Is Lance overdoing the upper body work?
Comments
-
derby wrote:SunWuKong wrote:
But I thought he lost that upper body mass when he had cancer and that's why his power/weight ratio went up and he could climb so much better?pinarellodude wrote:Armstrong always had a slightly bigger uppper body due probably to his early Triathalon days, the swim etc.
:twisted: 
troublemaker.
Don't dare mention that a sign of hgh use is protruding abdominals because of increased internal organ growth.
I thought it was beer that caused that? You mean to tell me I'm a doper and don't even know it?
Dennis Noward0 -
ShockedSoShocked wrote:Isn't Armstrong only about 5 feet tall anyway? So it's probably not that impressive.
Not that impressive you say? Well, I'm sure we all would be interested in a couple of shots of yourself to show us what impressive really is. How about it?
Dennis Noward0 -
aurelio wrote:Look, Armstrong is not gay, he just has a bit of trouble keeping his women happy / keeping his women, and he likes running in public with his shirt off alongside a bare-chested running buddy. Don`t those torsos look nicely waxed?
will you go to watch LA race in 09? I guess your IP address will be kept and geo-tracked...
0 -
dennisn wrote:ShockedSoShocked wrote:Isn't Armstrong only about 5 feet tall anyway? So it's probably not that impressive.
Not that impressive you say? Well, I'm sure we all would be interested in a couple of shots of yourself to show us what impressive really is. How about it?
Dennis Noward
I'm afraid I haven't got the time to shave my chest tonight, or find someone to take artsy fartsy black and white shots. 2 hours in the gym this morning and with a 3 hour training ride tomorrow morning I think sleep is my best bet
But, the original point I was trying to make is his upper body will look far more impressive if he is of a smaller stature than most people (which he is). He probably won't be much over 70kg still."A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
oldwelshman wrote:padonbike wrote:Robert Millar would have a heart attack seeing a bike rider with an upper body developed like that. I seem to remember Millar saying that muscled arms weighed more than non muscled arms and for this reason he avoided weight training like the plague.
Thats why Armstrong won 7 tours and Millar none!!
To be fair Millar had the mostly Spanish peleton in SPain gang up against him in 85 and led and came 2nd on GC twice in 85, 86 , won the cavodonga summit and did not have the modern levels of support/help many GT riders seem to seek...so your comment is a little unfair... There was a time when climbers had to be extremely slight but with modern methods this is no longer the case!!! Nature turned on its head by something. RM was also 2nd in the Giro 87...let;'s see if Lance can manage that?0 -
But, the original point I was trying to make is his upper body will look far more impressive if he is of a smaller stature than most people (which he is). He probably won't be much over 70kg still.
from Wilipedia:
Full name Lance Edward Armstrong
Nickname The Boss, Tour de Lance, Mellow Johnny
(from Maillot Jaune, French for Yellow jersey)[1]
Date of birth September 18, 1971 (age 37)
Country United States
Height 1.8 m (5 ft 11 in)
Weight 1993: 79 kg (170 lb)
1999: 74 kg (160 lb)
Hardly small stature0 -
74kg? I'm 6"2 and only weight 76kg and i'm not skinny by any means. Don't know where he puts it. Well that's a surprise to me. I expected him to weight a lot less than that."A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
Date: Month-Year Nov 1992 Jan 1993 Sept 1993 Aug 1997 Nov 1999 Body weight, kg 78.9 76.5 75.1 79.5 79.7
These figures are are for his weight as measured in a lab and as far as I know are the only reliable bodyweight figures for LA published.
He was not lighter post-cancer
Copy of the published paper available free here:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/98/6/2191
Bin0 -
Yeah, I was always surprised by Lance's stats - he's heavier than I would have expected.
That latest interview in the comic said that right now he is 180lbs which for this time in the season is actually about 10lbs lighter than he used to be.
He wants to be more like 170 for racing and 164 for the Tour - I guess that's actually quite a lot for a guy with that level of bodyfat - he's obviously losing muscle to get down to that weight.I'm left handed, if that matters.0 -
LA has a broad physique so carries the weight quite well. Look at him compared to Contador. Look at the difference in hand size for a start.
LA reported his bodyweight to be between 72kg and 74kg for the tours 1999 to 2004 according to Ed Coyle (link to paper above). But Ed Coyle never weighed him on the lab scales at that weight. I very much doubt he weighed less than 75kg (165lbs). LA popularised the line that he had lost weight after cancer. This of course is a myth as the lab figures show.
Bin0 -
According to Chris Carmichael LA's 1999 TdF weight was 158lbs and his off season weight 10lbs more ... this is from the LA Performance Programme book published in 2000.
It also says that after 3 months of strength training he can bench press 125lbs which is a fair amount for a cyclist.0 -
6288 wrote:According to Chris Carmichael LA's 1999 TdF weight was 158lbs and his off season weight 10lbs more ... this is from the LA Performance Programme book published in 2000.
It also says that after 3 months of strength training he can bench press 125lbs which is a fair amount for a cyclist.
Carmichael is therefore saying that LA weighed 76.2kg (168lbs/2.205) in the off-season. However, according to Ed Coyle, LA weighed in on the calibrated lab scales at 79.7kg (176lbs) in November 1999.
In Coyle's lab LA weighed in at 75.1kg (166lbs) in September 1993, the month he won the world championship.
Sure there's a 10lb difference between off-season and racing weight, but LA is still about 3.5kg (or 8lbs) heavier than Carmichael's letting on. Again perpetuating the myth that LA lost weight after cancer. He didn't. He's the same body weight.
It's not reduced bodyweight that allowed Armstrong to get himself up the mountains faster (or TT faster) it's something else. Coyle speculates in his paper (note "speculates") that this is due to "improved muscular efficiency". This "efficiency" increase between 1992 and 1999 Coyle calculated to be 8% to 9%.
In reality, Ed Coyle was at a loss to explain LA's huge wattage increase between 1992 and 1999 given that everything else about LA had stayed the same. So he came up with this hypothesis of "improved muscular efficiency". A hypothesis that other physiologists have been sceptical about.
Bin0
