Are skinny runners at a disadvantage when it comes to being able to go fast on a bike? I see a lot of overweight cyclists yet they can go fast because of bigger quads? Can someone like kiprop turn a big gear despite having skinny legs?
Are skinny runners at a disadvantage when it comes to being able to go fast on a bike? I see a lot of overweight cyclists yet they can go fast because of bigger quads? Can someone like kiprop turn a big gear despite having skinny legs?
it's about generating power. some skinny guys can do it even without big quads, but on the flats, a 200 lb dude with strong legs is gonna beat the 130 lb runner
Force = M * A (Mass times Acceleration)
So - Bigger legs will improve your force
Sally Vixxens wrote:
Force = M * A (Mass times Acceleration)
So - Bigger legs will improve your force
Physics is not your strong point.
Cyclist legs wrote:
Are skinny runners at a disadvantage when it comes to being able to go fast on a bike? I see a lot of overweight cyclists yet they can go fast because of bigger quads? Can someone like kiprop turn a big gear despite having skinny legs?
Have you ever seen the Tour de France? You might want to check it out on youtube?
It depends.
Does having big muscular legs help you run faster?
In a 100 m probably. In a 10000 m probably not.
Cycling is similar. Sprinters and track cyclists have huge legs while climbing specialists have pretty dang skinny legs.
On flat ground fatties and huge legged people can ride pretty fast on a bike because they are not performing much more work than a skinny person. However, a fatty going up a hill needs to expend much more work that a skinny guy(work = height*acceleration of gravity).
if you're a sprinter, I you'll benefit from having more muscular legs. Just like in running...
Cyclist legs wrote:
Are skinny runners at a disadvantage when it comes to being able to go fast on a bike? I see a lot of overweight cyclists yet they can go fast because of bigger quads? Can someone like kiprop turn a big gear despite having skinny legs?
It depends on the course profile. In cycling, being skinny is still preferred. Though everything else being equal, larger riders can push more power, but weight tends to outpace the power gains. When riding on flat ground where the primary impediment is wind resistance, the extra weight/power will result in the rider with more muscle mass going faster. Conversely, while going up hills, where gravity is the primary impediment, being skinny is better than being stronger. Because it is rare that bike races don't involve hills, most good competitive cyclists are very skinny.
It is also worth noting that fast-twitch muscle fibers tend to add more bulk, so "bigger" cyclists may be better over shorter intervals, but in terms of aerobic work, still lag behind.
Thanks for the replies. So lets say for crit races, the guy with bigger legs will probably do better but for long races with lots of hills the thin guy has the advantage. For time trails on flat terrain, probably the big leg guy. Sound about right?
Yes, successful cyclists typically have bigger legs than runners. Some Olympic cyclists have MASSIVE/BUFF legs, like this guy:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02294/greipel-and-forste_2294083b.jpg
And no, this is not a joke. Look it up.
Don't believe the lies from the SKINNY guys that are trying to hold you back.
Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
Yes, successful cyclists typically have bigger legs than runners. Some Olympic cyclists have MASSIVE/BUFF legs, like this guy:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02294/greipel-and-forste_2294083b.jpgAnd no, this is not a joke. Look it up.
Don't believe the lies from the SKINNY guys that are trying to hold you back.
Lets be clear. The guy on our right is taking PEDS. That is not normal muscle. Period. End of story. I promise you.
Cyclist legs wrote:
So lets say for crit races, the guy with bigger legs will probably do better but for long races with lots of hills the thin guy has the advantage. For time trails on flat terrain, probably the big leg guy. Sound about right?
Criterium courses aren't necessarily flat and they virtually always have sharp turns which means endless cycles of deceleration then acceleration. That might work more in the lighter guy's favor.
A radiologist wrote:
Lets be clear. The guy on our right is taking PEDS. That is not normal muscle. Period. End of story. I promise you.
Lets be clear. I expected an answer like this from jealous SCRAWNY runners.
For the record: you can get BUFF without drugs.
Those legs on the left are not natural BUFF. He is using drugs. Period.
Forget the guy, id rather see the amazingly powerful legs of a female cyclist:
http://cdn.cyclingforums.com/1/1b/525x525px-LL-1bd38bbf_vbattach3051.jpg
In order to get a woman with such legs, it helps to have BUFF legs. Women dig it.
Most people in the US skip leg day. Big mistake.
Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
In order to get a woman with such legs, it helps to have BUFF legs. Women dig it.
Most people in the US skip leg day. Big mistake.
I call those people "Captain Upper Bodies": chicken legs, no calves, flat ass.
having a wide torso and narrower lower body as actually considered more masculine. So, whatever you do to make that difference more apparent, including chicken legs and huge torso, helps you appear to have more masculine swagger.
Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
A radiologist wrote:Lets be clear. The guy on our right is taking PEDS. That is not normal muscle. Period. End of story. I promise you.
Lets be clear. I expected an answer like this from jealous SCRAWNY runners.
For the record: you can get BUFF without drugs.
For the record: no matter how buff you think you are, I will bet any amount of money against you in a race. Put up or shut it.
