UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: boxmonkey on September 20, 2022, 02:23:10 pm
-
Over the last couple of years, I’ve dropped weight by losing leg muscle. I achieved this mainly by stopping running on a regular basis. However this means that outside my core fingerboard training, I’m not doing any activity that substantially raises heart rate. Obviously fingerboarding isn’t particularly aerobic
I just wondered how others addressed this? What are best activities for getting blood pumping and heart racing without building leg muscle. I obviously don’t want to build a load of muscles that’s not functional for climbing.
-
skipping?? - Its bloody knackering.
-
HIIT type stuff will get your heart going...
Dare I say Crossfit? :sick:
-
Swimming? Handbike?
-
Bouldering 4x4's? It's climbing specific HIIT that will help with ancap.
-
Paddleboarding. Nails the core too.
-
Cross country skiing! Not practical unless you live in the subarctic or among high flat mountains, but if you are, nothing beats it for cardio for climbers.
I agree that somewhat intense climbing for longer periods can raise the pulse and somewhat challenge the cardiorespiratory system somewhat... but who can do training like that for 150 min every week? Week in week out during the year?
I am pretty sure that I am not getting enough cardio during periods when I am climbing on crags with short approaches, or not at all outdoors, and drive to work etc. It worries me somewhat actually.
-
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+
-
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+.
-
Interval running, e.g. 1 min flat out, 30s walk, 30s jog, repeat x8 is a great 20 min workout I've been doing recently.
-
I think swimming is the ultimate cardio exercise :great:
-
I am pretty sure that I am not getting enough cardio during periods when I am climbing on crags with short approaches, or not at all outdoors, and drive to work etc. It worries me somewhat actually.
Do you worry for health concerns or maintaining fitness?
The minimum amount of exercise to reduce your all cause mortality by as much as possible is not that much. Doing more may actually increase mortality! (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4451435/)
-
curve ball but Caving? All body work out, and bonus of being interesting in its own right. Or kayaking?
Possibly not feasible depending on location/time availability.
-
:shag:?
-
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.
-
I think swimming is the ultimate cardio exercise :great:
Fucks your skin though. Well, fucks mine.
-
So how come professional cyclists have big legs as they will be pedalling at 90 rpm+.
Have you seen Bradley wiggins legs.. they're like bean poles. :shrug:
-
likewise most long distance runners. I now run about 800 - 1000 km a year, and my legs are barely any different in size from when I used to run zero km a year.
-
Whatever you you, don't go on big expeds! You end up with massive legs, a teeny arms and usually a small pot belly after eating everything in sight for a week on return.
-
A T-Rex then...
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
prow mauling, great phrase
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.'?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Kilian Jornet doesn't either, must be genetic predisposition you are (un)lucky!
-
I suspect there's a diet element too
-
I suspect there's a diet element too
This. You don't gain weight (beyond normal fluctuations) without eating in an energy surplus. Where else can the weight come from?
Do heavy squats and deadlifts twice a week while eating at maintenance and, if you're relatively untrained, you will gain muscle and lose fat at the same time whilst remaining at a similar weight. This is called recomping in fitness circles.
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.
Increased glycogen and water retention would still look like added mass and definition. I've got a couple of mates who compete in bodybuilding and after dieting down for a competition they initially look flat, but 1 day of slamming carbs to peak for the show and they will gain as much as 5kg! The muscles fill out while still looking chiseled and I'm told that getting this process right can be the difference between first and last place.
Muscle tissue gain isn't quick. Even an 18 year old who is a complete newbie couldn't expect to gain much more than 2kg of muscle in 3 months after following a strict weightlifting routine and eating in a calorie surplus (based on most research showing muscle gain in the first year of training tops out around 10kg for top tier genetics, and much less in subsequent years).
-
choose a sport where people don't have big legs, then train like them
I choose climbing.
-
Doesn’t this all depend upon your physiological starting point?
Eg. If you’ve never really done any cycling/running in your youth/the past then you are going to develop new muscle ability to account for that - and hence some bulk.. (non?). Whereas if as a youth/young adult you did loads of running/cycling/football/rugby (whatever) then started climbing… if you go back to the other sports again you already have a base of muscle mass so growth won’t seem so great.
Don’t forget that Mo and Bradley have stick thin upper bodies too - so in power to weight terms they don’t need big legs to move them.
-
In regard to Wiggins as a track rider he was heavier and carried more muscle. When he targeted the tour he lost weight including a significant amount of upper body muscle.
-
And all of those guys are on pretty extreme diets / training plans/ supplements / unbanned drugs (TUEs) etc.... Maybe not a great reference!
-
I suspect there's a diet element too
This. You don't gain weight (beyond normal fluctuations) without eating in an energy surplus. Where else can the weight come from?
Do heavy squats and deadlifts twice a week while eating at maintenance and, if you're relatively untrained, you will gain muscle and lose fat at the same time whilst remaining at a similar weight. This is called recomping in fitness circles.
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.
Increased glycogen and water retention would still look like added mass and definition. I've got a couple of mates who compete in bodybuilding and after dieting down for a competition they initially look flat, but 1 day of slamming carbs to peak for the show and they will gain as much as 5kg! The muscles fill out while still looking chiseled and I'm told that getting this process right can be the difference between first and last place.
Muscle tissue gain isn't quick. Even an 18 year old who is a complete newbie couldn't expect to gain much more than 2kg of muscle in 3 months after following a strict weightlifting routine and eating in a calorie surplus (based on most research showing muscle gain in the first year of training tops out around 10kg for top tier genetics, and much less in subsequent years).
Yes sorry I didn't specify a time frame. For context I was talking from a stand point of 5 years of consistent regular loading in that specific sport type, and then subsequently another 5 years of much reduced loading in that sport type. The shift in mass that I observed took at least 2 years to happen because I was still regularly loading the legs in climbing and mountaineering.
I agree with much of what you're saying and think your thinking is on point.
I think the real thing to keep this thread on track is just to really remember how individual we are and how individuality will affect your body composition and muscle mass. It's really so nuanced and hard to make even vaguely clear statements about the potential impact of a change in loading on an individual without really going quite deep into their training history and historical body composition.
Having recently dropped significant weight for the first time in my life I also recognise why this such a discussed topic. After reintroducing significant carbs I'm around 3-4kg lighter but literally gained a full font grade in flash. It's insane.
-
And all of those guys are on pretty extreme diets / training plans/ supplements / unbanned drugs (TUEs) etc.... Maybe not a great reference!
And climbers aren’t doing those things. Well maybe not unbanned drugs :worms:
-
And all of those guys are on pretty extreme diets / training plans/ supplements / unbanned drugs (TUEs) etc.... Maybe not a great reference!
I would say the opposite to be honest. If they can dedicate their every waking moment to building themselves into the ideal specimen of high-performance Grand Tour GC contender, yet still not end up with the massive legs which climbers seem to be terrified of receiving in the mail with their commuting bike, then I would say that means there is more to building leg mass than just cycling for aerobic gaenz.
There is a massive difference between cycling in the top power zones (thus building power and muscle) and cycling in the lower power zones for cardio. This is the difference between being able to hold a steady pace for hours, and a full-on sprint which you can only sustain for up to 30 seconds.
Don't anyone take my word for any of this, it's all out there for perusal. I am just regurgitating what I have read and personally experienced.
-
When I had my shoulder repaired I had 3 months off climbing and riding my bike outside. I used my turbo for and hour one day the walked between 8 and 15 miles the next day. I usually had one rest day a week. My thighs got bigger over this period. Prior to my operation I would do a couple of interval sessions and one 60 to 80 mile plus ride and climb 3 times.
However no matter what I do my calves never get any bigger and my left one is significantly smaller than the right since I ruptured my Achilles but not noticeably weaker.
-
If you stay in a calorie deficit/neutral you can do any kind of cycling you want, you won't put on overall mass, though you may develop increased lean mass and reduce body fat percentage. Probably in your thighs area, rather than calves. Your calves will never change.
I dunno if looking at top end cyclists is really useful for the impact of cycling as purely an accessory for an amateur climber. They are combining high levels of cycling with very specific diets and, yes, drug use in order to create a specific adaptation. That's not what the OP would be doing.
-
Those telling people that their legs somehow didn't get bigger are funny. I guess those of us that got bigger legs must all have a vivid imagination... Next you'll all be like Tyler and claim that those finger strength improvements from repeaters were all a dream.
Unlike the OP I don't find running makes my legs bigger, but I can believe that some people do
-
I dunno if looking at top end cyclists is really useful for the impact of cycling as purely an accessory for an amateur climber. They are combining high levels of cycling with very specific diets and, yes, drug use in order to create a specific adaptation. That's not what the OP would be doing.
The point I am trying, and apparently failing, to make is that people are using the term "cycling" like all kinds of cycling are the same. This is incorrect, and you just have to look at the difference between sprinters/track cyclists and endurance climbers to see this. It's interesting that you cite specific diets and drug use creating a specific adaptation, but not specific training regimes and types of cycling. Surely that is the most influential factor in the physiological development of an athlete? OP is looking to improve his cardio, and the kind of cycling used just to improve cardio is not the kind of cycling which generally leads to large, bulky legs. Muscular development? A bit yeah, but you won't suddenly start looking like Chris Hoy just by doing some Zone 2 for a few hours a week.
-
Sorry yeah you are totally right, they are using specific training for particular kinds of performance, my point is that what they are doing is so in depth, regimented and extreme that I don't think it's hugely relevant to doing some cycling for accessory cardio as a climber.
That said if you grow big legs at the slightest stimulus... swimming? Doing that thing with the two big ropes?
-
Those telling people that their legs somehow didn't get bigger are funny. I guess those of us that got bigger legs must all have a vivid imagination... Next you'll all be like Tyler and claim that those finger strength improvements from repeaters were all a dream.
Unlike the OP I don't find running makes my legs bigger, but I can believe that some people do
So you first say people saying their legs didn't get bigger are funny and have a vivid imagination, then one sentence later say your legs don't get bigger from running?
-
Sorry, poor phrasing, I was meaning person A telling person B that low-intensity cycling won't get you bigger legs when person B has already experienced it giving them bigger legs
-
Ah, gotcha.
-
This thread is hilarious.
-
Those telling people that their legs somehow didn't get bigger are funny. I guess those of us that got bigger legs must all have a vivid imagination... Next you'll all be like Tyler and claim that those finger strength improvements from repeaters were all a dream.
Unlike the OP I don't find running makes my legs bigger, but I can believe that some people do
I don't think anyone has told you your legs didn't get bigger, this is a strawman. Vivid imagination indeed!
The point I am making is not that you wont see some level of leg development, it's that you wont get bulky legs. I have already said there will probably be some development, but people seem to be terrified that by cycling you will build significant leg muscle to the detriment of your climbing. Please reread what I have previously posted about what the context of my point is. OP was asking for Cardio which doesn't build leg muscle. Low intensity cycling is a fantastic option which has worked for many people, and will not result in you looking like a t-rex. Lets stop pretending otherwise.
Sorry yeah you are totally right, they are using specific training for particular kinds of performance, my point is that what they are doing is so in depth, regimented and extreme that I don't think it's hugely relevant to doing some cycling for accessory cardio as a climber.
I am certainly not advocating for getting on a training and diet regime of a Grand Tour cyclist! Apart from anything else, that would result in injury. The point I am trying to make is that cycling does not necessarily mean you will end up with big legs (citing top level grand tour cyclists as an example of this), as seems to be the general line of reasoning for some people here. At low intensities, it can absolutely be used to build cardio without significant muscular growth.
-
I've got the same dilemma at the moment because an old heel fracture has flared up, possibly osteoarthritis, and I can't run any more (or even walk very well at the moment). When I was recovering from that operation, my calf in that leg shrank an insane amount. I started riding my bike on the turbo trainer before I could properly load it / walk on it, and eventually (obvs with gradually walking on it too) it got back to normal size.
Anyway, I'm slightly uneasy about doing too much cycling now, partly because it's easy to get sucked back into, but mainly because I've always found my legs get bigger. In the year I did the Marmotte, I was around 92kg in January and dropped to 80ish kg by July. I got skinnier but, as evidenced by various pairs of pre-stretchy era jeans, both my quads and calves got noticeably bigger. I wasn't doing any weights. I did mainly long rides, some low cadence hill repeats, and various turbo intervals (2x20, 3x10 etc). I imagine there was also an element of water retention as, if I understand it one of the adaptions is increased glycogen storage (which requires water as well). I did / do tend to push a relatively low gear which might've contributed.
Anyway, if I do start again I'll probably try to limit it to 5hrs a week, try to spin fast as much as possible, and avoid grinding up hills.
Having said that, I once managed t0 (unintentionally) lose an enormous amount of weight in a very short time by cycling. I tried to ride my old Litespeed from Hanoi to HCMC fairly quickly. This involved cycling around 100-150 miles a day, carrying some gear on the bike (which IIRC had fairly old school gearing - 53/39 and 13-29) and not eating very much (I was probably unnecessarily wary about getting ill eating at Vietnamese truck stop cafes). I didn't make it all the way because I knackered my knee going over the Hai Van pass, but when I got to the hotel after the last day of cycling, my abs looked like Peter Andre and when I got home after spending the last few days drinking beer on the beach it turned out I was 12kg lighter than when I'd left.
-
My experience over the last few years after getting back in to cycling (lycra clad roadie) is i've not put on any weight from extra muscle, i still hover around the 58-60kg, the extra benefits from the cardio fitness and it helping keep the fat off id say way out weigh the slightly heavier legs.
-
That's because you don't eat enough.