- May 6, 2009
Jack Bobridge credited his U23 TT win due to losing "5-6kg" after going on a food binge in Australia in July.
I have used that too. It is very nice. You can see that when you loose the 7 Kg you don't become a Tour Challenger. I bet you were surprised at the calculations.BroDeal said:But most people want an answer to a question like if I weigh 75kg and generate 300W, how much faster up an 8% climb will I be if I drop 7kg. Air resistance needs to be taken into account. Analytic cylcing uses a decent model that factors in a lot of things in. You could, for example, not only reduce the rider's weight but also slightly reduce the frontal area to account for slightly less rider size due to the weight loss.
The answer to your question is pretty obvious and has been addressed a few times on this thread._frost said:Why? Certainly less strength and less peak power but do you have some prove or can you explain the physiological mechanism why someone would lose a significant amount of (mostly aerobically produced that is needed for pursuit) power due to loss of muscle mass?
If it is so obvious why don't you point it out to me? I see a few anecdotes of personal experiences and some speculation but no any explanation of the mechanism that would lead to a significant loss of (sustainable) power due to loss of muscle mass?Race Radio said:The answer to your question is pretty obvious and has been addressed a few times on this thread.
Wiggens started with a significant power advantage so while he lost a large amount with his weight loss the fact that he started at such a high level certainly helped.
So you see zero correlation between his output over 4 minutes and his output over 30? Most would disagrees with you but you are welcome to your opinions._frost said:If it is so obvious why don't you point it out to me? I see a few anecdotes of personal experiences and some speculation but no any explanation of the mechanism that would lead to a significant loss of (sustainable) power due to loss of muscle mass?
There is definately a correlation between power output in 4 and 30 minutes. But change in ratios of those, there may be a correlation or not. Power output in any duration (except very short) can be estimated from critical power (power that one can produce without consuming anaerobic capacity - Maximal Accumulated Oxygen Deficiency) and anaerobic capacity divided by duration. I could easily see a drop in anaerobic capacity due to loss in muscle mass (see eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8905189?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.P ubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pu bmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&l ogdbfrom=pubmed) and that way a drop in power over short durations but the question is what happens to critical power that is dependend on VO2Max (cardiac output, blood oxygen carrying capacity), LT (mitochondrial density and enzymes) and efficiency (ST/FT cell ratio)?Race Radio said:So you see zero correlation between his output over 4 minutes and his output over 30? Most would disagrees with you but you are welcome to your opinions.
I cannot. Sorry if you got wrong impression, I am not trying to be a smart a$$ but honestly want to know!Perhaps you can tell us why a loss of 10% of a professional's body weight would not result in a loss of power?
He hasn't focused on or had much experience of grand tours in the past so could improve his 3rd week performances.Mountain Goat said:i have to agree with the posters that wiggo's performance is over rated due to the relatively weak parcours.. not saying this proves clean or dirty, but only three mountain top finishes (and andorra neutralised by the wind), and short time trials didn't really give a chance to open up the field, especially given that garmin saved their arses in the TTT compared to lesser teams with more accomplished GC contenders (cervelo, rabo, lotto).. the top ten is usually separated by 25-30 mins, but this time only 14 between first and tenth indicating minimal opportunites to open up the breadth of rider ability.
in addition, in the 3rd week he suffered more than most indicating he is not the 3week specialist that he is made out to be. a tougher parcour in the pyrenees and i reckon wiggo would have felt the effects lasting into the 3rd week and lost a lot more time than he did. a great transformation, but not out of this world as some suggest
good point about the racing. maybe a bit of both, in that the top guys didn't want to put their heart on their sleeves in the hill finishes in case they crack and not have another opportunity to make time back (bit like sastre having a go, then got dropped - indicating becoz of the course, riders werent agressive).cyclingmad said:He hasn't focused on or had much experience of grand tours in the past so could improve his 3rd week performances.
Have to agree about the racing not creating the gaps but blame the lack of aggression in racing not the course. I also think smaller gaps between contenders is showing that doping is not having as much impact on performance. All the tours since 2006 have much closer fields and each year it is getting closer