Upper-body training anyone?

[Brizza]

keep at the weights cpa, I found the muscle returns faster than when you loose it. I lost 20cm around the chest in the last 18 months but have put 10 on in the last few.

Freewheeling

Brian

P.S I have more chest than most 16 year old girls, man it feels great to walk down the beach and not look like a cyclist.

 

[cpa]

Originally posted by Brizza
keep at the weights cpa, I found the muscle returns faster than when you loose it. I lost 20cm around the chest in the last 18 months but have put 10 on in the last few.

Freewheeling

Brian

P.S I have more chest than most 16 year old girls, man it feels great to walk down the beach and not look like a cyclist.

I agree. The muscle memory phenomenon.
Though it's always the mental barrier to overcome when it comes time to do the hard work required to get back to a shape you'd already worked so hard to achieve.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

it maybe worth posting this thread link, which is a fairly extensive thread on the subject of weight training and cycling http://www.cyclingforums.com/t38904.html

Originally posted by cpa

Getting on with it, I think Duckwah etc would agree with me that when it comes to training, most people are mistaken when they think pumping it out on a bike, or treadmill, or taebo class etc. is the best way to lose weight and maintain condition.

i'm not sure if there's typos in there... but anyway exercise modalities such as cycling and running are the best way for expending energy as they invoke large(ish) muscle mass, and are continual for long periods of time

By incorporating the right resistance training into the routine, you're maintaining the thirst and size of your muscles to burn calories.... and keep burning them well after the workout has finished.... i.e : an increased and steady metabolic rate.

if by "the right resistance training" you mean some form of weight/resistance training, then while it may induce hypertrophy the actual energy expenditure is less than during continual aerobic exercise such as cycling, running, etc. as these efforts continue for much longer periods of time. as regards post exercise energy expenditure, this is so small compared to during training and also compared to a long cycle training session that it isn't worth thinking about

Aerobic activity promotes smaller, more dense, more efficient muscles. i.e. They don't have the size or hunger to burn those calories the everyday fitness enthusiast wants to, and they use every calorie more effectively.

within very small confines, energy expended varies very little from one person to the next at the same power output, in other words, a recreational cyclist will burn the same amount of energy as an elite TdF pro at the same power (obviously, with other conditions the same)

Even with my background and basic knowledge, I've become complacent and been sticking to the bike for training. (Mainly through the enthusiasm of the new bike, and the performance gains I've felt in the bunch). But the shape is starting stray from what I want.... whilst I'm training as much as I am, I should be leaner ..... i.e. : my energy burn doesn't continue long after the ride finishes.

assuming that you mean that you're gaining non lean mass, then you're either eating too much, and/or not training long/intensely enough. if you ride in a group a lot compared to previously energy expenditure will decrease because you're being sheltered from the air (and the air drag acting on you), thus reducing your power output (and thus energy expenditure)

So it's off to the gym again, with a weight training routine
to get the physique back and boost the metabolism (plus upper body condition/strength is a great help in a sprint..........)

unless signifcant hypertrophy occurs (in the legs) then peak power won't be increased. unless you have some form of disability you'll have enough strength in your body, however, some people think it gives them a psychological advantage if they look big and strong, but this just means more difficult when going uphill.

ric

 

[xc_gumby]

I did a lot of kickboxing a while ago. It didn't include any weight training at all.

It was as close to cycling for the upper body as you can get. My coach was very much of the opinion that a good boxer will beat a good kickboxer anyday (Thais excepted!). I picked him 'cos I have a similar opinion (at least for the level I was at).

Anyways, punch punch punch punch. 400g cans of baked bean - one in each hand just doing reps (not actually hitting anything). Then pads where he actually hit my hands as I was punching. It feels like some-one ripping your chest apart.

500-600 situps per session.

After all of that, I didn't look any different. but I had some awesome endurance. My timing was incredible & I hit like a hammer (considering my weight).

It all came out when you were in the ring for 3 x 2min at 180bpm. You can't think, you can just punch & kick....

It was bizarre to say the least.

 

[cpa]

Originally posted by ricstern
it maybe worth posting this thread link, which is a fairly extensive thread on the subject of weight training and cycling http://www.cyclingforums.com/t38904.html




i'm not sure if there's typos in there... but anyway exercise modalities such as cycling and running are the best way for expending energy as they invoke large(ish) muscle mass, and are continual for long periods of time




if by "the right resistance training" you mean some form of weight/resistance training, then while it may induce hypertrophy the actual energy expenditure is less than during continual aerobic exercise such as cycling, running, etc. as these efforts continue for much longer periods of time. as regards post exercise energy expenditure, this is so small compared to during training and also compared to a long cycle training session that it isn't worth thinking about




within very small confines, energy expended varies very little from one person to the next at the same power output, in other words, a recreational cyclist will burn the same amount of energy as an elite TdF pro at the same power (obviously, with other conditions the same)




assuming that you mean that you're gaining non lean mass, then you're either eating too much, and/or not training long/intensely enough. if you ride in a group a lot compared to previously energy expenditure will decrease because you're being sheltered from the air (and the air drag acting on you), thus reducing your power output (and thus energy expenditure)



unless signifcant hypertrophy occurs (in the legs) then peak power won't be increased. unless you have some form of disability you'll have enough strength in your body, however, some people think it gives them a psychological advantage if they look big and strong, but this just means more difficult when going uphill.

ric

Ok, you've posted a welcomed and very educated reply. (For those reading this, check Ric's original reply where he addresses my comments : I couldn't be bothered portioning the quotes )
I think that whilst theories can be tested, individual experiences (including reading and testing alternative theories) also have some credibility ?

What I should have included in my post was that, when training (cycling), I'm supplying energy to my muscles via carb intake (fluids, carb supplements etc) This obviously provides an instant, more accessible energy source, without the need to stoke up as much on carbs the night before etc. and would therefore mean that I'm not tapping much into my body's stores...... but from my experience, the performance gains by training a muscle longer due to not hitting that 'brick wall' are very beneficial. My ommission there is that some people train to lose weight, while some train to increase performance? Someone running/cycling etc without providing energy is obviously going to tap into their own resources, but they'd not be getting the performance gains of someone training longer.

That said, I'd have to query the largish muscle mass attained through running & cycling you refer to.
Comparing the shape I'm in now to what I used to be, I had far more muscle mass to chew those calories up, and whilst having a similar diet was always leaner. This obviously is attributed, in part, to a lessened physical strain. (I've never found anything physically harder than playing Aussie football - imagine the pain of your worst climb, then double it, and add your opponent on your back while you're trying to get back up after being polaxed, and then having to sprint to the other end of the ground to do it all again)

Surely you'd have to agree that the potential calorie burn before and after is going to be quite different (assuming same calorie intake) a:/ because it'd take more energy to move the extra mass and b:/ there's more mass to feed ?? My wife's training routine changed to accommodate this theory (on the advice of someone far more credible than I) and there were obvious benefits

I also train solo through the week (generally into a headwind), and up the front with bunches on the weekend, so it's fair to say that I'm doing a fair bit of work, contradicting what you had implied.

Also, the comparison you make between TDF riders and recreational riders is ok under a controlled situation.
The fact is that a TDF rider, or even a rider slightly more advanced than the basic control subject (of comparable frame) is never going to come close to the same power output due to the fact that every time they get on a bike they're going to go faster than you or I (assuming you're not a TDF rider ? ) That's why they train so hard isn't it ?.. to increase power output.... to increase power-to-weight ratio ? So they are going to burn far more.

Addressing the comments you made on the psychological effects :
There's no doubt that looking big & strong makes you feel stronger, but there's not a doubt in my mind that the power output does increase. This was reinforced every time I realised I was mashing a higher gear at the same cadence I was prior to doing weight training on the legs.... which surely equates to more power output ?? (without really significant mass gain).

I agree with the mass vs uphill thing, as long as optimum power/weight ratio is considered, along with the individual's goals as a cyclist (i.e. sprinter / climber)

I'm expecting to be shot down again, but science, research (obviously different) & logic has proven correct for me (and many others) many times.

I don't think I ever indicated that weight training actually burns more calories than maintained aerobic exercise, but it does increase the potential to burn more calories whilst doing aerobic exercise.

Let us ponder.
Am I alone ? or does someone else agree with me ??

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by cpa
Ok, you've posted a welcomed and very educated reply. (For those reading this, check Ric's original reply where he addresses my comments : I couldn't be bothered portioning the quotes )
I think that whilst theories can be tested, individual experiences (including reading and testing alternative theories) also have some credibility ?

sure, there's likely to be some inttra individual differences, but the way energy is expended follows the laws of thermodynamics and everyone is very similar

What I should have included in my post was that, when training (cycling), I'm supplying energy to my muscles via carb intake (fluids, carb supplements etc) This obviously provides an instant, more accessible energy source, without the need to stoke up as much on carbs the night before etc. and would therefore mean that I'm not tapping much into my body's stores...... but from my experience, the performance gains by training a muscle longer due to not hitting that 'brick wall' are very beneficial. My ommission there is that some people train to lose weight, while some train to increase performance? Someone running/cycling etc without providing energy is obviously going to tap into their own resources, but they'd not be getting the performance gains of someone training longer.

as regards to taking on energy and not burning your stores, all that matters (in terms of weight loss) is that there is a negative energy balance, i.e. you expend more energy than you take in. by training and eating you can generally train harder and longer resulting in a greater energy expenditure and increased fitness

That said, I'd have to query the largish muscle mass attained through running & cycling you refer to.

i meant of the amount of muscle mass that is engaged for a specific duration is greater when cycling/running than say weight training

Comparing the shape I'm in now to what I used to be, I had far more muscle mass to chew those calories up, and whilst having a similar diet was always leaner. This obviously is attributed, in part, to a lessened physical strain. (I've never found anything physically harder than playing Aussie football - imagine the pain of your worst climb, then double it, and add your opponent on your back while you're trying to get back up after being polaxed, and then having to sprint to the other end of the ground to do it all again)

pain is always difficult to quantify, that said, and all that is relevant for weight loss/management is energy expenditure. It's well accpeted that cycle racing has the greatest energy expenditure of any sports

I also train solo through the week (generally into a headwind), and up the front with bunches on the weekend, so it's fair to say that I'm doing a fair bit of work, contradicting what you had implied.

apologies, if i implied you were only riding in the bunch -- it's just how it read to me from your post.

Also, the comparison you make between TDF riders and recreational riders is ok under a controlled situation.
The fact is that a TDF rider, or even a rider slightly more advanced than the basic control subject (of comparable frame) is never going to come close to the same power output due to the fact that every time they get on a bike they're going to go faster than you or I (assuming you're not a TDF rider ? ) That's why they train so hard isn't it ?.. to increase power output.... to increase power-to-weight ratio ? So they are going to burn far more.

indeed, an elite rider will have (generally) more power than a non-elite. however, that wasn't what you were discussing and i was replying to what you wrote: you were suggesting that fitness alters the amount of energy expended (at least that's how i read what you wrote) at a given workload (efficiency/economy) and this isn't true (i.e. i could be as efficient as an elite TdF rider)

Addressing the comments you made on the psychological effects :
There's no doubt that looking big & strong makes you feel stronger, but there's not a doubt in my mind that the power output does increase. This was reinforced every time I realised I was mashing a higher gear at the same cadence I was prior to doing weight training on the legs.... which surely equates to more power output ?? (without really significant mass gain).

sure, some people find a pyschological benefit to being bigger. alternatively, others find a benefit to being smaller. being stronger does not increase power as endurance cycling performance isn't limited by strength unless you have a functional disability.

if you've weight trained and *NOT* had any hypertrophy then there's *no* transfer to other modalities. one of the training adaptations that occur are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained. in other words as weight training isn't similar to cycling there's no neuromusclar transfer.

to gain strength on the bike you need hypertrophy, this will have the effect of *only* increasing peak (sprinting <5-secs) power. endurance cycling performance will then be lessened by the increased muscle mass from the hypertrophy

I don't think I ever indicated that weight training actually burns more calories than maintained aerobic exercise, but it does increase the potential to burn more calories whilst doing aerobic exercise.

how would it do that?

ric

 

[cpa]

Originally posted by ricstern
sure, there's likely to be some inttra individual differences, but the way energy is expended follows the laws of thermodynamics and everyone is very similar




as regards to taking on energy and not burning your stores, all that matters (in terms of weight loss) is that there is a negative energy balance, i.e. you expend more energy than you take in. by training and eating you can generally train harder and longer resulting in a greater energy expenditure and increased fitness




i meant of the amount of muscle mass that is engaged for a specific duration is greater when cycling/running than say weight training



pain is always difficult to quantify, that said, and all that is relevant for weight loss/management is energy expenditure. It's well accpeted that cycle racing has the greatest energy expenditure of any sports



apologies, if i implied you were only riding in the bunch -- it's just how it read to me from your post.



indeed, an elite rider will have (generally) more power than a non-elite. however, that wasn't what you were discussing and i was replying to what you wrote: you were suggesting that fitness alters the amount of energy expended (at least that's how i read what you wrote) at a given workload (efficiency/economy) and this isn't true (i.e. i could be as efficient as an elite TdF rider)



sure, some people find a pyschological benefit to being bigger. alternatively, others find a benefit to being smaller. being stronger does not increase power as endurance cycling performance isn't limited by strength unless you have a functional disability.

if you've weight trained and *NOT* had any hypertrophy then there's *no* transfer to other modalities. one of the training adaptations that occur are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained. in other words as weight training isn't similar to cycling there's no neuromusclar transfer.

to gain strength on the bike you need hypertrophy, this will have the effect of *only* increasing peak (sprinting <5-secs) power. endurance cycling performance will then be lessened by the increased muscle mass from the hypertrophy




how would it do that?

ric

Phew... what a discussion !

Ok, after reading your initial reply I went home last night to try and find the sources I had been pulling from my memory and found a book that pretty much aligned itself with what I was explaining.

A: it places high importance on maintaining upper body strength right through the year via weight training, whilst explaining to focus on lower body training only in the off-season, yet to focus on power output increases by sport specific power training (during the season) on the bike. (sets of power sprints etc with 5 min breaks - an exercise that would obviously invoke hypertrophy)

B: it confirmed that the diet practices and muscle requirements I was following, including the concepts of pre/during/post ride nutrition was not just my imagination, and that atrophy will occur by doing the wrong exercise with the wrong diet.

C: Whilst not stating exactly it did infer that weight training will certainly increase strength by conditioning the muscle, without significant hypertrophy occurring. This would explain the hyperbolic gains of a newbie doing weight training : power output increases rapidly in the first sessions - someone battling to bench 60kg on their first day may do it easily within a week or 2........ without any significant mass gains ........ yet to get to 70kg can take far more work, as the muscle just hasn't got the power output, and therefore needs to condition & grow to do it. It explains that plateau everyone reaches where more work is required for less gains ? And it's not just the case for newbies. I know that the next time I hit the gym, within 2 sessions, the muscle will feel firmer, and a flex will feel tighter. But I won't have gained any significant mass. How does one explain this ? Is it just that your body has been reminded that the muscle is there and that the physical control of that muscle has increased just by triggering it's use ?? I'll leave that one for you (couldn't find concrete statement to confirm the general inferences of the book)

D: it was written by a guy called Chris Carmichael, who trains this guy called Lance Armstrong.

I don't know if I've read this book backwards or not, but it seems pretty clear in it's recommendations that power training (total body) is very beneficial. It also made the obvious statement that climbers and sprinters will have different training objectives, and body shapes.

I'll be re-reading more of it, to try and back up these contradicting theories. What I do get from this book does indicate that the power-to-weight ratio is obviously different depending on what you want to achieve. Focus on power if you want to blow by the smart@ss in the sprints of your bunch ride (including upper body strength). Focus on attaining a compromised strength/endurance whilst keeping mass down if you want to excel in the hills.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by cpa
Phew... what a discussion !

this one or this discussion http://www.cyclingforums.com/t38904.html ?

A: it places high importance on maintaining upper body strength right through the year via weight training, whilst explaining to focus on lower body training only in the off-season, yet to focus on power output increases by sport specific power training (during the season) on the bike. (sets of power sprints etc with 5 min breaks - an exercise that would obviously invoke hypertrophy)

i'm not sure whether CCs book is aimed at recreational riders or racing cyclists, as there'd be a difference in the recommendations (recreational = ok to weight training, endurance racer = not).

additionally, there's *nowhere* i've said not to do power training on the bike, in fact i'm well known for having the riders i coach doing intervals throughout the year. i think you're confusing power with strength, which are different metrics and mean totally different things.

Strength is defined as the maximum force or tension that can be generated by a muscle or group of muscles

Power (at least as relating to cycling as there's several definitions depending on the topic, although they can all be used to work out each other) is the sum of all the resistive forces that must be overcome to travel at a given velocity under the conditions encountered

B: it confirmed that the diet practices and muscle requirements I was following, including the concepts of pre/during/post ride nutrition was not just my imagination, and that atrophy will occur by doing the wrong exercise with the wrong diet.

i haven't discussed diet (i discussed energy expenditure). if i'm not mistaken, CC recommends the same type of diet as i do (i.e. a moderately high carbohydrate based diet) -- this is the standard as recommended by e.g. ACSM

C: Whilst not stating exactly it did infer that weight training will certainly increase strength by conditioning the muscle, without significant hypertrophy occurring. This would explain the hyperbolic gains of a newbie doing weight training : power output increases rapidly in the first sessions - someone battling to bench 60kg on their first day may do it easily within a week or 2........ without any significant mass gains ........ yet to get to 70kg can take far more work, as the muscle just hasn't got the power output, and therefore needs to condition & grow to do it. It explains that plateau everyone reaches where more work is required for less gains ? And it's not just the case for newbies. I know that the next time I hit the gym, within 2 sessions, the muscle will feel firmer, and a flex will feel tighter. But I won't have gained any significant mass. How does one explain this ? Is it just that your body has been reminded that the muscle is there and that the physical control of that muscle has increased just by triggering it's use ?? I'll leave that one for you (couldn't find concrete statement to confirm the general inferences of the book)

there's two adaptations that occur (or occur for this discussion).
1) there's neuromuscular adaptations - these take place at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained and don't transfer to a different exercise modality or angle and velocity. as you point out in strength training; there's an initial large increase in strength (for e.g.) with a bench press. Over the first ~8 weeks of regular training, the amount of weight you maybe able to lift can increase ~100%. these are neuro adaptations. the classis example is to then test the subject using the same muscles involved as in (e.g.) bench press, but doing an isometric contraction. results show that while there's a huge (~100%) increase in bench press weight, isometric contraction strength may have only increased 1 or 2 %, which is likely to be inline with increases in muscle cross sectional area

2) increases in muscle cross sectional area (hypertrophy) maybe transferable to different modalities. however, in the case of cycling you then have more weight to lug up a hill (not good), the increased strength only affects peak sprint power, it has no affect on aerobic performance (except in untrained riders)

D: it was written by a guy called Chris Carmichael, who trains this guy called Lance Armstrong.

i don't recall if CC has a degree in sports science/exercise physiology or related subjects (that maybe of less importance for coaching), however, i'm currently writing a review paper for a peer reviewed scientific journal on this topic

I don't know if I've read this book backwards or not, but it seems pretty clear in it's recommendations that power training (total body) is very beneficial. It also made the obvious statement that climbers and sprinters will have different training objectives, and body shapes.

again, just to clarify, i haven't said anywhere that it's not good or you shouldn't do hard bike work -- you should. i stated that strength training (which is different to power) isn't beneficial to cycling (except in certain circumstances, e.g., 200-m track sprinter, kilo rider, someone with a functional disability, etc)

I'll be re-reading more of it, to try and back up these contradicting theories. What I do get from this book does indicate that the power-to-weight ratio is obviously different depending on what you want to achieve. Focus on power if you want to blow by the smart@ss in the sprints of your bunch ride (including upper body strength). Focus on attaining a compromised strength/endurance whilst keeping mass down if you want to excel in the hills.

under standardised conditions and ignoring tactics, for any cyclist who wants to be better than another, then they will need more power over whatever duration is the critical aspect

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Additionally, this article explains further:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern

 

[cpa]

Originally posted by ricstern
this one or this discussion http://www.cyclingforums.com/t38904.html ?




i'm not sure whether CCs book is aimed at recreational riders or racing cyclists, as there'd be a difference in the recommendations (recreational = ok to weight training, endurance racer = not).

additionally, there's *nowhere* i've said not to do power training on the bike, in fact i'm well known for having the riders i coach doing intervals throughout the year. i think you're confusing power with strength, which are different metrics and mean totally different things.

Strength is defined as the maximum force or tension that can be generated by a muscle or group of muscles

Power (at least as relating to cycling as there's several definitions depending on the topic, although they can all be used to work out each other) is the sum of all the resistive forces that must be overcome to travel at a given velocity under the conditions encountered




i haven't discussed diet (i discussed energy expenditure). if i'm not mistaken, CC recommends the same type of diet as i do (i.e. a moderately high carbohydrate based diet) -- this is the standard as recommended by e.g. ACSM




there's two adaptations that occur (or occur for this discussion).
1) there's neuromuscular adaptations - these take place at the specific joint angle and velocity at which they're trained and don't transfer to a different exercise modality or angle and velocity. as you point out in strength training; there's an initial large increase in strength (for e.g.) with a bench press. Over the first ~8 weeks of regular training, the amount of weight you maybe able to lift can increase ~100%. these are neuro adaptations. the classis example is to then test the subject using the same muscles involved as in (e.g.) bench press, but doing an isometric contraction. results show that while there's a huge (~100%) increase in bench press weight, isometric contraction strength may have only increased 1 or 2 %, which is likely to be inline with increases in muscle cross sectional area

2) increases in muscle cross sectional area (hypertrophy) maybe transferable to different modalities. however, in the case of cycling you then have more weight to lug up a hill (not good), the increased strength only affects peak sprint power, it has no affect on aerobic performance (except in untrained riders)



i don't recall if CC has a degree in sports science/exercise physiology or related subjects (that maybe of less importance for coaching), however, i'm currently writing a review paper for a peer reviewed scientific journal on this topic


again, just to clarify, i haven't said anywhere that it's not good or you shouldn't do hard bike work -- you should. i stated that strength training (which is different to power) isn't beneficial to cycling (except in certain circumstances, e.g., 200-m track sprinter, kilo rider, someone with a functional disability, etc)


under standardised conditions and ignoring tactics, for any cyclist who wants to be better than another, then they will need more power over whatever duration is the critical aspect

ric

Hmmm. Well I'm about spent on this one. Unfortunately I haven't got the credentials to mention and back up my thoughts, only a wide research through sheer interest in the body and the sport.
It also seems this topic has been flogged to death in the other forum you mentioned, with some pretty opinionated stuff.

I take all incoming views on-board and make an open-minded assessment. You've made some pretty valid comments, yet there are still some I don't agree with (i.e. off-season / in-season weight training etc.). It appears that CC & some in the other forum would agree with me ?

As for CC's credentials, I'll check the book and see what he's packing.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my previous call for help and back me up !

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by cpa
Hmmm. Well I'm about spent on this one. Unfortunately I haven't got the credentials to mention and back up my thoughts, only a wide research through sheer interest in the body and the sport.
It also seems this topic has been flogged to death in the other forum you mentioned, with some pretty opinionated stuff.

baically, all i've done is look at the primary research within the scientific literature that has looked at this subject and surrounding subjects and formed a conclusion. Currently, aside from professional coaching and power output, this is an area i'm researching and very interested in. There's a stack of research that has look at strength training in endurance sports in general(and cycling specifically) using untrained, trained, well trained, and elite riders, and it's this research that i'm drawing on.

if we couple the above research with the forces that need to be applied to the pedals to travel at specifc power outputs, we can see that the forces are really low (whether they feel low or are percieved as low is a different issue) and can be obtained by any healthy, age, gender, and mass matched individual as an elite cyclist.

as an example at 250 W, which would give an average cyclist (e.g., ~1.75 m tall, 72 kg mass) on a TT bike a time of ~ 59 mins for a 40 km TT, the forces at the pedals would be < 15 kg, which obviously most (all but people with some form of functional disability) could lift.

I take all incoming views on-board and make an open-minded assessment. You've made some pretty valid comments, yet there are still some I don't agree with (i.e. off-season / in-season weight training etc.). It appears that CC & some in the other forum would agree with me ?

in terms of endurance cycling performance, it's unlikely anyone would ever be strength limited (except the caveats previously mentioned). additionally, when comparing age, gender and mass matched individuals with elite cyclists there's no difference in strength

Thus, in terms of ECP, i can see no reason why it would be needed to do strength training

ric

 

[JSWin]

Upper body gets a work out with a touring bike. I'm often surprised to see the muscle on some that ride long distances. Balancing and all of this works quite a bit more than you would think. I have a friend who is ripped up all over. I'm going to have to take a look and see if he is doing any sort of weights. I know he doesn't lift heavy as he wants to stay light for speed. No need for large muscles on the bike, just lean.