Lance v. Lemond - Lemond comes clean?

[acoggan]

You brought up the maxHR thing.

No, I did not. Please keep your facts straight.

All I'm saying is that in elite endurance athletes structure/function limitations exists which mean that the cardiovascular system is almost perfectly matched to the pulmonary system such that you can't just increase VO2max by increasing the capacity of one element of the system (ie: max HR). If you don't see how the concept of symmorphosis applies directly to that, then I can't help you.

If the concept of symmorphosis truly applied here then no one would ever experience EIAH.

(Ironically, in their 10 y retrospective on the previous series of studies I cited, Taylor et al. wrote the following opening sentence for their last paragraph:

"In general conclusion, it appears from this analysis that the
principle of economic design, as reflected in the hypothesis
of symmorphosis, is upheld for all the internal compartments
of the respiratory system, but it does not appear to apply to
the lung.")

 

[acoggan]

That data was from female cyclists 20yrs ago. I'm not a dinosaur

I wasn't aware that scientific data had an expiration date, and what you apparently call being a dinosaur I simply call having an appreciation of the literature commensurate with possessing a PhD in the field.

I'm basing my comments on observations from over the past 10yrs on a variety of different sports including cycling, triathlon, rowing, middle distance running and kayaking.

I'm basing my comments on the published literature (BTW, feel free to take the position that things have changed dramatically in women's cycling since Gore et al. made those measurements...that's why I also included Sassi's data on men from 2008.)

By all means, keep quoting an "off hand comment"

So you can dish it out but can't take it, eh?

Argue all you want over exactly how much it does change by (which is futile anyway because so many factors are invovled) however, this entire discussion is based on my primary comment that I stand by "VO2max does not vary by more than 15% in well trained endurance athletes".

That wasn't the comment to which I was responding. Rather, I was responding to your statement that:

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

 

[lean mean &green]

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

i think this was the remark made "off hand". he's casually saying from experience he sees much less variation. i didn't get it at first either, 1-2% seemed REALLY low but it's much clearer now.

 

[Realist]

"VO2max does not vary by more than 15% in well trained endurance athletes".

Just to clarify where I stand on this: I agree, for some reasonable value of well trained, and with the proviso that not seeing something doesn't prove it can't happen, and we'd expect to see some outliers occasionally. Of course, 15% would be an extreme outlier. Like my simulation suggested and Andy's data demonstrated, it wouldn't be that shocking to see an 8-10% change out of to in season. But I also think most athletes report their VO2peak as their VO2max so if an athlete says 'I was tested and my VO2max was 75 and then 85', it is not indicative of doping or anything like that. It just means they haven't reported all the variables. Or they are very talented are were not well-trained when they got 75. So we're not far apart here I don't think. Or they are reporting a peak not a max.

Furthermore, at 1900m altitude, an increase in true VO2max from 79 on a treadmill to 92-93 on a bike is nothing short of astonishing.

If you read the Lemond quote carefully, he says that the first test is at Squaw valley, in the 80's. Sounds like the early eighties, possibly. He then says he starts testing seriously in '89. So possible sources of variation include weight, training status, mode specificity, altitude (sounds like he wasn't at altitude for the latter tests), and the possibility that he didn't actually reach VO2max in the initial test and he is really reporting a VO2peak value. So we all agree that this is totally plausible right? Given all the uncertainty, the time between tests, the fact we can't see mass, can't see RER for the tests, etc, this is a storm in a teacup? Andy? Krebs?

 

[Krebs cycle]

No, I did not. Please keep your facts straight.

This is what I was referring to.....

I don't know, but all else being equal, having a higher maximal heart rate is advantageous (and Armstrong's is a wee bit higher than you might expect for someone of his training status/build, though given the variability in maximal heart rate between individuals obviously the same could be said for many others...for example, if memory serves me correctly Bradley McGee also had a maximal heart rate of over 200 beats/min, despite not being built like a climber).

I wasn't aware that scientific data had an expiration date, and what you apparently call being a dinosaur I simply call having an appreciation of the literature commensurate with possessing a PhD in the field.

I never said scientific data had an expiration date. Please keep your facts straight. Scientific theories change over time and on many many occasions throughout the history of science newer discoveries have lead to major shifts in understanding.

You clearly support the idea that an immutable cycling efficiency is an out of date scientific theory, so obviously you are being a hypocritical troll here.

I do not make my living coaching athletes or interacting with those that do,

What I do (which, BTW, does not include training athletes)

Well I do make my living training elite athletes and working with many other people who also do, oh and I also have a PhD in exercise physiology, and I actually did all my data collection on elite athletes. So yeah, I have an appreciation of the literature too, and I note that the literature does not support your assertion that a higher max HR is advantageous, neither does it support the idea that VO2max varies by >15&#37]If the concept of symmorphosis truly applied here then no one would ever experience EIAH.

(Ironically, in their 10 y retrospective on the previous series of studies I cited, Taylor et al. wrote the following opening sentence for their last paragraph:

"In general conclusion, it appears from this analysis that the
principle of economic design, as reflected in the hypothesis
of symmorphosis, is upheld for all the internal compartments
of the respiratory system, but it does not appear to apply to
the lung.")[/QUOTE]Again, scientific theories change and alter with time. You claim to have an appreciation of the literature yet the paper by Weibel and Taylor published in 1991 pre-dates a large volume of work on EIAH in elite athletes. Interesting that you quoted the above but chose to leave out the following...

It rather appeared that the lung maintains a considerable excess
diffusing capacity, up to a factor of 2 in sedentary species,

We are, and always have been, talking about elite athletes, not sedentary subjects. In elite endurance athletes the principle of symmorphosis holds true and indeed, the fact that it occurs only at the limit of human adaptation is an even more remarkable example of congruence between structure/funcation AND adaptation in the human machine.


Your childish attempts at belitting anyone who challenges your apparently self appointed "authority" on this forum really are quite pathetic. You have the intelligence and knowledge to contribute to some great discussions but its a pity your massive ego and arrogant attitude have turned you into such a troll. I have better things to do than argue with trolls so don't expect any further debate practice with me in future.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Just to clarify where I stand on this: I agree, for some reasonable value of well trained, and with the proviso that not seeing something doesn't prove it can't happen, and we'd expect to see some outliers occasionally. Of course, 15% would be an extreme outlier. Like my simulation suggested and Andy's data demonstrated, it wouldn't be that shocking to see an 8-10% change out of to in season. But I also think most athletes report their VO2peak as their VO2max so if an athlete says 'I was tested and my VO2max was 75 and then 85', it is not indicative of doping or anything like that. It just means they haven't reported all the variables. Or they are very talented are were not well-trained when they got 75. So we're not far apart here I don't think. Or they are reporting a peak not a max.




If you read the Lemond quote carefully, he says that the first test is at Squaw valley, in the 80's. Sounds like the early eighties, possibly. He then says he starts testing seriously in '89. So possible sources of variation include weight, training status, mode specificity, altitude (sounds like he wasn't at altitude for the latter tests), and the possibility that he didn't actually reach VO2max in the initial test and he is really reporting a VO2peak value. So we all agree that this is totally plausible right? Given all the uncertainty, the time between tests, the fact we can't see mass, can't see RER for the tests, etc, this is a storm in a teacup? Andy? Krebs?

Definately storm in a tea cup!! Thank you kindly for your respectful contributions realist. Obviously you can discuss interesting cycling physiology without the need for juvenile trolling