Training & Nutrition - How come cyclists have tiny arms

Ive been riding me bike for a long enough time now, and I like to think im in better shape than most of my friends, and yet my arms are still pretty dang small. Shouldnt riding a bike make my arms all cut, aswell as my abdominal section?

Also, will lifting weights have adverse effects on my riding? Just trying to look like im in shape

Ive been riding me bike for a long enough time now, and I like to think im in better shape than most of my friends, and yet my arms are still pretty dang small. Shouldnt riding a bike make my arms all cut, aswell as my abdominal section?

> No. Normally it would, but leg shaving stimulates the release of hormones in the body that suppress the growth of arm muscles.

Also, will lifting weights have adverse effects on my riding?

> Not unless you lift weights while you are riding.

shaving your legs make your arms smaller? I'v never heard that one before...

I got big arms , But I need to take creatine and lift three time a week to keep them from deflating . MY arms got small when I was doing 50 miles a day in the mountains . But I then started lifting again and my arms are nice again , ripped cut and vascular .I have noticed "BIKERS FACE " A face without extra skin , all the pros got it , and i have it too after 4000 miles since may :)
peace
jar

1. You'll find you need to get v. low bf for the tris to start standing out and veins across the biceps w/out regular resistance training....~6-8%.
2. Depends on your cycling goals. If you are recreational/tourist only, then not really. If you are planning on competing on the road, weight training is of limited benefit.

shaving your legs make your arms smaller? I'v never heard that one before...

It's true. In 1997, Dutch researchers from the University of Utrecht conducted a study showing that cyclists who shaved their legs were 44% more likely to look like "weak girlie-men" than those who did not.

I'll need some more details. What hormone is being emitted because of shaving legs? Estrogen, or... like what? I have a hard time believing that cutting hair (the body can't KNOW its cut, its still got the root) stimulates the release of a hormone... Meh. If its Dutch, it probably ain't much.

t's true. In 1997, Dutch researchers from the University of Utrecht conducted a study showing that cyclists who shaved their legs were 44% more likely to look like "weak girlie-men" than those who did not.

:roflmao:

It's true. In 1997, Dutch researchers from the University of Utrecht conducted a study showing that cyclists who shaved their legs were 44% more likely to look like "weak girlie-men" than those who did not.

Remember the story from the Bible about Sampson & Delilah? Look @ how weak he got just from having the hair on his head cut!
Serioulsy, why would you think cycling would give you "massive,ripped" arms? All they are doing is supporting some of your weight while on the bike. Unless you're doing muscle specific exercises, you won't change the way your arms look. Keep in mind that when you add muscle, you will also add weight.

I try to lift weights while I ride. I carry a dumbbell and do presses, lifts, rows with one hand while I steer with the other. Then I switch.

Also, I have found another great exercise that requires no extra equipment. I reach down with one hand and grab the top tube, and lift the bike and the top tube up with my bicep, pulling very hard while I am also riding the bike. Since I am 220 lbs, and the bike weighs about 25, I do a lift of about 245 pounds. This works great, and you don't have to stop biking to do the exercise.

Trying to keep in shape!

It's true. In 1997, Dutch researchers from the University of Utrecht conducted a study showing that cyclists who shaved their legs were 44% more likely to look like "weak girlie-men" than those who did not.

Did the study go on finding that 88% of these cyclists in their winter tights looked more like some of these ladies walking the streets of Amsterdam ? :rolleyes:

I try to lift weights while I ride. I carry a dumbbell and do presses, lifts, rows with one hand while I steer with the other. Then I switch.

Also, I have found another great exercise that requires no extra equipment. I reach down with one hand and grab the top tube, and lift the bike and the top tube up with my bicep, pulling very hard while I am also riding the bike. Since I am 220 lbs, and the bike weighs about 25, I do a lift of about 245 pounds. This works great, and you don't have to stop biking to do the exercise.

Trying to keep in shape!

Have you also tried riding 15 mph into a 25 mph headwind? You go backwards. :)

Have you also tried riding 15 mph into a 25 mph headwind? You go backwards. :)

Yes, it works great when you want to go up and down a hill at the same time!

I don't think your arms will get "cut" by riding a bike. You really arent utilizing too much upper body to cycle (or at least not really enough to make you "cut" and "inshape looking" or whatever) Go to the gym and do some upper body work outs a few days out of the week. That ought to help. And from what I understand to reduce body fat to "make your abdominal area cut" you ought to try training in the heart rate zones that are geared to using your body fat as fuel instead of the carbs. I dunno just a thought I could be wrong. :shrug:

Cyclists have small arms because they do not use their arm muscles, but they do engage in rigorous cardio that eats every bit of muscle that you don't use. If you don't use it, you lose it, because it doesn't bother to recover.

You want "cut" arms, then build some arm muscles, and maintain a low bodyfat.

So, lifting weigts WILL make arms bigger, and the cycling shouldnt eat away at all that hard earned muscle?

Sparky, if i reduce body fat, i.e. eat veggies and healthy stuff, wont i get even skinnier? Also, does doing situps burn the fat from me abs?

The only way to get bigger arms is to work out your arms. Situps tone the abdominal muscles, and burn some calories, but there really is no such thing as spot reduction of body fat. Reducing body fat through the proper combo of diet and exercise will allow your muscles to show. You may be skinnier (your waist size may shrink, etc.) but you will appear more muscular because the excess material (fat) will no longer be covering the muscles up. The other thing to remember is that for a given volume, muscle weighs more than fat, so even if you look leaner as you replace body fat with lean muscle mass, your weight may actually go up.

So, lifting weigts WILL make arms bigger, and the cycling shouldnt eat away at all that hard earned muscle?

Sparky, if i reduce body fat, i.e. eat veggies and healthy stuff, wont i get even skinnier? Also, does doing situps burn the fat from me abs?

The cycling is going to make your arm progress slower than your beefy friends', but yes you will get bigger arms if you work them. And don't worry about cutting bodyfat if you want bigger arms. You've got to GAIN, not lose. Cut arms with nothing underneath look terrible.

i think my tricepts have developed a bit over the past year - or maybe it's just i lost some more fat and it looks more defined. anyway, since i started cycling i think my arms look better now than they used to. no change in size, but the definition is noticable.

Thanks for all this info. its oh so useful when people say im out of shape because i have such noodly arms.

So if cycling is taking away from the fat and muscle mass, what exactly am i gaining? If not muscles, then what? stronger heart or something?

I don't think a lot of the pros work upper body at all. Personally, it just looks gross to me to be so developmentally superior in some points of your body, but have the chest and arms of a pre-pubescent little girl. Yeeech!

Koffee

I don't think a lot of the pros work upper body at all. Personally, it just looks gross to me to be so developmentally superior in some points of your body, but have the chest and arms of a pre-pubescent little girl. Yeeech!

Koffee

You mean like this?

You are building your cardio-vascular and muscular endurance. Power lifters get big bulky muscles that can do amazing amounts of work, but only for a short period of time. Endurance athletes build a different type of muscle fiber that can do a smaller amount of work, but can do it for a loooooooong time before fatigue sets in. You can still lift weights to build your upper body, but you will do so at a slower rate than someone who is training for strength. The other big benefit to weight training, besides looking like you want to, is that your skeletal system gets stronger as well. There are a number of very good endurance athletes- ultramarathon cyclists and runners- who have the bone density of a 90 year old woman because they don't do any type of weight training.

so your saying that to keep a reasonable bone density you need to lift weights? if that's the case then that's a major design floor in the human body.

We are all flawed.

so your saying that to keep a reasonable bone density you need to lift weights? if that's the case then that's a major design floor in the human body.

Lifting weights replaces the work that our bodys have done for ever. You want chicken for dinner now you go to KFC, you wanted chicken 100 years ago you got a knife and chased the thing down. Point is, we used to have to perform physical labor to sustain life. Now we need only call Domino's.

so your saying that to keep a reasonable bone density you need to lift weights? if that's the case then that's a major design floor in the human body.

Until someone designs a better one, I think we're stuck with working with what we've got.

THe best way to think of it is like this: Your body is lazy. The human body will only do the ammount of work needed to survive. If you exhaust your arms lifting something, your body will repair the arm muscles, since it percieves they must be needed for survival, but it won't just fix something that ain't broken. Cyclists put very little strain on their bones, so the body lets the upkeep slide, but weight lifters keep the bones under stress, so the body keeps them under repair. If you think about it in these terms, it actually makes a lot of sense.

* Note there are other things going on with bone density and cyclists, cheifly calcium depletion through excess secretion of sweat, etc, but this was simplified above because I'm lazy.

You mean like this?

Exactly like that picture! Thanks for the reinforced visual! :D ;)

Koffee

Actually, most runners have very good bone density, particulaly in the legs, pelvis, and spine, because the constant pounding stimulates bone growth. You lose calcium when you sweat, which occurs during both running and cycling, but the bone stimulation during running helps counteract that. Also, because cycling is much lower stress than running, you can do it for a much longer period of time and sweat more, therefore lose more calcium (1 hour run vs. 3 hour bike ride...lose more sweat/calcium during bike ride.) Either way, when you engage in cardio that makes you sweat a lot, you need to increase calcium intake.

Thanks for all this info. its oh so useful when people say im out of shape because i have such noodly arms.

So if cycling is taking away from the fat and muscle mass, what exactly am i gaining? If not muscles, then what? stronger heart or something?

The parts of your body that you are using adapt, and improve: your lower body, your cardiovascular system, etc.

because its aerodynamic?

Sounds like he needs a bike he can pedal with his arms. When my little brother had a tricycle I used to kneel on the back platform with my chest on the handlebars and pedal with my hands. Something like that, maybe.

He wants hypertrophy in his arms. Best thing for that is resistance training.

Barbell and Dumbell Curls, Close grip Bench Presses, and French Presses (aka Skull Crushers/Nose Breakers

Its not hard to get decent arms. Eat alot of calories and protein post workout, immediately. Try a good shake with 30+ grams of protein in it, and a ton of carbs. You'll see a big improvement in arm diameter within a month.

I might mention that the key to great looking arms is to have a great deltoids-triceps tie in. So you might wanna work the lateral head of your deltoids (shoulders) too. Lateral raises.

Ive been riding me bike for a long enough time now, and I like to think im in better shape than most of my friends, and yet my arms are still pretty dang small. Shouldnt riding a bike make my arms all cut, aswell as my abdominal section?

Also, will lifting weights have adverse effects on my riding? Just trying to look like im in shape

Couple of things in play here. First, serious cyclists work their bodies toward cycling. For the most part, arms aren't used much (well MTB is a different matter) so they aren't going to get big. They may appear to be more cut as you burn fat, but muscle mass isn't going to grow.

Weight lifting won't hurt you except that building upper body muscle mass adds weight that isn't productive for cycling, so your (effective) strength to weight ratio suffers. Depends on how serious you are about cycling.

I've never been small, but as I get more into cycling I am also working out building upper body strength. It's not the best thing for serious cycling, but I'm not intending to race. At 5'-10", I'm currently about 195, down from 205, and I'm aiming for 180. From that point I will determine where I want to go, but for now I'm sure I have another 10 lbs. worth of gut to get rid of. I seriously don't see myself, with my build, going less than 170 lbs. or so. I'm not serious enough about cycling to sacrifice upper body strength in the name of climbing.

Believe me with those biker shorts and those biker butts, no one worries about the shaven legs. Its a smooth ride to a firm butt. lol

Did the study go on finding that 88% of these cyclists in their winter tights looked more like some of these ladies walking the streets of Amsterdam ? :rolleyes:
:roflmao:

So i should be eating more calories? whats with everyone trying to avoid calories tog et into better shape? Im 6'3", 185lbs, and dont do any races, just ride to work and school a lot. Stomach is pretty flat, but not very cut. Would biking help that, or is it just taking away the muscle mass in my abdominal area?

So i should be eating more calories? whats with everyone trying to avoid calories tog et into better shape? Im 6'3", 185lbs, and dont do any races, just ride to work and school a lot. Stomach is pretty flat, but not very cut. Would biking help that, or is it just taking away the muscle mass in my abdominal area?

From everything I've heard, having your abs show is much more a matter of having low body fat than of having strong ab muscles.

I also had found it nearly impossible to cut way back on calories to lose weight while at the same time building upper body muscle by going to the gym. So I basically just waited until my waste shrank, and then upped calorie intake in order to put on muscle.

If you want to build your arms, then eat more calories. And specifically: eat more calories and protein after you work your arms. Once they're up to the size you want, then you can reduce calories and get them cut.

Trying to bulk your arms while not eating enough calories will be a frustrating and time consuming experience.

Its not one or the other. You can build muscle and lose fat at the same time. Eat six meals a day consentrating on complex carbs, good protein and low added fat. Make sure that each meal has protein in it.

Eating with regularity serves multiple purposes. Two of the important ones for gaining muscle while loosing fat are:

1. By supplying a steady stream of protein to the body you will have the building blocks needed when your body requires them for muscle maintenance.

2. By making steady deposits into your bodies bank it trusts that currency will remain available and releases some of your savings. (IE doesnt need to keep as much fat since it trusts you will continue to supply it regularly).

Also to build muscle you need to progresivly stress the muscles. They are adaptive so you need to either increase weight or intensity or both to stimulate growth. Our bodies are adaptive organisms and when you lift a weight, run, ride, etc your body views this as a requirement for continued survival. Thus it will adapt by adding muscle, aerobic capacity etc. It will not invest in this growth more then the strain you place upon it. Thus our need to ever increase to spur it on.

Its not one or the other. You can build muscle and lose fat at the same time.

Yeah but, I thought that in order to lose fat you needed to have a calorie deficit. If you have a calorie deficit, then what can you use to build muscle?

. . . Point is, we used to have to perform physical labor to sustain life. Now we need only call Domino's.

Hmmm we used to have to perform physical labor to sustain life. . .so now need only call Domino's to perform physical labor, to sustain life--so that's how Lance did it. . .Lotsa Domino calling--Eureaka, the secret!

Yeah but, I thought that in order to lose fat you needed to have a calorie deficit. If you have a calorie deficit, then what can you use to build muscle?

To lose overall weight you have to run a deficeit. To lose fat and build muscle you need to train and eat accordingly. In fact, you can/will eat far more calories and can/will lose tremendous amounts of fat.

Trying to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, unless you are totally out of shape, is going to be a frustrating experience. You can gain the muscle, and then lose the fat, much more quickly.

BTW: "Simple" and "complex" carbs are antiquated terms that have been determined to be totally bunk. Outside of two or three minutes, the "complexity" of a carb means nothing. Its only a useful concept for diabetcs, that sometimes need sugar NOW, and not in 2-3 minutes. This concept has ZERO place in athletics.

What determines how quickly carbs are absorbed is the AMOUNT of carbs consumed, along with the amount of protein and fiber consumed with them.

Trying to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, unless you are totally out of shape, is going to be a frustrating experience. You can gain the muscle, and then lose the fat, much more quickly.

I'm living proof you are wrong, do you have an example to validate this statement? The average person can reasonably expect to gain about 7 pounds of muscle a year. Explain how you would go about doing one then the other.



BTW: "Simple" and "complex" carbs are antiquated terms that have been determined to be totally bunk. Outside of two or three minutes, the "complexity" of a carb means nothing. Its only a useful concept for diabetcs, that sometimes need sugar NOW, and not in 2-3 minutes. This concept has ZERO place in athletics.

What determines how quickly carbs are absorbed is the AMOUNT of carbs consumed, along with the amount of protein and fiber consumed with them.

Since when are they antiquated? Simple means its high on the glycemic index. Complex means it is lower. As far as a 'useful concept' only to diabetics, you are off base. Spiking ones blood sugar means a corresponding spike in insulin levels. Your body will not burn fat when insulin levels are high. This has implications for a myriad of sports activites.

Your second statement, where did you get that info? If I consume 100 carb grams from brown rice, vs 100 grams from table sugar and I do so while riding my bike, even with some protien or fat, that table sugar is gonna wipe me out.

I'm living proof you are wrong, do you have an example to validate this statement? The average person can reasonably expect to gain about 7 pounds of muscle a year. Explain how you would go about doing one then the other.

The muscles don't appear out of nothing. So where does your body get the building blocks for the muscle? It comes from the food you eat. But if you are eating enought to build muscle mass, then you're not running a calorie deficit, so your body doesn't need to tap into the fat reserves for fuel.

I know a lot of guys who are strong, but they are definitely not lean. It's like the "fat guy" who can bench tons.

I was going to make the same point about eating sugar. 100 calories of sugar isn't going to satisfy me like a piece of whole wheat bread. Now maybe you might say this is due to the fact that the bread has fiber and protein in it. Is that what you mean, Crunky?

Anyways, I always look for foods with as little sugar in them as possible.

The muscles don't appear out of nothing. So where does your body get the building blocks for the muscle? It comes from the food you eat. But if you are eating enought to build muscle mass, then you're not running a calorie deficit, so your body doesn't need to tap into the fat reserves for fuel.

Your body will build muscle as a result of resistance training. If your BMR (calories burned at rest) is say 2k a day and you eat 5-6 meals a day resulting in 2500cal and you lift weights, your body will make muscle. Now, as your muscle mass increases your BMR rises. Keep eating the same 2.5k a day and your fat will decrease. As you gain more muscle, you will lose more fat as your BMR continues to rise.

What is important to note about diet is these need to be good meals containing a serving of protein and carbs in every meal. Clean calories, IE potatoes, whole grains, brown rice, fish, skinnless chicken breast, lean beef. These are naturally low in fat so fat should come from olive oil, fish oils ect.

Check out Body for Life (http://www.bodyforlife.com/) , I think that site will explain better then I am.

I have pretty thin arms, that is with small bones- I have very small wrists. Because of this, and because I never had a lot of upper body strength,I do weight training, including exercises for forearms, which I think is very important for cyclists. You don't have to have arms like Manny Ramirez, but it's very helpful for support and reducing fatigue and back pain. I have pretty well defined forearm muscles and biceps and triceps.

You'll notice though that MTBers and downhillers tend to have more developed upperbody muscles.

I'm living proof you are wrong, do you have an example to validate this statement? The average person can reasonably expect to gain about 7 pounds of muscle a year. Explain how you would go about doing one then the other.

You are not living proof that I am wrong. I stated that it is possible to lose fat AND gain muscle at the same time, especially if you are obese or very out of shape. I sure as hell did when I started working out as a 325 pound cream puff. But, it is much less efficient to do it this way if your aren't obese. It will take you longer to reach your goals than if you'd simply bulked, then cut.



Since when are they antiquated? Simple means its high on the glycemic index. Complex means it is lower. As far as a 'useful concept' only to diabetics, you are off base. Spiking ones blood sugar means a corresponding spike in insulin levels. Your body will not burn fat when insulin levels are high. This has implications for a myriad of sports activites.

Your second statement, where did you get that info? If I consume 100 carb grams from brown rice, vs 100 grams from table sugar and I do so while riding my bike, even with some protien or fat, that table sugar is gonna wipe me out.

I am not aware of the precise date when the "simple" and "complex" paradigm became outdated. I am not an applied physiology historian. I just happen to have spent entirely too much time going through applied physiology journals, with a little more information to offer than "Body for Life." Check out Pubmed. Its all there if you look.

As to the carbs, allow me to explain further.

If we both eat 1000 calories a day of carbs, you eating wheat bread and me eating sugar... in terms of body composition change, your body does not care. Our results will be the same, if all other factors are equal. The only difference will be in apetite. The fiber in the bread will slow the absorption of carbs in your meals, while my sugar diet will have me hungry very soon after a meal. Nevertheless, if I am tough and don't eat, then our results will be the same. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in the literature.

Why? Well, for one thing, simple and complex is a useless term in this context. The fact is, that glucose, or a long chain glucose molecule like maltodextrin, will both absord identically within a couple of minutes. Enzymes designed just for this purpose, make short work of the bonds between carbohydrate monomers. Within a couple of minutes, the most "complex" carb is reduced to simple sugars. The difference in absorption speeds has to do with the amount of fiber and protein consumed with the carbs. Bottom line is: the amount of insulin released is directly related to the amount of carbs you eat, and nothing else. Its linear. And the only reason that we find maltodextrin so useful, is that most people cannot stomach a beverage with 100g of dextrose in them. I sure as hell can't.

As to what you have recommended about losing fat and gaining muscle at the same time, you have essentiallly agreed with me. Only you have shortened the periods in which the shift between caloric excess and deficit occur. In practice, however, he will achieve his goals more quickly and see quicker arm gains if he eats a larger caloric excess until he achieves the muscle size that he is after, and then cuts away the extra fat by entering a caloric defecit, as long as he doesn't reduce calories excessively, and if he maintains the muscle that he has built by continuing the resistance training.

I have pretty thin arms, that is with small bones- I have very small wrists. Because of this, and because I never had a lot of upper body strength,I do weight training, including exercises for forearms, which I think is very important for cyclists. You don't have to have arms like Manny Ramirez, but it's very helpful for support and reducing fatigue and back pain. I have pretty well defined forearm muscles and biceps and triceps.

You'll notice though that MTBers and downhillers tend to have more developed upperbody muscles.

Genetics may well be limiting you, but if you are an exomorph (tall, thin, low bodyfat), then what is holding you back from making muscle mass gains is that you aren't eating enough. Not your genetics.