Why *** u me that the trend is linear??ScienceIsCool said:But this doesn't pass the *sniff* test. So does that mean after ten years pros are 28% more efficient?
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: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?
Obviously not...but then again, perhaps that explains why only some go on to, e.g., win the Tour de France.ScienceIsCool said:Is the 14% improvement in DE the same for *all* the cyclists in the group?
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:What is the physiological basis for this improvement? Have the riders been screened for other factors such as PEDs or comparative muscle biopsies?
Again, irrelevant.ScienceIsCool said:if that r = -0.6 is the coefficient of regression... Phew.