Armstrong produced 30 more watts in 2005 than 1999

spokeking

I just finished reading an article on Yahoo where Lance's power output was tested just prior to the Tour, and he produced 30 more watts this year than he did in 2005.



I just wanted to get some opinions on whether or not this is possible without doping. I guess I'm a little skeptical, and don't know what to believe.

kennf

Flyer, you did not even attempt to respond to the question posted. The question was whether it is possible fo someone to increase their power output by 30 watts between 1999 and 2005 without dope. What is not clear from the question is whether we are assuming he is clean in 1999.

If we start with the assumption that the rider is clean in 1999, then the question is whether the power increase can be obtained between ages 26 and 33 without the addition of doping. I assume where talking about time trial power (not absolute peak power). That's six years of structured training. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say yes. If he never increased his power, I'd say his training was flawed. Peak (sprinting) power, on the other hand, will typically decrease as your body loses fast twitch muscles.

If we start from Flyer's assumption that Lance has been doping since he was 18, then what is the question? Why would a rider who consistenly dopes achieve a 30 watt increase? Is the EPO that much more effective now than it was in 1999? You can only raise your hematocrit so much. And as far as I know, his muscle mass is roughly the same as it was in 1999.

spokeking

Well, as far as age goes, I know several Masters Category cyclists in my area, that are simply phenomenal! These guys consistently do better lap times than the Cat 3 guys around here, and they are all over 40. I know most of them aren't on the juice. Can't speak for all of them.

Biscayne

Flyer not even attempting to respond to a question? Gee, what a surprise.

A 30 watt increase for Lance translates to roughly 6% improvement. Could he, or anyone, have improved his wattage output at 1% per year for 6 years from age 28 to age 33 via training? Unquestionably, yes. (That doesn't mean there were or were not other factors involved, but as for whether it's possible, the answer is yes). It's well known that aerobic efficiency improves cumulatively. Unlike sprint athletes, endurance athletes SHOULD be increasing efficiency and performance from late 20s to mid-30s.

On the flip side, recovery between extreme efforts should be gradually declining over time.

VeloFlash

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpo...78&postcount=56

In the above post in June 2004 I referred to an excerpt from a review of a book/article where the last 10 years of TdF winning riders (to 2001) power outputs could be calculated (like analyticalcycling.com) if certain variables are known. This is the excerpt:

There are no tips on how to raid a pharmacy in "Do you have what it takes to win the Tour de France?"*. Instead, former Festina team trainer Antoine Vayer and software engineer Frederic Portoleau team up to study the physical build of the last ten yellow jersey winners.

With the Tour won or lost in the mountain stages, they focus specifically on the energy produced by a rider to climb the toughest Alps and Pyrenees stages.

In cycling, power is measured in watts. Thanks to TV images, Vayer and Porloteau studied the speed of the peddling, the time it took to climb the mountain, the distance, the gradient of the climbs and the weight of the riders.

Rivals of three-time defending champion Lance Armstrong have reason to shudder: Vayner and Portoleau conclude that Armstrong is in constant progression since 1999 with an average power of 415 watts in 1999, 430 watts in 2000 and 445 watts in 2001. By contrast, when he climbed the Tourmalet mountain in 1994 - before his cancer treatment - he produced an average power of 381 watts.

The authors’ main aim is to provide a mountain-climbing measuring tool for the everyday bike rider. What they find along the way is a spectacular increase in the average power of the last 10 years Tour de France winners with a spectacular 20% jump from 1991 to 1995.

Was it the mineral water? Evidence is circumstantial, but the 445 watt-average that year did coincide with the heyday of EPO use. Following the introduction of blood testing in 1997 and the 1998 Festina doping scandal, the average power falls to 400 watts, increasing again to 430 watts in last three Tours.

So what was LA in 2004 (3 years after this study) to increase by 30 watts to 2005?

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

simonbroekhuize

I love this LA discussion. I think its good Flyer making a strong stand for what he believes. Has anyone seen that picture where lance is kissing this piece of paper with a big 7 on it and small written tdf.. don't his finger seem to pop out all the blood? Blood doping would have to be one of the major/only one drug he may take some of. I hope UCI will drop haematocrit limit even further to a number that is rationalised, I think that rationalised number should be LA's, get what I mean?
I admit he's mentally the toughest and if you read his books (who hasnt) you would have to admit he can get into a pretty good shape.
When it comes to the question raised in this thread, I think it's possible.
Saying he lost so much weight and that..
Also training clean and let your body recover clean seems to be the excellent way of getting better. All comes back to this mental thing, do you think its possible for anyone to beat himself up 6-8% more than his average (tdf) rival, just because he has the mental keenness to work harder?
After all, what's more rewarding that hard work?
And more important, I believe LA has been the keenest winner over the last 7 years. Like Ullrich, he says alot, he IS alot, but he doesn't walk his talk, just a mental think I believe. Therefore, just because LA is winning multiple TDF's doesn't say ANYTHING theres dopers out there, but Lance may very well not be one of them! Its big.. that mental thing.. very big, bigger than dope.
Another reason why 1 hour record was a NO for m, just a mental bit of a blockage... Just think, the last time you went for a training ride, you think you could have pushed yourself harder? You might say no, but maybe you could.... just trying to make a point. if he doped, he would have done more races, more records etc. doping affects you psygologically too

tomUK

I find it incredible that anyone could believe LA doesn't dope. The demands of riding 21 stages (of an average 110 miles) on a 'diet' of water, good food and hard work are surely impossible. Look at the power outputs of these athletes at the end of that period. Anyone who thinks this is acheived through hard work ethic I'm certain doesn't understand the suffering of pro cyclist.

They all do it. Too many people get caught up in the fairy tale of Mr Armstrong. Personally it deeply saddens me that the tour is never going to be what it should.

House

Two comments:

1) They don't just use "water, good food and hard work." We are years ahead in clean sports nutrition and they use many things like powerbars, Extran, and on and on...all clean.

2) Something we have been demanding of Flyer, but all he does is google an article and keep reposting it, never actually responding: Give us proof that he is dirty.

kennf

[QUOTE=VeloFlashThanks to TV images, Vayer and Porloteau studied the speed of the peddling, the time it took to climb the mountain, the distance, the gradient of the climbs and the weight of the riders.
[/QUOTE]

Not trying to go into the doping issue, but...

There are so many problems with these statements, it's hard to know where to begin. There's no way these calculations are any more accurate than +/- 10%, so I'd be hesitant to rely on them. The question is what was his max sustainable power. Looking at estimates from individual climbs doesn't take into account the question of (1)what was the rest of the stage like before the climb/what was his fatigue level going into the climb?; (2) How hard did he NEED to go? THat is, if it wasn't a time trial, was he really going as hard as he could?; (3) what was the temparature, humidity, and wind (at all thimes) on these climbs?

If we had lab tests before each Tour (which probably exist somewhere), this would be informative. But I don't think Vayner's and Portoleau's numbers should be taken as 100% accurate.

kennf

I must have missed a post then. Or you may be getting your threads confused.

Question: can a rider increase his power output by 30 watts over a six year period without dope. Yes or no.

Flyer, your response (yes or no)?

Anyone want to take a bet on whether we get a one-word response?