Ed Coyle's paper about LA delta efficiency is a fraud.

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
But this doesn't pass the *sniff* test. So does that mean after ten years pros are 28% more efficient?
Why *** u me that the trend is linear??

ScienceIsCool said:
Do we see this in reality? 22 year olds can not win a race to save their lives, but 27 year old pros clean up? 32 year olds are unstoppable?
No, but ask yourself this: if VO2max and LT do not continue to increase over time (and they don't), then what explains the fact that performance itself does, i.e., elite endurance athletes are generally "at the top of their game" in their late 20s/early 30s? Tactics, race smarts, etc., can't explain this, because the same trend is apparent in sports where such things make very little, if any, difference.

ScienceIsCool said:
Is the 14% improvement in DE the same for *all* the cyclists in the group?
Obviously not...but then again, perhaps that explains why only some go on to, e.g., win the Tour de France.


ScienceIsCool said:
What is the physiological basis for this improvement? Have the riders been screened for other factors such as PEDs or comparative muscle biopsies?
The precise mechanism isn't really relevant to the question at hand. The point is that a completely independent study observed changes in efficiency similar to (actually, greater than) those reported by Coyle for Armstrong. This significantly undermines the Aussie's claims that efficiency is essentially immutable.

ScienceIsCool said:
if that r = -0.6 is the coefficient of regression... Phew.
Again, irrelevant.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
acoggan said:
Why start a thread on the subject in the first place? The flaws of the paper are widely known, at least to people who frequent forums such as this one, so you can't claim that it was necessary to correct the historical record. Thus, one is forced to conclude that your desire was to denigrate Coyle, Armstrong, or both. That is certainly your right, but it hardly makes you appear to be an objective observer.
I'm relatively new to this forum so I didn't know that this topic had been discussed before. In hindsight it would have been better to have done a search, found a previous thread and posted the 2008 Gore et al letter in there. My desire was to explore the idea that Armstrong's performance enhancement may not be the result of improved efficiency because the flaws in Ed Coyle's paper prevent us from reaching this conclusion. The paper created a myth that Armstrong was able to improve relative to his competitors because nobody had ever published similar results. However, the Terrados paper brings a new angle on this. If cycling efficiency does indeed improve in professional cyclists, then Armstrong cannot claim that this is the reason that he improved relative to his competitors, because it means that his competitors would also have improved via a similar mechanism.

My mistake was to trust DTM and MA on the topic of whether or not cycling efficiency changes over time by the magnitudes reported. Its interesting that you say "if its not published, it didn't happen" because you should understand the irony that underlies this statement.... scientific journals don't seem to like publishing things that "didn't happen" do they? So how do you think a reviewer would respond if DTM sent in a case study on Cadel Evans with the result that cycling efficiency doesn't change? It would get thrown in the rubbish and you know it!!

Do you agree however that cycling efficiency is not highly plastic? If it is, then why don't we see it occurring more frequently? Surely this adaptation would have been observed frequently enough for someone to come along and publish a longitudinal study on less elite subjects, which of course would then stimulate a rush on more data of the like. One would think by now (cycling is an old sport no?), there should be dozens of studies in the literature showing a similar result on less elite subjects (maybe we'll see one appear soon enough though). What I think is that this raises the possibility that cycling effciency may only improve in professional cyclists due to the extreme high volumes and/or regular exposure to altitude training. Its obvious why there are not dozens of studies on this population. DTM and MA don't have a good database on this subject population hence they cannot argue from that perspective. Another interesting question is what effect regular doping practices have on cycling efficiency. Maybe it only improves in cyclists whom are doping over many years? The Terrados paper certainly seems to zero in on a very elite field indeed, and the authors cannot discount the possibility that their subjects were doping.

edit: I don't think that DTM and CJG believe that cycling efficiency is "immutable", in fact I'm quite sure they don't believe this, but I'll ask them about the Terrados paper when I see them in November ;)
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
are we ignoring that the "study" was post-hoc expediency. Armstrong wins Tour, Coyle has on his hands, an opportunity for promotion and publicity with the material on his hands, so he massages his raw data into what can be defined as a study?

Or did he always have that intention 7 years previous?
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
acoggan said:
Why *** u me that the trend is linear??



No, but ask yourself this: if VO2max and LT do not continue to increase over time (and they don't), then what explains the fact that performance itself does, i.e., elite endurance athletes are generally "at the top of their game" in their late 20s/early 30s? Tactics, race smarts, etc., can't explain this, because the same trend is apparent in sports where such things make very little, if any, difference.



Obviously not...but then again, perhaps that explains why only some go on to, e.g., win the Tour de France.




The precise mechanism isn't really relevant to the question at hand. The point is that a completely independent study observed changes in efficiency similar to (actually, greater than) those reported by Coyle for Armstrong. This significantly undermines the Aussie's claims that efficiency is essentially immutable.



Again, irrelevant.
Andy, there is a big flaw in this one which is called reality.

Most TdF winners, especially the really great ones break through at a very young age.

Hinault
Fignon
Lemond
Ulrich
Contador

The "old" ones are a minority:

Riis
Lance
Miguel Indurain (and he is very debatable considering his Multi day wins at a young age and his deliberate slow release as GT leader)

If the efficiency increase theory rings true you would expect a different trend.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
blackcat said:
are we ignoring that the "study" was post-hoc expediency. Armstrong wins Tour, Coyle has on his hands, an opportunity for promotion and publicity with the material on his hands, so he massages his raw data into what can be defined as a study?

Or did he always have that intention 7 years previous?
It does seem rather convenient that the study was published 6 yrs after the last of the data collection, but within cooee of the court case in which it was presented as "evidence".
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
It does seem rather convenient that the study was published 6 yrs after the last of the data collection, but within cooee of the court case in which it was presented as "evidence".
krebs I thought I was the conspiracy theorist and mud slinger :D

that is a possibility. But what I was hinting at, was Coyle had some valuable raw material to massage into a paper for self promotion. I was not considering the justification for Armstrong. I just think, vested interests and corporate interests, the finding was only going to be about how Armstrong had improved clean. It was never gonna contemplate the alternative.
 
blackcat said:
krebs I thought I was the conspiracy theorist and mud slinger :D

that is a possibility. But what I was hinting at, was Coyle had some valuable raw material to massage into a paper for self promotion. I was not considering the justification for Armstrong. I just think, vested interests and corporate interests, the finding was only going to be about how Armstrong had improved clean. It was never gonna contemplate the alternative.
My view on the paper has always been that a desired set of outcomes were the goal and the study, in my view, manipulated, assumed, and left out anything which did not support the preconceived point.
In my view, Coyle's credibility was shot to bits when he testified at the SCA trial that the study showed that Lance didn't need doping in order to win, such was his improvements. That there was evidence that this study was not without 'outside influences'. Krebs makes an excellent point. If indeed Lance did improve, who's to say the other riders didn't also improve, thus negating his own improvement?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Do you agree however that cycling efficiency is not highly plastic?
No. For example, I could markedly alter your efficiency by dramatically changing your saddle height, or having you pedal extra-fast or extra-slow. ;)

More seriously: even ignoring the Coyle paper, there is both indirect and now direct evidence that cycling efficiency tends to improve over time. While the magnitude and speed of such changes appears to be less than that of, e.g., changes in VO2max and LT, I believe that it is a mistake to think of cycling efficiency as something that is fixed (as the Aussies apparently view it, despite their own data to the contrary).

Krebs cycle said:
If it is, then why don't we see it occurring more frequently
Who says that we don't? As I mentioned previously, my cycling efficiency has apparently improved over the years, much like reported for Armstrong.

Krebs cycle said:
Surely this adaptation would have been observed frequently enough for someone to come along and publish a longitudinal study on less elite subjects, which of course would then stimulate a rush on more data of the like. One would think by now (cycling is an old sport no?), there should be dozens of studies in the literature showing a similar result on less elite subjects (maybe we'll see one appear soon enough though). What I think is that this raises the possibility that cycling effciency may only improve in professional cyclists due to the extreme high volumes and/or regular exposure to altitude training.
Or it could be that only those with a particular genetic make-up that makes them more trainable in this regard show such changes.

Krebs cycle said:
Its obvious why there are not dozens of studies on this population.
Then why did you ask above why it hasn't been studied in detail before?

Krebs cycle said:
DTM and MA don't have a good database on this subject population hence they cannot argue from that perspective.
Or because they believe that efficiency can't change, they simply haven't looked closely enough, or perhaps their methods aren't as "clean" as they like to present them as being, or perhaps the genetic background of the cyclists they routinely study differs from that of those who have exhibited such changes, or...

Krebs cycle said:
Another interesting question is what effect regular doping practices have on cycling efficiency. Maybe it only improves in cyclists whom are doping over many years? The Terrados paper certainly seems to zero in on a very elite field indeed, and the authors cannot discount the possibility that their subjects were doping.
We can rule out doping in my case. :)
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Franklin said:
Andy, there is a big flaw in this one which is called reality.

Most TdF winners, especially the really great ones break through at a very young age.

Hinault
Fignon
Lemond
Ulrich
Contador

The "old" ones are a minority:

Riis
Lance
Miguel Indurain (and he is very debatable considering his Multi day wins at a young age and his deliberate slow release as GT leader)

If the efficiency increase theory rings true you would expect a different trend.
So you are claiming that Fignon, Lemond, Ulrich, Contador, etc., were not better in, say, their mid- to late-20s/early 30s than they were at, say, age 18? Only if that were true would they serve as counter-examples...but since we are speaking of a general trend here, not an inviolable law, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
blackcat said:
are we ignoring that the "study" was post-hoc expediency. Armstrong wins Tour, Coyle has on his hands, an opportunity for promotion and publicity with the material on his hands, so he massages his raw data into what can be defined as a study?

Or did he always have that intention 7 years previous?
The study in question was first presented in abstract form in 2002, i.e., well before the SCA lawsuit came to be. I would argue that that fact pretty much rules out the standard conspiracy-nut theory that Armstrong "commissioned" Coyle to try to provide exonerating evidence.

As for Colye's true motivations for first pulling the data together, I would speculate, but do not know for a fact, that he simply wanted to be able to present something at the meeting in question (which was held to honor Coyle's post-doctoral mentor, John Holloszy), and thought that Armstrong's data would be of interest to the 50-100 people who attended. Once he had presented it there, the next logical thing (barring strong negative feedback, which he didn't, AFAIK, receive) was to write it up and publish it as a full-blown paper.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
blackcat said:
I just think, vested interests and corporate interests, the finding was only going to be about how Armstrong had improved clean. It was never gonna contemplate the alternative.
I can state for a fact that Coyle himself "contemplated the alternative", as he asked me himself (at that 2002 meeting) whether I thought Armstrong had doped. He also scoffed at the notion that sleeping in an altitude tent would be a sufficient stimulus to increase red cell mass and hence VO2max, etc. He did not, however, overtly express his own opinion re. whether Armstrong was "clean" or not.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
acoggan said:
As I mentioned previously, my cycling efficiency has apparently improved over the years, much like reported for Armstrong.
Make of it what you will (from http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2005440#2005440)...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Does cycling efficiency increase over time/with training/maturation?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've mentioned several times before that the data I have on myself is consistent with what Coyle reported for Armstrong, but have never shared the details, so thought this was as good a time and place as any...

First, a graph:

http://i33.tinypic.com/2dhw7pf.png

What's shown above is my interpolated VO2 (in L/min) at a power of 250 W, based on data culled from the 100+ incremental exercise tests that I have done over the years. I've chosen to present that data this way vs. giving the slope and intercept of the VO2-power relationship, and/or in terms of gross (or net) efficiency, just for simplicity's sake, but the way to read the graph is lower = more efficient.

To be included in the data set, I decided that the tests/data had to meet the following criteria:

1) metabolic cart validated against Douglas bags
2) stage duration >4 but <10 min
3) highest stage < ventilatory threshold
4) use of an electronically-braked ergometer

Like Coyle's paper, this is a retrospective case study, and therefore lacks the rigorous controls that you would want to see in careful scientific investigation. OTOH, the data were collected in "good faith", i.e., without any preconcieved notions as to what the outcome might be. Perhaps just as importantly, I know my way around VO2 measurements and metabolic carts quite well, having built/rebuilt/validated such systems at six different institutions over the years, and thus trust those data. In support of the belief that this is not a source of bias, my highest VO2max measured using three of the four systems used to collect the data included in the plot varied by <0.1 L/min, or <2%. I have less data on the accuracy/precision of the power data, but four of the six tests shown in the graph were conducted using the same Velodyne, which was validated against a carefully-calibrated SRM. Moreover, these tests are interspersed among the other, and although span a shorter period of time (i.e., 14 y, vs. 26 y for the entire dataset), show the same trend (i.e., over time, a reduction in VO2 at the same power).

Enjoy!!

EDIT: I was born in 1959, started cycling in 1974, and racing in 1975...data for the first test were therefore collected after I'd been training for 8 y, when I was 23. I did my first VO2max test in 1977, when I was 18, after one or more per year most years after that, but don't have submaximal data from before 1982.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
acoggan said:
The study in question was first presented in abstract form in 2002, i.e., well before the SCA lawsuit came to be. I would argue that that fact pretty much rules out the standard conspiracy-nut theory that Armstrong "commissioned" Coyle to try to provide exonerating evidence.

As for Colye's true motivations for first pulling the data together, I would speculate, but do not know for a fact, that he simply wanted to be able to present something at the meeting in question (which was held to honor Coyle's post-doctoral mentor, John Holloszy), and thought that Armstrong's data would be of interest to the 50-100 people who attended. Once he had presented it there, the next logical thing (barring strong negative feedback, which he didn't, AFAIK, receive) was to write it up and publish it as a full-blown paper.
So what you are saying is that he should have been stopped then, but nobody cared enough to critique since in your words he just wanted to "present something." Sounds like maybe everyone had a hangover or something also?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
So what you are saying is that he should have been stopped then, but nobody cared enough to critique since in your words he just wanted to "present something." Sounds like maybe everyone had a hangover or something also?
1) No matter how weak you think it might be, you can never stop anybody from submitting a paper - that is their right.

2) It was a one-day meeting at which no alcohol was served - thus, nobody had any real reason to be hungover, and nobody was (AFAIK) drunk.
 
acoggan said:
I can state for a fact that Coyle himself "contemplated the alternative", as he asked me himself (at that 2002 meeting) whether I thought Armstrong had doped. He also scoffed at the notion that sleeping in an altitude tent would be a sufficient stimulus to increase red cell mass and hence VO2max, etc. He did not, however, overtly express his own opinion re. whether Armstrong was "clean" or not.
That's a fairly large leap from what you're saying above, to the testimony he gave at the SCA trial. He seemed fairly definitive in his beliefs that day.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Digger said:
That's a fairly large leap from what you're saying above, to the testimony he gave at the SCA trial. He seemed fairly definitive in his beliefs that day.
You will have to take that up with Coyle - I am talking about the paper and what led to its preparation and subsequent publication.
 
acoggan said:
Are the transcripts online anywhere?
I've seen it, but it wasn't online that I saw it so I don't know if it is online.
I've not intention of typing it out though.

Coyle's summation at the tribunal was this: EPO only improved power by 5 to 6 percent, so it was entirely understnadable that if Lance improved by 18 percent, he was going to have no difficulty beating doped rivals. Even if we take the 18% figure at face value (I don't by the way), his argument presupposes the other riders don't also improve their efficiency over time.

Coyle suggested that Lance 'literally - he goes hungrier, he's hungrier.. Why his European competitors don't do the same is beyond me?"
How does he know they don't?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Digger said:
I've seen it, but it wasn't online that I saw it so I don't know if it is online.
I've not intention of typing it out though.
That is understandable (and revealing).

Digger said:
Coyle's summation at the tribunal was this: EPO only improved power by 5 to 6 percent
FWIW, based on studies of blood doping I'd put it at ~10% (under the assumption that hematocrit goes from ~40 to ~50%).
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
acoggan said:
So you are claiming that Fignon, Lemond, Ulrich, Contador, etc., were not better in, say, their mid- to late-20s/early 30s than they were at, say, age 18? Only if that were true would they serve as counter-examples...but since we are speaking of a general trend here, not an inviolable law, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.
18 year old is rubbish, they weren't matured yet. lets look at their early 20 towards early 30ies.

They are not 10-20% better if their palmares are worth anything (looking at 21 year old to say 30). In fact their big wins are concentrated at the early 20's (Lemond had an awful career break, but was still only 28 in 89).

And if it doesn't matter, how can it statistically be explained that the really big ones tend to be very young? Note that these young guys have a majority of GT wins between them. Older winners are not only a minority, they tend to win less GT's(with Lance as a notable multi-day late bloom).

Statistics can be used to proof or disprove anything, but 21-24 seems to be a crucial age for those big stars... in which they seem to beat riders who are older (so are in theory more efficient). Jan beat Riis who was hardly beyond his top age. Jan himself didn't improve after his early years. Hinault was definitely best 77-81.

The efficiency theory just has too many question marks in this respect. Why are there so few examples of it yet so many which are the opposite? A nice article: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2008/12/6/683599/27-62-years-old

Note that though the average might be 27.80, the amount of winners drops heavily after 28. The distribution of age is definitely biased towards younger riders.

A few more things:

- Average age for the average FIRST TdF win is obviously significantly lower. (Most TdF are won by rider who win multiple times)
- One time winners tend to be on the high end of the timescale
 
acoggan said:
That is understandable (and revealing).


QUOTE]

What's revealing? That I've seen his testimony, but not online. What do you want me to do, type it out and put it online? Or are you simply doubting that I've seen the testimony. I mentioned before about your assumptions Mr Coggan. Evidently you were taught well in this regard by Mr. Coyle.

What's revealing to me is the rubbish he sprouted about weight, heart rate, about Lance 'literally starving himself'. How he seemed to presuppose the other riders didn't improve one jot in their years cycling. How he never measured the other riders, so could not say whether Lance improved sufficiently, in relation to their improvements. What's revealing is Coyle couldn't even get his calculations right for saying Lance was 'one in a billion'. What's revealing is that Coyle only focused on the improvements EPO makes and failed to mention the other drugs that his rivals were taking in conjunction with EPO. What is revealing is that yet again Coyle cited the lost weight factor, when all we have is Lance's word for that, and a couple of figures from Coyle which were not relevant. Putting the figures we have for Lance's weight, his loss comes to a staggering one kg. So not alone is Coyle using Lance's own words as regards his weight, for the original paper, he is now using Lance's own words in the SCA trial, to defend the guy against allegations of PED usage, when we know that his weight is such a key component.


And finally, what is revealing to me, is the way you've defended the guy and the paper, as if not one mistake was made by him.:rolleyes:

My favourite line though, as I posted earlier: Lance 'literally - he goes hungrier, he's hungrier.. Why his European competitors don't do the same is beyond me?" So did Coyle ring his competitors and ask them how hungry they were? Does Coyle have a special graph for measuring hunger in cyclists? Maybe it starts off with peckish and works its way down to 'I'd murder a pizza.'


Just one snippet....Coyle said in his testimony the following: "Lance's heartrate at maximum is 200 beats per minute (allowing for losing one beat per year according to Coyle as it was 207). That gives him, in and itself, a 5 to 10 percent over other bicyclists."
Now again did Coyle measure the maximal heartrate of Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso and Joseba Beloki? Because otherwise what's the basis for saying Lance's would give him an advantage over 'other bicyclists'?

Secondly, MA contends the following:
"To suggest that someone's heart rate gives them a performance advantage over someone whose maximal heart rate's low is nonsense. I can't understand why physiologists that have worked with USOC - why would they say that."
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
acoggan said:
More seriously: even ignoring the Coyle paper, there is both indirect and now direct evidence that cycling efficiency tends to improve over time. While the magnitude and speed of such changes appears to be less than that of, e.g., changes in VO2max and LT, I believe that it is a mistake to think of cycling efficiency as something that is fixed (as the Aussies apparently view it, despite their own data to the contrary).
The indirect data is certainly interesting but I would still like to see more direct data on less well trained subjects. The Terrados paper had no references to any studies that showed DE improved with the exception of the Coyle paper. I disagree that large gains in performance occur progressively over time in elite endurance athletes in proportion to increased DE as you stated eg: 8% in the Armstrong case and around 14% in the Terrados paper. The performance gains that we do see over time are nowhere near this magnitude and could be explained by either a small improvement in LT or efficiency or a combination of both. You mentioned above somewhere that LT doesn't change over time but you know that to be incorrect. LT can change within several months and accounts for performance gains, so I think it is certainly possible that it could contribute to performance improvements over yrs. It is of course difficult to detect changes over yrs though, because of the variability that occurs within a season. Another possibile mechanism of improved performance without change in VO2 "peak" is an improvement in pacing strategy ala Tim Noakes central govenor model of performance.

Who says that we don't? As I mentioned previously, my cycling efficiency has apparently improved over the years, much like reported for Armstrong.
Hey you are the one who said "if it isn't published, it didin't happen". As stated above, there do not appear to be any other studies in the literature that show that DE changes over time apart from a case study and one original paper on professional cyclists. Alessandro Lucia, Asker Jeukendrup and Inigo Mujika have been doing this stuff for yrs and none of them has published any such results, however, there are numerous cross sectional studies that cannot seem to find a difference between elite and non-elite DE. So why don't you publish your own data then? Case study "Cycling efficiency improves as cycling physiologist matures" :)


Then why did you ask above why it hasn't been studied in detail before?
I thought this didn't require an explanation. It should be obvious why there is a lack of longitudinal data on professional cyclists. Very difficult population to access in the first place, even more difficult to access over a several yr period. Non-elite subjects on the other hand is a different story. I'm pretty sure DTM would have gone back and looked at longitudinal data that he has access to, but not 100% so I will ask him. I'll look up some raw data on national and international class cyclists that I have access to and get back to you later (going to Thailand for a week today though :) ).

Or because they believe that efficiency can't change, they simply haven't looked closely enough, or perhaps their methods aren't as "clean" as they like to present them as being, or perhaps the genetic background of the cyclists they routinely study differs from that of those who have exhibited such changes, or...
What methods are you referring to? The athletes themselves or the testing procedures? I can't vouch for the athletes cleanliness but I can definately say that the laboratory standards in the Australian sport science system are world's best practice.

....ps: don't think that I haven't noticed how you have been ignoring certain aspects of my posts and focussing on others. You appear to be trying to divert the discussion into a question of whether DE can change. I never said it couldn't and in fact, I agree with you that it probably can and does, but I disagree that it was responsible for LA's dominance for so many yrs. You haven't provided a response to the fact that Ed Coyle published WRONG data and based his conclusions on that. This is and always has been the point of the thread.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
Digger said:
What's revealing? That I've seen his testimony, but not online. What do you want me to do, type it out and put it online? Or are you simply doubting that I've seen the testimony. I mentioned before about your assumptions Mr Coggan. Eivdently you were taught well in this regard by Mr. Coyle.

What's revealing to me is the rubbish he sprouted about weight, heart rate, about Lance 'literally starving himself'. How he seemed to presuppose the other riders didn't improve one jot in their years cycling. How he never measured the other riders, so could not say whether Lance improved sufficiently, in relation to their improvements. What's revealing is Coyle couldn't even get his calculations right for saying Lance was 'one in a billion'. What's revealing is that Coyle only focused on the improvements EPO makes and failed to mention the other drugs that his rivals were taking in conjunction with EPO. What is revealing is that yet again Coyle cited the lost weight factor, when all we have is Lance's word for that, and a couple of figures from Coyle which were not relevant. Putting the figures we have for Lance's weight, his loss comes to a staggering one kg.

And finally, what is revealing to me, is the way you've defended the guy and the paper, as if not one mistake was made by him.:rolleyes:

My favourite line though, as I posted earlier: Lance 'literally - he goes hungrier, he's hungrier.. Why his European competitors don't do the same is beyond me?" So did Coyle ring his competitors and ask them how hungry they were? Does Coyle have a special graph for measuring hunger in cyclists? Maybe it starts off with peckish and works its way down to 'I'd murder a pizza.'


Just one snippet....Coyle said in his testimony the following: "Lance's heartrate at maximum is 200 beats per minute (allowing for losing one beat per year according to Coyle as it was 207). That gives him, in and itself, a 5 to 10 percent over other bicyclists."
Now again did Coyle measure the maximal heartrate of Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso and Joseba Beloki? Because otherwise what's the basis for saying Lance's would give him an advantage over 'other bicyclists'?

Secondly, MA contends the following:
"To suggest that someone's heart rate gives them a performance advantage over someone who maximal heart rate's low is nonsense. I can't understand why physiologists that have worked with USOC - why would they say that."
This is also revealing to me aswell. Often it is the concocted excuses and explanations of the accused themselves that arouse the greatest suspicion. Contador refuses to clear his name by providing DNA evidence in the operacion puerto case. Landis tries to use drinking beer as a reason why his test:epitest ratio skyrocketed. Lance says that LHTL can increase his hct by 10% and lies to the entire world in his book about his racing weight. Ed Coyle says maximum heart rate explains LA's better performance. I guess Ed forgot to read the studies that show an inverse relationship between max HR and performance in elite endurance athletes. For the non-physiologists in the audience, there is a very good reason why this occurs. When you increase cardiac output (as occurs when you become very well endurance trained), the pulmonary capillary transit time is decreased at or near maximal VO2, which in turn, leads to arterial oxygen desaturation. Very well documented this is in elite athletes. By lowering max heart rate (which according to Tim Noakes is a regulated phenomenom) then you slow down the rate at which the blood passes through the lungs, thereby giving it more time to absorb oxygen. So there is a trade off, you decrease cardiac output which is bad for performance, but you counteract this effect by limiting oxygen desaturation hence maintaining oxygen delivery. This is part of the mechanism why a max HR around 220-age exists in the first place. The human heart can actually beat much faster than 200 bpm in adults, but the brain tells it not too because that will decrease oxygen transport.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY