Good studies in this area do not pass off untrained subjects as trained, use time to exhaustion tests, or categorize on-bike interval workouts as resistance training. That basically eliminates the few outlier studies that conclude that there are any benefits to resistance training for cyclists. This study falls in line with all other good studies on the subject.


High Resistance/Low Repetition vs. Low Resistance/High Repetition Training: Effects on Performance of Trained Cyclists.

* Jackson NP,
* Hickey MS,
* Reiser RF.

Jackson, N.P., M.S. Hickey, and R.F. Reiser II. High resistance/low repetition vs. low resistance/high repetition training: Effects on performance of trained cyclists. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(1):289-295. 2007.-In order to investigate the effects of a resistance training modality on cycling performance, 23 trained club-level cyclists were placed into high resistance/low repetition (H-Res), low resistance/high repetition (H-Rep), or cycling-only groups for a 10-week program. All 3 groups followed the same cycling plan, but the H-Res and H-Rep groups added resistance training. Testing pre and post consisted of a graded incremental lactate profile test on an ergometer, with blood lactate being sampled. Vo(2) values were measured to determine economy. Maximum strength testing of 4 strength exercises targeting the lower extremity musculature was conducted with the H-Res and H-Rep groups. There were significant gains in all 4 resistance training exercises (p < 0.05) for both H-Res and H-Rep, with the H-Res group having significantly greater gains than the H-Rep group had in the leg press exercise (p < 0.05). There were, however, no significant group x training differences (p > 0.05) found between the 3 training groups on the cycling test in lactate values or economy. It appears that for this population of cyclists, neither H-Res nor H-Rep resistance training provided any additional performance benefit in a graded incremental cycling test when compared with cycling alone over a training time of this length. It is possible that with this population, various factors such as acute fatigue, strength, and aerobic gains from the cycling training, in addition to well-developed bases of strength and conditioning from previous training, reduced differences between groups in both strength gains and cycling performance.

PMID: 17313261 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Can somebody translate this into English for Morons? Then I might understand the meaning of this.

Has anyone studied the impact of Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Ice Cream on the competitive cyclist? That's what I want to know.

I'm pretty sure it says ride your bike, time spent working out instead of riding does not help you out no matter what kind of work out you are doing..

I think this is for 95% of cyclists out there.. sprinters and trackies, hit the weights..

It means that weight lifting doesn't do crap

From what I get out of it both groups gained performance while the High Resistance group had significantly greater gains in strength on the leg presses.

Cycling does not work muscles that fill mostly a support function cycling.
Nevertheless, I think you would want those muscles (especially in the back)
to be strong.

Anyone know how the pros handle this?

Ive been weight training all winter, and while I can leg press 4 times my weight now, I really havnt seen any difference in my cycling.

I think you would see better gains in strengh doing standing hill starts in really big gears. Thanks for the article.

- No advantage to weight training+cycling vs just cycling for lactate tolerance or VO(2) max on the bike.

- Both high resistance/low repetition and low resistance/high rep groups showed improvements in lower body exercises. But the hi-res group did better with leg presses.
The cycling-only group didn't show any improvements in lower body exercises.

- On the bike, all three groups did just about the same. No real advantage to the
gym+cycling groups over the cycling-only group.

So, they conclude, for trained cyclists resistance training for the lower body adds no additional performance to lactate and VO(2) levels.

"Just keep on ridin!"

What I took away was that time in the gym didn't get you any further than time on the bike.

That conclusion would still leave some room for winter weight training, if the weight training is in addition to the time you can spend on the bike. For example, if the amount of time you can ride during the weekdays is limited by available daylight, and tolerence for the trainer, then it could still make sense to supplement your hour on the trianer with some weight lifting.

If I read it correctly, the study says time in the gym didn't get you any further than time on the couch:

Actually, what they're saying is for cycling performance "Time on the bike + time on couch = Time on the bike + time at the gym." They didn't test a group which completely stopped training.

Also, note that the cycling+weight training guys did improve their weight training performances. So, it wasn't a big zero, though didn't help them on the bike.

Buy my trainer.

I think what the study says, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, is that weight training has essentially no effect on long sustained efforts.

But does the study say anything about whether weight training has any effect on peak, short term effort, like a sprint in a criterium or on the track?

In addition for somebody whos new to the sport wouldn't weight training help accelerate the process having little to no base muscle? I mean my legs are still pretty small and I can' timagine weigh lifting won't benefit someone like me, I'm sure there is a platoing affect for it though.

I started cycling in august last year, rode moderate to heavily from aug-oct, then the cold and snow came and I went to the trainer and gym from oct-dec and we got a 60+ degree day in Dec and I took the bik eout and felt amazing.

Layperson interpretation here - what I take from this example is that testing at the beginning, during, and end of a 10-week period concludes that riding your bike gives you better on bike performance at the end of this specific 10-week period than does weight training.

Maybe I'm not understanding the conclusions correctly, but the comments and questions I have: Comment - most athletes I know who include weight training train with weights during the winter or non-racing months (i.e. Oct - Feb) as a supplemental exercise to compliment on-bike training, actually stop or reduce performing the weight training about now (February) to move into more on the bike specific training since racing season starts in about a month (in this part of the world) and build form to the larger more important races that are in July - September. So the money question to me is how does weight training that ceases in February impact the peak performance of those athletes in June - Sept vs. those that just did on the bike? I think the answer to that question is much more important to know than that at the end of 10 weeks riding a bike makes you faster on a bike than does doing weight training.

Just ignore all the knee pain threads that will pop up in 6 weeks. Almost all of those people will have patellofemoral pain syndrome due to a vastus lateralis vastus medialis imbalance and/or tendon injuries.

A 10 week study can not demonstrate adaptations that are important on lifetime, or even seasonal, timescales. Besides anybody can find a paper that tells them what they want to hear.

This is absolutely true. I've had patellofemoral pain due to a big time muscle imbalance. Thankfully it appears to be on the mend due to physical therapy and weight training in therapy. I'll continue to hit legs in the gym every once in a while to keep things in balance.

The scientific term for PFPS is "suck" by the way...you don't want to deal with it if you don't have to. You can ride, but it's not a good time.

Another good point. The study simply addresses endurance / LT. For those like myself who fancy themselves sprinters, or people who want to improve their crit performance I imagine the study would reveal very different things.

The pros have big legs. I don't. Cycling does'nt build bigger legs. Weight training and X training does. I'll weight train + X train as it does not take away from time on the bike for me so it can't hurt.

Then you aren't spending tons of time on your bike. My thighs are 4'' larger than they ever were when I weightlifted.

edit: I was a pretty skinny weightlifter

That abstract is hardly damning evidence against weightlifting. I mean, all it really says is that the performance gains between lifting and riding over a 10-week period are equal. It does nothing to say that lifting doesn't belong in a periodized training program.

And, as others have already alluded to, the study as designed didn't even look at the areas where weight training would be expected to have the greatest benefit, i.e. 5sec and 1min power.

So really, it's an answer to the wrong question. Patentcad, I'll translate: this study is basically a throwaway.

Look again.

Big legs dont always = faster cycling.

Some huge legs there. Bet the one on the right would take le tour!

I agree with you there. I primarily use weights to 'even things out' if I sense an imbalance problem coming. It definitely helped with my running, and now I get no knee pain at all [like magic]. But I still don't support just going to the weight room to get 'big' [unless you're a sprinter/trackie, etc.]

-Bullseye

In general, no.