Why do Cyclist have ripped vasular legs while marathoners have skinny / unvasvular legs?

Serious runners train run around 10 to 15 hours a week. Serious cyclist train around 30+ hours a week on their bike.

Cyclists are spinning in little circles with their feet, whereas runners feet move in a pendulum motion over more than three times the distance.

Thus running for a given time is much more of an endurance exercise as compared to cycling.

Sprinters can win two hour flat races in cycling, but would not even win 800 meter races with running.

Because we are sexier.

Cyclists shave, and most runners don't. Also, legs only look ripped when the muscle is contracting. I'm sure you've noticed that in photos an airborne runner always looks like soft pudgy mess, but if the leg is planted, it looks ripped. For runners, the footstrike lasts under .2 seconds. Cyclists, by contrast, are always contracting one leg or the other. Finally, acute vascularity can be a result of dehydration, which is more common in cyclists because they do such long rides.

If you look at comparable runners and cyclists who all have shaved legs, are all hydrated, and are all lounging around and not doing their sport, then their legs will be similar.

Unvascular legs? How does the tissue of such legs get oxygen?

Its because they shave their legs. Most men with shaved legs have really veiny legs. Its hard to see the veins with leg hairs covering. When I shave my legs and put on my high heels i notice how veiny they are.

Distance runner's legs undergo adaptations that make the muscles lighter and thinner. Cyclists do not undergo the same adaptations because they need to put out as much power as possible for climbs, time trials and sprints. The time spent cruising along in the peleton has very little effect on muscle adaptation as it causes very little stress/training stimulus. Then, it is a question of whether the rider is a GC contender or a sprint/climbing specialist. A GC rider will need to be pretty lean in order to have a good ratio of strength to weight. A sprinter can really bulk up to have explosive speed. So, Greipel has pretty massive quads, but Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome have skinnier legs.

Ultra Trail Guy wrote:

Its because they shave their legs. Most men with shaved legs have really veiny legs. Its hard to see the veins with leg hairs covering. When I shave my legs and put on my high heels i notice how veiny they are.

You think that if Rupp or any of the Ethiopian stick figures shaved their legs, they would look muscular? LOL The hair on their legs makes up about 50% of their mass.

The difference is cyclists train harder and longer. Plus, their "supplement" choices are different (save the asthma problem).

True story: Two years ago, Galen Rupp's legs sued him in Oregon Superior court. The reason? Lack of support.

800 dude wrote:

Cyclists shave, and most runners don't.

I concur.

cranking out those big gears is more muscular endurance, while fast spinning is more cardiovascular. most every ride they are using big gears while runners are only creating that kind of resistance by doing intervals.

Hayduke wrote:

cranking out those big gears is more muscular endurance, while fast spinning is more cardiovascular. most every ride they are using big gears while runners are only creating that kind of resistance by doing intervals.

Don't forget running hills!!!

It's because the contraction of muscles while cycling promotes vascular growth. Also cyclists are on clenbuterol and all other sorts of drugs which enhance venous growth and fat reduction.

Um, many runners do shave their legs, I think they look gay, but take a look at the NCAA regionals this week, bunch of shavers.

Also, Rupp does shave his legs

Because skinny weaklings take up marathons and muscular hench men take up cycling.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Don't forget running hills!!!

That's why ultra and trail runners have more muscular legs;)

WHYBRO wrote:

Seriously why?

Look up catabolic vs anabolic

This is why wrote:

Thus running for a given time is much more of an endurance exercise as compared to cycling.

Sprinters can win two hour flat races in cycling, but would not even win 800 meter races with running.

That's a poor analogy. Sprinters aren't sprinters. A 200m track sprinter in cycling (the shortest available distance, takes under 10s) would not win a 2000m race either, let alone finish within the time limit in any pro road race.

Querfeldein wrote:

This is why wrote:

Thus running for a given time is much more of an endurance exercise as compared to cycling.

Sprinters can win two hour flat races in cycling, but would not even win 800 meter races with running.

That's a poor analogy. Sprinters aren't sprinters. A 200m track sprinter in cycling (the shortest available distance, takes under 10s) would not win a 2000m race either, let alone finish within the time limit in any pro road race.

Unless you are Brit track cyclist like Bradley Wiggins who is good over a few flat km, in which case you can crush natural-born mountain climbers and Grand Tour specialists despite having asthma, over thousands of miles and three weeks of punishing terrain.

Querfeldein wrote:

A 200m track sprinter in cycling (the shortest available distance, takes under 10s)

With a full-on FLYING start. Standing start more like 15s.

I want to see Bolt vs top sprint cyclist over 150m.