Still waiting ...

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but
Amber
isn't ...

Forget that - I'm still waiting for his explanation as to why
Armstrong's power could only be achieved via doping, but Landis'
comparable power can't be taken as evidence of such.

Andy Coggan

And I'm still waiting for Professor Candyass' response to this:

I'm waiting to see your explanation for his [Armstrong] ability to put
out
the wattages
for the periods of time that he did while climbing. No doubt it was
all
due
to efficiency and economy from training. Correct?

Allow me to repeat myself: I have not seen any data that would convince
me otherwise.

Is that because you haven't looked for the data or have you looked at the
data and made an informed appraisal.

A little of both.

If the latter, please share with us
your analysis of how Armstrong was able to output, while climbing, the
wattages he did for the periods of time that he did. And please explain
your analysis in relationship to his height, weight, age, VO2Max, LT and
any
other data such as training efficiency and economy from any sources you
think applicable. .

Gladly, but first: what specific power data do you feel needs
"explaining"? I don't want to go to all sorts of trouble crunching
numbers only to have you come back at me claiming that my starting
assumptions were invalid.

You are a world class candyass. Try an analysis of Armstrong's climbing of
1. Hautacam 2000
2.Alpe d'Huez 2001

The physical details of Armstrong's weight, bicycle weight, climb distance
and time are all well known. His attacks on the climbs can be approximated
from Tour timing. You know his VO2Max (82 or 83) and you have a wealth of
data available from your buddy Eddie Coyle.

If you have any doubts, give us your assumptions before you start crunching.

No, I'm lazy, and don't really feel like digging around the web to try
to come up with reliable values for his time up such climbs, their
length and steepness, etc. Moreover, even if I did do so, we're left
with one great big unknown, which is this: how much did Armstrong
*really* weigh at the time of these exploits? I've seen estimates that
vary by as much as 10%, which obviously has a huge impact on whether
the required VO2 would be believable.

BTW, just to give you some idea of the issues he in a 1996 article
in Scientific American, it was stated that Armstrong's VO2max was 86
mL/min/kg...and that was (presumably) measured in Colorado Springs,
i.e., at an altitude high enough to reduce the value by some 5-8%
relative to sea level.

Andy Coggan

B. Lafferty wrote:

If you have any doubts, give us your assumptions before you start crunching.

How's this for starters (using the quote that Benjo Maso provided):

"[Ferrari] drew the line, and came up with the threshold Armstrong
already guessed he was.

Four hundred and seventy watts.

The number had an immediate effect; it soaked into him, it vibrated in
the soft spring air. He was 470, 40 watts higher than this time last
year, the same number he was last June, just before the Tour. The
same! It was a short test, which usually based higher, but still, it
was promising news. To get to 6.7, he had to get 30 watts more
powerful,
and lose 5.5 kilos, and he had six months to do it.


(....) It was good to enjoy it, because the feeling wouldn't last. In
fact, it was disappearing even now, evaporating as Armstrong leaned
over to look at Ferrari's graph paper.


"What did Floyd get?" Armstrong asked Ferrari. The doctor pointed a
pencil tip toward a line: Landis had 420 watts but he only weighed
sixty-nine kilos (152 pounds). Landis was faster.


From Daniel Coyle, ``Armstrong's War'.

Based on the above description, it sounds as if Ferrari estimated
Armstrong's and Landis' maximal sustainable power based on lactate
responses during an incremental exercise test using average-length
stages. There are limitations to this approach, and we don't know
exactly what criteria Ferrari used to define "threshold", but the
values seem quite reasonable in light of other data (e.g., Lim's
estimates that Landis averaged 417-425 W during the first ITT this
year), so I'll go with them...here's what we know/can deduce:

1) Landis power/mass was 6.09 W/kg

2) this was higher than Armstrong's at the time of the test

3) Armstrong's absolute power was 470 W

4) to get to 6.7 W/kg, he had increase his power to 500 W, and reduce
his body mass by 5.5 kg.

From #3 and #4 above, we can conclude that at the time of the test,
Armstrong weighed 80.1 kg. This would make his power/mass at the time
to be 5.9 W/kg, i.e., consistent with #1 and #2.

Now moving on...Armstrong's VO2max (in mL/min/kg) is reportedly
somewhere in the low to mid 80's. However, even if it were "only" 80
mL/min/kg, then his absolute VO2max was 6.4 L/min. Indeed, quoting
Coyle (Edward, not Daniel): "VO2 max during the competitive season of
1993, soon after winning the World Road Racing Championships (September
1993), was 6.1 l/min and 81.2 ml/kg/min, results that were corroborated
by the United States Olympic Committee (Colorado Springs, CO)."*

If you then accept that 1) he could sustain 90% of his VO2max for the
duration of, e.g., l'alpe de Huez, and 2) he had high-average cycling
efficiency, then his power when climbing would have been 475-500 W,
i.e., consistent with the quote from Coyle's book. The only real
question, then, is whether loss of 5+ kg of body mass would have
adversely affected his VO2max, and hence his ability to produce power.
That we don't know, but given that 1) he raced quite successfully in
1993 at 75 kg (calculated from quote above), and 2) he reportedly lost
some upper body mass as a result of cancer cachexia (a common
occurrence), then I think it is quite possible that he could have
dropped to the 72-74 kg he reportedly raced his Tours at w/o any
negative effects (aside from being hungry much of the time!).

*Although 6.1 L/min is 5% lower than the 6.4 L/min estimate I derived,
the fact that the OTC is at 1860 m could easily account for the
difference. The reason that Coyle (again, Edward, not Daniel) reported
a lower value likely reflects the fact that 1) Armstrong only went to
UT-Austin for testing in the off-season, and 2) the metabolic cart
there (which I built/modified) tends to underestimate VO2 slightly.

Conclusion: I have yet to see any physiological or power data on
Armstrong that could be taken as definitive proof of doping. (OTOH, the
above can't really be taken as proof that he didn't dope, either.)

Andy Coggan

wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:

If you have any doubts, give us your assumptions before you start
crunching.

How's this for starters (using the quote that Benjo Maso provided):

"[Ferrari] drew the line, and came up with the threshold Armstrong
already guessed he was.

Four hundred and seventy watts.

The number had an immediate effect; it soaked into him, it vibrated in
the soft spring air. He was 470, 40 watts higher than this time last
year, the same number he was last June, just before the Tour. The
same! It was a short test, which usually based higher, but still, it
was promising news. To get to 6.7, he had to get 30 watts more
powerful,
and lose 5.5 kilos, and he had six months to do it.


(....) It was good to enjoy it, because the feeling wouldn't last. In
fact, it was disappearing even now, evaporating as Armstrong leaned
over to look at Ferrari's graph paper.


"What did Floyd get?" Armstrong asked Ferrari. The doctor pointed a
pencil tip toward a line: Landis had 420 watts but he only weighed
sixty-nine kilos (152 pounds). Landis was faster.


From Daniel Coyle, ``Armstrong's War'.

Based on the above description, it sounds as if Ferrari estimated
Armstrong's and Landis' maximal sustainable power based on lactate
responses during an incremental exercise test using average-length
stages. There are limitations to this approach, and we don't know
exactly what criteria Ferrari used to define "threshold", but the
values seem quite reasonable in light of other data (e.g., Lim's
estimates that Landis averaged 417-425 W during the first ITT this
year), so I'll go with them...here's what we know/can deduce:

1) Landis power/mass was 6.09 W/kg

2) this was higher than Armstrong's at the time of the test

3) Armstrong's absolute power was 470 W

4) to get to 6.7 W/kg, he had increase his power to 500 W, and reduce
his body mass by 5.5 kg.

From #3 and #4 above, we can conclude that at the time of the test,
Armstrong weighed 80.1 kg. This would make his power/mass at the time
to be 5.9 W/kg, i.e., consistent with #1 and #2.

Now moving on...Armstrong's VO2max (in mL/min/kg) is reportedly
somewhere in the low to mid 80's. However, even if it were "only" 80
mL/min/kg, then his absolute VO2max was 6.4 L/min. Indeed, quoting
Coyle (Edward, not Daniel): "VO2 max during the competitive season of
1993, soon after winning the World Road Racing Championships (September
1993), was 6.1 l/min and 81.2 ml/kg/min, results that were corroborated
by the United States Olympic Committee (Colorado Springs, CO)."*

If you then accept that 1) he could sustain 90% of his VO2max for the
duration of, e.g., l'alpe de Huez, and 2) he had high-average cycling
efficiency, then his power when climbing would have been 475-500 W,
i.e., consistent with the quote from Coyle's book. The only real
question, then, is whether loss of 5+ kg of body mass would have
adversely affected his VO2max, and hence his ability to produce power.
That we don't know, but given that 1) he raced quite successfully in
1993 at 75 kg (calculated from quote above), and 2) he reportedly lost
some upper body mass as a result of cancer cachexia (a common
occurrence), then I think it is quite possible that he could have
dropped to the 72-74 kg he reportedly raced his Tours at w/o any
negative effects (aside from being hungry much of the time!).

*Although 6.1 L/min is 5% lower than the 6.4 L/min estimate I derived,
the fact that the OTC is at 1860 m could easily account for the
difference. The reason that Coyle (again, Edward, not Daniel) reported
a lower value likely reflects the fact that 1) Armstrong only went to
UT-Austin for testing in the off-season, and 2) the metabolic cart
there (which I built/modified) tends to underestimate VO2 slightly.

Conclusion: I have yet to see any physiological or power data on
Armstrong that could be taken as definitive proof of doping. (OTOH, the
above can't really be taken as proof that he didn't dope, either.)

Andy Coggan


Professor, you wrote in a prior post:

"No, I'm lazy, and don't really feel like digging around the web to try
to come up with reliable values for his time up such climbs, their
length and steepness, etc. Moreover, even if I did do so, we're left
with one great big unknown, which is this: how much did Armstrong
*really* weigh at the time of these exploits? I've seen estimates that
vary by as much as 10%, which obviously has a huge impact on whether
the required VO2 would be believable."

So all of your candyassing above in this post is relatively meaningless.
Nice job. Get back to us when you have the climb stats and plug them in.

B. Lafferty wrote:

Get back to us when you have the climb stats and plug them in.

You mean stats like these (quoting one of your prior posts)?

"Calculate it yourself for average wattage.
Armstrong 2001
Weight: 165.34
Bike weight: 16 lbs(estimated)
Height: 69.6 in
Vertical Gain: 3,579 ft
Climb Distance: 8.82 miles
Time 38:05"

Assuming a nominal air density of 1.056 g/mL (for 1500 m) altitude, a
CdA of 0.30, and an all-up mass of 83 kg, www.analyticcycling.com gives
an average power of 466.7 W, or 6.22 W/kg.

Now what was it you were saying about Armstrong's performance being so
"unworldly" that it could only be explained by doping?

Andy Coggan

wrote:

what was it you were saying about Armstrong's performance being so
"unworldly" that it could only be explained by doping?

"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact." -
Thomas H. Huxley

Andy Coggan

wrote:

4) to get to 6.7 W/kg, he had increase his power to 500 W, and reduce
his body mass by 5.5 kg.

I'm reminded of the cartoon with the scientists standing in front of a
complex chart, with one step marked "At this point, a miracle occurs"
and for one to say "I think you need a bit more detail here."

6% increase in absolute sustained power.
7% drop in body mass.
6 months.

Forget the papers on doping, all someone needs to do is write a paper on
this training method.

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:


If you have any doubts, give us your assumptions before you start
crunching.

How's this for starters (using the quote that Benjo Maso provided):

"[Ferrari] drew the line, and came up with the threshold Armstrong
already guessed he was.

Four hundred and seventy watts.

The number had an immediate effect; it soaked into him, it vibrated in
the soft spring air. He was 470, 40 watts higher than this time last
year, the same number he was last June, just before the Tour. The
same! It was a short test, which usually based higher, but still, it
was promising news. To get to 6.7, he had to get 30 watts more
powerful,
and lose 5.5 kilos, and he had six months to do it.


(....) It was good to enjoy it, because the feeling wouldn't last. In
fact, it was disappearing even now, evaporating as Armstrong leaned
over to look at Ferrari's graph paper.


"What did Floyd get?" Armstrong asked Ferrari. The doctor pointed a
pencil tip toward a line: Landis had 420 watts but he only weighed
sixty-nine kilos (152 pounds). Landis was faster.


From Daniel Coyle, ``Armstrong's War'.

Based on the above description, it sounds as if Ferrari estimated
Armstrong's and Landis' maximal sustainable power based on lactate
responses during an incremental exercise test using average-length
stages. There are limitations to this approach, and we don't know
exactly what criteria Ferrari used to define "threshold", but the
values seem quite reasonable in light of other data (e.g., Lim's
estimates that Landis averaged 417-425 W during the first ITT this
year), so I'll go with them...here's what we know/can deduce:

1) Landis power/mass was 6.09 W/kg

2) this was higher than Armstrong's at the time of the test

3) Armstrong's absolute power was 470 W

4) to get to 6.7 W/kg, he had increase his power to 500 W, and reduce
his body mass by 5.5 kg.

From #3 and #4 above, we can conclude that at the time of the test,
Armstrong weighed 80.1 kg. This would make his power/mass at the time
to be 5.9 W/kg, i.e., consistent with #1 and #2.

Now moving on...Armstrong's VO2max (in mL/min/kg) is reportedly
somewhere in the low to mid 80's. However, even if it were "only" 80
mL/min/kg, then his absolute VO2max was 6.4 L/min. Indeed, quoting
Coyle (Edward, not Daniel): "VO2 max during the competitive season of
1993, soon after winning the World Road Racing Championships (September
1993), was 6.1 l/min and 81.2 ml/kg/min, results that were corroborated
by the United States Olympic Committee (Colorado Springs, CO)."*

If you then accept that 1) he could sustain 90% of his VO2max for the
duration of, e.g., l'alpe de Huez, and 2) he had high-average cycling
efficiency, then his power when climbing would have been 475-500 W,
i.e., consistent with the quote from Coyle's book. The only real
question, then, is whether loss of 5+ kg of body mass would have
adversely affected his VO2max, and hence his ability to produce power.
That we don't know, but given that 1) he raced quite successfully in
1993 at 75 kg (calculated from quote above), and 2) he reportedly lost
some upper body mass as a result of cancer cachexia (a common
occurrence), then I think it is quite possible that he could have
dropped to the 72-74 kg he reportedly raced his Tours at w/o any
negative effects (aside from being hungry much of the time!).

*Although 6.1 L/min is 5% lower than the 6.4 L/min estimate I derived,
the fact that the OTC is at 1860 m could easily account for the
difference. The reason that Coyle (again, Edward, not Daniel) reported
a lower value likely reflects the fact that 1) Armstrong only went to
UT-Austin for testing in the off-season, and 2) the metabolic cart
there (which I built/modified) tends to underestimate VO2 slightly.

Conclusion: I have yet to see any physiological or power data on
Armstrong that could be taken as definitive proof of doping. (OTOH, the
above can't really be taken as proof that he didn't dope, either.)

Andy Coggan



Professor, you wrote in a prior post:

"No, I'm lazy, and don't really feel like digging around the web to try
to come up with reliable values for his time up such climbs, their
length and steepness, etc. Moreover, even if I did do so, we're left
with one great big unknown, which is this: how much did Armstrong
*really* weigh at the time of these exploits? I've seen estimates that
vary by as much as 10%, which obviously has a huge impact on whether
the required VO2 would be believable."

So all of your candyassing above in this post is relatively meaningless.
Nice job. Get back to us when you have the climb stats and plug them in.

Where are your calculations proving he DID dope?

Stu Fleming wrote:
wrote:

4) to get to 6.7 W/kg, he had increase his power to 500 W, and reduce
his body mass by 5.5 kg.

I'm reminded of the cartoon with the scientists standing in front of a
complex chart, with one step marked "At this point, a miracle occurs"
and for one to say "I think you need a bit more detail here."

6% increase in absolute sustained power.
7% drop in body mass.
6 months.

Forget the papers on doping, all someone needs to do is write a paper on
this training method.

A 6% increase in absolute sustained power in 6 months (from January to
July) would be fairly easy to achieve...all it would take would be
ramping up the training the way people normally do. Assuming you've got
the weight to lose, dropping 5.5 kg in the same time period also
wouldn't be that hard, as we're only talking about the loss of ~0.5
lbs/wk. The tricky part would be pulling both off at the same time w/o,
e.g., getting sick (in which case, it would probably help to minimize
one's racing during this time-frame, due to the uncontrolled and
uncontrollable nature of the stress that racing entails).

Andy Coggan

wrote in message
ps.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:

Get back to us when you have the climb stats and plug them in.

You mean stats like these (quoting one of your prior posts)?

"Calculate it yourself for average wattage.
Armstrong 2001
Weight: 165.34
Bike weight: 16 lbs(estimated)
Height: 69.6 in
Vertical Gain: 3,579 ft
Climb Distance: 8.82 miles
Time 38:05"

Assuming a nominal air density of 1.056 g/mL (for 1500 m) altitude, a
CdA of 0.30, and an all-up mass of 83 kg, www.analyticcycling.com gives
an average power of 466.7 W, or 6.22 W/kg.

Now what was it you were saying about Armstrong's performance being so
"unworldly" that it could only be explained by doping?

Andy Coggan

Now give us a complete analysis relating the above and his 500 watt plus
accelerations. And please relate that to his basic physiology. I have a
friend in your field who is quite anxious to see your analysis. And when
you analyze Hauticam, don't forget his plus 500 watt accelerations and the
times that they lasted. You might also want to attempt to quantify the
effect of muscle fatigue given that these climbs came at the end of stages
with not insignificant prior climbs.

B. Lafferty wrote:

Now give us a complete analysis relating the above and his 500 watt plus
accelerations. And please relate that to his basic physiology. I have a
friend in your field who is quite anxious to see your analysis. And when
you analyze Hauticam, don't forget his plus 500 watt accelerations and the
times that they lasted. You might also want to attempt to quantify the
effect of muscle fatigue given that these climbs came at the end of stages
with not insignificant prior climbs.

BTW, reading between the lines here I think it is evident that you
simply don't have a clue as to elite elite cyclists really are, doped
or not. Did you know, for example, that Peter Keen estimated that
Boardman maintained a **steady-state** VO2 of 81 mL/min/kg during his
56+ km hour record, and that Obree's **steady-state* VO2 was only
slightly lower at 77 mL/min/kg. (And here I thought I was something
back when I could maintain a steady-state VO2 of ~70 mL/min/kg for an
hour.)

Andy Coggan