What % body fat can be maintained without drugs?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Rip:30 said:
TL;DR: There's no way to just say you can't be that skinny naturally, some guys are just skinny.
Rip:30 said:
9% is really low for most people. And is extremely unusual for females.
Great images! Thanks.

Would be interesting seeing an ecto and endo set of images. The guys all look meso to me?

I have to say: as I have been getting back into training and watching what I eat - and it doesn't matter, in the end, I don't have to be lean to be paid to race coz I have a real job, the thought of taking a short cut has been very understandable. Especially as you get older and the metabolism ain't what it used to be.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I'm a lucky mesomorph type that can hide a lot of fat without looking fat - clothed at least. It's crazy how much lighter I look than guys taller than me that are actually lighter than me. And frustrating.

Also: been was deliberate. Am losing it as I am back training full-on. Summer rocks.
It would be too much for me. I'm a woman 156cm hight. And I have an ectomorph body type. Hard to gain muscle, hard to gain weight, metabolism that rocks..

Dear Wiggo said:
Apologies, I should have added a smilie - I am not taking this seriously at all.
Neither do I.. no need for apologies.. But this kind of discussion can drive some people sometimes to very wrong conclusions about their health and I think that it is good to be clear from the beginning. :)

hrotha said:
For the 2009 Tour, Wiggins said he had gone all the way down to 72 kg, with a body fat of ~5%. He said something to the effect of "of course I can't maintain that percentage of body fat for longer than a few weeks, as I would get sick".
Nonsenses..He lied.. Nobody can have a decent performance with such low BF and anyone who has a slight idea about training and human physiology can confirm this. It is funny thought how many stupid things riders can say to the media.. :D ( I like Wiggo.. but in this case he said nonsenses).
 
alitogata said:
To add to my previous post: If I maintained this % of fat you do, I would be ( personally ) as fat as a cow.. :D:D
You would be fatter than a hay fed cow, they average 19% body fat. Grain fed are higher of course, ~27%. Let's not insult the cows please. I hear the cows in Spain have a much lower fat%. :D

I've searched for bovine body fat % comparison pictures but can't find any.
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
I have been finding that with a carefully planned diet of fried food and dark beer I am having no trouble at all increasing my BF% to previously unheard of levels.

Apart from the dark beer I am applying no drugs ( maybe some aspirin in the morning).
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Fatclimber said:
You would be fatter than a hay fed cow, they average 19% body fat. Grain fed are higher of course, ~27%. Let's not insult the cows please. I hear the cows in Spain have a much lower fat%. :D

I've searched for bovine body fat % comparison pictures but can't find any.
Ha ha ha .. I really don't know what is the fat% of Spanish cows but cows are cows, and I don't want to be that fat whatever % they have :D:D
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Completely and utterly disagree.
And that is why you have a body fat % of 22. I'd love to hear this one. You've got an entire fitness industry that says your full of it on this one. This is one area you are making a total fool of yourself. To get to below 10% body fat eating what cyclists do and simply riding, it comes down to one thing. Time. How much you have and how much you spend riding.

Bike riders eat how much protein versus carbohydrates? They do how much pure strength training? How much aerobic vs anaerobic exercise? Then relate that to resistance and pure weight training. You are full of it on this one. Absolutely full of it. Most average gym members would SNAPE a cyclist in half in a fight. That is how little muscle mass cyclists have.

If the average person wants a low body fat % then the most obvious thing to do is cut out the $h1t ton of carbs (the pastas, the breads and wheats cyclists chow down solely for the enerygy), eat low GI vegetables, fruit, nuts and low fat meats. Their focus is on protein, good fats and absolutely ZERO SUGAR. Cyclists eat a ton of sugar, they have to. They need the energy because of the 5-6 hour days they spend training. Sure they eat the other stuff that is good, but you do not eat. If you have 30 minutes to 1 hour per day max to exercise, then cyclings approach is absolutely useless. Hence why you're full of it. You'd be laughed at in the fitness industry. The fitness industry hardcore people, they eat clean. So clean, that half of what cyclists eat regularly is totally a no-no. But you'd know this if you'd read up on it. By cyclists, I am talking about the lean 65kg max guys. Not the Sunday road warriors. The hard core guys. What they focus on in nutrition and training is opposed to what the fitness industry has the average joe doing. You'd know this if you stepped into a gym. You'd also know this if you saw the cyclists in gyms. They are few and very far between. There is a reason for that.

A person follows cyclists diets, they have to train like one. But you missed that component didn't you? Don't try and talk back. You're over 40 right? You don't have time to train like they do in all probability. Few people do. If men in particular want to have a 6 pack, look good with a shirt off and have decent muscle mass, the last thing they should do is train like a pro cyclist. Why? Because they don't have the time to train. The longer you train, the more energy you need. That is what cycling is. Simplest thing to understand. You have less time, you have less leeway on what you can afford to eat and burn off with minimal exercises in order to 'look' good. Hence why your idea is a load of BS. If a cyclist followed the diet of some of the hard core gym goers, the fitness models and professionals, they wouldn't get through a weeks worth of solid training. The reverse is true for the fitness types. They'd be bloated as hell and would pack on more fat than muscle.

Now granted some people burn more fat from cardio vs resistance training, but the mass majority and scientifically proven method is a combination, with little cardio relative to what cyclists do. Why? Because it doesn't build lean muscle mass for the entire body. It's all about the cardio with cycling. Hence why a regular gym goer who lifts would snap a cyclist in a fight, no sweat.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Pretty sure I was maintaining 10% on cycling training and eating right back when I was fit.
Unless you were getting absolute measurements with skin fold tests then your understanding is simply assumption. I was told I was 6% based on measurements, but I know that was not even close. Most methods are estimates at best. Simplest way to tell? How much muscle tone is visible when your in the buff. If one cannot see the individual muscle groupings and connecting outlines, then they are not at 10% if they have a y chromosome.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Galic Ho said:
And that is why you have a body fat % of 22. I'd love to hear this one. You've got an entire fitness industry that says your full of it on this one. This is one area you are making a total fool of yourself. To get to below 10% body fat eating what cyclists do and simply riding, it comes down to one thing. Time. How much you have and how much you spend riding.

Bike riders eat how much protein versus carbohydrates? They do how much pure strength training? How much aerobic vs anaerobic exercise? Then relate that to resistance and pure weight training. You are full of it on this one. Absolutely full of it. Most average gym members would SNAPE a cyclist in half in a fight. That is how little muscle mass cyclists have.

If the average person wants a low body fat % then the most obvious thing to do is cut out the $h1t ton of carbs (the pastas, the breads and wheats cyclists chow down solely for the enerygy), eat low GI vegetables, fruit, nuts and low fat meats. Their focus is on protein, good fats and absolutely ZERO SUGAR. Cyclists eat a ton of sugar, they have to. They need the energy because of the 5-6 hour days they spend training. Sure they eat the other stuff that is good, but you do not eat. If you have 30 minutes to 1 hour per day max to exercise, then cyclings approach is absolutely useless. Hence why you're full of it. You'd be laughed at in the fitness industry. The fitness industry hardcore people, they eat clean. So clean, that half of what cyclists eat regularly is totally a no-no. But you'd know this if you'd read up on it. By cyclists, I am talking about the lean 65kg max guys. Not the Sunday road warriors. The hard core guys. What they focus on in nutrition and training is opposed to what the fitness industry has the average joe doing. You'd know this if you stepped into a gym. You'd also know this if you saw the cyclists in gyms. They are few and very far between. There is a reason for that.

A person follows cyclists diets, they have to train like one. But you missed that component didn't you? Don't try and talk back. You're over 40 right? You don't have time to train like they do in all probability. Few people do. If men in particular want to have a 6 pack, look good with a shirt off and have decent muscle mass, the last thing they should do is train like a pro cyclist. Why? Because they don't have the time to train. The longer you train, the more energy you need. That is what cycling is. Simplest thing to understand. You have less time, you have less leeway on what you can afford to eat and burn off with minimal exercises in order to 'look' good. Hence why your idea is a load of BS.
Ok.. but don't kill him now.. Tomorrow .. leave it for tomorrow.. :D
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Galic Ho said:
A person follows cyclists diets, they have to train like one. But you missed that component didn't you? Don't try and talk back. You're over 40 right? You don't have time to train like they do in all probability. Few people do. If men in particular want to have a 6 pack, look good with a shirt off and have decent muscle mass, the last thing they should do is train like a pro cyclist. Why?
Mesomoprhs get a 6-pack for practically free. Body shape and metabolism play a very large part.

I didn't miss any component. A cyclist's diet is matching input to output, so if someone else does that "cyclist" diet, then yes, they can lose weight. Just drop the input and maintain or increase the output. Simple. Then keep going.

If you mean "cyclist's diet" as in 5000 calories / day, then we don't need to discuss anything, only a genius would say you can eat that much and lose weight by not exercising the same amount.
 
alitogata said:
Originally Posted by hrotha
For the 2009 Tour, Wiggins said he had gone all the way down to 72 kg, with a body fat of ~5%. He said something to the effect of "of course I can't maintain that percentage of body fat for longer than a few weeks, as I would get sick".




Nonsenses..He lied.. Nobody can have a decent performance with such low BF and anyone who has a slight idea about training and human physiology can confirm this. It is funny thought how many stupid things riders can say to the media.. :D ( I like Wiggo.. but in this case he said nonsenses).
Do you think his performance was unattainable without enhancement? Or are you saying there are no members of the peloton with a BF% of ~5%? There are plenty of grotesque pictures of pro riders with jersey's unzipped & ribs exposed that suggest such a BF%.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Galic Ho said:
And that is why you have a body fat % of 22. I'd love to hear this one. You've got an entire fitness industry that says your full of it on this one. This is one area you are making a total fool of yourself. To get to below 10% body fat eating what cyclists do and simply riding, it comes down to one thing. Time. How much you have and how much you spend riding.
Right. So you agree. You can do it, it just takes time.

Yet you go on about me being wrong.

Uh huh.

And here's a clue for you: the fitness industry can't make money out of "eat healthy and ride your bike a lot", so of course they might say you can't lose weight doing that. Simple economics and market forces.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Fatclimber said:
Do you think his performance was unattainable without enhancement? Or are you saying there are no members of the peloton with a BF% of ~5%? There are plenty of grotesque pictures of pro riders with jersey's unzipped & ribs exposed that suggest such a BF%.
Yes I think his performance, (if he had this BF that he said) was not able without enhancement. There are indeed riders in races that are skinny to death.. I don't believe that they don't use drugs to have decent performances.

Being a dancer in my youth, I can assure you that very low body fat, isn't the best friend of aerobic performance. You just can and is not possible to do anything, the body just don't follow. :)
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
BroDeal said:
The follow-up question is how suspicious are riders with a super low BF % in the early season? It is one thing to time everything to achieve race weight for a big season goal but why compromise the body's immune system and thus risk loss of training months before?

I will also clarify that with "9% seems high to me" I meant that I expected a lower number, but I don't train at the workloads that pros do so my experience may not mean much.
Depends on their natural body fat %. Varies from person to person. Smaller you are, the more likely it is to be lower. Six foot plus men who don't weight 70kg are pushing what is healthy. Anyone is. My youngest brother is a good example. About 5'10", more likely 5'9" and he thinks he is 60kg. Doesn't look it. He's just all muscle. Little body fat, thin, but lithe. Kind of like Andy Schleck. Naturally skinny. Wears 28" jeans. The thin skin hugging versions and still has room to spare before they are tight. Their natural body fat % is low. Is it unhealthy? No. He can eat anything. Those types of people have trouble packing on muscle mass. They are the types who should be cyclists. He is also the best sprinter and distance runner I know. Well when he competed he was. He's 20. The build and engine to be good at endurance sports, like running, triathlon or cycling.

Now the pros who have lost body weight on a larger frame, who weren't skinny relatively for cyclists, it is much harder for them to maintain a low body fat percentage. What number? I'd say 10% should be normal for them, but the problem with cycling now is the sports scientists and number crunchers have it figured out, lower weight, same power equals more watts/kg. That is the concern. Dropping below your natural weight, done by lower body fat % and holding it all year. Simple thing is, if you're not strict on food and how much you eat vs what you train, you'll pack on weight. If you mess up the natural balance, you can stuff your metabolic rate (unlikely but it does happen) and when that happens I've heard of people's bodies eating their muscle mass (from triathletes) and that is seriously bad news. When these types stop exercising, their weight balloons. They will put on 5-10kg in a month no sweat. Versus the naturally skinny type, those guys won't. They'll still be super thin and can eat whatever they want.

It's not the skinny guys I am worried about, it's the bigger guys with slower metabolic rates. They're the ones who will need drugs like AICAR. It's also the guys who roid up to gain muscle mass who are a concern. What do fitness types do? They cycle. You bulk up, mass goes up but you bloat. That's a problem for cyclists with the watts/kg. How do you lose the excess fat related weight but keep the muscle and strength gains. Clenbuterol. This is all very old news.

Sorry Bro Deal, I can't give you an absolute number. Hitting 6% or less all season for those people who haven't always been long, lean and skinny twig figures, is not healthy. They're the ones who are more than likely doping. If they Andy Schleck types need to dope for that, they're doing something wrong. My brother eats whatever he wants and doesn't exercise and is still super duper thin with next to no body fat. He'd make a great climber.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Right. So you agree. You can do it, it just takes time.

Yet you go on about me being wrong.

Uh huh.

And here's a clue for you: the fitness industry can't make money out of "eat healthy and ride your bike a lot", so of course they might say you can't lose weight doing that. Simple economics and market forces.
No, you are talking a load of hogs wash. I put the biggest contextual indicator into perspective for you. TIME.

It is about time. The other factor is IMAGE. Self image to be exact. People who exercise do not want to look like a cyclist. I've met the cyclists at the gym who moan about not being able to pack on weight. The naturally skinny guys who should be cyclists. Everyone else cannot do what they do and get a low body fat % and that is exactly why the fitness industry does not advocate what pro cyclists do. The two are counter productive.

So for the pros it is all about time. With Joe Blow in the gym, over weight with a BMI near 30 and of average height, working 8 hours a day in a 40 hr week, your option is invalid. He does what I said and he drops weight, gains lean muscle mass and he gets the body he wants. The one where he can lift and take his shirt off and not get mocked for being skinny. Now the last part isn't relative for most people, but who on God's Green Earth wants to look like a pro cyclist when they can look like Adonis? Only the pros.

I know. I've done both. Not saying you were wrong, it's fine if you have the time and want to look like a cyclist. I like the purely aerobic approach, but anaerobic, with High Intensity Interval Training via resistance and weights, just like Cross Fit does, is the Fitness Industry trend. Long sub maximal cardio on a bike is not. Thus the nutritional component to maintain a 6-10% body fat percentage for your average folk is not the same. I never said you couldn't do it, I implied it was absurd to waste your time trying. Hence why all the guys Down Under, like Blackcat said last week, are gym buffs. Image to them is the bigger component. Cycling's approach only works for pros or people with way too much spare time. For me, I drop more weight if I add in more cardio. More than what the industry hard cores do. But that is my body. I lose a lot of body fat if I do weight training mixed with 45-60min pure cardio spells. Where as the fitness trend now, is to do them together, ala Cross Training. I don't like the group component of that.

The actual hardest part to follow, for most people, is the diet. They have the time for the fitness approach for exercise expenditure, but need to do pro cyclist level times to get away with what they eat. Well at least half of what they do. Do they? Nope. Once you get to a nice body weight with a body fat % it's easier to maintain. But for dropping it? The cycling method is not efficient enough for a high enough portion of those willing to exercise. Hence why the fitness industry focuses on HIIT. It's a modern dilemma. Now if this were 100 years ago, even 50-60 years ago I'd disagree. But it isn't. It's 2013 with bad nutrition, high energy processed foods and governments who love workers slaving forever during their working week. That is why I am saying you are wrong and it's a load of BS. It's simply UNACHIEVABLE for most people. Not for you? Fine, then you're lucky. But you are the exception, not the rule and this is majority rules. It always is with a total population topic. You alluded to all of this with market forces and economics. That comes down to time. You should have qualified what you said, or at least thought of what the average person can and is able to do in their daily exercise regime. That amounts to very specific and tailored plans, aka, not what cyclists do. The world would be better if people could spend hours riding a bike, but that ain't gonna happen.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
What you describe Galic Ho is the ectomorph body type athlete. They don't gain weight, they don't gain easily body fat, they can metabolize everything, ( they eat steaks and go to sleep), but if they ever manage to gain the muscle mass, they are the best climbers and the best long distance riders.

Your brother must have this kind of body type but if he wants to be a climber he has to start working with weights in order to gain the needed muscle mass, as long as he is in his twenties and his body still produces growth hormone.. Otherwise he will stay for the rest of his life as thin as a stick..
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Galic Ho said:
No, you are talking a load of hogs wash. I put the biggest contextual indicator into perspective for you. TIME.

It is about time. The other factor is IMAGE. Self image to be exact. People who exercise do not want to look like a cyclist. I've met the cyclists at the gym who moan about not being able to pack on weight. The naturally skinny guys who should be cyclists. Everyone else cannot do what they do and get a low body fat % and that is exactly why the fitness industry does not advocate what pro cyclists do. The two are counter productive.

So for the pros it is all about time. With Joe Blow in the gym, over weight with a BMI near 30 and of average height, working 8 hours a day in a 40 hr week, your option is invalid. He does what I said and he drops weight, gains lean muscle mass and he gets the body he wants. The one where he can lift and take his shirt off and not get mocked for being skinny. Now the last part isn't relative for most people, but who on God's Green Earth wants to look like a pro cyclist when they can look like Adonis? Only the pros.

I know. I've done both. Not saying you were wrong, it's fine if you have the time and want to look like a cyclist. I like the purely aerobic approach, but anaerobic, with High Intensity Interval Training via resistance and weights, just like Cross Fit does, is the Fitness Industry trend. Long sub maximal cardio on a bike is not. Thus the nutritional component to maintain a 6-10% body fat percentage for your average folk is not the same. I never said you couldn't do it, I implied it was absurd to waste your time trying. Hence why all the guys Down Under, like Blackcat said last week, are gym buffs. Image to them is the bigger component. Cycling's approach only works for pros or people with way too much spare time. For me, I drop more weight if I add in more cardio. More than what the industry hard cores do. But that is my body. I lose a lot of body fat if I do weight training mixed with 45-60min pure cardio spells. Where as the fitness trend now, is to do them together, ala Cross Training. I don't like the group component of that.

The actual hardest part to follow, for most people, is the diet. They have the time for the fitness approach for exercise expenditure, but need to do pro cyclist level times to get away with what they eat. Well at least half of what they do. Do they? Nope. Once you get to a nice body weight with a body fat % it's easier to maintain. But for dropping it? The cycling method is not efficient enough for a high enough portion of those willing to exercise. Hence why the fitness industry focuses on HIIT. It's a modern dilemma. Now if this were 100 years ago, even 50-60 years ago I'd disagree. But it isn't. It's 2013 with bad nutrition, high energy processed foods and governments who love workers slaving forever during their working week. That is why I am saying you are wrong and it's a load of BS. It's simply UNACHIEVABLE for most people. Not for you? Fine, then you're lucky. But you are the exception, not the rule and this is majority rules. It always is with a total population topic. You alluded to all of this with market forces and economics. That comes down to time. You should have qualified what you said, or at least thought of what the average person can and is able to do in their daily exercise regime. That amounts to very specific and tailored plans, aka, not what cyclists do. The world would be better if people could spend hours riding a bike, but that ain't gonna happen.
Could you do that again in 20 words or less?
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
hrotha said:
For the 2009 Tour, Wiggins said he had gone all the way down to 72 kg, with a body fat of ~5%. He said something to the effect of "of course I can't maintain that percentage of body fat for longer than a few weeks, as I would get sick".
That is the type to worry about. They will get sick because they aren't naturally skinny men. Don't expect to see his actual figures for 2012. Talk was he hit 69kg. Who knows if that is true.

The other concerning factor is cyclists, apart from their thighs, quads, hammies and glutes, have little muscle mass anywhere else. Some have big calf muscles. That is the only thing that looks big. Back in the 1996-2005 era, I saw some insane legs on cyclists. Then they all started getting slim. That's the transition from EPO to blood bags. EPO worked better with higher muscle mass. But look at most cyclists in a group today. Then stick an average guy or group of guys next to them. Put them in lycra. Have them picked at 10-15% body fat. Notice the difference. It's selective bias. In a group cyclists look normal. They're small guys. Really small. Contrast of their size relative to another group...big difference. The other group will look fat. They're not, but they don't look small. The percentile of pro cyclists who are naturally skinny, will be quite small. They're the guys who don't need to dope to keep small.

I think the potential for guys to dope to maintain a low body fat % nowadays is higher than it was 10-15 years back and that is down to changes in doping and anti-doping. Contador is a prime example. Less gains via blood doping vs full blown EPO 50+ hematocrit levels means you have to really keep your body fat down. Doubt we'd see guys like Ullrich going hard on the food and booze in the off season these days. Unless they can lose it easily. Weight or watts/kg mean far too much in this era. That is all down to the BioPassport and the allowances doping provides. That is how we end up with a team like Sky in 2012.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Right. So you agree. You can do it, it just takes time.

Yet you go on about me being wrong.

Uh huh.

And here's a clue for you: the fitness industry can't make money out of "eat healthy and ride your bike a lot", so of course they might say you can't lose weight doing that. Simple economics and market forces.
they make money with the Biggest Loser male trainers all on roids and hgh.

what a fraud.

I cant wait til they make competitors run a marathon and one of them has a heart attack and dies, even after a doc gave them a once-over before, and made them sign the waiver.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Galic Ho said:
That is the type to worry about. They will get sick because they aren't naturally skinny men. Don't expect to see his actual figures for 2012. Talk was he hit 69kg. Who knows if that is true.
Wiggins is quite clearly an ectomorph, so naturally will be skinnier than average.

I think body shape type (ecto, meso, endo) is far more important than "how big" someone is.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Wiggins is quite clearly an ectomorph, so naturally will be skinnier than average.

I think body shape type (ecto, meso, endo) is far more important than "how big" someone is.
Of course he is.. Have you ever seen an ectomorph body builder? Or and endophorm dancer?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
alitogata said:
Of course he is.. Have you ever seen an ectomorph body builder? Or and endophorm dancer?
Not sure why you are telling me "of course", when it's Galic Ho who is saying Wiggins is not naturally skinny. :rolleyes:

Galic Ho said:
That is the type to worry about. They will get sick because they aren't naturally skinny men. Don't expect to see his actual figures for 2012. Talk was he hit 69kg. Who knows if that is true.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Mesomoprhs get a 6-pack for practically free. Body shape and metabolism play a very large part.

I didn't miss any component. A cyclist's diet is matching input to output, so if someone else does that "cyclist" diet, then yes, they can lose weight. Just drop the input and maintain or increase the output. Simple. Then keep going.

If you mean "cyclist's diet" as in 5000 calories / day, then we don't need to discuss anything, only a genius would say you can eat that much and lose weight by not exercising the same amount.
Dude, if your average man or woman, looking to drop 10 kilos walks into a gym and says, hey, what should I try, the spin/rpm classes, HIIT aka Cross Fit or yoga/pilates, which one will get the best results? Sure you can do the 45 minute RPM class every second day, but the 45 minute Cross Fit class gives you more. Only the ectomorph's can do a great deal on just the 45 min class. That's a fact. You want to lose more weight, as I said, you have to do more time. Like at least double and it needs to be at 150bpm HR. How many people do that? That's right, you and I and maybe a few others. Most of those people cannot cope with 150bpm average for 45 minutes. They don't have the fitness. But they can do the Cross Fit stuff or the bread and butter stuff.

If a person focuses on cycling solely to drop weight and body fat, they need to do more for a longer time. Sure they can eat less, but it will catch up with them eventually. After a few weeks, or months, they will be fatigued and then they won't have the energy to keep it up. So they do have to up the calory intake. Unless of course they are a mesomorph. The guys I said make great natural cyclists. Team GB had a female triathlete who tried that. She retired at 22. You might have heard of her.

Weirdly you proved my point. If you don't want to up your calory intake (assuming you are dropping fat or lots of it) then the only conclusion is you are spending less time training. There is a time when the body will stop burning fat and switch it's energy source. Yes low level controlled cycling is mostly fat based, because it's aerobic based, but that doesn't drop fat quickest. The anaerobic stuff does. Hence why the fitness industry advocates HIIT anaerobic based workouts that last an hour max. Which when dropping lots of fat, is a definite must, because it drops the highest % of fat for time versus total physical exertion. You want to do that as a cyclist, albeit a very fit one, you'd have to being hitting FTP and flogging yourself. You can still cycle and not do what I've said but the determinant in that case is starting body fat % and total body weight. Both HAVE TO BE LOW. This is all fitness basics dude...well basic to intermediate.

The ftiness level of the individual and their GOAL determines which one you use. Hence why I said you idea was BS. Very, very few people do that...can afford to spend time doing that, because the payoff is simply not gonna return any profit for them.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Not sure why you are telling me "of course", when it's Galic Ho who is saying Wiggins is not naturally skinny. :rolleyes:
Were you picked on for being skinny as a kid? If you weren't then you are talking about something you don't really understand. Sure you named yourself after Wiggins and entertain his acolytes non stop on this forum, but if you were naturally skinny as a kid and teenager, you'd know what skinny really is. Heck it's really, really obvious. They've always been thin. They don't hit their mid 20s and suddenly are a skinny guy.

Skinny naturally is Andy Schleck, not Bradley "I use to be 80+kg no BS before I hopped on AICAR and dropped 10+ kg and I am now a GT winner @ 69kg" Wiggins.

And that is why Bro Deal started this thread. But you can sit there proclaiming Wiggins is naturally a skinny guy. If he were naturally skinny, between 2000 and 2009 he would have been low to mid 70 kg max given his height. He wasn't and hasn't been until...well that's all in those Sky threads you love. Wiggins natural body weight is mid to high 80s and he kept that lows 80s for the best part of a decade as pro who was a good chrono specialist who barely won and managed to bag a lot of success on the track. That was 82kg for a decade. Andy Schleck, almost the same height for the same age bracket was 67kg. Andy Schleck is the naturally skinny kid. Same with Robert Gesink. Wiggins and Froome? Don't make me laugh.

When Andy Schleck needs a round of AICAR or Clenuterol, get back to me.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Not sure why you are telling me "of course", when it's Galic Ho who is saying Wiggins is not naturally skinny. :rolleyes:
Because I agree with you and I disagree with Galic Ho about Wiggins who is an ectomorph and this is obvious from miles away.

On the other hand is more difficult to quote Galic Ho's posts, don't mention to keep a single phrase from his posts because they are huge. Less is more dear Galic Ho.. Less is more.. Think just for a while those who don't read that fast!:)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY