Armstrong's lactate threshold

[BroDeal]

From another thread:

If you want to know more go look at Scientific American June 96 page 47-49 : LA's lactate threshold was at a dismal 75%. Which may not be so bad for a 1-day racer, but obviously totally inadequate for a TdF winner wannabe.

Does anyone have this issue of Scientic American? This would destroy the often quoted story of Armstrong's superior lactate threshold.

 

[Willy_Voet]

Edit: I stand corrected. I swear I searched the article for 'lactate', then 'threshold'. It only highlighted the section below...

But biokemguy is correct, later in the article they state the 75% --> 79% lactate threshold improvement.

 

[BroDeal]

Thanks.

That Vo2Max (80) is even lower than the usual figure bandied about (82 or so).

 

[L29205]

Here is the section of the article referencing lactate thresholds. Most of the article is about how the Olympic training centers are trying to improve the athletes through training and changes in position on the bike, etc.

Physiologists also assess two other
benchmarks of performance—how efficiently
the athlete uses oxygen and how
quickly lactate builds up in the muscles.
This latter measurement, the lactate
threshold, is represented as a percentage
of VO2max. It is at the threshold that
lactate begins to accumulate, causing
pain and burning.
At the training center, Armstrong’s
lactate threshold measured 75 percent,
which was 10 percentage points less than
the average for the best cyclists on the
U.S. national team.

 

[Willy_Voet]

That 82 is not far off and these kinds of things fluctuate all the time. Keep in mind if you chop non-essential body parts off, the VO2 max goes up as it is mL of oxygen per kg of body weight. One could easily lose 2.5% body mass with a hand removed or something.

Alternately, dehydration is a common explanation for all sorts of things. A 170 lb rider could easily lose 4 to 5 lbs of water and still do a VO2 max test.

 

[biokemguy]

more data

later in the article

Examining every aspect of Armstrong’s
performance has improved his
readiness for the Olympics. His lactate
threshold has increased from 75 to 79
percent.

Other info from the same article, that may or may not perpetuate the myth:

Armstrong
registered the highest
VO2max of any U.S. cycler. When performing
at this peak level, he was able
to marshal a world-class 525 watts of
pedaling power.

VO2max was reported at 80ml/kg/min

 

[Rip:30]

later in the article



Other info from the same article, that may or may not perpetuate the myth:



VO2max was reported at 80ml/kg/min

Good point. VO2max is a way over-interpreted metric.

VO2max only measures how much O2 you can actually absorb. (or maybe it's interpolated from how much CO2 you release?)

Either way, ability to do work with a given amount of O2 is not constant across athletes.

Therefore two athletes with the same VO2max may be producing different power outputs.

This is only one reason why VO2max is not a good predictor of athletic performance. Even if that performance is one performed at VO2max intensity, which most bike races aren't.

In fact, efficiency maybe inversely correlated to VO2max, at least in marathoners.

 

[Rip:30]

later in the article



Other info from the same article, that may or may not perpetuate the myth:



VO2max was reported at 80ml/kg/min

Thread is about power at threshold, which is also not predictable from VO2max.

VO2max is thought to be limited by the heart's ability to move blood and by the bloods ability per volume unit to carry O2.

LT is multifactorial and is probably limited by peripheral stuff such as density and capacity of mitochondria in muscles.

 

[syringelessss]

Fraudulent Lance

I recommend the book From Lance to Landis which explores Lance's US Postal and Discovery Channel accomplishments.

According to the book, Lance's V02 was much less than LeMond's, for example, and he actually had GAINED weight after his bout with cancer. Plus, there apparently is a direct link between testosterone use and testicular cancer.

I love watching pro cycling, but like weight lifting events, the NFL, and horse racing, it is a joke as far as drug use.

Lance was quoted by his former masseuse as saying he liked staying at hotels with pictures on the walls, so he could remove the pictures and hang his IV bags from the hooks....

 

[Polish]

Could one expect the numbers to change between the years 1996 and 1999 or later?

When Lance was tested for Scientific American in 1996, there probably was a cancer growing in his body. That may well have affected the 1996 numbers and I would think that a profound transformation would soon happen during his life and death "ordeal'. I don't mean to sound morbid, but when Lance made the announcement he had cancer way back then, I truly thought he would soon transform himself into being dead, sad face.

Luckily, he transformed into a healthy rider again duh, and combined with the reduced weight, higher cadence, weighing food, oxygen tent sleeping, race course checking, training like a madman, laser-like focus on the Tour,
the transformation combined with all that led to his buttkicking performance.

Did Scientific American do a follow up study post-cancer?

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

Usually they say lactic acid doesn't matter anymore.

The guy who wrote this wikipedia piece seems to agree:

There have been many myths swirling around lactic acid and how it impairs performance in recent years. Scientists have ignored these myths and it is now believed that lactic acid may actually provide another source of fuel or energy for active muscles. Lactic acid is still believed to cause the burning sensation during intense fitness, however, new research has confirmed that the muscle soreness you would experience after a long duration of activity is actually caused by microscopic tears and trauma to the muscles and inflammation.[4] Now Lactic acid is known as another important fuel source for the muscles of the body. Lactic acid is created from glucose which is used by active muscles for energy. It is thought that the muscle cells of our body are converting this glucose to lactic acid and then the lactic is absorbed and converted by mitochondria to fuel for muscle cells. So by training at a high intensity, you are not only getting in a good work out, but your body is creating additional proteins that help in absorbing and converting lactic acid to energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactic_acid

 

[ergmonkey]

Does anybody here know how the article was defining "lactate threshold"? Was it just 4mmol, or did they have a more sophisticated method? Also, did the article say what test protocol was used for the VO2 Max test?

Also, thanks for the link, Eyjafjallajokull. There is some serious debate about the role of lactic acid in performance, to be sure. If you want to see another approach, check out the "lactate balance point" test--a measure of heart rate and lactate clearing capacity (it does not deal with power at all).

As has been pointed out already, VO2 Max is not a great indicator of Tour performance--it's best suited, actually, to measuring a pursuiter's potential. Measuring lactate threshold in terms of percentage of VO2 Max really only tells you how flat a rider's power curve is (i.e. how much of a diesel engine are you looking at).

 

[davidg]

Usually they say lactic acid doesn't matter anymore.
The guy who wrote this wikipedia piece seems to agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactic_acid

that is not what he is saying. He is saying that the mechanism is not what was previously thought, not that it doesn't matter. It is still a physical effect that occurs at a point relative to exercise effort

 

[hfer07]

As far as I know, that myth has been busted a couple years ago......

 

[Rip:30]

Usually they say lactic acid doesn't matter anymore.

The guy who wrote this wikipedia piece seems to agree:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactic_acid

An absolute fail of a wiki article.

Probably written by your typical cycling coach/personal trainer/supplement salesperson type that likes to describe some made up some cause and effect system, which for a fee, they can tell you how to manipulate in order to maximize your performances/body image.

That lactate can be converted to glucose through gluconeogenesis is nothing new. Not so sure that's done directly in the mitochondria, though.

Lactic acid is not a protein as claimed. It's a carbohydrate.

Also the paragraph has nothing to do with LT or how it relates to cycling. Probably written more with weight training in mind, given the language used.

 

[Bagster]

From another thread:



Does anyone have this issue of Scientic American? This would destroy the often quoted story of Armstrong's superior lactate threshold.

Lol Brodeal, bet you are wishing that you hadn't started this post hateboy...you really need do do more research before you rush to get the knives out

 

[adambarnes]

the wiki article does not have much in the way of references when it comes to some of the claims... (translation, much of that wiki article is opinion only)

 

[BroDeal]

Lol Brodeal, bet you are wishing that you hadn't started this post hateboy...you really need do do more research before you rush to get the knives out

LOL. Bagster, maybe you should follow your own advice. The article says just what Le Breton says: The much ballyhooed super high lactate threshold of Armstrong is bunk; his LT was below average on the national team.

 

[BroDeal]

the wiki article does not have much in the way of references when it comes to some of the claims... (translation, much of that wiki article is opinion only)

In many cases they have cherry picked their facts to prop up the laughable explanations for Armstrong's massive mid-career improvement. The alleged weight loss given is garbage. The doping section reads like it was written by Armstrong's PR team.

 

[python]

Does anybody here know how the article was defining "lactate threshold"? Was it just 4mmol, or did they have a more sophisticated method? Also, did the article say what test protocol was used for the VO2 Max test?

Also, thanks for the link, Eyjafjallajokull. There is some serious debate about the role of lactic acid in performance, to be sure. If you want to see another approach, check out the "lactate balance point" test--a measure of heart rate and lactate clearing capacity (it does not deal with power at all).

As has been pointed out already, VO2 Max is not a great indicator of Tour performance--it's best suited, actually, to measuring a pursuiter's potential. Measuring lactate threshold in terms of percentage of VO2 Max really only tells you how flat a rider's power curve is (i.e. how much of a diesel engine are you looking at).

bingo (bolded).

there are several definitions and whilst they are close, a difference in just several percentage points would render all conclusions useless.

that's why this type of thread is as useful to true learning as threads on vam and watts proving/not proving doping.

ps. by the smell of times, i think they were talking about about 4mmol, not obla.

 

[syringelessss]

Could one expect the numbers to change between the years 1996 and 1999 or later?

When Lance was tested for Scientific American in 1996, there probably was a cancer growing in his body. That may well have affected the 1996 numbers and I would think that a profound transformation would soon happen during his life and death "ordeal'. I don't mean to sound morbid, but when Lance made the announcement he had cancer way back then, I truly thought he would soon transform himself into being dead, sad face.

Luckily, he transformed into a healthy rider again duh, and combined with the reduced weight, higher cadence, weighing food, oxygen tent sleeping, race course checking, training like a madman, laser-like focus on the Tour,
the transformation combined with all that led to his buttkicking performance.

Did Scientific American do a follow up study post-cancer?

From Lance to Landis did not refer to a Scientific American study, but to one conducted by a physician whose name I do not recall.

The initial testing was done in 1992, I believe, and the subsequent testing in 1999. Lance claims that he dropped something like 20 lbs. in between, when in fact he actually had gained a bit.

I used to be a huge Lance fan - I even had lunch with him in 2001 - but I've since learned differently about professional cycling. I also reference Ricco, Basso, Ullrich, Pantani, Pellizotti, Hamilton, Valverde, Schumacher, Kohl, Philippe Gilbert (my prediction), etc., etc., etc.

It's a fascinating book, even if you don't believe the premise. I recommend it highly.

 

[elapid]

From Lance to Landis did not refer to a Scientific American study, but to one conducted by a physician whose name I do not recall.

The physiologist's name is Coyle.

His claim that Lance lost weight was based on Lance telling him that his racing weight was 72kg in 1999 (Lance later admitted in the SCA trial that this was later incorrect and that it was more likely 74kg). This weight was never measured by Coyle. Furthermore, Coyle compared this reported weight to LA's off season weights in 1993 and 1995, not his racing weights in those seasons. Lastly, Coyle reported LA's off season weight in 1999 and it was in fact heavier than his 1993 and 1995 weights.

Why use an unmeasured racing weight in 1999?
Why use an unmeasured racing weight in 1999 and compare it to off season weights in 1993 and 1995, especially when you have the off season weight for 1999?

This paper just served to perpetuate the LA myth. Funnily enough, LA has uses this paper as proof of his weight loss and power-to-weight ratio improvements as explanations for his post-cancer transformation, but he started it in the first place and it is all bogus anyway.

 

[Polish]

"War - What is it Good For"

From Lance to Landis did not refer to a Scientific American study, but to one conducted by a physician whose name I do not recall.

The initial testing was done in 1992, I believe, and the subsequent testing in 1999. Lance claims that he dropped something like 20 lbs. in between, when in fact he actually had gained a bit.

I used to be a huge Lance fan - I even had lunch with him in 2001 - but I've since learned differently about professional cycling. I also reference Ricco, Basso, Ullrich, Pantani, Pellizotti, Hamilton, Valverde, Schumacher, Kohl, Philippe Gilbert (my prediction), etc., etc., etc.

It's a fascinating book, even if you don't believe the premise. I recommend it highly.

Lance's weight loss post-cancer is not as important as the other factors that led to his TdF Dominance. I have ranked the factors below in order of importance, 1 being the most important:

1) Post Cancer Mind-Body Transformation
2) Lazer-Like Focus on the TdF
3) His Team Mates
4) Training Training Training Training
5) Training at Altitude
666) EPO/Blood Doping
7)Tactical Genius for a DS
8) Focus on Diet, Weighing his Food, Targeted Weight Loss
9) Higher Cadence
10) Sleeping in a Tent
11) Race Course Recons
12) Assos Chamois Creme
13) Inspiration & Motivation from the Fan's.

See, weight loss was not that important...

C'mon syringelessss, come back over to the FanBoy side.
The fanboys turned haters are not nearly as fun as the fanboys turned haters turned fanboys gain.

But I will put your book recommendation onto to my must-read list.
Although I still have to work my way through Ulysses, Atlas Shrugged, the Complete Works of Mark Twain, Robert Heinlein, Leo Tolstoy - and a re-read of my COBOL college text.

 

[syringelessss]

I would place your 666 at 111 instead, although I agree with many of your other factors, especially the higher cadence, Bruneel, altitude training and course recons.

Atlas Shrugged is a hopeless case, although I made it through The Foundtainhead, and We The Living actually is one of my favorite books.

I just think pro cycling would be more fun and honest if the UCI permitted doping like the NFL and horse racing do, and baseball did in the 1990s.

 

[Wallace]

Lance's weight loss post-cancer is not as important as the other factors that led to his TdF Dominance. I have ranked the factors below in order of importance, 1 being the most important:

1) Post Cancer Mind-Body Transformation
2) Lazer-Like Focus on the TdF
3) His Team Mates
4) Training Training Training Training
5) Training at Altitude
666) EPO/Blood Doping
7)Tactical Genius for a DS
8) Focus on Diet, Weighing his Food, Targeted Weight Loss
9) Higher Cadence
10) Sleeping in a Tent
11) Race Course Recons
12) Assos Chamois Creme
13) Inspiration & Motivation from the Fan's.

See, weight loss was not that important...

Ahh, the myth. It's a good myth, as fantastic invented stories go. Not as good a myth as Sisyphus or Theseus and Ariadne or the Tooth Fairy, but marginally better than Big Foot. At about the same level of believability as Paul Bunyan and his Blue Ox, Babe.