It is interesting to note that throughout his entire career including a triathlete in his school days people have been marveling at Lance's high power output.
"Reggie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Antoine Vayer gives weight to the idea that force of will does not enter into the equation. "The influence of psychological resources is a smoke screen of the media," he relates. "By definition, all athletes of this high level are warriors. It is not a mind set which leads to the production of watts. Someone who breathes five times a minute vs. someone who breathes eleven times a minute is quantifiable. Doping is quantifiable. Doping cuts in half the frequency of breathing. When they say, according to the slang, 'he breathes through his ears,' it means he rides with his mouth shut. When they never appear to be in pain, that also adds up. Compare the climbing of Fignon's era to that of the era of EPO. Even the facial expressions are different, the breathing rhythm, every gesture. Not a single rider in the 80s surpassed an out put of 400 watts."
It should also be noted that in the 80's intravenous re-hydration was not a common practice. Today's athletes can go longer and harder because they don't have to worry as much about tomorrow.
I especially like the 40km TT time - VO2max correlation. But the VO2LT - VO2max graph is very interesting too.
If you're comparing VO2LT to VO2max, shouldn't you adjust VO2max for rider weight? Then you get to compare identical units.
That's sort of the point. Vayer's not using the right units. He claims that in order to produce X watts, you need a VO2Max of Y, but the numbers he tosses around for VO2Max mean he's measuring in ml/kg/min.
As you can see from the plots, the correlation between VO2 at LT and hour power is high, but the correlation between VO2Max (in ml/kg/min) and VO2 at LT (in l/min), and the correlation between VO2Max and hour power, are both pretty close to zero.
Yes, Me too. I don't understand this obsession with VO2max. VO2max is an absolutely crappy predictor of performance, but this news group, or atleast this thread, seems to pretend that VOmax as the only parameters that matters.
Got that. I'm just wondering what the correlation would look like between VO2 at LT and VO2max, when both are presented using the same units. That was one of the things that struck me about that plot. Why not put VO2max on there in l/min?
As a not-so-aside, while VO2LT is positively correlated to body mass (as one might expect), VO2Max is negatively correlated. I take this to mean that normalizing by body mass slightly over-standardizes.
Got that. I'm just wondering what the correlation would look like between VO2 at LT and VO2max, when both are presented using the same units. That was one of the things that struck me about that plot. Why not put VO2max on there in l/min?
As a not-so-aside, while VO2LT is positively correlated to body mass (as one might expect), VO2Max is negatively correlated. I take this to mean that normalizing by body mass slightly over-standardizes.
To clarify, that last not-so-aside means that not normalizing VO2Max by body mass (i.e., looking at it in l/min) is more highly correlated to VO2LT and thus makes it more closely related to 1-hour power. The reason I used the mass normalized version is because that's what Vayer (and, frankly, Lafferty) uses.
As a not-so-aside, while VO2LT is positively correlated to body mass (as one might expect), VO2Max is negatively correlated. I take this to mean that normalizing by body mass slightly over-standardizes.
To clarify, that last not-so-aside means that not normalizing VO2Max by body mass (i.e., looking at it in l/min) is more highly correlated to VO2LT and thus makes it more closely related to 1-hour power. The reason I used the mass normalized version is because that's what Vayer (and, frankly, Lafferty) uses.
I hook mine up to the trainer and load up on EPO so I can maintain the 425 watts need to run the pc. Usually for 2 or 3 h ours. Sometimes I think it unconciousness rather than time travel, but MAN what a trip.
I think you are over-estimating your power output. A typical PC runs 85-100W.
I hook mine up to the trainer and load up on EPO so I can maintain the 425 watts need to run the pc. Usually for 2 or 3 h ours. Sometimes I think it unconciousness rather than time travel, but MAN what a trip.
I think you are over-estimating your power output. A typical PC runs 85-100W.
I use my AMD for time travel and frying my panache
you should fry panache at about 461 watts.
it should take about 36 minutes.
Are you kidding me? You want to sear panache, not fry it. And not in some non-stick pan, either. It's way too hard to make a good sauce in a non-stick pan.
I use my AMD for time travel and frying my panache (actually my new NVidia graphics card is even better for panache frying).
Musashi said:
I hook mine up to the trainer and load up on EPO so I can maintain the 425 watts need to run the pc. Usually for 2 or 3 h ours. Sometimes I think it unconciousness rather than time travel, but MAN what a trip.
I hope you're not running Windoze unless you're trying to break Cadel Evans' record.
Here's one more chart that illustrates this more clearly: http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/vo2.png This shows the relationships between VO2Max and VO2LT when standardized to the same units in the top row, and how they compare to body mass in the bottom row.
We already knew from http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/coyle.png that total volume of O2 consumed at LT (i.e., VO2LT) is pretty closely related to 1-hour power. An issue for exercise physiologists is that VO2LT (in l/min) tends to be correlated with body mass: bigger guys tend to use more O2. That's what the bottom left panel shows. A common approach is to "factor out" the thing that the variable of interest varies by. That's why VO2Max is generally quoted in terms of ml/kg/min: it's been mass standardized. The problem with this can be seen in the lower right panel: mass-standardized VO2Max *still* depends on mass, but now in the opposite direction. Dividing by mass overcorrects. This is why VO2Max, measured in ml/kg/min, is so poorly correlated with hour power. When Vayer says that it takes a VO2Max of 89 in order to produce 450 watts, he ignores all of this. He just wants to say that it isn't humanly possible for someone with a VO2Max of 82 to produce 450 watts.
I just read Wilcokson's book on the 2004 TdF. In it he relates an interesting story about one of lance's first visit's to ride with national team guys. I paraphrase...Carmichael relates that he told lance to go ahead and ride with the senior team guys, and lance says "what if they can't hold my wheel". carmichael looks to him to see if he's joking and lance seems serious, so he asks, incredulously "what do you mean!?" "I mean, what if they can't hold my wheel?" so carmichael sends lance out and sure enough, they _can't_ hold his wheel.
I'm sure there are lots of stories of amazing feats (like being the youngerst world chmapion in modern times) that lance pulled off, before he "came out of nowhere" as some like to portray.
Tom Kunich said:
It is interesting to note that throughout his entire career including a triathlete in his school days people have been marveling at Lance's high power output.
I use my AMD for time travel and frying my panache
you should fry panache at about 461 watts.
it should take about 36 minutes.
Are you kidding me? You want to sear panache, not fry it. And not in some non-stick pan, either. It's way too hard to make a good sauce in a non-stick pan.
no substitute for a good lemon juice, garlic, olive oil marinade and grilling over very hot real wood charcoale embers.
