Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-06-07, 01:55 PM   #1
levi4318
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Weight Training

Is there a difference between "Muscle Size", and "Muscle Strengh"?
levi4318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 02:11 PM   #2
CdCf
Videre non videri
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Bikes: 1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
Posts: 3,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Absolutely!

There are many other factors. Where the muscle attaches to the bone determines leverage together with limb/lever length. Muscle fibre composition of the muscle. Motor neuron efficiency in recruiting muscle fibres. Central nervous system efficiency in coordinating muscles (for compound movements such as squats and bench presses). Large amounts of intramuscular fat will make a muscle look larger than it "is", which is why losing weight/fat often makes muscles seem smaller, even though they become more defined. These are more permanent factors that determine strength/size ratios for muscles.

Then there are more temporary factors, such as hydration level, electrolyte balance, energy availability for the muscles, how warm the muscle is and how well rested it is.

And probably a few other things as well...

The short answer: big muscles don't mean strong muscles, and vice versa!
CdCf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 02:25 PM   #3
ratebeer
Not obese just overweight
 
ratebeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Bikes: Trek 7500fx, Cervelo Soloist
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I believe there have been a few studies suggesting weight training doesn't improve cycling performance in distance cyclists. However, I do think there are studies that show thigh and calf circumferences are good predictors of (or more probably just associated with) road cycling performance. I would imagine that one problem with the latter study is that steroids will create bulky large muscles while the benefits of steroids to cycling performance go beyond just muscle strength and power, and of course elite cycling has a big problem with steroids.
__________________
Joe

Veho difficilis, ago facilis
ratebeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 02:29 PM   #4
slowandsteady
Faster but still slow
 
slowandsteady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jersey
Bikes: Trek 830 circa 1993 and a Fuji WSD Finest 1.0 2006
Posts: 5,979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Having worked with primates who don't have particularly large muscles I can tell you that muscle size is not necessarily indicative of strength. They have welded cages since they can literally turn any bolt with two fingers regardless of how tight it is. I have seen them casually toss a person across a room like it was nothing.
slowandsteady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 02:40 PM   #5
merlinextraligh
pan y agua
 
merlinextraligh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Bikes: Wilier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Co-Motion Robusta; Schwinn Paramount; Motobecane Phantom Cross; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Calfee Dragonfly Tandem
Posts: 29,135
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratebeer
. However, I do think there are studies that show thigh and calf circumferences are good predictors of (or more probably just associated with) road cycling performance.
I'd like to se them. Anecdotal evidence would suggest otherwise. Compare Marco Pantani v. Jan Ullrich.

If you look at the pro peleton, there is a wide variety of leg muscle size amongst elite professional cyclists.

If your assertion were correct, then one would expect Michael Rassmusen to not be able to hang with a Cat 5 pack.
merlinextraligh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 02:43 PM   #6
DannoXYZ 
Senior Member
 
DannoXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Saratoga, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 11,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Size & strength aren't directly correlated. The ratio of muscle-fibre types also affect the size to strength ratio. You really want to examine the kinds of racing you want to do and the types of results you want to achieve. You won't see Rassmusen duking it out with Boonen or McEwen any time soon...
DannoXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 03:03 PM   #7
sizzam
Foo-Schnickens
 
sizzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Bikes: 1995 Trek Multitrack, 2011 Raleigh Revenio, Airborne Guardian
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've heard that muscle is metabolically active tissue that burns calories, even at rest. Would a bigger muscle burn more calories than a stronger muscle?
sizzam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 03:44 PM   #8
aikigreg
Recumbent Ninja
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 2,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. some people have the genetics for bigger muscles. I do in my thighs, which are bigger around than the chests of some of the people on this board, and it's all muscle. And they're extremely strong too. But some people can lift light weights and achieve hypertrophy, and some people who weigh practically nothing and have tiny muscle can lift twice as much as me.

It's a complicated answer when you're dealing with genetics. Basically it's "all strong muscles are big, but not all big muscles are strong." That assumes you're talking about the ability to move a load. Muscle endurance is something else altogether.

Muscle ATTACHMENT also comes into play. Meaning where the muscles and ligaments attach to the joints and muscles. A shorter person with the exact same muscle mass is stronger in many movements. Sometimes the taller person's bones create a longer lever though and are stroner in other areas.

Sound confusing? It is!
aikigreg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 03:48 PM   #9
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Bikes:
Posts: 3,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratebeer
However, I do think there are studies that show thigh and calf circumferences are good predictors of (or more probably just associated with) road cycling performance.
Of course they are, Just look at Michael Rasmussen. Strength is a non-factor in endurance cycling.
asgelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 05:48 PM   #10
Enthalpic
Killing Rabbits
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 5,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by asgelle
Just look at Michael Rasmussen. Strength is a non-factor in endurance cycling.
Because we know all races end with demanding mountaintop finishes. Plus chicks dig it when you bring them stuck jars you can’t open.
Enthalpic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-07, 06:07 PM   #11
ratebeer
Not obese just overweight
 
ratebeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Bikes: Trek 7500fx, Cervelo Soloist
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
I'd like to se them. Anecdotal evidence would suggest otherwise. Compare Marco Pantani v. Jan Ullrich.
I would dig it up but I agree with you for the reasons stated above and the study was within individual and not cross.

Another study listed thigh and calf sizes for elite American riders in a study on a particular training technique unrelated to this discussion. Germane to the topic though is that average calf and thigh measurements of the elite American cyclists measured were *tiny*. The thigh measurement was something like 21" (it was 19 or 21). Hulk Hogan's bicep is 24" by comparison. Earl Campbell's thighs were 32" each.
__________________
Joe

Veho difficilis, ago facilis
ratebeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-07, 12:22 PM   #12
levi4318
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
what about upper body muscles? biceps, triceps, etc.

are bikers into those?
levi4318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-07, 01:01 PM   #13
grebletie
NorCal Climbing Freak
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by levi4318
what about upper body muscles? biceps, triceps, etc.

are bikers into those?
Eh. It's won't help you go faster, but for various other reasons you might want to work on upper body muscles. For example, I work on my core muscles so that I can ride for in an aerodynamic position for hours.

Choosing to work upper body muscles is entirely dependent on your goals.
grebletie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:03 PM.