Turner29 said: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.
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!
Turner29 said:But what about the 15% increase in Cardiac Output? Should that not have essentially the same effect as blood vector doping?
acoggan said: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?
acoggan said:Again, those are resting data...maximal cardiac output during exercise is a different animal.
acoggan said: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?
Turner29 said:I think the issue would be finding a sport that is free from doping.
Turner29 said: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.
Turner29 said: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?
Turner29 said: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?
acoggan said: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).
acoggan said:
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.)
DarkWarrior said: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?
DarkWarrior said: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?
DarkWarrior said: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?
acoggan said:I was talking about aging, not development.
Turner29 said: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 said:Do I hear a 6.6? 6.7? How 'bout a 6.8? Where do you draw the line?
acoggan said:Do I hear a 6.6? 6.7? How 'bout a 6.8? Where do you draw the line?
BroDeal said: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 said:We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about what is a plausible performance without doping.
Turner29 said:We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about what is a plausible performance without doping.
zastomito said:Under which conditions? What is the duration? W/kg in one hour in lab conditions, GT contender in top form fully rested?
BroDeal said: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.
BroDeal said: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.
BroDeal said: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.