Faster by Michael Hutchinson

okgo

I would think its changed a fair bit since his time in terms of gap between top amateur and pro, now you do get a lot of pro riders mixing it with amateurs in races, certainly in the UK. The gap between pro and winning pro is just as huge I would say. Comparing a domestique from a small team to one of the best in the peloton, huge gap.

wombly_knees

Richmond Racer wrote:

mroli wrote:

Back on topic - I'm enjoying it. Hutchinson basically seems to have examined every avenue at how he can get quicker and faster, adopted every fad, trained in every way possible, but has the ultimate limitation of his body. And a particular part of his body too. Reading the nutrition section too - interesting stuff - when Contador submitted his list of supplements to the UCI for his doping hearing, there were 27 supplements on that list. Keeping track of all of those must be a nightmare - I struggle with my hay fever meds (1 pill twice a day!)

27! What the...?

When Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell tested positive, turned out they were both taking a suitcase-full of supplements on a daily and otherwise regular basis. 18 supplements per day for at least one of them, IIRC.

There's no need. Simply no need.

Must've been posted ad nauseum, but Greenedge's list is somewhere in this. Not exactly brief
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/06/a-tou ... ce-course/

frenchfighter

Ha there is Nutella in that photo - someone at Sky was ridiculed for eating nutella.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

Ha there is Nutella in that photo - someone at Sky was ridiculed for eating nutella.

I don't think the eschew it completely. They just don't eat it straight out of the jar with a spoon.

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Ha there is Nutella in that photo - someone at Sky was ridiculed for eating nutella.

They just don't eat it straight out of the jar with a spoon.

There's a different way of eating it? :shock:

mooro

Full jar micro waved up and then sucked through a straw - big jan style of course!

thegibdog

frenchfighter wrote:

thegibdog wrote:

From the Road.cc review:

For instance Hutchinson's VO2 max (the amount of oxygen he can use in a minute) is huge: 50% more than a good club rider. But as his rate of blood lactate build up is also high he could never translate that capacity for fuel use into horse power for long sustained effort at the higher pace needed to bring results amongst the world's very best.

http://road.cc/content/review/115653-fa ... t-cyclists

Sounds like an interesting read.

Thanks but not sure I understand that explanation - how does that mean he can crush everything here then get beat by the pros? I suppose the only rational explanation is that he would get beaten over here as well. It always surprises me that people who can put out ridiculously good times in TTs here look good but nothing special in relation to EU pros.

There are clearly many other factors at play, some of which are mentioned in the introduction to the book which can be read here:

http://issuu.com/bloomsburypublishing/d ... _sampler_1

frenchfighter

Nice - thanks. Will give it a quick read.

Macaloon

The introduction is so well written, I would buy this if the subject was pro-am crochet.

Interesting Rouleur consultation with the Doc.

R: It actually helps the public image of cycling teams to be open because the previous generation was secretive with good reason…

MH: If they were secretive about it, people would naturally assume the worst. The thing that I think is most interesting about the book is the level of detail the people in those teams look at the nut they are trying to crack, look at the riders they have at the minute, and work out how they are going to get those two to meet in the middle.

Cav at the Olympics was fascinating. You have a got a sprinter that they were de-tuning to get his sustainable max up so that he could get up Box Hill, but they were also aware that they could overshoot. They were aiming to get him up the hill at a very precise target. Okay, it didn’t work, but that was the only way he was going to win it. If you go back ten or 15 years, nobody would have thought of doing that. You would just try to make your rider as fit as you could and hope for the best.

RichN95.

From that Rouleur interview, anyone know who this would be?

There are certainly people winning big bike races who have less genetic talent than others in the bunch. Several people I spoke to mentioned the same veteran British pro and said that if he had ever taken it seriously and done the training, he would have won everything from the Tour de France downwards.

In the book it didn't say he was British, so I guessed it was Oscar Freire, but now I'm puzzled.

frenchfighter

Maybe David Millar, clearly has talent and GT physique is not out of the question but strikes me as an under-performer. Could be anyone though.

Pross

Hard to tell as it just says 'veteran' so not sure if that means current or retired. I can't think of many it would apply to past or present though. Other than Millar the only possible I can think of would be Wegelius but that would seem a bit of a stretch.

inkyfingers

Would be very surprised if it was Millar, he's hardly an underachiever.

The list of domestic pros who've been touted as "could have beens" is pretty long.

Pross

Other than Boardman. Miller and Millar in his early days I can't think of many riders before the current crop that anyone felt could win the Tour. Of those, Miller achieved a lot and Boardman has never struck me as lazy (and in another era who knows what he could have achieved). Most of the British pros who made it on the continent in the relatively recent past were probably more suited to Classics or sprinting (Elliot, Yates, Hammond). Cummings is the only other name I can think of, would he qualify as a veteran though?

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Other than Boardman. Miller and Millar in his early days I can't think of many riders before the current crop that anyone felt could win the Tour. Of those, Miller achieved a lot and Boardman has never struck me as lazy (and in another era who knows what he could have achieved). Most of the British pros who made it on the continent in the relatively recent past were probably more suited to Classics or sprinting (Elliot, Yates, Hammond). Cummings is the only other name I can think of, would he qualify as a veteran though?

Jamie Burrow perhaps? I really don't know much about his story.

DeVlaeminck

Malcolm Elliott is generally thought of as one whose palmares doesn't do justice to his talent, he admits he didn't train very hard saying he actually did more when he made his comeback in his 40s, but winning the Tour seems fanciful. I'm inclined to think it must be David Millar only because I can't think of anyone else it might be.

People exaggerate to sell books though, maybe a young Millar assuming he was clean at the start did show enough to suggest in another era he might have won a lot more, but the Tour downwards is a bit of a statement.

mulletmaster

Graeme_S wrote:

Cal_Stewart wrote:

The Gap is massive between am and pro.

This was my biggest take away from Rough Ride. Kimmage writes about having a stonking amateur season where he dominates the Irish scene (admittedly not the same as dominating the amateur scene in a big European cycling nation) before turning pro and being absolutely blown away.

Fancy reading Faster. The Hour is my favourite cycling book by a long way.

We have 3 current serving pros, a pro from last year and another couple of retired pro veterans turning up to our chipper irish E/1/2/3 races every week, bewteen all of them they have won 2 out of the 12 I would estimate they've entered.
Take from that what you will. I think it's more of a reflection of the entrants than the events, but to me, if you can't come over here and simply ride away from all the numpties like me, I don't see how you can expect to earn a living from cycling. One of them banged out an 18min 30 10 and a 1 hour 40 50m tt last year to, almost being on topic to this thread.

Pross

Jamie Burrow somehow past me by, it was in the time when I barely paid any attention cycling. He certainly looks like a wasted talent though.

frenchfighter

inkyfingers wrote:

Would be very surprised if it was Millar, he's hardly an underachiever.

The list of domestic pros who've been touted as "could have beens" is pretty long.

He has a good handful of stage wins in the three GTS. He has two very minor stage race win. He has done 23 GTS (WD from 5) and best placing is 62nd.

Never read from him or anyone else or got the impression of him being someone who would train seriously hard.

I would say he has a good palmares not great. He found his happy life and ran with it. Nothing wrong with that.

frenchfighter

Altitude tents or rooms should be made illegal imo.

napoleond

Hmmm. Found the book a bit meh.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

Altitude tents or rooms should be made illegal imo.

The question then would be why? On what grounds?

It's a perfectly valid point of view, but it gets to the philosophy of why some things are banned and some are not.

frenchfighter

It more performance enhancing then a 0.000000000001g of clen - for which you can be sidelined for two years.

Its prohibitively expensive and borderline immoral.

Richmond Racer

frenchfighter wrote:

It more performance enhancing then a 0.000000000001g of clen - for which you can be sidelined for two years.

Its prohibitively expensive and borderline immoral.

How is a tent that costs 300 smackers a month to hire (and they dont live in them day in, day out, 365 days a year), 'prohibitively expensive'?

Would you ban altitude training camps?

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

Its prohibitively expensive and borderline immoral.

But why is it immoral? That's the crux of the matter.

It's harmless to the user and basically just a glorified air filter.

Pross

It's arguably very moral as it replicates the effects of altitude training without all the CO2 emissions associated with flying around the world. Surely all they do is induce a natural biological reaction? Nothing is being added to the body or taken from it so I really don't see the issue.

Macaloon

If a method or technique (eg only racing once a year 8) ) is so expensive that only the top tier of teams can afford it, and demonstrably delivers consistent significant benefits, then it can be investigated as being unfair. Immorality is another realm (but I like how readily it comes to the surface in cycling).

Getting high on altitude seems fine on both counts.

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

If a method or technique (eg only racing once a year 8) ) is so expensive that only the top tier of teams can afford it, and demonstrably delivers consistent significant benefits, then it can be investigated as being unfair. Immorality is another realm (but I like how readily it comes to the surface in cycling).

Getting high on altitude seems fine on both counts.

Point of fact, the bill for shipping riders and coaches etc to 2-weeks-at-a-time training camps, is rather more expensive than a few altitude tents. As for top tier of teams, you'd be lucky to find a free hotel room on Tenerife, most of the WT teams have and are training there, as well as some Pro-conti (and even Conti) guys.

Anonymous

frenchfighter wrote:

It more performance enhancing then a 0.000000000001g of clen - for which you can be sidelined for two years.

Its prohibitively expensive and borderline immoral.

But that's the amount of clen found in at the time, we all know it reduces as time goes on from when you take it.

nic_77

sjmclean wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

It more performance enhancing then a 0.000000000001g of clen - for which you can be sidelined for two years.

Its prohibitively expensive and borderline immoral.

But that's the amount of clen found in at the time, we all know it reduces as time goes on from when you take it.

Or the amount of clen that was left in the blood, following a transfusion... which of course could be considered very performance enhancing.

(hypothetically of course)