• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Superhuman performance could betray sports drug cheats

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Escarabajo said:
Wow. This is excellent information. Now I am sharpening my Crystall Ball for the Tour.

I2- I have to agree with the PHD Texas student where it calculated higher than our typical formulas. I am from the camp that says that our average calculations underestimate the power numbers just because it does not take into account the constant accelerations and accelerations that the riders do.
E

In some cases, like a TT up l'Alpe d'Huez, there are no such accelerations, you soften up a little bit on the hairpin because they are almost flat, but the velocity hardly changes.
 
Race Radio said:
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=1961

Here is a link for "I also cranked out 495 watts for more than 30 minutes", that is about 6.9 w/kg

Yes, that was up La Madone Pass.
It is obvious to me that his SRM was miscalibrated.
Also the figure was 491 watts, not 495 - private communication from Wayne Lim via personal and confidential message in may 99 as Carmichael had not yet "broadcast " the info. Wayne Lim (Allen's brother) used to come on tthe "king of the mountain" forum.

Why do I know his SRM was miscalibrated, you will know on my next post.


Now, the previous record holder that L.A. beat that day with a 45s margin was not an extraterrestrial climber, it was Rominger.
 

Jesus Saves

BANNED
Jul 1, 2010
1
0
0
Visit site
If someone else wants to do it it would be interesting to ask our expert to give us his few on AC on the Verbier.

We are allowed to talk about that, aren't we? Breaking the all time power record should come up at some point in the thread, no?
 
Jesus Saves said:
If someone else wants to do it it would be interesting to ask our expert to give us his few on AC on the Verbier.

We are allowed to talk about that, aren't we? Breaking the all time power record should come up at some point in the thread, no?

Thanks for the PM. Went ahead and forwarded it to the mods.

Next time, show some sack and air it out in public.
 
Le breton said:
Yes, that was up La Madone Pass.
It is obvious to me that his SRM was miscalibrated.
Also the figure was 491 watts, not 495 - private communication from Wayne Lim via personal and confidential message in may 99 as Carmichael had not yet "broadcast " the info. Wayne Lim (Allen's brother) used to come on tthe "king of the mountain" forum.

Why do I know his SRM was miscalibrated, you will know on my next post.....
.

-------
That test of L.A. on the Col de la Madone was done shotly before the Criterium du dauphiné libéré in which the 5th or 6th stage was a TT up Ventoux.
Here are the results .
1. Jonathan Vaughters (USA) US Postal Service 56.50.9
2. Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Casino 42.7
3. Wladimir Belli (Ita) Festina-Lotus 43.8
4. Joseba Beloki Dorronsoro (Spa) Euskatel-Euskadi 51.84
5. Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service 1.01.2
6. Kevin Livingston (USA) US Postal Service 1.25.5
7. David Moncoutie (Fra) Cofidis 1.40.6
8. Unaï Osa (Spa) Banesto 2.01.1
9. Tyler Hamilton (USA) US Postal Service 2.18.1
10. Roberto Laiseka Jaio (Spa) Euskatel-Euskadi 2.18.2
---

In 2004 Iban Mayo improved on that time by 1min (55.51) for which he exerted 6,75 watts/kg. I posted my calculation on the topica forum and nobody disputed it.

So, we can see, neglecting minor effects, that in june 1999, Armstrong could only muster about 6.75 W/kg times 55.85 divided by 59.03, i.e. 6.39 W/kg ( 454 watts for 71 kg, 460 watts for 72 kg).
The longer effort could account for a few %, but it is safe to say that on his 491 watts day up Madonna (joke intended), L.A. quite likely produced a bit less than 6.7 watts/kg, not 7W/kg.
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Visit site
Fair enough, thanks, MacRoadie.

Not reductio ad absurdum to any student, anybody. But the difficulty is that the forum, in it's very nature, is "the street". It's hard to expect otherwise. Sort of like climbing: going against gravity. :D

Lot of good posts here to choose from.

Regards.


MacRoadie said:
As I TRIED to say, the credentials don't make the argument, but understanding a person's background assists the reader in determining (to at least some extent), the veracity of the argument. I'm pretty sure I never said you can't argue a point (if I did, point it out and I'll delete it).

The best example is the "armchair lawyer" that we so often have seen in these and other forums. Everyone and anyone proffering their own legal arguments couched in language that suggests a level of experience, knowledge or education that doesn't exist. Masters of cut and paste yes, qualified legal analysts, no.

I, for one, would appreciate knowing when I read a counter-argument that the poster has either the background to make a qualified argument, has taken the time to do adequate research, or is giving it his best shot based on his own understanding and self-education on the subject. Does this apply to every point of discussion here? Absolutely not. Should it have some bearing in the highly technical areas of excercise physiology, chemistry, and biology? I respectfully suggest that it does.

I never said that anyone can't make an argument or challenge a point made by someone else, regardless of that person's credentials. No one is above question, and no one is below the right to be critical.

I'd just like to know before hand, if a response is base solely on a 5-minute search on Google, or a Phd in Wikipedia.

I'm guessing there aren't too many folks who just wander in off the street asking questions on theoretical physics in Stephen Hawking's grad class. Pretty sure they checked "credentials" before allowing enrollment...
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
Le breton said:
Yes, that was up La Madone Pass.
It is obvious to me that his SRM was miscalibrated....Now, the previous record holder that L.A. beat that day with a 45s margin was not an extraterrestrial climber, it was Rominger.

Keep in mind that some estimate Rominger averaged about 6.7 w/kg for a full hour during his hour record attempt. It's reasonable to think he'd be even higher on a road bike, climbing for 40 some minutes.

As far as figuring Armstrong's power out on one climb based on how he performed in a TT a couple of weeks later? I can see a lot of potential problems with that one. Some possible reasons:

-he didn't ride the TT all out (the Dauphine certainly wasn't a big objective)

-he was at the end of a large training block (see above)

-he was low on blood

I'd be more inclined to believe his PM was mis-calibrated if someone modeled the climb and came up with radically different numbers. Surely there must be some power files with GPS profiles out there?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the '3 degrees of separation' to figure his power on the test climb just isn't working for me.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
I guess the question this brings up for me is, if certain performances are deemed "superhuman" and evidence of doping, this would require that said individuals are doped to levels beyond what is possible naturally in the human population. I've yet to hear much discussion of this point. I read mention that hematocrit numbers even in the high 40s are suspicious, yet there are many, many, many individuals who naturally reside at those levels.

Would we not expect a rider of natural 48% hematocrit to perform the same as an otherwise similar rider of natural 42% would when boosted to 48%? Are there not individuals who vary in the way trauma effects their levels or the ways their bodies respond and maintain or build up?

It would be a shame to paint ourselves into a corner where we basically eliminate the possible existence of a "Superhuman." After all, throughout human history the best rise to the top andthe most logical explanation for one guy being better than another guy has been that he's just more developed and superior physically. Are you arguing this is no longer the case and guys really all boosting to levels impossible by the best physical specimens?
 
Le breton said:
In some cases, like a TT up l'Alpe d'Huez, there are no such accelerations, you soften up a little bit on the hairpin because they are almost flat, but the velocity hardly changes.
Almost never happens with Contador. These accelerations usually happens with the lighter riders. As for the heavier ones, well, they learned how to climb after 1990.;)
 
Escarabajo said:
Almost never happens with Contador. These accelerations usually happens with the lighter riders. As for the heavier ones, well, they learned how to climb after 1990.;)

so how did little skinny guys like Contador learn how to time trial like Cancellara?

hint............after 1990;)
 
Le breton said:
The figure of 6.97 watts/kg for Lance Armstrong on Alpe d'huez 2004 cannot be right.
Where does it come from?

During the first 20 mn of the climb, after the left turn at the bottom, near the hydroelectric plant and up to the next intermediate timing post, L.A. produced 476 watts ( I have my calculation somewhere, I used Portoleau raw data -personal communication- to do my own calculation). I can't remember if i calculated on a 79 kg or 80 kg basis, ie 71 or 72 kg body weight.
So, at most 6.7 watts/kg for L.A. I have my figures somewhere on this computer, could eventually dig them out.

Anyway, in the latter part of the climb, the last racers to climb encountered a fairly strong wind and calculations for the whole climb would have non-negligible uncertainties.

Cheers
You are right. We corrected this calculation in previous thread. I had ~6.5 to 6.6 W/kg.
But then again, things changes when you do the calculations by segments. If the numbers were really totally off why don't the riders come forward and share the power files with us? If you were riding clean wouldn't you do it? Unless you are being forced not to do it because of the Omerta.

I have Herrera doing a 5.9 W/kg on Alpe de Huez for the 1984 Tour. He went all out and died the next day. He was running away from Fignon in his peak. These numbers over 6.2 W/kg on the second or third week really makes me wonder.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Le breton said:
-------
That test of L.A. on the Col de la Madone was done shotly before the Criterium du dauphiné libéré in which the 5th or 6th stage was a TT up Ventoux.
Here are the results .
1. Jonathan Vaughters (USA) US Postal Service 56.50.9
2. Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Casino 42.7
3. Wladimir Belli (Ita) Festina-Lotus 43.8
4. Joseba Beloki Dorronsoro (Spa) Euskatel-Euskadi 51.84
5. Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service 1.01.2
6. Kevin Livingston (USA) US Postal Service 1.25.5
7. David Moncoutie (Fra) Cofidis 1.40.6
8. Unaï Osa (Spa) Banesto 2.01.1
9. Tyler Hamilton (USA) US Postal Service 2.18.1
10. Roberto Laiseka Jaio (Spa) Euskatel-Euskadi 2.18.2
---

In 2004 Iban Mayo improved on that time by 1min (55.51) for which he exerted 6,75 watts/kg. I posted my calculation on the topica forum and nobody disputed it.

So, we can see, neglecting minor effects, that in june 1999, Armstrong could only muster about 6.75 W/kg times 55.85 divided by 59.03, i.e. 6.39 W/kg ( 454 watts for 71 kg, 460 watts for 72 kg).
The longer effort could account for a few %, but it is safe to say that on his 491 watts day up Madonna (joke intended), L.A. quite likely produced a bit less than 6.7 watts/kg, not 7W/kg.

I have heard that the Madone time was done the week prior to the Tour, not prior to the DL.
 
Escarabajo said:
Wow. Now that's high. Do you have the link. Thanks.
It's from a Cycle Sport magazine - 1999 October edition. I have it sitting next to me.
I don't know if the story is online anywhere, but I can photograph the article & put it on here if people want me to.

Here is part of the article

Lance The Athlete
Asked to talk about Armstrong as an athlete, Carmichael comes up with a figure: seven watts per kilogram. "That's kind of a magic number," he explains. "It's the power to weight ratio where Indurain & Marco Pantani were when they won the tour. If you can produce seven watts of power for every kilogram of body weight, then you can usually be a tour contender. Obviously there's more to it than that, but Lance was right at that point during the Tour."

In another part of the interview, he referred to the Sestriere stage:
"When he attacked, he was below his threshold, but he still rode them off his wheel"
 
stephens said:
Are you arguing this is no longer the case and guys really all boosting to levels impossible by the best physical specimens?

They're basically saying the body is stronger than the mind. If the "so-called" physiological performance limits imposed on the body by said rocket scientists are exceeded it is part and parcel the result of good juice. This line of thinking goes a long way to explaining the documented cases of average men and women picking up a car to save a loved one trapped beneath it.

"Juice - don't leave home without it".
 
SpeedWay said:
They're basically saying the body is stronger than the mind. If the "so-called" physiological performance limits imposed on the body by said rocket scientists are exceeded it is part and parcel the result of good juice. This line of thinking goes a long way to explaining the documented cases of average men and women picking up a car to save a loved one trapped beneath it.
"Juice - don't leave home without it".
Yeah, that's right. And doing it over and over and over again, day in and day out. I really believe that.:rolleyes:
 
Nick777 said:
It's from a Cycle Sport magazine - 1999 October edition. I have it sitting next to me.
I don't know if the story is online anywhere, but I can photograph the article & put it on here if people want me to.

Here is part of the article

Lance The Athlete
Asked to talk about Armstrong as an athlete, Carmichael comes up with a figure: seven watts per kilogram. "That's kind of a magic number," he explains. "It's the power to weight ratio where Indurain & Marco Pantani were when they won the tour. If you can produce seven watts of power for every kilogram of body weight, then you can usually be a tour contender. Obviously there's more to it than that, but Lance was right at that point during the Tour."

In another part of the interview, he referred to the Sestriere stage:
"When he attacked, he was below his threshold, but he still rode them off his wheel"
Thanks. I guess Carmichael wishes he could have that line back.;)
 
SpeedWay said:
They're basically saying the body is stronger than the mind. If the "so-called" physiological performance limits imposed on the body by said rocket scientists are exceeded it is part and parcel the result of good juice. This line of thinking goes a long way to explaining the documented cases of average men and women picking up a car to save a loved one trapped beneath it.

"Juice - don't leave home without it".

I second our friendly beatle assessment.
(scarabée en français)
 
131313 said:
Keep in mind that some estimate Rominger averaged about 6.7 w/kg for a full hour during his hour record attempt. It's reasonable to think he'd be even higher on a road bike, climbing for 40 some minutes.

As far as figuring Armstrong's power out on one climb based on how he performed in a TT a couple of weeks later? I can see a lot of potential problems with that one. Some possible reasons:

-he didn't ride the TT all out (the Dauphine certainly wasn't a big objective)

-he was at the end of a large training block (see above)

-he was low on blood

I'd be more inclined to believe his PM was mis-calibrated if someone modeled the climb and came up with radically different numbers. Surely there must be some power files with GPS profiles out there?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the '3 degrees of separation' to figure his power on the test climb just isn't working for me.

Hi odd forumer :),
you first objection ( not riding all out) I don't buy,
the 2nd one might well be justified and the 3rd one i enjoyed a lot.

Of course. i am fully aware of everything that could invalidate my mis-calibration hypothesis, it's just the simplest explanation. But I am only talking about a minor miscalibration : a few %.

The point is, I am not aware of any "calculable" climb in which L.A. approached 7 W/kg for 30-60 min. His maximum seems to have been around 6.6-6.7 W/kg, which is already too much for a 71-72 kg cyclist with 6.0l/min maximum oxygen consumption and 23% mechanical efficiency.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
part 1

Right, now, where were we? :) Oh yeah: can physiological knowledge be used to identify “superhuman” performances?

My point in citing Joyner’s theoretical paper was not to criticize it, but simply to help illustrate the magnitude of the uncertainties involved. At the time he wrote the article (in late 1989, early 1990 at the latest), the world record for the marathon was “only” 2:06:50, yet if you combined the highest measured VO2max, lactate threshold (LT), and running economy values reported in various published studies, a time of 1:57:48 was at least theoretically possible. In other words, someone could have broken the record by ~9 min (!) and you still couldn’t have labeled it a “superhuman” performance based on scientific data.

The >9 W/kg figure for 1 h that I threw out previously was derived using a directly comparable approach. To wit, that is the value you get if you assume:

1) A VO2max of 96 mL/min/kg (i.e., that of Bjorn Dahlie…sorry, no scientific reference, but I’m sure ever one has heard of both him and this figure);

2) A fractional utilization of VO2max of 95% (i.e., that of subject G, a member of the 1988 US Olympic Team, in this study by Coyle et al.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1997818)

3) A gross efficiency of 28.1% (i.e., that of subject 9, a winner of two UCI professional races, in this study by Lucia et al.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319)

4) An energy yield of 21.13 kJ/L O2 (corresponding to 100% carbohydrate oxidation).

(Specifically: 96 mL/min/kg * 0.95 * .281 * 21.13 kJ/L * 1/60 * 1/1000 = 9.02 W/kg)

Note that the above figure was derived for illustration purposes only, and as I said at the outset I personally don’t really believe it. For example, there is no guarantee that Dahlie did not use EPO or practice blood doping, the VO2max of subject G in the Coyle et al. study may have been underestimated (leading to an overestimate of the percentage of VO2max he maintained), and it has been argued by Jeukendrup, Gore, and Martin (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12840648) as well as others that the data of Lucia et al. are flawed (ironically, Jeukendrup et al. go on to report that the gross efficiency of professional cyclists is only 17-19% while incorrectly claiming that this is completely consistent with the rest of the literature…go figure. Of course, I also find it ironic that Dr. Tucker apparently dismisses Lucia et al.’s data as incorrect yet still cites the paper as evidence that VO2max and efficiency must be inversely related – see below). Consider, however, the value you obtain with slightly more conservative/defensible assumptions:

1) A VO2max of 90 mL/min/kg (i.e., that of Greg Lemond, who is vehement critic of doping in cycling and a proponent of this approach to identifying physiologically-impossible performances…not coincidentally, this is also the value that Peter Keen reported for Chris Boardman’s VO2max at around the time of his 1996 Hour Record – more on this below);

2) A fractional utilization of VO2max of 90% (sustainable by many, including amateur cyclists such as myself – cf. subject 1 of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3403447);

3) A gross efficiency of 24% (again, a value found in a number of highly-efficient cyclists, including myself);

4) An energy yield of 21.13 kJ/L O2, as before.

With these as your starting points, you come up with a value of 6.84 W/kg (I’ll leave it readers to check my math if they wish), which is still well over the limit of 6.0-6.2 W/kg that Dr. Tucker and others have argued is physiologically impossible. Indeed, Boardman himself was estimated by Peter Keen to have maintained a power of 6.40 W/kg during his record, based on careful measurement of his power vs. speed relationship on the track during his preparation for his attempt. That this figure is likely accurate is supported by fact that you arrive at essentially the same value based on his measured VO2max (i.e., 90 mL/min/kg) and gross efficiency (i.e., 22.6%) and assuming that he maintained 90% of his VO2max for the hour. (As an aside, Keen also estimated that Graham Obree maintained a steady-state VO2 – not VO2max – of 78 mL/min/kg during his prior record ride, which if his efficiency was comparable to Boardman’s means that his power output must also have been over 6.2 W/kg, something that Dr. Tucker has deemed “…simply not physiologically believable, and…strongly suggestive of doping”).

Thus, proponents of the proposed approach must either admit that they consider Boardman’s (and Obree’s) performance to be physiologically impossible without doping*, revise their figures and assumptions, and/or recognize that the approach they advocate is logically flawed. Clearly, to achieve such high, sustained power outputs requires exceptional physiology – however, by definition we are discussing the performance of extreme outliers, not any population norms. Furthermore, when attempting to quantify the upper limit of what is humanly possible any experimental variability in the various input parameters used in such calculations is not just additive, but multiplicative, in nature. Thus, no matter where you choose to “draw a line in the sand”, it is possible to mount a good argument that it should, or at least very well could, be just a little bit higher still.

*BTW, high altitude physiologists once calculated that it was simply impossible to climb Mt. Everest without supplemental O2 – then Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler did it on May 8, 1978, and a number of other individuals have done it since.

The primary counterargument to the above perspective would seem to be that VO2max and gross efficiency have been reported by Lucia et al. to be inversely related, such that extremely high values of both would never occur in any single individual. As pointed out by others in this thread, however, there is no known physiological mechanism that would preclude some rare athlete from possessing both an extremely high VO2max and an extremely high gross efficiency (indeed, Boardman’s efficiency must be considered at least average, despite his far-above-average VO2max). Furthermore, the hypothesis that such an inverse relationship exists is primarily based upon a single study of only 11 subjects, the findings of which have been questioned by Jeukendrup et al. Even more strikingly, Dr. Tucker himself has previously argued that this inverse relationship is not truly of biological origin, but in essence simply reflects the fact to be a successful endurance athlete you must possess either a high VO2max or a high movement efficiency or economy (cf. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15179181). At a minimum, then, it seems logically inconsistent to now argue strongly on the basis of this paper that having a high VO2max and a high gross efficiency are mutually exclusive.

Another counterargument that might be raised is that fatigue, either acute or cumulative, will always prevent cyclists from producing as much power in the middle of or at the end of mountainous stages compared to what they could do when “fresh”. While that may (or may not) be true, as far as I know there is no scientific data quantifying the magnitude of any such effect. Furthermore, any such data would merely speak to the typical, i.e., average, impact, whereas the issue at hand is what is possible in the extreme. Thus, while one might be tempted to speculate on just how much impact fatigue might have (and as I mentioned previously, based on the data I have seen it appears that people routinely overestimate how important this is), speculating is all that one can do – and while such speculation can be interesting and entertaining, it does not qualify as science.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
part 2

The above discussion pertains to the difficulties in deciding precisely what is or is not a “believable” power output - a separate issue is how power output is determined. Ideally, direct measurements would be available, but until all cyclists are required to ride with carefully-calibrated, tamper-proof power meters, have their bicycles impounded between stages, etc., this is obviously too much to expect (and will likely never happen, due to costs, etc.). Instead, in the vast majority of cases it is necessary to rely on estimates, which are also subject to considerable uncertainty based upon one’s starting assumptions. I won’t bother to detail them here (in part because they have been mentioned by others), but will point out that in my experience such estimates often differ by 5-10% from directly-measured results (as l have mentioned previously). This actually agrees quite well with the data from the study by Portoleau et al. that Dr. Tucker cited (although I have not seen the study and cannot locate it via PubMed…perhaps it is unpublished, or perhaps there is a typo), at least when you consider that what matters is not how well things agree on average, but how well they agree at their limits. In particular, Dr. Tucker indicates a 95% confidence limit of (as I interpret what was written) of +/- 6%. In other words, someone could produce a performance that was right at the limit of even Dr. Tucker’s standard for what is perfectly physiologically plausible, yet still be deemed “over the line” simply due to errors in estimating their power output. Certainly, I don’t think anyone would be pleased to be cited for driving while intoxicated if they knew that the method used to estimate their blood alcohol level was this imprecise! While such a level of imprecision might be acceptable in situations where lives are at stake (e.g., when enforcing anti-drunk driving laws, or in clinical medicine, where even a test that is only good to w/in 10% on average can receive FDA approval), science at least aims for a much higher standard.

Finally, over on the Science of Sport blog Dr. Schumacher argues in a comment that none of these uncertainties are really all that important, because this approach is simply meant to be a screening procedure to determine who should be scrutinized more closely. My question to him would be, where (who) are all these cyclists who are capable of flying up mountains with “superhuman” performances who aren’t already very much under the microscope as a result of being GC contenders, stage winners, and/or other anti-doping measures such as the Biological Passport? As far as I can see, there really aren’t any…and even if someone should come out of the blue and suddenly produce what he, Dr. Tucker, and others consider a physiologically-impossible performance, how can they be sure, at least given the uncertainties previously discussed? The answer is, they can’t, simply because we don’t really know the absolute limits of human physiology and performance (and undoubtly never well)…which means that while using physiological knowledge in this manner may be superficially very appealing, in reality it would serve little, if any, true purpose, while casting suspicion upon any athlete who happens to outperform any pre-existing standard. Simply put, science is, or at least should strive to be, better than this.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
workingclasshero said:
andy coggan, the man who reckons ed coyle's 'study' on LA is sound science

You miscontrue my previous comments. Of course, I would expect nothing less given the general level of discourse on this forum.

BTW, I recently reviewed the scientific literature re. the effects of training on cycling efficiency for a webinar I put together for USA Cycling...here's the list of longitudinal studies in addition to Coyle's that I came up with:

Studies finding no change:

Roels et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37:138-146

Studies finding that efficiency increases with training:

Hintzy et al. Can J Appl Physiol 2005; 30:520-528
Paton and Hopkins J Strength Cond Res 2005; 13:826-830
Majerczak et al. J Physiol Pharmacol 2008; 59:589-602
Sassi et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2008; 33:735-742
Hopker et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41:912-919
Hopker et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2010; 35:17-22
Sunde et al. J Strength Cond Res 2010 (in press)

Aside from what these studies have found, what is interesting is when they were performed, i.e., all after (and largely in response to) Coyle's paper. This supports my prior contention that sometimes even a study with significant limitations can still help move a field forward.
 
Jun 16, 2009
346
0
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
*BTW, high altitude physiologists once calculated that it was simply impossible to climb Mt. Everest without supplemental O2 – then Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay did it on May 29, 1953, and a number of other individuals have done it since.

I realise that this comment is put in as a side point to your main argument, but I am still going to correct you ...

Hillary and Tenzing used oxygen to summit Everest. Hillary is even famously (at least in climbing circles) known for stating that they succeeded in their climb "in spite of" the oxygen system that they carried - such was the weight and efficiency of the unit. The first ascent of Everest without artificial air wasn't until 1978 - Messner and Habeler being the two back then.

Between then and 1998, less than 10% of successful climbers (and approximately 12% of successful climbs) were made without artificial air. Figures beyond that get somewhat pointless because of the growth of the tourist market - where the use of bottled oxygen is almost obligatory for a range of reasons.

I'd also point out that, while you are correct in saying that history has proven those who argued for the impossibility of climbing without bottled O2 wrong, it has done so in a way that I think is not really applicable to cycling. I mean, aside from things like the existence of Sherpas pretty much proving the calculations wrong from day one, there are factors like climbing not really having a clear relationship between VO2 and performance (most climbers have crap VO2 - weird, but true) and the fact that even some of the best climbers (eg. Messner's solo Everest in 1980) completed their oxygen free summits in a pretty sorry state - sometimes even on their hands and knees ....
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
kiwirider said:
I realise that this comment is put in as a side point to your main argument, but I am still going to correct you ...

Hillary and Tenzing used oxygen to summit Everest. Hillary is even famously (at least in climbing circles) known for stating that they succeeded in their climb "in spite of" the oxygen system that they carried - such was the weight and efficiency of the unit. The first ascent of Everest without artificial air wasn't until 1978 - Messner and Habeler being the two back then.

Somebody else caught that error as well. I actually knew it was Messner (I hadn't heard the name Habeler), but got side-tracked to Hillary and Tenzing when searching for the exact date.

(BTW, one of the reasons that high altitude physiologists missed in their prediction is because they assumed a lower VO2max than it turns out existed in reality...sound familiar?)
 
Puzzled...

It seems to me the only way for w/kg to go up at constant mass and time is to increase one or the other of vO2max or efficiency. If we believe that gains are the result of doping rather than physiological adaptation, don't we still end up with measurable gains in either the vO2 or the efficiency (or both)?

-dB
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
dbrower said:
It seems to me the only way for w/kg to go up at constant mass and time is to increase one or the other of vO2max or efficiency. If we believe that gains are the result of doping rather than physiological adaptation, don't we still end up with measurable gains in either the vO2 or the efficiency (or both)?

-dB

Yes. The only thing is that both are relatively fixed in well-trained endurance athletes, Colye's study notwithstanding.

Gains made from physiological adaption are generally related to both an increase in vo2 and the increased ability to achieve a great % of vo2 for a longer period of time.

While I'm not an exercise physiologist, I'm familiar enough with the literature to believe that a well-trained athlete will not increase his vo2 by 20% over it's peak in a well-trained state. Of course, the question becomes "well, how much is reasonable?".
 

TRENDING THREADS