Lance's long thighs

neilo23

Was watching one of the Armstrong dvds and there was something I didn't understand. Someone was explaining that Armstrongs thighs are longer than most people's in proportion to his calves which gives him a physiological advantage. Why would this be an advantage?

For example, because of the way leverage works, you need more pressure to push a piano key down when you push at the back end of it as you do at the front. Surely short thighs would provide more leverage?

dawebbo

Leverage in that sense doesn't really matter, as the gears factor that out.

I'm not sure I understand this either. Perhaps the length affects the balance of the forces coming from difference muscles in your legs and that this is optimal in some way for lance.

joeyhalloran

maybe a long thigh means you can sit further back on the bike more comfortably, which engages you glutes more.

inkyfingers

I don't know about cycling, but the relative length of you upper and lower legs can affect how fast you can run. Remember reading an article about former Arsenal player Marc Overmars and they put his blistering pace (this was a few years ago) down to this.

tarquin_foxglove

Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?

neilo23

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?

Please...... :roll:

P_Tucker

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?

Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.

neilo23

P_Tucker wrote:

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?

Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.

Most exceptional athletes are different to we mortals otherwise we would all be sprinting up the Alps. I did not ask this for the thread to be turned into a "Lance dopes" thread.

Pigtail

Unfortunately this is the internet - you don't get to choose what the thread turns into, it goes where it will.

I remember reading an article on this many years ago, where it was attempting to explain the ideal physiology for a sprinter. The ratio is called the 'crural index.'

I've no idea why I remember that though!

P_Tucker

neilo23 wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?

Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.

Most exceptional athletes are different to we mortals otherwise we would all be sprinting up the Alps. I did not ask this for the thread to be turned into a "Lance dopes" thread.

I dont give a crap what you did or did not ask for.

dennisn

neilo23 wrote:

For example, because of the way leverage works, you need more pressure to push a piano key down when you push at the back end of it as you do at the front. Surely short thighs would provide more leverage?

Yes, it takes more force to move it from the rear on the keyboard but it must be moved a further distance if you push it from the front of the key. This translates into, no matter where you push it, the same amount of "work" (if you will) to make the key hit the piano strings. Leverage doesn't reduce the amount of work required to do something.

neilo23

dennisn wrote:

neilo23 wrote:

For example, because of the way leverage works, you need more pressure to push a piano key down when you push at the back end of it as you do at the front. Surely short thighs would provide more leverage?

Yes, it takes more force to move it from the rear on the keyboard but it must be moved a further distance if you push it from the front of the key. This translates into, no matter where you push it, the same amount of "work" (if you will) to make the key hit the piano strings. Leverage doesn't reduce the amount of work required to do something.

Ahhh. Thanks for the explanation. I should have paid more attention at school :-)

Cleat Eastwood

Pigtail wrote:

I remember reading an article on this many years ago, where it was attempting to explain the ideal physiology for a sprinter. The ratio is called the 'crural index.'

I've no idea why I remember that though!

I remember reading an article on leggy things and it said that women naturally have a longer thigh bone which is ideally suited to cycling, what they lack is the muscle strength of men, if they did have the strength then women would wipe the floor with men (i paraphrase of course)

jame58rown

P_Tucker wrote:

I dont give a crap what you did or did not ask for.

shockedsoshocked

P_Tucker wrote:

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?

Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.

I think the same reason was given for Hinaults dominance, despite the fact he also returned from knee injury much hairier and stockier than the rest of the peleton...

P_Tucker

jame58rown wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

I dont give a crap what you did or did not ask for.

Damn right. Now get the f**k out of my basement.

lemoncurd

Think it must be leverage.

Imagine how difficult it would be if you had tiny little thigh bones, you'd need much more effort to push the pedals.

ut_och_cykla

neilo23 wrote:

Was watching one of the Armstrong dvds and there was something I didn't understand. Someone was explaining that Armstrongs thighs are longer than most people's in proportion to his calves which gives him a physiological advantage. Why would this be an advantage?

For example, because of the way leverage works, you need more pressure to push a piano key down when you push at the back end of it as you do at the front. Surely short thighs would provide more leverage?

Just guessing but proportionately longer thigh bones would also allow proportionally more muscle in just the right areas (front of thigh) for any given body height.

Bronzie

If you want to read Armstrong fairytales, there's another one here about how he improved his muscle efficiency between 1992 and 1999 by 8%*

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... trong.html

Enjoy!#

* - Coyle's testing protocols have been subsequently debunked as a load of old tosh and that an 8% increase in muscle efficiency is impossible in a rider already competing at top level

# - ..........while you still can before the FDA Federal Investigation finally expose the truth as to why Armstrong won 7 straight tours

tarquin_foxglove

neilo23 wrote:

Most exceptional athletes are different to we mortals otherwise we would all be sprinting up the Alps.

But to ride the TdeF you are already an exceptional athlete. Armstrong's performance in that select bunch was exceptional. To suggest it is because he has a slightly more favourable leg/shin ratio is laughable.

In athletics when Carl Lewis & Ed Moses were dominating, it was due to long legs giving a large stride. When it was Michael Johnson it was due to a powerful upper body & relatively short legs meaning he could hit top speed faster than the rest. Ideal sprinters were meant to be short but then Usain Bolt turns up.

All the public pronouncements on the bio-mechanics of elite athletes make it seem like a pseudo-science, giving a simple reason for dominance to what must be the result of a complex set of inter related physiological processes giving an 'aggregation of marginal gains'.

n Armstrong's case perhaps he did have the ideal Crural ratio or perhaps he improved his muscle efficiency or following cancer lose redundant muscle bulk from his upper body or had a high cadence. Perhaps it was all of them & as he had the best team, the best preparation & the best doctors it made 7 tours a formality.

stratblue

Armstrong. Has there ever been a more inappropriately named athlete?

keef66

His veins were probably quite robust though

shinyhelmut

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Perhaps it was all of them & as he had the best team, the best preparation & the best doctors it made 7 tours a formality.

Whatever the reason(s) for his dominance and your views on Lance I don't think winning 7 straight Tours is a formality!

tarquin_foxglove

ShinyHelmut wrote:

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Perhaps it was all of them & as he had the best team, the best preparation & the best doctors it made 7 tours a formality.

Whatever the reason(s) for his dominance and your views on Lance I don't think winning 7 straight Tours is a formality!

Course it was, he had slightly longer thighs (relative to shin length) than anyone else in the peloton. I don't know why the others bothered turning it up.

Monty Dog

Jeez - why did they go through all that rigmarole over three weeks when they could have just got the tape measure out and decided things then and there?

ollyridesfirst

P_Tucker wrote:

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?

Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!

It's amazing how he's never actually failed a drugs test, yet people hold onto the belief that he's a doper. Is it not innocent until proven guilty anymore? How many negative tests do you think he had in just those 7 years he won the tours? Must be over 1500+

shinyhelmut

Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!

Here we go again.....

bigmat

OllyRidesFirst wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?

Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!

It's amazing how he's never actually failed a drugs test, yet people hold onto the belief that he's a doper. Is it not innocent until proven guilty anymore? How many negative tests do you think he had in just those 7 years he won the tours? Must be over 1500+

dream on

ollyridesfirst

ShinyHelmut wrote:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!

Here we go again.....

I take it you don't have the link to the website detailing the proof then :roll:

dennisn

OllyRidesFirst wrote:

ShinyHelmut wrote:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!

Here we go again.....

I take it you don't have the link to the website detailing the proof then :roll:

Well put. +1

P_Tucker

OllyRidesFirst wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?

Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!

It's amazing how he's never actually failed a drugs test, yet people hold onto the belief that he's a doper. Is it not innocent until proven guilty anymore? How many negative tests do you think he had in just those 7 years he won the tours? Must be over 1500+

Ugh. Even I can't be bothered with this one. If you want to believe he was clean, knock yourself out. Also, it's innocent until proven guilty only in a court of law - I base my personal opinion on the balance of probabilities. And if Armstrong didn't dope, I'll eat my own testicles.