Pauline Ferrand-Prévot is a French Superstar

[jmdirt]

what the Tour winner did is not healthy.

BUT, you don't know this and/or know that it was any harder on her than others' prep. was on them.

As stated many times above, including by you, endurance sports are hard on the human body, without data you can't make statements like yours though.

 

[yaco]

They start because the get paid to start. If unable to continue they have the medical confirmation to not continue. A rider of her palmares may be eligible for start and appearance bonuses from the race promoter, her sponsors and other marketing initiatives. Race promoters can get very testy when a team's roster that included a World Champ doesn't arrive with that rider. It can get the team docked for cash support if they are major players. The lower tier teams could comment on what they negotiate....

The TDF does not pay appearance fees to riders. Only invited teams may have to bring a selected rider and Reusser does not ride for a ProConti team.

 

[Trakl]

Well, that's kinda part of the problem. The womens' péloton has not had to react to super-peakers for a long, long time, and they're used to knowing the riders who are the top over a set type of terrain, and a whole lot of what they thought they knew just got ripped up by a woman who openly states that she cannot hold that shape and/or form for long. Being smashed to all parts by somebody who you were smashing to all parts in the same terrain a few weeks earlier is not an experience that many of the women have.

And you have to remember that there are very few relics of a pre-biopassport era remaining in the sport. One of the things we were sold on when it was introduced was that, because of the era it came directly after, the biopassport would end super-peaking, so that generation of riders - and fans - have grown up with the implication drilled into them that super-peaking is inherently something to be wary of, and so even if there are no implications that send us directly to the Clinic and the concerns that have been raised so far do not imply that at least outwardly, I feel like this notional and vague idea that super-peaking being inherently suspicious in some way - even if not in that way - also helps colour the riders' reactions.

So the argument here is that the peloton should be able to express these thoughts because they haven't had someone who prepared professionally come beat them? This a strange take; they aren't kids.

If the whole story behind PFP's win is that she lost weight to go faster up the mountains, I think it could prove to be the most positive one (!) in the last 30 years or so in the sport. Of course there may be other things to unpack we can't discuss here, but if you tell me she lost 4kg to win, I am not going to be angry about it. Who will be? The people who lost to her!

I find the whole pondering borderline mysoginistic. These people are first and foremost athletes. Athletes define themselves by performance level, especially with Demi's or Marlen's pedigree. Unhealthy behavior/habits are part of the game (remember, it's not even clear what PFP did was unhealthy), as proven by dead cyclists on the road, commotion-striken rugby-players, players dropping on all fields, substance abuse after careers ... As the feminine peloton specializes, whether Demi-god likes it or not, the better W/kg will be first in the mountains. How you get there, like in men's cycling, is by improving this ratio. Why don't we hear about Vingegaard's weight? Because he's a man.

On PFP herself and the super-peak discussion: she went about it the best possible way. She addressed the fact that she lost weight, said how much, how she did it, with whom, and why she did it. Seems about sane, no? She didn't seem particularly in bad shape when she destroyed everybody on all terrains in stages 1, 8 & 9. Also, she used to do this in cyclo-cross, remember? If the peloton doesn't know how she operates, it's on them.

As for girl body image issues: come on, really? Does the problem really come from one elite athlete woman? Or from potentially women climbers? There is about a billion other things to resolve there (modelling, television, advertising, moms & dads, friends, ...) before we start pointing fingers at Pauline, who has weight loss in her job description.

All in all: very bad look on a few cyclists who lost a race.

 

[Brullnux]

I'm confident in my point, that no one (figuratively) was paying one whit of attention to PFP's diet until someone started complaining about it, publicly, and calling her out about it.

It was the main talking point of the entire Tour, I don't know how you missed that. And this was media/PFP led, not competitor led.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

I find the whole pondering borderline mysoginistic.
(...)
Why don't we hear about Vingegaard's weight? Because he's a man.

I find this part a bit strange. Cycling fans talk about the weight of the men all the time, and there have been plenty of comments over the last years about his appearance implying things like he's unhealthy skinny or looks like a little boy. Similar comments have been made about "skeletons" on the mens side regularly since I started following cycling in 2003. Rasmussen, Froome, Vingegaard etc.
Last year LeMond talked about the (men) riders being superskinny at Roleuer Live and specifically talked about Vingegaards weight.
So I think you are wrong to pin this discussion being misogynistic.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So the argument here is that the peloton should be able to express these thoughts because they haven't had someone who prepared professionally come beat them? This a strange take; they aren't kids.

I'm not saying "yes, they should express these thoughts". I'm not saying "their takes are right". I'm saying why I think they're having those takes. It's totally fair to be ambivalent about it and be looking to find reasons why performance so outside of the norm that it ripped up what the péloton thought it knew happened.

We know that PFP does super-peak in her other disciplines as well, but we've come off a generation in road cycling where super-peaking was a dirty word and - thanks to the way the biopassport was sold to them and us - treated as automatically suspicious; and it's the first time she's done this in road cycling. The last time we had somebody in the women's péloton who would jet in for the biggest races and destroy people in the climbs, it was Mara Abbott, and while the circumstances were a little different (she would typically race on the NRC in the US where she felt comfortable before jetting in for her season's goals, so it wasn't so much super-peaking as her beating up on lower level competition in her comfort zone until her season's targets), her career was also derailed on multiple occasions by eating disorders.

 

[Trakl]

I find this part a bit strange. Cycling fans talk about the weight of the men all the time, and there have been plenty of comments over the last years about his appearance implying things like he's unhealthy skinny or looks like a little boy. Similar comments have been made about "skeletons" on the mens side regularly since I started following cycling in 2003. Rasmussen, Froome, Vingegaard etc.
Last year LeMond talked about the (men) riders being superskinny at Roleuer Live and specifically talked about Vingegaards weight.
So I think you are wrong to pin this discussion being misogynistic.

True, we do talk about it a bit. (I also remember the Rasmussen era, I was shocked by the guy's appearance, lol)

Only:

• It's not the sole focus point when someone wins, which has been the case with PFP
• There isn't a general media discussion on someone who lost weight to gain performance: even in France, L'Equipe and Eurosport only talk about her weight loss now
• Riders don't complain that X is so much skinnier than they are and that they endanger little boys lifes with their appearance

So actually, I do think it's a bit mysoginistic, as in: your body is not only a vehicle of performance, which is usually the choice of a top-tier pro athlete. Your body is something else also, which represents how women should be.

 

[Axel Hangleck]

Is this weight issue still going on? A lot of ignorance from the Road world about how PFP goes about her racing. If any of them had followed XCO racing they'd have seen how she operates; the Worlds/Olympic PFP is a different racer to the normal season PFP.

She's done this for about the last 10 years - as it works for her. She has one main target each season, and races/ trains for that one race; that means missing races for training camps. That is why she has never won the World Cup Overall title.
She even did an interview with Pinkbike and mentioned how she loses weight - its done sensibly, but is not sustainable long term, and using her own worlds - "women need fat to produce babies".

I can't recall the rest of the XCO female riders hoping she wouldn't win because she lost weight.......I'd love to hear what they think now.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

True, we do talk about it a bit. (I also remember the Rasmussen era, I was shocked by the guy's appearance, lol)

Only:

• It's not the sole focus point when someone wins, which has been the case with PFP
• There isn't a general media discussion on someone who lost weight to gain performance: even in France, L'Equipe and Eurosport only talk about her weight loss now
• Riders don't complain that X is so much skinnier than they are and that they endanger little boys lifes with their appearance

So actually, I do think it's a bit mysoginistic, as in: your body is not only a vehicle of performance, which is usually the choice of a top-tier pro athlete. Your body is something else also, which represents how women should be.

This is something you might want to discuss with Janež Brajkovič.

 

[P4rthen0n]

Great win by PFP. She was clearly the strongest rider and left no doubts about it on the road.

The whining about her weight loss is so ridiculous.
She is a pro and she prepared herself as one. Just like Pog did, or Vingegaard or Remco (and oh boy did everyone congratulated Remco's weight loss before the Dauphiné).

If, in fact, she went to a level that no woman had gone before in pro cycling, it just means that is going to be the new standard. Just like spending months in altitude before a GT. There's nothing ilegal about it.
It's just the natural evolution of the sport and it's athletes.
Adapt or lose.

 

[theyoungest]

If, in fact, she went to a level that no woman had gone before in pro cycling, it just means that is going to be the new standard. Just like spending months in altitude before a GT. There's nothing ilegal about it.
It's just the natural evolution of the sport and it's athletes.
Adapt or lose.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, this is what these other riders are worried about. Weight loss is different for women vs. men, that's just a fact. It has different implications for women. Lots of stories about athletes who haven't had a period in years. But to start this discussion now and direct it squarely at PFP is unfair and disrespectful... and it also seems to be unrelated as she does it in a totally different way than the aforementioned athletes who are near-anorexic all year long.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

• It's not the sole focus point when someone wins, which has been the case with PFP
• There isn't a general media discussion on someone who lost weight to gain performance: even in France, L'Equipe and Eurosport only talk about her weight loss now

When Froome went from gruppeto to GT wins, his weight loss was widely regarded as one of the main factors in the public.

 

[theyoungest]

When Froome went from gruppeto to GT wins, his weight loss was widely regarded as one of the main factors in the public.

It was? I mainly remember the term "bilharzia", which I hadn't heard of before or since. Not much about weight loss.

 

[Links2003]

But the reality is that it's just sour grapes, and minor-sport-hipster-style infighting. It's 100% bush league nonsense.

With this sentence, you negate all your previous statements. It shows that you apparently don't take the topic as seriously as you previously claimed. Because you claim it's just envy. From everyone.
But the big debate is only indirectly about Pauline. That was the hook. There's always a hook to get topics on the table. Otherwise, it won't be discussed. Unfortunately, that's always the case. Only when there are well-known names involved, or other stories can be told with it. Is that fair? No, probably not.
But it's good and important that the topic is being discussed right now. In many cases, it's now about the topic itself and not Pauline. And that's extremely important.

Weight issues have existed forever in women's cycling. It's nothing new. I'm not saying there should be an omerta around it, but to take the one example of the woman who won the Tour de France, seems to have no physical problems, seems to have no mental health problems, seems to be perfectly fine, as the reason to have this whole discussion about rider weight... if she suddenly fell off her bike in total exhaustion, Vollering and Reusser would have a point. But right now there appears to be absolutely nothing wrong with her. So why cast all these aspersions?

The current debate is not just about Pauline. The current case is the trigger. It's about the big picture. Maybe it really isn't a big problem for her in the end. But she herself will only realize that much later.
The debate is more about whether the issue needs to be taken more seriously in general. This behavior can lead to serious problems. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Women's bodies are particularly complex, so there are usually more problems than with men's bodies, even though it's not healthy there either. It's not always physical problems that can arise, but mental ones as well. This is often only recognized much later. Is that the case, or will it be the case with Pauline? I have no idea, and I would never claim to know.
But many people are affected by it. Especially in sports. And now a case has been closely followed, even in the run-up, then success comes and suddenly the question arises: if I want success, I have to do it that way too. Partly because of external influences, such as sports leaders, the media, etc., and partly because you think to yourself, “If I don't do that too, I don't stand a chance.” And that's extremely dangerous. Because it can have serious consequences for your physical and mental health. Not necessarily, but in many cases it does.
And young people in particular now see this as a role model and think, “I have to do that now.” And that's the point.

BUT, you don't know this and/or know that it was any harder on her than others' prep. was on them.

As stated many times above, including by you, endurance sports are hard on the human body, without data you can't make statements like yours though.

I don't need to conduct my own scientific studies to say that being very underweight and losing weight below the normal range is not healthy. That has been sufficiently proven. The current debate is not just about this specific case. The case is being used to draw attention to the problem as a whole.
So, being underweight is not healthy. That is a fact. Whether this is bad for Pauline in the long term in this specific case, we cannot say. But that is not the point, at least not for me and many others. Because for many people, this is a problem. Physically and psychologically. However, many people only realize this much later—and that is the point. And the fact that Pauline's case was made very public beforehand and, due to its success, is now being used as a hook to discuss the issue. That's always the way it is. Issues only come to the table when there is a current case that arouses interest.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

It was? I mainly remember the term "bilharzia", which I hadn't heard of before or since. Not much about weight loss.

It was. In his Barloworld days he was around 75 kilos and when he started winning grand tours I remember a lot of talk about it and comparison of pictures of him "now and then".
Im a bit busy today, so dont have time to go deep into the internet archive to find a lot of old articles, but this one from The Guardian in 2015 implies a weight loss of aroung 9 kgs. (And as it is an article about weight loss in The Guardian it kind of also proves that these topics have reached mainstream media before)

 

[Izzyeviel]

I'm old enough to remember the press stories saying how lucky Lance was - his battle with cancer meant he lost a lot of weight and all from the right places & this enabled him to win the tour de france.

plus ca change..

 

[red_flanders]

It shows that you apparently don't take the topic as seriously as you previously claimed.

I apologize for giving the impression I take the topic seriously.

 

[jmdirt]

Why don't we hear about Vingegaard's weight? Because he's a man.

We hear about JV's weight and appearance a lot.

It's not the sole focus point when someone wins, which has been the case with PFP

Its the focus when Remco doesn't do well.

I don't need to conduct my own scientific studies to say that being very underweight and losing weight below the normal range is not healthy.

I didn't say that you had to produce the data, I said that you can't just say something without having data to support it. ie: was she VERY underweight? What is the NORMAL range (her, platoon, French population, women world wide...).

As stated above, she has done this many times over the years to win dirt titles.

*"I don't need to conduct my own scientific studies" is disingenuous at best, IMO.

 

[Oldman]

The TDF does not pay appearance fees to riders. Only invited teams may have to bring a selected rider and Reusser does not ride for a ProConti team.

I was speaking of races in general. The discussion was based on "why would (rider) start with an injury and leave in the first stage?" It was not regarding the Tour.

 

[Oldman]

BUT, you don't know this and/or know that it was any harder on her than others' prep. was on them.

As stated many times above, including by you, endurance sports are hard on the human body, without data you can't make statements like yours though.

I can accept her response and she's not overworking herself in upcoming events. Seems like her particular instance isn't the poster child for some folks' overall discussion of weight control issues. It is an issue but the voices forcing her to respond have singled out the current Tour champion for their own reasons; not concern for her health. Like you said: we can't know.

 

[Links2003]

I didn't say that you had to produce the data, I said that you can't just say something without having data to support it. ie: was she VERY underweight? What is the NORMAL range (her, platoon, French population, women world wide...).

As stated above, she has done this many times over the years to win dirt titles.

*"I don't need to conduct my own scientific studies" is disingenuous at best, IMO

Perhaps I overinterpreted your statements and formulated my response too bluntly.
However, it is not only in your post that I get the impression that everyone who says something negative here is just badmouthing Pauline. And no one would have any valid arguments, as you accuse me of. Because we don't have any concrete data.
But my posts weren't really about Pauline. They were about the very important issue. Yes, I said that I assume Pauline was (significantly) underweight during the tour and that this is not healthy. I am basing this on statements that can be found. Above all, the way in which the weight loss was achieved suggests that it is not healthy. I also pointed out that I don't know whether it is unhealthy for her. Because that was not and is not my point.
The topic of weight is highly sensitive. It can cause physical problems, especially for a woman's body. There are countless examples of this from other sports, but it is often not talked about. It can also cause mental problems. However, those affected often only notice this much later. There are harmless examples, but there are also less harmless ones for those affected.

A little anecdote from the Ulle & Rick podcast. Rick Zabel says that although he was a sprinter, he was of course also quite light and thin. After his career, he gained a lot of weight. He then found himself looking fat and unhealthy and didn't really like to show himself anymore. But for the first time in his life, his friends told him how good and healthy he looked now. At first, he couldn't believe that they meant it. This is a harmless case, but it shows how quickly one can lose touch with reality.

So for me, it's not about whether this is bad for Pauline. But it sends a message when someone so prominent in the spotlight undergoes such a dramatic weight loss and is associated with success. This leads to others being encouraged to do the same because it is supposedly necessary. It's like the phase when “everyone” was doping. True to the motto: “I have to do it because it's the only way to be successful.”
Of course, being lightweight is good in cycling. And it has always been problematic. But now it's becoming even more concrete. And it's finding imitators. Especially among young people. That's why I think it's important to talk about it. I don't know if there is a sensible solution to protect (young) people from themselves. I wish there were.

 

[jmdirt]

A point that I meant to make earlier and got side tracked, is that we should be discussing body composition and not weight.

 

[P4rthen0n]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, this is what these other riders are worried about. Weight loss is different for women vs. men, that's just a fact. It has different implications for women. Lots of stories about athletes who haven't had a period in years. But to start this discussion now and direct it squarely at PFP is unfair and disrespectful... and it also seems to be unrelated as she does it in a totally different way than the aforementioned athletes who are near-anorexic all year long.

Yes it is different between men and women, absolutely. It's irrelevant for this tho.
I take no joy knowing that a female athlete went to such lengths that she's missing her period. But what can you do about it? Are you going to start testing for periods? At the same time, are you going to exempt from testing if said female rider is on the pill (or even ban the pill)?

It is OK to not be willing to take the same risks as other competitors, but there are consequences to it.
Did you see Sarah Gigante at the Tour? She was not willing to descend as fast as every other rider in the GC group. Should there be a speed limit going down to prevent a certain amount of risk?

At the end of the day, this is a pro sport. Conditioning is a huge part of it.

 

[Oldman]

Perhaps I overinterpreted your statements and formulated my response too bluntly.
However, it is not only in your post that I get the impression that everyone who says something negative here is just badmouthing Pauline. And no one would have any valid arguments, as you accuse me of. Because we don't have any concrete data.
But my posts weren't really about Pauline. They were about the very important issue. Yes, I said that I assume Pauline was (significantly) underweight during the tour and that this is not healthy. I am basing this on statements that can be found. Above all, the way in which the weight loss was achieved suggests that it is not healthy. I also pointed out that I don't know whether it is unhealthy for her. Because that was not and is not my point.
The topic of weight is highly sensitive. It can cause physical problems, especially for a woman's body. There are countless examples of this from other sports, but it is often not talked about. It can also cause mental problems. However, those affected often only notice this much later. There are harmless examples, but there are also less harmless ones for those affected.

A little anecdote from the Ulle & Rick podcast. Rick Zabel says that although he was a sprinter, he was of course also quite light and thin. After his career, he gained a lot of weight. He then found himself looking fat and unhealthy and didn't really like to show himself anymore. But for the first time in his life, his friends told him how good and healthy he looked now. At first, he couldn't believe that they meant it. This is a harmless case, but it shows how quickly one can lose touch with reality.

So for me, it's not about whether this is bad for Pauline. But it sends a message when someone so prominent in the spotlight undergoes such a dramatic weight loss and is associated with success. This leads to others being encouraged to do the same because it is supposedly necessary. It's like the phase when “everyone” was doping. True to the motto: “I have to do it because it's the only way to be successful.”
Of course, being lightweight is good in cycling. And it has always been problematic. But now it's becoming even more concrete. And it's finding imitators. Especially among young people. That's why I think it's important to talk about it. I don't know if there is a sensible solution to protect (young) people from themselves. I wish there were.

Your entire statement could have started and ended with: "I am basing this on statements that can be found. Above all, the way in which the weight loss was achieved suggests that it is not healthy. I also pointed out that I don't know whether it is unhealthy for her. Because that was not and is not my point."

She responded and, unless you deem her dishonest that should end her as your focal point. You really don't know anything, here.

 

[jmdirt]

Perhaps I overinterpreted your statements and formulated my response too bluntly.
However, it is not only in your post that I get the impression that everyone who says something negative here is just badmouthing Pauline. And no one would have any valid arguments, as you accuse me of. Because we don't have any concrete data.
But my posts weren't really about Pauline. They were about the very important issue. Yes, I said that I assume Pauline was (significantly) underweight during the tour and that this is not healthy. I am basing this on statements that can be found. Above all, the way in which the weight loss was achieved suggests that it is not healthy. I also pointed out that I don't know whether it is unhealthy for her. Because that was not and is not my point.
The topic of weight is highly sensitive. It can cause physical problems, especially for a woman's body. There are countless examples of this from other sports, but it is often not talked about. It can also cause mental problems. However, those affected often only notice this much later. There are harmless examples, but there are also less harmless ones for those affected.

A little anecdote from the Ulle & Rick podcast. Rick Zabel says that although he was a sprinter, he was of course also quite light and thin. After his career, he gained a lot of weight. He then found himself looking fat and unhealthy and didn't really like to show himself anymore. But for the first time in his life, his friends told him how good and healthy he looked now. At first, he couldn't believe that they meant it. This is a harmless case, but it shows how quickly one can lose touch with reality.

So for me, it's not about whether this is bad for Pauline. But it sends a message when someone so prominent in the spotlight undergoes such a dramatic weight loss and is associated with success. This leads to others being encouraged to do the same because it is supposedly necessary. It's like the phase when “everyone” was doping. True to the motto: “I have to do it because it's the only way to be successful.”
Of course, being lightweight is good in cycling. And it has always been problematic. But now it's becoming even more concrete. And it's finding imitators. Especially among young people. That's why I think it's important to talk about it. I don't know if there is a sensible solution to protect (young) people from themselves. I wish there were.

Well, an argument isn't valid if it isn't based on data/facts.

She stated that she lost 4 kg. How much was fat and how much was muscle? What was her starting point? 53 kg? 54? How long did she take to lose 4 kg, 90ish days? She was clearly still quite strong so if it was too drastic, she would not have ridden so well.

I can understand your concern for others who might try to copy her, but the world is littered with influences that may be unhealthy for people. I'll take a person who can pedal the crap out of a bike over all of the others.

Irrelevant and boring to follow:

I've shared this several times before (short version).
-I was a school sports, gym rat, moto teen at 165 lbs.
-Army basic training trimmed that by a few pounds.
-Back in the gym got it back.
-In my pro dirt days I raced at 145 (mid 90s-early 2000s).
-I haven't been over 155 since, and mostly live at 150.
-Unhealthy?