3 ms·
While true, I think there's more to the mix than that. For the last 9-10 years I've stuck with a high-weight-few-reps approach, and I've found that while my str
by einaros 16y ago
While true, I think there's more to the mix than that. For the last 9-10 years I've stuck with a high-weight-few-reps approach, and I've found that while my strength has increased a lot, I by no means look bulky. I'd think most people would just place me in the "possibly working out" category if they saw me in a t-shirt.
Biking, on the other hand, which I for the most had a brief encounter with to shed 45 excess lbs 10 years ago, I found built huge leg muscles. My biking had much more in common with the low-weight-many-reps-strategy.
- dkarl 16y agoBiking, on the other hand, which I for the most had a brief encounter with to shed 45 excess lbs 10 years ago, I found built huge leg muscles. My biking had much more in common with the low-weight-many-reps-strategy. Same experience here. I think people get confused because of how professional athletes are built. The best long-distance cyclists are very light and lean, while the best sprinters have huge lower bodies. Same thing with runners: sprinters are very muscular, and marathoners look like coat hangers covered with a thin layer of beef jerky. That is because of selection effects and professional levels of training, though, and is a misleading way of judging the effect of casual training on normal people with day jobs.