What is optimal strength and size for mtb?

[kurtis1984]

Hi all, I've done so some searching in this forum but I couldn't find quite what I was looking for.

My question is as it says in the thread title: What is an optimal size and strength for mtb, in particular downhills?

I ask this as someone who is naturally quite skinny, lifted and ate my way up from 63 to 82 kg but didn't find much of a performance gain in my riding. I had ab outlines at both weight points, so probably pretty similar body fat percentage, and definitely got stronger, but not really faster. What I did notice was that my cardio vascular performance was average, legs ran out of gas pretty quickly, I would get annoying lower back pumps (not an injury, just a pump) from longer xc rides etc etc. It would seem that in fact being pretty svelte and lean (what I was when I started) would be the best option.

However, I do see lots of posts re: strength programs for mtb in this forum. And I also note articles like this:

http://danjohn.net/2013/04/strength-standards-sleepless-in-seattle/

which obviously advocate strength training for peak performance. So what it everyone's experience? Was there a performance gain for dh when they got stronger? How much was it? Was there a point when pursuit of strength lead to unathletic size? What point was that for people?
Cheers,
Kurt

 

[Mywifesirrational]

As light as possible with the most strength / power possible, mass is considered a bad thing in cycling as it takes more energy to accelerate, deccelerate and change direction.

DH is an aerobic disipline, if you don't have a very high Vo2, aneorbic strength isn't going to mak much difference.

 

[driftking]

Power to weight. Light as possible with high strength and Power as MWI said.

Yes been heavier might need to be done if Someone is 55kg putting on some size is probably going to be beneficial, but this should be done not for the goal of size but as a byproduct of strength and power goals.
It seems average weight tends to the be popular with the guys we have seen win worldcups. Peaty, hill, gee, smith, gwin lots of these guys are probably average for their height, even troy put on some bulk which has helped his results. We cant go xc skinny because of the clear need to have strength and take that abuse over a entire week of practice and its very rare to be able to remain that skinny while developing the strength and power anyway, trainees will naturally gain size.

I would note though that even though the rider size is important it all comes down to the performance, riders like blinky, fearon troy in the past, fairclough and others tend to be underweight for their heights but they have still smashed races.
It would be naive to think dh does not need high fitness and strength but I think its naive to think that dh is not highly reliant on skill.

There is a balance between the two, If a rider rolls down the hill and never gets tired, fitness is not an issue its the skill. If they hit a section really fast but get fatigued before the end, fitness is an issue. The second example is the most common one and is known as been over skilled. Simply it means A rider has more skill than they can keep up with. They are skilled but the lack of fitness inhibits their ability to use it or use it for an entire run. Most time will be made up in corners and the technical sections, most of this is skill reliant, carrying speed is a big benefit of high skill, so many riders can get by on average fitness and high skill for a little while. (seen in many jnr riders on the worldcup). (By average fitness for these guys I mean average compared to a top elite).

 

[kurtis1984]

Interesting replies, thanks both.

MWI, how would you setup a training program for a downhiller? I imagine it would be a two pronged approach...

a) A routine with more of a strength (as opposed to a hypertrophy) focus. Something like powerlifting, where the emphasis is on CNS efficiency- small guys doing massive deadlifts for example?
AND
b) A routine that directly trains and improves VO2 max.

Part (b) is self explanatory. It's part (a) that I find hard... Downhill is not a 1RM exercise. It's what... 3-5 mins of a fairly full body workout. You seem to need more of a strength endurance, rather than pure strength focus. What kind of rep ranges would be optimal for this kind of sport?

DK, good points about skill and fitness being interdependent, especially with respect to the concept of "overskilled". On a related note, it is interesting to see that both Greg and Peaty seemed to have leaned up over the last couple of years. Light but strong seems to be the general trend.

 

[Mywifesirrational]

A routine that directly trains and improves VO2 max.

This would certainly be my main focus with any DH aspiring athlete, probably want a Vo2 at an absolute minimum around 60, 70+ would be better. This is going to take a lot of serious and boring road cycling and dedication.



But also some serious interval work is also needed, things like timed laps at the BMX track are very good and interesting training.

I was thinking about this on my commute home yesterday, you've gone from 63-82kg roughly a 25% increase in mass (I presume that was in the teens to 20's period, becuase thats a massive increase), lets say your fitness has stayed the same as measured by a Max Vo2 test, which by the sounds of it, it has, but with strength improving.

You've actually gotten significantly less fit!

VO2 max = maximum milliliters of oxygen consumed in 1 minute / body weight in kilograms, your weight has gone up by 25% and your Max Vo2 would have certainly dropped unless your been doing some serious aerobic training. You are now substantially less fit on a bike as there is more tissues in the body competing for what oxygen is avaliable. While this also does take into account the extra energy needed to move more mass, at a steady state road ride its a non issue, in a DH race with constant interval like sprints out of every flat or tight corner it becomes an issue.

This is why mass (lack of) is very important in areobic sports, which DH certianly is.

A routine with more of a strength (as opposed to a hypertrophy) focus. Something like powerlifting, where the emphasis is on CNS efficiency- small guys doing massive deadlifts for example?

Yup, this should be part 2 of a training regime, but the focus should be 75-80% actually on the bike working on bike specific V02 and sprints.

Always power based training methods as you highlighted, compound lifts, focusing on quality and form - and moving that bar as fast as possible (which isn't actually visually fast when it loaded).

It's part (a) that I find hard... Downhill is not a 1RM exercise. It's what... 3-5 mins of a fairly full body workout. You seem to need more of a strength endurance, rather than pure strength focus. What kind of rep ranges would be optimal for this kind of sport?

This is the bit that tends to stump a lot of people as the relationship between the three energy systems is complex and therefore quite hard to understand.

DH is not a anaerobic / strength sport, is a very solid aerobic sport with constant anaerobic intervals. Having a very high V02 allows a higher power output of energy before the aneorobic system kicks in, a very high Vo2 also allows a very rapid recovery of the anaerobic systems.

Consider that a stronger individual is using less effort at a SUBmaximal effort - if that is compared to a weaker individual doing the same work load - so in essence a higher RM does help endurance activity. But that strength must outweigh the extra mass carried.

Lastly consider that it's not a constant rep range for 3-5 minutes, there's going to be constant breaks inbetween the efforts - so every flat corner = 6-12 maximal pedal strokes to get the bike back up to speed, then a relative period of rest before the next interval.

I'd do two types of training, predominately heavy load power type training with moderate rep ranges 4-6, as this will greatly help strength but somewhat limit hypertrophy. But I would also do high volume low weight training or things like wall squats that create as much burn as possible, this increases an athletes tolerance to lactate, although this certainly is probably better achieved on the bike - I'm not entirely sure on that, I share an office with a AIS strength / power coach, he's often quite relaxed about actually coming to work, but I'll ask him what he thinks.

Sorry long answer.

 

[rsquared]

Few key ways to train:

- Strength & Conditioning work for power but also to decrease risk of injury. As mentioned earlier, focus most of your strength work around powerlifting style programming and rep ranges. Goal is to maximise your power to weight ratio. This style of training is also great for core strength though which is great for DH.
- Improve your lactate threshold. To do this you need to be training for the right duration at the right intensity to achieve the required physiology adaptations. This is pretty hard to do unless you have an indoor power trainer (computrainer) and road bike but it is extremely effective. It involves getting a power threshold test done and then training according to your power zones to target specific training outcomes. As I said, technical but very effective.
- Improve your V02 as MWI said. The long slow kms to achieve the improvements in lactate threshold will help build a solid base but V02 can also be improved by high intensity interval work as well.

Basically, get as strong (not big) as possible in the gym but do your muscular endurance and lactate threshold training out on the bike.

 

[kurtis1984]

MWI and rsquared, thanks for the input so far. No dramas about the long answers... It's a complicated issue, and you've both given me a lot to think about!

I will say that the 63-82 kg increase is a bit misleading.... I went from having a vegetarian gf who ate like a bird (thus I did) to trying to become some hulk monster, so eating with a bodybuilding style approach. In other words, artificially low weight to artificially high. You are right about the fitness, I was significantly less fit. I'm down to about 75kg now, which seems to be a pretty sweet spot. But, I keep seeing posts of Jared Graves, Gee, Caroline Buchanan dead lifting, squatting etc, and being the tinkerer that I am, I can't help but wonder.

Again, thanks for the info so far... Looking forward to some more posts.

 

[scblack]

Having spent the bulk of my teens, 20's and 30's playing Rugby Union up to a pretty high level - I find cyclists to be very small. That's being light hearted:behindsofa:. But muscle bulk does not really help in MTB at all. Possibly 4X, but a DH race is longer than a 1500m race, and look at how they are skin and bone. Road cycling is even worse - have you seen a Pro roadie with their shirt off - they look like they came out of Auschwitz.

I'm 171cm tall and weigh roughly 85kg, much more bulky than the usual MTB rider.

Also doctors weigh me now and say - gee you could lose a few kilos. Sure I could drop 2-3 nicely but be dropping muscle if I took much more off. To drop those 2-3 would require cutting alcohol intake and that ain't happening.....

 

[g-fish]

I've been thinking about this a lot over the past year. I've gone from struggling in D-grade road riding to at the pointy end of B-grade. My weight has increased a little from 78ish kgs to 85ish kgs, but I'm still a total rake at 197cms. I'd say most of that weight has gone straight to my legs.. and obviously a large increase in V02. Would love to quantify it, but that's not easy.

Lots of interval training and hill climbing on the road bike will increase your aerobic fitness much faster than you'll ever manage on a mtb - particularly a DH bike. A HRM is good for monitoring output, but a power meter is much better if you can justify the cost because it gives you an instant guide to your effort - where a HRM lags behind by 1-4 mins.

The question for me is where to go next. I'm still not riding on a formalised training regime - too lazy for that. But that would obviously net gains. Or do I work on core strength with the view of improving my mtbing? From this thread that might not net significant gains. Obviously skill can always be improved.. but that's less of a science.

 

[Dilstub]

interesting discussion, and definitely worth reading through.

I found personally, from just riding all the time and doing the odd body weight workout, to getting really into olympic lifting, my XC rides became harder, but my DH times got way better, I suddenly had lots more power to move the bike around and get aggressive.

 

[rsquared]

While it's hard given the media surrounding it, I really try not to focus on weight for both my own training but also my clients. I see the impact on weight as a side effect of correct training with the primary focus being performance improvement. If you focus on understanding where your weaknesses lie and then train specifically to improve them with the goal of always increasing performance, then your body weight isn't important and your body will naturally adapt to your training, whether that is in increasing weight through muscle growth or through burning fat/muscle mass reduction. Does this make sense?

3 questions:
- Am I unfit? Train your cardio base/lactate threshold & then your vo2.
- Am I weak? Do strength training with focus on maximal strength compound movements
- Am I a technically poor rider? Spend more time on the bike training your technical skills, cornering, technical descending, technical climbing, pedalling technique etc.

Which ever one of these increases your performance on the bike the most, is the right type of training for you. So once you understand your weaknesses, structured training to address them is your best approach. Don't just do some random weights thinking you will get stronger or pedal aimlessly on a roadie for an hour. Be specific with your training to get the best results asap.

 

[pharmaboy]

Rsquared, surely weight is critical if it involves fat percentage above 20% ( actually probably above 10%)?

Talking about general trail riding, but weight is an important consideration. A heavier rider is assisted by gravity going down hill, but going uphill has to work against gravity. Further, in Mtb, rolling resistance is often considered about a third of the effort - radically different from road riding on bitumen with skinny tyres .

Thing is, rolling resistance is a function of co-efficient of friction and weight - so it's not only going uphill, but also pedalling on the flat that extra weight harms. So there's 3 constituents of weight ( the other been acceleration ).

I do get the specificity though

 

[Mywifesirrational]

A heavier rider is assisted by gravity going down hill, but going uphill has to work against gravity.

My physics is a little 'iffy' at the moment, brain is used up for the day after a long lab session this morning, but..?

Rider weight wouldn't make any difference as the effect of gravity (9.81 M/S) is the same for both a lighter or heavier rider? but a heavier rider 'should' be able to plow through shit better due to higher inertia?

It take more energy to accelerate (as in pedaling) a heavier rider, which is going to occur after every corner - while also taking more energy to decelerate the heavier rider due to higher inertia - they have to break harder and earlier than their lighter competitors? edit: or is this offset by greater traction - higher ground reaction force?

Taking wind resistance into account - a larger rider would incur a greater resistance due to a larger surface area?

Going to be a few people on here with better physics than me, curious to see if my thoughts are correct.

From my expertise, it's all about the power to weight ratio, but determining that for a given individual is not necessarily going to be easy, as quite a few intrinsic factors will decide this.

 

[rsquared]

Rsquared, surely weight is critical if it involves fat percentage above 20% ( actually probably above 10%)?

Talking about general trail riding, but weight is an important consideration. A heavier rider is assisted by gravity going down hill, but going uphill has to work against gravity. Further, in Mtb, rolling resistance is often considered about a third of the effort - radically different from road riding on bitumen with skinny tyres .

Thing is, rolling resistance is a function of co-efficient of friction and weight - so it's not only going uphill, but also pedalling on the flat that extra weight harms. So there's 3 constituents of weight ( the other been acceleration ).

I do get the specificity though

Hey Pharmaboy, not saying weight isn't important, it's crucial when it comes down to power to weight and watts/kg etc. But increasing or decreasing weight shouldn't be the primary goal. If I way 70kg and I'm considered underweight, will that mean my performance will automatically improve if I get my weight to 80kg? Alternatively, if (using my own figures here as it's exactly what I'm training on myself at the moment) I weigh 83.3kg and have a Functional Threshold Power of 3.79 watts/kg and I want to get it to 4.0+, if I drop my weight to 75kg will that automatically mean I'll achieve it?

What I'm saying is train for specific performance improvements and let the weight look after itself. If you are getting faster or more powerful, what does weight matter?

In your example, if say someone has 20% body fat, I'm going to be pretty confident that their aerobic base could do with some work. You improve their aerobic base through specific training for that and watch the result on their body composition.

I think the easiest way to put it is that changes in weight can have either a positive or negative effect on performance, improvements in performance (talking long term performance here with legal, balanced, and healthy training practices/programs) are black and white, so focus on them.

 

[driftking]

I'm with rsquared, weight should be a side effect of proper training goals, as long as the end result is better performance.

I assumed that when rsquared said; "I see the impact on weight as a side effect of correct training with the primary focus being performance improvement." I took that as the weight will result in the right spot at the end goal anyway.

MWI

On the previous page you mentioned the important of V02 max and its relation to a later kick in of the anaerobic energy pathway. I notice or I missed at least you didn't allude to actual threshold specific training?

My understanding is that increasing the V02 max is done with sprints and all out exercises not long hours on the bike, but even an increase in this will only marginal increase your anaerobic threshold, to train this specifically you need to train longer hours at threshold output. The relationship here seems to be the same as strength and power they support each other but you need to training both to maximize the overall result.

 

[Mywifesirrational]

My understanding is that increasing the V02 max is done with sprints and all out exercises not long hours on the bike,

Vo2 max is all about long hours on the bike spent in the aerobic training zone, underpinning an increase in Vo2 is cellular respiration which requires more and larger mitochondria and the capillirisation to support this.

Once a high V02 has been achieved then the focus is on lactate / anaerobic threshhold threshold which is all about sprints, hill climbs and power. Most Olympians who are going to win gold aren't winning because of their Vo2Max is 0.1 higher than second place, but because their anaerobic threshold is higher.

So you are correct, but you must develop a significant base before you peak your performance. I haven't met a sub-elite athlete yet who shouldn't be aiming for a higher Vo2.

Strength and power are in a way the same thing, stronger muscles will output more power. but obviously once a good base of strength has occur it starts to vary from power training. Think Olympic weight lifter vs body builder (I pick on body builders heaps, especially students to deflate their invisible lats) but they are strong, i'll give them that.

 

[pharmaboy]

My physics is a little 'iffy' at the moment, brain is used up for the day after a long lab session this morning, but..?

Rider weight wouldn't make any difference as the effect of gravity (9.81 M/S) is the same for both a lighter or heavier rider? but a heavier rider 'should' be able to plow through shit better due to higher inertia?

It take more energy to accelerate (as in pedaling) a heavier rider, which is going to occur after every corner - while also taking more energy to decelerate the heavier rider due to higher inertia - they have to break harder and earlier than their lighter competitors? edit: or is this offset by greater traction - higher ground reaction force?

Taking wind resistance into account - a larger rider would incur a greater resistance due to a larger surface area?

Going to be a few people on here with better physics than me, curious to see if my thoughts are correct.

From my expertise, it's all about the power to weight ratio, but determining that for a given individual is not necessarily going to be easy, as quite a few intrinsic factors will decide this.

We do take wind resistance into account down here on earth, coz the simple physics says the feather falls at the same speed as the apple, but we know it doesn't - air. So the heavier rider is pushed less by wind and goes down the hill faster - pretty much we all would know this experience I group rides coasting down hills on road - the heavier guys catch and pass the skinny guys with ease, especially the steeper the hill ( higher speed, therefore more wind resistance )

To brake, a heavier rider has to use more force at the levers, but his grip ( ie distance to stop) is the same because grip is a function of weight times co-efficient of friction ; the light rider carries less energy and therefore uses less energy to stop, but they both stop in the same distance.

A larger rider doesn't get greater wind resistance because in cycling it's only the frontal area that counts , so he might be slightly wider, but his front to back weight helps him.

 

[driftking]

Vo2 max is all about long hours on the bike spent in the aerobic training zone, underpinning an increase in Vo2 is cellular respiration which requires more and larger mitochondria and the capillirisation to support this.

Once a high V02 has been achieved then the focus is on lactate / anaerobic threshhold threshold which is all about sprints, hill climbs and power. Most Olympians who are going to win gold aren't winning because of their Vo2Max is 0.1 higher than second place, but because their anaerobic threshold is higher.

So you are correct, but you must develop a significant base before you peak your performance. I haven't met a sub-elite athlete yet who shouldn't be aiming for a higher Vo2.

yeah I was just curious why you left out threshold, even if it wasn't something the op should look at immediately but down the line.

Strength and power are in a way the same thing, stronger muscles will output more power. but obviously once a good base of strength has occur it starts to vary from power training. Think Olympic weight lifter vs body builder (I pick on body builders heaps, especially students to deflate their invisible lats) but they are strong, i'll give them that.

My understanding of the link between strength and power is power is strength executed at speed. Evidently the link that more strength generally equates to more power via increasing force, but you can also increase power with speed. speed x force = power. Strength directly effects force.

yes?

To brake, a heavier rider has to use more force at the levers, but his grip ( ie distance to stop) is the same because grip is a function of weight times co-efficient of friction ; the light rider carries less energy and therefore uses less energy to stop, but they both stop in the same distance.

A larger rider doesn't get greater wind resistance because in cycling it's only the frontal area that counts , so he might be slightly wider, but his front to back weight helps him.

I have little understanding of this type of physics but can you amuse me for a little bit.

Doesn't this assume the brake has a modulation range to address both riders?
The brake applies the same force at each point in its modulation. If the heavier rider needs force X while the lighter riders need force Y, is there not the chance that force X is not actually obtainable with the brake therefore the heavier rider cannot brake as aggressively due to the limited force of the brake so to prevent lock up they are forced to use a bite point that applies less force thereby increasing stopping distance?

Is there also a point where the increased weight and momentum is not offset by higher friction, which means the heavier weight would still break traction earlier that desired?

 

[pharmaboy]

I have little understanding of this type of physics but can you amuse me for a little bit.

Doesn't this assume the brake has a modulation range to address both riders?
The brake applies the same force at each point in its modulation. If the heavier rider needs force X while the lighter riders need force Y, is there not the chance that force X is not actually obtainable with the brake therefore the heavier rider cannot brake as aggressively due to the limited force of the brake so to prevent lock up they are forced to use a bite point that applies less force thereby increasing stopping distance?

Is there also a point where the increased weight and momentum is not offset by higher friction, which means the heavier weight would still break traction earlier that desired?

The physics assume the brakes are able to perform all the way to lock up. So XTs would work for both riders , but avid elixirs would give the featherweight 50 kg rider an advantage .

Friction relates to the surface and the tyre rubber x gravity x weight. There will be a point where the rider isn't strong enough to squeeze the levers hard enough or that the brakes simply aren't up to the task.

All that extra power to get the heavier rider up to speed, to accelerate and overcome greater rolling resistance has to be dealt with by the brakes and the tyres to slow him down - he will certainly wear out brake pads and tyres faster than the runt.

 

[Mywifesirrational]

Evidently the link that more strength generally equates to more power via increasing force, but you can also increase power with speed. speed x force = power. Strength directly effects force.

yes?

yes, all athletes no mater what level amateur hack to elite benefit from power training as power is essentially the performance parameter of strength.

But... like all things not as simple that.

It's somewhat easier to maximise strength, particularly with untrained people who will develop significant strength fast. Where as if you already quite strong, the focus needs to be heavily towards pure power training - which you need to have the skills for from more regular strength training, in a cycling sense that could be in a gym or something like sprint training on the bike.

Then also take into account mass - I think we have determined that excess mass is a negative trait for a cyclist, it's a bit like weight classes in boxing, we want as much power as possible, but we are restricted to a given mass as you must make the weight class, that's when the programing and training gets complex and interesting.

So from my experience, most 'average' sub elite blokes, could lose a few kilo's from around the waist, put a few more kilo's of muscle on the legs and also do some power specific training both on and off the bike to maximise their strength into performance.