Re: "It's Not About the Drugs"


<bjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123083428.951507.70120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> Other than criticising Baker's syntax, you do agree that there is a good
>> correlation between VO2Max and climbing, don't you?
>
> No. Look at Chung's plot. From rider to rider there are
> substantial variations. And see the discussion he and Ernst Noch
> had about how normalizing VO2 at LT by weight doesn't take
> the variations out the right way.
>
>> Are you saying that
>> cadence doesn't relate to power output and efficiency?
>
> Only in a secondary way. Jeezus, haven't we been over this a
> zillion times in past years? Power is the important output.
> Higher cadence is a strategy for getting the same power output
> with lower force, so it postpones fatigue. It is not a magic
> recipe for success.
>
>> Are you saying that
>> increased cadence doen't require increased O2 uptake?
>
> AFAIK, it does. But it's also trainable, and clearly preferences
> vary greatly among riders.

The issue is whether the power output of Armstrong, Pantani or Ullrich is
trainable. There is a question on this that Coyle attempts to answer.
>
>> > Do you have any idea what form of doping or other cheating
>> > would increase efficiency (defined here as power over oxygen
>> > uptake)? This is a sincere question. Modern forms of doping
>> > like EPO have concentrated on increasing oxygen capacity
>> > through increasing hematocrit, not increasing efficiency.
>>
>> Are you saying that a rider will not be aided in climbing with more
>> sustainable power by using EPO? How about autologous blood boosting?
>
> Read the question. EPO or blood doping will increase power
> because they increase hematocrit, increasing oxygen carrying
> capacity, which means increasing VO2.

Blood doping with whole blood increases hematocrit or gross volume? BTW,
several riders have outlined how the 50% limit can be faked for the
vampire's test. Also, some of the climbs noted of l'Alpe were
pre-hematocrit testing.

> So they are not increasing
> effiency as such. Although I said that power-to-VO2 ratio has a
> lot of variation from rider to rider, in a given rider, if you
> turn up the knob, the volume gets louder, so to speak.
> Use of EPO or blood doping should show up as increased power and
> increased VO2. I sort of suspect one reason Coyle published the
> article was to defend Armstrong by showing that his VO2 had
> not increased suspiciously.

However, Coyle did not do any VO2Max testing immediately after the Tour and
hypothseises that Armstrong had a VO2Max than of 85. Problematic as to his
climbing power output.

>
>> > I really think Armstrong psyched you out. He has you right
>> > where he wants his rivals - obsessed with the possibly-mythical
>> > "*** That Will Kill Them," like Bartali sneaking after Coppi
>> > to pick up his empty bottle and have it analyzed. When Bartali
>> > found it was only water, that did worse for his morale than if
>> > it had been any magic potion.
>>
>> Hardly. It isn't just Armstrong, as Vayer points out. The same questions
>> also apply to Ullrich, Pantani, Indurain, Virenque and a number of other
>> riders putting out sustained climbing wattages of 400+.
>
> Okay, but somebody here keeps asking about Armstrong in particular,
> even though he dosn't race bikes anymore. I still think Vayer's
> argument boils down to "it isn't physically possible," but he
> doesn't really know what is physically possible. Even Pantani
> only went up the Alpe 15% faster than Coppi, who had a heavier
> bike and presumably no EPO.

Heavier bike yes, but the issue here is power when climbing, not simply the
time.

It's actually more like this for estimated average climbing wattage on
l'Alpe d'Huez (please note that Coppi's time has been incorrectly posted
here as to climbing l'Alpe d'Huez by ascribing to him Fignon's time):

Coppi 1952 340watts avg.

Fignon 1989 383watts avg.

Pantani 1997 426watts avg.

Armstrong 2001 455watts avg.

Armstrong 2004 462watts avg.

In relation to Coppi, the percentage increases in power output are:
Armstrong 27%
Pantani 21%
Fignon 12%

In relation to Fignon, Armstrong 2004=18% increase over Fignon; 27% over
Coppi; 8% over Pantani.

A final question. Why were there no riders breaking 400 watts climbing in
the pre-EPO era, particularly in the late 1980s?


.