Coyle's new stance on Lance

[acoggan]

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.

If you want to join the scientific conversation, you have to pay the price (in some manner)...that's simply reality, as even e-publication carries with it some cost.

More relevantly, it's not my fault that you chose a different path in life, such that you don't have free access to something that now interests you. (And no, I'm not going to reproduce the entire text of studies here, since that could be viewed as violation of the fair use doctrine.)

 

[acoggan]

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?

No doubt...in fact, I once biopsied a bunch of master powerlifters (to try to understand the effects of strenuous resistance training on the aging process), but never published the data because of the possibility that the data were "contaminated" by steroid use. Coyle, though, states that he was unaware of Armstrong'd PED use.

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?

Having more mitochondria allows you to maintain the same ATP flux with less metabolic strain (or, conversely, a higher ATP flux for the same metabolic strain), but doesn't improve thermodynamic efficiency.

 

[acoggan]

I thought Andy would tear you apart on that one

I probably should have, given that it is a question of physics!!

 

[blackcat]

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.

kant/cant: the phraseology peculiar to a particular class, party, profession,

right you are, the weasel wording has at its primary motive to exclude

 

[Le breton]

If you want to join the scientific conversation, you have to pay the price (in some manner)...that's simply reality, as even e-publication carries with it some cost.

More relevantly, it's not my fault that you chose a different path in life, such that you don't have free access to something that now interests you. (And no, I'm not going to reproduce the entire text of studies here, since that could be viewed as violation of the fair use doctrine.)

Many years ago I used to write to authors asking for their pre-prints.

In a more recent past preprints have disappeared, at least in physics, and just about everything is published under open access.

Without reproducing the whole text, for the sake of the discussion at hand, you could reproduce the main results which are not visible only because the abstracts exceed the 250 words limit.

After all, most of the forum participants are not in your private club.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Many years ago I used to write to authors asking for their pre-prints.

In a more recent past preprints have disappeared, at least in physics, and just about everything is published under open access.

Without reproducing the whole text, for the sake of the discussion at hand, you could reproduce the main results which are not visible only because the abstracts exceed the 250 words limit.

After all, most of the forum participants are not in your private club.

A votre service:

Cycling efficiency is related to the percentage of type I muscle fibers
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ted_to_the_percentage_of_type_I_muscle_fibers

High efficiency of type I muscle fibers improves performance.
http://cycleseven.org/wp-content/uploads2/coyle-study.pdf

 

[Le breton]

A votre service:

Cycling efficiency is related to the percentage of type I muscle fibers
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ted_to_the_percentage_of_type_I_muscle_fibers

High efficiency of type I muscle fibers improves performance.
http://cycleseven.org/wp-content/uploads2/coyle-study.pdf

THANKS A LOT

I signed on Researchgate but failed because as a retired member of my old institution I do not have a valid address there, in spite of the fact that I still do some work for them a few weeks per year.

Anyway, no such sign up needed with cycleseven (maybe am I unknowingly a registered user of Seven titanium bikes )

PS: After a quick look :

Nice paper, I'll read thoroughly later.

Thanks again

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A votre service:

Cycling efficiency is related to the percentage of type I muscle fibers
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ted_to_the_percentage_of_type_I_muscle_fibers

High efficiency of type I muscle fibers improves performance.
http://cycleseven.org/wp-content/uploads2/coyle-study.pdf

Merci beaucoup, mon ami.

 

[elapid]

Hmmmm, in the power meter thread in the fitness section you were defending the paper of Swart because it was published. It is clearly a piece of junk science because the data doesn't support the conclusions drawn.

There is a big difference between Swart's and Coyle's paper. Swart et al measured everything themselves. While you may not like their conclusions, their hypothesis, methodology and results were solid. They did not rely on a measurement that they did not take, and they did not compare two totally different time frames and pretend they were the same. Coyle did.

 

[elapid]

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.

So Coyle used a weight he did not measure to make apple-to-orange comparisons of power-to-weight ratio on an athlete that he had a man crush on to fit theories on muscle efficiency he previously published? Coyle's scientific methods and reputation just get better and better.

 

[elapid]

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).

If you don't respond to things that are not factual in nature, why are you saying anything at all about Coyle's paper when there is nothing factual about his case report on Lance?

 

[Neworld]

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.

Lets look at the facts and the lack of valid data.

-->RE: Ed Coyle: Journal of Applied Physiology, June 1, 2005 vol. 98 no. 6 2191-219

-Case study, with ONE subject
-no comparison to age matched controls.
-one subject sampled 5 times over 7 yrs.
-no control for timing in calander yea (sometimes preseason, some postseason, once shortly after chemotherapy)
-no objective weight measurements, the subject self-reported weights in a highly irregular and biased manner.
-VO2Max calculation definition: VO2 max is expressed either as an absolute rate in litres (L/min) or as a relative rate in mL of oxygen per kilogram of bodyweight per minute (mL/kg/min). The latter expression is often used to compare the performance of endurance sports athletes.

Analysis ***:
-Case series are inherently the weakest of research projects, they are not case controls studies, cohort studies or Randomized trials.
-Case series are essentially descriptive and can only lead to further work or delineation of a new Null Hypothesis.
-Case series, or in this scenario, a Case report on one rider (forget that we even now know he is a proven doper) with sporadic data collection techniques, some valid other non-valid, are completely violated by selection and information bias and ultimately well documented Confunding.

In most, if not all, levels of academia this case report is more like a fanciful soft finding. Like an astronomer looking into hit telescope and thinking that maybe a new star looks like his dog and sharing it with friends. Or a General Surgeon looking at an Xray and seeing gas in the stomach that looks like a bagel and tells his buddies about it at rounds.

But, since Coyle took it further it became dangerous like ‘negative teaching’ and even academically disturbing. Combine that with a lack of real data (biased and invalid subject weight), illogical/non-reproducible temporal sampling, non-comparative, and overall biased and confounding methodology THIS PAPER IS COMPLETELY USELESS and a statistically bottom of the barrel piece of paper. It doesn’t make sense, is without real data and now we know Lance was bleeding out EPO, Test, GH… is as someone already said…not human. That doesn’t even bother to rationalize how a case report could remotely begin to explain the factors involved in an athlete who had medical and surgical oncology interventions in the middle of this 7 yr period FFS.

What is really sad about this is that Cogger makes the OP for what reason? To show the clinic that Coyle has partially realized some worthless new notion? To provide a backhanded way of exposing Coyle? To start a re-debate of Coyles worthless paper while he assumes his Provincial stance in Academia overshadowing the rest of us?

Coggan, who never misses an opportunity to name drop or reveal his status, is more inclined to sporadically split hairs and dissect posters with each new position offered. It would appear a more honest approach would be for him to use his learned status to educate the rest of us as to why the study is still valid/invalid since Lancey has confessed to polluting his athletic prowess for years. It would appear that Coggan has no intent in being clear about Coyle, Lance and cycling efficiency in Proriders. It would appear that despite Coggan's proximity to resources to test future cycling efficiency in Proriders he will not at the very least even suggest some creative research ideas.

Even with a theoretically 'clean' Lance with accurate weights, Ed Coyle's case report published in 2005 is so weak that it should have never made it to publication. Who knows what is real in that ‘paper’, how many other lies are hiding in it and if the JAP permitted that trash publication because of collisional funds from Lance or the academic fraternity of sicophants.

Regardless of what Cogger says about "well JAP thought it was reasonable or valid', it is a party conversation at most. What you won’t hear the Cogger say is IMO:
1. Coyle’s paper shouldn’t have been published.
2. Reporting loose data groups on a known doper is incomprehensible.
3. No knowing actual/accurate a subject's weight over 7 years, taking only 5 invalid measurements, makes the study incomprehensible.
4. Coyle should ask the JAP to remove the paper in the spirit of sound research
5. I have no financial connection with Ed Coyle
6. I have never been, am not, and have no intent on being a JAP editor/reviewer.

PS: I have calls out to 4 of my old University pals at various Human Kinetics/Biology sites in Canada to get their opinions on Coyle’s paper. When I get them I will share them with you. I have already heard an assessment on Andy Coggan; not flattering and the description sure is similar to Boywonder.

***Drs. D. Sackett and G. Guyatt
http://jmvertiz.posgrado.unam.mx/pmdcmos02/convocatorias/Users_guide_medical_literature.pdf

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Great post, Neworld.

I am curious if the conclusion or hypothesis of fibre conversion due to pedaling at ~100rpm in training is mitigated at all by the fact the "data" from Coyle's LA study were obtained while he rode at 85rpm?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And given it's relatively slow cadence, and the test relatively quick if the improvement may have come from increased AWC?

 

[python]

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.

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.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So Coyle used a weight he did not measure to make apple-to-orange comparisons of power-to-weight ratio on an athlete that he had a man crush on, who was doping and had been doping to fit theories on muscle efficiency he previously published? Coyle's scientific methods and reputation just get better and better.

I added a little bit. Nice plain language summary of why the study and the latest follow-up needs to be shamed.

NewWorld's extended quote is written in a more scientific language and really tears it apart as it needs to be. But, some will get lost in the more special language used.

 

[Merckx index]

Having more mitochondria allows you to maintain the same ATP flux with less metabolic strain (or, conversely, a higher ATP flux for the same metabolic strain), but doesn't improve thermodynamic efficiency.

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.

I don’t know what you mean by “metabolic strain”, but I’m guessing it refers to utilization of enzymatic resources, as in, more mitochondria or higher enzymatic activity allows the same production of ATP without full utilization of these resources (or higher ATP production with full utilization). I’m also guessing that by thermodynamic efficiency you are referring again to oxygen utilization, as in, more mitochondria or higher enzymatic activity will result in greater ATP production, but will also require more oxygen, so that the oxygen/power ratio will not be changed.

But again, this ignores my question: how do you know this? I agree with you (if this is what you meant) that if ATP production increases, so must oxygen utilization, but again, if you are measuring oxygen utilization as what actually is taken up by the lungs, then you are measuring thermodynamic efficiency in muscle cells indirectly. You are assuming that what is taken up by the blood in the lungs accurately reflects what is taken up by the tissue sites, that they change in lockstep.

Do you know this for a fact? Have there been studies demonstrating this? Perhaps, as I suggested before, measurements of CO2, though even if this increased, there could be alternative explanations. In any case, if there haven’t been such studies, how can you rule out the possibility that if enzymatic activity is higher, the oxygen dissociation equilibrium at the tissue sites is perturbed, so that the same amount of oxygen in the blood results in a greater amount of oxygen being utilized by the tissue? Or for that matter, there are other types of changes during training that can increase the amount of oxygen dissociated, for example, levels of 2, 3-diphosphoglycerate increase.

If there were a well-established process that could increase efficiency in the sense that you define it, then exploring a mechanism like this might not be worthwhile. But given by your own admission that the possibility of type I/type II conversion is purely speculative, then I should think you would want to entertain other forms of speculation.

 

[noddy69]

If you want to join the scientific conversation, you have to pay the price (in some manner)...that's simply reality, as even e-publication carries with it some cost.

More relevantly, it's not my fault that you chose a different path in life, such that you don't have free access to something that now interests you. (And no, I'm not going to reproduce the entire text of studies here, since that could be viewed as violation of the fair use doctrine.)

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

 

[function]

Coyle liked being next to what he saw as greatness.

Quite possibly.

Related and posted for entertainment (i hold no opinion of Dr Coyle) purposes..

“I’ve not seen any athletes higher than the low 80s, and we’ve tested some elite athletes,” says Edward Coyle, director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/m...ain-human.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=magazine

And amusingly, an Armstrong link to keep it on topic

Lance Armstrong ‏@lancearmstrong
Best endurance athlete alive today? Quite possibly. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/magazine/creating-the-all-terrain-human.html?ref=magazine …

 

[D-Queued]

Related and posted for entertainment (i hold no opinion of Dr Coyle) purposes..



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/m...ain-human.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=magazine

And amusingly, an Armstrong link to keep it on topic

Gives the man-crush jokes about McConaughey some substance.

Dave.

 

[Neworld]

Items like this may have already been posted...sorry if they have.


Coyle's Myth(s) changing actual science.

1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0722_050722_armstrong.html

2. http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/THE-TOUR-DE-FRANCE-LANCE-ARMSTRONG-S-FINAL-RIDE-2620989.php
--> this one found Lancey's Lungs consume twice as much O2 as any other human.

3.http://bleacherreport.com/articles/50422-the-science-of-lance-armstrong
--> Superhuman Lance stats from Chris Lane (2008). This is a must
read, what a joke.


This is an interesting read
Science of Sport analysis- this really dissects Coyle's nasty web of lies
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html

Ed Coyle personal
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ed-coyle/29/b50/b0

 

[sittingbison]

Wonderboy is genetically gifted:
1) heart 3 times normal size
2) lungs are like bellows
3) "the pipe between torso and legs" (ie the aorta) is 3 times the size of a normal person
4) cancer treatment changed muscle fibre from slow twitch to fast twitch (or vice versa)
5) cancer stripped 10kg of puppy fat of his frame
6) enlarged heart and lungs causes aerodynamic hump in back
7) super organs drastically reduce lactic acid build up
8) "worlds best" VO2max 83 ml/kg/min
9) super lean 74kg...wait its 79kg....no its 72kg...oops make that 82kg
10) on his bike 6 hours per day...what are you on?

EDIT: I wonder if wonderboy used point number 3 to hook the twins and Sheryl Crow

 

[Neworld]

Wonderboy is genetically gifted:
1) heart 3 times normal size
2) lungs are like bellows
3) "the pipe between torso and legs" (ie the aorta) is 3 times the size of a normal person
4) cancer treatment changed muscle fibre from slow twitch to fast twitch (or vice versa)
5) cancer stripped 10kg of puppy fat of his frame
6) enlarged heart and lungs causes aerodynamic hump in back
7) super organs drastically reduce lactic acid build up
8) "worlds best" VO2max 83 ml/kg/min
9) super lean 74kg...wait its 79kg....no its 72kg...oops make that 82kg
10) on his bike 6 hours per day...what are you on?

EDIT: I wonder if wonderboy used point number 3 to hook the twins and Sheryl Crow

Nice collection.

PS: Love RH in Blade Runner too. "...Time to die."

 

[D-Queued]

Wonderboy is genetically gifted:
1) heart 3 times normal size
2) lungs are like bellows
3) "the pipe between torso and legs" (ie the aorta) is 3 times the size of a normal person
4) cancer treatment changed muscle fibre from slow twitch to fast twitch (or vice versa)
5) cancer stripped 10kg of puppy fat of his frame
6) enlarged heart and lungs causes aerodynamic hump in back
7) super organs drastically reduce lactic acid build up
8) "worlds best" VO2max 83 ml/kg/min
9) super lean 74kg...wait its 79kg....no its 72kg...oops make that 82kg
10) on his bike 6 hours per day...what are you on?

EDIT: I wonder if wonderboy used point number 3 to hook the twins and Sheryl Crow

I thought #4 was more along the lines that the muscle fibre could change on the fly, as needed, back and forth from fast to slow twitch depending on the specific effort required at that point in a race.

Dave.

 

[acoggan]

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.

Lets look at the facts and the lack of valid data.

-->RE: Ed Coyle: Journal of Applied Physiology, June 1, 2005 vol. 98 no. 6 2191-219

-Case study, with ONE subject
-no comparison to age matched controls.
-one subject sampled 5 times over 7 yrs.
-no control for timing in calander yea (sometimes preseason, some postseason, once shortly after chemotherapy)
-no objective weight measurements, the subject self-reported weights in a highly irregular and biased manner.
-VO2Max calculation definition: VO2 max is expressed either as an absolute rate in litres (L/min) or as a relative rate in mL of oxygen per kilogram of bodyweight per minute (mL/kg/min). The latter expression is often used to compare the performance of endurance sports athletes.

Analysis ***:
-Case series are inherently the weakest of research projects, they are not case controls studies, cohort studies or Randomized trials.
-Case series are essentially descriptive and can only lead to further work or delineation of a new Null Hypothesis.
-Case series, or in this scenario, a Case report on one rider (forget that we even now know he is a proven doper) with sporadic data collection techniques, some valid other non-valid, are completely violated by selection and information bias and ultimately well documented Confunding.

In most, if not all, levels of academia this case report is more like a fanciful soft finding. Like an astronomer looking into hit telescope and thinking that maybe a new star looks like his dog and sharing it with friends. Or a General Surgeon looking at an Xray and seeing gas in the stomach that looks like a bagel and tells his buddies about it at rounds.

But, since Coyle took it further it became dangerous like ‘negative teaching’ and even academically disturbing. Combine that with a lack of real data (biased and invalid subject weight), illogical/non-reproducible temporal sampling, non-comparative, and overall biased and confounding methodology THIS PAPER IS COMPLETELY USELESS and a statistically bottom of the barrel piece of paper. It doesn’t make sense, is without real data and now we know Lance was bleeding out EPO, Test, GH… is as someone already said…not human. That doesn’t even bother to rationalize how a case report could remotely begin to explain the factors involved in an athlete who had medical and surgical oncology interventions in the middle of this 7 yr period FFS.

What is really sad about this is that Cogger makes the OP for what reason? To show the clinic that Coyle has partially realized some worthless new notion? To provide a backhanded way of exposing Coyle? To start a re-debate of Coyles worthless paper while he assumes his Provincial stance in Academia overshadowing the rest of us?

Coggan, who never misses an opportunity to name drop or reveal his status, is more inclined to sporadically split hairs and dissect posters with each new position offered. It would appear a more honest approach would be for him to use his learned status to educate the rest of us as to why the study is still valid/invalid since Lancey has confessed to polluting his athletic prowess for years. It would appear that Coggan has no intent in being clear about Coyle, Lance and cycling efficiency in Proriders. It would appear that despite Coggan's proximity to resources to test future cycling efficiency in Proriders he will not at the very least even suggest some creative research ideas.

Even with a theoretically 'clean' Lance with accurate weights, Ed Coyle's case report published in 2005 is so weak that it should have never made it to publication. Who knows what is real in that ‘paper’, how many other lies are hiding in it and if the JAP permitted that trash publication because of collisional funds from Lance or the academic fraternity of sicophants.

Regardless of what Cogger says about "well JAP thought it was reasonable or valid', it is a party conversation at most. What you won’t hear the Cogger say is IMO:
1. Coyle’s paper shouldn’t have been published.
2. Reporting loose data groups on a known doper is incomprehensible.
3. No knowing actual/accurate a subject's weight over 7 years, taking only 5 invalid measurements, makes the study incomprehensible.
4. Coyle should ask the JAP to remove the paper in the spirit of sound research
5. I have no financial connection with Ed Coyle
6. I have never been, am not, and have no intent on being a JAP editor/reviewer.

PS: I have calls out to 4 of my old University pals at various Human Kinetics/Biology sites in Canada to get their opinions on Coyle’s paper. When I get them I will share them with you. I have already heard an assessment on Andy Coggan; not flattering and the description sure is similar to Boywonder.

***Drs. D. Sackett and G. Guyatt
http://jmvertiz.posgrado.unam.mx/pmdcmos02/convocatorias/Users_guide_medical_literature.pdf

Sorry to be so late to the party, but to answer your question: I started the thread simply to keep people informed of happenings in the scientific literature.

As for the list of things you claim you'll never hear me say, I've already said some of them (and always have), whereas to state others would be an outright lie (e.g., of course I'm a reviewer for JAP).