Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[acoggan]

But what about the 15% increase in Cardiac Output? Should that not have essentially the same effect as blood vector doping?

Again, those are resting data...maximal cardiac output during exercise is a different animal.

 

[Turner29]

Okay, how 'bout 6.0? 5.9? Where do you draw the "doping line", and what is your physiological/scientific rationale for where you draw it?

Given that arguably all elite performances since 1989 have been tainted by doping (at least in cycling) and that prior no large body of ergometer data exists, such is impossible.

However, on a side note, what about the data in Coyle's paper Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance
of which at least one member of this forum was a participant?

As I recall, among the "Elite Nationals," of which several went on to become professional cyclists, the approx 5.0 w/kg was the highest measured value and the average for the Elites was about 4.75 w/kg.

Given that 1) these we laboratory measurements and not race data; and 2) I don't remember if the paper indicate each subject's current training status, is a 20% increase in power to 6.0 w/kg reasonable from professional-level training and race setting alone?

 

[Turner29]

Again, those are resting data...maximal cardiac output during exercise is a different animal.

Agreed and an effect at rest could be swamped by other factors under maximal or near maximal exercise. But my point is that many substances have a potential effect upon aerobic performance; therefore, testing is always going to lag.

One could argue that since primary and secondary doping methods are now well-tested, on less effective tertiary methods can be employed. While theoretically less effective than other methods, "tertiary" doping is much harder to detect, due to the number of possible substances.

 

[Turner29]

I was thinking only in terms of how athletic records progress in fits-and-starts, not proposing any overall acceleration or specific mechanism (e.g., evolution). Your hypothesis is interesting, however...I wonder, for example, if there is any overall trend in how long a particular record lasts in say, swimming?

I think the issue would be finding a sport that is free from doping.

 

[acoggan]

I think the issue would be finding a sport that is free from doping.

I'd say that first we need to know whether record-breaking is actually accelerating - then we can worry about the cause(s).

 

[acoggan]

Given that arguably all elite performances since 1989 have been tainted by doping (at least in cycling) and that prior no large body of ergometer data exists, such is impossible.

The cycle ergometer was invented in the late 1880s, and VO2max was first measured/recognized starting in the 1920s. IOW, there are plenty of data from before the widespread use of blood doping/the invention of EPO. For example, Merckx reportedly averaged 6.2 W/kg during a 1 h ergometer test in 1975: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8170

However, on a side note, what about the data in Coyle's paper Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance
of which at least one member of this forum was a participant?

Actually, I was neither a co-author nor a participant, as that study was performed after I'd graduated.

As I recall, among the "Elite Nationals," of which several went on to become professional cyclists, the approx 5.0 w/kg was the highest measured value and the average for the Elites was about 4.75 w/kg.

Given that 1) these we laboratory measurements and not race data; and 2) I don't remember if the paper indicate each subject's current training status, is a 20% increase in power to 6.0 w/kg reasonable from professional-level training and race setting alone?

I don't believe that any of the subjects in that study raced on a European pro team, much less, e.g., challenged for the GC in one of the Grand Tours. Thus, I don't see the relevance of the data. (OTOH, most would hold up Graham Obree as an example of a clean rider, and his FTP was ~6.1 W/kg.)

 

[DarkWarrior]

ABP = Athlete Biological Passport?

Anyway, the analogy I was attempting to draw in bringing up evolution is that while genetic alterations may progress at a certain rate on average, that does not mean that such changes are gradual. I could have just as well pointed to the effects of aging; while population data will demonstrate a smooth decline in physiological function, for a given individual such reductions tend to be far less so. By extension, the fact that athletic performances have improved by X% on average over a particular period in time in no way precludes a given individual from exceeding that rate of change (via whatever mechanism).

You are an expert on physiology and performance and I am most certainly not. I can see your point re aging; some people fall off the proverbial cliff at a certain age while others see relatively no performance decline for years. However, what is the likelihood without performance enhancing drugs of the rate of change of this particular cyclist; a cyclist who is already several years into his professional career?

Is there any plausible physiological explanation for this type of improvement (excluding doping/increasing hemoglobin concentration) and does any documentation exist of this magnitude of performance gain for a comparably trained/experienced elite level cyclist or endurance athlete?

 

[Turner29]

The cycle ergometer was invented in the late 1880s, and VO2max was first measured/recognized starting in the 1920s. IOW, there are plenty of data from before the widespread use of blood doping/the invention of EPO. For example, Merckx reportedly averaged 6.2 W/kg during a 1 h ergometer test in 1975: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8170



Actually, I was neither a co-author nor a participant, as that study was performed after I'd graduated.



I don't believe that any of the subjects in that study raced on a European pro team, much less, e.g., challenged for the GC in one of the Grand Tours. Thus, I don't see the relevance of the data. (OTOH, most would hold up Graham Obree as an example of a clean rider, and his FTP was ~6.1 W/kg.)

When I said "large body of data," I meant exactly that. Yes, ergometers have existed for over 100 years, but prior to the 1980s, we don't have a large amount of data from many cyclists and in actual data form. Yes, references in some books for a select few, but nothing comprehensive.

Sorry, I was under the impression you were one of Coyle's subjects. Funny, you pointed out what I politely omitted, namely that while some subjects were "elite" American national cyclists, none were GC contenders. Thus, today, 5.5+ w/kg for even elite amateurs should not viewed as suspicious.

But these snippets of data regarding Merckx and Obree are important to the current discussion. Assuming for the moment that Merckx' 6.2 w/kg lab test in 1975 was clean and the number is accurate, I see no reason why nearly 40 years later, 6.5 w/kg under race conditions would be impossible.

 

[Turner29]

You are an expert on physiology and performance and I am most certainly not. I can see your point re aging; some people fall off the proverbial cliff at a certain age while others see relatively no performance decline for years. However, what is the likelihood without performance enhancing drugs of the rate of change of this particular cyclist; a cyclist who is already several years into his professional career?

Is there any plausible physiological explanation for this type of improvement (excluding doping/increasing hemoglobin concentration) and does any documentation exist of this magnitude of performance gain for a comparably trained/experienced elite level cyclist or endurance athlete?

This is what I was getting to and I thank Dr. C has for opening up the discussion. Initially, based upon a blog post by the Sports Science guys, I was leaning in one direction, but Dr. C changed my thoughts on this entirely.

Forgetting about the actually genetic mutations that occur enabling increased aerobic performance, the simple fact that so many more people are alive today means that more outliers exist. Given that much, much more money is now available to aerobic sports, the chances of finding and grooming outliers is far greater.

As Dr. C noted, some data mining might uncover such trends.

 

[acoggan]

You are an expert on physiology and performance and I am most certainly not. I can see your point re aging; some people fall off the proverbial cliff at a certain age while others see relatively no performance decline for years. However, what is the likelihood without performance enhancing drugs of the rate of change of this particular cyclist; a cyclist who is already several years into his professional career?

I was talking about aging, not development.

Is there any plausible physiological explanation for this type of improvement (excluding doping/increasing hemoglobin concentration) and does any documentation exist of this magnitude of performance gain for a comparably trained/experienced elite level cyclist or endurance athlete?

I'm not talking about any particular individual, just pointing out that it is a mistake to think that long-term averages really mean anything in the present context.

 

[Turner29]

I will say one thing and I mean this sincerely. Prior to today, I thought that 6.5 w/kg was impossible without doping. Now, my mind is completely changed.

I am not saying that any particular rider is clean, but one cannot use 6.5 w/kg alone as judgement -- it is feasible.

 

[acoggan]

I was talking about aging, not development.

Sorry, that wasn't clear: in bringing up aging (as in, "the sum of all changes that occur with the passage of time leading to senescence and, eventually, death"), I was alluding to the fact that as you grow old, your health tends to decline in distinct steps, rather than smoothly/steadily. For example, an older woman may still be able to live independently at, say, age 80, but then at age 81 breaks their hip...after treatment and recovery they may do okay on their own for a few more years, but then at (say) age 84 contracts the flu which develops into pneumonia. That leads to hospitalization, loss of lean body mass, etc., which puts them into a nursing home. There they reside for a few more years, before passing at (say) age 88 due to other causes. Since events such as these occur at different times and at different rates in different individuals, any population-based averages will tend to show a steady decline, when it is generally not for any given individual.

 

[acoggan]

I will say one thing and I mean this sincerely. Prior to today, I thought that 6.5 w/kg was impossible without doping. Now, my mind is completely changed.

I am not saying that any particular rider is clean, but one cannot use 6.5 w/kg alone as judgement -- it is feasible.

Do I hear a 6.6? 6.7? How 'bout a 6.8? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Turner29]

Do I hear a 6.6? 6.7? How 'bout a 6.8? Where do you draw the line?

Exactly. Thanks again.

Performance data cannot be used to determine doping.

 

[Turner29]

Good teachers don't tell students answers, they lead students to them...

 

[IndianCyclist]

Do I hear a 6.6? 6.7? How 'bout a 6.8? Where do you draw the line?

I donot think you can draw any line. If you look at athletics, there also the records keep on tumbling. You cannot even say improvement in aerodynamics/ body posture as a contributing factor as it is only the human body that is used. There is enough variability in humans that it is not possible to predict the next outlier based on normal data.

 

[BroDeal]

The problem with this is that Froome is not an outlier. If he had the engine capable of doing clean what he is now doing, putting up numbers equal to the best doped performances, then it would have been apparent at a young age, just like LeMond. Instead his mother was asking whether he had any talent at riding a bike because he would get dropped by low grade riders. Even with minimal training he would be a beast compared to the amateurs he began racing with. Again like LeMond, who did Etape du Tour because his son was doing it; he was really fat and something like fifty years old but still finished in the top 10% in a field of amateurs who trained their asses off for what is always a long, brutal event.

This handwaving about what might be humanly possible is ridiculous when Froome's history is ignored.

 

[Turner29]

The problem with this is that Froome is not an outlier. If he had the engine capable of doing clean what he is now doing, putting up numbers equal to the best doped performances, then it would have been apparent at a young age, just like LeMond. Instead his mother was asking whether he had any talent at riding a bike because he would get dropped by low grade riders. Even with minimal training he would be a beast compared to the amateurs he began racing with. Again like LeMond, who did Etape du Tour because his son was doing it; he was really fat and something like fifty years old but still finished in the top 10% in a field of amateurs who trained their asses off for what is always a long, brutal event.

This handwaving about what might be humanly possible is ridiculous when Froome's history is ignored.

We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about what is a plausible performance without doping.

 

[zastomito]

We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about what is a plausible performance without doping.

Under which conditions? What is the duration? W/kg in one hour in lab conditions, GT contender in top form fully rested?

 

[BroDeal]

We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about what is a plausible performance without doping.

Sure you are. The entire discussion revolves around whether it is possible to do cleanly ride in race conditions at 6.5 W/kg, a figure that comes about because that is what Froome is suspected of doing. This is the Krapcycle Defense, where everything else is ignored to concentrate on one point, which is then used to claim the truth of the larger assertion, which contains everything he ignored.

While it might be possible--even quite likely given the billions of people who have never tried competitive cycling--for someone to ride at 6.5 W/kg cleanly, it won't be Froome who does it.

 

[Netserk]

According to vetooo Froome did a Verbier

 

[Turner29]

Under which conditions? What is the duration? W/kg in one hour in lab conditions, GT contender in top form fully rested?

If you followed the post, you would have noted that I stated the conditions quiet clearly.

Again, on the assumption that Merckx' 6.2 w/kg for one hour in a 1975 lab test is accurate, 6.5 w/kg for an hour is quite plausible. Even if Merckx' test was only 30 minutes, 6.5 w/kg today in race conditions is plausible.

 

[acoggan]

Sure you are. The entire discussion revolves around whether it is possible to do cleanly ride in race conditions at 6.5 W/kg, a figure that comes about because that is what Froome is suspected of doing. This is the Krapcycle Defense, where everything else is ignored to concentrate on one point, which is then used to claim the truth of the larger assertion, which contains everything he ignored.

What you call "the Krapcycle Defense" I call the ability to remain focused on the specific issue being discussed. Very important ability, that, especially if you wish to be a scientist. I can understand, though, how those with weak intellects could easily get confused.

 

[Turner29]

Sure you are. The entire discussion revolves around whether it is possible to do cleanly ride in race conditions at 6.5 W/kg, a figure that comes about because that is what Froome is suspected of doing. This is the Krapcycle Defense, where everything else is ignored to concentrate on one point, which is then used to claim the truth of the larger assertion, which contains everything he ignored.

While it might be possible--even quite likely given the billions of people who have never tried competitive cycling--for someone to ride at 6.5 W/kg cleanly, it won't be Froome who does it.

For the nth time, I never said the Froome is clean and you should keep to topic -- climbing power estimates. All I am saying, is that 6.5 w/kg, even for an hour, is plausible.

Another issue that without knowing rider weight and frontal area, wind direction, barometric pressure, temperature, tire rolling resistance, power output is merely speculation and not accurate enough to condemn any rider.

 

[Turner29]

Sure you are. The entire discussion revolves around whether it is possible to do cleanly ride in race conditions at 6.5 W/kg, a figure that comes about because that is what Froome is suspected of doing. This is the Krapcycle Defense, where everything else is ignored to concentrate on one point, which is then used to claim the truth of the larger assertion, which contains everything he ignored.

By the way, when Landis was out on the road promoting his defense, I stood up in the forum and directly, but politely, pointed out my concerns regarding his "defense" on a point-by-point scientific basis...

I am not here defending anyone. For the record, prior to last night and today's discussion, I was actually in the camp that anything over 6.0 w/kg was a sure sign of doping. Now I am not.