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 *think* you said yesterday he had moved away from this or was moving away.


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.


apart from the fact that most (not all) people can already generate the forces required for elite endurance (as opposed to e.g., track sprint) cycling performance, increasing your strength can only be done one of 3 ways.

1) increase in muscle cross sectional area
2) increased neuromuscular adaptations
3) a combo of 1 and 2

2) only work at the *specific joint angles and velocities trained*

1) means being bigger and thus heavier. additionally, as the size of the muscle increases there's a relative decrease in muscle mitochondria and capillary density. this adversely affects the transit of O2 from the capillary to the mitochondria which will decrease performance



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?


the studies that have used well trained and elite cyclists show no increase in performance in the various tests. no one has ever tested uphill, but then there'd be no reason to (if there's no increase in the markers tested there won't be climbing either as thats a function of those tested markers).


This is probably a function of power rather than strength.


it is


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.


i keep saying this, i know, it's like deja vu. untrained matched controls can already generate on average the same forces as elite racing cyclists. if you increase strength, yes, you may be able to generate more power, but only very briefly (e.g. ~ 5secs). however, you now weigh more and more to lug uphill.

getting stronger therefore, is only good for track sprinters, those want to change their physique and aren't interested in performance, and certain groups who may have a disability or be very frail.


If the answer is no...then I may stop doing heavy squats for those 6 weeks a year :)

if you think that six weeks of squats will do anything for you anyway, you've probably dropped some weights on your head :p ;)

the world class track sprinters i coach do weights all year round...

I was thinking about his whole strength/power thing during my ride this weekend. Here’s my own “anecdotal” evidence/question?

Last winter, I hit the weights more than usual – 2-3 times a week for 3-4 months doing squats, curls, extensions, step ups, plyometric jumps and running steps with weights. My strength was probably higher than it’s ever been when the weather finally turned warm enough to ride outside consistently. Due to time limitations, I laid off aerobic stuff for the most part.

Just like most years, the first rides outside are slow, but my speed picked up every week with more miles. My easy rides now are faster than pushing myself in April. OTOH, I’m fairly certain I couldn’t squat as much now as I did in March.

So if strength is important to cycling power, why am I riding faster now than I was in March when I haven’t been to the gym once but have 2500 miles in my legs? This isn’t to say I wouldn’t ride faster if I lifted once a week, but obviously there’s a lot more than strength involved with cycling performance.

Just a thought.

-murray

if i'm doing 3 sets of romanian deadlift (i guess that's what it's called... my memory may be worng)
should i do 3 sets of calve raises and leg curls or just one set of each? i know when you do back situps you're only supposed to do one set and i did experience better results when i did that. does it apply here?


what are your cycling goals?

i've been coaching professionally since 98, and from 90 voluntarily. i've yet to meet a cyclists who has such an injury that strength training would have prevented. the only injuries i see in cyclists are from crashes etc.


While many crashes cannot be prevented by weight training, muscle mass in the neck regions can aid in preventing fractures and breaks along the upper spine in major crashes (Bicycling magazine's 1994 or 1995 Mountain Biking Skills handbook referenced this somewhere). Basically muscle mass *can* prevent some damage from occuring

No wonder my distance is going up so slow - I'm lifting too much. :(