guess you can't trust anything you read in the journal of applied physiology these days.
were now treading on sacred ground.
i believe the scientific method of investigation to be the only thing remotely capable of saving mankind from it's tenancies toward self-delusion.
i don't think anything is beyond reproach and no theory is valid if it can't withstand scrutiny.
i went out of my way to take science classes in college, including biochemistry and physics, so the language is not foreign to me but i admit i'm don't see the problems you mention. in places where i question, i tend to question my questions. in journals the peers are supposed to expose kinds of things you mention before they ever see the light of day are they not?
what i read seems consistent to me with other things i've read about the physiology of muscle cells.
i see a reference to C. J. Gore, M. J. Ashenden, K. Sharpe, and D. T. Martin, saying, "Delta efficiency calculation in Tour de France champion is wrong" but i can't get to the article or dr coyle's reply. is that what you mean? i even saw the equation they reference.
just so i'm clear. you think dr coyle got this article, with it's flawed methods and miscalulations past the peer review jury of a highly regarded science journal and that you have the expertise to critique it and declare it bs.