gyming to improve power

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Originally posted by Carrera
there are times when I've experienced near muscular failure on a climb. It kind of surprises me that not everyone has had the same experience.

Of course they have. The mistake you are making is *assuming* that 1) this is due to inadequate strength, and/or 2) weight training is the best form of training to improve your performance (i.e., power output) under such circumstances. That's an easy conclusion to come to, since the feeling of muscular fatigue is comparable to that experienced when lifting weights - however, it is still the wrong conclusion nonetheless.

Originally posted by acoggan
Of course they have. The mistake you are making is *assuming* that 1) this is due to inadequate strength, and/or 2) weight training is the best form of training to improve your performance (i.e., power output) under such circumstances. That's an easy conclusion to come to, since the feeling of muscular fatigue is comparable to that experienced when lifting weights - however, it is still the wrong conclusion nonetheless.

Well said! I think I tried to make this point earlier, but was nowhere near as articulate about it. Thanks resident experts.

Weight-training in sports was, more or less, pioneered by the Russians. I have a Russian friend who worked as an engineer in satellite guidance systems and rocket technology e.t.c.
During the Soviet epoch, Russian astronauts specialised in prolonged research in space and, for this reason, long periods would be spent in orbit. The problem that faced astronauts was the notable loss of muscle that took place under these conditions. Therefore, astronauts adopted an aggressive weight-training program that would compensate for the significant muscle loss involved. So, weight-training was pretty fundamental to the Russian Space Program at that time.
Likewise the body had to be pushed to the limit in order to cope with the demands made during all such experiments.
The program Lance Armstrong used was probably designed or influenced by all of this research since demands made in races like the tour de France place massive stresses on the body. This also explains why the doping problem in sports is not going to fade away and why LA dropped so much weight from dehydration on a time trial.
The reasoning behind weight-training is to build and prepare the body for stresses endured during extreme sports competition but everyone is free to weigh up the research and decide.


Originally posted by acoggan
" 2ndly, an increase in ability to lift a load for 1 RM or 10 RM concentrically in an isotonic movement, in general, automatically results in an increase in the amount of force you can generate in an isometric contraction at all points through the ROM of that movement (range of motion) unless you have severe muscle imbalances. Do you, or do you not agree with this statement?"

I don't.


"Why does Jeukendrup in "High Performance Cycling" recommend weight training for endurance cyclists?"

My friend Asker seems to have fallen under the spell of all the "true believers", because even his own data don't support the conclusion that weight training improves endurance cycling performance (despite his best attempt to design the study to show that it does).

"Prove there's a detriment to aerobic performance or at least show theres a good reason to think so."

I suggest you do a PubMed search using "interference effect" as one of your search terms. If you do, you'll see that there are at least a couple of studies showing that, if the training programs are intense enough, trying to train simultaneously using aerobic activities and weights results in smaller improvements than training with one just modality or the other.

"I haven't seen you site one reference through all of this."

Well, you've now cited a grand total of two, and neither one seems to support your conclusions, so I'm not sure why you want to go there.

"Furthermore, you admitted yourself that anaerobic ability may be beneficial to endurance trained cyclists. Weight training is the best way to develop anaerobic ability because it causes hypertrophy of those oh so anaerobically important type IIb muscle fibers, thereby increasing their total muscle glycogen, CP and ATP content. Common knowledge available in most sports science and physiology textbooks."

Hypertrophy, yes, but increases in phosphagen and glycogen stores, only maybe. Be that as it may, I challenge your conclusion that weight training is BEST way for a cyclist to develop anaerobic power or capacity. Indeed, there is no evidence that it is any better - or even just as good - as simply doing high intensity training on the bike.

"Yet you still don't think weight training (targeting areas specific to cycling) is beneficial to endurance cyclists? Why? What is your reasoning, what are your sources??"

Since Ric and I have both grown weary of fighting the misconceptions promulgated by well-known but apparently ill-informed coaches, we are presently writing a review article on the subject of resistance training for cyclists. Until it is finished, you will have to be satisfied with:

1) specificity, and

2) the published scientific literature

as answers to your questions.

Originally posted by Carrera
The reasoning behind weight-training is to build and prepare the body for stresses endured during extreme sports competition but everyone is free to weigh up the research and decide.

Yes, they are - and those that do just that for a living (such as myself) are of the opinion that resistance training is not beneficial to endurance cycling performance. Since you're presumably looking at the same scientific literature that I am (you are, aren't you?), the question is why you come to a different conclusion.

BTW - what the h*** does Armstrong's reported problems with dehydration have to with the question at hand??

Originally posted by ricstern
even *if* that was his programme i can't possibly see the reason why it would be beneficial, as these weights are way above the forces involved when (e.g.) climbing Alpe d'Huez (~ 24 kg between both legs).

in the study cited whether or not the 'cyclists' had been training for a few years, they weren't trained (i.e., they were low fitness).

ric
Where can I find information about this forces stuff? Numbers like "24 kg between both legs" are a total mystery to me and seem way too low. What does all this mean?

It is a simple enough calculation: power at the crank (in W, or in Nm/s) is equal to the torque (in Nm) multiplied by the angular velocity (in rad/s). Thus, the average force being applied to the pedals is equal to the power divided by 2*Pi*cadence (since there are 2 Pi radians per 360 degrees). Divide by 9.81 (there being 9.81 N/kg) and by the crank length (in m, not mm), and voila - you have the average effective pedal force in kilograms (although technically, kilogram is a unit of mass, not force)!

(See http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/quadrant_analysis/ for details.)

Oops! I see I left out a factor of 60 (there being 60 s in 1 min, you have to divide the cadence by that factor to arrive at rad/s). But anyway...

Originally posted by Carrera
Weight-training in sports was, more or less, pioneered by the Russians. I have a Russian friend who worked as an engineer in satellite guidance systems and rocket technology e.t.c.
During the Soviet epoch, Russian astronauts specialised in prolonged research in space and, for this reason, long periods would be spent in orbit. The problem that faced astronauts was the notable loss of muscle that took place under these conditions. Therefore, astronauts adopted an aggressive weight-training program that would compensate for the significant muscle loss involved. So, weight-training was pretty fundamental to the Russian Space Program at that time.
Likewise the body had to be pushed to the limit in order to cope with the demands made during all such experiments.
The program Lance Armstrong used was probably designed or influenced by all of this research since demands made in races like the tour de France place massive stresses on the body. This also explains why the doping problem in sports is not going to fade away and why LA dropped so much weight from dehydration on a time trial.
The reasoning behind weight-training is to build and prepare the body for stresses endured during extreme sports competition but everyone is free to weigh up the research and decide.

Dude.

I'm sorry.

But this post makes no sense.

Look up 'non sequitur' in a latin dictionary.

Can you see the argument now that the reason you are experiencing muscular failure on a hill isn't because you 1 rep max is too low? Is that why you have changed your tack to something that makes less sense again?

Looking for help with a programme to prepare for a 40k triathlon bike leg. Fairly flat course except for a 3k "climb" 10k into the race. Am 41 and averaged 36kph last year without much preparation. Can train 4 - 5 days per week and I have a decent windtrainer and h/r monitor. Max HR around 190 - 194. Can spin fast (comfortable 105) but feel it when I have to push big gears and end up 85 - 90 cadence. Any ideas?

A coach can help you with a programme and get you on track. The input from a coach is invaluable, and will help move your performance forward. If you contact me at ric@cyclecoach.com, either myself of one of my coaches will be able to help you -- we offer several different levels.

cheers
ric

The word you quoted comes from "Sequor" "secutus". It's also in the present tense "non sequitur" = it doesn't follow.
Sorry, I probably posted something that may seem a bit vague. My problem is I'm still working nights, trying to get in my riding and then logging on the internet. So, sometimes I forget to put more context into my post.
What I was referring to was the fact the Russian space program had incorporated weight-training specifically for endurance purposes, namely prevention of excessive muscle loss during long periods spent on space stations e.t.c. The same system then became more widely incorporated in sports, namely in East Germany and the U.S.S.R. It was quite common for East German and Russian athletes to use weight-training as an auxiliary aid to various sports, including running and cycling. I know for a fact weight-training was a big part of Ullrich's training, himself being East European.
Therefore, I was drawing a comparison between the demands made on the body in, say, cycling and periods spent in space. In both cases (cycling, swimming, space), there's a tendency to drop mass due to stresses endured by the body. So, I'm pointing out that weight-training hasn't been specifically designed to improve cycling performance but it's more the case of negating any possible loss of power over the long term. That is, cyclists need to maintain their overall power and prevent excessive muscle loss e.t.c.
I also feel the argument over strength and cycling may be overcomplicated a little. It's true anyone can meet the forces to power a bike but strength can be measured in so many different ways. How about overall power? How about increased testosterone?
Again, boxers do skipping, road-running, situps and various activities. None of these has been specifically proven to help a boxer be a better boxer. Why not just spar or box? What happens is, at the end of the day, it's hoped all the training as a whole will add up.
I'll need to take more time to read some of Ric's published studies and I'm sorry I haven't been able to go through these more thoroughly. I have this eternal problem of trying to do a 70 hour working week and keep up with all my other activities but I'll do my best to get to grips with the arguments raised.
Cheers folks.




Originally posted by Roadie_scum
Dude.

I'm sorry.

But this post makes no sense.

Look up 'non sequitur' in a latin dictionary.

Can you see the argument now that the reason you are experiencing muscular failure on a hill isn't because you 1 rep max is too low? Is that why you have changed your tack to something that makes less sense again?

Originally posted by Carrera
The word you quoted comes from "Sequor" "secutus". It's also in the present tense "non sequitur" = it doesn't follow.

Ain't that true... :)

Sorry, I probably posted something that may seem a bit vague. My problem is I'm still working nights, trying to get in my riding and then logging on the internet. So, sometimes I forget to put more context into my post.

Happens to all of us.


What I was referring to was the fact the Russian space program had incorporated weight-training specifically for endurance purposes, namely prevention of excessive muscle loss during long periods spent on space stations e.t.c. The same system then became more widely incorporated in sports, namely in East Germany and the U.S.S.R. It was quite common for East German and Russian athletes to use weight-training as an auxiliary aid to various sports, including running and cycling. I know for a fact weight-training was a big part of Ullrich's training, himself being East European.

It may or may not be correct that Eastern bloc nations incorporated weight training into their athletes programs. I'm pretty sure that a lot of them got their primary competitive advantage from performance enhancing drugs, though. I'm not sure how it is relevant that they did or did not use a particular training method.

How do you know Ullrich's training? Are you his coach? Did you see him lifting weights? Or is it just that all East Europeans go to the gym because it's in their culture ever since the space program?

Weight training in the off season won't really help your cycling, but it may help your strength - if you want to improve this to increase your general level of fitness and performance in other sports, fair enough. Weight training to build muscle 'wasted' won't improve cycling performance.

Therefore, I was drawing a comparison between the demands made on the body in, say, cycling and periods spent in space. In both cases (cycling, swimming, space), there's a tendency to drop mass due to stresses endured by the body. So, I'm pointing out that weight-training hasn't been specifically designed to improve cycling performance but it's more the case of negating any possible loss of power over the long term. That is, cyclists need to maintain their overall power and prevent excessive muscle loss e.t.c.

Astronauts drop muscle because of a lack of stresses on their body. That is, they don't have to support their weight, so their muscles waste. Cyclists use cycling specific muscle almost daily. This is quite enough activity to maintain that muscle if you eat properly. The power most cyclists are concerned with is endurance power, and that will increase - not decrease - over the long term, provided proper training is followed. Weight training has nothing to do with it.

I also feel the argument over strength and cycling may be overcomplicated a little. It's true anyone can meet the forces to power a bike but strength can be measured in so many different ways. How about overall power? How about increased testosterone?

How about the maximum force that can be generated by a muscle?

Overall power? Over what time frame? Greater than two minutes and strength won't come into it.

Again, boxers do skipping, road-running, situps and various activities. None of these has been specifically proven to help a boxer be a better boxer. Why not just spar or box? What happens is, at the end of the day, it's hoped all the training as a whole will add up.

The specific attributes that need to be trained for boxing are very different to those that need to be trained for cycling. Some of the elements that are required include sport specific skill (drills, sparring, etc), aerobic fitness and capacity for recovery (road running would help), strength, stability, etc. It is far from remarkable that different modalities are used to train these capacities. Similarly for a cyclist, different kinds of training sessions are prescribed to train different capacities - very few coaches would advocate training only by racing. The reason the sum of the activities the boxer completes make him/her better are that they specifically train capacities required from his/her sport. The same is true for the cyclist, and strength is not a capacity the cyclist needs.

I'll need to take more time to read some of Ric's published studies and I'm sorry I haven't been able to go through these more thoroughly. I have this eternal problem of trying to do a 70 hour working week and keep up with all my other activities but I'll do my best to get to grips with the arguments raised.
Cheers folks.

Thank god I'm a student! Good luck with it.

I'm afraid that was one of life's strange coincidences that happen every so often. Had you quoted a phrase in French or Greek you'd have caught me out. However, apart from cycling, I happen to be a Latin student (been at it for several years). I guess most people would find that a bit boring, though, but I'd kind of love to take my bike to Italy, do some riding and view Pompei while I'm there. So, if anyone wants a Latin inscription on a T-shirt or bike, I'll do my best.
Enough of that.
Ric obviously has a big advantage in sports science since this is his particular field of research. I'll also have to take time to re-read some of these posts and your own points till I can get back to you all.
I don't think the gap is so huge, though. Both yourself and Rick have said before that some weight-training is O.K. and your main argument has been that strength-development via weights won't improve cycling. But I think most of the pro-weight group hasn't specifically argued that former view. We all know that if muscle was the key to cycling, Arnold S would be on the podium in France and not Lance A.
Even so, let's consider that men have a very slight edge over women in cycling because men are technically stronger (all around strength such as tendons, ligaments, muscle e.t.c. . One expert suggested the best way for a female cyclist to beat a male cyclist would be to spin and work in lower gears, taking advantage of her lighter bodyweight. The gap is really very small in cycling so women can do really well in the sport.
Therefore, if overall, proportional strength gives a slight advantage to males over females, wouldn't this suggest that some degree of strength does make a slight difference? Or more importantly, the fact women are recommended to adopt a different style and spin would indicate that, in cycling, technique and approach tend to compensate for any strength deficit.
For example, my boss is female and used to cycle for a big cycling manufacturer till arthritis knocked her out of competition. She has climbed one particular hill I can't get up myself (there's only one). The difference in strength between us must be phenomenal. Put her under a 200 lb barbell for a squat and she'd be flattened under it since she only weighs about 8 stone max to my 13 and a half. Yet she was a good climber and an excellent cyclist.
I never asked her but, at a guess, I'll bet she worked in lower gears and, as Ric pointed out, her ratio of strength to size may be higher than my own. This is why I explained that muscle power has been a factor for me in the past on a 25% climb - I have to lug a lot of weight uphill as opposed to my female boss's 8 stones. Plus I work in bigger gears.
However, I often feel there are various ways to climb a big hill and strength needn't be a factor for some cyclists. This is important to consider. Some guys churn their way up a hill slow and steady. Other guys honk their way up, banging their bodyweight from side to side and using terrific technique. Other guys power their way uphill using their legs more.
Oops I have to go now but I'll try and get back on some of these points later and read some of Ric's technical points. Cheers.


Originally posted by Roadie_scum
Ain't that true... :)



Happens to all of us.




It may or may not be correct that Eastern bloc nations incorporated weight training into their athletes programs. I'm pretty sure that a lot of them got their primary competitive advantage from performance enhancing drugs, though. I'm not sure how it is relevant that they did or did not use a particular training method.

How do you know Ullrich's training? Are you his coach? Did you see him lifting weights? Or is it just that all East Europeans go to the gym because it's in their culture ever since the space program?

Weight training in the off season won't really help your cycling, but it may help your strength - if you want to improve this to increase your general level of fitness and performance in other sports, fair enough. Weight training to build muscle 'wasted' won't improve cycling performance.



Astronauts drop muscle because of a lack of stresses on their body. That is, they don't have to support their weight, so their muscles waste. Cyclists use cycling specific muscle almost daily. This is quite enough activity to maintain that muscle if you eat properly. The power most cyclists are concerned with is endurance power, and that will increase - not decrease - over the long term, provided proper training is followed. Weight training has nothing to do with it.



How about the maximum force that can be generated by a muscle?

Overall power? Over what time frame? Greater than two minutes and strength won't come into it.



The specific attributes that need to be trained for boxing are very different to those that need to be trained for cycling. Some of the elements that are required include sport specific skill (drills, sparring, etc), aerobic fitness and capacity for recovery (road running would help), strength, stability, etc. It is far from remarkable that different modalities are used to train these capacities. Similarly for a cyclist, different kinds of training sessions are prescribed to train different capacities - very few coaches would advocate training only by racing. The reason the sum of the activities the boxer completes make him/her better are that they specifically train capacities required from his/her sport. The same is true for the cyclist, and strength is not a capacity the cyclist needs.



Thank god I'm a student! Good luck with it.

Originally posted by Carrera
Ric obviously has a big advantage in sports science since this is his particular field of research. I'll also have to take time to re-read some of these posts and your own points till I can get back to you all.
I don't think the gap is so huge, though. Both yourself and Rick have said before that some weight-training is O.K. and your main argument has been that strength-development via weights won't improve cycling. But I think most of the pro-weight group hasn't specifically argued that former view. We all know that if muscle was the key to cycling, Arnold S would be on the podium in France and not Lance A.


i've said that weight training will improve performance in untrained or low fitness groups (i.e., if you [endurance] race or have the potential to race it won't work). additionally, i've also said it'll improve performance in track sprinters.

I haven't said that "some" weight training is okay, because that sounds like you're saying that for anyone some is okay.


Even so, let's consider that men have a very slight edge over women in cycling because men are technically stronger (all around strength such as tendons, ligaments, muscle e.t.c. . One expert suggested the best way for a female cyclist to beat a male cyclist would be to spin and work in lower gears, taking advantage of her lighter bodyweight. The gap is really very small in cycling so women can do really well in the sport.
Therefore, if overall, proportional strength gives a slight advantage to males over females, wouldn't this suggest that some degree of strength does make a slight difference?


as i stated before, this isn't the reason (at least in cycling) -- it's to do with cardiovascular, and haematology.




I never asked her but, at a guess, I'll bet she worked in lower gears and, as Ric pointed out, her ratio of strength to size may be higher than my own. This is why I explained that muscle power has been a factor for me in the past on a 25% climb - I have to lug a lot of weight uphill as opposed to my female boss's 8 stones. Plus I work in bigger gears.


stop confusing power and strength. i've never mentioned anything about someone's strength ratio. power and strength aren't interchangeable, they're two different issues.


However, I often feel there are various ways to climb a big hill and strength needn't be a factor for some cyclists. This is important to consider. Some guys churn their way up a hill slow and steady. Other guys honk their way up, banging their bodyweight from side to side and using terrific technique. Other guys power their way uphill using their legs more.
Oops I have to go now but I'll try and get back on some of these points later and read some of Ric's technical points. Cheers.

strength isn't important for anyone (in general in this context). riding up a hill is way below the maximum force you can generate. it's to do with your power output, if you struggle uphill, it's because you're not fit enough and can't generate the power required to go at the velocity you need, and thus, your cadence is too low. if you're not fit enough, increasing your strength won't help, you need to improve your cardiovascular system -- increasing your VO2max and LT. these are trained on the bike.

ric

There is a whole list of reasons why women are at a disadvantage to men if they stand on the start line together.
higher body fat %(generally)
lower blood volume
lower blood Hg content
lower VO2max.
Infact women tend to be closer, relatively, to mens performance in the power events like sprints than they are in the longer events(for running anyway, I don't have the figures for cycling).

Women and men are not a good comparison to use to back up your argument. Sorry.

Having said that. I have been wondering about the cadence side of things in relation to strength. Check out the thread on cadence,strength and economy.

"How do you know Ullrich's training? Are you his coach? Did you see him lifting weights? Or is it just that all East Europeans go to the gym because it's in their culture ever since the space program?"

There was a full article on Jan Ullrich in procycling.com in their pre-tour magazine. It pointed out that Ullrich started out as a typical East European where sport was heavily influenced by the old Soviet system. Yes, it clarifies he lifted weights and lifted pretty hard at that.

I hope to be able to get back to some of these points soon as I can but I'm absolutely swamped with work and even finding it hard to steal time on the bike. I was forced to rain in wind and pouring rain the other day since the weather over here is lousy at present. In between that, it's just filling in for other folks who are off work on holiday or ill.

I'll read through more of these points when I can and answer some of the questions you guys raised if I can sort out some answers.






Originally posted by Roadie_scum
Ain't that true... :)



Happens to all of us.




It may or may not be correct that Eastern bloc nations incorporated weight training into their athletes programs. I'm pretty sure that a lot of them got their primary competitive advantage from performance enhancing drugs, though. I'm not sure how it is relevant that they did or did not use a particular training method.

How do you know Ullrich's training? Are you his coach? Did you see him lifting weights? Or is it just that all East Europeans go to the gym because it's in their culture ever since the space program?

Weight training in the off season won't really help your cycling, but it may help your strength - if you want to improve this to increase your general level of fitness and performance in other sports, fair enough. Weight training to build muscle 'wasted' won't improve cycling performance.



Astronauts drop muscle because of a lack of stresses on their body. That is, they don't have to support their weight, so their muscles waste. Cyclists use cycling specific muscle almost daily. This is quite enough activity to maintain that muscle if you eat properly. The power most cyclists are concerned with is endurance power, and that will increase - not decrease - over the long term, provided proper training is followed. Weight training has nothing to do with it.



How about the maximum force that can be generated by a muscle?

Overall power? Over what time frame? Greater than two minutes and strength won't come into it.



The specific attributes that need to be trained for boxing are very different to those that need to be trained for cycling. Some of the elements that are required include sport specific skill (drills, sparring, etc), aerobic fitness and capacity for recovery (road running would help), strength, stability, etc. It is far from remarkable that different modalities are used to train these capacities. Similarly for a cyclist, different kinds of training sessions are prescribed to train different capacities - very few coaches would advocate training only by racing. The reason the sum of the activities the boxer completes make him/her better are that they specifically train capacities required from his/her sport. The same is true for the cyclist, and strength is not a capacity the cyclist needs.



Thank god I'm a student! Good luck with it.

I had to lift weights recently to build up my shoulder after an injury. I lifted only a 25 lb dumbell for a lot of reps and did some incline pushups and back exercises against the wall. I did this for 2 weeks, and then quit because my shoulder was feeling pretty good again. But I gained 5 lbs. I was cycling the whole time. It happens every time I lift even small weights. It seems that I am in a semi muscle starvation mode when I ride without lifting. This is why it only takes a little bit of weights to pack on the weight.

I can't believe this would help me in distance cycling, even if it all went to my legs. 5 lbs is a lot more weight to carry over the mountains. By the way, I am rather naturally muscular. When I try to keep my weight down, I'm trying to keep the muscle off for the most part. I think a lot of top cylists, like Lance Armstrong, Greg Lemond, Davis Phinney have had similar problems. I'm sure there are many more.

Nice forums. I'm a new member here and I thought I'd give my 2 cents on this topic, well part of it. First a bit of info about me: I'm a casual bike rider. I ride both road and mountain (prefer road). I lift weights as well. I'm 5'5", 205lbs. I can deadlift 420, squat 375 and bench 275. Obviously I'm not the typical bike rider. :)

I can't really comment on if weights can improve power. I really do not know enough about the subject to really make any kind of case. I have personal experience but that really doesn't count. I would like to comment on weight training and weight gain.

Weight training alone does not make you bigger/heavier. This is a myth and there are tons of articles/studies to prove this is a myth. Weight gain/loss is a function of diet. If you are in caloric surplus, you gain weight. If you are in caloric deficit, you lose weight. Exercise plays an important role because the type of exercise you do will determine what kind of weight you gain/lose.

I had to lift weights recently to build up my shoulder after an injury. I lifted only a 25 lb dumbell for a lot of reps and did some incline pushups and back exercises against the wall. I did this for 2 weeks, and then quit because my shoulder was feeling pretty good again. But I gained 5 lbs.For a person to gain 5 lbs in 2 weeks is fairly impressive. Considering it takes roughly an excess of 3500 calories to gain 1 pound of muscle or fat, that's an impressive amount of food to be eating. That's an extra 2500 cals on top of what he eats to maintain his weight. Makes me wonder what he was eating during those 2 weeks. ;)

The case I can make for lifting is this: you will build a sturdier body. Stronger muscles, joints and bones.

The skill lies in guaging how much weight you can gain to your advantage or disadvantage.
I'm the opposite of you since muscle mass doesn't cling to my body. In fact my problem is that I risk losing too much weight when I cycle a lot and I, therefore, lose power if I'm not careful. A tour de France would strip me to the bone within 3 days.
Even when I continue to weight-train and cycle a lot, I find I drop heaps of muscle. This just happens naturally as a consequence of my body-type and cycling.
When I first started sports I did so since I was really skinny at school. In order to gain weight I had to eat a lot more, train heavy with weights and sleep sufficiently. All my weight gain was kind of artificial. Therefore, when I cycle hard my body gladly obliges by returning to the natural ectomorph state I was born with genetically. Lately I've dropped so much muscle mass it's amazing. despite weight-training.
Maybe I'm built better for cycling since I have dense musculature but light bones. I may weigh around 180 pounds but little of this is made up of bone and I'm hardly muscle bound at present either. Most of the weight is muscle around my legs and glutes as things stand.
You're right about Lance Armstrong. he confesses in his book he's a natural athlete and, most probably a mesomorph. Muscle clings to his body quite naturally and he had to work against nature to keep himself lean. Upper body weight-training for LA could prove fatal.