Upper-body training for cyclists

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
Red Rick said:
So no control group. Aight.
"For the conclusions drawn from the results of an experiment to have validity, it is essential that the items or patients assigned to treatment and control groups be representative of the same population."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_and_control_groups

So you can't use sprinters or classics specialists as a control group for GT riders.
Can you clarify what exactly you are trying to claim right now? What are you even trying to demonstrate with statistics about the BMI of GT riders? And what does that have to do with Sagan avoiding hitting Cancellara and a picture of Armstrong several years after retiring?

You've shifted the goalposts so many times in this thread that I think you've forgotten which way you were shooting.
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
Red Rick said:
So no control group. Aight.
"For the conclusions drawn from the results of an experiment to have validity, it is essential that the items or patients assigned to treatment and control groups be representative of the same population."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_and_control_groups

So you can't use sprinters or classics specialists as a control group for GT riders.
So no control group indeed.

Maybe you could tell us why Wiggins dropped ~10kg in order to become a GT rider? So he'd look more pretty?
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
Red Rick said:
It doesn't work that way. Maybe you should start by comparing mean BMI of all riders to mean BMI of GT podium riders in the last years.
That would introduce a plethora of confounding variables —VO2 max, the fast-twitch-to-slow-twitch fibre ratio, haematocrit levels, different training regimens and objectives...

By limiting the comparison to the same category of riders (GT men), you eliminate confounding variables and can focus on the one variable that really interests us, which is BMI.
Also, if you assume riders specialise in the area that suits them the most, most of this doesn't matter. Oh and VO2 max itself is determined by weight lol.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Red Rick said:
So no control group. Aight.
"For the conclusions drawn from the results of an experiment to have validity, it is essential that the items or patients assigned to treatment and control groups be representative of the same population."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_and_control_groups

So you can't use sprinters or classics specialists as a control group for GT riders.
So no control group indeed.

Maybe you could tell us why Wiggins dropped ~10kg in order to become a GT rider? So he'd look more pretty?
Well he's gained that weight back now, and as you can see, he's flying like never before in stage races.
 
Re: Re:

nogav1ca said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Red Rick said:
It doesn't work that way. Maybe you should start by comparing mean BMI of all riders to mean BMI of GT podium riders in the last years.
That would introduce a plethora of confounding variables —VO2 max, the fast-twitch-to-slow-twitch fibre ratio, haematocrit levels, different training regimens and objectives...

By limiting the comparison to the same category of riders (GT men), you eliminate confounding variables and can focus on the one variable that really interests us, which is BMI.
Says a guy who posted pics of Cipo and Sagan...

EDIT: and yes, also of Armstrong (post retirement).
...and ignored or simply chose to not respond to posts directed at the above. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Red Rick said:
So no control group. Aight.
"For the conclusions drawn from the results of an experiment to have validity, it is essential that the items or patients assigned to treatment and control groups be representative of the same population."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_and_control_groups

So you can't use sprinters or classics specialists as a control group for GT riders.
Can you clarify what exactly you are trying to claim right now? What are you even trying to demonstrate with statistics about the BMI of GT riders? And what does that have to do with Sagan avoiding hitting Cancellara and a picture of Armstrong several years after retiring?

You've shifted the goalposts so many times in this thread that I think you've forgotten which way you were shooting.
This. I'm done with this dude and his thread.
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
The beanpoles are taking over more because of developments in parcours design and team tactics rather than developments in rider physiology. Vicente Trueba was probably the first of the historical line of featherweight climbers, standing barely 1m50 and 55kg, but racing in the 1930s the surfaces of roads and the less controlled were such that he couldn't compete on the flat. There have been lots of flyweights over the years, but only the truly great ones of them - Charly Gaul, Federico Bahamontes, Lucien van Impe, José Manuel Fuente, Lucho Herrera et al - became the kind of legendary champions whose exploits will never be forgotten. When Lucho Herrera was racing against Hinault, there was often over 150km, close to 200km of time trialling, either individual or team, which benefited a more all-round rider who could put out the TT power, requiring a more powerful build than the frail, pint-sized grimpeurs. Also, especially at the Giro, adverse weather conditions would often mean that those climbers were more susceptible to illness and, when crashes ensued on the poorer quality roads than today, more likely to be injured (this tendency towards the smaller, bony riders to get injured more often continues to this day with people like Igor Antón). Only the truly legendary climbers could put together the kind of palmarès to go down in history forever, and that's why those guys named above are the ones we remember.

We probably have the 90s and early 2000s to thank for the current crop of scrawny climbers at the top as well as dieting (and yes, doping) fads that have meant the tendency now is for power riders to diet down to compete in the mountains rather than for climbers to bulk up for the time trials. The ability of a dominant time trialist to exercise total control of Grand Tour racing as Indurain did, with the gaps he could build up far in excess of those he would lose in the climbs, led to a reduction in distance raced contre-le-montre, and the simultaneous development of a controlling template for the stage racers (developed by Banesto and perfected by US Postal) and the sprint train technique (perfected by Saeco) meant we were looking at more riders being protected in the pack for longer, and the pack holding together for longer, producing fewer time gaps created in the flat stages and the emergence of more 'pure' sprinters in the modern sense making it harder for late attacks to stay away, meant that being strong enough to cope with the jostling in the bunch in tough rouleur stages became less important for stage racers.
Great take, as always.
Libertine Seguros said:
When the routes of long-form stage races become less conducive to victories by wispy, frail escaladors, the frames of the riders who win those races will go up. Even if we go by the stated heights and weights you've used to get your BMI figures, it's no coincidence that the highest GT winner BMI on your list is the guy that won the most TT-biased GT in a decade. On current GT routes with multiple mountaintop finishes - and many of them seeking out the steepest climbs possible as well - and very little time trial mileage or rouleur difficulties, there is little need for a GT contender to have a muscular upper body, and if you wish to change that to return the physiques of the riders at the front to the Armstrong/Botero/Ulle template, the courses need to be changed to suit that; increasing the time trial mileage, and more long and grinding climbs as opposed to inconsistent hell-slopes (in this development the Vuelta is particularly notable, with more gradual climbs being eschewed in favour of a hunt for a new Angliru) that will suit that type of rider over the minuscule grimpeur.
On balance I'd probably like to see a little more flat time trialing in the Tour in particular, in order to see the bigger guys (Dumoulin, Jungels?) given a real chance. Outside of time-trials, however, I think that given the current team dynamics you alluded to scalatori will always prevail in Grand Tours where mountains are eventually in the mix, no matter road condition or the gradient of the climbs. Last year's Tour was won over the 5% last 5km of LPSM, by the consummate beanpole. I'm not sure extra weight for a GC contender would still be an advantage in any massed-start affair, even flat stages, even cobbled ones, because it would be offset by modern team dynamics. You don't need to be that strong if you can sit in on Daniel Oss's or Peter Sagan's or Ian Stannard's or the Ettix trains' wheel when push comes to shove. See also Quintana getting in with the lead group last year or Nibali (and his sub-20 BMI) on the podium at Arenberg in 2015. YMMV.
 
Let me see if I got this right regarding the list of BMIs.

You're saying that since Quintana, with a BMI of 21, could win a GT then Froome, with a BMI of 19, could easily put on some more (muscle) weight and still be a GT contender?
Well... Froome is already heavier than Quintana, he's just also significantly taller. Also noticable that the two times they went head-to-head the guy with the lowest BMI won both times.
At the end of the day putting on (visible) muscles on your upper body isn't really gonna help you much as a climber, unless you have a very weird climbing style. Sure, it might help on the descends, but the term climber sorta implies a rider who focuses on the climbing bit. Likely, you could argue that if Kittel just lost some (muscle) weight, then it would be easier for him to get over the climbs, but then he'd lose the power which enables him to do what he's best at; sprinting.

BTW, you still haven't explained why you seem so worked up about this. Does it really matter to you if the GC contenders have visible muscles on their upper bodies?
 
The taller you are, the more skeleton-typo you need to be in order to decrease internal friction between your muscle mass, bones and, well, limbs, especially superior limbs -> biggest change in Froome and Wiggins.
 
cantpedal said:
small upper body and probably stronger than 99% of the posters here. the Science in this thread is bad enough that it belongs in the clinic.
Good reference indeed. There are allready 50 posts here pointing out the sillyness of the OP, but this is another good example.
Male climbers like her certainly look more muscular than male cyclists, but they are still skinny as well and in no-way look like a pumped-up gym fanatic like CMP most likely is. Yet these guys are extremely strong and they don't carry that extra weight because they would only have to carry that extra weight to the top.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
cantpedal said:
small upper body and probably stronger than 99% of the posters here. the Science in this thread is bad enough that it belongs in the clinic.
you post a picture of a woman :eek:
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
Re:

RedheadDane said:
Let me see if I got this right regarding the list of BMIs.

You're saying that since Quintana, with a BMI of 21, could win a GT then Froome, with a BMI of 19, could easily put on some more (muscle) weight and still be a GT contender?
Well... Froome is already heavier than Quintana, he's just also significantly taller. Also noticable that the two times they went head-to-head the guy with the lowest BMI won both times.
At the end of the day putting on (visible) muscles on your upper body isn't really gonna help you much as a climber, unless you have a very weird climbing style. Sure, it might help on the descends, but the term climber sorta implies a rider who focuses on the climbing bit. Likely, you could argue that if Kittel just lost some (muscle) weight, then it would be easier for him to get over the climbs, but then he'd lose the power which enables him to do what he's best at; sprinting.

BTW, you still haven't explained why you seem so worked up about this. Does it really matter to you if the GC contenders have visible muscles on their upper bodies?
it's hilarious. it's like saying well froome and quintana are married, so any serious gc contender should get married as it improves you as gc rider
 
LaFlorecita said:
Ryo Hazuki said:
cantpedal said:
small upper body and probably stronger than 99% of the posters here. the Science in this thread is bad enough that it belongs in the clinic.
you post a picture of a woman :eek:
I know, it's outrageous.
Lol :D

Allthough he has apoint as were talking about male cyclists here. I tried to post a picture of a male climber, but trying to do anything besides typing a comment on an ipad is anhige challenge (for me).
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
what's the problem? we are talking about male cyclists. good luck finding any woman that are bulky except when seriously roided
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
The woman has slim shoulders and slim legs. A clear example of strength without bulk.
Yes ofcourse, but a male climber has broad shoulders compared to a male cyclist. Still they in no way look like a pumped up gymguy. They carry no bulk at all.
 
Kwibus said:
Allthough he has apoint as were talking about male cyclists here. I tried to post a picture of a male climber, but trying to do anything besides typing a comment on an ipad is anhige challenge (for me).
The point holds for women's cycling too though; Kirsten Wild is powerfully built for track racing, sprinting and riding in echelons, she will never win the Giro because she can't climb; while somebody like Emma Pooley and her tiny frame is never going to win the Tour of Qatar, and it wouldn't really be possible for her to put on the kind of bulk needed to do so because her frame wasn't built to take it. Mara Abbott's a great climber but she's also comparatively tall and the need to keep weight down to peak in the mountains has resulted in a career dogged by persistent rumours of eating disorders; after winning the Worlds Marta Bastianelli's agents pressured her to diet down to become a stage race threat, which resulted in an eating disorder and a ban for an appetite suppressant. She hardly had a huge upper body before, this is Marta in 2007, but if she didn't need to worry about dropping weight for climbing, her life would be totally different (after a protracted battle over her ban, she crashed while training for a comeback that never transpired as the ban was lengthened and had to have facial reconstructive surgery; she raced on a succession of Italian small teams while she studied, took a break to become a mother and has returned to the upper level of the sport as a durable sprinter).
 
Tbh Ryo has got a point here for me. A female body tends to be way more petit than a male one. Pauline Ferrand-Peraud is a very powerful western European girl. You really need a guy like Rasmussen here, with his small bones and muscles, to equal her naturally thin but athletic body shape.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS