rpenmanparker 

Does this logic make sense? Competitive cyclists are known for their under-developed upper bodies. So their only significant musculature is in their legs. That means that when trying to build overall endurance as well as explosive acute performance, they only have their legs to use to exhaust nutrient supplies from the blood, and the body only has to build those supplies to levels that can support the activity of the legs. Such cyclists are always trying to enhance their instantaneous performance and endurance, VO2, etc., even to the point of doping, infusing extra blood, supplementing their EPO, etc. Does it make sense that if they built up their upper bodies in the gym, they would have more muscle to use to tax their system in various forms of exercise. Supporting all that extra muscle would build up their overall capabilities more than just maintaining leg muscle does. Then in a bike race, when only the legs are being used to a significant degree, all that extra "stuff" would be there for the exclusive support of the legs. Conclusion: cyclists are foolish for ignoring their upper bodies.

I see some possible errors in the thought process. For example the CV system can be taxed to its limit just using the legs, so what difference would upper body work make? Nevertheless I seems to me a fully developed body would represent a greater reservoir for support of performance than just highly developed legs.

Discuss.

BoSoxYacht

Don't tell me what to do.

BenPS

pectorals are unnecessary weight

jrossbeck

The type of cycling done in pro competitons is done in ways that the most important factors are leg strength, leg endurance and aero position/weight. Upper body strength is only needed in the means it supports their upper bodies during the race. Any extra bulking up adds weight and size which would affect aero.

While I hear what you're saying in regards to total body tax on VO2 and the like, the fact is the speeds and cadences these guys ride at is not going to be matched by any upper body exercise that wouldn't also bulk them up.

They don't dope because they can't get their VO2 high enough. They dope because it's an easy performance booster, it's hard to detect and they feel like everyone else is doing it.

As an amateur I think there is a lot to be said for training your whole body. I swim on my off days, which keeps me "balanced". But if I got into cycling young enough and was lucky enough to be a team rider, I'm guessing I would be devoting 90% of my time solely to biking per all the research available.

halfspeed

Climbing performance is dominated by power to weight ratio.

Lazyass

Pro cyclists may have a shriveled up upper body but they have a strong core. That's how they can hold themselves up on a bike for hours everyday. Bulking up the upper body adds unneeded weight. Doing back workouts would be beneficial since your back is where the power in your pedal stroke starts. I do 30 minutes of pushups, pullups, dips, ect four times a week, carrying over from my army days, only because I don't want to walk around with stick arms and a sunken chest. It has nothing to do with cycling.

bt

i could have asked op's question in 1 sentence.

halfspeed

I answered it in one.

bt

/thread

indyfabz

He lost me at "Does this logic make sense."

Igualmente

Are they actually ignoring their upper bodies? I suspect that the pros have the upper body strength and muscles that they need to support their heads, be comfortable supporting weight over long distances, sprint, etc etc etc.

Also, does a more capable muscle, which might not be straining as hard, tax overall resources as much?

rpenmanparker 

I'm not talking about climbing speed. I'm talking about climbing endurance. It is not like a sprint. People don't climb slowly because they can't turn the pedals faster under the load they are experiencing. They climb slowly, because they overtax their CV systems. They blow up because they deplete their reservoirs of nutrients. They overload their muscles with lactic acid. At least that is my experience.

Sullalto

Because glycogen in your biceps can't be used by your quads.

Fiery

Adding upper body muscle mass will not increase your VO2max, and any extra glycogen reseves are not worth the extra weight.

rpenmanparker 

Good thoughts. Thanks.

Seattle Forrest

There's more to life than cycling. Upper body strength is good if you ever paddle a kayak, impress members of the opposite sex, or move to another home. Whether it helps in a race or not isn't that important.

Jed19

Yep! Even correct posture demands some upper body strength and stamina.

halfspeed

All you're saying is that people are expending more energy than they can afford for the duration of time necessary to complete the climb. They can expend less energy by carrying less weight. Alternatively, they can train to generate more power over the same time and complete the climb before running out of energy. Or they can do both. Conclusion: Climbing performance is dominated by power to weight ratio.

hueyhoolihan

comparing world class track sprinter's upper bodies and world class road climber's upper bodies should make things clear where the advantages and disadvantages lie.

RatMudd

I actually beg to differ. Cycling is an all body workout. One can make it even more so with standing up on the bike. Or climbing. Constantly holding the upper body up on the bars is like a constant push-up. Throw in hand and forearm workout by gripping. Riding a bike stiffens the core, works shoulders and neck. At the very least, 2 minutes a day doing curls and twists with weights evens everything out. To get the most workout on a bike, stand up, and purposely do a work out. Sitting on an upright hybrid with the bars a foot above the seat isn't what I consider a workout, neither is simply sitting on a road racer at 17mph for an hour.

However, I do see a lot of pro road racers that have very small arms and huge thighs, especially in the Tour Of France. I realize they lose weight for climbing purposes, but some of them look like they've never picked up even a 3 pound dumbbell in their life. I have the very small frame as them also, but I guess doing manual labor my entire life has put more tone and girth on my upper body than them. I think genetics has some to do with it also. Some people are just built different, and look the way they do, no matter how much they workout. A natural born dude with huge legs and no upper body mass is almost the perfect specimen for competing in The Tour.

cseaman

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Nor do I think you've ever been in a gym and weight trained.

RatMudd

Whoa, your first post out of three total that doesn't pertain to buying a bike. Already insulting, eh? Darn grasshoppers.

Sixty Fiver

Carrying extra upper body weight is not conducive to being a strong all around cyclist, sprinters train differently and hit a lot of weights since they utilize their upper bodies a great deal as do mountain bikers who tend to have more upper body strength.

My race weight is 145 pounds, my fighting weight is closer to 160 when I train hard and work on increasing upper body strength.

In any case core strength is essential but this does not require that a person bulks up that much and aerobic performance is far more critical than anaerobic performance.

wphamilton

Personally I don't believe that a moderate amount of upper body development can be in any way detrimental to cycling performance. I understand the considerations of the physics, and the physiology and energy transport only somewhat, and I can't cite any proof. But it's not likely in my mind that a healthy development will negatively impact performance overall. You might lose a minute on one of those long steep uphill slogs, but I'd bet money that you'd gain it back from generally improved vitality if nothing else.

Acquaspin

Generally speaking any type of endurance training actually discourages bulking up. For biking, the advantages gained by adding muscle mass are far undermined by decreasing the power/weight ratio, more so if climbing is involved.

Adding to that, per my understanding, glycogen is not a "transferable" commodity; I cannot store glycogen in my pectorals so it can be used by my quads when their reserves have been depleted.