Superhuman performance could betray sports drug cheats

[CoachFergie]

ross, the man of the people

vs

andy coggan, the man who reckons ed coyle's 'study' on LA is sound science


who'll come away looking the best when the debate is over? i give my vote to ROSS

because, where coggan wants to be on the safe side and makes a case for anything being possible (which it could be of course),,,

that's where ross tells us as it is and applies the science in a sensible way which makes it interesting and useful

Ross who is quoting Sassi who worked with Basso (drugs cheat) and Lim who worked with Landis (drugs cheat). You telling me a Doctor and Exercise Physiologist can work closely with these guys and not know they are using EPO? Sorry if I don't believe they are credible sources.

To his credit Andy quotes from peer review literature and never goes beyond the data.

 

[python]

Oh, and just to add, I came across this article this morning:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sassi-talks-about-basso-evans-and-the-zoncolan

<snip>"The VAM (Velocità Ascensionale Media) or average climbing speed adjusted for the gradient, was calculated at 1777m/hour and Basso's power to weight ratio was 5.68km/h. <snip>
I have also seen that Allan Lim has gone on record as saying 6 W/kg is the "human" limit, <snip>
Ross

regarding the first redquote, of course you meant W/kg and it's not entirely clear if the 5.68 was an estimate or a measured average. it does matter in the context of the present discussion. i seem to recall basso rode the giro with the srm but i don't know if basso was sending him his power files and the context of the cyclingnews article points to an estimate of power - which then would be the subject of the said nominal error.

regarding the second redquote, i can easily find allan lim referring to 6.7 W/kg at the threshold as a physiological limit but have trouble finding 6.0 W/kg (as a limit for prolonged efforts). he did loosely refer to the 6.0 as a flag some place but it should not be overinterpreted as the time frame was not very well defined.

regarding your other points, ross, i agree.

 

[Avoriaz]

he must be dumb as fcuk. Does he not realise what he says? He told us he was peaking for the dauphine, then he only goes and finds another 40watts, which is a LOT from what i can understand.

that means he's added approx 10 % to his capacity in two weeks. When he was already peaking. That's got to be cutting edge training right there
.

Maybe he just stuck a lightbulb up his ****

 

[Parrot23]

Ross who is quoting Sassi who worked with Basso (drugs cheat) and Lim who worked with Landis (drugs cheat)....Sorry if I don't believe they are credible sources.

Basso went to Sassi after the doping imbroglio because Sassi only works with clean riders. Sassi is why Basso is now publishing his blood values online. He is credible.

Agree on Lim.

But the other point, though, is that exercise physiologists/coaches/ doctors who have worked with dirty riders are prob. likely to know more of the ins and outs, unfortunately, than those on the straight and narrow. Conconi, Ferrari, Cecchini, Fuentes, etc., no one doubts they know what they are talking about.

 

[Nick777]

A couple of points about the use of performance to identify "flags":

First, I'd really love to see the specifics of the studies that show how 9W/kg is possible, Andy? Apart from referring to this literature, what is the physiology behind that? The Joyner paper on marathon running provided only the explanation of those factors which are already used by the likes of Vayer and myself to estimate the physiological demand of certain cycling performances - cycling efficiency (analogous to Joyner's economy), VO2max and lactate threshold (which is a driver of the intensity that a rider can sustain for a given period). These are exactly what are used to make the calculations, so the Joyner paper does little to show the flaws (unless you're criticizing the Joyner paper...?)

So, having already taken those into account, people like Vayer, me and Pierre Salet (all quoted in the New Scientist article) are estimating a limit to performance. The Joyner paper does nothing to highlight "limitations", and again, if there is a paper I am missing that shows that 9W/kg is possible, then please provide it rather than just alluding to it. I realize I may still be a "newly-minted" physiologist (to use your description of me) but I'd like to see the facts, not assertions.

With regards to the error, you're 100% correct. There is error. That is why nobody has yet said that this kind of analysis "PROVES" doping, only that it can highlight cases that may be suspected. Anyone who says "I've proved doping based on performance" has a problem, and deserves criticism. But to say you're embarrassed for the field, that seems a bit extreme because a) the author of that piece is not from your field so surely one should be a little more constructive - write to him and show him the "light", and b) it's an over-reaction to an idea - the whole tone of the New Scientist piece is very speculative, as it should be.

And just a note on the error - in a study done by Portoleau et al, the estimation method was validated against SRM measurements in 16 male cyclists, and the average difference between the two was 0.24% (CI = -6.1, 6, 6%).

Where the larger error comes in, and I am stating this openly because I don't wish to purport this level of accuracy, is when you estimate rider mass, and also some of the assumptions you make regarding the cyclist's efficiency - is efficiency 23% or 25%? I go with 23% myself, because that's what the best Tour rider in recent years was measured at, and because that's what we get in our lab on Tour-level riders. Note also that as a cyclist's efficiency rises, their VO2max comes down (Lucia et al., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319). So a rider with efficiency of 21% is much more likely to have a VO2max of 86ml/kg/min, whereas someone at 23% will achieve the same performance with a VO2max of say 78ml/kg/min. The combination of high efficiency AND high maximal O2 consumption is very rare indeed.

But in my view, the error in the data is much smaller than the differences in physiology that would be expected. I see Prof Hans Rosling's population data as an example of this - they are collecting demographic data from all over the world and are roundly criticized for the lack of "quality control" on the data, but his point, which I agree with, is that the differences in the data are larger than the error in the data, so they are still enormously valuable.

Now, I would love to see the physiology of 9W/kg. But outright dismissals of ideas, that's not science, and I don't think it helps people at all. So if you know how 9W/kg can be achieved:
a) Get yourself to France right now, because there are millions to be made!, and
b) Inform us all!

Cheers
Ross

Love your work, mate.

 

[Parrot23]

But to say you're embarrassed for the field, that seems a bit extreme because a) the author of that piece is not from your field so surely one should be a little more constructive - write to him and show him the "light", and b) it's an over-reaction to an idea - the whole tone of the New Scientist piece is very speculative, as it should be.

That's how I read it. Not peer-reviewed holy writ....

What Sassi said is consistent with New Scientist:

"It was a intensely fought out stage, you can tell from the speed they climbed and the average power they put out. It was about 400 watts. Only a few riders can manage that and it means that they were right at their limits".

And Horner at Dauphine (riders of his size etc.).

"But, at 12 miles and 7.2% grade [Glandon], they weren't going to get much of a rest. With 5 or 6 miles to go to the top, Alberto put his climbers to work. I was doing almost 400 watts and at my limit, while trying to give Jani any extra draft I could by riding just a little to the side of Alberto.."

http://www.chrishornerracing.com/articles/

Suggests where these folks in the thick of things right now think the limits start to lie when comparing apples with apples.

(Thanks JayZee's for Friel link on Brak's numbers and super-compensation after Dauphine. Maybe Shack/Bruyneel is deliberately rattling Astana's cage: lots of riders for Bertie to worry about at Tour).

 

[Nick777]

Oh, and just to add, I came across this article this morning:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sassi-talks-about-basso-evans-and-the-zoncolan

In it, it refers to Ivan Basso's performance in the Giro earlier this year, saying "The VAM (Velocità Ascensionale Media) or average climbing speed adjusted for the gradient, was calculated at 1777m/hour and Basso's power to weight ratio was 5.68km/h. In the past Sassi has said that any value over 6.2w/kg for a long effort on a major climb at the end of a stage race could be an indication of doping."

I don't know the basis for Sassi's position, but obviously I agree with the number.

I have also seen that Allan Lim has gone on record as saying 6 W/kg is the "human" limit, and we have seen elite level cyclists through our labs who produce 5.8W/kg for a fresh, 30 minute maximal effort, so a top Tour rider at 6W/kg at the end of 200km - possible, but starting to stretch the boundaries, in my opinion. 6.2W/kg breaks them, and it's for energetic/physiological reasons...

Ross

I wonder if Chris Carmichael regrets saying
a) that Lance Armstrong was producing 7W/kg at the tour in 1999
b) when LA dropped everyone on the stage to Sestriere, he wasn't going into the red, yet was still pulling away..

?

 

[Escarabajo]

I wonder if Chris Carmichael regrets saying
a) that Lance Armstrong was producing 7W/kg at the tour in 1999
b) when LA dropped everyone on the stage to Sestriere, he wasn't going into the red, yet was still pulling away..

?

Wow. Now that's high. Do you have the link. Thanks.

 

[The Science of Sport]

Hi again

I too would love the link for that 7W/kg statement - I recall reading it myself, but I haven't been able to find it.

Just to add, thanks for the discussion as always, it's always cool to learn dozens of different approaches to the same problem, particularly when they are constructive.

I realise that quote yesterday left a lot hanging, so I've put together something of an explanation. Not yet complete, but a starting point to the Tour discussion over the next 3 weeks, before the FIFA World Cup takes over (forgive me, but I am in SA after all, I can't bypass the opportunity!)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/cycling-performance-what-is-possible.html

I really do believe that despite the assumptions one has to make, there is validity in this approach, and while I appreciate and even commend the approach of "conservatism" based on published literature, I would point out that in the absence of intelligent, educated 'scenario-creation', nothing would ever happen...as I point out with a business example, if you wish to start a business, you have to make assumptions. The trick is to manage them so that they are "best-case" and then to recognize that if "best case" still fails, then you have a problem...

So I really do believe in this approach, I appreciate that people will disagree, but I enjoy discussion rather than dismissal, as always, with the intention of growing knowledge, not destroying it!

Cheers
Ross

 

[131313]

Note also that as a cyclist's efficiency rises, their VO2max comes down (Lucia et al., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319). So a rider with efficiency of 21% is much more likely to have a VO2max of 86ml/kg/min, whereas someone at 23% will achieve the same performance with a VO2max of say 78ml/kg/min. The combination of high efficiency AND high maximal O2 consumption is very rare indeed.

I guess this is where I disagree, and where I think there's the biggest room for error. My interpretation of the Padilla paper is different than yours. You're suggesting there's a causal link between high vo2 and lower efficiency. The paper doesn't suggest that's the case. It simply suggests that you have to have higher efficiency or higher vo2 to be a euro pro. That certainly isn't surprising! There isn't even a hypothesis as to why efficiency and vo2 would have an inverse relationship (maybe there is, and I've missed it?). It very well could simply be self-selection, i.e. you have to have one or the other to be a high-level pro.

If you could determine a rider's efficiency and have it as part of if bio-passport, then monitor his power files from a well-calibrated power meter, then you'd have some information which could be useful in indicating super human performances. Speculation based on estimations, on the other hand, seems pretty baseless. I'll give you the Contador/Verbier discussion as an example (no offense).

As far as the 9W/kg, I'm guessing Dr. Coggan is assuming a vo2 of 90, efficiency as 'high' (28%?), and maintaining 95% of vo2@ threshold. Granted, all of those events would be exceptional in and of themselves--and a confluence of all 3 would be, well, incredibly rare. Still, I haven't seen a reasonable hypothesis as to why that couldn't happen?

 

[MacRoadie]

Hi again

I too would love the link for that 7W/kg statement - I recall reading it myself, but I haven't been able to find it.

Just to add, thanks for the discussion as always, it's always cool to learn dozens of different approaches to the same problem, particularly when they are constructive.

I realise that quote yesterday left a lot hanging, so I've put together something of an explanation. Not yet complete, but a starting point to the Tour discussion over the next 3 weeks, before the FIFA World Cup takes over (forgive me, but I am in SA after all, I can't bypass the opportunity!)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/cycling-performance-what-is-possible.html

I really do believe that despite the assumptions one has to make, there is validity in this approach, and while I appreciate and even commend the approach of "conservatism" based on published literature, I would point out that in the absence of intelligent, educated 'scenario-creation', nothing would ever happen...as I point out with a business example, if you wish to start a business, you have to make assumptions. The trick is to manage them so that they are "best-case" and then to recognize that if "best case" still fails, then you have a problem...

So I really do believe in this approach, I appreciate that people will disagree, but I enjoy discussion rather than dismissal, as always, with the intention of growing knowledge, not destroying it!

Cheers
Ross

Thanks, Ross, for sticking your neck out and joining the dialog.

Hopefully you can add a little balanced scientific approach to the debate and not get chased away by the militants on either side of the issue.

I, for one, look forward to hearing anything and everything you can bring to the table.

 

[Race Radio]

Hi again

I too would love the link for that 7W/kg statement - I recall reading it myself, but I haven't been able to find it.

Just to add, thanks for the discussion as always, it's always cool to learn dozens of different approaches to the same problem, particularly when they are constructive.

I realise that quote yesterday left a lot hanging, so I've put together something of an explanation. Not yet complete, but a starting point to the Tour discussion over the next 3 weeks, before the FIFA World Cup takes over (forgive me, but I am in SA after all, I can't bypass the opportunity!)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/cycling-performance-what-is-possible.html

I really do believe that despite the assumptions one has to make, there is validity in this approach, and while I appreciate and even commend the approach of "conservatism" based on published literature, I would point out that in the absence of intelligent, educated 'scenario-creation', nothing would ever happen...as I point out with a business example, if you wish to start a business, you have to make assumptions. The trick is to manage them so that they are "best-case" and then to recognize that if "best case" still fails, then you have a problem...

So I really do believe in this approach, I appreciate that people will disagree, but I enjoy discussion rather than dismissal, as always, with the intention of growing knowledge, not destroying it!

Cheers
Ross

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

 

[MacRoadie]

I guess this is where I disagree, and where I think there's the biggest room for error. My interpretation of the Padilla paper is different than yours. You're suggesting there's a causal link between high vo2 and lower efficiency. The paper doesn't suggest that's the case. It simply suggests that you have to have higher efficiency or higher vo2 to be a euro pro. That certainly isn't surprising! There isn't even a hypothesis as to why efficiency and vo2 would have an inverse relationship (maybe there is, and I've missed it?). It very well could simply be self-selection, i.e. you have to have one or the other to be a high-level pro.

First of all, this is NOT a flame.

131313, you have presented a counter-position to the sportsscientists.com post by Dr. Tucker, and I for one, welcome it. Any reasoned contributions to the dialog enrich us all.

My question to you is, can you share with us any qualifications or credentials you might possess so that we can understand what background you bring in your counter argument?

I'm not saying you're wrong, or singling you out in any way. I just know what Dr. Tucker's credentials are and it allows me (or anyone else on the forum) to assign a relative weight to the merit of his position. Knowing what background you bring to the table in presenting your counterpoint would allow us to do the same with your position.

I think on matters of a technical or scientific nature, it would seve the forum going forward if anyone who posts an argument in contradiction of a published article by a credentialed expert, that that poster provide some basis for the merit of his argument.

Again, I'm not being argumentative or suggesting that either position is right or wrong.

 

[The Science of Sport]

Already great discussion, thank you!

To 131313, fair enough, and I guess each is entitled to read the paper how they do. I think it very much establishes that cyclists with high efficiencies have lower VO2max values, and the physiological basis for this would be that those who are more efficient can achieve the work rate (power output) using less oxygen. However, since oxygen alone is not limiting to exercise, their peak tests terminate at lower levels of oxygen consumption. In fact, I even wrote a paper about this, published in MSSE: NOAKES, T.D., TUCKER R. Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy in world-class cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc., Jun, 36(6): 1083-4, (author reply 1085-6), 2004

I guess the analogy, at short notice, is that a car that is fuel efficient will use less petrol/gas at top speed than a car with poor efficiency, but the car's aerodynamics limit its speed eventually.

Regarding the 9W/kg - two of those three assumptions, each one by themselves, don't happen. Efficiency of 28% - never been accepted as an accurate measurement, to my knowledge. In fact, the Lucia paper was widely discussed as having that spurious finding, and Jeukendrup and Gore both suggested that the value was false. I don't know what ever came of it, but given that Armstrong's value was 23%, and given how much of an impact efficiency has on performance, a guy with 28% efficiency would pedal away from the peloton whistling Rolling Stones tunes while they did it. I don't see efficiency of 28% as realisitic. We've never measured anyone above 23.5%, and as I say, the day we discover a guy at 28%, I first check my equipment, and if that's OK, then I pack my bags for Europe because that person, 5% more efficient than everyone else, wins races...

The second issue, a VO2max of 90ml/kg/min is possible, granted. But the third, the ability to sustain 95% of maximum for 40 minutes? I agree that there is likely to be a range of thoughts on this one. I will say that 5,000m runners are just under 100%, and that lasts 13 minutes. Increase duration 3-fold, there is no way that 95% is possible. At least, I don't believe it. As i say, in our lab, we have some world class mountain-bikers, and they are between 85% and 90% for 30 minutes, when fresh. At the end of 200km a day, not a chance. Of course, doping may improve the ability to ride at higher relative intensities, and so this a mechanism for why cyclists could do it - but this is circular.

So two out of three, by themselves, i don't believe to be possible, unless there is a study that shows it (and as I say, the Lucia study is heavily debated). And therefore, I stand by the conclusion about 6.2W/kg. In fact, using that same principle, I've worked out that Lemond's sustained power output of about 5W/kg back when he won the Tour projects to a VO2max of 67ml/kg/min. This is clearly an underestimation, since we know his VO2max is much higher. But what it does is show that my assumptions are in fact very conservative. By the same token, the values around 92 ml/kg/min for the riders in the 90s and 2000s are probably underestimations too. The most conservative assumptions possible still create unrealistic scenarios, and that says a lot to me...

To MacRoadie:

Thanks - I've been about before. Last time I was labelled "newly minted" and "sensationalist", which is fine by me...so we'll see what happens. I love the debate - it's the destructive criticism that I find an irritation more than anything else. People who disagree are perfectly entitled to do so, but I like to be told WHY I'm wrong, not just that I am!

In that regard, I appreciated 131313's post, because it argued facts and specifics without being snide or personal about it. And on that note, i appreciate your desire to establish his background, and also the importance you place on the merit of the argument and the person's qualifications. I do agree with you that it is valuable, however, I would also point out that sometimes, people who make the most brilliant breakthroughs are the ones with the least "training".

Certainly, i've come across many 'experts' who lack any credibility, despite a string of letters behind their name and a piece of paper! I dare say that to some people, I have been that 'expert'! So I welcome all input, but good for you for also seeking 'integrity'/quality control in the discussion!

Ciao
Ross

 

[131313]

First of all, this is NOT a flame.

131313, you have presented a counter-position to the sportsscientists.com post by Dr. Tucker, and I for one, welcome it. Any reasoned contributions to the dialog enrich us all.

My question to you is, can you share with us any qualifications or credentials you might possess so that we can understand what background you bring in your counter argument?

No problem, that's a reasonable question. I'm a bike racer, which should really exclude me from any sort of speculation! I'm also a scientist, but my field is pretty far removed from exercise physiology, which I'll freely admit. However, I have a working background in biology and a personal interest in exercise science. I've also read a lot of research papers....

That said, I'll stand on content in this case. I'll also say however that in practical terms, the numbers being thrown around (6.0-6.2 w/kg for extended efforts) do seem to be in the realm of what people are actually doing, theoretical mumbo jumbo aside.

I simply think that it's possible for one to exceed that naturally, based on the currently available information. I'm not suggesting we've seen that specimen riding a bike yet--just that it could happen. Who knows, pre-gunshot Lemond may have been close. He himself speculated that he was close to 7 w/kg at his prime. And by his own admission, his climb up L'Alpe wasn't indicative of his full ability as he had to ride with Hinault: http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

 

[Parrot23]

...while I appreciate and even commend the approach of "conservatism" based on published literature, I would point out that in the absence of intelligent, educated 'scenario-creation', nothing would ever happen...

Exactly, that's the Popperian stance, re Conjectures and Refutations, etc. Otherwise, everyone would all be doing Kuhnian "normal science" and nothing would happen but at the margins. Someone has to stick their neck out, try a new path. Pose they hypothesis...see if it comes to something.

There's a problem in pro cycling. The problem is the start of the hypotheses to address it, it's the start of science. The New Scientist article is referencing one approach.

Tend to disagree with the credentials argument, which is a "conservative" one (nothing to do with politics). Unique thing about scientific community is that even points of the lowliest person at a conference or seminar have to be addressed IF they have merit. Arguments from authority don't work. Even Stephen Hawking has to address graduate students' counter-examples, criticisms, IF valid. They don't first check credentials.

Science, in that sense, is radically levelling/"democratic".

I think Escarabajo's graph is very informative. Look at Riis' data point, and Pantani's (even prob. Indurain's; very hard to believe he wasn't using EPO in that era). We certainly know what the first two were doing (after the fact), so to hypothesize that the ceiling, a priori, is somewhat below that is pretty reasonable (before the fact...of others' performances).

 

[Escarabajo]

Hi again

I too would love the link for that 7W/kg statement - I recall reading it myself, but I haven't been able to find it.

Just to add, thanks for the discussion as always, it's always cool to learn dozens of different approaches to the same problem, particularly when they are constructive.

I realise that quote yesterday left a lot hanging, so I've put together something of an explanation. Not yet complete, but a starting point to the Tour discussion over the next 3 weeks, before the FIFA World Cup takes over (forgive me, but I am in SA after all, I can't bypass the opportunity!)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/cycling-performance-what-is-possible.html

I really do believe that despite the assumptions one has to make, there is validity in this approach, and while I appreciate and even commend the approach of "conservatism" based on published literature, I would point out that in the absence of intelligent, educated 'scenario-creation', nothing would ever happen...as I point out with a business example, if you wish to start a business, you have to make assumptions. The trick is to manage them so that they are "best-case" and then to recognize that if "best case" still fails, then you have a problem...

So I really do believe in this approach, I appreciate that people will disagree, but I enjoy discussion rather than dismissal, as always, with the intention of growing knowledge, not destroying it!

Cheers
Ross

Wow. This is excellent information. Now I am sharpening my Crystall Ball for the Tour.

I am still doing calculations with your procedures so maybe I'll come back and ask you a few questions later. For the time being I have two comments:

1- What is the time range for which I can use that VO2 estimation formula (If there is one)? I have heard a lot of discussion of the time limitations and that's killing me. An example was Verbier last year. There was a huge argument whether Contador could do those numbers (6.67 w/kg P50 case or best scenario case) cleanly just because it was too short of a climb. I noticed you used 85%-90% of the maximum VO2 max for these type of cases. Is there any rule or method that we can use or is this the most speculative part of the calculation?

2- 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. Like for Example Contador. Unless you do the calculations in sections I believe you are underestimating the numbers. Another reason we underestimate these numbers is because we want to be on the conservative side just because we want to make sure of our calculations are not yelling "DOPING, DOPING, DOPING". Here is the comment:

I actually saw a PhD student from Texas present a similar analysis at the ACSM conference in 2005, and he had worked out 495W (7 W/kg), taking into account the gradient every 100m as well as wind speeds. If anything this is more accurate.

Great work Ross.
E

 

[131313]

I think it very much establishes that cyclists with high efficiencies have lower VO2max values

We can certainly agree on that point. That indeed is what the study shows.

and the physiological basis for this would be that those who are more efficient can achieve the work rate (power output) using less oxygen.

true, but is there a physiological basis for suggesting that one can't have both high efficiency and high vo2?

Regarding the 9W/kg - two of those three assumptions, each one by themselves, don't happen. Efficiency of 28% - never been accepted as an accurate measurement, to my knowledge.

Well, it depends how you define efficiency. I'll concede that 28 DE or GE would be,um, ambitious. I'd seen the number thrown around, but in looking at the link I had bookmarked, I realized it's from 1984... I'll defer to you on this one until I do some more reading.

But the third, the ability to sustain 95% of maximum for 40 minutes? I agree that there is likely to be a range of thoughts on this one. I will say that 5,000m runners are just under 100%, and that lasts 13 minutes. Increase duration 3-fold, there is no way that 95% is possible. At least, I don't believe it.

I used this figure since Dr. Coggan claimed that he himself was capable of performing this feat. I would have to believe that Boardman's hour record was performed at a level very, very close to this number as well. Again, I agree with you in practice that it's rare. I know that I'm certainly not capable of doing it. However, I don't see a biological reason as to why it's not possible.

In fact, using that same principle, I've worked out that Lemond's sustained power output of about 5W/kg back when he won the Tour projects to a VO2max of 67ml/kg/min.

Just out of curiosity, what are the specific efforts on which you based this/these calculation(s).

Lastly, I want to say that in a bigger picture sense I do agree with you that monitoring performance as a potential indicator of doping has some potential utility.

What makes me bristle is the sort of commentary which ensues from people who make the jump from 'potential indicator' to 'he's obviously juiced', when the facts state otherwise. I think Contador's Verbier ascent is a perfect example. And I'm not saying Contador was riding it clean. I'm simply saying that his performance up there, based on the available information, wasn't anywhere close to 'proof' (and I know this a conclusion which which you agree. However, it's not the conclusion which many reached after reading your blog. And yes, I realized that's not your fault).

 

[MacRoadie]

Tend to disagree with the credentials argument, which is a "conservative" one (nothing to do with politics). Unique thing about scientific community is that even points of the lowliest person at a conference or seminar have to be addressed IF they have merit. Arguments from authority don't work. Even Stephen Hawking has to address graduate students' counter-examples, criticisms, IF valid. They don't first check credentials.

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...

 

[Escarabajo]

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...

McRoadie,

Have you considered being a moderator?

E

 

[acoggan]

Sorry all - crunch time w/ a major grant. Be back later.

 

[Polish]

We are very fortunate to be living in THE era where Pro Cyclists have finally reached the absolute Peak of Performance. Just short of Super Human.

Very very close, but not quite SUPER HUMAN.

So who was the first rider to reach the Peak and gaze down on all below?
A certain young man by the name of Lance Armstrong!

Just kidding!
It was Greg LeMond lol.

Anywho, enjoy the TdF- it will not get any better than this.!!!
The Battle of the Almost Super Humans
Is it a coincidence that the Mayan Calendar will be ending soon?
I think not.
Hopefully the WSJ Article comes out before 2012.

 

[JayZee]

We are very fortunate to be living in THE era where Pro Cyclists have finally reached the absolute Peak of Performance. Just short of Super Human.

Very very close, but not quite SUPER HUMAN.

So who was the first rider to reach the Peak and gaze down on all below?
A certain young man by the name of Lance Armstrong!

Just kidding!
It was Greg LeMond lol.

Anywho, enjoy the TdF- it will not get any better than this.!!!
The Battle of the Almost Super Humans
Is it a coincidence that the Mayan Calendar will be ending soon?
I think not.
Hopefully the WSJ Article comes out before 2012.

Superb sarcasm and a very good point, we are fortunate indeed.

 

[Le breton]

Andrew, if that's true, why we were not seeing these results Pre-Nineties? I can give anybody the benefit of the doubt, but Vayer is using history as his deffense.

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

 

[Le breton]

...........
And just a note on the error - in a study done by Portoleau et al, the estimation method was validated against SRM measurements in 16 male cyclists, and the average difference between the two was 0.24% (CI = -6.1, 6, 6%).

0.24%? I guess you mean 2.4% right?