Weight lifting
OK I'm new, but I have read all the arguments by Coach Rich and Patrick about weight lifting. However 1) I do believe it helps me adn I like to do it, 2)with my job (airline pilot) I have plenty of time to do it without burning any SAU's. 3) Despite living by Madison and riding hills all the time my weakness is still hills 4) I'm 48 and I have read how weights are important for "masters" 5) I have had shoulder problems in the past and this helps strengthen that area.
So my question is there anyway to incorporate lifting weights specifically leg exercises during the OS advanced plan? Upper body shouldn't be a problem but It seems dificult to do leg exercises when everyday is a tough workout and you need to rest on the off days.
thanks
Steve
Comments
1. During OS, I usually lift 3-4x per week only AFTER I get the OS workout done.
2. I do NOT do legs anymore. I feel like I need to save my legs for the OS. It is intense and 2 days out from "leg day" my muscles are still beat. IMO, not worth it. Have not had 1 injury since I started with EN so the lack of weight training, for me, has not affected me. BTW, I am 41.
3. When I am in race prep. I basically cut the weights out. I need all of my juice for the training.
I believe RnP have basically said that they are Tr-Coaches. They are here to make you a better triathlete. Weight training, if you like it, is your call and something for you to figure out where it fits in. I believe the thought is that it won't help you get faster. Riding a bike faster will make you faster NOT doing leg presses.
My 2 cents and (i hope) an accurate take on our coaches philo.
Peace
JC
Steve--
I'm not sure of their exact words, but RnP recommend strength training for us middle aged folks. Personally, I after two years out of the weight room, I had to get back into a strength training/core routine. I'm 53, and was definitely feeling the fall out from NOT doing it. I'm not quite sure how I will manage it deep into the OS, and in-season, but I'll figure that out later.
For now, I'm doing a combo of P90X, gym work, and core/Pilates. I'm in my 4th week and already feeling it kicking it--for the better.
FWIW, for lower body I'm doing either the P90X DVD (dynamic movements and plyometrics), or I go to the gym. My last tri coach recommended this gym regime to build lower body strength, and I find it works well, and enjoying the mix with the P90X:
Walking lunges with weights
Step ups with weights
Leg press
Hamstring curl--single legged, or straight legged dead lift
Wall squats
Calf raises
We have a weekly strength thread in the woman's forum, but you're more than welcome to check in there to see what people are doing. There are a bunch of us back at it. You are not alone.
Hey, thanks for figuring out the plan for me!
I think not doing legs for two years did impact my overall strength for running and riding--getting older has it's fallout.
I figure it can't hurt to work on strength in my doldrums until Jan. But you're right, leg weights will be the first to go. Have to stay honest about core--I tend to drop that too. Not a good idea.
In fact, now that I think about it...Rich himself did P90X last year. Then again, he wasn't training for much, if I recall. Maybe he'll check in and tell us how he managed it all...
Steve, from all the literature out there and posts to whatever forums there are, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on this other than maintaining strength as you age (40+yrs or so). I don't think there have been any significant findings on how it makes you faster as a triathlete. Swimming a lot, biking a lot, and running a lot are what make you faster. Maintenance lifting to stay injury free as you age I think is well accepted thru lots of reps at lower weights, but banging out hard heavy sets will not improve your speed in any discipline. And furthermore, it will add unwanted weight that will slow you down on the bike and the run for our distances. Remember, the body react extremely specific to training, and if you are not doing the 3 disciplines specifically, you will not be getting any more benefits from lifting in that regard. Squats, leg extensions, leg presses, etc... will not make you better on hills or faster for a HIM or IM in the runs. That speed and endurance comes from doing the specific bike and run work. There has been some literature that may support plyometrics to add in running, but not much else for anything else. I totally agree with moderation, and agree with maintaining strength as you get older, but I don't think you can expect it to transfer over to you SBR performances. Good luck man!
Dan
All good thoughts from everyone else. Yes, I did some P90X stuff earlier this year, largely because I jump up on a pullup bar, a USMC staple, and could only do an embarrassingly low number of pullups. So I wanted get my strength mojo back for personal reasons, not tri-performance reasons. I:
EN Weightraining Bottomline:
Just to piggy back on the lifting decision. Its all about what you want to do with your time, just note the strength is not your limiting factor when its comes to the force needed to push pedals in an aerobic environment.
Examples below: Unless you want to slap on a skinsuit and turn into an anerobic sprinting machine you can skip the squat rack
Power = Avg force (N.m) x crank length (m) x 2 x PI x cadence (rpm) /
60 (secs/min)
force = mass (kg) x gravity (9.8 m.s^-2)
Average Force (two legs) for 1 crank revolution ~= peak force per leg
(typically a bit less but let's say it's the same for convenience).
So, by way of examples:
300W @ 90rpm, the avg force (two legs) and peak force per leg ~= 19kg
400W @ 100 rpm ~= 23kg
1000W @ 100rpm ~= 57kg
1700W @ 130rpm ~= 75kg
2000W @ 50rpm ~= 229kg
Even my chicken legs can squat 57kg (I think
) needed to apply the force of 1000 watts to the cranks
Hayes,
Awesome example! Can you break down that math for 275-125w, in 25wk increments, as that's what most mortal peeps see on the dial? I think you may have finally described just how little force is required to pedal a bike = no need to become stronger. Me, I just picture a Schleck or Rasmussen in my head (shudder) and tell myself it's obviously not about muscle mass.
F=MA, as Hayes says
Energy = Force x distance (Joules or watt-seconds)
Power = Energy/time = Force x velocity.
In English units, pounds are a force (weight), but in metric units, kg are a mass, not a force. The unit of force in metric is a Newton. (Trivia: the English unit of mass is a slug)
So, to get Force from watts, you need to know the angular velocity (~cadence) on the pedals and the crank length. (Longer lever arm means lower force but more distance...right!)
The place that you actually already can see this is on one of those quadrant analysis plots in WKO or PF/PV plots in Golden Cheetah.
The effective force is the force 90 degrees to your crank arm, and without a computrainer, the best most of us can get is the average effective force, like from quadrant analysis, which assumes the force is equally distributed all the way around the rotation. That's obviously wrong since most of us have a "dead spot", but you can't be off by more than a factor of about 2 because of that.
So, let's make the average assumption and then allow for up to a factor of 2:
Ave Force = power x 60 / ( 2p x crank length x cadence in rpm)
Assume 200 W, 90 RPM, and 172.5 mm cranks: Resulting force is 123 Newtons
Now we get back to Hayes's numbers by "converting" Newtons to pounds:
123 N (force) / 9.8 m^-2 (gravity) = 12.55 kg. This is the mass required to rest on the pedal at the "3 o'clock" position to generate 200 W in an ideal universe (on earth). You need 6 more times mass on the moon. :-)
12.55 kg corresponds to 27.6 lbs of force on earth. To "convert" from N to lbs, the factor is 0.224.
Everything is linear from there:
123 N or 12.55 kg for 200 W and 90 rpm (27.6 lbs)
246 N or 25.1 kg for 400 W and 90 rpm (55.2 lbs)
61.5 N or 12.27 kg for 200 W and 180 rpm (ok, no one cycles as 180 rpm, but you get the idea)
On a recent highly variable ride I did with some 3 minute intervals, the average wattage was 163, the NP was 210, the maximum 3 minute watts was 306, and the maximum watts for 1 sec was 421. On that ride, I did my "hard" sections in the neighborhood of 90 rpm and 140-200 N. 200 N = 45 lbs. My maximum recorded force point was about 380 N, or 85 lbs.
So, even if you allow that my power is instantaneously zero at the 12 and 6 oclock positions and hits a sinusoidal maximum at the 3 and 9 oclock positions of double the average force, the maximum force I ever pushed with my legs was about 170 lbs.
For the record, I weigh 150 lbs and my legs push that force up the stairs just fine. In fact, they have to push more than 150 lbs or I wouldn't go up. In other words, if you can climb stairs, you have absolute leg strength required....
William
I will just add that muscle loss is real after age 40, to the tune of ~1% a year. That's 10% loss of muscle mass in a decade between 40 and 50--that can't be good. It's hard to have this discussion with folks in their 30s or even early 40s. You guys/gals can easily go for years without strength training with no ill effects. Yet seemingly overnight something shifts.
I totally agree that it's impossible to hit the weight room and still crank out the OS or in-season heavy work. But for older folks, does it not seem sensible to have a "season" to work on strength and keeping what dwindling muscle we have? All I can say, is that I see a difference in my body after two years out of the weight room--and it's not a good thing, and it's not about the beach body. You can't be much fitter than I am for a woman of 53, yet I see muscle disappearing. It's a whole new world when you get older, and someday we'll welcome y'all to it.
This is a conumdrum for me to figure out b/c I totally agree that working on SBR is where the money is. Yet, I feel strength training has a place in my life again, and I'm just trying to figure out how to do it, and where to put it. 
I don't disagree - I'm 46 and aware of this issue too. I feel a little better with a bit of resistance training....even stuff as simple as a bit of core work and some pushups. It will be interesting to see how thinking evolves on the age-related issue of weight training.
William
Lisbeth Kenyon was the 40-44 defending champ at Kona this year, and went on to wint he 45-49 age group srushing that record by 25' AND breaking the 40-44 y/o record by 2'! IOW, no woman over the age of 40 has ever done Kona faster. (How cool is that?) She references working on functional strength and flexibility on the build to Kona. As an aging athlete, she's also all about hard intensity rather than long and moderate. Here's the report.
So, what's your guys opinions on shorter crank arms trending vs longer? I realize that the longer lever arm gives more torque but opine the aeroposition my limiting factor is closing my hip angle. The shorter cranks allow for a more open hip angle but also more effort? John Cobb wrote an article within the past two years about watts actually going up with shorter cranks vs longer. Didn't make sense to me.
Opnions?
Vince
The reason for this is that the "gearing" effect of crank arm length is very small. The difference between 175 mm and 170 mm is only about 3%. That's less than the change between any two cogs on your rear cassette. (just check by percentage change of the number of teeth) You will make all your gears just a smidge "easier" or "harder" by changing the crank length, but only a smidge.
.
The reason for this is that the "gearing" effect of crank arm length is very small. The difference between 175 mm and 170 mm is only about 3%. That's less than the change between any two cogs on your rear cassette. (just check by percentage change of the number of teeth) You will make all your gears just a smidge "easier" or "harder" by changing the crank length, but only a smidge.
.
@WJ, I'm seriously considering going to 165mm cranks on my TT bike, for comfort and hip angle reasons, moving from 172.5. Can you explain what effect, if any, this has on watts at the crank, from a physics perspective?
Thanks, Professor!
Gilligan....
Forgetting the hip angle/physiology part, it's identical to changing your gears. (We could put this in terms of torque, but it's not necessary. But you know a torque wrench measures how much "angular force" you're putting on a bolt, and the longer the wrench the less "force" you have to apply to get the same torque.)
When you change from 172.5 to 165 mm crank, your gears will all get "harder" by 4.5%, i.e., the ratio of the two lengths is 1.045. You can get the gearing ratio changes on your rear cassette by just counting teeth, so 18 vs 17 (for example) is a change of 5.9%. In other words, by making a very large change in crank length (like you're talking about), you will make all your gears feel harder, but it will still be a little smaller effect than if you just were forced to "gear up" one cog all the time. It would be one of those things where if you were debating about the 12/25 and 12/27 based on the 172.5 mm crank, if you shortened your crank to 165, you'd definitely want the 12/27.
If you put it in terms of changing your front gears instead of your rear cassette, the proposed change would be like taking your 50/34 and turning into a 52.3/35.5. If you don't want your gearing to change at all, you could simultaneously change your crank length from 172.5 to 165 and change your 50/34 to 48/33 and you'd be really close. (I don't know if you can really get those rings, but you get the idea.)
The effect of the shorter crank on how the muscles "feel" about doing the same amount of total work in a smaller circle is a bit out of my league.
I believe that the hips are the gateway to power. I think that's an Isley Brothers song. I can't explain why (paging Dr. Boyle) but accessing the glutes and hams and getting stronger (read: more flexible) in the region helps everything else. I'm doing all my indoor trainer work in aero this year so as to work the position, getting watts from a higher cadence and steady pacing, versus sitting up and mashing as I am want to do.
I love lifting but stay away now as the mass comes on quickly and I can't carry the guns on the climbs.
@WJ, awesome explanation. See...I learned something today!
Wanna do a wiki post for us? Like, The Physics of Crank Length. I know I would have tossed on the shorter cranks and not thought about or known to think about the gearing.
More importantly, I've never seen power expressed in terms of force applied to the pedals. I think it really, really highlights how more watts isn't about more strength.
As a coach, I've always just said "If I told you to put weight on the leg press that you could lift 90x/min for 5hrs...how much weight do you think you'd put on the bar? 90rpm for 5hrs is, by definition, a VERY light weight = it's not about raw, weight room strength. But it's awesome to put an actual number to that light weight.
@Chris Do you feel like the light squats you describe help you in this exact issue we're talking about, i.e., having the ability to stay with the longer ("normal") cranks? I know the answer is just anecdotal, but it kind of feels like that's what you'd be addressing with the deep light squats.
No, though Matt, Hayes, or Vince seem to be the ones also paying attention this issue and might have something.
You could, I assume, build a MMP chart for weight lifting, too. On the left would be your 1-rep max, and on the right would be your ~30,000-rep max. (6 hours x 60 min/hour x 90 rpm = 32.400). Plotted on a log scale, like the MMP chart is, it would soon be clear that there's not a huge amount to be gained by pushing your 1-5 rep maxes.
Very powerful stuff and a real eye opener. I was having a hard time answering why I don't lift weights. My answer was always there are no studies that say it helps in an aerobic environment. But the response was aways, Are there studies that show it doesn't help....face meet palm which lead to me thinking about how many times you turn the cranks in an hour. If my squat is 200 lbs max, what is my squat if I had to do 30,000 times (apx everyday ironman time)
Spent way way too many hours researching this on ST, roadforums, and wattage group basically following Coggan, Howe, and Simmons around trying to get my head around the force I needed to apply to the pedals. Way to much time spent wading through junior high lovers spats between Frank and Coggan.
to finally find a few nuggets of useful information.
Should have started with Jenks
would have saved me a Saturday afternoon 
Hey everyone! Linda, I know Todd and Lisbeth as I have had the bike fit deal done by Todd a couple of times and I used to train with the coach that is working with Lisbeth. I know those functional strength training exercises well, I did them religiously and worked with said coach on them privately.
Please take into context that I am an average age grouper with only 1 IM/bunch of HIM's and 1 marathon under my belt. My history is nutrition, weightlifter dude. VERY different from Lisbeth. She is awesome, incredible and I am in awe...nuff said. By the way, Todd is the bike bike fitter around but that is a different story.
My experience with that FST routine was not great. It was recommended to do them before/after runs or bikes and it placed a lot of extra stress on my knees. In fact, I developed a bad case of ITBS during that training which sidelined me for a full season.
When I left that coach, I went to EN and dropped the FST. I just did the workouts, stretched, rolled, repeat....To this date, I have not had any issues with ITBS or any other injury. For me, I really feel like those exercises were stressful on my legs and really compromised my ability to do the workouts.
Hard for me to write this because I like the former coach. I am only reporting my personal experience.
JC
Hi all,
I can be another data point for you. I grew up lifting weights. Did several triathlons of various distances over the past years. Did my first IM last year under EN and had a great experience.
Have not lifted any weights the last two years. I am 43. I have followed the plans strictly. Sunday I set yet another HIM PR on a tough course here in Austin TX. Getting older and faster while not lifting weights seems to be working for me.....
Listen to the coaches......
SS
As for squats, I am interested in range of motion and flexibility, viewing flexibility as strength. I use the exercise to stretch and fire the glutes and hams especially. It's almost a weighted stretch except that I contract the muscles on the way up. I also do very very light dead lifts to engage, again, the backside of the legs. In both exercises I focus on form and on the muscles I want to engage. To answer your question finally, I believe greater hip flexibility "accesses" the leg strength, for lack of a better way to describe it. And I've come to believe this observing some very strong female cyclists and golfers. No massive quads, no bulk, and yet by each sport's definition, they're very strong. What they all have in common is flexibility.
I haven't thought about changing crank arm length as it still seems to be a very small factor in the overall get faster scheme of things. I did have 172.5s for a while and couldn't tell the difference between those and 175s. I guess 165' versus 175s would be noticeable.
@Chris: I can see how moving thru a great range of motion can give you more potential energy, but what I think makes them stronger is that they have pretty much mastered their muscle sequences or the order in which their muscles fire so that they are producing the most power possible for their body. I believe that this is a major difference between pros and mortals, that we may all possess potential, but their nervous system is much more efficient than ours. For example, if you lift weights for the first time, you are terrible, but after you figure out how to recruit the proper muscles in the proper order, you become much stronger in a shorter amount of time proportionately compared to those who lift a lot, and you really have gained much muscle mass. Recruitment in the right order is the key to that.
JC, thanks for that inside look. I know exactly what you mean. It is a fine line, isn't it? What I have also observed through the years is that the ultra-mortals among us--RnP, mancona, Shaughn, Lis, et al--can often handle all that extra load, AND the slow down/aging/ creaking issues come a bit later for them. (I picked the wrong parents.
) I guess my caveat is that I'm in no-man's-training-land right now--after IM and not starting OS until Jan. Can't believe working on strength will hurt me now, and might shore up some weak areas, given that I've been off FST for two years. No way, no how would I ever consider doing the FST stuff in the heat of the OS or in-season--I could not do it, and would likely get injured as you did. This thread has become fascinating
I've consider shorter cranks for the same reason, hip angle, higher hips to elbow ratio, etc. Cobb wrote an article about all his athletes going shorter but gaining watts. It was in Tri mag.
I tried Rotor rings to reduce effort over the top of the pedal stroke to ease my hip angle issues on the left side. I don't have a round ring data point to compare to. If you want to try some compact rotor rings let me know.
Vince