In terms of grand tour performance reducing upper body muscle mass is perfect for grand tour performance - and it doesn't reduce sustainable power or watts / kg.
Somehow, they have figured out how to reduce upper body mass, while not sacrificing power on the peddles. Done naturally makes little sense, however. You can't be Greg's height and ride at Pantani's weight and not lose power. And if it's possible, it is only so through some alchemy. And then Greg says lower weight increases power, which is false. Lower weight only increases power to weight ration. In fact, at 58-60 kg one who would have ridden at Greg's weight in the 80s should see a drop in watts, not an increas.
But you can lose weight in the upper body and retain muscle mass in the legs. I don't think its alchemy.
Riders and teams post their weights but their true weight isn’t known. We can only go from visual appearances. Can we find photos of Pog in say 2023 and this year to make a better comparison? I do recall reading reports that he lost weight for 2024 but don’t know if that was validated?
Right, but how do you lose 10 kg while increasing wattage? A normal decrease in weight is accompanied by an increase in power to weight ratio (and the specialists then analyze how much gain is obtained, benefits form losses). But, you don't decrease weight AND increase power (talking about pros already at a physiologically low body fat percentage), as has seemingly been done on a long endurance basis. So at say 60 kg there should not be an increase in watts to 420 or whatever it was, to riding at 68 kg at 390. But that is what has miraculously happened.
But they were already at 3 % body fat, you can't go lower than that and not be unwell.
10Kg is comparing Lemonds day to now. What Lemond says I agree with. But it isn’t really a new trend. Cadel Evans complained back in 2012 about skinny climbers who could TT. Obviously a reference to Wiggins and Froome but still relevant to what we have seen since. I find Lemond’s outspokenness refreshing. And despite attempts to discredit him I think he has more credibility than most.
We already addressed that. Not fat but upper body muscle mass - just like Lemond suggested.
Remco also easily gains upper body muscle mass. It may be a bigger issue for him than his fat%.
Agree, it is unpleasant (and unpleasant for those around me). I remember Wiggo who was wigging out half the time when he was in Tour winning shape! And I am quite sure they were taking medications to manage weight as well as mood.
Once Pharma really made a difference, like any developmental thing, it just keeps evolving and gets more effective. The Pandora's Box of cycling and sport, to say nothing of tech with regard to motors.
Indeed, and the cover-up activity of the system does not stop even in off-season. Witness, for instance, a recent article on Cycling news about the discovering "truth" (just like that, in quotes) on motor doping. The implication must be that the real truth is doomed to remain hidden forever, or, possibly, in a true postmodernist fashion, simply does not exist. In the article itself, the most suspicious period with regard to motor doping is stated to be 2010-14 (yeah, right, 2020-present is obviously totally innocent in that regard, look how much slower it is
). Also, just today, an article on race bike shapes, using Colnago (who could have thought!) as an example. The main thesis there is the good old function before form: race bike designers, in relentless pursuit of speed, should -- and will -- completely abandon any esthetic considerations. So, folks, get ready to Tuddly's bikes looking -- and riding -- more and more like small ugly motorcycles and him becoming faster and arriving fresher. (A related small observation: in the most recent Colnago, the seat tube hugs the rear wheel even more, additionally pointing to the distributed nature of the motor used there.)
We can all believe what we want to believe. If and when there is actual evidence I will jump on him. But this is getting silly. All that is required is a qualified mechanic inspect the bikes - including disassembly if deemed necessary. IMHO, no way could a motor be concealed from close inspection - impossible. That includes any known form of supplementary electrical or magnetic assistance ie “distributed nature”.
Sometimes, it feels good to state the obvious, doesn't it? Let me make that statement a bit more precise. If a "special" bicycle undergoes a close inspection by an objective mechanic, interested in truth discovery, its "special" nature is certain to be discovered. Easy to see that, stated this way, it becomes highly conditional. In other words, if the bike is subjected to inspection is not the one just ridden, but its twin, or, if the mechanic in question is interested in something else rather than truth discovery (e.g. something trivial like his future pension size), then the inevitable conclusion (discovery of its "secret") is no longer inevitable., but more of its opposite. That funny episode immediately following this year WCRR finish and inadvertently caught on camera is a quite likely good example thereof.
But it’s not obvious. Occum’s razor says the shape of his new frame is for aerodynamics and stiffness - not to conceal a motor.
This is a new step: precisely quantified marginal gains announced in advance. We are warned: next season promises to be pretty scary.
A marketing move that silences questions from the beginning. Hey, we warned you from last December, it's because of the new bike!
Surely you mean 20 watts less? Unless they are trying to level the playing field by adding extra resistance/decreasing motor wattage.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram