The mystery of Lances lost body weight



lumpy

New Member
Oct 22, 2003
513
2
0
It's not as simple as how much he weighs. Muscle weighs more than fat, so you can actually gain weight yet shrink in size.

Lance's shoulders are clearly narrower. I can't say about his ass Patrick, but when you kiss it perhaps you can tell.
As someone wisely posted, Lance can open a can of whoop ass on the peloton any day he wants.
He's never failed a drug test. Where I live, innocence is assumed until proven guilty.
Being a cancer survivor and his foundation are clearly very important to him. If he were caught cheating, how would that effect his foundation and anti-cancer efforts? The publicity would be devastating, not only for the foundation, but for fellow cancer patients, and I argue he'd never risk that.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that he is a physical specimen unlike all others?
 

House

Banned
Aug 9, 2004
850
0
0
Patrick1983 said:
obviously you can dictate where muscle goe by training that area
weightlifting=upper body
cycling=legs etc.....

so i was wrong,sorry!
So you look like a complete fool, completely losing any credibility you might have had on something so obvious and so basic.


but lance claims to have lost weight,it is proven that he has not

you say he lost weight from his upper body, so obviously this has gone to other places on his body

where on his body has this weight gone?

here are 2 photos pre cancer:
http://www.clintonphoto.com/subjects/cycling/cycling/images/lance08.jpg
http://www.jsmcelvery.com/photos/armstrong/95armstrong1.jpg

and here is one post cancer
http://www.roadcycling.com/events/tdf2004/tourdefrance_lance_armstrong.jpg

imo there is no major difference
a) your opinion is based on trying to prove Lance as a fraud, so it's not worth much

b) how about a pic that is similar to the post-cancer one, i.e. an ITT standing pic, like this one:

http:www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/Docs/75DD5f491ca2e85e86256b300006bb95

the difference is quite obvious isn't it?
He is listed at 165lbs in a number of places, has a lower body fat % then pre-cancer and is known to race the Tour at a lower weight then that.

how can having cancer improve your climbing that much?
his weight has not changed-FACT
His Vo2 max has not changed-FACT

PLEASE explain how his climbing has improved post cancer?
you say he "dictated" where the muscle went but is see NO proof of this and it seems that you are making up facts to suit your argumnet


DRUG CHEATS OUT!!!
Well I have proven with that picture that his muscle did come back differently, very climber like. Having cancer did not improve his climbing, it helped him reshape himself, but the biggest effect was that it made him mentally stronger. It's well documented that his training and focus are much better now that pre-cancer...I guess that comes from facing death or simply the possability of losing your career. Perhaps instead of trying to prove he is on drugs why don't you do some research on what has made him great. Try looking up an article on google called "The Science of Lance Armstrong, Born, and Built, to Win" read this and others you find with an open mind and you might be surprised what you learn. Keep a closed mind and you will simply ignore facts that don't fit your agenda.
 

Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
Without cheating there would be NO CANCER FOUNDATION!!!!

Without cheating there would not have been Cancer either.

Without cheating there is no winning, no results, no corporate renewal. No funding.

Cheating and lying are essential to commercial success in pro sports.

It is the 'blood doping protocol' which wins a TDF.


Wake up!


lumpy said:
It's not as simple as how much he weighs. Muscle weighs more than fat, so you can actually gain weight yet shrink in size.

Lance's shoulders are clearly narrower. I can't say about his ass Patrick, but when you kiss it perhaps you can tell.
As someone wisely posted, Lance can open a can of whoop ass on the peloton any day he wants.
He's never failed a drug test. Where I live, innocence is assumed until proven guilty.
Being a cancer survivor and his foundation are clearly very important to him. If he were caught cheating, how would that effect his foundation and anti-cancer efforts? The publicity would be devastating, not only for the foundation, but for fellow cancer patients, and I argue he'd never risk that.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that he is a physical specimen unlike all others?
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
lumpy said:
As someone wisely posted, Lance can open a can of whoop ass on the peloton any day he wants.
He's never failed a drug test. Where I live, innocence is assumed until proven guilty.
Being a cancer survivor and his foundation are clearly very important to him. If he were caught cheating, how would that effect his foundation and anti-cancer efforts? The publicity would be devastating, not only for the foundation, but for fellow cancer patients, and I argue he'd never risk that.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that he is a physical specimen unlike all others?

Because it's revisionist, that's why.

The defence of "well he has never failed a test" has little or no credibility.
David Millar, Richard Virenque, Johan Musseuw, never failed tests either.

LA was a great one day rider before his cancer - his career trajectory at that point indicated to me that he ought to have gone on to be a one day winner or 5-10 stage race winner.
Period.

There was no indication - absolutely zero indication that he had any real prospect of ever winning one TDF, never mind 7 T'sDF.

It is as Miguel Indurain said in Graham Watson's tribute book to LA "Images of a Champion", that "no one considered LA of being capable of winning one TDF, never mind 5 T'sDF (as it was at the time)".

Something changed.

File LA under the same category as Flo-Jo.
We can't deny that they both won - but their performances lack trust and credibility.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
House said:
Well I have proven with that picture that his muscle did come back differently, very climber like. Having cancer did not improve his climbing, it helped him reshape himself, but the biggest effect was that it made him mentally stronger. It's well documented that his training and focus are much better now that pre-cancer...I guess that comes from facing death or simply the possability of losing your career. Perhaps instead of trying to prove he is on drugs why don't you do some research on what has made him great. Try looking up an article on google called "The Science of Lance Armstrong, Born, and Built, to Win" read this and others you find with an open mind and you might be surprised what you learn. Keep a closed mind and you will simply ignore facts that don't fit your agenda.

so you think he's clean ?
You think he's never doped ?
 

Patrick1983

New Member
Oct 28, 2004
63
0
0
Flyer said:
Without cheating there would be NO CANCER FOUNDATION!!!!

Without cheating there would not have been Cancer either.

Without cheating there is no winning, no results, no corporate renewal. No funding.

Cheating and lying are essential to commercial success in pro sports.

It is the 'blood doping protocol' which wins a TDF.


Wake up!
this is an interesting point
i always wondered wheter there was a potential link between the drugs lance could have taken and his cancer
 

Patrick1983

New Member
Oct 28, 2004
63
0
0
House said:
So you look like a complete fool, completely losing any credibility you might have had on something so obvious and so basic.



a) your opinion is based on trying to prove Lance as a fraud, so it's not worth much

b) how about a pic that is similar to the post-cancer one, i.e. an ITT standing pic, like this one:

http:www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/Docs/75DD5f491ca2e85e86256b300006bb95

the difference is quite obvious isn't it?
He is listed at 165lbs in a number of places, has a lower body fat % then pre-cancer and is known to race the Tour at a lower weight then that.


Well I have proven with that picture that his muscle did come back differently, very climber like. Having cancer did not improve his climbing, it helped him reshape himself, but the biggest effect was that it made him mentally stronger. It's well documented that his training and focus are much better now that pre-cancer...I guess that comes from facing death or simply the possability of losing your career. Perhaps instead of trying to prove he is on drugs why don't you do some research on what has made him great. Try looking up an article on google called "The Science of Lance Armstrong, Born, and Built, to Win" read this and others you find with an open mind and you might be surprised what you learn. Keep a closed mind and you will simply ignore facts that don't fit your agenda.

hahahahaha

these "facts" you claim to read are direct from lance and his cronies
what do you expect them to say -"yeah hes on drugs"

i stated i was wrong with regard to the statement on muscle placement something which you are clearly incapable of doing

the picture of him in the tt looks no different than from today only a looser jersey.

as for kissing his ass,i am not the sad pathetic loser who copies him with statements like"Troll" etc.....you make yourself look like an 8 yr old

i bet when you cycle you pretend you are him


hahahahahahaha
 

House

Banned
Aug 9, 2004
850
0
0
Patrick1983 said:
hahahahaha

these "facts" you claim to read are direct from lance and his cronies
what do you expect them to say -"yeah hes on drugs"

i stated i was wrong with regard to the statement on muscle placement something which you are clearly incapable of doing

the picture of him in the tt looks no different than from today only a looser jersey.

as for kissing his ass,i am not the sad pathetic loser who copies him with statements like"Troll" etc.....you make yourself look like an 8 yr old

i bet when you cycle you pretend you are him


hahahahahahaha
Thanks for the intelligent response, this proves exactly what you are a troll. As I have now told you three times, troll came around well before Lance, but judging by your posts I would expect that it would take a lot more then three times for an intelligent thought to get in your head. I will add you to the troll ignore list. Nice swatting you around though.
 

Patrick1983

New Member
Oct 28, 2004
63
0
0
House said:
Thanks for the intelligent response, this proves exactly what you are a troll. As I have now told you three times, troll came around well before Lance, but judging by your posts I would expect that it would take a lot more then three times for an intelligent thought to get in your head. I will add you to the troll ignore list. Nice swatting you around though.
are you dressed in your postal gear as you write on here?

haha

you disgust me with your pro doping rants,the Blood of all dead cyclists are on the hands of Armstrong,pantani,mercx,virenque,cipo,olano etc.....
they will rot in hell for doing what they have done


funny i never heard anyone being called trolls before lance used it
 

Beastt

New Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,143
0
0
Patrick1983 said:
lets not get off the subject of the thread

lance has always claimed that a certain amount of weight loss was key to his improvment but he has not lost any weight

75k before and after cancer

common sense dictates that it is impossible to finish in the top 15-20 of the tour without doping and cheating

Phillipe Gilbert,David Moncoutie,Paul Kimmage,Christophe Bassons,greg lemond etc... have all come out and said cycling is riddled with drugs

why do we refuse to take our heads out of the sand?
because lance is our hero

it doesn't say much for your sad pathetic lives that you are so desperate to defend a guy whose actions have been a disgrace (Chasing,simeoni,getting rid of basons,ekimov spitting at simeoni)

after listening to his speech about the doubters of cycling,i had to laugh
lance-do you honestly belive people are that stupid that they take your achievments seriously?

seeing his mother claim that it was her work ethic that she gave to him that made his success was laughable

sadly not linda,your son is a scumbag who cheats his way to the top and wrecks the hopes of the guys who should be winning the tour

I have to wonder from where you obtained your information. According to the August 2005 issue of Bicycling magazine, Lances weight in 1992 was 173.9 pounds and in 1999 it was 158.7 pounds. It's worth nothing that his power output in 1992 was 374 watts while in 1999 it was 404. That represents an 18% increase in his power to weight ratio.

While people can speculate all they want about drug use, the fact remains that he's never tested positive for any banned substance. And an 18% improvement in power to weight ratio is more than sufficient to explain the improvement in his performance since his pre-cancer races.
 

Bigclimber

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
10
0
0
limerickman said:
Because it's revisionist, that's why.

The defence of "well he has never failed a test" has little or no credibility.
David Millar, Richard Virenque, Johan Musseuw, never failed tests either.

LA was a great one day rider before his cancer - his career trajectory at that point indicated to me that he ought to have gone on to be a one day winner or 5-10 stage race winner.
Period.

There was no indication - absolutely zero indication that he had any real prospect of ever winning one TDF, never mind 7 T'sDF.

It is as Miguel Indurain said in Graham Watson's tribute book to LA "Images of a Champion", that "no one considered LA of being capable of winning one TDF, never mind 5 T'sDF (as it was at the time)".

Something changed.

File LA under the same category as Flo-Jo.
We can't deny that they both won - but their performances lack trust and credibility.
A hypothetical career trajectory did not include cancer recovery, and the indisputable fact that his body changed tremendously....anyone with funcional eyesight can observe the differences in LA''s body pre to post cancer. Many sources state racing weights for LA post cancer 10-15 lbs. less than pre cancer. Zero (meaning NO) indication that he would ever win a TDF???:confused:
I think an analysis of all the TDF's would suggest that more than a few winners had pre-win records less stellar than LA.
 

Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
Michele Ferrari's blood doping credentials are stellar.

How dare you minimize his great blood doping achievements?

Sure he had many failures. But then he had Moser & Indurain (along with Conconi) before he moved on with Evgeni Berzin, Tony Rominger and Lance Armstrong.

The key to endurance sport is 'sustainable power'. Bllod doping modifies this power aspect more than any other element.

Follow the blood and you will find the truth.



Bigclimber said:
A hypothetical career trajectory did not include cancer recovery, and the indisputable fact that his body changed tremendously....anyone with funcional eyesight can observe the differences in LA''s body pre to post cancer. Many sources state racing weights for LA post cancer 10-15 lbs. less than pre cancer. Zero (meaning NO) indication that he would ever win a TDF???:confused:
I think an analysis of all the TDF's would suggest that more than a few winners had pre-win records less stellar than LA.