do cyclists want to be bigger/smaller

[anderbike]

i am new, used to be a big runner, but kinda just got over it after getting burned out and now i am into cycling.

so in running you want to be small, but that doesnt aplly much to cycling cus you need leg muscles, right?

so what is it, i know you dont want to be a body builder and you want to be able to climb hills. so i just dont get it. if your legs are hudge and they can generate a insane amount of power, wouldnt that be ideal. an is this the way the pros are in which they have massive legs and no upper body?

i am perplexed with the entire dilema

shine me some light

 

[steevo]

I have heard that cyclists, like anything else, adapt to their surroundings. If you go to florida or the beach on the east coast, where it is flat, many cyclists are bigger guys capable of massive power on the flats, but are probably hurting in the hills. Opposite in the mountain regions. Look at the basque riders from spain, there is 1 or 2 on major teams that arent gaunt, and they are abnormal. This is said to be because that area is soooo mountainous.

I once read something about somebody who worked at Pearl Izumi. They were new to the company, but came from a clothing/ fitting background. They could not believe, they found it astounding, the disparity between how big pro cyclists' legs were and how thin their arms were.

 

[wilmar13]

I have heard that cyclists, like anything else, adapt to their surroundings. If you go to florida or the beach on the east coast, where it is flat, many cyclists are bigger guys capable of massive power on the flats, but are probably hurting in the hills. Opposite in the mountain regions. Look at the basque riders from spain, there is 1 or 2 on major teams that arent gaunt, and they are abnormal. This is said to be because that area is soooo mountainous.

I once read something about somebody who worked at Pearl Izumi. They were new to the company, but came from a clothing/ fitting background. They could not believe, they found it astounding, the disparity between how big pro cyclists' legs were and how thin their arms were.

IMO cyclists don't have much larger legs than the average person at all. It is just like running, sprinters (analogous to track guys) need bulk to accelerate very fast for a very short time, but someone who runs a marathon, needs endurance. You will find all body types in cycling, but in general, we are a skinny bunch. Even sprinters such as Pettachi would look very average at the pub, unless there are a bunch of rugby players there, in which case he would look like a puny wimp. If you look at the Pros and compare them to traditional standards (esp if you are American) they range from thin to a skeleton with legs and lungs.

 

[wilmar13]

IMO cyclists don't have much larger legs than the average person at all. It is just like running, sprinters (analogous to track guys) need bulk to accelerate very fast for a very short time, but someone who runs a marathon, needs endurance. You will find all body types in cycling, but in general, we are a skinny bunch. Even sprinters such as Pettachi would look very average at the pub, unless there are a bunch of rugby players there, in which case he would look like a puny wimp. If you look at the Pros and compare them to traditional standards (esp if you are American) they range from thin to a skeleton with legs and lungs.

Ooops I forgot about Jan Ulrich, let me change that to ranging from portly to legs with lungs.

 

[Conniebiker]

The genre of riding is a large part of the descision. A downhill mountain biker would want a lot of upper body to yank the bike around where a XC racer usually would not. The idea is power-wieght ratio. You want to be cabable but not any more bulky than neccesary for the task.
Lance(had to bring him up) said his biggest improvement from the illness was losing his upper body build compared to what he had. He used to have the triathlete build, which places a lot of muscle above the waist. In road cycling this is mere idle mass for the most part.
A lot of cyclist legs look larger than they are, due to definition. The overall size of mine and most of my competitive friends legs is actually slightly smaller than my non racing friends.

 

[ejglows]

I come from a sprint sport background...I have the body type for it. I am attempting to become an endurance athlete and after 1200kms this month on my bike, I gained 2cm on my quads. Perhpas it is the mountainous area I live in...but I think you will bulk/cut according to many factors.

#1 Type of riding
#2 Genetic disposition
#3 geographical location
#4 Nutrition (possible catabolism)

You dont want to intentionally get bigger (go ahead, read the thread about " gymming to improve power"that just wont die). I rather think your body will tailor itself to suit its particular needs. Or, if you are like meself and Morbios/Carerra/tec....you will just build build build regardless.

I do rather think the pros look a bit emaciated.

e

 

[chums]

i am new, used to be a big runner, but kinda just got over it after getting burned out and now i am into cycling.

so in running you want to be small, but that doesnt aplly much to cycling cus you need leg muscles, right?

so what is it, i know you dont want to be a body builder and you want to be able to climb hills. so i just dont get it. if your legs are hudge and they can generate a insane amount of power, wouldnt that be ideal. an is this the way the pros are in which they have massive legs and no upper body?

i am perplexed with the entire dilema

shine me some light

Actually different cyclist have different body configuration. It depends on your riding style, If your a century rider it would be ideal to have a slimmer legs that are composed more of aerobic muscles. This have smaller fibers but they are ideal for long rides. but if your style is more of mashing heavy gears you probably need your big legs, however - big legs are composed of more fast twitch or anaerobic mucle fibers. yes they are strong however they fatigue easily. it works best in rides that last less than an hour.