Strengthening legs

funkyg

Still getting used to the road bike and still loving it.
Does anyone have any tips for strengthening legs? When climbing I find that I get achy thighs, almost cramp like, when going for more than say 10-15 minutes up hill. It's almost as my legs are a level behind my general cardio. I don't feel tired as such just achy. I'm guessing the best idea is to just keep at it?

I'm trying to increase my distances as well. My longest ride so far is 40 miles, and while it wasn't too difficult, I felt I had nothing left at the end and my legs were just going round rather than really pushing. Is this most likely due to not eating while out? Or just tired in general? I generally go flat out but made a point of pacing myself this time, it was a really odd feeling. I was catching myself speeding up and thinking 'I'm out for distance today not speed'

Alex_Simmons/RST

funkyg wrote:

I'm guessing the best idea is to just keep at it?

In a nutshell, yes.

Toks

Its probably increased fitness rather than 'leg strength' that will help improve your climbing and riding in general. So as Alex says keep going - ride, ride, and ride. The body will adapt, 40 miles will eventually become easier and you'll start to fatigue at 60-70 miles. So ride lots and rest when you need to then repeat = a fitter/faster you

bahzob

As above getting fitter will make you "stronger".

That said if you are having especial problems while climbing hills then one issue may be the gearing on your bike.

You should be seated while climbing with a cadence at most only be 5-10rpm less than on the flat and, regardless, above 60rpm.

If it drops much below this for a protracted period of time then your legs will tire more quickly. Solution is fit more gears. (as you get fitter you will need less, but its best not to get into bad habits early on)

The Bounce

madasahattersley wrote:

:roll: And people in this sport wonder why newcomers to road cycling think that roadies are an elitist bunch of ......

paul2718

funkyg wrote:

Still getting used to the road bike and still loving it.
Does anyone have any tips for strengthening legs? When climbing I find that I get achy thighs, almost cramp like, when going for more than say 10-15 minutes up hill. It's almost as my legs are a level behind my general cardio. I don't feel tired as such just achy. I'm guessing the best idea is to just keep at it?

'Strengthen' isn't really the right word. Your legs are strong enough if you can climb stairs.

The answer is indeed to 'keep at it'. But reading between the lines perhaps you are tending to grind rather than spin? Perhaps try turning the pedals faster while pushing on them a bit less hard, change down in other words while maintaining the speed. If you're climbing at 100rpm already then ignore this...

Paul

meanredspider

Genuine question (and I REALLY don't want to start a debate about "strength" because I buy the aerobic bit) but why is it that they talk about the likes of Wiggo increasing weight to improve power? I don't understand that as I'm sure, at his lightest, he could manage the stairs.

BrandonA

meanredspider wrote:

Genuine question (and I REALLY don't want to start a debate about "strength" because I buy the aerobic bit) but why is it that they talk about the likes of Wiggo increasing weight to improve power? I don't understand that as I'm sure, at his lightest, he could manage the stairs.

Wiggins is functioning near his peak. He therefore has quite a high FTP. FTP alone is worthless as the more you weigh the higher your FTP is likely to be.

If however a fit lighter person has the same FTP as a not so fit heavier person then the lighter person will be faster as their power to weight ratio is better.

Wiggins therefore thought that he'd be able to increase his power to weight ration by putting on more weight - thus being heaving but even more powerful would make him quicker.

Tom Dean

BrandonA wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Genuine question (and I REALLY don't want to start a debate about "strength" because I buy the aerobic bit) but why is it that they talk about the likes of Wiggo increasing weight to improve power? I don't understand that as I'm sure, at his lightest, he could manage the stairs.

Wiggins is functioning near his peak. He therefore has quite a high FTP. FTP alone is worthless as the more you weigh the higher your FTP is likely to be.

If however a fit lighter person has the same FTP as a not so fit heavier person then the lighter person will be faster as their power to weight ratio is better.

Wiggins therefore thought that he'd be able to increase his power to weight ration by putting on more weight - thus being heaving but even more powerful would make him quicker.

This is a bit confused I think. A better power/weight makes you faster uphill. Wiggins famously lost a lot of weight leading up to his big stage race successes. His later training for Paris-Roubaix etc may have seen him gain weight while increasing absolute power at the expense of power to weight ratio.
Power to weight wins uphill, sheer power wins on the flat. None of this has anything to do with strength though!

slowbike

Just being strong isn't enough. That new strength has to be translated into something usable on the bike: the ability to produce power for extended periods and more explosive efforts. If you can leg press a Volkswagen once, that’s fabulous, but it's not very useful on the bike.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/r ... sts-35771/

I am in no doubt that I'm stronger in the legs than I was when I first started riding. I'm also in no doubt that I need to increase my strength in legs and CV system in order to ride faster.... but it's a careful, co-ordinated strength not an all out raw power.

imposter2.0

Slowbike wrote:

Just being strong isn't enough. That new strength has to be translated into something usable on the bike: the ability to produce power for extended periods and more explosive efforts. If you can leg press a Volkswagen once, that’s fabulous, but it's not very useful on the bike.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/r ... sts-35771/

I am in no doubt that I'm stronger in the legs than I was when I first started riding. I'm also in no doubt that I need to increase my strength in legs and CV system in order to ride faster.... but it's a careful, co-ordinated strength not an all out raw power.

Unless you are using a different definition of 'strength' to the one in the dictionary, then it will not be your strength that needs improving. It's also unlikely that your legs are physically 'stronger' now than they were when you started riding.

slowbike

Imposter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Just being strong isn't enough. That new strength has to be translated into something usable on the bike: the ability to produce power for extended periods and more explosive efforts. If you can leg press a Volkswagen once, that’s fabulous, but it's not very useful on the bike.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/r ... sts-35771/

I am in no doubt that I'm stronger in the legs than I was when I first started riding. I'm also in no doubt that I need to increase my strength in legs and CV system in order to ride faster.... but it's a careful, co-ordinated strength not an all out raw power.

Unless you are using a different definition of 'strength' to the one in the dictionary, then it will not be your strength that needs improving. It's also unlikely that your legs are physically 'stronger' now than they were when you started riding.

So - what's all that extra muscle definition then? My legs are bigger than when I started riding.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strength

The quality or state of being physically strong: cycling can help you build up your strength

A little ironic in their choice of sample sentences!

and if you look up the origin of the word - strong

Able to perform a specified action well and powerfully:

and we all know that power meters make you faster ...

paul2718

meanredspider wrote:

Genuine question (and I REALLY don't want to start a debate about "strength" because I buy the aerobic bit) but why is it that they talk about the likes of Wiggo increasing weight to improve power? I don't understand that as I'm sure, at his lightest, he could manage the stairs.

More muscle mass means more power, or the same power for longer?

But the forces being applied to the pedals don't change much. Golden Cheetah tells me that the effective pedal force when I'm briefly flat out is about 400N, which is roughly equivalent to what half my body weight exerts at the ground. So much less than the force required to climb stairs.

Paul

imposter2.0

Slowbike wrote:

So - what's all that extra muscle definition then? My legs are bigger than when I started riding.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strength

The quality or state of being physically strong: cycling can help you build up your strength

A little ironic in their choice of sample sentences!

and if you look up the origin of the word - strong

Able to perform a specified action well and powerfully:

and we all know that power meters make you faster ...

The word gets used a lot in cycling to describe good or successful riders - "he's a really strong rider" etc. I do it myself. But it is not a reference to how many weights they can push, obviously. However, in terms of physical 'strength', that is not what is needed in order to improve.

markhewitt1978

I guess Wiggins putting on weight doesn't mean he was getting fatter, but actually building muscle? I suppose he could build extra muscle so have more power but actually have a worse power to weight ratio, but if you're on reasonably flat roads it's power rather than weight which matters.

slowbike

Imposter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

So - what's all that extra muscle definition then? My legs are bigger than when I started riding.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strength

The quality or state of being physically strong: cycling can help you build up your strength

A little ironic in their choice of sample sentences!

and if you look up the origin of the word - strong

Able to perform a specified action well and powerfully:

and we all know that power meters make you faster ...

The word gets used a lot in cycling to describe good or successful riders - "he's a really strong rider" etc. I do it myself. But it is not a reference to how many weights they can push, obviously. However, in terms of physical 'strength', that is not what is needed in order to improve.

Strength isn't just a definition of how many weights you can push. Really - you need to check the dictionary.

imposter2.0

Slowbike wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

So - what's all that extra muscle definition then? My legs are bigger than when I started riding.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/strength

The quality or state of being physically strong: cycling can help you build up your strength

A little ironic in their choice of sample sentences!

and if you look up the origin of the word - strong

Able to perform a specified action well and powerfully:

and we all know that power meters make you faster ...

The word gets used a lot in cycling to describe good or successful riders - "he's a really strong rider" etc. I do it myself. But it is not a reference to how many weights they can push, obviously. However, in terms of physical 'strength', that is not what is needed in order to improve.

Strength isn't just a definition of how many weights you can push. Really - you need to check the dictionary.

Obviously - and if you'd read my reply you would have seen that. But in the context of the OP's question (remember that?) 'leg strength' is not a limiter to improving on a bike.

hypster

I don't understand why the "walking up stairs" thing is quoted every time this topic crops up. I can walk up a flight of stairs no bother. Five flights would be a bit more of an effort and a hundred flights would probably be a fair workout.

Also, taking two steps at a time compared to one would intuitively be harder but I'm happy to be corrected if that's not valid either. I'm purely talking about leg strength here not aerobic fitness.

My point is, wouldn't I need strong legs to climb the stairs to the top in the Empire State Building for instance?

meanredspider

paul2718 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Genuine question (and I REALLY don't want to start a debate about "strength" because I buy the aerobic bit) but why is it that they talk about the likes of Wiggo increasing weight to improve power? I don't understand that as I'm sure, at his lightest, he could manage the stairs.

More muscle mass means more power, or the same power for longer?

But the forces being applied to the pedals don't change much. Golden Cheetah tells me that the effective pedal force when I'm briefly flat out is about 400N, which is roughly equivalent to what half my body weight exerts at the ground. So much less than the force required to climb stairs.

Paul

I was hoping for something a little more specific. We know that power is torque x rpm. So why does more muscle mass mean more power (for someone like Wiggins)?

meanredspider

hypster wrote:

I don't understand why the "walking up stairs" thing is quoted every time this topic crops up. I can walk up a flight of stairs no bother. Five flights would be a bit more of an effort and a hundred flights would probably be a fair workout.

Also, taking two steps at a time compared to one would intuitively be harder but I'm happy to be corrected if that's not valid either. I'm purely talking about leg strength here not aerobic fitness.

My point is, wouldn't I need strong legs to climb the stairs to the top in the Empire State Building for instance?

I think leg strength would be more analogous to you giving your fat mate a piggyback up the stairs. In fact, if Alex pitches up, he'll tell you that strength is the maximum force you can push against a stationary object. Running up the Empire State would be more about your aerobic fitness. If you're strong enough to run up one flight, the only thing stopping you running up 100 flights is your fitness. Now, I wonder (see my Wiggo question above) if muscle mass (analogous in some crude way to "strength") doesn't have some minor secondary effect here - an effect that is probably outweighed by drawbacks on hilly courses but maybe confers some advantage (I'm hoping someone knowledgable will come along and explain) on the flat where the additional weight is of little disadvantage.

Smithster

Shouldn't the original question have been 'How do I increase muscular endurance?'.

I've only been cycling for around 18 months, so I am happy to be corrected. But I agree on the point someone made earlier, that your legs are probably there or there about's as strong as when you start cycling. But it's your legs ability to withstand the same hard resistance repeated again and again, over a certain time frame that can be the problem, and it's this area that needs attention, not physically making the legs stronger for one movement.

Same happened to me yesterday on the wiggle TOTP. 110 miles with 12000 ft of climbing. First 40 miles was good, then after that, the legs started to tire and the average time started to plummet as I slowed on the hills. But I knew this was going to be the case as I have not put in any decent miles over the past couple of months due to other commitments, so hey ho must make time!

So I guess the answer just more of the same - i.e. big rides with lots of hills?

Tom Dean

re the Wiggins example, the lightweight version in 2012 didn't do too badly in the time trials. Who knows if he genuinely did put out more power at a heavier weight. There can't have been that much difference.

I imagine it's more a case of not pushing the boundaries when you don't need to - why have the stress of watching every gram you eat, with the risk of getting sick if you get it wrong, when there's no advantage to be gained?

hypster

meanredspider wrote:

hypster wrote:

I don't understand why the "walking up stairs" thing is quoted every time this topic crops up. I can walk up a flight of stairs no bother. Five flights would be a bit more of an effort and a hundred flights would probably be a fair workout.

Also, taking two steps at a time compared to one would intuitively be harder but I'm happy to be corrected if that's not valid either. I'm purely talking about leg strength here not aerobic fitness.

My point is, wouldn't I need strong legs to climb the stairs to the top in the Empire State Building for instance?

I think leg strength would be more analogous to you giving your fat mate a piggyback up the stairs. In fact, if Alex pitches up, he'll tell you that strength is the maximum force you can push against a stationary object. Running up the Empire State would be more about your aerobic fitness. If you're strong enough to run up one flight, the only thing stopping you running up 100 flights is your fitness. Now, I wonder (see my Wiggo question above) if muscle mass (analogous in some crude way to "strength") doesn't have some minor secondary effect here - an effect that is probably outweighed by drawbacks on hilly courses but maybe confers some advantage (I'm hoping someone knowledgable will come along and explain) on the flat where the additional weight is of little disadvantage.

Well maybe I'm confusing strength with muscular endurance. I'm not talking about running up the stairs but I'm pretty sure my legs would be severely fatigued by the time I got to the top of the Empire State Building. Surely a stronger set of legs would help? This just goes against all intuition as far as I can tell.

Someone could be very aerobically fit but not have strong legs, like an Olympic swimmer for instance. Pit that person against a reasonable recreational cyclist and what would be the result?

imposter2.0

hypster wrote:

I don't understand why the "walking up stairs" thing is quoted every time this topic crops up. I can walk up a flight of stairs no bother. Five flights would be a bit more of an effort and a hundred flights would probably be a fair workout.

Also, taking two steps at a time compared to one would intuitively be harder but I'm happy to be corrected if that's not valid either. I'm purely talking about leg strength here not aerobic fitness.

My point is, wouldn't I need strong legs to climb the stairs to the top in the Empire State Building for instance?

If you take the 'stairs' analogy - you are lifting your bodyweight with each leg, with each step you climb. If you can do that, then you already have enough 'strength' to climb any number of stairs, regardless of whether you are going up the Empire State Building, the Petronas Towers (either of them) or the Burj Khalifa - or some other, as yet unbuilt, building with more than a few steps.

What you may lack, however, is sufficient aerobic endurance to be able to repeat this process for the required number of steps at the rate at which you want to climb them. That's not a strength issue (you already have that) - it's an endurance issue.

meanredspider

hypster wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

hypster wrote:

I don't understand why the "walking up stairs" thing is quoted every time this topic crops up. I can walk up a flight of stairs no bother. Five flights would be a bit more of an effort and a hundred flights would probably be a fair workout.

Also, taking two steps at a time compared to one would intuitively be harder but I'm happy to be corrected if that's not valid either. I'm purely talking about leg strength here not aerobic fitness.

My point is, wouldn't I need strong legs to climb the stairs to the top in the Empire State Building for instance?

I think leg strength would be more analogous to you giving your fat mate a piggyback up the stairs. In fact, if Alex pitches up, he'll tell you that strength is the maximum force you can push against a stationary object. Running up the Empire State would be more about your aerobic fitness. If you're strong enough to run up one flight, the only thing stopping you running up 100 flights is your fitness. Now, I wonder (see my Wiggo question above) if muscle mass (analogous in some crude way to "strength") doesn't have some minor secondary effect here - an effect that is probably outweighed by drawbacks on hilly courses but maybe confers some advantage (I'm hoping someone knowledgable will come along and explain) on the flat where the additional weight is of little disadvantage.

Well maybe I'm confusing strength with muscular endurance. I'm not talking about running up the stairs but I'm pretty sure my legs would be severely fatigued by the time I got to the top of the Empire State Building. Surely a stronger set of legs would help? This just goes against all intuition as far as I can tell.

Someone could be very aerobically fit but not have strong legs, like an Olympic swimmer for instance. Pit that person against a reasonable recreational cyclist and what would be the result?

I think the clincher for me (if the like of Wiggo or Froomy's legs weren't evidence enough) is the long-distance runners - none of them have chunky legs - they're more than often sticks. I am interested to understand though what muscle mass contributes to something like the 25-mile time trial and why. I'd imagine, the shorter the ride, the more an advantage swings from a Wiggo to a Hoy in the same way that Mo isn't going to be beating the track sprinters any time soon.

imposter2.0

Smithster wrote:

Shouldn't the original question have been 'How do I increase muscular endurance?'.

I've only been cycling for around 18 months, so I am happy to be corrected. But I agree on the point someone made earlier, that your legs are probably there or there about's as strong as when you start cycling. But it's your legs ability to withstand the same hard resistance repeated again and again, over a certain time frame that can be the problem, and it's this area that needs attention, not physically making the legs stronger for one movement.

^^ this - pretty much...

paul2718

meanredspider wrote:

I was hoping for something a little more specific. We know that power is torque x rpm. So why does more muscle mass mean more power (for someone like Wiggins)?

We don't actually know that it does.

But perhaps more muscle mass means you can process more blood, oxygen and fuel in, waste out. So you can exert the same force more often before fatigue, or run at a slightly higher force. Either equates to more power.

However I suspect visual changes are more to do with fat. Perhaps there's an expert about.

Paul

Alex_Simmons/RST

In the context of the OP's question, I just assumed he was using the word strength as a layman's term meaning "cycling ability", and in this case climbing ability.

Hence the old but applicable adage: ride more, and in this case, ride more hills.

In exercise physiology though, strength has a highly specific meaning, i.e. the maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles. In cycling we rarely, if ever, apply such forces. Indeed for most of the time the average forces applied to the pedals are an order of magnitude less than (i.e. 1/10th) of our actual "strength" and hence strength (as defined in ex phys) is rarely, if ever, a limiter to our cycling ability. It's an often misunderstood area - what matters is our ability to repeatedly generate very modest forces (even for pros), and that's a function of our aerobic metabolic abilities.

meanredspider

paul2718 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I was hoping for something a little more specific. We know that power is torque x rpm. So why does more muscle mass mean more power (for someone like Wiggins)?

We don't actually know that it does.

But perhaps more muscle mass means you can process more blood, oxygen and fuel in, waste out. So you can exert the same force more often before fatigue, or run at a slightly higher force. Either equates to more power.

However I suspect visual changes are more to do with fat. Perhaps there's an expert about.

Paul

It was a point I noted from Sean Yates's book (It's All About the Bike) - saying that, in the year that Wiggo won the TdF, he went into the race heavier as it was going to be flatter and it would help him generate more power (but didn't explain why)

Pocket Rocket

In my experience cycling loads without doing any hard efforts actually decreases maximal leg strength. I am more powerful two years off the bike than having done a winter of base training.

poynedexter

as someone who does road racing, im interested in this.

i find my general endurance is fine, but there are times when i have to put large forces into the pedals. like closing down a gap to a break, riding up a short sharp hill in a large gear, in a finish sprint, accelerating out of a corner. at these times i feel i'm stressing my legs a lot, and wonder if extra "strength" would allow me to work at a lower % for the same result. i'm usually able to recover quickly and get to next high effort in decent shape. my races are typically 60 miles + at the moment, and in a rr situation you have to raise your power output quickly to go with the race.