Mountain Project Logo

Lance Armstrong

Crag Dweller · · New York, NY · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125

This is slipping towards geeking-out but...

Here's an interesting old story:

"At 21, Armstrong had a distinctly average 21 percent muscle-efficiency rate. Seven years later that rate had increased to 23 percent, a huge leap.... 'We don't know exactly what accounted for Armstrong's muscular-efficiency change,' Coyle said. But he suspects that Armstrong was able to convert fast-twitch muscle fibers to slow-twitch muscle fibers."

news.nationalgeographic.com…

I think we do know now what accounted for the change.

Interestingly, when he won world's in Sep of '93 at age 21, his VO2 max would have barely put him in the top 25: davidglover.net/2009/10/und…

redlude97 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2010 · Points: 5
Crag Dweller wrote:This is slipping towards geeking-out but... Here's an interesting old story: "At 21, Armstrong had a distinctly average 21 percent muscle-efficiency rate. Seven years later that rate had increased to 23 percent, a huge leap.... 'We don't know exactly what accounted for Armstrong's muscular-efficiency change,' Coyle said. But he suspects that Armstrong was able to convert fast-twitch muscle fibers to slow-twitch muscle fibers." news.nationalgeographic.com… I think we do know now what accounted for the change. Interestingly, when he won world's in Sep of '93 at age 21, his VO2 max would have barely put him in the top 25: davidglover.net/2009/10/und…
Yes, but I think the take-away should be that the myth that lance was elite before doping and that his wins when doping were on a level playing field are false. We don't know if he would have won in a clean field, because people respond differently to doping, athletes were doping at different levels and different products(combinations), and how many of their teammates were doping. In lance's case I strongly doubt he would have won any tours in a clean field, and he probably doped better than the rest because of the amount of money he had at his disposal.
Crag Dweller · · New York, NY · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
redlude97 wrote: Yes, but I think the take-away should be that the myth that lance was elite before doping and that his wins when doping were on a level playing field are false. We don't know if he would have won in a clean field, because people respond differently to doping, athletes were doping at different levels and different products(combinations), and how many of their teammates were doping. In lance's case I strongly doubt he would have won any tours in a clean field, and he probably doped better than the rest because of the amount of money he had at his disposal.
I agree 100% with everything you said!
JoeP · · Littleton, CO · Joined Sep 2006 · Points: 0
redlude97 wrote: Yes, but I think the take-away should be that the myth that lance was elite before doping and that his wins when doping were on a level playing field are false. We don't know if he would have won in a clean field, because people respond differently to doping, athletes were doping at different levels and different products(combinations), and how many of their teammates were doping. In lance's case I strongly doubt he would have won any tours in a clean field, and he probably doped better than the rest because of the amount of money he had at his disposal.
Agreed. Along those lines, look at Armstrong compared to Ullrich (admitted to at minimum having contact with a known doping doctor for blood transfusions). Ullrich's first TDF (2nd year pro) - 2nd. 2nd TDF - 1st. 3rd TDF - 2nd. Out for 1999 due to knee injury and then the years of 2nd places to Armstrong. Most all agree that Ullrich was naturally more gifted than Armstrong but he couldn't beat him after Armstrong's metamorphosis into a GT rider.

Even Ullrich's manager noted that Armstrong's change after cancer was "so extraordinary" and upon learning of Armstrong's program, he commented that Ullrich's methods were "petty compared to the gangsters surrounding Armstrong . . . It surprised me how far the team of Armstrong went. It was also strange that they could use EPO and continue working while we were all strictly controlled. Everything changed with the arrival of Bruyneel."

The playing field, even among cheats, was not level, i.e. which is why Armstrong is about to bring down the UCI on Oprah and tell how the top people were complicit in Armstrong's program.
Christian RodaoBack · · Tucson, AZ · Joined Jul 2005 · Points: 1,486
coppolillo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2009 · Points: 70
redlude97 wrote: While he has an elite VO2 max, he's not even in the top 10. He has a lower VO2 max than Lemond for one.
i'm not sure where those folks are getting their data, but lance didn't make his numbers public later in his career. he was originally tested in colorado springs at the OTC, as a junior...i can assure lance's VO2 is NOT 70...while that is elite, it is at the bottom of of Tour winners. lemond's was in the low 90s and lance's was always believed to be higher--but lance didn't share numbers later in his career.

here's one source that says it's 85, which seems more plausible, though i still think it's low: sportsmedicine.about.com/od…

here's an interview with lemond during which he confirms his vo2 was in the low 90s: bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistor…

and another source that confirms Bjorne Daehlie was in fact the highest ever recorded VO2 at 96: 16) Astrand P-O and Rodahl K. (1986) The Textbook of Work Physiology: Physiological Bases of Exercise (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

there's no way in hell lance's VO2 is only 70--that's good for a domestic professional rider in the US, but wouldn't be a Tour contender in europe...
Jon Zucco · · Denver, CO · Joined Aug 2008 · Points: 245

I request that this thread name be changed, as I am getting very tired of reading/hearing this name. Thanks!

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Other Sports
Post a Reply to "Lance Armstrong"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.