The foundations for successful riding
Reading Joe's Training Bible and came across the goal weights for squats... 1.3-1.7 x bodyweight for 3x8 sets... is this for real?
I recall about ten years back (early 20s) I managed about .7 of my bodyweight for 3x12... that was just about failure as well (attempting hypertrophy). 47kgs at 70kgs BW? Either way , this goal seems to be WAY outside my capabilities?!? Or is that the point?
What does BNA reckon?
Being lighter always helps in that area.
1.3-1.7x is very doable with some dedication and structure, it'll certainly mess with your cycling legs though, and 2x means you have some serious flesh pistons - very respectable
Half the battle with squats is your mind.
problem with being lighter is that you are operating from a seriously smaller base than the 100kg monsters LOL
So how achievable is 1.3 if you've got seriously skinny legs? That this is part of the Base period just horrifies me... funnily enough I have some decent speed on the bike, but squatting 100kgs seems somewhat insane???
Back in my rowing days I raced lightweight, so weighed in under 70kg, which was pretty light considering I am 189cm tall. I was squatting 120kg for 3 sets of 10, could power clean 100+kg and bench 100kg, I wasn't considered particularly strong so those numbers look fine. One of the other lightweights I rowed with could squat 170kg. With regular weight training you would be surprised at how strong you can get, it's hard work but very rewarding. Now I feel like I should buy a squat rack.
Giant Trance | Giant Reign 3 | Trek 8000 | Trek Madone 4.5 | Look 695 SR ipack | Fuji Track 1.1
Just start off conservatively, if you go to hard to soon and start ramping up the weight you are more likely to hit a wall sooner, so start easy and slowly ramp it up.
Focus on technique foremost, if you have sh*te technique from the beginning and start putting on the weight you are also more likely to damage your posterior chain in some way.
Let your body adapt, before you know it you'll be getting stronger each session without even noticing.
100kg is very doable, don't discount yourself already, if you have 'skinny' legs you're not only working your legs you're building up you entire posterior chain, they all need to grow and strengthen equally.
Squat rack would be nice, I have one but prefer to squat outside of it - make the rep or fail
^ yup, pretty much.
You can look at it 3 ways:
1) You are weak and if you start squatting regularly you will improve and gain a lot of strength fairly quickly with the famous 'newbie gains'
2) You are actually stronger than you think and some regular weight training will get you back on track
3) it is all too hard and you keep doing what you're doing
"Alls you can do is alls you can do".
It depends on what your goal is.
When I did such work I ended up as both a slower bike rider overall and with a slower sprint too. It was the wrong training for my goals (which revolved around being a faster bike rider for my target events, which at the time were track racing and crits).
When I did a strength training block I got up to 160kg and I was 80kg. Sets of 5 however. It is do able, I found that cycling helped my leg strength a lot, also strengthened my knees. I was never able to squat due to knee pain but last year I could.
Are you serious... Have you ever trained properly at the gym?
Anyone who says squats are bad for the knees, regardless of the weight is uneducated and needs to learn by doing and not quoting hearsay.
Fwiw..I'm 36, been body building since 18, competed at 29, knee reconstruction at 21, cycling since 2006 and train still 6 days a week. I regularly squat 140, dead lift 200 and leg press 400. No pain at all. Muscle soreness but that's par for the course.
This is not meant to come across as a dk measuring post, but the talk on here about diet and training and supplements etc is so far off the mark I had to say something.
Proudly "a hater of academics with helmet cams"
Weight training vs cycling performance. Interesting - cites peer reviewed studies rather than anecdotal evidence.
It depends on what your objective is. OP did not say why they are doing the training. Could be any number of reasons related or unrelated to elements of cycling performance.
To get stronger, then weights are entirely appropriate. However it would be pretty rare for strength to be a limiter to endurance cycling performance. Sustainable aerobic power and strength are not well correlated and endurance cycling is not a strength sport. It's an aerobic sport with fairly low forces.
Strength training may provide some assistance to sprint cycling (although there is a limit here as well, as it's force at speed that matters). Being stronger does not guarantee being a faster sprinter.
If improving sustainable power output is the primary objective, there is no exercise more effective than what one can do on a bike. So to become more powerful (sustainable aerobic power to weight ratio) then yes, ride more, and ride harder.
I think Joe's direction is that strength training will help smooth out your "strength" palette, and should only be considered a basic element of the training. Squats are not the goal, riding is - but squats will assist. A lot of people lack basic horsepower (my mate Gary is a classic for this) and if you can't squat your weight a couple times in a row safely then you shouldn't be surprised that you struggle at climbing. It's just a building block... I have no question that dudes and dudettes who already have strength in their kit bag will not need to embark on a squat regime and I reckon if you're training for sprinting you probably don't suffer from strength shortfalls (Friel's "limiter" idea)... I mean there is a reason I like short steep hills and long flats, it plays to my strengths in a big way and the road is where to find them but I need to get better at long climbs and sprinting... and if I can only squat 50 instead of Friel's goal 100 that might help explain why my baseline power isn't much good?
Average effective pedal force for both legs at 350W and 70rpm is ~ 28kg.
Would strength training, incorporating squats though, imrove your cycling performance in endurance events involving lots of climbing, such as the 3 Peaks Challenge?
Is the rate limiting step still your aerobic capacity, regardless of terrrain?
My unlearned opinion would be that most cyclists would gain more benefit from core strength training than focussing on trying to develop monster quads and hammies.
We are endurance athletes not league players.
No. It's not a strength sport, we are not force limited. It's an aerobic sport.
What improves climbing speed is an increase in sustainable power to weight ratio. Sustainable power comes through increasing the sustainable generation and turnover rate of ATP.
Yes. That and appropriate gearing.
Perhaps if you had to carry your bike up a cliff, then that might be different.
The most effective training you can do for cycling performance is on the bike. But cycling performance may not be the sole goal for many.
I am/was never in favor of stupldly big weights on your legs for cycling if you're serios about racing. I think you get better results from doing hard work outs on your bike. After all, that is the true leg action, not some exercise that stresses your back and knees.
Tell what action on the bike where you are taking all the stress through the knees whilst trying to keep you body moving down and up through the vertical plain?
I don't suffer fools easily and so long as you have done your best,you should have no regrets.
Power isn't a great word for it, it sounds to most like how much can you bench press or squat, which is about having the muscles/technique to overcome the weight on the bar for a few seconds. Power in cycling terms is about how much power can you hold over a full hour, far more a measure of fitness than muscle strength.
I'd keep doing it xplora, but try to quantify (somehow?) whether you believe it's doing anything for you.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]