Coyle's new stance on Lance

[acoggan]

Why not just say "It is likely that the improved gross mechanical efficiency and reduced body weight displayed in the subject of the 2005 paper [...] was somehow influenced by his reported drug use." ?

Because - as I attempted to illustrate before by asking you for references, which you were unable to supply - the scientific literature doesn't support that conclusion.

 

[acoggan]

various statements such as enlarged heart causing an aerodynamic hump

Man, now who is engaging in hyperbole in an apparent attempt to prop up a myth??

 

[acoggan]

Coyle liked being next to what he saw as greatness.

Quite possibly.

The fact that someone who was testing and measuring Wonderboy missed the fact that he was a chemical filled bag of lies is a sad commentary on either the methods used by scientists reviewing and editing physiological studies

Physiological tests can't tell you whether or not someone is using drugs, at least/especially with only a handful of time points spread out over years.

Wanna bet on whether Coyle has a signed Yellow jersey somewhere?

I'd actually be a bit surprised if he does...my understanding is that he and Armstrong didn't really get along all that well.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Quite possibly.

Fair enough then.

Physiological tests can't tell you whether or not someone is using drugs, at least/especially with only a handful of time points spread out over years.

Considering the rumors and other things that, while not accepted, were common knowledge, would it not have been incumbent upon him to at least consider addressing the issue of doping? He precluded drug use by omission, when drug use was clearly the most important factor in Armstrong's success. His attribution of that success to other things while missing the pink elephant in Armstrong's blood is a failure on his part.

I'd actually be a bit surprised if he does...my understanding is that he and Armstrong didn't really get along all that well.

$100?

 

[dopingectomy]

Because - as I attempted to illustrate before by asking you for references, which you were unable to supply - the scientific literature doesn't support that conclusion.

I gave you references of T that improve mitochondrial function. Please read them.

 

[dopingectomy]

Physiological tests can't tell you whether or not someone is using drugs, at least/especially with only a handful of time points spread out over years.

The question is not whether physiological tests can tell if someone is or is not using drugs, the question is, knowing that someone used drugs (a fact), what are the implications on the physiological tests.

That's the other way around. Something that Coyle (and you apparently) refuse to understand.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Apparently you are unaware that Coyle had previously published several studies supporting the conclusion that efficiency improves with training, presumably as a result of an increase in type I fiber percentage. The Discussion of the Armstrong paper is entirely consistent with these prior studies.

Were these studies on elite cyclists/triatlists or on non - trained volunteers? And, how much did their efficiency rise? Wouldnt an elite cyclist be already at his best efficiency, ergo, what made him an elite cyclist in the first place? Of course there would be room for improvement, but 18%, in the off season? Even a 1% rise can make a top 10 rider a GT winner.

Now that u mention it, the explanation on 18% growth in efficiency due to fibres changing came in handy. Coyle seeing the inexplainable numbers and had a ''bling'' moment; 'hey, don't I have a study on efficiency laying around in the closet? Lets use that!'

What is your professional opinion on the absence of data for the one time Coyle measered Armstrong IN season? That is what I meant when I mentioned bending data.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The question is not whether physiological tests can tell if someone is or is not using drugs, the question is, knowing that someone used drugs (a fact), what are the implications on the physiological tests.

That's the other way around. Something that Coyle (and you apparently) refuse to understand.

This is a great example of the collective agreement problem with the original and current work. The number of experienced people defending this junk is just breathtaking. The consequences are widespread. I'm glad I stayed out of science.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Not all science is like this! Typically, when you get an unexpected result, the first thought isn't "Ah-ha! I've found something!", it's more along the lines of "Huh. I guess I screwed up my test setup or something".

Along those lines, Dr. Coggan has indeed given some citations (more than one) where the studies show an improvement in efficiency in response to training for elite and pro cyclists.

Now if that were true, there would be the following questions and consequences:

- If an elite athlete responds to training by increasing gME, then there must be either: no upper bounds on efficiency - it'll keep on increasing forever (i.e., elite athletes are always training); there are severe fluctuations in efficiency when training stops for even brief periods; or insufficient sampling - the rise in efficiency is an artifact of the testing.

- There is no mechanism that has been tested which could explain the changes in efficiency. Changes in muscle-fiber types has been suggested, but never tested via muscle biopsy.

- Although not well understood, it's is reasonable to hypothesize that among the cocktail of undisclosed PEDs used by the study groups, there might be a confounding effect which mimics or stimulates actual increases in mechanical efficiency.

I lean very heavily towards the "Huh. This is obviously incorrect." rather than the "Hell yes, efficiency definitely changes by large amounts".

John Swanson

 

[CoachFergie]

Check all the long TTs from last year. Wiggo was pretty much first in all of them.

Gosh, how scientific.

 

[acoggan]

Considering the rumors and other things that, while not accepted, were common knowledge, would it not have been incumbent upon him to at least consider addressing the issue of doping?

I'm trying to picture how that would work...that is, since the paper was a case study how could Coyle have raised this issue, even in an abstract sense, without appearing to be accusing Armstrong? Even if Armstrong weren't known for being vindictive and/or litigious, that likely wouldn't have gotten past the reviewers because it would have been considered too speculative.

$100?

I don't know enough about the matter to bet even $1. You do, though, now have me curious...does Coyle indeed have a signed yellow jersey? (And if so, I wonder what, if anything, he's done with it now.)

 

[acoggan]

I gave you references of T that improve mitochondrial function.

Mitochondrial function =/= efficiency.

 

[acoggan]

The question is not whether physiological tests can tell if someone is or is not using drugs, the question is, knowing that someone used drugs (a fact), what are the implications on the physiological tests.

That's the other way around. Something that Coyle (and you apparently) refuse to understand.

I think you're the one who refuses to understand:

1. According to Coyle, when he wrote the paper he didn't know that Armstrong used PEDs.

2. Now that he does, he's stated that the data are uninterpretable (an assessment with which I agree).

 

[acoggan]

Were these studies on elite cyclists/triatlists or on non - trained volunteers? And, how much did their efficiency rise?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1501563

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8005729

Etc.

Wouldnt an elite cyclist be already at his best efficiency, ergo, what made him an elite cyclist in the first place?

Not necessarily (see below).

Of course there would be room for improvement, but 18%, in the off season?

You're confused: Armstrong's apparently efficiency rose by 8-9% (in a relative sense) over a 7 y period, not by 18% during one off season.

Even a 1% rise can make a top 10 rider a GT winner.

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.)

Now that u mention it, the explanation on 18% growth in efficiency due to fibres changing came in handy. Coyle seeing the inexplainable numbers and had a ''bling'' moment; 'hey, don't I have a study on efficiency laying around in the closet? Lets use that!'

More likely he dug out Armstrong's data with the efficiency explanation already in mind.

What is your professional opinion on the absence of data for the one time Coyle measered Armstrong IN season? That is what I meant when I mentioned bending data.

Absent any explanation, I've always simply assumed that only VO2max and not efficiency (or LT or body composition) were measured when Armstrong visited Coyle's lab in September of 1993. That is something a reviewer should have picked up on, though.

 

[acoggan]

Dr. Coggan has indeed given some citations (more than one) where the studies show an improvement in efficiency in response to training for elite and pro cyclists.

That's right.

- If an elite athlete responds to training by increasing gME, then there must be either: no upper bounds on efficiency - it'll keep on increasing forever (i.e., elite athletes are always training); there are severe fluctuations in efficiency when training stops for even brief periods

"Severe"?? Even in Armstrong's case, the reported improvement in gross efficiency was only 8-9% in a relative sense, or 1-2% in an absolute sense. That's certainly large enough to be measurable, but only with due care.

- There is no mechanism that has been tested which could explain the changes in efficiency. Changes in muscle-fiber types has been suggested, but never tested via muscle biopsy.

Are you referring to the Coyle study specifically, or research in general? If the latter, then you're simply wrong. That is, numerous studies have been published in which biopsy samples have been obtained pre- and post- changes in habitual physical activity (<-I use that term to encompass things like hauling a sledge by ski to the North Pole, something that, while undoubtedly quite arduous, doesn't really fall under what most people consider "training"). While the evidence for fiber type transformation is mixed, the possibility clearly cannot be ruled out. Moreover, you wouldn't necessarily have to have ANY change in fiber type for there to be a change in muscle contractile properties, which are really the key here. Finally, a better matching of the speed of muscle contraction to the demands of pedaling is not the only possible mechanism by which training might improve efficiency...it was simply what Coyle hypothesized in his Discussion. (You do know that authors of scientific papers are allowed - indeed, often encouraged - to provide plausible explanations for their observations, even if they are untested?)

I lean very heavily towards the "Huh. This is obviously incorrect." rather than the "Hell yes, efficiency definitely changes by large amounts".

Debates about magnitude aside, I think you're wrong...and the literature clearly supports me.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm trying to picture how that would work...that is, since the paper was a case study how could Coyle have raised this issue, even in an abstract sense, without appearing to be accusing Armstrong? Even if Armstrong weren't known for being vindictive and/or litigious, that likely wouldn't have gotten past the reviewers because it would have been considered too speculative.



I don't know enough about the matter to bet even $1. You do, though, now have me curious...does Coyle indeed have a signed yellow jersey? (And if so, I wonder what, if anything, he's done with it now.)

I guess the law side gets the best of me. In legal research, if faced with a contingency or counter information, you address it, and you address it as directly as you can. There was plenty of speculation at the time, and my question is this: Is having egg on your face later because the subject you said was a unique specimen turned out to be a walking chemistry experiment worth ignoring information that was in the public sphere? It isn't like the possibility Lance was doping was unknown. How you control for it is irrelevant because to pretend it doesn't exist produces junk science that is wholly unreliable. He didn't test Armstrong. He tested for who he thought Armstrong was, and then he used that study to promote himself, and the myth of Armstrong.

All anyone is really saying is that Coyle had the opportunity to produce a relevant, thorough study. That isn't what happened though, and all obfuscation in the world isn't going to change that.

I appreciate your tone and willingness to engage, but like many have said, you aren't convincing anyone. Coyle had an opportunity to just admit he was wrong. Instead, he is trying to blow smoke up everyone's a$$.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

That's right.

So you agree that I have agreed with something that exists. Okay.

Now how about you address the entirety of my post which contains, you know, all the salient points and questions.

I've notice that you do this quite often. Highly selective edits of quotes, answering a small fraction of what you've been challenged with.

Highly inappropriate for someone of your education and standing.

John Swanson

 

[D-Queued]

I'm trying to picture how that would work...that is, since the paper was a case study how could Coyle have raised this issue, even in an abstract sense, without appearing to be accusing Armstrong? Even if Armstrong weren't known for being vindictive and/or litigious, that likely wouldn't have gotten past the reviewers because it would have been considered too speculative.



I don't know enough about the matter to bet even $1. You do, though, now have me curious...does Coyle indeed have a signed yellow jersey? (And if so, I wonder what, if anything, he's done with it now.)

You are arguing that a scientific study should ignore the obvious because of the researcher's desire to obtain a cordial personal relationship?

Puhlease.

If so, then there should be no surprise when the results are so OBVIOUSLY tainted due to a complete lack of objectivity.

It isn't that Coyle chose to ignore doping. The TRUTH is that Coyle's fictional study was exhibit #1 as proof that Lance was not doping.

Doping had EVERYTHING to do with that 'study'.

Please don't try and hide from the truth of that.

@acoggan, how can you even consider ANY defense of Coyle and his work? It was and is completely indefensible.

Dave.

 

[noddy69]

As I corrected myself, there is no evidence that any of the DATA are incorrect.



So tell me, what numbers in the paper do you think Coyle made up, and what evidence do you have that he did so?

OK oK then stay in your bubble and keep believing that a study that was published without all the data which has kept data hidden so others cannot copy done by a man discredited and had a case of scientific misconduct placed against him is ok and scientifically up to scratch so to speak.

In the scientific world the paper was nothing more than trivia bordering on fantasy and no true scientist put any faith in it.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I've notice that you do this quite often. Highly selective edits of quotes, answering a small fraction of what you've been challenged with.

Highly inappropriate for someone of your education and standing.

John Swanson

Coggan and a couple of others do this intellectual version of slumming where they strategically hide behind scientific language when they need it. A half-smart reader can see it for the learned language it is, not some kind of superior argument.

It's unfortunate that we'll have to live with this epic bad science.

 

[Le breton]

......
- If an elite athlete responds to training by increasing gME, then there must be either: no upper bounds on efficiency - it'll keep on increasing forever (i.e., elite athletes are always training);
John Swanson

I thought Andy would tear you apart on that one

 

[Le breton]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1501563

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8005729

.

Not nice Andy, you tantalize us, then we reach the 250 words limit and we are left totally in the dark about the final results.

I guess that's the way science move forward (backwards?) in medicine.

 

[Merckx index]

I'm trying to picture how that would work...that is, since the paper was a case study how could Coyle have raised this issue, even in an abstract sense, without appearing to be accusing Armstrong? Even if Armstrong weren't known for being vindictive and/or litigious, that likely wouldn't have gotten past the reviewers because it would have been considered too speculative.

Oh, come on. The data may have been obtained in the 1990s, but the paper was published in 2005. Nobody forced Coyle to publish at that time. Wouldn’t the prudent course of action, given all the rumors (not to mention the EPO positives), be just not to publish?

Aside from the question of why Coyle ever published this study, though, the question of whether efficiency can be increased by training is an interesting one. Andy Coggan, I think you have hurt your cause a little here by not explaining more carefully what efficiency means. On the one hand, by mechanical efficiency, Coyle is referring to the ability of muscle fibers to convert a given amount of chemical, metabolic energy to actual physical force. I take it that type I fibers are more efficient than type II fibers—certainly at a certain optimal cadence range for cyclists—and that this is the basis for his speculation that efficiency could be improved by a conversion of type II to type I fibers.

OTOH, though, efficiency is actually measured, as I understand it, by determining the ratio of power output to oxygen intake. Therefore, it seems to me that anything that increases the utilization of a given level of oxygen intake would increase efficiency, even if there were no actual increase in mechanical efficiency. For example, it has been known for several decades that training increases the activity of several aerobic enzymes, such as citrate synthase and carnitine-palmitoyl transferase. Unless the amount of oxygen is the rate-limiting factor, this would result in an increase in power output relative to oxygen intake. Even if oxygen is rate-limiting, given that there is an equilibrium between oxygen in the blood and oxygen taken up by tissues, one would expect that anything that increased the capacity of tissues to use oxygen would result in some increase is uptake.

So my question is, why have you and Coyle not considered such an explanation, given that the basis for it is well-established? Or for that matter, other well-established effects of training, such as an increase in vascularization of the tissues? Can simple respiratory measurements rule out an increase in efficiency by these processes, and if so, how? Is CO2 also measured, so that the actual amount of oxygen utilized, as opposed to that taken in, can be estimated?

 

[acoggan]

So you agree that I have agreed with something that exists. Okay.

Now how about you address the entirety of my post which contains, you know, all the salient points and questions.

I've notice that you do this quite often. Highly selective edits of quotes, answering a small fraction of what you've been challenged with.

Highly inappropriate for someone of your education and standing.

John Swanson

I addressed the points on which I disagree. If anyone says anything and I ignore it, you can assume that 1) I agree, or 2) I don't consider it worthy of a response (e.g., what they've said isn't factual in nature, and therefore can't be disputed).

 

[D-Queued]

Coggan and a couple of others do this intellectual version of slumming where they strategically hide behind scientific language when they need it. A half-smart reader can see it for the learned language it is, not some kind of superior argument.

It's unfortunate that we'll have to live with this epic bad science.

And, by his own admission, selectively ignore valid input when they don't like it.

Dave.