Occasionally I’ll read or hear about athletes that have incorporated a lot of non-specific “cross training” in their weekly training, which for them has yielded greater performance and fitness improvements than when working at their specific sport itself. For cyclists, vigorous snowshoeing in knee deep powder in hilly terrain may be one example of cross training that can yield faster or higher gains in cycling performance than cycling itself. According to general perceptions of specificity, this shouldn’t be possible. Antagonists to cross training adamantly tout that specificity is key and that “You get good at exactly what you work at.” This perspective implies that by specifically working at the target skill (ie. race-pace cycling intensity at race distances) you’ll gain the most optimum improvements in that skill itself. I don’t think that many people would argue this point—at least not at its core.
Here’s the bottom line question then: How much “cross training” versus “specificity training” should be included in training to achieve the highest and most efficient gains in cycling? If choosing specificity, should you avoid all lower-intensity riding because it’s not specific enough? Most riders know that without some variation in the intensity of target ‘peak’ riding intensity, you’ll break down fast and become badly overtrained. On the other hand, if cross training may bring balance or the ability to avoid injury, but no alleged cycling specific gains, then why does empirical evidence support the notion that cross training can bolster performance in cycling?
I am a big fan of certain types of cross training—even at the expense of displacing cycling specific workouts. In a perfectly ideal situation where motivation and time were always abundant and boredom and burnout (and the potential for overuse or other injuries) didn’t exist, I think pure specificity would be the best option year round. However, for most people who aren’t able to maintain that level of focus or perfect discipline, I think cross training will facilitate the faster achievement of high-end fitness for cycling. Furthermore, I believe most people begin to stagnate or decline in their motivation and intensity when they perform a single act without change or regular distractions like cross training.
Here are a few reasons (both psychological and physiologic) why I think people should include some cross training at very high intensities to increase their ability at cycling:
1. Cross training offers a mental break from the monotony of spinning and cycling, and the psychology of variation simply makes hard training more enjoyable (so you’re more likely to do it) that can lead to higher fitness gains.
2. The holistic approach to “balance” and working complementary muscles or performing impactive weight-bearing exercises (for injury prevention or higher overall fitness diversity) makes cross training appealing, so people gain fitness faster (again this is mostly psychological).
3. Some types of cross training allow for a greater utilization of more muscles that increases the overall physiologic demand for oxygen, thereby forcing the body to become more efficient at oxygen utilization than with cycling alone.
4. Some cross training activities are more efficient for lipid metabolism, which has an indirect downstream benefit to cycling or other endurance exercises that favor metabolic efficiency.
5. Maybe the muscle stabilizing effects of some cross training exercises physically assist cycling specific muscles or help to distribute the work load amongst more muscles when riding. (Although I’d bet that if a person truly worked with absolute specificity in their intensity at cycling, this wouldn’t be a factor).
My solution to the question is really quite simple. I cross train regularly at high intensities to gain the psychological benefits of avoiding boredom and burnout, while keeping some overall balance of muscular strength, good bone density, coordination, enjoyment of other activities etc.. Then when I ride, I try to truly be as specific as possible with my intensity and duration. Of course I’ll include “base” training sessions to keep decent biomechanical and metabolic efficiency and to support tougher efforts later on. But many of my rides are at or near race-pace so I can gain the benefits of specificity. Then when my target events approach, I’ll focus much more on the specificity portion of my training and let the psychological benefits of cross training slide. After all, a lot of suffering well (and a lot) on the bike really boils down to learning to ignore the weak parts of your psychology and just pushing yourself to the limit—as specifically as possible.
Always train hard!
J-Naut
