Such a thing as too much weight training?

Alienman

I have been working with weights for a while now and with my body type I have packed on the muscle mass. I feel that my current 102 kg is already a bit much for a cyclist and I will continue to add muscle weight if I continue to weight train as I currently am. So is there such a thing as too much weight training for a cyclist?

stubs

I was told by my local gym nazi that weight machines are bad for cyclists because they just add muscle bulk and do nothing for stamina.

He reckons free weights are much better and that it is better to do lots of reps with small weights to build stamina and tone with just a couple of short sharp sessions a week with some heavier weights to work on fast twitch muscle.

asdfhjkl

stubs wrote:

I was told by my local gym nazi that weight machines are bad for cyclists because they just add muscle bulk and do nothing for stamina.

He reckons free weights are much better and that it is better to do lots of reps with small weights to build stamina and tone with just a couple of short sharp sessions a week with some heavier weights to work on fast twitch muscle.

He's right that freeweights are better than machines, but wrong with just about everything else :P

(In my opinion) lifting high reps x small weights will only make you better at one thing - being able to lift small weights for high reps :P Also, there is no such thing as "toning" a muscle, that's just marketing talk for "build muscle and lose fat" - aimed mostly at women who think if they accidentally do real lifting, they'll turn into Schwarzenegger overnight.


Alienman - what's your body composition? Any idea what bodyfat %?

Whether or not you gain muscle or lose fat all comes down to nutrition. Gaining too much weight? Eat a little less. Losing too much weight? Eat a little more.

If you think your weight hinders you, you can keep on training, just eat a little less.

Alienman

So basically you are saying that I could lift all I want but diet is really the important part? Some how I don't see how that would work. Muscle weights more than fat and if I am exercising a lot I need the calories and proteins so that I can still have energy. So eating less while still exercising the same just seems like a bad combination. Maybe eating healthier would do it, but one can only do so much on a student budget. :P

asdfhjkl

Alienman wrote:

So basically you are saying that I could lift all I want but diet is really the important part? Some how I don't see how that would work. Muscle weights more than fat and if I am exercising a lot I need the calories and proteins so that I can still have energy. So eating less while still exercising the same just seems like a bad combination. Maybe eating healthier would do it, but one can only do so much on a student budget. :P

Through trial and error you'll eventually find balance though. Suppose your body needs 3500 calories a day to support your energy requirements. If you eat 3500 calories, you'll (theoretically) neither lose nor gain weight. If you drop that to 3000, you'll start to lose weight (burning fat to make up the energy deficit). If you bump it up to 4000, you'll start to gain weight (either putting the food towards gaining muscle, or storing it as fat).

I also lift so it's a question I've had to ask myself as well. Cycling's more important to me than lifting these days. I still lift because I enjoy it, but the amount I eat means I'm no longer gaining weight and it's a lot harder to increase my deadlift, but it's a sacrifice I've had to make.

Since you feel you're a bit heavy for cycling, you could either lift less or eat less - but be aware that lifting less will lower your energy requirements, so if you continue to eat the same, you'll still gain weight anyway. So really, just eat less whatever you decide

Alienman

That makes more sense, just eating as much as you need. There are definitely ways that I can start to do that:
1. eat smaller portions at meals
2. stop eating when I am bored
Second one is probably the more important one to get rid of.

furby

try eating four or five small meals rather than 3 main meals.

Dont worry about the weight training but add more CV, which will not only improve your CV fitness but burn more calories to help slim down but will not affect your strenght if you maintain the weights.

Surf-Matt

Blimey - 102kgs is a lot if you not high on fat!

I weightlifted for years and added three stone (and dropped my bodyfat %age) - although I never got near 102kgs, I did get pretty heavy. It affected running, surfing (my board sank too much!), martial arts (slower) and because I was "afraid" of cardio, my cycling suffered.

So ditched the vanity working out and trimmed off about a stone - seem to now be able to do strength/power related stuff well and still be able to happily run a 10k trail run/race in around 40 mins.

I think people often take weighlifting too far.

Alienman

I've still got a solid layer of fat over top the muscle, so the 102 kg isn't all muscle. But its not a vanity thing why I lift weights, I've been a big guy for most my life so I might as well make it strong, big.

But living in Canada our winters aren't made for riding. So now that it is the spring and it is warm I can get out a ride more, so more cardio work out. Hate using a stationary, so unproductive cause you go nowhere.

furby

Alienman, post up you stats, height, weight, body fat % etc.

Getting stronger doesnt always mean getting slower. If done in a more balanced way you can get stronger and still maintain or improve speed, endurance and flexabilty.

Its only really top level type sportsmen that face the problems like that by training for one activity that then makes them worse at something else.

Surf-Matt

Show me a successful but fast/overweight (on BMI) bulky boxer, triathlete, MTBer, surfer, footballer, SAS soldier, etc. You need it for rugby but not a lot else.

I have yet to see any of the above with too much muscle that do well. Yes you can keep speed and flexibility but it's a very hard balancing act that very few can pull off.

Although miles away from "top level" I've still won a national off road tri, come 5th in three national 10k races, got to the semis in a big surf comp and been ranked 4th in the country for my weight (middle) kickboxing, scored 2nd out of 40 in a Royal Marines POC - so i think most bases are covered - speed, strength and endurance.

furby

Firstly, I would say that national level is pretty high.

I totally agree, some people, body builders go over the top and that is very determental to other activities.

Going back to the orginal poster, who says he is 102kg with some fat. He could maintain his weight training, slim down with diet and CV fitness training.

I am sure he would increase his cycling speed, get lighter and still mantain his strenght levels.

Alienman

Height: about 6'1" (that's the only way I know it)
Weight: 102 kg
Body fat %: don't know

Question still stands that is it bad for ones cycling to be too muscular? And then what is that point? Like when you can no longer touch your head?

furby

Alienman wrote:

Question still stands that is it bad for ones cycling to be too muscular? And then what is that point? Like when you can no longer touch your head?

I would say,
yes, difficult to say and depends on the training and person, yes!.

If you want to make cycling your main sport, then yes I would suggest dropping some of the weight by easing out the weight training and trying to change your diet abit.

OwenBird

Alienman wrote:

Height: about 6'1" (that's the only way I know it)
Weight: 102 kg
Body fat %: don't know

Question still stands that is it bad for ones cycling to be too muscular? And then what is that point? Like when you can no longer touch your head?

Hang on a minute, the first question is "Is it bad for your cycling if you are too mucular (for cycling)?" the addition oin the brackets is mine, because I assume this is what you meant. Otherwise, what do you mean by 'too muscular'? Yes, if you are too muscular for cycling, you will not be as good at cycling as if you were not too muscular for cycling.

I would imagine that the answer to the "which point" part of your post is - The point at which your cycling performance starts to degrade due to being too muscular is the point at which you are too muscular for cycling.

Can anyone with a reasonable claim to athleticism not touch their head? This is crazy talk.

No one can tell you a weight and height that is optimal for cycling because it's a stupid question. There are far too many factors to give a specific answer.

asdfhjkl

This all means nothing without knowing your body composition. Forgive my assumption, but it seems that you are more a casual lifter than a bodybuilder or a powerlifter. I may be wrong, and I apologise if I am, but I reckon you are nowhere near muscular enough for it to interfere with your cycling. If anything, I'd focus on losing fat and get sufficiently lean before deciding whether or not you are too muscular. Might as well get rid of that "dead weight" before trying to atrophy muscle which actually serves a purpose and helps you.

Is there a hypothetical situation when you can be too muscular? Yes; if you're a pro cyclist. They're capable of producing a mighty high power output, and to really make the most of their power : weight ratio, then yeah they could be carrying a bit much muscle in places it's not needed. But these guys are low bodyfat %, incredibly fit, and riding at a level where difference in weight can make a big difference. For us mere mortals, it's not so much an issue. Lose fat, sure, that helps (and has numerous other benefits), but muscle? Get to a much higher level then it'll maybe start to matter.

militiacore

asdfhjkl wrote:

This all means nothing without knowing your body composition. Forgive my assumption, but it seems that you are more a casual lifter than a bodybuilder or a powerlifter. I may be wrong, and I apologise if I am, but I reckon you are nowhere near muscular enough for it to interfere with your cycling. If anything, I'd focus on losing fat and get sufficiently lean before deciding whether or not you are too muscular. Might as well get rid of that "dead weight" before trying to atrophy muscle which actually serves a purpose and helps you.

Is there a hypothetical situation when you can be too muscular? Yes; if you're a pro cyclist. They're capable of producing a mighty high power output, and to really make the most of their power : weight ratio, then yeah they could be carrying a bit much muscle in places it's not needed. But these guys are low bodyfat %, incredibly fit, and riding at a level where difference in weight can make a big difference. For us mere mortals, it's not so much an issue. Lose fat, sure, that helps (and has numerous other benefits), but muscle? Get to a much higher level then it'll maybe start to matter.

Agree with this.

To put into some perspective I used to race XC at a decent level in my mid/late teens and then got into rugby and put on around 4 stone. I still ride the same race bike back then and although my current build is far from ideal for competitive XC racing I can still hold my own quite happily so in this respect I'm certainly not too muscular to ride.

OwenBird

militiacore wrote:

asdfhjkl wrote:

This all means nothing without knowing your body composition. Forgive my assumption, but it seems that you are more a casual lifter than a bodybuilder or a powerlifter. I may be wrong, and I apologise if I am, but I reckon you are nowhere near muscular enough for it to interfere with your cycling. If anything, I'd focus on losing fat and get sufficiently lean before deciding whether or not you are too muscular. Might as well get rid of that "dead weight" before trying to atrophy muscle which actually serves a purpose and helps you.

Is there a hypothetical situation when you can be too muscular? Yes; if you're a pro cyclist. They're capable of producing a mighty high power output, and to really make the most of their power : weight ratio, then yeah they could be carrying a bit much muscle in places it's not needed. But these guys are low bodyfat %, incredibly fit, and riding at a level where difference in weight can make a big difference. For us mere mortals, it's not so much an issue. Lose fat, sure, that helps (and has numerous other benefits), but muscle? Get to a much higher level then it'll maybe start to matter.

Agree with this.

To put into some perspective I used to race XC at a decent level in my mid/late teens and then got into rugby and put on around 4 stone. I still ride the same race bike back then and although my current build is far from ideal for competitive XC racing I can still hold my own quite happily so in this respect I'm certainly not too muscular to ride.

He said 'touch your head' not 'hold your own'

The D.gs B.lx is a proper classic. I'm quite jealous.

glauciaregina9

Look at the pro riders - you don't see huge muscles on these guys, therefore it obviously is of no benefit..

More muscle = more weight = wasted effort shifting all that weight around !!

Key for cycling is good aerobic fitness (stamina), core strength/stability, appropriate stretching to maintain flexibility, leg power for sprints etc, and maybe lower your body fat %age

Personally, I do some simple weight training for basic strength (press-ups, bench press, pull-ups, chin-ups, bicep curl). 3 to 4 sets of around 15 reps for each exercise. Do this 2-3 times a week. Works for me anyway...

OwenBird

glauciaregina9 wrote:

(press-ups, bench press, pull-ups, chin-ups, bicep curl)

Tricep/pectoral, tricep/pectoral, bicep, lat/bicep, bicep.

No legs work at all? No posterior chain? No overhead work?