My PCP* from when I coached track: don’t eff it up.
*PCP = pithy coaching proverb
This is an interesting discussion.
On one hand, we have the modality of strength training focused on neurological development to theoretically enable greater pedaling power, and on the other we have the understanding that this kind of training doesn’t target the provision of energy via oxidative mechanisms to enable sustained power and therefor does not accomplish what is needed for pedaling purposes.
My first post on this forum discussed strength training, and while it went into a great deal of information, the gist of it was that a neurological focus does not increase pedaling power. Instead, you should begin with a neurological focus, but you then increase reps over time so that you are using the glycolytic system (rather than the ATP-CP system) to do the work. So if you started with 3x4@225 (i.e. each set involves around 12-15 seconds of work which is primarily ATP-CP) on the squat, over weeks/months you would eventually be doing 5x15@225 (i.e. each set involves around 45-60 seconds of work which is primarily glycolytic), then increase the weight and drop the reps, repeat. Reps of 8 or more are very glycolytic as long as you are using the most weight you can for that rep range, and the result is hypertrophy (increases in muscle proteins, organelles involved in cellular metabolism, and glycogen). In conjunction with these gains in hypertrophy and strength you continue building an aerobic base with lots of endurance and tempo riding by getting on the bike on days you lift (after you lift!) as well as on days you don’t lift.
Based on my N=1 personal experience this leads to astounding increases in pedaling power. Power meters were not available in 1993-94, so I cannot quantify watts, but anecdotally I know for a fact that this kind of training works. If I were a coach like Hunter Allen, based on simply seeing results first-hand I would have every one of my athletes smash their legs in the gym during the off season as I discussed above. While Cog and others may disagree with my stance of strength training, it’s important to note that exercise science changes over time – what we know today isn’t necessarily what we know tomorrow. Heck, in the early 90s VO2 max was supposed to be the holy grail of endurance performance, but today we know it is much more trainable than previously assumed and other factors like lactate utilization are just as (or more) important. Additionally, I still remember a lecture my exercise phys prof gave where he told the class that although lactate has long been considered a waste product, current (1992) research suggests it is actually a fuel, but the science is not settled. Pretty sure it has since been settled.
1 Like
Gym guy, right? You might be interested to learn that the whole notion of “low reps vs. high reps” is pretty much bunkum, at least when it comes to hypertrophy. (High force/low reps does seem to have a greater impact on strength, presumably via neurological adaptations.)
The notion that VO2max is the be-all and end-all of endurance performance went by the wayside in the 1980s…
Is there any improvements to either max power or FTP by doing threshold or vo2 max workouts at 60rpm or similar?
In a word, no.
To expand on that:
-
there are no scientific data to support the claim that deliberately reducing cadence enhances training adaptations, and
-
there are no first-principle reasons to expect that it would.
As the saying goes, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary data”, yet in this case, at best there is anecdata.
Yes that makes sense. Thanks.
Hey Cog,
I’m certainly not a gym bro - too small and too nerdy. I started lifting weights when I was 14 but it was only upper body, no legs (and I had puny little stick legs). I got in to cycling in March of 1990 when I was 20, stopped all upper body lifting, and after 6 weeks of riding (4-5 days/week, 25-30 miles per ride) took a VO2 max test. At 143 pounds I hit 74 ml/kg/min and that is basically untrained but I had no power on the bike, couldn’t push a gear. After a few years of riding with cat 2s and a pro (in today’s lingo lots of endurance, tempo, and sweet spot) I was 122 pounds which equals 87 ml/kg/min but I sucked, had no power, still couldn’t push a gear. Four months into the strength training program (October 1993 to April 1994) everything changed, legs blew up in size, had incredible power, and when I started riding group rides that spring was routinely dropping the cat 2s I had been training with for the last couple years. Didn’t matter whether it was sprinting, climbing, surging on the flats. Even the pro asked what I had been doing because he was surprised how strong I had gotten. Since nothing changed about my riding, basically a skimpy 180-250 miles/week, the only reason my power would have increased would have been the one new variable added to the mix – strength training (in the manner I described, not a bunch of neuro nonsense).
A couple years later I got addicted to Magic the Gathering and that was the end of having any time to ride the bike. 
1 Like
Sounds to me as if you made the mistake of becoming too obsessed about your weight. That’s the only reason I can think of that would explain why a young male athlete would drop from 143 to 122 lbs. Your improved performance thereafter is probably more the result of adequate energy intake than gym work.
1 Like
This is interesting, if you can produce same power with less O2 demand, what is the trade off?
I agree 100% that you don’t gain fitness by cutting calories. I was overweight at 143 because I hadn’t exercised for about 8 months after a serious car accident. My “normal” weight had been 135 before that. Two years of cycling brought it down to 132 which is where it stayed until I added strength training, after which it quickly dropped to 122. At no time did I diet, cut calories, or change my diet. I always ate a ton, both before and after I included strength training.
I fully respect your contributions to the scientific community and the sport of cycling, especially concerning power (the pursuit of power is precisely why I incorporated leg strength training in the manner I did). I understand there are different mindsets about strength training with respect to endurance sports performance, namely: 1) it doesn’t improve endurance sport performance, 2) neuro, neuro, neuro all the way baby!, and 3) body weight exercises and planks for the win!. Based on actual evidence using myself as a lab rat I disagree with each of these, and that’s why I brought up the misunderstandings about VO2 max and about lactate - scientific knowledge and training theory improve over time, sometimes they are correct, sometimes they aren’t, either way evolution is a good thing. Think about how many professors in the 70s and 80s instilled incorrect information in their students, who then regurgitated this incorrect information. It took non-mainstream thinking and analysis to figure out that these beliefs were incorrect, and we are all better off for it.
1 Like
Greater muscle fatigue, impaired ability to change speed.
Self-selected cadence is what it is for a reason.
It wasn’t “non-mainstream thinking” or anecdotes that displaced VO2max as the ultimate determinant of performance, it was actual DATA (like this study: Determinants of endurance in well-trained cyclists - PubMed).
So, where are the DATA supporting your claim that resistance training increases power across the board? The literature is all over the map, with one study even reporting that cessation of resistance training was associated with an improvement in performance (5 min MMP).
Hey Cog,
Think about how many students learned about VO2 max in the 60s and 70s and never considered questioning this information. Back then everyone “knew” VO2 max was the end-all-be-all, and it was mainstream knowledge in the exercise science world and taught at universities. So yes, the data from your study was necessary (and thank you for the link); the fact that you didn’t take mainstream thought as gospel and were willing to prove it wrong was non-mainstream thinking, and it was also the correct path to take.
Below is a link to a 1991 study by Professor Marcinik (U. Maryland) I stumbled across some years ago while surfing the net. The findings are interesting, the conclusion being “…strength training improves cycle endurance performance independently of changes in VO2max. This improved performance appears to be related to increases in LT and leg strength.” I don’t have the full study and the abstract does not discuss the design of the strength training protocol. I was not aware of this study at the time I started crushing legs in the gym, but I’m obviously on board with the conclusion.
There is data showing that resistance training induces increased muscle capillarization and enhancement of the muscle’s ability to operate glycolytically. These two points were what your study found to be more important than VO2 max for performance purposes. That doesn’t mean one can lift their way to cycling performance - it means you can augment cycling performance by adding resistance training to cycling but you must keep up the riding volume.
It is not surprising at all that cessation of resistance training could be associated with improvement in performance. Strenuous resistance training impairs performance until muscles have recovered, and I have never seen an abstract that actually discusses how much time is allotted between the final training day and the performance test. I know personally how difficult it can be to pedal a bike not just on the same day you smash legs in the gym, but for multiple days thereafter. I cannot count the number of days when I wouldn’t have been able to keep up with someone’s 90 year old grandmother the day after a hard leg workout. Allowing time off from resistance training to ensure adaptation and recovery should be standard protocol if you want a valid performance on the bike. Perhaps do 3 days off, test, then a follow-up 1 week later (i.e. 10 days after the last training session) with another test so you have two data points to account for recovery. Not allowing recovery before testing is a fine way to sabotage the results of your study.
A rather important issue with data regarding resistance training is there are innumerable ways to engage in this kind of training; protocols are all over the place, some might be good but others might be terrible, and I imagine in some cases the purpose of the design is to obtain a master’s degree, not to actually provide useful results. I am not saying that any resistance training will give the cycling power boost I experienced; I am saying that the protocol I designed did that, and it is unlike anything I’ve read or heard about since I put it to use in 1993. It wasn’t mainstream in 1993 and it isn’t in 2023 either. Like I said, you get lots of neuro, neuro, neuro on one extreme and lots of bodyweight and yoga stuff on the other, with a mixture of 1 RM percent based nonsense in between which is invariably too easy and doesn’t induce sufficient training effect. If I followed a typical 65% for 12 reps protocol for strength training it would mean I have a 1 RM on the leg press of 785 pounds and I assure you I am nowhere near that, just attempting that would put me in the hospital with a torn quad and slipped disc.
Going back to your study, you displayed non-mainstream thinking in undertaking it and then showing the world that the data proved that mainstream thinking at that time was wrong. Because of your willingness to go against the grain you moved exercise science forward. I would love for someone to run a study using my strength training protocol - the problem is that participants have to endure a lot of discomfort and be willing to stick it out, so the pool of lab rats is not going to be very large. Perhaps a study with TR Forum member participation would do the trick? Only two things are required: 1) a willingness to cry in the gym and 2) assistance getting back to your car after you finish your leg workout. 
1 Like
As I already said, there are multiple studies of resistance training in cyclists, with decidedly mixed results. That in itself tells you that any potential benefit must be rather small (i.e., <5%), or else the question would have been settled a long time ago. This issue is not at all analogous to whether or not VO2max is the most important determinant of performance, as it doesn’t require any “thinking outside of the box” to test.
As for different resistance training protocols, despite all the bro science and even “accepted knowledge” among strength and conditioning types, it turns out that it. does. not. matter. how many sets/reps you do/how heavy/light you lift, you end up with the same result in terms of 1) muscle protein synthesis, 2) muscle hypertrophy, and 3) increases in strength (the latter as long as you occasionally lift heavy, to stimulate the neural adaptations). IOW, when it comes to resistance training, “all roads lead to Rome”, but it’s a different Rome that you reach by doing endurance exercise training.
So again I ask, when it comes to the beneficial effects of resistance training on endurance cycling performance…
…where are the DATA?
I provided a study from Professor Marcinik that supports my stance but the response is that studies all say different things so the findings are not relevant. That’s a difficult hole to climb out of but I don’t necessarily disagree with you because there are many poorly designed studies and innumerable variables to contend with, so it’s very likely that results will always be all over the place. Comparing bad apples with good oranges doesn’t provide valid conclusions.
I disagree with the all roads lead to Rome idea. Sure, just about any kind of consistent strength training, whether high or low reps etc. will lead to gains in strength and size to some degree, but I’m not saying that simply because you gained size or strength with weights you gained power on the bike. It requires the proper protocol that will induce significant development in various metabolic areas associated with pedaling power, including those that you stated were important for performance, in conjunction with continued aerobic development on the bike.
In any case, I’ll go from theory to data and provide numbers. I lived in a city where there were two ways to head out of town, one of which required scaling a 0.40 mile, 8% hill, which was immediately preceded by a t-intersection, so you went up it from essentially a standing start. It was also the first hill on any ride going out that way, so your legs were generally stale. Probably went up it 3x per week, figure 100+ times each year, so I recall my gearing for it very well (rode an 8 spd 23-13 with 53/39 chainrings).
Rear cassette pre-strength training: Sometimes 21, sometimes 19
Front chain ring pre-str training: 39 (always)
Rear cassette post-strength training: Sometimes 21, sometimes 19
Front chain ring post-str training: 53 (always)
I’m sure there are people who could use a bigger gear than that if they wanted, but comparing what I could do pre-strength training to post-strength training, this data shows significant improvement in pedaling power. Before strength training I simply could not push the big ring on that hill with my weak, puny legs. I will emphasize again, there were no other variables involved, just strength training added to 180-250 miles/week consisting of, in today’s lingo, Z2 and Z3 riding. Wish I had a power meter but they didn’t exist as widely available consumer products in 1994.
Three years ago I trained as a sprinter for a year, including a lot of leg strength training. Ended up gaining an inch or so on my quads, not the goal but thats what happened. Probably because I had lost muscle mass throughout my fifties. NO gains in short power. Then I spent two years doing a lot of endurance and sprinkling in high-intensity intervals, pushing from an average of 7 hours/week to 8 hours/week (again that is averaged over 1 year). Did not work on “repeatability” - most of my interval session would have a handful of either controlled z5/z6, or full-gas. About once every 3 months or so go all-out. And then I watched my entire power curve shift up and to the right, after turning sixty. Who knows why, it just did. Ended up earlier this year hitting some power PRs from 2017 when I was mid fifties, at both short and 20-minute durations.
I’ve naturally (sub-compact gearing) done lower cadence on climbs, around 55-75rpm depending on the grade. At different points in my season I work on it and get better at it.
What I can say is that high force/torque work, and doing multiple HC climbs at low cadence… it has nothing to do with the “strength” of my legs and more to do with my training.
One study of initially untrained individuals hardly proves your point, especially when multiple other, more relevant publications don’t support your claim.
As for everything else you wrote, it just more anecdata…
I understand your points. I am just trying to understand all sides of the equation of how watts are made and how they interact. Torque is the actual force and cadence is how often the force is applied. I am maxed out at cadence. I cant spin current torque values any faster. Why is not developing torque going to help? I dont mean to develop a low cadence technique but improve torque by say 10% at Threshold using a normal cadence. Do you gain fiber recruitment at lower cadence or not?
Because you can already generate the force (torque) - you just can’t keep doing so.
The solution is therefore not to attempt to further increase your ability to generate force, but to increase your resistance to fatigue. Deliberately pedaling at a suboptimal cadence won’t help achieve that goal.
The effects of cadence on fiber type recruitment are equivocal. This is the study most people point to to support that claim:
Contrary to what the authors conclude in the abstract, however, if you dig into the data there really isn’t any difference between trials in the pattern of glycogen utilization during exercise. Rather, the participants used slightly less glycogen in both type I and type II fibers because pre-exercise levels were slightly lower in that trial. This conclusion is consistent with this classic study by Gollnick etc al., which also found no influence of cadence on the motor unit recruitment as assessed via PAS staining for glycogen:
TL,DR: Coaches who claim that low cadence intervals increase recruitment of type II fibers obviously haven’t read the literature.
4 Likes
I am trying to learn so please be patient. 
At the end of the day if I wanted a 300w FTP I would have to push 30nm at roughly 100rpm. If I currently am at 25nm at 100rpm that would be 250w. How does one get to the 30nm at 100rpm for that 300. Is it working on that 30 for short intervals at 100 rpm?
I do notice that after I target torque that is used in my threshold range using lower cadence for Z2 power, my legs feel great spinning normal cadence at Z2/Z3 power. Of course the torque value at that point is lower. I am looking for fatigue resistance with the idea that if I am fatigue resistant at Threshold torque I can work above that threshold torque value longer.
At my age I can do only so many threshold/high intensity intervals a week. Those intensity intervals are always done at 88-95. My legs would explode at 70 way before heart rate would even get going.