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

[mikkemus23]

Arbiter`s back?

 

[ggusta]

You give up too easily.

"I was born to give up." - George Costanza

Every time I consider wading in, my buzz wears off and then I reconsider.

The Ashenden interview pretty much settled it for me. I will have to deal with the fact that others see it differently. The fact that some of you have so much energy to invest at this point is remarkable and says something about each of you.

 

[elapid]

And as I have said before:

1) you can't claim that Coyle's conclusion that Armstrong's power-to-mass increased in season as a result of weight loss is incorrect, because you don't know that Armstrong's self-reported body mass data are incorrect.

2) neither the gross nor the delta efficiency data have been shown to be in error - the only issue there is that Coyle calculated delta efficiency using a different, but nonetheless widely-accepted, method than described in the paper he cited.

And as I've said before, I can claim his conclusion is incorrect because 1. Coyle hasn't measured Armstrong's in-season steady-state power so we have no idea what his power-to-weight ratio is in-season; 2. The power-to-weight calculation is incorrect because there is a four month difference between the preseason power and estimated in-season body weight, and this is being compared to paired preseason power and weights in 1992 and 1993; and 3. The onus is on Coyle to show what Armstrong's actual weight and power was in-season and compare this to in-season power and weights in previous seasons; if he cannot show this, then it should have never been included in the paper.

 

[ggusta]

Think what you like, but ask yourself this: if individuals like Ashenden, the former head of the IOC, etc., comported themselves more like, say, President Obama than Rush Limbaugh , would there be nearly as many discussions on the web such as this one?

Strike 3. 3rd unnecessary injection of politics in 24 hours in the forums i read.

Oh brother.... as overheated as the actual subject of the discussion is....can you please try and stick to it ? And if you're going to ATTEMPT to draw parallels, please consider using individuals that might be a little less ... shall we say ....subjective.

In my few years of cycling, I have never seen a bunch of people so uniquely eager to self-identify their political views and almost always in a ' this is right, anyone who sees differently is an a-hole' manner. Tasteless, pointless, counter productive and utterly BORING. It undermines your own credibility.

Nothing like going on a 200km with an MD who keeps dancing around politics until you get to the rest stop. And then....he pounces. After all, he's a doctor! Guess what, doc, I've forgotten more cr@p than you'll ever know. I just don't bore you with it.

Please stick to the subject.

All right, I feel better.

In my experience, the greater depth one must have in their field, ie, doctors, scientists, the less breadth they have about the world beyond that discipline since staying current in their field is so time consuming.

 

[elapid]

Because the particular issue at hand is, what was Armstrong's power-to-mass when he won his multiple Tours? Since he never weighed Armstrong during that time, all he could do was ask him what he weighed.

Again, this is just BS science. Coyle could not calculate Armstrong's in-season power-to-mass ratio because he had neither his in-season weight nor steady-state power. Why use an out-of-season power that was measured four months after the TdF and an estimated racing weight? As a respectable scientist, he should have used paired power and weight measurements and recorded rather than estimated body weights. Furthermore, what is the point of comparing an in-season power-to-weight ratio, regardless of how flawed Coyle's calculation was in this regard, to preseason power-to-weight ratios? No conclusion can be drawn from such a comparison because of immediate biases introduced by differences in weight and power in and out of season.

 

[keen_but_slow]

A better way to put it would be "which is more likely - a small but nonetheless significant (from a competition perspective, anyway) improvement in the efficiency of someone who was only 20 y at the time of the initial measurements, or something not being controlled properly in five measurements conducted over a 7 period?"

Even phrased that way, I'd say that there is good reason to be concerned about the accuracy of the data. As I have repeatedly pointed out, however, Coyle's observation that efficiency tends to improve over time in highly-trained cyclists has since been confirmed in several more carefully-controlled, prospective studies.

I'm being harsh. Coyle did some experiments and reported his results in good faith and I'm not having a go at him (more the people who read too much into one study). I'm not a professional scientist, but I do have a mathematics degree, and I'd like to take you up on your use of the word "significant".

What if, for example, a tired rider is less efficient (maybe they "pedal in squares")? Do we know what the standard deviation of efficiency is, when taking into account all the small (but hopefully independent) error terms in nutrition, equipment, climate, fatigue, time of year, recent racing programme, state of mind etc? It's a shame he didn't keep all the data. If you think about it, he had a unique shot at some really interesting experiments, and all we've got is arguments.

 

[acoggan]

Again, this is just BS science. Coyle could not calculate Armstrong's in-season power-to-mass ratio because he had neither his in-season weight nor steady-state power. Why use an out-of-season power that was measured four months after the TdF and an estimated racing weight? As a respectable scientist, he should have used paired power and weight measurements and recorded rather than estimated body weights. Furthermore, what is the point of comparing an in-season power-to-weight ratio, regardless of how flawed Coyle's calculation was in this regard, to preseason power-to-weight ratios? No conclusion can be drawn from such a comparison because of immediate biases introduced by differences in weight and power in and out of season.

You are overlooking a key point: with the exception of the immediate post-chemotherapy measurements, Armstrong's VO2 at LT remained essentially constant at 4.5-4.7 L/min - all that changed over the time was the power to which this corresponded. Coyle's assumption was therefore that his in-season LT was comparable, such that he was justified in dividing by reported in-season body mass to arrive at his in-season power:mass. Whether that assumption is correct or not cannot be said, so you can't argue that this is a clear-cut mistake on his part.

(BTW, on my way home yesterday I thought of an interesting scenario: pretend that you are a scientist and one of your colleagues died before they had the chance to finish some potentially very interesting experiments, such that the results were left with a lot of holes. Would you try to make the best out of the situation that you could just to get the data out there, or would you dump it all in the circular file without even trying to write it up? Assuming that you took the former route, how would you feel A) if the paper were accepted, and B) if the paper were rejected?)

 

[acoggan]

I'm being harsh. Coyle did some experiments and reported his results in good faith and I'm not having a go at him (more the people who read too much into one study). I'm not a professional scientist, but I do have a mathematics degree, and I'd like to take you up on your use of the word "significant".

I'm not sure that I follow...by "significant" I meant that in elite sports especially, the margin of victory is often quite small.

What if, for example, a tired rider is less efficient (maybe they "pedal in squares")? Do we know what the standard deviation of efficiency is, when taking into account all the small (but hopefully independent) error terms in nutrition, equipment, climate, fatigue, time of year, recent racing programme, state of mind etc?

Again, I'm not sure that I follow. The efficiency measurements were made in the laboratory under (hopefully) carefully-standardized conditions, and are (or should be) quite reproducible. The assumption is that changes in efficiency measured under such conditions translate into changes in efficiency in competition, but until someone measures both power and VO2 in a large number of cyclists during races we don't really know for sure.

 

[acoggan]

Strike 3. 3rd unnecessary injection of politics in 24 hours in the forums i read.

Oh brother.... as overheated as the actual subject of the discussion is....can you please try and stick to it ? And if you're going to ATTEMPT to draw parallels, please consider using individuals that might be a little less ... shall we say ....subjective.

In my few years of cycling, I have never seen a bunch of people so uniquely eager to self-identify their political views and almost always in a ' this is right, anyone who sees differently is an a-hole' manner. Tasteless, pointless, counter productive and utterly BORING. It undermines your own credibility.

Nothing like going on a 200km with an MD who keeps dancing around politics until you get to the rest stop. And then....he pounces. After all, he's a doctor! Guess what, doc, I've forgotten more cr@p than you'll ever know. I just don't bore you with it.

Please stick to the subject.

All right, I feel better.

In my experience, the greater depth one must have in their field, ie, doctors, scientists, the less breadth they have about the world beyond that discipline since staying current in their field is so time consuming.

I was referring to their demeanors, not their actual political views.

 

[ggusta]

I was referring to their demeanors, not their actual political views.

dude, just pick different people. i am trying to help you.

 

[acoggan]

Originally Posted by Digger
Shame MA and others couldn't get their hands on Coyle's data records. The dog ate it I guess.


A Coggan last night in his reply to my above comment:
"Unless Coyle simply made up all the numbers, it wouldn't have made any difference".

So you admit that I never commented on the veracity of Coyle's statement that he lost much of the original data?

 

[acoggan]

The Ashenden interview pretty much settled it for me.

Me too:

"I have an interest in the Coyle paper primarily because I was asked as an expert witness in the arbitration hearing to interpret it and to provide my opinion to the hearing. Now, that is my interest.

In contrast to that, my colleagues, who were co-authors on the letters to the journal, their primary concern is the scientific validity of the study. They're still working in the field of physiology, and they're very disturbed that data is in the public domain which we believe is simply false, it's incorrect. And they wanted to correct the data from a scientific integrity viewpoint, my personal interest stems primarily from the fact that the paper was introduced into this hearing, was used to defend against allegations that Armstrong had used doping." - Michael Ashenden

 

[Digger]

So you admit that I never commented on Coyle's statement that he lost much of the original data?

Are you illiterate?

 

[keen_but_slow]

Again, I'm not sure that I follow. The efficiency measurements were made in the laboratory under (hopefully) carefully-standardized conditions, and are (or should be) quite reproducible. The assumption is that changes in efficiency measured under such conditions translate into changes in efficiency in competition, but until someone measures both power and VO2 in a large number of cyclists during races we don't really know for sure.

Let me tell it by analogy.

Three science fellows go on a train journey to scotland, and they see a black goat in a field. "That's interesting, said the statistician, "the goats in scotland are black". "Not so" said the pure mathematician, "all we know is that there exists a black goat in scotland". "You're quite mistaken", said the physicist, "all we know is that there exists a goat in scotland whose face is black on one side".

Coyle's paper, to me, tells me something about how efficient one guy was, as measured by equipment which may or may not have been the same (or repaired, or worn, or not set up properly by the lab assistant), whilst he was in states of training, hydration and muscle fatigue which may or not have been the same, on isolated occasions many years apart, at different times of day at different times of the year. It's interesting, but for my standards .... well ... that's all it is .... <adjusts spectacles>

Sorry, I should get out more.

 

[acoggan]

Are you illiterate?

Hardly. Re-read my edited post and you will hopefully understand why I stand by my statements.

 

[elapid]

You are overlooking a key point: with the exception of the immediate post-chemotherapy measurements, Armstrong's VO2 at LT remained essentially constant at 4.5-4.7 L/min - all that changed over the time was the power to which this corresponded. Coyle's assumption was therefore that his in-season LT was comparable, such that he was justified in dividing by reported in-season body mass to arrive at his in-season power:mass. Whether that assumption is correct or not cannot be said, so you can't argue that this is a clear-cut mistake on his part.

(BTW, on my way home yesterday I thought of an interesting scenario: pretend that you are a scientist and one of your colleagues died before they had the chance to finish some potentially very interesting experiments, such that the results were left with a lot of holes. Would you try to make the best out of the situation that you could just to get the data out there, or would you dump it all in the circular file without even trying to write it up? Assuming that you took the former route, how would you feel A) if the paper were accepted, and B) if the paper were rejected?)

I am not overlooking any key point. In-season weight was not measured, in-season steady-state power was not measured. Assuming that you can use a power measurement four months after an estimated body weight, which is wrong on some many levels, comparing an in-season power-to-weight ratio to previous preseason power-to-weight ratios is invalid. There are two key points there which you seem to be either overlooking or ignoring.

In regards to your situation, which bears no resemblance to this scenario, it would firstly depend on whether I was involved or not in the research. If I was not involved, which would be the implication considering that Coyle was the sole author, then I would let it die. If I was involved, then I would try to fill the holes in and publish. If I couldn't fill the holes in and the holes were as glaring as Coyle's flawed methods, then no I would not publish. This paper should not define Coyle's work which is obviously substantial and presumably more rigorous and scientifically sound than this paper, but this is the paper that is the most public representation of his work. Personally, I would have been happy submitting this paper for publication but letting it rest on its laurels. I would not have included the estimated racing weight because this is the sole data which is both not measured and not paired with other data. If Coyle had stuck to the recorded data sets then all calculations and comparisons would have been appropriate and valid.

 

[acoggan]

Let me tell it by analogy.

Three science fellows go on a train journey to scotland, and they see a black goat in a field. "That's interesting, said the statistician, "the goats in scotland are black". "Not so" said the pure mathematician, "all we know is that there exists a black goat in scotland". "You're quite mistaken", said the physicist, "all we know is that there exists a goat in scotland whose face is black on one side".

Coyle's paper, to me, tells me something about how efficient one guy was, as measured by equipment which may or may not have been the same (or repaired, or worn, or not set up properly by the lab assistant), whilst he was in states of training, hydration and muscle fatigue which may or not have been the same, on isolated occasions many years apart, at different times of day at different times of the year. It's interesting, but for my standards .... well ... that's all it is .... <adjusts spectacles>

Sorry, I should get out more.

That's not a bad analogy, but your 2nd paragraph above contains some questionable assertions/allusions:

1) Coyle has stated that the equipment remained the same and was in good repair throughout the period during which Armstrong was tested. Absent definitive evidence to the contrary (and an isolated pic of Armstrong on another ergometer is hardly definitive, since we don't know if any data collected during that session made it into the paper), all one can do is accept this statement at face value.

2) Coyle had provided data regarding the reproducibility of the efficiency measurements made in his lab, thus providing at least some measure of confidence that the measurements are indeed correct.

Finally, I think you are overlooking a very important point: the goat in Scotland (to use your analogy) wasn't just any goat, but one whose color was of tremendous interest to the large population of goat-worshippers in the world. The fact that it appeared to be black was therefore at least potentially worthy of sharing, regardless of whether it was all black or just had a black face, and/or whether it was representative of all goats in Scotland.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1549019

So, the accuracy of VO2 measurements is apparently ~ +/- 0.3 l/min, which is +/- 5% at 6 l/min. That means there's a +/- 5% error rate attached to any efficiency calculations. Love how Coyle reports VO2max to two sig figs... Heh. Unbelievable.

http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_19177315-accuracy-velotron-ergometer-srm-power-meter.htm

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2418760

The accuracy between individual measurements is expected to be +/- 1-3% based on which ergometer is being used and how the ergometer is being used. Also, a total error of ~10% can be expected when using the ergometer across the range of power measurements (i.e., increasing or decreasing workloads). This changes the slope of VO2 vs workload, n'est pas? I'd assume it's consistent for the exact same ergometer used under the exact same conditions - so this might be moot in Coyle's case if he documented the ergometer model and serial number.

However, if you add the errors up (i.e., make a competent error analysis) there's no way in hell, absent some calibration data, that Coyle could make any claims based on the data as presented. Total error in muscle efficiency measurements looks to be in the range of +/- 8%.

I really can't believe the low standards for test, measurement, and analysis are in the world of physiology. His paper is cited!? My god...

John Swanson
http://www.bikephysics.com

 

[acoggan]

I am not overlooking any key point. In-season weight was not measured, in-season steady-state power was not measured. Assuming that you can use a power measurement four months after an estimated body weight, which is wrong on some many levels, comparing an in-season power-to-weight ratio to previous preseason power-to-weight ratios is invalid. There are two key points there which you seem to be either overlooking or ignoring.

Neither, really - just explaining.

In regards to your situation, which bears no resemblance to this scenario, it would firstly depend on whether I was involved or not in the research. If I was not involved, which would be the implication considering that Coyle was the sole author, then I would let it die. If I was involved, then I would try to fill the holes in and publish. If I couldn't fill the holes in and the holes were as glaring as Coyle's flawed methods, then no I would not publish. This paper should not define Coyle's work which is obviously substantial and presumably more rigorous and scientifically sound than this paper, but this is the paper that is the most public representation of his work. Personally, I would have been happy submitting this paper for publication but letting it rest on its laurels. I would not have included the estimated racing weight because this is the sole data which is both not measured and not paired with other data. If Coyle had stuck to the recorded data sets then all calculations and comparisons would have been appropriate and valid.

Ironically, we are in closer agreement than you might think.

 

[acoggan]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1549019

So, the accuracy of VO2 measurements is apparently ~ +/- 0.3 l/min, which is +/- 5% at 6 l/min. That means there's a +/- 5% error rate attached to any efficiency calculations. Love how Coyle reports VO2max to two sig figs... Heh. Unbelievable.

http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_19177315-accuracy-velotron-ergometer-srm-power-meter.htm

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2418760

The accuracy between individual measurements is expected to be +/- 1-3% based on which ergometer is being used and how the ergometer is being used. Also, a total error of ~10% can be expected when using the ergometer across the range of power measurements (i.e., increasing or decreasing workloads). This changes the slope of VO2 vs workload, n'est pas? I'd assume it's consistent for the exact same ergometer used under the exact same conditions - so this might be moot in Coyle's case if he documented the ergometer model and serial number.

However, if you add the errors up (i.e., make a competent error analysis) there's no way in hell, absent some calibration data, that Coyle could make any claims based on the data as presented. Total error in muscle efficiency measurements looks to be in the range of +/- 8%.

I really can't believe the low standards for test, measurement, and analysis are in the world of physiology. His paper is cited!? My god...

John Swanson
http://www.bikephysics.com

There is only one problem with your assessment (well, two, actually):

1) Coyle didn't estimate VO2 using the ACSM equation, but measured it directly.

2) Coyle didn't use a Velotron ergometer or an SRM.

Anyway, here is the relevant portion of his response to Martin et al.'s letter-to-the-editor of JAP (with the data bolded):

"Accuracy and reliability of efficiency. Oxygen uptake (O2) and carbon dioxide production displayed a coefficient of variation of 0.87 and 0.92%, respectively, when measured on eight separate weekly occasions in a group of competitive cyclists in 1994 (6). Furthermore, the range (high minus low) of O2 during these eight separate bouts averaged ±0.08 l/min (6). The point that bicycle ergometers can be inaccurate is well taken and appreciated. The Monark ergometer was chosen because it can be and was statically calibrated for each test. Martin et al. raise the possibility that the calculation of efficiency changed because of Monark ergometer aging instead of Armstrong aging (i.e., maturation). First of all, the mechanical components of Monark ergometer were kept in good condition with the regular cleaning and maintenance of the friction belt, flywheel, drive chain, and bearings, and thus, according to Maxwell et al. (8), it should not have "aged" significantly. Second, an "aging ergometer" according to Maxwell et al. will raise the oxygen cost and thus lower efficiency, which is the exact opposite of what was observed in Armstrong, who increased efficiency with age. The best dynamic calibration of the Monark 819 ergometer in my experience is derived when a pedal dynamometer is compared with simultaneous integration of forces and velocity of the flywheel. This dynamic calibration was performed on this exact "same" Monark ergometer using elite cyclists as subjects (3, 7). It was observed that ergometer power outputs between 20 and 400 W agreed with the right pedal dynamometer with a range of ±3%. It should be noted that our references to "a specially designed ergometer" (3, 7) include continuous and integrated measurement of the Monark pendulum displacement force using a potentiometer with a reliable measurement accuracy of ±0.4 N. Furthermore, cycling cadence was measured (±0.18 rpm) continuously throughout each pedal revolution (3, 7)."

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I stand corrected then. Thank you.

From your information, I would expect the total error to be roughly +/- 4%. Not exactly stellar.

I found this to be fascinating, too: http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/drafts/VO2max.doc

Expect 4-7% error between successive measurements, of which only 1-2% of that is expected to be expermental variation. Did Coyle take multiple measurements and average them?

Maybe you physiologists aren't as bad as I thought...

John Swanson
http://www.bikephysics.com

 

[acoggan]

I found this to be fascinating, too: http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/drafts/VO2max.doc

Expect 4-7% error between successive measurements, of which only 1-2% of that is expected to be expermental variation.

I wasn't able to open the document to which you linked nor am I entirely sure what you mean by the above, but the test-retest coefficient of variation when measuring VO2max is generally accepted to be ~2% (with most of that variation being biological, not technological, in nature, i.e., it doesn't represent error, but true variation).

 

[Krebs cycle]

That's not a bad analogy, but your 2nd paragraph above contains some questionable assertions/allusions:

1) Coyle has stated that the equipment remained the same and was in good repair throughout the period during which Armstrong was tested. Absent definitive evidence to the contrary (and an isolated pic of Armstrong on another ergometer is hardly definitive, since we don't know if any data collected during that session made it into the paper), all one can do is accept this statement at face value.

On this point, you have confirmed that "unnamed grad" students have stated that different ergometers were used. So it is basically Ed's word against theirs. One has to ask the question though, why would they lie about something such as this and possibly bring about a professional misconduct suit? What do they have to gain from it so many years later? If the same ergos were used then one also has to ask the question, why would Ed refuse to provide the calibration records to the Aussies but instead provide a photo which proves nothing?

2) Coyle had provided data regarding the reproducibility of the efficiency measurements made in his lab, thus providing at least some measure of confidence that the measurements are indeed correct.

Quite the opposite in fact. Ed Coyle did make some, but not all, data available, but it most certainly did not provide any confidence in the measurements.

Here is text from Gore et al (2008), Delta efficiency calculation in Tour de france champion is wrong. JAP 105: 1020.

Delta efficiency calculation in Tour de France champion is wrong
TO THE EDITOR: We previously raised concerns (6) about the methodology used to assess Lance Armstrong's muscle efficiency in the popular Journal of Applied Physiology paper entitled "Improved muscle efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures" (1). Subsequently, Coyle made available raw data from the January 1993 test that revealed several additional deviations from the published methodology. Coyle used a 20-min ergometer protocol (not 25 min), including 2- and 3-min stages where respiratory exchange ratios (RER) exceeded 1.00. An RER >1.00 invalidates use of the Lusk equations (5) to estimate energy expenditure.
A review of the raw data established that the published delta efficiency (DE) values in the Armstrong paper were calculated using the wrong equation. Coyle's published methodology (1) and that used by his group on several previous occasions (2, 4, 7) stipulates that linear regression (y = mx + b) be used to calculate DE, as the reciprocal of the slope from the relationship between the energy equivalent of oxygen uptake and cycling power output. However, Coyle calculated DE using the general formula 100 x (X x Y)/(X2). This calculation is equivalent to linear regression using y = mx, which forces the regression line through the origin. Resting metabolic rate (RMR) as well as the cost of cycling without load (including the variable cost of ventilation and circulation) mandate that the regression line used to calculate DE cannot pass through the origin.

In their benchmark paper, Gaesser and Brooks (3) argue that DE, as the first derivative of the increase in caloric cost of exercise with respect to ordered increases in work, is a "floating base-line" method. Hence it is essential that the regression is not forced through zero when calculating DE. By employing y = mx for each of the four data sets used to calculate DE, Coyle has assumed that Armstrong's RMR and cost of cycling without a load was not influenced by orchiectomy and chemotherapy, plus well-publicized weight fluctuations during the 7-year study.

Gross efficiency values reported by Coyle, which demonstrate an r = 0.999 correlation with his DE data, have been cogently dismissed by Gaesser and Brooks (3) as being of little value in understanding muscular efficiency. This interpretation is recognized by Coyle who notes on p. 2194 of his publication (1), "delta efficiency ... provides the best reflection of power production ... as it eliminates or minimizes the influence of the energy cost of unloaded cycling, ventilatory work, and other metabolic processes not directly linked to muscle power production."

Using the correct equation, we recalculated Armstrong's DE as 23.55&#37]

Gore et al (2008). Delta efficiency calculation in Tour de france champion is wrong. JAP 105: 1020.

The WRONG equation was used and therefore, what is reported in the methodology is not how the numbers published in the paper were calculated. According to Gore et al. when you use the correct one it changes the results dramatically, in fact the re-calculated economy is remarkably similar in 1993 to the values reported in 1999. This is a result which is remarkably consistent with hordes of data (published and unpublished) that demonstrates cycling efficiency does not change markedly, and is also very similar between recreational and pro riders.

None of this ever had anything to do with LA or doping or trying to ruin Ed Coyle. It has always been about the science. But because Lance was the subject, the paper has become famous. By denying the errors in the science a myth is being perpetuated that cannot be verified according to the actual raw data, and this myth is now being used as a smoke screen to account for LAs remarkable increase in performance capacity between those years.

 

[Galic Ho]

acoggan, fair enough view Ashenden with disdain. I thought his references to Lance's height were ridiculous on first glance. But I reviewed the interview. The interviewer brought up the height discrepancy not Ashenden. For the record I believe Lance is about between 177 and 179 cm. Roughly 5'9" and 3/4" inches or 5'10". Unless Lance's weight was recorded monthly over a period of years then its fair to suggest Coyle had no idea when doing his calculations.

Personally I'd never heard a clear description of an epo urine test before let alone the many of the other descriptions Ashenden gave. His explanation is scarily thorough and precise. Regarding Coyle, ask yourself why a qualified professional such as Ashenden and his colleagues would take issue with Coyle's paper? Why lose data, as Ashenden suggests, when you must surely realise that given the content is a based on a seven times TDF winner, that people, trained scientific minds, will ask questions? The artifacts I was refering to were the discrepancies in testing perameters, such as Lance doing a test before training and then months later doing it after training. For the data to be relevant, any reasonable person can see testing variables need to minimalised and must be consistent. Thats why "Coyle's peers" such as Ashenden have taken issue with his paper and have saught an explanation from the University that endorses him and why most people here think he's not only agenda driven but an idiot.

Regarding your V02max tests, I'll take your word for it. But I got the sense you were bragging to add validity to you argument. Heck I could rattle off beep test scores I had as a teenager in high school and suggest they mean something. They mean very little. There are plenty of fit and healthy bloggers on this forum but they don't feel the need to sprout their own personal glory.

 

[acoggan]

On this point, you have confirmed that "unnamed grad" students have stated that different ergometers were used.

No, I have not - all I did was acknowledge that others posting to this thread have claimed that a picture exists of Armstrong on a different ergometer (although so far no one has been able to provide it).

So it is basically Ed's word against theirs. One has to ask the question though, why would they lie about something such as this and possibly bring about a professional misconduct suit?

What is a "professional misconduct suit"? While they might be afraid of publically speaking out against Coyle because they perceive it would hurt their careers, I don't see how it would open them up to any legal action.

Anyway, do we even know these graduate students exist?

If the same ergos were used then one also has to ask the question, why would Ed refuse to provide the calibration records to the Aussies but instead provide a photo which proves nothing?

It is "ergo" (singular), not "ergos" (plural), and Coyle probably couldn't provide calibration records because they don't exist. That is, the ergometer in question is of very simple construction, such that calibrating it consists of merely noting that the weight pendulum aligns with the zero mark on the scale every time you use it. Nobody keeps track of such things, just as nobody keeps track of the fact that they, e.g., properly zeroed the gas analyzers of the metabolic cart before measuring VO2 - it is simply part of the S.O.P.

Quite the opposite in fact. Ed Coyle did make some, but not all, data available, but it most certainly did not provide any confidence in the measurements.

We are speaking about different things here: I was referring to the test-retest reproducibility and ergometer validation data he (Coyle) provided in his rebuttal to Gore et al.'s letter-to-the-editor, not Armstrong's data.

The WRONG equation was used

In point of fact, no: there are multiple acceptable ways of calculating delta efficiency, so all you can accuse Coyle of is citing the wrong paper.

(And I'll note once again that you seem to be ignoring the big elephant in the room, which is the fact that gross efficiency - which is what really matters from the performance perspective - changed in parallel.)

According to Gore et al. when you use the correct one it changes the results dramatically, in fact the re-calculated economy is remarkably similar in 1993 to the values reported in 1999.

And Gore et al. are flat-out wrong on that point. They recalculated the only data available to them, then compared it to numbers Coyle came up with using a different (but again, valid) equation. That is simply nonsensical, as Coyle rightly points out in his rebuttal. Furthermore, the fact that gross efficiency changed in parallel to delta efficiency means that you would reach the same conclusion (i.e., that delta efficiency improved) regardless of precisely how the latter was calculated.

To put it another way (and as I told Dave Martin): if you wish to undermine the study's conclusions re. efficiency, you need to demonstrate that the actual VO2 and power data are incorrect. That simply can't be done, at least with the data that are available.

This is a result which is remarkably consistent with hordes of data (published and unpublished) that demonstrates cycling efficiency does not change markedly, and is also very similar between recreational and pro riders.

And just where are these "hordes" of data to which you refer (unpublished doesn't count)? My suggestion to Dave Martin was that he take an approach that I have seen John Holloszy use, which is that if he doesn't believe the results of a study he needs to publish data showing that it is wrong. This is something that he and his colleagues have never done. The best they were able to do was provide some cross-sectional comparisons of elite vs. non-elite cyclists showing no difference in efficiency, but obviously that doesn't rule out the possibility of changes within a given individual. Furthermore, the Martin/Jeukendrup/Martin et al. paper is inconsistent with other studies showing that there is indeed a difference.

None of this ever had anything to do with LA or doping

On that at least we agree.