Forget the weights. You need power, of which the repetitive component in cycling is the key.

Weights will do little for cyclists other than very short track sprinters.

Pro sprint cyclists are bigger and heavier, but don't mistake it that it's because they're doing a lot of high intensity cycle intervals - not just more low-rep weights to get there. It isn't the same. You need a very cycle-specific explosive type power that also will not compromise your endurance significantly, and weights won't get you there. If you're already putting in tons of miles, ok, then throw some weights on for some eccentric type training, but don't be under the illusion that it'll add more than small/miniscule amounts to your sprint.

I'm a pretty good example of why pure leg strength isn't great for bike sprints other than super short ones. I've got very good leg strength genetics - even without lifting any leg weights, and from just playing basketball, I could leg press 1000+ pounds in high school at 140lbs body weight.Only 2-3 guys in HS, each well over 200lbs could match me. Yet when I got on a bike, my sprints, while still pretty respectable, weren't anywhere near that good, and even now, having ridden a fair amount, I only have an 'above average' sprint compared to a competitive cyclist.

yeah but how much is adequate during the week? i don't want to over work the body. should i sprint about twice a week?

so in short, put in the miles? and when you said leg press 1000+ lbs, is that one rep or sets of 1000+lbs?

You're confusing power with strength. One has nothing to do with the other (at least over the durations involved in road cycling)

Speeding past a police trap riding a stolen bike! I'll bet you got an adrenaline hit out of that, helps keep that speed up.

OP - The information is out there. Do some reading and find out for yourself. Genetics and fast twitch muscles play a major role. There are reasons why Cavendish and Thor are sprinters and not climbers, (although Thor did some respectable climbing in this year's TDF) and they have nothing to do with fitness and training. Obviously, the better in shape you are the better you will perform. BUT.......... it all comes down to those fast twitch muscles. You either have them or you don't. It doesn't sound like you have them. Otherwise, you would be on here asking how you can become a better climber.

Maybe you should send a message to Andy's coach.

Name one.

Like I said earlier, if you're talking about sprints where 5S and 30S power are key, it's the guys with the higher % of fast twitch muscles that do well. Do some calculations and you'll see the forces involved are very low, even in a 30S all out sprint.

A simple vertical jump test will tell you what you need to know.

If you are a high riser, then you are fast twitch dominate. But if you can barely see daylight between the floor and your soles, then you are slow twitch dominate. I think now 20 inches of vertical seems to be the cut line. Above that, you are an "elevator man." Below that, grounded.

Just one? Ok, how about Lance Armstrong? 176 pounds pre-cancer, won majority of races in breakaways and sprints. After cancer, 158 pounds and rarely won sprints. Admits in interviews and books that he lost sprinting power with the weight and muscle loss.

And you say the forces are low, but few people can actually spin 53x11 on flat ground. But it doesn't take much muscle power... hmm.

I don't know a single cyclist who can't turn a 53x11 on flat ground (not that the force to do so is exceptionally large). Again, stop confusing force with power.

Instantaneous force doesn't tell you much, but applying it over time is power.

What exactly produces power, if not muscle?


You guys are jumping to some absurd extreme. Read my posts. I talked about technique and sprinting. I just fundamentally disagree with this notion that muscle is unhelpful. At the pro level no doubt are winners and losers influenced by genetics. Amateur racers and enthusiasts/hobbyists can improve tremendously through time and effort; it isn't preordained who is a great cyclist and who isn't.

This is a myth. If you look at his pre-Tour weigh ins (all riders' weight, bp, hr, some other stuff is recorded), he lost about 2 lbs net.

Then he wrote that myth himself in his autobiography It's not about the Bike. I just re-read it last month during some work travel.

You guys need to stop bickering. You are both right. After all, a fast twitch muscle fiber is bigger than a slow twitch one of the same type. That's why FT dominate type bodies in general are more muscular and heavier than ST dominate endurance types.

As far as Lance goes, who knew the "onions" are not very important for top level cycling? Think about the "onion" he lost and it's function. That is one reason the beef industry performs the same operation in cattle. Turning a bull into a steer will decrease muscle growth and density.

On as side note, again both of you are right. The added muscle as long as it's FT is very helpful in the flats. But not on the climbs. I am the polar opposite of the OP. I am a stocky mesomorph loaded with FT muscles. 5'8" 200lbs(trying to get back to 185) and not a lot of fat. As long as it is flat I can roll in the high gears at a high cadence all day long because I have the power and can transfer some of the load to the cardio system. But...... put me on any kind of incline where I am forced to carry that "load" upward (at a slow cadence no less) and I become a turtle and tire out quickly! Again, that's why sprinters sprint instead of running the 10,000 meters. Their bodies aren't made for it.

In my other fitness endeavors, I find that for me 175-180 is the ideal performance weight. Below that and I start start seeing performance losses because of decreasing strength issues. Above that and the performance starts to slip because of speed, quickness starts to go down.

And why do you think the power you produce depends on the direction of gravity? Don't you think it might have more to do with W/CdA vs. W/kg?

As a follow up post, on another thread I used this example about the added muscle. Go out, do yourself a nice 30-40 mile varied terrain route and note your results. Now clone yourself and get a tandem. You and your clone mount the tandem then do the same route. The tandem version will have totally different results than yourself. Despite being twice as heavy, the tandem version will be significantly faster in the flats. But on the hills and climbs(because of the weight) will struggle and be searching for more gears.

so if i can jump 20 inches off the ground im good?

The hypothetical tandem should do roughly equally well on the hills assuming the weight of a tandem is roughly twice that of a road bike (I'm not sure how much tandems weigh tbh, but the 2 riders dominate the weight of the system). You'll have the same power / weight ratio (big factor) and slightly lower air resistance (small factor).

The reason the tandem will do better on the flats isn't just the extra power -- the stoker effectively drafts the captain, making the total air resistance much less than the total from 2 separate riders. IE, the two riders have to produce less power to generate the same speed on the tandem as they would if they were on separate bikes.

No it's all about the gravity and weight. If you have ever witnessed a tractor pull the weight on the sled works in the same principle. The actual weight on the trailer does not change. It slides forward and higher and keeps increasing the drag /resistance until the power of the tractor cannot overcome it. It works the same on the way down.

You can do a simple test yourself with a back pack and something for ballast. Go out with 20-30lbs in the backpack and do some hills and note your results over your ride without the ballast.

OP,

You are lazy! Type in fast twitch muscle fibers into any search engine and educate yourself.

I read it too, and I believed it too.

Back to sprinting:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post12962597

It's easy to tell if you're a sprinter - if you do a group ride and wonder why no one else sprinted for the sprint at the end of the group ride, you're a sprinter. Or if you think you sprinted to the wrong sign because everyone is so far back and going really slow. Or you sprinted on the wrong lap because no one is sprinting behind you, at least not that you can tell. Or you sit up well before the actual sign/line/whatever because you're already 50 feet ahead of the next guy. Or you're about to jump and you're wondering why everyone is going so slow 100 meters from the line.

Seriously, that'll be your experience if you're a sprinter and you don't know it yet.

If those scenarios seem foreign to you then you need to figure out a different way to try and win races.

That's a good thread.

Racer Ex speaks the truth!