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.

as previously mentioned, if there's no increase in muscle cross sectional area, then the gains are neuromuscular in nature, and only occur at the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained, i.e., they don't transfer to cycling.

ric

Is it impossible to replicate the joint angles and velocities that occur on a bike in a gym?

Is it impossible to replicate the joint angles and velocities that occur on a bike in a gym?

no it isn't. you could use a gym bike :D

I tried to read most of the thread, but it is a bit long, and if this has been already covered I apologize.


I agree that weight training will not positively affect cycling performance, but I have a hard time believing that the reverse is true. When I first lifted (age 17) I had a year or two of competitive cycling in me and was capable of leg pressing more than anyone else in the gym. On the other hand, I was a complete wuss when it came to my upper body strength. Now, I am a pure, pure sprinter so that may have something to do with it. A year or two later I got a few guys to lift with me and they could all lift a disproportionate amount of weight. One of the kids (my younger brother) was a great sprinter but a lot smaller than me, and he could still leg press a ton of weight. People would actually come over and watch because it looked funny seeing this little guy putting up a ton of weight. Another guy was a total stick (weight 120) and still he could lift a lot of weight on the leg press. The last guy was pretty big, but he still lifted more on the leg press than the other guys in the gym that were his size. None of them had strong upper bodies.

Another thing that was kind of funny was that fact that we were all much weaker when we bent our legs beyond the maximum angle used in cycling. Thus, we were under the impression we had gained strength that was “cycling specific” and developed from riding.

Also, every cyclist I have ever talked to that has gone to the gym has always talked about how they could lift a lot with their legs, but looked like a wimp when they did bench.

Has this been a bad sample of people or some strange anomaly?

One last question: If cycling does not increase leg strength, nor muscle size, why do so many cyclists have big legs? (Heck, I've had people come up to me and say "Oh you're Danny's friend? Are you the one with the big quads? Sarah was talking about you.")

Thanks in advance,
Ryan

I tried to read most of the thread, but it is a bit long, and if this has been already covered I apologize.


I agree that weight training will not positively affect cycling performance, but I have a hard time believing that the reverse is true. When I first lifted (age 17) I had a year or two of competitive cycling in me and was capable of leg pressing more than anyone else in the gym. On the other hand, I was a complete wuss when it came to my upper body strength. Now, I am a pure, pure sprinter so that may have something to do with it. A year or two later I got a few guys to lift with me and they could all lift a disproportionate amount of weight. One of the kids (my younger brother) was a great sprinter but a lot smaller than me, and he could still leg press a ton of weight. People would actually come over and watch because it looked funny seeing this little guy putting up a ton of weight. Another guy was a total stick (weight 120) and still he could lift a lot of weight on the leg press. The last guy was pretty big, but he still lifted more on the leg press than the other guys in the gym that were his size. None of them had strong upper bodies.

Another thing that was kind of funny was that fact that we were all much weaker when we bent our legs beyond the maximum angle used in cycling. Thus, we were under the impression we had gained strength that was “cycling specific” and developed from riding.

Also, every cyclist I have ever talked to that has gone to the gym has always talked about how they could lift a lot with their legs, but looked like a wimp when they did bench.

Has this been a bad sample of people or some strange anomaly?

One last question: If cycling does not increase leg strength, nor muscle size, why do so many cyclists have big legs? (Heck, I've had people come up to me and say "Oh you're Danny's friend? Are you the one with the big quads? Sarah was talking about you.")

Thanks in advance,
Ryan

cycling (endurance as opposed to e.g., track sprint) is highly unlikely to increase strength (it will in *some* groups, e.g., frail old ladies) but may result in some hypertrophy of type i fibres.

Cycling is likely to decrease strength as contractile proteins are replaced by aerobic machinery within the muscle. in other words you're likely to get weaker as you get aerobically fitter.

ric

I try and read as much as I can. One of my problems, though, is lack of time that prevents me joining in as much as I'd like. At present, I try to fit in my cycling with study-work, gym-work and 70 hours a week at work. I suppose I could tell my employers to quit loading me up so much but I kind of feel tempted to buy myself a super light bike in the near future. So for now I'm saving till I decide what specific bike I'll choose.
I don't know if I'm really that heavy. At a guess I'd say around 180 since my bone structure is quite light. I could probably get down to 175 pretty easily, I guess. I'm a beginning cyclist so I still have a lot to learn but, so far, most of my training has been fairly generalised (flats, hills, descents and my usual gym work). I try and throw the gym work in after having cycled but sometimes I may have to skip gym work altogether if I have to rush to work.
What I can say, though, is it seems to be going really well. The weakest link so far has been my fitness but this is rapidly improving.




i'm completely bemused by your thinking... do you ever read any of the posts?

rather than struggling with extra weight which you'd then have to loose, why not just train harder, i.e., ride at a faster velocity under the given conditions (i.e., you increase your power output). that would give you more training time on the bike, rather than doing weights, biking and then loosing weight.

it's your heart that's the limiter, not your lungs (unless you have some sort of respiratory disease).

One of the things that I read on Carmichael's page discussing Lance's training regime that rang very true to me was that we are athletes first and cyclists second. He noted that part of the reason that he has Lance do weights during the off season is to give him some additional all-around strength to keep him healthy and injury free.

Doing squats probably doesn't help one go much faster on their bike, but it might help them avoid injuries, both on and off the bike.

I guess my point being that if even Lance can find time to do a few weights to help avoid injury, it's seems a bit silly to avoid them like the plague. Although I guess it's hard to realize that until you actually do hurt yourself in a preventable way.

I tend to do a lot of weights in the early winter and late fall since in the winter I do a lot of downhill skiing where leg strength means a lot - helps keep you safe, makes you faster racing gates since you're more stable and can hold a tighter line etc...

I do also have a big upper body for a cyclist as I swim a lot and do lift regularly for my upper body - note, this is all "extra" weight as far as my bike is concerned, my bike can't tell fat from pecs or biceps, my bike regularly tells me I'm fat... it thinks I'm wearing a backpack full of books whenever I go for a ride.

What I've found is that in the Spring when I get back on the bike the extra 5 pounds of leg muscle and unfortunately the extra 5 pounds of turkey and mashed potatoes hurts my bike performance more than it helps... It's very clear to me that, for biking, if I had to choose between a few more pounds of muscle or a few less pounds of weight on the bike, the weight reduction makes a lot more difference going uphills, I don't seem to notice either way on the flats. The one advantage of being big is on the downhill sections is I can drop all my lightweight buddies who dust me going up the hill.

My personal experience is that I can see where weight training or plyometrics could help in sprints, as Ric has noted, but I think it's just extra bike weight the rest of the time. The main limiter on my speed on the bike seems to be my weight when climbing and my heart when doing tempo riding on the flats and rollers. On the other hand I get a lot more leg injuries skiing when I'm not really strong especially for lateral motions that mean a lot skiing and don't count at all for biking. So, I'll probably keep doing the weight training even though it doesn't help, or maybe hurts, my biking.

No exercise activity is the same so the fact a person can leg press with heavy weights doesn't mean he can also squat heavy. Myself I was always a poor leg-presser but a strong squatter. Likewise, being able to do lat pulldowns with heavy weights on a machine doesn't mean you will automatically be good at chinning the bar. This is why squats won't directly produce climbing strength on a bike - although squats will help in other ways I believe. But every exercise is different and challenges the muscles in different ways.
Myself I feel my background in weight-training has made my cycling progress more quickly. Although I was very unfit when I started cycling I'm now coping with 4 hour cycling training sessions without any problem. Stamina and endurance has improved rapidly and my body has adapted to the different loads placed upon it automatically. Yes, I've lost a lot of upper body strength as you mentioned but I find my leg-strength hasn't deteriorated. I think cycling naturally tends to weaken the upper body while the activity strengthens the legs. I don't care if I can't bench press heavy at the present time since my goal is to develop cycling endurance and be a good climber.




I tried to read most of the thread, but it is a bit long, and if this has been already covered I apologize.


I agree that weight training will not positively affect cycling performance, but I have a hard time believing that the reverse is true. When I first lifted (age 17) I had a year or two of competitive cycling in me and was capable of leg pressing more than anyone else in the gym. On the other hand, I was a complete wuss when it came to my upper body strength. Now, I am a pure, pure sprinter so that may have something to do with it. A year or two later I got a few guys to lift with me and they could all lift a disproportionate amount of weight. One of the kids (my younger brother) was a great sprinter but a lot smaller than me, and he could still leg press a ton of weight. People would actually come over and watch because it looked funny seeing this little guy putting up a ton of weight. Another guy was a total stick (weight 120) and still he could lift a lot of weight on the leg press. The last guy was pretty big, but he still lifted more on the leg press than the other guys in the gym that were his size. None of them had strong upper bodies.

Another thing that was kind of funny was that fact that we were all much weaker when we bent our legs beyond the maximum angle used in cycling. Thus, we were under the impression we had gained strength that was “cycling specific” and developed from riding.

Also, every cyclist I have ever talked to that has gone to the gym has always talked about how they could lift a lot with their legs, but looked like a wimp when they did bench.

Has this been a bad sample of people or some strange anomaly?

One last question: If cycling does not increase leg strength, nor muscle size, why do so many cyclists have big legs? (Heck, I've had people come up to me and say "Oh you're Danny's friend? Are you the one with the big quads? Sarah was talking about you.")

Thanks in advance,
Ryan

Obviously, with cycling, you build leg muscles. However, the larger these muscles get, the more strain you might put on other muscles that aren't as developed. Thus, you need to strengthen some other muscles in your legs so you don't injure yourself.

Obviously, with cycling, you build leg muscles. However, the larger these muscles get, the more strain you might put on other muscles that aren't as developed. Thus, you need to strengthen some other muscles in your legs so you don't injure yourself.

no you don't.

no you don't.

It's a point well made... :)

How do you become a super-moderator?? Do you change in phone booths and save the elderly and infirm from criminals and hooligans now?

It's a point well made... :)

How do you become a super-moderator?? Do you change in phone booths and save the elderly and infirm from criminals and hooligans now?

hadn't noticed that, till you pointed it out...! i've no idea!

did you get my email by the way?

ric

I went to view a bike the other day as I've been considering buying another roadbike as a spare. The particular bike was a Bianchi but, as the frame was too small, I didn't buy it.
However, I noticed this bike had a far lower range gear capacity than I use on my Carrera. The rear wheel on the Bianchi boasted bigger cogs built into the cassette. It kind of shocked me and I'll explain why.
Much has been written so far about leg-strength and cycling but I can conclude that I've apparently been doing some pretty big hills, of late, using relatively high gears. This has also built a certain degree of strength in my legs since veteran riders have told me I should have been using a triple. However the case may be, I'd venture to say my legs have a heck of a lot of power these days due to the fact I've done so much climbing in slightly bigger gears and given the fact I'm a little heavy for a cyclist. So my legs have blown up somewhat.
Theoretically I supppose I could drop squats if I wanted to. It's kind of funny because I know guys who can squat 400 lbs who would have the shock of their life trying to cycle up some of the hills in the countryside around here. This is basically because I think power climbing demands a different kind of strength and bodyweight is also a factor.
I think your cycling should develop all the leg muscle you need but stretching is important. You will also need to work your lower back since this muscle is neglected on a bike. If you want tree-trunk legs, try doing very steep power climbs and work the gears up but stand up as well to reduce stress on the knees.
Anyone can climb the steepest of hills thanks to gear technology but not everyone can climb in bigger gears (unless they (a) either have very strong legs or (b) sufficient skills to bypass the strength demand via outstanding technique).


Obviously, with cycling, you build leg muscles. However, the larger these muscles get, the more strain you might put on other muscles that aren't as developed. Thus, you need to strengthen some other muscles in your legs so you don't injure yourself.

(b) sufficient skills to bypass the strength demand via outstanding technique.

Um... what the.. but... wha... huh....

If you climb in a big enough gear and at a sufficient incline that force production is a limiting factor, no technique will stop you from having to produce that force. This should never happen if your bike is appropriately geared, but if it did...

What about honking or ziz-zag motion? In cases where I lack strength to turn the pedals on huge hills (in my slightly higher gears), I stand up and use my weight to shift the pedals and twist the wheels to create inertia.

Um... what the.. but... wha... huh....

If you climb in a big enough gear and at a sufficient incline that force production is a limiting factor, no technique will stop you from having to produce that force. This should never happen if your bike is appropriately geared, but if it did...

What about honking or ziz-zag motion? In cases where I lack strength to turn the pedals on huge hills (in my slightly higher gears), I stand up and use my weight to shift the pedals and twist the wheels to create inertia.

*guh*

Carrera are you quantum pedalling?? Or are you so tall that your pedalling has measurable relatavistic effects? Otherwise Newtonian physics still applies to your pedalling action, as do the laws of thermodynamics.If you stand on the pedals, sit in the seat, or handstand and spin the cranks with your arms, you are still creating the forces required to get up the hill, whatever your technique. If you zig-zag up the hill you're not actually riding up the true incline of the hill, and you have terrible and inefficient technique.

ric, I am currently suffering from tight hamstrings which i have been told are due to an imbalance in my leg muscle groups caused by cycling ( approx 250 miles per week ) . I'd appreciate any advice you have in resolving this problem - thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaret
Obviously, with cycling, you build leg muscles. However, the larger these muscles get, the more strain you might put on other muscles that aren't as developed. Thus, you need to strengthen some other muscles in your legs so you don't injure yourself.



no you don't.

ric, I am currently suffering from tight hamstrings which i have been told are due to an imbalance in my leg muscle groups caused by cycling ( approx 250 miles per week ) . I'd appreciate any advice you have in resolving this problem - thanks


this is really an issue for a physio to sort out. they'd need to ascertain exactly what was wrong. my guess, is that you may need to do some stretching.

ric

I've thought about all of this quite a lot when I've been out on a ride (or especially during climbs)
I think it needs to be pointed out that there are various ways you can climb a steep hill and there are various types of cyclists.
But to answer your question, if you push your pedals from a standing position and drive from your hip, using your bodyweight, this does not require much leg strength. So, in that sense I agree with Ricstern that technique and gears can compensate for leg strength.
Even so, that doesn't mean to say that if you have powerful legs it's not an advantage. Myself I find I can power a bike in bigger gears and maybe stay seated if I choose to. I can also climb very steep hills in bigger gears than is the norm, basically because I practise power climbs as part of my program.
Zig-zagging isn't poor technique but I've zig-zagged when I've simply lacked the lower gears I need for very steep hills. I can't really explain how it works but maybe somebody else might have resorted to similar tactics?
P.S. Today I purchased my first triple cog bike which means I now have far more lower gears to play with. I'll still be training on my carrera but can't wait to see how different things may be now I have a triple. The bike I chose was a Scott road bike and so far it rides like a dream. I must have about 6 gears lower than my carrera.
Can anyone give me any feedback on the Scott by the way? Anybody riding one on this forum?
*guh*

Carrera are you quantum pedalling?? Or are you so tall that your pedalling has measurable relatavistic effects? Otherwise Newtonian physics still applies to your pedalling action, as do the laws of thermodynamics.If you stand on the pedals, sit in the seat, or handstand and spin the cranks with your arms, you are still creating the forces required to get up the hill, whatever your technique. If you zig-zag up the hill you're not actually riding up the true incline of the hill, and you have terrible and inefficient technique.

I've thought about all of this quite a lot when I've been out on a ride (or especially during climbs)
I think it needs to be pointed out that there are various ways you can climb a steep hill and there are various types of cyclists.
But to answer your question, if you push your pedals from a standing position and drive from your hip, using your bodyweight, this does not require much leg strength. So, in that sense I agree with Ricstern that technique and gears can compensate for leg strength.
Even so, that doesn't mean to say that if you have powerful legs it's not an advantage. Myself I find I can power a bike in bigger gears and maybe stay seated if I choose to. I can also climb very steep hills in bigger gears than is the norm, basically because I practise power climbs as part of my program.
Zig-zagging isn't poor technique but I've zig-zagged when I've simply lacked the lower gears I need for very steep hills. I can't really explain how it works but maybe somebody else might have resorted to similar tactics?
P.S. Today I purchased my first triple cog bike which means I now have far more lower gears to play with. I'll still be training on my carrera but can't wait to see how different things may be now I have a triple. The bike I chose was a Scott road bike and so far it rides like a dream. I must have about 6 gears lower than my carrera.
Can anyone give me any feedback on the Scott by the way? Anybody riding one on this forum?

Swaying on the bike is definitely an disadvantage. It means energy is being wasted moving the bike laterally rather than driving it forward as roadie_scum has already pointed out. I used to climb hills like that but now I've minimized rocking by contracting my lats and traps on the side opposite to the leg extending.