Cadel vs Lance - RIDE magazine article

[Marmot]

elapid, thanks for the input.

auscyclefan94, the author also chimes in to say "It prompts the obvious question: does it vary much during the season? When people are caught with high values, they opt to nominate all sorts of excuses. They say that they're dehydrated or overworked...". I took the quote from Evans and this statement by the author to suggest that, even when he is overworked or dehydrated, Evans' hematocrit does not move more than a percentage point or two, and that the same ought to be expected of other riders. Since dehydration, fatigue, illness etc can contribute to fluctuations, my question is "by how much?".

Obviously, there is much more to it than hematocrit alone, but this passage from the book caught my eye because it seemed like a backhander to the riders who post highly variable numbers, and I wanted to get a feel for which pattern is more normal/natural (steady or variable) if a pro cyclist is in fact clean.

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

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

 

[Hugh Januss]

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

Cancer lover, how dare you threaten the legend. Seriously though, are all aussies as big of tools as this guy?

 

[auscyclefan94]

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

I agree, Tomalaris' bias makes me feel sick. He has no credibility when he doesn't give both sides of the story

 

[Marmot]

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

Yikes! That's nauseating, but true to form for Mike Tomalaris. He's nothing if not consistent with his man-crush.

 

[auscyclefan94]

elapid, thanks for the input.

auscyclefan94, the author also chimes in to say "It prompts the obvious question: does it vary much during the season? When people are caught with high values, they opt to nominate all sorts of excuses. They say that they're dehydrated or overworked...". I took the quote from Evans and this statement by the author to suggest that, even when he is overworked or dehydrated, Evans' hematocrit does not move more than a percentage point or two, and that the same ought to be expected of other riders. Since dehydration, fatigue, illness etc can contribute to fluctuations, my question is "by how much?".

Obviously, there is much more to it than hematocrit alone, but this passage from the book caught my eye because it seemed like a backhander to the riders who post highly variable numbers, and I wanted to get a feel for which pattern is more normal/natural (steady or variable) if a pro cyclist is in fact clean.

Evans never said dehydration was a factor.

 

[Ferminal]

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

Ugh, the article was OK (I mean, not completely atrocious) apart from the top and bottom. The "blablabla people don't like Phil/Paul lancelove" was wrong and then this.

"
But, as a I say, it seems not everyone is convinced the seven time Tour de France winner has earned his stripes as a legend without cheating his way to the top.

Well, if Lance is guilty for cheating the spirit of sport it's never been proven, and until that day arrives I will always admire a guy who has changed the face of cycling to what it is today."

Completely unnecessary addition, why did he even mention it? Can't people be allowed to make their own judgments without this half-of-the-story rubbish. It's almost as though he needs to make that statement just to reassure the general public that Lance Armstrong is in fact a saint and never done anything wrong.

 

[karlboss]

Please stop comparing Vo2 with a steady state 30 minute+ performance. Vo2 is the amount of oxygen the body uses at a maximum, often only relative for a 2 to 3 minute effort.

The body varies greatly in turning this oxygen into useful power, and also some people can sustain an effort closer to their Vo2 max. If you take the extremes of these parameters. Someone with a Vo2 in the 70s could take someone in the 90s

 

[unsheath]

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

Tomalaris is a tool. Professional media saddle sniffer.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Tomalaris is a tool. Professional media saddle sniffer.

Unfortunately if you read what others have said, well they are saddle sniffers as well. tomo doesn't have clue about the pathological lying lance has gobe on about.

 

[Galic Ho]

Cancer lover, how dare you threaten the legend. Seriously though, are all aussies as big of tools as this guy?

Only the ones cheering in South Australia when his majesty rode off the front in the Cancer Classic. Only kidding South Australians. There are a large proportion of aussie tools who evade logic and reason and have embraced the fantasy of pro cycling over reality. Lance is numero uno to many people down under, just like in the states. Apparently Liggett was convinced only Lance and Oscar Pereiro were pulling. Not what I saw, they all shared the workload.

Worse, that guy, is the host of the every SBS cycling format put on commercial free to air tv. Fumbling buffoon who makes Liggett and Sherwen look like certifiable geniuses. He has gotten worse every year. Been at it for as long as I have followed cycling on SBS, which is about a decade.

 

[Galic Ho]

Ugh, the article was OK (I mean, not completely atrocious) apart from the top and bottom. The "blablabla people don't like Phil/Paul lancelove" was wrong and then this.

"
But, as a I say, it seems not everyone is convinced the seven time Tour de France winner has earned his stripes as a legend without cheating his way to the top.

Well, if Lance is guilty for cheating the spirit of sport it's never been proven, and until that day arrives I will always admire a guy who has changed the face of cycling to what it is today."

Completely unnecessary addition, why did he even mention it? Can't people be allowed to make their own judgments without this half-of-the-story rubbish. It's almost as though he needs to make that statement just to reassure the general public that Lance Armstrong is in fact a saint and never done anything wrong.

Bingo. I was going to comment on the article, but I got a lot of people hot under the collar on that site recently when I laid down some home truths. Surprisingly the moderator on cycling central let me get them all riled up and point out Tomalaris bias and lack of reasoning and balance in his viewpoints. I've given up on the site. I'll look for some news but skip the editorials and opinion pieces. As Cadel said last year (or was it 2008?) ones own bowel movements are more revealing.

 

[Galic Ho]

Please stop comparing Vo2 with a steady state 30 minute+ performance. Vo2 is the amount of oxygen the body uses at a maximum, often only relative for a 2 to 3 minute effort.

The body varies greatly in turning this oxygen into useful power, and also some people can sustain an effort closer to their Vo2 max. If you take the extremes of these parameters. Someone with a Vo2 in the 70s could take someone in the 90s

Couldn't agree more. It is quite possible. Sadly we don't get to see the figures. Hopefully cycling evolves to what Lemond has proposed and we will one day get more insight. Until then I'll look out for the SRM and powertap readouts teams like Saxo, HTC and Garmin are known to drop every now and then.

 

[toby@RIDECyclingReview]

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

Hey mate... I suggest you read the article in RIDE. Good journalism doesn't need to spell out what you should or shouldn't think. We prefer to present you with the FACTS and allow the reader to draw their own conculsions.

And yeah I do take offence to people who have an opinion on something they haven't seen or read.

Oh and by the way SBS stuff has nothing to do with the article in our magazine so I don't see why you guys are drawing a link between the two.

Thanks and hope you keep enjoying the magazine. Its onsale January 22nd in newsagents (in Oz) or if you are a subscriber your copy has been sent out already!

 

[auscyclefan94]

Hey mate... I suggest you read the article in RIDE. Good journalism doesn't need to spell out what you should or shouldn't think. We prefer to present you with the FACTS and allow the reader to draw their own conculsions.

And yeah I do take offence to people who have an opinion on something they haven't seen or read.

Oh and by the way SBS stuff has nothing to do with the article in our magazine so I don't see why you guys are drawing a link between the two.

Thanks and hope you keep enjoying the magazine. Its onsale January 22nd in newsagents (in Oz) or if you are a subscriber your copy has been sent out already!

My ride mag just came...

 

[Angliru]

Thanks and hope you keep enjoying the magazine. Its onsale January 22nd in newsagents (in Oz) or if you are a subscriber your copy has been sent out already!

When can we expect to see it in the states?

 

[Galic Ho]

Hey mate... I suggest you read the article in RIDE. Good journalism doesn't need to spell out what you should or shouldn't think. We prefer to present you with the FACTS and allow the reader to draw their own conculsions.

And yeah I do take offence to people who have an opinion on something they haven't seen or read.

Obviously I haven't read the article. I believe you mistook my tone. I was simply asking a question related to the OP. This is the Clinic. In my experience, most of the posters are more informed than the professional journalists.

Oh and by the way SBS stuff has nothing to do with the article in our magazine so I don't see why you guys are drawing a link between the two.

It was separate. Coincidence. I was lazy and dropped it there because most of the post have been by aussies and I wanted to see their opinions on another journalistic piece.

Thanks and hope you keep enjoying the magazine. Its onsale January 22nd in newsagents (in Oz) or if you are a subscriber your copy has been sent out already!

I do read the magazine. Started last year and enjoy it. Don't like the time between events and their coverage in the mag, but that is out of my hands. Limitations of four editions per annum.

As for the facts and journalism, your magazine does a solid job. I've learnt a thing or two, especially in a doping piece in the second edition of 2009. Provided some insight into Basso and his behaviour I was unaware of. Overall I find RIDE to be balanced in its approach to the nasty side of cycling and more so in its content (race coverage, rider profiling and tech breakdown). Overall my only cycling mag purchase, so that is saying something.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Obviously I haven't read the article. I believe you mistook my tone. I was simply asking a question related to the OP. This is the Clinic. In my experience, most of the posters are more informed than the professional journalists.

It was separate. Coincidence. I was lazy and dropped it there because most of the post have been by aussies and I wanted to see their opinions on another journalistic piece.

I do read the magazine. Started last year and enjoy it. Don't like the time between events and their coverage in the mag, but that is out of my hands. Limitations of four editions per annum.

As for the facts and journalism, your magazine does a solid job. I've learnt a thing or two, especially in a doping piece in the second edition of 2009. Provided some insight into Basso and his behaviour I was unaware of. Overall I find RIDE to be balanced in its approach to the nasty side of cycling and more so in its content (race coverage, rider profiling and tech breakdown). Overall my only cycling mag purchase, so that is saying something.

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

 

[drfunk000]

efficiency

At least one study of a group of professional cyclists showed an inverse relationship between V02max and efficiency. Those with higher V02max tended to be less efficient and vice versa.

Without accurate efficiency measurements on the cyclists you are comparing you can't say that an athlete with X V02max would surely beat another cyclist with Y V02max.

 

[the big ring]

At least one study of a group of professional cyclists showed an inverse relationship between V02max and efficiency. Those with higher V02max tended to be less efficient and vice versa.

Without accurate efficiency measurements on the cyclists you are comparing you can't say that an athlete with X V02max would surely beat another cyclist with Y V02max.

Please post a link to this study.

It sounds very much like the "efficiency" argument touted by Armstrong's followers, and is easily debunked when you consider you are comparing Cadel Evans and Lance Armstrong - 2 guys who surely train an equal amount.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

From PubMed:

Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

 

[workingclasshero]

From PubMed:

Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

my head hurts from reading that, but it seems their vo2 max was quite near to eachother. not really much of a difference if i got it right plusminus 1,8 wasn't it? if so they were basically at the same level. but surely the docs would have given that a thought

 

[131313]

Please post a link to this study.

It sounds very much like the "efficiency" argument touted by Armstrong's followers, and is easily debunked when you consider you are comparing Cadel Evans and Lance Armstrong - 2 guys who surely train an equal amount.

Not really. You really can't 'train' efficiency.

 

[the big ring]

From PubMed:

Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

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 ;-)

 

[the big ring]

Not really. You really can't 'train' efficiency.

Perhaps I was not clear.

The argument goes like this:

LA cannot finish a tour.
LA has cancer.
LA gets cured of cancer.
LA loses weight (sic).
LA increases his efficiency (sic).
LA beats riders with much higher VO2max than his on the way to winning the tour.

ie it sounded to me like the original poster mentioning this study is saying: this study proves LA (81 VO2) can beat Cadel (87 VO2) because he is more efficient, (and possibly that VO2 is not correlated well with FTP).

Having looked at the study, I do not believe it does that at all, but will await input from someone smarter than me.