Anyone do weights?

Guys,
My two sporting interests are weight training and cycling - mutually
strange I know since muscle weight is so heavy. I can bench 130kg and
squat the same. I weigh 15.5 -16 stone (not a fatty though) and have a
tendency to get dropped on climbs. I can sprint quite well though. It's
a bit of a conundrum since there are some quite big riders about - Boonen,
Padrnos, even Indurain was a big lad. Lance and Ullrich are no
lightweights either.

Anyone here have the same problem? Anyone had to drop a lot of muscle
mass to become a better rider? Anyone didn't want to lose too much muscle
and had to fight with this problem? (the "fear of smallness" as Arnold
Swarzenegger once put it).

Anyone point me to some reading?

--
===============================================
Thanks, Steve
"short cuts make for long delays"

Use ROT13 for my email:

Kaiser Sose writes:

Guys,
My two sporting interests are weight training and cycling - mutually
strange I know since muscle weight is so heavy. I can bench 130kg and
squat the same. I weigh 15.5 -16 stone (not a fatty though) and have a
tendency to get dropped on climbs. I can sprint quite well though. It's
a bit of a conundrum since there are some quite big riders about - Boonen,
Padrnos, even Indurain was a big lad. Lance and Ullrich are no
lightweights either.

Anyone here have the same problem? Anyone had to drop a lot of muscle
mass to become a better rider? Anyone didn't want to lose too much muscle
and had to fight with this problem? (the "fear of smallness" as Arnold
Swarzenegger once put it).

Anyone point me to some reading?



I think the received wisdom is that at 16 stone you'll never be able
to climb like the light guys.

ISTR reading in his book that in his post-cancer, i.e. TdF winning,
days Lance kept his weight at about 158 lbs - or a little over 11
stone. He was heavier before the cancer - about 175lbs or 12.5
stone. (This is from memory - I could be a little out, but not by much
I think.) Even so that's a long way off 16 stone.

Agreed Paul. However, couldn't it be argued that I will have a greater
intrinsic strength that should counter my greater weight? Granted that uper
body muscle mass isn't contributing a lot to climbing a hill. There must
come a point where stronger legs and the increased msucle mass that comes
with it is too expensive on the aerobic system and the law of diminishing
returns comes into play? I am no Doctor but this seems to be my expereince.

Hence my question: anyoen really been a weight training dude like me and
has come down in body weight? I think maybe I am an oddity in wanting to
lose muscle mass perhaps !!
Steve

"Paul Rudin" wrote in message
...
Kaiser Sose writes:

Guys,
My two sporting interests are weight training and cycling - mutually
strange I know since muscle weight is so heavy. I can bench 130kg and
squat the same. I weigh 15.5 -16 stone (not a fatty though) and have a
tendency to get dropped on climbs. I can sprint quite well though. It's
a bit of a conundrum since there are some quite big riders about -
Boonen,
Padrnos, even Indurain was a big lad. Lance and Ullrich are no
lightweights either.

Anyone here have the same problem? Anyone had to drop a lot of muscle
mass to become a better rider? Anyone didn't want to lose too much
muscle
and had to fight with this problem? (the "fear of smallness" as Arnold
Swarzenegger once put it).

Anyone point me to some reading?



I think the received wisdom is that at 16 stone you'll never be able
to climb like the light guys.

ISTR reading in his book that in his post-cancer, i.e. TdF winning,
days Lance kept his weight at about 158 lbs - or a little over 11
stone. He was heavier before the cancer - about 175lbs or 12.5
stone. (This is from memory - I could be a little out, but not by much
I think.) Even so that's a long way off 16 stone.

In article , Kaiser Sose
says...
Guys,
My two sporting interests are weight training and cycling - mutually
strange I know since muscle weight is so heavy. I can bench 130kg and
squat the same. I weigh 15.5 -16 stone (not a fatty though) and have a
tendency to get dropped on climbs. I can sprint quite well though. It's
a bit of a conundrum since there are some quite big riders about - Boonen,
Padrnos, even Indurain was a big lad. Lance and Ullrich are no
lightweights either.

Anyone here have the same problem? Anyone had to drop a lot of muscle
mass to become a better rider? Anyone didn't want to lose too much muscle
and had to fight with this problem? (the "fear of smallness" as Arnold
Swarzenegger once put it).

I used to train with a chap who was a former powerlifter, and he totally
transformed his body shape when he switched to cycling. No matter how
lean you are you're putting yourself at a disadvantage carrying too much
of the wrong sort of muscle. Even when I was race fit and 13 stone I
could never really compete with the skinny lads on a big climb unless
there was a strong headwind, although I was one of the fastest on a
flattish course.

"Kaiser Sose" wrote in message
...
Guys,
My two sporting interests are weight training and cycling - mutually
strange I know since muscle weight is so heavy. I can bench 130kg and
squat the same. I weigh 15.5 -16 stone (not a fatty though) and have a
tendency to get dropped on climbs. I can sprint quite well though. It's
a bit of a conundrum since there are some quite big riders about - Boonen,
Padrnos, even Indurain was a big lad. Lance and Ullrich are no
lightweights either.

Anyone here have the same problem? Anyone had to drop a lot of muscle
mass to become a better rider? Anyone didn't want to lose too much muscle
and had to fight with this problem? (the "fear of smallness" as Arnold
Swarzenegger once put it).

Anyone point me to some reading?


If your bench really is the same as your squat then something is very wrong.
It sounds like your legs are weak. What is your workout schedule like?

Adam

Kaiser Sose wrote:

Agreed Paul. However, couldn't it be argued that I will have a greater
intrinsic strength that should counter my greater weight? Granted that uper
body muscle mass isn't contributing a lot to climbing a hill. There must
come a point where stronger legs and the increased msucle mass that comes
with it is too expensive on the aerobic system and the law of diminishing
returns comes into play? I am no Doctor but this seems to be my expereince.

Leg strength is nowhere near as important as aerobic efficiency except
on very short climbs. Before transforming your body to make yourself
into a climber you might try the track and see if the explosive short
distance events suit you better.

--
Dave...

Kaiser Sose wrote:
Guys,
My two sporting interests are weight training and cycling - mutually
strange I know since muscle weight is so heavy. I can bench 130kg and
squat the same. I weigh 15.5 -16 stone (not a fatty though) and have a
tendency to get dropped on climbs. I can sprint quite well though. It's
a bit of a conundrum since there are some quite big riders about - Boonen,
Padrnos, even Indurain was a big lad. Lance and Ullrich are no
lightweights either.

Anyone here have the same problem? Anyone had to drop a lot of muscle
mass to become a better rider? Anyone didn't want to lose too much muscle
and had to fight with this problem? (the "fear of smallness" as Arnold
Swarzenegger once put it).

Anyone point me to some reading?

--
===============================================
Thanks, Steve
"short cuts make for long delays"

Use ROT13 for my email:


That's alot of muscle to be hauling up hills and the wrong sort of
muscle group for hill climbs (unless they're short ones). All that
fast-twitch muscle is great for squating 260lbs for 10X3 reps (I'm
guessing here) and for sprinting about half a mile, but of little use
in climbing. I've a few friends your size who ride and compete, but
they're riding on the track at the velodrome and putting in 12 second
200m sprints. If you're aleady a strong rider and a good sprinter you
should try the track, your additional strength over the average cyclist
will be an advantage.

If you want to keep up with your skinny mates on the climbs you're
going to have to loose some of that muscle or change your riding
strategy. I have a riding buddy who is about 40 pounds lighter than me,
we're both around the same age, height and fitness levels, but he can
drop me on longer climbs everytime. I have the strength and power to
keep up with him for a while, but as the climb progesses the extra
effort I need to put in becomes too much and I have to drop to a lower
gear. So our riding strategy when we ride together is not to try and
ride togther, we both ride to our strengths, but attempting to arrive
at planned rest stops or ride end at the same time. Over a 40 mile
course we usually finish within 10 mins of each other.

laters,

Marz

"Kaiser Sose" wrote in message
...
Guys,
My two sporting interests are weight training and cycling - mutually
strange I know since muscle weight is so heavy. I can bench 130kg and
squat the same. I weigh 15.5 -16 stone (not a fatty though) and have a
tendency to get dropped on climbs. I can sprint quite well though. It's
a bit of a conundrum since there are some quite big riders about - Boonen,
Padrnos, even Indurain was a big lad. Lance and Ullrich are no
lightweights either.

Anyone here have the same problem? Anyone had to drop a lot of muscle
mass to become a better rider? Anyone didn't want to lose too much muscle
and had to fight with this problem? (the "fear of smallness" as Arnold
Swarzenegger once put it).

Anyone point me to some reading?

--
===============================================
Thanks, Steve
"short cuts make for long delays"

Use ROT13 for my email:

Steve
I'd agree with Adam, if you bench & squat the same Kg, then I'd say there's
something way out of kilter. I can't bench 100kg but I can squat 200kg
without fear. Generally, you should squat way more unless you are doing a
serious Ahnold effoer on you chest. You sound a beefy guy, so am I, but even
then I'd suggest concentrating on getting the leg fitness up, using higher
reps. Course you can sprint, as you have sprinter's legs! Your body mass is
heavy - how tall are you?

Rob Morley wrote:
In article , Kaiser Sose
says...
Guys,
My two sporting interests are weight training and cycling - mutually
strange I know since muscle weight is so heavy. I can bench 130kg and
squat the same. I weigh 15.5 -16 stone (not a fatty though) and have a
tendency to get dropped on climbs. I can sprint quite well though. It's
a bit of a conundrum since there are some quite big riders about - Boonen,
Padrnos, even Indurain was a big lad. Lance and Ullrich are no
lightweights either.

Anyone here have the same problem? Anyone had to drop a lot of muscle
mass to become a better rider? Anyone didn't want to lose too much muscle
and had to fight with this problem? (the "fear of smallness" as Arnold
Swarzenegger once put it).

I used to train with a chap who was a former powerlifter, and he totally
transformed his body shape when he switched to cycling. No matter how
lean you are you're putting yourself at a disadvantage carrying too much
of the wrong sort of muscle. Even when I was race fit and 13 stone I
could never really compete with the skinny lads on a big climb unless
there was a strong headwind, although I was one of the fastest on a
flattish course.

I've got the impression from reading web sites on the topic that
slow-twitch muscle (which you use for endurance) is quite a bit
smaller for the same strength compared to fast-twitch muscle (which
you use for sprinting). So if overall body weight is a factor in your
efficiency then you should be careful to avoid training regimes which
build fast-twitch muscle.

Because most body building wants impressively big looking muscles,
most gym training regimes are biassed towards developing fast-twitch
muscle bulk rather than slow-twitch muscle efficiency.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]