The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Sure, if Pog was one or two blood bags more prepared in the longer climb stages than on San Luca, then of course the maximum oxygen uptake available to him is higher. And had he on those days gone for it during a 4-5min effort, the output might have been higher than, say, San Luca. But only if fatigue doesn't prevent this (I feel stupid writing that, as if he fatigues).
Agreed about "the ability to operate at a super-high percentage of VO2max for a long time" being key. When one thinks about it, that is the definition of endurance right there, and increasing the power and the duration at the higher power is the end goal of all performance oriented endurance training. It never gets easier, you just go faster, as it were.
There is an old but very worthwhile paper on this topic by Coyle (of clinic fame for his work on Armstrong) and coauthors. No doping angle, there, just well done basic exercise physiology that points to very basic and simple things being important.
Determinants of endurance in well-trained cyclists - PubMed
Fourteen competitive cyclists who possessed a similar maximum O2 consumption (VO2 max; range, 4.6-5.0 l/min) were compared regarding blood lactate responses, glycogen usage, and endurance during submaximal exercise. Seven subjects reached their blood lactate threshold (LT) during exercise of a...
I think we’re a long way off from gene doping (re: VO2 max and other oxygen usage) of the type that most folks imagine—substituting or altering a specific gene using Crispr technology to enhance performance. It’s true that there are now ways to use that technology for medical purposes to manipulate genes involved in making blood. One example is a new treatment for sickle-cell disease. But the treatment involves getting the equivalent of a bone-marrow transplant that has health risks and requires hospitalization for long periods. A more likely avenue for gene doping is the emergence of drugs specifically tailored for individual genes involved in erythropoiesis (the blood-making process). For now, those are meant to offset the impact of gene mutations in anemic individuals, so may not help a healthy person at all. But research heading that direction could lead to drugs tailored to specific genes that will will simply enhance the activity of that gene.
Could you explain your Q1st sentence a little more? I’m interested but Im not sure what specific doping or health question you’re referring to there?
This topic of gene doping with epo was discussed a bit a couple years back in the clinic and some papers were also linked, which I skimmed. From memory, the initial animal studies reported that monkeys injected with a "produce more EPO" gene first began producing RBCs like crazy, and their blood had to be drawn constantly so that the sludge doesn't kill them. But as the regulation of endogenous EPO production is dynamic, the overproduction in the said monkeys later turned into exhibiting anemia.
Thanks for the explanation and the link, really interesting stuff. A couple of things in the article dudn’t make sense to me, but that could be that the authors didn’t fully understand the science or couldn’t explain it all clearly.This topic of gene doping with epo was discussed a bit a couple years back in the clinic and some papers were also linked, which I skimmed. From memory, the initial animal studies reported that monkeys injected with a "produce more EPO" gene first began producing RBCs like crazy, and their blood had to be drawn constantly so that the sludge doesn't kill them. But as the regulation of endogenous EPO production is dynamic, the overproduction in the said monkeys later turned into exhibiting anemia.
So in the context of this dynamic regulation, delaying (or otherwise downregulating) the factors that switch off endogenous EPO production could be safer (assuming this is a concern) and thus more feasible. At the very least one would likely have to meddle with "both sides" of the on/off switch. Inverted commas inserted because the regulation consists of many factors.
Poor monkeys
Fwiw, a similar kind of reasoning was laid out here: https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/road-training/the-future-of-blood-doping-epo-gene-doping/
Yeah, and he didn't had a proper preparation for this Vuelta. The podium was a strong possibility in the Tour.
Preparation matters so much more for the hard, long stages than the fresh 25 minute bazookas.
lanternerouge.com
The 'power data estimates for the climbing stages' thread gives you a good start if you want to study it. Focus on his Plateau de Beille result and try to come up with an explanation that makes sense without doping. Fyi, this is an article with details of the full stage and power estimates: https://www.chronoswatts.com/news/228/
I know the estimates which are total crap when comparing them to historic results cause they dont compare change in equipment; now explain to me why its physically impossible
In a mountain climb it is all about watt/kg. Changes in aero, roll resistance, stifness, braking, shifting etc have no significant impact. The weight of the bike didn't change significantly since Armstrong. The 2003 TdF bike of Armstrong is estimated to be the lightest used in TdF history (was prior to the 6.8kg limit). https://felixwong.com/2010/11/tour-de-france-bicycles-historical-bike-weights/
Thanks for the link, very interesting. On the above, it is noteworthy that Armstrong's 2003 frame wasn't particularly light - 2.2lbs 980 grams? Many top notch frames these days are sub 900grams even with aero.
oh man, rolling resistance and gears have no significant impact on climbs; despite working in the bike industry for 25 years this forum always teaches me something new; thanks
GCN made quite a few comparison betwen old bikes (with new tyres BTW ) and modern ones; I suggest you check it out
Sponsored I'd think. Nevertheless your trouble remains: W/kg are W/kg - they account for the weight of the bike, the rolling resistance, from the tyres, from the road, the drag on the bike, on the jersey, from the wind. Of course they will never be perfect, as we don't have data from bike computers from back then - but arguing that they can't be perfectly reasonable estimates, that tell us enough to make comparisons to the present isn't fair.
You're welcome. I am a mechanical engineer with 25 years of experience. At a ~10% gradients rolling resistance and gears add up to 5-7% of the energy budget. Even if the new tech during the last 20 years really moved the needle by reducing it with say 20-40% (would be huge), we are talking about ~1-2% of the energy budget. That's ~5-10 W. This is not the improvement we are seeing. We are talking about an increase vs post-EPO era and pre-2020 numbers of 10-15% or +50 W. That is definitely not due to the mechanical improvements of the bike.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram