How do cyclists get massive quads and gymnasts get big everything without progressive overload?
Because they do progressive overload at the gym. Did you think that anybody who wants to be a pro at his sport, doesn't go to the gym to get those strength and muscle gains? That's how you get left behind.
Isometrics and/or jumping for gymnasts.
Depends on the type of cyclist. My roommate is the ncaa national champion in cycling and his legs are hella defined but no wear near as big as those guys quads. Those guys are probably more sprint circuit type guys or something.
He's also never been to the gym in his life
Gymnast guys have relatively small legs compared to upper body.
But both attain their muscles through progressive overload and lots of training. Cyclist like the guy in this pic have the biggest quads on the short distances, cause like squatting they need to provide a massive amount of energy in a short time. Besides they train with lots heavy resistance stationary biking and squats as well.
Source my friend is almost a pro cyclist.
I'm Dutch and we cycle more than we walk. I have pretty good quads - I'm 28 and don't have a driver's license, I cycle everywhere daily. On weekends I sometimes cycle in to the woods or something for a couple of hours. On weekdays I haul my groceries and such by bike.
So I guess the anwer is that there is still progressive overload because of variety? I'm guessing amateur cyclists who do it for fun also choose a variety of terrains to practice on like hills, dunes, etc.
I think legs respond well to other types of workouts.
I mean, most guys that play football regularly have nice thick legs and calves, my father has massive muscular legs and the only exercise he has done for the past 10 years is football two times a week.
>Gymnast guys have relatively small legs compared to upper body.
Eh... not really. All that jumping is much better than squatting for a complete development, actually.
All of that is retarded. Non scientific non-sense to say the least. 8-12 rep range is overrated. People have been building muscle on 20 and 30 reps for ages, as long as they go to failure and maintain volume high. I've seen anecdotes of people going as high as 50 reps sometimes, and still manage to build muscle on it.
Yeah, right, because the only way to build muscle is to lift iron... Jesus, you people are turning into idiots.
Because it's retarded. It has been exaggerated. It's the best way to build muscle and gain strength, but NOT the only way. And only a stupid fuck would not acknowledge that legs muscles respond better to high reps than to low reps on MOST PEOPLE. You can come with all different explanations for why that is, like "hurr because quads have a higher slow contractile fibers profile then you should durr..." stupid non sense.
Then there's that old comparison of endurance runners to sprinters... yeah, like if the marathoner wasn't eating in a deficit to increase running efficiency. For some reason we "chose" to forget this fact, like if didn't matter, right ... Fucking idiots.
Then there's this Schoenfeld guy. And that other Contreras guy, he fancies himself the "glutes guy" because he thinks he invented the hip thruster and that the hip thruster is the new squat and you should hip thrust to build huge arms because it's the best exercise ever etc. etc. Fucking idiots. Then there's Lyle "Asshole" McDonald. I have read them all. They are all idiots. Stop buying into their nonsense.
I'm mad. You are all idiots.
Sprint cyclist want as much raw power (wattage) as possible. The bigger the legs the better. They squat/clean/deadlift and all the good stuff very consistently. They also mash on a bike with an insanely high ratio which would certainly after a certain point contribute to hypertrophy. Endurance cyclist are trying to be as lean as possible hence don't get such massive(although thy are defined) legs.
Uhhhh yes on average they do. Maybe not the onest specializing in trampoline or plank jumps, but most other parts of gymnastics they do. Its actually working against them to have big legs on rings and such.
I was a gymnast myself, not professional obviously, but I knew some guys that were close to national level and they all had relatively small legs (note:relatively!).
People don't think its weird at all. I know lots of people working in their 40s riding their bicycle to work on non rainy days. Its healthy and environmentally friendly. Especially in the Netherlands I don't think there is anyone that thinks its weird.
It is weird not to have a drivers license at 26 tho and it would also be weird if you have to bike for like an hour just to get to your workplace, but that would be weird anywhere.
Yeah I am preparing for 5k run season. I decided to try lifting to build strength for hill climbs. I have been doing 40 rep leg presses and leg extensions I have packed on muscle because of this.
>How do cyclists get massive quads and gymnasts get big everything without progressive overload?
By doing it a lot, really a lot.
Btw, there IS progressive overload on cycling, is just not schematized. If you cycle harder (on a powerful gear), you're inputing more force into it. If you cycle for more miles, you're obviously going to cycle through more hills. There's a similar progression on gymnastics by doing harder exercises (on rings etc) and doing for a lot of time.
Gymnasts do have progressive overload you mong. Progressive overload doesn't have to be achieved exclusively with heavier weights. If you perform a movement that puts you in a mechanical disadvantage (such as a pseudo planche pushup rather than a regular pushup), then your muscles have to overcome more resistance even if you're still lifting just your bodyweight, or a fraction of it. You're not increasing weight, but you're increasing leverage.
Really, the anti-calisthenics memery on /fit/ is eating into your brains guys.
I'm 28, from the States (California) and I bike everywhere. I don't have a license or a vehicle. People probably think it's weird but no one really hates or comments on it. There's very few people who commute on foot or bike here.
> Sir Chris Hoy, the British track cycling superstar, has colossal 27in thighs, which enable him to squat 240kg (more than 2.5 times his bodyweight), cycle around a velodrome at speeds of nearly 50mph and generate more torque (rotational force) than a Ferrari Enzo (700Nm versus 657Nm)
Being this fucking retarded.
His point is, if the same person were to increase his muscle mass by say 10 %, then his strength would follow a similar development (since only 1 variable has changed). Comparing a bodybuilder to a powerlifter when talking about the relationship between the size of the muscle and its strength is scientifically wrong: Other parameters are also different between them (as how well tuned their CNS are, and experience in different lifts) thereby blurring the thesis whether the correlation exist or not. To prevent such pseudo intellectual conduct, read up on the statistical method behind determining a correlation between two variables.
literally what are you people talking about. look at those legs