Coyle's new stance on Lance

[acoggan]

Well well well. Whas SCA knocking on his door?

More likely pressure from the editors of the journal.

 

[acoggan]

Coyle is saying that Lance's weight dropped? Really?

I guess he has not seen this paper by Coyle that shows Lance's weight increased 3 kilos from 93 to 99

Obviously he was referring to Armstrong's self-reported body mass.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Obviously he was referring to Armstrong's self-reported body mass.

"self reported"...well, that sounds scientific.

Hey, is Coyle the dude that said Lance's heart is the size of a medium sized comet?

 

[Scott SoCal]

"self reported"...well, that sounds scientific.

Hey, is Coyle the dude that said Lance's heart is the size of a medium sized comet?

He passed 600+ tests. That was self reported too.

 

[BroDeal]

What is the issue with Coyle simple saying this cat was on so much dope that his results may be invalid?

Pass the buck to Armstrong. Coyle could claim to be the one person over the age of twelve who looked at Armstrong's performances and was unable to figure out he was doped to the gills.

 

[thehog]

Agreed.

It might be kind of fun to talk doping with Ferrari tho.

It would be most enjoyable to share an aperitivo with Michele. Although I’m sure he’d frown upon the consumption of Processo, prosciutto and fatty cheeses.

 

[acoggan]

What is the issue with Coyle simple saying this cat was on so much dope that his results may be invalid?

That's what he said, isn't it?

 

[Race Radio]

Obviously he was referring to Armstrong's self-reported body mass.

Obviously

Because it is obvious to anyone that Lance was obese pre-cancer

What an obvious porker

You really should try to read why your mentor wrote instead of making excuses for him

 

[blackcat]

the cortisone neck euphemism came about then

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Actually, no one else has been able to reproduce that particular finding - in fact, I don't think Gore et al. have been able to do so either.

(BTW, did you notice the 5th author on that paper?)

I haven't found any papers outlining a study of mechanical efficiency as a function of erythrocythemia (however it is induced - EPO, transfusion, etc). Definitely none that show the paper I've cited is wrong.

If you have relevant (<-- key word) citations, I am wide open to changing my opinion. Until then, it seems highly likely that PEDs can change mechanical efficiency.

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

You really should try to read why your mentor wrote instead of making excuses for him

You mean where he wrote:

"Given this individual's reduction in body weight from 78.9 kg (in 1992) to ∼72 kg during his victories in the Tour de France..."

and

"Laboratory measures of the subject in our study were not made soon after the Tour de France; however...given his reported body weight of 72 kg..."

?

 

[acoggan]

I haven't found any papers outlining a study of mechanical efficiency as a function of erythrocythemia (however it is induced - EPO, transfusion, etc). Definitely none that show the paper I've cited is wrong.

You should look harder:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18048583

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927018

Etc.

(Remember what I said about not even Gore et al. being able to reproduce their own findings?)

 

[ScienceIsCool]

You should look harder:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18048583

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927018

Etc.

(Remember what I said about not even Gore et al. being able to reproduce their own findings?)

Oh, not this again. Neither of these papers is relevant. The first doesn't even mention mechanical efficiency. The second estimates economy from measuring VO2max.

You're a smart guy. A very smart guy. But I've been in rooms where 150 IQ meant everyone else talked to you in small sentences with short words. If you presented such a tangentially related argument to that kind of crowd they'd all choke to death laughing.

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

Oh, not this again. Neither of these papers is relevant. The first doesn't even mention mechanical efficiency.

In this context, economy is the same as efficiency (i.e., if there is any effect, it must be biochemical, not biomechanical, in nature, and thus evident even in sports such as running where quantifying the external power output is difficult).

The second estimates economy from measuring VO2max.

Incorrect:

"Running economy was derived from steady-state oxygen uptake during the last 60 s of each submaximal stage of the treadmill test to determine V˙O2 for a given velocity. Comparisons were made for economy from pooled individual data from four submaximal running speeds."

You're a smart guy. A very smart guy. But I've been in rooms where 150 IQ meant everyone else talked to you in small sentences with short words. If you presented such a tangentially related argument to that kind of crowd they'd all choke to death laughing.

I'll try not to choke while laughing at you.

 

[Race Radio]

You mean where he wrote:

"Given this individual's reduction in body weight from 78.9 kg (in 1992) to ∼72 kg during his victories in the Tour de France..."

and

"Laboratory measures of the subject in our study were not made soon after the Tour de France; however...given his reported body weight of 72 kg..."

?

Thanks for proving my point. That Coyle bases his fraud on figures provided by Lance make his claims even more absurd.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Why would you laugh at me? Scratch that. You once described yourself as a bully.

I'm willing to be educated if you are willing to teach. However, you don't seem willing. The papers you cited simply don't demonstrate the point you were trying to make. I'm willing to do a bit of work, but you have to meet me half way.

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

Why would you laugh at me?

"I've been in rooms where 150 IQ meant everyone else talked to you in small sentences with short words. If you presented such a tangentially related argument to that kind of crowd they'd all choke to death laughing."

I'm willing to be educated if you are willing to teach. However, you don't seem willing.

I've pointed you directly at the studies in question, and explained why, in the present context, there is no distinction between economy and efficiency. There really isn't anything more I can do.

The papers you cited simply don't demonstrate the point you were trying to make.

On the contrary: they directly demonstrate that, even in Gore et al.'s own hands, the finding that real/simulated altitude exposure leading to polycythemia does not reproducibly reduce the energy costs of exercise. This is exactly the point I made that you chose to challenge me upon.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That's what he said, isn't it?

How would we know? You posted the link to an article that costs $20 to read and are now selectively quoting it out of context. You might be good at this science thingamabob, but your rhetorical skillz are a bit weak, right?

 

[ulrichw]

Thanks for proving my point. That Coyle bases his fraud on figures provided by Lance make his claims even more absurd.

Ok - I don't really have a horse in this race - i.e., I agree that there may be some "wonkiness" about Coyle's paper.

However, isn't this argument a bit of a red herring, given that the primary reported measures of Gross Mechanical Efficiency were oxygen consumption and power output, both of which Coyle presumably did measure during the tests?

In what way was weight critical to the primary argument that Lance's efficiency increased?

 

[DirtyWorks]

In what way was weight critical to the primary argument that Lance's efficiency increased?

Bike racing is all about hitting the highest Watts/Kilo ratio.

You are assuming there's a real human performance being measured and Coyle is pretending (again) too. Just one fatal problem with Coyle's work is the Wonderboy was an uncontrolled human doping experiment since his days with Carmichael.

That's leaving aside the question of if he was tested on a build-up, peak, or off a doping cycle? We know the guy was a super-responder. He went from un-remarkable Tour of the Gila to TdF podium in weeks. Nothing you measure means anything in that scenario.

 

[badboygolf16v]

Asker worked with Rabo. Did he conclude any of their guys were doping?

Seems like sports scientists are pretty poor at determining what's actually going on in their subjects.

Would I be unfair in characterising sports science as a measurement and statistics exercise missing any real explanation?

 

[Race Radio]

Ok - I don't really have a horse in this race - i.e., I agree that there may be some "wonkiness" about Coyle's paper.

However, isn't this argument a bit of a red herring, given that the primary reported measures of Gross Mechanical Efficiency were oxygen consumption and power output, both of which Coyle presumably did measure during the tests?

In what way was weight critical to the primary argument that Lance's efficiency increased?

Armstrong weight loss is mentioned often in Coyle's study. One of his key findings was an 18% increase in power to weight. This data point was repeated over and over as a talking point in Armstrong's media campaign.

The fact is Coyle never measured any weight loss in Armstrong, it was an invention. It is doubtful that Armstrong's weight in the 99 Tour was any less then in the 1995 Tour, in fact Coyle gives zero evidence that it was.

 

[sashimono]

Coyle thinks people will eventually forget about that paper and remember the good stuff he did.

 

[ulrichw]

Bike racing is all about hitting the highest Watts/Kilo ratio.

You're absolutely right - and secondary arguments made by Coyle and others that the increase in efficiency in fact led to Lance's better performance are part of what I find "wonky".

But again, the primary argument is much simpler. The argument is "Lance's efficiency increased", meaning for a given oxygen consumption he produced more watts. Whether he weighed 3 kilos less or 5 kilos more is irrelevant to that argument.

You are assuming there's a real human performance being measured and Coyle is pretending (again) too.

Again, this is only critical to the secondary arguments trying to link the efficiency increase to Lance's overall results and trying to use this as an argument that those results can be accomplished without doping.

AFAIK the primary purpose of Coyle's paper was not to say whether Lance was doping or not, but merely to document an increase in efficiency. I think there was some extra-curricular hypothesizing as to links between this efficiency increase and Lance's performance that was no doubt questionable, but from my recollection those claims were not made in a scientific context.

All I'm saying is, you can criticize Coyle for making many bad claims extrapolating on his results, but in this particular instance, saying his findings are fraudulent based on the fact that the weights he gave came from questionable sources may be too strong.

On a separate note: If doping in some way did contribute to a long-term increase in Lance's efficiency, that too may be quite interesting. Does that mean that a non-racer could train for three years on a heavy doping regimen, go clean for a year and benefit from a permanent efficiency increase?

 

[ulrichw]

Armstrong weight loss is mentioned often in Coyle's study. One of his key findings was an 18% increase in power to weight. This data point was repeated over and over as a talking point in Armstrong's media campaign.

The fact is Coyle never measured any weight loss in Armstrong, [...]

Ok, this I understand, and I totally agree that any arguments made on power to weight, where the latter was never measured first-hand by Coyle, are absurd.