I'm taller than Lance by a couple to a few inches, race at about 160, and at that weight I look obese compared to Lance in 1999. I don't think he raced at 79kg that year or any since.
OK, serious LA question.....(was this part of the myth correct?)
For disclosure purposes, I am a partner in November Bicycles. This fact probably colors everything I say. I'm clearly not to be trusted.
Lance is listed at 5'9" 1/2.
I'm 6', 165 right now, around 9% body fat, and I also look obese compared to him in the 1999 tour. There's no way he raced at 175lbs (79.5kg). I might believe he weighed close to 175 in the other old pic CK posted above.
Armstrong's so-called "coach", Chris Carmichael, never published authentic data about his client's weight and power ratios during his career.
The numbers that made it to onto the public sphere were all bullshit. I have no idea if any numbers on his weight were published by the people who do the medical check-ups prior to the Tour, but maybe those numbers would help. At least we would know what he weighed before riding each of his Tours.
All we have are photos of a diesel Armstrong from 1996 when he was on a hardcore Ferrari steroid program, where he was obviously bloated from all the testosterone and HgH.
We can't use those photos to compare what his weight might have been pre-and post cancer exactly for that reason.
Cerv......more evidence than you do looking at photos and reaching conclusions. LA's racing weight in 1993 around the time he won the World's was 75.1 kg. During Lance's sworn testimony to the tribunal he even admitted that he would be happy if he could start a Tour at 72 or 72.5 kg. But he stated that he would be happy if it was in the low 74's (post cancer.
You guys seem to want to kill each other over the weight issue, but are missing the central point - what caused the change from a Classics rider to a GT contender?
he was doping pre-cancer with the same drugs he used post-cancer, including EPO (see the Andreus testimony for starters). So it isn't like he suddenly started using EPO and that transformed him....so what did?Just say "NO!!" to WCP!
"Want to get faster? Work harder, eat better, cut the crap. Instead of talking the talk, work the work"
See the currently nearby "leg speed and watts" thread. PlanB reminds us that spinning is more efficient than mashing ( at least in theory). I don't know if Carmichael gets the credit, but Lance did become more of a spinner, and GT racing is surely about efficiency. Improved doping and a strong team, and focusing on only the Tour had to help, tool.
@cosmic....the same thing that turned a nobody like Bjarne Rijs into a tour winner.
His training and doping regime is what changed. He started traing to ride stage races and doped to ride stage races.Cheers...Daryl LeBlanc
-Life is too important to be taken seriously- Oscar Wilde
Berzin, fair answer. (as if Charmichael even knew any of that data anyway)
I still think the pictures are the best evidence I've seen, and obviously no real conclusions can be drawn from them alone.
Sustanon. Now it's gone from 79.7kg in November 1999 to happy with 72.5kg "sworn testimony to the tribunal" to start a tour. That's 16lbs difference.
Do you have any links to any of those weights you reference? I welcome conclusive proof to put my mind at ease.
To be clear, I'm not stating anything as fact. Just a guy looking at some pictures that make me skeptical of the "weight never changed" story.
Here's a link saying he weighs 156lbs. http://www.usacycling.org/lance-armstrong.htm
Um, no. That would have been EPO and we already know that he was on taking EPO pre-cancer.
@cosmic....the same thing that turned a nobody like Bjarne Rijs into a tour winner.
The weight issue would be part of the point in that it goes against the party line for many that it was nothing BUT the drugs that made him a GT contender.
None of the other training methods made a difference, higher cadence didn't matter, the weight loss didn't exist. His obsession with technology and every other little detail to make minute improvements amounted to nothing. It was just drugs.
Yes, Lance was working with Dr Ferarri and using Peds pre-cancer. Yes, Lance started his 1st TdF as a neo-pro - unlike ALL the 5 time winners or 3 time winners.
There is also a story that dr ferarri toned DOWN the peds post-cancer just to be safer. Probably true.
So what WAS different post cancer besides one less ball? LOTS of stuff...
Look, the hardest time to write history is right after it happens. In 40 years the PED part of the equation will NOT be the important part of the Lance awesomeness - hard for a lot of you to grasp right now granted.
Good summary Polish.
Better get your fill of hating haters cuz history won't be as much fun.
Cosmic Kid-your question is valid. We can only make assumptions at this time, but I believe Ferrari had Armstrong on a "Classics" program, where brute strength is essentail-lots of testosterone, HgH and cortisone, the combination of the last two which has a tendency to give abusers a bloated appearance. Looking bloated from PED abuse is different than actual weight gain.
Notice the change in physique between his second place in Liege in 1994 and his Fleche Wallone win in 1996. You can see the difference a more aggressive steroid program made in his physique.
He supposedly stopped using HgH when he came back in 1998. Still in all, whatever weight loss occurred post-cancer was minimal, and would not have accounted for his magical climbing prowess. Neither would the "higher cadence" myth. Neither alters an athlete's VO2 max.
The other issue is how cancer supposedly "altered" his physique. Funny how he's the first and only person in history to undergo chemotherapy and his body is stripped of whatever little fat he possessed pre-cancer but left him with all of his strength intact.
That is just pure baloney, straight out of the Oscar Mayer catalogue of fine deli meats.
What caused the change from Classics rider to tour contender was better doping. There is no way he kept the same power output while dropping 15-20 pounds. He was an elite athlete at the time he got sick so the majority of that weight loss was muscle. You don't lose a big chunk of muscle and keep the same power unless you are on Ferrari's preferred provider account."There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance the next time."
Makes you wonder why the rest of the peloton didn't opt for chemotherapy to "alter ones physique" and adopting a "revolutionary never observed before" high cadence pedaling style. What a farce.
Berzin, I hear what you are saying, but one thing I need to point out - weight loss may not affect VO2 max, but it sure affects watts / kg, which is a much more reliable indicator of performance. VO2 max is just potential, watts / kg is performance.
My first reaction re: a "classics" vs "GT" doping program is skepticism, but I guess I gotta chew that for a while. Bt the fact remains that he was on EPO per-cancer and he was not a GT contender.
@Cosmic Kid-it wasn't just the EPO. Remember that Riis wasn't just using EPO when he won his Tour but also had three blood transfusions administered during those three weeks.
We don't know what Armstrong's doping program was in full detail. We may never know. But from the evidence, the only thing that made his tour assault possible was a combination of many things, and of those things that made his now-stripped wins possible, higher cadence and weight loss are way down on the list.
Rijs is the one who introduced Hamilton to the art of blood doping, and look at his results. Read the book instead of relying on the "interwebs".
Sustanon, I would suggest you re-read the book. Ty-Ty repeatedly emphasized that BB's were not as effective as EPO, but were necessary because of the new EPO test. BB's were not a "magic bullet" by any stretch.
Correct, but why, as a veteran EPO user, was Rijs blood doping during the EPO era when there was no test for EPO? He didn't do it to cure saddle sores or because of his fascination with hematology.
I think it was a combo of the weight loss, cadence change, drugs and blood doping for recovery during the tour.
His teammates stated (Heras or Rubiera) that his training was as hard as the race and they could not sustain those miles.
You start with a 12 cylinder engine car make it lighter, give it high octane fuel and improve it.
He already had the big genetic motor.
I saw him at leadville MTB a couple times he looked about 155 lbs..
It is always hard to believe the listed weights and find out if they were during off season or in.
Maybe his new book will reveal more and give power to weight numbers like Tyler did.
Just speculating on the new book.
I have no idea....to be honest, i was not aware that Riis blood doped, as well.
I'm just curious as to what specifically caused the transformation for LA. Many would have had you believe before this week that it was all dope, but that clearly wasn't the case.
Was it a combination if a different regimen, training protocols, etc? Fook if I know.....but it is a pretty damn interesting question.
VO2max is totally weight dependent. The numbers you typically see (75,85, 92, etc) are in ml/min/kg. You lose weight, that number goes up, just like power to weight goes up if you lose weight.
The VO2max number that IS a constant is usually given in L/min absolute oxygen intake. That number does not change with weight.
Example. (and I'm making these nummbers up) If Armstrong tested at 72ml/kg/min at 75kg in the off season, that means he had an absolute of 72*75=5400mL/min=5.4L/min.
If he then lost 5kg his new Vo2max would be 5.4L=5400ml/70kg=77ml/min/kg
VO2max is most commonly expressed as a relative metric with units ml O2/min/ kg. If someone loses weight, their VO2max will increase. This is the unit LA's PR claimed was something like 83 (high, but not spectacular among top male pro cycists).
VO2, expressed as L02/min, is an absolute value and generally doesn't change.
You must log in to post.