Carbonfiberboy 

Kind of funny to bring science into this discussion, since there is virtually no scientific evidence about any of this. There are a few studies showing increased bone mineral density from doing "weight bearing exercise," but no studies AFAIK of bone mineral content associated with "non-weight bearing exercise." One study of note showed the dominant arm of tennis players to have a higher bone density than the non-dominant arm, yet the study referred to this as "weight bearing exercise."

In general,

Quote:

any exercise that places force on a bone will strengthen that bone.

and bone strengthening is proportional to strain magnitude, strain rate, and strain frequency:
Does Exercise Increase Bone Density?

Cycling is generally not regarded as "weight bearing exercise," though I would propose that there is a difference between a person on a bicycle doing 6 mph on the flat and a trained cyclist doing hill sprints.

Taking into consideration the above and that the only studies about bone density and cycling are those involving pros, I find it very likely that the hypothesis of Null66 is correct. If one wishes to dispute that hypothesis, fine, but better to show science which disputes it, rather than just words.

Considering the tennis arm example above and the general prescription to do weights at the gym for bone density, IMO barbell curls should increase arm bone density though there are no studies which show this effect. I fail to see any difference between barbell curls and any number of out-of-the-saddle cycling drills: jumps, hill sprints, etc. As above, intensity, cadence, and frequency should be favored to increase bone density.

Does cycling increase bone density in all bones? Of course not. Neither does running.

Carbonfiberboy 

Nor does it support a lack of said relationship. I note that one of the protocols of the foremost study of increasing bone density through weight bearing exercise was that of giving the non-control participants 1500mg of calcium/day, certainly falling into the category of electrolyte supplement.

sprince

It goes farther than that. With leg presses your hips are pushing against a seat, so not only does it take the core muscles out of the movement, it puts your low back in very weak and vulnerable position. If your legs get any benefit from the leg presses, which is debatable in itself, then your legs will simply over power your weakened core. In terms of practical strength, your legs will never produce more power than your core can stabilize, so in that respect alone doing only leg presses is a complete waste of time.

beatlebee 

Single leg, leg press is the bread and butter of Aussie track racers.

DaveLeeNC

Re: The Bold Part

That is quite a shocking statement, FWIW.

dave

sprince

This has been studied and the results are shocking, squats produce a 200% increase in growth hormone response compared to leg presses...

The Acute Hormonal Response to Free Weight and Machine Weigh... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research

Then there is the problem of quickly adapting to a linear movement. There might be some minimal gain in strength for the first 4-6 weeks of leg presses, then as your body adapts progress tends to stop. I'm not anti leg press, but you have to be realistic about what it can and can't do. And leg presses are particularly ineffective if that is all you do.

beatlebee 

FWIW, here is a quote:

"We do one bilateral strength lift each session for"core" strength (Squat, Deadlift, Romanian Deadlift) - usually lower back is the limitingfactor not legs and this is the only reason I use these lifts – for back strength in standingstarts. The rest of the lifts are unilateral. How many feet do you push each pedal with atone time? If you train bilaterally you get stronger bilaterally and unilateral strength lagsbehind. If you train unilaterally, you get stronger unilaterally. It's a neural thing. Single-leg Press is our bread and butter. Different foot and hip positions for differentphases of pedal stroke, standing, seated, etc. ..."

https://www.ridethetrack.com/pdf/train_paulrogers.pdf

Null66

Appeal to authority, doesn't make it correct.

Lifting studies show high carry over from bilateral to unilateral as well as unilateral to bilateral. However, studies show far more progress with bilateral (sorry, muscular fiction fans)...


However, studies also show huge difference in progress between squats and presses....

Squats are more, not less, like pedaling as hips are not pinned when pedaling, as they are with leg presses (except for some very rare machines.)

And there ARE unilateral squats, (leg behind with shin on bench) to address asymmetries...

However, this time, I'm not going to re-research...
People are funny, they "believe" what they want... It's as though finding out there's better information threatens their self image...

Spld cyclist

Here's an alternative opinion: Squat vs. Leg Press for Big Legs | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

This is a little more focused on building size, but addresses building strength as well.

Null66

Another appeal to authority.
All opinion and no fact...
The reaching for poor arguments. False dichotomy
"Beyond that, let’s take a quick look at reality: Anyone reading this can go into any gym in the world and see the following

• A guy squatting who never adds weight to the bar: His legs will not be growing.
• A guy doing leg presses who is adding weight to the machine: His legs will be growing."

Appeal to authority, as well as strawman:
"Quite simply, the only people who must squat are powerlifters, for whom it’s a competition lift (except in the push/pull meets where it’s not), and Olympic lifters where it’s a key assistance exercise (and there is even some theorizing that modern Olympic lifting will get rid of the back squat with only the front squat being used to support recovery from the clean)."

Front squat is a rather hardcore variation of Squat, particularly suited for training for the SPORT of Olympic lifting.
Sort of like saying, You're stock 396 Chevelle is faster than my stock chevette, but it won't be after you drop a blown 350 into the Chevelle...

True no one has to squat, we can all end up like those on Wall-e...

Leg presses have no where near the hormonal response. No where near the balanced muscle use, and cause imbalances, both lateral and vertical. There are very limited cases for them. But in no way, shape, or form are they a substitution for a squat. Just like elbow kick backs are no substitution for benching... Or Jersey Boy full body curls for Kroc rows.

Those that can't maintain form on squat it is NOT due to ratios, but either, injury, imbalance, or poor hip mobility. Some injuries cannot be fixed or worked around, such as fused vertebrate. However, most imbalances can be addressed, unilaterals work wonders for this. Some cannot develop proper hip mobility in a decent time frame. But pinning the hips is not a way to address this, only increase it.

But leg presses are GREAT for the ego, newbs love to pile on the plates thinking they've lifted a ton of weight. Failing to account for the 45 degree angle (of most machines, some are 60 degree) effectively cutting lifted weight in half... as well as the 3'' ROM with arm assist.

beatlebee 

And how exactly does hormonal response equate to winning races? But if this is an argument just about BBing, I bow out. Hormonal response is a nice measurement because it is "clean" and specific but the point is to win races right?

I'll go with what the guys who are winning races do...and this is coming from someone who knows about science and research. Sports science has a huge number of confounding variables and the history of the "science" has shown, at times, what wasn't borne out in the initial research, but adhered to by groups such as BBs, eventually came to light. At the end of the day, I think that if one is pushing weight around, the differences in outcomes will be small for different (but similar) exercises when applied to cycling performance. Though, it gets old when a former, or current, BBer comes into the cycling world and preaches squats as the end all be all. Not that anyone here is doing that.

*edit* Lyle McDonald is a great resource and understand the science as well as anyone.

sprince

That quote is from a Aussie track coach, national team I think. So they are working with people who have a foundation of many years of strength training. These people are already strong, so the strategy is build on that with more cycling specific training. Just because this works for full time professionals doesn't mean that the average cyclist is going to benefit from doing the same thing. But right there in your quote it clearly states they are doing squats and deadlifts, and it's because the low back is a limiting factor in the force that can be applied to the pedals.

sprince

Symptoms of low growth hormone:

- A higher level of body fat, especially around the waist.
- Anxiety and depression.
- Decreased sexual function and interest.
- Fatigue.
- Feelings of being isolated from other people.
- Greater sensitivity to heat and cold.
- Less muscle.

I see only one thing on that list that might help you win races, and the pharmaceutical companies make billions selling pills to correct it. It has nothing to do with "BBing", don't know where that comes from.

Spld cyclist

The article happened to be written by someone who reads the relevant research, has the educational background to understand it, has trained over many years, has experience training others, and is well-respected in the field. I don't see how his opinion can just be dismissed as "all opinion and no fact."

Yes, there are good reasons to do traditional back squats, but clearly leg presses do build leg strength. I don't do leg presses, so I'm not emotionally invested in proving whether or not one is superior to the other.

Null66

Because there is no evidence nor citations of studies... It is all just "bro science", just because it has been repeated for years does not make it true. Particularly when studies and people who accomplished something in the field would not support position, except for injury, imbalance. BB'ers use them as an isolation exercise to increase quad mass, beyond what the compounds do, but it is in addition vs. instead...

Wade through enough issues of Muscular development, where relevant studies as well as dissect the experimental design...


Hormone response is destiny. It is how you strengthen (whether that is raw 1 max rep or endurance,) recover...
Heck it even determines energy transport and metabolic capabilities. This is why PEDs are for the most part banned, and why people are looking for what ever way around the enforcement. If uh, augmentation, were legal, few to no "naturals" could compete.

Spld cyclist

Lyle McDonald could say the same about those who argue that leg presses are not useful for building strength. Oh wait, he did say that!

This has run its course. Like I said, I'm not emotionally invested with this, so I'm outta here....

beatlebee 

Yup, I like what Lyle has to say too even though he is a bit harsh at times.

In the end, doesn't matter to me. I squat and do leg presses.

Are eggs good for me or not, can't remember where we stand on that?

wolfchild

Yes eggs are good...I eat about 36 whole eggs per/week.

Machka 

Personally, I'm going to keep walking regularly almost every day. If it strengthens my bones, great. If for some reason walking regularly does not strengthen my bones, that's OK, it's still exercise. I'm using my muscles, burning more calories than sitting around doing nothing, and it is enjoyable.

beatlebee 

Phew, thanks!

One of many interesting articles. Again, I earn my bread using science so I am not a fundi in the least and I absolutely value science for its piercing ability to obtain knowledge.