Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Racing weight

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    tunney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Enduro wrote: »
    Serious question from an interested outsider looking in...

    Why is it that in LD tri you consider that the lightest possible weight is probably not optimal? From what I can understand in this thread it seem to be somthing to do with power output on the bike. But from what I've seen pro cyclists generally seem to obsess about losing weight. I would have thought that power to weight ratios would be the key variable on the bike leg, not pure power output.

    Power to weight its of vital importance on the climbs.
    In a TT its power to frontal area.

    Personally I don't think someone can have too low a bodyfat (ie 4% is fine), I just think that they can get there the wrong way.


  • Options
    #63
    trinewbie
    Registered Users Posts: 481 ✭✭trinewbie


    tunney wrote: »
    Power to weight its of vital importance on the climbs.
    In a TT its power to frontal area.

    Personally I don't think someone can have too low a bodyfat (ie 4% is fine), I just think that they can get there the wrong way.

    Agree - Watts per Cda defo the most important.
    I always thought too low body fat % leads to more ilness? (Ill use that as my excuse for always carrying that extra kg)


  • Options
    #64
    Enduro
    Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Enduro


    Thanks for the answers all,
    tunney wrote: »
    Personally I don't think someone can have too low a bodyfat (ie 4% is fine), I just think that they can get there the wrong way.

    That would be my thinking as well!


  • Options
    #65
    joey100
    Registered Users Posts: 3,421 ✭✭✭joey100


    Brett Sutton has his say on it,

    http://trisutto.com/the-weight-debate-a-response/


  • Options
    #66
    pgibbo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,377 Mod ✭✭✭✭pgibbo


    joey100 wrote: »
    Brett Sutton has his say on it,

    http://trisutto.com/the-weight-debate-a-response/

    Crack open the Ben & Jerry's Phish food :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    zico10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭zico10


    I've often thought this, but it seems a bit absurd, so I haven't posted the question before.

    I'm not for one minute suggesting the best warm up for a marathon would be to swim 3.8km and the cycle 180km at IM intensity. But when it comes to ironman, due to glycogen depletion and water loss, provided one hasn't been over fueling on the bike (something which if properly racing should be impossible to do), an athlete is going to be a couple of kilos lighter at the start of the marathon, than when they started the swim. Is it fair to say that shedding this weight is going to be advantageous on the run?

    Obviously it wouldn't be a recommended way to go about weight loss, but given the ironman will in all lilkliehood be one's ultimate goal, this doesn't matter.

    It's just a hunch I have, and I have no science to back it up, but I think those who are already borderline underweight cope less well with this reduction in bodyweight, than those who didn't diet to such extremes.


  • Options
    #68
    tunney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    zico10 wrote: »
    I've often thought this, but it seems a bit absurd, so I haven't posted the question before.

    I'm not for one minute suggesting the best warm up for a marathon would be to swim 3.8km and the cycle 180km at IM intensity. But when it comes to ironman, due to glycogen depletion and water loss, provided one hasn't been over fueling on the bike (something which if properly racing should be impossible to do), an athlete is going to be a couple of kilos lighter at the start of the marathon, than when they started the swim. Is it fair to say that shedding this weight is going to be advantageous on the run?

    No. Not at all advantageous, the complete opposite.

    People confuse losing weight with improving body composition.

    After the swim and bike your body composition has not improved. You have lost water through sweating and the fact that each gram of glycogen is stored with 3 grams of water.
    Given that once your burn rate goes over 2.5g glycogen a minute you cannot replenish during the event you are going to burn glycogen you cannot bring back on board. So you are losing weight due to water loss, glycogen loss and the associated water loss. You are in no way what so ever improving body composition. You are hitting the marathon in, at best, a slightly dehydrated state with some degree of glycogen deficiency.


    zico10 wrote: »
    Obviously it wouldn't be a recommended way to go about weight loss, but given the ironman will in all lilkliehood be one's ultimate goal, this doesn't matter.

    Again weight versus body composition. When people focus on weight as opposed to body composition thats when all the bad things happen.
    zico10 wrote: »
    It's just a hunch I have, and I have no science to back it up,

    I did guess that alright :)
    zico10 wrote: »
    but I think those who are already borderline underweight cope less well with this reduction in bodyweight, than those who didn't diet to such extremes.

    its not necessary to diet to extremes to improve body composition. The problem is people diet to extremes to lose weight and then reap all the "fun things" that come with it. Fat does not store glycogen. Fat is a fuel okay, but even the leanest of athlete has enough fat stores to do them many IMs over.

    Body composition is the key, and sensible approaches to improving it.


  • Options
    #69
    zico10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭zico10


    Like I said no science, but I've often found long runs getting easier as they progress, in that I'd be going faster for the same perceived effort. I'd have been burning glycogen and gone for a few whizzes, needles to say I'd be lighter than when I started. I've never experienced the same during long bikes or long swims, which are both non-weight bearing. What else would you attribute this to?

    I'm not saying the advantages of the weight loss as a result of fluid loss and glycogen depletion outweigh the negatives, but the decreased weight must be an advantage. I think some people are too light to cope with this weight loss and because the disadvantages outweigh the positives by so much, that their bodies simply shut down.


  • Options
    #70
    tunney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    zico10 wrote: »
    Like I said no science, but I've often found long runs getting easier as they progress, in that I'd be going faster for the same perceived effort. I'd have been burning glycogen and gone for a few whizzes, needles to say I'd be lighter than when I started. I've never experienced the same during long bikes or long swims, which are both non-weight bearing. What else would you attribute this to?

    I'm not saying the advantages of the weight loss as a result of fluid loss and glycogen depletion outweigh the negatives, but the decreased weight must be an advantage. I think some people are too light to cope with this weight loss and because the disadvantages outweigh the positives by so much, that their bodies simply shut down.

    4 seconds a kilo a km. Thats the penalty(and saving) from weight

    What else would I attribute it to? Endorphins? Zoning out? Given you don't like warm ups - warming up?

    "Running better case I went for a slash" is not something I can honestly say I've heard before but like the band that was in town last night - if it works for you thats all that matters.


Advertisement