mikkemus23 said: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!
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!
mikkemus23 said:Is this LA new defence - "Greg did it too?" Obviously he has spread the 300k thin, and gotten himself some new trolls.
buckwheat said:Thanks troll. Shouldn't you be sucking up to Coggan?
Krebs cycle said: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.
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.
acoggan said:Simple, but completely and entirely incorrect.
lean said: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.
lean said:feel free to pick it apart without correcting it AC. that's a huge help to everybody.
acoggan said: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.)
Realist said: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).
Krebs cycle said: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.
Krebs cycle said:There is a cliche somewhere that says something about the truth lying somewhere in the middle.
lol I'm honoured that you have chosen to hone your "debating skills" with me in particular!!acoggan said: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.)
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
Ryo Hazuki said: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??
Krebs cycle said: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?
Cloxxki said: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
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!!Realist said: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.
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.Realist said:2. You are neglecting the confounds from altitude and training status
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.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.
Krebs cycle said: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 said:
acoggan said: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.)
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."
"In fact, the 'investigation' has recently erupted into a forum for disgruntled Lance haters to bash Armstrong and try to settle old scores."
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.Darryl Webster said: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
It is in the journal in the link.Realist said: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.
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%.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
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.I'm assuming you're not Dave Martin, because he understands statistics and error, and doesn't make things up.