Improved muscular efficiency displayed as TdF champion matures

"It is hypothesized that the improved muscular efficiency probably reflects changes in muscle myosin type
stimulated from years of training intensely for 3-6 h on most days."

Who else thinks this sounds funny ?

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

"It is hypothesized that the improved muscular efficiency probably
reflects changes in muscle myosin type stimulated from years of
training intensely for 3-6 h on most days."

Who else thinks this sounds funny ?

Me and Greg Lemond.

Robert Chung schreef:

Quoted message said:

Me and Greg Lemond.

But seriously. Is that cautious hypothesis really the point of that
study?
I mean, even the man himself has said that before ("I'm on my bike!"😉.
Didn't need rocket science to bring that forward.

There are some other guys who ride 3-6 hours every day, so it shouldn't
be hard to validate/ falsify it ?

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

Robert Chung schreef:

Quoted message said:

Me and Greg Lemond.

But seriously. Is that cautious hypothesis really the point of that
study?

Nope. The purpose of the study was just to describe changes in efficiency
over time, not to explain why it happened: for that you'd need other tests
(like muscle biopsies) and they weren't done. The study only looks at five
data points where Coyle had Armstrong in the lab between 1992 and 1999.
Three of the five were not in-season; one was 8 months post-chemotherapy
during the period where he wasn't racing. The single in-season lab test
was in September 1993 when Armstrong was 22.

Robert Chung said:

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

"It is hypothesized that the improved muscular efficiency probably
reflects changes in muscle myosin type stimulated from years of
training intensely for 3-6 h on most days."

Who else thinks this sounds funny ?

Me and Greg Lemond.

Hmmm. The same thing struck me. Maybe Andy Coggan can speak about
what changes occur in "myosin type" with training.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

"It is hypothesized that the improved muscular efficiency probably reflects changes in muscle myosin type
stimulated from years of training intensely for 3-6 h on most days."

Who else thinks this sounds funny ?

It sounds kind of funny. But it doesn't sound as funny as this:

A skunk sat on a stump and thunk the stump stunk, but the stump thunk
the skunk stunk.

Robert Chung said:

17 March 2005 issue of Journal of Applied Physiology:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&db=PubMed&list_uids=15774697

Muscle maturity and specificity are keys to bodybuilding, especially
for non-chemical types. It takes years to build the density and mass
cleanly. Specificity comes into play in setting up a rotational program
to give muscle groups the rest they need to grow. I'm not surprised by
this at all.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Robert Chung said:

17 March 2005 issue of Journal of Applied Physiology:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&db=PubMed&list_uids=15774697

Quoted message said:

Muscle maturity and specificity are keys to bodybuilding, especially
for non-chemical types. It takes years to build the density and mass
cleanly. Specificity comes into play in setting up a rotational program
to give muscle groups the rest they need to grow. I'm not surprised by
this at all.

You ought to be. Coyle was, and I'm guessing he's seen a few more cases
than you. The change in calculated efficiency (both gross and delta) isn't
small, it's pretty darn big.

Robert Chung said:

Bill C said:

Robert Chung said:

17 March 2005 issue of Journal of Applied Physiology:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&db=PubMed&list_uids=15774697

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You ought to be. Coyle was, and I'm guessing he's seen a few more

cases

Quoted message said:

than you. The change in calculated efficiency (both gross and delta)

isn't

Quoted message said:

small, it's pretty darn big.

Your right. The amount of the change is pretty big, but given Lance's
performance over his career which has been an indicator of increasing
performance and the fact that he started out as a genetic freak makes
this unusual gain more acceptable to me without raising all the other
issues of performance enhancement.
I'm taking it as just another indicator that Lance's body, combined
with his drive is capable of doing the same things, and making the same
adaptations that we are, just on a whole different scale. I'd like to
see comparative studies including people like Paula Newby-Fraser, Dave
Scott, and Scott Tinley all of whom got better as they matured. I guess
that the only person here who would have a real good idea about whether
the elite of the pro athletes actually also, gain proportionally and
commeasurate, with their genetic gifts would be Andy.
In simple words do the best of the best, also get a higher percentage
physical benefit from training too?
Bill C

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

Robert Chung schreef:
There are some other guys who ride 3-6 hours every day, so it shouldn't
be hard to validate/ falsify it ?

I thought it was funny. Like he couldn't think of anything else to say,
and he played around on medline and found some recent articles...

(warning, mice, and possible commercial application)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15778894
(warning, "previously sedentary" subjects)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15746299

I'm sure he's done biopsies at some point, hasn't he? What are the
chances he used some of the sample for protein and mRNA preps? None,
probably, there would be an answer instead of a question if he had.

Quoted message said:

Hmmm. The same thing struck me. Maybe Andy Coggan can speak about
what changes occur in "myosin type" with training.

Not Dr. Coggan, but I think I can answer this question. "Myosin type"
= muscle fiber type for most intents and purposes. Humans have Type I
(slow), and Type IIa (fast) and IIx (faster), small mammals also have a
Type IIb (fastest).

Most models of disuse such as space flight, bedrest, hind-limb
suspension in animals, spinal cord injury, show a pretty consistent
pattern of a shift toward the fastest myosin isoforms and fiber types,
with fiber type shifts appearing to occur more readily within the Type
II fibers than between Type II and Type I.

With increased use, such as recovery from bedrest or spaceflight,
electrical stimulation training protocols for people with spinal cord
injury, endurance training you get a fiber type shift in the opposite
direction toward Type I. We know from chronic electrical stimulation
of animals that you could potentially shift a muscle to all type I
fibers. As I understand it, in humans it is fairly easy to document
shifts from Type IIx to IIa following endurance training, more
controversial is if much or any shift from Type IIa to Type I occurs.

I haven't read the article, but I assume the author is speculating that
the multiple years of lots of volume has shifted Armstrongs' fiber type
distribution toward a preponderance of Type I fibers, but without
muscle biopsies over the years, I think it can only remain speculative.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hmmm. The same thing struck me. Maybe Andy Coggan can speak about
what changes occur in "myosin type" with training.

Not Dr. Coggan, but I think I can answer this question. "Myosin type"
= muscle fiber type for most intents and purposes. Humans have Type I
(slow), and Type IIa (fast) and IIx (faster), small mammals also have a
Type IIb (fastest).

Most models of disuse such as space flight, bedrest, hind-limb
suspension in animals, spinal cord injury, show a pretty consistent
pattern of a shift toward the fastest myosin isoforms and fiber types,
with fiber type shifts appearing to occur more readily within the Type
II fibers than between Type II and Type I.

With increased use, such as recovery from bedrest or spaceflight,
electrical stimulation training protocols for people with spinal cord
injury, endurance training you get a fiber type shift in the opposite
direction toward Type I. We know from chronic electrical stimulation
of animals that you could potentially shift a muscle to all type I
fibers. As I understand it, in humans it is fairly easy to document
shifts from Type IIx to IIa following endurance training, more
controversial is if much or any shift from Type IIa to Type I occurs.

I haven't read the article, but I assume the author is speculating that
the multiple years of lots of volume has shifted Armstrongs' fiber type
distribution toward a preponderance of Type I fibers, but without
muscle biopsies over the years, I think it can only remain speculative.

Thanks--informative and clear.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Robert Chung said:

17 March 2005 issue of Journal of Applied Physiology:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&db=PubMed&list_uids=15774697

Quoted message said:

Muscle maturity and specificity are keys to bodybuilding, especially
for non-chemical types. It takes years to build the density and mass
cleanly. Specificity comes into play in setting up a rotational program
to give muscle groups the rest they need to grow. I'm not surprised by
this at all.

You ought to be. Coyle was, and I'm guessing he's seen a few more cases
than you. The change in calculated efficiency (both gross and delta) isn't
small, it's pretty darn big.

Imagine that - it appears that Lance's story is that he was a genetic
miracle and not a blood booster.

That ought to break Lafferty's heart.

Quoted message said:

I haven't read the article, but I assume the author is speculating

that

Quoted message said:

the multiple years of lots of volume has shifted Armstrongs' fiber

type

Quoted message said:

distribution toward a preponderance of Type I fibers, but without
muscle biopsies over the years, I think it can only remain

speculative.

yes. but in any case the increase in efficiency over the years is
documented, whatever the cause. the expected effect of EPO would be
different. you'd see power and VO2max increase with efficiency staying
about the same (i imagine).

LA's efficiency isn't off the charts, it's within normal limits, but
it's the combination of factors that matters.

in cycling though it's typical that a rider takes several years to
'mature', and peak performance is seen after 5-10 or so years of
training. riders that start racing later also mature later.

Bill C said:

The amount of the change [in efficiency] is pretty big, but [...]
this unusual gain more acceptable to me without raising all the
other issues of performance enhancement.

Actually, even less than raising other issues of performance enhancement,
it eliminates some. Basically, the efficiency gain means that additional
oxygen transport might not have been necessary. It raises a separate
question (Bart's question, and my question) which is how that happened,
but this is a pretty remarkable finding.

So here's the next question: if Coyle has had these data since 1999, why
is it being published now instead of five years ago?

Robert Chung wrote:
It raises a separate

Quoted message said:

question (Bart's question, and my question) which is how that

happened,

Quoted message said:

but this is a pretty remarkable finding.

Agreed, discovering exactly how it happened and why could have serious
medical applications outside of sports. I think that it would have to
be a fairly lengthy study to identify, then monitor, test and document
others with a similar response. Not too many test subjects though would
be my guess.

Quoted message said:

So here's the next question: if Coyle has had these data since 1999,

why

Quoted message said:

is it being published now instead of five years ago?

Good question? Looking for new grant money now?
Bill C

Quoted message said:

yes. but in any case the increase in efficiency over the years is
documented, whatever the cause. the expected effect of EPO would be
different. you'd see power and VO2max increase with efficiency

staying

Quoted message said:

about the same (i imagine).

I'm not an exercise physiologist and i certainly don't have a good
grasp on the "efficiency" issue in cycling, but what you say makes
sense to me. Furthermore, if what someone else posted is accurate and
these tests were done in the off-season you wouldn't expect any EPO use
at that time anyway.

Robert Chung wrote:
It raises a separate

Quoted message said:

question (Bart's question, and my question) which is how that

happened,

Quoted message said:

but this is a pretty remarkable finding.

I got a chance to read the paper. The basic explanation for how it
happened is simply the large and prolonged volume of training resulted
in a substantial shift in percentage of Type I fibers, which are
thought to be more efficient than the Type II fibers. The whole
discussion section seems highly speculative. Has Armstrong's
self-selected cadence really increased, which the author attributes to
this shift in fiber type? I thought his increase in cadence was a
purposeful thing and only really apparent when he was TTing or climbing
under pressure?

If this shift really occurs and leads to a higher preferred cadence,
shouldn't all pros gravitate toward higher cadences as their careers
progress?

[email hidden said:

"]Robert Chung wrote:
It raises a separate

Quoted message said:

question (Bart's question, and my question) which is how that

happened,

Quoted message said:

but this is a pretty remarkable finding.

I got a chance to read the paper. The basic explanation for how it
happened is simply the large and prolonged volume of training resulted
in a substantial shift in percentage of Type I fibers, which are
thought to be more efficient than the Type II fibers. The whole
discussion section seems highly speculative. Has Armstrong's
self-selected cadence really increased, which the author attributes to
this shift in fiber type? I thought his increase in cadence was a
purposeful thing and only really apparent when he was TTing or climbing
under pressure?

If this shift really occurs and leads to a higher preferred cadence,
shouldn't all pros gravitate toward higher cadences as their careers
progress?

Could you elaborate on Lance's cadence and crank length relative other pros?