Redgrave's VO2max?
KC
considering his great success. I think I read it was around 6.3 L/min.
I think he was around 100kg when in peak condition, which would give a
specific VO2max of around 63 ml/min/kg.
Can anyone corroborate these numbers? I tried a google search but
couldn't find anything.
Don't get me wrong, I know anything over 6L/min is respectable and
all... I just thought it a little low considering Redgrave's
capabilities on the water and on the erg (speaking of ergs, anyone know
what Sir Steve pulled for 2k?)
I actually was hoping to use it as an example that just having an
amazing VO2max doesn't guarantee success, and having less than the best
VO2 numbers doesn't mean you can't be successful.
I'd also be interested in numbers (2k erg and/or VO2max) for any other
famous rowers.
-Kieran
Emily
6.5 litres, Pinsent's 8.5 and Pete Reed's is 9.38 as tested earlier
this year (I think there was an RSR discussion about it at the time).
http://sport.independent.co.uk/general/article1219296.ece
KC wrote:
> I seem to remember reading once that Redgrave had a fairly low VO2max
> considering his great success. I think I read it was around 6.3 L/min.
> I think he was around 100kg when in peak condition, which would give a
> specific VO2max of around 63 ml/min/kg.
>
> Can anyone corroborate these numbers? I tried a google search but
> couldn't find anything.
>
KC
Emily wrote:
> KC wrote:
>
> > I seem to remember reading once that Redgrave had a fairly low VO2max
> > considering his great success. I think I read it was around 6.3 L/min.
> > I think he was around 100kg when in peak condition, which would give a
> > specific VO2max of around 63 ml/min/kg.
> >
> > Can anyone corroborate these numbers? I tried a google search but
> > couldn't find anything.
> >
> > I'd also be interested in numbers (2k erg and/or VO2max) for any other
> > famous rowers.
> >
> > -Kieran
>
> According to an article in today's Indy, Redgrave's VO2max was around
> 6.5 litres, Pinsent's 8.5 and Pete Reed's is 9.38 as tested earlier
> this year (I think there was an RSR discussion about it at the time).
>
> http://sport.independent.co.uk/general/article1219296.ece
Thanks Emily, but that article is refering to lung capacity, not
VO2max. VO2max is the maximum amount of oxygen a person's body can
metabolize during exercise, and is only marginally related to lung
volume. In fact specific VO2max (normalized to body mass) might even
be inversely related to lung volume.
For example, Lance Armstrong has tiny lungs compared to huge rowers
like Pinsent & co., but his VO2max is comparable to those rowers (over
6L/min).
-Kieran
Ewoud Dronkert
> For example, Lance Armstrong has tiny lungs compared to huge rowers
> like Pinsent & co., but his VO2max is comparable to those rowers
The comparison is flawed; he's a doper cyclist and rowers don't dope.
--
E. Dronkert
Donald Munro
>> For example, Lance Armstrong has tiny lungs compared to huge rowers
>> like Pinsent & co., but his VO2max is comparable to those rowers
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> The comparison is flawed; he's a doper cyclist and rowers don't dope.
And dopers don't sprint.
excel_...@hotmail.com
because they rely mainly upper body muscle mass which is far smaller
than leg muscle mass, so they would likely never post a VO2 max as
higher or higher than an elite cyclist.
As far as lung size goes, it is irrelevant VO2 max.
CH
KC
LOL! So now you've dropped yourself to the level of troll, eh Ewoud?
-KC
KC
excel_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> You're both wrong. Rowers, like swimmers, have a lower VO2 max values
> because they rely mainly upper body muscle mass which is far smaller
> than leg muscle mass, so they would likely never post a VO2 max as
> higher or higher than an elite cyclist.
>
> As far as lung size goes, it is irrelevant VO2 max.
>
> CH
CH,
1) please don't top-post
2) You're obviously not a rower, so why are you here? If you do row, I
think you need some lessons, for your leg drive must be very poor.
Maybe you're thinking of kayaking or canoeing? If so, check out
rec.boats.paddle instead of this group.
Rowers (good ones anyway) develop from 50 to 70% of the power for a
stroke from their leg muscles. Even at the low end of that range,
that's hardly "mainly upper body muscle mass".
The main reason why rowers have smaller specific (aka "relative")
VO2max number is because they weigh so darn much. Rowers' absolute
VO2max numbers are as high or higher than any other endurance sport, on
average.
-Kieran
Ewoud Dronkert
> LOL! So now you've dropped yourself to the level of troll, eh Ewoud?
Mike told me that's OK.
--
E. Dronkert
Donald Munro
2) You're obviously not a rower, so why are you here?
Dumbass,
Its all ewouds fault. If you want to punish him post from
cyclingforums.com.
Mike Sullivan
"Ewoud Dronkert" <firs...@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:qoq3e2dns5h29s2no...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Aug 2006 08:27:15 -0700, KC wrote:
>> LOL! So now you've dropped yourself to the level of troll, eh Ewoud?
>
> Mike told me that's OK.
Wow, it's been a while since there's been
a crosspost troll. hold on a sec, lemme
pull up a couch and grab some popcorn!!!
:^)
KC
Touché. I did not notice that the crosspost was initiated by Ewoud.
Ewoud, you crossposting knobjockey! For someone who's always bagging
on others for usenetiquite violations, that was pretty lame.
RBR readers: feel free to ignore this thread and let it drift back to
RSR-dom.
-KC
anto...@aol.com
It is interesting however that people outside rowing (and some inside)
still perceive it an upper body exercise of pulling rather than a lower
body pushing exercise.
Marc
> <<stuff deleted>
>
> I'd also be interested in numbers (2k erg and/or VO2max) for any other
> famous rowers.
>
> -Kieran
>
Xeno Muller- VO2 max- 7.32 liter, 210 lbs
h squared
> RBR readers: feel free to ignore this thread
it has been way too amusing watching you yell at e.d. (apparently aka
the trolling, lame cross-posting, netiquette enforcing knobjockey) to
actually ignore. sorry.
drifting off now,
hh
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> 1) please don't top-post
> 2) You're obviously not a rower, so why are you here? If you do row, I
> think you need some lessons, for your leg drive must be very poor.
> Maybe you're thinking of kayaking or canoeing? If so, check out
> rec.boats.paddle instead of this group.
>
> Rowers (good ones anyway) develop from 50 to 70% of the power for a
> stroke from their leg muscles. Even at the low end of that range,
> that's hardly "mainly upper body muscle mass".
>
> The main reason why rowers have smaller specific (aka "relative")
> VO2max number is because they weigh so darn much. Rowers' absolute
> VO2max numbers are as high or higher than any other endurance sport, on
> average.
Finally, the truth about climate change. It's all those damn
heavy rowers' displacement pushing up the sea level and melting
Antarctica. They're just smugly waiting for the day they can put in
from the Palisades and row down 34th St past the spire of the Empire
State Building. Stop global rowing now!
Ben
Donald Munro
>> Rowers (good ones anyway) develop from 50 to 70% of the power for a
>> stroke from their leg muscles. Even at the low end of that range,
>> that's hardly "mainly upper body muscle mass".
>>
>> The main reason why rowers have smaller specific (aka "relative")
>> VO2max number is because they weigh so darn much. Rowers' absolute
>> VO2max numbers are as high or higher than any other endurance sport, on
>> average.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Finally, the truth about climate change. It's all those damn
> heavy rowers' displacement pushing up the sea level and melting
> Antarctica. They're just smugly waiting for the day they can put in
> from the Palisades and row down 34th St past the spire of the Empire
> State Building. Stop global rowing now!
You mean rowers have an even worse fatty master problem than we do ?
Although I am a bit worried about the effects of fatty masters races in
California on the fault lines there.
KC
Average male elite cyclist size: ~70kg, ~175cm tall (154#, 5'9")
Average male elite rower size: ~98kg, ~195cm tall (215#, 6'5")
bodyfat % would be comparable, but slightly higher for rowers.
-KC
Robert Chung
> Average male elite cyclist size: ~70kg, ~175cm tall (154#, 5'9")
BMI = 22.9
> Average male elite rower size: ~98kg, ~195cm tall (215#, 6'5")
BMI = 25.8
Yow. You guys is *fat*.
Donald Munro
> KC wrote:
>> Average male elite cyclist size: ~70kg, ~175cm tall (154#, 5'9")
> BMI = 22.9
>
>> Average male elite rower size: ~98kg, ~195cm tall (215#, 6'5")
>
> BMI = 25.8
Robert Chung wrote:
> Yow. You guys is *fat*.
Corollary: Ewoud is fat ?
KC
Thanks, Marc.
7.32... wow.
I'm still wondering about Redgrave though... if it's true that his is
low-ish (~6.3L?) it's even more impressive IMO, that he was so
successful.
-Kieran
Carl Sundquist
"Donald Munro" <fat-d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44e21eab$0$23777$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> You mean rowers have an even worse fatty master problem than we do ?
> Although I am a bit worried about the effects of fatty masters races in
> California on the fault lines there.
>
Wouldn't fat *float*?
anto...@aol.com
I seem to remember him being 15% better than the rest of the GB men
except Searle. So I find it hard to believe.
Mike Sullivan
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:4kenisF...@individual.net...
no sunken chests and skinny little shoulders
here!
Simon Brooke
('kc_...@sonic.net') wrote:
>
> Donald Munro wrote:
>> KC wrote:
>> >> Rowers (good ones anyway) develop from 50 to 70% of the power for a
>> >> stroke from their leg muscles. Even at the low end of that range,
>> >> that's hardly "mainly upper body muscle mass".
>> >>
>> >> The main reason why rowers have smaller specific (aka "relative")
>> >> VO2max number is because they weigh so darn much. Rowers' absolute
>> >> VO2max numbers are as high or higher than any other endurance
>> >> sport, on average.
>>
>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> > Finally, the truth about climate change. It's all those damn
>> > heavy rowers' displacement pushing up the sea level and melting
>> > Antarctica. They're just smugly waiting for the day they can put in
>> > from the Palisades and row down 34th St past the spire of the Empire
>> > State Building. Stop global rowing now!
>>
>> You mean rowers have an even worse fatty master problem than we do ?
>> Although I am a bit worried about the effects of fatty masters races
>> in California on the fault lines there.
>
> Average male elite cyclist size: ~70kg, ~175cm tall (154#, 5'9")
Yebbut, fattie masters are a wee bit heavier than that...
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.
Simon Brooke
('kc_...@sonic.net') wrote:
No, no. It's rowers who drift. We merely coast (or wheelsuck).
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Nope - Ewoud is below average?
Phil Holman
"Carl Sundquist" <car...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:L9qEg.14124$yO4.3713@dukeread02...
question. Will the displacement of the shell be less with a 200lb ripped
rower or a 200lb fatty master?
Hope this helps.
Phil H
Tom Kunich
news:1155655417.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> You're both wrong. Rowers, like swimmers, have a lower VO2 max values
> because they rely mainly upper body muscle mass which is far smaller
> than leg muscle mass, so they would likely never post a VO2 max as
> higher or higher than an elite cyclist.
>
> As far as lung size goes, it is irrelevant VO2 max.
My lungs are so large that they have to take two xrays to get all of the
lung into the photograph. However, my VO2max isn't anything to write home
about.
Carl Sundquist
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1155676237....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
I think ED has been holding out on the hottie rower pics and links
RonSonic
Same. The shell has the same overall density in either case.
Ron
Ryan Cousineau
"Carl Sundquist" <car...@cox.net> wrote:
Heather, it's not nice to impersonate Carl Sundquist.
I mean, come on, he's ridden an Obree bike and everything,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
ilan
-ilan
Robert Chung
> "Robert Chung" wrote
>> KC wrote:
>>
>>> Average male elite cyclist size: ~70kg, ~175cm tall (154#, 5'9")
>>
>> BMI = 22.9
>>
>>> Average male elite rower size: ~98kg, ~195cm tall (215#, 6'5")
>>
>> BMI = 25.8
>>
>> Yow. You guys is *fat*.
>
> no sunken chests and skinny little shoulders here!
I, too, would say that about normal weight persons were I fat.
Ewoud Dronkert
> Ewoud, you crossposting knobjockey! For someone who's always bagging
> on others for usenetiquite violations, that was pretty lame.
It's OK if you know what you're doing.
--
E. Dronkert
Fred Pan
>> Wouldn't fat *float*?
> Assuming you are serious (hard to tell in rbr) let me rephrase that
> question. Will the displacement of the shell be less with a 200lb ripped
> rower or a 200lb fatty master?
>
Who weights more a 200lb ripped rower or a 200lb fatty master? ;-)
-Fred
excel_...@hotmail.com
> 2) You're obviously not a rower, so why are you here? If you do row, I
> think you need some lessons, for your leg drive must be very poor.
> Maybe you're thinking of kayaking or canoeing? If so, check out
> rec.boats.paddle instead of this group.
>
> Rowers (good ones anyway) develop from 50 to 70% of the power for a
> stroke from their leg muscles. Even at the low end of that range,
> that's hardly "mainly upper body muscle mass".
>
> The main reason why rowers have smaller specific (aka "relative")
> VO2max number is because they weigh so darn much. Rowers' absolute
> VO2max numbers are as high or higher than any other endurance sport, on
> average.
It wasn't clear whether you were talking relative or absolute, but I'll
wager it's still lower. Now I may not be a rower, but I've actually
done research on rowers (D 1 collegiate, including one National Team
member), so please spare me your expertise on the matter. The rowers I
looked at were across the board lower, but not huge by any means.
Their leg musculature was also not as developed as their upper bodies
were, either. If you're going to refute what I say, then show me the
data, rather than telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.
CH
Ewoud Dronkert
> Their leg musculature was also not as developed as their upper bodies
> were, either. If you're going to refute what I say, then show me the
http://www.nlroei.nl/Fotoboek-display-2235.html
--
E. Dronkert
Mike Sullivan
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
Do you think you're fat?
http://poplicks.com/images/lohan-skinny.jpg
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Be careful there, Chung. Sometimes it's best to avoid
the inconvenient truths, especially when the other guy is
bigger and stronger. It's not even about losing a fistfight.
One solid belch from an RSR denizen could cave in our
sunken, low-bone-density chests.
Ben
KC
excel_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > 1) please don't top-post
> > 2) You're obviously not a rower, so why are you here? If you do row, I
> > think you need some lessons, for your leg drive must be very poor.
> > Maybe you're thinking of kayaking or canoeing? If so, check out
> > rec.boats.paddle instead of this group.
> >
> > Rowers (good ones anyway) develop from 50 to 70% of the power for a
> > stroke from their leg muscles. Even at the low end of that range,
> > that's hardly "mainly upper body muscle mass".
> >
> > The main reason why rowers have smaller specific (aka "relative")
> > VO2max number is because they weigh so darn much. Rowers' absolute
> > VO2max numbers are as high or higher than any other endurance sport, on
> > average.
>
> It wasn't clear whether you were talking relative or absolute, but I'll
> wager it's still lower. Now I may not be a rower, but I've actually
> done research on rowers (D 1 collegiate, including one National Team
> member), so please spare me your expertise on the matter. The rowers I
> looked at were across the board lower, but not huge by any means.
> Their leg musculature was also not as developed as their upper bodies
Your oarsmen with underdeveloped leg muscles either weren't rowing or
training properly. Did you measure their leg strength, or just look at
the size of their muscles. I have visibly larger leg muscles than a
good rower friend of mine, who can squat and leg press much more than
I.
> were, either. If you're going to refute what I say, then show me the
> data, rather than telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Well, you did state that rowing is a primarily upper body exercise,
similar to swimming, which demonstrates that you know very little about
rowing. No data needed to make that conclusion.
Regardless, In addition to Ewoud's pic of Mr. Porter, here are some
real data, as requested:
>From that study, Hagerman found that elite rowers average 6.1L/min
VO2max. Armstrong (poor comparison or not, I don't know other
endurance athlete's values) has a VO2max of 6.02L/min (86 mL/min/kg *
70kg ). So, as I stated, rowers have an absolute VO2max equal or
greater than other endurance athletes (can we safely say that Lance is
above average for elite cyclists?). Their relative VO2max values are
smaller due to their larger mass (Lance = 70kg, avg. elite hwt male
rower = 90~100 kg).
There are links to many more related papers on the right of that page.
-Kieran
Marc
another, according to http://home.hia.no/~stephens/rowphys.htm
Olaf Tufte- 7.1 L/min while running, 6.8 on the erg
erg times:
1:15 for 500m
5:46 for 2k
15:32 for 5k
weight : 94 kg
Robert Chung
>> From that study, Hagerman found that elite rowers average 6.1L/min
> VO2max. Armstrong (poor comparison or not, I don't know other
> endurance athlete's values) has a VO2max of 6.02L/min (86 mL/min/kg *
> 70kg ). So, as I stated, rowers have an absolute VO2max equal or
> greater than other endurance athletes (can we safely say that Lance is
> above average for elite cyclists?).
Not according to Lafferty.
excel_...@hotmail.com
also have a larger mass. I think we're missing each other's point, or
rather the point I was trying to make originally, which was that a
sport relient on upper body musculature will have lower VO2 max values.
Cross country skiers post some of the highest values because they
utilize a larger overall percentage of muscle mass; I'd say skiers are
pretty well developed too, no? A rowers absolute VO2max is probably a
good indicator of their performance because they row in across flat
'terrain', but relative VO2 max could indicate better aerobic
development of that muscle mass; ie, big muscles don't mean success.
Now I think the original cross-post was talking about relative VO2 max.
Either way, I think we've cleared up a lot of confusion here.
CH
Marc
in 2001, the average male rower on the Norwegian rowing team had a VO2
max of 6.5 l.min.
and Olympic champions Olaf Tufte (also Norwegian), according to
http://home.hia.no/~stephens/rowphys.htm
7.1 L/min while running, 6.8 on the erg
olympic champion xeno muller- 7.32 L (possily biking- I've seen a
comment by him that his VO2 max was 7L on a bike, 6.5 on the a rowing
machine)
http://www.gorow.com/profile.htm
The wikipedia claims Olympic champion Rob Waddell's was extremely high,
but haven't seen an actual value.
rowers don't match up nearly as well when scores are normalized by
dividing by mass (not a very useful comparison since rowing isn't weight
bearing and we don't row uphill) or even by surface area. However, it's
clear that absolute values for top rowers are very high.
Marc
Phil Holman
"Marc" <mgw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TcIEg.25$uk2...@mencken.net.nih.gov...
The displacement of the shell is a function of weight which determines
hydrodynamic drag. It appears that an optimal weight for rowing is
higher than cycling. Power to drag ratio is best for a rower around 200
lbs or so.
I'm wondering if there are different weight classes in rowing similar to
those in the Concept II Rowing ergometer competitions. I did crank out
an 8-20ish for a 2500m ergo competition a few years back. This was
before they reduced it to 2000m and as a 175lb cyclist (heavyweight), I
did OK against some pretty beefy competition. I couldn't make the 165lb
(??) cutoff for the lightweights.
Phil H
Marc
>
> The displacement of the shell is a function of weight which determines
> hydrodynamic drag. It appears that an optimal weight for rowing is
> higher than cycling. Power to drag ratio is best for a rower around 200
> lbs or so.
>
> I'm wondering if there are different weight classes in rowing similar to
> those in the Concept II Rowing ergometer competitions. I did crank out
> an 8-20ish for a 2500m ergo competition a few years back. This was
> before they reduced it to 2000m and as a 175lb cyclist (heavyweight), I
> did OK against some pretty beefy competition. I couldn't make the 165lb
> (??) cutoff for the lightweights.
>
> Phil H
>
>
yes, clearly drag increases with an increase in mass (and therefore
displacement). to say that optimal size appears to be higher for rowing
than a form of cycling that requires extensive climbing is quite the
understatement- the top rowers average nearly 150% as much as a pure
climber (as a rough average- say 210/140lbs = 1.5).
so, while there is a weight penalty, the best rowers tend to be very large.
indoor rowing competitions were created as a proxy to on-water
competition, primarily as training for rowing. the lwt categories
therefore mimic the traditional (and now Olympic- crew average <70kg)
on-water categories.
as you would expect, the differences between open class and lwt rowers
is HUGE on the erg (world record 5:37 for open men, 6:02 for lwt- a
_massive_ difference) but much less so on the water, although water
times have to evaluated with greater caution.
so, my point was not that there isn't a disadvantage to carrying extra
weight in the boat, but that given the nature of rowing the trade-off is
such that very large people (by endurance sport standards) tend to do
the best. top lwts are perhaps only a couple of percent slower, but at
the top level that is crucial.
it's not so different in that respect in cycling- obviously weight gets
a lot of notice due to its obvious importance in climbing, but larger
cyclist do well on the flats, track, sprinting, in headwinds, and
downhill. Which is why a 200 lber like Magnus Baksted could win
Paris-Roubaix.
-marc
KC
excel_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I would still assert that rowers fall more in line with swimmers, who
> also have a larger mass. I think we're missing each other's point, or
You may assert that, but I would assert that you'd be wrong. Rowing is
more in line with cross-country skiing than it is with cycling or
swimming. In fact, elite rowers utilize a larger portion of their
total muscle mass, and through a greater range of motion, than cross
country skiers.
> rather the point I was trying to make originally, which was that a
> sport relient on upper body musculature will have lower VO2 max values.
I never refuted that point, rather I refuted your statement that rowing
is an upper body sport. How can you think that a sport that takes half
to 3/4 of it's power from the legs and hips is an "upper body sport"?
I still think you must be thinking of kayaking or canoeing, which are
both probably 90 to 100% upper body.
> Cross country skiers post some of the highest values because they
> utilize a larger overall percentage of muscle mass; I'd say skiers are
The reason nordic skiers tend to have higher VO2max values than rowers
probably has more to do with the event distances than with the
biomechanics of the sport's motion.
Nordic skiing I would think, would self-select for better aerobic
metabolism in its athletes, whereas rowing, being a 5.5~7 minute event,
and requiring a unique anaerobic sprint to start the race, self-selects
for an optimum combination of power and aerobic endurance, with more
emphasis on power than the longer endurance events like Nordic's 10km
to 50km events. If a 5 to 6km head race were the primary Olympic
rowing event, I bet you would see different body types/shapes and
physiologies for rowers than you do now.
> pretty well developed too, no? A rowers absolute VO2max is probably a
> good indicator of their performance because they row in across flat
That, and the sport is not weight bearing, so the joints (for the most
part) take no additional abuse if you put on 20~30 lbs.
> 'terrain', but relative VO2 max could indicate better aerobic
> development of that muscle mass; ie, big muscles don't mean success.
In rowing, big muscles = success is probably more true than in some
other endurance sports, simply because you don't pay much (almost zero)
penalty for the extra weight, yet you do reap the benefits of the added
power.
On a cellular level are Indurain's (to stop using Lance as an example)
muscle tissue better at aerobic metabolism than Redgrave's? Quite
possibly. But the difference isn't probably as big as you might think.
Dividing by body mass is the most crude way of normalizing one could
do. It's the easiest though, so it is universally accepted. Ideally,
you would normalize to the mass of lean, O2 consuming tissue, or even
better, the mass of the tissue doing the work (since for example, the
gut and bones receive very little blood during exercise.)
> Now I think the original cross-post was talking about relative VO2 max.
> Either way, I think we've cleared up a lot of confusion here.
> CH
The original cross-post was a troll. I originally wanted to know Steve
Redgrave's VO2max when he was in his prime, and no one seems to know
it. :-P
-KC
Carl Douglas
In any boat class where the hulls are immersed (not planing), are of
similar forms & are scaled in proportion to the total mass, the bigger
boat with the correspondingly heavier & more powerful engine has the
higher speed potential, all else being equal. That's just a consequence
of the laws of fluid dynamics.
Thus a double-scull has twice the mass, twice the power of a single, is
longer & goes faster, while a quad-scull is longer, heavier, more
powerful & faster still. And I suppose you get the same with tandem bikes?
There are only 2 weight classes (men or women): for men lightweight
single scullers the upper limit is 72.5kg, & open weight is whatever you
want to be. (Oddly enough, the crew average weight limit for lightweight
men in all other rowing classes is 70kg). Yet some very light scullers
& crews have gone uncomfortably fast for all but the best heavies.
With single-scullers, there should be an increase in effective work
output with increase in crew mass, & there should be a seamless
progression of performance vs total crew mass, regardless of boat class.
However, rowing ain't quite so rational: single sculling boat lengths
don't vary as much in proportion to crew mass as you'd expect (which
would put length roughly proportional to cube-root of total mass). Nor
do the really big guys use oars that scale in any way according to their
size or power compared to those of the little chaps (so they just make
much bigger holes in the water with them!). Thus there are discontinuities.
Of course, technique is pretty important in rowing, since beating the
hell out of the water & rushing back & forth in the boat is not the
ideal way to convert power into propulsion. That said, even good
technique emphasises smoothness & dexterity to the exclusion of anything
based on an intimate study of the interaction between water & oarblade,
rowing being surprisingly content not to know too much about that nasty,
complex science called fluid dynamics.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Robert Chung
> On a cellular level are Indurain's (to stop using Lance as an example)
Indurain's VO2Max was reported at 6.4L/min.
KC
How much did he weigh at that time?
-KC
Robert Chung
81 kg. His BMI was 22.9.
Not sure what Musashimaru's VO2Max was, but he was 235 kg:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/yokozuna.png
Simon Brooke
('ca...@carldouglas.co.uk') wrote:
> Thus a double-scull has twice the mass, twice the power of a single, is
> longer & goes faster, while a quad-scull is longer, heavier, more
> powerful & faster still. And I suppose you get the same with tandem
> bikes?
You do, but for slightly different reasons.
The fineness ratio of rowing shells means that they're not effectively
limited by wavemaking resistance, and the extra skin-drag per rower does
not increase linearly, so (up to some limit, presumably) more rowers
mean more speed.
UCI regulations mean that racing cyclists are unfaired. If fairings were
permitted (as e.g. in HPV competitions) then you would expect speed to
scale with the number of pedallers in the vehicle rather similarly to
rowers in the shell. However, because there is no fairing, there is an
area of turbulent air behind the first rider, and in that area of
turbulent air there is less drag. The closer you can get the riders
together in that turbulent envelope, the less drag on the successive
riders. So I'd expect tandems to scale rather better than racing shells.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.
Carl Douglas
> in message <ebvo1i$n27$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>, Carl Douglas
> ('ca...@carldouglas.co.uk') wrote:
>
>
>>Thus a double-scull has twice the mass, twice the power of a single, is
>>longer & goes faster, while a quad-scull is longer, heavier, more
>>powerful & faster still. And I suppose you get the same with tandem
>>bikes?
>
>
> You do, but for slightly different reasons.
>
> The fineness ratio of rowing shells means that they're not effectively
> limited by wavemaking resistance, and the extra skin-drag per rower does
> not increase linearly, so (up to some limit, presumably) more rowers
> mean more speed.
Actually, shells are very much limited by the wave-drag element. Even
though wave drag is not the largest component of overall drag, it is
highly non-linear WRT speed. Unlike cyclists, we're stuck by having to
race on an interface between 2 fluids which is kept flat only by
gravity.....
>
> UCI regulations mean that racing cyclists are unfaired. If fairings were
> permitted (as e.g. in HPV competitions) then you would expect speed to
> scale with the number of pedallers in the vehicle rather similarly to
> rowers in the shell. However, because there is no fairing, there is an
> area of turbulent air behind the first rider, and in that area of
> turbulent air there is less drag. The closer you can get the riders
> together in that turbulent envelope, the less drag on the successive
> riders. So I'd expect tandems to scale rather better than racing shells.
>
Cyclist aerodynamics are indeed rather a mess, but so are rower
aerodynamics - another aspect of fluid dynamics given minimal attention
by rowers, even though a head-wind is know to really slow them down.
The stoker on a tandem can, as you say, close the gap with his partner
to get a less draggy ensemble, much reducing specific drag per rider
(unless the old farts at the UCI interfere to ban low-drag riding
positions, as with Obree?), while machine drag must also rise to only a
quite small degree I suppose.
In contrast, rowers are typically about 135 to 140cm apart, leaving
lovely big gaps for wind eddies even when the boat is moving directly
into the wind.
KC
Tom Kunich wrote:
> <excel_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155655417.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > You're both wrong. Rowers, like swimmers, have a lower VO2 max values
> > because they rely mainly upper body muscle mass which is far smaller
> > than leg muscle mass, so they would likely never post a VO2 max as
> > higher or higher than an elite cyclist.
> >
> > As far as lung size goes, it is irrelevant VO2 max.
>
> lung into the photograph. However, my VO2max isn't anything to write home
> about.
Yes, it's true that while lung size may in some way affect VO2max, it
is most likely minimal. Mine are quite large (>9 L) and my VO2max
while decent is not as far up the percentile scale as my lung size is.
This is easy to verify with a thought experiment: if lung size (i.e.
vital capacity in liters - usually ranges from 4-6 L for adult males,
extremes are 9-10 L) had a significant affect on performance, then
blood doping (increasing ones red blood cell count and thus the
capacity of the blood to gather, hold, and deliver O2 to working
muscles) would not work.
IOW, if by increasing the O2 carrying capacity of our blood, we can see
a performance boost, then that means the lungs must have had excess
capacity to supply O2 at max effort by the athlete. If this is the
case, then the lungs are already oversized for max effort, and larger
lungs wouldn't make much of a difference.
Now, if one has exceedingly small lungs, or smokes or has smoked, or
had lung damage or surgery or disease, then lung size could affect
performance.
-Kieran
Robert Chung
> Yes, it's true that while lung size may in some way affect VO2max, it
> is most likely minimal.
Birds have very small lungs. Their VO2Max (adjusted for mass, of course)
can be quite high.
Tom Kunich
news:1155818722.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes, it's true that while lung size may in some way affect VO2max, it
> is most likely minimal. Mine are quite large (>9 L) and my VO2max
> while decent is not as far up the percentile scale as my lung size is.
>
> This is easy to verify with a thought experiment: if lung size (i.e.
> vital capacity in liters - usually ranges from 4-6 L for adult males,
> extremes are 9-10 L) had a significant affect on performance, then
> blood doping (increasing ones red blood cell count and thus the
> capacity of the blood to gather, hold, and deliver O2 to working
> muscles) would not work.
>
> IOW, if by increasing the O2 carrying capacity of our blood, we can see
> a performance boost, then that means the lungs must have had excess
> capacity to supply O2 at max effort by the athlete. If this is the
> case, then the lungs are already oversized for max effort, and larger
> lungs wouldn't make much of a difference.
That is a very good desciption of the problem.
KC
I may not have stated it specifically, but I was refering to absolute
VO2max (not adjusted for weight) for a given individual. Although I
bet the same principle applies to birds (re. lung volume).
-Kieran
Michael Press
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
You neglect to mention that air flow through bird lungs is
uni-directional.
<http://www.people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdrespiration.html>
--
Michael Press
Robert Chung
>> Birds have very small lungs. Their VO2Max (adjusted for mass, of
>> course) can be quite high.
>
> You neglect to mention that air flow through bird lungs is
> uni-directional.
>
> <http://www.people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdrespiration.html>
I know. Ain't it cool? What's also cool is that (some) dinosaurs appear to
have had similar anatomical features.
Alasdhair Johnston
design rather than an inflatable bag
KC
Alasdhair Johnston wrote:
> Bird lungs are more efficient than mammalian ones: they're more of a tube
> design rather than an inflatable bag
Either way, my point was that human lungs, for the most part, are
larger than they need to be for "normal" healthy adults.
-Kieran
Robert Chung
> Either way, my point was that human lungs, for the most part, are
> larger than they need to be for "normal" healthy adults.
Nothing special 'bout that. We've evolved with either excess capacity or
redundancy for just about everything.
KC
Robert Chung wrote:
> KC wrote:
>
> > Either way, my point was that human lungs, for the most part, are
> > larger than they need to be for "normal" healthy adults.
>
> Nothing special 'bout that. We've evolved with either excess capacity or
I didn't say it was special. There seems to be a common misconception
out there that having bigger lungs is a benefit for endurance sports.
Several comments (not just mine) in this thread were directed toward
refuting that idea.
> redundancy for just about everything.
"excess capacity" for certain activity levels maybe. But the human
system is obviously limited in many ways when it comes to
athletic/endurance performance. Lung volume just isn't one of those
limitations.
-Kieran
Phil Holman
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:Q__Eg.9919$0e5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I'm not so sure. Even if lung capacity were a limiting factor (say
someone with one lung) it seems to me that O2 transport would still
increase by increasing the O2 carrying capacity of the blood. I believe
diffusion rate is dependent on blood O2 saturation level. Lung capacity
isn't a limiting factor but I'm not sure KC's thought experiment proves
that.
Phil H
KC
You raise a very good point. Diffusion is dependent on saturation.
> isn't a limiting factor but I'm not sure KC's thought experiment proves
> that.
Now you've got me scratching my head a little, but I think my
illustration still holds... IIRC my physiology, that is! So forgive
me if I screw this up, but here's how I remember it: Each hemoglobin
(Hb) can hold a certain number of O2. When they are full they will not
accept any more O2. However, the plasma can also hold some amount of
O2, but much less than the Hb can hold. So, as the blood perfuses the
alveoli, it picks up O2 via diffusion, and most of that O2 is held by
Hb. The diffusion rate is greatest when the Hb are lacking O2. It's
important to note that each O2 taken up by an Hb is "held" more
"loosely" than the previous, so that the last O2 taken up by an Hb is
also the first to go. The flip side of this is that Hb attracts O2
more strongly if that Hb is "empty". There is a curve well known to
physiologists called the oxygen-hemoglobin dissociation/saturation
curve. Google that and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Regardless, I think my example still holds because Hb will only grab up
the O2 from the alveoli if the Hb is low on O2. So, once the Hb's are
all filled up with O2, that's it. There are only two ways to get more
O2 into the blood: give your blood more Hb (blood doping) or give the
air more O2 (increas the partial pressure of O2 thus forcing more O2
into Hb that have a low affinity for it because they are mostly full).
Since for a given endurance event we are generally at the same
altitude, the latter is not a solution, and having bigger lungs won't
change the concentration of O2 in the air.
Adding more RBC's to your blood (via EPO or transfusion of your own
blood from altitude training) would do the trick though.
-Kieran
Phil Holman
Same here, but you started it :-)
I think a lung capacity limitation could be due to small lung size (less
blood/air interface area) or a permeability limitation. Sounds like
everything you said is correct except your conclusion that if you
increase Hb, increase in O2 carrying capacity is proof of lung capacity
not being a limiting factor.
My contention is, in *all* cases (even one lung) of Hb increase, O2
carrying capacity will increase. That is, in the case where one lung is
an obvious limitation, increase in O2 transport will result due to an Hb
boost. The real test would be to reduce some other parameter (air O2
content) until desaturation of arterial blood was achieved (at maximal
output). From this you could roughly estimate the overcapacity at normal
O2 concentration.
Phil H
Carl Douglas
Perhaps not quite right?
This appears to be a rather complex mass-transfer phenomenon, in rate of
O2 absorption would seem to be affected by, at least: O2 partial
pressure in lungs; total gas/liquid interface area (a function of
lung-size & lung morphology; ease of air/O2 diffusion within lungs
(similar dependency); O2 deficit in Hb (could be expressed as inverse of
its equilibrium O2 partial pressure); diffusivity of O2 thru blood to
Hb; factors limiting rate of mass transfer of O2 into red corpuscles &
into Hb; relative O2 & CO2 permeability of interfacial tissue; Hb
concentration in blood; blood flow rate & air change rate thru lungs.
There should always be a dynamic equilibrium - never a total O2
saturation of the HB. And the position of that equilibrium & the
potential rate of O2 uptake may, as indicated, be affected by a mix of a
large number of potentially rate-determining steps in the O2
absorption/CO2 desorption process
Bigger lungs should have greater interface area &, should provide a
greater internal cross-section for air-flow, improving O2 partial
pressure & reducing CO2 ditto at the interface even if they don't act as
better gas pumps.
Of course, that's just a non-practising chemical engineer's view.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Wouldn't the rate of flow for the blood itself have something to do
with this also? Stroke volume x Heart Rate, or something along those
lines? These days you can purchase a small device that reports the O2
saturation levels in our blood, and normal folks seem to be in the 98%+
range, however the sales person said that every once in a while they
see some scary stuff like 70% or less, with people who smoke a lot.
The device is marketed to climbers that will be heading above 10,000ft
so they can get an indication prior to onset of physical symptoms and
possible bad things. [;o)
I thought it might be fun to monitor during exercise, but the price tag
was a bit steep for my curiosity level.
- Paul Smith
Phil Holman
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155860580.8...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Well yes, this could be another parameter which could be used to
indicate that lung capacity is not a limiting factor although it would
be a difficult parameter to increase for an athlete at peak performance.
If cardiac output were increased, without O2 desaturation of arterial
blood, this would indicate that lung capacity is not a limiting factor.
>These days you can purchase a small device that reports the O2
> saturation levels in our blood, and normal folks seem to be in the
> 98%+
> range, however the sales person said that every once in a while they
> see some scary stuff like 70% or less, with people who smoke a lot.
> The device is marketed to climbers that will be heading above 10,000ft
> so they can get an indication prior to onset of physical symptoms and
> possible bad things. [;o)
>
> I thought it might be fun to monitor during exercise, but the price
> tag
> was a bit steep for my curiosity level.
>
Doesn't your infatuation override your budget constraints?
Phil H
Michael Press
<1155848830.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote:
> "excess capacity" for certain activity levels maybe. But the human
> system is obviously limited in many ways when it comes to
> athletic/endurance performance. Lung volume just isn't one of those
> limitations.
No, humans are highly evolved for endurance. A human can
run all day, outdistancing most other animals. Running
down game is typical for various peoples. Of course, we
also evolved less active means for killing game, but our
endurance endures.
--
Michael Press
donal...@gmail.com
training with canoeists as they are the only people who train hard
around here and I find that I have a distinct advantage in tailwind and
am less advantaged in a headwind due I think to the fact that we are
relatively at different heights in the water. The difference is very
pronounced.
I suppose in the tailwind my body is acting as a more effective sail!!!
Donal
KC
Seems you are a reader of Scientific American, eh? That was a very
good and popular article.
I didn't say we weren't good at endurance, just that we have obvious
limitations. A human can't run a mile much faster than 4 minutes
(currently 3:43 or so), nor can we run a marathon in less than 2 hours.
World recods are broken by shorter and shorter intervals all the time,
despite modern equipment and training (and even drugs). We *do* have
our limits. When it comes to atheletic endurance, we have many
physological limitations. For example many things depend on cardiac
output: O2 delivery to working muscles, clearance of metabolic waste
products, thermal regulation (hot blood sent to skin), and so on. Max
CO = 35~40L/min for an elite endurance athlete - that's a lot, but it's
still a limitation. AFAIK, lung *volume* isn't really a limitation.
The performance bottle neck occurs more with blood flow than with lung
capacity.
-Kieran
KC
Phil Holman wrote:
> <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Wouldn't the rate of flow for the blood itself have something to do
> > with this also? Stroke volume x Heart Rate, or something along those
> > lines?
>
> Well yes, this could be another parameter which could be used to
> indicate that lung capacity is not a limiting factor although it would
> be a difficult parameter to increase for an athlete at peak performance.
> If cardiac output were increased, without O2 desaturation of arterial
> blood, this would indicate that lung capacity is not a limiting factor.
O2 saturation at rest should never fall much below 96~98% (at sea
level). While exercising at VO2max, it will fall by around 5% IIRC.
(even more at higher altitudes) Going from rest to VO2max for a well
trained person represents an increase in cardiac output of about 6 to
8-fold (from ~5L/min at rest to between 30 and 40 L/min maximum CO).
I don't know if this answers the question or not though. I am
convinced however that my Hb/blood doping example was not enough to
prove that Lung volume is not a limiting factor to performance.
Carl brought up some good points. It would seem that an increase in
surface area would improve O2 transfer. The problem though I think, is
again flow rate. An increase in surface area requires a similar
increase in CO, in order to take advantage of that greater area, would
it not? So again, we are limited by stroke volume and max heart rate.
Side bar tid-bit: fluid velocity (different from flow rate) drops to
nearly zero at the exchange surface because the total cross sectional
area of the blood vessles increases enormously as the blood gets to the
capillaries. This is true in both the lungs and at the working tissue.
On to other things to think about (aka work) for a few hours....
-Kieran
Sue
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Phil Holman wrote:
> > <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Wouldn't the rate of flow for the blood itself have something to do
> > > with this also? Stroke volume x Heart Rate, or something along those
> > > lines?
> >
> > Well yes, this could be another parameter which could be used to
> > indicate that lung capacity is not a limiting factor although it would
> > be a difficult parameter to increase for an athlete at peak performance.
> > If cardiac output were increased, without O2 desaturation of arterial
> > blood, this would indicate that lung capacity is not a limiting factor.
>
YOu guys brought me out of semi perma lurkerdom with this one. Sorry to
just burst in. Arterail saturation does fall considerably more than a
couple of percent in some individuals. I've seen 87 and 88% saturation
in some athletes at VO2 max. This presents a significant problem with
oxygen transport. The term is "exercise induced arterial hypoxemia.
There is a rather substantial body of literature (some of which I've
written) on the subject if you search on pubmed.
> O2 saturation at rest should never fall much below 96~98% (at sea
> level).
> While exercising at VO2max, it will fall by around 5% IIRC.
> (even more at higher altitudes) Going from rest to VO2max for a well
> trained person represents an increase in cardiac output of about 6 to
> 8-fold (from ~5L/min at rest to between 30 and 40 L/min maximum CO).
>
> I don't know if this answers the question or not though. I am
> convinced however that my Hb/blood doping example was not enough to
> prove that Lung volume is not a limiting factor to performance.
>
> Carl brought up some good points. It would seem that an increase in
> surface area would improve O2 transfer. The problem though I think, is
> again flow rate. An increase in surface area requires a similar
> increase in CO, in order to take advantage of that greater area, would
> it not? So again, we are limited by stroke volume and max heart rate.
Not quite accurate. The primary lung gas exchange probelm in highly
trained athletes is pulmonary diffusion limitation of oxygen transport.
That is, that at high cardiac outputs the red blood cells travel
through the lung circulation so fast that they do not have time to fully
equilibrate with oxygen. Increasing the surface area for diffusion and
consequently the pulmonary capillary blood volume means that transit
(contact time) is longer and gas exchange is improved. The gas
exchanging portions of the lung does not "train". Yo can train
muscles, and heart , but lung growth seems to stop at about age 12.
Again there is a rather large body of scientific literature on pulmonary
limitations to performance, mostly related to gas exchange.
Michael Press
<1155907053.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1155848830.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "excess capacity" for certain activity levels maybe. But the human
> > > system is obviously limited in many ways when it comes to
> > > athletic/endurance performance. Lung volume just isn't one of those
> > > limitations.
> >
> > No, humans are highly evolved for endurance. A human can
> > run all day, outdistancing most other animals. Running
> > down game is typical for various peoples. Of course, we
> > also evolved less active means for killing game, but our
> > endurance endures.
>
> Seems you are a reader of Scientific American, eh? That was a very
> good and popular article.
No, I never read it.
> I didn't say we weren't good at endurance, just that we have obvious
> limitations. A human can't run a mile much faster than 4 minutes
> (currently 3:43 or so), nor can we run a marathon in less than 2 hours.
> World recods are broken by shorter and shorter intervals all the time,
> despite modern equipment and training (and even drugs). We *do* have
> our limits. When it comes to atheletic endurance, we have many
> physological limitations. For example many things depend on cardiac
> output: O2 delivery to working muscles, clearance of metabolic waste
> products, thermal regulation (hot blood sent to skin), and so on. Max
> CO = 35~40L/min for an elite endurance athlete - that's a lot, but it's
> still a limitation. AFAIK, lung *volume* isn't really a limitation.
> The performance bottle neck occurs more with blood flow than with lung
> capacity.
Then what do you mean by `limit'? All organisms have
limits. Human endurance limits far surpass most every land
animal.
--
Michael Press
Phil Holman
"Sue" <shopkin...@ucsd.edu> wrote in message
news:shopkinsNOSPAM-BE1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
I'm aware that some athletes experience desaturation at maximal output
but, because the athletes cover the whole range of abilities, the
conclusion was that this must not be a limiting factor. That is, if it
were limiting, we would expect to see these althletes only at the lower
performance levels. It is my understanding that peak saturation is
maintained at maximal exercise for a large majority of athletes.
Except for swimming, this is news to me (pulmonary limitations). I'll do
a pubmed search but if you have any references, please share.
Thanks for your input.
Phil H
Phil Holman
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:kq-dnX8qJ4H9sXvZ...@comcast.com...
This is what I found.
see also related links to the right.
Phil H
KC
I mean precisely that: we have out limits, as you state. When it comes
to our limitations for endurance and athletic performance, we have
limits, but as far as I know, LUNG VOLUME ISN'T ONE OF THEM.
I don't know how to be more clear.
I never disputed that humans are among the best land animals when it
comes to locomotive endurance. I only am saying that of the things
that *do* limit us from going farther or faster, I'm pretty sure that
lung volume isn't one of those limitations.
-Kieran
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Maybe you should say that in order to exceed the capability of our
lungs, we have a bit more evolving to do WRT our energy production
systems.
Otherwise you are just making a statement that is neither right nor
wrong, i.e. "A piece of string is only so long!"
And as long as we've degraded to pointing out "KeyFruedian slips", we
certainly do have "out limits". [;o)
- Paul Smith
Sue
> > Except for swimming, this is news to me (pulmonary limitations). I'll
> > do a pubmed search but if you have any references, please share.
> >
> > Thanks for your input.
>
> This is what I found.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=14617055
>
> see also related links to the right.
>
> Phil H
Hi Phil,
Sorry for the delay. I was on vacation when I originally posted, then
got slammed at work, and then had to go back and find this thread
through google because it was gone from my newsreader.
Some Exercise induced arterial hypoxemia cites:
A review, perhaps the best place to start:
Dempsey JA, Wagner PD. Exercise-induced arterial hypoxemia. J Appl
Physiol. 1999 Dec;87(6):1997-2006. Review.
PMID: 10601141
effects on muscle fatigue:
Romer LM, Haverkamp HC, Lovering AT, Pegelow DF, Dempsey JA.
Effect of exercise-induced arterial hypoxemia on quadriceps muscle
fatigue in healthy humans.
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2006 Feb;290(2):R365-75. Epub
2005 Sep
15. PMID: 16166208
Prevalence in women (has the cites for prevalence in men too):
Richards JC, McKenzie DC, Warburton DE, Road JD, Sheel AW. Prevalence
of exercise-induced arterial hypoxemia in healthy women.Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2004 Sep;36(9):1514-21.
PMID: 15354032
An old but a good review of pulmonary limitations to exercise:
Bye PT, Farkas GA, Roussos C.
Respiratory factors limiting exercise. Annu Rev Physiol.
1983;45:439-51. Review.
PMID: 6342520
effects of lung mechanics:
Johnson BD, Saupe KW, Dempsey JA. Mechanical constraints on exercise
hyperpnea in endurance athletes. J Appl Physiol. 1992 Sep;73(3):874-86.
implications of mechanical constraint for performance- effects of
mechanical constraints on cardiac output and muscle blood flow:
Harms CA, Wetter TJ, McClaran SR, Pegelow DF, Nickele GA, Nelson WB,
Hanson P, Dempsey JA. Effects of respiratory muscle work on cardiac
output and its distribution
during maximal exercise.J Appl Physiol. 1998 Aug;85(2):609-18.
Some stuff on lung size and pulmonary gas exchange
Hopkins SR, Gavin TP, Siafakas NM, Haseler LJ, Olfert IM, Wagner H,
Wagner
PD. Effect of prolonged, heavy exercise on pulmonary gas exchange in
athletes.
J Appl Physiol. 1998 Oct;85(4):1523-32. PMID: 9760350
A lot of the lung size/pulmonary limitations research has gone on in
the exploration of sex diferences in exercise performance
Again a review:
Harms CA. Does gender affect pulmonary function and exercise capacity?
Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2006 Apr 28;151(2-3):124-31. Epub 2006 Jan
10. Review.
PMID: 16406740
Evidence that the issue is small lungs not just women:
Olfert IM, Balouch J, Kleinsasser A, Knapp A, Wagner H, Wagner PD,
Hopkins SR. Does gender affect human pulmonary gas exchange during
exercise? J Physiol. 2004 Jun 1;557(Pt 2):529-41. Epub 2004 Feb 27.
PMID: 14990677
should get you started
KC
Sue wrote:
> > >
> > > Except for swimming, this is news to me (pulmonary limitations). I'll
> > > do a pubmed search but if you have any references, please share.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your input.
> >
> > This is what I found.
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=14617055
> >
> > see also related links to the right.
> >
> > Phil H
>
> Hi Phil,
> Sorry for the delay. I was on vacation when I originally posted, then
> got slammed at work, and then had to go back and find this thread
> through google because it was gone from my newsreader.
>
> Some Exercise induced arterial hypoxemia cites:
snip some good citations...
>
> An old but a good review of pulmonary limitations to exercise:
> Bye PT, Farkas GA, Roussos C.
> Respiratory factors limiting exercise. Annu Rev Physiol.
> 1983;45:439-51. Review.
> PMID: 6342520
Ha! Gaspar Farkas was one of two professors for my grad school course
in cardio-pulmonary response to exercise! I think this paper may have
been part of his PhD work, by the date on it. I'll have to have a chat
with him, as he's also on my M.S. thesis comittee. I'm pretty sure HE
was the one who told me that the lungs aren't much of a limitation for
humans... maybe it was someone else, or maybe I misunderstood (or
mis-remember) what he taught.
Thanks, Sue.... as if I didn't have enough reading to do!
-Kieran
aco...@earthlink.net
> YOu guys brought me out of semi perma lurkerdom with this one.
Dr. Hopkins,
You should definitely post more often.
Andy Coggan
Ewoud Dronkert
But was she lurking in rbr or rsr?
--
E. Dronkert
Sue
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > An old but a good review of pulmonary limitations to exercise:
> > Bye PT, Farkas GA, Roussos C.
> > Respiratory factors limiting exercise. Annu Rev Physiol.
> > 1983;45:439-51. Review.
> > PMID: 6342520
>
> Ha! Gaspar Farkas was one of two professors for my grad school course
> in cardio-pulmonary response to exercise! I think this paper may have
> been part of his PhD work, by the date on it. I'll have to have a chat
> with him, as he's also on my M.S. thesis comittee. I'm pretty sure HE
> was the one who told me that the lungs aren't much of a limitation for
> humans... maybe it was someone else, or maybe I misunderstood (or
> mis-remember) what he taught.
Thats so cool. I pored over that review when I was in grad school. The
field has come a long way since then.
Of course the original post was a troll,and when I finally went back and
read the whole thread, you had many valid points. On average, elite
cyclists, as you well know, don't have a particularly high mass
specific VO2max (compared to say marathoners) because the muscle mass
used is small, and elite rowers have huge absolute VO2 max's because
they recruit so much muscle mass, and because most elite rowers tend to
be so big (with a few notable exceptions). However if you had to pick
WITHIN either rowing or cycling to have large or small lungs, you'd be
better off with large lungs because so the thinking goes:
1. you'd have more surface area for diffusion and would have less
diffusion limitation of oxygen transport, also less
ventilation-perfusion mismatch - so more efficient gas exchange, higher
saturations and better O2 delivery, which in turn means higher Vo2max,
less muscle fatigue
2. you'd have less mechanical limitations to expiratory flow at a given
level of ventilation, (although I'm not sure this has been specifically
studied in detail-there's a thesis for someone). this in turn would mean
less respiratory work and less respiratory muscle steal, less muscle
fatigue.
> Thanks, Sue.... as if I didn't have enough reading to do!
sorry dude. the above is a synopsis of those articles.
Cheers
Sue
Sue
aco...@earthlink.net wrote:
Hi Andy,
Long time. I've been off my bike for 10 years-I just started riding
again, although I've done some minimal coaching over the years. All you
guys talk about on rbr is Lance and Floyd-besides you seem to be doing a
pretty good job keeping them in line on the physiology.
Sue
Sue
Ewoud Dronkert <firs...@lastname.net.invalid> wrote:
rbr, but I might have to look at rsr a bit. someone was even talking
about bird lungs. was that rbr or rsr? My claim to bird physiology fame
is I'm one of the few people in the world to have exercised an Emu on
treadmills. Now there is a dumb animal.
Mike Sullivan
Got photos?
That would be something to see.
Maybe put some headphones on the bird and
some cute spandex!
Donald Munro
>> Dr. Hopkins,
>> You should definitely post more often.
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> But was she lurking in rbr or rsr?
Dumbass,
Rbr obviously. We are far more intellectual than a lot of fat rowers.
Carl Douglas
However if you had to pick
> WITHIN either rowing or cycling to have large or small lungs, you'd be
> better off with large lungs because so the thinking goes:
>
> 1. you'd have more surface area for diffusion and would have less
> diffusion limitation of oxygen transport, also less
> ventilation-perfusion mismatch - so more efficient gas exchange, higher
> saturations and better O2 delivery, which in turn means higher Vo2max,
> less muscle fatigue
>
> 2. you'd have less mechanical limitations to expiratory flow at a given
> level of ventilation, (although I'm not sure this has been specifically
> studied in detail-there's a thesis for someone). this in turn would mean
> less respiratory work and less respiratory muscle steal, less muscle
> fatigue.
>
As with any power-generating system, the inefficiencies of each part in
the chain have impacts on processes further down the chain. Your lungs
may provide excellent O2 delivery & CO2 purging, & the more important
resistances to producing effective work may lie elsewhere in the chain,
but to improve even the best part of the system will normally enhance
overall performance - unless there's an identifiable & greater penalty
to be paid for such over-resourcing.
Cheers -
Carl Douglas
We do also have thin rowers, nay 2-dimensional. For them we reserve a
special lightweight class, for which we are able to fit in 12 lanes of
racing on a 6-lane course. And, since cyclists are so often found
bouncing down the tarmac on their heads, or between heads & other parts
of their anatomies, couldn't we fairly say that they must be daft to do
it, & if not already daft, likely soon to become so?
;)
Carl
RonSonic
Is that legal?
Ron
Robert Chung
> rbr, but I might have to look at rsr a bit. someone was even talking
> about bird lungs. was that rbr or rsr? My claim to bird physiology fame
> is I'm one of the few people in the world to have exercised an Emu on
> treadmills. Now there is a dumb animal.
What was its VO2Max, and how did it compare with Redgrave?
Robert Chung
Also, what was its IQ, and how did it compare with Redgrave?
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Dumbass,
It's not a fair comparison. Emus are only about 40 kg,
so you'd have to normalize by body weight. You should be
comparing Redgrave to an ostrich - ostriches are
easily around 100 kg. Emus are more like Paolo Bettini
or one of those mini Spanish climbers, although I honestly
don't know if emus are better at climbing or sprinting.
I also am not sure which of the ostrich and emu is known
for sprinting versus endurance, although they both have the
reputation of being pretty good time trialists. However,
probably no emu will ever win the Tour de France, as they
are rather sketchy in the pack. But fans of the emu should
take heart, as advances in genetic manipulation mean that
soon, an emu's genes may win the Tour de France.
Ben
RBR eternal optimist
Howard Kveck
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
You're thinking "exorcised." That would be very different.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Taniwha
Sue wrote:
My claim to bird physiology fame
> is I'm one of the few people in the world to have exercised an Emu on
> treadmills. Now there is a dumb animal.
Australian!
;^)
Taniwha
Donald Munro
> rbr, but I might have to look at rsr a bit. someone was even talking
> about bird lungs. was that rbr or rsr? My claim to bird physiology fame
> is I'm one of the few people in the world to have exercised an Emu on
> treadmills. Now there is a dumb animal.
Was she a blonde emu ?
RonSonic
wrote:
>Robert Chung wrote:
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>> > Sue wrote:
>> >> rbr, but I might have to look at rsr a bit. someone was even talking
>> >> about bird lungs. was that rbr or rsr? My claim to bird physiology fame
>> >> is I'm one of the few people in the world to have exercised an Emu on
>> >> treadmills. Now there is a dumb animal.
>> >
>> > What was its VO2Max, and how did it compare with Redgrave?
>>
>> Also, what was its IQ, and how did it compare with Redgrave?
>
>Dumbass,
>
>It's not a fair comparison. Emus are only about 40 kg,
>so you'd have to normalize by body weight. You should be
>comparing Redgrave to an ostrich - ostriches are
>easily around 100 kg. Emus are more like Paolo Bettini
>or one of those mini Spanish climbers, although I honestly
>don't know if emus are better at climbing or sprinting.
I think they're more like Bettini, a sprinter.
>I also am not sure which of the ostrich and emu is known
>for sprinting versus endurance, although they both have the
>reputation of being pretty good time trialists. However,
>probably no emu will ever win the Tour de France, as they
>are rather sketchy in the pack. But fans of the emu should
>take heart, as advances in genetic manipulation mean that
>soon, an emu's genes may win the Tour de France.
And with every emu that sets foot on a treadmill that dread day comes closer.
Ron
John Mulholland
news:51l8f2hk5d7tsnsv6...@4ax.com...
rspb
--
John Mulholland