Improved muscular efficiency displayed as TdF champion matures

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Robert Chung, Mar 21, 2005.



  1. "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 ?
     
  2. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
    > "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.
     
  3. Robert Chung schreef:

    >
    >
    > 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 ?
     
  4. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
    > Robert Chung schreef:
    >
    >> 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.
     
  5. Robert Chung wrote:
    > Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
    >
    >>"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
     
  6. Tim Lines

    Tim Lines Guest

    Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
    > "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.
     
  7. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Robert Chung wrote:
    > 17 March 2005 issue of Journal of Applied Physiology:
    >
    >

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&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
     
  8. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Bill C wrote:
    > Robert Chung wrote:
    >> 17 March 2005 issue of Journal of Applied Physiology:
    >>
    >>

    >

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&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.


    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.
     
  9. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Robert Chung wrote:
    > Bill C wrote:
    > > Robert Chung wrote:
    > >> 17 March 2005 issue of Journal of Applied Physiology:
    > >>
    > >>

    > >

    >

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&dopt=Abstract&db=PubMed&list_uids=15774697
    > >

    >
    >
    > 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.


    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
     
  10. gym gravity

    gym gravity Guest

    Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:

    >
    > 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/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15778894
    (warning, "previously sedentary" subjects)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&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.
     
  11. >
    > 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.
     
  12. [email protected] wrote:

    >> 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
     
  13. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Bill C wrote:
    >> Robert Chung wrote:
    >>> 17 March 2005 issue of Journal of Applied Physiology:
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&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.

    >
    > 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.
     
  14. amit

    amit Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    > 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.


    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.
     
  15. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Bill C wrote:

    >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?
     
  16. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Robert Chung wrote:
    It raises a separate
    > question (Bart's question, and my question) which is how that

    happened,
    > 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.
    >
    > 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?


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

  17. > 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).


    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.
     
  18. Robert Chung wrote:
    It raises a separate
    > question (Bart's question, and my question) which is how that

    happened,
    > 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?
     
  19. meb

    meb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could you elaborate on Lance's cadence and crank length relative other pros?
     
Loading...
Loading...