I am curious why I have not seen anyone questioning Wiggins suddenly becoming an elite climber after being a pursuit stud an never really showing this kind of clim bing ability?
for me, it’s because there is a logical explanation. He’s never before tried to be an elite climber, he’s always had a ton of power, he was just too heavy to be an elite climber. Losing 15 pounds makes a big difference.
for me, it’s because there is a logical explanation. He’s never before tried to be an elite climber, he’s always had a ton of power, he was just too heavy to be an elite climber. Losing 15 pounds makes a big difference.
It is one of the things that Lance did to transform himself from a top one day racer to a top overall contender. Lose the weight and keep the power makes one a top stud.
dude, do the math. 450 watts at threshold, divide by 80kg and then divide by 70kg. Then take those numbers to analytic cycling’s website and make a hill and enter in the watts/kg numbers above.
Climbing is simple physics… there are no “two outs in the bottom of the 9th” heroics to factor in.
http://www.sporza.be/permalink/1.567007
About 2 minutes into the spot is the interview with Wiggins. he flew to Annecy vie helicopter to check out the TT course. Right now this is the best story of the Tour.
“It is one of the things that Lance did to transform himself from a top one day racer to a top overall contender.”
Well, that’s the official story, at least. There is certainly evidence to suggest that the “Lance lost weight” storyline is purely mythical, and that even if there is some truth to it, the magnitude of the body mass change has been significantly overstated.
This was a significant point of contention in the academic controversy surrounding the Coyle paper, btw…
Wiggins’ weight loss appears to be well documented, however :0)
.
.
There is certainly evidence to suggest that the “Lance lost weight” storyline is purely mythical, and that even if there is some truth to it, the magnitude of the body mass change has been significantly overstated.
Perhaps you could point me to that "evidence" and comment on how reliable you think it might be. Just because Rush Limbaugh calls Obama a socialist doesn't make it so.
The commentators in the link above questioned whether he was another Kohl (has everyone forgotten Rumsas?) and came to the conclusion that he’s got sucn an incredible cycling pedigree that its very logical for him to be succesfull depending on what his goals are.
what about when GM becomes the property of the government?
does that make obama socialist?
There is certainly evidence to suggest that the “Lance lost weight” storyline is purely mythical, and that even if there is some truth to it, the magnitude of the body mass change has been significantly overstated.
Perhaps you could point me to that "evidence" and comment on how reliable you think it might be. Just because Rush Limbaugh calls Obama a socialist doesn't make it so.
Frankly, Frank, I have absolutely no desire to spoon feed you anything. You should be more than capable of looking this up for yourself, if you can manage to remember how to spell “Google.”
I mean, it’s not like this issue made the pages of the NY Times or was foundational in a formal misconduct complaint against Coyle…
(That last bit was in pink, btw…)
.
Frankly, Frank, I have absolutely no desire to spoon feed you anything. You should be more than capable of looking this up for yourself, if you can manage to remember how to spell “Google.”
I mean, it’s not like this issue made the pages of the NY Times or was foundational in a formal misconduct complaint against Coyle…
(That last bit was in pink, btw…)
.
Hey, you were the one who said “There is certainly evidence to suggest. . .” without saying what that evidence is or giving a link to it, leaving it to ALL of the readers to figure it out for themselves. If you make the statement it seems to me that you should be able to back it up. I simply asked what the “evidence” was that part of Lance’s domination was not due to weight loss. Google it is not an acceptable answer in my book.
the argument was more along the lines of
“people say lance got better due to weight loss, but we really have no reliable record of lance’s weight, so we don’t really know”
.
Ok Frank, and my last words on the subject ('cause I have no interest in discussing anything with you at length.)
Lets turn this around a bit, shall we?
The main point of contention - if you bother to read up on the subject - is that there is absolutely no evidence -of any sort - to support the contention that LA lost the weight he claims to have lost.
Where is the onus for you to support your assertion?
Neat double standard. As usual.
Can you think of any reason why LA might be reticent to actually provide numbers on the subject?
If you honestly want to know more, get off your ass and look it up… 'cause "“Google it” is a perfectly reasonable response to someone with your track record, and 'cause I simply don’t care enough to do the work for you.
.
You are misunderstanding (or perhaps “misremembering” - I just wanted to use that word…) how Frank thinks. Let’s replace “Lance Armstrong’s weight loss” as a means to an increase in W/kg with something else. Perhaps, just throwing this out there, “use of PowerCranks.” So, instead of “Lance Armstrong’s weight loss was the reason for his increase in w/kg,” we have “use of PowerCranks was the reason for increase in w/kg.”
Now, regarding that latter phrase, is the onus on the person making the claim to prove it OR is the onus on other people to disprove it? I think we’ve seen that, clearly, the onus is on all of us to show that PowerCranks do not work. I mean, they worked for Frank (and Joaquin!!), so we should all accept that unless someone proves otherwise.
So, if you go back to the original phrase, I think it’s pretty obvious why Frank thinks YOU have to prove LA is not telling the truth, as opposed to vice versa.
there is evidence of this out there, the coyle article had some problems, it has been discussed and if I remember correctly the true weight loss was more like 2 pounds or so. you should have no trouble finding it, in fact, there is a slight chance I have it in my email , the article was called coyles fumble or something like that,
rappstar
are you hungry a lot at 155lbs?
sorry for the non sequitor
Fuck. What a thread killer. How about some entertainment for you all.
Yes, but only because I hit 155 only during big training volume, which makes me really hungry. I.e., I’m not hungry because I’m restricting calories. I’m hungry because I’m burning a ton of calories.
:0)
.
theres some sort of equivalency between restricting calories and crushing all of them im sure
is it hard to open jars and throw the girlfriend around at 155lbs? lol
is it worth the running speed?!
Yes, but only because I hit 155 only during big training volume, which makes me really hungry. I.e., I’m not hungry because I’m restricting calories. I’m hungry because I’m burning a ton of calories.