Yeah, the studies that examine a single heavy lifting protocol tend to come to one conclusion: heavy lifting produces endurance gains. Great. But they don't investigate if heavy lifting is optimal.

I have found one paper (Stone et al, Strength/Endurance Effects From Three Resistance Training Protocols With Women, 1994) that studied three different lifting protocols, and it found low resistance/high repetition protocol produced the biggest endurance gains:

Protocol : endurance gains
high resistance / low reps : 84.3%
medium resistance / low reps : 80.1%
low resistance / high reps : 137.4%

That's the only paper I can find that compares different protocols directly. I'm left to speculate that the strength research folks have a "more strength good" bias.

Edit: OK, I found another paper that compares different strength training protocols on college men doing bench press (Anderson & Kearney 1982).

Protocol : Maximum Strength Gains
high resistance / low rep : +20%
medium resistance / medium rep : +8%
low resistance / high rep : +5%

Protocol : Absolute Endurance Gains
high resistance / low rep : +24%
medium resistance / medium rep : +39%
low resistance / high rep : +41%

As in the study with women, above, low resistance / high rep produced greater endurance gains. From the paper:

"[Considering] the results of the analyses of changes in relative endurance reveals that the high resistance-low repetition protocol was significantly inferior to the two higher repetition programs. This finding supports the assertion that low weight, high repetition exercises produce the quality of endurance."

you're citing research on untrained women.

If you search for experts in the field of women's endurance training you'll find that they state that you need to lift heavy. the same is true for males. these are researchers who work in this area.

Untrained women and men. Quite common in exercise physiology studies.

I sure wish those experts could point to studies to back up their "heavy lifting is optimal for endurance" claims. If those studies exists, they are quite hard to find. The few studies I have found say those claims are wrong.

I tend to discount expert opinions, unless they can bring the data.

Interesting, so on the one hand you want data, but on the other you don't want to listen to people that perform such research, which seems somewhat confusing?

Anyway, we already know that heavy strength training has greatest effects on e.g. strength, and musculo-tendinous stiffness, etc. i can't off the top of my head think of any research that compares low weight to heavy weight (or high reps to low reps) and it's effect on endurance performance. you'd have to do a literature search on such. We also already know that heavy strength work has greatest effects on an ageing population as this increases hormonal response and shear forces help reduce e.g. osteoporosis, reverses sarcopenia, and keeps neurological function working correctly. and the evidence shows that heavy strength work increases cycling and running performance (i just can't think of any research off the top of my head that compares low weight/high reps with high weight/low reps. i'll have a think, in the meantime i'll be lifting heavy to increase my health and performance - which has happened with high weight/low reps and not with low weight/high reps - albeit i realise that this is just anecdote).

Not confusing to me. So called "experts" may hold opinions not based on data, and they may perform research that confirm their biases.

No expert is worthy of their title if they can't back up their opinions with objective data. In my opinion :)

not sure what you want (other than a specific study comparing different strength training protocols on cycling performance) when evidence from other research shows that one protocol provides benefits and first principles disagrees with the other protocol, along with other research showing showing the other protocol isn't that effective in certain aspects. all the key researchers in this specific domain are using heavy weight protocols for a reason. additionally, all high level coaches are using these protocols too (they are often ahead of the research because they don't have to provide data in the same way, so lead the way for scientists to back up or dispute their claims). Ignoring the coaches, the researchers in this area have all gone with heavy they're not experts in inverted commas they're the research scientists. Anyway, it's really up to you what training you do. No one is forcing you to lift heavy. I'll see if i can find research looking at what you specifically want in my files, i don't have time to do an actual lit review (unless you want to pay me to do such research!).

The question this thread poses is if there is value to “endurance resistance exercise”. Aka “lower weight, higher reps”.

The research is sparse, but the few studies that exist suggest that heavy lifting produces the most strength gains, while low to moderate lifting with high reps produces the most endurance gains.

When thinking about principles like specificity, that’s sort of an expected result. Heavy and short for strength, low and long for endurance. “Well, duh”.

For the last 15 years of training and racing, I have used 3rd party coaches 90% of the time. The latest coach has the best credentials, most experience and track record. He is also the most expensive. I have found coaches on the leading edge of published research. The research, IMO, tries to "justify" the results and sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. Training and nutrition protocols and race strategies are constantly evolving. IMO, my current training and nutrition is state of the art and as good as any UCI pro team.

I find the small studies interesting but meh. I suppose using a coach supports my worldview and my strengths. What I am really good at is setting a goal, hiring a coach with a track record and successful clients and then using my discipline / perseverance (strengths) to ruthlessly stick to the prescribed program.

For me, these discussions are interesting and it is fun to kick ideas around and try to help others.

One of the criticisms against the studies comparing high and low load resistance training is that they were using untrained subjects, making their findings moot for well-trained athletes.

Well, I did find this one small study of well-trained men (Schoenfeld et al 2015), and it reported changes in muscle endurance. The low-load group's endurance increased by 16.6%, while the high-load group's endurance decreased by 1.2%.

These results are similar to the ones found with untrained subjects.

As you mentioned the evidence is sparse on this, which is true. Accordingly, you can't say either way (that high reps or low reps are *better* for increasing cycling performance). However, there has been a reasonable amount of work done on assessing heavy strength training (i.e., low reps), and so the evidence when comparing the cycling only, to cycling and heavy strength training can be seen. These data show that heavy strength training (down in the 3 to 5 rep range) has a positive effect on both short and long term power. Similar evidence exists for running (I haven't checked other sports). Not only does the heavy strength training have an effect on muscle cross sectional area and lean body mass, as well as endogenous hormones and neural adaptations, it also has a positive effect on pedalling style leading to some of the endurance gains.

There is specific evidence within endurance sport that heavy strength training has a positive effect on cycling and running (most likely other sports too, but i haven't checked these data) on short and long term power production. Authors such as Ronnestaad, Millet, and Mujika have published in this area. Again, all you can say is that we don't know if high rep/lighter weight training would be better, worse or no change in comparison to doing the athletes normal sport.

Furthermore, there is evidence that heavy lifting has a positive effect on health in older people (and i'll bet that the majority of people reading this forum are 40 or older) with effects such as positive changes in bone health, endocrine function, and neurological functioning. That's not to say that lighter work may not also do this but larger changes are associated with heavier, or more work has been done on heavier (which leads me to think - albeit i'm prepared to accept i'm wrong - that a priori researchers already have a good idea of what may be better).

Except in this study no work was done for either group on endurance training, so that confounds things as it does with the other paper you cited, as well as the fact it was on untrained women. Therefore, you simply can't hypothesise that low weight high rep training is more beneficial for endurance activities when the people are doing those endurance activities (which they weren't). The endurance of these subjects in these two papers was assessed by doing the same weight training for more reps.

What you need to do is recruit about 30 reasonable cyclists and assign them to one of 3 groups randomly, 1) cycling only, 2) cycling and low weight/high rep, 3) cycling and high weight/low rep and at the same time try to control their diet and overall training loads and ascertain who has the best improvements. Then write the research up and publish. Until that point (and of course that may only tell us how things occur for that level of cyclist) we can say that cycling and low reps/high strength appears to offer the best outcomes for (E)CP

Even that is too strong a statement, as you can't associate high-load/low reps (HLLR) with "best outcomes" when there are no cycling specific studies comparing other strength protocols. It's more reasonable to say there may be some marginal performance gains from strength training.

When it comes to performance, the existing studies are not conclusive. About the only confident conclusions one can make is that HLLR training improves maximal strength (another "yeah duh" result), and that it increases fatigue resistance. Results for improving FTP, VO2max power, economy are unclear.

i'm not sure what you mean, there are multiple studies showing increased cycling performance from high strength/low reps for pedalling biomechanics, economy, and various power durations

For every study that find a marginal gain of some measure from strength training, there is another study that shows no gain. In other words, unclear.

Just one example (Philander 2015):

"Contrary to our hypothesis, the results demonstrate that concurrent [strength] training does not enhance muscle aerobic capacity and endurance performance in cyclists."

From (Rønnestad 2014):

VO2max: "There is little evidence that strength training should be the primary training mode to improve VO2max, and only a trivial effect of concurrent strength and endurance training on VO2max compared to endurance training alone in trained cyclists."

Economy: "[D]ivergent findings are evident on whether performing heavy strength training together with ordinary endurance training improves cycling economy."

Lactate threshold (running): "Since the majority of studies reported improved running economy in response to a period of concurrent strength and endurance training in endurance-trained individuals, it would be reasonable to expect an improvement in the exercise velocity or intensity associated with the lactate threshold...However, the endurance training literature comprises equivocal findings."

Endurance: "The traditional way of measuring cycling performance is time trialing lasting between 30 and 60 min. However, the effects of strength training are contradictory with studies variously showing either improvements or a trivial effect...Not all studies, however, have reported that concurrent training results in superior endurance performance, especially in males"

Not the ringing endorsement of strength training for endurance cyclists.

In the Philander paper that used lighter weight/higher reps....

In the review paper it clearly states that there is a positive effect on cycling and running performance with heavy strength work and heavy strength work and explosive training, respectively. you're correct that the review paper says no increase in VO2max. Yet, further research by Ronnestaad and colleagues shows an increase in VO2max (and/or VO2max power).

You're correct that earlier research didn't show any benefit on ECP.

It's much easier to sell yourself on strength training based on its general life enhancing effects way beyond endurance cycling. Especially in our later years. Strength training doesn't appear to have any downsides.

Agreed, the general health benefits of strength training are well established. The benefits for endurance cycling, not as clear.

IMO, does xyz strength training protocol improve endurance is looking at strength training the wrong way. And equally, relegating it to better health underserves its potential benefit.

I speculate that a strength training period each season sets up the endurance training protocol for a better chance of success. Let's assume two cyclists of similar ability and age start a set of endurance training blocks leading up to an A event. One cyclist completes a strength training program preceding the start of the endurance program. I think the strength work will result in improved endurance performance during the training block with less chance of injury.

I would also go with more weight and less reps and focus on strength versus endurance. Why? I would not want to carry a lot of fatigue from multiple sets and reps in the gym into the endurance blocks. More strength and muscle activation due to lifting heavier will pay more dividends in the endurance block with less fatigue going in.

Of course one could design a small study to see if that is really true and the results could be true for that small study group but may not be generalizable to the population at large.

For me energy is a zero sum game. The more energy I use in the gym the less I have for the bike. So if I am going to do strength training with the exclusive goal of increasing aerobic performance then I have to be judicious with how much energy I use in the gym.

I cam across another study which might shed some light on the subject of endurance strength training::
https://www.academia.edu/27624415/Ef...ard=view-paper

This is Nordic skiing, not cycling, but that doesn't matter. The interesting part is that 3' strength intervals worked unexpectedly well compared to 30" intervals. The authors postulate that this might be due to an increase in the aerobic contribution to the interval power. So maybe that's why a high rep strength set works so well and why there might be an endurance benefit. My 1 RM has very noticeably increased since I started doing the single 30-40 rep sets to exhaustion, compared to my recent results with 3 sets of 12.. It does take a little will power to gut out those long sets. My sets are usually about 2' long, shorter than the 3' sets in the study.

Those currently doing strength training might give this a try for a month, see what happens and report back.

OTOH, the authors of this paper give plenty of reasons why their study might not show the improvement in endurance shown by other studies. It is true that these adaptations take time. I didn't see serious improvements in endurance from strength training for a couple years. It also took a couple years for the strength work to get serious results in the gym, which might have something to do with the former.

and another study, but not of endurance strength training particularly:
https://www.academia.edu/21588081

And another study, this one on preventing one's cadence from dropping on long rides: https://www.academia.edu/24761321
Ms. Couturier has written many papers on cycling which look interesting..

FWIW Antoine, isn't a Ms, he's a bloke.

In keeping with my sig, I have some interesting results:

Over the weeks, my endurance 30-40 rep workouts plateaued. I stopped increasing the weight and was down to increasing the reps by 1 or 2 reps/week. For what it's worth, that coincided with my increasing my aerobic work on the bike as the weather improved here. And as my aerobic work load increased, I found that the endurance workouts at the gym might be sabotaging the bike work, just from TSS. So I went to a gym workout which I've been doing during the Season for a few years and only once a week. It's 2 sets of 5 reps, the second set to be max weight possible for the 5 reps. Turns out, I could use the same weights that I was using back when I had been doing 3 sets of 10, the 3rd set to exhaustion.

So my finding is that the endurance lifting program produced the same strength gains as did the usual 3 X10 program. I'm a happy boy. So it's just the work to near failure that matters, not the reps. It's all about fiber recruitment. Though one would think that the aerobic focus of high-rep lifting would improve results on the bike, my health and age precludes any definite take-away from the experiment. That said, my feeling is that it worked and I'll do it again next winter. Note the date of this post.

Bump.