# Leg Strength Training



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

So I'm fairly new to the cycling world. I'm 6'0" and 205lbs @ 10% body fat so I'm going to be on the heavy side. I accept that I will not be an ideal climber, but I'd like to focus on the flats anyway. My question is, do you think it would be worth doing leg strength training? I have 28" thighs right now and I can leg press 800+ for reps, but will more strength do anything for me?


----------



## kini (Feb 19, 2010)

Wesquire said:


> So I'm fairly new to the cycling world. I'm 6'0" and 205lbs @ 10% body fat so I'm going to be on the heavy side. I accept that I will not be an ideal climber, but I'd like to focus on the flats anyway. My question is, do you think it would be worth doing leg strength training? I have 28" thighs right now and I can leg press 800+ for reps, but will more strength do anything for me?


IMO no unless you just want to be a velodrome sprinter. 

The best thing to do to make yourself better and or faster is to ride more to build up your bike leg endurance and ability to hold power levels over longer periods of time.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

kini said:


> IMO no unless you just want to be a velodrome sprinter.
> 
> The best thing to do to make yourself better and or faster is to ride more to build up your bike leg endurance and ability to hold power levels over longer periods of time.


Sounds good. I know road sprinters like Sagan spend some time in the gym, and while I'm fairly strong, I also weigh much more too...but, I'm not racing or sprinting so I guess max power isn't what I should focus on. Might try some strava sprint KOMs sometime though. For now, I'll work on endurance and do some interval training and just hit the gym when I feel like it.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ugh leg strength is pretty much useless unless you're strictly looking to race on 10 second duration.

Let's look at some examples.

Track match sprint. This is probably the only area in cycling where leg strength could play a big role in determing the outcome. But even here, leg strength has its limitation. Robert Forstermann (aka Quadzilla, youtube him up) has probably the biggest quads in cycling, and his squat is quite impressive for a cyclist (he can rep 500 lbs 6-8 times), but he regularly get beaten by a few other top guys who are nowhere close to his strength.

Now let's look at roadies. Here Mark Cavendish is one of the top sprinter, probably second only to Marcel Kitel (when Kitel is on form, which he is not at the moment). Cavendish didn't workout in the gym at all, and his legs are very average size looking (ie, no bulging muscles like you'd think a sprinter should have). But lately, I heard that Cav is looking to do some gym work because Kitel is whooping his butt. But I suspect Kitel is whooping Cav's butt because Kitel has natural talent. My point here is that, Cav is a fast guy inspite of having very very average sized legs. Now let's look at Andre Greipel, now this guy has big legs, and reported his peak power is somewhere in the 1900w (compare this to about 1400+ for Cav), and yet Cav always seem to better Greipel in a sprint. Of course road sprinting has a lot of important tactics leading up to the actual sprint, and often times these tactics play a huge part in the outcome of the sprint too. But again, my point here is that you can still win a sprint with a lesser power output and less leg strength.

If you want to sprint fast on the bike, then practice sprinting on the bike. Sprinting techniques on the bike is something no gym work can help. Sprinting involves a lot of coordinated movement of the pulling of the upperbody too. Just don't think that oh my leg press is 800 lbs that means I can sprint. Leg press ain't no magic bullet. Cycling is still an aerobic sport.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

aclinjury said:


> ugh leg strength is pretty much useless unless you're strictly looking to race on 10 second duration.
> 
> Let's look at some examples.
> 
> ...


Makes sense to me. Still, can't imagine that it would hurt to try and keep my leg strength up too, especially because I fluctuate at 40-50 lbs more than those guys.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

There's nothing inherently wrong with gym work and weight work. It's similar to doing high tension, low cadence efforts on the bike. It builds fatigue resistance and instantaneous force generation, both of which are helpful in the cycling world.

Don't expect that bigger legs = faster though. I personally know one of the strongest kierin riders in the world right now. He is heinously powerful and fast (claims to put out over 3,000 watts instantaneously, and I have no reason to disbelieve that considering I've seen the equipment he breaks)....but not after 120K. His "base training" is workouts in the weight room at the OTC during the off season, NOT endurance work.

They body is physiologically designed for either/or. It's up to you to decide how much of either/or you want.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

No. Leg strength is not your limiter. Pro tour guys have legs that are probably smaller than your (most of our) forearms and they can put out way more power for way longer than any of us. 

Aerobic sport and all...

If improving your cycling is your goal, then you need to be on your bike first and foremost.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> Makes sense to me. Still, can't imagine that it would hurt to try and keep my leg strength up too, especially because I fluctuate at 40-50 lbs more than those guys.


Where is your "leg strength" going to go? Your weight has little to do with your ability of lackthereof to produce sustained amounts of power on the bike. Nothing is going to help that more than actually producing sustained amounts of power on the bike.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

I don't think that weight lifting is similar to low cadence high tension work. Say you do short low cadence intervals- 3 minutes at 50 rpm. That's 150 reps per leg. Is that using the identical energy systems that efforts of 8-10 reps are? I don't think so.

Cycling (unless match sprinting, as noted) is an endurance sport. Cavendish has to ride 200kms with the pack to get to the last 200m sprint.

Weight lifting on your legs will be detrimental to your training simply because your legs will be tired when you go ride the next day and you won't be able to do as much.

I still do leg work, but only once a week. And I go easy if I am training hard or doing an important race later that week. I don't feel that it helps my cycling. It's to maintain bone density, since I'm in my mid 50s and cycling is not good for bone density.
Other weight lifting i.e. core work or addressing muscle imbalance can help cycling.

Don't feel that you will always be a slow climber because you're not super light. It's power/weight ratio that determines climbing speed, not weight alone. I know some very good climbers who don't weigh much less than you. As you train more you will lose some of the muscle mass that you don't need for cycling.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

I'd go as far as saying (guessing) that the leg strength you already have, and the bulk of muscle that goes along with it, is probably already doing you more harm than good so the last thing you want to do is improve upon leg pressing 800 pounds. I say that assuming your goals as a cyclist have an endurance component and you're not looking to be fast in the short term. Think typical 100 meter sprinter vs marathoner legs. They're suited for what they do. Same with cycling. You might find a few pencil legged sprinters but I'd never seen a hulk legged good marathoner.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Wesquire said:


> So I'm fairly new to the cycling world. *I'm 6'0" and 205lbs @ 10% body fat* so I'm going to be on the heavy side. I accept that I will not be an ideal climber, but I'd like to focus on the flats anyway. My question is, do you think it would be worth doing leg strength training? I have 28" thighs right now and I can leg press 800+ for reps, but will more strength do anything for me?


I have someting to say about bodyfat%. This is something a lot of guys like to brag about, but unless a person is overweight (which you are not), bodyfat is not too important to note. Believe it or not, even skinny elite cyclists have bodyfat at around 10-12%. Your body needs a certain level of fat for normal function. For example, let's take a 160-lb person and ask him to drop down to 150 lbs. So this means he'll need to lose 10 lbs of muscle and bodyfat, right. However, his skin composition (which also comprises of fat tissue) will most likely remain unchanged, i.e., is skin still maintain the same amount of fat (in order to function correctly as an organ). So in fact, our guy at 150 lbs can have a higher *bodyfat%* compared to when he was at 160. However, his *total absolute fat content *in his body has decreased (i.e., fat that is not a part of his skin, such as visceral fat and some subcutaneous fat), and this decrease in overall bodyfat (not bodyfat%) still means he is carrying less fat, and most likely his health indicators (eg, cholestrol, triglycerides, LDL, HDL) all have improved.

On the other hand, you can have bodybuilders who can force their body to have a very low level of bodyfat% (eg, some claim as lowas 4-5%!), yet these guys can still have higher total fat content, higher visceral fat content AND viseral fat%. Most of these guys also have very unhealthy health indicators, eg, high cholestrol, high LDL because of their diet. Bodybuilders are the prime example used to convey the message that low bodyfat%, big mucles, can indicate nothing about athleticism or sport performance.


----------



## Wesquire (May 27, 2015)

aclinjury said:


> I have someting to say about bodyfat%. This is something a lot of guys like to brag about, but unless a person is overweight (which you are not), bodyfat is not too important to note. Believe it or not, even skinny elite cyclists have bodyfat at around 10-12%. Your body needs a certain level of fat for normal function. For example, let's take a 160-lb person and ask him to drop down to 150 lbs. So this means he'll need to lose 10 lbs of muscle and bodyfat, right. However, his skin composition (which also comprises of fat tissue) will most likely remain unchanged, i.e., is skin still maintain the same amount of fat (in order to function correctly as an organ). So in fact, our guy at 150 lbs can have a higher *bodyfat%* compared to when he was at 160. However, his *total absolute fat content *in his body has decreased (i.e., fat that is not a part of his skin, such as visceral fat and some subcutaneous fat), and this decrease in overall bodyfat (not bodyfat%) still means he is carrying less fat, and most likely his health indicators (eg, cholestrol, triglycerides, LDL, HDL) all have improved.
> 
> On the other hand, you can have bodybuilders who can force their body to have a very low level of bodyfat% (eg, some claim as lowas 4-5%!), yet these guys can still have higher total fat content, higher visceral fat content AND viseral fat%. Most of these guys also have very unhealthy health indicators, eg, high cholestrol, high LDL because of their diet. Bodybuilders are the prime example used to convey the message that low bodyfat%, big mucles, can indicate nothing about athleticism or sport performance.


I just wanted to point out that there's not much weight for me to lose unless I sacrifice muscle...which I don't really want to do.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Wesquire said:


> I just wanted to point out that there's not much weight for me to lose unless I sacrifice muscle...which I don't really want to do.


well I understand you don't want to lose muscle size, me neither. But at the same time you seem to also want to improve you cycling speed at least on the flat. You have accepted that you will never be a climber, fine. Well, at this point, what do you want to do? Be a muscular looking guy who is decent on the flat, or be a more serious cyclist who is awesomely fast on the flat and ok on the climb? Need to pick your priority. Can't be both a gymrat and a distance sprinter. I'm exaggerating but you get my drift.

If you say you want to keep muscle size because that's what you want, then I'm not going to say/persuade to lose the weight. 

If you say you want to build ADDITIONAL LEG STRENGTH (and thus possibly additional muscle size) because that's what you think it'll make you fast on the bike AND still be able to keep the size, then it's unlikely it's going to happen. And I have given examples of riders above. At your weight and height, the only cyclists who may possibly outweigh you are the match sprinters (and even then, many of them are not north of 200 lbs or not by much). If we look at road cyclist sprinters, then I'm certain even the fastest of them all are all under 200 lbs. You mentioned Sagan, he's definitely not anywhere close to 200 lbs. Cavendish isn't either. Marcel Kitel is also under 200 lbs (and he's over 6' tall).

The other thing to factor in is how aerobic exercise will eat into your muscle. As you cycle more, you will have a harder time maintaining muscle mass, and chances are you might even lose some outright leg strength. But this doesn't necessarily mean you will slow down on the bike. Reason is you might lose some peak power (less than 1 sec), but you'll have more stamina now to hold a tad lower power but for a *longer duration *which ultimately means you still end up going faster. Peak torque (ie, extreme leg strength) is mainly good for that initial kick when you're ramping up, but once your cadence is up there and you're moving, then you need leg stamina for the next 10-15 seconds. At least that's what I notce about me. I'm 123 lbs, 5'7, and hell my thigh is probably 18"! My peak power is just under 1100 w. This is very good for a guy my size. But there are a lot of bigger guys than me who can push over 1200-1400 w (and they're not pros, they're just big, as in over 200 lbs big). However, my 10 sec power is really where I shine, over 900w for 10s. Some of these same big guys who push over 1200-1400w can't hold 900s for 10s. To put things in perspective, I believe Sagan's peak is around 1200w (but this is after putting 100 miles!).


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

ericm979 said:


> I don't think that weight lifting is similar to low cadence high tension work. Say you do short low cadence intervals- 3 minutes at 50 rpm. That's 150 reps per leg. Is that using the identical energy systems that efforts of 8-10 reps are? I don't think so.
> 
> Cycling (unless match sprinting, as noted) is an endurance sport. Cavendish has to ride 200kms with the pack to get to the last 200m sprint.
> 
> ...


Repetition = fatigue = adaptation to fatigue = fatigue resistance.

3x10 reps at XXX pounds to failure is fatigue to failure.

3 minutes at 50 RPM may cause fatigue to failure. You have to be going balls out to do it. If you want to talk about energy system, same concept applies. Energy system usage is dependent upon intensity. If you're fatiguing your fast twitch system via weights or high tension drills, you're fatiguing your fast twitch system (you can break down CP vs glycolysis further if you so desire.) 

It's harder to fatigue your legs on a bike because there IS an aerobic component to cycling (as you noted.) However, ignoring muscular force production is silly. Even the old folks like Friel believe in force production work in the form of lifting. 

As for Cav having to ride 200KM to get to the 200M mark, that's absolutely true. And that's what aerobic conditioning is for: to carry you there without expending all your anaerobic energy. And that's what this discussion is about: anaerobic performance v. aerobic performance. Lifting benefits both (anaerobic through the development of fast twitch muscle fibers and biochemical pathways and aerobic through the development of mitochondrial density in working muscles.)

How much it benefits you are factors of your training program, physiology and (ultimately) genetics.



Jay Strongbow said:


> I'd go as far as saying (guessing) that the leg strength you already have, and the bulk of muscle that goes along with it, is probably already doing you more harm than good so the last thing you want to do is improve upon leg pressing 800 pounds. I say that assuming your goals as a cyclist have an endurance component and you're not looking to be fast in the short term. Think typical 100 meter sprinter vs marathoner legs. They're suited for what they do. Same with cycling. You might find a few pencil legged sprinters but I'd never seen a hulk legged good marathoner.


Good 'ol thick legged Tony Martin springs to mind...

View attachment 306435


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> However, ignoring muscular force production is silly.


I wasn't suggesting to ignore it, I was suggesting that the training from weight lifting isn't applicable to typical (endurance) cycling. 

For an N=1, I'm 6' and 145 lbs. I used to stop weight lifting in the summer and pick it up again after the racing season ends in September. I'd start out with 200lb leg presses being difficult and over a couple months progress to sets of 400+lb leg presses. If weight lifting helped endurance cycling you'd think I'd see some improvement from that, especially my being an ectomorph. Nope. It's too bad because I kind of like weight training and doing some is probably beneficial in aspects other than cycling.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

ericm979 said:


> I wasn't suggesting to ignore it, I was suggesting that the training from weight lifting isn't applicable to typical (endurance) cycling.
> 
> For an N=1, I'm 6' and 145 lbs. I used to stop weight lifting in the summer and pick it up again after the racing season ends in September. I'd start out with 200lb leg presses being difficult and over a couple months progress to sets of 400+lb leg presses. If weight lifting helped endurance cycling you'd think I'd see some improvement from that, especially my being an ectomorph. Nope. It's too bad because I kind of like weight training and doing some is probably beneficial in aspects other than cycling.


So did you do anything to try to work those strength gains into your cycling or did you just expect it to make you faster? There's a lot of work you can do in terms of pedal drills, form drills, all that, to help you put that muscle mass to use.

Additionally, as I stated before: it's how much you care to do either. I hate endurance riding with an epic passion (just will not ride more than 40 miles at a time) so I spend more time working on muscular strength as opposed to zone 2 endurance...

Finally, it may just be genetically "difficult" for you to put on big muscle mass and gains. Did you happen to be a runner in a past lifetime? It seems like (from observation) that those who used to be runners just will never have bulky muscular bodies.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

More leg strength will make your legs stronger? If you want to leg press 900lbs focus on that... If you want to ride your bike as fast as you can then you will, at some point, need to focus on that... It will definitely eat your muscle mass. I was a speed skater that lifted all winter and skated all summer, 5 months in the gym and 6-7 on the trails. I'd finish a winter around 190+lbs. I'm 6'2". My bench would be 245 and squat around my body weight, but I never tried to find max... I like lifting as well, like you, acl and ericm, but I switched to cycling which has less of a demand for gym time, squats and plyos. I hit the trainer last winter instead of the gym. I'm now 6'2" and 164. Climbing is way, way different. I took a few pounds off the bike too, but I don't think I'm seeing much difference from that... I'm about 12%bf. Maybe this is in my head, but I actually feel much better when I stand to climb or sprint at the lower weight.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Wesquire said:


> So I'm fairly new to the cycling world. I'm 6'0" and 205lbs @ 10% body fat so I'm going to be on the heavy side. I accept that I will not be an ideal climber, but I'd like to focus on the flats anyway. My question is, do you think it would be worth doing leg strength training? I have 28" thighs right now and I can leg press 800+ for reps, but will more strength do anything for me?


Will more leg strength training do anything for you inc cycling? Probably not. You probably have well more than sufficient strength,a dn strength, as determined by how much mass you can move isn't the issue that will limit you in cycling. What you need to develop is power when turning the pedals. Power is, most simply force x velocity. I am sure that with your stated strength you can apply a lot of force. The questions are can you do it with significant velocity, and do it repetitively for comparatively long periods of time? Being able to move more weight (i.e. being stronger) doesn't address the other elements of delivering the power needed to excel in cycling.

The second part is it's more than just "leg strength". There are a lot of other muscles involved in developing power, such as the myriad of core muscles.

If you want to be a stronger and faster cyclist, the you need to work on cycling. That doesn't mean you have to sacrifice much of what you have, but adding more of what it is currently probably won't help you in cycling.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> ... For example, let's take a 160-lb person and ask him to drop down to 150 lbs. So this means he'll need to lose 10 lbs of muscle and bodyfat, right. However, his skin composition (which also comprises of fat tissue) will most likely remain unchanged, i.e., is skin still maintain the same amount of fat (in order to function correctly as an organ). So in fact, our guy at 150 lbs can have a higher *bodyfat%* compared to when he was at 160. However, his *total absolute fat content *in his body has decreased (i.e., fat that is not a part of his skin, such as visceral fat and some subcutaneous fat), and this decrease in overall bodyfat (not bodyfat%) still means he is carrying less fat, and most likely his health indicators (eg, cholestrol, triglycerides, LDL, HDL) all have improved.


You're of course correct, but the effect you note is very limited.

If an individual has a current composition of X% body fat, and they lose N lbs of their body weight, then they will decrease their % body fat at the same time IF the fractional share of the weight loss in fat is greater than the X% of the difference in body weights.

Ex.: Assume your 160 lb guy has 15% BF, or 24 lbs BF. If after losing 10 lbs, now at 150, the 10 lb loss included _more than _1.5 lbs of fat (15% x 10 lb loss), he will lower his % BF -- 24 lbs - 1.5 lbs = 22.5 lbs; 22.5/150 = 15%.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ibericb said:


> You're of course correct, but the effect you note is very limited.
> 
> If an individual has a current composition of X% body fat, and they lose N lbs of their body weight, then they will decrease their % body fat at the same time IF the fractional share of the weight loss in fat is greater than the X% of the difference in body weights.
> 
> Ex.: Assume your 160 lb guy has 15% BF, or 24 lbs BF. If after losing 10 lbs, now at 150, the 10 lb loss included _more than _1.5 lbs of fat (15% x 10 lb loss), he will lower his % BF -- 24 lbs - 1.5 lbs = 22.5 lbs; 22.5/150 = 15%.


yes if you just go by the numbers, the difference in %bf may look small and insignificant. But, I was also pointing out the effect of losing more visceral fat vs subcutaneous fat (while total bf% may remain the same or not vary by much), and that losing visceral fat has other significant health benefits that the simple mathematics of numbers don't show.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> yes if you just go by the numbers, the difference if %bf may look small and insignificant. But, I was also pointing out the effect of losing more visceral fat vs subcutaneous fat, and that losing visceral fat has other significant health benefits.


Absolutely agree with that, which I read as a separate point. Visceral fat is the one to get rid of. Subcutaneous fat is extremely stubborn, but it's a lesser health risk marker than visceral fat.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ericm979 said:


> I wasn't suggesting to ignore it, I was suggesting that the training from weight lifting isn't applicable to typical (endurance) cycling.
> 
> For an N=1, I'm 6' and 145 lbs. I used to stop weight lifting in the summer and pick it up again after the racing season ends in September. I'd start out with 200lb leg presses being difficult and over a couple months progress to sets of 400+lb leg presses. If weight lifting helped endurance cycling you'd think I'd see some improvement from that, especially my being an ectomorph. Nope. It's too bad because I kind of like weight training and doing some is probably beneficial in aspects other than cycling.


I'm a lightweight, and I also do gym, and I can relate to what you're saying, totally. If we're talking about a longass endurance but high intensity climb close to threshold, then the strength in the gym is a poor indicator. I'm 123 lbs, and at my max strength, and I can squat 320-330 lbs a few reps (that translates to well over 400 lbs on the reclined leg press, though I don't do leg press, mainly do squat). As far as FTP goes, my improve leg strength does nothing to up my FTP. However, my short all out effort (10-30 seconds) power has improved significantly, and furthermore, I can also now repeat these efforts a few times in a row with a brief period of rest in between. But... I need to work at sprinting to reap the benefits of the increase leg strength. One problem I found with being light weight is that I have a difficult time applying the torque to the pedals! That's because on a bicycle, when you apply a high force into the pedals, AND you're lightweight, well you need to use your arms and whole upperbody to pull down on the bars like a mofo to get the force down into those pedals. This is not the case when squating or leg-pressing because in squatting or leg-pressing you have an immovable support (the ground, or the bench) into which you can push your legs!! Get my drift. So if you're lightweight, and you have a good squat, you still need to work very hard at sprinting so you can apply the force. A heavier guy (with a weaker squat them me) can still have an easier time applying force into his pedals because of his weight. That has been my experience.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Wesquire said:


> Makes sense to me. Still, can't imagine that it would hurt to try and keep my leg strength up too, especially because I fluctuate at 40-50 lbs more than those guys.


You're falling for the "I want to be strong and have big legs so I can be fast" belief. Those who have weightlifted their way to wherever they are seldom want to "lose" what they have gained, but it's rarely the right answer for cycling. Even the fastest sprinters are not that "big." 

For the vast majority of riders, if you want to go fast on the bike you should work on going fast on the bike.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Wesquire said:


> My question is, do you think it would be worth doing leg strength training?


No one can give you a real answer. It completely depends on your goals/motivation. 

Are you simply adding cycling to supplement or be the aerobic component of your lifting OR are you are you training to race bicycles?

If your passion is lifting, then keep it up. Cycling can be a good addition for calorie burning and aerobic work. 

OTOH, if you want to race bicycles, e.g. crits, etc., then ride your bike and find fast group rides. Fast on flats only gets so far - like to the first hill bigger than a sprinter's hill. Relative to more experienced/strong riders, you are not going to be as fast as you think. Weight lifting strong does not necessarily translate into bike fast.

While your strength may be enough to kick a sprint over 40 mph, you have to be able to hang on the speed of the ride for enough time for your sprint to matter. 

The crazy thing about cycling is that the strongest/fastest rider does not necessarily win. The winner is the guy who crosses the finish line first. Up to the point of crossing the finish line, the guy in the front of a group is usually losing. 

It takes a lot of craftiness to know what wheel to follow, what break to stick with, which break you need to catch or bridge to, how/when to move up in the group - all that stuff requires much more than pure strength.


----------



## Roland44 (Mar 21, 2013)

pedalbiker said:


> No. Leg strength is not your limiter. Pro tour guys have legs that are probably smaller than your (most of our) forearms and they can put out way more power for way longer than any of us.
> 
> Aerobic sport and all...
> 
> If improving your cycling is your goal, then you need to be on your bike first and foremost.


Exactly, size doesn't matter at all


----------

