Thought I'd outline some impressions that may be wrong, half-wrong or half-correct.
Firstly it seems to me that maybe we can all agree on my first point: When an individual takes up cycling various physiological changes take place in the body. The main thing you notice is your cardiovascular capacity improves dramatically as you train, correct? At least, when I first started cycling I found I got very breathless or even gasped going up hills but finally, with hard work, I soon came to stop being so breathless.
Physical changes took place too. In my case I found I started to lose both fat and muscle over a given period. I found that I lost muscle quicker than fat and that the fat clinged to me over a 6 month period. Finally, fat started to drop off me too.
So, my conclusion is that I experienced fairly typical physiological adaptations via cyling: loss of fat and loss of muscle. However, I should point out that, in my own case, the loss of muscle was bound to be more accelerated than it would be for most people, given I'm an ex-bodybuilder and I wasn't weight-training any more. And, yes, it may be that some people who take up cycling might not lose muscle at all (or even gain a bit).
Now, when I purely weight-trained some years ago, the opposite took place. My cardiovascular endurance wasn't very good (in fact, many bodybuilders are notoriously poor at running or endurance, given the large amount of muscle fibres they've developed). In my case, such training causes me to gain muscle mass as well as fat. So, at my peak of strength I had a massive 38 inch gut, I could squat heavy weights but my ability to cycle was poor. I should add, though, that people who have really excellent genetics can indeed gain a lot of muscle without fat (but that still doesn't make them any good at aerobics.
So, what's the conclusion? Simple, those of you who say squats don't make you a better cyclist are correct. I agree. I never argued anything different.
But, here's an interesting question: Say, you wanted to design the ultimate cyclist. What percentage of muscle to fat or fat to muscle do people think would be ideal? What about bone density e.t.c.? Obviously, bodybuilders and powerlifters aren't brilliant at cycling since they have far too much muscle. But how much muscle is ideal? The same as an untrained man, less than an untrained man, a little more than an untrained man?
Myself I don't know the answer which is why I thought I'd toss it out to the forum.
Finally I did try to get across is that the U.S. Postal Team and do their seasonal weights with a view to recuperating any muscle they may have lost during the intense cycling season. The passage someone else quoted earlier on stressed "recuperation" not actual muscle gain. There was no mention of Lance pumping iron while simultaneously competing in the TDF since that would be suicide (crippling his recuperation e.t.c.)
Whether we all agree that U.S. Postal's coaches are right to have Lance do seasonal weights is simply open to debate. Obviously some of you will conclude that the strategy isn't worthwhile and others will reckon the reasoning is valid.
Yes, let's forget the idea that squats make your legs stronger so that means you'll be a better cyclist. That idea is false. Maybe the discussion should be narrowed down to the following:
(1) What percentage of muscle to fat do people feel is ideal for a cyclist? Is there an ideal bodyweight? What do you feel is your own ideal weight?
(2) Lance's team have evidently poached some ideas from the old Soviet Space Program (Mir astronauts did intense weight-training to prepare for long periods in space and to compensate for stresses to their bodies while in Space, but the method was also adopted by Soviet athletes). Have Lance's team got it right or do you disagree with the whole idea? Here, I refer to the idea of "recuperation" of muscle the team may have lost cycling 100 miles at a time in competition.
(3) Are champion cyclists born and is Armstrong a genetic freak? Would it not matter what he did, given his freaky genetics?
