Is Altitude the new EPO?

florerider

Pross wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Pross wrote:

Amersfoort, Netherlands altitude c. 50m

Err it might not be just to the east of the Gooi, which isn't below sea level but I don't think Amersfoort is 50m above sea level. More like 1-5m

Doh, that's the latitude! Elevation is 8m apparently so probably where the Dutch do their altitude training

yeh, but it is above sea level so it counts.

ocdupalais

Daz555 wrote:

sherer wrote:

Ridgerider wrote:

Back on topic...What I was wondering was as there now seems to be a simple formula for winning mountain stages, should GTs be designed to be less climber orientated?

I've said to my friends i'd like to see a tour without the high mountains. I'd like a tour that someone like Cancellara would be able to do well in rather than just the mountain goats

Yep we should see lumpy, punchy GTs thrown in from time to time. Testers and goats should not be the only kind of riders "allowed" to win a GT.

Similarly, take the cobbles out of Paris-Roubaix to give Colombians/Spanish a fair crack...

florerider

RideOnTime wrote:

you said "Is altitude the new EPO?"

That's a London thing I reckon. :shock:

no - ATTITUDE is the London thing :roll:

frenchfighter

above_the_cows

Pross wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Pross wrote:

Amersfoort, Netherlands altitude c. 50m

Err it might not be just to the east of the Gooi, which isn't below sea level but I don't think Amersfoort is 50m above sea level. More like 1-5m

Doh, that's the latitude! Elevation is 8m apparently so probably where the Dutch do their altitude training

That's a positive berg around these parts. The nearby(ish) Tafelberg is a whole 36m! :shock:

above_the_cows

Is this a picture of ddraver in Rabobank kit this time? :P It looks suspiciously like the man in the Belkin kit from last year.

skylla

meh, that's a mere speedbump. Vaalserberg is 320m for your hypoxic sleepover and Cauberg is where you would train for uphill sprints!

josame

dish_dash wrote:

UncleMonty wrote:

Froome may not be ethnically African but he was born at altitude and lived there till he was 12, that's some long term conditioning he's gone through, (Nirobi is 1,661m / 5,450 ft according to Wikki).

I've also notice he's good in the heat when we seen many southern European's struggle.

I don't think either point is a coincidence

And Johannesburg is at 1,753 m (5,751 ft), also from Wiki

Quintana was born at 9200 ft :shock:

skylla

josame wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

UncleMonty wrote:

Froome may not be ethnically African but he was born at altitude and lived there till he was 12, that's some long term conditioning he's gone through, (Nirobi is 1,661m / 5,450 ft according to Wikki).

I've also notice he's good in the heat when we seen many southern European's struggle.

I don't think either point is a coincidence

And Johannesburg is at 1,753 m (5,751 ft), also from Wiki

Quintana was born at 9200 ft :shock:

I was born 5.5 mtrs below sea level... no gills.. no endurance future..

mike6

Nothing new about altitude training, endurance athletes have been doing it for decades. If you are born at high altitude you will, all other things being equal, have even more of an advantage over sea level athletes.

The fashion now seens to be live at altitude and train at sea level. Paula Radcliffe used altitude training every season during her best years. Its hard, hard work but, for most, not all, worth the effort. Farrah is beating the Kenyans because he is living and training with them at altitude.

ridgerider

Above The Cows wrote:

Is this a picture of ddraver in Rabobank kit this time? :P It looks suspiciously like the man in the Belkin kit from last year.

What FF is saying with that picture is that no amount of altitude training will get me up La Joux Plane in two weeks time...I am carrying too much 'Cavendish'.

above_the_cows

Ridgerider wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Is this a picture of ddraver in Rabobank kit this time? :P It looks suspiciously like the man in the Belkin kit from last year.

What FF is saying with that picture is that no amount of altitude training will get me up La Joux Plane in two weeks time...I am carrying too much 'Cavendish'.

dsoutar

I'm certainly no athlete but a few years ago I witnessed myself how altitude can affect your performance. I used to play squash a lot and there were a couple of guys who would generally beat me but not by much; mainly by being able to push me around the court more than I could do to them.

I went away on a climbing trip for 6 weeks where I spent most of that time around 4000m with quite a few visits to 6000m. When I came back despite my technique being the same I was, for a few weeks, able to beat these guys purely by my increased ability to chase down and return shots, i.e. my endurance had increased considerably (and it felt like it had). Of course after about a month the benefit of the altitude wore off and it was back to normal. Those of you who have played squash will know how aerobic repeated long rallies can be.

Conversely a couple of years later, I spent about 6 weeks at 5600m with frequent visits to 6000m and occasionally to 7000m. This time I came back feeling quite worn out and playing squash was the last thing on my mind. The reason being that above about 5000m or so the body fails to acclimatise any more and in fact will deteriorate.

Unfortunately I wasn't cycling at this time so I can't draw comparisons but as basically the benefit in the first instance was caused by increased oxygen transport within the blood I can't see why cycling, especially up hills, wouldn't benefit considerably.

izza

To answer the OP the answer is no.

Hills and mountains were here before scientists started developing drugs so EPO is the the new altitude.

antsmithmk

sherer wrote:

Ridgerider wrote:

Back on topic...What I was wondering was as there now seems to be a simple formula for winning mountain stages, should GTs be designed to be less climber orientated?

I've said to my friends i'd like to see a tour without the high mountains. I'd like a tour that someone like Cancellara would be able to do well in rather than just the mountain goats

But not THE Tour...? Right? You can't have that without the mountains.

RideOnTime

frenchfighter wrote:

Very effective at making swathe through the crowds to get the Peleton through.

Took EPO to mean Eat Pies Often

sherer

antsmithmk wrote:

sherer wrote:

Ridgerider wrote:

Back on topic...What I was wondering was as there now seems to be a simple formula for winning mountain stages, should GTs be designed to be less climber orientated?

I've said to my friends i'd like to see a tour without the high mountains. I'd like a tour that someone like Cancellara would be able to do well in rather than just the mountain goats

But not THE Tour...? Right? You can't have that without the mountains.

I'd like to see maybe la vuelta offer this. The tour only found the mountains in 1909 so they haven't always been there.

rick_chasey

sherer wrote:

antsmithmk wrote:

sherer wrote:

Ridgerider wrote:

Back on topic...What I was wondering was as there now seems to be a simple formula for winning mountain stages, should GTs be designed to be less climber orientated?

I've said to my friends i'd like to see a tour without the high mountains. I'd like a tour that someone like Cancellara would be able to do well in rather than just the mountain goats

But not THE Tour...? Right? You can't have that without the mountains.

I'd like to see maybe la vuelta offer this. The tour only found the mountains in 1909 so they haven't always been there.

No, only for the last 100 years.

I used to do a similar experiment on pro cycling manager. Would create my own 1 week tour. It would go like this.

Day 1 - Tour of Flanders route.

Day 2 - Roubaix Route

Day 3 - Liege Route

Day 4 - ridiculous mountain stage, summit finish

day 5 - 50km TT.


See who wins that.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, only for the last 100 years.

I used to do a similar experiment on pro cycling manager. Would create my own 1 week tour. It would go like this.

Day 1 - Tour of Flanders route.
Day 2 - Roubaix Route
Day 3 - Liege Route
Day 4 - ridiculous mountain stage, summit finish
day 5 - 50km TT.

See who wins that.

Wiggins or Kwiatkowski

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, only for the last 100 years.

I used to do a similar experiment on pro cycling manager. Would create my own 1 week tour. It would go like this.

Day 1 - Tour of Flanders route.
Day 2 - Roubaix Route
Day 3 - Liege Route
Day 4 - ridiculous mountain stage, summit finish
day 5 - 50km TT.

See who wins that.

Wiggins or Kwiatkowski

Well it was 2009 pro cycling manager.

And, when Rick Chasey wasn't winning everything, Valverde invariably won.

Macaloon

Question for any medicists or veterinarians out there. What's the relationship between EPO and the known limits of human physiology?

As I understand it, improving the oxygen capacity of the blood effectively turbo-charges each heartbeat. But I never see haematocrit referenced as a parameter in calculating normal W/Kg thresholds, only VO2 max. From this I conclude that VO2 max is directly and only influenced by haematocrit.

Is this correct? And is it therefore correct to say that the current known limit of human physiology would be the highest ever (clean) measured VO2 max?

joelsim

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, only for the last 100 years.

I used to do a similar experiment on pro cycling manager. Would create my own 1 week tour. It would go like this.

Day 1 - Tour of Flanders route.
Day 2 - Roubaix Route
Day 3 - Liege Route
Day 4 - ridiculous mountain stage, summit finish
day 5 - 50km TT.

See who wins that.

Wiggins or Kwiatkowski

Well it was 2009 pro cycling manager.

And, when Rick Chasey wasn't winning everything, Valverde invariably won.

G could perhaps be in with a shout (especially as they don't fall off v much in PCM)

No_Ta_Doctor

Macaloon wrote:

Question for any medicists or veterinarians out there. What's the relationship between EPO and the known limits of human physiology?

As I understand it, improving the oxygen capacity of the blood effectively turbo-charges each heartbeat. But I never see haematocrit referenced as a parameter in calculating normal W/Kg thresholds, only VO2 max. From this I conclude that VO2 max is directly and only influenced by haematocrit.

Is this correct? And is it therefore correct to say that the current known limit of human physiology would be the highest ever (clean) measured VO2 max?

Disclaimer: I have no scientific credentials whatsoever, and my limited understanding has been gained from reading round cycling sites and wikipedia.

VO2 max is certainly limited by factors other than haematocrit. Lung size, cardio-vascular health etc. It's a measure of maximum O2 that can be delivered to the body, and hence a direct measure of how much aerobic work the body is doing.

Whether or not that work is efficient depends on the person in question, which could be anything from riding badly to the efficiency of various metabolic pathways.

More to the point, the efficiency and ability of an athlete's anaerobic metabolic pathways will have a large part in determining how much actual power he can put out, and for how long. Twitch muscles for sprints, for instance, function anaerobically, but produce lactate which needs to be broken down aerobically later.

So VO2 max is a performance indicator, and a significant physiological limit, but it doesn't translate directly into a measurement of performance and nor is it the only limiting factor.

skylla

Macaloon wrote:

Question for any medicists or veterinarians out there. What's the relationship between EPO and the known limits of human physiology?

As I understand it, improving the oxygen capacity of the blood effectively turbo-charges each heartbeat. But I never see haematocrit referenced as a parameter in calculating normal W/Kg thresholds, only VO2 max. From this I conclude that VO2 max is directly and only influenced by haematocrit.

Is this correct? And is it therefore correct to say that the current known limit of human physiology would be the highest ever (clean) measured VO2 max?

EPO is a hormone that stimulates (i.e. increases) the red blood cell volume. These cells carry haemoglobin, which binds free oxygen (O2). Hence a higher haemotocrit (= red blood cell volume fraction), a higher volume of O2 (VO2) can be taken up, and ultimately consumed by the body. Thus an increase in max VO2 for both uptake & consumption is very likely, although of course there are various physiological parameters that influence these numbers.

Macaloon

Thanks to both. What I'm trying to get at is the concept of the natural performance ceiling and it's artificial elevation by EPO.

When a w/kg estimate is widely described as unreal, or beyond Ross Tucker's limits, does this simply mean that at known physiological efficiencies, the implied VO2 max would require lungs the size of Brian Blessed?

If this is the case, and artificial EPO is the means by which more normal lung capacity can be Blessed, why doesn't this cause a noticeable spike in the passport?

skylla

Sorry, I know too little about the biopassport details (i.e. parameters that are monitored) to help you out here. But a few things to keep in mind are:
- If the V O2 max is one of those parameters, this would need to be established from time to time by an accredited lab and race seasonal fluctuations will be taken into account (i.e. not just passed on by teams!). Such a number is not simply calculated from bloods taken.
- the passport is not just a snapshot of physiological/biological parameters of a rider, but a long-term record that is superimposed onto a rider's calender in regards to their race/training load.
- it not just monitors haemotocrit levels, but also blood cell type populations (i.e. young, mature, ropey red blood cell types).
- It is basically designed to set alarm bells ringing when unusually high/low numbers beyond a rider's base line are detected. This baseline is of course different from one rider to the next.

In regards to 'natural performance ceiling', if such a value would exist this would be perhaps a theoretical number very likely calculated for a person of caucasian descent which would in any way not bear any relation to natural outliers in the world of endurance sport. It would also not mean that such a number is only limited by the size of one's lungs, there are a lot of limiting factors - efficiency of (C)O2* binding, (C)O2 transfer, (C)O2 release, etc etc!

*(C)O2 = O2 of CO2 waste

Hope this helps?

Richmond Racer

skylla works for CADF and I claim my £5

Mad_Malx

skylla wrote:

Sorry, I know too little about the biopassport details (i.e. parameters that are monitored) to help you out here. But a few things to keep in mind are:
- If the V O2 max is one of those parameters, this would need to be established from time to time by an accredited lab and race seasonal fluctuations will be taken into account (i.e. not just passed on by teams!). Such a number is not simply calculated from bloods taken.
- the passport is not just a snapshot of physiological/biological parameters of a rider, but a long-term record that is superimposed onto a rider's calender in regards to their race/training load.
- it not just monitors haemotocrit levels, but also blood cell type populations (i.e. young, mature, ropey red blood cell types).
- It is basically designed to set alarm bells ringing when unusually high/low numbers beyond a rider's base line are detected. This baseline is of course different from one rider to the next.

Biopassport details (I posted this previously elsewhere):
Very good but technical explanation (with nice graphs) http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/7/969.long cited on the WADA 'science topics' http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Science-Medicine/Science-topics/.
Endocrinology module not currently incorporated into wada rules.

Currently it's all blood & urine and doesn't include physiological measurements such as VO2, w/kg etc. These would be time consuming and fraught with validity challenges.

jimmythecuckoo

As a born and raised Fenlander (my nearest quiet training road is at -2 metres to sea level) I am delighted that the reason I haven't yet won a grand tour, isn't due to me being average at bike racing, but is due to my parents not living at the top of a big hill.

Thanks for setting this straight in my own mind BR

Macaloon

skylla wrote:

In regards to 'natural performance ceiling', if such a value would exist this would be perhaps a theoretical number very likely calculated for a person of caucasian descent which would in any way not bear any relation to natural outliers in the world of endurance sport. It would also not mean that such a number is only limited by the size of one's lungs, there are a lot of limiting factors - efficiency of (C)O2* binding, (C)O2 transfer, (C)O2 release, etc etc!

*(C)O2 = O2 of CO2 waste

Hope this helps?

Much appreciated. Thanks.