Armstrong produced 30 more watts in 2005 than 1999

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I just finished reading an article on Yahoo where Lance's power output was tested just prior to the Tour, and he produced 30 more watts this year than he did in 2005.

According to Discovery's sporting director Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong is in better shape now than he was in 1999.

Pre-race tests in Nice saw the American produce 30 watts more power than the 520 watts he managed six years ago.

I just wanted to get some opinions on whether or not this is possible without doping. I guess I'm a little skeptical, and don't know what to believe.

In 1999 Lance Armstrong was so giddy about overcoming cancer---he adopted his 'work ethic' explanation.


After crushing admitted EPO user Alex Zulle in the 1999 TDF he suddenly realized he better have additioanl explanations.

Ever since, we have heard them all:

superior work ethic, plus
wind tunnel testing
bigger V02 max, higher lactic thresehold
bigger motor (smaller than Lemonds though)
great team
great planning
bluffing
peaking for July

After seven years--at an age when hormone levels are markedly lower, these explanations can help the naive believe he is a clean God!!!!!!

Hormones DO NOT MATTER. Only explanations.

Flyer, you did not even attempt to respond to the question posted. The question was whether it is possible fo someone to increase their power output by 30 watts between 1999 and 2005 without dope. What is not clear from the question is whether we are assuming he is clean in 1999.

If we start with the assumption that the rider is clean in 1999, then the question is whether the power increase can be obtained between ages 26 and 33 without the addition of doping. I assume where talking about time trial power (not absolute peak power). That's six years of structured training. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say yes. If he never increased his power, I'd say his training was flawed. Peak (sprinting) power, on the other hand, will typically decrease as your body loses fast twitch muscles.

If we start from Flyer's assumption that Lance has been doping since he was 18, then what is the question? Why would a rider who consistenly dopes achieve a 30 watt increase? Is the EPO that much more effective now than it was in 1999? You can only raise your hematocrit so much. And as far as I know, his muscle mass is roughly the same as it was in 1999.

Well, as far as age goes, I know several Masters Category cyclists in my area, that are simply phenomenal! These guys consistently do better lap times than the Cat 3 guys around here, and they are all over 40. I know most of them aren't on the juice. Can't speak for all of them.



After seven years--at an age when hormone levels are markedly lower, these explanations can help the naive believe he is a clean God!!!!!!

Hormones DO NOT MATTER. Only explanations.

Flyer, you did not even attempt to respond to the question posted.


Flyer not even attempting to respond to a question? Gee, what a surprise.

A 30 watt increase for Lance translates to roughly 6% improvement. Could he, or anyone, have improved his wattage output at 1% per year for 6 years from age 28 to age 33 via training? Unquestionably, yes. (That doesn't mean there were or were not other factors involved, but as for whether it's possible, the answer is yes). It's well known that aerobic efficiency improves cumulatively. Unlike sprint athletes, endurance athletes SHOULD be increasing efficiency and performance from late 20s to mid-30s.

On the flip side, recovery between extreme efforts should be gradually declining over time.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=983078&postcount=56

In the above post in June 2004 I referred to an excerpt from a review of a book/article where the last 10 years of TdF winning riders (to 2001) power outputs could be calculated (like analyticalcycling.com) if certain variables are known. This is the excerpt:

There are no tips on how to raid a pharmacy in "Do you have what it takes to win the Tour de France?"*. Instead, former Festina team trainer Antoine Vayer and software engineer Frederic Portoleau team up to study the physical build of the last ten yellow jersey winners.

With the Tour won or lost in the mountain stages, they focus specifically on the energy produced by a rider to climb the toughest Alps and Pyrenees stages.

In cycling, power is measured in watts. Thanks to TV images, Vayer and Porloteau studied the speed of the peddling, the time it took to climb the mountain, the distance, the gradient of the climbs and the weight of the riders.

Rivals of three-time defending champion Lance Armstrong have reason to shudder: Vayner and Portoleau conclude that Armstrong is in constant progression since 1999 with an average power of 415 watts in 1999, 430 watts in 2000 and 445 watts in 2001. By contrast, when he climbed the Tourmalet mountain in 1994 - before his cancer treatment - he produced an average power of 381 watts.

The authors’ main aim is to provide a mountain-climbing measuring tool for the everyday bike rider. What they find along the way is a spectacular increase in the average power of the last 10 years Tour de France winners with a spectacular 20% jump from 1991 to 1995.

Was it the mineral water? Evidence is circumstantial, but the 445 watt-average that year did coincide with the heyday of EPO use. Following the introduction of blood testing in 1997 and the 1998 Festina doping scandal, the average power falls to 400 watts, increasing again to 430 watts in last three Tours.

So what was LA in 2004 (3 years after this study) to increase by 30 watts to 2005?

I love this LA discussion. I think its good Flyer making a strong stand for what he believes. Has anyone seen that picture where lance is kissing this piece of paper with a big 7 on it and small written tdf.. don't his finger seem to pop out all the blood? Blood doping would have to be one of the major/only one drug he may take some of. I hope UCI will drop haematocrit limit even further to a number that is rationalised, I think that rationalised number should be LA's, get what I mean?
I admit he's mentally the toughest and if you read his books (who hasnt) you would have to admit he can get into a pretty good shape.
When it comes to the question raised in this thread, I think it's possible.
Saying he lost so much weight and that..
Also training clean and let your body recover clean seems to be the excellent way of getting better. All comes back to this mental thing, do you think its possible for anyone to beat himself up 6-8% more than his average (tdf) rival, just because he has the mental keenness to work harder?
After all, what's more rewarding that hard work?
And more important, I believe LA has been the keenest winner over the last 7 years. Like Ullrich, he says alot, he IS alot, but he doesn't walk his talk, just a mental think I believe. Therefore, just because LA is winning multiple TDF's doesn't say ANYTHING theres dopers out there, but Lance may very well not be one of them! Its big.. that mental thing.. very big, bigger than dope.
Another reason why 1 hour record was a NO for m, just a mental bit of a blockage... Just think, the last time you went for a training ride, you think you could have pushed yourself harder? You might say no, but maybe you could.... just trying to make a point. if he doped, he would have done more races, more records etc. doping affects you psygologically too

I find it incredible that anyone could believe LA doesn't dope. The demands of riding 21 stages (of an average 110 miles) on a 'diet' of water, good food and hard work are surely impossible. Look at the power outputs of these athletes at the end of that period. Anyone who thinks this is acheived through hard work ethic I'm certain doesn't understand the suffering of pro cyclist.

They all do it. Too many people get caught up in the fairy tale of Mr Armstrong. Personally it deeply saddens me that the tour is never going to be what it should.

I find it incredible that anyone could believe LA doesn't dope. The demands of riding 21 stages (of an average 110 miles) on a 'diet' of water, good food and hard work are surely impossible. Look at the power outputs of these athletes at the end of that period. Anyone who thinks this is acheived through hard work ethic I'm certain doesn't understand the suffering of pro cyclist.

They all do it. Too many people get caught up in the fairy tale of Mr Armstrong. Personally it deeply saddens me that the tour is never going to be what it should.
Two comments:

1) They don't just use "water, good food and hard work." We are years ahead in clean sports nutrition and they use many things like powerbars, Extran, and on and on...all clean.

2) Something we have been demanding of Flyer, but all he does is google an article and keep reposting it, never actually responding: Give us proof that he is dirty.

[QUOTE=VeloFlashThanks to TV images, Vayer and Porloteau studied the speed of the peddling, the time it took to climb the mountain, the distance, the gradient of the climbs and the weight of the riders.
[/QUOTE]

Not trying to go into the doping issue, but...

There are so many problems with these statements, it's hard to know where to begin. There's no way these calculations are any more accurate than +/- 10%, so I'd be hesitant to rely on them. The question is what was his max sustainable power. Looking at estimates from individual climbs doesn't take into account the question of (1)what was the rest of the stage like before the climb/what was his fatigue level going into the climb?; (2) How hard did he NEED to go? THat is, if it wasn't a time trial, was he really going as hard as he could?; (3) what was the temparature, humidity, and wind (at all thimes) on these climbs?

If we had lab tests before each Tour (which probably exist somewhere), this would be informative. But I don't think Vayner's and Portoleau's numbers should be taken as 100% accurate.

I did answer the question.

Why do you assume doping methods remain constant for 17 years????

Why do you assume the drugs and methods are identical for 17 years?

They are not identical.

Why do you assume LA was clean in 1999? He defeated Alex Zulle, an admitted EPO and steroid abuser--who did NOT get Cancer? PEDs work.


Over time doping methods, trial & error, and the powerful anemia drugs and transfusions may produce more sustainable power.

My point was that naive folks place all the emphasis for performance on immaterial explanations.

Doping can defeat a wind tunnel position.

I must have missed a post then. Or you may be getting your threads confused.

Question: can a rider increase his power output by 30 watts over a six year period without dope. Yes or no.

Flyer, your response (yes or no)?

Anyone want to take a bet on whether we get a one-word response?

Two comments:

1) They don't just use "water, good food and hard work." We are years ahead in clean sports nutrition and they use many things like powerbars, Extran, and on and on...all clean.

2) Something we have been demanding of Flyer, but all he does is google an article and keep reposting it, never actually responding: Give us proof that he is dirty.


1. You make me sound like an amateur! FYI, I'm 65kg, 4% bodyfat, VO2max 83 and produce about 190W at 60% HR. I know what good nutrition is, believe you me.

2. Lance did show positive. Ops, quickly get a doctor to write me a backdated prescription. Please. Look at the evidence around you. Simoni, Greg Lemond, O'Reilly, Post USPS doctors, and once 'close' friends. The 'test' are no proof he is clean. As I recall a rider got dis-qual this year for EPO use. Somehow it didn't show up in his bloods but the evidence was in his wife's car.

Quote 'Some things are true whether you believe in them or not.'

1. You make me sound like an amateur! FYI, I'm 65kg, 4% bodyfat, VO2max 83 and produce about 190W at 60% HR. I know what good nutrition is, believe you me.


Which pro team do you ride for?

I don't ride for a pro team.

Which pro team do you ride for?

1. You make me sound like an amateur! FYI, I'm 65kg, 4% bodyfat, VO2max 83 and produce about 190W at 60% HR. I know what good nutrition is, believe you me.

And yet you were the one who said "Water, good food and hard work" completely ignoring the advances in clean sports nutrition. Either you forgot about that or were leaving certain things out that went against the point you were trying to make. Either way I would say that is very amateurish.

2. Lance did show positive. Ops, quickly get a doctor to write me a backdated prescription. Please. Look at the evidence around you. Simoni, Greg Lemond, O'Reilly, Post USPS doctors, and once 'close' friends. The 'test' are no proof he is clean. As I recall a rider got dis-qual this year for EPO use. Somehow it didn't show up in his bloods but the evidence was in his wife's car.

Quote 'Some things are true whether you believe in them or not.'
Do you mean the corticoid creme that tested for below the illegal amount? Now you are getting into Flyer territory, picking and chosing what to believe...as long as it exactly says what you WANT it to say. Read your own quote.

And yet you were the one who said "Water, good food and hard work" completely ignoring the advances in clean sports nutrition. Either you forgot about that or were leaving certain things out that went against the point you were trying to make. Either way I would say that is very amateurish.


Do you mean the corticoid creme that tested for below the illegal amount? Now you are getting into Flyer territory, picking and chosing what to believe...as long as it exactly says what you WANT it to say. Read your own quote.

Ok, if testing is all it's cracked up to be then how did David Millar manage to get through the 2003 pre-meds without getting caught? After all last year he was busted for EPO usage and freely admited that he used it 'apparently' only twice - one of those times being a few days before the 2003 opening stage.

Ok, if testing is all it's cracked up to be then how did David Millar manage to get through the 2003 pre-meds without getting caught? After all last year he was busted for EPO usage and freely admited that he used it 'apparently' only twice - one of those times being a few days before the 2003 opening stage.
I couldn't tell you how Millar did it and thus I won't pretend to know something I don't know...unlike people like you who are willing to talk about things they know nothing about as if they are experts. If you really did know something you would provide the concrete proof...but you never do. Very amateurish

<snip>..... Do you mean the corticoid creme that tested for below the illegal amount? Now you are getting into Flyer territory, picking and chosing what to believe...as long as it exactly says what you WANT it to say. Read your own quote.House, can you indicate to us on the UCI banned list where the cortisone ointment used by LA in 1999 had a threshold value between sanctionable and non-sanctionable?

There are only a very few on the list with a threshold. All the others - if detected, you fail the test.

Hence, the backdated prescription which, according to the non illegal myth, should have not been needed.

However, the "cover-up" of a backdated prescription should not have succeeded as it required a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) certificate to make the detection non sanctionable.

UCI turned a blind eye because of the 1998 Festina affair and the failed drug test would have DQ'd the yellow jersey.

I couldn't tell you how Millar did it and thus I won't pretend to know something I don't know...unlike people like you who are willing to talk about things they know nothing about as if they are experts. If you really did know something you would provide the concrete proof...but you never do. Very amateurish

David Millar never failed a drugs test. He used EPO. That is 'Concrete proof' that drug tests prove nothing.

No, you cannot. Esepicially, the ones with MD licenses and prescription pads. Cat 3 times, try Cat 1/2 lap times. The 3s are very slow in the corners.

Nor can you confirm potential steroid use in earlier life (college) which may have contributed to a muscular base which they now maintain w/o drugs.

Masters format is far less rigorous (even with multiple races per day) than is TDF cycling--thus the need for accelerated recovery is much less as well.
C'mon Flyer! Now are you going to tell me that most of the Master's Category Cyclists are doping? The Master's I personally know that are fast as Cat 1/2/3's are not MD's. One owns an auto body shop that he works in himself, and the other is a housing contractor. I don't think either of these guys are, or have ever doped. They race for the love of the sport, and ride as much as they can for recreation/training.

David Millar never failed a drugs test. He used EPO. That is 'Concrete proof' that drug tests prove nothing.
So that means that anyone failing a drug test is not really guilty since, according to you, "drug tests prove nothing."


Of course I thought this was about Lance doping, where is that concrete proof? Oh wait, you don't have any so you changed tacts. Nice work. LOL