acoggan said:
Except that Coyle made his measurements below the point at which the VO2-power relationship significantly deviates from linearity.
So what? The 1993 DE calculations in Coyle's paper are wrong. The results are meaningless irrespective of whether he included VO2 measures above LT or not. Additionally, as far as I am aware, when you publish in a peer-reviewed journal, part of the requirement is that you keep the raw data for a period of 5 yrs. The fact that Ed Coyle somehow mysteriously "lost" this data on none other than the highest profile cyclist in the world is astonishing to say the least. Wrong calculations, no calibration data, refusal to provide data for several yrs upon request, lost or thrown away data, reliance on self reported body weight. Seriously, who doesn't measure bodyweight before conducting VO2 measurements? It is simply poor science all round.
Boy, if only Gore spent half as much time writing papers as letters-to-the-editor...
But anyway, since you bring up the Jeukendrup/Martin/Gore paper: you do realize, don't you, that much of the motivation for that publication stemmed from the famously bad blood between Coyle and Jeukendrup/Martin?
Lets keep it clean please Dr Coggan. What bad blood is there between CJG and either Allessandro Lucia or Ed Coyle? CJGs publication record speaks for itself and it is somewhat disappointing that you would choose to make such an assertion. I know personally or have met in person all of the key players involved here and I disagree with your claim that the motivation behind the critique of either paper is personal. This controversy is about science (or lack thereof). But since you brought up the subject of publications, I find it revealing that Ed presented nothing new whatsoever in a keynote lecture at ACSM a few yrs ago. The entire presentation was based on research that was already published over 10yrs previous. Its a stark contrast to the enormous volume of research that Jeukendrup/Martin/Gore have completed working with elite endurance athletes over the same period.
I gather that you didn't read Dave Proctor's paper all that closely:
I've read the Proctor and Beck paper very closely thanks. I have also discussed the paper with Kenneth Beck in person. Furthermore, it is interesting that above you bring up CJG's publication record and here you accuse me of not understanding the problems with CPX/D systems, which is by proxy, an attack on CJGs understanding aswell since I am basing my opinions on his publications and knowledge of the yrs long struggle with Med Graphics to have these problems with their system rectified.
Have you not read the following...
Gore et al. CPX/D underestimates VO(2) in athletes compared with an automated Douglas bag system.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Aug;35(8):1341-7.
CONCLUSIONS: During submaximal exercise, the CPX/D yields VO(2) values that are approximately 11% lower than the criterion system, and the source of the discrepancy does not appear to be primarily related to volume measurement. A disturbing observation is that factory defaults for the lag time use different correction factors, which vary by 60 ms and this significantly alters VO(2) and VCO(2).
Beck KC, Gore CJ. Optimizing breath-by-breath VO2 measurements.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Mar;36(3):554-5.
Gore et al. (3) and our work (5) focused on the Medical Graphics CPX/D system. However, any BxB system will potentially be prone to the same errors and should routinely be validated in a similar way. Commercial vendors are encouraged to make this process easier by perhaps providing data analysis routines and step-by step instructions to help users optimize their own systems.
BxB gas exchange has become commonplace in many laboratories around the globe. Its appeal is in ease of use and the high time resolution of the measurements, but users should be aware that, of the three major techniques available for gas exchange assessment, it is technically the most difficult to implement and may be the most prone to technical failure.
Lucia et al., (2002) do not publish anything in their methods sections with respect to optimizing delay time adjustments in their commercial BxB systems. However, their data is consistent with the error that would be expected as outlined in the Proctor and Beck paper. Their amazingly high efficiency values reported elsewhere are consistent with the error that would be expected as outlined in the Gore paper. Lucia's (and Santalla's) measures could be genuinely free of error, but we don't know because they have not included any details to assure the reader that they aren't.
Ah, but here's the thing: no scientist truly worthy of the name really gives a d*** whether Armstrong's efficiency improved or not. What is intriuging is the fact that the efficiency of someone who trained a lot apparently increased over time...it is that observation that has spurred a number of additional studies, studies that probably would not have been conducted had the paper not been published. As such, publication of Coyle's paper has moved the field forward even if the observations themselves may be questioned.
What do you mean "apparently increased"? Are you in complete denial that the 1993 DE data is wrong? No scientist worth his name would publish incorrect data. No scientist worth his name would loose or throw out data on Lance Armstrong. No scientist worth his name would not publish methods to ascertain delay time adjustments with commercial BxB systems. Any scientist who IS worth his name cares about precision of measurement first and foremost. What good are 5wk long studies on untrained subjects? They have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to move the field forward!!
Even if there IS personal motivation for these letter's to the editors, it is a moot point because the fact remains the the criticisms are entirely justified on scientific merit alone. The field will only be moved forward when someone conducts the appropritate measures which are conclusively shown to be free of error. Until then, it seems to me that it could actually have been moved backwards.