Longer legs = better?
 

I was just wondering whether having longer legs is better for cycling? What is the ideal body for a road cycler?

It appears that the flats cyclists and the sprinters usually have the longer legs. The climbers, for the most part have shorter legs and bodies. This all is supposed to fit in with the "long and short twitch" muscle theories.
Short twitch muscles climb better. Of course, if someone is dedicated enough, there are ways to train around these types of "deficiencies".

There is no corelation between leg length and cycling performance.
There are great sprinters, climbers, roulers and gc riders of many different body types.

I wouldn't know!!

I believe there is a correlation between femur length (the longer the better, relatively speaking) and a cyclist performance... An one else out there ever heard of this? (A little help???)

Umm.....I've noticed that just the opposite usually happens. Did anybody watch last year when LA smoked the pack going up Alpe D'Huez? FWIW, Lance is about 6'2". I'm the same height, similar build, and I have always been at my best on climbs.

Include Miguel Indurian W/ that group. But there are always going too be exceptions to the rule...

I don't think your relative strengths in different types of terrain have much to do with your actual body proportions. There are a whole lot of spindly, long-legged guys who are great in the mountains, and a whole lot of others who are best in the flats.

There is something of a correlation between proportions of muscle-fibre types and body shape. Athletes with high proportions of fast-twitch fibres, who are thus more adapted to producing bursts of anaerobic energy, tend to have bulkier muscles. Sprinters like Cipollini and Zabel, with their huge thighs, are typical. Then you get the class time-trialers, like Christophe Moreau and David Millar, who have proportionally more slow-twitch fibre and are better adapted to steadily producing power just below their ATs for very long periods of time. These guys are best suited to endurance races and stages.

There's really no way to say which muscle-fibre type is best suited ti climbing, since there are a whole lot of different kinds of climbs. I suspect l"angliru favours climbers with a high proportion of fast-twitch fibre, while something like Ventoux, with is long, steady grind, favours the slow-twitchers. One thing most of the Angels of the Mountains have in common, though, is that they carry very little extra weight in body fat [which is a disadvantage on a long, flat stage]. They tend to have very slight builds like Roberto Heras and Roberto Laiseka.

But leg length doesn't really come into it... After all, didn't Luc leblanc have two legs of different lengths?

There is litte connection between leg length and cycling performance. There is, however, a large connection between the ratio of leg length to torso length and musculature. Typically, men with relatively short legs compared to torso length more easily develop muscle mass. Long-legged guys would be more prone to develop strength and tone. This is far from being universal, but a guy with long legs/arms would have to do specialized weight training focusing on one part of the range of motion to obtain any significant mass.

Therefore, when you just look around it's easy to see that guys who naturally sprint well have larger quads and a smaller leg length to torso ratio. (see Robbie McEwen or Mr Zabel) Climbers often are often build like Lance or more frequently like Tyler Hamilton, with small bodies, lithe builds and a pretty even leg to torso ratio.

There are so many exceptions that are overcome by talent and training that it's impossible to predict however. Lance himself was originally known as a sprinter. Jaja too. Mario Cipolini has relatively long legs. So you never really know.

Pantani is a little bitty guy.Induran was a big guy. There are skinny guys and there are horses.It's about alot more than just body type.

........ Isn't lance about 5'11"? and how about Pantani? hell of a climber for a really little guy.

Yup, it's also about what dope you put in your body. Sorry Pantani fans ... :D

Lance Armstrong is 5' 10". The only thing dealing with leg length that improves performance would be the femur length as stated above. A longer femur offers more leverage and thus more efficient riding which is helpful in both climbing and for flat stages. This is why sliding back in the saddle on a climb increases leverage, it simulates the same pedaling stroke that you would have if you had a longer femur. FYI, Lance has longer than normal femurs.

lol. Lance Armstrong is 7 feet tall and can shoot bolts of lightening out of his ass!

No...actually he is about my height and exactly my weight. 5'10" 165lbs, according to usacycling.org.

By about 3cm if I remember correctly, that can create quite a wobble. Though a tall sole on one shoe might be able to help that...?

palooka, I thought that 165 was his pre-cancer weight. Didn't he lose like 20 pounds during chemo?

My bad.


Taken from "It's Not About the Bike", by Lance himself. That would put him at 150 pounds, post cancer.

I'm 5'11" and couldn't imagine losing 15 pounds. I would probably look like a stick figure :eek:

Hehe... I'm 6,2" and only 145 pounds. What weight I lack in my body I make up for on my bike. I ride a 40 pound Specialized Expedition FSR. Good for training though :)

I feel I am qualified to comment on this one, since I have long legs, and am bona fide:rolleyes:

At 5'10", and a 34 1/2" inseam, I have long legs. The one thing that does suck is finding a production bike that will fit. I have to get a bike with a shorter torso. Most American frames have the stretched out top tubes these days, which doesn't work for me. But, I found one that works (with over 3cm of headset spacers and an elevated stem).

As far as performance, it probably matters more on a mnt bike than a road. You have a higher center of gravity. This has caused a few problems with me on mnt bikes, but not on road. It's hard to say if having longer legs is an advantange since I've never had short legs.

However, I don't have a problem spinning 175mm cranks, which I could see being an advantage. Or, if you see it as more leg weight, less torso weight, that could definitely be an advantage.

Overall, I really don't train much, I just ride. I really can't speak much for the hardcore competitive cycling world, where every ounce and split second count. There are many other factors that make a fast rider though, such as endurance, strength, talent, and sheer determination.

Pertaining to Lance's weight... at LanceArmstrong.com it states that he is 170lbs, 5' 10'', HR 30-32 BPM...

I too have long legs by proportion.

Height : 175 cm
Inseam length : 85 cm

My ratio of inseam length to height is almost 1 : 2. I do think that longer legs will help in cycling. Compare two different people with everything the same except for the length of the legs, wouldn't the person with the longer leg produce more power? Since there will be more muscle fibres, more power should be produce. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Quote me! HEHE :D

While legs are only one part of cycling, they are important! Please note they are not everything though.