Ringo's training schedules will have revolutionized the sport by then...
Good thing Mike isn't on, he would've stopped this 2 pages ago
Macquet wrote:
"We all know that wasn't the real footage of the Worlds anyway. That was just the staged footage to perpetuate the coverup that it was actually Vinokourov that won the race."
Xavier wrote:
so by your logic if tom boonen trains more than lance armstrong hes gonna win the tour? lol
why not? he obviously has the strength in his legs to go over mountains. If he was to concentrate on training in mountains why couldn't he become a world class climber? he would loose his sprinting ability but you don't need that to win the tour.
so why did he become a sprinter/rider for the classics if he could win the tour?
because he knows he lacks the talent for climbing, body type, mentality, discipline, recuperation, team etc.. because he doesnt have the characteristics of a good climber/GC rider
if we were to race eachother, you and me, and we trained as much prior to the race, one of us would be faster than the other, because one of us has more talent/feel/body/whatever or the conditions of the race suit one better than the other
because boonen was brought up in belgium where there are no hills or mountains! ever wondered why the best climbers come from countries with mountain ranges.
now boonen is a classics rider he is stuck as one. if he turned round to quickstep and said i want to train in the mountains all next year they would turn round and say "no, were paying you money to win classics not stage races". but who's to say if he was to train in the mountains for a year he couldn't become a good mountain rider? look at indurain, he was a big guy, look at Ullrich, look at Voigt. all big guys good in the mountains because they trainrd there!
and yes, but thats just down to our physicall build. you might be faster on the flat but i'd beat you on the hills. we'd be the same in terms of overall ability.
That's such a load of bullcrap.
Robert Gesink comes from the flat lands in Gelderland (the Netherlands). He's a climber.
Thomas Dekker comes from the polders in Northern Holland (regio Amsterdam, no hills or mountains there), he is a gc-rider
Jurgen van den Broeck, also a Belgian who comes from flat lands, 5th in the Giro last year (not counting Sella and Ricco the dopers).
So wtf are you talking about? These guys never trained on mountains in their youth and they turned out to be good climbers the minute they first climbed. It's a gift, a talent!!!! Sure you can train to improve a skill, but you can't just train your way from being a sprinter to being a climber, you need to have some talent or natural ability to do so!
it is possible to train in mountains even if you live in the lowlands, they're called training camps. it's also possible to be good in the mountains by just being powerful (Ullrich, Indurain, Voigt) so you can't really prove anything conclusive by saying Dekker and Gessink are good climbers.
As for converting a sprinter to a climber. Whats stopping Cavendish becoming a good 1 day classics rider? he's got the power to get up short sharp climbs, if he trained at it why couldn't he win the Amstel gold or Liege-bastogne-liege?
Hello!???
I have followed Thomas Dekkers career from close since his junior period. They didn't have training camps in any mountains. In fact the only climbing you can do in Holland is the hills in Limburg. And that's different the any real climb. You just won't accept the fact that there is such thing as talent as natural ability. If it was trainable to become a godlike climber, we would have had much more climbers/tour winners.
Do you really believe in the crap that Armstrong trained harder then everyone and therefore became 7 times tour winner? You should never believe such nonsense. Every top rider trains just as hard, or maybe even harder. Michael Boogerd was a freak in training, he trained much longer and harder on hills and mountains then Rebellin, Bettini and Di Luca put together, and he still lost to them.
Why? Because they had more TALENT. Goddamn you are ignorant.
see, if ruben admits boogerd was worse then you have to believe him
Actually, Mike posted here when this lunacy began.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
"We all know that wasn't the real footage of the Worlds anyway. That was just the staged footage to perpetuate the coverup that it was actually Vinokourov that won the race."
A lot of a riders talent/ability is due to the percentage of each type of muscle fibre they have in their bodies. As much as training can improve one over the other (and cyclists generally have a LOT of the aerobic type), the ones who have large percentages of anaerobic fibres perform much better at interval related stuffs like hills and sprints. It's mostly due to genetics, but that said, it doesn't mean you can't change what you're good at. Regardless of the amount of training however, I don't see how a proven flat cobble sprinter like Boonen would ever have the physiology to climb well enough to win a GT. It's just never ever going to happen.
n.b. I cannot remember which way around the names of the fibres are, so rather than say it wrong, I won't say it at all. (Type 1, and Type 2 - one of which has an A and a B variety. Slow twitch, fast twitch, and the kind of intermediatry between the two, but still anaerobic).
How many amateurs are there? Thousands, hundreds of thousands...
Do they all train the same amount? Pretty much
So why aren't they all pros? They do exactly the same amount of training, that is in no way shape or form up for debate. IT IS A FACT!
So it must be something other than training, which means it must be natural ability. The scientific evidence for this is so overwhelming, I'm fairly sure there won't be any facts to actually back up the opposite.
Yes, you need to train, but thinking the amount of training makes you pro is simply ridiculous
This debate is kind of stupid, but, nevertheless, I must admit I find it pretty funny anyways. It even made my day. But I concur with someone before; it should be in a new thread.
rjc_43 wrote:
A lot of a riders talent/ability is due to the percentage of each type of muscle fibre they have in their bodies. As much as training can improve one over the other (and cyclists generally have a LOT of the aerobic type), the ones who have large percentages of anaerobic fibres perform much better at interval related stuffs like hills and sprints. It's mostly due to genetics, but that said, it doesn't mean you can't change what you're good at. Regardless of the amount of training however, I don't see how a proven flat cobble sprinter like Boonen would ever have the physiology to climb well enough to win a GT. It's just never ever going to happen.
n.b. I cannot remember which way around the names of the fibres are, so rather than say it wrong, I won't say it at all. (Type 1, and Type 2 - one of which has an A and a B variety. Slow twitch, fast twitch, and the kind of intermediatry between the two, but still anaerobic).
finally an intelligent answer.
i never said Boonen would win the tour, those words were put into my mouth. I simply suggested that a rider like Boonen could use the skills he has as a sprinter and transfer them into the hills if he trained at it.
i honestly don't see why a sprinter like cav (small, light with a great power to weight ratio) couldn't turn himself into a decent hilly 1 day racer. he's got the power he just needs to train it so he's got the right endurance on the hills.
rjc, i know that you race so i respect your opinion more then others. would you say that if you were to train like a pro for 5 years, with no other comitments, do you think you would get to the professional standard in that time? Or anyone else who races competitively feel free to answer. that was my original point.
Yes, Boonen could use his skills and put them to hills, but he'd have to loose more weight, and to do that transition would take several years. He'd no longer be as good on cobbles. He climbs over "bergs" using his pure power, to become more Bettini like, he'd have to shift a lot of extra muscle. It's not worth it for him.
As for Cav, he's small, stocky, and with time I believe he will get used to hills, but if he trains more on hills, and ignores the sprinting stuff, he'll loose some of that top end stuff. It's a constant juggling act between one extreme and the other.
However, as Coyle's testing on Armstrong over the years showed, every cyclist improves in efficiency every year. And its that improvement that makes the difference between the 1st and 2nd places. Cav, in time, will be a very capable sprinter of getting over larger hills like in MSRemo.
You shouldn't respect my opinions because I race, but rather because I come from a course that studies physiology meticulously. Though I'm touched that you do respect my opinion.
I believe it takes about 3-4 years of progressive training before any cyclist (starting from scratch) has enough efficiency and a high enough VO2 to perform well at a National level. With a few more years under their belt, I do not see why anyone could not potentially become a professional bike rider.
Like I've said in the past, I always try to put down what I believe is right, and what I hope I can back up with scientific papers. If anyone questions my sources, please say so, and I;ll try to find relevent papers to show the evidence.
I can vouch for the efficiency to. Over the past 4 years, I've barely increased my training volume, frequency, intensity or duration much, but I have progressed. I'm sure other cyclists would agree with that feeling about themselves.
In fact, the intro from Coyle's Research Paper on Armstrong. Ignoring the body fat and muscle loss due to cancer, the 8% increase in efficiency over those years is still very impressive, and natural.
Coyle, Edward F. Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures. J Appl Physiol 98: 2191–2196, 2005. First published March 17, 2005;doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00216.2005.—
This case describes the physiological maturation from ages 21 to 28 yr of the bicyclist who has now become the six-time consecutive Grand Champion of the Tour de France, at ages 27–32 yr. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) in the trained state remained at 6 l/min, lean body weight remained at 70 kg, and maximal heart rate declined from 207 to 200 beats/min. Blood lactate threshold was typical of competitive cyclists in that it occurred at 76–85% VO2 max, yet maximal blood lactate concentration was remarkably low in the trained state. It appears that an 8% improvement in muscular efficiency and thus power production when cycling at a given oxygen uptake (VO2) is the characteristic that improved most as this athlete matured from ages 21 to 28 yr. It is noteworthy that at age 25 yr, this champion developed advanced cancer, requiring surgeries and chemotherapy. During the months leading up to each of his Tour de France victories, he reduced body weight and body fat by 4–7 kg (i.e., 7%). Therefore, over the 7-yr period, an improvement in muscular efficiency and reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight when cycling at a given VO2 (e.g., 5 l/min). It is hypothesized that the improved muscular efficiency probably reflects changes in muscle myosin type stimulated from years of training intensely for 3–6 h on most days.
Extracted from Coyle, E. "Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures" - Journal of Applied Physiology Volume 98: pages 2191–2196, 2005.
Edited by rjc_43 on 26-02-2009 23:14
I believe it takes about 3-4 years of progressive training before any cyclist (starting from scratch) has enough efficiency and a high enough VO2 to perform well at a National level. With a few more years under their belt, I do not see why anyone could not potentially become a professional bike rider.
but at what intensity is that training? is it doing what you normally do or training full time like a pro?
Well, clearly at your first year of training from scratch, you could, in no way, do 3-4 hours per day, every day. You'd have to build up gradually. It's an extremely long process, and one I'm attempting to start now. You've got to remember it's not just the physical side of things, but if you don't have the social support (family, friends) who support you fully, you just aren't going to succeed. Nor are you going to succeed or progress if you train too much and overtrain (mentally, not physically) as it leads to burnout.
What I'd recommend would be a progression in amount of hours per week ridden.
Go backwards, as you always should when setting goals. So in this case, taking what I believe a pro does, is about 20-28 hours of training per week on average.
Year 5 - 24 hours per week
Year 4 - 20 hours per week
Year 3 - 16 hours per week
Year 2 - 12 hours per week
Year 1 - 8 hours per week.
If you're serious about wanting to find out how pro's do it, and get to where they are now, email one! lol, I'm sure they won't mind too much. I personally think its quite bad how no pro's seem to talk much about their training. To guys trying to get there from scratch, they have no idea how to do it, or how their heros did it. Quite demoralising!
EDIT: Perhaps Ruben could shed some light on how the Dutch talent gets to where they are now?
Edited by rjc_43 on 26-02-2009 23:21
Imo if you train hard you can achieve a pro level (they are a large group), but remember there are some aspects such as social aspects, psicologic aspects (as rjc_43 said), luck, monetary aspects, environmental aspects.
However every human has a limit (many of the post refer it). For example: Look at a room of people, one of them will be the fastest. If everyone in the room had the same trainnig program, he will be always the fastest.
Why Ullrich was always number two when LA started to compete in the TdF? (drugs not included)
At some point or level the trainnig doesn't matter. Talent and desire to win are the major factors.
About Boonen being a climber, it depends how much his body and his mind can adapt.
Some gifted athletes will never reach the top, some hard-working athletes will reach the top, some cheaters will reach the top. I can go on and on, everything can happen.
Edited by sakai5 on 27-02-2009 03:46
Year 5 - 24 hours per week
Year 4 - 20 hours per week
Year 3 - 16 hours per week
Year 2 - 12 hours per week
Year 1 - 8 hours per week.
I quite agree, I'm in my first year of doing serious training, and around 8-10 hours is all I can manage in a week, but I was chatting with one of the guys on the team who has been racing forever, and he says he trains, work permitting, 18-24 hours a week.
..but I pass it this time
