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

[proffate]

So we are talking regular dexa scans and some arbitrary number as a max body fat? When is this scan performed? The day before the race? This sounds ridiculous.

Pushing the boundaries have always been fundamental to the sport and nutrition is just part of that.

Sure, day before the race sounds good, like a combat sports weigh in. I'd also imagine some regularly scheduled points throughout the season. Enforcement need not involve a ban, just can't compete until you get back up to 5% or whatever. They have mobile dexa scans in vans in my area, and they're actually cheaper than blood tests. I don't think the biggest hurdle would be in the implementation details, but in convincing traditionalists that there's even a problem to be addressed.

As to pushing the boundaries: is that an argument for not having any rules at all? Every rule in the book defines some line that cannot be crossed. Is the sport improved if we let them push the boundary of socks and suddenly everyone has lycra tubes up to their knees, or the true boundary of HPV performance and everyone's in an enclosed recumbent?

 

[Red Rick]

Sure, day before the race sounds good, like a combat sports weigh in. I'd also imagine some regularly scheduled points throughout the season. Enforcement need not involve a ban, just can't compete until you get back up to 5% or whatever. They have mobile dexa scans in vans in my area, and they're actually cheaper than blood tests. I don't think the biggest hurdle would be in the implementation details, but in convincing traditionalists that there's even a problem to be addressed.

As to pushing the boundaries: is that an argument for not having any rules at all? Every rule in the book defines some line that cannot be crossed. Is the sport improved if we let them push the boundary of socks and suddenly everyone has lycra tubes up to their knees, or the true boundary of HPV performance and everyone's in an enclosed recumbent?

Sounds like a way to punish riders who naturally can hold a lower % of body fat.

There is already a very clear feedback mechanism in place. If you go too far you can't put out the watts anymore.

 

[houtdffan]

I still don’t think he can shake off JulySkeletor under this circumstance

oh he would in those TTs.

Those are longer than the infamous 87.5km ITT that occurred in the 80s

 

[Extinction]

Sounds like a way to punish riders who naturally can hold a lower % of body fat.

There is already a very clear feedback mechanism in place. If you go too far you can't put out the watts anymore.

That's what I think. If you go too low, then the body doesn't perform, simple as that. Thus there is a natural, autoregulatory mechanism in place. As you say, if a rider can naturally hold a lower body fat percentage and still maintain optimal force, he is "healthy" and so who is the UCI to say he can't race. That would be absurd. It would go against the sport itself. And I'm not talking about illicit means to lower body fat while maintaining power, which of course should be banned and a rider punished for using them. But if a guy can race strong at 2-3% BF, then he isn't sick and should not be forced to raise his adipose tissue. It's an extreme sport that places crazy physiological demands on participants, such that if they actually can maintain lower BF without losing force, they will experience less fatigue, less stress on muscles and organs, and thus be doing less "harm" to themselves.

 

[proffate]

Sounds like a way to punish riders who naturally can hold a lower % of body fat.

There is already a very clear feedback mechanism in place. If you go too far you can't put out the watts anymore.

yea, that's certainly true. No one is dropping weight to the point that their performance suffers. The question is whether there's a zone where performance doesn't suffer but other health parameters (bone density, hormones, etc) do suffer, and if there's a zone that's achievable with help but not paniagua.

Basically: racing performance does not imply health, and we should not be encouraging riders to sacrifice health for results where we can help it. By the same token, there are concussion protocols in place, even though in the past some riders might have raced through a mild concussion or at least rolled the dice on what could be a concussion in order to continue in a stage race.

But if a guy can race strong at 2-3% BF

I don't think that's achievable naturally any more than 60% hematocrit has a chance of being natural. The cutoff for everyone is different, and any imposed limit would need to be at the bottom of that range.

 

[Netserk]

we should not be encouraging riders to sacrifice health for results

We should.

If you want to be healthy, be an amateur.

 

[repre]

We should.

If you want to be healthy, be an amateur.

If you want to be healthy, be on the couch. Amateur sports generally are way more risky, cause you get injured too, but nobody take care of you...

 

[Red Rick]

If you want to be healthy, be on the couch. Amateur sports generally are way more risky, cause you get injured too, but nobody take care of you...

The health benefits of exercising are kinda backed up by a few million scientific studies

 

[Krzysztof_O]

lol, yes it makes a huge difference. Why would Vingegaard weigh 58kg if 1.5 don't matter? Why would Rasmussen peel the paint off his bike? One of the trainers of Dumoulin at Sunweb said (back then) every kg means 30s loss per half hour climbed. So 1.5kg would mean 45s per 30 minutes. That's not taking into account the efforts of previous climbs when you have to waste more energy in order to keep up. So in the final climb you might well lose more than 45s.

Yup, there's no way around physics. 1 kg less is around 1.5-1.6% reduction of mass and gain of power/mass for GT riders. Which is roughly 1/60th so a 30 seconds loss in a 30 minute all-out effort. Obviously at some tipping point one starts losing power quickly so one can't trim down infinitely (maybe except Skeletor but he's not even a human).

 

[Netserk]

Yup, there's no way around physics. 1 kg less is around 1.5-1.6% reduction of mass and gain of power/mass for GT riders. Which is roughly 1/60th so a 30 seconds loss in a 30 minute all-out effort. Obviously at some tipping point one starts losing power quickly so one can't trim down infinitely (maybe except Skeletor but he's not even a human).

Under that assumption, there would be no gain for ITTs with added weight. So why didn't Evenepoel weigh 62 kg at Glasgow?

 

[Froome]

lol, yes it makes a huge difference. Why would Vingegaard weigh 58kg if 1.5 don't matter? Why would Rasmussen peel the paint off his bike? One of the trainers of Dumoulin at Sunweb said (back then) every kg means 30s loss per half hour climbed. So 1.5kg would mean 45s per 30 minutes. That's not taking into account the efforts of previous climbs when you have to waste more energy in order to keep up. So in the final climb you might well lose more than 45s.

Maybe the plan was losing 1.5 kg until the last week.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Under that assumption, there would be no gain for ITTs with added weight. So why didn't Evenepoel weigh 62 kg at Glasgow?

One also loses power with reduced weight, which I mentioned. Obviously mass loss more than compensates for it in the mountains but OTOH power gain more than compensates for mass gain on flatter terrain. So theoretical 30 seconds per 30 minute on a standalone climb may be too much (or apply when someone isn't close to his optimal weight and carries too much fat), however at the end of a multi-col stage the difference could be significant indeed.

 

[Extinction]

The question is whether there's a zone where performance doesn't suffer but other health parameters (bone density, hormones, etc) do suffer, and if there's a zone that's achievable with help but not paniagua.

Of course, and I don't know the answer to these questions, however, if it's done with substances then they will be identified and banned. Although, as it is so often said, pharmacology of doping is always a few steps ahead of the pharmachology of anti-doping. I still, however, unless better data becomes available, don't think they can set a limit on BF percentage. Or if they find the super low percantages, with super watts output isn't being acheived on pane e acqua alone, then they may set a lowness limit, the way they did a highness limit for hematecrit.

 

[125C]

Under that assumption, there would be no gain for ITTs with added weight. So why didn't Evenepoel weigh 62 kg at Glasgow?

Presumably with the primarily flat course the small improvement in climbing speed would be offset by a reduction in w/CdA on the flat sections that dominated the course.

 

[KenFiamingo]

Don't forget the Remco's weight-to-aeroskin ratio! Gaining 2kg means more volume, which means more exposed skin which mean bigger aerodynamic advantage.

 

[repre]

The health benefits of exercising are kinda backed up by a few million scientific studies

Exercising is not a sport...

 

[CyclistAbi]

Good luck doing a GT with too low body fat percentage.

 

[Extinction]

Good luck doing a GT with too low body fat percentage.

Exactly and that's why they won't go too low on a calculated regime basis, because it's counter produtive. End of story, so no need to regulate it, unless...

 

[Ilmaestro99]

After the mythical contador 'he's having good sensations' and the mythical froome 'numbers in training', now we will have the mythical remco 'at the optimal weight'.

 

[Froome]

After the mythical contador 'he's having good sensations' and the mythical froome 'numbers in training', now we will have the mythical remco 'at the optimal weight'.

After all the talks, i still not understand what is the perfect weight of remco.

66? 63? 62? 61.5? 61.57674347 kg?

 

[Red Rick]

After the mythical contador 'he's having good sensations' and the mythical froome 'numbers in training', now we will have the mythical remco 'at the optimal weight'.

They all lose to Roglic when he doesn't crash though

 

[red_flanders]

This thread has never been stupider than when discussing another man’s weight.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

This thread has never been stupider than when discussing another man’s weight.

You're just trying to divert attention because you fear at one point we'll start discussing your weight. Admit it.

 

[wheresmybrakes]

After all the talks, i still not understand what is the perfect weight of remco.

66? 63? 62? 61.5? 61.57674347 kg?

It depends on if he wins or not.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

It depends on if he wins or not.

I don't know about you, but i didn't think 68kg is his ideal weight, just because he won races early '22.

The issue with Evenepoel is that he is a TT'er, a classics rider, and a GC/GT rider. and that his ideal GT weight will greatly differ from his ideal long flat TT weight. I'm sure that's easy enough to understand.