Q. wrote:It's difficult to understand why he was using (was he really?) Clenbuterol. It's not a steroid and for a high performance athlete like himself, there just doesn't seem to be any benefit in using it.
It aids recovery, like all steroids, taken on the rest day of Le Tour to help him be better able to perform in the last week. Not by much but every little 0.0001% helps in eltie sport, especially if it makes you feel you're better recovered an able to tackle those mountains.
Just admit it Alberto...
Clenbuterol is not a steroid and I can't fathom how it would ever aid recovery.
Clenbuterol is a β2 agonist with some structural and pharmacological similarities to epinephrine and salbutamol, but its effects are more potent and longer-lasting as a stimulant and thermogenic drug.
It causes an increase in aerobic capacity, central nervous system stimulation, and an increase in blood pressure and oxygen transportation. It increases the rate at which body fat is metabolized while increasing the body's BMR.[1] It is commonly used for smooth muscle relaxant properties. This means that it is a bronchodilator and tocolytic.
Clenbuterol is usually used in dosages anywhere from 20-60 micrograms (mcg) a day when prescribed. A dose of about 120 mcg (women) or 140 mcg (men) should never be exceeded in a day.
Clenbuterol is also prescribed for treatment of horses; however, equine use is usually the liquid form of clenbuterol.
First off i i dont agree with drugs in sport whatever they are, BUT i thought that when he was initially found with it in his urine and later his blood sample - the level was below the "illegal" amount.. so my question is why did it ever go this far? surely yes he tested positive to it but he wasnt over the limit that they test for.. kinda like getting breath tested, you blow .02 but you are still under the magical .05 that they test for...
i could be wrong but thats what i remember
thoughts?
on another note have been moved up a grade in the crits so look forward to challenging myself against some faster riders.. with the season now almost over time to get back into footy.. haha
spot on ps ... regardless of Contador's guilt or otherwise and the morality of taking performance enhancing substances, I suspect he has a very strong legal case as you have quite correctly pointed out, the amount detected was way, way below previously recorded measurements.
Shimano gearsets in descending order: dura-ace, ultegra, 105, tiagra
I have ultegra circa 2008 on my alloy frame.
How would a current (2012) 105 compare to my 2008 ultegra?
I'm more than happy with my bike but carbon frames are now sub $2,000 with 105 gear ... 4 years ago you'd have to pay high $2,000s.
From my understanding shimano work like this.. Dura-ace model in 2009 becomes Ultegra model in 2010, 105 model in 2011.. not sure about the tiagra, i wouldnt touch it
so your current 105 would be 2010 Dura-ace which would be better than your 2007 Dura-ace which later became ultegra 2008.
Make sense??
someone please correct me if im wrong or have heard different!
Hmmm could be interested but I'm concerned with the size. Would that size suit a bloke who is a whisker under 6ft?
im not 100 percent sure man, id hate to say yes and it didnt fit you. im around 5'10 and i had spacers below the head tube and the seat post was no way near the whole way up.
Hmmm could be interested but I'm concerned with the size. Would that size suit a bloke who is a whisker under 6ft?
im not 100 percent sure man, id hate to say yes and it didnt fit you. im around 5'10 and i had spacers below the head tube and the seat post was no way near the whole way up.
pig_skin wrote:From my understanding shimano work like this.. Dura-ace model in 2009 becomes Ultegra model in 2010, 105 model in 2011.. not sure about the tiagra, i wouldnt touch it
so your current 105 would be 2010 Dura-ace which would be better than your 2007 Dura-ace which later became ultegra 2008.
Make sense??
someone please correct me if im wrong or have heard different!
Not according to a couple of mates who sleep in lycra.
The newer groupsets are better than the old I'm told, so 105 (2012) is better then ultegra (2008), but it doesn't cycle through the years as you suggest.
My Ultegra groupset is 6600, whilst the current is 6700, so there has only been one (I think) upgrade in that time.
I'm no expert on the mechanical hardware of bikes, I just know they are part of a piece of machinery that makes we sweat and swear, but I thought the biggest difference in the groupsets is the actual metal/alloy they are made of. Dura-ace is made of a of lighter but more hard wearing alloy than the ultegra and likewise the ultegra is lighter and more dureable than the 105. So whilst the advancement in the mechanisms get passed down the line with the newer models the materials don't actually change.
happy to be corrected.
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
yeah If I want to improve my cycling efficiency and ease of climbing Hills it is better, cheaper and easier for me to reduce my mass rather than reducing the mass of my bike....
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
I've lost 9 kgs and need to do that again ... well that's over 2 bikes worth so a few grams here or there really isn't going to make that much difference I suspect.
dedja wrote:I think most of that is correct ... but I suspect there's continual advancement in both the mechanism and materials.
In any case, I don't think someone of my limited ability would really notice the difference between a 105 and ultegra groupset!
i run a 105 groupset on my bike at the moment for racing and dont have any problems with it.. i figured with the smashing of gears i do in racing would rather break a 105 groupo than a sram red..
haha
