Back in the Tour at the age of 37, Lance Armstrong is a monument to perseverance. I have quite a bit of admiration for the man, and don’t give much credence to his detractors. Here he is, a cancer survivor with one mighty testicle, striking fear into the hearts of his younger competitors as his body pushes through the wind and up the slopes of European mountains. It is a story for the ages.
However, there is the science of performance behind his miraculous feats of exertion, and Tour champions have always been a subject of great medical and scientific interest. As someone who is fascinated by physiology, I can’t help but speculate, despite my admiration for the man, that there may be some factor that is not wholly natural behind Lance’s success.
I have read with great interest about Lance’s battle with cancer, and one thing that struck me as quite significant is that he freely reports feeling lighter following his cancer treatment. In fact, he was lighter — by about ten pounds. Prior to his bout with cancer Lance had been a very good – but not great – cyclist. Following his recovery he dominated like no one before him.
Although he has some physiological characteristics that set him apart, such as much lower lactate levels than normal, it seems to me that ten pounds is a very significant amount of weight over a long distance cycling race — especially one that climbs up and down mountains.
Although I am no doctor or biologist, I know that chemotherapy can lead to significantly reduced bone density, and Armstrong went through very intense chemotherapy. This, to me, seems significant in the context of cycling. Just as a bird has much lighter bones than a mammal so as to fly without oppressive effort, couldn’t a cyclist with lighter bones have a similar advantage?
So I will set it out there that Lance Armstrong’s singular advantage may be the very ordeal that nearly cost him his life. I would appreciate any feedback from experts on this idea, which I haven’t seen anywhere else.
4 responses so far ↓
1 miles // Jul 11, 2009 at 2:23 am
Very interesting hypothesis. I wonder if Armstrong has thought about this himself. In the particular sport of cycling, less bone density (and hence weight), but the same amount of muscle would indeed be an advantage. Armstrong does look thin, so he’s not got much/any extra weight holding him back.
To be honest, Im not much of a fan of endurance sports. I feel the human body was designed to only take so much. The blogger HalfSigma (who admittedly can be a little annoying at times) has chronicled some of the deaths during/after marathons and triatholons on his blog from time to time. If I did do an endurance sport, it would be cycling. The wear and tear on the joints from running just would not be worth it.
I think most endurance athletes be it professional or at-home amateurs are addicted to dopamine release. I remember when I ran back in my high school days. That first half mile or so was always tough, but that “high” started to kick in thereafter and I’d feel invincible and all the usual stuff.
2 wahler // Jul 11, 2009 at 11:12 am
Some fitness experts, notably Arthur De Vany (an economist by training but an excellent health/fitness guy who advocates the “paleo” lifestyle) have argued that endurance training is destructive and unhealthy.
De Vany has argued that it’s very plausible that Armstrong’s intense regimen and diet could’ve contributed to his cancer. The hours of endurance training coupled with high energy carbohydrate based diet could’ve stimulated cancer growth.
3 Johnny Abacus // Jul 13, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“I feel the human body was designed to only take so much.”
“Some fitness experts, notably Arthur De Vany … have argued that endurance training is destructive and unhealthy.”
The persistence hunting hypothesis for human hairlessness is the most reasonable one I’ve heard of, particularly since it is still practiced today. That being said, if the calorie restriction people are to be believed – metabolism = aging; supercharging one’s metabolism for decades at a time is bound to have deleterious effects.
4 wahler // Jul 13, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“The persistence hunting hypothesis for human hairlessness is the most reasonable one I’ve heard of, particularly since it is still practiced today.”
That’s a good point, and joggers and endurance athletes will often bring this up when arguing that long distance endurance activity is healthy and “natural”.
De Vany argues that persistence hunting was/is quite different from the standard long distance endurance activity, as it involved long stretches of varying degrees of movement, from walking, sprinting, light running, rather than continuous jogging within a narrow cardiovascular range.
So there’s arguments for both sides, and it’s far from settled. It’s an individual judgment call at this point I suppose.
Leave a Comment