Increasing leg strength

saintdracula

Wow, really lucidly put. Thanks!

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

Hi Alex - thanks for the replies - very clear. I'm past the point of questioning if weights are significantly beneficial to endurance cyclists - my question is a bit more subtle than the Hulk Hogan question. I'll try to explain it this way:

Take an average non-exercising bloke on the street and start to train him to win the local TT. I don't doubt that the majority of improvement to his performance will come from the adaptations you describe above. Intuitively, I'd also expect an increase in muscle mass and, therefore, "stronger" legs - that's certainly happened to me as I significantly increased my cycling. I also expect that these changes will tail off and it will become more the efficiency of these muscles rather than their size that matters (and maybe this is the foundation of the "strength debate").

Im not sure thats even a question.

meanredspider

P_Tucker wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Hi Alex - thanks for the replies - very clear. I'm past the point of questioning if weights are significantly beneficial to endurance cyclists - my question is a bit more subtle than the Hulk Hogan question. I'll try to explain it this way:

Take an average non-exercising bloke on the street and start to train him to win the local TT. I don't doubt that the majority of improvement to his performance will come from the adaptations you describe above. Intuitively, I'd also expect an increase in muscle mass and, therefore, "stronger" legs - that's certainly happened to me as I significantly increased my cycling. I also expect that these changes will tail off and it will become more the efficiency of these muscles rather than their size that matters (and maybe this is the foundation of the "strength debate").

Im not sure thats even a question.

Err - yes - realised I should be heading to work!

What I should have added is:

"Am I correct in this thinking?"

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Hi Alex - thanks for the replies - very clear. I'm past the point of questioning if weights are significantly beneficial to endurance cyclists - my question is a bit more subtle than the Hulk Hogan question. I'll try to explain it this way:

Take an average non-exercising bloke on the street and start to train him to win the local TT. I don't doubt that the majority of improvement to his performance will come from the adaptations you describe above. Intuitively, I'd also expect an increase in muscle mass and, therefore, "stronger" legs - that's certainly happened to me as I significantly increased my cycling. I also expect that these changes will tail off and it will become more the efficiency of these muscles rather than their size that matters (and maybe this is the foundation of the "strength debate").

Im not sure thats even a question.

Err - yes - realised I should be heading to work!

What I should have added is:

"Am I correct in this thinking?"

I would be surprised if an increase in muscle mass occurred, beyond the slow endurance hypertrophy described by Alex. Perhaps Regardless, its still the case that the size/strength of these muscles is practically irrelevant for TT performance - if this guy can get off the toilet without the aid of a rail, then he can TT. The limiting factor continues to be the aerobic system.

jgsi

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

JGSI wrote:

I
Did they perform such efforts at the same power output as those that maintained regular (higher) cadence? Because if the low cadence efforts were performed at a higher power output, then that's more likely the reason for improvement, rather than the cadence per se.

Hopefully you can read ......


lucky I kept that edition due to chaos on my desk......

briantrumpet

meanredspider wrote:

Intuitively, I'd also expect an increase in muscle mass and, therefore, "stronger" legs - that's certainly happened to me as I significantly increased my cycling. I also expect that these changes will tail off and it will become more the efficiency of these muscles rather than their size that matters (and maybe this is the foundation of the "strength debate").

I suspect that your legs might be a red herring (I'm trying to ignore the mental image) and highlight the risks of using personal experience. In my own case (there, now I'm using personal experience) there is minimal increase in muscle mass despite a large increase in amount and intensity of cycling - but I can certainly ride further and faster than 12 months ago. I guess that genetic make-up determines the response to exercise of various types - my body certainly does not put on muscle mass easily, even in response to vanity weights work.

BTW - this really is a great thread - I'm only sorry I've only got personal experience to add, rather than anything usefully scientific.

meanredspider

briantrumpet wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Intuitively, I'd also expect an increase in muscle mass and, therefore, "stronger" legs - that's certainly happened to me as I significantly increased my cycling. I also expect that these changes will tail off and it will become more the efficiency of these muscles rather than their size that matters (and maybe this is the foundation of the "strength debate").

I suspect that your legs might be a red herring (I'm trying to ignore the mental image) and highlight the risks of using personal experience. In my own case (there, now I'm using personal experience) there is minimal increase in muscle mass despite a large increase in amount and intensity of cycling - but I can certainly ride further and faster than 12 months ago. I guess that genetic make-up determines the response to exercise of various types - my body certainly does not put on muscle mass easily, even in response to vanity weights work.

BTW - this really is a great thread - I'm only sorry I've only got personal experience to add, rather than anything usefully scientific.

Yes - I'm conscious that I'm using personal experience which is (very) risky but I suspect I'm not alone in this which is why this topic causes so much confusion. I also put on muscle mass very readily (even my pecs have improved from cycling - which always draws howls of derision on here).

A question for you, though, Brian. The impression I get is that you've been a regular & keen cyclist for a while - am I correct in this? My current belief is that there is some muscle mass increase at the outset but this stabilises and that it then becomes the quality rather than the quantity of muscle that is everything.

To P_Tucker's point, I can jump off the toilet these days. I'd like to demonstrate the change through leg presses on the same machine but I'm no longer a member of that (or any) gym and 200kg was all it went up to anyway. I'd wager big money, though, that my maximal leg strength has increased through cycling alone (again, n=1 so hardly scientific proof)

The other slightly comfounding factor is that I'm a biggish bloke (6' and 95kg) and I do quite a lot of hills on my commute. The power I generate for any given speed/cadence combo up a hill needs to come from higher forces than, say, for a 65kg bloke. This may have affected my particular adaptation.

A picture (me after the Lance Twitter ride)

briantrumpet

meanredspider wrote:

A question for you, though, Brian. The impression I get is that you've been a regular & keen cyclist for a while - am I correct in this?

I've always cycled a bit - but getting a decent bike and all the relevant kit 12 months ago has led to a step change in my cycling habits: previously, probably, at most 1,500 miles of gentle commuting in a year, the past twelve months about 8,000 miles of focused hard riding. But I'm essentially the same shape as I was when I was in my early twenties (that was 25 years ago) - I can still get into the same trousers, even if they are marginally a snugger fit round the thighs and derrière. And my weight has hovered round the 73kg mark (for 6') for ages (though noting that the fat/muscle ratio might have changed slightly).

As I say, for whatever reason (nutrition or genetic make-up) I don't put on mass (muscle or fat) easily, despite eating like a horse. I'll never be Mr Universe. (I've learnt to live with the disappointment.)

meanredspider

JGSI wrote:

Hopefully you can read ......

lucky I kept that edition due to chaos on my desk......

I read this study as: those that trained at hill-climbing got better at hill-climbing, those that trained at flat riding got better at flat riding and those that didn't train didn't get better. It didn't seem to prove much about cadence as far as I could see. What would have been more interesting would be to have compared hill climbers at two different cadences.

dennisn

Aside from the fact that I'm an idiot(or worse) there is something else about these weight training threads that has always bothered me. I get the impression that more than a few people think that if you lift weights you'll end up looking like Dorian Yates or Tom Platz.
That a doing few squats and bench presses will turn you into a muscular giant. It's almost to the point of "well, big muscles are bad" or bad for you or possibly unhealthy.
I guess I'm asking now weight training got this way with cyclists. It makes me want to point out that if you think all you have to do to "get big" is pump a little then think again.
No one gets big who doesn't specifically want to. You'll no more end up looking like them
than the average club racer is going to win the TDF.

Keith47

^^^ +1 I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people say " I don't want to lift weights or I'll end up looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger!!" as if you could get that size by accident!

P_Tucker

dennisn wrote:

Aside from the fact that I'm an idiot(or worse) there is something else about these weight training threads that has always bothered me. I get the impression that more than a few people think that if you lift weights you'll end up looking like Dorian Yates or Tom Platz.
That a doing few squats and bench presses will turn you into a muscular giant. It's almost to the point of "well, big muscles are bad" or bad for you or possibly unhealthy.
I guess I'm asking now weight training got this way with cyclists. It makes me want to point out that if you think all you have to do to "get big" is pump a little then think again.
No one gets big who doesn't specifically want to. You'll no more end up looking like them
than the average club racer is going to win the TDF.

Sweet jesus, a valid point.

*THUD*

briantrumpet

P_Tucker wrote:

*THUD*

Sorry, not doing my First Aid training till Thursday.

P_Tucker

briantrumpet wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

*THUD*

Sorry, not doing my First Aid training till Thursday.

*drools*

briantrumpet

P_Tucker wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

*THUD*

Sorry, not doing my First Aid training till Thursday.

*drools*

I'm dialling 999 now - I think you've got rabies.

dennisn

P_Tucker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Aside from the fact that I'm an idiot(or worse) there is something else about these weight training threads that has always bothered me. I get the impression that more than a few people think that if you lift weights you'll end up looking like Dorian Yates or Tom Platz.
That a doing few squats and bench presses will turn you into a muscular giant. It's almost to the point of "well, big muscles are bad" or bad for you or possibly unhealthy.
I guess I'm asking now weight training got this way with cyclists. It makes me want to point out that if you think all you have to do to "get big" is pump a little then think again.
No one gets big who doesn't specifically want to. You'll no more end up looking like them
than the average club racer is going to win the TDF.

Sweet jesus, a valid point.

*THUD*

Now I'm really confused, but am going to postulate that it was the "Idiot" part you thought valid. :oops: :oops:

P_Tucker

No, unlike you I read the whole post and try to respond to the authors intended meaning, rather than finding one small point that supports my beliefs and homing in on only that.

meanredspider

Steady on, guys, it's going OK & is almost constructive - let's not drag it back to a slagging match.

I've actually learned some stuff from this "Strength" thread and have a different view 8)

Alex_Simmons/RST

meanredspider wrote:

Hi Alex - thanks for the replies - very clear. I'm past the point of questioning if weights are significantly beneficial to endurance cyclists - my question is a bit more subtle than the Hulk Hogan question. I'll try to explain it this way:

Take an average non-exercising bloke on the street and start to train him to win the local TT. I don't doubt that the majority of improvement to his performance will come from the adaptations you describe above. Intuitively, I'd also expect an increase in muscle mass and, therefore, "stronger" legs - that's certainly happened to me as I significantly increased my cycling. I also expect that these changes will tail off and it will become more the efficiency of these muscles rather than their size that matters (and maybe this is the foundation of the "strength debate").

Well, has your 1 rep maximum leg squat (i.e. strength) improved as a result of cycling? *

If you were really unfit and didn't do much exercise at all before, I'd expect some improvement, as with most things, just about any exercise has an across the board effect on the untrained.

As another anecdote (and anecdotes are not evidence, so take it for what it's worth, i.e. not much), my strength is significantly less than it used to be. Having your lower leg amputated kind of does that. In fact I weaker than I've been in about 30+ years and can't even contemplate putting much weight on my back to do a squat (I used to be able to free squat > 2.5x body mass). So how come I have either equaled or beaten my pre-amputation (2007) power to weight ratio for all aerobic endurance durations for 4-minutes and longer?


* This of course is the funniest thing about this whole discussion. Why don't powerlifters/weightlifters, for whom maximal force is important, ride bikes more to improve strength?

Alex_Simmons/RST

JGSI wrote:

Hopefully you can read ......
lucky I kept that edition due to chaos on my desk......

Thanks, I don't see that mag here in Australia.

So the riders that performed higher power efforts at a lower cadence, did better in the lower cadence (hill) test, and the riders that performed higher power efforts at a higher cadence did better in the higher cadence (flatter) test.

Sounds to me like the principle of specificity applying.

briantrumpet

meanredspider wrote:

I've actually learned some stuff from this "Strength" thread and have a different view 8)

Steady on chap - this is the internet, y'know, and people aren't supposed to change their minds.

dennisn

Keith47 wrote:

^^^ +1 I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people say " I don't want to lift weights or I'll end up looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger!!" as if you could get that size by accident!

I should clarify something here. I was a wanna be bodybuilder in my teens and early twenties. I have a long upper body and short legs. I tried like crazy to put muscle mass on my upper half. All to no or very little avail. My legs and calves however only had to walk by a barbell to put on muscle, or so it seemed. A friend of mine who was built "the other way" had the big guns up top but I watched him do tons of leg and calf work and it got him very little. He was so p*ssed off at me for my legs. He did calf work till hell froze over and all for naught. Just goes to show that even intense weights sometimes don't yeild much in the way of size. These days he's a pretty fair bike rider(for an old fart.)

Alex_Simmons/RST

meanredspider wrote:

The power I generate for any given speed/cadence combo up a hill needs to come from higher forces than, say, for a 65kg bloke. This may have affected my particular adaptation.

It doesn't matter what you weigh. If your cadence is the same and you are producing more power, then you are applying higher (sub-maximal) forces.

That is akin to holding the same speed and gear while the gradient goes up.

Alex_Simmons/RST

dennisn wrote:

Aside from the fact that I'm an idiot(or worse) there is something else about these weight training threads that has always bothered me. I get the impression that more than a few people think that if you lift weights you'll end up looking like Dorian Yates or Tom Platz.

Which is exactly why I talk about all these discussions with respect to role of strength training (i.e. training that seeks to improve strength / maximal force ability), and not talk about weight training as that's completely unspecified as to what that is or does.

The title of the OP's thread is "Increasing leg strength". It wasn't "training with weights".

meanredspider

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Well, has your 1 rep maximum leg squat (i.e. strength) improved as a result of cycling? *

If you were really unfit and didn't do much exercise at all before, I'd expect some improvement, as with most things, just about any exercise has an across the board effect on the untrained.

Well it's all that I can surmise. I did twice weekly Spin classes and played 5-a-side hocket for an hour a week too. I do none of that now - instead I commute the commute below (or similar) 3x a week on average (around 100 miles) as fast as I can manage. I'm as certain as I can be without measuring it, that my legs are maximally stronger. There's both more definition to my legs and they're bigger. None of that is scientific but it's the type of experience that leads one to believe that cycling must have made my legs stronger. I know that this is all anecdotal and, for this n=1, it might also be correct as we're all different. But I do have a different view and I'm grateful for the patience you've shown in explaining your views.

meanredspider

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The power I generate for any given speed/cadence combo up a hill needs to come from higher forces than, say, for a 65kg bloke. This may have affected my particular adaptation.

It doesn't matter what you weigh. If your cadence is the same and you are producing more power, then you are applying higher (sub-maximal) forces.

That is akin to holding the same speed and gear while the gradient goes up.

Yes - of course - my point is that it takes more force/torque (and therefore power) to shift 95kg up a hill than it does 65kg (all other things being equal) so I will adapt accordingly.

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

I'm as certain as I can be without measuring it, that my legs are maximally stronger. There's both more definition to my legs and they're bigger. None of that is scientific but it's the type of experience that leads one to believe that cycling must have made my legs stronger.

So; you are now aware of the existence of endurance-induced hypertrophy, you did more endurance exercise, and you haven't objectively measured your strength. I think I might have to go back to contempt mode if you're not careful.

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The power I generate for any given speed/cadence combo up a hill needs to come from higher forces than, say, for a 65kg bloke. This may have affected my particular adaptation.

It doesn't matter what you weigh. If your cadence is the same and you are producing more power, then you are applying higher (sub-maximal) forces.

That is akin to holding the same speed and gear while the gradient goes up.

Yes - of course - my point is that it takes more force/torque (and therefore power) to shift 95kg up a hill than it does 65kg (all other things being equal) so I will adapt accordingly.

Well, you'll have more leg strength to begin with than an equivalent 65kg bloke. So as a percentage of maximal strength, it'll probably end up being about the same.

dennisn

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Aside from the fact that I'm an idiot(or worse) there is something else about these weight training threads that has always bothered me. I get the impression that more than a few people think that if you lift weights you'll end up looking like Dorian Yates or Tom Platz.

Which is exactly why I talk about all these discussions with respect to role of strength training (i.e. training that seeks to improve strength / maximal force ability), and not talk about weight training as that's completely unspecified as to what that is or does.

The title of the OP's thread is "Increasing leg strength". It wasn't "training with weights".

A quick re-read of the original post revealed the word "weights" in the text. So I would agree with your statement about the title.

meanredspider

P_Tucker wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'm as certain as I can be without measuring it, that my legs are maximally stronger. There's both more definition to my legs and they're bigger. None of that is scientific but it's the type of experience that leads one to believe that cycling must have made my legs stronger.

So; you are now aware of the existence of endurance-induced hypertrophy, you did more endurance exercise, and you haven't objectively measured your strength. I think I might have to go back to contempt mode if you're not careful.

I have put lots of caveats in though. And, jeez, I've even admitted on the interweb that I've learned something and changed my view - I'll never be able to hold my head high again. Do you want blood?

In all seriousness, there's still something not quite settled in my mind about this and I'm casting around a bit to get to it, so please bear with me a bit longer before rolling out the contempt.