The Science of Cadel

iainf72

Pretty interesting read

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/02 ... ZY+BEEHIVE)&utm_content=Google+Reader

donrhummy

Interesting when you look at the numbers and Allen Lim's claim that, "6.7 watts/kg [for 30 minutes or more] is not physiological (sic) or humanly possible, unless you're a hybrid human horse or a greyhound human dog or another species"

(Read his whole comment here)
http://www.saris.com/athletes/PermaLink ... a2ae0.aspx

The thing to discover here is what their definition of "Maximum Aerobic Power Output" is. This could be determined to be his power for 30 minutes, or it might be less than that (I couldn't find anything specifically defining this by time). If it is 30 minute time, then Allen Lim apparently defines him as either doping or "super-human". Of course, the same would hold for Lance.

Cadel's YOUNG numbers (ages 18-24)
Maximum Aerobic Power Output : 455 W (7.3 W/kg)
Threshold Power Estimation : 370W (6.0 W/kg)

DaveyL

No, the Maximal Aerobic power is more like a ramp test:

http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/2009/04/ ... n-cycling/

http://www.cyclecoach.com/index.php?opt ... Itemid=112

I don't think it would be possible to hold your MAP for 30 min.

The threshold is probably his 60 min power.

shinyhelmut

This would be the Alan Lym who conveniently didn't realise Landis was doping?

phil s

MAP is not 30 mins. Mine when I was tested 2 years ago was 429 for 69 kilos

iainf72

I struggle to take Lim seriously after reading this

http://velocitynation.com/content/inter ... erspective

DaveyL

Any bit in particular? Maybe this one?

"But yeah, I'm not going to say that these things can't impact human performance, I'm just saying that it's wrong and we don't believe in it as a method for enhancing performance. I guess that's the bigger point, the bigger issue."

iainf72

Yes. And

Those agents can actually impair performance. I also believe that doping deters performance, the culture of doping is quite an ironic one. I'll bring a couple of points to the table

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

Yes. And

Those agents can actually impair performance. I also believe that doping deters performance, the culture of doping is quite an ironic one. I'll bring a couple of points to the table

I suppose that everything has it's downside. Here in the States we have television advertising of all kinds of doctor prescribed drugs and at the end they are required by law to say what the side effects are. All of them have a list of things that could happen
that seems a mile long. Everything from simple tiredness to death. I would have to assume that performance enhancing drugs would also have bad side effects that, strangely enough, might effect performance. Although in thinking about it are there really any performance enhancing drugs that are advertised as such? Does anyone make specific performance enhancing drugs or are they all drugs intended for other uses? I think I know that answer.

Unsheath

Yep, just as I expected, it was Lance's massive lungs and oversized heart that made the difference.

On a serious note, its Interesting that no comparison was made about Lactate threshold despite it being tested on Cadel. Its been repeatedly suggested that Lance had superior Lactate tolerance numbers. Would have liked to have seen this explored further.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

DaveyL

iainf72 wrote:

Yes. And

Those agents can actually impair performance. I also believe that doping deters performance, the culture of doping is quite an ironic one. I'll bring a couple of points to the table

Well, he's got a PhD in exercise physiology. He has acknowledged that doping can improve performance. So maybe he's getting at something else?

DaveyL

e.g. Michael Ashenden: "I wouldn't wish Tyler Hamilton's doping schedule [from the Puerto files] on anyone".

Kléber

There are peer-reviewed published studies saying EPO use makes you slower. There's not a consensus on this but the view is that if you can carry more oxygen, it's wasted since your blood gets thick and therefore it's harder to pump. A nice idea in the lab or library but look at the likes of Riis, Ulrich, Pantani or you-know-who. They were flying up the climbs and cranking out amazing TTs thanks to EPO.

The likes of Dr Ferrari know their stuff, for example EPO use is supposedly combined with blood thinning agents in order to improve the flow.

Doping can make some lazy, why bother training in the rain if you've got a fridge full of CERA? And the "classic" doping, the forms before blood manipulation arrived, don't bring much of a boost at all. It's since the likes of EPO and blood doping have arrived that we've seen things get very distorted.

iainf72

DaveyL wrote:

Well, he's got a PhD in exercise physiology. He has acknowledged that doping can improve performance. So maybe he's getting at something else?

He probably is. But I do think his attitude towards doping is hopelessly naive.

Still, he ties pieces of scrap wool to riders to test aerodynamics so that's pretty radical.

DaveyL

iainf72 wrote:

He probably is. But I do think his attitude towards doping is hopelessly naive.

Still, he ties pieces of scrap wool to riders to test aerodynamics so that's pretty radical.

Get your facts straight. It was a shredded copy of "We Might As Well Win"

andyrr

Re doping making you lazy - it can be the opposite - I recall David Millar saying that once he'd taken the decision to dope it meant that he no longer had any excuses and he had become more serious. I guess it's then a case of - "I have the same weapory as everyone else, if I can;t win now then it means it is my own fault, it's not because I was lacking that little bit that EPO, in the past, has been giving everyone else".

calvjones

DaveyL wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

He probably is. But I do think his attitude towards doping is hopelessly naive.

Still, he ties pieces of scrap wool to riders to test aerodynamics so that's pretty radical.

Get your facts straight. It was a shredded copy of "We Might As Well Win"

timoid.

Great article. Would love to see other riders numbers.

Makes me think that Evans has been screwed out of quite a lot of victories. He might have been a really big force for a decade had the playing field been level.

FransJacques

the article is stoopid:

- it says - "let the numbers speak for themselves"

- it also says - " the testing apparatus can fluctuate wildly"

It's an age old trend that more and more people put their faith in "numbers" or "science" over all else. When, natuarally, everyone knows that it's that BB30 and 1.5" lower headset race that really makes the difference.

You cannot compare numbers done by different doctors in different countries on different equipment - the error is greater than the differences which receive all the attention.

My faith is in pharmaceuticals not this type of science.

The guy where I do my ramp testing showed me the body fat numbers on me from 3 different tests - 20% to 11%. Whatever!