Krebs cycle said:
In 2002, Lucia published a paper (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12047807) which shows an significant relationship between [Hb] and greater than expected efficiency (at workrates above LT). Since it is very well known that doping can increase [Hb] then it is plausible that an artificial increase alone could account for the improved efficiency.
Except that Coyle made his measurements below the point at which the VO2-power relationship significantly deviates from linearity.
Krebs cycle said:
it is also interesting to note that both Lucia and Santalla appear on numerous research articles together and their method ofVO2 measurement have been criticised by Jeukendrup, Martin and Gore (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319)
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?
Krebs cycle said:
and is known to display error as large as 30% at high breathing frequencies (
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/81/6/2495)
I gather that you didn't read Dave Proctor's paper all that closely:
"It should be noted that the manufacturer
of the CPX/D system we used (Medical Graphics)
routinely performs validation testing at high respiratory
rates when in development and on each unit before
it is shipped. Our system required revalidation because
we used a mass spectrometer in place of supplied gas
analyzers. These errors were not due to errors in
measurement of V ˙ E or errors in the gain of the gas
analyzers but were due to induced errors in delay times
used to align flow and gas concentration signals."
IOW, the errors that were observed were due to the modification that they made, and hence this paper does not say anything about the validity of the data published by Lucia et al.
Krebs cycle said:
So the idea that cycling efficiency increases in professional cyclists is an intriguing possibility which makes sense intuitively and would certainly contribute to an explanation of why the average age of tdf winners is higher than the average age at which tdf winenrs first won the tdf, but despite the debate here with acoggan, I do not believe this question to be properly answered YET.
On this we would agree.
Krebs cycle said:
With respect to LA, it most definately is not answered because Ed Coyle's paper is flawed.
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.