Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread

[Divergence]

Well I'm glad we agree on something, but it seems to me that salmon, avocados, certain dairy, nuts, pulses, and many other "fatty" foods are a part of a healthy diet regardless of whether you're a bike racer or a bird watcher.

The end result of the peloton's weight obssession is twofold:
a) we're testing and rewarding whose body has the weakest safeguards (not strength, speed, coordination, cunning, or anything else that sport is supposedly about)
b) amateurs assume they're supposed to look like Froome or there's something morally wrong with them (such as a lack of discipline)

This is certainly not limited to cycling. A lot of marathoners bob along with the appearance of a meth addict...

Yes, I can see how it might seem that way to you. There exist healthy meals not having 100g of "healthy fats".
At the end of the day climbs usually decide grand tours and to do well on a climb one needs to be as light as possible. That is what the sport is. Or do you want to add a rule requiring a minimum body fat percentage?
As for the amateurs, I say let us educate ourselves what is good for us and what is not. Most realize that it cannot be healthy to go up and down the mountains for three weeks straight but there are no complaints about that,
Lastly, I never said it is morally wrong to not have perfect nutrition. Having discipline is a part of what makes a great cyclist, great. It can only help one to become faster.

 

[Sciatic]

Well I'm glad we agree on something, but it seems to me that salmon, avocados, certain dairy, nuts, pulses, and many other "fatty" foods are a part of a healthy diet regardless of whether you're a bike racer or a bird watcher.

The end result of the peloton's weight obssession is threefold:
a) we're testing and rewarding whose body has the weakest safeguards (not strength, speed, coordination, cunning, or anything else that sport is supposedly about)
b) amateurs assume they're supposed to look like Froome or there's something morally wrong with them (such as a lack of discipline)
c) "professionalism"

This is certainly not limited to cycling. A lot of marathoners bob along with the appearance of a meth addict...
... and sports like MMA or American football are obviously not healthy just by their nature.

I would actually be in favor of a minimum bodyfat for cyclists, although I'm sure that idea will get reflexively shouted down. It would somewhat remove the incentive for unhealthy behavior, clinical or otherwise, and while you could claim it's not fair, all rules are both totally fair and totally arbitrary as long as they're applied equally. Combat sports tend to have classes where a certain weight is enforced, and oftentimes participants do very unhealthy things to "make weight". But in some federations, the rules also stipulate a certain hydration level at the time of weigh-in to protect the fighters' health, so why not also require 6% body fat to protect cyclists' health? The UCI has already mandated certain other health parameters (blood values, hormone levels) in the past, so why not body fat or BMI? As a fan, this detracts absolutely nothing from the spectacle, and we don't have to ask our favorite riders, be they Remco or anyone else, to toe the line of mortality just to be successful.

Well I know that idea will never go anywhere, so in the meantime I will just keep rooting for the riders who I wish I could be like, and that's not the skeletors of the pack.

Pretty hard to discuss this fully here, but there used to be a penalty for being too ultra thin: losing some strength. Something changed in that regard.

 

[saunaking]

Rewatched it and you can clearly see him riding a lot more out of the saddle as usual, in a too big gear. Didn't noticed it live because he looked really good and in control.

Looking forward to Paris - Nice and his first battle with Roglic etc.

I know there are 170 guys or whatever in a race, and they ride a LOT of kms, but WHY does it seem like there is so often a stupid random mechanical (or mistake) in a critical moment?

 

[houtdffan]

Remco climbed just fine dieseling in the big ring

It is how he should be climbing all the time. It's what he is best at. Stop trying to do the Armstrong cadence

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Remco climbed just fine dieseling in the big ring

It is how he should be climbing all the time. It's what he is best at. Stop trying to do the Armstrong cadence

He likes a high cadence, it is how he has always climbed. It is also how he usually does his TT. I remember his TT during the first BBT, they tried to change his gearing because now (at the pros) he was allowed to push a much bigger gear. He was wobbling all over the road trying to push this big gear, it gave him less control over his bike and his time was bad. Furthermore, the steepest part on Malhao is over 12%, not exactly what you would like to use the big ring for.

For a rider like him, tempo is key and it is much easier to control and maintain that tempo on a smaller gear both physically and mentally.

I know there are 170 guys or whatever in a race, and they ride a LOT of kms, but WHY does it seem like there is so often a stupid random mechanical (or mistake) in a critical moment?

The mechanical had happened 20k from the finish so well before the climb, but they were full on chasing Van Aert and Healy so there was no time for a bike change.

 

[Andre]

Well I'm glad we agree on something, but it seems to me that salmon, avocados, certain dairy, nuts, pulses, and many other "fatty" foods are a part of a healthy diet regardless of whether you're a bike racer or a bird watcher.

The end result of the peloton's weight obssession is threefold:
a) we're testing and rewarding whose body has the weakest safeguards (not strength, speed, coordination, cunning, or anything else that sport is supposedly about)
b) amateurs assume they're supposed to look like Froome or there's something morally wrong with them (such as a lack of discipline)
c) "professionalism"

This is certainly not limited to cycling. A lot of marathoners bob along with the appearance of a meth addict...
... and sports like MMA or American football are obviously not healthy just by their nature.

I would actually be in favor of a minimum bodyfat for cyclists, although I'm sure that idea will get reflexively shouted down. It would somewhat remove the incentive for unhealthy behavior, clinical or otherwise, and while you could claim it's not fair, all rules are both totally fair and totally arbitrary as long as they're applied equally. Combat sports tend to have classes where a certain weight is enforced, and oftentimes participants do very unhealthy things to "make weight". But in some federations, the rules also stipulate a certain hydration level at the time of weigh-in to protect the fighters' health, so why not also require 6% body fat to protect cyclists' health? The UCI has already mandated certain other health parameters (blood values, hormone levels) in the past, so why not body fat or BMI? As a fan, this detracts absolutely nothing from the spectacle, and we don't have to ask our favorite riders, be they Remco or anyone else, to toe the line of mortality just to be successful.

Well I know that idea will never go anywhere, so in the meantime I will just keep rooting for the riders who I wish I could be like, and that's not the skeletors of the pack.

I like salmon. I also don't want to be like the skeletors of the peloton, or the skeletor himself: the fish guy. Go Remco Go!

 

[Extinction]

Well I'm glad we agree on something, but it seems to me that salmon, avocados, certain dairy, nuts, pulses, and many other "fatty" foods are a part of a healthy diet regardless of whether you're a bike racer or a bird watcher.

The end result of the peloton's weight obssession is threefold:
a) we're testing and rewarding whose body has the weakest safeguards (not strength, speed, coordination, cunning, or anything else that sport is supposedly about)
b) amateurs assume they're supposed to look like Froome or there's something morally wrong with them (such as a lack of discipline)
c) "professionalism"

This is certainly not limited to cycling. A lot of marathoners bob along with the appearance of a meth addict...
... and sports like MMA or American football are obviously not healthy just by their nature.

I would actually be in favor of a minimum bodyfat for cyclists, although I'm sure that idea will get reflexively shouted down. It would somewhat remove the incentive for unhealthy behavior, clinical or otherwise, and while you could claim it's not fair, all rules are both totally fair and totally arbitrary as long as they're applied equally. Combat sports tend to have classes where a certain weight is enforced, and oftentimes participants do very unhealthy things to "make weight". But in some federations, the rules also stipulate a certain hydration level at the time of weigh-in to protect the fighters' health, so why not also require 6% body fat to protect cyclists' health? The UCI has already mandated certain other health parameters (blood values, hormone levels) in the past, so why not body fat or BMI? As a fan, this detracts absolutely nothing from the spectacle, and we don't have to ask our favorite riders, be they Remco or anyone else, to toe the line of mortality just to be successful.

Well I know that idea will never go anywhere, so in the meantime I will just keep rooting for the riders who I wish I could be like, and that's not the skeletors of the pack.

Sport, by its nature, is the pursuit of optimal performance. In cycling this means arriving at the lowest possible weight, without sacrificing power; so I don't think the UCI would implement a minimum body fat percentage rule. As seeking lower body fat is not doping, although the means to get there may be achieved with banned substances, placing a minumum percentage rule would go against the quest for optimal results. Now you can ban those substances, but not the quest to lower body fat it seems to me. Plus the riders are medically supervised (in the good sense here), to make sure they don't damage themselves, not least of all since an unhealthy rider who has made himself sick isn't a return on anyone's investment. But the world of pro cycling is extreme, the races they do and what this places on their bodies is very rough and, therefore, the quest for optimal performance draws a fine line between healthy and unhealthy. It's a paradox that sport has been celebrated as a noble pursuit of human excellence, in terms of the discipline, sacrifice and hard work required to obtain the highest athletic achievments. And yet, what this actually entails may be far less noble, even "immoral", as you put it. In the end, however, it's about "are you not entertained!?" and profits, which don't usually translate into ethical outcomes.

 

[Valanga]

Now you can ban those substances, but not the quest to lower body fat it seems to me.

That's exactly what they did with hematocrit and the blood passport though.
If (and only if) it would be unhealthy and considered unnatural then I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to put a limit on it.

 

[Extinction]

That's exactly what they did with hematocrit and the blood passport though.
If (and only if) it would be unhealthy and considered unnatural then I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to put a limit on it.

That's because they didn't have a test for EPO and the limit was set to prevent heart attack, when they knew an illicit substance was causing the danger. Setting a limit on body fat seems like replacing a physiological constraint, as going too low will have an adverse effect on the body anyway and hence drop performance. So riders, unless ill-advised or stupid, won't go too low. At any rate, telling people how much body fat they can ride with, just seems like going against a main performance criteria of the sport. And for this reason, I don't see it ever happening.

 

[Oldermanish]

Yes, the point is to not raise the alarm. However, quite a few cyclists are very far off of this threshold. I will not use technical jargon and I agree with your post. The main point is to be disciplined with nutrition. This entails eating a lot and never feeling hungry (especially during races). It also entails not eating certain things (mainly fatty things) and this is where many cyclists and so called nutritionists make a mistake.
Edit: BTW this is not even about Remco (even though it is in this thread). He was quite lean for the Vuelta22 imo.

You actually need to eat some fatty things...

 

[scribers]

Tour de fatty

 

[Divergence]

Well I'm glad we agree on something, but it seems to me that salmon, avocados, certain dairy, nuts, pulses, and many other "fatty" foods are a part of a healthy diet regardless of whether you're a bike racer or a bird watcher.

The end result of the peloton's weight obssession is threefold:
a) we're testing and rewarding whose body has the weakest safeguards (not strength, speed, coordination, cunning, or anything else that sport is supposedly about)
b) amateurs assume they're supposed to look like Froome or there's something morally wrong with them (such as a lack of discipline)
c) "professionalism"

This is certainly not limited to cycling. A lot of marathoners bob along with the appearance of a meth addict...
... and sports like MMA or American football are obviously not healthy just by their nature.

I would actually be in favor of a minimum bodyfat for cyclists, although I'm sure that idea will get reflexively shouted down. It would somewhat remove the incentive for unhealthy behavior, clinical or otherwise, and while you could claim it's not fair, all rules are both totally fair and totally arbitrary as long as they're applied equally. Combat sports tend to have classes where a certain weight is enforced, and oftentimes participants do very unhealthy things to "make weight". But in some federations, the rules also stipulate a certain hydration level at the time of weigh-in to protect the fighters' health, so why not also require 6% body fat to protect cyclists' health? The UCI has already mandated certain other health parameters (blood values, hormone levels) in the past, so why not body fat or BMI? As a fan, this detracts absolutely nothing from the spectacle, and we don't have to ask our favorite riders, be they Remco or anyone else, to toe the line of mortality just to be successful.

Well I know that idea will never go anywhere, so in the meantime I will just keep rooting for the riders who I wish I could be like, and that's not the skeletors of the pack.

Hh, I like how I guessed that you would advocate for a body fat percentage threshold. It is part of the sport, some people can tolerate being extremely lean more easily than others. Just like some can tolerate high lactate better than others, or just like some have high VO2max. Sure, it is not healthy to be that lean but as I mentioned earlier it is not healthy riding a grad tour either or training so much for that matter. Would you like to see a limitation on the number of training hours as well?

You actually need to eat some fatty things...

Sure you do. But it seems to me that some eat way too much. I remember an Alex Dowsett video where he was demonstrating what his nutrition looks like. He was eating more than 100g of fats per day. And I suspect he is not the only one.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

I thought everyone knew that far doesn’t make You fat, the same way sugar doesn’t make you sugar.

 

[Froome]

I thought everyone knew that far doesn’t make You fat, the same way sugar doesn’t make you sugar.

Yeah, but what is the perfect weight for Remco during the Tour France 2024?

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

N-1

Yeah, but what is the perfect weight for Remco during the Tour France 2024?

 

[Elos Anjos]

Remco will never have the perfect weight/nutrition/bicycle/team until he wins a GT.

Blaming outside factors on his underperformance is the only way to keep the hype alive. I wrote many times about this. Buy my book.

 

[proffate]

That's because they didn't have a test for EPO and the limit was set to prevent heart attack, when they knew an illicit substance was causing the danger. Setting a limit on body fat seems like replacing a physiological constraint, as going too low will have an adverse effect on the body anyway and hence drop performance. So riders, unless ill-advised or stupid, won't go too low. At any rate, telling people how much body fat they can ride with, just seems like going against a main performance criteria of the sport. And for this reason, I don't see it ever happening.

Conveniently ignoring the bio passport here, which was implemented because everyone knows that it's easy to dodge the EPO tests.

The UCI also hands out health breaks for cortisol levels. Health break for low BF% is the same principle.

 

[red_flanders]

Sooooo....back to Remco....

 

[Lequack]

N-1

This is peak Remco weight, no one can tell me it's not

 

[houtdffan]

he needs to hit the Pillsbury

 

[Froome]

This is peak Remco weight, no one can tell me it's not

If Remco had that weight during the Tour, even Mario Cipollini would survive more time than Remco in the Tour, before DNS.

 

[Berniece]

Remco will never have the perfect weight/nutrition/bicycle/team until he wins a GT.

Blaming outside factors on his underperformance is the only way to keep the hype alive. I wrote many times about this. Buy my book.

Until he wins a GT?

 

[SHAD0W93]

Until he wins a GT?

GTs don’t count when Roglic crashes out or doesn’t take part

 

[Elos Anjos]

Until he wins a GT?

Having won a GT already is irrelevant. His ideal weight is being brought up as an issue, so clearly my point holds.

EDIT: specially after the Vuelta 2023 debacle.

 

[red_flanders]

GTs don’t count when Roglic crashes out or doesn’t take part

So most GT”s then…