The points that were being discussed was my claim that Lance Armstrong has a "relatively low VO2 max, and abysmal anaerobic capacity". This should be read in the context of the comparison that was made to the rowers who are internationally best, like Lance himself is in cycling.
Lance's absolute VO2 max.
On Lance Armstrongs website you can read his relative V02 max is 83.8 ml/kg. This is very probably his best value ever achieved.
In order to get Lance's absolute VO2 max we could just multiply by his weight. So what was his weight during the test which gave him his highest VO2 to weight ratio ever? Meaning the test which gave him his lowest weight to VO2 value ever. I think it's a safe guess that Lance was unusually light at this point.
Rowing Science writes about Lance's absolute VO2Max:
"it works out to 6.285 L/min".
At Cycling Hall Of Fame
one can read about Lance:
-"He turned pro after the Olympics in 1992. His height is 5’10½” (179 cm) and racing weight was 158-165 pounds (72-75 kg)"
75*83.8 = 6.285.
Did Rowing Science choose 75kg to "work things out"?
Continuing reading Cycling Hall Of Fame:
-"After the cancer, however, his body dropped most of its muscle mass. Through training, Armstrong further streamlined his body and rebuilt himself into a Tour de France contender. His weight after the rebuild was 15 pounds (7 kg) less than his racing weight prior to the cancer."
This would have Lance at a 68 - 65kg!
The articles linked by Rowing Science also says that after the cancer Lance's weight was around 70kg and VO2 6l/min. And that before that he was normally in the 5.56 l/min to 5.82 l/min range, but had a value of 6.1 l/min during racing sesaon 1993.
If Lances 83.8 was achieved at 68kg it would have Lance's VO2 at 5698ml/min. This is in line with "the pack" of internationally competing lightweight rowers, but not at the top. Even if Lance weighed 72kg it mean he was just at 6.0 l/min, which is the same as the highest values from lwt rowers. It is way below the highest results reported for heavyweight rowers, hovering over 7000 ml/min with Sir Matthew Clive Pinsent in the top spot with 8.5l/min according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Pinsent
Lance's anaerobic capacity
I agree my saying that Lance has an abysmal anaerobic capacity is a bit harsh. Too many times, though, I've met the attitude that rowing does not demand exceptional pshysiology. The anaerobic energy is proportional to muscle mass, but physological efficiency varies between individuals. I fired back at the proposal that an extremely fit 70kg man, with most mass on his legs, could challenge an extremely fit 105kg man, with evenly distibuted mass, in absolute amounts of anaerobic energy available for a full body excercise for which this 105kg man has proved to be the best among thousands of other extremely athletic 105kg men. Especially since all of those 105kg men has beaten all those thousands of extremely fit 70kg men that also have proven to be extremly efficient and well suited for the excercise, in relation to their weight. Lance at 70kg has not proven anything in rowing.
Lance has not even been known for being an anaerobic monster, as far as I know, in the cyling world. On the contrary, he's a Tour de France specialist where the duration is much longer than 1 minute, which is a typical test for anaerobic energy available.
Based on knowledge of weight and appearance I think it's safe to say Lance would be far behind both the best heavyweight and lightweight rowers in anaerobic capacity for rowing.