View Full Version : Wiggins Skinnymeter
Looks like Sir Bradley is getting close to his fighting weight
wallymann
03-28-2013, 04:14 PM
that's SCARY-SKINNY!
Elefantino
03-28-2013, 04:40 PM
"Winning takes care of everything."
-Tiger Woods
d_douglas
03-28-2013, 04:47 PM
Wasnt he a trackie in a previous life? How do you go from track to bonerack in just a few years?
On a related note, I was talking with a young whippersnapper at an LBS today. Somehow his weight came up and he said he weighed 180lbs. Shocked because I weigh 20lbs more than him, but look like a chubby early 40's recreational rider (oh wait, I am!) I could not figure out how someone SO skinny and fit could weigh 180lbs. His upper body was skinny and he has a pretty serious set of racelegs, but how the hell can someone with a fundamnetally different body composition weigh only 'a bit' less than me? This kid is skinny and all muscle; I feel like Haagen Daz would be happy to sponsor me with some 4xl clothing ;)
Isn't Wiggins known to booze it up now and then? If so, he needs more Guinness.
tv_vt
03-28-2013, 05:06 PM
Wiggins has always been lanky and skinny. He's looked like this for several years. It is frightening to see. There's a photo around of him sitting after Paris-Roubaix - he looks totally anorexic. More than one person has said pro cycling is just an excuse for anorexia... Others have said it's hard to be a pro without developing some sort of eating disorder.
Miss the old days when riders looked relatively healthy. Merckx, Kelly, Anderson, Fignon, Roche, etc.
fiamme red
03-28-2013, 05:14 PM
There's a photo around of him sitting after Paris-Roubaix - he looks totally anorexic.http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3395/3434625727_bae09fb470_z.jpg?zz=1
Louis
03-28-2013, 05:14 PM
That's gross. Almost as bad as the Chicken.
rwsaunders
03-28-2013, 05:57 PM
The Chicken was buff...
I love the sport. But I could never love the sport that much.
Louis
03-28-2013, 06:26 PM
I don't think those guys "love" it. Isn't it just a job?
What they do now bears no resemblance to what they used to do when they were 10 yrs old riding around their house.
What I do now kind of resembles what I used to do 40 years ago.
Lovetoclimb
03-28-2013, 06:31 PM
Training in the mountains takes leaning out to a whole new level. I have always been tall and lanky myself, at 6'3" and 165lbs or so. In my collegiate rowing days I bulked up to just over 170 because of massive amounts of heavy squats, deadlifts, and other mass/strength building exercises. But once I began endurance running in the last 2 years of college I dropped dramatically down to the high 150s, 156 was the lowest I got. People thought I was terminally ill because they never saw me and the weight loss was dramatic. I was eating everything I could find and still just burning all calories and unnecessary muscle my body could find.
Skip to post college, full time job, and recreational cycling/amateur racing and I shifted to a steady 165 again. Strange enough beer and whiskey consumption also increased . . . but in the last 5 months since moving to the mountains and upping my riding to 20+ hrs / week, I have begun to get back down towards 160. While I am riding more than when I lived in OH, so much more of my riding is climbing and endurance or tempo level efforts. This type and amount of riding just burns through bodyfat and the upper body muscles like wildfire. Brad and Froome, guys who want to climb with the best in the world but happen to be on the taller end have to put in the ridiculous amount of miles to get skinny enough. They probably have a watts/kg number to hit and have found through experimentation that dropping kgs to a certain point will not cause too much of a drop in watts***. It is interesting, as I do not ride with any sort of computer, never have. But I often wonder if I am getting stronger and faster. Then I just pedal some more on to the next bakery!
***I have zero coaching knowledge, all of the above is complete guesswork.
I don't think those guys "love" it. Isn't it just a job?
What they do now bears no resemblance to what they used to do when they were 10 yrs old riding around their house.
What I do now kind of resembles what I used to do 40 years ago.
Good point. I know an ex-pro who would never think of racing bikes again. He likes tooling around much more.
Ten years from now, it'll be interesting to see how someone like Peter Sagan thinks of pro cycling.
Training in the mountains takes leaning out to a whole new level. I have always been tall and lanky myself, at 6'3" and 165lbs or so. In my collegiate rowing days I bulked up to just over 170 because of massive amounts of heavy squats, deadlifts, and other mass/strength building exercises. But once I began endurance running in the last 2 years of college I dropped dramatically down to the high 150s, 156 was the lowest I got. People thought I was terminally ill because they never saw me and the weight loss was dramatic. I was eating everything I could find and still just burning all calories and unnecessary muscle my body could find.
Skip to post college, full time job, and recreational cycling/amateur racing and I shifted to a steady 165 again. Strange enough beer and whiskey consumption also increased . . . but in the last 5 months since moving to the mountains and upping my riding to 20+ hrs / week, I have begun to get back down towards 160. While I am riding more than when I lived in OH, so much more of my riding is climbing and endurance or tempo level efforts. This type and amount of riding just burns through bodyfat and the upper body muscles like wildfire. Brad and Froome, guys who want to climb with the best in the world but happen to be on the taller end have to put in the ridiculous amount of miles to get skinny enough. They probably have a watts/kg number to hit and have found through experimentation that dropping kgs to a certain point will not cause too much of a drop in watts***. It is interesting, as I do not ride with any sort of computer, never have. But I often wonder if I am getting stronger and faster. Then I just pedal some more on to the next bakery!
***I have zero coaching knowledge, all of the above is complete guesswork.
the cheapest upgrade you can make is the bodyweight. when i was a cat 5 i was around 175 (at 6ft) . a season later a cat2 i was 152. i lost zero power. dipped down to 150 and went to ****, could not pedal my way out of a wet paper bag. funny that 2 pounds made that big of a difference and thought maybe it was something else. tried it again, down to 149~150 and was again having a huge drop in power
ultraman6970
03-28-2013, 06:47 PM
Yes he did track but his complexion always been with thin bones and large muscles, he did pursuit and he has the typical pursuit physique. The heaviest pursuit guy I have ever seen was an olympic.world champion and stuff called "the bear" Braun, he did not look like the typical pursuit rider, we was like cancelara, maybe even bigger than FC, when i saw him trying the hour record I thought the guy was a sprinter or a 1 km TT rider.
As for your friend in the LBS, what happens is that muscle weights more than fat, he probably is 180 pounds of muscle and maybe his bones are heavy too if his physique is normal, so add like 10% fat and there you have a guy that weights a lot and doesn't look like he did. In your case (mine too) the fat ratio is high, not much muscle compared with the other guy blah blah... you have the idea... Some raiders gain weight at the end of the season because of muscle generation, meet many guys like that (im one of those), you lose weight during the start of the season then you kind'a stabilize the weight and then you start gaining a few grams here and there. Others do not gain a single gram... still dunno what these guys do to lose weight...
Wasnt he a trackie in a previous life? How do you go from track to bonerack in just a few years?
On a related note, I was talking with a young whippersnapper at an LBS today. Somehow his weight came up and he said he weighed 180lbs. Shocked because I weigh 20lbs more than him, but look like a chubby early 40's recreational rider (oh wait, I am!) I could not figure out how someone SO skinny and fit could weigh 180lbs. His upper body was skinny and he has a pretty serious set of racelegs, but how the hell can someone with a fundamnetally different body composition weigh only 'a bit' less than me? This kid is skinny and all muscle; I feel like Haagen Daz would be happy to sponsor me with some 4xl clothing ;)
CunegoFan
03-28-2013, 07:30 PM
the cheapest upgrade you can make is the bodyweight. when i was a cat 5 i was around 175 (at 6ft) . a season later a cat2 i was 152. i lost zero power. dipped down to 150 and went to ****, could not pedal my way out of a wet paper bag. funny that 2 pounds made that big of a difference and thought maybe it was something else. tried it again, down to 149~150 and was again having a huge drop in power
I assume you did not lose your weight with a combination of drugs.
I liked Cadel Evans recent comment where he took a jab at how fast these skinny riders are time trialing
.
AgilisMerlin
03-28-2013, 07:34 PM
yes, but can he cyclocross :banana: the answer is no :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qMM2r_42bA
I assume you did not lose your weight with a combination of drugs.
Nope, a lot of saddle time and strict strict diet
Lovetoclimb
03-28-2013, 07:55 PM
Nope, a lot of saddle time and strict strict diet
This is how my teammate went from 5 to 2 in a season. Natural athletic talent compounded by very good training and diet. And he is not built to be a great cyclist, but following the right plan for each person can yield huge results.
Not making any implications for the pro peloton here though . . .
SolidSnake03
03-28-2013, 07:56 PM
Similar life experiences to TJ here regarding body weight and power. I'm fairly skinny....like count my ribs bad. 5'9'' and about ~125pds :eek: When I'm lifting a bit and doing some cross training I stray more to 130pds or so but going strictly to cycling and running ends up around ~120pds.
I know anything below ~120pd and my body just dies, there is nothing left to go at that point, just feel weak and drained. Interesting that the sweet spot where my body is happy is about 125pds and yet if I lose even a few more I go to garbage
I feel like most people have a small optimal range so to speak where their body is at its ideal weight/power amount. Most of us if we listen to our body will naturally gravitate toward that amount given a healthy diet and continual exercise/activity. Issues come up when we ignore what the body says and continue to push beyond that level.
jt2gt
03-28-2013, 09:10 PM
Skinnymeters...remember this oldie of TH...showing you how to do it with a bit more than just diet and training:
tiretrax
03-28-2013, 09:25 PM
Many a retired pro commented that they were glad to quit racing so they could eat again. Look at Eddy now - he looks like he really eats a human each day, along with some ice cream, and he can still rip the legs of any mortal.
d_douglas
03-28-2013, 10:10 PM
Every time I see those photos, it creeps me out.
The guy at the LBS would no doubt have the potential to look like these guys - 6'3" and 150lbs (?) I still cannot believe that he weighed 180lbs - I think he was fibbing, actually.
Louis
03-28-2013, 10:25 PM
Every time I see those photos, it creeps me out.
Reminds me of the WW2 concentration camp survivor pictures after Patton's tanks broke down the gates.
beeatnik
03-29-2013, 01:51 AM
Skinny dudes who ride bikes a lot, get skinnier. End of story.
Pro cycling should take a cue from the fashion model industry. These days, a model won't be hired if she (and it's almost always a she) looks too anorexic, all so as to prevent young girls from starving themselves to look like Kate Moss or whomever.
The message alone that these images of Higgins and Rasmussen, et al give could be devastating to young cyclists throughout the world.
Then again, runway fashion and cycling are two separate things, though both are a sport in and among themselves.
Skinnymeters...remember this oldie of TH...showing you how to do it with a bit more than just diet and training:
Skinny dudes who ride bikes a lot, get skinnier. End of story.
Even with the training and drugs, Tyler said that the only way to really get to his optimal weight was to be in a state of near-constant starvation.
can't be healthy.
Agreed. Pro cycling is not about health.
i like the way Wiggo has gone quiet recently. it's menacing.
he's out there, getting lean, getting hungry, getting mean.
Wiggins is training to be more explosive in his climbing so that when Froome attacks him (ask Richie Porte), he will be able to keep his wheel.
BumbleBeeDave
03-29-2013, 07:06 AM
. . . Your body has a genetically predetermined comfort point for fat percentage that it tries to stay at--and return to if you lose a bunch of it.
It's the reason so many people successfully lose weight, then put it back on. Some slowly, some it seems like overnight it comes back. Some people's comfort point is less imprinted than others. It's why you do see miraculous weight loss stories touted by the industry that sells the various gimmicks to lose weight--people who take it off and manage to keep it off. It doesn't surprise me, though, if pro cyclists can lose it. If they have the discipline to keep going thorugh the pain of competition up those mpountains, then they have the discipline to stay on a strict diet.
I seem to hover around 170 or so long term no matter what I do. Went up to 182 while bodybuilding but lost it fast when I stopped. One time I really dieted and got down to 163 to try to help my climbing and it did--but everything else went to hell. No power at all and I had to wear two padded shorts I lost so much fat in my butt.
I'll take the 170 I've been programmed for and feel lucky.
BBD
Formulasaab
03-29-2013, 07:09 AM
I'm reminded of Greg LeMond's annual battle with losing the off-season weight. Even at his lightest though, you would never have thought about the bone structure of a songbird when you looked at him.
http://www.triridemtb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/GregLemond_28504001.jpghttp://farm4.staticflickr.com/3395/3434625727_bae09fb470_z.jpg?zz=1
http://www.cxmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/LeMond-732_NX2.jpghttp://farm7.staticflickr.com/6157/6173586889_62ed834aa5.jpg
oldpotatoe
03-29-2013, 07:12 AM
I'm reminded of Greg LeMond's annual battle with losing the off-season weight. Even at his lightest though, you would never have thought about the bone structure of a songbird when you looked at him.
http://www.triridemtb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/GregLemond_28504001.jpghttp://farm4.staticflickr.com/3395/3434625727_bae09fb470_z.jpg?zz=1
http://www.cxmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/LeMond-732_NX2.jpghttp://farm7.staticflickr.com/6157/6173586889_62ed834aa5.jpg
In his book he talked about 2 important things when it came to being a pro cyclist. Being 'artificially light', and making as much money as you can, as quickly as you can, because, you know, you might go hunting and get shot....
Formulasaab
03-29-2013, 07:20 AM
In his book he talked about 2 important things when it came to being a pro cyclist. Being 'artificially light', and making as much money as you can, as quickly as you can, because, you know, you might go hunting and get shot....
Getting shot in 1987 didn't slow him down much in '89 and '90!
Lewis Moon
03-29-2013, 07:31 AM
I think a part of the "new skinny" is the greater specialization that's occurring. Used to be that folks like LeMond, Merckx, etc could ride well in the classics AND win the TDF. It seems that the classics are now the realm of the smokin' rollers like Boonen, FC, Sagan and probably someone like Taylor Phinney (future), and the big stage races are the realm of the bird men. You really need to be skinny to climb. No matter how smooth you are, it's still hard to maintain a constant speed going up the steeps, so any weight is constantly getting accelerated, slowed and reaccelerated. When I'm trying to keep a high average speed on a ride, I really have to anticipate and compensate for sections where I'll naturally scrub off speed (sharp corners, bumpy sections, dips) and work on riding them well so I won't have to expend as much power reaccelerating.
I'm 6'5" and ~180-185. I could probably get down to 172ish w/o power loss, but my wife is having a cow about my weight loss now. Dropped 45lbs last year just riding and staying away from "treats".
. . . Your body has a genetically predetermined comfort point for fat percentage that it tries to stay at--and return to if you lose a bunch of it.
It's the reason so many people successfully lose weight, then put it back on. Some slowly, some it seems like overnight it comes back. Some people's comfort point is less imprinted than others. It's why you do see miraculous weight loss stories touted by the industry that sells the various gimmicks to lose weight--people who take it off and manage to keep it off. It doesn't surprise me, though, if pro cyclists can lose it. If they have the discipline to keep going thorugh the pain of competition up those mpountains, then they have the discipline to stay on a strict diet.
I seem to hover around 170 or so long term no matter what I do. Went up to 182 while bodybuilding but lost it fast when I stopped. One time I really dieted and got down to 163 to try to help my climbing and it did--but everything else went to hell. No power at all and I had to wear two padded shorts I lost so much fat in my butt.
I'll take the 170 I've been programmed for and feel lucky.
BBD
I'm 5' 9 1/2".
At my fittest I was 139 lbs, lean and strong, but energized too.
Right now I'm 168 lbs:eek: - a bad winter and a bad back are a bad combination.
I find that cycling doesn't really change my weight that much. Swimming and running are far more effective at shedding my excess. The problem is I enjoy cycling, am OK with swimming, but dislike running. Gyms I hate.
malcolm
03-29-2013, 07:57 AM
. . . Your body has a genetically predetermined comfort point for fat percentage that it tries to stay at--and return to if you lose a bunch of it.
It's the reason so many people successfully lose weight, then put it back on. Some slowly, some it seems like overnight it comes back. Some people's comfort point is less imprinted than others. It's why you do see miraculous weight loss stories touted by the industry that sells the various gimmicks to lose weight--people who take it off and manage to keep it off. It doesn't surprise me, though, if pro cyclists can lose it. If they have the discipline to keep going thorugh the pain of competition up those mpountains, then they have the discipline to stay on a strict diet.
I seem to hover around 170 or so long term no matter what I do. Went up to 182 while bodybuilding but lost it fast when I stopped. One time I really dieted and got down to 163 to try to help my climbing and it did--but everything else went to hell. No power at all and I had to wear two padded shorts I lost so much fat in my butt.
I'll take the 170 I've been programmed for and feel lucky.
BBD
I don't think there is much data to support a genetic set point, there is a metabolic set point phenomenon though where you will reach a point and the cravings and such start. That is one reason slow weight loss seems often to be more lasting than radical weight loss and most folks that struggle with modest weight issues will tell you a specific weight they can get to and then it becomes difficult to lose and keep off any more.
Theoretically it should be calories in vs calories burned and many have ridgidly believed that for years. I think now most folks think it's a bit more complicated than that, but if you study the obese they tend to eat more calorie dense foods, less bulk fiber etc per calorie.
A reasearch area to watch will be the study of the microbiome or your native intestinal gut flora. There are already studies showing dramatic differences between the flora of an overweight person and one of normal weight. I suspect they will find that the diet over years, starting at birth alters the microbiome in ways that tend to help the obese stay fat. It will be interesting to see if there are differences at birth and if the parents altered biome influences the child.
AgilisMerlin
03-29-2013, 08:01 AM
do not eat after 5:00 in the afternoon. All I got
soulspinner
03-29-2013, 10:03 AM
do not eat after 5:00 in the afternoon. All I got
Might be all u got but I think it helps not to eat while your body slows down late in the day/eve.
Lewis Moon
03-29-2013, 10:59 AM
A reasearch area to watch will be the study of the microbiome or your native intestinal gut flora. There are already studies showing dramatic differences between the flora of an overweight person and one of normal weight. I suspect they will find that the diet over years, starting at birth alters the microbiome in ways that tend to help the obese stay fat. It will be interesting to see if there are differences at birth and if the parents altered biome influences the child.
Yup. Nice synopsis here: (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327144124.htm)
We are communities, not individuals. The health of a neighborhood depends on who lives there.
BTW...how can gut flora be changed within a reasonable time frame? Two words: Fecal transplant.
Even with the training and drugs, Tyler said that the only way to really get to his optimal weight was to be in a state of near-constant starvation.
These guys were kept alive by testosterone supplementation. Ferrari's recipe, aside from actual blood doping, was near starvation + T to prevent the body from completely breaking down.
jt2gt
03-29-2013, 11:59 AM
i like the way Wiggo has gone quiet recently. it's menacing.
he's out there, getting lean, getting hungry, getting mean.
Yeah...you do get mean when you ride alot and don't eat too much. My wife and kids can attest to that.;)
earlfoss
03-29-2013, 12:50 PM
I'd like to know how they were able to maintain such huge training loads and not go into glycogen debt.
Those guys had to have had such a tiny buffer zone between getting enough to recover without gaining weight and not getting enough and compromising recovery. In the latter case, it takes a while to get back to normal which means one would have to deviate from whatever program they were on in order to recover.
Those dudes must have weighed food and counted every calorie to a pretty insane extent.
Nowadays I would think that calories expended and other training metrics are more accurately measured than LeMond's time which probably makes walking the line of being at your optimal race weight.
CunegoFan
03-29-2013, 02:41 PM
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3395/3434625727_bae09fb470_z.jpg?zz=1
That picture gets bandied about a lot, but it has severe lens distortion. Check out the length of his lower legs compared to the length of his torso.
I'd like to know how they were able to maintain such huge training loads and not go into glycogen debt.
Drugs, drugs and more drugs? With a little science thrown in for good measure? And a little more drugs just to be certain? (Gets me thinking I'd like to invent a cycling robot and we here and ATH (but no RBR) can remote control ride and race the Tour.)
CunegoFan
03-29-2013, 03:23 PM
Drugs, drugs and more drugs? With a little science thrown in for good measure? And a little more drugs just to be certain? (Gets me thinking I'd like to invent a cycling robot and we here and ATH (but no RBR) can remote control ride and race the Tour.)
Is that not the goal of most team managers these days? To have riders who stare at their power meters while being told what to do by the DS in the follow car? They might as well be robots.
There are two Australian riders I've always had suspicions about. Their faces always seem unnaturally bloated. I don't know if that's a sign of use, but for a sport with typically low body fat percentages, they look odd. A 'retention' issue?
Shortsocks
03-30-2013, 09:44 AM
i like the way Wiggo has gone quiet recently. it's menacing.
he's out there, getting lean, getting hungry, getting mean.
That's an excellent thought. I've been trying for weeks to sum up what wiggo Is up to. You got it down exactly. That dude is a scary man when he's possessed to win. You can see it in him when he time trials. So focused. Very Impressive.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.