MERCKX and his 455 watts indoors at VO2 = 77

I have opened earlier a thread concerning Merckx' 1975 ergometer test at a Sporthochule in Cologne in which he produced 455 watts for one hour.

Sometimes one reads that Merckx had a VO2 max of 77 ml/mn.kg, which of course looks ridiculously low.

I was wondering if in fact that 77 ml figure did not come from that 1975 test as a value of 77 ml would seem about right for a 73 kg athlete producing 455 watts.

455 watts for 77ml/min.kg times 73 kg = 5.6 liters/min.
455 watts at 5.6 liters/min corresponds to 81 watts per liter/min.

Almost exactly the same value as obtained by Coyle on Armstrong in Nov 99 ( or was it nov 97? have to check) Anyway it was 404 watts at 5 l/mn. (80.8 vs 81.2)

Almost exactly the same value as obtained on Museeuw on his 6 january 2003 test at Leuven and published on internet by Quick step (81.1 watts per l/mn).
On that day Museeuw's VO2 max was 75.4 ml/mn.kg and his weight 81kg. However the test was first meant to determine his lactate threshold.

Anyway, if anybody knows anything about that 1975 test in Cologne, please let us know.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
All I can add is that:

1) Armstrong wasn't/isn't exceptionally efficient; and

2) I was under the impression that Merckx's lab test was for 30 min, not 1 h?
 
acoggan said:
All I can add is that:

1) Armstrong wasn't/isn't exceptionally efficient; and

2) I was under the impression that Merckx's lab test was for 30 min, not 1 h?
Hi Andy,
Honoured that you answered my post.
Here my source
1975 sporthochschule Koln- 455 watts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Ed Burke's (ed) 1996 book ( may he RIP), High-Tech cycling, ISBN 0-87322-535-X, Human Kinetics, author Chester R. Kyle writes in the first chapter on "Selecting Cycling Equipment", on page 2, under the heading "Human Power" :

In 1975 at a Sporthochschule in Cologne, Germany, professional cyclist Eddy Merckx produced over 0.6 horsepower for 1hr (455 Watts) on a cycling ergometer


If we define efficiency ( oxygen economy?) as watts produced per l/min of O2 used, what ( no pun) would be the range for top-20 GT racers?

But now, if even you don't know any details about that 1975 test, who can I turn to to find more information? Merckx himself never answered my letter (he probably couldn't care less)
Maybe his pharmacist brother now that he is retired?
 
acoggan said:
All I can add is that:

1) Armstrong wasn't/isn't exceptionally efficient ...
I should add (from memory) that in his 56.375 km day Chris Boardman was said by Peter Keen to have produced 442 watts (68kg). His gross mechanical efficiency was quoted as 22.6%.

Assuming he used essentially carbs during his glorious hour,
442/355 = 1.245 l O2/min ==> 5.51 l O2/mn taking into account the quoted efficiency ( I took 1 liter O2 -> 21,3 kJ).

No ****, I again get near 81 watts /l O2, namely 80,2 watts.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
BroDeal said:
What? Coyle lied to us? Who woulda thought?

If you cannot trust publicity seeking "scientists" then who can you trust in this world?
Coyle never claimed that Armstrong was particularly efficient - he only reported that his efficiency significantly improved over time (going from fairly mediocre to essentially average).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Le breton said:
Hi Andy,
Honoured that you answered my post.
Here my source
1975 sporthochschule Koln- 455 watts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Ed Burke's (ed) 1996 book ( may he RIP), High-Tech cycling, ISBN 0-87322-535-X, Human Kinetics, author Chester R. Kyle writes in the first chapter on "Selecting Cycling Equipment", on page 2, under the heading "Human Power" :

In 1975 at a Sporthochschule in Cologne, Germany, professional cyclist Eddy Merckx produced over 0.6 horsepower for 1hr (455 Watts) on a cycling ergometer


If we define efficiency ( oxygen economy?) as watts produced per l/min of O2 used, what ( no pun) would be the range for top-20 GT racers?

But now, if even you don't know any details about that 1975 test, who can I turn to to find more information? Merckx himself never answered my letter (he probably couldn't care less)
Maybe his pharmacist brother now that he is retired?
I dug around a bit myself, and every source I find states that it was a 1 h effort, not a 30 min effort...not sure where I came up with the latter.

As for typical/maximal efficiency in professional cyclists, there is a bit of controversy, but Lucia et al. have reported values as high as 28.1%, corresponding to an economy of 97.9 W/L/min (during exercise at 80% of VO2max).
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
acoggan said:
Coyle never claimed that Armstrong was particularly efficient - he only reported that his efficiency significantly improved over time (going from fairly mediocre to essentially average).
You seriously didn't expect an intelligent response from Bro did you? He will always pick up on any snippet of Armstrong reference in a post and run with it, derailing the post as he has tried to do here. Best to just ignore him and focus on the topic.
 
SpartacusRox said:
You seriously didn't expect an intelligent response from Bro did you? He will always pick up on any snippet of Armstrong reference in a post and run with it, derailing the post as he has tried to do here. Best to just ignore him and focus on the topic.
You really might want to get yourself checked out, mate. There is more to cycling than Lance Armstrong. He hardly needs some douchenozzle like you defending himself on the Internet. You detract from what little credibility he has.
 
Jun 15, 2009
52
0
0
BroDeal said:
You really might want to get yourself checked out, mate. There is more to cycling than Lance Armstrong. He hardly needs some douchenozzle like you defending himself on the Internet. You detract from what little credibility he has.
I only visit this forum very occasionally because spending too much time in the sewer can cause one to become much like the regular inhabitants.

Brodeal, your statistics are interesting. Join Date: Mar 2009, Location: Above 5000 feet Posts: 5,748, nearly all of which are attacking LA, Cycling, or someone who has criticized you. You must be a really nice and kind person with lots of friends. :)
 
Oldnell said:
I only visit this forum very occasionally because spending too much time in the sewer can cause one to become much like the regular inhabitants.

Brodeal, your statistics are interesting. Join Date: Mar 2009, Location: Above 5000 feet Posts: 5,748, nearly all of which are attacking LA, Cycling, or someone who has criticized you. You must be a really nice and kind person with lots of friends. :)
Yes, you only visit the forum very occasionally but somehow you are aware of nearly all my posts. Dumbass. Try to be more consistent with your lies.

Funny enough, every single post you have ever made on this site is about doping or complaining about other posters. Every single one.
 
acoggan said:
As for typical/maximal efficiency in professional cyclists, there is a bit of controversy, but Lucia et al. have reported values as high as 28.1%, corresponding to an economy of 97.9 W/L/min (during exercise at 80% of VO2max).
From what I understand Lucia et al. seem to be the only ones to find such results, which seem extravagant to me and probably to you as well.

Some researchers even find similar efficiencies for "pros" and casual cyclists.

As an outside observer I have to wonder if too many unqualified physiologists still get funds to do research in that field.

But you are an authority on the subject and I would put more credit on your guess concerning the efficiency of top GT contenders (watts/l/min) than on Lucia's study.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Le breton said:
From what I understand Lucia et al. seem to be the only ones to find such results, which seem extravagant to me and probably to you as well.

Some researchers even find similar efficiencies for "pros" and casual cyclists.

As an outside observer I have to wonder if too many unqualified physiologists still get funds to do research in that field.

But you are an authority on the subject and I would put more credit on your guess concerning the efficiency of top GT contenders (watts/l/min) than on Lucia's study.
Actually, Ethan Nadel had previously reported a very wide range of efficiencies in well-trained cyclists, with some seemingly as high as found by Lucia et al.

Perhaps more relevantly, although Jeukendrup et al. were highly critical of Lucia et al.'s results, claiming that they were due to experimental error, when they published their own study of efficiency in cyclists of differing training status, they reported abnormally low efficiencies (<19% on average). Despite this, they claimed that their results and not Lucia et al.'s were consistent with the literature.

Having recently reviewed all of the literature re. the effects of training on cycling efficiency, I would say that the majority of the data (esp. from longitudinal studies) support the conclusion that it does indeed improve slightly. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that it can vary significantly between individuals. The possibility that some individuals may have exceptional efficiency therefore seems almost irrefutable. The question, however, is just how high can it be (lots of room for "slop" in the measurements if you're not careful), and is there some physiological reason why having a high efficiency and high VO2max (and/or LT) tend to be mutually exclusive.
 
acoggan said:
.........
Having recently reviewed all of the literature re. the effects of training on cycling efficiency, I would say that the majority of the data (esp. from longitudinal studies) support the conclusion that it does indeed improve slightly......
Thanks Andy for your reply.

Will you publish your review of those data?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Le breton said:
Thanks Andy for your reply.

Will you publish your review of those data?
I was reviewing all the papers in preparation for a USA Cycling coaching webinar. You can download it from here (sooner or later, anyway...not sure if it is up yet):

http://www.webinars4athletes.com

or if you don't care about what I had to say :))) about the various studies you can save yourself a few dollars and read this review:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19941249
 
Mar 13, 2009
683
0
0
Ah the infamous Coyle/Coggan efficiency mumbo jumbo. Put together by a couple of academics who probably finished last in their class.
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
BroDeal said:
You really might want to get yourself checked out, mate. There is more to cycling than Lance Armstrong. He hardly needs some douchenozzle like you defending himself on the Internet. You detract from what little credibility he has.
A joke coming from you, given almost all your posts reference Armstrong. Also reverting to name calling is about what I would expect from you.
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
BroDeal said:
Yes, you only visit the forum very occasionally but somehow you are aware of nearly all my posts. Dumbass. Try to be more consistent with your lies.

Funny enough, every single post you have ever made on this site is about doping or complaining about other posters. Every single one.
Lol...owned Bro. This must rank you as the ultimate forum troll!
 
SpartacusRox said:
A joke coming from you, given almost all your posts reference Armstrong. Also reverting to name calling is about what I would expect from you.
Oh, look. It is the liitle yap dog whose every other post is a complaint about me. It makes my day to know that I so enrage the Armstrong crotch sniffers like you that they seethe with anger. Have fun carrying that grudge..

:D :D :D :p
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
BroDeal said:
Oh, look. It is the liitle yap dog whose every other post is a complaint about me. It makes my day to know that I so enrage the Armstrong crotch sniffers like you that they seethe with anger. Have fun carrying that grudge..

:D :D :D :p
Mate I don't complain about you, I feel sorry for you. It must be hard to live your life constantly spewing out vitriole. You're such an angry boy
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
unsheath said:
Ah the infamous Coyle/Coggan efficiency mumbo jumbo. Put together by a couple of academics who probably finished last in their class.
If you are referring to Coyle's paper on Armstrong, I was not involved with that study.

As for where I finished in my class, it isn't really relevant...what matters is how often my colleagues cite my papers. ;)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Oldnell said:
What sort of a place is this when a person can write a comment like the following:
It is the same 'sort of place' that allows comments like this:

Oldnell said:
I only visit this forum very occasionally because spending too much time in the sewer can cause one to become much like the regular inhabitants.

Brodeal, your statistics are interesting. Join Date: Mar 2009, Location: Above 5000 feet Posts: 5,748, nearly all of which are attacking LA, Cycling, or someone who has criticized you. You must be a really nice and kind person with lots of friends. :)
Oldnell said:
These are interesting statistics: Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Charlotte NC, Posts: 5,430, the vast majority of which I have read are either attacking LA, Cycling, or someone who has dared to disagree with him. And yet this person can believe he is the wronged party and can apparently believe he can get someone who points this out banned. Lewis Carrol would be proud of you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY