How good Lance Armstrong really was?

That's a bold statement. I think if anyone watched Stage 8 of this years TdF and what Pogacar did on the Col de Romme you'd question if he was legit or not. It was un-natural the way he rode away from Carapaz.

DouchebagsAnonymous wrote:

[quote]pacoza wrote:

However, Todej Pogacar is the most talented ever and is on track to challenge Merckx !

RuningManJumpSuit wrote:

That's a bold statement. I think if anyone watched Stage 8 of this years TdF and what Pogacar did on the Col de Romme you'd question if he was legit or not. It was un-natural the way he rode away from Carapaz.

DouchebagsAnonymous wrote:

[quote]pacoza wrote:

However, Todej Pogacar is the most talented ever and is on track to challenge Merckx !

Carapaz was having a bad day. He got stronger as the Tour progressed but he still couldn't shake off Pogačar.

Aragon wrote:

just say it wrote:

79 ml/kg/min @ 12% bodyfat.

Not 88 as it says on Wikipedia.

There has indeed existed (unsourced) claims going back to 1993 that "Big Mig's" absolute Vo2Max was 7 l/min (88 ml/kg/min) with a cardiac output of 50 l/min. When his Vo2Max was measured in 1994 in the course of his one hour world record attempt, it was significantly lower figure of only 6.4 l/min (79 ml/kg/min).

In the course of one project, I happened to mention the higher figure to a scientist who was involved in testing Indurain in the 1990s. He generally was skeptical about the "exaggerated" un unfounded figures circulating in the media, but was of the opinion that the Vo2Max testing protocol used for the peer-reviewed research was an unually lengthy one, which might explain some of the difference.

Yes, Induráin was tested at 6.4 l/min @ 81kg in 1994

So his range of VO2max would have been 79ml/kg/min @ 81kg up to 82 ml/kg/min @ 78kg.

There were press releases in the early 90s saying his VO2max was 88/ ml/kg/min @ 3% bodyfat which is a nonsensical figure. But that's what people believed and still do. In reality Induráin never had super low bodyfat at any point in his amazing cycling career.

"Talent" might be the wrong word for "high responder"

If two cyclist have similar FTP, threshold, and VO2 max numbers but one has a low natural hematocrit and the other has a high natural hematocrit then they have different start points (call it the "floor"). If they each take EPO to improve their red blood cell count (oxygen delivery) they are both limited to the same "ceiling"

(UCI imposed high hematocrit limit at 50 starting in 1997....before that the ceiling limit was ~60 before blood turns to molasses and rider dies)

So a "high responder" is the one who has a low floor and can see a big difference in performance while the rider with a higher floor sees a smaller difference.

.... Different floors, same ceiling = different response to EPO = "talent" for dope

But you have no objection to the longer protocol possibly tilting the 1994 figure of 6.4 l/min downwards?

It is well-documented that the Vo2Max values of Finnish cross-country skiers (same individuals) fell by 1-3 ml/kg/min in the early 1980s when the length of the Vo2Max-test protocol was increased from 10-15 min to 25-33 min. In a rare paper from 2007 measuring different protocols on Vo2Max figures, a 16 min protocol gave ~8 % lower figure than a shorter 8 min protocol.

The relevant question of course is whether Lance Armstrong had a low "floor" or not.

Aragon wrote:

But you have no objection to the longer protocol possibly tilting the 1994 figure of 6.4 l/min downwards?

It is well-documented that the Vo2Max values of Finnish cross-country skiers (same individuals) fell by 1-3 ml/kg/min in the early 1980s when the length of the Vo2Max-test protocol was increased from 10-15 min to 25-33 min. In a rare paper from 2007 measuring different protocols on Vo2Max figures, a 16 min protocol gave ~8 % lower figure than a shorter 8 min protocol.

I agree that the test has to be the right length. If the athlete is overheating the heat dissipation diverts blood to the skin for sweating and VO2 drops.

DouchebagsAnonymous wrote:

"Talent" might be the wrong word for "high responder"

If two cyclist have similar FTP, threshold, and VO2 max numbers but one has a low natural hematocrit and the other has a high natural hematocrit then they have different start points (call it the "floor"). If they each take EPO to improve their red blood cell count (oxygen delivery) they are both limited to the same "ceiling"

(UCI imposed high hematocrit limit at 50 starting in 1997....before that the ceiling limit was ~60 before blood turns to molasses and rider dies)

So a "high responder" is the one who has a low floor and can see a big difference in performance while the rider with a higher floor sees a smaller difference.

.... Different floors, same ceiling = different response to EPO = "talent" for dope

That's Fantasy hematology and oxygen kinetics. Unfortunately it's what people believe.

Aragon wrote:

But you have no objection to the longer protocol possibly tilting the 1994 figure of 6.4 l/min downwards?

It is well-documented that the Vo2Max values of Finnish cross-country skiers (same individuals) fell by 1-3 ml/kg/min in the early 1980s when the length of the Vo2Max-test protocol was increased from 10-15 min to 25-33 min. In a rare paper from 2007 measuring different protocols on Vo2Max figures, a 16 min protocol gave ~8 % lower figure than a shorter 8 min protocol.

Protocol shift doesn't mean more accurate results though. VO2 max tests are notorious for producing vague results. Athlete's testing at one center with same protocols illicit different results. Same with skiers vs cyclists vs runners results. A skier testing at a center by using a stationary bike instead of a treadmill is not at all accurate to the VO2 # he might actually be at on the ski course.

In regards to longer tests yielding a more accurate result, perhaps, but remember, VO2 by definition = an athletes max oxygen uptake capacity period, not to be confused with capacity vs time .....That would be a measure of FTP (functional threshold power)

VO2 capacity = max output for 7-9 minutes

For runners, the best 3k runners in the world will have the higher VO2 compared to 10k runners typically

just say it wrote:

DouchebagsAnonymous wrote:

"Talent" might be the wrong word for "high responder"

If two cyclist have similar FTP, threshold, and VO2 max numbers but one has a low natural hematocrit and the other has a high natural hematocrit then they have different start points (call it the "floor"). If they each take EPO to improve their red blood cell count (oxygen delivery) they are both limited to the same "ceiling"

(UCI imposed high hematocrit limit at 50 starting in 1997....before that the ceiling limit was ~60 before blood turns to molasses and rider dies)

So a "high responder" is the one who has a low floor and can see a big difference in performance while the rider with a higher floor sees a smaller difference.

.... Different floors, same ceiling = different response to EPO = "talent" for dope

That's Fantasy hematology and oxygen kinetics. Unfortunately it's what people believe.

Hi Jon, how's the lovely town of Richmond these days?

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

He was probably unremarkably good, which is why most athletes in that sport dope.

NO, if you are average you dope to have a job. If you are great you dope to win. Average guys cant dope to a win on a stage race. When the very best freaks of nature are all doping, they are your podium.

bigmig19 wrote:

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

He was probably unremarkably good, which is why most athletes in that sport dope.

NO, if you are average you dope to have a job. If you are great you dope to win. Average guys cant dope to a win on a stage race. When the very best freaks of nature are all doping, they are your podium.

Are you ignorant or just trolling? There are no magic metabolic bullets.

Aragon wrote:

The relevant question of course is whether Lance Armstrong had a low "floor" or not.

No, the relevant question is whether Bioenergetics is recognised as a science or not?

DouchebagsAnonymous wrote:

VO2 max tests are notorious for producing vague results. Athlete's testing at one center with same protocols illicit different results. Same with skiers vs cyclists vs runners results. A skier testing at a center by using a stationary bike instead of a treadmill is not at all accurate to the VO2 # he might actually be at on the ski course.

In regards to longer tests yielding a more accurate result, perhaps...

It can be semantics, but perhaps the question is what is an "accurate result", perhaps exactly the one from the protocol that tends to give the highest value if the test is done accurately? If this is the standard, then the 6.4 l/min (~79 ml/kg/min) value for "Big Mig" in the longer test isn't an accurate figure vs. the often-quoted figures of ~90 ml/kg/min if the latter ones used a protocol that tended to give higher values.

And it is true that the tests "at one center with same protocols illicit different results", actually even if exactly the same equipment is used and and even if there is no enormous error in calibration. The question is by how much?

This is a separate question from how much of performance can be deduced from Vo2Max figure alone, but I don't think that there is really that much variance, but the Vo2Max data in similar conditions tends to be quite reproducible ceteris paribus. Please feel free to share research showing otherwise, but in the data I've seen, the difference between the highest and lowest Vo2Max value in many elite athletes even with some natural progression in form and seasonal variance is less than 10 percent even in the course of many years even if the value has been measured close to a dozen of times.

In Armstrong's dataset tested by Ed Coyle for his academic paper, the three even remotely comparable "preseason" Vo2Max figures were 5.56, 5.82 and 5.70 l/min, not unsimilar figures.

just say it wrote:

DouchebagsAnonymous wrote:

"Talent" might be the wrong word for "high responder"

If two cyclist have similar FTP, threshold, and VO2 max numbers but one has a low natural hematocrit and the other has a high natural hematocrit then they have different start points (call it the "floor"). If they each take EPO to improve their red blood cell count (oxygen delivery) they are both limited to the same "ceiling"

(UCI imposed high hematocrit limit at 50 starting in 1997....before that the ceiling limit was ~60 before blood turns to molasses and rider dies)

So a "high responder" is the one who has a low floor and can see a big difference in performance while the rider with a higher floor sees a smaller difference.

.... Different floors, same ceiling = different response to EPO = "talent" for dope

That's Fantasy hematology and oxygen kinetics. Unfortunately it's what people believe.

Not fantasy, and definitely true in the realm of EPO doping.

High natural hematocrit = smaller potential benefit

Low natural hematocrit = larger potential benefit

Lance Armstrong stated in a recent podcast he was naturally around 43% hematocrit level.

Tyler Hamilton was even lower.

Ironically, the very arbitrary UCI imposed limit (in the absence of an EPO test at the time) of not exceeding 50% actually further benefitted low hematocrit rider than the 60% absolute ceiling (potent death)

A rider with a natural hematocrit of 48% would see very little benefit and would risk getting flagged (not allowed to start a race)

Once they could actually test for EPO, things changed to microdosing EPO for training, and blood doping for racing.

....This is when Lance and Ferrari took it the next level compared to the rest of the peloton

DouchebagsAnonymous wrote:

just say it wrote:

That's Fantasy hematology and oxygen kinetics. Unfortunately it's what people believe.

Not fantasy, and definitely true in the realm of EPO doping.

High natural hematocrit = smaller potential benefit

Low natural hematocrit = larger potential benefit

Lance Armstrong stated in a recent podcast he was naturally around 43% hematocrit level.

Tyler Hamilton was even lower.

Ironically, the very arbitrary UCI imposed limit (in the absence of an EPO test at the time) of not exceeding 50% actually further benefitted low hematocrit rider than the 60% absolute ceiling (potent death)

A rider with a natural hematocrit of 48% would see very little benefit and would risk getting flagged (not allowed to start a race)

Once they could actually test for EPO, things changed to microdosing EPO for training, and blood doping for racing.

....This is when Lance and Ferrari took it the next level compared to the rest of the peloton

This isn't how Oxygen Kinetics/Bioenergetics works.

There is no superhuman oxidative capacity. If we can't address basic Biology, then any level of quackery will be exalted to whatever fantasy you want to believe.

Here we are, 50 into this quackery and 20 years of this message board and only one well known figure has been the voice of reason on letsrun about this. Ferrari v Canova. Who's your pick for intuitive knowledge?

Anti doping zealots endorsing doping cultural beliefs believe Ferrari and Conconi despite their lack of Bioenergetic knowledge and think Renato is either a liar or naïve.

???

What specifically are you refuting?

Hematocrit % isn't quakery

Neither is its relationship to red blood cells delivering oxygen to your muscles.

Neither is the 5 - 10 % bump in performance for Grand Tour riders.

Canova vs Ferrari?

One's a coach, the other a doctor

Intuitive knowledge??

WTF??

Try science!.... and a touch of art

Specifically, Canova deals with runners in events in duration from 2 minutes up to 2 hours 30 minutes.

While most believe EPO gives runners great advantage, Canova understands there is no hematocrit depletion in these athletes from running these events.

Conversely, a TdF rider loses over 10% of their hematocrit count racing over three weeks.

.....Who benefits more is obvious

Canova has no experience with this and doesn't need to.

His comments on EPO and running performance is based on his experience with runners.

Ferrari knew EPO and it's effects on cycling better than anyone, ever. That's why he was sought out by the best.

If I were an elite cyclist in the 90s with questionable ethics, I would seek out Ferrari for medical "advise" but not coaching

If I were an elite runner from Africa (see, elite runner) I would seek out Canova for coaching. (...not sure who the doctor is!)

before biking, 4:16 miler, 13:32 5K and 36 10k

You're not getting it. There is no superhuman oxidative capacity. It's a fantasy. Oxygen Kinetics/Bioenergetics doesn't work like that. We are limited by Genetics and Thermodynamics.

This is basic Biology.