Peter Attia· MD
it's not that they've gone up that much on Watts their absolute wattage is sign significantly lower than what it was 20 years ago they've just gone down so much on weight
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
it's not that they've gone up that much on Watts their absolute wattage is sign significantly lower than what it was 20 years ago they've just gone down so much on weight
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
if you look at the GC contenders today these guys are 58 kilos I mean they're very small so in cycling if we think about it as watts per kilo it's not that they've gone up that much on Watts their absolute wattage is sign significantly lower than what it was 20 years ago they've just gone down so much on weight
if you're in the grand tours all three of which are basically built around climbing watts per kilo is ultimately the metric now we can debate whether you can get a more optimal watts per kilo at a slightly higher weight than a slightly lower weight but you know clearly you're not going to see people winning a a grand tour at 80 kilos or 75 kilos I think those days are probably gone