My Take on Strength Training and Cycling

The accepted scientific definition of strength is "the maximum force or tension generated by a muscle (or muscle groups)". While I agree wholeheartedly that weight training will increase strength, strength itself is not a determinant of endurance cycling performance. For events lasting as little as four minutes, almost 70% of the work done is via aerobic pathways. The determinants of success in endurance cycling are VO2 max, cycling economy, functional threshold and oxygen uptake characteristics....not strength.

It isn't particularly difficult to understand why the idea of weight lifting seems to make sense. When you are riding for a given duration for the critical power for that duration, it feels like your legs aren't strong enough to keep going. The reality is that the by-products of non-aerobic metabolism bring about the fatigue and require you to stop. IOW, as a result of not being able to generate more power aerobically (as limited by the four elements mentioned above) the rider must stop...not because the athlete was unable to maintain the force on the pedals. In fact, the triathlete at the back of the pack will have no trouble producing the force Norman Stadler does while holding 300W+ or even that which Lance Armstrong produces while climbing Alpe D'Huez at 420w+. They are unable to do so as rapidly, and for as long a period of time as these super-human aerobic specimens.

I find myself (slightly) more successful explaining the concept to athletes with a practical example as opposed to scientific mumbo jumbo. If strength (as defined above) were important for events lasting four minutes or more, then why can tiny Natasha Badmann ride at 200W for hour after hour while many AG'ers 50 lbs. heavier and capable of squatting 100's of pounds more than her, struggle to maintain this power output for even half the time? Or, try this: Why are the "sprinters" capable of peak power outputs in excess of 2000W (more than twice that of "climbers") who are also capable of squatting twice that of their climber counterparts, dropped like stones when the climbs come? You would think "certainly, being able to squat 150-200 lbs more (typically) than a smaller rider who only weighs 25 lbs less should allow them to climb better"...right? Uh-uh.

So what do we make of all of these terms some coaches use like muscular endurance, on-bike strength training, or anything else that confuses strength as being a determinant of endurance cycling success? Answer: Nothing...forget these terms, they are without use. If an athlete wishes to generate more power for climbing or riding faster on the flats, he must improve the big-four referred to above. So, how do you do this? Simple...ride your bike more often, for longer periods of time and do so at increasingly higher power outputs. How these are to be blended optimally, is for another discussion. The most important concept is that all four of these determinants of aerobic energy production are improved by riding your bike. In other words, if you want to ride a bike better, you do so by riding a bike...this is probaly why so many coaches recommend the "on-bike" strength training...if done at a high enough power output, or for long enough, or frequently enough it helps you ride a bike faster because you're improving aerobic pathways.

That's enough for now...I am going to ride my bike.
Cheers.