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

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
python said:
ied should have been prudent enough, in the face and age of the well known and document blood doping effects on so many parameters he alluded to, to put it mildly, he should have been less assertive or he should have proceeded with his conclusions AFTER he addressed the effects of doping on his conclusions.
Not to disagree (or agree) with you, but what drug or drugs are known or might be expected to improve gross efficiency? Certainly not EPO (or blood doping)...steroids wouldn't seem likely to either (if anything, you'd expect gross efficiency to decline).

In any case, what Coyle said (was allowed to say) about the data isn't particularly important from a scientific perspective. What matters more is how the study was performed (rather haphazardly, but such is the nature of post-hoc analysis of a convenience sample) and what was found.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
acoggan said:
the big ring said:
published after the court case commenced
Get your facts straight: the paper was published before the lawsuit came to trial, and Coyle presented the data in abstract before it was even filed.
Really? :eek: You want to quibble over the difference between "filed suit" and "case commenced"? Good grief man.

In 1999, an exciting, physiological phenomenon was recorded. The first time GE had ever been observed to have improved longitudinally in an elite cyclist. So exciting in fact, that Coyle chose not to publish.

One month before testing Armstrong for a final time - he had 6 years of testing so far, so the evidence was already there, Coyle published this study:

Physiological determinants of endurance exercise performance.
1999, October

Endurance performance is optimized when training is aimed specifically at developing individual components of the model presented and nutritional supplementation prevents hypoglycemia and attenuates dehydration and hyperthermia. Indeed, the challenge at the transition to a new millennium is to synergistically integrate these physiological factors in training and competition.
Strangely, no mention of efficiency is mentioned. :confused:

A short while later, he showed his findings (GE increases over time in an elite cyclist) to a group of scientists, in a private meeting, in poster form. A phenomenon that had never been measured before: "increasing GE in an elite cyclist" was shown to multiple scientists who understood the implications, and after all the excitement of this new discovery, Coyle chose not to publish.

August, 2004 - SCA Promotions declines to pay Armstrong for winning his 6th Tour de France, and opens an investigation.

September, 2004 - Lance files a lawsuit vs SCA promotions to take them to arbitration. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hft3Hf9QPN4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

February, 2005 - Ed Coyle submits his paper for publication.
March, 2005 - Ed Coyle's paper is published.

:eek:
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
acoggan said:
Not to disagree (or agree) with you, but what drug or drugs are known or might be expected to improve gross efficiency? Certainly not EPO (or blood doping)...steroids wouldn't seem likely to either (if anything, you'd expect gross efficiency to decline).

In any case, what Coyle said (was allowed to say) about the data isn't particularly important from a scientific perspective. What matters more is how the study was performed (rather haphazardly, but such is the nature of post-hoc analysis of a convenience sample) and what was found.
We've had this disagreement before and repeatedly over the years, but I am just going to state for the record yet again that the haphazard nature of post-hoc analysis of a convenience sample does not get close as an excuse for Coyle's sloppy methodology and conclusions.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
the big ring said:
August, 2004 - SCA Promotions declines to pay Armstrong for winning his 6th Tour de France, and opens an investigation.

September, 2004 - Lance files a lawsuit vs SCA promotions to take them to arbitration. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hft3Hf9QPN4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

February, 2005 - Ed Coyle submits his paper for publication.
March, 2005 - Ed Coyle's paper is published.
June, 2002 - Coyle presents the data he has on Armstrong at a meeting in St. Louis honoring John Holloszy.

Case closed.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Race Radio said:
Ahhh, so cute when Coggen jumps up to defend his mentor
What I find cute is your attempt to trivialize my posts here, all the while failing to ever state any facts or take specific exception to anything I write. It is especially endearing given your propensity to wax eloquent on practically every other topic upon which you offer an opinion.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
elapid said:
We've had this disagreement before and repeatedly over the years, but I am just going to state for the record yet again that the haphazard nature of post-hoc analysis of a convenience sample does not get close as an excuse for Coyle's sloppy methodology and conclusions.
You should take that up w/ the reviewers and especially the Associate Editor of JAP that deemed the paper worthy of publication. Me, I see it as simply another example of how science/academic publishing actually works.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
acoggan said:
June, 2002 - Coyle presents the data he has on Armstrong at a meeting in St. Louis honoring John Holloszy.
A private meeting yes? To invited guests only yes? Including you, yes?

But not published. That's the thing see.

Isn't this the first time it has EVER been measured in elite cyclists? Aren't scientist's careers and legacies founded on "first" discoveries?

I mean. This is the reason Armstrong won 7 Tours in a row, right? And we just sweep it under the carpet?

You don't find it strange at all that the first time this "increase in GE through endurance training" has EVER been measured is so boring that we can't be bothered publishing the data till 6 years later, just in time to be used in a court case?
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
acoggan said:
Liar, liar, pants on fire:

"When cycling at 80 RPM, gross mechanical efficiency is positively related to Type I muscle fiber composition, which has great potential to improve endurance performance."

(4th sentence of abstract, which can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10668757)
Huh. And all that time, Lance's cadence was higher than anyone else - specifically an impressive 100rpm up the hills.

Man this gets confusing. :confused:

No wonder you need a PhD to understand this stuff.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
the big ring said:
A private meeting yes? To invited guests only yes? Including you, yes?

But not published. That's the thing see.

Isn't this the first time it has EVER been measured in elite cyclists? Aren't scientist's careers and legacies founded on "first" discoveries?

I mean. This is the reason Armstrong won 7 Tours in a row, right? And we just sweep it under the carpet?

You don't find it strange at all that the first time this "increase in GE through endurance training" has EVER been measured is so boring that we can't be bothered publishing the data till 6 years later, just in time to be used in a court case?
No, I don't find it strange in the least that Coyle would not rush to publish the data he had on Armstrong. For one thing, even he would admit that the dataset had significant limitations. For another, he'd already published several papers providing evidence that efficiency improves with training, apparently as a result of changes in myosin expression. Finally, despite what the denizens of this forum might believe, Coyle's career has neither been built nor been destroyed by this one paper, i.e., to/for him it probably wasn't a high priority to write it up and submit it (especially since, IIRC the timing correctly, he was going through a divorce at the time).

As for this being "the first time", it has long been hypothesized that long-term improvements in endurance exercise performance are due to changes in movement economy/efficiency...indeed, I can recall a review article by Saltin from the 1970s proposing this very thing. In that regard, Coyle's data on Armstrong are/were really more confirmatory than anything else (especially in light of his other papers on efficiency).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
the big ring said:
Huh. And all that time, Lance's cadence was higher than anyone else - specifically an impressive 100rpm up the hills.

Man this gets confusing. :confused:

No wonder you need a PhD to understand this stuff.
Only if you're too stupid - or too obstinate - to understand that 1) the allusion to 80 rpm was in reference to a specific study from Coyle's lab in which cadence was controlled at that rate, and 2) although efficiency may (or may not) be lower at 100 rpm than at 80 rpm, the relationship between efficiency and myosin expression is unlikely to change.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Race Radio said:
Ahhh, so cute when Coggen jumps up to defend his mentor
...we all think it is nice to have you back, and I do too...to once again, have you do whatever it is you do...gee, even Dr. Coggan is impressed....

Cheers

blutto
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
Race Radio said:
Ahhh, so cute when Coggen jumps up to defend his mentor
Maybe he should turn his attention to justifying Wigans instead of focusing on the past frauds?

At least he's never tested positive..

WTH cadence is most efficient? I'm confused.....;)
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
acoggan said:
No, I don't find it strange in the least that Coyle would not rush to publish the data he had on Armstrong. For one thing, even he would admit that the dataset had significant limitations. For another, he'd already published several papers providing evidence that efficiency improves with training, apparently as a result of changes in myosin expression. Finally, despite what the denizens of this forum might believe, Coyle's career has neither been built nor been destroyed by this one paper, i.e., to/for him it probably wasn't a high priority to write it up and submit it (especially since, IIRC the timing correctly, he was going through a divorce at the time).

As for this being "the first time", it has long been hypothesized that long-term improvements in endurance exercise performance are due to changes in movement economy/efficiency...indeed, I can recall a review article by Saltin from the 1970s proposing this very thing. In that regard, Coyle's data on Armstrong are/were really more confirmatory than anything else (especially in light of his other papers on efficiency).
A review article. That's where they like, look at all the data from a bunch of studies and arrive at their own hypothesis?

So now Coyle has the proof to a hypothesis. And it can explain why a rider can win the Tour 7 times without doping. And he sweeps it under the carpet. That's such a difficult concept for me to grasp.

He didn't rush, agreed. He waited 6 years, to publish a paper that could be and was used in a court case after Armstrong filed suit against SCA Promotions.

Can you help me with the other hypothesis - you know, that he wasn't trying to help Armstrong? Did he ever explain why, after 6 years, with all the data lost, he now decided to publish?
 
Aug 17, 2009
125
0
0
I think coggan is on the ropes. The timing reeks and coggan can't put a spin on it with any credibility. Give it up.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Race Radio said:
Ahhh, so cute when Coggen jumps up to defend his mentor
It makes this old beaten horse worthy of a view once more.

Was wondering when Ed Coyle would be mentioned again. Now we have it. And surprise, surprise, guess who is here championing the cause! What are you going to do though when your play book hasn't changed in a long time? You keep using it. Loyalty (or subservience as some may view it) does have it's merits...though as the Clinic has seen this past week, it can be misguided and used to misrepresent the truth. Never forget the context, well that's what I tell myself.

I had a good laugh at who started this thread. Krebs cycle. Lol.:D

He certainly appeared to be of a different school of thought back in 2009. Oh well. The cookie will crumble some day. Just like the subject of this thread did. Despite the objections of vested parties to the contrary.
 
acoggan said:
Get your facts straight: the paper was published before the lawsuit came to trial, and Coyle presented the data in abstract before it was even filed.
Get your facts straight.

The abstract and paper are indefensible and an embarrassment. You have couched this as 'haphazard' more than once.

Why not be a bit more honest, and a bit less defensive?

acoggan said:
Not to disagree (or agree) with you, but what drug or drugs are known or might be expected to improve gross efficiency? Certainly not EPO (or blood doping)...steroids wouldn't seem likely to either (if anything, you'd expect gross efficiency to decline).

In any case, what Coyle said (was allowed to say) about the data isn't particularly important from a scientific perspective. What matters more is how the study was performed (rather haphazardly, but such is the nature of post-hoc analysis of a convenience sample) and what was found.
Now there is an interesting question - especially for a scientist.

Why don't you, or Ed, or whomever, do some studies with real dopers? Oops, Ed already did but got confused when he didn't acknowledge the contaminated sample/impact of externalities.

Critical, of course, to acknowledge this trivial detail before performing any such studies.

Now, there are clearly enough real dopers, even in the current peloton, for a decent study sample.

Most certainly there are enough to be able to guarantee them with anonymity.

In fact, if you work closely with the UCI, you could guarantee them a guarantee of no adverse analytical findings. Perhaps this activity could be pursued as part of this whole 'truth and reconciliation' nonsense and proposed amnesty.

What a wonderful set of test candidates.

Then you could assess your null hypothesis on steroids.

Or any number, or combination, of other doping agents and techniques.

Until then, this armchair has more demonstrated expertise and impartiality than Ed Coyle.

Dave.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
D-Queued said:
Get your facts straight.

The abstract and paper are indefensible and an embarrassment. You have couched this as 'haphazard' more than once.

Why not be a bit more honest, and a bit less defensive?
Because I don't fully agree with your assessment?

D-Queued said:
Now there is an interesting question - especially for a scientist.

Why don't you, or Ed, or whomever, do some studies with real dopers?
I can't speak for Ed or anyone else, but in my case it is because 1) I have never really been interested in studying "ergogenic aids" (allowed or not), per se, and 2) it is not what I am paid to do/there is no one willing to pay me to do it (even if I were interested).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
the big ring said:
A review article. That's where they like, look at all the data from a bunch of studies and arrive at their own hypothesis?

So now Coyle has the proof to a hypothesis. And it can explain why a rider can win the Tour 7 times without doping. And he sweeps it under the carpet. That's such a difficult concept for me to grasp.

He didn't rush, agreed. He waited 6 years, to publish a paper that could be and was used in a court case after Armstrong filed suit against SCA Promotions.

Can you help me with the other hypothesis - you know, that he wasn't trying to help Armstrong? Did he ever explain why, after 6 years, with all the data lost, he now decided to publish?
I don't know why Ed didn't get around to writing up the data and submitting it sooner. It might, though, be because he himself recognized the limitations of the data set, i.e., he didn't feel that it really added much to the story (remember, he'd already published three other studies supporting the connection between training, fiber type, and efficiency). It might also simply be that he was busy with other things (you'd have to check his CV to see when various PhD candidates under him completed their dissertations), and/or it might be that he didn't realize how interesting others would find the data until after the SCA suit happened.

In any case, I'm sure that he now rues the day that he decided to submit that paper. That's why I've previously speculated that USADA's charging of Armstrong could actually work to Ed's favor, i.e., he could now ask for the paper to be withdrawn and place the blame at Armstrong's feet. (Not that I expect for that to happen, of course, nor do I do consider Ed a victim here, since as best as I can tell he's always been a bit suspicious of Armstrong.)
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Was wondering when Ed Coyle would be mentioned again. Now we have it.
Not mentioned: dredged up by big ring.

Galic Ho said:
And surprise, surprise, guess who is here championing the cause! What are you going to do though when your play book hasn't changed in a long time? You keep using it. Loyalty (or subservience as some may view it) does have it's merits...though as the Clinic has seen this past week, it can be misguided and used to misrepresent the truth. Never forget the context, well that's what I tell myself.

I had a good laugh at who started this thread. Krebs cycle. Lol.:D

He certainly appeared to be of a different school of thought back in 2009.
I don't that either Kreb's cycle or myself have changed our opinions on this issue. Indeed, why should we? No new information has come light (except, of course, for at least a half-dozen subsequent longitudinal studies showing that efficiency does indeed change with endurance training, and is acutely alterable via ingestion of nitrate).
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
acoggan said:
Not mentioned: dredged up by big ring.
Ah yes fast and loose with the truth. You posted a link to the ground-breaking new 6-week study that proved Ed Coyle's study and I simply replied to it in its appropriate thread.

Trust me, if you had not said the following, this would have been left well alone.

acoggan said:
BTW, I was reminded of the controversial Coyle paper earlier today when a link to this paper showed up in my facebook feed:

https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0032-1304640

Yet more evidence that despite the limitations of Coyle's paper, it appears he was right in concluding that efficiency improves with endurance exercise training, something that Ashenden apparently considers/considered impossible...
Pretty sure that's you mentioning the paper and claiming the new study proves Ed was right, even though it's a 6 week study, not longitudinal like Ed's, and if I could access the paper itself I could find out how much the GE changed in the 6 weeks. I did ask, but I notice you declined to answer.

Good luck with having a (non-PhD estimated) 0.03 percentage point change in GE being anything but statistical noise or error.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
acoggan said:
I don't know why Ed didn't get around to writing up the data and submitting it sooner. It might, though, be because he himself recognized the limitations of the data set, i.e., he didn't feel that it really added much to the story (remember, he'd already published three other studies supporting the connection between training, fiber type, and efficiency). It might also simply be that he was busy with other things (you'd have to check his CV to see when various PhD candidates under him completed their dissertations), and/or it might be that he didn't realize how interesting others would find the data until after the SCA suit happened.

In any case, I'm sure that he now rues the day that he decided to submit that paper. That's why I've previously speculated that USADA's charging of Armstrong could actually work to Ed's favor, i.e., he could now ask for the paper to be withdrawn and place the blame at Armstrong's feet. (Not that I expect for that to happen, of course, nor do I do consider Ed a victim here, since as best as I can tell he's always been a bit suspicious of Armstrong.)
This is difficult to understand. Your comments raise some questions.

If I had data that didn't add anything to my body of work, I wouldn't release it as a paper. I would release the data itself with some notes, but no conclusions. Make it available to other scientists.

Most baffling to me is the idea that Dr. Coyle had even minor suspicions of Armstrong's doping. I haven't read any of his papers, but wouldn't this be a large and confounding factor to his three "other studies supporting the connection between training, fiber type, and efficiency"? Was this discussed in the studies? Disclosed during peer review?

And lastly, not knowing Dr. Coyle I cannot speculate too much, but how could he not know that a paper on one of the world's most famous athletes would be of immense interest to others?

John Swanson
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS