Landis Attacks Vaughters

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Tell that to Cancellara after the Annecy ITT in 2009. Guy was fuming. He thought it was BS as well. Still does. One skinny guy spanked him. 63 kilograms versus 80 kg. I know who should win, who almost did.
Some of the world's best time trialists:

Chris Boardman, Jacque Anquetil, Tony Rominger, Bernard Hinault, Greg LeMond...

Pretty much all of these guys are less than 64kgs (except maybe Anquetil).

Why does everyone think that Cancellara is the only guy who's ever been able to ride a time trial, ergo all time trialists must look like him?

It's not his musculature which is responsible for his power output or success, it's his cardiac output and capillary density.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
131313 said:
I ride my bike for a living and I understand the science of producing power on a bicycle, and I can tell you this is categorically false. I've lost a lot of weight, somewhere on the order of 20 lbs over what I weighed in my late teens, and my power has steadily increased.

But that really doesn't matter. Muscle mass has very little to do with power output over durations of about a minute, weather you're on a flat stretch of road or going up hill. If you think otherwise you simply don't understand the mechanisms for producing power on a bicycle.
Difference is Wigans was a gold medal winning Olympic track cyclist. He was supposedly at a physical peak. Do you think he rode every year before 2009 overweight and out of shape? Hell no. He lost weight, part of which was muscle mass and he somehow managed to perform better in a chrono. That muscle mass was not unnecessary mass. It was already used, needed, for producing his average power output. Wigans weight loss helps at gradient, but on the flat, not really. He got quicker on the flat, enough to come in 5th in Annecy and 4th in Monaco. You missed the part where I said he was already at a low body fat %. There is only so much muscle mass one can loss before they take a hit. Body fat is ok, but muscle mass isn't.

This has got zero to do with JV and Floyd. I'm dropping it.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
131313 said:
I ride my bike for a living and I understand the science of producing power on a bicycle, and I can tell you this is categorically false. I've lost a lot of weight, somewhere on the order of 20 lbs over what I weighed in my late teens, and my power has steadily increased.

But that really doesn't matter. Muscle mass has very little to do with power output over durations of about a minute, weather you're on a flat stretch of road or going up hill. If you think otherwise you simply don't understand the mechanisms for producing power on a bicycle.
This is my point: when you are at your racing weight, i.e. already very lean, can you truly lose more weight and increase power? From everything I've read and experienced, that ain't possible.

And yes, I'm well aware of the physiology of producing power on a bike.

Edit: and I'm not talking about the steady weight loss over years as you develop your body into a pro, I thought that was a prerequisite to the conversation. I'm talking about losing a good amount of weight from one season to another after one is already well-trained while also increasing power. I don't see how that is possible.
 
Galic Ho said:
Difference is Wigans was a gold medal winning Olympic track cyclist. He was supposedly at a physical peak. Do you think he rode every year before 2009 overweight and out of shape? Hell no. He lost weight, part of which was muscle mass and he somehow managed to perform better in a chrono. That muscle mass was not unnecessary mass. It was already used, needed, for producing his average power output. Wigans weight loss helps at gradient, but on the flat, not really. He got quicker on the flat, enough to come in 5th in Annecy and 4th in Monaco. You missed the part where I said he was already at a low body fat %. There is only so much muscle mass one can loss before they take a hit. Body fat is ok, but muscle mass isn't.

This has got zero to do with JV and Floyd. I'm dropping it.
Dropping it is probably the right thing to do.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
131313 said:
Some of the world's best time trialists:

Chris Boardman, Jacque Anquetil, Tony Rominger, Bernard Hinault, Greg LeMond...

Pretty much all of these guys are less than 64kgs (except maybe Anquetil).

Why does everyone think that Cancellara is the only guy who's ever been able to ride a time trial, ergo all time trialists must look like him?

It's not his musculature which is responsible for his power output or success, it's his cardiac output and capillary density.
Wrong again. Hinault and LeMond all look like which current cyclists? It isn't Contador or Wigans.

Try Evans and Vino. Same with Anquetil, similar build and height. AC is supposedly 63 kg at race weight. Wigans 71 or 72kg in 2009. Do you know Evans and Vino's weight? Exactly the same as LeMond and Hinault. Mid to high 60s. Approx 67kg at race weight. All of them have similar styles. All naturally good time triallers. AC is as well, but he benefits hugely from aerodynamics.

Take the guys from the cleaner eras, before 1990. All the ones who climbed and had a chrono are exactly the same build as Evans/Vino/Menchov. Everyone else got spanked in a chrono, except the pure power guys who use brute force power output to counter their weight. One Spaniard comes to mind in comparison to Spartacus. He was invincible at the Tour because of his chrono. He put 6 minutes into one Lance Armstrong in 1995.

As for musculature. Take away his muscle mass in his legs and then get back to me about cardiac output. It's a combo of the two in charge. Why do you think people were talking about Spartacus dropping weight like Wigans and challenging AC back at the end of 2009? He has a big ticker. It's why Indurain was the biggest winner from epo's introduction. Massive muscle mass and huge cardiac functionality. Read some more.
 
The Hitch said:
What do you mean? should he only be focusing on big bad lance?...
I didn't see an answer to your question by p.16 and didn't want to go through the next 12 pages. So here's my take on why the poster is confused on FL's priorities. Floyd, saying in his retirement statement that it's not his job to fix doping in cycling, now comes out with both barrels blazing at yet another target. That might seem confusing to some, even though blazing away sure ain't the same thing as fixing the doping problems.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
131313 said:
Some of the world's best time trialists:

Chris Boardman, Jacque Anquetil, Tony Rominger, Bernard Hinault, Greg LeMond...

Pretty much all of these guys are less than 64kgs (except maybe Anquetil).

Why does everyone think that Cancellara is the only guy who's ever been able to ride a time trial, ergo all time trialists must look like him?

It's not his musculature which is responsible for his power output or success, it's his cardiac output and capillary density.
WTF dude, on the flats big guys most certainly put out MORE pure wattage, I don't understand how you can possibly argue with that. And yes I know pure wattage doesn't win it, it's either power/weight or power/CDA.
 
BikeCentric said:
WTF dude, on the flats big guys most certainly put out MORE pure wattage, I don't understand how you can possibly argue with that. And yes I know pure wattage doesn't win it, it's either power/weight or power/CDA.
Yes but for how long?
TT riding is about Threshold power, not peak power.
Threshold power is all about aerobic efficiency.
A Sprinter might be good for 1400 watts over 20 seconds, but unable to hold 450 watts for more than 10 mins.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
Paraphernalia said:
Galic Ho,

you are aware that Wiggins had never gone for an overall position at the tour before 2009, aren't you? In cycling this means you deliberately get dropped in stages that you're not targeting to save energy. You did know that?
I think if Wiggins is more circumspect about criticising dopers these days it's due to the reaction to himself. He thinks "if they're wrong about me, who else are they wrong about?"
Contradicting yourself there because his TT results weren't to the 09 levels either. If they were then you just might have had a point. Or maybe he was saving himself for the sprints? :rolleyes:
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
0
0
BikeCentric said:
WTF dude, on the flats big guys most certainly put out MORE pure wattage, I don't understand how you can possibly argue with that. And yes I know pure wattage doesn't win it, it's either power/weight or power/CDA.
Bigger guys put out more power (and have an advantage in TT's) because while cardiac output and capillary density generally scales allometrically, wind resistance does not.

So, Cancellara's advantage isn't because of his musculature, it's because of his cardiac output and capillary density in relation to the drag he creates. I have no doubt he could maintain the same power output for durations over a minute while losing muscle mass.

Keep in mind I'm not saying this as a defense of Wiggens. It's just a defense of common sense and basic, generally understood principles of producing power on a bicycle.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
131313 said:
Bigger guys put out more power (and have an advantage in TT's) because while cardiac output and capillary density generally scales allometrically, wind resistance does not.

So, Cancellara's advantage isn't because of his musculature, it's because of his cardiac output and capillary density in relation to the drag he creates. I have no doubt he could maintain the same power output for durations over a minute while losing muscle mass.

Keep in mind I'm not saying this as a defense of Wiggens. It's just a defense of common sense and basic, generally understood principles of producing power on a bicycle.
So why does he carry around that "extra" muscle mass then? You calling the world's best TT'er a lazy fatty or what?
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
Paraphernalia said:
Well he wasn't focusing on the tour either before then. His main goals of the year were on the track. This was his first year where the road and the tour took priority.

He may also have been benefiting from lower levels of doping by other riders.

Do people seriously think Wiggins went to Garmin to dope? It doesn't seem very likely to me. And why only for the one year? Why go to Sky thinking he was going to do well not doped?
Firstly you said he was deliberately targetting stages - going by your above post there was no point in him riding the Tour whatsoever prior to 09.

Next, what makes you so sure Sky are clean?
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
0
0
BikeCentric said:
So why does he carry around that "extra" muscle mass then? You calling the world's best TT'er a lazy fatty or what?
In not so many words, yes!

Seriously, I think that for the objectives which he's had, the extra weight (muscle) he was carrying wasn't much of a detriment. I also think that it helped to a degree, even though he's not a sprinter. There are instances where high neuromuscular power has been to his advantage, and he probably will lose some of that if he loses muscle mass.

That said, he himself has suggested that he's looking towards other goals and it's not out of the realm of possibility that he'll target the Ardennes classics. I suspect that if he does that, he'll probably lose some muscle mass.

So the real answer is "he carries around that extra muscle mass because he can". It just hasn't been a deterrent for him to accomplish what he's wanted to accomplish. And losing muscle mass is hard.

Still, why are you still wrapped up in the build of one guy? What about all of those other guys who were some of the dominant time trialists of their time: Boardman, LeMond, Hinault, Anquetil, Rominger. NONE of these guys were exactly muscle-bound.
 
Digger said:
Contradicting yourself there because his TT results weren't to the 09 levels either. If they were then you just might have had a point. Or maybe he was saving himself for the sprints? :rolleyes:
TTing in a tour is as much about how you have recovered from the previous days as it is about pure timetrialling.
Wiggins form this year put him in decline each day, compared to the forerunners (possibly)
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
Galic Ho was wondering why he was dropped in the mountains. The truth is he planned to be in the bus from the outset. His main job was to be a domestique with a time trialing edge. But his main goals were not on the road.
The problem however was that he was being dropped from the bus
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
Paraphernalia said:
Galic Ho was wondering why he was dropped in the mountains. The truth is he planned to be in the bus from the outset. His main job was to be a domestique with a time trialing edge. But his main goals were not on the road.



What makes you think Sky were doped at this year's tour?
Your position - straws and clutching at spring to mind. He was barely making it to the finish inside the limit, the bus was a bonus.

My view on Sky - hmmm no the right thread. However I haven't all that much faith in DB and even less faith in Sean Yates......not to mention some of the riders including Bradley.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
131313 said:
In not so many words, yes!

Seriously, I think that for the objectives which he's had, the extra weight (muscle) he was carrying wasn't much of a detriment. I also think that it helped to a degree, even though he's not a sprinter. There are instances where high neuromuscular power has been to his advantage, and he probably will lose some of that if he loses muscle mass.

That said, he himself has suggested that he's looking towards other goals and it's not out of the realm of possibility that he'll target the Ardennes classics. I suspect that if he does that, he'll probably lose some muscle mass.

So the real answer is "he carries around that extra muscle mass because he can". It just hasn't been a deterrent for him to accomplish what he's wanted to accomplish. And losing muscle mass is hard.

Still, why are you still wrapped up in the build of one guy? What about all of those other guys who were some of the dominant time trialists of their time: Boardman, LeMond, Hinault, Anquetil, Rominger. NONE of these guys were exactly muscle-bound.
I'm not fixated on the one guy, and I do understand your argument - I know that leg strength is most certainly not the limiter when it comes to sustainable power on a bike. But my point from the beginning is that when an already well-trained cyclist starts trying to lose weight, there absolutely is going to come an inflection point where further weight loss results in a loss of power output and therefore the weight loss is going to be detrimental to achieving one's goal of going faster on the bike. I just don't understand how you can argue against that point, so I think we must be kind of talking past one another here.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
andy1234 said:
TTing in a tour is as much about how you have recovered from the previous days as it is about pure timetrialling.
Wiggins form this year put him in decline each day, compared to the forerunners (possibly)
We are talking about his transformation to a guy barely making the time limits to coming in fourth, in one year.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
Galic Ho was wondering why he was dropped in the mountains. The truth is he planned to be in the bus from the outset. His main job was to be a domestique with a time trialing edge. But his main goals were not on the road.
True. But I did notice when he wasn't with the Autobus. Every pro rider should be able to climb at that pace. If not, you may want to pick a new sport or risk missing the cutoff at stage end. Wigans track partner learnt that the hard way in 2008 and 2009. Cav missed being dropped from the race by a few seconds more than once, all because he couldn't climb with the autobus.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Paraphernalia said:
It was fairly famous that Wiggins was a track cyclist first and foremost and he framed his season to revolve around that. That's how he won all of those gold medals. It's not some invented excuse, it was how it was.

As he focused on the road instead, conbined with less riders around like Landis who were blood doped up to their eye balls, it's not a great surprise that Wiggins shined through.
You have no idea the depth of the pond you've chosen to swim in.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
Paraphernalia said:
It was fairly famous that Wiggins was a track cyclist first and foremost and he framed his season to revolve around that. That's how he won all of those gold medals. It's not some invented excuse, it was how it was.

As he focused on the road instead, conbined with less riders around like Landis who were blood doped up to their eye balls, it's not a great surprise that Wiggins shined through.
Lol this post is mental stuff!!!
Blood doping is and was every bit as prevalent this year and 09 as it was in 06. AC and plasticides should indicate that much.

You said earlier that he focused on certain TT stages. Why were his results worse in these stages than in 09, when he could be 'saving' himself? Logically your posts make no sense whatsoever. Prior to 09 he couldn't climb or TT with the very elite. According to your logic and focusing on the track, he should at least have been winning the Prologue or coming close. :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY