stephens said:
It's also ridiculous to deny that people can build tolerance to pain through experiencing pain in their life. Whether chemo is one of those or not is an open question, but the concept is quite acceptable and a few personal anecdotes will not be persuasive in dismissing it.
But since all anyone is doing here is wildly speculating, we shouldn't leave this one out!:
Metabolic clues regarding the enhanced performance of elite endurance athletes from orchiectomy-induced hormonal changes
extract:
"
Physiological tests following his [Armstrong's] recovery indicated that physiological parameters such as VO2 max were not affected by the unilateral orchiectomy and chemotherapy. We propose that his dramatic improvement in recovery between stages, the most important factor in winning multi-day stage races, is due to his unilateral orchiectomy, a procedure that results in permanent changes in serum hormones. These hormonal changes, specifically an increase in gonadotropins (and prolactin) required to maintain serum testosterone levels, alter fuel metabolism; increasing hormone sensitive lipase expression and activity, promoting increased free fatty acid (FFA) mobilization to, and utilization by, muscles, thereby decreasing the requirement to expend limiting glycogen stores before, during and after exercise. Such hormonal changes also have been associated with ketone body production, improvements in muscle repair and haematocrit levels and may facilitate the loss of body weight, thereby increasing power to weight ratio. Taken together, these hormonal changes act to limit glycogen utilization, delay fatigue and enhance recovery thereby allowing for optimal performances on a day-to-day basis. These insights provide the foundation for future studies on the endocrinology of exercise metabolism, and suggest that Lance Armstrong’s athletic advantage was not due to drug use."
Or in layman's terms the argument is presented here:
Superhuman: what gives elite athletes the edge? (page two)
And in other news, cyclists everywhere are lining up to have one of their balls chopped off...
This sounds even less valid than the notorious Coyle study, which the New Scientist article references. The Coyle study concluded that in a sport drenched in dope, Armstrong's huge increase in performance did not come about from the most obvious reason, taking dope, but from a miraculous increase in muscle efficiency, which has never been seen before. It concluded this based on data which cannot be compared from year to year because the data was taken at different points in the season. The weight data was not even measured. It was reported by the subject, who has a history of lying about his weight.
The extract above is filled with misinformation. It attributes his performance gain to an increased facility for weight loss. From the SCA arbitration we know that Armstrong's weight loss was neglible. It was lies told to the public to explain his unexplainable increase in climbing ability.
The extract also suggests that Armstrong's performance increase was not due to drugs, but we know from retrospective testing that he was using drugs. He was using EPO. Later his team was using blood doping. Ignoring data and coming up with a fantastic hypothesis instead makes the entire research suspect. You might as well write a paper to explain why the sky is green with orange polka dots while steadfastly refusing to look out your office window.
The extract and the New Scientist article seem to say that an increase in endurance and recovery ability explains Armstrong's wins. Extra recovery ability does not explain the real reason for Armstrong's success at the Tour: A huge increase in power, which was evident even in the prologues of a TdF.
The new Scientist article also mentions Armstrong's unusually high VO2max, but does not mention that Armstrong's VO2max is a middling value when compared to other pros.
The study also does not appear to use any real data. It is all conjecture, which would make it even worse than Coyle's shoddy research methods.