Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area (http://www.bikeforums.net/track-cycling-velodrome-racing-training-area/)
-   -   2014 Weight Lifting!!!! (http://www.bikeforums.net/track-cycling-velodrome-racing-training-area/927942-2014-weight-lifting.html)

carleton 04-02-14 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Puke (Post 16635096)
Oh man, those look hella difficult. I'm bummed you've all been poo-pooing my box squat. Despite all that, I'm gonna persevere with them because they just felt good. Something different has to be tried. "Just squatting more" isn't doing it. I will keep the overhead squat in mind, maybe try some with an empty bar. I've watched some guys doing them in my gym, they are incredibly deep!

The Front Squat is a good exercise, and as Quinn mentions, it uses lower weights. Some say that that the training effect is the same with *much* lower risk of back injury. I've read that many NCAA Football teams and such have moved to Front Squat. Some use Front Squat instead of Back Squat. Some use both, for example, University of Nebraska uses both.

Baby Puke 04-02-14 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmikami (Post 16635188)
So I am a weightlifting noob to the extreme, but I think I am missing something here. To me a box squat = LBBS + safety net, but the lift is the exact same? I am thinking of adding in squats to my winter program after the season if my sprint numbers don't improve, and my review so far has said that box squats would be a great way to enforce how far down I squat. Kind of like a pushup, hit the floor and you know that you went far enough ... and you can't go further than the floor. So a Box squat gives you that spot that shows you went far enough and prevents you from going too deep, which is something I want to avoid. I never have my legs go past 90 deg on the bike, so why do it with a squat?

So I have watched a few videos online and been following these talks, but I must be missing something if LBBS is better or even different than a box squat. I barely see the difference between a high bar and low bar setup, and don't even understand why they advise a low bar for the box squat. Sorry to waste time with the easy questions and my lifting is still 6 months away ... but this post got me thinking about it.

I think the major difference here is that with the box squat (especially with a pause on the box) you are eliminating the bounce off the hamstrings at the bottom of the lift that you get from a straight LBBS. You will also probably have people here telling you that just below parallel (the point at which your hamstrings stop the further downward movement of the lift before pulling your low back out of shape) is how deep you should go, not the knee/hip angles you get on your bike. Or at least this is the SS line.

Baby Puke 04-02-14 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carleton (Post 16635499)
The Front Squat is a good exercise, and as Quinn mentions, it uses lower weights. Some say that that the training effect is the same with *much* lower risk of back injury. I've read that many NCAA Football teams and such have moved to Front Squat. Some use Front Squat instead of Back Squat. Some use both, for example, University of Nebraska uses both.

Thanks Carleton. I may just return to this eventually, but I do believe the back squat gives better posterior chain development and may be better for what we need as cyclists out of a lift. But I did that last season with no issues, so it's an option.

carleton 04-02-14 12:55 PM

The Front Squat takes some time to get used to. Also, do not be discouraged by the lower poundage numbers. The point of all of this is to stimulate the legs enough such that they recover and over-compensate and get stronger so that we can push harder on pedals that we could if we didn't.

I've seen guys on FGF stress about their 1RM and how much they can or cannot lift. That's not the point. The point is how fast can you move your bicycle. I can out-lift 90% of the guys who have kicked my ass on the track :D

EDIT: Fixed some typos!

carleton 04-02-14 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Puke (Post 16635524)
Thanks Carleton. I may just return to this eventually, but I do believe the back squat gives better posterior chain development and may be better for what we need as cyclists out of a lift. But I did that last season with no issues, so it's an option.

Or you can train the Posterior Chain independently of the squat. There are several good lifts/exercises that train the posterior.

The squat is great because it is both effective and efficient. Other lifts are effective but not efficient.

If the back is a limiting factor, then work around it. Don't limit the stress you can put on your legs based on only what your back can handle. This is why you see world-level elite racers doing other lifts than the low-bar back squat.

http://cdn1.coresites.mpora.com/rcuk.../chris-hoy.jpg
http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/pho...0804/1_600.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5514/...d44a4654_c.jpg

Baronoski tweeted this pic:
"Friday fun on the rower! It's like a kilo but have to use your arms too...."
http://distilleryimage2.ak.instagram...5e102132_8.jpg

And as for Posterior training...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__2z3YUOwSO...ICTORIA_01.jpg

Baby Puke 04-02-14 01:09 PM

Yeah, RDL remains a part of my program, so if the box squats don't work out I'll probably go back to front squat and just stay there in combination with deads and RDL's. Ended up not liking the leg press, I know it works for a lot of people but it just felt unnatural to me, and the amount of weight required felt too much for the training benefit it gave. Just my take on it.

DanAVL 04-03-14 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmikami (Post 16635188)
So I am a weightlifting noob to the extreme, but I think I am missing something here. To me a box squat = LBBS + safety net, but the lift is the exact same? I am thinking of adding in squats to my winter program after the season if my sprint numbers don't improve, and my review so far has said that box squats would be a great way to enforce how far down I squat. Kind of like a pushup, hit the floor and you know that you went far enough ... and you can't go further than the floor. So a Box squat gives you that spot that shows you went far enough and prevents you from going too deep, which is something I want to avoid. I never have my legs go past 90 deg on the bike, so why do it with a squat?

So I have watched a few videos online and been following these talks, but I must be missing something if LBBS is better or even different than a box squat. I barely see the difference between a high bar and low bar setup, and don't even understand why they advise a low bar for the box squat. Sorry to waste time with the easy questions and my lifting is still 6 months away ... but this post got me thinking about it.

Well there are variations of the LBBS Box Squat. Many variations really. All with a different purpose in mind.
In the WSBB method you're relaxing the posterior quite a bit and sitting back on the box and then trying to essentially leg curl your way off of the box as quickly as possible.
You can use it to gauge/train depth, to develop comfort in the bottom position, etc... Then gear and accessories get involved and it all gets very convoluted and excessively complicated.

In most variations however, you will be removing the stretch reflex. There are pros and cons to doing this, of course. So long as you're intentionally seeking that desired training effect, mission accomplished. It's just important to be aware of a movement's purpose when programming it into your training. Doing things "just because" rarely provides quality results in the long term.
A weakness needs to be objectively evaluated and then a solution assigned based on quality, experience-based, sources.

Squatting isn't terribly complicated. Only at the highest levels of performance does programming squat training become a real bear. And even then....
Generally people just get frustrated and start looking for reasons, other than more hard work, as to why they're not progressing. They want to try the latest supplement, the coolest squat variation they saw on youtube, try new shoes, etc...

**To clarify, not accusing anyone here of that. It has simply been the common theme in my observations as a coach and strength athlete(hardy har har)

Quote:

Originally Posted by carleton (Post 16635528)
The Front Squat take some time to get used to. Also, do be discouraged by the lower poundage numbers. The point of all of this is to stimulate the legs enough such that they recover and over-compensate and get stronger so that we can push harder on pedals that we could if we didn't.

I've seen guys on FGF stress about their 1RM and how much they can or cannot lift. That's not the point. The point is how fast can you move your bicycle. I can out-lift 90% of the guys who have kicked my ass on the track :D

I don't think this can be stressed enough. And not in cycling, but in all sports where strength training is supplemental or GPP.
Your focus should always be your skill/sport. Everything else is just there to help you be better at that sport. At no time should skill training and development suffer while you're chasing DL PR's.
Unless of course you're following a periodization model where the current focus is limit-strength/power. Which is the basic model I use for any sporting athlete that I work with.

Given the nature of your(track cyclists) sport I'm surprised you guys run 5x5 programs as long as you do. Perhaps the solution here would be more patience and the use of a slower burn program. Something like 5/3/1 mayhap. In my mind, the volume would carry over better not only to track performance, but also to long-term limit strength given the amount of energy and training time you spend elsewhere(on the damn bike going fast).


EDIT: Take all of that with a grain of salt as I am entirely a track and cycling newb. Just speaking from a general coaching and strength training perspective. I must say though, I've found there are many constant across all successful training programs for any sport. Well, physical sports. No idea how one trains for darts other than throwing darts?

carleton 04-03-14 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carleton (Post 16635528)
The Front Squat takes some time to get used to. Also, do be discouraged by the lower poundage numbers. The point of all of this is to stimulate the legs enough such that they recover and over-compensate and get stronger so that we can push harder on pedals that we could if we didn't.

I've seen guys on FGF stress about their 1RM and how much they can or cannot lift. That's not the point. The point is how fast can you move your bicycle. I can out-lift 90% of the guys who have kicked my ass on the track :D

HUGE omission in that post. I meant to type: Also, do not be discouraged by the lower poundage numbers.

carleton 04-03-14 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanAVL (Post 16638155)
Well there are variations of the LBBS Box Squat. Many variations really. All with a different purpose in mind.
In the WSBB method you're relaxing the posterior quite a bit and sitting back on the box and then trying to essentially leg curl your way off of the box as quickly as possible.
You can use it to gauge/train depth, to develop comfort in the bottom position, etc... Then gear and accessories get involved and it all gets very convoluted and excessively complicated.

In most variations however, you will be removing the stretch reflex. There are pros and cons to doing this, of course. So long as you're intentionally seeking that desired training effect, mission accomplished. It's just important to be aware of a movement's purpose when programming it into your training. Doing things "just because" rarely provides quality results in the long term.
A weakness needs to be objectively evaluated and then a solution assigned based on quality, experience-based, sources.

Squatting isn't terribly complicated. Only at the highest levels of performance does programming squat training become a real bear. And even then....
Generally people just get frustrated and start looking for reasons, other than more hard work, as to why they're not progressing. They want to try the latest supplement, the coolest squat variation they saw on youtube, try new shoes, etc...

**To clarify, not accusing anyone here of that. It has simply been the common theme in my observations as a coach and strength athlete(hardy har har)



I don't think this can be stressed enough. And not in cycling, but in all sports where strength training is supplemental or GPP.
Your focus should always be your skill/sport. Everything else is just there to help you be better at that sport. At no time should skill training and development suffer while you're chasing DL PR's.
Unless of course you're following a periodization model where the current focus is limit-strength/power. Which is the basic model I use for any sporting athlete that I work with.

Given the nature of your(track cyclists) sport I'm surprised you guys run 5x5 programs as long as you do. Perhaps the solution here would be more patience and the use of a slower burn program. Something like 5/3/1 mayhap. In my mind, the volume would carry over better not only to track performance, but also to long-term limit strength given the amount of energy and training time you spend elsewhere(on the damn bike going fast).


EDIT: Take all of that with a grain of salt as I am entirely a track and cycling newb. Just speaking from a general coaching and strength training perspective. I must say though, I've found there are many constant across all successful training programs for any sport. Well, physical sports. No idea how one trains for darts other than throwing darts?

I agree.

In terms of what is done outside of sport-specific training, I think that strength and conditioning programs used in Speed Skating, Rowing, Track & Field (sprint and middle-distance), and similar sports fit most track racer's needs. There exists lots of literature on strength and conditioning for those sports.

As my high school tennis coach used to tell me, "You must get in shape to play tennis, not play tennis to get in shape."

carleton 04-03-14 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanceMac (Post 16638577)
None of that in cycling. Nope.

Cycling Logic:

To get faster we must increase Watts/Kg.
No power meter means we have no Watts. Must buy power meter to get Watts.
Money has weight (Kg). Spend money to lower our Kg.

That's the proven way to increase Watts/Kg.

If you didn't get desired results, you probably didn't spend enough money. When in doubt, spend more.

TMonk 04-04-14 03:23 PM

When squatting, what is the optimal number of reps, and depth (deep or 90 degree) for an endurance cyclist?

My "A" races are all cat3 crits with punchy hills and/or are technical, however I have been developing a bigger interest in mass start track racing. This year I would like to move outside of the local weekly ATRA series and upgrading in USAC to cat3.

I earn points on the road by sprinting and excel when the run-in has been tough.

Thanks,
Tmonk

VanceMac 04-04-14 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMonk (Post 16642506)
When squatting, what is the optimal number of reps, and depth (deep or 90 degree) for an endurance cyclist?

This seems to be the money question. Quite a wide range of answers, depending on individual goals and current state (and even then, disparity among the experts). I can only offer what I did: started out with very conservative, light weight doing 5x5 (after warmup sets). About a month into it, once my body was used to the new motions/stresses, started increasing the weight steadily and went to 3x5, which I've been extremely happy with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMonk (Post 16642506)
I earn points on the road by sprinting and excel when the run-in has been tough.

One of the many things I love about track (scratch/points races): the run-in is always tough.

TMonk 04-04-14 08:16 PM

Yes!

Quinn8it 04-04-14 11:20 PM

Study comparing the effects of Squat training Vs Leg Press done at the same level of perceived exertion.

The Acute Hormonal Response to Free Weight and Machine Weigh... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
Quote:

Although total work (external load and body mass moved) was greater for the squat than for the leg press, rating of perceived exertion did not differ between the modes. Free weight exercises seem to induce greater hormonal responses to resistance exercise than machine weight exercises using similar lower-body multijoint movements and primary movers.
basically massively higher levels of Testosterone and Growth Hormone elicited by Squatting

jmikami 04-04-14 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanceMac (Post 16643010)
This seems to be the money question. Quite a wide range of answers, depending on individual goals and current state (and even then, disparity among the experts). I can only offer what I did: started out with very conservative, light weight doing 5x5 (after warmup sets). About a month into it, once my body was used to the new motions/stresses, started increasing the weight steadily and went to 3x5, which I've been extremely happy with.

Thanks everyone for all the helpful answers so far.

So when doing something like 5x5 how dead are you on the 5th one? and the 5th one of the final set? this seems to be a good number from what I have read and doing reps of 15 or even more are fairly pointless and you might as well go do hill repeats if you want to be that cycling specific. The point of weightlifting is the variation it brings along with specifically targeting strength vs endurance or speed, at least as I understand from reading.

incog24 04-05-14 11:12 AM

Really interesting and relevant to my lifting Carleton.

Bit of background. Started lifting properly back in September after about a year break from training at all really. I've been doing a variety of lifts following an periodisation that focussed on technique, then endurance, strength, strength speed and now speed power. All the work has been with the bar with the exception of some single leg work with dumbbells. I'm an enduro build at 77kg and 6'4" so I'll never be huge but I've made good gains and really enjoy it.

My perception is that throughout the last 6 months my gains have been nearly all in back strength and that's what has had be biggest impact on my 1RM. I'm not fussed either way as I'm keen to improve strength there but I've got two questions.

1) I made a presumption that training the posterior chain in isolation wasn't worthwhile as I'd be unable to apply the force to the pedals if my back wasn't strong enough. Carelton's post suggests otherwise. Any thoughts anyone?

2) I'm kind of expecting I'll get to a point where my back strength will match my leg strength, and at that point I'll be able to stress the posterior chain more in these lifts and so see better gains there. Is that a reasonable hypothesis?

Also, just because it's interesting...I got on a force platform the other day to do some jump squats and the peak force on what is essentially my 1RM was basically the same as I max out at off the start. Some issues with 1s sampling on the bike vs 500 Hz on the platform but interesting nonetheless. Anyone else tried this kind of comparison?

Quinn8it 04-06-14 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by incog24 (Post 16644132)

1) I made a presumption that training the posterior chain in isolation wasn't worthwhile as I'd be unable to apply the force to the pedals if my back wasn't strong enough. Carelton's post suggests otherwise. Any thoughts anyone?

2) I'm kind of expecting I'll get to a point where my back strength will match my leg strength, and at that point I'll be able to stress the posterior chain more in these lifts and so see better gains there. Is that a reasonable hypothesis?

1) just to be clear- are you asking if strength work done on machines that eliminate- or lessen the work of the back are as effective for strength that translates to the bike?
i say no- others disagree. since the handlebar grips are not directly over the pedals- i can not imagine a scenario where your back is not highly involved in the application of force to the pedals.

2) Strong back is the key to everything. if you can safely navigate the early years of lifting without injuring your back- it will come up to a point where it can keep up with your legs.. and yes that will let you begin to push the envelope on gains.

trackattack 04-07-14 08:16 PM

Here goes.
So after two years of Starting Strength with quick progressions up to about 260lbs before resetting over and over and over, I've begun using the BabyPuke plan: 2 days/wk, modified "Texas Method". The 5x5x90%(5repMAX) is fine- I like it. The 1x5, though, isn't what I was expecting. It just doesn't seem hard enough. Don't get me wrong; the weight during the workout is good, and I feel like I'm about to be squished while I'm actually doing the reps. I just don't feel sore/tired afterward. Am I just used to the 3x5 program and being sore all the time? Most gym days I have trouble making it up the stairs for the rest of the day. After today's workout, I just feel totally fine. Is this normal?

DanAVL 04-07-14 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackattack (Post 16651079)
Here goes.
So after two years of Starting Strength with quick progressions up to about 260lbs before resetting over and over and over, I've begun using the BabyPuke plan: 2 days/wk, modified "Texas Method". The 5x5x90%(5repMAX) is fine- I like it. The 1x5, though, isn't what I was expecting. It just doesn't seem hard enough. Don't get me wrong; the weight during the workout is good, and I feel like I'm about to be squished while I'm actually doing the reps. I just don't feel sore/tired afterward. Am I just used to the 3x5 program and being sore all the time? Most gym days I have trouble making it up the stairs for the rest of the day. After today's workout, I just feel totally fine. Is this normal?

This is a very good thing. Especially given that it's not your primary pursuit(I assume).
Also, assuming the training maxes keep going up.

Quinn8it 04-08-14 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackattack (Post 16651079)
Here goes.
So after two years of Starting Strength with quick progressions up to about 260lbs before resetting over and over and over, I've begun using the BabyPuke plan: 2 days/wk, modified "Texas Method". The 5x5x90%(5repMAX) is fine- I like it. The 1x5, though, isn't what I was expecting. It just doesn't seem hard enough. Don't get me wrong; the weight during the workout is good, and I feel like I'm about to be squished while I'm actually doing the reps. I just don't feel sore/tired afterward. Am I just used to the 3x5 program and being sore all the time? Most gym days I have trouble making it up the stairs for the rest of the day. After today's workout, I just feel totally fine. Is this normal?

Another good variation that I have heard referred to as "Old Man Texas Method" but it is probably a volume level appropriate for people who lift to compliment another sport as well-
basically normal TM, except Monday is a 3X5 done at 93% of your 1x5.. Worth. Try. I've done it as I approached a taper..

Quinn8it 04-08-14 10:20 AM

Realized I totally didn't answer your question...

Yeh- the 1x5 day is hi-intensity and low volume... So it won't put you in too much of a hole. That can be a good thing if it is on Friday, and you race or train on Sat.

The work on TM is the 5x5... And that day should leave you wrecked. I've heard it referred to as the "Texas Flu" where you actually feel sick after your workout..

Is your 1x5 quite a bit heavier than where your last 3x5 was before you made the switch? It needs to be

trackattack 04-09-14 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn8it (Post 16652585)
Realized I totally didn't answer your question...

Yeh- the 1x5 day is hi-intensity and low volume... So it won't put you in too much of a hole. That can be a good thing if it is on Friday, and you race or train on Sat.

The work on TM is the 5x5... And that day should leave you wrecked. I've heard it referred to as the "Texas Flu" where you actually feel sick after your workout..

Is your 1x5 quite a bit heavier than where your last 3x5 was before you made the switch? It needs to be

This makes sense. The 1x5 was about 5% heavier than my last 3x5. To be entirely honest, I expect it'll take a week or two to get used to what is *actually* a 5repMAX. I've never done a workout that wasn't setup with a 3x5 approach.

One more thing: I'm planning on doing something similar with my deadlift. 1x5xMAX on the same day as the 1x5 squat, and 2x5x90%MAX on the same day as the 5x5 squat. That does strike me as being a lot of work, though. . .

Quinn8it 04-09-14 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackattack (Post 16656144)
One more thing: I'm planning on doing something similar with my deadlift. 1x5xMAX on the same day as the 1x5 squat, and 2x5x90%MAX on the same day as the 5x5 squat. That does strike me as being a lot of work, though. . .

Rippetoe programs the Dead for 1 set of 5reps and at most 2X a week- and for most of the beginner program it is on the A/B rotation- so 2x one week, 1x the next. As the Dead passes mid-300lbs it often gets dropped to 1X a week, and as it passes mid-400lb it often gets dropped entirely for Partial Pulls (rack pulls and Haltings+Power Cleans).
The reason is the Dead is pretty taxing- super hard on the CNS.
I have done a program with as much Deads as 4-sets of 10reps done twice a week- and i tend to agree with rip. If you are squatting a lot you dont need too much deads..

once things get hard for you- every set of deads is a new 1x5xMax..
I would suggest following normal Texas Method and do your 1x5 deads on monday, after Squats and your upper body movement, and focus on 5X3 Power Cleans on Friday as your assistance pull move. The PC adds speed to the deadlift- and is amazing for increasing power..

trackattack 04-10-14 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn8it (Post 16657384)
once things get hard for you- every set of deads is a new 1x5xMax..
I would suggest following normal Texas Method and do your 1x5 deads on monday, after Squats and your upper body movement, and focus on 5X3 Power Cleans on Friday as your assistance pull move. The PC adds speed to the deadlift- and is amazing for increasing power..

Fair enough. I'll put it in motion.

Thanks for the help and suggestions.

gtrob 04-14-14 09:05 PM

I've had 3 sessions with a trainer now, just starting a weight program for the first time in my life. I decided to use a trainer for the first bit to show me correct movements and very glad I did, apparently I do it all wrong :) My posture is crap, I have zero upper flexibility, and squats/deads are a lot harder than I thought. Like its a workout just doing the movements haha.

Definitely a long process but thats ok, Im working on improvements/training for the late fall at this point.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:09 AM.