Track sprinters are said to be weight lifters who occasionally ride a bike. 😊

Although the science also says that bike riding won't to anything for one's bones. Plyometrics is good for that, as is low rep high load weight training. I worked out at a gym which had a regular who was an international level powerlifter. He was about 5'6" and could do a standing jump to the top of a 3' box. That's power which had taken him years to develop. He squatted at least 500 lbs. for reps. Five weeks ain't gonna do that. Studies are frequently designed to prove a point, which may be a totally valid point if one stays within the study's parameters, in fact the parameters may have been chosen to do exactly that.

Of course sprinters do both strength and sprint training, which tells us that sprint training without strength training is not optimal. Here's a strength training study which shows how it's supposed to be done. Note the long period of strength maintenance which allows the cyclists to improve their ability to use their added strength to increase power at the pedals:
https://www.academia.edu/14473993/St...elite_cyclists

And here's a study which shows how complicated this sprint training thing is:
https://www.academia.edu/83840880/Ma...sprint_cycling

Sorry, but I'm not impressed by this 5-week "science" experiment/research.

From page 3 of the paper

Table 3. Training program.
Leg Press
Chest Press (~10 reps to MF)
Leg Press 45º (~10 reps to MF)
Chest Press (~10 reps to MF)
Leg Press 45º (~10 reps to MF)
Lat Pull Down (~10 reps to MF)
Leg Press 45º (~10 reps to MF)
Lat Pull Down (~10 reps to MF)
Leg Press 45º (~10 reps to MF)
Knee Flexor (~10 reps to MF)
Trunk flexion (~15 reps to MF)
Knee Flexor (~10 reps to MF)
Trunk flexion (~15 reps to MF)

Bike
Chest Press (~10 reps to MF)
Cycle Ergometer (30s sprint)
Chest Press (~10 reps to MF)
Cycle Ergometer (30s sprint)
Lat Pull Down (~10 reps to MF)
Cycle Ergometer (30s sprint)
Lat Pull Down (~10 reps to MF)
Cycle Ergometer (30s sprint)
Knee Flexor (~10 reps to MF)
Trunk flexion (~15 reps to MF)
Knee Flexor (~10 reps to MF)
Trunk flexion (~15 reps to MF)



.

What about the training protocol do you find unimpressive?

The first thing that jumped out at me was that the study was for only 5-weeks. Ideally, if you want to see gains it's best to start a strength training regimen during the off-season, because when done correctly you won't be able to ride at your typical level, especially if you're new at strength training.

The other major problem is what they call a training program -- that is no training program. There are plenty of examples of good training programs for cyclists on the Web, so I won't go thru a list, but suffice it to say that there are going to be other exercises, weights and reps needed for one's strength to improve. Cyclists generally benefit more from lower reps with high weights; however, you can't start off with this, because you'll risk injury. I would start someone off with lighter weights at around 20 reps and work up in weight and lower reps to build strength. There's more to it, but that's all available on the Web.




.

1. This wasn't a cyclist training study. It compared the strength effects of resistance training versus sprint intervals on a pedaling ergometer.

2. Five weeks is pretty typical for an exercise study, certainly long enough to see gains.

3. Test subjects were all experienced strength exercisers.

Conjecture, hypothesis, theory. I've run countless experiments on myself. Each one usually took a year to see if there was a valid result. We can't know what how our bodies might respond to inputs without running an experiment. My wife and I joined our first gym in '79 so we could go salmon fishing in Bristol Bay. I've run many different programs on both of us. It's complicated. In general, nothing interesting happens in 5 weeks. Although exercising will always give a better result than not exercising, it's a particular result that one is seeking. I'll start a program in October, might see a result or lack of same (still a result) in April. When one is already fit, it's not a question of getting fit, but rather what sort of improvement might be seen in a particular portion of a sport. A lot of it comes down to training ganglia in a particular skill. Takes time.

One sees folks who might try to increase their accustomed cadence from say 80 to 90 and find that they're worse at 90. Yep, might take months to become accustomed to the new cadence and actually see if it's better or worse. Of course by then, one's general fitness might have become better or worse, clouding the issue. It's not 5 weeks simple. As you say, 5 weeks is common, just not definitive, that's all. IME studies which don't last for months can probably be disregarded.

Looking around, I ran across this website which approximately agrees with my experience: https://roadcyclingacademy.com/weigh...-for-cyclists/
I used to take an hour full-effort spin class, then hit the weight room immediately after. Oddly, my results in the weight room on those days was the same as when I didn't have the spin class. I was in my early 60s and quite fit.

If you discount results of all short duration exercise studies, you're going to throw out a whole lot of studies.

Most of them are short, with a small number of participants. Yes, it would be great to have longer studies with more participants, but if wishes were horses.

Yup. Pretty good as exercise trials go and a LOT can happen to training-naive participants in 5 weeks!

I'm not challenging your post MoAlpha, I know you're much more informed on these studies than me; however, I am genuinely curious.

Do you see any interesting information coming out of that exercise study/trial?

I'm not saying there is no useful information to be plucked out from it, I'm just curious if there is any and what it is.




.

I found this article very helpful; thanks for posting.

From my perspective, my focus is first, do no harm (even though I'm not a doctor, we lawyers follow a similar ethos -- at least regarding our own clients!). Second, do stuff likely to improve my general health. Last, if feasible, do stuff to improve cycling performance, specifically. I'm onboard with the notion that regular weight training checks off boxes 1 and 2 if done thoughtfully. I'm 54 and need to be mindful of bone loss, and I also don't want to look like an emaciated grand tour rider. I'd like to improve cycling performance so that I can race again after about 6-years off of racing, but I also appreciate that I can only do what I can do. For sake of time management, I have found -- as you have said -- that combining a bike and weight workout seems to be fine for me if the biking comes first. Also, in the winter where I do two lower body weight sessions a week, I combine those with upper-body to avoid having to go to the gym more than I have to. And I do core exercises as much as I can, which can be done anywhere at anytime.

I certainly take your point about the treatment looking arbitrary and not fully generalizable to much of the training universe. However, this is not like comparing standard dosages of two drugs. The dosing parameter space for exercise is multi-dimensional and not very well explored, so coming up with equivalent doses of cycling and resistance training is pretty hard. Therefore, don’t really see the choices as “wrong.”

As for the actual resistance program chosen, “newb gains” are real.

"Don't skip the weight room."

Injecting a bit of dark humor reality, my wife and I just got back from our annual 10-day unsupported backpack. We met a physical therapist who had an interesting comment about exercise in general: "You want to be able to get off the toilet unaided when you're 90." I've mentioned that to a few of our geezer friends and was a bit shocked at their nonchalant attitude.

I had a doctor visit (that happens at 79) where the doc did that "can you rise from a chair without using your hands?" thing. I proceeded to jump a good 6" into the air, scared the poor woman. The older we get, the more we have to fight sarcopenia and that's all done in the weight room. The only sensible advice one can give is, "Never quit." Whether it makes one faster on the bike is actually beside the point. I've been weight training off and on since I was 12. Never been injured doing it, though I once tore an Achilles when my foot slipped off a tall step while I was running, tore a hip flexor slightly racing Nordic, and cracked a couple ribs while training Downhill, but those are my only injuries, evah. I got into rock climbing while in the Army, didn't get hurt doing that, either. Just do it.

I'm off to the gym, not for weights, just to ride the Stairway to Hell for 40' of Z3, just starting my Fall training reset. "Never quit."

Newb gains are definitely real, just based on my own experience. I guess I wasn't looking at it from that perspective.



.

Speaking of sprinting, this study just came across my screen: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/78570/1/Winfi...0al%202019.pdf
During group rides, I was accustomed to doing several hill sprints, mostly because I was good at them and that's fun. I always wondered how much that affected my ride - it didn't seem to be a negative.

Edit: I always wondered why I could out hill-sprint everyone in the group even though I was older than any of them. My guess was because I was the only rider in the group who strength trained. Back then it was poo-pooed for cycling. "Everyone knew" that gym work made you slower if it did anything. The other possibility was that I trained to pull up on the backstroke. Though I only unweighted and didn't pull up when pedaling normally, I trained the backstroke on my rollers. The backstroke makes a much smaller difference on a flat sprint as it's only effective during the initial acceleration, though I won most of the flat sprints, too.

Single personal data point:

Two days ago, after avoiding sprint climbing workouts for a month while my knee healed, I was feeling pretty spunky, so I did several short and steep hill climbs of up 0.3-0.7 miles. It felt great.

Yesterday, my legs felt as if they were made of lead, quads were sore to the touch, although I had plenty of aerobic capacity.

Observation: Those sprint hill climbs were an effective leg workout, plus it takes >1 day to recover from them.

Congratulations on being fast. I can't out-sprint everyone in my group but I can out-sprint almost all of them, and I've never spent time in a gym lifting weights. I've never really thought much about it but now that you mention it, the one guy in my group who I can't consistently out-sprint doesn't lift either, and he smokes cigarettes (and sometimes, weed). My guess is that we can sprint at our advanced ages cuz we were born that way; though maybe it's cuz we choose to ride with slower guys. Though now I'm thinking maybe I should start to smoke ... though not cigarettes.

Don't smoke! It's bad for you. Vape. Me? Talent? Maybe it's just that I practiced sprinting. I enjoy overdoing most everything, maybe that's my talent.

I think that's the secret sauce for excellence -- choose to ride with slower guys.

My sprinting power is quite mediocre, < 13 W/kg for 5 seconds. But it's enough to keep ahead of my old guy riding buddies.

Yup. I try not to forget that the people we ride with aren't randomly chosen, so it's probably wise not to use your ranking among your friends as evidence that what you're doing is right -- or even that it's wrong. It's tempting to see causation ("I'm fast and I do this, so that must be why I'm fast") but that's not always a reliable method.

I hope I can do that at 79. Just tried it, and at 73, it's no problem. (At 73, that's not much of an accomplishment. Your state of fitness at 79 is amazing.)

Still doing 100% of my exercise on the bike. (I guess typing vigorously while slouching on the couch doesn't count.)

That said, I probably should start considering thinking about whether or not weight work is or is not out of the question.

"But not yet!" (pace St. Augustine).

I like the Game of Thrones motto - You tell Death "Not today." My wife and I hike quite a bit, steep trails in the Cascades. On our 10-day backpack this year, I went in with 50#, she with 40#. That's sorta weight training, too.

Put your feet about 2' apart, toes pointed out, hands in the prayer position in front of your face. Drop down into a squat, see how far down your hip and knee joints will allow you to go. Your elbows should go between your knees. Do a series of these until your legs get tired. That should tell you something, like is this feasible? I just got up and did a set of 50 which tired my legs. I'm way out of shape and am just starting my build toward next summer. When I was young and raced Nordic, I could do a set of 200 one-legged squats. Sure can't do that anymore! Glory days . . .

Even if strength training had nothing to do with cycling performance, IMO it's sorta mandatory at our age to prevent disabling geezer injuries.

My soap box statement for the day.

IMO, strength training has a lot to do with how well you endure the fit of your bike. Quite often I see posts from old guys bemoaning how they've gotten older and they are having aches, pains and numbness on they bike that a earlier time in life fit them perfectly with no issues. Many immediately go to changing up things. IMO, All likely to be temporary as when those persons loose more muscle mass, they'll again have issues.

I've always looked at aches and pains as something that can be addressed by strength training of those affected muscle groups once any inflammation and such is addressed. It's one of the things that they do when you go to physical therapy. And one can do it in the gym or at home. But the bicycle offers little exercise for ones muscles and the leg muscles it does work, don't get put through their full range of motion.

As I go deeper and deeper into retirement with little of the once very active things I did at work and other activities that used all the different muscle groups on my body. I'm starting to have those same gripes other's get that don't do anything but ride their bike for exercise. However working on my glutes, arm and shoulder strength seems to be helping to keep me able to ride in a somewhat aggressive position with few aches, pains or numbness.

There are tons of examples out there of the benefits of strength training. Presented by a daughter of two 80+ y/o parents...Very uplifting!!

Reading back through all of this...

5 weeks just isn't enough time for the weight lifting group.

No doubt, sprint workouts on the bike will raise VO2 and sprint power... but...

As an ex long time gym rat/power lifter - weight lifting gains take time. The first few weeks is essentially trauma to the body and any "gains" in strength probably come from improved form or confidence. You are tearing everything down at first, straining everything. Nothing is used to or ready for the load, recovery sucks - you can be sore for the better part of a week after your first sessions. I would think this could actually translate to initial losses on the bike.

Personally speaking, if my back allowed me to lift heavy again - I have no doubts that I could power lift my way into having a 2000w sprint. 6 months or so is what it would actually take, and I wouldn't expect to see gains on the bike in the first 2+/- months as my system will be in shock.

Would lifting help my VO2 max? Probably not very much. Would it help my 1 hour power - probably, as my legs give out before anything else. Would I be able to sprint like a madman - hell yeah. And I would probably weigh well over 210#'s - I can put muscle on in a hurry.