squats and leg-presses?
Comments
-
Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:Do professional cyclists have stronger legs than me, a 6'4" lanky and decidedly average amateur?
No - but what they will have is significantly higher sustainable power outputs. Have a read of the thread (I'm presuming you haven't, or you wouldn't have asked).
Then why do their legs look noticeably musclier than mine? Why is it that cycling prowess is sometimes judged by the size of legs? If leg strength isn't important, cyclists legs wouldn't get bigger and more defined, right? Or do they just get bigger purely by accident and it's actually nothing to do with the training effect of cycling?0 -
YIMan wrote:
Then why do their legs look noticeably musclier than mine?
I don't know - do Michael Rasmussen's legs look 'noticably musclier' than yours? Different people's muscles respond to exercise/stimulation in lots of different ways. You show me a pic of a rider with big legs and I'll show you a pic of an equally successful rider with legs like matchsticks.YIMan wrote:Why is it that cycling prowess is sometimes judged by the size of legs?
I didn't realise it was. Maybe in the uneducated...YIMan wrote:If leg strength isn't important, cyclists legs wouldn't get bigger and more defined, right? Or do they just get bigger purely by accident and it's actually nothing to do with the training effect of cycling?
You are pre-supposing that cyclists legs 'get bigger' whereas the actual effect is probably more definition. Perhaps there may even be a bit of hypertrophy on occasion - but no, leg strength is not 'important' for all the reasons which have been explained many times over in this thread.0 -
All just toned, no muscle mass built through cycling?0 -
YIMan wrote:All just toned, no muscle mass built through cycling?
Like I said - there may be. There is a pic of Rasmussen in there, incidentally - and a pic of Ullrich is hardly relevant, given that he was juiced up most of the time. Not sure what point you are trying to make.0 -
Another open question while I'm at it.
I climb the Col de Tourmalet at 10mph.
Day one I ride it in a 34x28 gear. Day 2 I try to ride it in a 53x11 gear, as I've been told by people on a forum that "leg strength isn't important", so I know that all I have to do is maintain 10mph in the 53x11 gear, obviously turning my legs much more slowly than when I rode it in 34x28.
Perfectly possible, right? Same power, same fitness requirement, leg strength not a factor?0 -
Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:All just toned, no muscle mass built through cycling?
Like I said - there may be. There is a pic of Rasmussen in there, incidentally. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
Thanks, I'm aware of whose pictures I put in. In fact I put Rasmussen and Wiggins in to demonstrate that their legs are not quite in fact as devoid of muscle mass and tone as was suggested.
The real question is why are Ullrich, Armstrong, Indurain and Cancellara's legs so impressive? Is that really just toning?0 -
YIMan wrote:Another open question while I'm at it.
I climb the Col de Tourmalet at 10mph.
Day one I ride it in a 34x28 gear. Day 2 I try to ride it in a 53x11 gear, as I've been told by people on a forum that "leg strength isn't important", so I know that all I have to do is maintain 10mph in the 53x11 gear, obviously turning my legs much more slowly than when I rode it in 34x28.
Perfectly possible, right? Same power, same fitness requirement, leg strength not a factor?
No, not the same fitness requirement, because you will (almost certainly) lack the power to turn that gear efficiently. You could probably turn it a few revolutions (which would indicate that you already have the stength), but you would be unlikely to be able to sustain the effort for very long (which would indicate that you lack the sustainable power). Seriously, this has already been explained. Just read the thread.0 -
Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:Sort of a "the more I know the less I know". And I know that's true.
There's certainly a wealth of evidence on here to support that supposition.
I look at that as a positive trait in people. Not questioning and wondering seems like it would take all the joy and wonder out of the world. If nothing changes or gives you another view then, for you, that's safe and without risk.
Me, I love new things / ideas / theories. Life's way too short to be tied into the same old, same old thing on a daily basis.0 -
dennisn wrote:I look at that as a positive trait in people. Not questioning and wondering seems like it would take all the joy and wonder out of the world. If nothing changes or gives you another view then, for you, that's safe and without risk.
Me, I love new things / ideas / theories. Life's way too short to be tied into the same old, same old thing on a daily basis.
That's nice for you. Have you ever considered trolling a different forum?0 -
YIMan wrote:The real question is why are Ullrich, Armstrong, Indurain and Cancellara's legs so impressive? Is that really just toning?
Probably something to do with the 35+ hours a week that they put in during training...0 -
Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:I look at that as a positive trait in people. Not questioning and wondering seems like it would take all the joy and wonder out of the world. If nothing changes or gives you another view then, for you, that's safe and without risk.
Me, I love new things / ideas / theories. Life's way too short to be tied into the same old, same old thing on a daily basis.
That's nice for you. Have you ever considered trolling a different forum?
Been there, done that.0 -
Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:Another open question while I'm at it.
I climb the Col de Tourmalet at 10mph.
Day one I ride it in a 34x28 gear. Day 2 I try to ride it in a 53x11 gear, as I've been told by people on a forum that "leg strength isn't important", so I know that all I have to do is maintain 10mph in the 53x11 gear, obviously turning my legs much more slowly than when I rode it in 34x28.
Perfectly possible, right? Same power, same fitness requirement, leg strength not a factor?
No, not the same fitness requirement, because you will (almost certainly) lack the power to turn that gear efficiently. You could probably turn it a few revolutions (which would indicate that you already have the stength), but you would be unlikely to be able to sustain the effort for very long (which would indicate that you lack the sustainable power). Seriously, this has already been explained. Just read the thread.
It is exactly the same power and therefore fitness requirement. Seriously, I've read the thread and this hasn't been explained.0 -
Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:The real question is why are Ullrich, Armstrong, Indurain and Cancellara's legs so impressive? Is that really just toning?
Probably something to do with the 35+ hours a week that they put in during training...
Sure, but why are their legs bigger than mere mortals, or are you saying they were always that big and what I'm seeing is only "toning".0 -
YIMan wrote:It is exactly the same power and therefore fitness requirement. Seriously, I've read the thread and this hasn't been explained.
Seriously - it has. The trouble is, you don't sound like you know what you are looking for. You need to understand the difference between strength, power and sustainable power. The above will make sense then.0 -
YIMan wrote:Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:The real question is why are Ullrich, Armstrong, Indurain and Cancellara's legs so impressive? Is that really just toning?
Probably something to do with the 35+ hours a week that they put in during training...
Sure, but why are their legs bigger than mere mortals, or are you saying they were always that big and what I'm seeing is only "toning".
Their legs look different to 'mere mortals', because like I said just now, most 'mere mortals' lives do not revolve around training and racing full-time for around 11 months of every year.0 -
YIMan wrote:Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:Another open question while I'm at it.
I climb the Col de Tourmalet at 10mph.
Day one I ride it in a 34x28 gear. Day 2 I try to ride it in a 53x11 gear, as I've been told by people on a forum that "leg strength isn't important", so I know that all I have to do is maintain 10mph in the 53x11 gear, obviously turning my legs much more slowly than when I rode it in 34x28.
Perfectly possible, right? Same power, same fitness requirement, leg strength not a factor?
No, not the same fitness requirement, because you will (almost certainly) lack the power to turn that gear efficiently. You could probably turn it a few revolutions (which would indicate that you already have the stength), but you would be unlikely to be able to sustain the effort for very long (which would indicate that you lack the sustainable power). Seriously, this has already been explained. Just read the thread.
It is exactly the same power and therefore fitness requirement. Seriously, I've read the thread and this hasn't been explained.
No matter what the gearing it will take the same amount of Power(watts) to move said bike and rider the same distance on the same course. It may take more or less Time to do one than the other but the Power required remains the same. Not sure how that applies to the fitness required. A stronger motor(rider) would be able to do it quicker than my Grandmother but both would use the same total power(watts) in the end. Someone help me on this if I've gone over the edge.0 -
Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:The real question is why are Ullrich, Armstrong, Indurain and Cancellara's legs so impressive? Is that really just toning?
Probably something to do with the 35+ hours a week that they put in during training...
Sure, but why are their legs bigger than mere mortals, or are you saying they were always that big and what I'm seeing is only "toning".
Their legs look different to 'mere mortals', because like I said just now, most 'mere mortals' lives do not revolve around training and racing full-time for around 11 months of every year.
I don't dispute that these people spend a whole lot more time and effort training and racing than we do. However, if you're saying that the reason their legs look the way they do is all toning and no real extra muscle mass or strength is going on there, well........0 -
dennisn wrote:However, if you're saying that the reason their legs look the way they do is all toning and no real extra muscle mass or strength is going on there, well........
I specifically didn't say that. To remind yourself of what I did actually say, how about going back and reading what I typed?0 -
dennisn wrote:YIMan wrote:Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:Another open question while I'm at it.
I climb the Col de Tourmalet at 10mph.
Day one I ride it in a 34x28 gear. Day 2 I try to ride it in a 53x11 gear, as I've been told by people on a forum that "leg strength isn't important", so I know that all I have to do is maintain 10mph in the 53x11 gear, obviously turning my legs much more slowly than when I rode it in 34x28.
Perfectly possible, right? Same power, same fitness requirement, leg strength not a factor?
No, not the same fitness requirement, because you will (almost certainly) lack the power to turn that gear efficiently. You could probably turn it a few revolutions (which would indicate that you already have the stength), but you would be unlikely to be able to sustain the effort for very long (which would indicate that you lack the sustainable power). Seriously, this has already been explained. Just read the thread.
It is exactly the same power and therefore fitness requirement. Seriously, I've read the thread and this hasn't been explained.
No matter what the gearing it will take the same amount of Power(watts) to move said bike and rider the same distance on the same course. It may take more or less Time to do one than the other but the Power required remains the same. Not sure how that applies to the fitness required. A stronger motor(rider) would be able to do it quicker than my Grandmother but both would use the same total power(watts) in the end. Someone help me on this if I've gone over the edge.
Yes that kind of confuses me too - I mean if power = strength x speed and if strenghth doesnt matter then how can you have
power = speed x some made up property that possibly involves the cardiovascular system.
Anyway all I know is some hills are easy some are tough and Ive been overtaken by a pensioner more than once.
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:dennisn wrote:YIMan wrote:Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:Another open question while I'm at it.
I climb the Col de Tourmalet at 10mph.
Day one I ride it in a 34x28 gear. Day 2 I try to ride it in a 53x11 gear, as I've been told by people on a forum that "leg strength isn't important", so I know that all I have to do is maintain 10mph in the 53x11 gear, obviously turning my legs much more slowly than when I rode it in 34x28.
Perfectly possible, right? Same power, same fitness requirement, leg strength not a factor?
No, not the same fitness requirement, because you will (almost certainly) lack the power to turn that gear efficiently. You could probably turn it a few revolutions (which would indicate that you already have the stength), but you would be unlikely to be able to sustain the effort for very long (which would indicate that you lack the sustainable power). Seriously, this has already been explained. Just read the thread.
It is exactly the same power and therefore fitness requirement. Seriously, I've read the thread and this hasn't been explained.
No matter what the gearing it will take the same amount of Power(watts) to move said bike and rider the same distance on the same course. It may take more or less Time to do one than the other but the Power required remains the same. Not sure how that applies to the fitness required. A stronger motor(rider) would be able to do it quicker than my Grandmother but both would use the same total power(watts) in the end. Someone help me on this if I've gone over the edge.
Yes that kind of confuses me too - I mean if power = strength x speed and if strenghth doesnt matter then how can you have
power = speed x some made up property that possibly involves the cardiovascular system.
Anyway all I know is some hills are easy some are tough and Ive been overtaken by a pensioner more than once.
I guess I'm saying, or the theory says, that if a rider and his bike go up a hill(say in a 34-28) to the top, that it takes a certain amount of wattage to do this. If the same rider on the same bike goes up the same hill using(say a 50-13) he will use the exact same wattage to get to the top. He may be faster or slower or struggle more or less but the power requirement to do it stays the same. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that even if said rider trains like an animal over the winter, whether with bike and weights or one or the other, that next summer(if he and his bike still weigh the same) the power requirement won't change. However if he weighs more or less then the power required will be more or less. I'm thinking I'm in the ball park on this? :?0 -
Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:Imposter wrote:YIMan wrote:The real question is why are Ullrich, Armstrong, Indurain and Cancellara's legs so impressive? Is that really just toning?
Probably something to do with the 35+ hours a week that they put in during training...
Sure, but why are their legs bigger than mere mortals, or are you saying they were always that big and what I'm seeing is only "toning".
Their legs look different to 'mere mortals', because like I said just now, most 'mere mortals' lives do not revolve around training and racing full-time for around 11 months of every year.
Their legs look like that because of increased muscle mass, not toning. To suggest otherwise is as rediculous as some of the pro weights arguments in this thread...
Increased muscle mass = stronger legs. So if that is because of 35 hours of training per week would mean cycling makes your legs stronger, which would suggest that stronger legs is beneficial, or they do weights!
I know my legs are much stronger since I have started cycling, which is anecdote to people on here but evidence to me. This is why I struggle to side with the notion that leg strength has nothing to do with cycling.0 -
Russp wrote:I know my legs are much stronger since I have started cycling, which is anecdote to people on here but evidence to me. This is why I struggle to side with the notion that leg strength has nothing to do with cycling.
In what way are your legs stronger ? And in what way does cycling make your legs stronger ?0 -
And here comes the next way to try to figure out how to rule someone wrong, i'm guessing all our personal experiences still do not count for anything in the cycling world haha!
It's a joke this is still going on and that you are actually that invested in this thread to stay involved in 8 pages worth today.0 -
MountainMonster wrote:And here comes the next way to try to figure out how to rule someone wrong, i'm guessing all our personal experiences still do not count for anything in the cycling world haha!
It's a joke this is still going on and that you are actually that invested in this thread to stay involved in 8 pages worth today.
Bit like you then. Difference being, you don't have a single shred of actual evidence to support your ignorance
Anyway, it's a simple enough question - and it wasn't even directed at you, but thanks for butting in anyway.0 -
Imposter wrote:MountainMonster wrote:And here comes the next way to try to figure out how to rule someone wrong, i'm guessing all our personal experiences still do not count for anything in the cycling world haha!
It's a joke this is still going on and that you are actually that invested in this thread to stay involved in 8 pages worth today.
Bit like you then. Difference being, you don't have a single shred of actual evidence to support your ignorance
Anyway, it's a simple enough question - and it wasn't even directed at you, but thanks for butting in anyway.
I'll go by my own damn experiences, which I know and trust! I've seen improvement through it, and that can be tied directly to the lifting of weights in the gym, so I know what works.0 -
MountainMonster wrote:I'll go by my own damn experiences, which I know and trust! I've seen improvement through it, and that can be tied directly to the lifting of weights in the gym, so I know what works.
I bet you can't explain why you think it works though.0 -
And who cares? It works for me, so as much as your "specialists" are saying that it doesn't, we have a large side that think it does, and it has personally worked for me. I can narrow it down to weights for my improvement simply because nothing else changed, and I saw improvements.
Boohoo, can't beat my personal experiences.0 -
Imposter wrote:Russp wrote:I know my legs are much stronger since I have started cycling, which is anecdote to people on here but evidence to me. This is why I struggle to side with the notion that leg strength has nothing to do with cycling.
In what way are your legs stronger ? And in what way does cycling make your legs stronger ?
If you mean how do I know my legs are stronger it is because of increased muscle mass. I also very occasionally weight train, I go to the gym usually for cardio fitness and to loose weight. Since a friend joined who is only interested in resistance training, I sometimes train with him. He is stronger than me in almost all areas but on the 2 or 3 times we have used the leg press I have blown him out the water.
How does cycling make my legs stronger? I don't really know? I don't know all the science behind it but it doesn't make my experience less real.
Do you have a reply to the first part of my post that you didn't quote?0 -
Russp wrote:Do you have a reply to the first part of my post that you didn't quote?
The bit about pro leg definition? Like I said earlier, you will probably get a bit of hypertrophy with regular riding, depending on the type of riding you do, but it is more likely a combination of low body fat % and improved definition. Like it or not, the legs of most pro riders are probably no stronger than yours or mine, or anybody else with normal leg function.
You talked about leg press earlier - it's quite possible that you could press more than Contador or Schleck, or any other protour rider you can think of - but I doubt if you could ride up Ventoux as quick as they could. So is strength important? No.0 -
MountainMonster wrote:And who cares? It works for me, so as much as your "specialists" are saying that it doesn't, we have a large side that think it does, and it has personally worked for me. I can narrow it down to weights for my improvement simply because nothing else changed, and I saw improvements.
Boohoo, can't beat my personal experiences.
So despite all the scientific evidence, physiology and logical arguments stating that strength is NOT a factor, you are saying it is - correct?0
This discussion has been closed.
