Leg Muscle Definition
Comments
-
"A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
willhub wrote: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.
Sounds like me. I have shorter legs and a fair share of muscle and I get my *ss whipped
pretty much everywhere. Except downhill, where my excess fat does wonders for my speed.
Dennis Noward0 -
fnegroni wrote: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.
What if you train for long distances at the highest intensity you could possibly do for the duration? Would you even things out?
This makes me wonder - there must be a perfect ratio of strength training to endurance training for every particular cycling dicipline. For example - if you compared the strength:endurance ratio of everyone who won the tour de france, one-day-classics or all the national tt champions, etc, do you think you would see a pattern depending on what is required to win each?0 -
fnegroni wrote: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.
What if you train for long distances at the highest intensity you could possibly do for the duration? Would you even things out?
This makes me wonder - there must be a perfect ratio of strength training to endurance training for every particular cycling dicipline. For example - if you compared the strength:endurance ratio of everyone who won the tour de france, one-day-classics or all the national tt champions, etc, do you think you would see a pattern depending on what is required to win each?0 -
Bhima wrote:fnegroni wrote: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.
What if you train for long distances at the highest intensity you could possibly do for the duration? Would you even things out?
This makes me wonder - there must be a perfect ratio of strength training to endurance training for every particular cycling dicipline. For example - if you compared the strength:endurance ratio of everyone who won the tour de france, one-day-classics or all the national tt champions, etc, do you think you would see a pattern depending on what is required to win each?
Once again, if you want Chris Hoy legs, do what he does. If you want legs like most of the tour pros, do what they do. Do the kind of riding that you want to do and don't worry
about the way your legs look. Get into bodybuilding if you want piles of muscles. That
way you can, possibly, MAKE your legs look like you want them to.
Dennis Noward0 -
Infamous wrote:That's how you're supposed to train.
It's not that simple though, because when I go further than I have done before, it's difficult to judge how to pace it so, unless you have done the same distance a few times, it's hard to automatically know what the maximum pace you can sustain is. When I increase distance, I tend to keep the pace lower than normal the first few times, to avoid overdoing it...
Unless you know what you're doing with HR/Power Meters etc, I imagine that it would be pretty hard to get it spot on all the time. I never come home completely exhausted anyway. It can be counter-productive if I want to cycle the next day.0 -
dennisn wrote:don't worry about the way your legs look. Get into bodybuilding if you want piles of muscles. That way you can, possibly, MAKE your legs look like you want them to.
Yes, I really don't care how my legs look.
This thread was just meant to be theoretical... and i've learned a lot from it. I'm not trying to get a particular "look".
If I really cared, i'd be shaving them!
0 -
Bhima wrote:It's not that simple though, because when I go further than I have done before, it's difficult to judge how to pace it so, unless you have done the same distance a few times, it's hard to automatically know what the maximum pace you can sustain is.
Unless you know what you're doing with HR/Power Meters etc...
It really doesn't take all that many long rides to learn about what kind of pacing you
you can handle on, say, a 50 or 100 miler. After a few of them you'll know what it takes.
You just need to do a few and it will become pretty clear what's required.
Dennis Noward0 -
I don't find it to be a linear process to be honest.
For example, doubling from 10 to 20 miles felt really different to when I went from 20 to 30 and 30 to 40... So as I do longer distances, I find it harder to predict the outcome... Maybe it's just me. 0 -
Bhima wrote:I don't find it to be a linear process to be honest.
For example, doubling from 10 to 20 miles felt really different to when I went from 20 to 30 and 30 to 40... So as I do longer distances, I find it harder to predict the outcome... Maybe it's just me.
I think you're making more of it than you need to. It's not that hard to know if you've
gone 25 miles, thus far, out of 100 and you're feeling trashed already that you had better back off whatever pace you're going at or you'll be sitting alongside the road at the 40 or 50 mile marker. I doesn't take too many rides to figure that you may be going too fast
in order to complete a ride at any given distance.
Dennis Noward0 -
That's why we have days off, or easy rides. Push yourself to the limit today, then if you are too tired tomorrow, have an easy day. By training hard 2 days in a row, you train your body to recover quicker.Bhima wrote:I never come home completely exhausted anyway. It can be counter-productive if I want to cycle the next day.
You always have to be pushing your limits, with either distance or intensity (or both), stop mincing about.0 -
Infamous wrote:
That's why we have days off, or easy rides. Push yourself to the limit today, then if you are too tired tomorrow, have an easy day. By training hard 2 days in a row, you train your body to recover quicker.Bhima wrote:I never come home completely exhausted anyway. It can be counter-productive if I want to cycle the next day.
You always have to be pushing your limits, with either distance or intensity (or both), stop mincing about.
What he said!!
If your not tired then do a few intervals or cycle past your house for a few miles and come back at high intensity....No point leaving the house if it is too easy!17 Stone down to 12.5 now raring to get back on the bike!0 -
dennisn wrote:Bhima wrote:It's not that simple though, because when I go further than I have done before, it's difficult to judge how to pace it so, unless you have done the same distance a few times, it's hard to automatically know what the maximum pace you can sustain is.
Unless you know what you're doing with HR/Power Meters etc...
It really doesn't take all that many long rides to learn about what kind of pacing you
you can handle on, say, a 50 or 100 miler. After a few of them you'll know what it takes.
You just need to do a few and it will become pretty clear what's required.
Dennis Noward
Well said Dennis. It's all about experience in the long run.
Get out there and ride and stop looking at your legs in the mirror!
0 -
fuzzynavel wrote:If your not tired then do a few intervals or cycle past your house for a few miles and come back at high intensity....No point leaving the house if it is too easy!
When did I say I was "not tired"?
Of course I get tired, but I just don't completely exhaust myself!0 -
Infamous wrote:That's why we have days off, or easy rides. Push yourself to the limit today, then if you are too tired tomorrow, have an easy day. By training hard 2 days in a row, you train your body to recover quicker.
Yes, i've been doing alternate days recently so I agree. I just remember absolutely killing myself once, going 99.9999% flat out and not being able to cycle for days.0 -
dennisn wrote:I think you're making more of it than you need to.
I doesn't take too many rides to figure that you may be going too fast
in order to complete a ride at any given distance.
Yes, I am. I haven't made radical changes to the distance in a while though, so it's probably just lack of experience. I've been stuck at doing either 63m or 98m rides for too long now.0 -
Bhima wrote:dennisn wrote:I think you're making more of it than you need to.
I doesn't take too many rides to figure that you may be going too fast
in order to complete a ride at any given distance.
Yes, I am. I haven't made radical changes to the distance in a while though, so it's probably just lack of experience. I've been stuck at doing either 63m or 98m rides for too long now.
If you have been doing 63 and 98 milers "for too long now" you ought to have learned what it takes to finish them by now.
Dennis Noward0 -
Bhima wrote:What if you train for long distances at the highest intensity you could possibly do for the duration? Would you even things out?
This is my take on the subject: please feel free to disagree.
The short answer: it will take you much longer to improve, but will give you better cycling skills.
First, strength intensity, is the number of muscle fibers recruited per unit of time. The duration of such activity is therefore bound to be relatively short.
The basic principle in strength training is that the 'inroad' into the muscle is proportional to the force applied (mass x acceleration), the time and the range of motion.
What this means is that the maximum stimulus to the muscles to grow stronger comes from the maximum amount of weight that can be lifted, *in good form*, with the minimum amount of momentum, through the full range of motion.
The CV system is, in response, trained to deliver huge quantities of fuel to enable our body to function: this happens even if only anaerobic energy is used; the recovery process is what trains the CV system: recovery after a maximum intensity lift has to be fast.
This is in direct contrast to activities which aim to train for endurance, where what matters is the ability to supply the minimum needed quantity of fuel to our body for as long a period of time as it is required, that being the longest required to complete the course.
The CV system is therefore trained for a longer period of lower intensity: lower heart rate at rest for example.
To put this in cycling terms:
Say that you have been training and you can do your average 100mile ride with 2 steep climbs comfortably.
To improve your performance you could:
1) try and do the 100 miles faster, or ride for longer than 100 miles
2) do specific strength and CV exercises.
I think both options should be used alternatively, option 1 alone will take considerably longer because less inroad is possible, due to the reduced CV capacity, and the CV training is impacted because of the extra demand on the CV system during the inroad.0 -
I imagine your legs will grow and get more powerful if you start lowering your cadence?0
-
fuzzynavel wrote:Infamous wrote:
That's why we have days off, or easy rides. Push yourself to the limit today, then if you are too tired tomorrow, have an easy day. By training hard 2 days in a row, you train your body to recover quicker.Bhima wrote:I never come home completely exhausted anyway. It can be counter-productive if I want to cycle the next day.
You always have to be pushing your limits, with either distance or intensity (or both), stop mincing about.
What he said!!
If your not tired then do a few intervals or cycle past your house for a few miles and come back at high intensity....No point leaving the house if it is too easy!
...You are allowed to ride a bike for fun aswell! you don't have to practically kill yourself every time out on the bike. If I did that all the time id get pretty sick of riding...0 -
Bhima wrote:dennisn wrote:I think you're making more of it than you need to.
I doesn't take too many rides to figure that you may be going too fast
in order to complete a ride at any given distance.
Yes, I am. I haven't made radical changes to the distance in a while though, so it's probably just lack of experience. I've been stuck at doing either 63m or 98m rides for too long now.
Are you training for anything in particular or just doing long rides for fun?0 -
Yes, but we're talking about training and riding to get fitter/faster. You can mince about for 4 hours on a sunday if you want, but it wont make you faster.thiscocks wrote:fuzzynavel wrote:Infamous wrote:
That's why we have days off, or easy rides. Push yourself to the limit today, then if you are too tired tomorrow, have an easy day. By training hard 2 days in a row, you train your body to recover quicker.Bhima wrote:I never come home completely exhausted anyway. It can be counter-productive if I want to cycle the next day.
You always have to be pushing your limits, with either distance or intensity (or both), stop mincing about.
What he said!!
If your not tired then do a few intervals or cycle past your house for a few miles and come back at high intensity....No point leaving the house if it is too easy!
...You are allowed to ride a bike for fun aswell! you don't have to practically kill yourself every time out on the bike. If I did that all the time id get pretty sick of riding...0 -
thiscocks wrote:Are you training for anything in particular or just doing long rides for fun?
Time trialing and road racing. I do try and just have a fun ride every now and again though.fnegroni wrote:The CV system is, in response, trained to deliver huge quantities of fuel to enable our body to function: this happens even if only anaerobic energy is used; the recovery process is what trains the CV system: recovery after a maximum intensity lift has to be fast.
This is in direct contrast to activities which aim to train for endurance, where what matters is the ability to supply the minimum needed quantity of fuel to our body for as long a period of time as it is required, that being the longest required to complete the course.
Aha! Understand completely now!
Well, that's probably true...Salv wrote:I imagine your legs will grow and get more powerful if you start lowering your cadence?
If you do weight training in the gym, you'll know that:
1) High Weight + Low Reps = Bodybuilding/Bulking Up
2) Low Weight + High Reps = Muscle Toning
So I think a high cadence would be the equivallent of method 2 and low cadence would be method 1. Both, if I understand it would "grow" your muscles as you put it, but just in different ways.
I'm off to the library on Saturday. When I used to work there, I noticed a ridiculous ammount of books on bodybuilding/muscles/sport.0 -
Reply to OP.
I thought they wre Vicky's legs Only joking.
Cyclist legs tend to loof more defined as they do not have a lot of fat in them also.
Generally huge quads on a guy would make them decent sprinters and not climbers, and slighter quads and legs normally better climbers, though this is generalising a bit. Vicky Pendleton and Ross Edgar do not look "typical" sprinters.
However they would definately have a large proportion of fast twitc fibres in their thighs compared to climbers.
The number of fast twicth fibres in legs is natural and you cannot increase or decrease them which is why most people are generally, good climbers or sprinter, but not both, then some are in between and decent at both which is good for road racing and endurance.
Only way to check percentage of type of fibres slow or fast is biopsy.
Someone mentions Hoy must have huge power to weight ratio for short hills, some one may correct me if wrong but I did not know that the power to weight ratio varied depending on length of hill?
He could obviously sprint up a very short hill fast, but being quite heavy (and muscle is heavy lol) and clibing using fast twitch fibres and not having many slow twitch fibres, he would die very quickly
I suppose it is the same principle for runners, don't se many marathon runners like Hoy/Chambers or sprinters like Paula Radcliffe/Pantani
I know Ciolin Jackson had biopsy for a documentry last year and think he had something like 75% fast twitc, of which 25% were super fast twitch.
See article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/last-nights-tv-colin-jackson-the-making-of-me-bbc1br-rogue-restaurants-bbc1-882453.html0 -
So where would I get this done? Would it be expensive? It would be interesting to know how my legs are composed...oldwelshman wrote:Only way to check percentage of type of fibres slow or fast is biopsy.oldwelshman wrote:super fast twitch.
:shock: Interesting! I bet this is what makes Hoy/Usain Bolt/etc special compared to normal sprinter cyclists/runners...but 25 per cent of that was "super-fast twitch", a type of muscle fibre so rare that no more than two per cent had ever been found in any other athletes similarly tested.0 -
Well going just by your cadence and fact your not huge lol I would say significantly less fast twitch than sprinters, but why would you want to know? If you can sprint fast then you probably have a few more, if slow sprinting probably more slow twitch 0
-
I didn't think cadence had anything to do with muscle fibres? Isn't it an intensity thing?0
-
Well ok not directly, as Hoy has very fast cadence for track sprint as you can see on u tube clips doing roller racing, but on the road, the majority of riders with higher cadence seem to be slighter built guys, but looking at the guys with larger thighs seem to have lower cadences, maybe its just the ones I see? 0
