Originally Posted by
ilovecycling
So everywhere I look, I see videos and photos of guys that literally look unhealthy. Their resting heart rates are below 40, they have great endurance, and so on..BUT are they really healthy people? To me, they look like cancer patients on the bucket list. They have no muscle mass on their upper bodies, their eyes are sunken in, and their skin sometimes looks saggy and wrinkly like girls with anorexia or bulimia. Having a low RHR and good endurance doesn't mean you aren't putting stress on the other systems and functions of your body.
A few of the elite don't look quite as bad, like Lance Armstrong for example. This guy has broad shoulders, six-pack abs, and looks like he has a healthy body type overall. From what I understand, he does some serious strength training when he's not on the bike. This has been a key part of his success, no?
So why do so many "weight weenies" really think that the aerodynamic benefits of having the upper body of a cancer patient outweigh (no pun intended) the benefits of having total body health and a stronger upper body and core? To me, it almost seems like a cycler's disease that's equivalent to anorexia with teenage girls.
What do you guys think? I personally don't believe that you need to look sick to be a great cyclist, or even the best cyclist in the world.
I know what you mean, but you're looking through a pretty narrow scope. These people are extreme athletes. They get paid to ride well, and they do a ton of specialized training.
Most of what you see on tv is when the athletes are peaked for a specific race. The races are hard, the athletes look like hell, they have to survive. A couple of days after the race they look like a whole different person.