• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 921 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Should we change the thread title?


  • Total voters
    112
I don't think 1.5 kg would make a difference in the sense of losing or not minutes in the mountains.

Talking about the vuelta 2023, i think the problem for him could had be the specific work he did in the preparation for the Vuelta. He tried to do at the same time specific work for the WC TT, and specific work for the Vuelta, and that didn't benefited him for the Vuelta.
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.
 
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?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ManicJack
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
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.