How high could we push performance?

[will10]

OK so it's all hand waving, rule of thumb stuff but something I was thinking on my ride today - if we take a very talented rider, let's make him 70kg with a VO2 Max of 82. How high could we expect him to push his FTP by legal means?

And if we give him masses of medical support to keep him healthy, and the means to go "all in" to use the Vaughters terminology, i.e. to take whatever he wanted to improve his performance, how big a boost could we see?

I know, a non-Lance thread, at a time like this? Surely not....

 

[luckyboy]

Under today's rules? Or just a free-for-all?

Also you'd need some Hgb + W/kg values to properly hypothesise

Lot of stuff here about what you can do with transfusions..
http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/31577873213/kin-you-blood-dope-a-donkey-into-a-gahd-damn
http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/31626599943/captains-blood-dope-simulator

 

[Benotti69]

OK so it's all hand waving, rule of thumb stuff but something I was thinking on my ride today - if we take a very talented rider, let's make him 70kg with a VO2 Max of 82. How high could we expect him to push his FTP by legal means?

And if we give him masses of medical support to keep him healthy, and the means to go "all in" to use the Vaughters terminology, i.e. to take whatever he wanted to improve his performance, how big a boost could we see?

I know, a non-Lance thread, at a time like this? Surely not....

What 'masses of medical support' does a rider need to keep healthy? Bassons in his career went to his local GP a few times and never saw the team Doctor!

 

[will10]

What 'masses of medical support' does a rider need to keep healthy? Bassons in his career went to his local GP a few times and never saw the team Doctor!

I meant let's allow this guy to get on whatever he wants, without brutalising his hct up to Riis levels.

 

[acoggan]

if we take a very talented rider, let's make him 70kg with a VO2 Max of 82. How high could we expect him to push his FTP by legal means?

To a VO2 of 70-75 mL/min/kg, perhaps even a little higher.

 

[Le breton]

To a VO2 of 70-75 mL/min/kg, perhaps even a little higher.

i.e. 5.6 - 6 watts/kg , or in this case 392 - 420 watts.

 

[Turner29]

OK so it's all hand waving, rule of thumb stuff but something I was thinking on my ride today - if we take a very talented rider, let's make him 70kg with a VO2 Max of 82. How high could we expect him to push his FTP by legal means?

And if we give him masses of medical support to keep him healthy, and the means to go "all in" to use the Vaughters terminology, i.e. to take whatever he wanted to improve his performance, how big a boost could we see?

I know, a non-Lance thread, at a time like this? Surely not....

What do you consider legal? And by what do you mean push?

Presume an already highly trained individual not subjected to prior PED use. During a "peaking" phase, a combination of hypoxic exposure, hyperoxic training and sodium phosphate (monitored to avoid plasma volume contraction) could provide upwards of a 10% boost in FTP.

Hyperoxic exposure could also be used to maintain hematocrit over the course of a Grand Tour.

Is cobalt chloride banned?

 

[ggusta]

What do you consider legal? And by what do you mean push?

Presume an already highly trained individual not subjected to prior PED use. During a "peaking" phase, a combination of hypoxic exposure, hyperoxic training and sodium phosphate (monitored to avoid plasma volume contraction) could provide upwards of a 10% boost in FTP.

Hyperoxic exposure could also be used to maintain hematocrit over the course of a Grand Tour.

Is cobalt chloride banned?

I have purely theoretical/clinical questions.

Sorry if this is cold, but.... Short of killing someone or irreparably damaging them, what is possible at present (meaning testing is not going to be done) ? And if there is a next frontier(s) that is/are being pursued, what are they? What are the benefits and dangers of them? What's possible ?

Again I am talking about regardless of testing for anything or not, this isn't a question of what can you do and still pass a test, it's simply what can you do without doing serious long term damage to one's body. period.

I know it's kind of a rude subject, and I am simply curious about what the limits are, not about the limits AND winning a competitive race.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

i.e. 5.6 - 6 watts/kg , or in this case 392 - 420 watts.

Estimates of power output will very much depend on GME.

e.g. with a GME of 25% that's nearly 460W.

 

[Le breton]

Estimates of power output will very much depend on GME.

e.g. with a GME of 25% that's nearly 460W.

That would make a whopping and never heard of 88 watts/ liter of O2

Boardman, L.A. and most racers are at about 78 - 80 watts/ liter of O2 under the specified conditions corresponding to FTP.

 

[acoggan]

That would make a whopping and never heard of 88 watts/ liter of O2

Boardman, L.A. and most racers are at about 78 - 80 watts/ liter of O2 under the specified conditions corresponding to FTP.

A gross efficiency of 25% might be unlikely, but it is not unheard of.

 

[Le breton]

A gross efficiency of 25% might be unlikely, but it is not unheard of.

On other threads gross efficiency (GE) has been discussed extensively, including by yourself. You have quoted papers about the trainability of GE.

Those papers, BTW, are almost all unconvincing.

Could you give us JUST ONE believable reference showing a GE of 25%, preferably of course near FTP, yet not at a power level where the anaerobic power input could muddle the issue.

Thanks

 

[_frost]

To a VO2 of 70-75 mL/min/kg, perhaps even a little higher.

So if I understand this right saying that international level FTP being at 85-90% of VO2Max indeed refers to VO2Max not the "drifted" VO2 during longer effort?

 

[acoggan]

On other threads gross efficiency (GE) has been discussed extensively, including by yourself. You have quoted papers about the trainability of GE.

That's right.

Those papers, BTW, are almost all unconvincing.

Says you. Those who actually do research and publish in this area, OTOH, believe otherwise. This is probably because almost all longitudinal studies - going as far back as the 1930s - have found efficiency to indeed improve with training. Why people have ever concluded otherwise is therefore a mystery to me.

Could you give us JUST ONE believable reference showing a GE of 25%, preferably of course near FTP, yet not at a power level where the anaerobic power input could muddle the issue.

Thanks

You said unheard of, not unbelievable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

(For starters.)

 

[acoggan]

So if I understand this right saying that international level FTP being at 85-90% of VO2Max indeed refers to VO2Max not the "drifted" VO2 during longer effort?

I'm not sure of your question, but what I was saying is that it is possible for an undoped athlete with a VO2max of 82 mL/min/kg to sustain a VO2 of 70-75 mL/min/kg for a prolonged period of time. By definition, that means that any 2nd component to VO2 kinetics would be small.

 

[_frost]

I'm not sure of your question, but what I was saying is that it is possible for an undoped athlete with a VO2max of 82 mL/min/kg to sustain a VO2 of 70-75 mL/min/kg for a prolonged period of time. By definition, that means that any 2nd component to VO2 kinetics would be small.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit saying that I have seen 85-90% of VO2Max quoted as the maximum level that can be sustained and knowing that due to VO2 drift the VO2 in later stages of prolonged effort is lower than actual VO2Max I was wondering if the 85-90% refers to that or the actual highest measured VO2 of the athlete.

Your estimate of 70-75 mL/min/kg vs 82 kind of gives answer to that and I was looking for a confirmation.

 

[Le breton]

You said unheard of, not unbelievable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

(For starters.)

Oh no! Not that paper again!!!

From guys who seem surprised that if A = B X C and A remains more or less constant while B goes down, then C has to go up

 

[acoggan]

Oh no! Not that paper again!!!

Yeah, that paper...and in fact I was thinking specifically of it when I tweaked you on claiming that gross efficiencies of 25% or higher were "unheard of".

But to be a bit more serious: if you peruse the literature you'll find other cases where the gross efficiency of individual cyclists has been observed to be close to 25%. For example, in the short section that he wrote for John Hawley's and Liz Burke's book Peter Keen states that the highest efficiency he had observed among world class cyclists pedaling at a cadence typical of that used during the hour record was 24.7%.

Looking over my own data, the highest gross efficiency I've recorded when pedaling an electronically-braked ergometer for 4+ min @ 300 W is 24.9%. The 2nd highest value (at another institution, using entirely different equipment) was 24.4%. Given that gross efficiency tends to increase with increasing absolute power output (due to the ever-diminishing impact of metabolism of tissues other than contracting muscle), it shouldn't be surprising to occasionally find values of ~25% in elite cyclists.

 

[Turner29]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

(For starters.)

There are implications to this and other similar studies that seem to be lost by many, both practically and theoretically.