Coyle's new stance on Lance

[acoggan]

agreed.

i generally try to adhere to a strict self-imposed principle - do not publicly criticize the fellow scientists too harshly who (unlike myself, python that is) chose to express their opinions under their own real identities.

thus, you wont see me bringing much heat to andy, though i saw many opportunities to do so. particularly given his (imo) reckless way of getting involved in defending/explaining the rather poor conclusions of the dr coyle single known study of the admitted uber doper.

i call andy's position obnoxious and arrogant.

arrogant b/c he himself confirmed the glaring deficiencies in the coyle study and yet continued to post obfuscatory pieces excusing the obvious deficiencies (the self-identified body weight as a critical scientific fact, the lack of muscle biopsy etc etc)

obnoxious, b/c andy clearly failed over and over to give credit to the wider knowledge and intelligence of the disputed physiological issues inherent in the internet-aware and likely educated professionals.

What you call "obnoxious and arrogant" I consider just calling things as I see them. If people don't agree with my opinion, that's fine...but I consider you a coward for being unwilling to make your comments under your own name.

 

[acoggan]

Care to comment on the misconduct case based around this paper you so staunchly defend ? Or maybe just the part where the data was not made available.....or maybe give a rounded argument and an opinion as the why it was viewed as trivia in the wider scientific community , you might start with the methods and keep it simple and then see do you think a first year student in the sciences could pick holes and find issues with it ? This may give you clues as to why real scientists discredited the paper straight away as propaganda

I don't really know enough about UT's response to Ashenden et al.'s charges to comment (and even if I did know details not in the public domain, it would be against federal law for me to do so).

As for the paper itself, there's no need for me to point out its weaknesses, as they have been widely discussed and acknowledged both within the scientific community and outside as well (although I don't know any "real scientists" who considered it "propaganda" to support Armstrong).

 

[python]

What you call "obnoxious and arrogant" I consider just calling things as I see them. If people don't agree with my opinion, that's fine...but I consider you a coward for being unwilling to make your comments under your own name.

and in addition to having plenty of evidence that your position was arrogant and obnoxious i now have evidence that you could be on thick side too intentionally misinterpreting peoples right to privacy with own misplaced notions.

 

[peterst6906]

and in addition to having plenty of evidence that your position was arrogant and obnoxious i now have evidence that you could be on thick side too intentionally misinterpreting peoples right to privacy with own misplaced notions.

Of course people have a right to privacy, but in some arguments choosing to use that right can still be cowardice.

They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[python]

Of course people have a right to privacy, but in some arguments choosing to use that right can still be cowardice.

They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

that means you are a coward too by your own definition since you post under a handle making arguments.

 

[peterst6906]

that means you are a coward too by your own definition since you post under a handle making arguments.

In an academic argument, sure. I'd have no problem admitting that and if someone else took that view, I would accept it.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

This is very funny. It's very obvious to me that Dr. Coggan has had a slow day/week in the lab. "Hmmm. Haven't kicked this hornet's nest in a while..."

John Swanson

 

[Krebs cycle]

Indeed...but given that VO2max and LT generally reach a plateau after only a few years of training, how else can one explain the ability of, say, a white jersey wearer to eventually achieve yellow another 3-10 y down the road? (Note that I'm not referring to any particular individual here, just the fact that elite endurance athletes tend to peak in their late 20s/early 30s even though VO2max and LT plateay much earlier.)

I know you don't like DTM's magazine article comparing Cadel with Lance (we both agree it would be better published in a scientific journal) but Dave makes an interesting speculation in that article. VO2max and LT don't change, and thus we assume that FTP doesn't change, but perhaps time to exhaustion at FTP increases? There might be physiological adaptations that allow that to occur which would not increase VO2max or LT, nor induce a change in efficiency eg: greater liver and muscle glycogen storage or greater glycogen phosphorylase activity.

Performance in short events would unlikely be altered, but in longer events and esp. stage racing it would be beneficial.

 

[Hugh Januss]

All of you science guys are cool and everything, and very entertaining when y'all start arguing amongst yourselves. None of this hides the obvious fact that the "scientific study" that we are talking about here was bought and paid for by the subject.

 

[blackcat]

All of you science guys are cool and everything, and very entertaining when y'all start arguing amongst yourselves. None of this hides the obvious fact that the "scientific study" that we are talking about here was bought and paid for by the subject.

HJ is that in this thread? Armstrong buying Coyle?

 

[Hugh Januss]

HJ is that in this thread? Armstrong buying Coyle?

Sorry, I thought that was implied from the start.

 

[rata de sentina]

Did you understand my question? I did not mention more mitochondria. I said that some aerobic enzymes could be upregulated, which means greater activity without increasing the number of mitochondria.

Don't you know, cells are black boxes to physiologists.

Unfortunately, the only function of this thread should be to restate over and over how this case study, or more like case report, should have never made it to publication. Asking the Cogger to explain Coyles sham study, or value Andy’s sporadic thoughts, is nonsensical. etc etc

Nicely done, must be an embarrassment to J. Appl. Physiol. Your first sentence gets to the crux of it really: "case report".