Rohloff for road?

Carl Fogel said:

Yes, it's the effectiveness of the lungs, not their raw size, that
matters.

Quoted message said:

But the subject was total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

At your age, for example, there may well be some reduction of total
lung capacity from what it was when you were 18-50, due to either
reduced mechanical function (rib cage flexibility no longer allows
as much expansion or compression) or to closing off of small airways
(sections of lung are no longer aerated).

Quoted message said:

(Disease, of course, is another matter.)

Quoted message said:

If you want to see how total lung capacity is actually measured,
here's a quick explanation of the two methods:

Quoted message said:

http://oac.med.jhmi.edu/res_phys/Encyclopedia/BodyPleth/BodyPleth.HTML

Quoted message said:

The body plethysmography method measures raw expansion of the chest
by placing the patient's body in a sealed box (with an outside
breathing tube) and treating it as an expanding piston. The
drawback is that this method includes sealed-off sections of lung
that no longer function.

Oooh! How complicated. How about measuring the exhaled volume after
maximum inhale as is done by most people who don't want to spend
thousands of dollars on esoteric equipment. My university used an
inexpensive calibrated (water) floatbalanced tank for such
measurements. "Breathe into the hose please."

Quoted message said:

To use a very crude example, if an injury or growth blocks the
airway to one of the five lobes of a typical lung, the chest
expansion method would show 5 units of volume, but the actual total
lung capacity would be only 4 units.

Quoted message said:

The other method for measuring total lung capacity is gas dilution:

Quoted message said:

http://oac.med.jhmi.edu/res_phys/Encyclopedia/GasDilution/GasDilution.HTML

Quoted message said:

In this method, the patient breathes from a source with a known
volume breathable air containing some known concentration of a gas
like helium.

Who comes up with these bizarre contraptions?

Quoted message said:

In a few minutes, the helium in this closed system (which contains
enough air that the patient doesn't turn blue) is presumably evenly
distributed. The concentration of the gas is measured again, is
naturally less because the volume of the system has expanded by the
volume of the patient's lungs and airway, and thus some gas-law and
arithmetic will predict the volume increase of the system, which is
the total aerated lung volume.

Quoted message said:

(The dead space of the patient's snout, mouth, and windpipe must be
taken into consideration. The trunk of an elephant can confuse
matters, while the trachea of a dainty 100-lb pronghorn is almost
large enough to accept a baseball bat.)

What does deadspace have to do with lung capacity. The air in ones
throat and mouth does not add to oxygen CO2 exchange and it ramains
constant during breathing.

Quoted message said:

Neither method of measurement was commonly used in high school
biology classes in the 1950's.

Can you explain what the volumetric error between these methods is and
how large?

Quoted message said:

Anyway, the larger the patient, the larger the total lung capacity.
But by itself, total lung capacity doesn't mean much--children are
much smaller than adults, have much smaller total lung capacity, and
are quite active. The ratio of total lung capacity to body weight
would be a better measurement, but even that isn't terribly useful.
It's the efficiency of the lung that matters, not its raw size--the
best marathon runners, for example, often have smaller than average
chests.

As I said, ratio of lung volume to body weight.

Quoted message said:

Height and weight (adjusted for sex--women have smaller average
total lung capacity than men) are used for the initial size
screening in lung transplants.

This is a lot of detail. What are you getting at?

Quoted message said:

Again, professional bicycle distance racers are typically
average-size people (or smaller), so they tend to have average total
lung capacity.

I disagree. It is in particular their larger than normal lung
capacity that makes them capable of their performance.

Quoted message said:

(Larger recreational bicyclists occasionally play with pulmonary
function test machines at medical offices. The excuse is that it's
necessary to make sure that the computer and the PFT machine are
working properly, but actually it's just fun to blow into the thing
and see the graph. Total lung capacity is completely ignored on
such machines.)

I don't understand what you mean by that. Why is it "completely
ignored"?

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Yes, it's the effectiveness of the lungs, not their raw size, that
matters.

Quoted message said:

But the subject was total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

At your age, for example, there may well be some reduction of total
lung capacity from what it was when you were 18-50, due to either
reduced mechanical function (rib cage flexibility no longer allows
as much expansion or compression) or to closing off of small airways
(sections of lung are no longer aerated).

Quoted message said:

(Disease, of course, is another matter.)

Quoted message said:

If you want to see how total lung capacity is actually measured,
here's a quick explanation of the two methods:

Quoted message said:

http://oac.med.jhmi.edu/res_phys/Encyclopedia/BodyPleth/BodyPleth.HTML

Quoted message said:

The body plethysmography method measures raw expansion of the chest
by placing the patient's body in a sealed box (with an outside
breathing tube) and treating it as an expanding piston. The
drawback is that this method includes sealed-off sections of lung
that no longer function.

Oooh! How complicated. How about measuring the exhaled volume after
maximum inhale as is done by most people who don't want to spend
thousands of dollars on esoteric equipment. My university used an
inexpensive calibrated (water) floatbalanced tank for such
measurements. "Breathe into the hose please."

Quoted message said:

To use a very crude example, if an injury or growth blocks the
airway to one of the five lobes of a typical lung, the chest
expansion method would show 5 units of volume, but the actual total
lung capacity would be only 4 units.

Quoted message said:

The other method for measuring total lung capacity is gas dilution:

Quoted message said:

http://oac.med.jhmi.edu/res_phys/Encyclopedia/GasDilution/GasDilution.HTML

Quoted message said:

In this method, the patient breathes from a source with a known
volume breathable air containing some known concentration of a gas
like helium.

Who comes up with these bizarre contraptions?

Quoted message said:

In a few minutes, the helium in this closed system (which contains
enough air that the patient doesn't turn blue) is presumably evenly
distributed. The concentration of the gas is measured again, is
naturally less because the volume of the system has expanded by the
volume of the patient's lungs and airway, and thus some gas-law and
arithmetic will predict the volume increase of the system, which is
the total aerated lung volume.

Quoted message said:

(The dead space of the patient's snout, mouth, and windpipe must be
taken into consideration. The trunk of an elephant can confuse
matters, while the trachea of a dainty 100-lb pronghorn is almost
large enough to accept a baseball bat.)

What does deadspace have to do with lung capacity. The air in ones
throat and mouth does not add to oxygen CO2 exchange and it ramains
constant during breathing.

Quoted message said:

Neither method of measurement was commonly used in high school
biology classes in the 1950's.

Can you explain what the volumetric error between these methods is and
how large?

Quoted message said:

Anyway, the larger the patient, the larger the total lung capacity.
But by itself, total lung capacity doesn't mean much--children are
much smaller than adults, have much smaller total lung capacity, and
are quite active. The ratio of total lung capacity to body weight
would be a better measurement, but even that isn't terribly useful.
It's the efficiency of the lung that matters, not its raw size--the
best marathon runners, for example, often have smaller than average
chests.

As I said, ratio of lung volume to body weight.

Quoted message said:

Height and weight (adjusted for sex--women have smaller average
total lung capacity than men) are used for the initial size
screening in lung transplants.

This is a lot of detail. What are you getting at?

Quoted message said:

Again, professional bicycle distance racers are typically
average-size people (or smaller), so they tend to have average total
lung capacity.

I disagree. It is in particular their larger than normal lung
capacity that makes them capable of their performance.

Quoted message said:

(Larger recreational bicyclists occasionally play with pulmonary
function test machines at medical offices. The excuse is that it's
necessary to make sure that the computer and the PFT machine are
working properly, but actually it's just fun to blow into the thing
and see the graph. Total lung capacity is completely ignored on
such machines.)

I don't understand what you mean by that. Why is it "completely
ignored"?

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

The people who come up with what you consider bizarre
contraptions are the people who understand why your water
test wasn't of much use.

To address the first silly question, measuring the exhaled
volume versus the inhale doesn't measure total lung
capacity. At complete exhalation, a large amount of lung
capacity is still not near exhausted. Typically, people run
about 1-2.5 liters in and out of a 6-liter total capacity.

A PFT machine (and the two methods described are not PFT
machines) does not measure total lung capacity. It measures
flow rate and volume exhaled and inhaled--which obviously
does not tell us what the total lung capacity is because
your best exhalation or inhalation does not empty or fill
the lungs.

Try working through the details in the links previously
provided.

Again, the original subject was the claim that professional
bicycle racers often have a total lung capacity in excess of
10 liters.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

To address the first silly question, measuring the exhaled
volume versus the inhale doesn't measure total lung
capacity. At complete exhalation, a large amount of lung
capacity is still not near exhausted.

To address the silly answer, let's be precise: the residual volume is
about 25% or 1.5 l/6l. In other words, using a spirometer is a
perfectly good way to underestimate total lung capacity and if
interested that underestimate can be reasonably corrected. However,
those underestimates were already larger than your claim, so you'll
have to try again. L

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Yes, it's the effectiveness of the lungs, not their raw size, that
matters.

Quoted message said:

But the subject was total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

At your age, for example, there may well be some reduction of total
lung capacity from what it was when you were 18-50, due to either
reduced mechanical function (rib cage flexibility no longer allows
as much expansion or compression) or to closing off of small airways
(sections of lung are no longer aerated).

Quoted message said:

(Disease, of course, is another matter.)

Quoted message said:

If you want to see how total lung capacity is actually measured,
here's a quick explanation of the two methods:

Quoted message said:

http://oac.med.jhmi.edu/res_phys/Encyclopedia/BodyPleth/BodyPleth.HTML

Quoted message said:

The body plethysmography method measures raw expansion of the chest
by placing the patient's body in a sealed box (with an outside
breathing tube) and treating it as an expanding piston. The
drawback is that this method includes sealed-off sections of lung
that no longer function.

Oooh! How complicated. How about measuring the exhaled volume after
maximum inhale as is done by most people who don't want to spend
thousands of dollars on esoteric equipment. My university used an
inexpensive calibrated (water) floatbalanced tank for such
measurements. "Breathe into the hose please."

Quoted message said:

To use a very crude example, if an injury or growth blocks the
airway to one of the five lobes of a typical lung, the chest
expansion method would show 5 units of volume, but the actual total
lung capacity would be only 4 units.

Quoted message said:

The other method for measuring total lung capacity is gas dilution:

Quoted message said:

http://oac.med.jhmi.edu/res_phys/Encyclopedia/GasDilution/GasDilution.HTML

Quoted message said:

In this method, the patient breathes from a source with a known
volume breathable air containing some known concentration of a gas
like helium.

Who comes up with these bizarre contraptions?

Quoted message said:

In a few minutes, the helium in this closed system (which contains
enough air that the patient doesn't turn blue) is presumably evenly
distributed. The concentration of the gas is measured again, is
naturally less because the volume of the system has expanded by the
volume of the patient's lungs and airway, and thus some gas-law and
arithmetic will predict the volume increase of the system, which is
the total aerated lung volume.

Quoted message said:

(The dead space of the patient's snout, mouth, and windpipe must be
taken into consideration. The trunk of an elephant can confuse
matters, while the trachea of a dainty 100-lb pronghorn is almost
large enough to accept a baseball bat.)

What does deadspace have to do with lung capacity. The air in ones
throat and mouth does not add to oxygen CO2 exchange and it ramains
constant during breathing.

Quoted message said:

Neither method of measurement was commonly used in high school
biology classes in the 1950's.

Can you explain what the volumetric error between these methods is and
how large?

Quoted message said:

Anyway, the larger the patient, the larger the total lung capacity.
But by itself, total lung capacity doesn't mean much--children are
much smaller than adults, have much smaller total lung capacity, and
are quite active. The ratio of total lung capacity to body weight
would be a better measurement, but even that isn't terribly useful.
It's the efficiency of the lung that matters, not its raw size--the
best marathon runners, for example, often have smaller than average
chests.

As I said, ratio of lung volume to body weight.

Quoted message said:

Height and weight (adjusted for sex--women have smaller average
total lung capacity than men) are used for the initial size
screening in lung transplants.

This is a lot of detail. What are you getting at?

Quoted message said:

Again, professional bicycle distance racers are typically
average-size people (or smaller), so they tend to have average total
lung capacity.

I disagree. It is in particular their larger than normal lung
capacity that makes them capable of their performance.

Quoted message said:

(Larger recreational bicyclists occasionally play with pulmonary
function test machines at medical offices. The excuse is that it's
necessary to make sure that the computer and the PFT machine are
working properly, but actually it's just fun to blow into the thing
and see the graph. Total lung capacity is completely ignored on
such machines.)

I don't understand what you mean by that. Why is it "completely
ignored"?

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

As a follow-up, I glanced at my deathless prose and am far
from pleased with the quick and dirty comment on the body
plethysmography method.

To anyone unfamiliar with the method, the "piston" comment
doesn't begin to explain things. Again, see the detailed
description:

http://oac.med.jhmi.edu/res_phys/Encyclopedia/BodyPleth/BodyPleth.HTML

It's not at all a simple exhalation volume measurement, but
I see that I gave that impression because I skipped forward
to the problem with the method, which is that it includes
any dead, closed-off lung volume.

What may not be immediately understood is that the human
lung consists of a couple of soggy bags that partly inflate
and partly deflate, with about half the largest possible
volume never vanishing, but staying full of air. It's hard
to measure the total capacity of a paper bag that never
fully deflates.

And, of course, the real measure of efficiency has little to
do with the amount of air moving in and out. It's the gas
exchange over the surface that matters. Someone with
emphysema, for example, may move more air in and out than
usual, taking deeper and more rapid breaths, but this is
just an attempt to compensate for the dead volume inside the
damaged lung, where large empty spaces happily fill with
air, but have far less lung surface where gas exchange can
take place.

Similarly, the problem at higher altitude is not that
there's less oxygen in 1,000 cc's of volume. It's that the
gas-exchange process doesn't like the lower pressure.

Again, the total lung capacity is about 5~7 liters for adult
women and men and doesn't increase or decrease much for
decades. To get 10 liters of total lung capacity, we'd need
to find an extremely large-chested fellow.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

To address the first silly question, measuring the exhaled
volume versus the inhale doesn't measure total lung
capacity. At complete exhalation, a large amount of lung
capacity is still not near exhausted. Typically, people run
about 1-2.5 liters in and out of a 6-liter total capacity.

How is that "capacity", if you can't actually use it? At best, it's going
to be dead air that on inhalation mixes perfectly and will give you less
effect out of the air you take in.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen said:

Quoted message said:

To address the first silly question, measuring the exhaled
volume versus the inhale doesn't measure total lung
capacity. At complete exhalation, a large amount of lung
capacity is still not near exhausted. Typically, people run
about 1-2.5 liters in and out of a 6-liter total capacity.

How is that "capacity", if you can't actually use it? At best, it's going
to be dead air that on inhalation mixes perfectly and will give you less
effect out of the air you take in.

Jasper

Dear Jasper,

A picture (or diagram) is worth a thousand words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_volume

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel said:

The people who come up with what you consider bizarre contraptions
are the people who understand why your water test wasn't of much
use.

Quoted message said:

To address the first silly question, measuring the exhaled volume
versus the inhale doesn't measure total lung capacity. At complete
exhalation, a large amount of lung capacity is still not near
exhausted. Typically, people run about 1-2.5 liters in and out of a
6-liter total capacity.

So does that mean the air gets out some other way? If inhaling is
consistently greater than exhaling, it makes that necessary. What is
important is the volume of air processed by the lungs with each
inhale/exhale cycle and that is what was measured with water
displacement. Lost volume is a dilution of that and doesn't make the
relative volume test of water displacement invalid.

Quoted message said:

A PFT machine (and the two methods described are not PFT machines)
does not measure total lung capacity. It measures flow rate and
volume exhaled and inhaled--which obviously does not tell us what
the total lung capacity is because your best exhalation or
inhalation does not empty or fill the lungs.

I got tired of the minutia in those pages, finding nothing significant.

Quoted message said:

Try working through the details in the links previously provided.

Can't you, in a sentence, say why this is important to us and why
there is no correlation between exhaled volume and lung capacity. I
couldn't find it. Now I'm sorry I brought it up.

Quoted message said:

Again, the original subject was the claim that professional bicycle
racers often have a total lung capacity in excess of 10 liters.

Yes, and where was that contradicted in the references you cited? By
water displacement (inhale/exhale) such volumes have been recorded.
What is wrong with those measurements?

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

The people who come up with what you consider bizarre contraptions
are the people who understand why your water test wasn't of much
use.

Quoted message said:

To address the first silly question, measuring the exhaled volume
versus the inhale doesn't measure total lung capacity. At complete
exhalation, a large amount of lung capacity is still not near
exhausted. Typically, people run about 1-2.5 liters in and out of a
6-liter total capacity.

So does that mean the air gets out some other way? If inhaling is
consistently greater than exhaling, it makes that necessary. What is
important is the volume of air processed by the lungs with each
inhale/exhale cycle and that is what was measured with water
displacement. Lost volume is a dilution of that and doesn't make the
relative volume test of water displacement invalid.

Quoted message said:

A PFT machine (and the two methods described are not PFT machines)
does not measure total lung capacity. It measures flow rate and
volume exhaled and inhaled--which obviously does not tell us what
the total lung capacity is because your best exhalation or
inhalation does not empty or fill the lungs.

I got tired of the minutia in those pages, finding nothing significant.

Quoted message said:

Try working through the details in the links previously provided.

Can't you, in a sentence, say why this is important to us and why
there is no correlation between exhaled volume and lung capacity. I
couldn't find it. Now I'm sorry I brought it up.

Quoted message said:

Again, the original subject was the claim that professional bicycle
racers often have a total lung capacity in excess of 10 liters.

Yes, and where was that contradicted in the references you cited? By
water displacement (inhale/exhale) such volumes have been recorded.
What is wrong with those measurements?

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

You wrote something silly about 10-liter total lung
capacity.

If you don't understand the terms, pretending to be
knowledgeable only makes you look arrogant and foolish.

If you're just going to play dumb, fine. Pretend that you
don't understand that liters are volume measurements, that
lungs don't deflate anywhere near completely, and that your
high school (or university--you changed your mind on that)
measured total lung capacity directly.

But it's painfully obvious that you're pretending.

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, and where was that contradicted in the references you cited?
By water displacement (inhale/exhale) such volumes have been
recorded. What is wrong with those measurements?

Quoted message said:

You wrote something silly about 10-liter total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

If you don't understand the terms, pretending to be knowledgeable
only makes you look arrogant and foolish.

You don't like the measurement means that were used when these were
made however, I witnessed 9.5 liter exhale volume and believe the
person in charge of that equipment that he also measured ones
exceeding 10 liters.

Quoted message said:

If you're just going to play dumb, fine. Pretend that you don't
understand that liters are volume measurements, that lungs don't
deflate anywhere near completely, and that your high school (or
university--you changed your mind on that) measured total lung
capacity directly.

You took issue with the measurement and stated that all people have
between 4 and 6 liters:

# A normal adult has a total lung capacity of only about 4 to 6
# liters. If anything, the chests of bicycle racers tend to be on the
# small side, since they tend to be shorter, smaller men.

As if that meant there are no athletes with greater lung capacity.
The capacity that I was mentioning was measured in the days of exhale
volume that was the common measure at that time. I don't understand
what you are trying to develop with calling me silly and foolish. How
about addressing the subject which is that people with greater lung
volume to body mass make better endurance athletes. I don't care how
you measure the volume.

Quoted message said:

But it's painfully obvious that you're pretending.

Pretending what? I don't get it. Can you be more direct?

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, and where was that contradicted in the references you cited?
By water displacement (inhale/exhale) such volumes have been
recorded. What is wrong with those measurements?

Quoted message said:

You wrote something silly about 10-liter total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

If you don't understand the terms, pretending to be knowledgeable
only makes you look arrogant and foolish.

You don't like the measurement means that were used when these were
made however, I witnessed 9.5 liter exhale volume and believe the
person in charge of that equipment that he also measured ones
exceeding 10 liters.

Quoted message said:

If you're just going to play dumb, fine. Pretend that you don't
understand that liters are volume measurements, that lungs don't
deflate anywhere near completely, and that your high school (or
university--you changed your mind on that) measured total lung
capacity directly.

You took issue with the measurement and stated that all people have
between 4 and 6 liters:

# A normal adult has a total lung capacity of only about 4 to 6
# liters. If anything, the chests of bicycle racers tend to be on the
# small side, since they tend to be shorter, smaller men.

As if that meant there are no athletes with greater lung capacity.
The capacity that I was mentioning was measured in the days of exhale
volume that was the common measure at that time. I don't understand
what you are trying to develop with calling me silly and foolish. How
about addressing the subject which is that people with greater lung
volume to body mass make better endurance athletes. I don't care how
you measure the volume.

Quoted message said:

But it's painfully obvious that you're pretending.

Pretending what? I don't get it. Can you be more direct?

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Sweet Jesus, now you're claiming 10 liters exhalation--not
total lung capacity, but total exhalation--for a normal-size
person?

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Yes, and where was that contradicted in the references you cited?
> By water displacement (inhale/exhale) such volumes have been
> recorded. What is wrong with those measurements?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You wrote something silly about 10-liter total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't understand the terms, pretending to be knowledgeable
only makes you look arrogant and foolish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't like the measurement means that were used when these were
made however, I witnessed 9.5 liter exhale volume and believe the
person in charge of that equipment that he also measured ones
exceeding 10 liters.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're just going to play dumb, fine. Pretend that you don't
understand that liters are volume measurements, that lungs don't
deflate anywhere near completely, and that your high school (or
university--you changed your mind on that) measured total lung
capacity directly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You took issue with the measurement and stated that all people have
between 4 and 6 liters:

# A normal adult has a total lung capacity of only about 4 to 6
# liters. If anything, the chests of bicycle racers tend to be on the
# small side, since they tend to be shorter, smaller men.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As if that meant there are no athletes with greater lung capacity.
The capacity that I was mentioning was measured in the days of
exhale volume that was the common measure at that time. I don't
understand what you are trying to develop with calling me silly and
foolish. How about addressing the subject which is that people
with greater lung volume to body mass make better endurance
athletes. I don't care how you measure the volume.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But it's painfully obvious that you're pretending.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pretending what? I don't get it. Can you be more direct?

Quoted message said:

Sweet Jesus, now you're claiming 10 liters exhalation--not total
lung capacity, but total exhalation--for a normal-size person?

I never claimed anything else, as I mentioned at the outset, the
measurements were made by exhaling into a water balanced meter in my
college biology lab at a time when this was the common method of
measuring lung volume.

Now stop invoking deities and explain what you believe I am pretending
and what this has or has not to do with people with greater lung
capacity being more suited to endurance activities than folks with
lesser capacity.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Obviously the
lungs must b e "big enough" but the question is, how big is big
enough, and in particular, is lung capacity typically a limiting
factor to the extent that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> If you were to test athletes at prime bicycle racing age for lung
>> capacity you could pre tty well decide how had a chance for
>> greatness on lung capacity to body weight ratio.

Quoted message said:

That EPO is so beneficial shows that this is not the case: the lungs
already have enough capacity to not only saturate normal blood, but
also doped blood.

From what you say, using EPO is the norm for bicycle racers.

Well, that requires additional assumptions, or should I say, additional
investigation, chemical or criminal. I wouldn't discount the
possibility.

Quoted message said:

Getting
back to human performance without chemistry assist, the original
contention stands. If the athlete does not have an above average lung
volume to body weight ratio, h is chances in bicycle racing are dim.
That is probably true for most endurance sports.

It is true for swimming, but not for running, and by extension cycling:
<http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/237>

In swimming, additional constraints on breathing are imposed such that
lung volume actually is a key limiting factor, the blood not leaving
the lungs fully saturated. As indicated in the above article and also
in <http://tinyurl.com/7cced>, lung volume can be increased
significantly by training: 12 weeks for female college swimmers
increased some capacities by perhaps a litre or more.

Quoted message said:

The suggestion was
that no humans have oversized lungs

Hold on. That suggestion was Carl Fogel's, not mine, and I took him to
task for it.

By the way, lung capacity is extremely well correlated with body size.
How big were the fellows with the 10 litre lung capacities that you
noted?

Quoted message said:

and that other factors are at
work.

That suggestion is indeed mine, and it is correct. If you don't like
EPO, consider the fact I cited that VO2 max is higher for nordic skiers
and rowers than runners or cyclists, i.e. the well-known fact that VO2
max is correlated with the muscle mass used in the sport, showing that
the problem is not getting oxygen into the blood at the lungs, but out
of it at the muscle end of the system.

Quoted message said:

I don't care how you measure lung volume.

Neither do I, this is Carl Fogel's preoccupation again, and again I
took him to task for it.
a

Quoted message said:

Again, the total lung capacity is about 5~7 liters for adult
women and men and doesn't increase or decrease much for
decades. To get 10 liters of total lung capacity, we'd need
to find an extremely large-chested fellow.

So the average is 5-7. What on earth makes you think there can't be 10
liter outliers there? Back in high school, I measured an exhaled volume of
about 6.5 liters before I was full grown.

Jasper

Quoted message said:

Again, professional bicycle distance racers are typically
average-size people (or smaller), so they tend to have average
total lung capacity.

You would spend a minute thinking about how little "average" such a
small, highly selected group is compared to the average human. In
highly selective samples the general average becomes meaningless,
due to the selection criterias they all might be on an extreme. And
you can't discuss potential extremes by looking on averages,
obviously...

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

Quoting <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

If you were to test athletes at prime bicycle racing age for lung

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

capacity you could pretty well decide who had a chance for
greatness on lung capacity to body weight ratio.

Ignoring the other nonsense, lung capacity is remarkable in
that it varies little between 18 and 50.

I'm not aware of that but the effectiveness of that volume definitely
degreases with age.

Even if it didn't there wouldn't be a lot of point in testing people other
than at prime bicycle racing age. Who'd want to know in their fifties that
they would have had a chance for greatness at 20?
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Gloucesterday, August.

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

>> Yes, and where was that contradicted in the references you cited?
>> By water displacement (inhale/exhale) such volumes have been
>> recorded. What is wrong with those measurements?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You wrote something silly about 10-liter total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If you don't understand the terms, pretending to be knowledgeable
> only makes you look arrogant and foolish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't like the measurement means that were used when these were
made however, I witnessed 9.5 liter exhale volume and believe the
person in charge of that equipment that he also measured ones
exceeding 10 liters.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If you're just going to play dumb, fine. Pretend that you don't
> understand that liters are volume measurements, that lungs don't
> deflate anywhere near completely, and that your high school (or
> university--you changed your mind on that) measured total lung
> capacity directly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You took issue with the measurement and stated that all people have
between 4 and 6 liters:

# A normal adult has a total lung capacity of only about 4 to 6
# liters. If anything, the chests of bicycle racers tend to be on the
# small side, since they tend to be shorter, smaller men.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As if that meant there are no athletes with greater lung capacity.
The capacity that I was mentioning was measured in the days of
exhale volume that was the common measure at that time. I don't
understand what you are trying to develop with calling me silly and
foolish. How about addressing the subject which is that people
with greater lung volume to body mass make better endurance
athletes. I don't care how you measure the volume.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> But it's painfully obvious that you're pretending.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pretending what? I don't get it. Can you be more direct?

Quoted message said:

Sweet Jesus, now you're claiming 10 liters exhalation--not total
lung capacity, but total exhalation--for a normal-size person?

I never claimed anything else, as I mentioned at the outset, the
measurements were made by exhaling into a water balanced meter in my
college biology lab at a time when this was the common method of
measuring lung volume.

Now stop invoking deities and explain what you believe I am pretending
and what this has or has not to do with people with greater lung
capacity being more suited to endurance activities than folks with
lesser capacity.

Jobst Brandt

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/news/articles/4347.0.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> You wrote something silly about 10-liter total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You don't like the measurement means that were used when these were
> made however, I witnessed 9.5 liter exhale volume and believe the
> person in charge of that equipment that he also measured ones
> excee ding 10 liters.

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/news/articles/4347.0.html

Don't forget to add 1.5 litres to these figures because le Tour medical
measures vital capacity, not total lung capacity. So make that a mean
of about 7.5 litres and a high of about 9, and then there is Axel
Merckx at over 9.5 litres.

http://tinyurl.com/ayrd7
http://tinyurl.com/d544x (item time stamp 15H53)

Since Axel Merckx is 1.91m/73kg and only a cyclist, there is nothing
unreasonable about observing 1.5l greater capacities in larger men,
particularly if they are competitive swimmers. This fellow has 11l of
what is more likely vital than total capacity, and he is not of unusual
size:
http://tinyurl.com/9f9be

On 6 Sep 2005 14:50:33 -0700, "41" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> You wrote something silly about 10-liter total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> You don't like the measurement means that were used when these were
>> made however, I witnessed 9.5 liter exhale volume and believe the
>> person in charge of that equipment that he also measured ones
>> excee ding 10 liters.

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/news/articles/4347.0.html

Don't forget to add 1.5 litres to these figures because le Tour medical
measures vital capacity, not total lung capacity. So make that a mean
of about 7.5 litres and a high of about 9, and then there is Axel
Merckx at over 9.5 litres.

http://tinyurl.com/ayrd7
http://tinyurl.com/d544x (item time stamp 15H53)

Since Axel Merckx is 1.91m/73kg and only a cyclist, there is nothing
unreasonable about observing 1.5l greater capacities in larger men,
particularly if they are competitive swimmers. This fellow has 11l of
what is more likely vital than total capacity, and he is not of unusual
size:
http://tinyurl.com/9f9be

Dear 41,

Read the rest of the 11-liter article and let us know if you
find anything that adds 2 liters to the figure.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

On 6 Sep 2005 14:50:33 -0700, "41" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> You wrote something silly about 10-liter total lung capacity.

Quoted message said:

>>> You don't like the measure ment means that were used when these were
>>> made however, I witnessed 9.5 liter exhale volume and believe the
>>> person in charge of that equipment that he also measured ones
>>> excee ding 10 liters.

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/news/articles/4347.0.html

Don't forget to add 1.5 litres to these figures because le Tour medical
measures vital capacity, not total lung capacity. So make that a mean
of about 7.5 litres and a high of about 9, and then there is Axel
Merckx at over 9.5 litres.

http://tinyurl.com/ayrd7
http://tinyurl.com/d544x (item time stamp 15H53)

Since Axel Merckx is 1.91m/73kg and only a cyclist, there is nothing
unreasonable about observing 1.5l greater capacities in larger m en,
particularly if they are competitive swimmers. This fellow has 11l of
what is more likely vital than total capacity, and he is not of unusual
size:
http://tinyurl.com/9f9be

Dear 41,

Read the rest of the 11-liter article and let u s know if you
find anything that adds 2 liters to the figure.

Why, to prove you even more wrong? 11l for a not unusually sized man
does the job quite nicely already. Not to mention the article you cited
on your own, since you were mistaken about what was measured.

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sweet Jesus, now you're claiming 10 liters exhalation--not total
lung capacity, but total exhalation--for a normal-size person?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I never claimed anything else, as I mentioned at the outset, the
measurements were made by exhaling into a water balanced meter in my
college biology lab at a time when this was the common method of
measuring lung volume.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now stop invoking deities and explain what you believe I am pretending
and what this has or has not to do with people with greater lung
capacity being more suited to endurance activities than folks with
lesser capacity.

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/news/articles/4347.0.html

# Largest lung capacity Marco Milesi (Caldirola-Sidermec) - 7.74 liters

As you said, today lung capacity is measured differently than in the
past. I am sure that the 9.5 liters I observed were from one person's
lung in one exhale. By that measure, capacities up to 11 liters were
recorded. Are you are implying that that is not true? If so, please
say so.

Of course the method of measure has little to do with the original
contention, that an athlete with a large lung capacity will be better
suited to bicycle road racing than one with average capacity. I
take it you don't want to discuss whether this true or not.

Jobst Brandt