Originally posted by limerickman
Cycle Sport in 1994 : had measurements of the Merckx, Hinault,
Indurain and the then current fittest riders (Jalabert, Rominger).
Armstrong although cycling in 1994, was not included (not considered to be included).
They measured heart rate, lung capacity and return to resting heart beat following maximum effort.
Overall Merckx stats were the best on average.
(HR 38 bpm, 6.9 litre lung capacity, max rate 180 returning to
38 bpm in 1min 25 secs)
Indurain was second :
(HR 28 bpm, 7.8 litre lung capacity max rate 190 returning to
28bom in 1min 30 secs)
Hinault was third
(HR 42bpm, 6.8 litre lung capacity, max rate 185 returning to
42bpm in 1min 33secs)
Jalabert :
(HR 43bpm, 6.7lung capacity, max rate 191 returning to
43bpm in 1min 36 secs)
Rominger
(HR 35bpm, 7.0 lung capacity, max rate 182 returning to
35bpm in 1min 42 secs)
Based on those statistics, Merckx was only marginally better in only one area, recovery, which is deceiving because his max HR is actually lower than Indurain’s.
Remember, there are plenty of other variables that relate to a riders physiology, others being blood lactate threshold, VO2 Max, power output, anaerobic threshold, hydration efficiency, body fat percentage, basal metabolic rate, etc.
From what I’ve read Indurain was the genetic freak of the bunch, his lung capacity, resting HR and max power output was off the scale.
Going against him were his size (6’ 2” and 175, not built for the high mountains).
The other one being his laid back demeanor.
One may be a monster in the test lab but not a champion on the road.
The sport of cycling is very genetically selective, but lab results are only one factor that makes a champion.