"It's Not About the Drugs"

In article .com,
" wrote:

B. Lafferty wrote:

There has to be some point at which the correlation between VO2Max and
wattage becomes suspect. Would an athlete with a VO2Max of 82, 80 78 or 76
be physiologically capable of outputs like Armstrong, Ullrich and or
Pantani? Would a clean rider with a VO2Max of 90 not be able to put out
similar wattages with similar training methods?

You are thinking like a prosecutor, not a scientist. There is fairly
little correlation between VO2Max and power. There might be some
point at which it becomes suspect - maybe if I showed up to the club
TT and did 420 watts average on my beer-and-cheese training regimen -

Well, what would happen if you added some Skittles into that regimen?

If Andy wants to comment, I have no doubt that he can obtain a copy of
Vayer's analysis in French or English without my having to email it to him.

But you're so interested in the answer, perhaps you should
ask him. He might be sitting forlorn by his computer (or pedaling
his Velodyne in front of his computer) wondering why no one
from rbr ever calls.

Or hoping that a certain rbr denizen *doesn't* call...

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

Snipped for brevity

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

That's the article I've been referring to. He doesn't. I suggest
that you read the entire article.

I have read the entire article. It does explain the reasons for
Armstrong's improved performance with some very good correlations
(e.g. increase in type I fiber and increase in cadence). Add in his
drop in body mass and the result of many years of intensive training
etc. Is it the use of the term "remarkable" that leads you to think
otherwise?

Read it again.

Title: Improved muscle efficiency displayed as TdF champion matures.

Coyle identifies improved muscle efficiency as the physiological
factor that improved the most from ages 21yr to 28yr. As corroborating
evidence (in the absence of muscle biopsy) he states that Lance's
increased freely chosen cadence agrees with a pattern resulting from
muscle fiber conversion from type II to type I.

He also states that the changes were remarkably similar to a
prediction made in 1991 based on cross-sectional observations of
competitive cyclists and that observations of elite athletes support the
possibility of improved muscular efficiency.

Now I challenge you to point out the specific parts that lead you to
believe this isn't a natural explanation.

Phil H

Howard Kveck wrote:

Well, what would happen if you added some Skittles into that regimen?

http://tinyurl.com/95u4z

--TP

Tom Kunich wrote:

Sandy, I'm sure that you're well aware that the reason for this is that the
organizers intended to build a course that played against every Armstrong
weakness.

dumbass,

armstrong is strong in the mountains and time trials, ie. no real
weakeness.

if they wanted to build a tour that played against his weakness they
should've made it totally flat so every stage was a sprint finish.

that way boonen could be the first belgian winner of the tour since he
was born.

Robert Chung wrote:
Ernst wondered:


One question: Shouldn't VO2Max be correlated not to Power, but to
Power/Weight?


Start here and read a few of the following posts:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...b4e8ce6?hl=fr&

Thanks,

interesting. I missed this because I stopped reading that thread when I
saw the subject.

Btw. your question about Wattage in Pantani's ride in that thread: I
think the numbers a far off - at least I get a result of 400 Watts.

Ernst Noch wrote:
Btw. your question about Wattage in Pantani's ride in that thread: I
think the numbers a[re] far off - at least I get a result of 400 Watts.

Yeah, exactly. For those not interested in tracking down the link, this
is in reference to Vayer's famous claim that Pantani was putting out
461 watts. According to his own method, Vayer was off by around 20%.

Tom Kunich wrote:
Sandy, I'm sure that you're well aware that the reason for this is that the
organizers intended to build a course that played against every Armstrong
weakness.

amit wrote:
armstrong is strong in the mountains and time trials, ie. no real
weakeness.
if they wanted to build a tour that played against his weakness they
should've made it totally flat so every stage was a sprint finish.
that way boonen could be the first belgian winner of the tour since he
was born.

Of course Petacchi might have been interested in entering such a virtual
tour.

Sandy wrote:
I used to do better on Cheerios for breakfast. Maybe someone should
investigate General Mills.

B. Lafferty wrote:
I never thought of Cheerios as performance enhancing--whole grain or
regular? I defer to you.

Jelly beans are even better, but Peruvian candy is the best.

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

Snipped for brevity

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

That's the article I've been referring to. He doesn't. I suggest that
you read the entire article.

I have read the entire article. It does explain the reasons for
Armstrong's improved performance with some very good correlations (e.g.
increase in type I fiber and increase in cadence). Add in his drop in
body mass and the result of many years of intensive training etc. Is it
the use of the term "remarkable" that leads you to think otherwise?

Read it again.

Title: Improved muscle efficiency displayed as TdF champion matures.

Coyle identifies improved muscle efficiency as the physiological factor
that improved the most from ages 21yr to 28yr. As corroborating evidence
(in the absence of muscle biopsy) he states that Lance's increased freely
chosen cadence agrees with a pattern resulting from muscle fiber
conversion from type II to type I.

He also states that the changes were remarkably similar to a prediction
made in 1991 based on cross-sectional observations of competitive cyclists
and that observations of elite athletes support the possibility of
improved muscular efficiency.

Now I challenge you to point out the specific parts that lead you to
believe this isn't a natural explanation.

Phil H

You misstate what I've said. The Coyle conclusion is based on [1] an
unproved hypothesis and [2] does not admit that efficiency can also be
enhanced by illegal means. The bottom line is that this paper does not
explain what it attempts to explain.

"[1]To our knowledge, there have been no longitudinal studies performed over
years on humans directly testing the hypothesis that type II fibers can be
converted to type I muscle fibers with continued intense endurance training.
However, during periods of extreme endurance training of rats, skeletal
muscle appears to display conversion of type II to type I fibers (18).
[2]Other factors that have been reported to increase cycling efficiency and
running economy are intermittent exposure to hypoxia for several weeks as
encountered by athletes who spend periods living at high altitude or in
hypoxic environments (19, 30). Like many endurance athletes, this individual
has incorporated hypoxic exposure into his annual plan, which may be another
factor contributing to improved cycling efficiency............... [1] Muscle
samples were not surgically obtained from this athlete to directly test the
hypothesis that muscle fiber-type conversion contributed to the large
increases in mechanical or muscular efficiency when
cycling................[1]We hypothesize that the improved muscular
efficiency might reflect alterations in muscle myosin type stimulated from
years of training intensely for 3-6 h on most days."

Robert Chung wrote:
Ernst Noch wrote:
Btw. your question about Wattage in Pantani's ride in that thread: I
think the numbers a[re] far off - at least I get a result of 400 Watts.

Yeah, exactly. For those not interested in tracking down the link, this
is in reference to Vayer's famous claim that Pantani was putting out
461 watts. According to his own method, Vayer was off by around 20%.

No, you dumb smuck, he didn't ! He estimated Pantani's power output to
be in the region of ~380W. He then converted this to the power output
that a reference 7x kg athlete would produce (I think is was 72 or 74
kg). He used this power conversion to a reference 7x kg athlete so as
to provide a normalized mechanism of comparing power outputs of
different athletes with different body masses. In a sense he was
providing a simplified W/kg conversion.