terrymorse 

Can we learn something about our own potential, or which discipline we are best suited for, by looking at the muscles of top cyclists?

And are those muscle fiber types genetic, or can we train to modify them?

This paper, Lievens E, Bellinger P, Van Vossel K, Vancompernolle J, Bex T, Minahan C, Derave W. Muscle Typology of World-Class Cyclists across Various Disciplines and Events. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021 Apr 1;53(4):816-824. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002518. PMID: 33105386, is interesting.

It found that road climbers have the highest amount of Type I (slow-twitch) fibers, BMX racers have the highest amount of Type II (fast-twitch), and road sprinters are in between (which may explain why the sprinters suffer so much on a mountain stage).



Climbers need to put out steady power for a long time, so they have the most fatigue-resistant Type I muscle. BMX riders need explosive power at the race start, so they have high-power Type II muscle. Did these athletes develop those fibers to perform best in their discipline, or were they just lucky to be born that way?

The follow-on question: Can you train to preferentially develop Type I?

There are some studies hinting that lower resistance, higher repetition strength training can increase Type I hypertrophy.

This article: Training Muscle Fiber Types, written by Jacob Wilson, PhD, suggests that you can target your training to develop Type I.

"A common refrain is that type 1 fibers do not grow as much as type 2 fibers in response to training. And for a normal training program not attempting to target type 1 fiber growth, that is certainly true. However, from the above discussion, it’s a strong theory that you can target type 1 fibers with specific training strategies."

There you go, a "strong theory".

wolfchild

It's been known for a long time that muscle fibers are genetic. All humans have a mixture of Type 1 and Type 2 muscle fibers but genetics determine which type of muscle fibers are most dominant in each individual...People with Type 2 fibers gravitate to power sports such as power lifting and olympic lifting, sprinting, bodybuilding, track cycling etc. People who have an abundance of Type 1 fibers gravitate more towards endurance activities...Now that doesn't mean that a person with Type 1 fibers can't lift weights or that a person with Type 2 fibers can't do long distance endurance activities. You can do whatever you want but your performance will be limited by whatever muscle fiber type dominates in your body...There is a theory out there about a third type of muscle fiber which they call a hybrid muscle fiber which is explosive and very resistant to fatigue at the same time and allows you to perform repetitive forms of high intensity efforts over and over for long periods of time. One thing is certain is that ageing has a much greater effect on fast twitch muscle fibers than on slow twitch muscle fibers and the older you get the less explosive you become, you can run marathons when your 70 years old but you can't be an olympic weight lifter at that age.

Carbonfiberboy 

There was one of the top TdF sprinters - but my memory is crap, don't remember his name. He retrained himself as a climber and did pretty well in GC, way beyond the expectations of others. Maybe someone else remembers him. Maybe like 20 years ago?

terrymorse 

This paper, Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures, estimates that Armstrong’s Type I muscle went from 60% to 80% over 7 years of training, which produced an 8% improvement in muscle efficiency.

Further evidence that one can develop Type I muscle through training.

asgelle

Laurent Jalabert. Though he wasn't really a climbing specialist. He won the TdF climbers jersey twice, but that was more through long breakaways than climbing prowess.

Hermes

And during that period of time, Armstrong, as well as many others in the UCI World Tour pro peloton, were using drugs including but not limited to EPO, testosterone and anabolic steroids. I give that article a meh. I am not saying that Type I is not trainable.

Hermes

Thanks Terry for the topic and article. 6 decades ago, as a kid I ran track. The coach divided us up into the fast kids and the slow kids. Not too politically correct but accurate. The fast kids did short distances and the slower kids did longer. Slower kids that exhibited endurance with some speed excelled in the mid to longer distances.

For some time time, I was doing the 100 meters. The coach decided that I would move to the 400 meters. So I was fast but not quite as fast as the other kids. I excelled at the 400 meters and 1600 meter relay. Over the decades, nothing has changed. I do really well as sprinting and 500 meters unless a really fast specialist shows up. If I do 30 second to 1 minute efforts, I can do those without a problem and it is like sitting down with a bowl of potato chips. I eat the entire bowl and want more.

Longer distances kill me but that does not mean I cannot do them. It is a lot harder and the kids that were slow, now have their way with me.

Back to training type I fibers. Over the years, I have become a fan of using different cadence to strength train on the bicycle. Standing starts build type 1 and type II muscle fiber and low cadence intervals at tempo build type I. If one believes that high repetition at 30% one rep max builds type I fibers then it follows that low cadence 55 rpm at higher power will generate enough torque to build type I.

Carbonfiberboy 

No wasn't him. Maybe a Norwegian?

RChung

Coyle was looking for a paper to give at a conference and had certain physiological data he'd collected from Armstrong years before so threw it together close to on the spur of the moment, and was limited to comparing things he'd been able to measure from way back when. Which is not to say that metabolic efficiency can't change -- just that this was a retrospective study with n=1. It's sort of like those case studies from Mass General that get published in NEJM: they're publishable not because they're definitive or dispositive but are publishable because they're novel. Research where the research subject finished first in the TdF is almost always publishable. So I wouldn't point to that particular paper as very strong evidence; it's evidence, but not very strong.

terrymorse 

Another interesting paper to us aging athletes that found strength training produced an increase in efficiency in masters cyclists (but no similar efficiency increase in young cyclists).

Louis et al, Strength training improves cycling efficiency in master endurance athletes, Eur J Appl Physiol (2012). PDF

They put young and masters cyclists through an identical 3-week leg strength program, with some interesting results:

• before strength training, youngs max strength was 17.9% higher than masters, but only 7.8% higher after
• fatigue index (decrease of strength during exercise) of masters was significantly lower than youngs, both before and after strength training
• cycling efficiency was higher in youngs before strength training, but this age-related difference disappeared after strength training
• training increased only max strength in youngs
• training increased max strength, endurance power, and cycling efficiency in masters
• training significantly reduced masters heart rate and breathing volume during submaximal cycling exercise

The paper goes on to speculate what caused the large increase in masters cycling efficiency:

• muscle fibers became stronger and more resistant to fatigue, "since the efficiency of a muscle fiber is reduced following a moderate level of fatigue"
• "could be partly explained by the increase in maximal strength capacity...would effectuate a reduction of the relative torque needed"
• "a reduced recruitment of type II fibers during cycling would result in a higher economy because cycling economy is related to the percentage of type I fibers in the active muscle"

MoAlpha

Good review on fiber type change with training. The type I/ll dichotomy is an oversimplification.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473039/

Hermes

I have the Actn3 gene variant - likely sprinter.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...017.01080/full

Carbonfiberboy 

Yeah, who knew? Long term training works. Maybe this has something to do with the old saw that it takes 7 years for a beginning cyclist to get good at it. Personally, starting at 50, I found that to be approximately true.

terrymorse 

Maybe short term strength training works, also. At least for older men (a club of which I am a member).

One of the cited studies had untrained older men (70+ y.o.) do progressive resistance training. Their strength increased 52%, their type I muscle increased 10.4%, but their fast/hybrid muscle decreased or stayed the same.

This is a similar result to the study of masters athletes, above, who increased their cycling efficiency after strength training (type I is credited with improving efficiency).

It's already known that older athletes are more fatigue resistant and have a higher percentage of Type I, so it seems sensible that they (we) respond to strength training by adding more Type I than the youngs do.

(I think it's time to get more serious about strength training.)

work4bike

My go-to answer whenever the Nature vs Nurture questions pop up, is: Both. We all have natural strengths/weaknesses and thru training we can do amazing things with our weaknesses, but also our strengths can become our weaknesses with lack of training.



.

Carbonfiberboy 

All true. One of my secret weapons for being able to stay with the youngers was that I strength trained twice a week and no one else did. The other was that my wife and I hike in the mountains once a week, weather permitting. That's long Z1 for me plus some strength-endurance training. On a team-less ride, staying near the front relies on endurance. I always thought that the strength training rather than type II fibers was what allowed me to beat the youngers sprinting. I guess so. Long term strength training works even better.

Carbonfiberboy 

The most fascinating thing for me in all this is . . .DNA. The general theory is that evolutionary pressure stops at the upper age for reproduction. The vast, vast part of our evolution was in pre-history, so that limit would be at about 40. But then this. Therefore there was evolutionary pressure to make sure that the older folks could still march with the tribe. We increased survival among the youngers who were willing to be taught. We drew the pictures of the beasts to be hunted and we knew what mushrooms were safe to eat. We couldn't kill the beasts but we could carry them home. Etc. I don't see another explanation. Except for what Darwin called "sports", DNA.is quite consistent. It's the way it is for a reason. I think autism is just "sports." We're good enough physically, but we have to get smarter. There's always both nature and nurture.

MoAlpha

I think it has helped me, especially around threshold intensity, at least once the pain and stiffness wear off.

MoAlpha

Active grandparent hypothesis

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2107621118

i buy it!

MoAlpha

This is always the right answer, since our genes determine our response to the environment.

PeteHski

In the current peloton, there's Wout Van Aert who can both sprint and climb with the very best (simultaneously!). But he's probably not human.

RChung

I think the name you're looking for is Gunderson.

Carbonfiberboy 

Thor Hushovd

Hermes

Woot seems to have won the genetic lottery. And my wife has carnal thoughts about him.

MoAlpha

Ha, mine too! The GC boys aren’t enough MAN for her.