Dave Z's ITT win.

Follow this link to a video of Dave Z's prolog win as seen from CSC's follow
car with Bjarne. The video took a bit to download for me but it was worth
the wait.

http://www.cervelo.com/movieviewer.aspx?id=7

Kam

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005

Food for thought....literally.

I saw this from Joe Friel's latest newsletter and it hit a home run with me so I'm sharing.

Around the time of the Tour de France there are often questions about how an athlete should go about losing weight in order to climb better. There’s little doubt that being lighter means climbing faster. Pro cyclists who contend for the yellow jersey, the polka dot jersey or who need to support their team leader in the Alps and Pyrenees try to be lean by the time the terrain turns upward. The best climbers are generally less than 2 pounds of body weight for every inch of height (divide your weight in pounds by your height in inches to find this number). It’s rare to find a rider in the pro peloton at 2.5 pounds per inch or greater. A lot of them who are not climbing specialists are around 2.1 to 2.2. The latest average I have for the TdF field shows an average of 2.151 pounds per inch (thanks to Gregory Byerline for providing that data).

Every pound of excess fat shaved from your body saves you about 3 watts in a climb. In running it is something like 2 seconds per mile per excess pound in a race. For most endurance athletes, a 1-point shift in weight-to-height ratio means about 5 percent loss of weight—around a 7- to 9-pound loss of love handles. That can be done safely over a two-month period if there is a big A-race with lots of climbing or the need to run faster on the calendar a couple of months from now.

How is it best for an athlete to lose weight? Unfortunately, there have been few studies of serious athletes that looked at this question.

One group of researchers, however, has examined the issue in an interesting way. They compared eating less to exercising more to see which was more effective in dropping excess body fat.

They had six endurance-trained men create a 1,000-calorie-per-day deficit for seven days by either exercising more while maintaining their caloric intake, or by eating less while keeping exercise the same. With 1,000 calories of increased exercise daily—comparable to running an additional 8 miles or so each day—the men averaged 1.67 pounds of weight loss in a week. The subjects eating 1,000 fewer calories each day lost 4.75 pounds on average for the week.

So, according to this study, the old adage that “a calorie is a calorie” doesn’t hold true. At least in the short term, restricting food intake appears to have a greater return on the scales than does increasing training workload.

Notice that I said “on the scales.” The reduced-food-intake group in this study unfortunately lost a greater percentage of muscle mass than did the increased-exercise group. That is an ineffective way to lose weight. If the scales show you’re lighter, but you have less muscle to create power, the trade-off is not a good one.

How can you reduce calories yet maintain muscle mass? Unfortunately, that question hasn’t been answered for athletes, but it has been for sedentary women. Perhaps the conclusions are still applicable to athletes.

In 1994, Italian researchers had 25 women eat only 800 calories a day for 21 days. Ten ate a relatively high-protein and low-carbohydrate diet. Fifteen ate a low-protein and high-carbohydrate diet. Both were restricted to 20 percent of calories from fat. The two groups lost similar amounts of weight, but there was a significantly greater loss of muscle on the high-carbohydrate, low-protein diet. It appears that when calories are reduced to lose weight, which is more effective than increasing training workload, the protein content of the diet must be kept at near normal levels. This, of course, assumes that you’re eating adequate protein before starting the diet, which many athletes aren’t. When training hard, a quality source of protein should be included in every meal, especially when trying to lose weight.

Joe Friel is president and founder of Ultrafit Associates and the author of the Training Bible book series. For more information on training, racing and coaching go to www.Ultrafit.com

Kam Zardouzian Chief Instigator Raceplan Coaching & Racing Kam@Raceplan.com www.raceplan.com tel: mobile: 858-414-2624 858-414-2624

Add me to your address book... Want a signature like this?

Taking time off

A question about taking time off was posed recently.

Question: I am thinking now of starting up my training in a more serious form after I get to Santa Cruz in September (or when I get back here in October). I know that I should take some time off, but I am not sure how much and when. my goal is to train for next season

Answer: Taking time off is one of the trickiest things in cycling. It needs to happen but everyone reacts differently to it. One big mistake is that people take complete time off from the bike as well as physical activity. That's a mistake in my opinion, especially if you're healthy....i.e. if an injury is not forcing you away from activity.

Taking time off is meant to let your little sores and aches heal, get your body to use different muscles, and your mind to refreshen itself. I usually take one big two week break from the bike but substitute the hours away from riding with tennis, hiking, running, yoga, surfing, etc. I also take at least two one week or partial week times off in the middle of the season but totally reduce all activity and let my body heal from things....you'll get to appreciate the need for these little breaks as you age!

No matter what you do, the biggest favor you can do for yourself is to free your mind from any angst of being away from riding when you do take time off. For example, on my recent surf trip to Sinaloa where riding a bike was just not happening, I simply made peace with that fact and enjoyed all the other activities that were available to me. Certainly 4-7 hours of surfing every day did the job nicely, but I also threw in some fast paced walking and canoeing to mix it up. It took me a day and a half to let it all go and while my body recovered from the specific demands of riding, I also let my mind refreshen itself from the demands of "being on" with training and racing.

Coming back home and resuming training was done very gradually and to say I eased into it is an understatement. I always feel a bit awkward getting back on the bike after some time but I know through experience that fitness will come back, form will comeback, strength will come back much better if your time off the bike is one that maintains your fitness while refreshes your mind.

My suggestion is to take 10-14 days from riding certainly to coincide with your trip to Peru where I'm sure you'll do some hiking. But also for when you get back. Your move to and from Chicago has a physiological and psychological cost, even if you think you can just push through. Allow yourself a few days of moderate activity to settle down from the energy you spend moving. Then get into it gradually and with ease.

Your season is a way off and you have loads of time. You don't need to be peaked anytime soon so focus on enjoying your life!

Are you happy to see lance retire?

Some food for thought on this beautiful Monday.

There is loads of hoopla in the news about Lance and his retirement.  I've been running an informal poll on my web site for the past week asking if people are happy to see him retire (www.receplan.com).  As of today, 27 votes for yes, 10 for no.

I intentionally left the language loose because I wanted to capture as many reasons as possible as to why people are happy or not to see Lance retire. Now that enough sample votes are in for me to guess what the results are, I'm starting to wonder what those reasons might really be.  For example, could people be happy to see Lance retire because they're bored watching him dominate the Tour?  do they have Lance-Lash?  Or, do they just dislike Lance?  How many of my voters are US residents versus, say, from France or Germany where love for Lance is scarce. Or, looking at it from a complete different angle, what portion of these folks is happy to see Lance retire so he can spend time with his kids, spend all his hard earned money, run for public office and sing back up for Sheryl Crow?

How about the loyal fans who are not happy to see him retire.  They obviously connect with him in some way.  How many might be cancer survivors who see Lance as a source of hope?  How many are new to cycling and have not yet built immunity to the Lance Lone Star?  How many are kids?  How many women and how many men?

What ever the reasons might be, I know that as much as I have experienced Lance-Lash, I still get goose bumps watching some of the classic footage of him tear up the competition.  I get goose bumps knowing I ran into him at the 1988 Texas Hill Country Triathlon, where the brash 15 year old was weaving stories about his girl friend.  I still get goose bumps thinking this kid came back from near death to do what has never been done.  All of these reasons, in addition to the ones I can't currently think of, motivate me to excel in my life...in all areas of my life.

The big question for me is whether I'd still get these nostalgic feelings about the power of Lance if he had not retired.  For now, I will access my memory banks for the images, sounds and files of this amazing human being and marvel at this impact on the human race at this specific moment in time.

Long Live Lance!

Kam

Competitor's Radio Show Podcast meeting. Bob's ready to rumble......

Competitor podcasting meeting. Bob looks ready to digitize!