Props to all whom have commented on the squats, I was sure someone would have said "don't go to parallel" or other rubbish.
@Illuminate, any research you are immediately aware of regarding a focus on the concentric phase and how this relates to the application of power? Like starting the squat from a low rack position?
I have discussed this with a few people as to the potential benefits in terms of it application to cycling especially given the lack of eccentric in a normal pedalling, especially on something like a standing start. Most think that it would be good as an assistance or programmed into a more "power" phase. Thoughts?
You're basically talking about squatting like a deadlift (the "dead" part literally referrring to starting from a point of 0 momentum). I've done this for bench press as a strength building routine for 6-8 weeks HEAVY with no other chest exercises. I definitely saw an improvement in my peak strength in my chest... but I did it more just to see the benefit - I don't really see a purpose in life for a 300+ bench press unless you're a football lineman.
Yes, I realize this contribution is of NO use or relevance to cycling
Being a long time gym rat and a newbie to cycling - I'd imagine the method you're inquiring about could
aid sprinting and possibly climbing efforts - though how much help to the latter would depend on your lactic threshold.
Changing gears a bit just to speak on the general topic of the thread; lifting weights is my first addiction/hobby and it's been a constant through several other physical hobbies. As I get more and more into cycling I've accepted that I'll lose a bit of strength in the gym and that the way I like to lift will likely be more of a hinderance than an aid to my cycling efforts. But so be it. These are two things I love to do so they'll just have to learn to get along... and hopefully not kill me
Overall I'm pretty pleased reading through this thread. There are many varying opinions, some I agree and disagree with, but most are offering pretty good support for their arguments. Good on ya