Never been to a gym
#126
☢
In front of the TV now, it's still great for exercise, even though it's 33 years old.
I have never been a big fan of gyms. Too much locker room talk.
In the mid 80's I bought the ugly ergometer pictured below.
It is a Schwinn AirDyne and provides upper body and lower body workouts
at the same time while sitting. Unlike anaerobic weight lifting, the AirDyne
provides a workout which sculpts as well as enhances endurance, without
inflicting joint damage from overstraining, or overloading. You can't drop
the AirDyne on your toes or feet because you're sitting on it or standing
behind it. Because it is based on air resistance, the harder/faster you go,
the greater the resistance. As a 200 pounder, this machine regularly
provided 1,300 cal hour burn rates when I rode it hard when i was younger.
A combination of standing and sitting workouts on this machine totalling
one half to one hour per day of use gave me a sveldte, six pack look and
I felt great. Never ran faster in my life. Tremendous acceleration. A great
machine for intervals - - cools you as you exercise.
Find one used cheap and it's all the gym and free wheights you ever need.
Last edited by KraneXL; 01-09-19 at 04:46 AM.
#127
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 8,721
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,488 Times
in
1,286 Posts
#128
minimalist cyclist
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,745
Bikes: yes please
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1119 Post(s)
Liked 1,641 Times
in
944 Posts
Homemade side-pull pulley weights
more homemade
for the daughters, Glamour Bells
Last edited by Deal4Fuji; 01-09-19 at 07:56 AM.
#129
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
204 Posts
1. People who don't know what they are talking about.
or
2. People who are trying to sell something to people who don't know what they are talking about.
Last edited by OBoile; 01-09-19 at 08:36 AM.
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Sculpting and adaptations
What kind of resistance are you referring to? How do the muscle adaptations differ? I am curious and always willing to learn something new...
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
204 Posts
Also, burning fat and increasing the amount of muscle are two distinct processes. One does not happen as a result of the other.
Also, muscle "density" isn't really a thing. Muscles can grow or shrink. Certain other adaptations within the muscles can occur, some of which are caused by aerobic activity, but that doesn't make them significantly more dense.
Finally, you are constantly burning fat reserves. Constantly. The consumption of fewer calories than what you expend is what causes fat loss. Aerobic exercise will increase caloric expenditure, but it isn't necessary for fat loss. So the "sufficient quantity" is 0.
Strength training. Lifting heavy things, or pushing against a sufficiently difficult resistance. This causes a different adaptation within the body than producing a low amount of force for an extended period of time, as is the case with aerobic exercise. Specifically it sends a strong signal to the body to build/retain as muscle. One look at the bodies of elite strength athletes vs elite endurance athletes should make this quite clear.
#132
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times
in
253 Posts
More muscle is not always good. I tend to think in young males often it is less good having more muscle than not having it. That is assuming the same body composition. Most 20 something males can do more with less muscle than more. Still, the drive to be buff is strong.
At same ~8% 5'10" male age 20-30 usually a
140# vs 170# male can:
-Run faster
-Climb faster
-Ride farther
-Do more push-ups - likely
-Higher cycling FTP in many cases
-Higher VO2 max
-Do more pull-ups - likely (unless most of that 30# comes from pull-ups)
The 170# can do more weight in the gym
Has a more explosive short term power, even W/Kg. More if they get a bit fatter.
At same ~8% 5'10" male age 20-30 usually a
140# vs 170# male can:
-Run faster
-Climb faster
-Ride farther
-Do more push-ups - likely
-Higher cycling FTP in many cases
-Higher VO2 max
-Do more pull-ups - likely (unless most of that 30# comes from pull-ups)
The 170# can do more weight in the gym
Has a more explosive short term power, even W/Kg. More if they get a bit fatter.
#133
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
204 Posts
More muscle is not always good. I tend to think in young males often it is less good having more muscle than not having it. That is assuming the same body composition. Most 20 something males can do more with less muscle than more. Still, the drive to be buff is strong.
At same ~8% 5'10" male age 20-30 usually a
140# vs 170# male can:
-Run faster
-Climb faster
-Ride farther
-Do more push-ups - likely
-Higher cycling FTP in many cases
-Higher VO2 max
-Do more pull-ups - likely (unless most of that 30# comes from pull-ups)
The 170# can do more weight in the gym
Has a more explosive short term power, even W/Kg. More if they get a bit fatter.
At same ~8% 5'10" male age 20-30 usually a
140# vs 170# male can:
-Run faster
-Climb faster
-Ride farther
-Do more push-ups - likely
-Higher cycling FTP in many cases
-Higher VO2 max
-Do more pull-ups - likely (unless most of that 30# comes from pull-ups)
The 170# can do more weight in the gym
Has a more explosive short term power, even W/Kg. More if they get a bit fatter.
Run faster, but only over long distances.
Higher VO2 max since this is based on weight.
Ride further, maybe, but I doubt there is any significant difference here.
There's absolutely no way that ~30 extra pounds of muscle is going to result in someone being able to do fewer push ups or pull ups. It's certainly not going to hinder their FTP (hence why most TT specialists are heavier than pure climbers) and is going to be beneficial for most track cycling disciplines.
The heavier male will be far stronger which will provide a massive advantage in many activities. Any of the 4 major North American sports would favor the heavier and stronger individual. Combat sports all have weight classes for a reason. No 5'10" 140 lb person is elite at Cross Fit. Elite gymnasts (while shorter than 5'10") are built. Rowing has weight classes and favours bigger, stronger people. 170# is also a pretty common weight for pro soccer players. The heavier person would also be far more effective at doing manual labour that involves any sort of heavy lifting. Most elite combat troops are far closer to 170 than 140 too.
#134
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
I am 5'10" and have done endurance sports my whole adult life and 140 is definitely not well muscled. What I considered my ideal athletic weight was 165 and that was very lean. If I ran too much I would slip down to 155-150, which felt light for long distance running but not strong. It felt thin.
If you made the difference say 160-165 vs 200-210 I would agree more. At that point carrying the extra mass begins to negate it's benefit in a lot of tasks.
If you made the difference say 160-165 vs 200-210 I would agree more. At that point carrying the extra mass begins to negate it's benefit in a lot of tasks.
Last edited by Happy Feet; 01-09-19 at 11:52 PM.
#135
☢
Well of course, there are diminishing returns with anything. But 90% of us are nowhere near that yet. Especially, nowhere near close enough to use it as an argument.
#136
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Might be best to refrain from using that term unless you're discussing artwork then.
This is false. Aerobic exercise does not significantly increase the amount of lean muscle mass, nor does it signal the body to build/retain muscle to any significant degree.
Also, burning fat and increasing the amount of muscle are two distinct processes. One does not happen as a result of the other.
Also, muscle "density" isn't really a thing. Muscles can grow or shrink. Certain other adaptations within the muscles can occur, some of which are caused by aerobic activity, but that doesn't make them significantly more dense.
Finally, you are constantly burning fat reserves. Constantly. The consumption of fewer calories than what you expend is what causes fat loss. Aerobic exercise will increase caloric expenditure, but it isn't necessary for fat loss. So the "sufficient quantity" is 0.
Strength training. Lifting heavy things, or pushing against a sufficiently difficult resistance. This causes a different adaptation within the body than producing a low amount of force for an extended period of time, as is the case with aerobic exercise. Specifically it sends a strong signal to the body to build/retain as muscle. One look at the bodies of elite strength athletes vs elite endurance athletes should make this quite clear.
This is false. Aerobic exercise does not significantly increase the amount of lean muscle mass, nor does it signal the body to build/retain muscle to any significant degree.
Also, burning fat and increasing the amount of muscle are two distinct processes. One does not happen as a result of the other.
Also, muscle "density" isn't really a thing. Muscles can grow or shrink. Certain other adaptations within the muscles can occur, some of which are caused by aerobic activity, but that doesn't make them significantly more dense.
Finally, you are constantly burning fat reserves. Constantly. The consumption of fewer calories than what you expend is what causes fat loss. Aerobic exercise will increase caloric expenditure, but it isn't necessary for fat loss. So the "sufficient quantity" is 0.
Strength training. Lifting heavy things, or pushing against a sufficiently difficult resistance. This causes a different adaptation within the body than producing a low amount of force for an extended period of time, as is the case with aerobic exercise. Specifically it sends a strong signal to the body to build/retain as muscle. One look at the bodies of elite strength athletes vs elite endurance athletes should make this quite clear.
I have no idea if this would work for anyone else. I really don't know anyone else who spends 6 hours on the elliptical every weekend in the winter and 14 hours on the bike every weekend in the summer.
#137
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
204 Posts
I am 5'10" and have done endurance sports my whole adult life and 140 is definitely not well muscled. What I considered my ideal athletic weight was 165 and that was very lean. If I ran too much I would slip down to 155-150, which felt light for long distance running but not strong. It felt thin.
If you made the difference say 160-165 vs 200-210 I would agree more. At that point carrying the extra mass begins to negate it's benefit in a lot of tasks.
If you made the difference say 160-165 vs 200-210 I would agree more. At that point carrying the extra mass begins to negate it's benefit in a lot of tasks.
Of course, 200-210 at 5'10" and 8% body fat is approaching the genetic limits of what a person can do without drugs (IIRC, most top natural bodybuilders are ~200 and around 5%). It would take decent genetics, plus years of dedication to achieve this naturally. Very few of the "young males" working out in gyms will get anywhere near that.
5'10" and 140 is just really, really scrawny.
Last edited by OBoile; 01-10-19 at 08:42 AM.
#138
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Physics is physics. Fat is fat.
Might be best to refrain from using that term unless you're discussing artwork then.
This is false. Aerobic exercise does not significantly increase the amount of lean muscle mass, nor does it signal the body to build/retain muscle to any significant degree.
Also, burning fat and increasing the amount of muscle are two distinct processes. One does not happen as a result of the other.
Also, muscle "density" isn't really a thing. Muscles can grow or shrink. Certain other adaptations within the muscles can occur, some of which are caused by aerobic activity, but that doesn't make them significantly more dense.
Finally, you are constantly burning fat reserves. Constantly. The consumption of fewer calories than what you expend is what causes fat loss. Aerobic exercise will increase caloric expenditure, but it isn't necessary for fat loss. So the "sufficient quantity" is 0.
Strength training. Lifting heavy things, or pushing against a sufficiently difficult resistance. This causes a different adaptation within the body than producing a low amount of force for an extended period of time, as is the case with aerobic exercise. Specifically it sends a strong signal to the body to build/retain as muscle. One look at the bodies of elite strength athletes vs elite endurance athletes should make this quite clear.
This is false. Aerobic exercise does not significantly increase the amount of lean muscle mass, nor does it signal the body to build/retain muscle to any significant degree.
Also, burning fat and increasing the amount of muscle are two distinct processes. One does not happen as a result of the other.
Also, muscle "density" isn't really a thing. Muscles can grow or shrink. Certain other adaptations within the muscles can occur, some of which are caused by aerobic activity, but that doesn't make them significantly more dense.
Finally, you are constantly burning fat reserves. Constantly. The consumption of fewer calories than what you expend is what causes fat loss. Aerobic exercise will increase caloric expenditure, but it isn't necessary for fat loss. So the "sufficient quantity" is 0.
Strength training. Lifting heavy things, or pushing against a sufficiently difficult resistance. This causes a different adaptation within the body than producing a low amount of force for an extended period of time, as is the case with aerobic exercise. Specifically it sends a strong signal to the body to build/retain as muscle. One look at the bodies of elite strength athletes vs elite endurance athletes should make this quite clear.
As for fat burning occurring "constantly," this is a denial of the nature of fat within the body. Fat is a reserve energy resource that doubles as a reserve water "sponge" (another metaphor).
Constant fat burning ONLY occurs in people experiencing a calorie intake deficit in comparison to the caloric expenditure of energy and body maintenance functions, plus any exercise induced calorie consumption added on top of that by either aerobic or anaerobic workouts.
People who are generally overweight and out of shape may not burn any fat at all as part of their normal metabolism. That is why they have such trouble losing weight. As long as calories in exceeds or equals calories out, the fat burning engine has no need to turn on and the body preserves the fat. The body then stores any newly eaten fat, and converts proteins eaten in excess of need to additional fat. This process arose over the eons as evolving Nature decided what processes worked best for living organisms. The process is known as "homeostasis."
Eating a lot of carbs or drinking alcohol can easily tip the scales from burn to save mode, as alcohol adds calories at the rate of 9 per gram, twice that of carbs, with zero nutritional benefits.
As for an AirDyne not providing a resistance workout, physics is physics whether you are pushing air or iron around. Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.
Muscle is added when the body sees a need and sufficient protein is available in the diet to allow it. It's that simple.
#140
☢
(IIRC, most top natural bodybuilders are ~200 and around 5%). It would take decent genetics, plus years of dedication to achieve this naturally. Very few of the "young males" working out in gyms will get anywhere near that.
5'10" and 140 is just really, really scrawny.
5'10" and 140 is just really, really scrawny.
Last edited by KraneXL; 01-10-19 at 11:24 PM. Reason: edited for better clarity
#141
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
204 Posts
Sculpting is a metaphor. If you don't understand metaphors, I can't do anything about that.
As for fat burning occurring "constantly," this is a denial of the nature of fat within the body. Fat is a reserve energy resource that doubles as a reserve water "sponge" (another metaphor).
Constant fat burning ONLY occurs in people experiencing a calorie intake deficit in comparison to the caloric expenditure of energy and body maintenance functions, plus any exercise induced calorie consumption added on top of that by either aerobic or anaerobic workouts.
People who are generally overweight and out of shape may not burn any fat at all as part of their normal metabolism. That is why they have such trouble losing weight. As long as calories in exceeds or equals calories out, the fat burning engine has no need to turn on and the body preserves the fat. The body then stores any newly eaten fat, and converts proteins eaten in excess of need to additional fat. This process arose over the eons as evolving Nature decided what processes worked best for living organisms. The process is known as "homeostasis."
Eating a lot of carbs or drinking alcohol can easily tip the scales from burn to save mode, as alcohol adds calories at the rate of 9 per gram, twice that of carbs, with zero nutritional benefits.
As for an AirDyne not providing a resistance workout, physics is physics whether you are pushing air or iron around. Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.
Muscle is added when the body sees a need and sufficient protein is available in the diet to allow it. It's that simple.
As for fat burning occurring "constantly," this is a denial of the nature of fat within the body. Fat is a reserve energy resource that doubles as a reserve water "sponge" (another metaphor).
Constant fat burning ONLY occurs in people experiencing a calorie intake deficit in comparison to the caloric expenditure of energy and body maintenance functions, plus any exercise induced calorie consumption added on top of that by either aerobic or anaerobic workouts.
People who are generally overweight and out of shape may not burn any fat at all as part of their normal metabolism. That is why they have such trouble losing weight. As long as calories in exceeds or equals calories out, the fat burning engine has no need to turn on and the body preserves the fat. The body then stores any newly eaten fat, and converts proteins eaten in excess of need to additional fat. This process arose over the eons as evolving Nature decided what processes worked best for living organisms. The process is known as "homeostasis."
Eating a lot of carbs or drinking alcohol can easily tip the scales from burn to save mode, as alcohol adds calories at the rate of 9 per gram, twice that of carbs, with zero nutritional benefits.
As for an AirDyne not providing a resistance workout, physics is physics whether you are pushing air or iron around. Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.
Muscle is added when the body sees a need and sufficient protein is available in the diet to allow it. It's that simple.
#142
☢
As for fat burning occurring "constantly," this is a denial of the nature of fat within the body. Fat is a reserve energy resource that doubles as a reserve water "sponge" (another metaphor).
Constant fat burning ONLY occurs in people experiencing a calorie intake deficit in comparison to the caloric expenditure of energy and body maintenance functions, plus any exercise induced calorie consumption added on top of that by either aerobic or anaerobic workouts.
People who are generally overweight and out of shape may not burn any fat at all as part of their normal metabolism. That is why they have such trouble losing weight. As long as calories in exceeds or equals calories out, the fat burning engine has no need to turn on and the body preserves the fat. The body then stores any newly eaten fat, and converts proteins eaten in excess of need to additional fat. This process arose over the eons as evolving Nature decided what processes worked best for living organisms. The process is known as "homeostasis."
Eating a lot of carbs or drinking alcohol can easily tip the scales from burn to save mode, as alcohol adds calories at the rate of 9 per gram, twice that of carbs, with zero nutritional benefits.
As for an AirDyne not providing a resistance workout, physics is physics whether you are pushing air or iron around. Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.
Muscle is added when the body sees a need and sufficient protein is available in the diet to allow it. It's that simple.
#143
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
The relationship between alcohol and fat storage of carbs is a little more involved than that, which is the reason excessive alcohol use is associated with cirrhosis. Alcohol has 7 cal./gm, which is less than fat but more than carbs. The big issue, however, is that the body processes it faster than anything else in part because of its toxicity. Basically, the body puts the other types of calories "on hold" in preference to burning the alcohol. Thus, carb calories tend to be stored as fat at a lower threshold of intake in people who drink excessively, and much of that storage is in the liver, hence the liver scarring (cirrhosis).
There are skinny drunks in the world, but odds are they aren't eating much.
There are skinny drunks in the world, but odds are they aren't eating much.
#144
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Could a drug enhanced weight hormone trigger results?
Actually, you could define the term, and/or give examples.Fat is metabolically inactive. However, the more muscle you have the higher your metabolism. There are myriad supplements and drugs (including caffeine) that can raise your metabolic rate to enhance the burning of fat. Caloric intake definite plays a role in weight management but it is secondary to the role played by your hormones particularly those such as the fat storage hormone insulin and leptin -- a fat-burning hormone.Carbs trigger the greatest insulin response.However, had you done so, your results would likely have been noticeable improved.Generally correct, albeit particularly scientific. It is a "response" reaction
To my knowledge, my post was not about supplements or drug use, but an exercise machine and the effects of aerobic vs anaerobic workouts - with some additional comments on physics and resistance.
BTW, a little science never hurt anyone.
#145
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Excellent!
You may be either misinformed generally, or simply in error
Either way, your further non-participation in this discussion is fine with me.
#146
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 8,721
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,488 Times
in
1,286 Posts
Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.
.
.
185 lbs to 211 lbs in one year while loosing fat at the same time by doing only cardio ??... It's very hard to believe that you gained 26 pounds of solid muscle and 4 inches on your biceps while loosing fat at the same time from only doing AirDyne bike and no other forms of resistance training. Cardio just doesn't produce those kinds of gains...I can only think of three possibilities here: You must be a genetic anomaly or you're exaggerating or maybe taking steroids... or you're just full of crap
#147
☢
185 lbs to 211 lbs in one year while loosing fat at the same time by doing only cardio ??... It's very hard to believe that you gained 26 pounds of solid muscle and 4 inches on your biceps while loosing fat at the same time from only doing AirDyne bike and no other forms of resistance training. Cardio just doesn't produce those kinds of gains...I can only think of three possibilities here: You must be a genetic anomaly or you're exaggerating or maybe taking steroids... or you're just full of crap
#148
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
No not really, I've been there myself and it was neither marathon runner nor "really scrawny" when it's 7-8% body fat. In fact it's not far from the middle of ideal weight range for 5'10".
#149
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times
in
253 Posts
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).
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).