Lance vs Cadel: a study of two 22-year-olds

Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
sittingbison said:
yup just saw that posted by Jose Been. What a hoot, I wonder if Dr Martin wants an edit reprint? Or feels like a goose?
I think the hindsight of this shows the reality of a lot of descriptive science. In the end, it's mostly papers written to support a position rather than hard science based on verifiable and repeatable observation.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
0
0
This was interesting:

The best test results achieved by Evans at the AIS between the ages of 18 and 24 was a maximum aerobic power output of 455W (7.3 W.kg-1 body mass).
The best test results achieved by Armstrong at the University of Texas between the ages of 21 and 28 was an estimated maximum aerobic power output of ~510W (6.8 W.kg-1 body mass)
Cadel and Lance both produced their highest VO2max values when they were 22. Immediately apparent is the superior power to mass ratios produced by Cadel at VO2max intensity. More specifically, Cadel’s 7.3 W.kg-1 at VO2max is almost eight per cent higher than the 6.8 W.kg-1 produced by Lance. Similarly, Cadel’s highest VO2max of 87 ml.kg-1.min-1 is 7.4 per cent higher than Lance’s highest recorded value
Could that imply that it is not necessarily normal for riders to be at their "best"/"peak" later on in their career (not discounting "social" factors such as experience to actually win races, or be in a leadership role)?
 
Bala Verde said:
This was interesting:




Could that imply that it is not necessarily normal for riders to be at their "best"/"peak" later on in their career (not discounting "social" factors such as experience to actually win races, or be in a leadership role)?
Peak VO2max doesn't mean peak performance, especially as races get longer and longer (as the riders get older). VO2 Max is also difficult to improve dramatically

Also, a criticism of VO2 testing is that it can often just become an indicator of the subjects effort on the test; a young gun may be able to apply himself more in a lab in pursuit of a high score, moreso than a mature champion who knows to leave it on the road.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
From the article:

"Cadel’s highest VO2max of 87 ml.kg-1.min-1 is 7.4 per cent higher than Lance’s highest recorded value"

In fact, Armstrong's VO2max has been reported to be as high as 84 mL/min/kg, which makes the difference only 3.6%.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
0
0
More Strides than Rides said:
Peak VO2max doesn't mean peak performance, especially as races get longer and longer (as the riders get older). VO2 Max is also difficult to improve dramatically

Also, a criticism of VO2 testing is that it can often just become an indicator of the subjects effort on the test; a young gun may be able to apply himself more in a lab in pursuit of a high score, moreso than a mature champion who knows to leave it on the road.
Good points. Thanks for the feedback.
 
Jul 8, 2009
187
0
0
The data doesn’t support the argument that Lance wins because he was born with some god-given gift, some unique physiological capacity that makes his success as a professional road cyclist easy. There’s a lot involved in winning.
Now this I can agree with. . .
 
acoggan said:
From the article:

"Cadel’s highest VO2max of 87 ml.kg-1.min-1 is 7.4 per cent higher than Lance’s highest recorded value"

In fact, Armstrong's VO2max has been reported to be as high as 84 mL/min/kg, which makes the difference only 3.6%.
Dr Martin did say the data was drawn from 21-28yo by UT and Ed Coyle. Perhaps your figure was outside that envelope?

Anyway who cares, it's all balderdash. Armstrongs been juiced to the gills since 16yo with Carmichael, so NONE of his physiological characteristics have any validity. Like none of his TdF "victories"
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
sittingbison said:
Dr Martin did say the data was drawn from 21-28yo by UT and Ed Coyle. Perhaps your figure was outside that envelope?

Anyway who cares, it's all balderdash. Armstrongs been juiced to the gills since 16yo with Carmichael, so NONE of his physiological characteristics have any validity. Like none of his TdF "victories"
I just found it ironic that, after taking umbrage over Ed's paper because he (Dave) felt that Ed was "playing on his turf", Dave himself didn't get all of his facts perfectly straight.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
acoggan said:
I just found it ironic that, after taking umbrage over Ed's paper because he (Dave) felt that Ed was "playing on his turf", Dave himself didn't get all of his facts perfectly straight.
I say "GIGO" (garbage in garbage out). Using falsified data to secondarily generate comparables of Lances 'fitness and capabilities' is useless. What has this guy done that real? We just hear he fixed races before his cancer days! No longer are there any level of shocking facts related to this deviant.

Who knows what Lance is actually capable of? Maybe only Schumi really knows. Who knows who Lance bought off, bribed, bullied? That is coming out now in a steady stream of effluent.

There are varied reports of Lance's VO2Max, Anaerobic threshold, Lactate levels...as founded as the widespread rubbish about him training more, higher cadence, losing weight postchemo...

For all we know he's average at everything.

What we DO know is that most other champions, doped or not, had superior physiology and did NOT have propaganda machines or collusional race officials. We do know that even on his ex Postal team(s) there were riders like Landis, Hamilton and VdVelde that all had superior physiology and probably trained as hard if not harder than Lance.

Bottom line: Lance is a dud, a cheat, and probably an average athlete with an overachieving, inferiority complex full or sports focused rage. He is no idol or champion.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Neworld said:
I say "GIGO" (garbage in garbage out). Using falsified data to secondarily generate comparables of Lances 'fitness and capabilities' is useless. What has this guy done that real? We just hear he fixed races before his cancer days! No longer are there any level of shocking facts related to this deviant.

Who knows what Lance is actually capable of? Maybe only Schumi really knows. Who knows who Lance bought off, bribed, bullied? That is coming out now in a steady stream of effluent.

There are varied reports of Lance's VO2Max, Anaerobic threshold, Lactate levels...as founded as the widespread rubbish about him training more, higher cadence, losing weight postchemo...

For all we know he's average at everything.

What we DO know is that most other champions, doped or not, had superior physiology and did NOT have propaganda machines or collusional race officials. We do know that even on his ex Postal team(s) there were riders like Landis, Hamilton and VdVelde that all had superior physiology and probably trained as hard if not harder than Lance.

Bottom line: Lance is a dud, a cheat, and probably an average athlete with an overachieving, inferiority complex full or sports focused rage. He is no idol or champion.
:confused:

Why are you replying to me?
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,868
0
0
Neworld said:
I say "GIGO" (garbage in garbage out). Using falsified data to secondarily generate comparables of Lances 'fitness and capabilities' is useless. What has this guy done that real? We just hear he fixed races before his cancer days! No longer are there any level of shocking facts related to this deviant.

Who knows what Lance is actually capable of? Maybe only Schumi really knows. Who knows who Lance bought off, bribed, bullied? That is coming out now in a steady stream of effluent.

There are varied reports of Lance's VO2Max, Anaerobic threshold, Lactate levels...as founded as the widespread rubbish about him training more, higher cadence, losing weight postchemo...

For all we know he's average at everything.

What we DO know is that most other champions, doped or not, had superior physiology and did NOT have propaganda machines or collusional race officials. We do know that even on his ex Postal team(s) there were riders like Landis, Hamilton and VdVelde that all had superior physiology and probably trained as hard if not harder than Lance.

Bottom line: Lance is a dud, a cheat, and probably an average athlete with an overachieving, inferiority complex full or sports focused rage. He is no idol or champion.
Agree with everthing except the bolded part. How do we know that? They were all on the same stuff. Maybe Lance was taking more, but then he was also going much faster.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
acoggan said:
I just found it ironic that, after taking umbrage over Ed's paper because he (Dave) felt that Ed was "playing on his turf", Dave himself didn't get all of his facts perfectly straight.
I felt the same when reading it...
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
"I believe the data reviewed in this article supports the concept that Lance is a winner because he has committed himself, trained hard, and designed his environment to allow him to produce exceptional performances. Based on physiological traits, it is just a bit too simplistic – and a bit naive – to think that all of Lance’s achievements can be explained by superior build."

What dope is he smoking?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
acoggan said:
From the article:

"Cadel’s highest VO2max of 87 ml.kg-1.min-1 is 7.4 per cent higher than Lance’s highest recorded value"

In fact, Armstrong's VO2max has been reported to be as high as 84 mL/min/kg, which makes the difference only 3.6%.
armstrong's verifiably doped up vo2max.....
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
goggalor said:
Agree with everthing except the bolded part. How do we know that? They were all on the same stuff. Maybe Lance was taking more, but then he was also going much faster.
coz lance / johan aren't denying it after it has been claimed muliple times in biographies.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Turner29 said:
"I believe the data reviewed in this article supports the concept that Lance is a winner because he has committed himself, trained hard, and designed his environment to allow him to produce exceptional performances. Based on physiological traits, it is just a bit too simplistic – and a bit naive – to think that all of Lance’s achievements can be explained by superior build."

What dope is he smoking?
I take the bolded part to be Dave's not-so-subtle way of saying that Armstrong was a doper.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
acoggan said:
I just found it ironic that, after taking umbrage over Ed's paper because he (Dave) felt that Ed was "playing on his turf", Dave himself didn't get all of his facts perfectly straight.
i find it ironic ed's paper was published for armstrong's case vs sca.
i find it ironic ed conveniently lost all the data so noone can verify anything about his study.
i find ed's definition of threshold ironic.
i find it ironic ed relied on weight info lance changed significantly in his depositions.
i find ed's sycophantic conclusion ironic.
i find claiming 10 or more year's results explainable based on 6 data points taken at different times of the year at different levels of fitness over a period of 7 years laughable.

ymmv.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
i told a phd ed lost all 6 data points of his 7 year study after publishing and she looked at me and laughed incredulously. you've got a problem right there, she said.....
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
armstrong's verifiably doped up vo2max.....
Regardless, Dave's statement isn't really correct (and given that he interned at the US OTC in the early 1990s, when/where Armstrong's VO2max was measured at 84 mL/min/kg - at 6000 ft altitude, no less - I'm a bit surprised he made it).
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS