Cadel vs Lance - RIDE magazine article

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Here's another paper which points to an inverse correlation between cycling efficiency and VO2max. There are others.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=21385005

Nobody seems to be quite certain of why this is the case yet, although it MIGHT be due to natural selection.

 

[the big ring]

Here's another paper which points to an inverse correlation between cycling efficiency and VO2max. There are others.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=21385005

Nobody seems to be quite certain of why this is the case yet, although it MIGHT be due to natural selection.

Hmm the conclusion seems to be more - efficiency can increase, whilst VO2max remains unchanged.

And wtf: 23.61 ± 2.78% to 26.97 ± 3.7%

I am going to struggle to believe there are cyclists that are (26.97 + 3.7) = 30.67% efficient.

 

[biker jk]

Did you bother questioning how a man with an average V02max for a pro cyclist won the Tour 7 times and rode faster and harder than Hinault and Lemond ever did (their respective V02max records were 92 and 94)? Did the Ride article touch on that? If not we have another liar or ignoramus who presents half truths like the guy below.

For more fanboy crap refer to this bile. The author is in line for a thorough beating if he ever meets me. This is disgusting, given the an credible journalist who has looked at every source knows such a viewpoint cannot be credibly maintained on such a flimsy foundation.

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/blog-article/115657/One-for-the-ages-br

Why do you think I posted it in the Clinic genius? I'm sure I didn't need to spell out here that the article is strong evidence that Armstrong's success was due to doping.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Hmm the conclusion seems to be more - efficiency can increase, whilst VO2max remains unchanged.

Yes. In other words this paper is an example where the correlation holds for experience pros. I have seen a number of other papers but this one is memorable because of this 'interesting' result you noted.

And wtf: 23.61 ± 2.78% to 26.97 ± 3.7%

Science of Sport based one of their assumptions in their discussion of the Verbier climb on this correlation. I think it was acoggan that pointed out that there are individuals who have both high VO2max and efficiency, which is essentially the point the graphs you posted make.

Anywho, this inverse correlation appears in the literature and appears to be accepted by the physiologists that post on this board - I don't think this is one of those high cadence wight loss fairy tales.

 

[python]

not to spit into anyones soup, but there are some complicating factors that make the issue of efficiency improvements far from clear. some researchers disagree that training status affects efficiency.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423857

another factor even touched upon by coyle in his infamous study of lance (but never adequately explained or properly tested) is that efficiency is significantly effected by the athlete’s epo/rbc #/rbc production status caused by hypoxia.

guess what else causes changes in an athletes epo status besides hypoxia

 

[Oncearunner8]

not to spit into anyones soup, but there are some complicating factors that make the issue of efficiency improvements far from clear. some researchers disagree that training status affects efficiency.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423857

another factor even touched upon by coyle in his infamous study of lance (but never adequately explained or properly tested) is that efficiency is significantly effected by the athlete’s epo/rbc #/rbc production status caused by hypoxia.

guess what else causes changes in an athletes epo status besides hypoxia

Altitude tents with whiskey mist?

 

[Cozy Beehive]

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'd like to read it. What magazine is this again? Is there an online portal?

 

[Galic Ho]

That seems a little arrogant, most of the posters are informed than some journo's (like tomalaris) but not all.

That is why I used the word "most". All posters are not informed or more so than journalists. Perhaps I should have said some journalists (not all) follow the UCI bottom line a little too closely.

 

[Galic Ho]

Why do you think I posted it in the Clinic genius? I'm sure I didn't need to spell out here that the article is strong evidence that Armstrong's success was due to doping.

Read all the pages of the thread "genius". Perhaps you need a language update, so go back to school, get an education and then learn about tone. I asked a question because most of us did not have the article because the newsagencies didn't have the magazine out at the time of your post. A simple question. Go and get your knickers in a twist. I wanted to know the approach the journalists have taken given:

a) Lance is in Australia
b) RIDE is an aussie mag
c) The media are in overdrive because of Lance
d) Overdrive equates to pieces like the one I mentioned which was nothing but bias

Again, a simple question and two people take offense. You don't have an arts or comm degree in journalism do you? I can offer solid commentary on those who do if you like.

 

[Escarabajo]

Thanks for the link...

I'm no practicing statistician, only did 3rd year stats. If r = -0.65, r^2 = 0.4225, not something I could consider significant at all.

To give you an idea - here's some correlation coefficient graphings:

I am trying to get my head around the study figures mentioned too. As someone else said - VO2max seems very close, and the efficiency measures also seem very close (+/- 2.3 / 85).

I have asked a far more knowledgeable maths / cyclist friend for his input too ;-)

r^2 of less than 0.5 is as good as none. We really need the deatils of the paper, otherwise posting links don't help that much. Posting info on the internet with titles is an easy thing to do.

I have known many papers in the engineering field that get published and then they get debunked because of some reason. So not everything that we read is true.
Thanks.