Originally Posted by
Carbonfiberboy
But is it
scientific? A lot of training stuff one sees and hears sounds scientific and is really complicated, but has it been proven to be better than some alternative in double-blind crossover studies? For the most part, I doubt it. The only "scientific" training method I know of is discussed in the link in this thread starter:
http://www.bikeforums.net/training-n...hile-back.html
And that is how the top marathoners do train.
Effective weight lifting for cycling is discussed in this thread:
http://www.bikeforums.net/training-n...-training.html
Scientific studies on this subject suggest that heavy half squats, 4 X 4RM, with the optional addition of single leg presses 4 X 4RM, twice a week or even once a week, will produce the desired result. Not too much else. These studies were done on accomplished athletes, some elite, so it's probably advisable for most folks to start with 3 X 12RM and work their way down in reps as their conditioning comes along. 12RM means you could not do a 13th rep. When you can do another rep, you add weight for the next set. Most weights studies were done with no reduction in endurance training time, the weights being added in since the total weight workout volume is so low.
There is a surprising amount of "training stuff" out there that is not only not backed by studies, but is often, in fact, provably bad advice. For example, in running, there is a universally known so-called 10% rule (do not progress faster than 10%/week), and it was only until 2007 or so (to my knowledge) that someone tried to do a study (obviously not a double-blind study, it can't be done, but a study nonetheless) and utterly failed to demonstrate its efficacy. There are studies demonstrating that running more than 3x/week is detrimental in terms of injury risk. That has not bothered anyone at the slightest: schedules that have you run 4x and 5x/week are widely available.
The schedule above attempts to balance two incompatible objectives. One is the ability to handle the beating to your joints and muscles that long-distance running is all about. To achieve this, there's no valid reason to run more than 2x/week. The other is your VO2max and your LT. There is scientific evidence that VO2max gains are maximized running 5x/week. Not sure about LT but it could work in a similar fashion. 99% of schedules you find online won't make this fine distinction.
There's little valid reason to include lower-body weights in a schedule that has you run or bike 2x or more per week. All scientific evidence we have says that, at best, it won't do you any good, at worst, it may actually hamper your progression. You focus on one or the other. If you do lower-body weights, ride 1x/week. If you ride, don't do weights.
There's no interaction between riding and core or upper-body weights, you are free to combine them at will. (Subject to caveat that you need enough protein in your diet to support what you're doing. If you schedule a 2 hour ride and a round of bench presses on the same day, you probably want at least an extra serving of meat, or a serving of protein powder, later the same day.)