaker & VO2 max diminish within the space of the day just because I lifted a weight from the floor or placed a barbell on the back of my shoulders and squatted it???..., lol...


and? so what. there's lots of pros who take drugs, following on from your point, you could logically say you should take drugs to be better, because pro xyz does (i'm not suggesting that LA takes drugs just extending the discussion point). or, i know some really crappy cyclists that do weights -- therefore they must make you really bad. in other words, we don't know whether he's good because or in spite of his training.


Yes I know alot of athletes take drugs. But I'm talking about the Great Lance Armstrong who Squats, does Plyometrics etc religiously and who has been tested hundreds of times and been shown to be negative. I ain't talking about the other fools who take EPO. Strictly Lance Armstrong, remember, negative. Of course your going to know cyclists that weight train that can't cut it. Bloody hell, you need more than strength. You need more than VO2 max. You need more than great strength endurance. First and foremost like most sports, you need a great genetic makeup then build from there. You ain't got that to start with, your pretty much just another average joe. You could be Lance Armstrongs twin brother with the exact training program, you ain't gonna beat him in the Tour. I have friends who are absolute *****s and are semi pro cyclists that couldn't be in a tour regardless of the endless amount of training time they have. They just weren't made for cycling.



what are you talking about?

I can't really explain it any more clearer. Right. Bodybuilders or ANYONE trying to gain muscle mass either through increases in muscle cross sectional area (resulting in you weighing more) as you correctly point out HAVE TO SUPPLEMENT there Weight Training (bodybuilders) religioulsy with conuming endless & obsurd amounts of food/calories to gain that muscle mass. Without all that food, they will not gain that mass. If you don't want mass to develop but still see an increase in strength you simply reverse it.




Lol! this is funny stuff

It ain't that funny. A loss in weight and an increasement in strength = A better Bodyweight-Power Ratio. Everyone should enjoy this fact, it will make you a quicker cyclist, sprinter, runner etc.



weights do not increase endurance in trained cyclists. period. full stop. i triple dare you to provide some solid evidence of such in trained cyclists.

Why haven't you gone out and done the reasearch yourself and done trial & error. You don't just sit in front of a computer do you reading up on this study and that study. Ohhh some Russsian here, Some German there, saying 'Ohhhhh nooooooo, Weights don't improve cycling performance, stay away. Then your sold, right????..., lol....

If you and I was to be handed two athletes with the same genetic make-up, you advised him to train solely cycling, and I was to advice my athlete into an intense weight program to supplement his cycling training, then simply, there is going to be only one winner. And no, my athlete won't see a increase in bodyweight just because he lifted a weight, he will have a superior strength to bodyweight ratio which means your man is out of the back door. You believe weights increase strength on the bike for a very limied amount of time (5 seconds), very wrong indeed, its very much over excessive amounts of time.


ric, I ain't going to advise or tell you how to train your guys. If you believe you know best, then that is how it is. But I hope your guys never come up against a Davide Rebellin, a Damiano Cunego or Lance Armstrong that spend alot of time in the gym, because there not going to reach there full potential and if you believe your guys will beat these sort of guys that train alot harder than your average Tour rider, your pretty much mistaken.



Does Tyler Hamilton have the excessive leg strength you find so valuable? How about Mayo? Betinni? They’ve had pretty good results this year.


No Tyler Hamilton doesn't have excessive leg strength, BELIEVE ME. We saw what happened to him in the tour, he couldn't keep up with the big boys. Mayo<<< Got blown away, doesn't lift. Bettini lifts and we saw the benefits in the World Cup stages by finishing second to guess who Davide Rebellin. Guys who don't lift like Michael Boogerd will never ever beat them guys, trust me, never ever...

Keep Rockin' in the Free World...

No Tyler Hamilton doesn't have excessive leg strength, BELIEVE ME. We saw what happened to him in the tour, he couldn't keep up with the big boys. Mayo<<< Got blown away, doesn't lift.

Well now, that's the solid evidence I was looking for! Thanks for clearing that up for me :rolleyes:

Clearly Tyler Hamilton and Iban Mayo can't "keep up with the big boys" . Perhaps you've spent a bit too much time in the gym. :roflmao: :roflmao:


(now I know the value of your comments http://www.cripplefight.com/smileys/toilet.gif)

-murray

Stern, I did the research on Pub med exactly as you asked using the search terms specified. If I brought up other sports, it's because YOU were the one that specified the search terms. I did what you asked, and I am aware that these sports are NOT cycling, but sifted through the results to find some evidence of what you said.


Brown, i'm pretty sure i said weights and endurance cycling performance, if i didn't then i'm sorry, but i thought as that's what we're talking about...


Regardless of what you say, I read the forums you actively participate in, and you keep directing me back to your article, which I've already read. Of course, you are going to tout what you believe, so what does that show me? And when I read the other articles written by your peers, they seemed to indicate the opposite of what you believed.


and as i said we have presented the same discussion to others on possibly some of those forums, and as there is no evidence to support their counter view we can persuade them!


As far as Robbie is concerned, there's nothing there that suggests you are any more valid than he is- you're writing an article that hasn't been published, no one I've spoken to has heard of you, and I haven't been able to find any information about your studies that you claim all the coaches are relying on to structure their training programs.


i guess it would depend on who you talk to? strange that no one has heard of me, after all i do a column at cyclingnews.com for the last couple years, have articles in cycling magazines, research in can. j applied physiology, articles in newspapers, work with a couple of bike (related) companies on consulting projects, did some work with polar during the TdF. additionally, if you ask people at USA Cycling some will know me/of me.


I don't disagree with your assessment that without an increase in VO2 max and lactate threshold, there will be no way to increase performance. Definitely the cardiovascular is the key to performance. With a low VO2 max and with a low lactate threshold, you couldn't get much done. That's not what I'm talking about.


so, what *are* you talking about, because i've been talking about endurance cycling performance in trained/well trained/elite cyclists?


No matter- I am going the route of the recognized authorities on this subject. No doubt you believe you are right, but I just don't view you as credible. I haven't talked to anyone yet in the cycling industry that hasn't said the opposite of what you claim (not necessary to weight train).


right, go to Pub-Med and do a search for Coggan, A. you will see a stack load of research by Andy, who is a leading exercise physiologist, and advisor/consultant (or some other similar term) to USA Cycling, as well as an elite masters racer. The citations that come up at Pub-Med for Andy is impressive.

Now, go to either www.cyclingforums.com or rec.bicycles.racing or rec.sport.triathlon and do a search for Coggan, weight training or strength training (or similarly related terms).

Andy is my co-author on my 'imaginery' paper that i'm writing! you could always try contacting him (possibly, i haven't checked to see if that's ok!).

You could also look at coaching work by people such as Peter Keen, who doesn't believe in weights for endurance cycling performance either. In case you're not aware PK was the coach for Chris Boardman and is a leading coach.


Spout out your statistics, dog and pony your one article, whatever. At the end of the day, I still don't think your thinking is correct.


you can think what you like!


If it were, not only would people be doing what you propose, you'd probably be one of those coaches out there training the professionals. If you're training such professionals, who are they? What is their progress? How long have they been working with you?


people are sometimes stuck in their ways, or believe old wives tales, because everyone said you should do it, or someone did and they were better than you (etc). the purpose of our paper and my "one" article is to challenge the long held view that weights is good (it's not a new idea at all weight training for cycling, and was proposed way before either of us were born, assuming that you're not something like a 100 y old!).

training with professionals? do you mean professional coaches, or professional cyclists? either way i do both. who they are, and their progress is in some instances confidential data and i see no reason to break such confidences. however, i consult and coach at TT1 down to recreational level



I don't say I'm like the greatest coach ever- that's why I go to conventions and seminars- I expect the professionals to help me decide what will work for me, then I take it back home. I expect that if you are the professional you claim to be, you would certainly 1) not discount the many professionals who have much more authority on the subject as you have with folks I mentioned such as Ed Burke and Tudor Bompa


with all due respect to Ed Burke, and as much as i liked his work, i don't believe that he was an expert in this particular area. still, nonetheless, where someone does have a greater understanding of an area that i need help in/interested in/work in then i'm all ears


and 2) provide more of a compelling argument than showing us an article that you wrote, and talk about a paper that is not in existance.


and what was wrong with the article? like you've presented *any* data on topic!


Had you been at one of my seminars, I would say you were lacking in research and not counted on your article as worth pursuing.


had i been presenting at a seminar, rather than writing for a magazine type publication it would have been presented differently, still, citations were provided

and, as i've repeatedly, said, from first principles you can calculate the forces required at the pedals and by knowing the very simple fact that an increase in contractile proteins decreases aerobic machinery in trained people, it becomes more obvious about what is happening and that weight training won't increase endurance cycling performance in trained etc cyclists


I just don't see the compelling evidence you've offered, and it seems as though you just seem to be saying the same thing over and over.


that i can't help if you don't understand exercise physiology.


Perhaps once you publish this paper you're working on, we can resurrect this thread and do some discussion? Or I suppose you will be at one of the seminars held here in the USA for cycling coaches and fitness professionals so that I can see your research up close and listen to what you are saying? I assume you plan to back up what you are saying as other professionals have done and are currently doing.


why do you assume i'm in the USA, can you not read my location under my name?

as i said, myself and AC are writing a paper for a peer reviewed journal.

ric

Just have. Look through my most recent posts. What your saying is... "weights *will* increase peak power (that's 5-sec all-out efforts), however, it will be at the expense of your aerobic system".

Right, So if I put 100 miles into my legs, the day after I have a recovery day, then after my recovery day I'm going lift weights, what your saying is... It will be at the expense or deteriate my areobic system in someway. What happens during that time???... Do my lungs shrink, heart become weaker & VO2 max diminish within the space of the day just because I lifted a weight from the floor or placed a barbell on the back of my shoulders and squatted it???..., lol...


not sure if you're trolling, but anyway... why would you expect a physiological change in one session? it's not likely that you'll increase sprint in one weight work out either.

the changes that happen are chronic, rather than acute. as you weight train you either gain mass and become stronger or you stay the same size and become stronger. the first part is an increase in muscle cross sectional area -- this transfer to a different modality to that which you trained, but not the same magnitude of increase. however, in terms of aerobic decreases, you will now have a lowered mitochondrial and capillary density which will adversely affect for e.g., O2 unloading at the venous end of the capillaries

on the other hand, the latter gains (no size increases) are neuromuscular in nature, and these adaptations only occur at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained. if another exercise modality is done that isn't the same joint angle and velocity then they're ain't no transfer


Bloody hell, you need more than strength. You need more than VO2 max. You need more than great strength endurance. First and foremost like most sports, you need a great genetic makeup then build from there. You ain't got that to start with, your pretty much just another average joe. You could be Lance Armstrongs twin brother with the exact training program, you ain't gonna beat him in the Tour. I have friends who are absolute *****s and are semi pro cyclists that couldn't be in a tour regardless of the endless amount of training time they have. They just weren't made for cycling.


i don't disagree but what has this got to do with weight training and ECP?




I can't really explain it any more clearer. Right. Bodybuilders or ANYONE trying to gain muscle mass either through increases in muscle cross sectional area (resulting in you weighing more) as you correctly point out HAVE TO SUPPLEMENT there Weight Training (bodybuilders) religioulsy with conuming endless & obsurd amounts of food/calories to gain that muscle mass. Without all that food, they will not gain that mass. If you don't want mass to develop but still see an increase in strength you simply reverse it.


as pointed out above, if there's no increase in MCSA then the gains are neuromuscular in nature




It ain't that funny. A loss in weight and an increasement in strength = A better Bodyweight-Power Ratio. Everyone should enjoy this fact, it will make you a quicker cyclist, sprinter, runner etc.


i believe you're confusing power and strength, these are different metrics. Of course, a better power to mass ratio is important




Why haven't you gone out and done the reasearch yourself and done trial & error. You don't just sit in front of a computer do you reading up on this study and that study. Ohhh some Russsian here, Some German there, saying 'Ohhhhh nooooooo, Weights don't improve cycling performance, stay away. Then your sold, right????..., lol....


as a sports scientist, you look at previous research, arrive at a hypothesis and alternate hypothesis that you wish to test and develop an experimental design to test the hypotheses.


If you and I was to be handed two athletes with the same genetic make-up, you advised him to train solely cycling, and I was to advice my athlete into an intense weight program to supplement his cycling training, then simply, there is going to be only one winner.


thanks, that was easy enough for you to decide on me as the winner.



And no, my athlete won't see a increase in bodyweight just because he lifted a weight, he will have a superior strength to bodyweight ratio which means your man is out of the back door. You believe weights increase strength on the bike for a very limied amount of time (5 seconds), very wrong indeed, its very much over excessive amounts of time.


as i said, find me a piece of evidence that shows that weight training increases ECP in trained/well-trained/elite cyclists. Put up or shut up, i believe is the expression!


ric

I was wandering if you happened to spot the muscle development in his legs (Compared to his competitors). In particular his Hamstrings. I was looking at a guy who I know through experience lifts weights. Again, no amount of cycling training cannot produce that sort of development in the legs through bike resistance alone, Impossible. It can only be produced by doing such exercises like Snatch Grip Deadlifts, RDL's, Good-Mornings, etc etc and going heavy on them<<< Exercises that hit the posterior chain (Glutes, Hams, Hip Flexors etc).


so, are you saying that bodybuilders would be better cyclists than cyclists themselves?



The result, well he worked the hardest in the gym, had the most strength in his legs and was able to despatch his weaker competitors including the specialist mountain goats that had less bodyweight than himself. But the in the end, his superior leg strength won (even in the mountains). Again, a quality that cannot be produced through just bike resistance.


superior leg strength (even in the mountains): unfortunately, this is power output and not strength related, it's the basis of this discussion. strength, is clearly, and well defined for many, many years as the maximal force or tension a muscle or group of muscles can generate. If someone climbing a pass in the Dolomites or wherever was at their maximum while riding the pass, then by golly they'd be weak! The forces required for a rider of LA's size (bigger and therefore more force required than Cunego) would be about 250 Newtons (as i've repeatedly pointed out), between both legs. That's approximately 25 kg between both legs. anyone (practically) can generate that. sustaining it for the period of time up the pass, is an entirely different matter. that's a cardiovascular and metabolic issue (i.e., related to VO2max, LT). we *know* (and so do you) that this is true, because if we assume that a pro is riding undoped up that pass, and then we dope him with rH-Epo their power output will significantly increase. there's been no change in strength. there has however, been an increase in convective O2 delivery which is the main limiting factor in ECP.


Could I please have you opinion on these posts...

Back soon...

this is funny! why if you think i'm talking rubbish are you so interested in my reply?

ric

Let's get rid of the easy ones.

First of all, I do know you're not based in the USA. But I guess you assume that people who live outside of the USA don't lecture within the USA. I guess that's why you're not too well known here.

Again, I'll wait for the paper. I do not at all think it's imagined. I merely said I would wait for the paper. In the paper, I'm sure the research you talk about will support what you're talking about here. I thought taking the open minded approach would work with you. Obviously, it just made you defensive. Sorry.

I understand exercise physiology. I think you have the problems, because you totally disregard the meaning of what people are discussing to push your beliefs through. You did give me the exact subject matter to review on Pub med. I copied and pasted your words straight off the page and did the research, then presented it. But you insist on feigning ignorance with regards as to the point of what I'm saying. I have never disagreed with what you say about weight training not affecting endurance. Yet for some reason, it's like you argue against the very statements you state when I say I agree with this, but also talk about weight training for other aspects of cycling. If you don't agree, rather then state why not, you always bring it back to endurance being unaffected by weight training. I already said that it does not. Why do you continue to bring back something I am not arguing against?

I suppose you could argue confidentiality about who your clients are. I've never heard of any athletes who don't want people to know who they're training with. Even Lance Armstrong said he worked with Dr. Ferrari and was not hiding that fact, despite the problems and negative stigmas associated with Dr. Ferrari... I suppose athletes you work with must have a good reason as to why they would rather not want you to publicly state you are working with them.

Sorry, but I'm just about tapped out on doing Pub med searches. So I guess we'll agree to disagree, just as I stated many posts ago. Methinks you just really like to argue... so go on ahead. I guess I'm just all tapped out and let us know when you've got that paper published. I'd like to see what your research is exactly and how you came about your results.

In case you misinterpret the above paragraph, it's just a statement. Imagine a woman's voice stating this paragraph in a calm, nochalant, not a care in the world manner. No judgements is what they say in Lance's commercial, so I'm just stating that I'll wait and read, that's all. So now, if you get defensive, it's all in your head.

Let us know when that paper is done. Seriously, I am interested in seeing your tests and your conclusions resulting from them. :)

Koffee

P.S. Also, we all know Americans don't say things like "rubbish" and "pish posh!", like you do, so even if I hadn't of read you were from the UK, I'm sure the language would have given it away. Besides, there's no you in "behavior"... ;) :D

Koffee

Dude, what's the muscled fellas VO2 max? His lactate threshold? How often does he train the cardiovascular?

I've met bodybuilders that can't run a block without getting out of breath to the point of having to stop. If they've got a low aerobic threshold, they're not going anywhere anytime soon...

Koffee

Just who are we talking about? And where is their training schedule? And what are their numbers for their performance testing?

It's difficult to deal with hypotheticals without knowing what's going on. Are they bodybuilders or are they training for an event? Are they still bodybuilding now when they should be focusing on the cardiovascular? What is their specialty for cyling? Mountains? Sprinters? Multiday tours?

Koffee

Let's get rid of the easy ones.

First of all, I do know you're not based in the USA. But I guess you assume that people who live outside of the USA don't lecture within the USA. I guess that's why you're not too well known here.


the majority of people that i coach are from the US


I understand exercise physiology. I think you have the problems, because you totally disregard the meaning of what people are discussing to push your beliefs through. You did give me the exact subject matter to review on Pub med. I copied and pasted your words straight off the page and did the research, then presented it.


i think the first time i said endurance cycling performance and the second time i said endurance performance. as the post was written a bit ago, i can't remember whether that's a typo on my part or whether i'd assumed that people would realise i meant ECP. either way, and i don't mean this disrespectfully, it's always a good idea typing in various terms that are related to the subject matter, so that you cover all the keywords of the authors who write the studies. of course, that may mean that you spend an extremely long time just searching for papers, but that's the nature of research!


But you insist on feigning ignorance with regards as to the point of what I'm saying. I have never disagreed with what you say about weight training not affecting endurance.


i'm pretty sure you suggested that it increased ECP and that being stronger was good for ECP. think you also said it was standard to learn such stuff. if i've misquoted you then my apologies.

i *think/thought* i covered some of your other points, i seem to recall you saying something about loosing muscle mass, and i quoted research to say that it doesn't happen in the TdF (off the top of my head the weight loss 0.5 or 1 kg or similar)


I suppose you could argue confidentiality about who your clients are. I've never heard of any athletes who don't want people to know who they're training with. Even Lance Armstrong said he worked with Dr. Ferrari and was not hiding that fact, despite the problems and negative stigmas associated with Dr. Ferrari... I suppose athletes you work with must have a good reason as to why they would rather not want you to publicly state you are working with them.


i *guess* that may be one difference between europe and US?


Sorry, but I'm just about tapped out on doing Pub med searches.

i can understand that!

ahh... the sheer joy of doing pub-med searches, so much fun, so little time! and never really a lot to show for it!

ric

Misquoted some, but I did think some muscle mass was lost from doing multiday tours, such as the Tour day France. You stated your opinion on that.

I'm pretty sure I never said endurance is increased by muscle. If I did, I must have been smoking a crack pipe at the time.

Ok, nuff said. I'm off for dinner. Pish posh and rubbish!

:D

Koffee

Ok, nuff said. I'm off for dinner. Pish posh and rubbish!

:D

Koffee

enjoy!

oh yeah forgot to say before, what the hell is "pish posh" i ain't ever heard or used such words, and if they're in any posts of mine (apart from this sentence) then it's a typo??

ric

Tour day France.

what the hell is the Tour day France...? :eek: :p :)

it's "de".

you'll probably dredge up all my spelling errors now :mad: which of course will serve me right! ;)

Pish posh is something I've heard from some folks that talk "english". They say stuff like "pish posh and all that!", and stuff like that. Of course, when they say it, they're being funny. Hmmmm... must be an American thing.

But you do say rubbish. Ha, that's funny. Rubbish!

:D

Koffee

what the hell is the Tour day France...? :eek: :p :)

it's "de".

you'll probably dredge up all my spelling errors now :mad: which of course will serve me right! ;)

Oh Tour day France is just Bob Roll-ism. I ain't drudgin up nuthin!

:D

Koffee

Pish posh is something I've heard from some folks that talk "english". They say stuff like "pish posh and all that!", and stuff like that. Of course, when they say it, they're being funny. Hmmmm... must be an American thing.

But you do say rubbish. Ha, that's funny. Rubbish!

:D

Koffee

seriously, ain't never heard of pish posh and have no idea what it means...

yeah, we say rubbish. not sure why that's funny though?

there's a few other word differences, you have to be careful with some

Oh Tour day France is just Bob Roll-ism. I ain't drudgin up nuthin!

:D

Koffee

oh! ok! phew, without a spell checker there's bound to be some blunders

what if a person lifted in their upper body 2 times a week, lower once a week and rode their bike 300 miles a week. wouldn't they get quite a few benefits from both sides? i'm doing this now but with the milage only around 60 miles per week. i'm hoping someday to end up with at least 300 mpw at about 195 lbs to 225 lbs (i'll go with what feels best) at some point (like.. in a few years when i have the money for a road bike). wouldn't i still have good endurance but also be a bit faster than the guy that just rode 300 mpw with no weight training?

Let's take your current situation, lifting 3 days a week and riding 60 miles a week. I wouldn't have a hard time believing that replacing the 3 lifting days with 1 day of intervals, 1 day of hill repeats and 1 long day (> 60 miles) would make you a better rider. No one here has been able to present any evidence that lifting makes you faster. The one article I found states that weight training "does not improve cycle ENDURANCE performance". http://www.cptips.com/weights.htm

FWIW, your plan of 3 days of lifting leaves only 4 days to get your 300 mpw with no rest days. I think such a plan would be very difficult to maintain for any length of time.

-murray

what if a person lifted in their upper body 2 times a week, lower once a week and rode their bike 300 miles a week. wouldn't they get quite a few benefits from both sides? i'm doing this now but with the milage only around 60 miles per week. i'm hoping someday to end up with at least 300 mpw at about 195 lbs to 225 lbs (i'll go with what feels best) at some point (like.. in a few years when i have the money for a road bike). wouldn't i still have good endurance but also be a bit faster than the guy that just rode 300 mpw with no weight training?


Merton your pretty spot on. Guys like Damiano Cunego (2004 Giro Italia Winner), Davide Rebellin (2004 World Cup Winner), Lance Armstrong (2004 Tour De France Winner) ALL LIFT. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.


No one here has been able to present any evidence that lifting makes you faster.


Sorry, just have fella.


Guess what. A STRONGER RIDER WILL ALWAYS BEAT A WEAKER RIDER. That is the bottom line. Lifting weights will give you make you a better cyclist ALL ROUND, an all rounder. Guys like Virenque who don't lift, yeah great in the mountains but nothing else, will never be an accomplished all rounder.



Let's take your current situation, lifting 3 days a week and riding 60 miles a week. I wouldn't have a hard time believing that replacing the 3 lifting days with 1 day of intervals, 1 day of hill repeats and 1 long day (> 60 miles) would make you a better rider. No one here has been able to present any evidence that lifting makes you faster. The one article I found states that weight training "does not improve cycle ENDURANCE performance". http://www.cptips.com/weights.htm

FWIW, your plan of 3 days of lifting leaves only 4 days to get your 300 mpw with no rest days. I think such a plan would be very difficult to maintain for any length of time.

-murray


No this won't make him a better rider. If I was to follow this advice my legs would get weaker. ALOT WEAKER. In fact, you wouldn't believe how much weaker this type of training would make me. Your another who is behind the times. The old days are well gone. Cycling alone doesn't make your legs strong, the resitance is FAR, FAR TOO LIGHT.

Weights will make you a faster sprinter, faster long distance runner, faster soccer player etc etc etc...


Get with the times... A STRONGER RIDER WILL ALWAYS BEAT A WEAKER RIDER.

You're contradicting yourself right and left here:

Cycling alone doesn't make your legs strong, the resitance is FAR, FAR TOO LIGHT.
Get with the times... A STRONGER RIDER WILL ALWAYS BEAT A WEAKER RIDER.

If cycling resistance is so light, why you do you need so much strength?!?

No Tyler Hamilton doesn't have excessive leg strength, BELIEVE ME. We saw what happened to him in the tour, he couldn't keep up with the big boys. Mayo<<< Got blown away, doesn't lift.

A STRONGER RIDER WILL ALWAYS BEAT A WEAKER RIDER.

So, if Tyler Hamilton & Iban Mayo don't lift and stronger riders will always win, how do you explain this:

August 18: Men's Time Trial, 48km
Results

1 Tyler Hamilton (USA) 57.31.74 (50.062 km/h)
2 Viatcheslav Ekimov (Russia) 0.18.84
3 Bobby Julich (USA) 0.26.45
4 Michael Rogers (Australia) 0.29.93
5 Michael Rich (Germany) 0.37.72
6 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kazakhstan) 1.26.40
7 Jan Ullrich (Germany) 1.30.30
8 Santiago Botero Echeverri (Colombia) 1.33.02
9 Igor Gonzalez De Galdeano (Spain) 1.55.51
10 Fabian Cancellara (Switzerland) 2.10.64


or this

The 56th Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré - 2.HC
Final general classification

1 Iban Mayo (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 29.27.15
2 Tyler Hamilton (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems 0.36
3 Oscar Sevilla (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 1.14
4 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal presented by Berry Floor 2.00
5 Juan Miguel Mercado (Spa) Quick.Step-Davitamon 2.32
6 José Gutierrez (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 2.36
7 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank 2.39
8 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Rabobank 3.33
9 Oscar Pereiro (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 3.58
10 Inigo Landaluze (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 4.02

-murray

A STRONGER RIDER WILL ALWAYS BEAT A WEAKER RIDER over any 3 week ENDURANCE event. You just keep putting endless miles into your legs, cos you ain't getting any stronger... Keep doing hill repeats till your blue in the face and riding bike resistance only, then when you or the athletes you advise come up against the guys that do lift and train harder, tell them to forget about competing against the likes of your Damiano Cunego's, Amstrongs etc cos ones is for certain, they won't be able to compete...

Keep Rockin' In The Free World...

A STRONGER RIDER WILL ALWAYS BEAT A WEAKER RIDER over any 3 week ENDURANCE event.

85th Giro d'Italia (GT)
Italy, May 11-June 2, 2002
Final general classification

1 Paolo Savoldelli (Ita) Index Alexia 89.22.42
2 Tyler Hamilton (USA) Team CSC Tiscali 1.41
3 Pietro Caucchioli (Ita) Alessio 2.12
4 Juan Manuel Garate (Spa) Lampre-Daikin 3.14
5 Pavel Tonkov (Rus) Lampre-Daikin 5.34
6 Aitor Gonzalez Jimenez (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca 6.54
7 Georg Totschnig (Aut) Gerolsteiner 7.02
8 Fernando Escartin (Spa) Team Coast 7.07
9 Rik Verbrugghe (Bel) Lotto-Adecco 9.36
10 Dario Frigo (Ita) Tacconi Sport-Emmegi 11.50

Two muscle bound guys at the top of that GC :lol: :lol:

Any other qualifications you want to put on your A STRONGER RIDER WILL ALWAYS BEAT A WEAKER RIDER claim??

-murray

85th Giro d'Italia (GT)
Italy, May 11-June 2, 2002
Final general classification

1 Paolo Savoldelli (Ita) Index Alexia 89.22.42
2 Tyler Hamilton (USA) Team CSC Tiscali 1.41
3 Pietro Caucchioli (Ita) Alessio 2.12
4 Juan Manuel Garate (Spa) Lampre-Daikin 3.14
5 Pavel Tonkov (Rus) Lampre-Daikin 5.34
6 Aitor Gonzalez Jimenez (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca 6.54
7 Georg Totschnig (Aut) Gerolsteiner 7.02
8 Fernando Escartin (Spa) Team Coast 7.07
9 Rik Verbrugghe (Bel) Lotto-Adecco 9.36
10 Dario Frigo (Ita) Tacconi Sport-Emmegi 11.50

Two muscle bound guys at the top of that GC :lol: :lol:

Any other qualifications you want to put on your A STRONGER RIDER WILL ALWAYS BEAT A WEAKER RIDER claim??

-murray

i think vitamin X has taken too much vitamin X and his or her brain has exploded from the overdose!!

interestingly enough, the pros (and others, and not all pros) have, in a strange sort of way proved that it's a cardiovascular and metabolic issue (increasing performance) and not weight training. why do i say this? well, we know, without any doubt that taking rH-Epo immediately (pretty much) improves performance by altering haematological parameters and increasing convective O2 delivery, which is the limiting factor in endurance exercise. if we take two *equal* athletes who are drug free and get one to dope with rH-Epo, then the assisted one will win.

given that, either Vitamin X, is in no particular order, 1) unable to grasp the underlying physiology of a quite basic discussion, 2) is just trolling us, or 3) doesn't understand the terms "strength", "power", "endurance", etc.

i've asked Vitamin X on a few occasions to support his or her claim, but s/he seems unable or unwilling to do so.


ric

85th Giro d'Italia (GT)
Italy, May 11-June 2, 2002
Final general classification

1 Paolo Savoldelli (Ita) Index Alexia 89.22.42
2 Tyler Hamilton (USA) Team CSC Tiscali 1.41
3 Pietro Caucchioli (Ita) Alessio 2.12
4 Juan Manuel Garate (Spa) Lampre-Daikin 3.14
5 Pavel Tonkov (Rus) Lampre-Daikin 5.34
6 Aitor Gonzalez Jimenez (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca 6.54
7 Georg Totschnig (Aut) Gerolsteiner 7.02
8 Fernando Escartin (Spa) Team Coast 7.07
9 Rik Verbrugghe (Bel) Lotto-Adecco 9.36
10 Dario Frigo (Ita) Tacconi Sport-Emmegi 11.50

Two muscle bound guys at the top of that GC :lol: :lol:

Any other qualifications you want to put on your A STRONGER RIDER WILL ALWAYS BEAT A WEAKER RIDER claim??

-murray


85th Giro d'Italia May 11-June 2, 2002???.... May 11-June 2, 2002????...

Old news, Old times... Times have moved on, I guess you guys should too... Nuff said.

Muscle bound guys???. No, Bodybuilders are muscle bound. Weights WON'T make you muscle bound. I have told you that, please take note of older posts. I actually lost weight and so have millions of others lifting weights.




interestingly enough, the pros (and others, and not all pros) have, in a strange sort of way proved that it's a cardiovascular and metabolic issue (increasing performance) and not weight training. why do i say this? well, we know, without any doubt that taking rH-Epo immediately (pretty much) improves performance by altering haematological parameters and increasing convective O2 delivery, which is the limiting factor in endurance exercise. if we take two *equal* athletes who are drug free and get one to dope with rH-Epo, then the assisted one will win.



No lets forget about EPO. Your Armstrongs, Damiano Cunego's etc etc etc don't supplement there training with EPO. What I do know is they supplement it through weight training, plyometrics, hill sprints (running) etc etc. I know EPO increases oxygen delivery and I know of LEGAL alternative supplements that do the same thing which work just as well.

Bloody hell I could name around 30 supplements that immediately (pretty much) improves performance by altering haematological parameters and increasing convective O2 delivery, jesus. I bought some today at my health food store, and work, lol.

i've asked Vitamin X on a few occasions to support his or her claim, but s/he seems unable or unwilling to do so.

This is the last time....

Damiano Cunego (2004 Giro Italia Winner),
Davide Rebellin (2004 World Cup Winner),
Lance Armstrong (2004 Tour De France Winner)

ALL LIFT...

At the end of the day, all these guys were stronger than there weaker counter parts... A cyclist with stronger legs who puts in the hard work in the gym WILL beat a guy that just trains solely cycling. That is COMMON SENSE.

God, I remember when I started cycling and didn't know anything about training or how to make myself stronger. All I kept doing was hill repeats, I was stagnating, no in fact, I was going backwards. A year later I was hitting my posterior chain muscles with weights and I was flying up the hills twice as fast. Because my legs were alot stronger my heart & lungs weren't being called upon as much. It was just very, very easy. I don't need no study on the internet to tell me, or guys who do lifts weights that win major events (Tour De France, Giro etc) that weights will make me personally a faster rider, I have been my own lab rat for 4 years, I know for a fact, personally it works.

This is an argument you will never win. You can only win it by me getting bored and simply falling asleep. Cycling will only make the strength in your lungs, Heart and legs go so far UNTIL you have to use different means of training to improve upon them.

I moved from powerlifting to cycling in 1994 due to joint problems and sheer weight lifting burnout.

I competyed for several years on my mountain bike and climbs were where I left the others behind. My leg strength helped me to power over hills very effectively. I could not spin well until i lost some of my leg mass.

My PL stats were:

5'9" and 170 lbs.

Best qualifying squat 535 lbs, (completely drug free and no squat suit). This is not the kind of weight the real serious PL'ers do at that body weight but it was what I managed. I did a close 575 in training once but not to full depth.

The problem was not turniong big gears but turning higher cadence. Back then my cadence was in the 65-80 range where now I typically ride anywhere from 85-95.

I know EPO increases oxygen delivery and I know of LEGAL alternative supplements that do the same thing which work just as well.

Bloody hell I could name around 30 supplements that immediately (pretty much) improves performance by altering haematological parameters and increasing convective O2 delivery, jesus. I bought some today at my health food store, and work, lol.





Please tell me (us) more.....

i think vitamin X has taken too much vitamin X and his or her brain has exploded from the overdose!!

Ahhh, I'm just having fun with him http://www.cripplefight.com/smileys/bicycle.gif

Of course, I should have figured out that NO ONE lifted in 2002, that's ancient history according to V X. I guess we need to get with the times Ric :D

-murray

I am one that thinks that lifting helps a little, but I wouldn't go with the stronger rider always beats a weaker one mantra. Tyler, Mayo, and the like had problems because of the first week of the tour. Tyler crashed, it basically sidelined him because of his back. Guys like Mayo are 130 lbs in race season. The rainy, windy, crappy conditions the first week took a higher toll on the smaller competitors because they couldn't take as much shock as a guy at 165 like Armstrong. The conditions were at least part to blame for guys like Mayo dropping like flies.

I am one that thinks that lifting helps a little, but I wouldn't go with the stronger rider always beats a weaker one mantra. Tyler, Mayo, and the like had problems because of the first week of the tour. Tyler crashed, it basically sidelined him because of his back. Guys like Mayo are 130 lbs in race season. The rainy, windy, crappy conditions the first week took a higher toll on the smaller competitors because they couldn't take as much shock as a guy at 165 like Armstrong. The conditions were at least part to blame for guys like Mayo dropping like flies.


i'm pretty sure Tour medical data had Mayo as something like a kg lighter than Armstrong...

I think this thread has been finally wrapped up. Whether someone takes part in weight training or not doesn't matter. Its all about enjoyment, the taking part & getting yourself in shape & feeling good about yourself. Whether there pro, semi, or 100lbs overweight, my respect goes out to all who cycle that want to improve themselves.


I am one that thinks that lifting helps a little, but I wouldn't go with the stronger rider always beats a weaker one mantra. Tyler, Mayo, and the like had problems because of the first week of the tour. Tyler crashed, it basically sidelined him because of his back. Guys like Mayo are 130 lbs in race season. The rainy, windy, crappy conditions the first week took a higher toll on the smaller competitors because they couldn't take as much shock as a guy at 165 like Armstrong. The conditions were at least part to blame for guys like Mayo dropping like flies.

Is that correct???... I just looked on eurosports official website which stated Mayo was 71Kg (156lbs). These guys don't usually get these things wrong. This stat was recorded at the start of the Tour. Lance Armstrong was recorded as being 77Kg (170lbs) at the start of the Tour De France. I cannot see Mayo ever being 130lbs. Going from 156lbs<<< Which is very skinny anyway, to 130lbs especially for a guy who is 182cm seems is just to unbelievable.

Who's wrong???... You or Eurosport, just interested.

X, Tell us more about your over the counter, non-banned, ok to be taken without a blood test, or doctors supervision supplements that increase the oxygen carrying capability of your blood by up to 20%

This is a really good thread (time to add my 2 cents)

Well I have been lifting pretty hard for the last 4 years Yea thats me (http://www.talesbymoonlight.com/temp/4.jpg) , I started road biking last year. Did my first century after 1 month of road biking (had a leisure mountain biking background)I always thought of myself as a sprinter not an endurance athelete (maybe I'm still a sprinter since I go for riding 20-25 miles at 22mph avg)anyways I was surprise how smoothly I transitioned into road cycling. I wont say that all my lifting helped out that much because cycling is so much about your cardio. My lifting background made me at first take on the really high gears because I had the leg strength, but I later learned that pro cyclist try to keep a high cadence.
I later adjusted and my cadence now is 83-87.

Overall it seems for me that its alot about training hard and smart(cycling). I agree that low weight high rep training helps build your muscle endurance and is a good form of exercise for cyclist(which is exactly the opposite of my strength training, high weight low rep). Heavy strength lifting dosen't really give you an advantage it seems but you can overcome it and be just also good as the next guy if you train right and are really dedicated.

Ok, time for this lurker to weigh in: I think both sides may be "right" in their own way. I hear Ric saying that strength, specifically strength gained from lifting weights, does not translate into greater cycling endurance. From everything I have read over the past five years (which is when I got into triathlon) I would agree with Ric on this - there are no scientific studies to support the conclusion that a stronger leg muscle can produce or be trained to produce more cycling endurance over a non-weight-trained muscle. But, could it be that leg strength can affect cycling performance in areas other than endurance? This is where I think others have been going with this discussion.

I don't think anyone is arguing that strength, per se, is more predictive of better performance in a cycling endurance event than actual cycling muscular endurance, especially as the rides/races get longer and longer. What I do hear some saying is that of two riders with the exact same physiologies and identical level of training the one with more leg strength and/or power *should* produce a better performance. Why? Because a race requires more than muscular endurance alone, it also requires strength and/or power. Now, I am not a physiologist but I wonder how strength and power are interrelated? Can a stronger muscle (Force=Mass*Acceleration) be trained to be more powerful (F=MA/time) than a weaker muscle? If a stronger muscle can be trained to produce a higher level of power output, and if power output affects performance in endurance events then this is a good thing. I am not saying that strength/power are more significant than muscular endurance but they would seem to be a factor in overall performance. It *seems* that even if the force or power required to climb a moderate hill is quite low that the more powerful muscle should have an easier time of it because it exhausts fewer muscle fibers. Example, if I am so weak that I must use almost all of my strength to push up a hill, even if I have a great VO2max and excellent muscular endurance, the person with the same V02max and endurance but greater force production should beat me up the hill.

So, the question is : can greater leg strength and/or power production increase the performance of an endurance cyclist over one with less leg strength/power, all things being equal? Even if we accept Ric's view that such strength/power does not increase endurance (which I am apt to believe) can we go so far as to say that it does not result in an increase in performance? As always, another important question is "by how much" can performance be increased? If muscular endurance is the main limiter for performance then it would make most sense to spend the majority (perhaps all?) of training time devoted to this one aspect of fitness until it has been optimized. And just to throw a little more complexity into the discussion, Ric has suggested that increased muscular strength (and/or power?) is inversely proportional to the level of muscular endurance that can be trained. Question is, quantitatively how significant is this? Just HOW MUCH endurance is sacrificed? Is the decrease in endurance offset by the performance increase of the strength/power? There must be an optimal ratio of power:endurance to produce an optimal performance, which of course would vary depending on the race course topography and length.

Finally, on the subject of specificity of training, I noticed that Joe Friel (author of The Triathletes Training Bible and the Cyclists Training Bible) has moved away from weight room strength/power/endurance training and is now advocating such work to be performed on the bike itself = specificity. In theory, I like that approach because I do believe in the efficacy of specificity but I would have to be convinced that I could train my muscles to the same levels of strength/power on the bike vs in the weight room OR that lower levels of strength/power relative to levels gained in the weight room are more than offset by the specificity of bike training resulting in greater performance on the bike.

This is why I love training and racing so much. Because as scientific as we get about it all, two riders with different strengths and weaknesses and different training volumes/intensities/methodologies but with similar levels of fitness in other areas can beat each other or lose to each other on any given day :)

This is why I love training and racing so much. Because as scientific as we get about it all, two riders with different strengths and weaknesses and different training volumes/intensities/methodologies but with similar levels of fitness in other areas can beat each other or lose to each other on any given day :)

I agree, but it's a love/hate thing. After 15 years of serious riding, there are too many factors to determine what made me better or worse this year. I think I've decided that the only way to get stronger on the bike is to be on the bike more :D

-murray

I don't think anyone is arguing that strength, per se, is more predictive of better performance in a cycling endurance event than actual cycling muscular endurance, especially as the rides/races get longer and longer. What I do hear some saying is that of two riders with the exact same physiologies and identical level of training the one with more leg strength and/or power *should* produce a better performance.


you appear to be using strength and power interchangeably, this is not the case.

additionally, if they have the same "physiologies" then their power would be the same, as power is a direct measure of fitness and physiology.

strength, is the maximal force or tension that a muscle or group of muscles can generate. maximal force (i.e., strength) can only be generated at zero or very low velocity, see Hill's Force - Velocity curve (force is inversely proportional to velocity).

power is the sum of all the forces that must be overcome to move you and the bike at a given velocity under given conditions.

of course, if in a group of people if one person can generate more power for an equal size/shape/mass then they will travel at a greater velocity under given conditions.


Why? Because a race requires more than muscular endurance alone, it also requires strength and/or power.


a race does not require more strength than most people can generate. in fact, due to the in general higher average velocity caused by group dynamics and the reduction in air drag, force requirements are likely to less than when training by yourself.


Now, I am not a physiologist but I wonder how strength and power are interrelated? Can a stronger muscle (Force=Mass*Acceleration) be trained to be more powerful (F=MA/time) than a weaker muscle? If a stronger muscle can be trained to produce a higher level of power output, and if power output affects performance in endurance events then this is a good thing.


in general (with few exceptions) most people can generate the same force and power as elite riders. in fact, elite cyclists are, on average, no stronger than age, gender, and mass matched, healthy, sedentary controls.



I am not saying that strength/power are more significant than muscular endurance but they would seem to be a factor in overall performance. It *seems* that even if the force or power required to climb a moderate hill is quite low that the more powerful muscle should have an easier time of it because it exhausts fewer muscle fibers. Example, if I am so weak that I must use almost all of my strength to push up a hill, even if I have a great VO2max and excellent muscular endurance, the person with the same V02max and endurance but greater force production should beat me up the hill.


if the force is quite low to get up a hill (which it is) why would being able to produce more force be a good thing when already can? this is a rhetorical question.

if you have a great VO2max, then by definition you would be producing a great power output. Each watt will require a specific volume of O2 to move the muscles, thus a great power output = a great VO2max.

As defined by Hill's Force - Velocity curve you can't possibly generate maximal forces (i.e., strength) at normal (and even abnormal - i.e., very low cadences). Additionally, we know that maximal forces can only be generated for very brief periods of time. Even at very high power outputs the forces have dropped off considerably, from that (the forces) which can be produced maximally.

the only real time force may be a limiting factor, would be trying to start from stationary on a very steep incline (or e.g., during a standing start 1-km or 500-m TT)



So, the question is : can greater leg strength and/or power production increase the performance of an endurance cyclist over one with less leg strength/power, all things being equal?


yes, increased power is the most important part of performance. you are however, interchanging power and strength, which you can't do (as was previously mentioned).


Finally, on the subject of specificity of training, I noticed that Joe Friel (author of The Triathletes Training Bible and the Cyclists Training Bible) has moved away from weight room strength/power/endurance training and is now advocating such work to be performed on the bike itself = specificity.


:-) ;) :D



In theory, I like that approach because I do believe in the efficacy of specificity but I would have to be convinced that I could train my muscles to the same levels of strength/power on the bike vs in the weight room OR that lower levels of strength/power relative to levels gained in the weight room are more than offset by the specificity of bike training resulting in greater performance on the bike.


in general you *can't* increase strength on the bike and certainly nowhere the weight room level for the non "general" people.

Ric

Just a quick clarification before I ponder a more thoughful and direct response, I did not intend to suggest that strength and power were the same thing. That is why I tried to use "and/or" when referencing them in the same sentence. What I don't know is if one affects the other - that is, if I increase power alone, will that affect strength at all and vice versa.

Am I clear, are you suggesting that you cannot increase "strength" on the bike? You used the term "in general"...

Just a quick clarification before I ponder a more thoughful and direct response, I did not intend to suggest that strength and power were the same thing. That is why I tried to use "and/or" when referencing them in the same sentence. What I don't know is if one affects the other - that is, if I increase power alone, will that affect strength at all and vice versa.

Am I clear, are you suggesting that you cannot increase "strength" on the bike? You used the term "in general"...

apologies, it read to me that you were using strength and power interchangeably.

if you increase strength (with an increase in muscle cross sectional area) you can increase power output, but only peak power output (i.e., that which can be sustained for e.g., ~ 5-secs).

on the other hand you can increase power without increasing strength.

you can increase strength on the bike -- but realistically it's limited to a small group population (e.g., frail old ladies). on the other hand it *may* be possible to increase strength if you did lots of 'all-out' standing start 20-m sprints, but again, that's only going to happen for a small population (e.g., 500-m and 1-km Track Time trial sprinters)

ric

apologies, it read to me that you were using strength and power interchangeably.

if you increase strength (with an increase in muscle cross sectional area) you can increase power output, but only peak power output (i.e., that which can be sustained for e.g., ~ 5-secs).

on the other hand you can increase power without increasing strength.

you can increase strength on the bike -- but realistically it's limited to a small group population (e.g., frail old ladies). on the other hand it *may* be possible to increase strength if you did lots of 'all-out' standing start 20-m sprints, but again, that's only going to happen for a small population (e.g., 500-m and 1-km Track Time trial sprinters)

ric

Would you say, then, that it would be easier to increase power on the bike?

Would you say, then, that it would be easier to increase power on the bike?

that's the whole point of training (for the most part)

Work = Weight x Distance

To work faster, requires more power.

Hence, more power = more speed. It is the definition of power.

Endurance training requires more muscle. Endurance training eats muscle.

Basball players used to abhor weight training. Nolan Ryan was a power pitcher. He walked as many people as he struck out. He was a thrower, not a pitcher. Threw the ball hard and fast.

Weight training did not make him more accurate. It did allow him to maintain more of his power at an advanced age.

He pitched into his forty's by lifting weights. He could still throw with power.

Comparing Rider A , who is weight training, to Ride, to Rider B, who is not, only proves that you do not understand what we are comparing.

It would require Rider A vs Rider A, with and with out weight training.

Ric said lifting would only help little old ladies. It will also help little old men.

Will lifting weights make Tyler faster ? Good question. What weights, what program, what, what what ? Hard to prove statisticly.

Will it extend his career ? Yes. He would lose his speed at a much slower rate. People who say they are in the best shape of their life in middle age were never in shape in their youth.

Would he still need endurance training, of course.

Work = Weight x Distance

To work faster, requires more power.

Hence, more power = more speed. It is the definition of power.


work (done) = force x distance

Power is the rate of doing work (along with several other definitions).

Higher power under given conditions = greater velocity.

not sure what your point is: we can (in general) already generate more force than is required for cycling.




Endurance training requires more muscle. Endurance training eats muscle.


and your evidence for this is?


Weight training did not make him more accurate. It did allow him to maintain more of his power at an advanced age.

He pitched into his forty's by lifting weights. He could still throw with power.


we're talking about cycling not baseball. nonetheless, strength is maintained into the 5th or 6th decade of life.



Comparing Rider A , who is weight training, to Ride, to Rider B, who is not, only proves that you do not understand what we are comparing.

It would require Rider A vs Rider A, with and with out weight training.


not sure who this is aimed at?



Ric said lifting would only help little old ladies. It will also help little old men.


i said 1) "e.g." and 2) cycling increases strength in that/those groups



Will lifting weights make Tyler faster ? Good question. What weights, what program, what, what what ? Hard to prove statisticly.


no it won't -- if you mean related to endurance cycling performance. if you mean if he takes up 200-m track sprinting then it will!

research on trained/elite cyclists shows that it doesn't.


ric

that's the whole point of training (for the most part)

I've been following Joe Friel's training advice for a few years with good success. In his book The Trathlete's Training Bible he advocates a periodized plan of weight training in the following order:

- maximum strength
- power-endurance
- muscular endurance
- strength maintenance

(I might have missed one, but you get the point).

It places an early emphasis on building strength and power, as if the two were interrelated (that is, you build on your gained strength to build power...I notice he doesn't have you build power first then strength). Then he places more emphasis on muscular endurance as you get into the middle of your training period because that would be the more significant factor in performance. As the training progresses and more and more endurance work is performed on the bike, he moves away from endurance work in the gym (perhaps because as the weather improves you can do more specific training "on bike") and shifts the emphasis back to strength maintenance in the gym, though he does say that athletes under 40 might be able to get away with no strength maintenance.

I understand your contention that of the three abilities - strength, power and endurance - strength does not aid in the development of greater endurance - and I am with you on that. But you also seem to be saying that it does not increase performance, either. Or that it can actually DECREASE the muscles' ability to train for endurance.

I just can't help but think that additional strength as a "supplement" to endurance training may lead to increased performance. Unfortunately, there are too many variables to control for us to ever really know the answer to that question. I wonder if there has ever been a study to see if a stronger leg muscle climbs a hill faster than a weaker one? This is probably a function of power rather than strength. How about climbs "longer" than a weker one? Hmmm, endurance would be the factor there. I got it! Does leg strength affect the degree of power that can be trained? If the answer is yes then we might be onto something. If the answer is no...then I may stop doing heavy squats for those 6 weeks a year :)