Art De Vany: Lance

« Ascending or Descending Sets? | Main | Adventure Riding »

Lance

July 20, 2005 05:01 PM

Does anyone but me think that Lance Armstrong looks old for his brief 34 years of life?

He is on the verge of a historic victory and it is a tribute to his genes, his determination and the science behind him. Yet, he has a potentially troubled future ahead of him. For one thing, he will be too rich and too famous. And, he has sacrificed much to get where he is; a marriage and his family, and a serious bout with cancer. When he retires, he will be but 34 and his future cannot possibly be as dramatic and accomplished as his past. Bicycle racing doesn't have the historical tradition of golf, baseball, or boxing. Five years from now, he will not be remembered well. Only Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Joe Louis and Henry Johnson will be remembered for the ages. And that is because they are in sports that constantly remind you of their history.

Lance's resting pulse is 32, below any I have seen. Runners who have a low pulse rate are apt to black out at the slightest provocation. President Bush, whose pulse was about 42 when he was running, fainted when he choked on a corn chip. (He has quit running because of chronic knee problems, a common problem for these kinds of repetitive sports that permit too little recovery from wear and tear.] Even a momentary interuption of oxygen and blood flow is enough to make you black out when you have a very low pulse.

At a pulse rate as low as Armstrong's (and other distance athletes), blood flows slowly and the brain is vulnerable to ischemic damage (deprivation of blood flow and ROS damage) and then reperfusion injury when the blood flow surges (this is a potent source of ROS). [Check the archives if you don't know what ROS stands for. And look at the archives anyway because there is a lot of stuff in there that I often get questions about.] Armstrong had brain cancer, among other locations through his body. Alternating ischemia with reperfusion injury is an easy way to harm your brain. The blood flow surge from his resting pulse of 32 to his maximum pulse of 200 is enormous and a potent source of ischemic and reperfusion injury to the brain and other tissues.

Lance makes 600 watts at his VO2 max. I can easily make 600 watts, but it is beyond my VO2 max, meaning I am tapping into my anaerobic resources more than he is. Still, at twice his age I am easily able to generate power near his level for brief intervals, which is all that is needed for an easy life in this energetically undemanding modern life.

I admire accomplishment, but the sacrifices made to get there interfere with a life that is satisfying. The window through which accomplishment is seen in sports is very narrow and much falls out of our view if we admire the image that is presented in the media (think OJ when you hear this).

Great accomplishment is not greatness. In fact, it is often a wonkishness and insecurity that drives some to high athletic accomplishment, often to the detriment of their lives and of those around them. So, my hat is off to Lance, but is this any way to spend a life?

· Everything

Comments

Posted by: Flower Online at September 11, 2006 2:09 PM

Interesting. You are correct about the extreme stress of elite cycling and it's aging effects. Hell, Lance looked old adn bloated when he won his first world championship in 93. The same could be said about almost any other elite level of sport (except maybe golf which is a game not a sport IMO)

Most truly competitive atheletes are unealthy. If you want to be good, you need to mortgage youth for glory. I certainly did.

As for your comments on the lack of storied history in cycling, that's bunk. You clearly don't know anything about cycling which had more stadiums at the turn of the last century than baseball by a large margin.

Posted by: 17dave at August 4, 2005 5:03 PM

By this time (2 Aug 05) a lot of readers here will have seen Lance Armstrong on Letterman. I, for one, thought he looked pretty good. Readers of the Wall Street Journal will also have seen the article a few days ago about gifted athletes and why they are like they are. It turns out, according to the article anyway, that Armstrong has a genetic mutation that allows his body to pump about 20% more blood to his legs than the rest of us non-gifted folks can.

He did say on Letterman's show that one of the things he wants to do now is be a father to his kids - all to the good. Also, he estimated, if I recall correctly, that his foundation had raised about $100 million for cancer research and that his goal now was to be the biggest and loudest advocate for cancer research around.

Will he be remembered? Beats me. I'm a frustrated Olympic weightlifter. Who among you readers remembers or even knows the names John Davis, Norb Shemansky, Tommy Kono, John Grimek,
Fred Lowe, or John Terry?

Posted by: wtwh at August 2, 2005 4:37 PM

Posted by: wtwh at August 2, 2005 4:28 PM

Truth be told, doc, I think a lot of athletes look like hell by the time they're 50. Lance looks like all the Ironmen do, i.e., like cancer patients, but the haggardness and leathery complexion seem to transcend long-distance cycling. John Elway and Mark McGuire look like shit.

- Josh

Posted by: Wild Pegasus at July 27, 2005 5:10 AM

Scott:

Good points. I don't know what his greatest triumph is, but overcoming cancer is surely one of them. He may or may not have contracted cancer had he not been a cycler, though he surely increased his chances with the ROS load he was under and the fuel he ingested. It turns out that the incidence of brain cancer among Boston Marathon participants is high, though the statistics haven't been collected. Just last year another one went from brain cancer. I can recall three in casual reading of the news. Lance might be one of them but for timely intervention and a lucky outcome. It is always luck in the end for they don't know much about the whole process.

You never overcome cancer. It is a long evolutionary process that takes many turns. We will see how that comes out. I doubt he has more than marginally increased the research funding for cancer, though he is kind to many children who have it. If he had only had time for his own.

But, I am not judging him or his place in history. I am pointing to the costs of extreme achievement. And the the costs of excessive aerobic exercise. Recall the scull of doom post regarding Sir Redgrave and Grace Kelley's brother. Serious problems from excessive aerobic exercise, regimented, almost robotic, overtraining and the sort of awful fuel aerobic participants feed themselves.

Posted by: Art at July 23, 2005 3:52 PM

I think you're way off on this one. Lance Armstrong's greatest achievement is not his cycling, it is that he was able to survive advanced cancer and still become the cycling champion he is today. What he achieved is a triumph of the human spirit and modern medicine. I doubt if he's going to sink into a post-victory depression after his big win. I also doubt he'll be easily forgotten for his cycling achievements or his contributions to cancer research. I don't even think he looks too old for his years; after all, he should be dead.

Posted by: Scott at July 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Yarooooooooooo (said Bunter) it works

ref Lance 'Never judge a man wealth until you see what debt he owes" Marcus Aurelius

Debt obviously being applied to a multitude of contexts here..metabolic, social, etc

ref his marriage..quintessential high status primate behaviour; married young, 3 sprogs,his resources negate the parental investment usually illicited by the kiddlies.On he moves,as indeed does she.

Be curious to see if it lasts with Sheryl Crow as she's in her early 40's with no kids thus far.

His association with Michel Ferrai is/was highly dubious.
Has he done it 'clean' ?
The caveat being of course one has to define 'clean'.
I'd really hope so but given cyclings history seems unlikely.

The Walsh book LA Confidential and the '99 corticosteroid tests are rather suggestive albeit not of course implicative.
Walsh wrote for the Sunday Times ( London) for eons and they are as hard nosed a journo's get and of course fallible !

Pantanis death was awful and needless.

The irony being that the first Olympiads always took perf. enhancing herbs etc so clean/scheme.

For me i don't give a flying fig if he's won 7 Tours.
I do think his work with kids who have cancer speaks far more about him and of nothing but the good.
Now thats what i reckons important.

W. H. Davies
Leisure
WHAT is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare?—
No time to stand beneath the boughs,
And stare as long as sheep and cows:

No time to see, when woods we pass,
Where squirrels hide their nuts in grass:

No time to see, in broad daylight,
Streams full of stars, like skies at night:

No time to turn at Beauty's glance,
And watch her feet, how they can dance:

No time to wait till her mouth can
Enrich that smile her eyes began?

A poor life this if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare.

Posted by: simonfellows at July 22, 2005 9:01 PM

Art,

Interesting comments re Lance. I had a conversation with an elite level, pro cyclist a few years back - a fellow who did those European "classics" races which go 160 miles flat out. What I remember most was his comment that the brutal physical suffering and stress had to be "taking years off the end of my life." So much for being "fit" for bike racing.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at July 22, 2005 7:14 PM

Wow, it works.....

Fascinating post that raises a couple of questions.

Firstly the way in which history treats past winners of the Tour de
France: I think your comment reflects your location in the USA. In
Europe the Tour has a much higher profile, especially in France and
Spain. Past winners are remembered well and the Tour has its own
mythology, its own heros. In France I think Armstrong's bigger
problem is that he is American and there is a continual media
suspicion in that country that he has been doped. It is funny as you
say - a great achivement is often does come at the expense of
much....but again that is sometmies what we glorify - those who
sacrifice much and risk much for their goal. Being "balanced" does
not gain the plaudits.

Secondly your comments about pulse rates are very thought provoling
and challenging some accepted wisdom - which is what I like. So much
popular writing on fitness stresses lowering the resting pulse rate as
a sign of fitness and a more efficient heart. Your analysis is
something else! Endurance excercise does lower the resting
pulse....but that is not good anyway.

What about other markers that are often quoted - e.g. blood pressure.
What is normal / healthy?

I suppose I want to be physically versatile. I like to carry some
muscle and be stronger than average, but last weekend I was walking in
the moutains in Scotland (like many weekends!) and I like having the
endurance for an 8 hour walk with a few thousand foot of ascent and
not struggle.

Cheers

Chris

Posted by: Chris H at July 22, 2005 4:25 PM

Lance

July 20, 2005 05:01 PM

Comments

Post a comment