Coyle's new stance on Lance

[Ripper]

Ahhh of course. Coyle uses an unverified, invented, values to support a central part of his conclusion......but it is not his fault, it is the editors. It is the fault of the fools who believed his fraud "Study"......suckers!

Coyle's a syintist!!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Good one!

BTW, have you finished law school yet?

I wish...I have one semester left, and should be getting my Bar results about a year from now. My first year was part-time because I was working full time, so I am a semester behind traditional students.

 

[acoggan]

Yea, citation doesn't work that way in the real grown-up world.

If you're too stupid to follow along, blame your parents, not me.

 

[acoggan]

Thanks for explaining why anything Coyle wrote should be regarded as having the usefulness of used toilet paper. If it was so inconsequential, the hit to credibility for using unverified information means Coyle should have left the information out...unless it isn't nearly as inconsequential as you are intimating now...

Obviously it wasn't consequential enough for the reviewers and editors to reject the paper. That is the only conclusion that one can really draw.

 

[acoggan]

Ahhh of course. Coyle uses an unverified, invented, values to support a central part of his conclusion......but it is not his fault, it is the editors. It is the fault of the fools who believed his fraud "Study"......suckers!

Pretty much.

 

[acoggan]

No wonder I can't take you seriously.

Compare that to actual scientists at the LHC. They're latest reporting is all about a Higgs-like particle, even though it's a boson with the mass predicted by the standard model, the correct spin and all the predicted decay products in all the right quantities.

That's right. Even though all the data fits, none of the physicists are saying it *is* the Higgs boson. They're going to make damn sure, first.

Up to the reviewers and editors indeed.

John Swanson

So have you figured out the differences and similarities between efficiency and economy yet?

 

[acoggan]

He's an apologist who is trying to spin bullsh!t into silver threads.

I'm the one who started this thread, remember?

 

[ChrisE]

Pretty much.

So why don't you shed some light on whether it was OK to use LA's self reported body mass in the study? Or, does that depend on whether you are the studier or the reviewer?

 

[Ripper]

I wish...I have one semester left, and should be getting my Bar results about a year from now. My first year was part-time because I was working full time, so I am a semester behind traditional students.

One semester left ... you're almost done. Keep it up!

 

[DirtyWorks]

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.

I'm only going to do this once. Trying to smooth over Coyle's junk science to try salvaging something is a fail.

Specific to Coyle's junk science, yes, weight is immaterial. But you are blatantly ignoring any output used to get the efficiency values was charitably, unreliable at best due to doping. You might as well call a state lottery an "investment." It's that kind of wildly unreliable.

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.

This is not clever or valid. This work and the original work are propaganda wrapped in science-like writing PASSED OFF AS GOOD SCIENCE.

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.

Fine. It's propaganda disguised as science. It's junk that's been used as reference for other attempts at the scientific process. The term "poisoning the well" applies. Are you happy?

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?

An HGH/IGF combo would recover a little faster every day than a clean athlete. A year of recovering a little faster turns into quite a bit of fitness. Even a month of recovering a little faster than a natural athlete would be a substantial difference. Never tested positive too!

The latest CYA is Coyle's junk science version 2.0.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm the one who started this thread, remember?

You started the thread as an apologist front for your discredited friend and we're not allowing you to spin bullsh!t into silver thread, don't blame me. I don't need superior IQ points to smell what you're shoveling. That must be humiliating to an ego such as yours. If you're to inept to cite your sources, apply at McDonalds. I live in a world where clarity by source citation is essential. I am unsurprised it is less important in your kind of "research." You are digging a hole, shoveling out your minimal integrity with every stroke. Carry on, I wouldn't want to get in the way of that, it's much to fun to watch.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If you're to inept to cite your sources, apply at McDonalds. I live in a world where clarity by source citation is essential. I am unsurprised it is less important in your kind of "research." You are digging a hole, shoveling out your minimal integrity with every stroke. Carry on, I wouldn't want to get in the way of that, it's much to fun to watch.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Obviously it wasn't consequential enough for the reviewers and editors to reject the paper. That is the only conclusion that one can really draw.

That's the only conclusion an inept apologist can draw...must suck in your house tonight. Then again, maybe they're just sh!tty reviewers and editors. You seem close to them all. A guy once told me that water seeks its own level. Welcome to your world.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I wish...I have one semester left, and should be getting my Bar results about a year from now. My first year was part-time because I was working full time, so I am a semester behind traditional students.

Dont't compare yourself to traditional students. You are where you are.

Be careful about not working to complete legal training. Working and taking just a little longer (really, it is) to complete it with minimal student debt is IMHO the best plan. I've had a couple of student loans. Don't go there. The debt pressure can be much more intense than the school itself.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Dont't compare yourself to traditional students. You are where you are.

Be careful about not working to complete legal training. Working and taking just a little longer (really, it is) to complete it with minimal student debt is IMHO the best plan. I've had a couple of student loans. Don't go there. The debt pressure can be much more intense than the school itself.

Too late...

My company downsized right before my second year, so things changed. The good news is that I earned a lot of scholarship money after my first year, but it still only cut my cost in half because I need some proceeds to live.

The other good news is that I got my first job offer last fall, and will move into that if some other avenues don't develop. In all honesty, I am not too worried about the student loans with income based repayment.

We'll see. All in all, I would do it all over again, so it isn't all bad.

 

[DirtyWorks]

You started the thread as an apologist front for your discredited friend and we're not allowing you to spin bullsh!t into silver thread, don't blame me. I don't need superior IQ points to smell what you're shoveling. That must be humiliating to an ego such as yours.

I'd rather not see Acoggan being nit-picked for pages. I think we all agree can't possibly win a case where his clergyman Coyle is not part of the problem. His own personal attacks aren't great either, but can we just leave it there?

 

[DirtyWorks]

We'll see. All in all, I would do it all over again, so it isn't all bad.

Best of luck to you.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'd rather not see Acoggan being nit-picked for pages. I think we all agree can't possibly win a case where his clergyman Coyle is not part of the problem. His own personal attacks aren't great either, but can we just leave it there?

Sure, I'll leave him alone. My point was made several posts ago anyway.

 

[Le breton]

No wonder I can't take you seriously.

Compare that to actual scientists at the LHC. They're latest reporting is all about a Higgs-like particle, even though it's a boson with the mass predicted by the standard model, the correct spin and all the predicted decay products in all the right quantities.

That's right. Even though all the data fits, none of the physicists are saying it *is* the Higgs boson. They're going to make damn sure, first.
Up to the reviewers and editors indeed.

John Swanson

They did, it is a Higgs boson, the only question remaining is which Higgs boson exactly.

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/03/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson.

 

[ulrichw]

I'm only going to do this once. Trying to smooth over Coyle's junk science to try salvaging something is a fail.

You're ascribing motives to me that I don't have. I'm in no way trying to defend Coyle.

I just feel it's misleading/detrimental to have such a black and white view of the world: You clearly believe that because Coyle is misguided at best, or malicious at worst in his defence of Lance nothing of value can come from him.

I don't feel the same way - some of his findings can be interesting for cycling and can have validity outside of his role in defending Lance.

[...] You might as well call a state lottery an "investment." It's that kind of wildly unreliable.

To steal your analogy, I'd say discarding all of Coyle's science out of hand is like saying someone who actually did win the state lottery didn't make any money.

Fine. It's propaganda disguised as science. It's junk that's been used as reference for other attempts at the scientific process. The term "poisoning the well" applies. Are you happy?

Closer - I would say it's a lot of propaganda, with some science. I believe in science's validity outside the context in which it was generated. If it's rigorous and repeatable it's valid, even if written by a crook.

An HGH/IGF combo would recover a little faster every day than a clean athlete. A year of recovering a little faster turns into quite a bit of fitness. Even a month of recovering a little faster than a natural athlete would be a substantial difference. Never tested positive too!

The latest CYA is Coyle's junk science version 2.0.

To me the interesting question what component of the increased fitness is "permanent" and what component disappears if/when you decrease the training load (off-season).
Coyle's data seem to imply a persistent increase in Lance's efficiency. Regardless of the source of that efficiency, that seems interesting to me.

Anyway - this thread has devolved to the usual Clinic pattern, so I think this is it for me.

 

[mattghg]

EVEN IF the recorded increase in LA's mechanical efficiency wasn't directly due to blood boosting, but rather 'chronic training' ... the blood boosting surely enabled him to train much harder than he otherwise would have been able to do. Right?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

From my reading, EPO develops smooth muscle - like heart muscle, and the muscles involved with blood vessels. Is it possible this has a positive effect on efficiency?

Huh. It also stimulates angiogenesis. Pretty sure that might help efficiency...

 

[Neworld]

Obviously it wasn't consequential enough for the reviewers and editors to reject the paper. That is the only conclusion that one can really draw.

Cogger,

No doubt you've got a few synapses that fire, but you are a bully with no apparent regard for what makes a valid research paper. Someone of your 'on paper' scientific prowess should be have the highest of comprehension wrt to scientific methodology and critical appraisal.

Now that it is exposed that your pal Coyle didn't even do the background work to get the actual weight(s) of Lancey to form his unscientific paper it speaks volumes of what other nonsense variables were in that sham study.

Basically fudging Lance's wt, or VO2Max ... makes the whole study useless; full stop. You do realize that don't you? Any answer other than 'yes guys Coyle's study is essentially a collection of post-it notes" discredits you to the point that I think all of your own work should be re-evaluated.

Stop making a fool of yourself. A first yr university student in basic scientific epidemiology could see through all this BS.

Why don't you do the right thing and write a LTTEditor and expose Coyle? Or are you in bed with the JAP?

http://www.the-aps.org/mm/Publications/Ethical-Policies

 

[Jeremiah]

I wonder if Coggan, Coyle, and Armstrong ever talk about the clinic? ;0

 

[Fatclimber]

Cogger,

No doubt you've got a few synapses that fire, but you are a bully with no apparent regard for what makes a valid research paper. Someone of your 'on paper' scientific prowess should be have the highest of comprehension wrt to scientific methodology and critical appraisal.

Now that it is exposed that your pal Coyle didn't even do the background work to get the actual weight(s) of Lancey to form his unscientific paper it speaks volumes of what other nonsense variables were in that sham study.

Basically fudging Lance's wt, or VO2Max ... makes the whole study useless; full stop. You do realize that don't you? Any answer other than 'yes guys Coyle's study is essentially a collection of post-it notes" discredits you to the point that I think all of your own work should be re-evaluated.

Stop making a fool of yourself. A first yr university student in basic scientific epidemiology could see through all this BS.

Why don't you do the right thing and write a LTTEditor and expose Coyle? Or are you in bed with the JAP?

http://www.the-aps.org/mm/Publications/Ethical-Policies

Yeah I always had a certain amount of respect for Coggan and his work but now find his credibility in question.

It does, however, give me ideas for a study of equal relevance as this Coyle debauchery. I will weigh myself November 25th after thanksgiving dinner and a few beers (maybe with clothes on and rocks in my pockets) followed up by a threshold & VO2 test, nevermind that no focused training will have been conducted for months. Then I'll repeat July 1, 2014 and report my hellacious improvements in p/wt ratios. Then maybe I can sell my wonderous training plans for billions!