pro riders
Comments
-
FTFYTonyJams wrote:What many long time observers of the sport find hard to fathom is how riders can drop significant weight but increase their power outputs. The watts per kilo measurements are leaving many PE teachers and muck-raking journalists scratching their heads.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:My original assertion actually included both of those points.
Your original assertion, in all its glory:bobmcstuff wrote:Possibly for some sportspeople but not for most cyclists and certainly not for climbers.
Froome's stated optimum race weight is 68kg/150lb at 1.85m/6ft1 which is skinny by anyone's standards unless you live on a POW camp in WW2. Some of these guys have 5% body fat or even less during racing and that's really low - and hard to maintain for long.
Which is not the same as your dismissive:bobmcstuff wrote:Whatever, <5% body fat would have looked skinny 100 years ago and still does today.
as your original assertion definitely equates a height/weight combo as being skinny by any standards - which, I reiterate, it's not. You then, in your original assertion, go on to mention that some of them have a low body fat percentage.
Your second post, equating a low body fat percentage with historical skinniness, is inconsistent with your original post as you are treating a height/weight combination as the same thing as a body fat percentage, which is not true.
So, whilst your original post did contain both of those points, it did not contain them in a structure which validates your attempted rebuttal in the second post.
My reply was to point out the flaw in your original post (i.e. Froome's BMI is not unhealthy) and highlight the syllogism involving your two posts, as described above.0 -
It is sometimes hard to understand how dedicated professionals who have obviously been training and racing hard, taking diet seriously and devoting all their efforts to cycling can suddenly lose a few kg whilst at the same time increasing their power output. Making comparisons to Mamils losing a bit of weight by actually bothering to do some training is pretty pointless.
Froome is an inch shorter than me. If I get down to 80kg I'm doing well. Any lower and my wife starts telling me I look gaunt and unhealthy. For me to lose an extra 12kg, even 10kg allowing for height difference, would be pretty much impossible I reckon.0 -
Joncomelately wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:My original assertion actually included both of those points.
Your original assertion, in all its glory:bobmcstuff wrote:Possibly for some sportspeople but not for most cyclists and certainly not for climbers.
Froome's stated optimum race weight is 68kg/150lb at 1.85m/6ft1 which is skinny by anyone's standards unless you live on a POW camp in WW2. Some of these guys have 5% body fat or even less during racing and that's really low - and hard to maintain for long.
Which is not the same as your dismissive:bobmcstuff wrote:Whatever, <5% body fat would have looked skinny 100 years ago and still does today.
as your original assertion definitely equates a height/weight combo as being skinny by any standards - which, I reiterate, it's not. You then, in your original assertion, go on to mention that some of them have a low body fat percentage.
Your second post, equating a low body fat percentage with historical skinniness, is inconsistent with your original post as you are treating a height/weight combination as the same thing as a body fat percentage, which is not true.
So, whilst your original post did contain both of those points, it did not contain them in a structure which validates your attempted rebuttal in the second post.
My reply was to point out the flaw in your original post (i.e. Froome's BMI is not unhealthy) and highlight the syllogism involving your two posts, as described above.
Look at you with your big words... Are you pleased with yourself?
Yes, I didn't check Froome's BMI before I posted. Perhaps I should have.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Look at you with your big words... Are you pleased with yourself?.
ha ha ... I was going to comment on the use of long words ..... its an attack mechanism for internet arguing, some people start to insult to try and win, some people suddenly break out the thesaurus to look more intelligent.
got to love forums
0 -
FTFYfat daddy wrote:there is empirical evidence of a psychological necessity to show an affectionate propensity towards hypertext transfer protocol, internet protocol and transmission control protocol-actuated discussion fora0 -
bompington wrote:
FTFYTonyJams wrote:What many long time observers of the sport find hard to fathom is how riders can drop significant weight but increase their power outputs. The watts per kilo measurements are leaving many PE teachers and muck-raking journalists scratching their heads. 0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Look at you with your big words...
I'm sorry that you find accuracy in language so distasteful. I was typing on my phone so was trying to minimise word count, rather than having to explain every single concept but if that's what is necessary then I will make a note. Is it better if I say "I'm sorry some stuff is hard to read. My thumbs are fat and I was hoping that people might be able to know what I meant with me not saying it all in shorts words so I don't have to keep tap tap on the phone screen".bobmcstuff wrote:Are you pleased with yourself?
No, but I'm not displeased either. It's simply writing things down on the internet, which evokes no emotional response.
Sorry, does that sound too much like an attack mechanism? Perhaps I should say "No, I don't really care because this is all just a bit of time wasting and has no real meaning at all".bobmcstuff wrote:Yes, I didn't check Froome's BMI before I posted. Perhaps I should have.
That is a succinct way of summarising some of what I said. Sorry again, I mean "Yeah, you should have".0 -
Joncomelately wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Look at you with your big words...
I'm sorry that you find accuracy in language so distasteful. I was typing on my phone so was trying to minimise word count, rather than having to explain every single concept but if that's what is necessary then I will make a note. Is it better if I say "I'm sorry some stuff is hard to read. My thumbs are fat and I was hoping that people might be able to know what I meant with me not saying it all in shorts words so I don't have to keep tap tap on the phone screen".
There's a difference between accuracy and prolixity.Joncomelately wrote:No, but I'm not displeased either. It's simply writing things down on the internet, which evokes no emotional response.
Sorry, does that sound too much like an attack mechanism? Perhaps I should say "No, I don't really care because this is all just a bit of time wasting and has no real meaning at all".
I applaud your commitment to internet accuracy if you're willing to spend time correcting people on the internet for no benefit whatsoever.Joncomelately wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Yes, I didn't check Froome's BMI before I posted. Perhaps I should have.
That is a succinct way of summarising some of what I said. Sorry again, I mean "Yeah, you should have".
That wasn't so hard, was it?0 -
0
-
Joncomelately wrote:
I prefer to think of it as not bothering to do my fact checking. Which I suppose amounts to the same thing...0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:I prefer to think of it as not bothering to do my fact checking.
Given the most powerful leaders in the world seem to have given up doing it too, I think you're in good company!0 -
-
Can we do nasi goreng instead? I'm hungry.0
-
Yes mate, surprising amounts.Rick Chasey wrote:TonyJams wrote:
What many long time observers of the sport find hard to fathom is how riders can drop significant weight but increase their power outputs. The watts per kilo measurements are leaving many sports scientists scratching their heads.
Do you actually cycle?
Even on an amateur level this happens more or less ALL THE TIME.
I'm not talking about people doing sportives, Im talking about Olympic medal contenders, TdF top 10 riders, that sort of level. When they've gone from super skinny to freakishly skinny and yet their TTing has improved. There's a lot of stuff that defies accepted knowledge with the current generation. Lemond's maxim is always good "The numbers don't add up"0 -
duplicate post0
-
FTFYTonyJams wrote:There's a lot of stuff that defies accepted opinions in the Clinic0 -
Christ it's tedious isn't it?
"The numbers don't add up."
You don't have any numbers, other than the guy's start number and finishing time.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Christ it's tedious isn't it?
"The numbers don't add up."
You don't have any numbers, other than the guy's start number and finishing time.
Exactly, but that doesn't stop all the idiots at the asylum and Ferrari making them up and putting it all over the net.0 -
Could you explain to me how fat contributes to power output?TonyJams wrote:Yes mate, surprising amounts.
I'm not talking about people doing sportives, Im talking about Olympic medal contenders, TdF top 10 riders, that sort of level. When they've gone from super skinny to freakishly skinny and yet their TTing has improved. There's a lot of stuff that defies accepted knowledge with the current generation. Lemond's maxim is always good "The numbers don't add up"Twitter: @RichN950 -
Rick Chasey wrote:It's almost like people don't know about F=ma.
Don't start that, or we'll be on crank lengths soon.0 -
It took longer than I expected, but bonkking can take satisfaction in his thread now.0
-
Mad_Malx wrote:It took longer than I expected, but bonkking can take satisfaction in his thread now.
I dunno, it's only on 3 pages and nobody's compared anyone to the Nazis yet.0 -
My mother in law's a nazi, and if i'm being totally honest with you i'm probably being a bit unfair on the nazis when i say that!!!0
-
TonyJams wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:ben@31 wrote:If took these runners and cyclists back 100 years into the past. Pre McDonalds and Coke. They wouldn't look gaunt compared to the population.
You have to remember in some photos, Chris Froome had been burning several thousand calories a day, every day, for the past 3 weeks. It wouldn't surprised me if there is some atrophy by the end of a Grand Tour
Possibly for some sportspeople but not for most cyclists and certainly not for climbers.
Froome's stated optimum race weight is 68kg/150lb at 1.85m/6ft1 which is skinny by anyone's standards unless you live on a POW camp in WW2. Some of these guys have 5% body fat or even less during racing and that's really low - and hard to maintain for long.
What many long time observers of the sport find hard to fathom is how riders can drop significant weight but increase their power outputs. The watts per kilo measurements are leaving many sports scientists scratching their heads.
Not very good sports scientists if they are scratching their heads trying to understand the different physiology involved in short term and longer term power.0 -
Grand Depart is T-3 and the crazies start to pitch up
You can set your watch by it every year0 -
Joncomelately wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It's almost like people don't know about F=ma.
Don't start that, or we'll be on crank lengths soon.
And sock length0 -
Powwwaaaahhhhhh is nothing without control. The top cyclists spend long tedious hours, perfecting their technique, as well as increasing their Powwaahhhh outputs ( which increase naturally with better technique) Powwaaahhh is basically the product of Cadence and Torque, after all, so for a given Torque, an increase in Cadence, due to better technique, gives higher power, keeping weight down, further increases power to weight. La souplesse est cle. Failing that Warfarin and Arsenic work wonders, if you can't get EPO, or Crack, ask Lance.0
