Why aren't you doing this god tier cardio and perfecting your legs.
>>36802290
>>36802290
PUFFY VULVA
>>36802290
because you look like a lesbian with massive legs and that short with a camel toe.
Pluss all their upper body are usually skinny as fuck, so they just look ridiculous.
>>36802552
The only reason pro riders like Chris Froome get so skinny is because they need to ride up mountains fast. Just look at any track cyclist.
There is literally nothing wrong with having a symmetrical physique and there is literally everything wrong with not having a symmetrical physique.
Do your squats, kids.
>>36802594
>my definition of perfect proportions is the only correct one
:^)
>>36802583
For serious riders that is true. But for cutting cycling is the best. I ride at a high intensity for about an hour and easily burn 1200-1500 calories
>>36802552
>>36802583
This is what lifting+ cycling does
>>36802632
So stationary bikes are fine? Ive always heard they're bad for you since there's no natural movement or some shiz
>>36802290
>honestly implying they don't weight-train
>>36802883
Upright ones like these are okay. Nothing beats the real thing though. If you're just looking for a good cardio workout these are great.
>>36802991
I just use it to burn fat for cutting, it burns calories like crazy.
>>36802991
they dont
they just cycle and use steroids
>>36802290
What cardio? He's standing in fucking place
>>36802683
This is what lifting does. Coincidentally he also cycles.
>>36804635
coincidence is the wrong word. if he wasn't a competitive sprint cyclist he probably wouldn't look like that.
>>36802290
>cycling to get better at cycling
>doing it wrong
pick both
before i started lifting i was riding my bike every day or almost every day and i remember some parts of my route where i had to stand up or switch gears to get uphill. Since i started training legs with weights im riding on highest gear ratio and i never even had to stand up. Feels good man
>>36802290
I do, OP, I've been racing for 7 years now.
I also spend about 14 weeks a year, in the Fall, in the gym doing strength training.
My legs look pretty close to your pic, but I used to be a fat guy so I don't have quite the definition unless I'm flexing my quads.
>>36802632
1200 to 1500kJ per hour would likely be riding continuously at Threshold, which unless you're highly trained as a cyclist, I doubt is possible for you. You're probably burning more like 700 to 900kJ per hour, which is still nothing to sneeze at.
>>36802883
There are 'stationary bikes' then there are 'Stationary Bikes'. The best ones have a full suite of adjustments so it can be totally fitted to the individual user. Shitty club bikes don't and are a pain to use. The best however is your own properly-fitted bike put on a stationary trainer; best of both worlds, and if you have a power metering device (PowerTap, Quarq, SRM, etc) then you can target your workout on it and track energy usage.
>>36803061
Wrong. Many competitive cyclists do gym training in the off-season. Some will just do hill-climb intervals at a low cadence instead, which amounts to almost the same thing. Personally I prefer training in the gym in the Fall.
>>36802683
probably only cycles to compete. Would be better to blast and cruise.
>>36802683
Lifting and cycling seems pretty cool. And dual sports, meaning that you do one extreme sport, and then another, especially with weight lifting, are kinda uncommon.
I also do dual sports, weight lifting and running because I think that these two things is how a paleo man used to be.
Most other sporters at my club only do two cardio sports together. Usually cycling and running.
Why is there such a huge stigma around weight lifting in the sport world? It is obvious that our bodies are made for weight lifting, that we even get sweet testosterone from it. Why are there so many cucks who dont like to be healthy and functional.
>>36805316
>1200 to 1500kJ per hour would likely be riding continuously at Threshold
Bro, I do 1.6-2k kJ per hour and I just started doing cycling for cardio few weeks ago. 1200-1500 kJ is only like 300-350 calories.
>>36805358
Which other parts of the 'sports world' are you talking about that cast a baleful eye towards weight training? I only really know about cycling.
Without knowing what you're thinking, I'd have to say that weight training in the gym can be rather boring and tedious compared to something where you're actually in motion. It takes personal discipline and a dedication to your particular sport to keep you motivated to go to the gym when you'd rather be running or riding or whatever, but if you're results-oriented then it's not so bad.
>>36805358
> It is obvious that our bodies are made for weight lifting
The exact opposite probably. Other primates can lift more than a world class trained human ever can without ever training.
>>36805452
Strong upperbody (for chucking spears) was also part of our evolution. Later this strong upper body was needed in farm work. We may not as strong as primates, but it is still a very important feature for us.
To chase down an animal, and then to kill it with our upper body strength, so 60% running, 40% killing with upper body.
Plus, if this gene truly was phased out, we couldnt become buff, the way we do. Even original indigenous tribes still look buff for these very reasons. Not to mention the tribal warfare.
>>36805434
Just running, well, I think most parts of the sport world are like this. I am not entirely sure but it feels like there is a great divide, between cardio faggots, and muscle dudes. One complains that the others are meatheads, and the other laughs at them and calls them cardio bunnies.
I just wonder, why cant you just do both? Why be so afraid to lose a few gains, if you will become an immovable object?
On the other side, why so afraid to gain a few muscles so that you can at least hold a cup or something when you are done. Or look like you went through Auschwitz
both worlds kinda feel like cancer.
>>36805489
In evolution stamina would probably have been much more important than brute strength. Not sure how many situations brute strength would really have been more important than good stamina
>>36805555
Nice quads by the way. XD
Not so sure you've been around /fit/ for long.
Most dedicated lifters of /fit/ avoid cardio because they believe (ostensibly, at least) that 'cardio kills your gains', which isn't really true, you just have to eat more -- but beneath the surface I think they avoid it because it's just too boring and tedious *for them*. They're not wired that way. This of course is not universal; there are some who really enjoy both, but if they 'fess up to it here, they're usually carpet-bombed out of existence for being 'cardio fags'. Then there's the fact that someone who is primarily involved in an endurance sport like running or cycling is going to do sport-specific training in the gym, which is rather anti-bodybuilding, so /fit/ doesn't approve of it in the least; a competitive cyclist doesn't add bodyweight just to have big upper body because huge biceps and pecs don't make the bike go faster, it just makes you climb hills slower.
>>36805630
have a read you ignoramus.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-throwing-evolved-into-humanitys-greatest-weapon-626239143
>>36805664
yea, thats the extreme end, I was warned of this. In running, every 1% of bodyfat, is 1% of performance increase, if you remove that bodyfat.
The same goes for muscles.
But I have been doing both, also been slowly building my upper body and so far I havent hit a limit yet on anything.
However, from a paleo perspective, it would probably be unhealthy to go 100% on either categories. The optimal natural body probably is somewhere near 60% for running, 40% for weight lifting.
It is somewhat the same for the army as well. Where running is a more important part than weight lifting, but not 100%. As you still need to be strong for lifting yourself up, carrying backpacks and even fighting if need be.
When I look at either classifications, I feel like the people outside of my view are rather insane and artificial. Its probably not that healthy to do either at 100%.
>>36802683
Yeah "cycling" hehehe
>>36805452
yep
Humans are the most efficient animal for running long distance
Way back in africa days, humans used to hunt by just chasing animals until the animal keeled over from exhaustion.
Always find it funny people think of getting big muscles as 'fitness'
thats not fitness, thats gaining muscles
fitness refers to efficiency in cardiovascular and metabolic systems
>>36805818
in europe, running after a mammoth until it keels over isnt exactly efficient. Running after a thing keels over is something for niggers. That is why the white man cultivated bigger muscles, first from throwing stuff, then from farming heavy stuff most likely. Plus, muscles also served a good purpose in warfare against other humans. The paleo man, in all its forms would have a strong enough upper body. Perhaps not the negro man, but certainly the paleo european man.
>>36805818
Okay, smart guy, but do you know the integral of e^x^x
>>36805845
How much information do you keep stored up your ass?
>>36805866
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/nature12267.html
apparently, a research journal worth, and someone who is too stupid to comprehend it (you)
