Leg Muscle Definition

Bhima

Is there any correlation between the amount of definition in your leg muscles and the amount of leg muscle you actually have?

I got overtaken (torn to shreds :shock: ) by a cyclist the other day with legs which looked really really tiny (almost skinny) but quite defined. I looked down at my legs and they were big, but the muscle wasn't as defined as his were.

If you look at some of the pro cyclists on TV, some of the guys doing all the "work" at the front tend to have legs which look like mine (but shaved ), the climbers tend to have incredible calf muscles and some of the sprinters seem to be built like gods in the quads!

I know you use different muscle fibres for different styles of cycling - does this come into play somehow?







On a side note - anyone know who this is? :shock:

softlad

Bhima wrote:

Is there any correlation between the amount of definition in your leg muscles and the amount of leg muscle you actually have?

there is no correlation between leg muscle definition and someone's ability to ride a bicycle quickly. Leg muscle develops differently depending on the individual - you only have to sit in a road race bunch to see that. The real key to performance is a well-developed CV system...

Infamous

Low bodyfat = defined

So when you said he was skinny, that's why he had defined legs.

They are chris hoy's legs I think, and being a sprinter, he does a lot of weights and strength training (as well as cycling). Hence his massive quads.

Bhima

Yes, I always thought it was a poor way of comparing performance between cyclists...

Judging by the size of my legs, maybe I should lose some body fat then! :!: Or maybe I just don't have enough muscle for it to be "defined"...? hmmm... :?

shockedsoshocked

Bhima wrote:

Yes, I always thought it was a poor way of comparing performance between cyclists...

Judging by the size of my legs, maybe I should lose some body fat then! :!: Or maybe I just don't have enough muscle for it to be "defined"...? hmmm... :?

Stop eating all that cheese

But honestly, don't get overly bothered about muscle definition. It takes a long time and a whole lot of cycling.

thiscocks

yes chris hoy Id guess. A track sprinters legs are generally bigger though as they need lots of power over short periods. A gt rider like say Carlos Sastre are generally pretty skinny all over including their legs. Mainly its just genetics though. Some great allround riders have visibly muscley legs and other great riders have skinny looking legs...

thiscocks

Look at the greatest rider ever, he was always pretty skinny:

shockedsoshocked

thiscocks wrote:

Some great allround riders have visibly muscley legs and other great riders have skinny looking legs...

And some riders are probably on steroids

alp777

On a side note - anyone know who this is? :shock:

Somebody who uses steroids maybe?

roger_merriman

those legs are probably belonging to sir hoy.

Blonde

Aw, you missed the most important bit off that photo of The Scottish Cyclist! Now if you'd left the *ahem* package bit on, I'd have been able to identity him a lot more easily... :oops:

Must admit I do keep scrolling back up for another look, despite this oversight... (drool, drool)

Admit it, you're all having a good look/drool now aren't you?

Blonde

thiscocks wrote:

Look at the greatest rider ever, he was always pretty skinny:

I don't think he was scrawny compared to some of todays peleton though - training, equipment/gearing and nutrition have changed a lot since then so of course his legs wouldn't look the same as on today's pro rider. Watching old footage, people did look different then to today anyway though (ordinary people - not just cyclists). He also excelled at classics as well as stage races, so he had a different physique to someone who would concentrate only on one type of race. I've seen some images of Mercx where he looks positively well fed. He looked fit (and was very good looking) but never looked emaciated or scrawny. Still not as lovely to look at as Sir Hoy though....

shockedsoshocked

thiscocks wrote:

Look at the greatest rider ever, he was always pretty skinny:

Then again look at Hinault. His legs were monstrous.

markos1963

thiscocks wrote:

Look at the greatest rider ever, he was always pretty skinny:

Only one word describes this man in my eyes:

HERO

Mettan

Similarly:

Andy Schleck - one of best riders on the planet - just won LBL, (and with Rebellin now gone), Fleche Wallone aswell.

http://www.letour.fr/PHOTOS/LBL/2009/100/fr/Pod_3.jpg

zammmmo

I've always thought a cyclist's legs are a pretty good indication of how good they are - mainly due to muscle definition. There is a correlation in my view. Pros just look different. I think those pics of Schleck and Merckx are just bad ones - Schlecks left leg looks like a twiglet and not ripped at all, and Merckx's thighs don't look ripped either...seem to recall Merckx was a tad overweight to start with but got away with it because of his exceptional abilities (although I have no idea at what stage in his career that was taken and might be wrong on that). Bet if you got up close and saw them riding though it would be like a biology lession.

I've always had rubbish legs - very little definition. :evil: :roll:

Mettan

Yes, one of the legs did look a bit slim in that photo - couple of others:

http://images23.fotki.com/v878/photos/1 ... 780-vi.jpg

http://www.bike-zone.com/photos/2009/in ... G_6599.jpg

http://images23.fotki.com/v869/photos/1 ... 005-vi.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1276/571 ... f5.jpg?v=0

Must have an engine the size of Jupiter

Mettan

Double post.

dennisn

If you look at the difference between(in track and field) sprinters and the marathon men you will notice relatively huge muscles on the 100 meter guys and
longer leaner muscles on the distance boys. Same thing with cycling(pretty much).
Short, high intensity exercise produces much more muscle mass than long drawn out
workouts. One of the biggest bodybuilders around, Dorian Yates, who won the Olympia
crown 6 times, was a big proponent of what is called Heavy Duty training. Workouts are very short in length and time but extremely brutal, with lots and lots of rest for muscle growth to occur in. So if you want monster legs get your shoulders under a barbell,
keep your workouts short, race track, and you too can be like Dorian or Chris Hoy. Well, at least your legs can LOOK that way. It also helps to have short legs, as short muscles
tend to grow bigger than their longer counterparts. Hit the squat racks boys.

Dennis Noward

Bhima

Isn't a bigger muscle mass able to clear lactic acid more effectively too? So, for example, having a few more grams of muscle on Wednesday could help you to go further and faster than you did on Monday... (slightly)?

So are you saying Chris Hoy would be useless at long distance stuff? Or is it possble to have massive muscles and train for long distances too? Surely the lactic acid benefits mentioned above could help you go a little bit further....

shockedsoshocked

zammmmo wrote:

I've always thought a cyclist's legs are a pretty good indication of how good they are - mainly due to muscle definition.

A good example would be Paul Curran. Certainly not the biggest or most defined legs, but he could ride a bike!

Chris Hoy wouldn't be useless at long distance stuff, he still does some training on the road, but I doubt he'd be the greatest on the hills.

As for bigger muscles, it doesn't matter so much about the size, the most important factor is the "engine" and your power to weight ratio (and capillary density and lactate threshold, if you're talking about clearing lactate).

Infamous

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Chris Hoy wouldn't be useless at long distance stuff, he still does some training on the road, but I doubt he'd be the greatest on the hills.

maybe he wouldn't be great on long hills, but i'd have thought his power to weight ratio on short climbs would be off the scale.

dennisn

Bhima wrote:

Isn't a bigger muscle mass able to clear lactic acid more effectively too? So, for example, having a few more grams of muscle on Wednesday could help you to go further and faster than you did on Monday... (slightly)?

So are you saying Chris Hoy would be useless at long distance stuff? Or is it possble to have massive muscles and train for long distances too? Surely the lactic acid benefits mentioned above could help you go a little bit further....

Can't say about your "lactic acid" question.
I do know that "huge" muscles are not a trait of people who train long distances. The body
generally adapts to the type of training you do and apparently the body tells itself just
how big and or lean your muscles will be. Some people with short legs can ride long distances on a regular basis and still carry a goodly amount of mass but this is the exception rather than the rule. Bodybuilders as a rule do very little, if any, long distance running, cycling, and the like. It will delete muscle mass. Ride lots of miles and you legs will simply get smaller. Do squats, track work, and Arnold like thighs can be yours.

Dennis Noward

thiscocks

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

thiscocks wrote:

Look at the greatest rider ever, he was always pretty skinny:

Then again look at Hinault. His legs were monstrous.

Yes I would say that is probably because he was pretty short compared to Merckx. Generally the taller lankier riders like Schleck, Lloyd will have thinner legs, while the shorter riders will generally have chunkier muscles as they need to make up for having shorter muscles...
Saying that Satre is short AND skinny!

a_n_t

Mettan wrote:

Similarly:

Andy Schleck - one of best riders on the planet

they're just like mine! 'cept I dont think i'll be winning a classic anytime soon [or even a club 10 for that matter!]

fnegroni

Bhima wrote:

Or is it possble to have massive muscles and train for long distances too? Surely the lactic acid benefits mentioned above could help you go a little bit further....

Sadly it is basic strength training principles: one who trains for strength (i.e. torque = mass) does not train for endurance in doing so.
Being capable of recruiting more fibers per unit of time does not give the ability to recruit same muscle fibers for longer.

One or the other has to be compromised at any one time.

I am not arguing it is not possible for a particularly gifted individual to perform well above his peers in both. I am just relating the fact that comparing that invidividual's actual performance to his potential performance in strength and endurance, one has to be compromised in favor of the other.

Fotunately for us men, most women find 'well rounded' athletes more appealing, on average. This means a good balance between strength, endurance, suppleness, and other attributes that one would descibe as 'healthy'.

Mother nature is not stupid.

Anonymous

I would not say my legs are really thin, quite big on the upper leg... ish, but I've had people whoop my ass easy up hills and on the flat that are allot thinner than me.

a_n_t

do we need to go there?







and he'd whoop anyones arse on here!

shockedsoshocked

a_n_t wrote:

do we need to go there?







and he'd whoop anyones ars* on here!

Unless you count a team mate of mine who, realising Wiggins was not very happy with a 40 year old bloke being sat on his wheel, decided to have a "chat" with a friend of his in the team car while Wiggins attacked up a climb. Apparently the look on his face was priceless when he looked around and saw him still sat on his wheel looking quite fresh!

To quote him at the time,"You need more than the legs to drop me, son".

shakey88

a_n_t wrote:

do we need to go there?







and he'd whoop anyones ars* on here!

Poor dude begging by the side of the road
Someone get him a maccy d

Bhima

:shock: :shock: :shock: Is that Wiggins photo real? :shock: :shock: :shock:

Surely there's got to be some photoshop action there!

Why are his legs so brown? :?