I came across this and thought it was interesting. Big Mig can put out lots of watts still. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22868823
Miguel Indurain Efforts Post-Retirement
- Thread starter yeaux
- Start date
He always had to--he's a big boy. Takes more energy to move more mass. I don't race, but I do ride tours with others of all shapes, sizes and ages. At 84 Kg/185 lbs, I'm no flyweight. On flat roads, I can keep up with most folks, but when there's even a slight incline, I'm slower than the folks smaller than me and quicker than the ones bigger than I am, with just a few exceptions (which are because of great disparities in conditioning).
I've recently lost about 60 pounds.... and from my perspective... I can't see any advantage to carrying additional weight. Quitting smoking, losing weight, and cycling almost everyday... has made for huge improvements in my fitness. Hills are much easier, I am faster where its flat, and downhills... are as fast as my nerve allows.
Most importantly... when I've slowed in a turn or just starting out from a stop... I find it much easier to pop off the saddle and make a half dozen or so oval shaped fast strokes. So I return to my riding speed much quicker.
Most importantly... when I've slowed in a turn or just starting out from a stop... I find it much easier to pop off the saddle and make a half dozen or so oval shaped fast strokes. So I return to my riding speed much quicker.
Even with my newly found increased speed.... I am still slower than name brand Ketchup. But compared to my own times from last year... I am hot.
I was a proud Clydesdale when I rode heavy. And I've met several Clyde's that are true athletes and very good cyclist to boot. For many... the few extra pounds seems to make little difference. I didn't carry my extra weight well.
I was a proud Clydesdale when I rode heavy. And I've met several Clyde's that are true athletes and very good cyclist to boot. For many... the few extra pounds seems to make little difference. I didn't carry my extra weight well.
The key is that the force of gravity is a linear function of mass but the force of air resistance is a quadratic function of velocity. Therefore while the heavier bigger rider does descend faster, they lose more energy to air resistance, and thus suffer a larger net loss of energy, i.e. they don't go fast enough on the descent to make up for the time lost on the climb. I'm pretty sure there is an article on the internets that explains this better than I have here, but I am too lazy to look for it.
The key is that air resistance is proportional to the square of velocity while the force of gravity does not depend on velocity. While the heavier rider will gain more (potential) energy on the way up, they will lose more energy on the way down, thus they will have a larger net energy loss. In other words, any extra speed they have on the descent will not make up for the time lost on the climb. It's a matter of energy conservation.
The key is that air resistance is a quadratic function of velocity. Since the speeds during the climb are much slower than the speeds during the descent, the heavier rider will have a larger net energy loss. In other words, the heavier rider does not make up as much time on the descent as they lost on the climb. Similar logic is used to determine optimal TT pacing on a hilly course.
Edit:
Actually, you can come to the same conclusion without considering air resistance. In a vacuum, objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass. So even without air resistance, the heavier rider looses. What's interesting is that air resistance actually helps the heavier rider. The terminal velocity of a falling object in air is
v = (2 m g / p A Cd)^1/2
m = mass
g = acceleration of gravity
p = density of air
A = cross sectional area
Cd = drag coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity
If we approximate the rider as a sphere then the volume and cross sectional area are given by these:
V = 4/3 pi r^3
A = pi r ^ 2
After some algebra we can see that volume and cross-sectional area are related thusly:
A = pi (3/4 V / pi)^2/3
Let's get rid of the constants and simply observe that cross-sectional area is proportional to volume to the 2/3 power.
A =~ V ^ 2/3
Since mass is proportional to volume it follows that cross-sectional area is proportional to mass to the 2/3 power.
A =~ m ^ 2/3
Plugging this into the original equation and dropping the constants we arrive at this:
v =~ m ^ 1/6
I.e. the terminal velocity of a sphere in air is proportional to the mass to the 1/6 power.
Conclusion: the heaver rider descends faster, but not by much.
Disclaimer: Physics is not my profession. I make no claims that the above is correct. Use at your own risk.
Actually, no rider of any weight makes up in the descent what he/she loses in the ascent. The same holds for wind. You lose more time going upwind than you recover going downwind. So, when riders joke that a closed loop course is net uphill or net upwind they are correct in the sense that the uphill and upwind segments cost more than the downhill and downwind segments gain.
Actually, wouldn't wind be different? I would think the effects of wind resistance are a function of the wind velocity relative to the rider and not the ground, therefore riding with a 5 mph wind would be the exact opposite of riding against a 5 mph wind. However, rolling resistance comes into play and is a function of velocity relative to the ground, so more energy is lost when riding with the wind than when riding against it.
I've always found it invigorating to be riding with the wind such that it feels like there is no wind at all as if I was in a bubble.
Age-related fitness declines in athletes can be due to both aging and detraining. Very little is known about the physiological and performance decline of professional cyclists after retirement from competition.
To gain some insight into the aging and detraining process of elite cyclists, 5-time Tour de France winner and Olympic Champion Miguel Indurain performed a progressive cycle ergometer test to exhaustion 14 years after retirement from professional cycling (age 46 yrs; body mass 92.2 kg). His maximal values were: oxygen uptake 5.29 l.min-1 (57.4 ml.kg-1.min-1), aerobic power output 450 W (4.88 W.kg-1), heart rate 191 bpm, blood lactate 11.2 mM.
Values at the individual lactate threshold (ILT): 4.28 l.min-1 (46.4 ml.kg-1.min-1), 329 W (3.57 W.kg-1), 159 bpm, 2.4 mM.
Values at the 4 mM onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA): 4.68 l.min-1 (50.8 ml.kg-1.min-1), 369 W (4.00 W.kg-1), 170 bpm.
Average cycling gross efficiency between 100 and 350 W was 20.1%, with a peak value of 22.3% at 350 W. Delta efficiency was 27.04%.
Absolute maximal oxygen uptake and aerobic power output declined by 12.4 and 15.2% per decade, whereas power output at ILT and OBLA declined by 19.8 and 19.2%.
Larger declines in maximal and submaximal values relative to body mass (19.4-26.1%) indicate that body composition changed more than aerobic characteristics.
Nevertheless, Indurain's absolute maximal and submaximal oxygen uptake and power output values still compare favorably with those exhibited by active professional cyclists.
So Indurain is in excellent shape for a bloke aged 46 and could still race with active professional cyclists.
To gain some insight into the aging and detraining process of elite cyclists, 5-time Tour de France winner and Olympic Champion Miguel Indurain performed a progressive cycle ergometer test to exhaustion 14 years after retirement from professional cycling (age 46 yrs; body mass 92.2 kg). His maximal values were: oxygen uptake 5.29 l.min-1 (57.4 ml.kg-1.min-1), aerobic power output 450 W (4.88 W.kg-1), heart rate 191 bpm, blood lactate 11.2 mM.
Values at the individual lactate threshold (ILT): 4.28 l.min-1 (46.4 ml.kg-1.min-1), 329 W (3.57 W.kg-1), 159 bpm, 2.4 mM.
Values at the 4 mM onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA): 4.68 l.min-1 (50.8 ml.kg-1.min-1), 369 W (4.00 W.kg-1), 170 bpm.
Average cycling gross efficiency between 100 and 350 W was 20.1%, with a peak value of 22.3% at 350 W. Delta efficiency was 27.04%.
Absolute maximal oxygen uptake and aerobic power output declined by 12.4 and 15.2% per decade, whereas power output at ILT and OBLA declined by 19.8 and 19.2%.
Larger declines in maximal and submaximal values relative to body mass (19.4-26.1%) indicate that body composition changed more than aerobic characteristics.
Nevertheless, Indurain's absolute maximal and submaximal oxygen uptake and power output values still compare favorably with those exhibited by active professional cyclists.
So Indurain is in excellent shape for a bloke aged 46 and could still race with active professional cyclists.
Similar threads
