Training & Nutrition - Can biking and strength training mix?!?! HELP!!!

I am just getting started with the whole road bike thing, I love to bike and I want to mix it in with my strength training. The problem is: I don't want to lose all of the muscle mass I have gained through strength training (6' 220lb). Any recommendations for workouts on the bike that will help build muscle and not burn it?

If you wanna keep your muscle from strength training, then keep training it. The bike isn't gonna help there.

I think what I meant to say was, simply, what are some biking workouts that would similate strength training for the legs. Thanks.

I avoid leg strengh training because I ride daily on my trainer, but I definitely suggest conditional upper body strength training to prevent sore back and arms. I used to get sore lower backs and it helps alot.

Long Hill Climbs, mashing a big gear at low RPMs. I would think you would want to do stuff like that because it involves "grinding out" the gears instead of "spinning", which is aerobic. Ask 53-11alltheway, apparently if you combine lifting and cycling you can become a cycling god with very little experience....

I think what I meant to say was, simply, what are some biking workouts that would similate strength training for the legs. Thanks.

By similate do you mean simulate or stimulate?

None of them will help with muscle mass. In general, cardio is catabolic. It eats muscle. The only way to fight this is to keep stimulating your legs with resistance training. You'll get some Type-I growth from cycling... but not much.

Leg strength comes from white and Type-II muscle fibers. Cycling uses Type-I muscle fibers. These types (I and II) exist on a spectrum, so using higher gears and pushing hard would be more likely to help you out than spinning would... but I don't think either would really help you out much with your leg strength. Then again... I'm not sure how you're defining strength.

Of course, if you're pretty out of shape cardio wise, then any cardio is gonna help your lifting by ensuring that your muscles fail before your cardiovascular system does.

Just my 2 cents.

Try putting the bike into a crazy high gear and leave it there the whole ride, so you go slooow up hills with lots of resistance.

I'd also think that you would have to be very careful to increase your carb and protein intake to make sure your body doesn't eat up your muscle.

How about doing lots of sprints, and avoiding long rides? Olympic sprinters look very strong, but the marathon runners all look super thin and weak.

You are going to lose some muscle mass, end of story. However, with cycling I've found that you can maintain good muscle mass despite a high level of aerobic training. You can't have it both ways though. If you start doing more mileage and get into some intense group rides on a regular basis, you're strength will suffer. You won't necessarily turn into a skinny armed wimp though, you just won't be at your peak size and strength. While I'm not handling the poundages I used to I think I look better because my body fat is very low.

I think what I meant to say was, simply, what are some biking workouts that would similate strength training for the legs. Thanks.


None. The forces involved in cycling are so low as to provide no hypertrophic effect.

I weight train year round and I am actually more of a "body builder" than cyclist. However, during the six months of good riding weather I will ride 250 - 300 miles per week. I also continue to lift during this time. I would definitely be a better cyclist if I did not weight train year round but I very much enjoy free weights so I compromise my cycling speed. Doing this I do not seem to lose any muscle mass but I sure do eat much more and get a "more cut" look. You have to do what you enjoy and choose your compromises.

I am just getting started with the whole road bike thing, I love to bike and I want to mix it in with my strength training. The problem is: I don't want to lose all of the muscle mass I have gained through strength training (6' 220lb). Any recommendations for workouts on the bike that will help build muscle and not burn it?

You can't build muscle on the bike, the resistance is far too light. There isn't a gear that will build muscle.


I avoid leg strengh training because I ride daily on my trainer, but I definitely suggest conditional upper body strength training to prevent sore back and arms. I used to get sore lower backs and it helps alot.

Lower back strength is stimualted by doing "lower body/leg strength" type exercises, not upper...



Long Hill Climbs, mashing a big gear at low RPMs. I would think you would want to do stuff like that because it involves "grinding out" the gears instead of "spinning", which is aerobic. Ask 53-11alltheway, apparently if you combine lifting and cycling you can become a cycling god with very little experience....

Lifting won't turn you into a world beater. Far from it.

In general, cardio is catabolic. It eats muscle. The only way to fight this is to keep stimulating your legs with resistance training.

This isnt entirely true. If you are say a marathon runner, and you dont lift weights, then yes, you are going to develop your slow twitch fibers and your body will let the fast twitch atrophy. Over time your muscle will 'lean out'. However, a blanket statement that cardio is catabolic isnt valid. Cardio taken into anerobic levels is catabolic, but if kept within the aerobic zone your body will continue to burn glycogen just fine, sparing that muscle mass.

Saying that you don't build any muscle mass in your legs by cycling is laugh out loud funny.

Saying that you don't build any muscle mass in your legs by cycling is laugh out loud funny.

So is this post.
Seen any professional road racers lately?

Speaking for my self I have built muscle in my legs-I see you picked one of the skinnyist riders you could find. That guy won't build muscle no matter what he does. Some people just don't get it.

Your legs are more defined, not bigger.

Using your logic, all road racers should have thighs like Sean Eadie.

Long Hill Climbs, mashing a big gear at low RPMs. I would think you would want to do stuff like that because it involves "grinding out" the gears instead of "spinning", which is aerobic. Ask 53-11alltheway, apparently if you combine lifting and cycling you can become a cycling god with very little experience....

Does Lance Armstrong Spin when he climbs out of the saddle?

Exactly.

Does Lance Armstrong Spin when he climbs out of the saddle?

Exactly.

Yes. Very high cadence both seated and standing.

Yes. Very high cadence both seated and standing.

Very high cadence, but not as fast as seated. He is still pushing when he is out of the saddle.

The Difference between him and the rest of the cycling world is he is not building up very much lactic acid. LA's lactic acid threshold is equal to his VO2 max

Err.....so?

This isnt entirely true. If you are say a marathon runner, and you dont lift weights, then yes, you are going to develop your slow twitch fibers and your body will let the fast twitch atrophy. Over time your muscle will 'lean out'. However, a blanket statement that cardio is catabolic isnt valid. Cardio taken into anerobic levels is catabolic, but if kept within the aerobic zone your body will continue to burn glycogen just fine, sparing that muscle mass.

And when glycogen runs short on a long ride? Are the hormonal pathways for releasing glycogen as specific as you think?

Hi,
sorry to interupt the pointless argument, guys. But...
Mary,
consider the 2 things as seperate. You want to lift, by all means do so. I spend the winter in the gym. Competitive riders used to have huge leg muscles. They found size wasn't neccesary.
So they all look like they're starving now. Unless you want to become a pro at body building or cycling it doesn't mean a thing.
Have fun, ride your bike, hit the gym. Don't forget to let those legs heal up after a big workout.

Hi,
Competitive riders used to have huge leg muscles. They found size wasn't neccesary.
So they all look like they're starving now. Unless you want to become a pro at body building or cycling it doesn't mean a thing.
.

Not true.....

What you are trying to say is that long range endurance cyclists don't need large myscles.....Sprinters do!!

I think somebody a while mentioned Chris Hoy (Sprinter).....That dude has huge muscles (even huge upper body)

Your legs are more defined, not bigger.

Using your logic, all road racers should have thighs like Sean Eadie.
Must be a full moon out tonignt-this guy knows that my legs have not got any bigger! Geez!

Unless you measure them, you wouldn't know. The mirror lies. Cut looks "bigger" than bulkier with fat. Strange, but true.

Must be a full moon out tonignt-this guy knows that my legs have not got any bigger! Geez!


Of course....I've proved it not to be the case dozens of times with cyclists. How are you any different?

Dear 53-11,
true enough, but not especially relevant to the fellow we are trying to help. And now your homework assignment is to estimate what percentage of the world's bicycle riders are sprinters...

All of them, as they near the finish line.

Oh for the love of God, you are telling me that no one has ever increased the size of their legs by cycling, you guys are nuts. This post is of no use to anyone.

All of them, as they near the finish line.


.......or accelerate out of a corner, or close a gap, or start an attack (or try and join in one).....

:D

Oh for the love of God, you are telling me that no one has ever increased the size of their legs by cycling, you guys are nuts. This post is of no use to anyone.


As has been posted numerous time by me and others, the forces involved in road cycling are not high enough for muscle hypertrophy. Any increase in muscle definition from fat loss should not be confused with size.

As has been posted numerous time by me and others, the forces involved in road cycling are not high enough for muscle hypertrophy. Any increase in muscle definition from fat loss should not be confused with size.

Hypertrophy smishotrophy. If I keep reading this thread my brain will atrophy.

I think some peope just ike to throw around big words.

Lemme try: My leg muscles increased in size due to the supercalifragilisticexpeallidocious-trophy effect.

Hmm, kinda fun, actually! :D -trophy.

Saying that you don't build any muscle mass in your legs by cycling is laugh out loud funny.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/jun04/tourdesuisse04/stage9/image20.jpg

Depends on what you regard as muscle mass. You see that picture of Ulrich. You aren't going to get legs/hamstring muscles like that pushing a weepy 16 to 18lb bike all day. If you say that you could, you would be lying.



Speaking for my self I have built muscle in my legs-I see you picked one of the skinnyist riders you could find. That guy won't build muscle no matter what he does. Some people just don't get it.

You find that in people who eat next to nothing. That guy looks like he has never lifted a bag of sugar in his life never mind entered a gym. He would also need to eat alot more food, train hard, keep a clean diet & sleep well & then he would grow.



Oh for the love of God, you are telling me that no one has ever increased the size of their legs by cycling, you guys are nuts. This post is of no use to anyone.

What are we talking here. Millimeters???... Cos it ain't no more than that. Start referring to increased size when you can talk about gaining 10 or more inches... Look at the pics of Chris Hoys legs, not your own by cycling alone, then compare.

So is this post.
Seen any professional road racers lately?


Photos are pretty deceptive. And cyclists focus on different strengths.
In general, cyclists have relatively big muscles on their legs compared to other athletes.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/jun04/tourdesuisse04/stage9/image20.jpg

Depends on what you regard as muscle mass. You see that picture of Ulrich. You aren't going to get legs/hamstring muscles like that pushing a weepy 16 to 18lb bike all day. If you say that you could, you would be lying.

...



Obviously, you are not a regular rider. The weight of the bike has nothing to do with it.

Travelling at 30mph+ (in air), that is what I call "resistance" training!

Photos are pretty deceptive. And cyclists focus on different strengths.
In general, cyclists have relatively big muscles on their legs compared to other athletes.

Yeah, And cyclists have relatively small muscles on their legs compared to other athletes too...



Obviously, you are not a regular rider. The weight of the bike has nothing to do with it.

Travelling at 30mph+ (in air), that is what I call "resistance" training!

Exactly. The weight of the bike has/ and never will have nothing to do with building muscle and travelling at 200mph+ in air will never have nothing to do with it either.

Deadlift & Squat 2.5x--- 3x your own bodyweight for Reps.

I like how you guys go on about building strength on the bike, lol... Compared to who???... Your average Joe with a 9 till 5 working in an office... All your building is great strength endurance, even hitting steep hills, still endurance... You have bucketloads of this over your average guy but over a max strength test you might be pretty suprised that the average guy could actually lift more than you...

P.S. How much more force can guys like Armstrong & Ulrich apply to the pedals over the guys who just ride/use there bike for resistance???... Maybe 5x, 10x, 15x more force applied to the pedal over a time trial or a mountain stage, I know who my money is on... Your going out the back...

Dude, geez, strength training for what?

I think we are talking about different things-- all I'm saying is that cycling will "build" muscle, strength and endurance in the legs. I think you are talking about body building (which is not really a sport anyways).

No, we're talking about "building" muscle as something that is evidenced by increased leg size. If your legs aren't getting bigger, then you aren't "building" muscle.

OK I was going to give up on this waste of time post but it seems some people actually got what I was talking about and some are going off in other direction. The last time I checked this was a bike forum and not a weight lifting forum so that is how I stated my views and what I have observed on my own body (pathetic as it is). When I first started cycling I had not been active so I had no leg muscles other than what it took to walk, so I had some muscle gain in my legs but not what a weight lifter would consider significant. This is what I was talking about when some of you seemed to know more about my legs than I did.

Oh yea another thing doing hill repeats up a steep hill in a big gear is not easy and if you think it is give me your name so I can watch for it in next years TDF!

Well, all I can say is that someone who cycles regularly will develop their legs to greater extent than someone who does not. I'm sure that people who like to "get big" with gym weights can far surpass pure cyclist legs in size and strength (but not endurance).

I suppose it comes down to a matter of looks: some people like the body-builder look others do not. Healthy cyclist legs are a nice comprimise between svelte and ripped.

We're talking about the physiology of a cyclists legs, and what kind of training aids him in performance... at least I thought thats what we were talking about. There seems to be a long standing debate here on the value of any sort of training besides cycling for cycling, and I don't know the answer... but I find it very interesting.

If you bike alot, your legs do develop.

Mitochondria in the muscles multiply so they can eat more oxygen and deliver more energy, vascularity within the muscle increases to supply them, muscle fibers convert from those oriented to short term strength to those oriented to endurance (this is apparently controversial), and the muscle stores of glycogen increase to provide your muscles with sugar to burn as you power up those hills (which, yes can result in an increase in the size of your muscles... but this is temporary, goes away quickly when you stop training, and is not equivalent to an increase in muscle protein).

Thats what happens as you cycle more. Probably many other things happen too, but that is, I think, the core things.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12436270&dopt=Abstract

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15.


Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.

Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS.

Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

This article is interesting for a number of reasons... anyone wanna snag it?

BTW, if you're feeling bored: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=12436270

Pubmed has the "related articles" button. It is GREAT. You only have to find one article dealing with your subject matter, and then you're set for hours.

"a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks."

Compared to cycling, even this high rep group is doing a low number of repetitions. I mean, many cyclists might ride for 10 hours a week. That makes for a lot more than the number of reps in the study. So this study's high rep group might not apply so well to cycling.

Also, when you ride probably you will have a mix of hills and flats. So part of every ride could be seen as a "low rep-high resistance" exercise. Riding at high speed into a wind also would have this effect. I think every ride involves some of the very types of exercise that the study says builds muscle.

Dude, geez, strength training for what?

I think we are talking about different things-- all I'm saying is that cycling will "build" muscle, strength and endurance in the legs. I think you are talking about body building (which is not really a sport anyways).

I'm not talking about bodybuilding, I'm referring to the Jan Ulrich picture above.


Oh yea another thing doing hill repeats up a steep hill in a big gear is not easy and if you think it is give me your name so I can watch for it in next years TDF!

Couldn't agree more...


Well, all I can say is that someone who cycles regularly will develop their legs to greater extent than someone who does not. I'm sure that people who like to "get big" with gym weights can far surpass pure cyclist legs in size and strength (but not endurance).

Couldn't agree more, but I have found that an increase in pure strength relates to an increase in endurance.

All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups.

That pretty much caps it. As few as 20 reps per set does not result in hypertrophy. You must fail at fewer reps than this to get your muscles to grow. Biking never gets harder than this 20 rep level. Ever. Think about cadences. How many reps in a single minute are these guys doing? 90? 120? Thats ALWAYS more reps than this study identifies as the limit to cause hypertrophy, even if they're doing the steepest hill on the tour, out of the saddle.

Now look at Jan Ulrich's legs, I have to think that he does squats and straight leg deadlifts, to failure at fewer than 20 reps. Otherwise, where is the muscle coming from?

This would seem to indicate that Jan Ulrich thinks that there is a benefit to his cycling from resistance training for his legs, to the tune of failure at <20 reps, that stimulates hypertrophy.

I sure wish Ric Stern was around to join in this post about weight lifting-I won't even try and speak for him as he knows much more about it than I can even pretend to but it is the discussion about cycling not needing the extra muscle developed by weight lifting. It seems (As Ric and many others say) the forces needed on even the pro level are low enough so anyone can generate this much power just not as long as the top riders can. Training on the bike will suffice so they say. Glad to have some common sense back into this post.

I sure wish Ric Stern was around to join in this post about weight lifting-I won't even try and speak for him as he knows much more about it than I can even pretend to but it is the discussion about cycling not needing the extra muscle developed by weight lifting. It seems (As Ric and many others say) the forces needed on even the pro level are low enough so anyone can generate this much power just not as long as the top riders can. Training on the bike will suffice so they say. Glad to have some common sense back into this post.


100% correct.

100% correct, and yet Lance disagrees with you, and it seems to work for him? Also, Jan didn't get those legs cycling, so he disagrees too.

Explain?