Article from last year on Lance's physiology

On Aug 1, 2:42 pm, John Everett
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:23:06 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"

wrote:
http://www.utexas.edu/features/2006/athletes/index.html

Not trying to voice an opinion here, just posting the link for anyone
who's interested in reading it. To summarize: it concludes that Lance's
success was a combination of some unusual physical attributes, a
scientific approach to improving his weaknesses, and a lot of
determination. The researcher is apparently very well respected so I
think it's worth reading - your mileage may vary.

Just one thing obviously incorrect in the article- it talks about him having
a heart the size of someone who's 6'4" while he's 5'5". Lance is actually
5'10" (and rides a 58cm frame... which would be quite difficult for someone
5'5").

Need a refresher in reading comprehension? The article was talking
about Leo Manzano, who's 5'5".

--
jeverett3ATsbcglobalDOTnet (John V. Everett)

In the latest Walsh book, he cites data from Dr. Coyle indicating that
Lance's heart is actually the size of someone 7 feet tall. That
sounds even more impressive than the Manzano figures.

Interestingly, Walsh also cited some more Dr. Coyle data showing that
the difference in weight between the pre-cancer Lance and 7 time TdF
winning version was not as nearly significant as advertised.

On Aug 1, 8:30 pm, wrote:

Interestingly, Walsh also cited some more Dr. Coyle data showing that
the difference in weight between the pre-cancer Lance and 7 time TdF
winning version was not as nearly significant as advertised.- Hide quoted text -

What was impressive is to look at any of Lance's photos before and
after his cancer. What jumps out at you is that his arms and chest
musclature are totally different. His build is different and plainly
his muscle types are different. Before cancer Lance was a pretty fast
sprinter. After cancer he couldn't outsprint Pantani.

On Aug 1, 1:31 pm, "Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message y.net,
Mike Jacoubowsky a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

http://www.utexas.edu/features/2006/athletes/index.html

Not trying to voice an opinion here, just posting the link for anyone
who's interested in reading it. To summarize: it concludes that
Lance's success was a combination of some unusual physical
attributes, a scientific approach to improving his weaknesses, and a
lot of determination. The researcher is apparently very well
respected so I think it's worth reading - your mileage may vary.

Just one thing obviously incorrect in the article- it talks about him
having a heart the size of someone who's 6'4" while he's 5'5".

Hey, whaddyano! I got one of those too! But my doc worries more than
congratulates on the existence of an "athlete's heart". Seems it goes with
lots of baddies. "Take it to the limit one more time......" Some sort of
song, I recall. Goes better with sex; sex is not a heavy tax on the cardio
system. It may tax the wallet, if you don't watch out.
--
Sandy
--
C'est le contraire du vélo, la bicyclette.
Une silhouette profilée mauve fluo dévale
à soixante-dix à l'heure : c'est du vélo.
Deux lycéennes côte à côte traversent
un pont à Bruges : c'est de la bicyclette.
-Delerm, P.

send us photos of the bus station?

On Aug 1, 2:46 pm, Claus Assmann ca+sendmail(no-copies-
wrote:
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
http://www.utexas.edu/features/2006/athletes/index.html
Just one thing obviously incorrect in the article- it talks about him having
a heart the size of someone who's 6'4" while he's 5'5". Lance is actually

You are referring to this part:

"When we took images--an echocardiogram--of his heart, we saw
that it was much bigger than average. Although he's only 5'5",
he has the heart of someone who's around 6'4".

Then you have to read the paragraph right before it too:

"... Last summer, for example, I did some testing on a very, very
talented UT student athlete named Leo Manzano. He's one of the
best `milers' in the U.S. and was a top performer in the NCAA
finals.

That is, those numbers apply to Leo, not to Lance.
--
"Wer lesen kann ist klar im Vorteil"

coupla months back was a hjeated discussion runnin' maybe 100+ posts
based on grosssss misreading of a posted magazine article. maybe humor
involved.
"sueveal ert sueveal"

On Aug 2, 8:19 am, wrote:
Before cancer Lance was a pretty fast
sprinter. After cancer he couldn't outsprint Pantani.

Before cancer, Lance couldn't outsprint Tom Finklea at the Tuesday
Nighter. --D-y

On Aug 2, 9:19 am, wrote:
On Aug 1, 8:30 pm, wrote:



Interestingly, Walsh also cited some more Dr. Coyle data showing that
the difference in weight between the pre-cancer Lance and 7 time TdF
winning version was not as nearly significant as advertised.- Hide quoted text -

What was impressive is to look at any of Lance's photos before and
after his cancer. What jumps out at you is that his arms and chest
musclature are totally different. His build is different and plainly
his muscle types are different. Before cancer Lance was a pretty fast
sprinter. After cancer he couldn't outsprint Pantani.

No doubt that, visually, his physique changed quite a bit. I for one
readily admit that I bought into the whole notion that his weight loss
was largely responsible for his marked improvement. What I found
surprising was that Walsh showed-- via data he purportedly got from
Dr. Coyle's records-- that the weight change wasn't really of the
magnitude that was being reported-- something like a 1kg difference
between his TdF winning weight and his '93 world title winning weight.

Even pre-cancer, I don't recall Lance as being a "pretty fast
sprinter". Rather he was more of what they used to call a "hard man"
who had the potential to win tough one day races like LBL.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 2, 8:19 am, wrote:
Before cancer Lance was a pretty fast
sprinter. After cancer he couldn't outsprint Pantani.

Before cancer, Lance couldn't outsprint Tom Finklea at the Tuesday
Nighter. --D-y

That's nothing to be ashamed of. Finklea was quite a cagey sprinter.