Upper Body and Power

I think a stronger core is the key. You'd probably use less arms in a climb if you were stronger in the core. Less rocking, tied to your legs more, stronger core means stronger back, etc. Strong arms probably help you stay in the dropped position longer though. And you probably look better if your arms are proportional to the rest of your body. 8-)

In an interview with Tony Cruz of team Discovery...(Road Magazine, February 2005) They go through a typical offseason regiment.
Typical gym workout includes leg press,calf raises,leg extensions,leg curls,dips,bench press and abdominals. He does three sets 15 times and the whole workout lasts no more than 50 minutes. "After that the team doctor says your tearing yourself up too much," said Tony.The point of these exercises is to build up core power, not bulk.

Dips work on your triceps, bench press on your chest... I like to do a few curls for the biceps also. A little muscle looks great, just don't overdo it.
Good luck.

tfstrum said:

I think a stronger core is the key. You'd probably use less arms in a climb if you were stronger in the core. Less rocking, tied to your legs more, stronger core means stronger back, etc. Strong arms probably help you stay in the dropped position longer though. And you probably look better if your arms are proportional to the rest of your body. 8-)

given that the forces at the pedal are pretty low to moderate even when cycling uphill, the forces in the arm and core are going to be even lower.

ric

well, the ladies often like well built arms (though not as much as the butt and legs, I love being a cyclist....) so you will have a couple more cheering you on in your race, with the ladies cheering you on you are likely to want to impress them so you ride harder, increasing your power and speed. So I say it helps!

Professional cyclists used to have big arms and shoulders. Now they have skinny arms. This is since the invention of tri-bars that allow the cyclist to rest the weight of their upper body on their elbows instead of carrying it with their arms whilest riding on the drops.
Upper body muscle is not necessary if you use tri-bars. Since muscle is both heavy and metabolically active you are better off without it if you are serious about competing. But if you want to look good, then a few upper body excercises such as press-ups and pull-ups work wonders.

Don Shipp said:

Professional cyclists used to have big arms and shoulders. Now they have skinny arms. This is since the invention of tri-bars that allow the cyclist to rest the weight of their upper body on their elbows instead of carrying it with their arms whilest riding on the drops.

You're kidding, right? Professional road cyclists have always had skinny arms, at least relative to their legs - just look at any of the pics from first half of the last century. Morever, "tri-bars" are only used in/when training for TTs, which comprise only a small percentage of a pro roadie's total time in the saddle.

Back to the OP's question: during seated pedaling, your upper body musculature functions almost exclusively to simply stablize and support your upper body - it can't, and doesn't, contribute significantly to seated pedaling power because the hip joints are essentially fixed in space. Only when the hip joints are moving with respect to b.b. (e.g., as can occur when standing) can any power generated by the (smaller compared to the legs, although not necessarily small in an absolute sense, e.g., in a track sprinter) upper body muscles be transferred to the pedals.

acoggan said:

Back to the OP's question: during seated pedaling, your upper body musculature functions almost exclusively to simply stablize and support your upper body - it can't, and doesn't, contribute significantly to seated pedaling power because the hip joints are essentially fixed in space. Only when the hip joints are moving with respect to b.b. (e.g., as can occur when standing) can any power generated by the (smaller compared to the legs, although not necessarily small in an absolute sense, e.g., in a track sprinter) upper body muscles be transferred to the pedals.

You are the physiologist, but would you care to bet on that ?
It has a simple yes/no answer.

These days competitive cyclists have arms that look anorexic. I blamed tri-bars but there could well be other reasons.
Upper body muscle is not needed much for cycling. It is heavy and competes with the leg muscles for oxygen and fuel so perhaps racing cyclists deliberately avoid any excercise that will build it up. Training is more scientific than it used to be so the effect is more noticable. In the old photos the top racers do not look like body-builders; but they don't look anorexic either.
Bulging legs and skinny arms may be a race-winning combination but does not look very attractive. Add a few press-ups to your cycling program for the perfectly balanced body. (like mine.)

acoggan said:

Back to the OP's question: during seated pedaling, your upper body musculature functions almost exclusively to simply stablize and support your upper body - it can't, and doesn't, contribute significantly to seated pedaling power because the hip joints are essentially fixed in space. Only when the hip joints are moving with respect to b.b. (e.g., as can occur when standing) can any power generated by the (smaller compared to the legs, although not necessarily small in an absolute sense, e.g., in a track sprinter) upper body muscles be transferred to the pedals.

I sort of thought that might be the case because I couldn't logically figure out how my upper body strength could translate to force on the cranks. I wonder why my instinct is to pull with my arms when climbing? It just feels like I can add power but I know it's illogical. I think I'm just making my back sore when I pull.

Don Shipp said:

Bulging legs and skinny arms may be a race-winning combination but does not look very attractive.

i think that this would be in the eye of the beholder, but nonetheless, are people that shallow that they wouldn't find someone attractive due to the diameter of their arms...?

ric

The role of the "upper body" in the production of power is unknown. No fact based studies are known on this very important subject.
Having said that, overall body strength, specifically core strength, would seem to be criticially important in an endurance sport such as cycling.
Anyone who has taken a long bicycle ride will notice the effects of the effort not only in the legs but other parts of the body as well. In fact, problems with neck, back, etc. frequently are more performance limiting than leg problems.
Therefore, any good training program will include weight (some prefer the term "resistance"😉 training to strengthen, not only the legs, but the core and upper body as well.

bozy said:

The role of the "upper body" in the production of power is unknown. No fact based studies are known on this very important subject.
Having said that, overall body strength, specifically core strength, would seem to be criticially important in an endurance sport such as cycling.
Anyone who has taken a long bicycle ride will notice the effects of the effort not only in the legs but other parts of the body as well. In fact, problems with neck, back, etc. frequently are more performance limiting than leg problems.
Therefore, any good training program will include weight (some prefer the term "resistance"😉 training to strengthen, not only the legs, but the core and upper body as well.

no it wouldn't, both are likely detrimental to endurance cycling performance, as has been discussed ad infiinitum on the forum.

ric_stern/RST said:

i think that this would be in the eye of the beholder, but nonetheless, are people that shallow that they wouldn't find someone attractive due to the diameter of their arms...?

ric

I would guess that more people take up cycling in order to develop a more attractive body than take it up in order to win races. What is attractive is a matter of opinion of course; now you know mine.
Yes, people are vain and shallow, although most would take many factors into account when deciding who they find attractive, not just skinny or muscular arms.

RapDaddyo said:

I sort of thought that might be the case because I couldn't logically figure out how my upper body strength could translate to force on the cranks. I wonder why my instinct is to pull with my arms when climbing? It just feels like I can add power but I know it's illogical. I think I'm just making my back sore when I pull.

Try climbing without pulling to save your back. Concentrate on technique. Make sure that you are not in too high a gear.

n crowley said:

You are the physiologist, but would you care to bet on that ?
It has a simple yes/no answer.

Yes, I would be willing to bet on that.

ric_stern/RST said:

no it wouldn't, both are likely detrimental to endurance cycling performance, as has been discussed ad infiinitum on the forum.

I gather the issue has been "discussed" here. But as you know I don't believe what you say-only what you can prove-please give us factual evidence of the harmful effects of resistence (or weight) training on endurance cyclists (please cite accepted literature- not anecdotal material ).

RapDaddyo said:

I sort of thought that might be the case because I couldn't logically figure out how my upper body strength could translate to force on the cranks. I wonder why my instinct is to pull with my arms when climbing? It just feels like I can add power but I know it's illogical. I think I'm just making my back sore when I pull.

As Ric rightly points out, the forces exerted during cycling are relatively low, at least compared to the maximum that our muscles may generate. However, they aren't always so low that your body weight alone is enough to keep your pelvis firmly in the saddle. It is at this point, when pedaling forces begin to approach body mass, that we find ourselves starting to slide around, rock from side to side, etc., and have the urge to grip and pull on the handlebars. Doing so may, or may not, allow you to direct more of the power/force generated by your leg muscles into the pedals, but make no mistake, that power/force is coming from your legs, not your arms. As I indicated, the *only* way this would not be true would be if your hip joint were moving relative to the b.b., thus allowing the upper body's efforts to be "pass through" the pelvis. Even in such a scenario, however, the vast majority of power will still be emanating from the legs, simply because those muscles are larger and act over a much larger range of motion (compared to wiggling your hips). Indeed, it has been shown in studies using inverse dynamics that the assumption of fixed hip position vs. actually measuring and including its motion in the calculations has no significant impact on the final results re. segmental power.

bozy said:

I gather the issue has been "discussed" here. But as you know I don't believe what you say-only what you can prove-please give us factual evidence of the harmful effects of resistence (or weight) training on endurance cyclists (please cite accepted literature- not anecdotal material ).

I imagine that Ric said "likely" because it is based on a logical extrapolation of the known adaptations to resistance training - which it is.

bozy said:

I gather the issue has been "discussed" here. But as you know I don't believe what you say-only what you can prove-please give us factual evidence of the harmful effects of resistence (or weight) training on endurance cyclists (please cite accepted literature- not anecdotal material ).

The obvious answer is that if resistance training was helpful to competetive cyclists, then they would do it. If they are doing it, they can't be doing much because they all have skinny arms.
Cyclists train the muscles that they use and neglect the ones they don't. Any unnecessary muscle is dead weight and competes with the others for oxygen and fuel, reducing performance.