Dan_Grr wrote:
He lives in Norway as far as we know 1,73 could be short for them. My dear, dear mother is 1,55m. 1,90 and 63kgs on the other hand, that's got to be unhealthy.
In my class I am the shortest guy, 1.73, probably 3-4 people shorter then me if you look at the other classes. So yes, 1.73 for someone that wont get higher, is short here in Norway
schleck93 wrote: Besides fatpercetages is a much better way of determinating if people are fat or not.
Yes, I know that BMI is highly innacurate, but I was just trying to give an indication.
issoisso wrote:
You do realize that's above average for an adult human male in most countries in the world, and even above average for europe, right?
Heck,in italy the average for a human adult male is below 1,70m
You have a seriously skewered view of normal human height?
As for that, yes, I probobly do. I come from a country where the average adult male height is about 1,79 and am therefore very biased. *Goes on the defensive* But that still doesn`t change the fact that Wiggins is a lot taller. Which is the point that I was making. Edited by Immortal on 19-07-2009 21:46
Immortal wrote:
[quote]Dan_Grr wrote:
Also, to put things a bit in perspecive. As far as I know Bradley now weighs 63kg right?, that gives him a BMI of 17,5. Anything under 18,5 is considered seriously underweight. (Lenardo Piepoli who as issoisso mentioned is just skin and bones is at about 17,6)
Just very few people can be healthy with that kind of BMI, how can Wiggins at the same time be extremely competitive? I think, if he isn't on drugs, he is a potential study case.
It is very possible to be healthy with that kind of BMI, myself I have a BMI of ~17 and I am not unhealthy in anyway really, what is more unhealthy is their fat percentages being 2-5 depending on the rider.
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
Immortal wrote:
[quote]Dan_Grr wrote:
Also, to put things a bit in perspecive. As far as I know Bradley now weighs 63kg right?, that gives him a BMI of 17,5. Anything under 18,5 is considered seriously underweight. (Lenardo Piepoli who as issoisso mentioned is just skin and bones is at about 17,6)
Just very few people can be healthy with that kind of BMI, how can Wiggins at the same time be extremely competitive? I think, if he isn't on drugs, he is a potential study case.
It is very possible to be healthy with that kind of BMI, myself I have a BMI of ~17 and I am not unhealthy in anyway really, what is more unhealthy is their fat percentages being 2-5 depending on the rider.
I know that, but in your case I bet you have always been like that, it is genetic. For a normal person with 21 BMI, to drop for 17 BMI, it is called very often anorexy
Look at the Schlecks, genetics talking. I remember one year, don't know if it was 2007 or 2008, Zubeldia showed up at the prologo very, very skinny, to much really. He did one of his worst Tours in recent years, that wasn´t an healthy weight for him, it was a too much forced weight.
Edited by Sherpa on 19-07-2009 21:55
Immortal wrote:
As for that, yes, I probobly do. I come from a country where the average adult male height is about 1,79 and am therefore very biased. *Goes on the defensive* But that still doesn`t change the fact that Wiggins is a lot taller. Which is the point that I was making.
Yeah, I got your point. Sorry if that didn't come across
swsquires wrote:
Regarding fast and slow twitch fibres, if you look at any photos of Wiggins you will see that he never had large legs (indicating more slow twitch fibres). If more fast twitch was better one might have expected Cav to outperform Wiggins in the UK track team, but he didn't. It is also possible to alter the ratio of fast and slow twitch fibres (to a degree) through training. Let us not forget that the ratio is only one factor among a number of physiological attributes.
An interesting fast/slow twitch comparison would actually be Contador vs Sastre. In order to be able to make the jumps he does on climbs he needs fast twitch fibres. In comparison, someone like Sastre describes himself as an engine (incapable of the fast jumps) and therefore will have a higher slow-twitch ratio.
There are probably quite a few very good cyclists who could change their speciality by losing weight. Armstrong and Jalabert are easy examples from the past. Cancellara is trying it. I would imagine that quite a few of the top level time trialists are looking with interest at what Bradley and Cancellara have done and considering steps they might take in the coming 12 months to improve their climbing.
Good post, thanks. My one qualm is that I could challenge your first point by saying "but what if Wiggins was really close to Cav in fast-twitch fibers?" However, it seems that Wiggins muscle structure could in fact be lent to climbs, and his height/weight is staggering...I'm considered a pretty skinny guy, and I'm about 1.96m...yet, I weigh 15kg greater than Wiggins.
If he really did lose 8kg to get to 63kg, that's equivalent to losing over 10% of his body weight. Insane.
I have another point, however: If Wiggins had in fact "never ridden more than 4 hours" or "never trained seriously" or whatever, would it not be reasonable to expect that he was still on the upwards swing of his improvement curve? It seems to me close to lunacy to think that 10 months or so of training could create the climbing base that one had lacked for an entire lifetime...and then in addition have time to add interval workouts to maintain Wiggins' strength (he still finished third in the time trial) while he was losing 10% of his body weight from an already toned frame.
So, one would have to assume that Wiggins isn't finished improving yet. With a little more improvement, he is near the Schleck (or even Contador) level. A once in a decade or so climbing talent.
And, if you are Isso and wish to cautiously maintain his potential innocence given that you are skeptical of all the other leaders, you have to give Wiggins even more credit, which would be simply astounding.
I hope it's true! But, I'd feel MUCH better if Wiggins tailed off a little bit at the end of this week, which might be a sign that he lacks the lifetime of mountain mileage and stage recuperation that every single other contender has under their belt.
If that happens, and then we see him back next year with greater staying power as he continues to increase his climbing volume, then I would be decently satisfied. If we see him just keep trucking along to the top of Ventoux, though...well, I dunno.
Prove me wrong, Wiggo!
Edited by TerpSpeed on 20-07-2009 00:01
On the subject of scientific calculations, someone calculated the VAM numbers. I've no idea how valid they are and what they can be used for, but either way, Contador set an record on today's stage:
For the climb to the Verbier, the vertical climb is 652.5 m (8.7km x 7.5%). Therefore, Contador's climbing rate is an extra-ordinary 1,900 m per hour. I say "extra-ordinary" because this is the fastest climb in the history of the Tour de France, in terms of vertical climb rate. I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, and I can tell you that the previous record for vertical ascension rate was Bjarne Riis at 1843m on Hautacam in 1996 (and we all know what powered Riis to that summit).
Of course, there's several reasons for a higher VAM as e.g. the climb being rather short, etc., etc.
I come from a country where the average adult male height is about 1,79 and am therefore very biased. *Goes on the defensive* But that still doesn`t change the fact that Wiggins is a lot taller. Which is the point that I was making. 
