Cardio that doesn’t build leg muscle

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

webbo said:
Ballsofcottonwool said:
Continuous climbing on an autobelay or a very understanding climbing partner. Climb up and down and pick a grade low enough that you never get pumped (2 number grades below my onsight was about right for me)

My experience is that cycling doesn't build leg muscle if done at a high cadence 90rpm+
So how come professional cyclists have big legs as they will be pedalling at 90 rpm+.

They don't necessarily. Endurance climbers, such as Froome, Wiggins, G, Quintana, Contador, all have skinny legs. You don't get big bulky legs from just cycling, you have to do a lot of hard, short power building efforts to build leg muscles. I started cycling about a year ago, and became very keen on hard efforts on hills. I have certainly seen some development in the shape of my legs, but not really in the size, and I haven't put on any weight at all. For reference, I average 100-200km and 1200-2000m vertical per week.

Cycling is a fantastic way of getting fitter without building leg muscles. Look at what people have to do at the gym to build legs. Unless what you are doing is roughly equivalent in intensity and duration to that (v high intensity, v low duration), then you are unlikely to be in the process of turning into Chris Hoy.
 
Ballsofcottonwool said:
webbo said:
So how come professional cyclists have big legs as they will be pedalling at 90 rpm+.

Some road professionals will have big legs, puncheurs, sprinters because they spend hours in the gym lifting huge weights to maximise peak power.

A pro riding 450w at 100rpm on 170mm cranks is only applying 252Nm of Torque, thats equivalent to a 26kg single leg press

An amateur like me spinning at an easy endurance pace of 200w at 90rpm on 170mm cranks is only applying 125Nm, thats equivalent to a 13kg single leg press

If you think those kinds of loads build muscles you might want to reconsider your training for climbing.
Well my quads are bigger riding 3 times a week than they were running 3 times a week. However I guess it must that I’m on 172.5 cranks at 90rpm plus. ;)
 
webbo said:
Ballsofcottonwool said:
webbo said:
So how come professional cyclists have big legs as they will be pedalling at 90 rpm+.

Some road professionals will have big legs, puncheurs, sprinters because they spend hours in the gym lifting huge weights to maximise peak power.

A pro riding 450w at 100rpm on 170mm cranks is only applying 252Nm of Torque, thats equivalent to a 26kg single leg press

An amateur like me spinning at an easy endurance pace of 200w at 90rpm on 170mm cranks is only applying 125Nm, thats equivalent to a 13kg single leg press

If you think those kinds of loads build muscles you might want to reconsider your training for climbing.
Well my quads are bigger riding 3 times a week than they were running 3 times a week. However I guess it must that I’m on 172.5 cranks at 90rpm plus. ;)

If you've gained noticeable leg muscle from low intensity cycling (and I trust that you have), it suggests your legs were under-developed and the increase in muscle might actually be a benefit to your climbing? Of course, we don't want very big, overly strong legs, but there must be an optimal size and I don't think that is as small (and thus weak) as possible.

My legs are probably over-developed and no amount of low intensity cycling would add muscle to them.
 
Alternatively, don't worry about it, apparently weight doesn't matter for climbing, heavy leg muscles are fine, strong legs are the most important thing for steep burly climbing.... ....although then you might have to go on really grim diet to start dropping the kilos for some reason :blink:
 
Fiend said:
Alternatively, don't worry about it, apparently weight doesn't matter for climbing, heavy leg muscles are fine, strong legs are the most important thing for steep burly climbing.... ....although then you might have to go on really grim diet to start dropping the kilos for some reason :blink:

OK, so this is entirely a dig at me, based on two separate posts made in different threads maybe a month or more apart?

First thread was discussing whether leg strength was important. At the time we'd just had 2 strong young boulderers purposely put on several kilograms to get up that 8C in Cornwall. I offered an opinion that leg strength helps me on most (not all) of the boulders I climb (note: that's not the same thing as overly-big, overly-strong legs). I still stand by that and it's based on my personal experience of mostly focusing on steep boulders where there's plenty of knee bars, heels, toe hooks, etc. Others disagreed based on their unique experience. No one seemed to have any hurt feelings, other than you.

In this week's power club I mentioned losing 2kg over the week in an attempt to sneak a power endurance project over the line that I'm really close to doing. I intend to lose no muscle or strength, it's a temporary weight cut to peak for one problem. These two posts are not contradictory at all. Your comment just makes you look like a knob.

Edit: forgot the smiley - ;D still love you Fiend
 
AMorris said:
You don't get big bulky legs from just cycling, you have to do a lot of hard, short power building efforts to build leg muscles.

In my experience this varies person to person. I have a friend who cycles in and out of biking lots (pun not intended), and swears it doesn't make his legs bigger. I've had 2 periods of biking lots (for commuting) in my life and in both cases it made my legs bigger.

Optimum leg size, obviously, depends on what you're doing and will no doubt be bigger for compy jumps and prow mauling than for onsighting 40m fingery routes.
 
I would tend to agree with Barrows that there is a strong genetic component at play. Whenever I do a significant volume of MTB or steep approaches I do put on a kilo or two of muscle mass.

However I think it's important to look at these things in context and consider why this would even be considered an issue. The easiest way to consider it is that your body (genetics obviously affecting the extent) will respond to the load you put on it. With this in mind it seems an odd goal to want to do a fair amount of cardio if you don't want to see improvements - which sometimes does mean adding a moderate amount of mass to sustain your efforts.

Its also very common to see climbers with varying degrees of knee injuries from heel hooking or similar torsional loading which likely could have been prevented if they had a more robust level of conditioning in the legs. Not being able to hold a heelhook with the muscles engaged is a common way of damaging the soft tissues around the knee in my experience.

If you're keen to avoid putting on mass and also generally avoid a high impact on your climbing then it's best to avoid the HIIT style cardio as this has a higher impact due to the increased intensity. Instead opting for low intensity steady state cardio i.e. long trail runs at a moderate pace and sustained low heart rate would be a better choice.

All that being said I would say it's important to recognise that a higher volume of cardio is always going to have an impact on your climbing ability simply by eating into your available recovery capacity so if you're looking to make climbing gains it's definitely a good idea to dial back the cardio volume to allow for better recovery.

Hope this adds value :)
 
I'd like to hear from the OP how much running they were doing before that resulted in losing considerable leg muscle mass, and if it was offset by any weight gain elsewhere, or did they cut calorie intake accordingly.
 
If I had Mo Farah’s legs I reckon I’d be all over Font 8b.
 
abarro81 said:
In my experience this varies person to person. I have a friend who cycles in and out of biking lots (pun not intended), and swears it doesn't make his legs bigger. I've had 2 periods of biking lots (for commuting) in my life and in both cases it made my legs bigger.

I'm hardly the type that puts on muscle easily but my legs are now bigger to the point my jeans* are getting a bit tight.

*I have to buy child's Levis that are designed for 12-15yr olds.
 
MischaHY said:
I would tend to agree with Barrows that there is a strong genetic component at play. Whenever I do a significant volume of MTB or steep approaches I do put on a kilo or two of muscle mass.

This is me. I really should have been a mountaineer. I put on leg muscle, especially calf muscle, just thinking about walking up hills, I'm almost identical to my Dad in this respect and we were both handy middle-distance runners in our youth. Plenty of science to support this anecdote.

MischaHY said:
All that being said I would say it's important to recognise that a higher volume of cardio is always going to have an impact on your climbing ability simply by eating into your available recovery capacity so if you're looking to make climbing gains it's definitely a good idea to dial back the cardio volume to allow for better recovery.

Particularly if you are using your arms for this: you're unlikely to recover optimally from climbing training if you're working your arms sufficiently to have a meaningful cardio. effect.

My question to the OP is what do you hope to gain from doing 'cardio.'?
 
T_B said:
If I had Mo Farah’s legs I reckon I’d be all over Font 8b.
You’d find it harder to stay upright in a moderate to strong breeze though Tom. And you’d have to get someone else to carry your pads.
 
MischaHY said:
Whenever I do a significant volume of MTB or steep approaches I do put on a kilo or two of muscle mass.

2kg is a lot of muscle! I'd bet money that this is predominantly increased glycogen and water retention within the muscle due to it being used, rather than actual muscle tissue. I rarely deadlift anymore, but when I do, like clockwork, I will be at least 1kg heavier the next day and it will gradually drop off over the next week. I definitely didn't gain 1kg of muscle from 1 training session!

The distinction between glycogen/water retention and muscle mass probably doesn't matter for climbing performance - extra weight without the increased sport specific strength is not going to help, but upon cessation of the MTB and steep approaches the gained weight should disappear fairly quickly? If it were actual muscle tissue it would stick around much longer.
 
abarro81 said:
AMorris said:
You don't get big bulky legs from just cycling, you have to do a lot of hard, short power building efforts to build leg muscles.

In my experience this varies person to person. I have a friend who cycles in and out of biking lots (pun not intended), and swears it doesn't make his legs bigger. I've had 2 periods of biking lots (for commuting) in my life and in both cases it made my legs bigger.

Optimum leg size, obviously, depends on what you're doing and will no doubt be bigger for compy jumps and prow mauling than for onsighting 40m fingery routes.

A valid point, it's likely there is a 'genetic'* element to this (as there often is). I used the term 'bulky' for a reason. Your legs may have got bigger, but would you consider them bulky? I find it very hard to believe that the majority of people respond so drastically from commuting that they put on significant amounts of muscle mass in their legs. The implication behind the line of reasoning I was challenging was "if you cycle, you will end up with bulky legs which will be detrimental to climbing performance", which is simply untrue. Pro cyclists (sprinters and puncheurs particularly) have bulky legs because they focus a lot of their training in the top power zones. I would say that it is far within the realms of possibility to use cycling as a means to improve cardio without gaining muscle mass in the legs, particularly if you stick to zones 1-3.

* I put genetic in inverted commas, because nowadays it is used as a catch all term meaning "physiological variation not easily explained". It is not so easy to actually establish whether there are genetic markers associated with this kind of phenomenon, in most cases. Much of the time this is quickly followed by people discussing how they, as kids/adolescents, pursued an activity which specifically taxed that system, meaning it could just as easily be argued to be an acquired epigenetic trait.
 
Liamhutch89 said:
MischaHY said:
Whenever I do a significant volume of MTB or steep approaches I do put on a kilo or two of muscle mass.

2kg is a lot of muscle! I'd bet money that this is predominantly increased glycogen and water retention within the muscle due to it being used, rather than actual muscle tissue. I rarely deadlift anymore, but when I do, like clockwork, I will be at least 1kg heavier the next day and it will gradually drop off over the next week. I definitely didn't gain 1kg of muscle from 1 training session!

The distinction between glycogen/water retention and muscle mass probably doesn't matter for climbing performance - extra weight without the increased sport specific strength is not going to help, but upon cessation of the MTB and steep approaches the gained weight should disappear fairly quickly? If it were actual muscle tissue it would stick around much longer.

Nah it's accompanied by clear shift in mass and definition on legs and backside. Nice for the girly but annoying for climbing!

When I stopped mountain biking regularly I initially dropped noticeable mass but it was quickly replaced by back muscle instead.
I've a similar build to you i.e. 173 and 78-79kg. I add mass easily to my legs but not to my upper body, it's quite bizarre.
 
Really interesting to see the debate.

Caving is a good one as I used to do a lot of underground stuff before realising I wanted to climb up not under a crag.

I thought cycling would definitely build leg muscle so it’s interesting to reassess that.

I figured short repeated sprints, like HIIT, would be good for ensuring good cardiovascular health without building big muscles that endurance running might produce, so it’s interesting to see the points of view on that.

Oh and the points on heel hooking - definitely - this is something I’ve wondered about. I always walk away from sessioning problems with heels feeling like I almost popped a knee and hamstrings feeling wrecked. I might give that some more thought.

Thanks guys.
 
Bit confused how many times high intensity is being suggested over low.
Comparing Mo Farah to Usain Bolt, it's pretty clear who has the legs we're looking for! Obviously Bolt also may gain some of that muscle in the gym, but there's surely no way running long distances makes your legs even bigger. Middle and long distance athletes routinely run 100/120 mile weeks, that volume doesn't seem to cause them to have huge legs.
The same argument would apply to track vs road cyclists. If we're looking to boil it down to as simple as possible: choose a sport where people don't have big legs, then train like them :shrug:

I will add something that may appear contradictory but I believe isn't - I've been doing lots of hill + distance running this year and I've noticed my thighs have grown from already reasonably large (in comparison to total body mass) to even larger. I get the impression that's due to the hills, which feel like more of a high intensity work out than just long distances, but it does surprise me to see people like Finlay Wild who don't have noticeably large thighs. Maybe that's just due to lower body fat percentage making him look slim all round? There is also the genetic/unexplained variation which may well be very consequential as to what people choose for slim leg cardio. Maybe I'm naturally quick to build muscle mass from anything that works my legs, so if I really wanted to avoid this, I'd need to go for one of these other options. But I like the hills, so not going to stop!
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top