LeMond on radio, some month ago but interesting Options

[floyd]

These myths about training methods die hard. We're talking 25% differences here.

Twenty-five percent.

That is astounding, and no rational comparison is possible, so in a way you're right. But it's got little to do with training improvements.

I know a little about cycling and since I am sitting here waiting for my hip to recover, I have enjoyed reading all of your posts. I was offended now and then but my skin has grown thicker and I can even laugh at some of the smart ass comments regarding my situation. Having said that, I would like to know where we've gotten the data and how we've done the math to get to 25%. LeMond says that 420 watts was normal for him, but, having trained and raced with Lance and having been looking at thest numbers for 10 years, I am sure that that would put him at a higher power/weight than Lance himself. Furthermore, Lance and Pantani hold the record up Alp D'Huez whereas the time of myself and Kloden would have put us in 11th place the year Pantini set that record. I would like to know where the mistake comes in the 25% calculation.
I am a reasonable guy and don't mind people having different views of my situation so please be respectful and I will stay.

[jr.]

The top nos. tracked in the scientific research for epo have been at ten percent, with properly administered iron shots (pills only get you 4-6%) and supplements to boost the effectiveness of the epo. The steroids were around in Lemonds time, so that's not a new factor.

Lemond claims he could hit 420 at the end of his career, higher than the kinds of nos. published in the article Zarathustra had for the 80's, and for the sake of argument we concede he wasn't taking drugs. Supposedly at that point he is also suffering from the muscular disorder that ends his career so it must have been a limiting factor. And he most definitely was having weight problems in off season, he alluded to them himself in some interviews done at the time. Armstrongs nos. were usually somewhere near 470-490 for sustainable effort with a burst per the Dan Coyle book. Most times the team strategy was set up so that he would need that level of effort for only about 4-5 days out of the tour. And he rode a limited race schedule so he didn't need extensive recovery periods and the ability to peak several times in a season. Lemond raced a full schedule and rarely had anything approaching the Postal/Disco support where the team rode to protect him from effort. And Lemond proved that technology makes a difference, so I can't see calling it bs. The race radios alone mean that people don't have to spend effort to the same degree as when you don't know who's gone and how far ahead they are. A couple percentage points here and there, and suddenly LA's nos. aren't that different from what Lemond could accomplish given the same advantages.

I have no idea if the pedalling cadence change allowed LA to sustain higher power longer, there doesn't seem to be a lot of published science on the issue. I also don't know if the lactate level makes a difference, it may not be true, but if you feel less pain, it appeals to common sense that you can keep going harder for longer.

I am also impressed with the research coming out on short intense work on Vo2max, it seems to have a quick and significant effect. Properly used it seems to have a couple percentage point difference. So I really don't think training is bs. I think its only part of the equation, but a real part.

[OAR]

I'll throw this out just for discussion sake, but first a disclaimer- I'm not by any stretch of the imagination saying doping has not played a role in improved performances but a lot of other factors have played a role. Puerto and Festina have definitely shown that.

Comapring wattage at the end of a stage between two eras is a little or a lot sketchy.

Best comparison would be at rest, or after equal efforts.

1) I would be very interested in how much Lemond weighed during his heyday and what his body fat was- compared to current tour contenders. A lot of tour contenders today look much more guant. I mean a real objective measure but unfortunately you won't find this as techniques vary. Also the bikes are much lighter and more effecient so they arrive at the final climb with more left. see next.

2) I get the impression riders are arrivng at the last climb much more rested. In the past the leaders would break away early in a mountain stage while today teams protect leaders until the end.

3) Training and nutrition has improved significantly - all those gels do help in race. Even Lemond who was more specific in training than others trained more by feel. Now with power meters and Lactate monitoring you can really fine tune things. Also Lemond did not train year round like some today. Especialy post 89 he would show up in the spring in Ullrich like dimensions.

Greg was one of my heroes and to this day may have been one of the most naturally gifted riders. However it is really hard to compare eras.

I wanted to say this last night but was caught up drinking some nice Belgium triple Ale.

I am not saying that Lemond is wrong or that he is 100% correct. To give him the respect that he deserves and has earned would be an understatement. Hell the guy got me hooked on cycling so I can not just denounce him. (Greg will allways be the person I credit for the cycling feever I have.) The troulbe that I have is (and this is only my opinion) that the majority on this board like to use his words against Armstrong even if he does not mention the guys name.

Let’s compare two sports one where I have a lot of experience both competing in and coaching part time (Long Distance Running). In running say in the 80’s we were taught many different things which would improve our racing. But back in those days only the best were to move forward say from High School to College and beyond. Now you can basically take a person who was considered mediocre during my High School and Colligate days and turn that person into a competitive runner.

Of course the upper limits are still beyond reach but my point would be that training techniques have changed and become much more refined and focused. I was told in college in the late 80’s that we needed to just put in long miles and speed work. If we were working on base it was around 60 to 70 miles a week. Now in today’s times I would not even approach the sport with that type of advice. Of course it is basically down to how many miles you put on the road which will ultimately determine your performance but the focused runs are much more thought out in today’s running world. The FOCUSED TRAINING for marathons / 10k’s / half marathons is much more specific and tuned for the primary goal. Very much different than when I started in the sport.

So my point is that maybe some of these guys focus purely on the TDF training and nothing else which would better describe why certain outputs would differ from earlier days.

[one-mint-julich]

"I know a little about cycling and since I am sitting here waiting for my hip to recover, I have enjoyed reading all of your posts. I was offended now and then but my skin has grown thicker and I can even laugh at some of the smart ass comments regarding my situation. Having said that, I would like to know where we've gotten the data and how we've done the math to get to 25%. LeMond says that 420 watts was normal for him, but, having trained and raced with Lance and having been looking at thest numbers for 10 years, I am sure that that would put him at a higher power/weight than Lance himself. Furthermore, Lance and Pantani hold the record up Alp D'Huez whereas the time of myself and Kloden would have put us in 11th place the year Pantini set that record. I would like to know where the mistake comes in the 25% calculation.
I am a reasonable guy and don't mind people having different views of my situation so please be respectful and I will stay."

I believe the 25% figure comes from a French website, the link to which was posted on a thread here about a month or so ago. One thing I noticed about that article was that though they published watts values (estimated from the known times up climbs of known distances and average grades) they were in effect watts/weight values. That can be seen, e.g., in that Lance and Val are given the same value on Courchavel in 2005, where they finished together. Unless they weighed essentially the same (?), their making that climb with identical times would indicate different watts values. Climbing at the same speed means having the same watts/kg. value, and given some weight difference, the total watts values would differ.

So while figures like 420 watts and so on were furnished in that article, it's pretty clear they were normalized. In other words, they took the watts/kg values, which could be determined from the time taken to make the climb, and multiplied by some arbitrary but consistent weight. So a 420 value for Greg would represent a lower power/weight ratio than the 440-450 that Lance achieved (as I recall). But in fact, as I also recall, Greg's values as estimated in that article were not 420, but more like 350, as were other best times in the 80s. That's how the 25% difference was determined: 350 vs. 440 or so.

"my skin has grown thicker"

If you have just come out of an operation, that phrase has a double meaning!

[S0B]

hey floyd good luck and recovery with your hip and overall

hope to see you riding again

[floyd]

"I know a little about cycling and since I am sitting here waiting for my hip to recover, I have enjoyed reading all of your posts. I was offended now and then but my skin has grown thicker and I can even laugh at some of the smart ass comments regarding my situation. Having said that, I would like to know where we've gotten the data and how we've done the math to get to 25%. LeMond says that 420 watts was normal for him, but, having trained and raced with Lance and having been looking at thest numbers for 10 years, I am sure that that would put him at a higher power/weight than Lance himself. Furthermore, Lance and Pantani hold the record up Alp D'Huez whereas the time of myself and Kloden would have put us in 11th place the year Pantini set that record. I would like to know where the mistake comes in the 25% calculation.
I am a reasonable guy and don't mind people having different views of my situation so please be respectful and I will stay."

I believe the 25% figure comes from a French website, the link to which was posted on a thread here about a month or so ago. One thing I noticed about that article was that though they published watts values (estimated from the known times up climbs of known distances and average grades) they were in effect watts/weight values. That can be seen, e.g., in that Lance and Val are given the same value on Courchavel in 2005, where they finished together. Unless they weighed essentially the same (?), their making that climb with identical times would indicate different watts values. Climbing at the same speed means having the same watts/kg. value, and given some weight difference, the total watts values would differ.
So while figures like 420 watts and so on were furnished in that article, it's pretty clear they were normalized. In other words, they took the watts/kg values, which could be determined from the time taken to make the climb, and multiplied by some arbitrary but consistent weight. So a 420 value for Greg would represent a lower power/weight ratio than the 440-450 that Lance achieved (as I recall). But in fact, as I also recall, Greg's values as estimated in that article were not 420, but more like 350, as were other best times in the 80s. That's how the 25% difference was determined: 350 vs. 440 or so.

"my skin has grown thicker"

If you have just come out of an operation, that phrase has a double meaning!

You got me on the "thick Skin" comment, I have also gained a few kilos since the tour, please don't go into detail on that.
On the subject of watts, I know for sure that very little of the data provided to the public is "actual", and the estimated values are often far from acurate. Keep in mind that it only takes 7 watts to gain more than 1 minute on alp d,huez, that is why I can't understand things like 25% differences. However, I can only speak for me and what I have seen, I don't know about LeMonds era.

hey floyd good luck and recovery with your hip and overall

hope to see you riding again

Thank you, these forums are a good substitution but I can't wait to ride again.

[DPCandND]

These myths about training methods die hard. We're talking 25% differences here.

Twenty-five percent.

That is astounding, and no rational comparison is possible, so in a way you're right. But it's got little to do with training improvements.

ZD, but what about "Training", along with diet, rest, equipment, road conditions, team support, meters/computers/radios of all sorts, race schedules (limited calendars), aerodynamic clothing, for pete's sake! Seems like a lot of stuff has coalesced since "the day", doesn't it?

I liked GL's comment about recreational drugs...in effect...that those are personal choices that don't hurt the competition or athlete, unless, of course, drunk driving is involved or putting others at risk...

[zekeydekey]

ZD, but what about "Training", along with diet, rest, equipment, road conditions, team support, meters/computers/radios of all sorts, race schedules (limited calendars), aerodynamic clothing, for pete's sake! Seems like a lot of stuff has coalesced since "the day", doesn't it?

Sure, things should be a little bit faster now with the natural progression of technology and training. What do you figure? I think the most generous estimate would have to be well under 10% improvement, and frankly even that would sound fishy. How much did things change in the 15-20 years before his era? Remember, the 80's saw radical improvements in technology and training, much more dramatic than the intervening years since have seen.

I don't think road conditions or rest are any different, nor do I think clothing has anything to do with peak power.

[rational head]

....snip...
On the subject of watts, I know for sure that very little of the data provided to the public is "actual", and the estimated values are often far from acurate.
.............snip........

Hey, Floyd. I followed your wattages in the Tour as was reported by Lim. Followed religiously.

Is your comment above applicable to his reports as well?
It was not real? I'm just asking, no sarcasm intended.

I'm quite well versed in the subject of wattages and would be curious...

[one-mint-julich]

Here is the link:

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500

[Bjørn P.Dal]

That was an interesting listen, Lemond FTW! *puts on his Z jersey*

[DPCandND]

Sure, things should be a little bit faster now with the natural progression of technology and training. What do you figure? I think the most generous estimate would have to be well under 10% improvement, and frankly even that would sound fishy. How much did things change in the 15-20 years before his era? Remember, the 80's saw radical improvements in technology and training, much more dramatic than the intervening years since have seen.

I don't think road conditions or rest are any different, nor do I think clothing has anything to do with peak power.

ZD..thanks for the reply...I like the discussion.

A couple of points...
1) The road conditions are WAY different... Freshly surfaced roads (at least every year or so) for the classics and for the GT's, are pretty norm, at least for the notable stages. When I rode in Europe (granted, a long time ago---late 80's) the roads were terrible most of the time...I mean, we needed 450 gram rims and 32 holes minimum for the rims, and CG Pave tires or at least 275 gram tires most of the time. If one were using 230-250 gram tires, one was 'asking' for punctures. Clothing makes a big difference now too, with comfort and retained energy...a rider can then give big maximum efforts at certain times.
2) All the rest of the 'improvements' or 'changes' simply make it less stressful for the rider, especially when a rider's calendar is set up to have to focus on a single event. He can take weeks off, and then focus/plan/focus. That is surely an opportunity to deliver higher power for a specific day or days.

And the wattage results that I see don't indicate 25% increases! I just don't see it...maybe I need to look somewhere else...I don't believe just 'reading' that certain power outputs are possible...what I want to see is what is recorded. What I actually see is 5-10% increases...at max. I know that riders used to get up to a limit of 400 watts output...on the long climbs...I just don't see 500 watts being reported anywhere....the times are faster...the average speed is faster, yes, but with far greater support and systems, this seems to be logical. I guess I see the rides and results as noteworthy, but expected.

[rational head]

Here is the link:

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500

I read that article and actually I was so unimpressed with it that I felt like sparing my comments. Those estimates are too wide off the mark in my opinion. No specific conclusions should be drawn.

[zarathustra]

ZD..thanks for the reply...I like the discussion.

A couple of points...
1) The road conditions are WAY different... Freshly surfaced roads (at least every year or so) for the classics and for the GT's, are pretty norm, at least for the notable stages. When I rode in Europe (granted, a long time ago---late 80's) the roads were terrible most of the time...I mean, we needed 450 gram rims and 32 holes minimum for the rims, and CG Pave tires or at least 275 gram tires most of the time. If one were using 230-250 gram tires, one was 'asking' for punctures. Clothing makes a big difference now too, with comfort and retained energy...a rider can then give big maximum efforts at certain times.
2) All the rest of the 'improvements' or 'changes' simply make it less stressful for the rider, especially when a rider's calendar is set up to have to focus on a single event. He can take weeks off, and then focus/plan/focus. That is surely an opportunity to deliver higher power for a specific day or days.

And the wattage results that I see don't indicate 25% increases! I just don't see it...maybe I need to look somewhere else...I don't believe just 'reading' that certain power outputs are possible...what I want to see is what is recorded. What I actually see is 5-10% increases...at max. I know that riders used to get up to a limit of 400 watts output...on the long climbs...I just don't see 500 watts being reported anywhere....the times are faster...the average speed is faster, yes, but with far greater support and systems, this seems to be logical. I guess I see the rides and results as noteworthy, but expected.

480 Watt seems to be the high score. From Riis 96 at Hautacam.
I think it`s no question that PEDs were the main reason why there was such a big improvement only 6 years after LeMond`s last Tour win.

[ChrisH]

@OMJ
I have Grappe's articles from 2001. A "phillipeC" provided the translations. Like you said, much of the theory rests on the estimate of the rider's mass. I've always called for transparency in rider stats. I haven't read Grappe's current article. Perhaps he (or Lemond) is unaware that Landis became dedicated to the science for the 2005 season. IIRC, Lim posted Landis and Zabriskie's stats at bicycling.com during last year's Tour too. They calculated what numbers were needed to win the Tour and worked towards reaching those levels. (However, Landis didn't seem to take the nutrition aspect as seriously as Armstrong did. Perhaps I'll move this post to the other topic.)

[floyd]

Hey, Floyd. I followed your wattages in the Tour as was reported by Lim. Followed religiously.

Is your comment above applicable to his reports as well?
It was not real? I'm just asking, no sarcasm intended.

I'm quite well versed in the subject of wattages and would be curious...

I was refering to the numbers which are calculated by "experts" based on what they know about; times, vam, published rider info, previous numbers for same climbs. They do the best they can with what they have but from the experiences of Alan and I they are often many percentage points off, or enough to drastically change the results of the race. There are too many variables such as the fact that often a rider weighs as much as two kilos less than when the stage began, or wind conditions, or the often overlooked effect of high temperatures. I too find the calculations of others interesting but from a point of view of trying to find from where the miscalculations came rather than taking them as acurate (I have the luxury the real data). Again they are often close but 3 watts is 30 seconds on alp d'huez.

[one-mint-julich]

"There are too many variables such as the fact that often a rider weighs as much as two kilos less than when the stage began, or wind conditions, or the often overlooked effect of high temperatures."

I agree with all that, but those are all factors that should average out in a large pool of data. So while it might very well be misleading to compare a particular rider at one time with a particular rider at another, if you take a number of riders in one era and compare them with a number of riders in another era, I would think the averages would be meaningful.

(Edit: weight loss doesn't matter, because they calculated watts/kg., even if the data were expressed as watts. If the rider weighed less than was actually thought, it just means his total watts was actually less, but that parameter was not addressed in this study, as I understand it).

Of course, there are still other factors, mentioned in this thread, that aren't random--technology, tactics (perhaps today's riders are protected more up to the final climb), maybe road surfaces. And what you say about watts vs. time is salient. A 25% greater power output translates into a huge time difference. The data in that link don't show that very well, because the really big differences are calculated from different climbs. When data from the same climb, such as A.H., are shown, the power differences, though certainly significant, are not huge.

P.S. - Give Z my congrats for his awesome ride in the Worlds. Maybe the bum can afford his own apartment now, and stop mooching off you.

This post has been edited by one-mint-julich: Oct 6 2006, 07:18 PM

[shag]

Again they are often close but 3 watts is 30 seconds on alp d'huez.

Is this right? If so, that is staggering. And is it linear? If I can put out 320 watts for an ascent of ADH and a pro (of my weight) can put out 420, he's going to beat me to the top by 16:30? I guess maybe that's not too far off?

[zarathustra]

I too find the calculations of others interesting but from a point of view of trying to find from where the miscalculations came rather than taking them as acurate (I have the luxury the real data). Again they are often close but 3 watts is 30 seconds on alp d'huez.

well, I think 3 Watts is only 15 seconds on Alpe d`Huez. And what is the real data ? I mean, isn`t the Watt data on Power tap always 2 or 3 percent lower than SRM ?

[floyd]

Is this right? If so, that is staggering. And is it linear? If I can put out 320 watts for an ascent of ADH and a pro (of my weight) can put out 420, he's going to beat me to the top by 16:30? I guess maybe that's not too far off?

It is much more complicated than that, power relates to time as a curve and not a straight line. But, yes, at the 6 to 7 watts/kilo level that would be the difference.