The mystery of Lances lost body weight

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

The myth is he lost 20% of his body weight with no loss in power

this would mean him losing totally fat and no muscle which anyone in medicene will tell you is impossible

plus back in 1994 pre-cancer he stated he was "165 pounds" which is according to my maths 75 kg

http://outside.away.com/magazine/0794/947flanc_2.html

today on the official tour website he claims to be 75 kg which means a grand total percentage of

0 yes 0% weight loss

can some one please explain who came up with this myth that he lost 20% of his body weight:confused:

The myth is he lost 20% of his body weight with no loss in power

this would mean him losing totally fat and no muscle which anyone in medicene will tell you is impossible

plus back in 1994 pre-cancer he stated he was "165 pounds" which is according to my maths 75 kg

http://outside.away.com/magazine/0794/947flanc_2.html

today on the official tour website he claims to be 75 kg which means a grand total percentage of

0 yes 0% weight loss

can some one please explain who came up with this myth that he lost 20% of his body weight:confused:

Personally, I've never heard that myth before. Most of the figures I've seen say he lost 10 pounds. I'm not sure how you come up with the statement that if he didn't lose power, he must have only lost fat. You can certainly lose weight off your upper body, and power is not 100% connected to muscle mass. This is an aerobic sport after all.

The myth is he lost 20% of his body weight with no loss in power

this would mean him losing totally fat and no muscle which anyone in medicene will tell you is impossible

plus back in 1994 pre-cancer he stated he was "165 pounds" which is according to my maths 75 kg

http://outside.away.com/magazine/0794/947flanc_2.html

today on the official tour website he claims to be 75 kg which means a grand total percentage of

0 yes 0% weight loss

can some one please explain who came up with this myth that he lost 20% of his body weight:confused:
Everything I have read says 10-15lbs and it was all the extra muscle from his upperbody from swimming. Go find a pre cancer pic of Lance and you'll see it's quite obvious.

^^^^^ I heard the same thing as House ... 10 - 15lbs, upper body weight from swimming ...

^^^^^ I heard the same thing as House ... 10 - 15lbs, upper body weight from swimming ...
my point is that can anyone explain the improvment in his climbing when he weighs the exact same as he did pre cancer

my point is that can anyone explain the improvment in his climbing when he weighs the exact same as he did pre cancer

He moved the main muscle mass to where he needed it. All his muscles atrophied during the cancer battle. When he went back to training he developed where he needed to.

Your body will develop where it needs to. Lance clearly has less upper body mass now than his pre-cancer physique.

Coming back from cancer allowed him to use his knowledge to sculpt himself into the cyclist he needed to be.

He moved the main muscle mass to where he needed it. All his muscles atrophied during the cancer battle. When he went back to training he developed where he needed to.

Your body will develop where it needs to. Lance clearly has less upper body mass now than his pre-cancer physique.

Coming back from cancer allowed him to use his knowledge to sculpt himself into the cyclist he needed to be.
how exactly do you dictate where you want muscle?

you cycle a bike ,you cannot dictate where the muscle goes

it is all lies imo

the reason for the improvment is DRUGS

how exactly do you dictate where you want muscle?

you cycle a bike ,you cannot dictate where the muscle goes

it is all lies imo

the reason for the improvment is DRUGS

So... your first post was just a troll? You're right. There's no possible way to improve on the bike if your weight stays the same. Hmmm. I'll have to rethink my training.

how exactly do you dictate where you want muscle?

you cycle a bike ,you cannot dictate where the muscle goes

it is all lies imo

the reason for the improvment is DRUGS
Perhaps you should do some research before making a comment as stupid as this.

Two comments:

1) Anyone who thinks you can't dictate where you make muscle gains is simply someone with absolutely no knowledge of what he is talking about.

2) Notice how Flyer conveniently goes away from the discussion into another tirade...the one based on his latest google find...which he has posted at least 10 times, at least 8 of which were in one thread.

When house learns our sport--you can listen to him.

It will be a very long wait.

Otherwise his silly posts are just commercial noise for the theater of the absurd

Get busy learning to ride track now. btw: we race counterclockwise there.
Nice comeback coward (still waiting for the response to my last PM about that track race, but then I did say you were to much of a coward to respond!)

Why don't you try (for once) to have an actual comeback to what was posted???


I'll help you out: Try arguing against what I said in #1

Are you up for it coward or will you just repost some old tirade?

Two comments:

1) Anyone who thinks you can't dictate where you make muscle gains is simply someone with absolutely no knowledge of what he is talking about.

2) Notice how Flyer conveniently goes away from the discussion into another tirade...the one based on his latest google find...which he has posted at least 10 times, at least 8 of which were in one thread.

You're on the money House with both comments.


I used to dig ditches for a living and have the arms, upper body strength and size to prove it. Hard physical labor caused my body to develop where it needed to. I didn't need steroids to get 17" arms. However because of my size, I pay dearly on rides.
Lance built his muscles where he needed them, core strength and legs. Of course the cardio too.

I'm getting so tired of Flyer hijacking threads and beating us over the head with his incessant dope rants. Fine, he has an opinion and I respect that, but I'm sure tired of reading it everywhere.

HOUSE

you are clearly a pro doper



DRUG CHEATS OUT!!!

You're on the money House with both comments.


I used to dig ditches for a living and have the arms, upper body strength and size to prove it. Hard physical labor caused my body to develop where it needed to. I didn't need steroids to get 17" arms. However because of my size, I pay dearly on rides.
Lance built his muscles where he needed them, core strength and legs. Of course the cardio too.

I'm getting so tired of Flyer hijacking threads and beating us over the head with his incessant dope rants. Fine, he has an opinion and I respect that, but I'm sure tired of reading it everywhere.
I couldn't have said it any better myself, except possibly to add that having an opinion is one thing, not being able to recognize it as an opinion rather than established fact, is another.

Great post, Lumpy!

(Of course you do know you'll be referred to as "a doping apologist" now.) ;)

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

HOUSE

you are clearly a pro doper



DRUG CHEATS OUT!!!
And you clearly another idiot. Still waiting for you to respond to all the comments about how you can dictate where you put on muscle. You have chosen the path of the biggest moron on these forums, calling anyone who doesn't agree with you "pro doping." Here is a challenge for you, should you be man enough to accept it::

1)Show me one post I have made where I say I am for doping
2)Show one medical study that proves that you can't "dictate where muscle goes"

I am guessing you won't accept the challenge and will simply respond like the post I am responding to. Do you have the balls to give it a try?

And you clearly another idiot. Still waiting for you to respond to all the comments about how you can dictate where you put on muscle. You have chosen the path of the biggest moron on these forums, calling anyone who doesn't agree with you "pro doping." Here is a challenge for you, should you be man enough to accept it::

1)Show me one post I have made where I say I am for doping
2)Show one medical study that proves that you can't "dictate where muscle goes"

I am guessing you won't accept the challenge and will simply respond like the post I am responding to. Do you have the balls to give it a try? obviously you can dictate where muscle goe by training that area
weightlifting=upper body
cycling=legs etc.....

so i was wrong,sorry!


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

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!!!

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?

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.

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.