View Single Post
Old 01-11-19, 10:00 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 990 Post(s)
Liked 283 Times in 173 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge View Post
My first sentence was More muscle is not always good [for every sport]. A good half my examples were cycling related. There is a reason world tour cyclists look like they do. Even for one-day events, the extra weight is a liability once getting beyond a couple hours with any longer. If you are in a sport that works against gravity, or involves a couple hour event, the extra mass will generally not help. Even 100% lean muscle mass. If your sport is on the same horizontal plane, likely the extra mass will help.

That picture posted early (or search) was Kalman Szkalak who was about 240# and lean when he started riding. He got to be a faster more competitive cyclist by losing weight. My kid became less competitive as a cyclist as he could do more pull-up and push-ups (and gained weight).
You're second sentence was
I tend to think in young males often it is less good having more muscle than not having it.
Endurance athletes aside, this simply isn't true. Certainly not when comparing someone who is 140 vs 170 at 5'10".
Had you restricted your statement to endurance athletes, it would have made sense (and yes, I agree cyclists and joggers have little use for excess muscle, particularly in the upper body). You didn't. You also specifically used feats of strength in your comparisons.
As you no doubt know, elite cyclists are extremely specialized. If your goal is general fitness, they aren't a great model to follow.

Last edited by OBoile; 01-11-19 at 10:12 PM.
OBoile is offline