Body Weight...

SteveR_100Milers

P_Tucker wrote:

Meh. People ignore experts like Alex Simmons with logic along the lines of "nerr, its what I've always done and it works for me" - I'm just a not-entirely-useless (but still mostly useless) rider who's read a few books and has an open mind - what chance have I got?

The mistake you seem to be making is assuming I care whether people listen to me or not. I'm just bored in work and I've been banned from VeloRiders - and it appears that boiling Pokerface's p!ss seems to amuse me. To each his own eh?

no mistakes here - simply politely and using your own "logic method" to stop littering threads with personal insults. It's not about whether you care; simply that it's tedious. As for each to their own, no I don't subscribe to anarchy.

Pokerface

P_Tucker wrote:

The mistake you seem to be making is assuming I care whether people listen to me or not. I'm just bored in work and I've been banned from VeloRiders - and it appears that boiling Pokerface's p!ss seems to amuse me. To each his own eh?

If you think that you in any way 'boil my p1ss' then your ego is as massive as your stupidity.

How long did it take the folks on VeloRiders to realize what a giant douche you were and ban you? :roll:

Pokerface

P_Tucker wrote:

Lets set out the facts:

All 4 pro cyclists do roughly the same amount of cycling, which I think we can agree is a lot.
Contador and Rasmussen have sparrow legs, Cancellara & Greipel have big legs.

Agreed?

So, using LOGIC, we can rule out the possibility that cycling in itself gives you big legs - else Contador and Rasmussen would be stacked. Make sense?

So, again using LOGIC, we can safely say that Canc and Greipel must do something else to give them big legs (e.g. gym work), or perhaps they have naturally big legs.

Is thinking things through really that hard?

No one said or implied that cycling alone gives you massive legs. You put up two examples of thin cyclists as 'proof' that cycling does nothing for leg muscle. I put up two pics of cyclists with big legs to show that cycling CAN have an effect on leg muscle.

In and of itself, endurance cycling does not build lean muscle mass in the legs. It requires resistance for that to happen. Endurance cycling doesn't offer the resistance necessary, so the stimulation must come from somewhere else.

This can be found through sprint-type efforts, hill climbs or gym work.

However, I think you will find that all pro cyclists do some gym work at some point in the year. However, I doubt that all large-legged pro cyclist spend significantly extra time pressing iron.

Therefore - it most likely comes down to genetics.

The one thing that you have overlooked - is that no matter what body type a pro cyclist has, their legs will be larger in proportion to the rest of their body. If you examine Contador's legs, you'll see that he does indeed have muscular legs, especially when looked at in the context of the rest of his body. They just aren't as big as Cancellara (who has a significantly larger frame).

To propose that cycling has no effect whatsoever on leg muscle is naive.

P_Tucker

Pokerface wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

The mistake you seem to be making is assuming I care whether people listen to me or not. I'm just bored in work and I've been banned from VeloRiders - and it appears that boiling Pokerface's p!ss seems to amuse me. To each his own eh?

If you think that you in any way 'boil my p1ss' then your ego is as massive as your stupidity.

How long did it take the folks on VeloRiders to realize what a giant douche you were and ban you? :roll:

Calm down dear

Quite a long time, which is weird really - everyone knows that VR is where cyclists go to be c*nts and have a laugh, just as everyone knows that you go to Weight Weenies if you want bike part advice, or the Wattage group on google if you want good training advice, or indeed BikeRadar if you want to read drivel from Sportive riders or sell something.

Pokerface

P_Tucker wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

The mistake you seem to be making is assuming I care whether people listen to me or not. I'm just bored in work and I've been banned from VeloRiders - and it appears that boiling Pokerface's p!ss seems to amuse me. To each his own eh?

If you think that you in any way 'boil my p1ss' then your ego is as massive as your stupidity.

How long did it take the folks on VeloRiders to realize what a giant douche you were and ban you? :roll:

Calm down dear

Quite a long time, which is weird really - everyone knows that VR is where cyclists go to be c*nts and have a laugh, just as everyone knows that you go to Weight Weenies if you want bike part advice, or the Wattage group on google if you want good training advice, or indeed BikeRadar if you want to read drivel from Sportive riders or sell something.

I tell you what - in the spirit of the holiday season, I won't be a d!ck to you if you make an attempt not to be a douche to me! Deal?

P_Tucker

Pokerface wrote:

No one said or implied that cycling alone gives you massive legs. You put up two examples of thin cyclists as 'proof' that cycling does nothing for leg muscle. I put up two pics of cyclists with big legs to show that cycling CAN have an effect on leg muscle.

This makes no sense. Two pairs of riders, who presumably do similar amounts of cycling (probably 20-25 hours per week). Necessarily, much of this will be at sub-threshold pace (which is an implied assumption I've made of the original question - if they were doing 25 hour of starting starts a week then obv it would have an effect). One pair have small legs, the other big. And your conclusion is that cycling CAN have an effect on leg size? How does "cycling" know whether to make one set of legs big and the other small?

Oddly, the rest of your post makes sense and reaches the correct (IMHO) conclusion - that leg size is partly genetic and partly due to gym work or standing starts (which is the only way max strength is reached on a bike) - but not hill climbs, unless the rider is for some reason taking the hills at about 10rpm.

Contador and Rasmussen don't have big legs - they're buff and well defined, because they are so skinny, but I doubt they're much bigger than a normal bloke of similar build.

Pokerface

Contador's legs aren't as small as you might think:



I'm not saying that cycling will make each cyclists legs as big as the next's. What I am saying is that cycling will make your legs bigger than they would be if you did no cycling at all. If you take someone with a similar build to Contador who does no cycling at all, and look at their legs (assuming they also don't do a sport that builds leg muscle), you will see they have much more slender legs.

Cycling builds leg muscle - in proportion to the rest of their body and based on genetics. It doesn't 'know' to make one set of legs bigger than another - that is determined by genetics (and training to some degree).

Me personally - I have a fairly muscular upper body. Broad chest, big arms, etc. But I do no upper body weights at all. However, if I did - I would get MUCH bigger (we're talking bouncer-big).

Similarly, some cyclists have naturally bigger leg muscles than others - but the act of cycling enhances them.

And if you don't think riding uphill counts as resistance training, you aren't trying hard enough! Especially the type of climbs the pros do!

P_Tucker

Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree, unless someone more qualified can offer resolution.

cyco2

P_Tucker wrote:

Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree, unless someone more qualified can offer resolution.

Its Christmas where are you going to find an 'expert' on anything now. :roll:

Uups, here's one coming now
.
There are always exceptions.
.
.Cavendish cannot sprint, doesn't have big enough muscles, he just rides very,very fast.
.
.

a_n_t

cyco2 wrote:

Its Christmas where are you going to find an 'expert' on anything now. :roll:

Anyone seen Chiggy?

Richa1181

Of course cycling is responsible for the size and shape of your legs, there's no way that it couldn't be! It all depends on the type of cycling you're doing as to what size and shape they are exactly..

I don't think you can make comparisons between Hoy and Contador when it comes to leg size though. Hoy spends most of his time squatting massive weights and doesn't do anywhere near the amount of miles Contador does. It would be impossible to fuel legs the size of Hoys for 150 miles and still make decent time, just the same as Alberto is never going to do 250meters in 10 seconds because he doesn't have muscles big enough to turn over a gear the size hoy would. Your legs will simply grow to whatever size you need them to be

Pigtail

There's a mix of what you inherit naturally - and what you do to improve it. If you don't have the genes in the first place then you will find it difficult to progress very far.

I have always had very strong legs and have a large lung capacity - however my arms and upper body have always been much more limited.

My family have inherited pretty much the same attributes. My daughter swam competitively and despite training six or seven times a week and doing about 15,000 metres a week she was always just off the pace with the best swimmers in her age group. If you broke that down though when she was doing kick only with a float there was only one person in the whole club who could live with her. He is now a commonwealth games competitor. Yet when they were doing arms only she was always trailling in the last third of the group. The coach was quite excited by her leg strength and kick, and they both spent a huge amount of time and effort trying to get her arms to the same level, with no success.

So my view is you can certainly improve on what you've got - but genetics may limit how far you can take it.

James

meanredspider

Richa1181 wrote:

I don't think you can make comparisons between Hoy and Contador when it comes to leg size though.

The picture I posted of Hoy was around the upper body - simply to indicate that the upper body must have some function in cycling else Hoy wouldn't spend so much time developing his shoulders and chest. I know he's an extreme example but, if cycling was just about the legs, he'd have worked on massive legs and a sparrow chest. My cycling is probably nearer his type than Contador's in that I do a 15 mile commute each way as hard as I can (a relative sprint compared to the 100-miler types). My legs are also quite big and powerful - I'm a crap long distance runner but can hold my own in a sprint on the hockey field. That's maybe why my upper body has developed on the bike, who knows...

Pokerface

meanredspider wrote:

Richa1181 wrote:

I don't think you can make comparisons between Hoy and Contador when it comes to leg size though.

The picture I posted of Hoy was around the upper body - simply to indicate that the upper body must have some function in cycling else Hoy wouldn't spend so much time developing his shoulders and chest.

Upper body does play some part in cycling - mostly for holding you up!

In track sprinting, upper body strength is more important. Pulling on the bars, etc - requires a lot of strength. Thus why track riders have big upper (and lower!) bodies whilst endurance riders do not.

ozzzyosborn206

the reason hoy does upper body work is because to push the gear he pushes and start off with so much resistance he uses his arms alot pulling and pushing on the bars, he also needs a massive core to withstand the massive power his legs produce, i imagine if he did no upper body work his legs would rip his lower back muscles to shreads?

meanredspider

Yes - absolutely - it was just the point someone made a while back (in this thread) that if I'd developed good pecs cycling (which I have) I'm doing something very wrong. Since you're perpetually in the "press-up" position but also working really hard on the pedals in the climbs (especially with a "good-sized" upper body), to me it makes sense that your pecs would develop.

Richa1181

How heavy are you spider? I'm guessing you're either fairly well built or climbing some massively steep hills if you're doing that much work on the bars? I'm a lot lighter than I used to be but it's only really my triceps and core getting a workout in terms of upper body.

meanredspider

Richa1181 wrote:

How heavy are you spider?.

It's earlier in the thread - 93kg & 6ft. My ride averages 1000ft of climbing in each direction - some of it 1:10 and worse and I do push hard the whole ride up and down hill (it's also usually bloody windy). Normally if you're using your triceps you'll be getting support from your pecs in the road riding position.

Richa1181

Do you get up out of the saddle on the climbs or muscle it sat down? My chest doesn't get used at all unless I'm out of the saddle I don't think. When seated there shouldn't be much movement above the waist even on the climbs, most of the time I've only got my hands resting lightly on the hoods so to get pecs out of it you must be seriously smashing it!

meanredspider

Richa1181 wrote:

Do you get up out of the saddle on the climbs or muscle it sat down?

Stay seated (apart from short bursts for the odd "hump"). Rarely let my cadence drop below 80rpm (average 90) but I do use the bars for purchase and drive through my back.

Richa1181

Have you ever done any training on rollers?

meanredspider

No. Used to do Spinning classes but, with a couple of hours on the bike a day, there doesn't seem much point. Same goes for rollers/turbos.

Richa1181

You should probably give rollers a go. They're quite good for the core and will improve your technique no end. They don't really allow you to pull on the bars (or you end up through the patio doors) but they'll certainly make your pedalling more efficient.. I used a regular turbo up until this winter but since getting the rollers my cycling has definitely improved. Not in terms of power of speed but I feel much better on the bike now then I ever did in the past

meanredspider

Interesting idea - might do that (or at least see if one of my cycling mates have a set)

Richa1181

Yeah they're a bit expensive to buy just to see what they're like. I only got mine so I could take them to the track to warm up on but I use them once or twice a week when I want to spin my legs out or if I'm taking it easy before race night.

They're not good for working on power as they don't have any resistance but they give you quite a good aerobic and mental workout (I can only manage about 40 minutes before i start to weave all over the place)

slunker

I lost weight last year but with that loss I also lost power. I think there is a happy medium somewhere.

Richa1181

Bradley Wiggins did exactly the same thing

I only lost weight because I was getting rid of my excess fat so didn't lose any power in the process. I think power loss only becomes an issue when you have to shed muscle to lose weight, like moving from the track to the road or something. Even then if you take your time about it you shouldn't suffer too much I don't think

Pokerface

meanredspider wrote:

Richa1181 wrote:

I don't think you can make comparisons between Hoy and Contador when it comes to leg size though.

The picture I posted of Hoy was around the upper body - simply to indicate that the upper body must have some function in cycling else Hoy wouldn't spend so much time developing his shoulders and chest. I know he's an extreme example but, if cycling was just about the legs, he'd have worked on massive legs and a sparrow chest. My cycling is probably nearer his type than Contador's in that I do a 15 mile commute each way as hard as I can (a relative sprint compared to the 100-miler types). My legs are also quite big and powerful - I'm a crap long distance runner but can hold my own in a sprint on the hockey field. That's maybe why my upper body has developed on the bike, who knows...

This is what the upper body of a good road cyclist should look like. Notice the 'massive pecs' 8)



Nicholas Roche

meanredspider

Pokerface wrote:

This is what the upper body of a good road cyclist should look like. Notice the 'massive pecs' 8)


Nicholas Roche

I'd rather poke my own eyes out with a sharp stick :shock:

As I said, I only do 15 miles at a shot. I just do it a lot of times. I wouldn't be able to turn the wheel of my race car with arms like that :?

Richa1181

I'd say you could be a good road cyclist without looking like that. You only have to take it to those extremes if you're doing mountainous stage races, I think I'll keep my arms and carry on looking like somebody hasn't stolen my internal organs thanks