|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
B. Lafferty wrote: It's Not About The Drugs http://www.lalibre.be/article.phtml?...&art_id=232659 Brief summary for the linguistically challenged: Frederic Grappe, PhD - scientific counselor to the French Cycling Federation, and coach for FDJ - has published a book entitled Cycling and Optimization of Performance. In it he analyses Armstrong's performance during the 2001 TdF and concludes that his performance is the result of his professional approach to training and strategy. According to Grappe, Armstrong only drops the hammer on the last climb for about 45-50 minutes of high cadence pedalling. Although Ullrich is capable of generating more force, he lacks the ability to increase his power to match Armstrong's accelerations. Doping is not a sufficient explanation for Armstrong's success which depends more on his mastery of optimizing energy expenditure. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article , Ernst Noch wrote: Ryan Cousineau wrote: [insightful analysis snipped] And add to that the publicity factor. Suddenly, all the achievements in the sport would be seen as a lone result of taking pharmaceutical products and medicine. Fake boobs work although everybody knows they are fake. But I think that won't work in cycling. I hope you'll pardon me for a self-aggrandizing rant, but I want to kinda extend with a problem he I keep posting variations of my theory, and it mostly gets met with silence. I don't really see a lot of responses from the pro-doping crowd. Yeah, and with your negligience to use the boob factor for marketing your ideas, you really wonder why you get ignored? Seriously, I'd also be interested in an answer from the legalize it proponents. My thoughts on cosmetic surgery redacted, because archives are forever . |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Brian wrote:
The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have been used by Floyd Landis' coach Brian, don't make me come back early from my vacation and slap you upside your head. I'm grumpy enough typing on a foreign keyboard. Go read my power meter pages, including the San Bruno hillclimb page: there you'll see same guy, same climb, 6% difference in time, but --same measured power--. Anyone except for you and gym teachers should be able to understand its relevance. BTW, the power-to-weight shown in Coggan's profile table for the FT column will be a conservative estimate of what top-notch riders can climb at since they usually do the final climb of a stage in excess of their FT. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Ben wrote:
A huge problem with Vayer's argument - pointed out by amit at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/.../msg/91f30b3f0... is that you can't go from a wattage figure and a V02max (or VO2 at threshold etc) to a deduction that the wattage is reasonable or physiologically impossible or evidence of doping or whatever. Because there just is not a very good correlation between V02max and wattage at threshold from person to person. http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/coyle.png |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Well, the volume of posting always drops off after July.
I wonder how the rbr volume and the US interest in bike racing will taper off next year. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...s.racing/about Already a one-third drop from last year. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Aug 2005 01:15:12 -0700, Robert Chung wrote:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...s.racing/about Already a one-third drop from last year. Blame the web. -- Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/ Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/ |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
On 1 Aug 2005 01:15:12 -0700, Robert Chung wrote: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...s.racing/about Already a one-third drop from last year. Blame the web. I guess it's just that the helmet topic was started earlier in July last year. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Philip Holman" wrote in message ... "B. Lafferty" wrote in message link.net... "Philip Holman" wrote in message ... "B. Lafferty" wrote in message news "Philip Holman" wrote in message ... "B. Lafferty" wrote in message news wrote in message ups.com... vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as *all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water. they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer." i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that, on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in vayer's analysis. on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too carefully. The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine, the distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that portion of Vayer's analysis. The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one major climb this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts. *Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like ProCycling pull together several experts for a discussion of what Vayer has done. Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can develop 6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion can develop 6.62 over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance weighs about 70kg this equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given the same body weight this will result in almost the same proportions in climbing speed. Say 15 mph versus 16 mph. As for FL's unremarkable 370 watts, that's about equivalent to what a UCI division III pro can sustain for 20 minutes. Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he must use drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and estimates thrown in to sway the uninformed. Phil H Looking at http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v3.gif it appears that the top level Coggan presents at functional threshold is 6.4 Consider that Armstrong is, according to Vayer and Ferrari as quoted in Coyle's book, putting out a ft level of 480-500 watts with a magic number of 6.7 (according to Ferrari) This is all done with a measured VO2Max of 82 or 83. Eddie Coyle speculates that Armstrong *may* have a VO2Max at present of 85 (Coyle has apparently not been able to confirm that speculation with lab tests). Coyle goes through a rather labored attempt to explain this FT power output by speculative muscle fiber conversion theories not supported by muscle biopsy and hyperbaric living. But there are other possible explanations. What Vayer asserts is that Armstrong's FT output is virtually impossible with the VO2Max that he has. BTW, Floyd Landis has a VO2Max of 90 and Ullrich's is 88. I'd like to read a discussion of this by Coggan and others in the field such as Keen. It's fairly well known that VO2 Max is NOT a good predictor of athletic performance and that power output at anaerobic threshold is. Some athletes can obtain a higher percentage of VO2max at AT. There is plenty of scientific research to support this. VO2 max also does not take into account gross efficiency. Thus the journal article by Eddie Coyle that really doesn't explain (or prove) a natural basis for Armstrong's increased efficiency. He does in this one. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...97&query_hl=13 Phil H That's the article I've been referring to. He doesn't. I suggest that you read the entire article. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Chung wrote:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...s.racing/about Already a one-third drop from last year. Ewoud Dronkert wrote: Blame the web. Ernst Noch wrote: I guess it's just that the helmet topic was started earlier in July last year. Blame g. white. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drugs are Cool. | crit PRO | Racing | 23 | March 22nd 05 02:50 AM |
Decanio Sounding Coherent | B Lafferty | Racing | 93 | February 3rd 05 10:32 PM |
Bettini on drugs? | Gary | Racing | 74 | August 19th 04 01:44 AM |
Doping or not? Read this: | never_doped | Racing | 0 | August 4th 03 01:46 AM |
BBC: Drugs In Sport | B. Lafferty | Racing | 0 | July 28th 03 04:19 PM |