# Sprinter vs. Climber Legs



## Cadent

Gentlefolk;

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that cyclists are built counter-intutively. Sprinters appear to have truly massive legs...my arms would not go around some of these guys lower appendages.

On the other hand, climbers appear to have legs that look almost like my own.

It would seem to me that climbers would have the truly massive legs, and sprinters the less massively-built musculature.

Am I totally off-base?

Thx!


----------



## Len J

You are looking at it wrong.

Climbing is about the relationship of power to weight ratio.......the lower the weight, the less power you need to propel a rider at a given speed. The rule of thumb used to be that to climb with the best in the world you needed a 7.0 watts/Kg of weight. So a 130 lb climber would need to sustain a little over 400 watts...while a 180 lb rider would have to sustain 570 watts or so.....to climb at world class levels. 

Sprinters are about Power and leg speed.

Hard Men are about Power.

Len


----------



## nate

Sprinters need raw power to reach a very high speed over a short distance.

Climbers need a good power to weight ratio and to be able to maintain power output for a much longer period of time.

A sprinter may be able to put out a much higher peak wattage, but a climber will be able to put out more watts per kg for a much longer period. Compare the physiques of track sprinters against distance runners and it should make sense.


----------



## bas

Mark Cavendish would be the odd case.

I don't think Mark Cavendish has the lung capacity or aerobic system to climb well. He should be able to climb well. Maybe it's the shorter legs?


----------



## JustTooBig

Len is right on the money (again).

If you look at the two extremes -- a world class track sprinter and a world class climber: the sprinter has to accelerate his mass to maximum velocity and then hold that speed for less than a minute. His peak power may well be in excess of 2,000 watts. That requires a lot of muscle to generate that power. Hence -- the big legs. 

The climber has to generate much, much less power, but for extended periods of time. Big quads work against a climber, since they represent extra weight the guy has to drag along when climbing. The climber is probably generating less than 25% of the sprinter's power, but he may be holding that power for more than an hour at a time -- and maybe repeating that effort several times during a day.


----------



## xjbaylor

Cadent said:


> Gentlefolk;
> 
> ...my arms would not go around some of these guys lower appendages.
> 
> Thx!


Code?


----------



## MattSoutherden

Len J said:


> ]The rule of thumb used to be that to climb with the best in the world you needed a 7.0 watts/Kg of weight.


That would've been in the height of the 'superman' era. Now it's perceived to be about 6.3 to be world class.

Here's an interesting look at yesterday's Luz Ardiden stage

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/07/tour-de-france-luz-ardiden-analysis-and.html


----------



## Len J

MattSoutherden said:


> That would've been in the height of the 'superman' era. Now it's perceived to be about 6.3 to be world class.
> 
> Here's an interesting look at yesterday's Luz Ardiden stage
> 
> http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/07/tour-de-france-luz-ardiden-analysis-and.html


Yea good point.......I was trying not to confuse things and had the 7 off the top of my head.

Thanks for the link.

Len


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Len J said:


> You are looking at it wrong.
> 
> Climbing is about the relationship of power to weight ratio.......the lower the weight, the less power you need to propel a rider at a given speed. The rule of thumb used to be that to climb with the best in the world you needed a 7.0 watts/Kg of weight. So a 130 lb climber would need to sustain a little over 400 watts...while a 180 lb rider would have to sustain 570 watts or so.....to climb at world class levels.
> 
> Sprinters are about Power and leg speed.
> 
> Hard Men are about Power.
> 
> Len


It's all power (i.e. force x velocity). Sprinters typically have big legs because maximum muscle force production is in large part proportional to size. Big muscles produce high forces and if you can move them quickly as well, then you can produce high peak powers. The other factor that's not being considered is energy. Bigger muscles typically have higher anaerobic capacities because there's more high-energy phosphates (e.g. PCr) stored in them. IOW, they have more of a reserve, or more ability to go "into the red" before they fatigue. That's important if you want to produce a lot of power for 30 seconds or so.

OTOH, for climbing you never need to produce high peak powers or necessarily sustain a relatively high power for 10s of seconds. So the extra muscle and weight just means more weight to carry uphill which means you need to sustain more power to go at a given speed, and since even very small muscles can produce the kinds of powers to get someone up a mountain fast over 10s of minutes there's nothing to be gained by having large muscles. When you're talking about producing power over minutes the limiting factor basically becomes the cardiovascular system's ability to deliver oxygen and the strength/anaerobic capacity of the muscle becomes essentially meaningless.


----------



## J24

xjbaylor said:


> Code?


Oh yeah


----------



## 55x11

Dwayne Barry said:


> It's all power (i.e. force x velocity). Sprinters typically have big legs because maximum muscle force production is in large part proportional to size. Big muscles produce high forces and if you can move them quickly as well, then you can produce high peak powers. The other factor that's not being considered is energy. Bigger muscles typically have higher anaerobic capacities because there's more high-energy phosphates (e.g. PCr) stored in them. IOW, they have more of a reserve, or more ability to go "into the red" before they fatigue. That's important if you want to produce a lot of power for 30 seconds or so.
> 
> OTOH, for climbing you never need to produce high peak powers or necessarily sustain a relatively high power for 10s of seconds. So the extra muscle and weight just means more weight to carry uphill which means you need to sustain more power to go at a given speed, and since even very small muscles can produce the kinds of powers to get someone up a mountain fast over 10s of minutes there's nothing to be gained by having large muscles. When you're talking about producing power over minutes the limiting factor basically becomes the cardiovascular system's ability to deliver oxygen and the strength/anaerobic capacity of the muscle becomes essentially meaningless.



ditto. just look at runners - sprinters have usually big, thick muscles, marathoners have legs thinner than your arm.


----------



## heathb

Nobody is truly huge in the pro peloton when it comes to sprinting. The distances these guys need to cover would burn up any extra muscle mass they try to keep that isn't absolutely necessary. 

These days winning the sprint is about a fast kick and very good position on the bike.


----------



## nathanbal

heathb said:


> Nobody is truly huge in the pro peloton when it comes to sprinting. The distances these guys need to cover would burn up any extra muscle mass they try to keep that isn't absolutely necessary.
> 
> These days winning the sprint is about a fast kick and very good position on the bike.


Greipel and Thor are still pretty massive. Not track sprinter massive but still big when comparing to the climbers... Thor in particular is probably carrying 15-20kg on some of those guys.


----------



## Untchbl

Interesting.........

How tall is MC? Thor and Greipel look huge, over 6ftish....


----------



## Cadent

So.... are climbers/sprinters born or made?

Does one choose to be one or the other?

Running sprinters have more fast twitch muscles...is the same true for cyclists?


----------



## _LCW_

Very interesting thread! :thumbsup:

I'm new to road biking, but have mountain biked for a while, and I'm more a stocky build than lean and slim... Long climbs, I suck and tend to blowup quickly, but can easily pull away from my buddies on the short steep climbs


----------



## heathb

nathanbal said:


> Greipel and Thor are still pretty massive. Not track sprinter massive but still big when comparing to the climbers... Thor in particular is probably carrying 15-20kg on some of those guys.


Thor is around 180lbs at 6'. 

Greipel is 170 at slightly over 6'.

Both are lean and have well developed legs. Greipel has some of the best muscle definition of all the cyclists legs I've seen, his quads are scary looking. 

Still Cavendish smokes them both with ease.


----------



## nathanbal

heathb said:


> Thor is around 180lbs at 6'.
> 
> Greipel is 170 at slightly over 6'.
> 
> Both are lean and have well developed legs. Greipel has some of the best muscle definition of all the cyclists legs I've seen, his quads are scary looking.
> 
> Still Cavendish smokes them both with ease.


MC is tiny in compsrison but its generally accepted that is what helps him be so competitive. he gets so low on the bike when sprinting that he is by far more aerodynamic than most of the other sprinters.


----------



## heathb

Untchbl said:


> Interesting.........
> 
> How tall is MC? Thor and Greipel look huge, over 6ftish....


MC is around 5'9".


----------



## heathb

Yeah MC position is something most big guys can't do. I remember a few years back I used to try out that position and there's no way I can do it. I'm 6'2" and it felt like I was going to fall flat on my face.


----------



## _LCW_

MattSoutherden said:


> That would've been in the height of the 'superman' era. Now it's perceived to be about 6.3 to be world class.
> 
> Here's an interesting look at yesterday's Luz Ardiden stage
> 
> http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/07/tour-de-france-luz-ardiden-analysis-and.html



GREAT link! thanks for posting! :thumbsup:

Upon reading this, anyone else have it cross their mind that "of course the power numbers or lower than past years, less people are doping, and/or if they are (probably) not as blatantly as before, to not draw attention" ???

just a thought... but the slowing down of pace vs past years could be due to the whole doping situation... ???


----------



## rydbyk

Cadent said:


> Gentlefolk;
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that cyclists are built counter-intutively. Sprinters appear to have truly massive legs...my arms would not go around some of these guys lower appendages.
> 
> On the other hand, climbers appear to have legs that look almost like my own.
> 
> It would seem to me that climbers would have the truly massive legs, and sprinters the less massively-built musculature.
> 
> Am I totally off-base?
> 
> Thx!



Same thing with runners. Olympic sprinters typically have massive bulky legs, while the marathoners are lean...

Edit...oops..just noticed that this point has been made....

About choosing one or the other...you go with what your body naturally offers. There are not super lean/thin riders who say "screw victories in the mountains, I am hitting the gym to build massive legs to win sprints instead....!!" That would be funny imo...

Ideally, you are fairly strong in all areas...


----------



## Cadent

Maybe this is an explanation of sprinters vs. climbers.

Source: Smart Planet

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/rethinking-healthcare/wheels-keep-on-turning-missing-gene-gives-mice-super-endurance/5798?tag=nl.e660

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wheels Keep On Turning: missing gene gives mice super endurance
By Janet Fang | July 20, 2011, 1:53 AM PDT

And maybe people too.

Without a gene called IL-15Rα, mice can run in their exercise wheels for hours every night. Going nowhere still, but doing it with the fortitude of a marathon runner.

Previous studies have hinted that IL-15Rα might be important for muscle strength and contraction, but the gene has never been studied in a live animal.

So a team led by Tejvir Khurana of the University of Pennsylvania genetically engineered mice who lack IL-15Rα. And these mighty modified mice ran 6 times farther than normal mice each night, according to the sensors on their wheels.

After dissecting the mice’s muscles, the researchers found that they sported:

•Increased numbers of mitochondria, the energy-generating power plants of our cells.
•And more muscle fibers, which indicates that they tired less easily.
•And when stimulated with electricity, the muscles contracted for longer than normal, taking longer to use up their energy stores.
Mice, like humans, have two types of muscles. ScienceNOW explains:

Fast-twitch muscles, such as the muscles in our fingers, allow more precise movements but tire faster, whereas slow-twitch muscles, like those in our back, are more resistant to fatigue but don’t allow such precise movements. Removing the IL-15Rα gene, Khurana says, coaxed the mice’s fast-twitch leg muscles to turn into slow-twitch muscles.

To study whether the gene affects human endurance, the team worked with Australian researchers to look at genetic samples from Olympians and other world-class athletes.

*They found that certain variants of the IL-15Rα gene were more common in long-distance cyclists and rowers than they were in sprinters – suggesting that the most successful endurance athletes might have a variant that gives their muscles extra endurance.*
The work raises the possibility that drugs blocking IL-15Rα could one day enhance endurance.

The study was published this week in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Via ScienceNOW.

Image by KevinMcCarthyPhoto via Flickr
.


----------



## ecoovert

*type 1 cyclist*

That makes me feel good. I am a type 1 diabetic but only raced a few amateur races years ago. I later improved on my fitness even more after moving to a region where there were some real hills. At that time I was producing 425 watts average over a 30 minute test period. At that time I weighed 143 lbs. That's over 6.5 watts per kilo. I was considered a good climber in my area back then. I didn't realize jut how good I guess.

I meant that last sentence to be humorous. Sorry if I got some of you riled up.


----------



## Guod

ecoovert said:


> That makes me feel good. I am a type 1 diabetic but only raced a few amateur races years ago. I later improved on my fitness even more after moving to a region where there were some real hills. At that time I was producing 425 watts average over a 30 minute test period. At that time I weighed 143 lbs. That's over 6.5 watts per kilo. I was considered a good climber in my area back then. I didn't realize jut how good I guess.


So, your FTP was 400w or so and you didn't go pro? 6.15w/kg...

Gotta love internet watts...


----------



## Carverbiker

This thread is only. Three years old. Holy thread revival!


----------



## mpre53

heathb said:


> Thor is around 180lbs at 6'.
> 
> Greipel is 170 at slightly over 6'.
> 
> Both are lean and have well developed legs. Greipel has some of the best muscle definition of all the cyclists legs I've seen, his quads are scary looking.
> 
> Still Cavendish smokes them both with ease.


Isn't Kittel about 90 kg?


----------



## snailmale

My question here would be whether it's the climbing that makes the legs lean, or the lean legs that make climbing easier.

i.e. When girls tell me they don't want to climb the nearby slopes for fear of developing large thighs, should I tell them that climbing gives you slimmer legs than riding flats? Or is it just that climbing is more suited to people with skinny legs, and would still build up said girls' leg muscles?


----------



## redlizard

ecoovert said:


> That makes me feel good. I am a type 1 diabetic but only raced a few amateur races years ago. I later improved on my fitness even more after moving to a region where there were some real hills. At that time I was producing 425 watts average over a 30 minute test period. At that time I weighed 143 lbs. That's over 6.5 watts per kilo. I was considered a good climber in my area back then. I didn't realize jut how good I guess.


Rep given. Anyone willing to post this has some big stones. :thumbsup:

Apparently no one realized just how good you were, though I suppose some World Tour guys would when you dropped them on an HC climb.


----------



## ecoovert

*type 1 cyclist*

I was a great climber but had great difficulty riding in a tuck position due to a severe scoliosis. That prevented me from being able to do well on the flats. I was fine as long as I stayed with the peleton but as soon as I got in the wind, I had to work harder fighting the wind due to having to stay on the hoods rather than on the drops. I was also one of those guys who was unaware of how my power output compared to elite cyclists. Besides that, I had never heard of a diabetic in any of the grand tours. I'm now 51 years old, so going pro now would be out of the question anyway. By the way, my watts were not based on algorithms, they were actual power output.


----------



## ecoovert

Read my reply to Goud and I think you'll understand. I also didn't want to spend most of my time away from home living in motels. You see, some of us just enjoy the sport and having the freedom to plan our own rides. I'm sure there are others out there who have the fitness but who either by choice or by fate never went pro.

One of the reasons I ride is to keep my diabetes in check. 49 years of living with diabetes with no diabetic onset health issues seems to indicate it's working.


----------



## looigi

Huge thighs can still be lean because lean means low body fat. You can't spot reduce body fat. For lean legs you need to be lean everywhere else. If you want thin legs, don't build the muscles with high resistance exercises and if they're already big, allow them to atrophy through disuse and calorie restriction.


----------



## Retro Grouch

Carverbiker said:


> This thread is only. Three years old. Holy thread revival!


Maybe the thread dredger felt human cycling physiology has progressed far enough in 3 years to justify a revisit


----------



## ecoovert

That's right looigi but hill intervals are a pretty high resistance exercise. Now there are 15 minute intervals, 10 minute intervals, 3 minute intervals... depending on ones needs.


----------



## ecoovert

Yea; especially some of those track sprinters. 26" and even 28" thighs.


----------



## Fredrico

snailmale said:


> My question here would be whether it's the climbing that makes the legs lean, or the lean legs that make climbing easier.
> 
> i.e. When girls tell me they don't want to climb the nearby slopes for fear of developing large thighs, should I tell them that climbing gives you slimmer legs than riding flats? Or is it just that climbing is more suited to people with skinny legs, and would still build up said girls' leg muscles?


Everybody has both fast and slow twitch muscle fibers in more or less equal amounts. If the fast twitch are used mostly, like in weight lifting, these fibers grow really big. The slow twitch are still there, but they don't get big in training; they stay "lean and mean." Well, sprinters use their well trained anaerobic fast twitch for the sprints at the end of the race, but their slow twitch fibers get them to the finish line!

The trouble with riders just getting into "training" is, unless they're aerobically fit from another sport, they can't generate much power, so they too quickly resort to the fast twitch, and go way into anaerobic, blow up, and have to recover. 

It just blows me away, seeing all these riders struggling up these little climbs around here in the middle freewheel cogs. :frown2: I keep wanting to shout out as I pass them smoothly "spinning" :shocked: my lowest gear, "Downshift!" I don't think they ever hear me, as the blood is now all in their legs. 

They build awesome muscles and great strength, but have poor endurance. Climbing requires endurance. For that, training the slow twitch fibers, the aerobic ones, is what its all about. 

In fact, I'll take it to the next level and say training to perform at a relatively high aerobic intensity is what cycling is about about. That's only accomplished by riding distances, miles, at paces your body can handle. Trying to keep smooth form when climbing also uses the aerobic fibers, so the painful lactic acid build up mainly from the fast twitch fibers called in to provide power, can be managed. Riding moderate hills for two hours works the aerobic fibers just fine, and getting up the hills gives the fast twitch plenty of opportunity to help out.

I've never met a woman cyclist who didn't look great the more she rode or the harder. Just tell her to "stay on top of the gear." :yesnod:


----------



## D&MsDad

Compare the physiques of 100 m sprinters vs marathon runners. Same as with cyclists.

I don't get what's "counter-intuitive". 



-----------


----------

