http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/95742/contador-ducks-doping-questions
Any guesses as to what his VO2 max is?
Any guesses as to what his VO2 max is?
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Digger said:No idea what it is...but if he was clean why refuse to give it...
Digger said:...if he was clean why refuse to give it...
lean said:because you give people who are uninformed about human performance but good at creating propaganda ammunition.
not saying he is clean but it's a catch 22
probably less damaging to not reveal values than to reveal them and have to defend yourself to a bunch of psuedo-science conspiracy theorists.
i think the trend is going to move more towards privacy for this reason.
dienekes88 said:This is probably it... or close to it.
VO2max ain't everything. Seriously. LeMond just wants it to be everything, because it would suggest that he should've won 15 Tours de France.
Frank Shorter, Olympic Gold medalist in the marathon in '72 and Silver medalist in the marathon in '76, had a pedestrian VO2max of 72.
Steve Prefontaine's was supposed to 84. He held American records from 2k to 10k.
Alberto Salazar's was supposedly 76, and he ran a marathon personal best of 2:08'13". He won the New York City Marathon 3x and the Boston Marathon once.
Derek Clayton's was 69.7, and he has two sub-2:10' marathons to his name... and had the world's best marathon time between 1967-1981.
Interestingly, in spite of the huge difference between Shorter's and Prefontaine's VO2max values, the difference in their 5k personal bests were only 5 seconds different.
egtalbot said:Exactly right. Lemond may very well be right about drugs, but both he and the Festina guy feeding him his info are spectacularly uninformed about VO2 max. For example, the reason why Clayton was able to run so fast was that he could perform at 95% of his VO2 max for an entire marathon. Most people can't, even elites. Then there's efficiency. By Lemond's theory, one guy who is six feet tall and another who's 5'8 but weigh the same would presumably need the same amount of energy to get up the climb (in effect VO2 max determines how many ATP molecules your body can produce for energy). But that of course is ridiculous on its face. And what about efficiency? I may be essentially the same height and weight as Lance Armstrong, but even aside from the VO2 max issue, his muscles (due to both training and genetics) can do more with the same amount of energy.
I've got nothing against Lemond - I like the guy, but this is seriously stupid.
lean said:because you give people who are uninformed about human performance but good at creating propaganda ammunition.
not saying he is clean but it's a catch 22
probably less damaging to not reveal values than to reveal them and have to defend yourself to a bunch of psuedo-science conspiracy theorists.
i think the trend is going to move more towards privacy for this reason.
ihavenolimbs said:I ran through some of Contador's numbers to calculate his VO2max.
Contador's mass: 60.5 kg (some dehydration after hours in the saddle?)
Bike+equip mass: 8.5 kg (includes helmet, bidons, shoes, ...)
Altitude gain: 610 m (using the pessimistic figures of d=8.6 km, g=7.1%)
Tail wind: 3 m/s (or 10.8 km/h if you prefer, but the road had switchbacks, so will be less)
Crr: 0.0040 (Rolling resistance for smooth roads and good tires)
Works out to be around 390 W for the climb to Verbier.
Assuming efficiency of 25%, climbing at 90% VO2max, AC's VO2max is 5.2 L/min, or 86 mL/kg/min (whichever form you prefer).
Factor in the average altitude of ~1200 m, and a 6.3% decline in VO2max with every 1000m in altitude, VO2max = 92.5 mL/min/kg.
But this was using all favourable figures! (8.6 km, not 8.7 km, 7.1% gradient, not 7.5%, strong tailwind, though the climb has many turns, lighter weight than reported, light bike+equip, no accumulated fatigue after more than 2 weeks racing).
Using stats based on the normal calculations (d=8.7km, g=7.5%, no wind, 61+9kg):
P = ~460 W
VO2max = ~114 mL/kg/min
With those lower and upper (or mid range) estimates, I'm guessing the AC is the most talented athlete to have ever lived, bar none! His numbers are crazy-high.
PACONi said:But, yeah, with Peurto and all that, The Kid is dirty.
Cobber said:According to this article, it is 99.5!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned
Not everyone who follows cycling is a pseudo-science conspiracy theorist though. Contador is producing performances that are bordering on the realms of human impossibility as determined by scientists. He won't reveal his VO2max because it will very likely say one of two things a) it is a score that is physiologically possible but below what is required to achieve his performances on the road, or b) it is high enough to achieve his performances on the road (which of course it must be), but is a score that could very well be one of the highest ever recorded values in history. It pretty much needs to be somewhere between 89-99 ml/kglean said:because you give people who are uninformed about human performance but good at creating propaganda ammunition.
not saying he is clean but it's a catch 22
probably less damaging to not reveal values than to reveal them and have to defend yourself to a bunch of psuedo-science conspiracy theorists.
i think the trend is going to move more towards privacy for this reason.