Extreme ectomorphs in Tour de France

They are ectomorphs because of genetics and then prodigious training and attention to detail take over.

If Froome and company were sedentary folk they would probably weigh around 80 kg, which is still slim by "normal" standards. But fhey might suffer from the "skinny-fat" characteristics.

Interesting that unlike all other elite sport people, cyclists do very little, if any, weight training. This means some of those elites have negligeable chest and arm development, in addition to a lack of the "six pack abs"

Armstrong was a natural mesomorph (muscular) who became almost an ectomorph post his cancer treatment. But his previous polyvaliance as an elite triathlete in his youth gave Armstrong extra power in time trials.

Froome was lucky this year that the Tour Topography, overall, favored climbers, and hence extreme ectomorphs with their off the charts power to weight ratios.

This year's Tour had huge gaps between the top riders and those outside the top 10.

This year, only 16 riders finished within 1hour of Froome. Not since 1997 (Ulrich) had this happened.

In 17th spot, Roman Kreuziger finished 1h02.51 behind Froome. Huge gap. The Sky Team are in a different league.

Girlrider wrote:

funny, nobody seems concerned about the health of these obvious manorexics.

Is this discrimination against women or men? Please tell so that I can form a politically correct opinion.

Cyclists do not have to support their body weight when riding most of the time.

They sit. They also have no impact with ground. little use for upper body. Little use for over developed bones, tendons and ligaments to absorb impact without injury, and/or to support weight.

So they can be and look extremely emaciated. All they have to do is turn the pedals around at high rpms for long periods of time. Big advantage when lighter, especially on climbs.

Sprinters are different, they need more explosive power.

Even Armstrong, (doping aside) credited losing 15+ pounds because of cancer treatment with helping his cycling. Most of this was lost in his upper body, which was well developed from his triathlon background.

Being emaciated thin can be a plus for runners. look at Kiprop

Froome has some of the skinniest arms I have ever seen.

As a 50 year old, I dropped 7 or 8 lbs this year and it has made a huge difference on my running times. 40-50 seconds for 5k and almost 2 minutes for 10k.

Bad Wigins wrote:

It's not possible to function at a high athletic level in such an undernourished state, without... you know what

I think almost every distance runner is lighter than Froome, or any good climber. Kiprop is like 20lbs lighter depending on which listed weight you take. Hall is a couple inches shorter, but also 15lbs lighter.

Kiplagat is like 5'6" and 120, about 3 kg lighter than Quintana who is the same height.

So, if a guy like Froome is undernourished and on special sauces...that means almost every single distance runner except maybe Andy Vernon and Chris Solinsky are on the good stuff too

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

It's not a pretty sight.

It's not a coincidence that hardly any women are watching the Tour de France. It's 2015 and they demand BUFF guys and rightfully though.

I mean seriously, those guys are malnourished and should be helped instead of being allowed to do a bicycle festival.

Psh.

Sure there are the skinny climbers, but plenty of the cyclists that specialize in sprints, puncheur climbs, or power on the flats are larger buff guys on par with 100/200 sprinters.

So it can't be that for why women "aren't watching"

what am I to think wrote:

Is this discrimination against women or men? Please tell so that I can form a politically correct opinion.

I wouldn't call it discrimination. I'd call it a double standard. It's OK for men to look emaciated for the purpose of sport but when women look that way, there is a completely different reaction.

Outside of testing positive you mean? I'd pretty much go with power numbers that are beyond the realm of plausibility. Until then...I might be suspicious but give benefit of the doubt. Froome isn't putting up numbers that assure guiltiness of doping.

Suspicious? Of course. Certainly doping? Definitely not.

Yea, all those skinny little cyclists:

Nope, Froome has been at 67kg +/- .9 kg for his entire time at sky. Even if you think his comments on weight are not honest, Froome has published plenty of power numbers in the low to mid 400W range.

If Froome weighed 63kg...well he would be on 7+ w/kg going up these long climbs. Not only would sky not publish numbers obviously indicative of doping, it's very clear that Froome isn't riding at 7 w/kg given the times and margins to other riders that have published power data.

LM wrote:

just sayin wrote:

Froome is lighter than 67kg,more like 63kg

Thereby skewing the numbers

Also sky is not fooling anybody with their latest data release

Nope, Froome has been at 67kg +/- .9 kg for his entire time at sky. Even if you think his comments on weight are not honest, Froome has published plenty of power numbers in the low to mid 400W range.

If Froome weighed 63kg...well he would be on 7+ w/kg going up these long climbs. Not only would sky not publish numbers obviously indicative of doping, it's very clear that Froome isn't riding at 7 w/kg given the times and margins to other riders that have published power data.

You have given yourself a plausible reason, why Froome and especially Sky is skewing the numbers. They do not need to falsify everything, just to list his weight as 4-5 kg heavier, than he really is. Unless he weighs himself during TdF publicly on calibrated scale provided by independent party, I and most of the logically thinking doubters will wave the published data as yet another cover story.

Just like you said - he would be on 7+w/kg, which is clearly indicative of doping... From below average cyclist until his mid/late 20s to TdF winner and clean? My ass...

Don't get me wrong, a scenario like this is certainly something that would make sense for a team to do if they knew their rider was doping.

But he isn't on 7 w/kg, as we can see from his climbing times and margins of victory over other cyclists with known, published power data and weights.

Agree there. 7 w/kg would pretty much assure doping. And the rest is suspicious as well. I'm definitely not a "Froome is clean" guy. I am however a "I'm pretty skeptical, but give benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise" guy

Given the history of TdF, its past winners (an I am not referring only to Lance, Pantani, or Riijs, but also to Fausto Coppi, Bartali, Bobet and Anquetil, which had all admitted using all kinds of doping, and that it was not possible to ride, win and repeat it clean), I am not giving any kind of benefit of doubt. I think it is hilarious to watch Froome's bad acting "outrage" on suspicion that he and the rest of Sky is not clean, but he should look back and understand that nobody following the sport of cycling would believe his nose between his own eyes. He is doped, UCI knows it, WADA knows it, but what can you do? Cycling is not prepared for another scandal - it is "believed" to be clean...

Forrest child wrote:

Given the history of TdF, its past winners (an I am not referring only to Lance, Pantani, or Riijs, but also to Fausto Coppi, Bartali, Bobet and Anquetil, which had all admitted using all kinds of doping, and that it was not possible to ride, win and repeat it clean), I am not giving any kind of benefit of doubt. I think it is hilarious to watch Froome's bad acting "outrage" on suspicion that he and the rest of Sky is not clean, but he should look back and understand that nobody following the sport of cycling would believe his nose between his own eyes. He is doped, UCI knows it, WADA knows it, but what can you do? Cycling is not prepared for another scandal - it is "believed" to be clean...

I don't think cycling is believed to be clean. I don't know of people in the sport, and certainly don't know of ordinary people, that think cycling is clean.

Some in the peleton are certainly doping, though it's hard to know the extent.

While it certainly doesn't create a fair playing field, it is clear that everyone is at a much lower level than in the Indurain or Lance eras. People today are doing lower 6 w/kg ranges, back in those days many performances were approaching 7 w/kg.

But is cycling clean? No, definitely not. Then again, neither is...well any sport really