Increasing leg strength
Comments
-
Zoomer37 wrote:Friend of mine started doing bicep curls to try and improve his dart skills. 6 months on and he still cant hit the trebles for sh*t, but his guns are f*cking awesome.
Please let this thread die. Its more painful than watching a donky cry
OK, I proclaim it dead. Long live the next weight training "discussion".0 -
Nah, this is the thread that just keeps on giving. Donkeys crying are so yesterday.Zoomer37 wrote:Please let this thread die. Its more painful than watching a donky cry0 -
dennisn wrote:I'm not against facts and figures or charts and graphs. They have their place,
I'm with you dennis; these "facts" are no substitute for hunches, lore, and good old fashioned common sense. As you ably demonstrate.
Afterall, it wasn't so-called "science", with its hypotheses, experiments, observations and measurements, its peer reviewed scrutiny of its findings, and its expansion of our knowledge and understanding of the world around us, that got us to where we are today. No sir.0 -
rdt wrote:dennisn wrote:I'm not against facts and figures or charts and graphs. They have their place,
I'm with you dennis; these "facts" are no substitute for hunches, lore, and good old fashioned common sense. As you ably demonstrate.
Afterall, it wasn't so-called "science", with its hypotheses, experiments, observations and measurements, its peer reviewed scrutiny of its findings, and its expansion of our knowledge and understanding of the world around us, that got us to where we are today. No sir.
The thing with facts is that you can use them to prove anything thats remotely true.0 -
dennisn wrote:Did a sort of Internet search yesterday for books related to "Weight Training for Cyclists".
To say that it yeilded more than a few books on the subject would be an understatement.
Now, given that the reason for publishing a book is "MONEY" we can assume that most of the authors are doing it for just that. However, some of these authors are well known in cycling and racing circles as notable coaches and trainers. This leads me to believe that there has got to be a bit of truth in what they promote. There seems to be a group of people on this forum that, for whatever reason, can't accept that someone might be able to get a little stronger, a little faster, in a little better condition, and maybe gain some usable strength and power by pumping iron. Pardon my use of the words strength and power as I obviously have no understanding of them. That's reserved for a select few.
Yeah, it turns out that the best selling book in the history of the world is full of utter bolleaux too.
Popularity doesn't make something correct. Being correct makes something correct.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:rdt wrote:dennisn wrote:I'm not against facts and figures or charts and graphs. They have their place,
I'm with you dennis; these "facts" are no substitute for hunches, lore, and good old fashioned common sense. As you ably demonstrate.
Afterall, it wasn't so-called "science", with its hypotheses, experiments, observations and measurements, its peer reviewed scrutiny of its findings, and its expansion of our knowledge and understanding of the world around us, that got us to where we are today. No sir.
The thing with facts is that you can use them to prove anything thats remotely true.
You try your best to convince people, and you fail miserably. The lesson is, never try.
0 -
dennisn wrote:When you're climbing the big stuff you're not thinking "Gee, the charts indicate that if I pedal at X RPM's with a power output at Y then....". No, you're thinking, between gasp for air, "Man, I hope my body holds out".
When every part of you aches from the effort you might just be thankful that you did
those sets of curls and bench presses as opposed to trying to cram more facts and figures into your head.
When I climb the big stuff I'm not thinking "Man, I hope my body holds out". I'm thinking "thank Raptor Jesus that I listened to all those science men and women who did a load of research then wrote a book telling me how to train for aerobic exercise. Without them I would probably be finding this quite hard". Later on I might twiddle past someone with giant quads, labouring over his bike, and laugh.0 -
No one has explained why the cyclist who employed more scientists (and please, don't turn this into a doping thing; for argument's sake we'll simply assume that they all doped and were in that department on a level playing field) than a cyclist has ever used, won more TdFs than any cyclist has ever won, and advocated weight training in the off season? I'm sure he wouldn't have done it if it had an adverse effect on his cycling.
I'm not claiming I know what the answer to all of this is. I believe something when a scientist can prove as much as is possible that something is so because he has the evidence to demonstrate why it is true.
Lance was famous for his high cadence AND it is public knowledge that he did weight training in the winter. His results are evidence that he was doing something right.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:dennisn wrote:When you're climbing the big stuff you're not thinking "Gee, the charts indicate that if I pedal at X RPM's with a power output at Y then....". No, you're thinking, between gasp for air, "Man, I hope my body holds out".
When every part of you aches from the effort you might just be thankful that you did
those sets of curls and bench presses as opposed to trying to cram more facts and figures into your head.
When I climb the big stuff I'm not thinking "Man, I hope my body holds out". I'm thinking "thank Raptor Jesus that I listened to all those science men and women who did a load of research then wrote a book telling me how to train for aerobic exercise. Without them I would probably be finding this quite hard". Later on I might twiddle past someone with giant quads, labouring over his bike, and laugh.
Actually had something like that happen to me. During a climb of Monarch Pass in Colorado I came up(very slowly) on a guy who had "everything" on his bike in the way of computers. As I got alongside him I asked "how's it going?". Now I was expecting an answer along the lines of "whew, just fair. you?" as it was a long beast of a pass. Instead I got "well, my heartrate is xyz and my power zxy per mile, which is more than yesterday but that climb only averaged 6.57% and today is averaging......". It wasn't those exact words but something close. As I made my way slowly around him he never stopped with his calculations. I was tempted to chuckle to myself but all my mind could come up with was "What the hell was that?" Doesn't have a thing to do with the OP's question(whatever it was) but a strange story none the less.0 -
neilo23 wrote:No one has explained why the cyclist who employed more scientists (and please, don't turn this into a doping thing; for argument's sake we'll simply assume that they all doped and were in that department on a level playing field) than a cyclist has ever used, won more TdFs than any cyclist has ever won, and advocated weight training in the off season? I'm sure he wouldn't have done it if it had an adverse effect on his cycling.
I'm not claiming I know what the answer to all of this is. I believe something when a scientist can prove as much as is possible that something is so because he has the evidence to demonstrate why it is true.
Lance was famous for his high cadence AND it is public knowledge that he did weight training in the winter. His results are evidence that he was doing something right.
Lance's 'high cadence' was a myth. It was no higher than most pro cyclists.
As for his off-season weight program? A combination of 2 things: he didn't really do weights in the off-season and if he actually did - they would be focussing on the body as a whole and not the legs.
A lot of Pros are seen 'in the gym' in the off season. They do core work, some upper body stuff, etc. What they don't do is loads of squats to bulk up their legs.
If Lance was seen in the gym it was because he (or the people associated with him) were trying to sell something.0 -
That is a fair enough question, however it must be realized that Armstrong (as I have noted before) was NOT coached by Carmichael but was coached by Ferrari. I can guarantee absolutely so that Armstrong did not life weights in the winter during preparation for his TDF victories. He is not that stupid and knows exactly what he is doing training wise but of course we all know he isn't known for telling the truth when fabricating a story is in his interests...neilo23 wrote:No one has explained why the cyclist who employed more scientists (and please, don't turn this into a doping thing; for argument's sake we'll simply assume that they all doped and were in that department on a level playing field) than a cyclist has ever used, won more TdFs than any cyclist has ever won, and advocated weight training in the off season? I'm sure he wouldn't have done it if it had an adverse effect on his cycling.
I'm not claiming I know what the answer to all of this is. I believe something when a scientist can prove as much as is possible that something is so because he has the evidence to demonstrate why it is true.
Lance was famous for his high cadence AND it is public knowledge that he did weight training in the winter. His results are evidence that he was doing something right.
It has been known for 10+ years by many (myself included) that Carmichael is only connected to Armstrong purely for business reasons, Landis even publicly stated recently that the training Armstrong was doing was not what was being touted publicly. This was to benefit Carmichael (and Armstrong) financially by conning his clients into believing they need things that they do not.
See this recent interview http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/ne ... h/25954415 it is an interesting enough interview and I recommend it. Before anyone complains of reputability issues with Landis I can obviously not prove that he is telling the truth, but I would be shocked if he is not being 100% honest in the interview.
I do not wish to bring doping into this post and I hope I have not but the fact that Armstrong did not weight train is the what I wish to get across.
Murr X0 -
Correct!StageWinner wrote:If Lance was seen in the gym it was because he (or the people associated with him) were trying to sell something.
Murr X0 -
In "that" Youtube video, his upper body certainly looks as if he'd been doing some weight. Obviously the muscle mass was gone by the start of the season.0
-
http://www.louisville327.com/bike/McEwenLegs.jpg
Here's a shot of some guy named Robbie McEwen. It's said he won a race or two in his time. This is probably because he NEVER touched a barbell????? Right?
Many thanks to "frenchfighter" for the photo. He's got the good stuff.0 -
dennisn wrote:http://www.louisville327.com/bike/McEwenLegs.jpg
Here's a shot of some guy named Robbie McEwen. It's said he won a race or two in his time. This is probably because he NEVER touched a barbell????? Right?
Many thanks to "frenchfighter" for the photo. He's got the good stuff.
Most Pro cyclists have legs like that. They get them from riding a bike 10,000+ miles a year. :roll:0 -
StageWinner wrote:dennisn wrote:http://www.louisville327.com/bike/McEwenLegs.jpg
Here's a shot of some guy named Robbie McEwen. It's said he won a race or two in his time. This is probably because he NEVER touched a barbell????? Right?
Many thanks to "frenchfighter" for the photo. He's got the good stuff.
Most Pro cyclists have legs like that. They get them from riding a bike 10,000+ miles a year. :roll:
If you say so. It's now on the Internet so it must be true.
0 -
I've never seen a donkey cry. Do they make a blubbing noise so you can differentiate between, say, just a spot of eye watering? I bet they'd blow some huuge snot bubbles.
Now i've started thinking about it that noise they make is like a kid trying to catch their breath between sobs when you've stolen their sweets.
..apparently Death or Glory- Just another Story0 -
dennisn wrote:http://www.louisville327.com/bike/McEwenLegs.jpg
Here's a shot of some guy named Robbie McEwen. It's said he won a race or two in his time. This is probably because he NEVER touched a barbell????? Right?
Many thanks to "frenchfighter" for the photo. He's got the good stuff.
Just another typical vain Aussie sporting muscle implants. They're all at it.
Robbie McEwen:-
Leonardo, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle:-
Darryn Lyons:-
0 -
rdt wrote:dennisn wrote:http://www.louisville327.com/bike/McEwenLegs.jpg
Here's a shot of some guy named Robbie McEwen. It's said he won a race or two in his time. This is probably because he NEVER touched a barbell????? Right?
Many thanks to "frenchfighter" for the photo. He's got the good stuff.
Just another typical vain Aussie sporting muscle implants. They're all at it.
Robbie McEwen:-
I could sure use a few of those "implants" myself. Looking good at 62 is probably gonna take more surgery than exercise.0 -
I think anyone denying that cyclists do not have muscular thighs is living in cloud cuckoo land.
McEwen is a sprinter so he obviously has bigger muscles than a climber (look at a marathon runner compared to a 100m sprinter).
Even when I was cycling "full time'" I still had skinny thighs. I am not saying that big muscles are the key to being a good cyclist, but pros like Bradley are the exceptions to the rule. Just look at the quickly searched for examples I posted earlier in the thread.
Measure a "normal", non cyclist dude's thighs, who weighs 65 kilos, is built like a stick insect, and measure the thighs of a pro climber. Who's thighs are bigger? Why are they bigger? The pro-climber's. How he got them is through cycling. But they are bigger than you average Joe's!
Before anyone accuses me of talking crap, you should note that most of my statements have a question mark on the end. This is because I do not want to want to make any statements that I am unsure of. I understand the difference between power, strength and cardio prowess, but to deny that many pro climbers are muscular is to deny the evidence.0 -
It is public knowledge that Lance said a lot of things about his training. Whether or not he actually did them is highly debatable.neilo23 wrote:Lance was famous for his high cadence AND it is public knowledge that he did weight training in the winter. His results are evidence that he was doing something right.0 -
Correct.StageWinner wrote:dennisn wrote:http://www.louisville327.com/bike/McEwenLegs.jpg
Here's a shot of some guy named Robbie McEwen. It's said he won a race or two in his time. This is probably because he NEVER touched a barbell????? Right?
Many thanks to "frenchfighter" for the photo. He's got the good stuff.
Most Pro cyclists have legs like that. They get them from riding a bike 10,000+ miles a year. :roll:
Hypertrophy of muscle fibres is one of the physiological responses to endurance training, and is especially so when one includes hard efforts regularly, such as racing or supra threshold work in their training.
Slow twitch fibre hypertrophy is induced by sufficient training at all aerobic power levels (endurance up to max aerobic power, but the greatest inducement occurs from time spent at supra threshold levels) and hypertrophy of fast twitch muscle fibre is induced by doing neuromuscular power work such as hard accelerations/sprint work.
One would expect a pro roadie sprinter to include plenty of such work in their training, let alone the volume of racing they do.
It also requires diet to support it and can be done faster with additional anabolic agents (such supplements of course are prohibited).0 -
Alex, Just in case you get the wrong impression, I always read your posts with interest and you seem like a very knowledgeable man. No buts. You are armed with evidence and experience, and you certainly know more than I do.
Therefore, please answer the questions that I asked:
1) Why did he have such a muscular upper body in this video? Even I understand that this did not help his legs. Was it simply to increase the work his muscles did to keep his body fat under control?
2) Why does nobody accept that pros thighs are generally on the muscular/large side?
Not critcising your views, simply interested.0 -
1. Vanity probably. Which is why the majority go to gyms. It wasn't for reasons of cycling performance. Like I said, he had to undo all that to get back into shape cycling for pro cycling again.neilo23 wrote:Alex, Just in case you get the wrong impression, I always read your posts with interest and you seem like a very knowledgeable man. No buts. You are armed with evidence and experience, and you certainly know more than I do.
Therefore, please answer the questions that I asked:
1) Why did he have such a muscular upper body in this video? Even I understand that this did not help his legs. Was it simply to increase the work his muscles did to keep his body fat under control?
2) Why does nobody accept that pros thighs are generally on the muscular/large side?
Not critcising your views, simply interested.
2. I'm not sure that anyone doesn't accept that relative to their bodies, professional cyclists have very well formed legs. That's pretty normal. But then you only have to look at shots of say a Wiggins or a Rasmussen to get some idea of why their legs look big compare to the rest of them.
Well formed cut muscular looking legs are no indicator of a rider's sustainable aerobic power. I have plenty of people the train at my indoor training centre. Some of the most cut looking legs are on guys that have pretty ordinary power outputs.
But no-one performs to their potential when they are carrying excess body fat.0 -
@Alex,
Thanks for the explaination. Without being rude or patronising you explained, succinctley and clearly, more in a couple of sentences than several other "posters" did over several pages.
Thank you for bothering.
Maybe my skinny legs will continue to surprise me. Just couldn't understand why my "stick insect" legs work like they do. I will not miss the winter squats :-)0 -
Murr X wrote:
That is a fair enough question, however it must be realized that Armstrong (as I have noted before) was NOT coached by Carmichael but was coached by Ferrari. I can guarantee absolutely so that Armstrong did not life weights in the winter during preparation for his TDF victories. He is not that stupid and knows exactly what he is doing training wise but of course we all know he isn't known for telling the truth when fabricating a story is in his interests...neilo23 wrote:No one has explained why the cyclist who employed more scientists (and please, don't turn this into a doping thing; for argument's sake we'll simply assume that they all doped and were in that department on a level playing field) than a cyclist has ever used, won more TdFs than any cyclist has ever won, and advocated weight training in the off season? I'm sure he wouldn't have done it if it had an adverse effect on his cycling.
I'm not claiming I know what the answer to all of this is. I believe something when a scientist can prove as much as is possible that something is so because he has the evidence to demonstrate why it is true.
Lance was famous for his high cadence AND it is public knowledge that he did weight training in the winter. His results are evidence that he was doing something right.
It has been known for 10+ years by many (myself included) that Carmichael is only connected to Armstrong purely for business reasons, Landis even publicly stated recently that the training Armstrong was doing was not what was being touted publicly. This was to benefit Carmichael (and Armstrong) financially by conning his clients into believing they need things that they do not.
See this recent interview http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/ne ... h/25954415 it is an interesting enough interview and I recommend it. Before anyone complains of reputability issues with Landis I can obviously not prove that he is telling the truth, but I would be shocked if he is not being 100% honest in the interview.
I do not wish to bring doping into this post and I hope I have not but the fact that Armstrong did not weight train is the what I wish to get across.
Murr X
This is before all the Landis stuff hit the fan. Daniel Coyle's book "Tour de Force" documented Armstrong's 2004 season as he looked to record his 6th TdF victory. Coyle gets various juicy quotes from then Armstrong teammate Landis throughout the book, but there is one where he questions Landis about who is the real brains behind Armstrong's training, given that Carmichael and Ferrari were both in Armstrong's "orbit". Landis's response was to roll his eyes and say "You've met them both. Who do you think?" - the implication being that it is all Ferrari.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
1. Vanity probably. Which is why the majority go to gyms. It wasn't for reasons of cycling performance. Like I said, he had to undo all that to get back into shape cycling for pro cycling again.neilo23 wrote:Alex, Just in case you get the wrong impression, I always read your posts with interest and you seem like a very knowledgeable man. No buts. You are armed with evidence and experience, and you certainly know more than I do.
Therefore, please answer the questions that I asked:
1) Why did he have such a muscular upper body in this video? Even I understand that this did not help his legs. Was it simply to increase the work his muscles did to keep his body fat under control?
2) Why does nobody accept that pros thighs are generally on the muscular/large side?
Not critcising your views, simply interested.
2. I'm not sure that anyone doesn't accept that relative to their bodies, professional cyclists have very well formed legs. That's pretty normal. But then you only have to look at shots of say a Wiggins or a Rasmussen to get some idea of why their legs look big compare to the rest of them.
Well formed cut muscular looking legs are no indicator of a rider's sustainable aerobic power. I have plenty of people the train at my indoor training centre. Some of the most cut looking legs are on guys that have pretty ordinary power outputs.
But no-one performs to their potential when they are carrying excess body fat.
Let me get this straight. McEwen wins 12 TDF stages, Paris-Nice, and 12 Giro stages to name but a few. Doesn't he have way to much muscle mass to even be able to finish races like these, let alone win? Or was it because these races were really short? And he did it with all that muscle mass hindering him?0 -
Does being so stupid hurt?0
-
dennisn wrote:Let me get this straight. McEwen wins 12 TDF stages, Paris-Nice, and 12 Giro stages to name but a few. Doesn't he have way to much muscle mass to even be able to finish races like these, let alone win? Or was it because these races were really short? And he did it with all that muscle mass hindering him?
That's absolutely right dennis.
Now feck off and stop posting your trolling dribble on this thread. You can't really be as stupid as your latest posts suggest.More problems but still living....0 -
Pretty unnecessary really. :roll:amaferanga wrote:That's absolutely right dennis.
Now feck off and stop posting your trolling dribble on this thread. You can't really be as stupid as your latest posts suggest.0
