T Nation

Training of Elite Aussie Cyclist

bg100,

The point I was highlighting was the assertion that volume makes you slower by virtue of fiber conversion.

I am not sure that you have addressed that issue.

[quote]peterm533 wrote:
bg100,

The point I was highlighting was the assertion that volume makes you slower by virtue of fiber conversion.

I am not sure that you have addressed that issue. [/quote]

OK, I see where they may have been some confusion. However, I was backing up what Cool had said whilst not focusing on whether or not this had anything to do with fibre conversion.

On that topic though, the more you develop slow twitch fibres through higher volume the more “efficient” you are going to become, at least for longer rides and not for sprints. Conversely, the more fast twitch fibres you develop through low rep/explosive strength training, the more “proficient” your muscles will become at sprinting for short periods of time.

Just my $0.02 worth!

Bg100,

I am still not sure that you are picking up on the point being made. It is not a case of preferentially targetting the fibres which are appropriate for endurance or power but that even low rep/explosive strength training will make you slower if done in sufficient volume.

The “conversion” of fast to slow fibres has been well observed but not everyone thinks that it is significant in terms of performance.

[quote]peterm533 wrote:
Bg100,

I am still not sure that you are picking up on the point being made. It is not a case of preferentially targetting the fibres which are appropriate for endurance or power but that even low rep/explosive strength training will make you slower if done in sufficient volume.

The “conversion” of fast to slow fibres has been well observed but not everyone thinks that it is significant in terms of performance.[/quote]

Who doesn’t, and what are they calling significance? The .2 seconds that may win a race vs taking third doesn’t look significant on paper maybe, but it’s a gold vs bronze.

-Dan

You are quite right in saying that a 0.2 second difference would be entirely significant.

However the point is that in elite level sprinters it has been observed that despite their percentage of IIB fibres decreasing with intensive training their sprint times improved. The importance of fibre conversion has therefore been questionned.

If there is conversion and it is significant as the author of the article and others believe then careful manipulation of volume and deloading is essential. I do not know the answer I am afraid.

it’s not so much about fiber conversion, it’s about the CNS and body holding back to keep something in reserve, since it through training it expects to be used in a effecient fashion rather than putting it all out on demand

body becomes it’s function…

I’m pretty sure that IIB->IIA conversion is observed under any training conditions. IIB fibers only seem to be prominent in sendentary individuals.

[quote]dookie1481 wrote:
I’m pretty sure that IIB->IIA conversion is observed under any training conditions. IIB fibers only seem to be prominent in sendentary individuals.[/quote]

That is quite correct but I was just highlighting the fact that some think that the conversion is significant and has training implications and others do not.

While I believe that fiber conversion was the point that the author of the making, perhaps as Cool is suggesting the significance is the effect that volume has on the CNS. In his words, volume makes you efficient i.e less explosive.

As it appears that the neural impulse to the fiber is more important that the actual characteristics of the fiber itself in determining how it behaves perhaps there is something to this?

On the other hand the volume that Bulgarian lifters apparently undertake does not appear to adversely affect their performance levels and explosivity.

Maybe because they’re genetic freaks :slight_smile:

Like it has been said before you can’t always base things on what the freaks and elite do. Especially the drugged folks…

This particualar article peaks my interest. I’ve been looking at speed/ endurance dynamics in my own training for a few years and finding the right balance isn’t easy. Power output comes after a solid warmup and difficult to enhance. Any weight lifting carryover will all depend on the technique and mindset of each rider IMO. I’ve seen Australian riders in the Tour de France who are maniac sprint riders.

Interesting that caffeine in sodas and chocolate is used for their training. Many endurance athletes including myself use this ingredient for our own workouts effectively.
The article mentions “single leg squats”. Would they be lunges ? And yes, the low back could be the weak point due to low posture postion on the bike. Very taxing and demanding.

I’ll have to search more for other weight lifting workouts for cyclists.

I was wondering aswell about the Single leg squats. Surely they would be a static lunge and would a single leg DL and Pull be similar except for pulling the bar off the ground?

[quote]pauln78 wrote:
I was wondering aswell about the Single leg squats. Surely they would be a static lunge and would a single leg DL and Pull be similar except for pulling the bar off the ground?
[/quote]

Hi,
This is what I’ve found from Mike Robertson’s BSU exercise site. Justin Cecil is awesome!!
Single leg squats are basically standing on a tall box with one leg hanging as you lower yourself into squatting postion.

Other trainers tend to use " one legged squats" to be Bulgarian or split squats.
I’m planning to do the one legged squats now. Reguires tremendous agility,balance, and strength.