An article of some interest:
http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/What%20Makes%20Lance%20Armstrong%20So%20Good.htm
I remember when the “SRM” was new, Lemond critisized Motorola and Armstrong for not using it after they had it on test for a year. He said something like: “If only I had one of these when I was younger”. He also went on about how loosing three kilos would set him up for a great comeback.
This is really common knowledge in the cycling world. When Riis got his breakthrough all he talked about was how he had shed several kilos and still managed to increase his power output.
The funny thing is that in this age when European stage race cyclists are second rate, the know-how is European and predominantly Italian. Conconni and Moser, Ferrari and Rominger, Checchini and Riis, Ferrari and Armstrong.
Here is a link to a TV show called “The Science of Lance Armstrong.” I rather enjoyed it. In fact, I almost gave up ultimate fighting to persue cycling.
Regarding the article, my source in the cycling world tells me that Coyle’s analysis have been “ripped apart even by the most nationalistic of americans”. Nothing more concrete and no links to show. Just thought I would mention it.
FWIW, Lance himself has said that his improvement was partly because his upper body simply didn’t regain much size after his recovery. He also says he became more serious about training.
Interesting article. It seems a little too simple though. Pretty much every sport is using those types of training and usually the europeans are farther ahead than those in North America.
He is VERY motivated by bad press, rivals etc
He is an extremely motivated person full stop, was right from start of adolescence, maybe earlier. Check out ‘It’s not about the bike’ and you can see why.
Going to see a presentation on this very topic tomorrow at the BASES conference. I’ll update you later. TC
I have read a few racing books - the best is probably ‘A rough ride’ by Paul Kimmage but a very close second is a book by Daniel Coyle on Lance Armstrong … check it out.
A few comments on the original post by Ed Coyle himself -and Andy Jones on Paula Radcliffe.
These were just observations that were made in the lab during this time; the lab team had nothing to do with his training.
Lance believes that after his treatment, his whole body changed for the better; Coyle doesn’t believe that, or at least he has no data to support it in any way.
Despite the “revelation” about his eventually superior efficiency (Watts/kg), the order should still be the development of VO2max -as it sets your upper limit, as stated towards the end of the article and in comparison with “normal” individuals- and lactate threshold, as an improved ability to exercise at a greater intensity before an acidic environment develops. The fact that these are perhaps getting less attention simply states that they were already there in Lance’s case and less of their importance in enduranced events.
Similar was/is the case throughout the years for Paula Radcliffe, who managed to get her lactate threshold to 18.5 km.h-1 eventually, but who had a very good VO2max, since she was very young. In her case, the efficiency is demonstrated by her improved velocity at VO2max (vVO2max), which has reached a level of 21-22 km.h-1, if I am not mistaken and which is greater percentage-wise compared to that by Lance -the difference in events might play a role here. Also, as another measure of this parameter, her efficiency measured as ml.kg-1.km-1 (at the fixed speed of 16km.h-1, I think) has also improved dramatically reaching values of 170-180 -a huge improvement when someone considers that an average value is around 200 and if you start getting <190mk.kg-1.km-1, you start getting noticed.
The fact that high VO2max and LT values are required does not necessarily mean -in my opinion- that their training has been based on these parameters; these might well be physiological observations as a result of their training and not the other way round.
Throughout the years Lance’s cadence has also increased -from ~80 to >100rpm; although this is an apparent contradiction -the higher the cadence, the less the efficiency- this hasn’t worked actually this way for Lance. The reason for this is not clear; most probably Lance’s current rpm corresponds to that of ~80rpm of his previous physiological state, but with the same efficiency. Also, whether this means a transformation of muscle fibres, or indeed a change in their characteristics (e.g., contractility) is not clear.
Having said that it should be noted that Lance from an early age and through his different event-careers (i.e., swimming, triathlon and cycling eventually) regarded interval training as the only/natural way to “do things” and improve himself; the latter might relate to the paragraph above…
In terms of his strength and according to M. Stone, Lance does not perform low reps/high intensity in the weight room, but rather the other way round during the rather limited time he spends in the gym for this purpose; most of his strength as per the article is attributed to his interval/hill training.
Lastly, according to both exercise physiologists the determination and descipline of both athletes was/is superb! There have been two guys training with Lance with the same and even better physiological potential, but they couldn’t meet so much success…
Hope these are of some interest!
Comments/thoughts?
Nick you beat me to it! But you have a better understanding of all this endurance stuff so I’ll let you off!
Some more information from my notes:
Lance Armstrong
Between 1992(?) and 1999 his VO2Max stayed the same. His mechanical efficiency rose by 3% which resulted in an 8% improvement in real terms over the period. It was proposed that the efficiency may have also be caused by greater power output from ATP because less is transformed into heat as he becomes more efficient.
During the 7 year period Lances bodyweight dropped considerably (I think some 7Kg) which lead to a Watts/Kg improvement of 18% when combined with his improvements in mechanical efficiency. Apparently he was able to drop weight by going on a calorie controlled diet while still training intensley (!?).
Paula Radcliff
Performed poorly at 18 perhaps due to a iron deficiency (but i also suspect becuase of her first year at Loughborough - where everyone performs badly due to the combined increase in training intensity and volume coupled with the change of environment).
Over the next 10 or so years her efficiency improved linearly and from lab tests they could predict to within 0.4% the times she was capable of running (which she often beat).
Her decision to run the 10,000m in Helsinki was due to the fact that 1 week before the games she ran her “10,000m tester session” in a new PB. This session consists of 400m fast/400m easy. 300mF/300mE, 200mF/200mE, 100mF/100mE. From this they predicted she was in 30min shape. This explains her very positive interview getting off the plane in Helsinki.
The explanation for not winning was that the wind slowed her down so much that she couldn’t break away from the pack (who wouldn’t be able to keep up with the pace). Also the slip stream she created by being a front runner helped the other athletes, who were relativly fresh due to the slower pace, to conserve energy and burn her off at the end of the race.
Nick please correct me in any of this.
TC
This is not difficult for endurance athletes. Anything remotely resembling a sensible diet will let you lose a pound a week while training normally, careful control will push this up to about 2 pounds a week (though you then need to be careful with eating while training et cetera). You burn a lot of fat doing your normal training, and you simply don’t eat enough to replace it all. Many endurance athletes will weigh significantly more off-season than in race season; 7kg over race weight would be high but not exceptionally so for off-season weight.
Most of the point is that Armstrong lost a lot of muscle which wasn’t any use to him on the bike; this is less easy. Cancer works, of course, the normal option is to go to unpleasantly low body fat levels and become miserable for a few months while losing muscle.
How do you know he lost muscle and not fat - do you have access to his body composition measurements - if so please post them. By the way the exclamation marks weren’t suggesting that it was hard to loose bodyweight just that there are other ways to loose it other than a calorie controlled diet…
[QUOTE=tc0710]How do you know he lost muscle and not fat - do you have access to his body composition measurements - if so please post them.QUOTE]
I would say that in Armstrongs case this could be seen by the naked eye. That upper body of his really used to show his background as a triathlete
Good point, i forgot that!
Metabolic clues regarding the enhanced performance of elite endurance athletes from orchiectomy-induced hormonal changes
Craig S. Atwooda, b, c, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Richard L. Bowend
aSection of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Veterans Administration Hospital, Madison, WI 53705, USA
bInstitute of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
cCentre for Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease, School of Biomedical and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
dOTB Research, Raleigh, NC 27615, USA
Received 15 August 2006; accepted 16 August 2006. Available online 13 November 2006.
Summary
This article examines the metabolic performance of an elite cyclist, Lance Armstrong, before and after his diagnosis with testicular cancer. Although a champion cyclist in 1-day events prior to his diagnosis of testicular cancer at age 25, he was not a contender in multi-day endurance cycle races such as the 3-week Tour de France. His genetic makeup and physiology (high Click to view the MathML source, long femur, strong heavy build) coupled with his ambition and motivation enabled him at an early age to become one of the best 1-day cyclists in the world. Following his cancer diagnosis, he underwent a unilateral orchiectomy, brain surgery and four cycles of chemotherapy. After recovering, he returned to cycling and surprisingly excelled in the Tour de France, winning this hardest of endurance events 7 years running. This dramatic transformation from a 1-day to a 3-week endurance champion has led many to query how this is possible, and under the current climate, has led to suggestions of doping as to the answer to this metamorphosis. Physiological tests following his recovery indicated that physiological parameters such as Click to view the MathML source were not affected by the unilateral orchiectomy and chemotherapy. We propose that his dramatic improvement in recovery between stages, the most important factor in winning multi-day stage races, is due to his unilateral orchiectomy, a procedure that results in permanent changes in serum hormones. These hormonal changes, specifically an increase in gonadotropins (and prolactin) required to maintain serum testosterone levels, alter fuel metabolism; increasing hormone sensitive lipase expression and activity, promoting increased free fatty acid (FFA) mobilization to, and utilization by, muscles, thereby decreasing the requirement to expend limiting glycogen stores before, during and after exercise. Such hormonal changes also have been associated with ketone body production, improvements in muscle repair and haematocrit levels and may facilitate the loss of body weight, thereby increasing power to weight ratio. Taken together, these hormonal changes act to limit glycogen utilization, delay fatigue and enhance recovery thereby allowing for optimal performances on a day-to-day basis. These insights provide the foundation for future studies on the endocrinology of exercise metabolism, and suggest that Lance Armstrong’s athletic advantage was not due to drug use.
Abbreviations: LH, luteinzing hormone; hCG, human chorionic gonadotropin; FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; FFA, free fatty acid; HSL, hormone-sensitive lipase; Click to view the MathML source, maximum oxygen uptake, ml/kg; LDL, low density lipoprotein; HDL, high density lipoprotein; AMP, adenosine monophosphate; VLDL, very low density lipoprotein; ATP, adenosine triphosphate; HPG, hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal; DNF, did not finish
Corresponding Author Contact InformationCorresponding author. Address: University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Medicine and Public Health, Wm. S. Middleton Memorial VA (GRECC 11G), 2500 Overlook Terrace, Madison, WI 53705, USA. Tel.: +1 608 256 1901x11664; fax: +1 608 280 7291.
Sorry, I’m no MD, but what does:
“required to maintain serum testosterone levels” exactly mean?
To put it in very simple words: Did cutting off one of his balls alone turn him into a endurance-master or did he get “medical supply” such as hormons that boosted his performance?
The second might turn this thread into a forbidden direction…
And I thought Tommy John surgery was tough :eek: