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

[acoggan]

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.

So why didn't Ashenden simply say "I don't know how tall Armstrong is", rather than making himself appear silly?

[Regarding Coyle, ask yourself why a qualified professional such as Ashenden and his colleagues would take issue with Coyle's paper?

Ashenden himself addressed this question in the NYC interview (see his words that I quoted). In essence, he views Armstrong as a fraud, and Coyle's paper and subsequent testimony in the SCA trial gave him the opportunity to gather some potentially damaging information. The "dust-up" in the scientific realm was merely a consequence.

(BTW, you'll notice that Ashenden goes to some length in that quote to distinguish his motivations from those of his colleagues who were co-authors on the letter. Without going into any details, let me just say that I think that there is a very good reason for that.)

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?

You'd have to ask Coyle.

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.

I agree, but absent any solid evidence to the contrary* all one can do is accept Coyle's word that the test conditions were adequately standardized.

*I don't consider second-hand reports of the words of some unnamed graduate students to qualify as such, especially when the story entails Armstrong training in the mountains right before coming into the lab. As anyone who has ever been to central Texas knows, the nearest mountains to Austin are ~8 h away by car.

Regarding your V02max tests, I'll take your word for it. But I got the sense you were bragging

Not in the least. My point (with which you seem to agree) was simply that many people have VO2max values as high, if not higher than, the 79 mL/min/kg reported for Indurain. To claim that Coyle was lying/exaggerating by stating that Armstrong's was also higher is therefore downright silly.

 

[dienekes88]

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.

While I don't necessarily like the amount of extrapolation that Coyle did, I do understand where he's coming from. Sometimes you just have to use proxies, because the direct measurement is impossible, risky, prohibitively expensive.

Prior to the advent of defensive medicine, was it absolutely necessary to do a CT or ultrasound to make the diagnosis of appendicitis? Or did you use an indirect means: physical exam and history.

Similarly, in the case of asthma (in average people), is it absolutely necessary to submit everyone to a PFT or is a history and office spirometry enough?

The same logic may be used to justify using surrogate endpoints in a study.

Again, I wouldn't have gone as far as Coyle, but I understand why he tried to do what he did.

 

[Anonymous]

So why didn't Ashenden simply say "I don't know how tall Armstrong is", rather than making himself appear silly?



Ashenden himself addressed this question in the NYC interview (see his words that I quoted). In essence, he views Armstrong as a fraud, and Coyle's paper and subsequent testimony in the SCA trial gave him the opportunity to gather some potentially damaging information. The "dust-up" in the scientific realm was merely a consequence.

(BTW, you'll notice that Ashenden goes to some length in that quote to distinguish his motivations from those of his colleagues who were co-authors on the letter. Without going into any details, let me just say that I think that there is a very good reason for that.)



You'd have to ask Coyle.



I agree, but absent any solid evidence to the contrary* all one can do is accept Coyle's word that the test conditions were adequately standardized.

*I don't consider second-hand reports of the words of some unnamed graduate students to qualify as such, especially when the story entails Armstrong training in the mountains right before coming into the lab. As anyone who has ever been to central Texas knows, the nearest mountains to Austin are ~8 h away by car.




Not in the least. My point (with which you seem to agree) was simply that many people have VO2max values as high, if not higher than, the 79 mL/min/kg reported for Indurain. To claim that Coyle was lying/exaggerating by stating that Armstrong's was also higher is therefore downright silly.

Funny, you ignored this sentence completely:

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.

Hmm.....I wonder why?

 

[acoggan]

Funny, you ignored this sentence completely:

Hmm.....I wonder why?

Because:

1) I don't disagree with it, and

2) it has absolutely nothing to do with the Coyle paper.

To reiterate: everything I write should be taken at absolute face value, and you shouldn't try to read between the lines to infer anything that isn't there.

 

[lean mean &green]

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.

would the data that was thrown away have been of any help in discrediting the conclusions?

(i encourage people not to take what i write at face value, feel free to read into it as much as you like)

 

[Krebs cycle]

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).

I am not in possession of said photo but I've seen it with my own eyes. You can choose not to believe me if you wish.

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.

You would know that a formal complaint was made....

"After raising a variety of concerns directly with Coyle about his research methods and, according to Ashenden, being rebuffed, the group lodged a formal complaint of scientific misconduct against him with the University of Texas.

Robert Peterson, the vice president for research at the university, investigated the complaint with three scientists. He wrote in an e-mail message Wednesday that their inquiry found that “there do appear to be ‘deficiencies’ in Professor Coyle’s research, and there does appear to be a need to clarify the research record.” He added, “However, there is no hard or firm evidence that the deficiencies rise to the level of scientific misconduct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/othersports/11cycling.html

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.

Keeping calibration records should be standard practice for any exercise physiology laboratory. I can pull out dynamic calibration records of all our ergos and O2 and CO2 cal gas records for every VO2max test I've conducted going back yrs.

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.)

Here you appear to be completely dismissing the Gore 2008 letter. See para2. The fact that DE can be calculated a number of ways is irrelevant. If you're given raw data and a set of methods, and then you calculate the results from that data, but they don't match what is published in the paper, then there is a probem. Whether or not that equation is the right or wrong one in terms of validity is a different topic, but since we are here I might aswell ask your opinion... if you were to calculate DE how would you do it?

The big elephant is a different topic again and something very interesting for another day maybe! I won't argue that gross efficiency is not important for performance, but LA's gross efficiency could have improved for reasons other than altered muscular efficiency.

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.

The recalculated data from 1993 (23.55%) is similar to the 1999 published data (23.12%). Nothing "flat out wrong" there. Now if Ed provided the complete data set, then maybe what the Aussies would find is that an 8% increase occurs and it goes from 23.55% up to 25% or whatever.

So why won't Ed provide all the raw data as requested? It would settle the dispute once and for all. You would think that if he wanted to shut the Aussies up then he would be forcing the data down their throats.

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.

IMO if you publish a scientific paper, the onus is on you to make sure the design, methodology and procedures are robust. It is not DTMs or anyone else's responsibility to prove that the VO2 and power data is incorrect, it is the authors responsibility to prove that they are because they conducted the research. It is Ed's responsibility to keep calibration and maintenance records and provide this information upon request. So far, he has failed to do this, even though the initial request was made yrs ago.

If it was as you say, and a study is published, but then the results are queried, the author could simply reply by saying "you must prove that our method is incorrect" but then provide no data which would be required to make such proof. Its a catch22!

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.

If someone such as DTM says, we don't see evidence that cycling efficiency changes in elite cyclists then unpublished data does count because the database of VO2max tests on world class cyclists that DTM has access to is pretty comprehensive.

Neverthless, its a good point you raise and he probably should take John Holloszy's advice and publish longitudinal data that he has access to.


Anyway, it was not my intention to create such a big fuss, also I was not aware of the recent Terrados paper from MSSE May 09, so I went away and checked it out and I thought about something very interesting. Altitude acclimatisation has been shown to improve efficiency by several groups (including CJG and DTM). So I wonder if it might actually be the regular altitude training which contributes to this result??

edit. grammar

 

[acoggan]

would the data that was thrown away have been of any help in discrediting the conclusions?

Thrown away, or lost?

Anyway, anything is possible - but reviewers, editors, and readers of scientific papers can only go by what is presented. That is why, in the evolution of the modern scientific paper, significant emphasis has been placed on the necessity of a well-written methods section, such that others can attempt to replicate the results if they wish.

 

[Galic Ho]

acoggan I think I'll pass on flying halfway around the world to go and visit Ed Coyle, let alone check the topography and geographical wonders of Texas. I'll agree that fleeting comments by grad students are just that. But Ed Coyle's position gives him no more authority or reliability than any other person, except when he alone is privy to knowledge relating to his own private work. I'll assume the University of Texas is a respected institute in north america, so its no shock that research papers endorsed by the universities delegates should have moved heaven and earth to comply with scientific rigour and standards. Ed Coyle's paper would have been far more interesting if it contained information through all LA's tour wins.

I don't know where you got the 79mL/kg/min VO2 max scores for Indurain. I'd always been led to believe his score was 88 and LeMond's was between 92 and 94. Personally I find it a tad unreliable to take a person on their own word in these matters of physiological measurement because it opens the door for bragging. For example back in February I read an article in the Adelaide Times discussing V02max. It was a nice literary piece comparing aussie rules (AFL) players with other sports people. They quoted a sports scientist @ the Victorian Institute of Sport (VIS) who measured an olympic female triathlete and olympic gold medallist rower. I found her to be far more reliable when she stated both people measured 67ml/kg/min than an athlete randomly saying "Yeah I got this score". (I don't feel it necessary to mention their names but I can if anyone wishes). The article compared these to cyclists, more importantly a cyclist the same scientist had tested, Simon Gerrans, who came in @ 80mL/kg/min.

Given my understanding of VO2max and how it is measured and I may be wrong here, but considering there is room to speculate and doubt the accuracy of Ed Coyle's data and more importantly his estimates for Lance's weight, would the final VO2max reading he used not be slightly wrong? I'm not suggesting it would not be astronomically high anyway, but still a few points out of wack.

 

[acoggan]

You know what it (a "professional misconduct suit" - AC) is

Okay, I understand what you meant now - but how would coming forward expose such former graduate students to charges of academic misconduct?

The fact that DE can be calculated a number of ways is irrelevant. CJG and DTM have the raw data.

But from only one test, such that they can't say that Arnstrong's delta efficiency didn't actually improve over time.

since we are here I might aswell ask you your opinion... If YOU were to calculate DE how would you do it?

Given that:

1) delta efficiency can be calculated various ways, with no really concensus on the approach that best represents muscular efficiency;

2) what really matters from a performance perspective is gross efficiency; and

3) you don't need to calculate delta efficiency to make the case that Armstrong's efficiency improved over time

then if I had the data and had been trying to publish it, I wouldn't have even bothered.

I won't argue that gross efficiency is not important for performance, but LA's gross efficiency could have improved for reasons other than altered muscular efficiency.

Such as? It is pretty hard to picture how changes in the O2 consumption by tissues other than exercising muscle could account for the changes in gross efficiency when the measurements were made - or actually, interpolated to - a VO2 of 5 L/min.

Be that as it may, it is an author's right to interpret their data as they see fit, provided said interpretation is consistent with the published literature. From that perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the paper.

The recalculated data from 1993 (23.55%) is similar to the 1999 published data (23.12%). Nothing "flat out wrong" there.

Except, of course, that such an apples-to-oranges comparison is so nonsensical as to cause those making it to appear foolish.

Now if Ed provided the complete data set, then maybe what the Aussies would find is that an 8% increase occurs and it goes from 23.55% up to 25% or whatever.

Again, it practically a mathematical impossibilty for delta efficiency to NOT have changed regardless of how you calculate it, given the reported changes in gross efficiency.

So why won't Ed provide all the raw data as requested? It would settle the dispute once and for all. You would think that if he wanted to shut the Aussies up then he would be forcing the data down their throats.

Maybe he really did lose it?

IMO if you publish a scientific paper, the onus is on you to make sure the design, methodology and procedures are robust. It is not DTMs or anyone else's responsibility to prove that the VO2 and power data is incorrect

Actually, at this stage it is, at least if they want the editors of JAP to force withdrawal of the paper.

If it was as you say, and a study is published, but then the results are queried, the author could simply reply by saying "you must prove that our method is incorrect" but then provide no data which would be required to make such proof. Its a catch22!

Yet that is the world in which scientists have operated ever since experiments were no longer performed before other members of, e.g., the Royal Society of London and the modern scientific paper was developed to take its place.

If someone such as DTM says, we don't see evidence that cycling efficiency changes in elite cyclists then unpublished data does count

In science, if it isn't published it didn't happen.

Neverthless, its a good point you raise and he probably should take John Holloszy's advice and publish longitudinal data that he has access to.

So the question is, why haven't he/they? I made the suggestion to them several years ago now.

Anyway, I was not aware of the recent Terrados paper from MSSE May 09, so I went away and checked it out and I thought about something very interesting. Altitude acclimatisation has been shown to improve efficiency by several groups (including CJG and DTM). So I wonder if it might actually be the regular altitude training which contributes to this result??

So are you now saying that you believe that Armstrong's efficiency did improve?

 

[acoggan]

I don't know where you got the 79mL/kg/min VO2 max scores for Indurain.

That is the value reported in the Med Sci Sports Exerc paper describing his hour record attempt.

Given my understanding of VO2max and how it is measured and I may be wrong here, but considering there is room to speculate and doubt the accuracy of Ed Coyle's data and more importantly his estimates for Lance's weight, would the final VO2max reading he used not be slightly wrong? I'm not suggesting it would not be astronomically high anyway, but still a few points out of wack.

It has been measured in labs other than UT-Austin, e.g., at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, CO. Interesting enough, they, too, put it in the low 80 mL/mni/kg range (84, to be exact), even though the lab is at 1900 m altitude. This is consistent with anecdotal reports that Armstrong doesn't experience arterial desaturation, at least at that moderate altitude. (Normally you would expect VO2max to be 8-12% lower, depending upon one's degree of acclimatization.)

 

[Digger]

That is the value reported in the Med Sci Sports Exerc paper describing his hour record attempt.



It has been measured in labs other than UT-Austin, e.g., at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, CO. Interesting enough, they, too, put it in the low 80 mL/mni/kg range (84, to be exact), even though the lab is at 1900 m altitude. This is consistent with anecdotal reports that Armstrong doesn't experience arterial desaturation, at least at that moderate altitude. (Normally you would expect VO2max to be 8-12% lower, depending upon one's degree of acclimatization.)

So we pretend the other figures post cancer don't exist because he just wasn't fit.

 

[acoggan]

So we pretend the other figures post cancer don't exist because he just wasn't fit.

VO2max quite typically varies +/- 10% when comparing in-season vs. out-of-season measurements, so I don't find it surprising at all that Armstrong's was lower when tested in, say, November vs. during or right after the end of the racing season. That is especially true given that much of the off-season reduction in his case was due to an increase in body mass, i.e., from 75 kg right after winning Worlds to 79 kg in the winter.

 

[Digger]

VO2max quite typically varies +/- 10% when comparing in-season vs. out-of-season measurements, so I don't find it surprising at all that Armstrong's was lower when tested in, say, November vs. during or right after the end of the racing season. That is especially true given that much of the off-season reduction in his case was due to an increase in body mass, i.e., from 75 kg right after winning Worlds to 79 kg in the winter.

But the fact that the measurements were taken at different times, must surely show how they are next to worthless. How can we extrapolate anything worthwhile from them. Why take them at all....

 

[acoggan]

Sorry, but I can't resist:

it was not my intention to create such a big fuss

You didn't think that labeling a paper a fraud would create a big fuss?

Altitude acclimatisation has been shown to improve efficiency by several groups (including CJG and DTM).

Indeed (and this is one of the first things I mentioned to Coyle when he presented the data in abstract back in 2002). Isn't it ironic, then, that Ashenden holds that efficiency is essentially immutable?

 

[acoggan]

But the fact that the measurements were taken at different times, must surely show how they are next to worthless. How can we extrapolate anything worthwhile from them.

Actually, they are rather useful, because they demonstrate that Armstrong had/has a high VO2max even when, e.g., recovering from chemotherapy and hence barely training at all.

Why take them at all....

Physiological testing was simply performed whenever Armstrong requested it. The timing of these "convenience samples" is obviously less-than-ideal from a scientific perspective, but with said data in hand why not present it?

 

[Digger]

Actually, they are rather useful, because they demonstrate that Armstrong had/has a high VO2max even when, e.g., recovering from chemotherapy and hence barely training at all.

In 1999, when well recovered from cancer he had a VO2Max of just 71.5. Well below average for a rider in pro cycling.

 

[acoggan]

In 1999, when well recovered from cancer he had a VO2Max of just 71.5. Well below average for a rider in pro cycling.

Actually, probably above average when you consider that the test was performed 1) in the off-season, and 2) when we was at least 5 kg above race weight (8 kg if you go by the 72 kg Coyle used, 6-7 kg if you go by Armstrong's testimony in the SCA trial).

(BTW, in researching this issue I found that not only was Armstorng's VO2max measured at being in the mid-80's by the OTC, but also by the Cooper Clinic in Dallas, TX, before he ever won the Tour.)

 

[acoggan]

Armstorng's VO2max measured at being in the mid-80's by the OTC, but also by the Cooper Clinic in Dallas, TX, before he ever won the Tour.)

Dr. Tedd Mitchell: "“We tested Lance Armstrong here as a kid,” he adds. “His VO2 max was through the ceiling..."

http://www.cooperaerobics.com/.../PDFs/CooperHealth_F08_FINAL.aspx, page 10

 

[Digger]

Actually, probably above average when you consider that the test was performed 1) in the off-season, and 2) when we was at least 5 kg above race weight (8 kg if you go by the 72 kg Coyle used, 6-7 kg if you go by Armstrong's testimony in the SCA trial).

Again we're left with assumption though, because the tests were not carried out at the same periods and under the same conditions. Not good enough. There shouldn't be a need to use 'probably' in this area.

 

[Digger]

Dr. Tedd Mitchell: "“We tested Lance Armstrong here as a kid,” he adds. “His VO2 max was through the ceiling..."

http://www.cooperaerobics.com/.../PDFs/CooperHealth_F08_FINAL.aspx, page 10

Means not much, because what month was it measured? Was he fit...How can we get a pattern if these conditions were never replicated...

 

[acoggan]

Means not much, because what month was it measured? Was he fit...How can we get a pattern if these conditions were never replicated...

Presumably he was fit at the time, since otherwise it doesn't seem likely that his VO2max would have been "through the ceiling" by the Cooper Clinic's standards. I say that because although Armstrong's VO2max is high, it really isn't any higher than that of many other world-class endurance athletes, i.e., having a higher VO2max than his competition doesn't seem to be what sets him apart.

 

[acoggan]

Again we're left with assumption though, because the tests were not carried out at the same periods and under the same conditions. Not good enough.

"Not good enough" for what? The results and conclusions of Coyle's paper certainly don't hinge on Armstrong's exact VO2max.

 

[Digger]

Presumably he was fit at the time, since otherwise it doesn't seem likely that his VO2max would have been "through the ceiling" by the Cooper Clinic's standards. I say that because although Armstrong's VO2max is high, it really isn't any higher than that of many other world-class endurance athletes, i.e., having a higher VO2max than his competition doesn't seem to be what sets him apart.

We have no figure for Lance, while fit, post cancer, when his success was at it's peak. That's my issue.

 

[acoggan]

We have no figure for Lance, while fit, post cancer, when his success was at it's peak. That's my issue.

1) What makes you think that his VO2max was any lower at that time than the 81 mL/min/kg that Coyle measured in 1999, or the 84 mL/min/kg that the OTC got in 1996?

2) Why does it even matter?

 

[Digger]

"Not good enough" for what? The results and conclusions of Coyle's paper certainly don't hinge on Armstrong's exact VO2max.

Supposition and assumption is not good enough.
Why measure it at all if the variables are not being replicated. It is practically worthless. What can we deride from these figures, when they are at different times. We shouldn't have to use words like 'probably'.