To put it simply, go google the weights of top professional cyclists and then tell me why you think that lack of weight/muscle is a limiter for your cycling! Tom Dumoulin is the world TT champ, he's 3 inches taller than you and weighs about the same. So there's no reason to think that putting on weight is going to do anything to help your cycling. Maybe if you were 140lbs and had starved yourself to get there then being underweight could be a problem but at 155lbs without really having had to work on it it seems extremely unlikely.

What's your cycling programme currently? I would look to change that before putting on weight. For that matter, what's your running programme? Have you tried something like the BarryP plan, building up a lot of running volume through running frequently but relatively easily?

I never said weight was a limiter for me; it's certainly not. And I definitely don't want to compare anything about myself or my body with that of the world TT champ. He and I are basically different species.

What I'm saying is, in the case of a time limited 41 year old who is not a natural runner, couldn't a bit of muscle improve the swim/bike more than it would hurt the run?

I'm on the barryp plan now and love it. But I'm still never going to run much better than 1:40+/- off the bike in a half.

Note that I'm not likely to actually do this. It just sounds like a cool science experiment.

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

Dumoulin's an extreme example but my point was simply that fast cyclists at any distance longer than track sprinting aren't particularly heavy or muscular. You can draw the same conclusion by looking at the body shapes of the fast guys in any local tri or bike race. So unless you were particularly scrawny or underweight then there'd be no reason to think that putting on weight or muscle is going to make you faster on the bike.

There is on the other hand plenty of evidence that being heavier slows you down on the run.

I assume you'd also be putting on muscle by lifting weights? In which case if you're time limited then presumably spending time lifting weights means less time doing SBR which is also going to slow you down.

Sorry, not trying to be negative, if you want to experiment then go for it. And if you just want to put on a bit of muscle for non-performance reasons that's fine as well - I'm similar age to you and lift weights a couple of times a week for injury prevention, long term health, enjoyment and because I don't like the scrawny triathlete look, but I'm under no illusion that it's making me faster! I just can't see any reason why putting on muscle would make you faster even on the cycling leg, let alone overall race time.

No no, you're not being negative; you've being rational, that's always good.

I know I got on your case about the Dumoulin example, but my own extreme example was something like this: It would be cool to push something like 300 watts for an entire 1/2IM bike leg. The only way I could conceivably do that is with some seriously monster quads; lots of raw power. To get to that point I would have to put on some muscle, and consequently gain weight. This would obviously reduce the time I spend on the bike. On a flat/rolling course, would that bike time reduction be more or less than the added time that the extra weight imposes on the run? That's the thought experiment I'm playing with. I know the standard wisdom is ~2 sec per mile per pound. But I have no idea how extra mass/muscle translates to power/ftp. I would guess that it's so individual that it's hard to model. I mean, I could definitely say I'm going to gain 15 pounds and increase my FTP by 50 watts, but I have no idea if that's low/high/just right.

Yes, I'm a nerd, I think about nerdy things. :)

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

The goal is to be good.
Bulk is at best irrelevant.
But usually detrimental.

I will discuss swimming:
I was a state champion level distance swimmer. I have known a couple of fast swimmers that were fat. Didn’t hurt or help. (Elite swimmers are usually low body fat because it is hard to keep high body fat when training 20+hrs/wk).

Currently I am one of the fastest 45+ triathlete swimmers in the world. Like you, runningis my weakness. Like you, I have a lowish BMI.
At 46, I can still swim 100M freestyle in 1:00 or 100 yds in :52.
(That is not bad for an aging distance swimmer that does triathlon).

If I wanted to be a faster sprint swimmer- I would sprint more.

There are thousands of heavier triathletes in the world. None that I have ever seen (have not seen Jasoninhalifax) can out sprint me, let alone keep up for a longer swim or triathlon.

Time in the weight room, extra weight would NOT help my swimming.

More sprinting, more kicking, more fly, back, breast, more volume WOULD help.

What is your current Watts / kg?

I think the best case is that you can hold your current watts/kg while adding muscle mass ONLY WHERE IT COUNTS (legs). However, I don't think there's much science to support the idea that you can add mass in the weight room and then train that mass to generate power on the bike. So, the odds are more likely that you just add the wrong kind of mass...and drive your watts per kilo down.

How old are you? Adding significant mass gets harder and harder as we get older. Its been a while since I looked this up, but my recollection is that 1/2 lb / week is pretty substantial gain in your 30s and less as you approach 50, and less if you still do lots of aerobic training.

18 months ago, I went through a "mass gain" attempt. I was 47/48 at the time. I followed a full periodized whole-body strength training program transitioning from high-reps/low-weight to low-reps/high-weight. I cut out most aerobic training, and ate 2 g/kg of protein per day. I tried to ensure that I ate protein before strength sessions, etc. I followed the above program for about 6 months. As best as I could tell using a bf% scale, and getting skin fold tests over the time period....I maybe gained 5 lbs of lean mass. That's kinda within the margin of error for the measurement methods.

ETA: the point being, adding measureable mass is hard. At the end of it all, I lost six months of training, so my FTP was down after that 6 months. After another 6 months, my FTP was back to where it was before the strength-period. So, was it worth the effort? Perhaps I should have just stayed with FTP specific training....

Well put, thank you. I wasn't really thinking about spending much/any time in the weight room. I was more thinking along the lines of increasing intake while trying to ride a lot, thinking that would add the 'right muscle'.

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

I think there is more to play with here than your weight. Keep looking. As some others have said, look at the ProTour riders.

Not that I was anywhere close to that level of standards but when I actually cared about going uphills quickly I was 143-145 (6ft) and could do 360-370 for 20-30 minutes. It requires a lot of time in the saddle, with the ‘proper’ effort, not just a bunch of Zone 1 active recovery/junk miles.

If Dumolin were a little lighter he would be wearing a pink jersey right now....he looked like a football player riding next to Froome.

Ride a lot, but don't increase your intake. Dropping five or ten pounds would speed up both your riding and your running, in the long term... It may be more about getting rid of the wrong stuff rather than adding the 'right muscle'.

---

Less is more.

If you have been cycling for years, unless you have been doing negative training all that time, there is no way you are going to increase your FTP by 50 Watts by giving up running, or doing anything other than seeing Froome's doctor.

I would agree that if you just focus on one sport (cycling) and get good coaching, you might still have some room for minor improvement. The only people improving in their 40s are people who haven't really been training seriously prior. If you are a lifelong endurance athlete and have been following reasonable training programs for years, realistically you are in the mode of just trying to not get slower.

/end thread

Bulk kind of just happens when muscles are used, 2 hours a day, every day. It's not what makes us faster. It's a side effect and like he said at least irrelevant, maybe detrimental.

That's the bit which you've got wrong. If you wanted to hit 1500 watts for a couple of seconds for a sprint then I'd absolutely agree with you. Go hit the squat rack, get yourself some quads that look like Greipel or Hoy and stamp on those pedals. 300 watts for 56 miles? Quad size has absolutely nothing to do with it, there are plenty of guys with sticks for legs who can put out those numbers.

Unless you're on secret sauce I think losing weight and gaining power don't work together well. I've had my best gains when I have a calorie surpluss, but only enough to put on a small amount of weight. If you don't eat you'll just get skinny and weak if you don't already have the power to start with.

So I understand you want to improve the bike.
I think you should work on two aspects: training and aerodynamics. I do not quite see how gaining weight as such will help you.

Training.
Do you do the "standard" things? e.g. five minutes intervals as fast as you can? That helped me a lot.

Aerodynamics.
Do you know how you sit on the bike? Is your head between the shoulders? Clothing? Shaved your legs? Fast tires?

I wish you success. Improvement can be very personal and involves trial and error.

Phelps/lochte are bigger, faster, and stronger than you.... so example #fail