Doping brits

P_Tucker

Simon E wrote:

If doping/cheating is the means to keep your job or your then my response is: get another job. In that sense it's black and white - they choose either to tread that path or to ride clean or to take another line of work. No excuses. Did their parents not teach them right from wrong? Do so many people not have a moral compass?

Ah, black and white land. Life is so easy there.

RichN95.

Simon E wrote:

If doping/cheating is the means to keep your job or your then my response is: get another job. In that sense it's black and white - they choose either to tread that path or to ride clean or to take another line of work. No excuses. Did their parents not teach them right from wrong? Do so many people not have a moral compass?

It's not quite that simple. Here's an article written by Jonathan Vaughters way back in 2004 (before he ran a team). While it doesn't say so, it's clearly autobiographical. Now times have changed since then, but it still has relevance, and also shows why the likes of Vaughters, who are in charge of some teams, want to provide a different team environment.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56420890/Drugs-Vaughters

BikingBernie

Millar was impressed by how Wiggins rode a controlled and intelligent race at the Dauphine. He finished a close second to Tony Martin (HTC-Highroad) in the Grenoble time trial and then marked Cadel Evans and Alexandre Vinokourov –his only overall rivals on the decisive mountain finishes. Wiggins was often distanced by the attacks but was never dropped and then closed the gap using his high cadence and measured efforts.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/robert- ... -de-france

Seems like Wiggins has been looking at the way Armstrong and Basso approached their racing. Nice if, for whatever reason, you are not really limited by your VO2 output.

Generally the best way to maximise your power output for the available oxygen is to lower your cadence, so increasiong your bio-mechanical efficiency and bringing more of those under-employed slow-twich muscle fibres into play, even if this does mean you are suffering in a sea of blood lactate. Most people lower their cadence on a climb automatically for this very reason. I wonder why Basso abandoned his own, highly successful, 'high cadence' style when he came back after his doping ban?

---

GIRO D’ITALIA TOP 10 PREDICTION
1 Ivan Basso
5th
We said: Remember the 2006 Giro? When he rode up every mountain with his mouth shut, breathing through his skin, pursued only by a buffalo on heat?

Verdict: This was not the same Basso as 2006. He struggled to rediscover his effortless high-cadence style and it looked like it hurt.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... we-do.html

bompington

BikingBernie wrote:

Wiggins used high cadence
high cadence = EPO
=> Wiggins = doper

Have I got that right? We need evidence, perhaps a graph or something like that?

simon_e

P_Tucker wrote:

Ah, black and white land. Life is so easy there.

Yep, right and wrong. Quite simple if someone has bothered to explain the difference to you. I find the law is also a handy guide picking the right one too, I don't fancy a stretch in prison or a few months wandering around town in a 'Community Payback' hi-viz vest.

The excuses about grey areas are like the ones drivers use to justify driving in a selfish and dangerous manner, putting others' lives at risk ("I haven't killed anyone. Yet"); that drug smugglers and arms traders use and it's what government ministers like to say when fiddling their expenses.

Riders DO have options. From some of the posts here it's surprising that anyone manages to make a living from manual work or chooses a job without a cushy 'career ladder' to climb and a smart German car or two on the driveway to massage the ego.

Doping (cheating) is wrong. And FFS it's nothing like a powermeter :roll:

celbianchi

Simon E wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Ah, black and white land. Life is so easy there.

Yep, right and wrong. Quite simple if someone has bothered to explain the difference to you. I find the law is also a handy guide picking the right one too, I don't fancy a stretch in prison or a few months wandering around town in a 'Community Payback' hi-viz vest.

The excuses about grey areas are like the ones drivers use to justify driving in a selfish and dangerous manner, putting others' lives at risk ("I haven't killed anyone. Yet"); that drug smugglers and arms traders use and it's what government ministers like to say when fiddling their expenses.

Riders DO have options. From some of the posts here it's surprising that anyone manages to make a living from manual work or chooses a job without a cushy 'career ladder' to climb and a smart German car or two on the driveway to massage the ego.

Doping (cheating) is wrong. And FFS it's nothing like a powermeter :roll:

It's quite easy to take the moral highground knowing you'll never be in that situation. I can empathise with many scenarios where a pro might be tempted. If you can honestly say that having spent your life to that moment in time when the decision is required as to whether to dope or not, training and racing to get to a certain level that if faced with doping and progressing, perhaps to winning events that bring in the seven figure salary, or maybe being able to get a 2 year contract extension as a domestique when you have a family back at home that your answer would be to walk away and go and become a factory worker then you're a better man than me.

I'd like to imagine I'd have the morality to stick my guns, but I think personally, faced with that kind of decision I'd be reaching for the epo.

squired

Applying it to another sport - if you took 100 kids/teenagers who dream of playing in the Premier League and told them that they'd need to take drugs to achieve their dream I'd bet the number saying yes to drugs would be in the region of 90-100.

The key difference with doping (in the past?) was that cyclists who didn't take drugs were seen as unprofessional. Taking them was part of doing your job.

simon_e

celbianchi wrote:

I'd like to imagine I'd have the morality to stick my guns, but I think personally, faced with that kind of decision I'd be reaching for the epo.

I don't call it moral high ground, just moral or ethical. I (and others) have to live with the consequences of my actions and therefore try to consider those consequences first.

It seems there are lots of people who don't, and winning or succeeding/continuing in their chosen sport is more important than playing by the rules. I guess they have different values to me and I can't quite see how they can be reconciled.

But what's the point of taking part (or the satisfaction of winning) if you do everything you can to bypass the rules? Might as well have no rules so the biggest cheater wins.

squired wrote:

IThe key difference with doping (in the past?) was that cyclists who didn't take drugs were seen as unprofessional.

I hope that the pressure from those who follow cycling and from sponsors for a 'clean' sport will gradually change the long-held idea among those participating that doping is acceptable, whatever the justification.

RichN95.

bompington wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Wiggins used high cadence
high cadence = EPO
=> Wiggins = doper

Have I got that right? We need evidence, perhaps a graph or something like that?

What I'm can't work out is who likely to be more knowledgable about climbing:

a) BikingBernie who thinks high cadence is wrong because everything Armstrong says is automatically wrong

or

b) Robert Millar

It's a tough one, that's for sure.

paulcuthbert

bompington wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Wiggins used high cadence
high cadence = EPO
=> Wiggins = doper

Have I got that right? We need evidence, perhaps a graph or something like that?

That's rubbish. Clearly not on the same level, but I've changed my climbing style- and now ride a higher cadence on climbs. Never taken a PED (unless you count Feroglobin) but my climbing is better with a higher cadence rather than grinding up a climb.

I just started running and swimming more to improve my endurance, because I found high cadence took more effort from the lungs short term but saved the legs long term. Grinding up a climb in a higher gear with a low cadence saves your lungs but your legs are fucked after.

Higher cadence climbing does not mean you're a doper.

avoidingmyphd

I hate to disagree with Millar, but I thought Brad's cadence was surprisingly low on the important climbs in the Dauphine. He was really grinding it out at times.

celbianchi

Simon E wrote:

But what's the point of taking part (or the satisfaction of winning) if you do everything you can to bypass the rules? Might as well have no rules so the biggest cheater wins.

Plenty of cheats don't win through, some of them do it to cling onto their job. The cheats who win probably have different mindsets to you and for them winning and the adulation and glory that goes with it gives them a buzz. Throw in financial gain also and I suppose self satisfaction gained from winning through hard graft alone drops down the pecking order.

eh

Doping isn't about winning in the majority of cases, its about hanging onto the back of the peloton and hanging onto your job.

As for a new high cadence, well thats just a mask for 'unexpected' improvements. You can't tell me that Wiggins (or any top rider for that matter) can't ride at a high cadence, its not exactly hard.

RichN95.

eh wrote:

As for a new high cadence, well thats just a mask for 'unexpected' improvements. You can't tell me that Wiggins (or any top rider for that matter) can't ride at a high cadence, its not exactly hard.

But neither Wiggins or anyone on his behalf has claimed that he has changed his cadence. He's a track rider - they all ride at high cadence. You never see a pursuiter grinding a massive gear at 80rpm.

pat1cp

Surely we're not saying - high cadence = doping ?? Are we ?? That's nut's.

If this is the case, are we equally saying Sergei Honchar was incorrectly convicted of doping ?

knedlicky

My understanding of high cadence and oxygen demand is the same as BB’s. You could also add riding out of the saddle (i.e. for long periods of time) to high cadence, with respect to oxygen demand, because then the front thigh muscles are comparatively double loaded and so need more oxygen.

If you look at the riders who have had success on climbs using a high cadence or doing much out-of-the-saddle work, the names don’t instill confidence that it was unaided: Armstrong, Pantani , Riis, Heras, Mayo, Leblanc.

But, as for Wiggins, if his cadence was higher than the others in Switzerland (which I'd say it marginally was, and markedly compared to Evans), maybe on the climbs he was just riding with shorter cranks than standard for his frame size, maybe 16.5 cm, or even 16 cm?

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

But neither Wiggins or anyone on his behalf has claimed that he has changed his cadence. He's a track rider - they all ride at high cadence. You never see a pursuiter grinding a massive gear at 80rpm.

You should read up on Graham Obree's views on cadence. Never a man to follow 'received wisdom’ Obree realised that in order to maximise his power output when pursuiting, the very best thing to do was to drastically lower his cadence. I fact he used such big gears that his opponents were often half a lap up by the time he was up to full speed, and he still won.

Now Obree was talented, but so much that he was a better athlete than many of those he beat on the world stage, he simply took notice of what the science and biology said was right.

This is not to say that a high cadence does not offer other benefits, such as producing fewer 'mico tears' in the muscle fibres and so aiding recovery, which would certainly help in a stage race. However, if you are on the limit and need to climb as fast as is possible, lowering your cadence is the way to go.

BikingBernie

pat1cp wrote:

Surely we're not saying - high cadence = doping ?? Are we ?? That's nut's.

Not really, but if you do use Epo or blood dope, this does allow you to maintain a bio-mechanically less efficient higher cadence for a given power output, and so benefit from better recovery and so forth.

An important issue here is just where there are gains to be made. A rider's VO2 max is genetically determined, and will be somewhere around the maximum possible after just a few months of training. However, more long-term gains are to be made by developing the lactate shuttle system. In turn, the fast twitch fibres that allow higher forces to be generated, as are required in order to turn a big gear on a climb, are especially amenable to such training. Of course, this might allow you to ride fast, but you will still suffer like a dog, which is why rider’s like Armstrong preferred the easy way out – blood dope to the gills and then you can ride along with you mouth shut at a high cadence, hardly recruiting any fast-twitch muscle fibres and looking like you are on a club run.

The Prodigy

BB - why does everything have to come back to Armstrong and something he might have said, which is later repeated by another athlete and thus makes them as guilty as him?
It's rubbish! You are undermine some of the convincing arguments you put forward with the kind of twaddle you have spouted in this thread.

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

You should read up on Graham Obree's views on cadence. Never a man to follow 'received wisdom’ Obree realised that in order to maximise his power output when pursuiting, the very best thing to do was to drastically lower his cadence. I fact he used such big gears that his opponents were often half a lap up by the time he was up to full speed, and he still won.

Just because it worked for him, it doesn't make it a universal truth. There are always exceptions (and his unusual position would have had an impact on what was best for him). But nearly two decades after he did the hour record, nobody else is ridng at low cadence on the track.

BikingBernie

paulcuthbert wrote:

Clearly not on the same level, but I've changed my climbing style- and now ride a higher cadence on climbs. Never taken a PED (unless you count Feroglobin) but my climbing is better with a higher cadence rather than grinding up a climb.

I just started running and swimming more to improve my endurance, because I found high cadence took more effort from the lungs short term but saved the legs long term. Grinding up a climb in a higher gear with a low cadence saves your lungs but your legs are farked after. .

Exactly! A low cadence provides the maximum power for the available oxygen, but has other costs. For example creating 'micro tears' in the muscle fibres.

Bottom line is, if you are at a crucial point in a race and are on your limit, and your opponents start to ride away from you, you need to think 'short term' and gear down in order to maximise your performance. There is no point in saving your legs if you come in five minutes down and out of contention! Attempting to limit your losses by riding at a higer cadence makes about as much sense as trying to make your car go faster on the motorway by putting it into third gear!

keef_zip

knedlicky wrote:

My understanding of high cadence and oxygen demand is the same as BB’s. You could also add riding out of the saddle (i.e. for long periods of time) to high cadence, with respect to oxygen demand, because then the front thigh muscles are comparatively double loaded and so need more oxygen.

If you look at the riders who have had success on climbs using a high cadence or doing much out-of-the-saddle work, the names don’t instill confidence that it was unaided: Armstrong, Pantani , Riis, Heras, Mayo, Leblanc.

But, as for Wiggins, if his cadence was higher than the others in Switzerland (which I'd say it marginally was, and markedly compared to Evans), maybe on the climbs he was just riding with shorter cranks than standard for his frame size, maybe 16.5 cm, or even 16 cm?

A change in crank length doesn't affect cadence per se, it just means you have to apply a higher torque for the same power.

shinyhelmut

A change in crank length doesn't affect cadence per se, it just means you have to apply a higher torque for the same power

Or you apply the same torque at a higher cadence for the same power.

keef_zip

ShinyHelmut wrote:

A change in crank length doesn't affect cadence per se, it just means you have to apply a higher torque for the same power

Or you apply the same torque at a higher cadence for the same power.

Indeed, but the reality is that one will naturally increase the torque in preference to increasing cadence, so changing to shorter cranks doesn't usually affect cadence.

paulcuthbert

BikingBernie wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

Clearly not on the same level, but I've changed my climbing style- and now ride a higher cadence on climbs. Never taken a PED (unless you count Feroglobin) but my climbing is better with a higher cadence rather than grinding up a climb.

I just started running and swimming more to improve my endurance, because I found high cadence took more effort from the lungs short term but saved the legs long term. Grinding up a climb in a higher gear with a low cadence saves your lungs but your legs are farked after. .

Exactly! A low cadence provides the maximum power for the available oxygen, but has other costs. For example creating 'micro tears' in the muscle fibres.

Bottom line is, if you are at a crucial point in a race and are on your limit, and your opponents start to ride away from you, you need to think 'short term' and gear down in order to maximise your performance. There is no point in saving your legs if you come in five minutes down and out of contention! Attempting to limit your losses by riding at a higer cadence makes about as much sense as trying to make your car go faster on the motorway by putting it into third gear!

Gotta be the first time BB and me have seen eye to eye. But he's right..

Anonymous

When I get off to push, does that make me look like a doper?

simon_e

BikingBernie wrote:

Attempting to limit your losses by riding at a higer cadence makes about as much sense as trying to make your car go faster on the motorway by putting it into third gear!

But it makes a lot of sense when you're on a steep uphill to the finish line, your speed is dropping as the gradient and pain take their toll and the climbers are pulling away. Isn't that what we were talking about? Come on, compare like with like, chap.

Or better still, grind a different axe - this one's way too blunt to be useful.

Choppered wrote:

When I get off to push, does that make me look like a doper?

No, just human.

BikingBernie

Simon E wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Attempting to limit your losses by riding at a higer cadence makes about as much sense as trying to make your car go faster on the motorway by putting it into third gear!

But it makes a lot of sense when you're on a steep uphill to the finish line, your speed is dropping as the gradient and pain take their toll and the climbers are pulling away. Isn't that what we were talking about?

Er, no it's not. We are talking about the most efficient way to tackle a typical Alpine climb at threshold. In any case, the scenario you paint is of a rider who is already cooked and has to gear down simply in order to keep going, those riding away from him certainly won't be putting it in the Granny gear as they go for the win!

Peak Performance had an excellent overview of some of the related physiology in issue 100 called 'Things your mother forget to tell you about blood lactate'.

Dr. Stephen Seiler's 'Time Course of Training Adaptations' is also worth a read if you can find a copy. Unfortunately his website no longer seems to be running.

BikingBernie

Here is the text to Seiler's article. Sorry, but I can't show the illustrations.

The Time Course of Training Adaptations

Introduction

So far, I have exposed you to some basic physiological variables that are known to 1) bear a strong relationship on endurance performance in every sport and 2) respond to training. By now, I hope you can recite with me the "Big Three" elements of endurance performance:

Maximal Oxygen Consumption
Lactate Threshold (also called Onset of Blood Lactate Accumulation)
Efficiency

Number 1. is an oxygen delivery issue. A high maximal capacity for blood delivery means higher oxygen delivery and the potential for more muscle to be active simultaneously during exercise. VO2 is primarily limited by the maximum pumping capacity of the heart, and the specific arterial development to the active muscles.

Number 2 is an oxygen utilization issue. The greater the intensity of work we can achieve prior to the point when we begin to accumulate the inhibiting acidity of lactic acid, the faster sustained pace we can tolerate. The limiting adaptations are the capillary density, fatty acid breakdown enzyme level and mitochondrial density in the specific skeletal muscles used in your sport. Combining elements 1 and 2 gives us the sustainable power output of your "performance engine".

Number 3, Efficiency, links sustainable power to performance velocity. The better the efficiency, the greater the achieved velocity at a given level of energy output. Since, ultimately, we have a limited "engine" size, improvements in efficiency are critical to additional improvements in performance time.

In this article I want to discuss the time-course of change in these variables. "How long does it take for my max VO2to peak out?" "What about lactate threshold?" Understanding the answers to these questions will be important as we try to build appropriate training programs.

The First Wave of Change- Increased Maximal Oxygen Consumption

In a previously untrained person, VO2 max is increased significantly after only one week of training! The reason for this early improvement appears to be an increase in blood volume, which results in improved maximal stroke volume. As training continues, VO2max continues to increase, for several months, albeit at a slower rate of improvement. We have already discussed the fact that the heart appears to be remodeled by endurance training, developing a greater ventricular volume diameter, and other more subtle adapatations that make it a more effective pump. After about 3-4 months of regular exercise, the improvement in maximal oxygen consumption begins to level off dramatically. At this point, it is common to see about a 15-20% improvement in this variable. For example, a hypothetical male (who I will call Bjorn) with an initial VO2max of 3.5 liters/min (at a bodyweight of 75kg, that's 47ml/min/kg) may increase to 4.0 liters/min, a 14% increase in absolute VO2. If in the process of training, Bjorn also loses 4kg (close to 10 pounds), then his relative VO2 max will have increased even more (from 3500/75 or 47, to 4000/71 or 56 ml/min/kg). This is a nearly 20% improvement. Unfortunately, after another 6 months of training, it will have increased little more, if any. If the level of training intensity remained the same after the first 4 months, then no further changes would be expected. If on the other hand, Bjorn continues to intensify his training over the next 6 months, a small additional increase might occur. This increase might be as much as 5 additional percent, bringing our example athlete up from an initial value of 3.5 liters/ min at 75 kg, to 4.2 liters/min at 70kg (he also lost another 1 kg of fat). That's 47 ml/min/kg up to 60 ml/min/kg due to a combination of both increased absolute VO2max (20%) and decreased bodyweight (6.7%), for a total improvement in relative maximal oxygen consumption of 27%. This is actually an unusually large improvement in this variable, but definitely plausible.

If our example subject started at a higher level of VO2, the relative improvement would almost certainly be less dramatic. The important point to recognize from this is that VO2 max increases fairly rapidly in response to chronic exercise, then plateaus. If our example athlete continues training another 5 years, his VO2 max won't improve any more. It might actually decrease slightly due to age related declines in maximal heart rate. Depressed? Don't be. There is much more to endurance performance then the Vo2 max.

The Second Wave of Change-The Lactate Threshold

At the same time Bjorn's VO2max was increasing due to central and peripheral cardiovascular adaptations, changes were beginning to occur in his skeletal muscles (let's assume Bjorn is a runner, so the adaptations of interest are happening in the legs).

Initially, an incremental exercise test on a treadmill revealed that Bjorn began to show an substantial increase in lactic acid concentration in his blood while running at 60% of his maximal oxygen consumption. Remember, his max was 3.5 liters/min. 60% of this is 2.1 l/min. So functionally speaking, 2.1 l/min was his threshold workload for sustained exercise. If he runs at a speed that elicits a higher VO2 than 2.1, he fatigues quite quickly. However, over time, the overload of training induced quantitative changes to begin occurring in his leg muscles. Mitochondrial synthesis increased. More enzymes necessary for fatty acid metabolism within the muscle cell were produced. And, the number of capillaries surrounding his muscle fibers began to increase. Additional capillaries are being constructed. The functional consequence of these local muscular adaptations is a very positve one. Bjorn's running muscles use more fat and less glycogen at any given running pace. And, the glycogen metabolized to pyruvate is less likely to be converted to lactic acid and more likely to inter the mitochondria for complete oxidative metabolism. Consequently, Bjorn's lactate threshold begins to increase. After 6 months of training, in addition to a higher VO2max, his lactate threshold has increased from 60% to 70% of max, a 17% improvement in an absolute sense, but functionally much more. Why? Because the 70% is relative to an increased max! So, Bjorn has gone from an initial sustainable oxygen consumption of 2.1 liters/min (60% of 3.5) to a new sustainable intensity of 2.8 liters/min, a 33% improvement!

Now, the important thing to know is this. While VO2max plateaus quite rapidly, lactate threshold does not. If Bjorn continues to train, and increase his intensity appropriately, his lactate threshold will continue to improve slowly for a longer period. Of course, improvements in lactate threshold also plateau, otherwise elite athletes that have been training for 15 years would have LT's of 100% of VO2 max! But, the time course of adaptation is slower, so the plateau occurs after a longer period of intense training, probably several years

It is also important to remember that the lactate threshold is even more specific to the mode of exercise than the VO2 max. This was exemplified by a study performed by Coyle et al. and published in 1991. In this study, 14 competitive cyclists with nearly identical VO2 max values differed substantially in their lactate threshold determined during cycling (ranging between 61 and 86% of VO2 max). When the cyclists were divided into a "low" and "high" LT groups (66% vs 81% of maximal oxygen consumption), it was found that the two groups differed considerable in the years of cycling training (2.7 compared to 5.1 years on average). However, they did not differ in years of endurance training (7-8 years of running, rowing etc.) When the low cycling LT and high cycling LT groups were asked to perform a lactate threshold test while running on a treadmill, the two groups were no longer different. Measured while running, the lactate threshold in both groups averaged over 80% of VO2 max. Similarly, if you are a runner and decide to add swimming and cycling to your training and compete in triathlons, you will immediately recognize that your running fitness does not immediately transfer to the bike, and of course not to the water!

The Third Wave of Change-Efficiency

The final element of our BIG THREE endurance adaptations is efficiency. I think we all know what it means to be an "efficient" person, or own a "fuel efficient car". But, what does the term mean when applied to endurance performance? It means the same thing, getting more done at lower "cost". Efficiency is defined as MECHANICAL WORK/METABOLIC WORK. For example, one (quite good) cyclist can sustain 300 watts power output for 1 hour on a cycling ergometer at a sustained VO2 of 4.3 liters/min. Another rider performing at the same oxygen consumption, squeezes out 315 watts, a difference in efficiency of 5%. Even though both riders have the same "metabolic engine" they have different power output capabilities. You don't do 40k time trials on a lab ergometer, though. So, thanks to my friend the cycling guru, Jim Martin, we can predict their actual performance time in a 40k time trial. If these two cyclists have identical aerodynamics and use aero bars, the times will be 56:10 vs. 55:15. This is only a one minute difference, but probably worth at least 2 or 3 places at the Masters Nationals Time Trial!

So efficiency makes a difference, often much bigger than the above example. And it also varies among different athletes. That's interesting, but not terribly useful for YOUR training. Your big question is probably "Can My Efficiency Improve With Training?". The answer is YES. In highly technical sports like swimming, efficiency differences between beginners and experienced swimmers can be absolutely tremendous! Swimmers already know this full well. In rowing, efficiency also improves dramatically at first, due to gross technical improvements. However, efficiency can also continue to improve after years of training. Dr. Fritz Hagerman followed one group of national class (U.S.) rowers for 8 years, measuring ergometer performance, VO2, lactate threshold, etc. Peak values for maximal oxygen consumption and lactate threshold stabilized after only 2 or 3 years in these hard training athletes. However, performance times on the water and on the rowing machine continued to improve over additional years of training. The reason? Slow improvements in rowing efficiency. One source that is independent of on-water technique may be optimization of workload distribution among the large muscle mass employed in rowing. Ultimately, the rowers who went on to become national team members and have success at the highest levels were more efficient than their peers.

What about the "less technical" sports like cycling and running?

For you cyclists, I call cycling less technical only in reference to the act of pushing the pedals, not all of the equipment and aerodynamics! Again their is evidence for significant improvements in efficiency even after years of training. In studies carried out on "Good" vs. "Elite" cyclists carried out by Dr. Ed Coyle and colleagues at the University of Texas, it appears that elite riders sustain higher power outputs despite similar physiological values in part by learning to distribute the pedalling force over a larger muscle mass. In running, fomer U.S record holder in the mile, Steve Scott, was shown to have improved his running efficiency even "late" in his career.

The Bottom Line

Based on a tremendous amount of both laboratory and "field" data, I would propose to you that the order in which the BIG THREE endurance performance variables reach their peak is 1)VO2max, then 2) lactate threshold, then 3) performance efficiency. Putting it all together, and neglecting for now the negative impact of aging on maximal oxygen consumption, we might get something like the figure below:

The figure above is obviously very generalized. In reality, all three variables fluctuate within a year (off season vs competitiion period) as a function of training intensity and volume. Peak values after a given period of training will approximate this kind of pattern, though.

Obviously, if you are just beginning in an endurance sport, then all three elements will probably improve dramatically, almost no matter what you do! But, if you have been training in sport for a year or more, you must construct your training program with more and more care to continue making progress in those adaptations that have "room to improve" while maintaining the levels of those that have plateaued or are beginning to. Since for the masters athlete, the option of "just adding another workout" is usually not a viable one, this will often mean finding the right distribution of a limited amount of training time among a variety of workout types. In the next article on my agenda, "Understanding Intervals" I will start to explore some different training methods used by the endurance athlete, from a physiological standpoint. Stay tuned.

BikingBernie

I have had a quick look on the web and the following reproduces much of the article that was in Peak Performance.

http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_Lactate.htm

...As an athlete, you're probably no stranger to the idea that lactic acid forms rather readily in your muscle cells, especially when you are exerting yourself quite strenuously. In fact, you probably believe that the 'burn' you feel in your leg muscles when you're running, cycling, or swimming very fast is caused by lactic acid - and that the soreness you experience the day after an especially tough workout is produced by the same 'troublesome' compound. You may also cling to the idea that lactic acid is a 'waste product' formed in your muscles during strenuous exercise, and that lactic acid appears in your muscles when you 'run out' of oxygen, or because you've gone into 'oxygen debt'. In short, you probably believe that lactic acid is really bad stuff! Well, it isn't! All of the above statements are untrue: lactic acid doesn't produce burning sensations, it does not induce soreness, and it's not a form of metabolic 'rubbish' which must be eliminated from your cells as quickly as possible. In addition, oxygen shortfalls are not required in order to make lactic acid appear in your muscles and blood.

...It's important to note that for many endurance athletes improving lactate threshold is the key to better performances. A variety of different scientific studies have shown that lactate threshold is the single best predictor of endurance performance - better even than that vaunted physiological variable - VO2max, aka maximal aerobic capacity ('Blood Lactate: Implications for Training and Sports Performance,' Sports Medicine, vol. 3, pp. 10-25, 1986, and also 'A Longitudinal Assessment of Anaerobic Threshold and Distance-Running Performance,' Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 16(3), pp. 278-282, 1984). There's also great news (and certainly great news should be very welcome now that you've waded through all this physiology): not only is LT the best predictor of performance, but it is also very responsive to training - much more responsive than VO2max. If you've been training for several years, VO2max may not move upward at all over the course of a single year of hard work, while LT might soar by up to 20 per cent!

Remember Marc Rogers - our St.-Louis-Marathon winner? You'll recall that he won the race not because of a big move in VO2max, which actually was static despite a very impressive training regime, but because of a huge lift-off in LT. Marc's 'machinery' for oxidizing pyruvate and processing lactate improved dramatically, lifting his LT from 78 to 90 per cent of VO2max in less than four months of training, so he was the one who took home the first-place trophy!

Why is LT so dynamic? 'The skeletal muscles can adapt rather suddenly and strikingly to training, producing major gains in LT,' says Marc, who is currently an exercise physiologist at the University of Maryland. 'In contrast, VO2max is a fairly stable cardiovascular variable in experienced endurance athletes. To understand that, bear in mind that VO2max is to a large degree dependent on the size of the left ventricle (the key heart chamber which pumps oxygenated blood out to the body), and the left ventricle just doesn't change very much in volume after you've been training for a number of years. That's why VO2max values may not rise at all - or may only increase by a couple of percent, even with a high volume and/or intensity of training. Meanwhile, LT can be expected to increase from 5 to 20 per cent - given the appropriate training stimulus.' And research agrees.

...Why does roaming above LT during training seem to be so effective at lifting lactate threshold? Research carried out with animals provides part of the answer. In investigations at the University of Missouri, several groups of rats hustled along on laboratory treadmills at a variety of different paces, which ranged from 15 to 37 metres per minute (43 to 100 minutes per mile). The faster (by rat standards) velocities produced a flood-tide of lactate in the rodents' bloodstreams, as expected, but the Missouri researchers also noticed something very interesting: high lactate levels were linked with glycogen depletion of the rats' 'fast-twitch' muscle fibres, not their 'slow-twitch' cells. In other words, fast-twitch fibres were primarily responsible for the huge upswing in blood lactate. Of course, fast-twitch fibres aren't heavily utilized during moderately paced running but play a larger and larger role as running speeds increase beyond LT pace. Compared to their slow-twitch brethren, these fast-twitch cells are ordinarily somewhat low on mitochondria and aerobic enzymes, so it makes sense that they would begin belching out lactate as they are called into play. If they are very, very poor at oxidizing pyruvate, massive amounts of lactic acid will be produced, and LT will be reached at a very mediocre pace. As they get better at breaking down pyruvate, less lactate will be produced and LT speed will of course increase, but there's only one way to stimulate the fast-twitchers to get better: it's to use them during training, specifically at fairly sustained, fast paces. To put it another way, fast-twitch muscle cells can be the 'culprits' behind a low LT, and the only way to upgrade their oxygen-processing machinery is to hammer away at them during training. You'll get more 'bang from your buck' with faster-paced training, compared to slower efforts; after all, your slow-twitch cells are usually pretty good at the oxygen game; it's your fast-twitchers which need to do their homework.

---

In other words, to ride to the maximum of your ability, you need to develop your latate shuttle system and recruit more fast-twitch fibres. On a bike this is best done by lowering the cadence so the force required is raised. You will suffer, and your perception might well be that it will be 'easier' if you pedal faster (See the paper 'What determines optimal cadence' from the 'Cycling Science' website for a discussion of this point). However, the biology is clear. As I said earlier, most people drop their cadence automatically on a climb as the body is very good at optimising the cadence to get the most power for the available oxygen.

Then again you could just blood-dope to the gills or take Epo, then there will be enough oxygen to allow your 'slow twitch' fibres to do most of the work, and you will be able to ride along looking as though you are on a club run, mouth closed and seemingly 'breathing through the skin'.