Ok, sports physiologists. Assuming Armstrong's claim of losing 7kg in the TT due to dehydration is true....
Ligget and Sherwin claimed a 5% loss in water weight = a 20% loss in performance. Armstrong says he weighed 70kg at the start. What would a ten percent loss do? That seems nearly catastrophic to me - is it even possible to conceive that he finished second in the TT with that kind of water loss?
How long would it take for the body to recover assuming full hydration efforts such as IV's etc? Would he even have a chance given the heat and the difficulty of the next two stages?
Ok, sports physiologists. Assuming Armstrong's claim of losing 7kg in the TT due to dehydration is true....
Ligget and Sherwin claimed a 5% loss in water weight = a 20% loss in performance. Armstrong says he weighed 70kg at the start. What would a ten percent loss do? That seems nearly catastrophic to me - is it even possible to conceive that he finished second in the TT with that kind of water loss?
How long would it take for the body to recover assuming full hydration efforts such as IV's etc? Would he even have a chance given the heat and the difficulty of the next two stages?
Mark
It does not appear he dug as deep today. Tomorrow is not a good stage for GC'ers to get away and the weather forcast is better. So it is Luz Ardiden on Monday or bust...
"Mark Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Ok, sports physiologists. Assuming Armstrong's claim of losing 7kg in the TT due to dehydration is true....
Ligget and Sherwin claimed a 5% loss in water weight = a 20% loss in performance. Armstrong says he weighed 70kg at the start. What would a
ten
Quoted message said:
percent loss do?
Loss of life?
Quoted message said:
That seems nearly catastrophic to me - is it even possible to conceive that he finished second in the TT with that kind of water
loss?
Something is not quite right. How about this; if you lose 2 kilos in water
Now everything else falls in to place.
Quoted message said:
How long would it take for the body to recover assuming full hydration efforts such as IV's etc? Would he even have a chance given the heat and the difficulty of the next two stages?
"Mark Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Ok, sports physiologists. Assuming Armstrong's claim of losing 7kg in the TT due to dehydration is true....
Ligget and Sherwin claimed a 5% loss in water weight = a 20% loss in performance. Armstrong says he weighed 70kg at the start. What would a
ten
Quoted message said:
percent loss do? That seems nearly catastrophic to me - is it even
possible
Quoted message said:
to conceive that he finished second in the TT with that kind of water
loss?
That 10% weight loss cannot possibly be true for just one TT. It's BS.
7 lbs maybe but not 7 kilos.
Quoted message said:
How long would it take for the body to recover assuming full hydration efforts such as IV's etc? Would he even have a chance given the heat and the difficulty of the next two stages?
"Ken Papai" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:GZgSa.86381$GL4.22521@rwcrnsc53:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
That 10% weight loss cannot possibly be true for just one TT. It's BS.
7 lbs maybe but not 7 kilos.
It was 6kg not 7kg...I quoted 7 based on Phil and Paul's comments. Here is Armstrong quoted on cyclingnews.com:
"The fact of the matter is that I started Saturday at probably 72.5kg and finished the time trial at 66.5kg, so something definitely went wrong."
That's an 8.3% loss. It seems unreal that he would be able to finish second in the TT in that case. I guess that would explain why he lost so much time at the end of the TT. After that kind of water loss would it be even possible for someone to finish 1:08 down on Sastre in a 1st climb to the finish the next day?
"Mark Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"Ken Papai" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:GZgSa.86381$GL4.22521@rwcrnsc53:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> That 10% weight loss cannot possibly be true for just one TT. It's BS. > > 7 lbs maybe but not 7 kilos.
It was 6kg not 7kg...I quoted 7 based on Phil and Paul's comments. Here
is
Quoted message said:
Armstrong quoted on cyclingnews.com:
"The fact of the matter is that I started Saturday at probably 72.5kg and finished the time trial at 66.5kg, so something definitely went wrong."
That's an 8.3% loss. It seems unreal that he would be able to finish
second
Quoted message said:
in the TT in that case. I guess that would explain why he lost so much
time
Quoted message said:
at the end of the TT. After that kind of water loss would it be even possible for someone to finish 1:08 down on Sastre in a 1st climb to the finish the next day?
Mark
Sure it is possible considering that Lance puts out 600 watts at his anaerobic threshold.
IOW, you need to understand that LA and CC both get creative with the numbers. Think about it.
"Nick Burns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Armstrong quoted on cyclingnews.com:
"The fact of the matter is that I started Saturday at probably 72.5kg
and
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
finished the time trial at 66.5kg, so something definitely went wrong."
That's an 8.3% loss. It seems unreal that he would be able to finish
second
Quoted message said:
in the TT in that case. I guess that would explain why he lost so much
time
Quoted message said:
at the end of the TT. After that kind of water loss would it be even possible for someone to finish 1:08 down on Sastre in a 1st climb to the finish the next day?
Mark
Sure it is possible considering that Lance puts out 600 watts at his anaerobic threshold.
IOW, you need to understand that LA and CC both get creative with the numbers. Think about it.
Which is why I suggested the original comments were window dressing. I was looking for an expert sports physiology opinion to put it into perspective; I'm not familiar with the research.
It seems that an 8% loss the day prior would seriously degrade that 600 watt AT power.
As it turns out, they weighed him at medical control and found him to be 70.5 kg. The other four kilos come from the four liters of water he drank before going to medical. That's their story anyhow.
"Mark Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"Ken Papai" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:GZgSa.86381$GL4.22521@rwcrnsc53:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> That 10% weight loss cannot possibly be true for just one TT. It's BS. > > 7 lbs maybe but not 7 kilos.
It was 6kg not 7kg...I quoted 7 based on Phil and Paul's comments. Here
is
Quoted message said:
Armstrong quoted on cyclingnews.com:
6kg still sounds a little creative to me. A loss of 13 lbs, in a couple hours on someone who weighs barely 159 lbs??? Ouch.
Quoted message said:
"The fact of the matter is that I started Saturday at probably 72.5kg and finished the time trial at 66.5kg, so something definitely went wrong."
That's an 8.3% loss. It seems unreal that he would be able to finish
second
Quoted message said:
in the TT in that case. I guess that would explain why he lost so much
time
Quoted message said:
at the end of the TT. After that kind of water loss would it be even possible for someone to finish 1:08 down on Sastre in a 1st climb to the finish the next day?
"Mark Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> "Ken Papai" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:GZgSa.86381$GL4.22521@rwcrnsc53:
Quoted message said:
> > That 10% weight loss cannot possibly be true for just one TT. It's BS. > > > > 7 lbs maybe but not 7 kilos. >
It was 6kg not 7kg...I quoted 7 based on Phil and Paul's comments. Here
is
Quoted message said:
Armstrong quoted on cyclingnews.com:
"The fact of the matter is that I started Saturday at probably 72.5kg and finished the time trial at 66.5kg, so something definitely went wrong."
That's an 8.3% loss. It seems unreal that he would be able to finish
second
Quoted message said:
in the TT in that case. I guess that would explain why he lost so much
time
Quoted message said:
at the end of the TT. After that kind of water loss would it be even possible for someone to finish 1:08 down on Sastre in a 1st climb to the finish the next day?
Mark
Sure it is possible considering that Lance puts out 600 watts at his anaerobic threshold.
IOW, you need to understand that LA and CC both get creative with the numbers. Think about it.
I just read the Carmichael comments. If they were correct, one would think that Ulrich would have been at least as depleted as Armstrong at the end of the time trial. He is a bigger man, was racing under the same conditions and is, supposedly, less fit than Armstrong due to inactivity.
He gives no explanation for Armstrong's almost catastrophic fluid loss--if it did happen in they way described, someone on the coaching/fitness team was asleep at the switch and should be fired.
He gives no explanation for Armstrong's almost catastrophic fluid loss--if it did happen in they way described, someone on the coaching/fitness team was asleep at the switch and should be fired.
The quote is :
Quoted message said:
The fact of the matter is that I started Saturday at probably 72.5kg and finished the time trial at 66.5kg,
So he lost 6kg in a week, not in one hour, unless he has his days confused.
That 10% weight loss cannot possibly be true for just one TT. It's BS.
7 lbs maybe but not 7 kilos.
You sound right to me. A hard hour's effort will drain as much as 5 lbs out of me, but I usually don't go 100% for a steady hour. I have much more muscle than top racers to wring out though.
-- -- Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawallOpen ↗ "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.
"Ken Papai" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<NQjSa.101927$H17.31279@sccrnsc02>...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> "Ken Papai" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:GZgSa.86381$GL4.22521@rwcrnsc53:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> > That 10% weight loss cannot possibly be true for just one TT. It's BS. > > > > 7 lbs maybe but not 7 kilos. >
It was 6kg not 7kg...I quoted 7 based on Phil and Paul's comments. Here
is
Quoted message said:
Armstrong quoted on cyclingnews.com:
6kg still sounds a little creative to me. A loss of 13 lbs, in a couple hours on someone who weighs barely 159 lbs??? Ouch.
Quoted message said:
"The fact of the matter is that I started Saturday at probably 72.5kg and finished the time trial at 66.5kg, so something definitely went wrong."
That's an 8.3% loss. It seems unreal that he would be able to finish
second
Quoted message said:
in the TT in that case. I guess that would explain why he lost so much
time
Quoted message said:
at the end of the TT. After that kind of water loss would it be even possible for someone to finish 1:08 down on Sastre in a 1st climb to the finish the next day?
Mark
How is it possible for an experienced professional with an expensive coach to allow himself to lose 13 pounds of water weight in one day? Isn't hydration a well understood science? They weigh everything he eats. Why can't they keep him hydrated?
Something is not quite right. How about this; if you lose 2 kilos in water
Quoted message said:
Now everything else falls in to place.
Sometimes reading this group is all so worthwhile. The fog of confusion is lifted with a single, piercingly precise explanation. Reality recrystallizes. Everything makes sense, again.
