Weightlifters?

[Norm]

From my experience, I find that the higher rep realm is easier to maintain and I get injured less. When I'm in that 1-5 rep area I dread doing that and I find that I tweak various elbow and shoulder injuries from playing baseball & football years ago.

Good stuff regardless. I especially like ChrisG's routine because a) I absolutely hate lower body work, b) lower body work hampers any riding you want to do in the short term, and c) I only have dumbbells in my basement. Plus, the benefits of lower body work on riding are highly debated, with nothing I've read supporting that there's any correlation at all.

 

[bonefishjake]

since when did you start touching weights? last i checked you were deathly afraid of them.

i would say that for the PRO cyclist there probably is very little to gain in terms of weight lifting. let's face it though, those guys are a) 140 lbs soaking wet b) need to have huge strength to weight ratios which isn't conducive or possible with higher levels of upper body mass and c) have found alternative ways to increase performace w/o ever touching a weight.

so, that's why (IMHO)the likelyhood of one ever reading about the positive aspects of weights as they pertain to cycling are slim to none. i would argue, however, that for the recreational cyclist (that being anyone from beginner up to and including expert, aka someone who is NOT paid a healthy salary to ride a bike), weight work in the off season will benefit both endurance and explosive strength. period.

 

[Norm]

I've been lifting on and off since 8th grade. I've always done it because it was a thing to do. Never much liked it.

Most of the studies done are on "trained" cyclists, not pro guys. Guys like ChrisG and BikNBen, for instance. Guys who cycle as a major hobby, not as a career. That evidence is just not there to support your contention, at least as it pertains to expert racers. In terms of beginners, most coaches agree that any physical activity, including running, will help your cycling.

But this is in terms of pure biking, and is almost always done for roadies. So do you get some benefit doing ab and upper body work as a mountain biker? I can't imagine it would hurt. And as an overall measure of health, some dose of weight lifting is possibly good for you, I'm sure.

 

[Norm]

OK, here ya go, this will keep you busy all day:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t126133.html

 

[ChrisG]

Most of the studies done are on "trained" cyclists, not pro guys. Guys like ChrisG and BikNBen, for instance. Guys who cycle as a major hobby, not as a career. That evidence is just not there to support your contention, at least as it pertains to expert racers. In terms of beginners, most coaches agree that any physical activity, including running, will help your cycling.

But this is in terms of pure biking, and is almost always done for roadies. So do you get some benefit doing ab and upper body work as a mountain biker? I can't imagine it would hurt. And as an overall measure of health, some dose of weight lifting is possibly good for you, I'm sure.

I can't speak to any studies, but I can't imagine that having stronger arms, shoulders, and core isn't helping me on the bike. As crappy a downhill and tech rider as I am, it'd only be worse with a weaker upper body. On the road the benefit is less tangible, I'd say, other than for explosive moves such as sprinting.

Apart from cycling, weight work is a great way to keep the bones and joints healthy as one ages. Cyclists are prime candidates for osteoporosis, what with the lack of weight-bearing effect our sport has.

I have a few friends who have raced/are racing on U.S. pro road teams, and we've discussed this topic. They do core/body weight stuff, but that's about it. The skinny guys have arms that look like threads hanging from their sleeves. As skinny as I am (5'10" 145lbs. around 7% body fat) I've had one guy remark that I'd be in the 140lb. or less range if I rode the kind of volume he does. So there's no doubt that weight and what it does for you becomes a greater concern when you get to the elite level. Being the nebbish that I am, I'm willing to give up that fraction of speed for the benefits stated above.

 

[bonefishjake]

bah.

i understand what they are saying. it's a different form of training. i understand that it's a different sport. that said, i still don't buy it with the exception of the elite levels.

yes, the main goal in endurance cycling is to control the lactate threshold, increase power to weight ratios, VO2 Max, blah, blah. i'm never, and most of us will never, be in a world where that matters.

for me (and i would, and will continue to argue that, for..) most other cyclists, particularly mountain bikers, there is certainly a use for strength training.

granted, i have never been on a "pro" course so i can't speak to this from experience, but in my mountain biking experience, there are many, many anerobic efforts that one is required to perform that do not exist in road cycling (to my knowledge roads are build for cars and therefore do not contain the types of quick ups and downs found on a trail since they are not conducive to such devices). that alone requires a different type of effort.

either way i'm not going to be a pro (or even a good sport class rider) anytime soon so i can spit this nonsense all day.

 

[Norm]

A few random thoughts, incoherently...

Sprinters are off the board for these studies. They frequently lift weights. And as you allude to, a lot of these studies are aimed at roadies or even more specifically, people on stationary bikes in a lab. So nothing I've read counters what you contend with the upper body strength comments as it pertains to the mountain bike.

It has been my personal contention that osteoporosis as linked to bikers has always been somewhat of a red herring. A study often cited was on bikers who averaged 12+ hours a week for 20 years. That's an insane amount of biking. In looking for more info on this, it's hard to find much. But I did find some doctors that absolutely did not agree that recreational cyclists, who do nothing more than ride a bike for exercise, are at an increased risk. I have no strong opinion, as I think much research needs to be done yet. I'm also inclined to wonder about the original study which focused on 27 riders, some of which claimed high soda drinking habits as well as astoundingly high dairy intake levels, both of which strongly appear to be correlated to osteoporosis (See US versus Japanese osteo rates). I'm not saying that lifting useless at all. My point is basically that I believe this picture is extremely incomplete at this point and a lot of research would need to be done to really come to any solid conclusion.

This sort of gets into the minutia of the conversation, so it's not really pertinent to much of anything at all.

 

[bonefishjake]

where i suppose my biggest problem lies is, exactly what you're saying: the "experts" are for the most part hanging their hats (so to speak) on antiquated data that is questionable at best.

 

[Norm]

where i suppose my biggest problem lies is, exactly what you're saying: the "experts" are for the most part hanging their hats (so to speak) on antiquated data that is questionable at best.

In what respects? Coggan is just about the leading expert on biking science in the world. You just can't find anyone more on top of the game than him.

 

[tlnj]

You guys have me thinking a lot about weight training as it relates to mountain biking. Never gave it much thought, because I train mostly for overall conditioning.

Here's maybe how we can charcterize the benefits of weights for mountain biking.

Try considering weight training as a "performance enhancer." There's no doubt that inherent/aquired biking ability are the foundations for perfomance, but weight training can give you that little edge.

I can liken this to the steroid situation where they say that regardless whether the players take steroids, they still has to have the hand-eye coordination and athleticism to hit the ball out of the park. The steroids are just giving them that extra edge, but are not the foundation of their careers

Alright--bad analogy.

I'll finish by saying I think both upper and lower body lifting appear to have some benefits, but ultimately will probably not make or break someone as a mountain biker.

Some of my proposed benefits:

Upper body
Technical terrain
General bike handling

Lower body
Hills appear to be where most of the benefits would be seen. It would seem that endurance is more important than strength, though the ability to explode on really steep grades or power through technical climbs could possibly be bolstered

And yes, an argument could be made for the strenght:weight ratio. Weight lifting is the most effective way to build lean mass. And if your body composition is primarily lean mass, you have the potential to have a high strenght:weight ratio.

Enough talking outta my ass for now.

 

[bonefishjake]

In what respects? Coggan is just about the leading expert on biking science in the world. You just can't find anyone more on top of the game than him.

in regards to the general perception (as repeatedly noted in the link you provided above) that weight training does zero for cycling performance.

 

[Norm]

in regards to the general perception (as repeatedly noted in the link you provided above) that weight training does zero for cycling performance.

One current coach (or pro riders) and the leading "biking scientist" in the world would qualify as more than "experts" (qualified, as you quote them). Stern (the coach) I would listen to - to a point. However, he does provide a reasonable answer to the notion that you need to have a lot of force to succeed in biking. Coggan, OTOH, is on the top of his game, IMO. And anything he says is always supported by either his research or other's research. His data is current and always on the cutting edge. Nothing antiquated about what he's doing.

My concern with something like osteoporosis is also linked with the media battle the dairy industry has fed American for X years, as well as an avalanche of opinions based on one potentially errant study.

The reality is that this type of research benefits too few people, so there won't be much of a comprehensive study on it. So much like arguing the merits of Jim Rice making the HoF or not, this one will be relegated mostly to dimwits like us blathering back and forth about it.

In the end, I imagine it will come down to the answer to most of the vital questions we face:

It depends.