Upper-body training for cyclists

[Kwibus]

Re: Re:

If only one of them figured it out I'm sure he would win everything.

Peter Sagan, the World Champion, a guy who's won the green jersey at the Tour de France every single year since 2012, does crunches and trains his upper body. Hell, he even has a type of crunch named after him!

Therefore, upper-body training is effective even by your own standards.

Nevermind all those trainers and managers. They know nothing about cycling, soooo stupid!

Woo and quackery are still common among elite sport trainers. E.g., cyclists sticking sell-o-tape on their noses, wearing kinesio tape when not recovering from an injury, ozone treatment, the notorious "Cadel Evans healing procedure", ultraviolet blood irradiation... not to mention the infamous field of homeopathy.

That's why some of them cling on to the "Thou shalt not train your upper body" mantra despite it being 100% wrong.

Sagan is an exceptional athlete to start with. You can't compare him to usual cyclists. Besides Sagan will never win a GT because of all those muscles he's carrying.
Most teams do a lot of core training. Riis was famous for his fixation on core training.
It's just useless to look like a pumped gym guy (who mostly do it for the looks anyways, as it has pretty much no value besides looks).

 

[Kwibus]

God why am I even posting in this thread.

This is the one of the most hilarious threads on this forum ever.

Oh and guys! He's a rationalist

 

[RedheadDane]

I just still don't understand why you seem so worked up about this. It's not like they're hurting or offending you by being skinny.

 

[Kwibus]

Well his nickname and profile picture do suggest something about his personality though.

 

[carton]

Fun thread.

But too much Armstrong (though his name is gold -genetics, man). I don't think it's an Armstrong, thing. Old-timers like Merckx, Anquetil, Indurain and even LeMond and Hinault seemed reasonably fit overall. Moreover, most of the recent smaller GC guys, Porte, Uran, Evans, even Quintana to an extent seem reasonably stocky (Chaves is an exception). While there's always been beanpoles in cycling, think Bahamontes, they seem to be taking over. It's an interesting development.

For us punters, both guys and gals, I do think there's some value to being fairly fit overall -not just at cycling. And it might be a telltale sign of some vestigial machismo, but I do think if you're a reasonably young and healthy guy there's some dignity to being able to open your own twist-off beer. In as much as there can be dignity in drinking twist-off beer. I would find it a twinge humiliating to have to ask "honey, thanks for the Blue Moon, but can you help me open it?" But as with anything, YMMV.

Do carry on.

 

[Gigs_98]

Why is it so hard to understand that a sprinter needs to train differently than a climber. Or do you really think it would be clever for Quintana to have the body of Cippolini.

if 20 out of 20 people come tell you, that YOU are 100% wrong, then who do you think is right?

It's not a popularity contest —as a rationalist, I like to test my theories with scientific observations. And this is what the observations say:

Lance Armstrong, strong and ripped, as shown in the photos above:

*7 Tours de France (world record) with many stages
*2 Dauphiné Libéré
*1 Tour de Suissé
*1 World Championship
*1 Clásica de San Sebastián
*1 Flèche Wallonne

(I know, Clinic stuff, but this is what he won on the road)

Peter Sagan, who trains his upper body so much he has a type of crunch named after him:

*1 World Championship
*1 Tour of Flanders
*2 Gent-Wevelgem
*1 GP de Montréal
*4 consecutive Tour de France green jerseys
*4 Tour de France stages
*4 Vuelta a España stages
*1 Tour of California
*1 Tour of Poland

So I assume these are the only riders who have won races in the last years, and all the skinny guys are completely unsuccessful.

 

[carolina]

Cyclists like froome or contador don't have a lot of muscle in the upper body, but they also don't have a lot of muscle in the legs. They probabily can't even squat their bodyweigth.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Cyclists like froome or contador don't have a lot of muscle in the upper body, but they also don't have a lot of muscle in the legs. They probabily can't even squat their bodyweigth.

Froome and Contador's legs may not seem that big but that's because they have no fat in them. All their legs are incredibly defined and what you see there is muscle, not much else. They have more muscles in their legs than the average person, well Froome less than Contador. Nibali for one has large legs, as you can see from the previous page. And of course they can squat their bodyweight. They weigh like 60kg.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

It's only fair to let him know. I'm passing near Madrid tomorrow; I should probably pop in to give Contador the head's up that he could have won 15 GTs by now, if only he'd trained to be able to bench 100kg.

At least one more —with stronger forearms, he would've managed to hold onto his handlebar in the stage to Planche des Belles Filles in 2014.

Perhaps he'll be able to get another five years out of his career with this crazy new training method. If not, at least he can go and compare pecs with Ronaldo.

Ronaldo is yet more proof of the importance of training your entire body no matter what sport you practise. He plays football. He kicks the ball with his legs, he runs with his legs, he jumps with his legs... but he has an awesome upper body. And, like Armstrong in his heyday, he's arguably one of the best players of his generation.

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re: Re:

It's only fair to let him know. I'm passing near Madrid tomorrow; I should probably pop in to give Contador the head's up that he could have won 15 GTs by now, if only he'd trained to be able to bench 100kg.

At least one more —with stronger forearms, he would've managed to hold onto his handlebar in the stage to Planche des Belles Filles in 2014.

Perhaps he'll be able to get another five years out of his career with this crazy new training method. If not, at least he can go and compare pecs with Ronaldo.

Ronaldo is yet more proof of the importance of training your entire body no matter what sport you practise. He plays football. He kicks the ball with his legs, he runs with his legs, he jumps with his legs... but he has an awesome upper body. And, like Armstrong in his heyday, he's arguably one of the best players of his generation.

Coincidence? I think not.

And he uses his upper body directly in physical duels against his opponents whether dribling or positioning himself for corner-kicks. Most cyclists don't use their upper body that way, or do they? . God your comparisons are really hillarious If nothing else this is funny reading.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

It's only fair to let him know. I'm passing near Madrid tomorrow; I should probably pop in to give Contador the head's up that he could have won 15 GTs by now, if only he'd trained to be able to bench 100kg.

At least one more —with stronger forearms, he would've managed to hold onto his handlebar in the stage to Planche des Belles Filles in 2014.

Perhaps he'll be able to get another five years out of his career with this crazy new training method. If not, at least he can go and compare pecs with Ronaldo.

Ronaldo is yet more proof of the importance of training your entire body no matter what sport you practise. He plays football. He kicks the ball with his legs, he runs with his legs, he jumps with his legs... but he has an awesome upper body. And, like Armstrong in his heyday, he's arguably one of the best players of his generation.

Coincidence? I think not.

And he uses his upper body directly in physical duels against his opponents whether dribling or positioning himself for corner-kicks. Most cyclists don't use their upper body that way, or do they? . God your comparisons are really hillarious If nothing else this is funny reading.

When they do, they tend to get in trouble.

 

[carolina]

Re: Re:

Cyclists like froome or contador don't have a lot of muscle in the upper body, but they also don't have a lot of muscle in the legs. They probabily can't even squat their bodyweigth.

Froome and Contador's legs may not seem that big but that's because they have no fat in them. All their legs are incredibly defined and what you see there is muscle, not much else. They have more muscles in their legs than the average person, well Froome less than Contador. Nibali for one has large legs, as you can see from the previous page. And of course they can squat their bodyweight. They weigh like 60kg.

No they don't. They seem big because you're looking at pictures where they're wearing lycra and are around other cyclists. The legs look big because they have almost no fat.

Also, just because they weigth 60ish kilos, that doesn't mean they can squat that and I highly doubt they can do it for 10-15 reps. Guys like sagan or cancellara should be able to do it easily, but the GT leaders most probabily not. I remember reading an interview with froome and he said that he only did bodyweigth squats, which is very different from putting a barbell on your back with a couple of 20kg plates.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Cyclists like froome or contador don't have a lot of muscle in the upper body, but they also don't have a lot of muscle in the legs. They probabily can't even squat their bodyweigth.

Froome and Contador's legs may not seem that big but that's because they have no fat in them. All their legs are incredibly defined and what you see there is muscle, not much else. They have more muscles in their legs than the average person, well Froome less than Contador. Nibali for one has large legs, as you can see from the previous page. And of course they can squat their bodyweight. They weigh like 60kg.

No they don't. They seem big because you're looking at pictures where they're wearing lycra and are around other cyclists. The legs look big because they have almost no fat.

Also, just because they weigth 60ish kilos, that doesn't mean they can squat that and I highly doubt they can do it for 10-15 reps. Guys like sagan or cancellara should be able to do it easily, but the GT leaders most probabily not. I remember reading an interview with froome and he said that he only did bodyweigth squats, which is very different from putting a barbell on your back with a couple of 20kg plates.

I can squat my bodyweight (just) and tbh it's just Froome with scary skinny legs. And I thought you want bodyweight squats. But I still reckon they can squat their bodyweight, but not reps.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

Fun thread.

But too much Armstrong (though his name is gold -genetics, man). I don't think it's an Armstrong, thing. Old-timers like Merckx, Anquetil, Indurain and even LeMond and Hinault seemed reasonably fit overall. Moreover, most of the recent smaller GC guys, Porte, Uran, Evans, even Quintana to an extent seem reasonably stocky (Chaves is an exception). While there's always been beanpoles in cycling, think Bahamontes, they seem to be taking over. It's an interesting development.

For us punters, both guys and gals, I do think there's some value to being fairly fit overall -not just at cycling. And it might be a telltale sign of some vestigial machismo, but I do think if you're a reasonably young and healthy guy there's some dignity to being able to open your own twist-off beer. In as much as there can be dignity in drinking twist-off beer. I would find it a twinge humiliating to have to ask "honey, thanks for the Blue Moon, but can you help me open it?" But as with anything, YMMV.

Do carry on.

The beanpoles are taking over more because of developments in parcours design and team tactics rather than developments in rider physiology. Vicente Trueba was probably the first of the historical line of featherweight climbers, standing barely 1m50 and 55kg, but racing in the 1930s the surfaces of roads and the less controlled were such that he couldn't compete on the flat. There have been lots of flyweights over the years, but only the truly great ones of them - Charly Gaul, Federico Bahamontes, Lucien van Impe, José Manuel Fuente, Lucho Herrera et al - became the kind of legendary champions whose exploits will never be forgotten. When Lucho Herrera was racing against Hinault, there was often over 150km, close to 200km of time trialling, either individual or team, which benefited a more all-round rider who could put out the TT power, requiring a more powerful build than the frail, pint-sized grimpeurs. Also, especially at the Giro, adverse weather conditions would often mean that those climbers were more susceptible to illness and, when crashes ensued on the poorer quality roads than today, more likely to be injured (this tendency towards the smaller, bony riders to get injured more often continues to this day with people like Igor Antón). Only the truly legendary climbers could put together the kind of palmarès to go down in history forever, and that's why those guys named above are the ones we remember.

We probably have the 90s and early 2000s to thank for the current crop of scrawny climbers at the top as well as dieting (and yes, doping) fads that have meant the tendency now is for power riders to diet down to compete in the mountains rather than for climbers to bulk up for the time trials. The ability of a dominant time trialist to exercise total control of Grand Tour racing as Indurain did, with the gaps he could build up far in excess of those he would lose in the climbs, led to a reduction in distance raced contre-le-montre, and the simultaneous development of a controlling template for the stage racers (developed by Banesto and perfected by US Postal) and the sprint train technique (perfected by Saeco) meant we were looking at more riders being protected in the pack for longer, and the pack holding together for longer, producing fewer time gaps created in the flat stages and the emergence of more 'pure' sprinters in the modern sense making it harder for late attacks to stay away, meant that being strong enough to cope with the jostling in the bunch in tough rouleur stages became less important for stage racers.

I would argue the case of this being less the case for one-day racers since the likes of Cancellara are hardly eating disorder city, but in the selective posting of the likes of Brajkovic, Feillu, Froome and Rasmussen it is very clear the type of rider that's being targeted here, and making a comparison of their palmarès to Peter Sagan's to make a call on body type is wholly disingenuous, akin to criticizing a defensive lineman at the combine for not running as quick a 40 as a wide receiver as evidence they need to change their body shape.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

Lance Armstrong, strong and ripped, as shown in the photos above:

*7 Tours de France (world record) with many stages
*2 Dauphiné Libéré
*1 Tour de Suissé
*1 World Championship
*1 Clásica de San Sebastián
*1 Flèche Wallonne

(I know, Clinic stuff, but this is what he won on the road)

Hey rationalist, I guess you missed the part where a photo was shown of skinny Lance when he was actually a pro-cyclist - not your photo from his middle-age-and-needing-to-compensate-for-aging period.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

Hey rationalist, I guess you missed the part where a photo was shown of skinny Lance when he was actually a pro-cyclist - not your photo from his middle-age-and-needing-to-compensate-for-aging period.

Are Sagan and Förstemann middle-aged and needing to compensate too?

 

[CheckMyPecs]

The guy with the largest biceps in the peloton is... John Degenkolb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lXJe9kX190

Those big boys don't seem to have bothered him when he won 10 Vuelta stages, 1 Giro stage, Milan-San Remo, Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Tours, Vattenfall Cyclassics and Gent-Wevelgem.

Armstrong, Sagan, Förstemann, Degenkolb... there are too many examples to write it off as mere coincidence.

 

[Red Rick]

Those arms didn't help Degenkolb in that training crash couple of months ago did they?

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

Those arms didn't help Degenkolb in that training crash couple of months ago did they?

No, because that was a 1,000 kg car slamming into the Giant riders, but his big arms have probably saved him from quite a few regular falls during his career.

 

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

Mods, please nuke this thread into oblivion!

Why? You can't censor a thread just because you don't agree with the argument it presents.

The point I am making is supported by reliable sources such as this one:

Weight! Don’t Forget Your Upper Body

Generally speaking, cyclists have great legs and butts. That’s from the hours and hours of riding we do. However, have you looked in the mirror at your upper body lately? Ever notice that above your waist, your muscles (what muscles you have) aren’t as defined or impressive as your legs? Or have you seen the Tour riders take off their jersies? They look like emaciated prisoners of war. Cyclists like riding and tend not to like training in the gym. We are afraid if we train our upper bodies, we will gain unwanted weight, albeit muscle, that we have to lug up hills. In this article, the last in my series on strength training, I will lay out some reasons why you should consider strengthening your upper body and core muscles.

When we push on the pedals, there is a transmission of power through our feet to the pedals. However, there must be something for your legs to push off of when generating power to the pedals, and that something is your core. Your core includes the muscles of the pelvis, abs, lower back and diaphragm. The force transmitted to the pedals must be counteracted by transmission of that power through your core to your arms to the handlebars. Have you ever tried pushing hard on the pedals without holding on to the handlebars? A strong core, shoulders and arms will help transmit that power efficiently with little loss. If weak, you will lose some power through an unstable core. I’m sure you’ve seen riders who are moving all over their bikes. Upper body motion is wasted power.

Although we tend to think most about our legs getting tired when we ride, your upper body will also get fatigued on long rides. You’ve probably noticed your back, shoulder or arms getting tired on long rides. The upper body uses a fairly static position when we ride on the road and can get tired and sore from holding itself that way. A toned upper body will help resist fatigue on long rides.

http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/articleCU5.html

Note that this is not just a generic fitness website —it specialises in training cyclists.

Of course you should work on your core strength and core stability, but a skinny cyclist won't exactly get a massive upper body just by working a bit on his core strength and doing stuff like planks.
Being bigger and having more mass makes sense for a cobbles specialist, not for a climber. That said, some of those super skinny, tall riders are probably taking it a bit too far, there has to be a point of diminishing returns when you're too skinny you can become a bit too fragile, it's easier to get sick and you should suffer more in the cold. One could also loose some and his power and suffer too much on the flat before the climbs, but that shouldn't be a problem for a top pro (there are a few guys like that, Formolo for example put on a few kg of weight when he turned pro because he was suffering too much on the flat stages).
I just don't think that PRR is the right place for this thread, the Form and Fitness forum would probably a better place.

 

[LaFlorecita]

This thread !

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

It's only fair to let him know. I'm passing near Madrid tomorrow; I should probably pop in to give Contador the head's up that he could have won 15 GTs by now, if only he'd trained to be able to bench 100kg.

At least one more —with stronger forearms, he would've managed to hold onto his handlebar in the stage to Planche des Belles Filles in 2014.

Perhaps he'll be able to get another five years out of his career with this crazy new training method. If not, at least he can go and compare pecs with Ronaldo.

Ronaldo is yet more proof of the importance of training your entire body no matter what sport you practise. He plays football. He kicks the ball with his legs, he runs with his legs, he jumps with his legs... but he has an awesome upper body. And, like Armstrong in his heyday, he's arguably one of the best players of his generation.

Coincidence? I think not.

Your posts have gone beyond comical (not in a good way) to just plain ludicrous. To the bolded: As if his handlebars were just wrenched from his supposedly puny grasp and the solution to this was for him to have hit the weights? You should really be ashamed of yourself for this thread and your posts.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

Of course you should work on your core strength and core stability, but a skinny cyclist won't exactly get a massive upper body just by working a bit on his core strength and doing stuff like planks.
Being bigger and having more mass makes sense for a cobbles specialist, not for a climber. That said, some of those super skinny, tall riders are probably taking it a bit too far, there has to be a point of diminishing returns when you're too skinny you can become a bit too fragile, it's easier to get sick and you should suffer more in the cold. One could also loose some and his power and suffer too much on the flat before the climbs, but that shouldn't be a problem for a top pro (there are a few guys like that, Formolo for example put on a few kg of weight when he turned pro because he was suffering too much on the flat stages).

I think we both agree on the basic fact —that having a big upper body, and particularly a strong core, is beneficial. Where we disagree is when you say it only applies to classics riders and particularly skinny climbers, whereas I say it applies to all pro riders?

Is that correct?

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

Your posts have gone beyond comical (not in a good way) to just plain ludicrous. To the bolded: As if his handlebars were just wrenched from his supposedly puny grasp and the solution to this was for him to have hit the weights? You should really be ashamed of yourself for this thread and your posts.

My dear Angliru, should Tom Goom and David Bradford from Cycling Weekly be ashamed of themselves too? Because they say exactly the same as I do.

What about the core 
and upper body?

Muscles in the trunk, shoulders, arms and hands are important to stabilise the bike and provide a firm base from which leg muscles can produce power (So et al. 2005). Most research in cyclists has focused on strengthening the quads. Some have done this using just one exercise, such as the half-squat or resisted knee extension.

With multiple muscles contributing to the cycling action, it’s likely to be more effective with a more comprehensive programme that incorporates all major muscles involved. The main focus should be on lower limb, but strengthening the arms and trunk is likely to be of benefit as well. For optimal results, aim to train two to three days per week using moderate to heavy weights.

Verdict: Strength training has multiple benefits and can improve certain aspects of performance and reduce injury risk. That said, it isn’t a priority for everyone and you can get by without it. If you have the time and inclination, give it a go!

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/fitness/training/strength-training-really-necessary-125222

 

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

Of course you should work on your core strength and core stability, but a skinny cyclist won't exactly get a massive upper body just by working a bit on his core strength and doing stuff like planks.
Being bigger and having more mass makes sense for a cobbles specialist, not for a climber. That said, some of those super skinny, tall riders are probably taking it a bit too far, there has to be a point of diminishing returns when you're too skinny you can become a bit too fragile, it's easier to get sick and you should suffer more in the cold. One could also loose some and his power and suffer too much on the flat before the climbs, but that shouldn't be a problem for a top pro (there are a few guys like that, Formolo for example put on a few kg of weight when he turned pro because he was suffering too much on the flat stages).

I think we both agree on the basic fact —that having a big upper body, and particularly a strong core, is beneficial. Where we disagree is when you say it only applies to classics riders and particularly skinny climbers, whereas I say it applies to all pro riders?
Is that correct?

Correct, I don't think that climbers really benefit from building a massive upper body, but working a bit on your core strength is always a good thing. You should do something to prevent muscular dysbalance, but a basic workout won't give you a big upper body, especially if you are a professional cyclist who burns huge amounts of calories durning training.