UKC

This is a pretty ridiculous post as a) I won't be cycling loads and b) my climbing standard is such that I doubt a bit of extra leg muscle will have any bearing on things. Anyway...

After a long spell under dust sheets and hidden away, my bike has been rejuvenated thanks to Evolution in Bangor. I was out for my first cycle in ages the other evening and really enjoyed it. I run reasonably regularly, though only short distances, for general fitness and as a balance to my climbing. I'd like to supplement / replace some of this with cycling.

I don't want to gain muscle mass in my legs though. Is this a given, is it genetic, is it a function of distance, terrain or what?

I did have a brief search on here but couldn't find anything. Any help much appreciated. Cheers.

In reply to ksjs:

Have a look at a certain Mr B Wiggins' legs - I've seen thicker pencils.

In reply to ksjs: It will depend on your genetics as to whether you gain loads of mass, If your average build I would not worry about it, you will gain a bit but a couple of pounds wont be a deal breaker, against the cv improvement, I came from road cycling to sport climbing and my second lead outdoors was 6b just because I was very fit from doing 200+ miles a week, and have took my old club out climbing, they all climbed really well..

In reply to ksjs:

I use to think little.

Having done nothing but train (hard) for the Etape for 7 months with no climbing I have lost little weight but my body has reversed from stocky upper body and twig legs to stocky legs and twiggy upperbody.

Okay, I exaggerate somewhat but it has been enough for people to comment.

Am sure you could avoid this by mixing training up.

In reply to ksjs: I just had a weeks cycling in the Alps followed by a week climbing in Switzerland. Strength gained from cycling made the walk ins easy (OK so not easy but manageable) and didn't cause any climbing problems

In reply to ksjs: There is no escape

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Robert+Forstemann+European+Elite+Track+C...

A slightly more serious answer would suggest that you should concentrate on spinning and not grinding the gears.

In reply to ksjs:

Probably not much. Cyclists gain big thighs in the gym generally, not on the bike.

In reply to ksjs: I expect it will cause an increase in quad power and size compared to running. If I spend time doing a lot more running than cycling ( e.g. over the winter) I find my legs are skinnier and I struggle to push bigger gears compared to when I've been cycling more.

The difference isn't particularly large though, and I expect unless you're pushing up steep hills with a low cadence you'll barely notice the difference.

Dependent upon the balance of time running to cycling, you may put on weight in general though - I find it easier and quicker to burn energy running than cycling.

I've been mountain biking for 22 years but I took up road riding 4 years ago. In that time my thighs have become much beefier, to the extent that my legs actually feel quite heavy and ponderous when I walk and my footfall has become heavier. My problem is that I seldom do any exercise other than cycling so my muscle development has become entirely cycling-specific and when I do walk up then down a hill my legs are sore for three days afterwards, especially from the downhill bit.

As others have written, you tend to build bulk if you push heavy gears and that's probably a fault of mine. Certainly my knees feel the strain; I've got chronic mild Baker's cysts and general mild discomfort around tendons and patella.

In reply to ksjs:

I found cycling helped high step ups/rock-overs, but the biggest difference was noticeable when ploughing through snow up to routes on the Ben. Far easier post-cycling

In reply to nniff:

I agree. I think I am struggling a bit with the difference in weight - I went from cycling 10 flat miles to 25 hilly ones a day.

My strategy is to do fingerboarding and shoulder power exercises with increased attendance to core strength. Regardless of this, things get easier if I can get my heel on something.

In reply to ksjs:

It'll make f'all difference Keith. I've twiglet legs and cycle instead running.

Stick with a fast cadence instead of pushing a big gear and you'll also limit any muscle gains. As a bonus you'll limit the damage you do to your knees!

In reply to ksjs:

My legs have shrunk somewhat since starting cycling regularly - I'm about a stone down in a year and most of it seems to have come off my ar5e and thighs.

In reply to ksjs: Does anyone have a any links where it explains why high cadence means less muscle gain? It seems to be accepted wisdom but I've never seen any evidence for it and it seems counter-intuitive to me from a muscle recruitment point of view.

When it comes to slow twitch vs fast twitch muscle articles and papers most of what I've read talks about endurance vs sprints. Using a lower cadence over a prolonged period is not normally covered.

In reply to BruceWee:

Quite possibly it's come from weightlifting, i.e. high weight & low reps leads to bulking up whereas low weight and high reps leads to endurance.

A high cadence means that you are doing less work on each revolution.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Actually, it was weightlifting that got me thinking about it. Powerlifters and olympic lifters tend to use high weight / low rep complex exercices whereas bodybuilders tend to use high rep / low weight simple exercises. Obviously bodybuilders end up bulking up far more but have a lower maximum capacity than heavy lifters. Muscle recruitment plays a large part in this.

Any excuse to watch this clip

youtube.com/watch?v=B9RVr0HVkCg&

In reply to BruceWee: Just to add, I recently switched from 2x9 to 1x9 on my mountain bikes. One thing that I've noticed is that I'm having to use my upper body much more than before when climbing. Mostly when I'm climbing I'm standing up and pedalling with a super low cadence. I have to push down through the pedals using my arms and shoulders to generate torque (pulling hard with the left arm while pushing down the right pedal and vice versa).

After a ride I feel like I've had much more of a full body workout than when I used to sit down and spin up the hills.

In reply to ksjs:

A lot depends on your cycling style and genetics. Fast cadence will generate smaller muscles that are able to spin small gears fast. Opposite for slower cadence, will mean you need big muscles to turn those bigger gears.
If your big, you'll need stronger and thus bigger legs to get you places.

Look at the likes of Voeckler and Wiggo, both spin little gears and have micro legs.

In reply to ksjs:

I was thinking that it's not as if you can't cut back on one kind of cycling and try a different approach to it if you build up too much muscle mass.

Leg power can be helpfull on overhangs if you use egyptians and good technique, I guess some more muscle mass won't always be a problem.

In reply to ksjs:

I find that it's runing which makes my legs bulky* - but not so much cycling



*another reason to not go running