Muscle mass reduction

Kerrmit1992

Hi guys.

I am in my first season of XC racing. I have managed to lose a great deal of fat but I'm still pretty heavy due to my muscle mass that I have due to my rugby career.

I was just wondering if its possible to reduce muscle mass while keeping my strength as that comes in handy :-D

I know this sounds like a stupid question but more muscle isn't always better like some people seem to think. Haha

Cheers
Craig

ric/rstsport

don't use the muscles that you want to lose (or at least use them as little as possible).

YeehaaMcgee

Kerrmit1992 wrote:

I was just wondering if its possible to reduce muscle mass while keeping my strength

Not really. Big muscles aren't necessarily the same as strong muscles. It's why climbers and weight lifters don't look like the hulk, their muscles are actually made up differently.
If you want to keep the strength, train for strength.

Chunkers1980

Do the opposite to Concord.

YeehaaMcgee

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Do the opposite to Concord.

ric/rstsport

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Kerrmit1992 wrote:

I was just wondering if its possible to reduce muscle mass while keeping my strength

Not really. Big muscles aren't necessarily the same as strong muscles. It's why climbers and weight lifters don't look like the hulk, their muscles are actually made up differently.
If you want to keep the strength, train for strength.

If by climbers you mean cyclists who go uphill at speed, then climbers are not strong. The force requirements of endurance cycling are very small (such that most sedentary people can meet the force requirements).

Additionally, it's worth noting that as you become more aerobically fit you tend to lose strength (maximal force) as contractile proteins are replaced by aerobic machinery.

Ric

YeehaaMcgee

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Kerrmit1992 wrote:

I was just wondering if its possible to reduce muscle mass while keeping my strength

Not really. Big muscles aren't necessarily the same as strong muscles. It's why climbers and weight lifters don't look like the hulk, their muscles are actually made up differently.
If you want to keep the strength, train for strength.

If by climbers you mean cyclists who go uphill at speed, then climbers are not strong. The force requirements of endurance cycling are very small (such that most sedentary people can meet the force requirements).

Er no, rock climbers.

Even so, I doubt most sedentary people, as you put it, could get any serious climbing in, I see people struggle and run out of strength for minor hills, let alone climbing mountains - but I digress.

ric/rstsport

fair enough (about rock climbers).

However, as regards cycling uphill, the force requirement to win say a mountain time trial up Alpe d'Huez, is, approximately, the equivalent average force of 26 kg between both legs (i.e., about 13 kg a leg) for a 70 kg person. In other words if you can't generate such force you ain't gonna be able to stand up and probably have far greater concerns with your life than riding up hills fast.

It's highly unlikely anyone runs out of "strength" or force while riding uphill. People tend to be limited in different ways (that relate to cardiovascular and metabolic fitness)

Ric

The Northern Monkey

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

fair enough (about rock climbers).

However, as regards cycling uphill, the force requirement to win say a mountain time trial up Alpe d'Huez, is, approximately, the equivalent average force of 26 kg between both legs (i.e., about 13 kg a leg) for a 70 kg person. In other words if you can't generate such force you ain't gonna be able to stand up and probably have far greater concerns with your life than riding up hills fast.

It's highly unlikely anyone runs out of "strength" or force while riding uphill. People tend to be limited in different ways (that relate to cardiovascular and metabolic fitness)

Ric

No it's not... Every individual's muscle make up is completely different so fatigue (ie "lack of strength") will come into play at different points.
You can't maintain power indefinitely, otherwise people would ride the TDF at 110% up and down. Its just not possible.

A rugby player with predominately type2 muscle fibres will fatigue much faster than an xc whippet with predominantly type1 muscle fibres.


Regarding the OP, muscle hypotrophy can only be achieved by undertraining (muscle mass is reduced because they aren't being used) or due to poor nutrition (which would probably lead to undertraining due to the lack of energy).

ric/rstsport

You seem to be confusing strength, which has a specific definition, with fatigue which means something entirely different.

Strength is the maximal force a muscle or group of muscles can generate.

So, the only way that an able bodied, healthy person would run out of strength (maximal force) would be doing something like a standing start up a 25% incline in 53 x 13 (i haven't run the numbers for this, and not going to. it's an illustrative example).

riding up (e.g.) a mountain pass, requires a piddingly small amount of force (it's not maximal) - as mentioned the average force requirement is about 26 kg to win a TdF mountain TT up d'Huez.

Of course (some sort of maximal) power can't be maintained indefinitely. But power isn't maximal force, and shouldn't be confused with strength. People like Chris Froome, or Contador or whoever else maybe thought of as being powerful, but the powers that they generate to win the TdF are very much sub-maximal such that most people can generate them. The difficulty arises in being able to generate them for a long time - but this is a function of your cardiovascular fitness (i.e., VO2max which is the rate limiting mechanism in endurance sport) and metabolic fitness (e.g. lactate threshold) which governs the duration and percentage of VO2max that you can cycle at.

Ric

Kerrmit1992

This makes for some interesting reading. Thanks for the replies.

I noticed how you comment on type 1 and type 2 muscles and due to not having studied sport I have no idea what these are. What are the differences between the two? And is it possible to generate the other type? I'm just curious as if that is the case then wouldn't rugby hold me back from becoming a good XC rider?

I know that strength is not important but due to being quite strong the acceleration does come in handy. I do fatigue really quickly though as you pointed out. Can this be changed?

Thanks
Craig

ric/rstsport

you have a variety of muscle fibre types, which are broadly split into two categories. Type 1 (or slowtwitch) and type 2 (or fasttwitch). Type 2 are then sub divided further and the specifics (about their nomenclature) gets changed every so often. the fibres are activated by motor units which control the fibres and it is these which give the speed to the fibres.

Some of the type 2 fibres can change to type 1 or to a type 1 type with endurance training. Type 1 fibres are very fatigue resistant. Type 2 fatigue rapidly.

fatigue is caused by fibre type as well as training and nutritional status. so, even type 2 type monsters such as track sprinters, BMX riders and downhillers will still do long training sessions (the latter two i'm not certain about as i've never coached these riders, but i do work with world class 200 m match and kilo riders). even in an event as brutally hard and short as a kilo (~60-secs) around 40% of the work done is generated aerobically (which is one reason why longer sessions are used).

it doesn't hugely matter what your fibre type make up is at a recreational level, and it's not hugely important to know that much about the fibre types - you just need to train in a way which will make you fitter for the cycling you do. you should also avoid using (training) the muscles you want to lose and eventually they will reduce in size.

Ric

The Northern Monkey

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

You seem to be confusing strength, which has a specific definition, with fatigue which means something entirely different.

Strength is the maximal force a muscle or group of muscles can generate.

So, the only way that an able bodied, healthy person would run out of strength (maximal force) would be doing something like a standing start up a 25% incline in 53 x 13 (i haven't run the numbers for this, and not going to. it's an illustrative example).

riding up (e.g.) a mountain pass, requires a piddingly small amount of force (it's not maximal) - as mentioned the average force requirement is about 26 kg to win a TdF mountain TT up d'Huez.

Of course (some sort of maximal) power can't be maintained indefinitely. But power isn't maximal force, and shouldn't be confused with strength. People like Chris Froome, or Contador or whoever else maybe thought of as being powerful, but the powers that they generate to win the TdF are very much sub-maximal such that most people can generate them. The difficulty arises in being able to generate them for a long time - but this is a function of your cardiovascular fitness (i.e., VO2max which is the rate limiting mechanism in endurance sport) and metabolic fitness (e.g. lactate threshold) which governs the duration and percentage of VO2max that you can cycle at.

Ric

Ah, I had assumed the post above refereed to power and not strength (which is probably why we have both written "strength"). I think we're on the same page

Its not just cardio threshold though, muscle type plays a big part in this too, especially when crossing over sports.

Kerrmit1992 wrote:

This makes for some interesting reading. Thanks for the replies.

I noticed how you comment on type 1 and type 2 muscles and due to not having studied sport I have no idea what these are. What are the differences between the two? And is it possible to generate the other type? I'm just curious as if that is the case then wouldn't rugby hold me back from becoming a good XC rider?

I know that strength is not important but due to being quite strong the acceleration does come in handy. I do fatigue really quickly though as you pointed out. Can this be changed?

Thanks
Craig

Type1 fibres are your slow twitch fibres. ie they operate using triglycerides (fats) through the aerobic pathway. If you have predominately type1 fibres, you may not have much power but you will have good endurance.

Type2 fibres are fast twitch. ie they operate using ATP, creatine and glycogen through the anaerobic pathway. If you have predominately type2 fibres you'll have lots of power, but will fatigue much quicker.

A super fit TDF rider will predominantly be type1, a weigh lifter will be type2 - everyone will have a mix of both
You can exercise at different intensities to train/develop specific muscle groups. Changing muscle type is difficult.

I'm predominantly type2 (tested in uni, I'm ex rugby too - 6ft 2 and 16st) which is one of the reasons why I struggle with prolonged climbs - the other reason is that I'm lazy.

ric/rstsport

type 1 fibres use glycogen as well.

well trained cyclists who are extremely fit (e.g. TdF riders) can be almost 'exclusively' type 1.

you struggle with climbs, not so much because of your fibre type but because of your mass (requires more power to go at a given velocity than some one lighter than you) and because you're not trained specifically well (at least that's what you appear to be saying) at cycling.

ric/rstsport

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Its not just cardio threshold though, muscle type plays a big part in this too, especially when crossing over sports.

not really sure what you mean by this sentence?

The Northern Monkey

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

type 1 fibres use glycogen as well.

well trained cyclists who are extremely fit (e.g. TdF riders) can be almost 'exclusively' type 1.

you struggle with climbs, not so much because of your fibre type but because of your mass (requires more power to go at a given velocity than some one lighter than you) and because you're not trained specifically well (at least that's what you appear to be saying) at cycling.

Are you replying to my post?

type2 fibres have a greater mass than type1 so I'm always going to weigh more... the lazy thing was an attempt at humour, do I need to google that one for you?

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Its not just cardio threshold though, muscle type plays a big part in this too, especially when crossing over sports.

not really sure what you mean by this sentence?

I was *trying* to refer back to the original post.

A rugby player will have trained muscle groups differently to an xc whippet.
So when crossing over sports (from rugby to cycling), there will be an element of retraining.
However, as said, changing muscle types is difficult (depending on what you read, some journals report it is impossible to change from type2 to type1).
So if you have historically trained type2 and are predominantly type2 fibres, its likely that you will be unable to ride competitively against other riders without any retraining.

And thats even before going into cardio.

Kerrmit1992

How would someone "attempt" to retrain there muscle type? Not saying I would be successful but I'd like to have a bash if possible.

As long as I can still be competitive at an amatuer level I would be happy. I know I'm never gonna be a pro but I would hate to partake in a sport that I'm never going to do well in because of something out-with my control.

YeehaaMcgee

Well, loosely speaking, you build strength through low reps, maximum intensity. Use a weight where you can only barely manage 3 to 5 reps, maximum. To build mass and look like some kind of mutant hulk, you use lower weight, but do more reps.

Kerrmit1992

I've moved onto I high rep workout recently so I'll keep going at that and see what happens. I imagine it will take years to have an impact? Even if it does at all.

ric/rstsport

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

type 1 fibres use glycogen as well.

well trained cyclists who are extremely fit (e.g. TdF riders) can be almost 'exclusively' type 1.

you struggle with climbs, not so much because of your fibre type but because of your mass (requires more power to go at a given velocity than some one lighter than you) and because you're not trained specifically well (at least that's what you appear to be saying) at cycling.

Are you replying to my post?

Yes

type2 fibres have a greater mass than type1 so I'm always going to weigh more... the lazy thing was an attempt at humour, do I need to google that one for you?

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Its not just cardio threshold though, muscle type plays a big part in this too, especially when crossing over sports.

not really sure what you mean by this sentence?

I was *trying* to refer back to the original post.

i still have no idea what you mean. for e.g., there's no such thing as cardio threshold.

the remaining part of your sentence is so brief that i don't understand what you're attempting to say.

A rugby player will have trained muscle groups differently to an xc whippet.

of course, the metabolic, cardiovascular, muscular, biomechanical and psychological differences are different. what's your point?

additionally, adaptations that occur within the muscle are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

So when crossing over sports (from rugby to cycling), there will be an element of retraining.
However, as said, changing muscle types is difficult (depending on what you read, some journals report it is impossible to change from type2 to type1).
So if you have historically trained type2 and are predominantly type2 fibres, its likely that you will be unable to ride competitively against other riders without any retraining.

And thats even before going into cardio.

of course. i haven't said otherwise. there's a multitude of differences between rugby and cycling.

ric/rstsport

Kerrmit1992 wrote:

How would someone "attempt" to retrain there muscle type? Not saying I would be successful but I'd like to have a bash if possible.

As long as I can still be competitive at an amatuer level I would be happy. I know I'm never gonna be a pro but I would hate to partake in a sport that I'm never going to do well in because of something out-with my control.

just do bike training (whatever that may mean/be). your bike related fitness will increase. it is unlikely you know what your fibres are and nor does it particularly matter. train appropriately, enjoy it. see what happens.

The Northern Monkey

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

type 1 fibres use glycogen as well.

well trained cyclists who are extremely fit (e.g. TdF riders) can be almost 'exclusively' type 1.

you struggle with climbs, not so much because of your fibre type but because of your mass (requires more power to go at a given velocity than some one lighter than you) and because you're not trained specifically well (at least that's what you appear to be saying) at cycling.

Are you replying to my post?

Yes

type2 fibres have a greater mass than type1 so I'm always going to weigh more... the lazy thing was an attempt at humour, do I need to google that one for you?

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Its not just cardio threshold though, muscle type plays a big part in this too, especially when crossing over sports.

not really sure what you mean by this sentence?

I was *trying* to refer back to the original post.

i still have no idea what you mean. for e.g., there's no such thing as cardio threshold.

the remaining part of your sentence is so brief that i don't understand what you're attempting to say.

A rugby player will have trained muscle groups differently to an xc whippet.

of course, the metabolic, cardiovascular, muscular, biomechanical and psychological differences are different. what's your point?

additionally, adaptations that occur within the muscle are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

So when crossing over sports (from rugby to cycling), there will be an element of retraining.
However, as said, changing muscle types is difficult (depending on what you read, some journals report it is impossible to change from type2 to type1).
So if you have historically trained type2 and are predominantly type2 fibres, its likely that you will be unable to ride competitively against other riders without any retraining.

And thats even before going into cardio.

of course. i haven't said otherwise. there's a multitude of differences between rugby and cycling.

I don't know if you're just trying be pedantic or turn this into a dick swinging contest (i'm sure you have many years more experience than myself, if not already highlighted by your illustrious signature), but I'm trying to help the OP not answer your questions or argue...

However, I admit, cardio threshold the wrong statement (it does exist however, when referring to training) it should have been cardiovascular fitness.

YeehaaMcgee

Kerrmit1992 wrote:

I've moved onto I high rep workout recently so I'll keep going at that and see what happens. I imagine it will take years to have an impact? Even if it does at all.

Didn't you say you wanted to lose mass? High rep will build less strength, but will bulk you up.

Kerrmit1992

I thought high rep reduced size?

As said before. I never studied anything related to sport so I have to go on what the g instructors at my work say.

At the minute I'm aiming for 3 sets of between 20 - 30 reps.

Kerrmit1992

But my muscle mass shouldn't increase without the sufficient calories? I've reduced my calorie intake so that I can lose weight which means my muscles shouldn't be able to increase in size?

YeehaaMcgee

Kerrmit1992 wrote:

I thought high rep reduced size?

As said before. I never studied anything related to sport so I have to go on what the g instructors at my work say.

At the minute I'm aiming for 3 sets of between 20 - 30 reps.

I tried to answer you before the women started whacking each other with their handbags, basically...

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Well, loosely speaking, you build strength through low reps, maximum intensity. Use a weight where you can only barely manage 3 to 5 reps, maximum. To build mass and look like some kind of mutant hulk, you use lower weight, but do more reps.

So, very very large weight, very low reps = smaller, dense muscles, huge strength.
Lower weight, high reps = modest increase in strength, large increase in bulk.

As a rule of thumb, anyway.

Kerrmit1992

Will strength training not increase my fast twitch fibres? This means that I would continue to fatigue faster would it not?

ric/rstsport

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

type 1 fibres use glycogen as well.

well trained cyclists who are extremely fit (e.g. TdF riders) can be almost 'exclusively' type 1.

you struggle with climbs, not so much because of your fibre type but because of your mass (requires more power to go at a given velocity than some one lighter than you) and because you're not trained specifically well (at least that's what you appear to be saying) at cycling.

Are you replying to my post?

Yes

type2 fibres have a greater mass than type1 so I'm always going to weigh more... the lazy thing was an attempt at humour, do I need to google that one for you?

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Its not just cardio threshold though, muscle type plays a big part in this too, especially when crossing over sports.

not really sure what you mean by this sentence?

I was *trying* to refer back to the original post.

i still have no idea what you mean. for e.g., there's no such thing as cardio threshold.

the remaining part of your sentence is so brief that i don't understand what you're attempting to say.

A rugby player will have trained muscle groups differently to an xc whippet.

of course, the metabolic, cardiovascular, muscular, biomechanical and psychological differences are different. what's your point?

additionally, adaptations that occur within the muscle are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained.

So when crossing over sports (from rugby to cycling), there will be an element of retraining.
However, as said, changing muscle types is difficult (depending on what you read, some journals report it is impossible to change from type2 to type1).
So if you have historically trained type2 and are predominantly type2 fibres, its likely that you will be unable to ride competitively against other riders without any retraining.

And thats even before going into cardio.

of course. i haven't said otherwise. there's a multitude of differences between rugby and cycling.

I don't know if you're just trying be pedantic or turn this into a dick swinging contest (i'm sure you have many years more experience than myself, if not already highlighted by your illustrious signature), but I'm trying to help the OP not answer your questions or argue...

neither. i didn't understand what you wrote. i think (i can't be bothered to check, so it could have been someone else?) that you made some factually incorrect statements and confused strength, power and fatigue. i just wanted to correct those points.

i'm not attempting to argue. i'm just stating some points, because i find the thread interesting.

ric

The Northern Monkey

Ah... thought I'd clarified the power strength thing... misread a previous comment before my 1dt post in here... s'all... ai was agreeing with you!

YeehaaMcgee

Kerrmit1992 wrote:

Will strength training not increase my fast twitch fibres? This means that I would continue to fatigue faster would it not?

Not really, if you also do endurance training. It's not really a black and white thing.
But you know what, just ride, have fun. Care less about the ins and outs. If you end up obsessed with this stuff, the Road forum is just down there v

YeehaaMcgee

Ric/RSTSport, you DO realise you can quote just the relevant parts of a post, right? Or does "relevant" not really occur?