# Maintaining muscle mass



## sportsaddict99 (Mar 26, 2011)

For a bit of back story, I am a mtb'er and lifter, now I've been road biking for several months. I have been out two months because of a strained calf and during that time I have been back on a lifting schedule. I have increased my upper body strength to what it was before I started cycling and I'm content with the body fat % I'm at (8.6% body fat, 1RM bench 260)

I realize that to reach my potential for cycling I would need to decrease my muscle mass but my goal is to keep the muscle and become a better cyclist. 

My question is, how do I keep my muscle mass and be a road biker? I've seen some jacked guys road biking so I'm sure it can be done but what kind of workout schedule should I be on to maintain my upper body strength and become a better cyclist?


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Simple answer*



sportsaddict99 said:


> For a bit of back story, I am a mtb'er and lifter, now I've been road biking for several months. I have been out two months because of a strained calf and during that time I have been back on a lifting schedule. I have increased my upper body strength to what it was before I started cycling and I'm content with the body fat % I'm at (8.6% body fat, 1RM bench 260)
> 
> I realize that to reach my potential for cycling I would need to decrease my muscle mass but my goal is to keep the muscle and become a better cyclist.
> 
> My question is, how do I keep my muscle mass and be a road biker? I've seen some jacked guys road biking so I'm sure it can be done but what kind of workout schedule should I be on to maintain my upper body strength and become a better cyclist?


Since you want to maintain your upper body muscle, you will need to keep doing the same upper body workouts as you are doing now. To become a better cyclist, you will need to work on endurance and power by doing workouts on the bike. For endurance, you need miles and for power you need intervals. There are a huge number of permutations and combinations to those two, but since you are new to road biking, plan on spending a year or so just getting in the miles and doing some intense efforts of varying duration a couple of days per week.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Race on the track.


----------



## realbiker (Aug 18, 2011)

I struggle with finding a balance between muscle gains and cardio as well. My recommendation would be to make sure you're eating enough!


----------



## biker_on_a_budget (Aug 19, 2011)

Eat a bunch. There are websites that let you calculate calories burned while biking. I can't post links yet, but a Google search will show you some good sites. Figure out your calories that you burn, then make sure you eat more calories than you burn!


----------



## pepeelcaballo (Aug 21, 2011)

I am actually having the same issue. Well, not the same issue, but I have figured out what works for me. PROTEIN! Though cardio requires a good balance of Carbs (can talk about this all day), muscle mass really needs a good dose of protein. I drink 4 protein shakes a day. Each shake has 48 grams of protein. Plus I get in whatever other protein from my regular meals. I bike about 200 miles a week. I also try to run between 10-20 miles a week and I lift weights 5-6 times a week. With all the cardio, I have not seen a drop in my muscle mass. Plus I eat alot. Not crap food, but fruits, vege's, tuna, fish, chicken, turkey, etc etc.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Overdosing*



pepeelcaballo said:


> I am actually having the same issue. Well, not the same issue, but I have figured out what works for me. PROTEIN! Though cardio requires a good balance of Carbs (can talk about this all day), muscle mass really needs a good dose of protein. I drink 4 protein shakes a day. Each shake has 48 grams of protein. Plus I get in whatever other protein from my regular meals. I bike about 200 miles a week. I also try to run between 10-20 miles a week and I lift weights 5-6 times a week. With all the cardio, I have not seen a drop in my muscle mass. Plus I eat alot. Not crap food, but fruits, vege's, tuna, fish, chicken, turkey, etc etc.


All that excess protein you take in just means you have expensive pee. There is no reputable study showing that anything higher than 0.8 gm protein per day per pound of body weight has any benefit. You are perhaps taking in 2 gm per pound. It's not helping you in any way.


----------



## sportsaddict99 (Mar 26, 2011)

Kerry Irons said:


> All that excess protein you take in just means you have expensive pee. There is no reputable study showing that anything higher than 0.8 gm protein per day per pound of body weight has any benefit. You are perhaps taking in 2 gm per pound. It's not helping you in any way.


The 0.8 is true for some individuals. However for athletes, recommendations are much higher. According to Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (Baechle and Earle) when addressing protein requirements for athletes,

_ A general recommendation of 1.5 to 2.0 g/kg of body weight ensures adequate protein intake; assuming adequate caloric intake and a diet with at least 65% of the protein of high biological value._


Additionally the article Protein Needs for Athletes by Marinoff give these guidelines: 

_* Strength training athletes need about 1.4 to 1.8 grams per kilogram of body weight per day.
* Endurance athletes need about 1.2 to 1.4 grams per kilogram of body weight per day._



So to generalize and say that increased protein consumption is not helping in any way is not true, especially when talking about those who strength train in addition to being an endurance athlete.


----------



## vladvm (May 4, 2010)

I've been through this. just continue what you are doing with upper body workouts, your legs will eventually get stronger as you put more mileage. 

reduce the weights/resistance and increase the reps. Also ride lots of hills. If you want to be bulky and road biking, you will never be faster on the flats that narrow skinny cyclist. You can improve climbing skills where power is essential.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

sportsaddict99 said:


> So to generalize and say that increased protein consumption is not helping in any way is not true, especially when talking about those who strength train in addition to being an endurance athlete.


But along with that, you got to keep in mind that sustainable power (watt) is the limiter in competitive cycling, not strength. Pedal forces (newton) are much smaller and exerted for much shorter periods of time than many people assume. To complicate things, cyclists confuse power and force and/or strength all the time. Above "where power is essential" is a good example: power is always essential.


----------



## pdxr (Sep 9, 2011)

sportsaddict99 said:


> According to Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (Baechle and Earle) when addressing protein requirements for athletes,
> 
> _ A general recommendation of 1.5 to 2.0 g/kg of body weight ensures adequate protein intake; assuming adequate caloric intake and a diet with at least 65% of the protein of high biological value._
> 
> ...



LOL. You are saying exactly the same thing as Kerry Irons. Guess what 1.8 grams per *kilogram *equates to? Yep, .8 grams per *pound*. 

For the record, I advocate being on the high side for protein intake, but a baseline of 200g per day in protein shakes (plus what the guy gets from his normal diet) seems excessive.


----------



## teflondog (Aug 23, 2011)

If you're the bodybuilding type who keeps carbs low in your diet, you need to compensate by increasing your protein and healthy fats to maintain as much muscle as you can. When I start cutting out carbs for the summer, I'll limit my carbs to 50 grams per day while consuming at least 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. This has a drastic effect on my endurance and strength. During the winter when I'm not concerned with having ripped abs, my athletic performance is much higher since I'm eating a ton of carbs. It's all about compromise.


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

vladvm said:


> I've been through this. just continue what you are doing with upper body workouts, your legs will eventually get stronger as you put more mileage.
> 
> reduce the weights/resistance and increase the reps. Also ride lots of hills. If you want to be bulky and road biking, you will never be faster on the flats that narrow skinny cyclist. You can improve climbing skills where power is essential.


??? it is easier going fast on flats if you are bulkier. and it is easier to climb if you are lighter (almost a rule). My weight fluctuates 60 - 63 Kg some times 64. and I feel the difference on flat roads, when I m bulkier it feels easier. 

You can keep you body mass, eat more carbs. and eat your protein, also consume good fats, is very important. And continue weight training, Twice a week is ok, you will lose a bit of muscle but no all. Rest a lot


----------



## vladvm (May 4, 2010)

malanb said:


> ??? it is easier going fast on flats if you are bulkier. and it is easier to climb if you are lighter (almost a rule). My weight fluctuates 60 - 63 Kg some times 64. and I feel the difference on flat roads, when I m bulkier it feels easier.
> 
> You can keep you body mass, eat more carbs. and eat your protein, also consume good fats, is very important. And continue weight training, Twice a week is ok, you will lose a bit of muscle but no all. Rest a lot


well if you are bulkier and the other cyclist is narrow and skinny and you both output the same power and have the same weight, then the other cyclist will have aero advantage andshe will have easier time accelerating and will likely pass you, this is true only if you both put out same power and same weight at same terrain.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Other things being equal, heavier cyclists tend to develop more power.

The other things in this case would be fitness level, body fat percentage, etc. Basically, if someone's 5'8" and a lean, mean racing machine, Thor Hushovd, also a lean, mean racing machine, will beat him. But the situation may go the other way on a climb.


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

vladvm said:


> well if you are bulkier and the other cyclist is narrow and skinny and you both output the same power and have the same weight, then the other cyclist will have aero advantage andshe will have easier time accelerating and will likely pass you, this is true only if you both put out same power and same weight at same terrain.


nope. on flats more weight helps against wind resistance bigger has more mass, so it is easier to fight wind resistance you keep the momentum. the bigger rider has a bigger frontal surface area, but it does not differ that much as the smaller ride's one., I'm not talking about fat or nonsense muscle (100 kilos muscle mass). It is easier for a bigger rider to go faster on flats than a skinnier one. , did yo study physics?


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

vladvm said:


> well if you are bulkier and the other cyclist is narrow and skinny and you both output the same power and have the same weight, then the other cyclist will have aero advantage andshe will have easier time accelerating and will likely pass you, this is true only if you both put out same power and same weight at same terrain.


why do you think bigger riders usually excel on flat timetrials


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

vladvm said:


> well if you are bulkier and the other cyclist is narrow and skinny and you both output the same power and have the same weight, then the other cyclist will have aero advantage andshe will have easier time accelerating and will likely pass you, this is true only if you both put out same power and same weight at same terrain.


nope. on flats more weight helps against wind resistance bigger has more mass, so it is easier to fight wind resistance you keep the momentum. the bigger rider has a bigger frontal surface area, but it does not differ that much as the smaller ride's one., I'm not talking about fat or nonsense muscle (100 kilos muscle mass). It is easier for a bigger rider to go faster on flats than a skinnier one. , did yo study physics?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

malanb said:


> nope. on flats more weight helps against wind resistance bigger has more mass, so it is easier to fight wind resistance you keep the momentum. the bigger rider has a bigger frontal surface area, but it does not differ that much as the smaller ride's one., I'm not talking about fat or nonsense muscle (100 kilos muscle mass). It is easier for a bigger rider to go faster on flats than a skinnier one. , did yo study physics?


For a steady-state flats situation, the mass of the rider doesn't matter. It might if he's just finished a descent onto the flats, because he is carrying more speed. But that effect goes away pretty quickly.

There are two things that matter. The power the rider develops, and the force he fights. That's it. If you want to slice the force the rider fights into little pieces, like drivetrain friction, rolling resistance, air resistance, etc., feel free. The heavier rider doesn't experience any less air resistance, and if he's wider he'll experience a little more. At least, unless he's got a good aero position and the smaller guy doesn't.

Bigger people have bigger muscles and have to develop more power whenever they're bearing weight. So, other things being equal, they have a higher power output. That's the difference. It's not an advantage a smaller person can't overcome - the smaller guy just needs to go out and do intervals. Ultimately, on the flats, it's all about power output and air resistance, since mechanical friction is going to vary very little from rider to rider, as long as all the bikes in question are reasonably well maintained.


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Other things being equal, heavier cyclists tend to develop more power.
> 
> The other things in this case would be fitness level, body fat percentage, etc. Basically, if someone's 5'8" and a lean, mean racing machine, Thor Hushovd, also a lean, mean racing machine, will beat him. But the situation may go the other way on a climb.


+1 this


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

AndrwSwitch said:


> For a steady-state flats situation, the mass of the rider doesn't matter. It might if he's just finished a descent onto the flats, because he is carrying more speed. But that effect goes away pretty quickly.
> 
> There are two things that matter. The power the rider develops, and the force he fights. That's it. If you want to slice the force the rider fights into little pieces, like drivetrain friction, rolling resistance, air resistance, etc., feel free. The heavier rider doesn't experience any less air resistance, and if he's wider he'll experience a little more. At least, unless he's got a good aero position and the smaller guy doesn't.
> 
> Bigger people have bigger muscles and have to develop more power whenever they're bearing weight. So, other things being equal, they have a higher power output. That's the difference. It's not an advantage a smaller person can't overcome - the smaller guy just needs to go out and do intervals. Ultimately, on the flats, it's all about power output and air resistance, since mechanical friction is going to vary very little from rider to rider, as long as all the bikes in question are reasonably well maintained.


of course, more muscle = more power, but more weight helps fighting wind resistance. a heavier object will lose less speed against wind than a smaller obj with less weight.


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

AndrwSwitch said:


> For a steady-state flats situation, the mass of the rider doesn't matter. It might if he's just finished a descent onto the flats, because he is carrying more speed. But that effect goes away pretty quickly.
> 
> There are two things that matter. The power the rider develops, and the force he fights. That's it. If you want to slice the force the rider fights into little pieces, like drivetrain friction, rolling resistance, air resistance, etc., feel free. The heavier rider doesn't experience any less air resistance, and if he's wider he'll experience a little more. At least, unless he's got a good aero position and the smaller guy doesn't.
> 
> Bigger people have bigger muscles and have to develop more power whenever they're bearing weight. So, other things being equal, they have a higher power output. That's the difference. It's not an advantage a smaller person can't overcome - the smaller guy just needs to go out and do intervals. Ultimately, on the flats, it's all about power output and air resistance, since mechanical friction is going to vary very little from rider to rider, as long as all the bikes in question are reasonably well maintained.


just roll 2 balls with the same force, one heavier on lighter on a completely flat surface against wind, see which one goes farther


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

At risk of being "that guy" I'm going to quote myself.



AndrwSwitch being that guy said:


> For a steady-state flats situation,


The trick here is that while it's true that a heavier cyclist would have more inertia, it still gets bled off. That happens relatively quickly, and then his weight is no longer important.

I think in your second post you meant "speed," not "force." Same force, and the heavier ball would be rolling more slowly to begin with, which doesn't do your argument any good.

Here's another thought experiment - what if you duct taped several strips of iron to the bottom of one twin's down tube? Now who's at an advantage?


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

AndrwSwitch said:


> At risk of being "that guy" I'm going to quote myself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yes speed sorry! for your experiment, the rider with more power output


----------

