Lance v. Lemond - Lemond comes clean?

[Jagers]

Is this LA new defence - "Greg did it too?" Obviously he has spread the 300k thin, and gotten himself some new trolls.

Exactly! The best defense is a good offense!

 

[acoggan]

Thanks troll. Shouldn't you be sucking up to Coggan?

Somebody mentioned my name?

Just to stir the pot a little: the 2nd ever VO2max test that I did was as a research subject for this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7197628

By luck-of-the-draw, it was on a cycle ergometer, and my VO2max was measured as being 5.2 L/min, or 81 mL/min/kg. (A value, BTW, I achieved on multiple subsequent occasions in various laboratories.)

A week later, I did my treadmill test, and the investigators decided that since my VO2max was so high, I should run at a very high pace, one appropriate for a runner with normal running economy, but one totally inappropriate for a cyclist with abnormally low running economy. Needless to say, I only lasted a little over 4 min, with my VO2 peaking out in the low 70s...

My point? W/o seeing the data from Lemond's original test, we have no way of knowing whether he did in fact achieve VO2max, such that it is foolish to even speculate.

(Full disclosure: Lemond once had Hunter and me to come to Seattle to educate him and others at Lemond Fitness re. some of the concepts in WKO+. I got a wonderful meal at a very nice resteraunt out of it, but no $$ changed hands.)

 

[acoggan]

Muscles consume oxygen. Within a given trained individual (ie: oxygen transport system remains the same), the greater the muscle mass, the greater the VO2. Simple concept.

Simple, but completely and entirely incorrect.

 

[fatandfast]

my muscles love sugar and lots of it

 

[lean mean &green]

Muscles consume oxygen. Within a given trained individual (ie: oxygen transport system remains the same), the greater the muscle mass, the greater the VO2. Simple concept.

Simple, but completely and entirely incorrect.

i'm guessing KC's wording is a little sloppy and that by "muscle mass" he really means muscle recruitment. it seems pretty clear from his ronnie coleman/pee wee morphological freak reference. ie the involvement of more muscle groups while running will consume more O2 than when compared to seated cycling unless you have zero upper body development.

feel free to pick it apart without correcting it AC. that's a huge help to everybody.

 

[acoggan]

i'm guessing KC's wording is a little sloppy
and that by "muscle mass" he really means muscle recruitment. it seems pretty clear from his ronnie coleman/pee wee morphological freak reference. ie the involvement of more muscle groups while running will consume more O2 than when compared to seated cycling unless you have zero upper body development.

If that's what he meant then his working was more than a "little sloppy", it was grossly off the mark. (Even your explanation above doesn't really do the situation justice, as muscle recruitment isn't the issue - it is vascular bed recruitment, but only up to the point at which the heart's ability to pump blood becomes limiting.)

feel free to pick it apart without correcting it AC. that's a huge help to everybody.

I figured a nice "drive-by" would give him the opportunity to either demonstrate his true understanding of exercise physiology, or continue to promulgate misinformation (e.g., by introducing the symmorphosis concept into a discussion of physiological regulation within a given individual).

 

[Darryl Webster]

He that uses many words for explaining any subject, doth, like the cuttlefish, hide himself for the most part in his own ink.
John Ray, naturalist

 

[Realist]

Somebody mentioned my name?

Just to stir the pot a little: the 2nd ever VO2max test that I did was as a research subject for this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7197628

By luck-of-the-draw, it was on a cycle ergometer, and my VO2max was measured as being 5.2 L/min, or 81 mL/min/kg. (A value, BTW, I achieved on multiple subsequent occasions in various laboratories.)

A week later, I did my treadmill test, and the investigators decided that since my VO2max was so high, I should run at a very high pace, one appropriate for a runner with normal running economy, but one totally inappropriate for a cyclist with abnormally low running economy. Needless to say, I only lasted a little over 4 min, with my VO2 peaking out in the low 70s...

My point? W/o seeing the data from Lemond's original test, we have no way of knowing whether he did in fact achieve VO2max, such that it is foolish to even speculate.

(Full disclosure: Lemond once had Hunter and me to come to Seattle to educate him and others at Lemond Fitness re. some of the concepts in WKO+. I got a wonderful meal at a very nice resteraunt out of it, but no $$ changed hands.)

FWIW I've also seen an individual go from ~70 VO2max (can't remember number exactly, but 70-72), to 81, in about 18 months. Same modality, same test protocol, calibrated equipment. The guy was not doping. It was training that did it. VO2max is more trainable that people realise (which is why I do not agree with Lemond's idea that we can detect doping just by tracking VO2max longitudinally).

 

[Realist]

FWIW I've also seen an individual go from ~70 VO2max (can't remember number exactly, but 70-72), to 81, in about 18 months. Same modality, same test protocol, calibrated equipment. The guy was not doping. It was training that did it. VO2max is more trainable that people realise (which is why I do not agree with Lemond's idea that we can detect doping just by tracking VO2max longitudinally).

NB: Seen means, managed his training, have copies of his test results in my email, was at one of the tests. Not doping means just that.

 

[Realist]

I've read that Lemond did a lot of x-country skiing in the off season, and here you say he was a great runner. In that case then, 79 on a treadmill up to 92 on a bike is all but physiologically impossible.

1. Lemond actually says in the quote you produce, 'you know this depends on training'. So: you know this depends on training? VO2max can change a lot depending on acute and chronic training load and composition.

2. Squaw valley is at 1900m

3. I didn't say he was a great runner. He's a great runner, for a cyclist, if those were his results. It's not far from what you'd expect given a switch in modality. But you don't get that. Fair enough.

 

[Realist]

There is a cliche somewhere that says something about the truth lying somewhere in the middle.

The truth lies where the evidence is. I've never seen such an explicit acceptance of a talking point primarily used by denialist and anti-science groups to influence public policy. Chiropractors, homeopaths, global warming deniers, the smoking lobby in the 80's... not the lot that I'd want to be aligning myself with.

 

[Krebs cycle]

If that's what he meant then his working was more than a "little sloppy", it was grossly off the mark. (Even your explanation above doesn't really do the situation justice, as muscle recruitment isn't the issue - it is vascular bed recruitment, but only up to the point at which the heart's ability to pump blood becomes limiting.)

lol I'm honoured that you have chosen to hone your "debating skills" with me in particular!!

I would respond by saying that what is grossly misleading is the idea that an increase in vascular bed recruitment ie: increase in muscle blood flow, on its own will increase muscle VO2, and that this even occurs during exercise in vivo (which it does not). The increase in muscle recruitment is the cause of the exercise induced hyperaemia, which facilitates the increase in muscle VO2, not the other way around.

I'm quite aware of the vast amount of work on the knee extensor model and I would have thought the qualifer "oxygen transport is the same" would have been enough of a clue for someone like you that I was referring to central limitation there.

See the bit in bold below.....

On the mechanisms that limit oxygen uptake during exercise in acute and chronic hypoxia: role of muscle mass.

Calbet JA, Rådegran G, Boushel R, Saltin B.

The Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen N, Denmark. lopezcalbet@gmail.com
Abstract

Peak aerobic power in humans (VO2,peak) is markedly affected by inspired O2 tension (FIO2). The question to be answered in this study is what factor plays a major role in the limitation of muscle peak VO2 in hypoxia: arterial O2 partial pressure (Pa,O2) or O2 content (Ca,O2)? Thus, cardiac output (dye dilution with Cardio-green), leg blood flow (thermodilution), intra-arterial blood pressure and femoral arterial-to-venous differences in blood gases were determined in nine lowlanders studied during incremental exercise using a large (two-legged cycle ergometer exercise: Bike) and a small (one-legged knee extension exercise: Knee)muscle mass in normoxia, acute hypoxia (AH) (FIO2 = 0.105) and after 9 weeks of residence at 5260 m (CH). Reducing the size of the active muscle mass blunted by 62% the effect of hypoxia on VO2,peak in AH and abolished completely the effect of hypoxia on VO2,peak after altitude acclimatization. Acclimatization improved Bike peak exercise Pa,O2 from 34 +/- 1 in AH to 45 +/- 1 mmHg in CH(P <0.05) and Knee Pa,O2 from 38 +/- 1 to 55 +/- 2 mmHg(P <0.05). Peak cardiac output and leg blood flow were reduced in hypoxia only during Bike. Acute hypoxia resulted in reduction of systemic O2 delivery (46 and 21%) and leg O2 delivery (47 and 26%) during Bike and Knee, respectively, almost matching the corresponding reduction in VO2,peak. Altitude acclimatization restored fully peak systemic and leg O(2) delivery in CH (2.69 +/- 0.27 and 1.28 +/- 0.11 l min(-1), respectively) to sea level values (2.65 +/- 0.15 and 1.16 +/- 0.11 l min(-1), respectively) during Knee, but not during Bike. During Knee in CH, leg oxygen delivery was similar to normoxia and, therefore, also VO2,peak in spite of a Pa,O2 of 55 mmHg. Reducing the size of the active mass improves pulmonary gas exchange during hypoxic exercise, attenuates the Bohr effect on oxygen uploading at the lungs and preserves sea level convective O2 transport to the active muscles. Thus, the altitude-acclimatized human has potentially a similar exercising capacity as at sea level when the exercise model allows for an adequate oxygen delivery (blood flow x Ca,O2), with only a minor role of Pa,O2 per se, when Pa,O2 is more than 55 mmHg.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047206

Maybe you should write a letter to the editor and point out to Bengt Saltin that his abstract isn't technically correct because he referred to "muscle mass" instead of vascular bed recruitment.

Getting back to the point at hand. Do you really believe that a well trained cyclist who is also a good runner is able to recruit SOOOOO much more muscle mass during cycling than running that it would increase his VO2 from 79 to 92ml/kg? How is possible that during whole body exercise he reaches a central limitation at 85% of his true maximal capacity?

 

[utktrivol]

you do know that bloodtransfusions before even the 90s was like playing with your life right?? ever wondered why no cyclist ever or any sportsman was ever caught or admitted to doing that previous to the 2000s??

and besides if lemond was doped in the 80s then why didn't he go with the new doping epo in early 90s?? because he wanted to suck??

not that i disagree with your overall point but lasse viren's finnish 10km teammate admitted to the use of bloodtransfusions in the 1972 olympics

 

[Realist]

Getting back to the point at hand. Do you really believe that a well trained cyclist who is also a good runner is able to recruit SOOOOO much more muscle mass during cycling than running that it would increase his VO2 from 79 to 92ml/kg? How is possible that during whole body exercise he reaches a central limitation at 85% of his true maximal capacity?

I'm not Andy but....

1. Yes

AND

2. You are neglecting the confounds from altitude and training status

I think that means double yes.

Your working hypothesis now is: Greg Lemond, who advocates (I think incorrectly) using longitudinal VO2max testing to detect doping, publicised longitudinal VO2max data that proves he is doping. Uh. Huh.

 

[utktrivol]

Running and XC skiing are extremely tough on the body. Lots of muscles used. Most for XC. This makes it awesome training for bike riding.
However, if a bike rider jumps on the treadmills, he'll have not as nice a score as on teh bike, due to efficiency.
I'm a non-runner myself, but I've run on rainy sundays once in a while and a bit more on Dutch off-seasons. With MUCH worse fitness (+10kg of FAT and total lack of trainign volume), I have in fact managed to squash my running speed of when I was rocking (ok, participating in) the MTB scene.

It's too off-topic to offer a link, but a 79 VO2Max brings some pretty awesome track times on the clock. Calculators exist for it online. Of course, those are just estimates.
With a 92 VO2Max, Greg would have been running world records. With 79, he's be a national contender, possibly winner.
XC Skiers usually train a lot on foot. there are several cases where they (in their off-season) go and win national evens on the track, or mountain runs. Bikes are way boring when you're used to XC skiing, but trust me they'd be fast on them

yeah, as a runner and cyclist i completely disagree with your calculations, in real life scenarios it simply does not work like that (note I have had multiple Vo2 tests on treadmills ranging from 79-84 so I feel comfortable with this assertion)

 

[Krebs cycle]

1. Lemond actually says in the quote you produce, 'you know this depends on training'. So: you know this depends on training? VO2max can change a lot depending on acute and chronic training load and composition.

2. Squaw valley is at 1900m

3. I didn't say he was a great runner. He's a great runner, for a cyclist, if those were his results. It's not far from what you'd expect given a switch in modality. But you don't get that. Fair enough.

Rubbish. We did a study on identical twins once. One of them was a national level x-country skiier, the other one was recreationally active at best. Surprise surprise, both of them achieved the same VO2max. AMAZING!!

I've tested 100s of athletes in season and out of season. VO2max remains the same or is within 1-2%. AMAZING!!

In well trained athletes, VO2max simply does not vary by more than a few percent. 79 up to 92 is a 16% increase. It is an enormous change and anyone that thinks it is remotely possible obviously hasn't spent much time working with elite athletes. This is the kind of change you expect when you take a sedentary person and train them for 6-12 months.

If Lemond did the treadmill test at 1900m and the bike at sea level, then there is your answer, not the mode specificity.

 

[Krebs cycle]

2. You are neglecting the confounds from altitude and training status

No I didn't see anything about altitude earlier. I did a PhD on cardiorespiratory adaptation to altitude in elite endurance athletes so I know a little bt about the topic.

Your working hypothesis now is: Greg Lemond, who advocates (I think incorrectly) using longitudinal VO2max testing to detect doping, publicised longitudinal VO2max data that proves he is doping. Uh. Huh.

No my working hypothesis has nothing to do with Greg Lemond and whether or not he doped. My working hypothesis is that IMO it is virtually impossible for a well trained cyclist that is also a good runner, to achieve a VO2max that is 16% higher on a bike than a treadmill.

OTHER people, not me, are putting their own spin on it and accusing me of accusing Lemond of doping. I'm stating the facts in an objective manner.

 

[velosopher54]

Personally, I think Greg was totally drugfree. I think that he's honest when he says he loves the sport of cycling very much and hates the fact that there is so much ped use now. Now it's not a matter of 'just' using amphetamines or 'just' steriods, it's the whole package, steroids, testosterone, hgh, epo, and blood transfusions(did I miss anything?).

I think as a fellow American cyclist Greg is particularly disgusted that LA cheats and builds this wild myth of miracles around himself. Look how disgusted many of us are about LA? Think how much more, a CLEAN champion, is P.O.ed and disgusted? I do not see Greg as being bitter at all, except perhaps towards a system contaminated by doping when he did what he did clean.

But, what can we expect when the 'head' of cycling(UCI)is so corrupt?the rest of the body must follow.

I think LA accusing Greg of doping is an act by a desperate narcissistic man.

 

[Realist]

Rubbish. We did a study on identical twins once. One of them was a national level x-country skiier, the other one was recreationally active at best. Surprise surprise, both of them achieved the same VO2max. AMAZING!!

A study? What is the citation?

I've tested 100s of athletes in season and out of season. VO2max remains the same or is within 1-2%. AMAZING!!

I would check your equipment because, I have seen much less than 100's, but the ones I have seen were tested by lab groups with a lot of publications, that take a lot of care in what they do. Yet the variance I have seen is much greater than that. Similarly, if you look at wattage in the off season, that can be 20% (or more) lower than in peak form. You think there is no change in VO2max? It's all threshold increasing as a percentage of VO2max? Lemond himself says it depends on training status in the quote you use. Presumably because he has seen in-season out-of-season variation in his own results. Or perhaps because he has seen it in others.

In well trained athletes, VO2max simply does not vary by more than a few percent. 79 up to 92 is a 16% increase. It is an enormous change and anyone that thinks it is remotely possible obviously hasn't spent much time working with elite athletes. This is the kind of change you expect when you take a sedentary person and train them for 6-12 months.

I guess I just imagined seeing an athlete go from ~70 to 81. I guess I fantasised being in the room at the test. I should see a shrink.

If Lemond did the treadmill test at 1900m and the bike at sea level, then there is your answer, not the mode specificity.

The mode specificity may be part of it. The training status may be part of it. The elevation is probably the bulk of it. Since you're the careful scientist, how did you end up throwing around the allegations of impossibility and doping? Why did you leave it to me to work out that Lemond's initial quote alluded to the location, from which you can deduce the altitude? You don't seem too careful or scientific to me.

 

[Krebs cycle]

A study? What is the citation?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12413040

 

[Realist]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12413040

Is there full text somewhere online? I have institutional access to elsevier, etc, but can't pull it up quickly. Pubmed abstract does not give results.

This is from Lucia et al, 'Heart rate and performance parameters in elite cyclists: a longitudinal study':

The VO2max of the subjects averaged 75.0 mL/kg/1/min-1 throughout the study (72.6 +/- 1.5, 74.4+/- 1.3, and 75.2+/- 1.6 mL/kg/1/min-1 for the rest, precom- petition, and competition periods, respectively).

Pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11039652


What do we get from this: first, the measurement error testing in the same lab each time, is greater than the variability you claim to get in test-retest on an individual. Second, the longitudinal variation is such that VO2max increases by greater than 2% (the limit you claimed in intra-individual variation) going into the competition phase of the season. The subject group was composed entirely of professional cyclists, who should have the minimum variation in performance, being the best trained group possible.


I'm assuming you're not Dave Martin, because he understands statistics and error, and doesn't make things up.

 

[buckwheat]

Somebody mentioned my name?

Just to stir the pot a little: the 2nd ever VO2max test that I did was as a research subject for this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7197628

By luck-of-the-draw, it was on a cycle ergometer, and my VO2max was measured as being 5.2 L/min, or 81 mL/min/kg. (A value, BTW, I achieved on multiple subsequent occasions in various laboratories.)

A week later, I did my treadmill test, and the investigators decided that since my VO2max was so high, I should run at a very high pace, one appropriate for a runner with normal running economy, but one totally inappropriate for a cyclist with abnormally low running economy. Needless to say, I only lasted a little over 4 min, with my VO2 peaking out in the low 70s...

My point? W/o seeing the data from Lemond's original test, we have no way of knowing whether he did in fact achieve VO2max, such that it is foolish to even speculate.

(Full disclosure: Lemond once had Hunter and me to come to Seattle to educate him and others at Lemond Fitness re. some of the concepts in WKO+. I got a wonderful meal at a very nice resteraunt out of it, but no $$ changed hands.)

My point? W/o seeing the data from Lemond's original test, we have no way of knowing whether he did in fact achieve VO2max, such that it is foolish to even speculate.

 

[Beech Mtn]

How dare the Feds interfere with LA's TdF PR blitz?!?!

Associated Press -
Lance Armstrong's lawyer: 'Stop leaks'

Lance Armstrong's attorney sent a letter to the federal prosecutor investigating the seven-time Tour de France winner and his associates for possible fraud and doping violations, complaining about leaks to the media.

Monday's letter from Tim Herman to Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Miller in Los Angeles says it's "especially unfair to subject Mr. Armstrong to this continuing media blitz when he is in the middle of his final Tour de France."

And my favorite part:

"In fact, the 'investigation' has recently erupted into a forum for disgruntled Lance haters to bash Armstrong and try to settle old scores."

 

[rata de sentina]

He that uses many words for explaining any subject, doth, like the cuttlefish, hide himself for the most part in his own ink.
John Ray, naturalist

Nice, very nice. Might have to use that one myself sometime. As a scientist myself I've always considered it part of my role to make science accessible as possible to the layman. In fact even when talking to my colleagues I tend to use common vernacular. Turgid obscure jargon is in my experience largely the realm of social scientists and is a sign of inherent uncertainty. The result seems to be a need to puff up what one does by using a whole lot of bluster. Unfortunately a lot of sports scientists are the product of physical education departments which are directed primarily on pumping out teachers not scientists.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Is there full text somewhere online? I have institutional access to elsevier, etc, but can't pull it up quickly. Pubmed abstract does not give results.

It is in the journal in the link.

This is from Lucia et al, 'Heart rate and performance parameters in elite cyclists: a longitudinal study':

The VO2max of the subjects averaged 75.0 mL/kg/1/min-1 throughout the study (72.6 +/- 1.5, 74.4+/- 1.3, and 75.2+/- 1.6 mL/kg/1/min-1 for the rest, precom- petition, and competition periods, respectively).

Pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11039652

So Lucia's professional cyclists went from 72.6 up to 75.2, an increase of 3.6%. That I can handle. 1.5-2% is the typical variation that one sees in VO2max in elite endurance athletes. If you were to test at the completion of a high intensity training block I wouldn't be surprised to see it go slightly above the typical error. But it is a far cry from 16%.

I'm assuming you're not Dave Martin, because he understands statistics and error, and doesn't make things up.

Funny you should mention Dave Martin, because he is one the scientists you more or less accused of having sloppy lab standards in your previous post.