Originally Posted by Koffee Brown
Oh, also, let me try and break it down a little bit more. When you assume elite, are you saying that the elite people use only aerobic activity for exercise or that they are using weights and aerobic activity?
When you say sedentary, do you mean couch potato, don't exercise at all and/or less than 3 days per week of moderate to low intensity, or by sedentary, do you mean people who exercise at least moderately 5 days or more a week but aren't considered elite, professional athletes?
I think if you clarify a bit what your definitions are, then I can see where you're coming from.
Good stuff, Ric. I enjoy reading your comments.
Koffee
sedentary means non (regularly) active people, but if i recall correctly (i don't have the research to hand) the elite category riders were mid racing season.
I don't understand why you think weights would be beneficial to endurance trained athletes? We know that elite cyclists on average are no stronger than sedentary controls, we know that the forces involved in elite cycling are low (such that virtually anyone can meet them), and we know that weight training either causes an increase in peak power (with an increase in mass = bad) or is neuromuscular and doesn't transfer.
Plyometrics doesn't seem to increase peak power (i.e., 5-sec sprint effort) except in track (velodrome) sprinters who can maybe devote a large amount of time to it.
I don't think everyone looses muscle at the end of the TdF. Saris et al., 89, showed that weight loss during the TdF was insignificant (from memory, something like < 1 kg).
If you attempt to train both (i.e., in the off-season) strength and aerobic performance, one or both of these will be compromised (i.e., you won't recover to do both properly). additionally, as cross sectional area increases (i.e., hypertrophy) there will be a relative decrease in mitochondrial and capillary density, which will result in a decrease in performance.
ric