Comments on: Strength Training Without Additional Body Mass – 3

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 22:19:34 +0000

Jesper, love the articles. I’m a huge proponent of strength training. I was a javelin thrower in college, raced on the road and track (kilo) and now race masters. I’m about 6’2″,180, and can put out 1600+ watts on an all out sprint. I want to incorporate strength training into my cycling, and i’m thinking of doing something simple like dead lifts, 3x a week, 5 sets of 2-3 reps, 5 min rest between sets, with some jump rope in between for 30 seconds or so. Thoughts? I do believe that this type of strength workouts where there is no fatigue will be very beneficial and will still allow me to complete my workouts on the road. Do you have any thoughts or comments? Would love any advice… thanks.
Mark

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 04 May 2010 21:46:27 +0000

I agree that hypertrophy specific weight training alone will not result in increased aerobic performance. The concept here is that muscle mass is increased, and then this new muscle tissue is put through an aerobic training regimen, to build endurance. Just take a look at the finish foto’s of the guys and galls that win triathlon events. They are buffed and lean. If they were just lean they would not be crossing that line in first place. Take a look at the leg muscles in competitive cyclists. Or how about speed skaters, even in the longer distances – e.g. Sven Kramer. Their legs are massive. That’s all muscle, trained for aerobic performance.

Still, for most sports enthusiasts your basic premise still holds: increase strength without increasing body mass. It’s just that muscle mass increases and fat declines, so the athlete’s net weight remains close to where it started.

By: Jesper Bondo Medhus

Jesper Bondo Medhus — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:15:49 +0000

Hypertrophy will improve force production and increase your overall power, but that will only make you faster at anaerobic skills like sprints and short jumps. Oxygen uptake per kilogram will decrease. If mitochondrial density is maintained it will never be due to hypertrophy specifc weight training principles per se.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 04 May 2010 18:48:03 +0000

Read Alan Couzen’s blog on the importance of aerobic muscle mass for endurance athletes, and that makes a lot of sense. The additional muscle mass makes for greater weight, but as Jamie points out the strength to mass ratio is what matters. The largest amount of muscle you can support within your aerobic capacity (VO2 max) will be the optimal amount, even for endurance sports. I’m training for a triathlon and do a weights and core routine three times a week in addition to the swim bike run thing. Been on this program for about 4 months, I’m 6.2, weighed 185 lbs at the start and have lost perhaps 2 or three pounds due to simultaneous loss of body fat. I’m finding it actually not that easy to just bulk muscle and get heavy, perhaps also because of the running etc. I have heavy bones and know I need a good amount of muscle to reach my maximum performance potential.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:35:16 +0000

Thanks, Jasper. That helps. I agree with some points, but I still think there are some cyclists (mostly cat 5, cat 4, masters) for whom hypertrophy might be beneficial. An athlete who has a larger bone structure is going to need to be heavier than someone more sprightly. The more bone and tissue a cyclist has to carry, the more weight in muscle it will be appropriate to have. Having too little muscle is a disadvantage. That’s where my wattage example comes in. A bottle of soda isn’t going to help anyone ride faster. But an extra pound worth of muscle might help a cyclist achieve higher wattage levels, provided mitochondrial density can be maintained.

This article provides a more articulate summation of my point:
http://alancouzens.blogspot.com/2010/01/importance-of-strength-to-endurance.html