• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team. Thanks!

Cadel vs Lance - RIDE magazine article

Apr 16, 2009
394
0
0
The latest Ride Cycling Review includes an interesting article by Dr David T. Martin from the AIS comparing the physiology of Cadel Evans and Lance Armstrong. It finds that LA is not a physiological outlier when compared to other pro cyclists, such as Cadel Evans. "The data doesn't support the argument that Lance wins because he was born with some god-given gift, some physiological capacity that makes his success as a professional road cyclist easy".

Cadel Evan's best test results at the AIS (between age 18 and 24) were maximum aerobic power output of 455W (7.3W/kg body mass), associated with a VO2 max of 87 (apparently one of the highest ever recorded at the AIS).

Lance Armstrong's best results (between age 21 and 28) were max aerobic power of 510W (6.8W/kg, rising to 7.1W/kg if assuming he weighed 72kg rather than 75kg) with a VO2 max of 81.

Threshold power to mass was estimated at 6.0W/kg for CE and 5.9W/kg for LA.

I'm sure many of you were aware of these numbers and the conclusion but the article is a nevertheless a great summary and worth a read by us novices.
 
Apr 16, 2009
394
0
0
El Imbatido said:
I didn't think the new ride magazine was out till like the 20th of this month? Or something close to that?

No, it's out already. I subscribe and received it today and also saw it in a bike shop.
 
Dec 18, 2009
451
0
0
Thing is , were either of them juiced at the time of the test ?
Also, what would the effect of juicing have on those numbers ?
 
Ashenden has shown that Lance's numbers are those of a good domestique and no more...he even mentions a Spanish cycling team having a number of riders with better numbers, and that was one team alone. Good domestique....which funnily enough was exactly what he was before he got a lift in a Ferrari. Only test that Lance carried out where his results were very high, was the Lactate threshold. But science has now shown that this is not necessarily an advantage.
 
Digger said:
Ashenden has shown that Lance's numbers are those of a good domestique and no more...he even mentions a Spanish cycling team having a number of riders with better numbers, and that was one team alone. Good domestique....which funnily enough was exactly what he was before he got a lift in a Ferrari. Only test that Lance carried out where his results were very high, was the Lactate threshold. But science has now shown that this is not necessarily an advantage.

Wait a second. Not many "good domestiques" win World Championships.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Digger said:
Was he clean for that race?

Well as it was pi55ing with rain and they didn't have crudguards you'd have to assume he was pretty dirty at the end.

Badam tish.


Of course he was clean. Look at the quality of field he was racing against. All he had to do was ride Miguel Indurain off his wheel. I mean come on, a 21yr old kid from America against the patron of the TdF for the last three years, at the peak of his powers and a renowned powerhouse? Easy. :rolleyes:


:p
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Does anyone have access to Alberto's number's yet?

I expect they will be totally awesome!

We could use them as a benchmark for what total genuine natural awesomeness looks like. GRRRR.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
nevada said:
Thing is , were either of them juiced at the time of the test ?
Also, what would the effect of juicing have on those numbers ?

1. We don't really know.
2. Substantial.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
biker jk said:
The latest Ride Cycling Review includes an interesting article by Dr David T. Martin from the AIS comparing the physiology of Cadel Evans and Lance Armstrong. It finds that LA is not a physiological outlier when compared to other pro cyclists, such as Cadel Evans. "The data doesn't support the argument that Lance wins because he was born with some god-given gift, some physiological capacity that makes his success as a professional road cyclist easy".

Cadel Evan's best test results at the AIS (between age 18 and 24) were maximum aerobic power output of 455W (7.3W/kg body mass), associated with a VO2 max of 87 (apparently one of the highest ever recorded at the AIS).

Lance Armstrong's best results (between age 21 and 28) were max aerobic power of 510W (6.8W/kg, rising to 7.1W/kg if assuming he weighed 72kg rather than 75kg) with a VO2 max of 81.

Threshold power to mass was estimated at 6.0W/kg for CE and 5.9W/kg for LA.

I'm sure many of you were aware of these numbers and the conclusion but the article is a nevertheless a great summary and worth a read by us novices.

I had never seen the numbers on Cadel before. VO2max of 87 is pretty stout. Only a handful of cyclists have recorded higher. I can only think of Indurain and Lemond off the top of my head.
 
Mar 31, 2009
51
0
0
And therein lies the basis of Greg Lemond and countless others' arguments - but of course we wouldn't want science and fact to get in the way of a good story?
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Digger said:
Ashenden has shown that Lance's numbers are those of a good domestique and no more...he even mentions a Spanish cycling team having a number of riders with better numbers, and that was one team alone. Good domestique....which funnily enough was exactly what he was before he got a lift in a Ferrari. Only test that Lance carried out where his results were very high, was the Lactate threshold. But science has now shown that this is not necessarily an advantage.

Numbers of a good domestique or not, the pristine and definitely clean Boasson Hagen has a threshold wattage of 441W/76 kg (numbers courtesy of THC), ie. 5,8 W/kg. Compare that to 6 W/kg for CE and 5,9 for LA, and suddenly Lance isn't just domestique fare anymore, now, is he? Fabian Cancellara's figures are 550W/80kg, or 6,87 W/kg.
Numbers are just that, numbers. The ability to go ahead, spitting in the face of adversity is quite another thing. Mind you, I'm as thoroughly convinced of LA's doping guilt as Ashenden, Melo Velo et.al. but the recorded numbers doesn't constitute evidence either way. Eventually, LA will be exposed as the fraud he truly is, but bearing in mind the sheer no. of politicians having sported the yellow livestrong-bracelet at photo-ops, the general public is likely to be none the wiser.
 
hektoren said:
Numbers of a good domestique or not, the pristine and definitely clean Boasson Hagen has a threshold wattage of 441W/76 kg (numbers courtesy of THC), ie. 5,8 W/kg. Compare that to 6 W/kg for CE and 5,9 for LA, and suddenly Lance isn't just domestique fare anymore, now, is he? Fabian Cancellara's figures are 550W/80kg, or 6,87 W/kg.
Numbers are just that, numbers. The ability to go ahead, spitting in the face of adversity is quite another thing. Mind you, I'm as thoroughly convinced of LA's doping guilt as Ashenden, Melo Velo et.al. but the recorded numbers doesn't constitute evidence either way. Eventually, LA will be exposed as the fraud he truly is, but bearing in mind the sheer no. of politicians having sported the yellow livestrong-bracelet at photo-ops, the general public is likely to be none the wiser.

I wouldn't be confident of anyone to be honest.

To be fair to Ashenden, he was talking about Coyle's paper. Coyle was saying that Lance's numbers showed a guy who was genetically gifted, even set against other professional cyclists. Coyle maintained he was so gifted, that he didn't need to dope, even when his rivals were doping.
Ashenden countered by picking apart these numbers. VO2 Max was measured five times and four of those times it was in the 70s. That 81 figure that's been quoted is debatable. Weight loss, cadence etc was also discussed and taken apart.
With respect, I actually place alot of importance on these numbers (providing that the cyclists were tested whilst clean), as I fall into the Lemond line of thinking. I believe that each human body has a limit and no matter how hard we train, it can only go to a certain level - while CLEAN. A strong mind will only get you so far. Talent can't be trained. Improvements obviously yes fair enough, but at the top, this is marginal anyway.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
nevada said:
Thing is , were either of them juiced at the time of the test ?
Also, what would the effect of juicing have on those numbers ?
Many yesrs ago, The AIS did a test around that time of some mid range athletes on epo compared to cadel's numbers (who is an exceptional athlete) and the epo riders and were around the same. I personally heard that it was 88 from a person at the VIS but 87 or88 is no big difference.

Unfortunately I haven't got my RIDE magazine delivered.:(
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Polish said:
Does anyone have access to Alberto's number's yet?

I expect they will be totally awesome!


We could use them as a benchmark for what total genuine natural awesomeness looks like. GRRRR.

You mean his haematocrit numbers?;) i've read in a few places that Evans' is always about 42 to 44
 
Apr 16, 2009
394
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Unfortunately I haven't got my RIDE magazine delivered.:(

I'll lend you mide RIDE mag after I've finished with it. Should be a couple of months or so. :)
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
biker jk said:
I'll lend you mide RIDE mag after I've finished with it. Should be a couple of months or so. :)

I Have a feeling that my subscription was a bit late. I put it in about 2 and a half weeks ago:(
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
toby@RIDECyclingReview said:
Subscribers get their copies early... well we send them out early!

Glad you guys enjoy the read.

Keep up the good quality issues. Does the new issue have much on Evans' move to BMC?
 
hektoren said:
Numbers of a good domestique or not, the pristine and definitely clean Boasson Hagen has a threshold wattage of 441W/76 kg (numbers courtesy of THC), ie. 5,8 W/kg. Compare that to 6 W/kg for CE and 5,9 for LA, and suddenly Lance isn't just domestique fare anymore, now, is he? Fabian Cancellara's figures are 550W/80kg, or 6,87 W/kg.
Numbers are just that, numbers. The ability to go ahead, spitting in the face of adversity is quite another thing. Mind you, I'm as thoroughly convinced of LA's doping guilt as Ashenden, Melo Velo et.al. but the recorded numbers doesn't constitute evidence either way. Eventually, LA will be exposed as the fraud he truly is, but bearing in mind the sheer no. of politicians having sported the yellow livestrong-bracelet at photo-ops, the general public is likely to be none the wiser.

Good post. One beef--the numbers do constitute evidence. Very strong evidence. They just don't equal a conclusion, as there are other factors which you do well to point out.
 
Jun 13, 2009
75
4
8,685
auscyclefan94 said:
You mean his haematocrit numbers?;) i've read in a few places that Evans' is always about 42 to 44

This was mentioned in Close to Flying, together with a dismissal of the usual reasons given for significant variations such as dehydration.

I am not an expert, so I am not sure which is more natural/normal ie a steady hematocrit which doesn't change much even towards the end of a long stage race, or a highly variable hematocrit. I have my views, and I am pretty cynical about hematocrits which drop 6 weeks out from a grand tour and jump up again during key stages, but does anyone know how normal/natural either pattern (steady v variable) is and, indeed, whether both could be normal/natural, depending on your make up?
 
toby@RIDECyclingReview said:
Subscribers get their copies early... well we send them out early!

Glad you guys enjoy the read.


Always in the local Newsagent a couple of days before I get it here. But then again Im in country SA and the mail is a bit sloooow here.

Regards


Hugh

PS: Love Ride, looking forward to it. Keep up the good work.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Marmot said:
This was mentioned in Close to Flying, together with a dismissal of the usual reasons given for significant variations such as dehydration.

I am not an expert, so I am not sure which is more natural/normal ie a steady hematocrit which doesn't change much even towards the end of a long stage race, or a highly variable hematocrit. I have my views, and I am pretty cynical about hematocrits which drop 6 weeks out from a grand tour and jump up again during key stages, but does anyone know how normal/natural either pattern (steady v variable) is and, indeed, whether both could be normal/natural, depending on your make up?

I am not sure if there is a normal variation in hematocrit. But hard training and stage races will cause hematocrit to decrease because of plasma volume expansion (ie, the red blood cells are diluted out because of higher proportions of plasma, the other major component of blood). The only natural reason for hematocrit to increase during a stage race is dehydration, but this is easily ruled out by combining hematocrit with total protein, which is a dead easy test done routinely in hospitals every minute of the day. Dehydration will cause both hematocrit and total protein to increase. If an athlete has boosted their red blood cell volume with either EPO or a blood transfusion, then they will have a normal plasma volume meaning that hematocrit will increase but total protein will remain the same or decrease. Then there are reticulocytes which help with the rest of the equation.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
hughmoore said:
Always in the local Newsagent a couple of days before I get it here. But then again Im in country SA and the mail is a bit sloooow here.

Regards


Hugh

PS: Love Ride, looking forward to it. Keep up the good work.
I live in Melbourne and it is in the shevles before I get it:(
Marmot said:
This was mentioned in Close to Flying, together with a dismissal of the usual reasons given for significant variations such as dehydration.

I am not an expert, so I am not sure which is more natural/normal ie a steady hematocrit which doesn't change much even towards the end of a long stage race, or a highly variable hematocrit. I have my views, and I am pretty cynical about hematocrits which drop 6 weeks out from a grand tour and jump up again during key stages, but does anyone know how normal/natural either pattern (steady v variable) is and, indeed, whether both could be normal/natural, depending on your make up?

This is the quote of the haematocrit levels...
I'm always between 42 and 44, I can't say what my next one will be but I know it will be within that range, as it has been for the past 16 years. Normally if your fatigued, you'll know it because you are drained. That's where you notice it first. But obviosuly if one of your blood values is going down, it's caused by eother fatigue or illness. So our internal testing is one of the things that we do to stay on top of that.