Armstrong Physiology study by Coyle



swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,098
426
83
tonyzackery said:
Very interesting reading that I found and wanted to share with the rest of you. It's several years old, but new to me...

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191
One of the things that stuck me as odd about that article is the accepted use of Armstrongs own measured weight during The Tour ~72Kg. Given that his Nov '99 lean body weight was 71.6Kg and total weight 79.2Kg, are we to believe that 4 months earlier during the 99 Tour that Armstrong was somewhere in the area of less that 1.5% body fat (if we take a value somewhere between the stated values for Aug 97 and Nov 99 lean body weight, say 70.9Kg and the stated total weight of 72Kg). If we take the lean body weight as given at Nov 99 (71.6Kg) then that %bodyfat falls to 0.6%

Even using the lightest lean bodyweight stated, 72Kg total weight with 69.8 lean body weight, that still works out to less than 4% which is pushing the bounds of good health a little.

But either way, you certainly can't argue with 404watts at an O2 uptake of 5.0l/min when his VO2 max was around 6.0l/min. That gives an insight into the figured banded around during a pre-tour Dauphine Libre stage ending climb where Armstrong averaged 495watts for the 35 minute climb.... Awesome.
 

tonyzackery

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2006
3,517
80
0
56
You mean to tell me that I can't take these scientific studies as gospel????? Next thing I know you'll be telling me Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist...
 

Piotr

New Member
Jan 29, 2007
794
0
0
tonyzackery said:
You mean to tell me that I can't take these scientific studies as gospel????? Next thing I know you'll be telling me Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist...
Yes you can and they do exist. Wow! How in the world were you able to predict that!!!? :D
 

Fday

New Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,341
0
0
swampy1970 said:
One of the things that stuck me as odd about that article is the accepted use of Armstrongs own measured weight during The Tour ~72Kg. Given that his Nov '99 lean body weight was 71.6Kg and total weight 79.2Kg, are we to believe that 4 months earlier during the 99 Tour that Armstrong was somewhere in the area of less that 1.5% body fat (if we take a value somewhere between the stated values for Aug 97 and Nov 99 lean body weight, say 70.9Kg and the stated total weight of 72Kg). If we take the lean body weight as given at Nov 99 (71.6Kg) then that %bodyfat falls to 0.6%

Even using the lightest lean bodyweight stated, 72Kg total weight with 69.8 lean body weight, that still works out to less than 4% which is pushing the bounds of good health a little.

But either way, you certainly can't argue with 404watts at an O2 uptake of 5.0l/min when his VO2 max was around 6.0l/min. That gives an insight into the figured banded around during a pre-tour Dauphine Libre stage ending climb where Armstrong averaged 495watts for the 35 minute climb.... Awesome.
The most important thing about that study, imho, is the documentation of his improved cycling efficiency. That alone, in someone at his level at the start of the study, can explain his domination of the peloton over the ensuing years. While there is some controversy over the calculation of delta efficiency in Coyles work, there is no controversy over the improvement in gross efficiency.

What isn't explained in the study is how this improvement occurred. We both know of one way of improving efficiency, changing pedaling technique, but we don't know how Lance actually did it. What is true though is there is no doping way to explain it.
 

Fday

New Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,341
0
0
Jono L said:
We also know he did not use power cranks:D
You do??? That is not what we have been told. When asked by a customer directly about what he thought about PowerCranks he hemmed and hawwed for a bit then said "Whatever improves your efficiency."

so, whether he used them or not, the important thing about the study is the improvement in the efficiency. However he did it this can explain his domination. The Coyle study tries to explain (changing muscle type) it but it is pure supposition with essentially zero science to back it up.
 

11ring

New Member
Apr 22, 2006
397
2
0
41
. What is true though is there is no doping way to explain it.[/QUOTE]Unless you count gene doping to increase % type one fibres, but his is improbable.

but also hgh, amphetemines, EPO anything that increases training load will help increase adaption rate too.

There is a long thread "what determines efficiency" on this topic. There are lots of interesting posts from some people who know alot about this topic.
 

jsirabella

Member
Jan 1, 2005
1,715
6
0
57
Fday said:
What is true though is there is no doping way to explain it.
I never really cared about Armstrong but was he much of a rider before his battle with cancer?

I do not mean good rider but a rider they felt was going to be of the caliber he became.

-js
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
18
0
jsirabella said:
I never really cared about Armstrong but was he much of a rider before his battle with cancer?

I do not mean good rider but a rider they felt was going to be of the caliber he became.

I dunno - does winning TdF stages and being the 2nd-youngest World Champion in the history of the sport count? ;)
 

iliveonnitro

New Member
Mar 29, 2006
181
0
0
jsirabella said:
I never really cared about Armstrong but was he much of a rider before his battle with cancer?

I do not mean good rider but a rider they felt was going to be of the caliber he became.

-js
What Andy said. Regardless of if he doped or not, he was still world champion 3 years before rumors (from teammates, no less) of doping started.

Merckx said Lance would win the Tour, even before he got cancer.
 

jsirabella

Member
Jan 1, 2005
1,715
6
0
57
OK....so if he did not have his battle with cancer he would have been even more dominating of course as the battle with cancer must have had some permanent adverse affects especially all the radiation treatments and the other medications he had to take to deal with the disease and treatments.

Correct?

I have a young person in my office who had cancer and survived and has had to deal with treatments and has recently had it come back. He is fine now. Amazing how Lance recovered and still performed as he did with no future related issues I know of.

-js

BTW, watching an amazing doc called Bigger, Faster, Stronger...you should see it just to see the interview with Floyd for you guys.



iliveonnitro said:
What Andy said. Regardless of if he doped or not, he was still world champion 3 years before rumors (from teammates, no less) of doping started.

Merckx said Lance would win the Tour, even before he got cancer.
 

Piotr

New Member
Jan 29, 2007
794
0
0
jsirabella said:
I never really cared about Armstrong but was he much of a rider before his battle with cancer?

I do not mean good rider but a rider they felt was going to be of the caliber he became.

-js
Well, if I may reminisce. Long before I took these pictures at the 1991 nationals, Armstrong was touted as the next Greg Lemond. So much so, that I had mentioned that fact to him during his signing of autographs (I was a lowly Cat. 4 and couldn't think of anything else to say :eek:). I think it was around that time that he became increasingly annoyed at that comparison :p. IIRC, his response was "Well, hopefully we're doing something right.". He was 19 and there was a line for his autograph! Here's something I googled up that may shed some light also.

I explicitly recall Jonas Carney, the criterium winner, saying that his teammate (Armstrong) set such a blistering pace on the last lap that he swore they were going down in one of the turns (it was a typical 4 corner crit). As it turned out they had gapped the field considerably and finished 1-2 to the dismay of the charging sprinters.

Miscellaneous
1991 Criterium podium

A few days later, Armstrong went on to win the road nationals.

Miscellaneous
1991 Road finish

Let's not forget that he was on the 1988 Seoul Olympics team when he was only 16.

Edit: As I write this the pictures I embedded aren't showing up :confused:, so I posted links.
Miscellaneous
 

Fday

New Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,341
0
0
jsirabella said:
OK....so if he did not have his battle with cancer he would have been even more dominating of course as the battle with cancer must have had some permanent adverse affects especially all the radiation treatments and the other medications he had to take to deal with the disease and treatments.

Correct?

I have a young person in my office who had cancer and survived and has had to deal with treatments and has recently had it come back. He is fine now. Amazing how Lance recovered and still performed as he did with no future related issues I know of.

-js

BTW, watching an amazing doc called Bigger, Faster, Stronger...you should see it just to see the interview with Floyd for you guys.
My understanding is he took a risk and chose less tested treatments that would, hopefully, have less or zero long term effect on his racing, should the treatments work.
 

jsirabella

Member
Jan 1, 2005
1,715
6
0
57
It would seem to me pretty obvious that his treatments should have been well documents especially since he is part of the LiveStrong program. Given the results of his treatment it should be used to help others. I remember reading that the cancer was so widespread in his body the doctors gave him no time to live let alone comeback.

--js

Fday said:
My understanding is he took a risk and chose less tested treatments that would, hopefully, have less or zero long term effect on his racing, should the treatments work.
 

Similar threads