IT'S OFFICIAL: Contador is Astana's leader

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
jackhammer111 said:
i believe the scientific method of investigation to be the only thing remotely capable of saving mankind from it's tenancies toward self-delusion.

Careful the Faith-iests are gathering with fire sticks to look for ya :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jackhammer111 said:
no no.. oh god no... that wasn't a question to you.

You don't have to be scared of me. I will be flying over Ohio in a couple of weeks, but I would never stop there.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hulkgogan said:
It's called belly breathing. There's a picture of Hampsten out there looking exactly the same. And dude was 90 lbs soaking wet.

reality makes no difference to this yahoo.
single unflattering isolated photo with absolutely no frame of reference?
no matter.
picture from long ago claimed to be from this year? no matter. then make fun of the person that called them on it.
 
jackhammer111 said:
reality makes no difference to this yahoo.
single unflattering isolated photo with absolutely no frame of reference?
no matter.
picture from long ago claimed to be from this year? no matter. then make fun of the person that called them on it.

Can you really be this dense? Look at the picture. Look at the arms, tricep bulging out of the skinsuit, shoulders, traps, and the overall thickness everywhere. Then compare to the pics Alpe posted of Leipheimer and Contador. It has nothing to do with his belly.
 
May 14, 2009
151
0
0
jackhammer111 said:
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.
There is a lot article saying that Coyle was wrong like
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/105/3/1020
or
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html

Coyle was strongly critizise inside his own university for his sloppy work, no one dared to say for his acomplice work!
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
jackhammer111 said:
i believe the scientific method of investigation to be the only thing remotely capable of saving mankind from it's tenancies toward self-delusion.

Scientific investigation has many merits. But not all researchers are created equal and their study designs and methods can be questionable to unethical. This is unusual, but researchers publish papers to report their findings and open their research to critical evaluation, not be accepted without question. One of the hallmarks of a successful study is one that can be repeated with the same results.

jackhammer111 said:
in journals the peers are supposed to expose kinds of things you mention before they ever see the light of day are they not?

I am on the editorial board for three journals and am an ad hoc reviewer for about another six journals. Each paper submitted for publication is reviewed by a minimum of three reviewers. It is amazing the difference in comments from three reviewers reviewing the same paper. It is also amazing that some papers get through the review and editorial process when they clearly should not. Coyle's paper is in the latter category.

jackhammer111 said:
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.

Yes. Coyle's paper "Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures" was published in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 2005 (98:2191-2196). Coyle states in his abstract that "an improvement in muscular efficiency and reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight". I have attached a screen shot of Table 2 from Coyle's paper showing Armstrong's physiologic data from 1992 to 1999.

Picture1-1.png


Table 2 clearly shows that 1. percentage body weight was not measured in November 1999 (so how can Coyle claim reduced body fat contributed to the improvement in steady-state power when he didn't measure percentage body weight); and 2. Armstrong was heavier in both gross and lean body weight in November 1999 than November 1992. So theory #2 to explain Armstrong's "remarkable 18% improvement" is either unsubstantiated or contradicted by Coyle's figures.

Now let's look at this 18% improvement. The paragraph explaining how Coyle made this calculation is attached below and finishes on the following page with "...gram" at a given percentage of VO2 max (eg, 83%) increased by 18%."

Picture2.png


How does he make this calculation? He uses an estimated racing body weight of 72 kg in 1999 and not the measured preseason body weight of 79.7 kg. Why use an unmeasured racing weight to calculate power/weight ratios and compare this to preseason data in 1992 and 1993? That's comparing apples to oranges. The 5.6 power/weight ratio in 1999 = preseason 404W / estimated racing body weight of 72 kg. If Coyle used the measured data for preseason 1999, and not preseason power with an estimated weight during the racing season, then the actual power/weight ratio for his 1999 preseason is 5.07, not 5.6. In comparison, using the data in Table 2, his power/weight ratios in the 1992 and 1993 preseasons were 4.74 and 4.99, respectively. Hence, Armstrong's 1999 preseason power/weight ratio of 5.07 is 7.0% better than 1992 preseason and only 1.6% better than the 1993 preseason.

This is why I say Coyle's methods are BS. He uses data not included in his paper (1999 racing season weight) and then uses racing weights to calculate ratios from preseason data in previous years. For these results to be respectable, Coyle should have compared preseason data for 1992, 1993 and 1999, not estimated racing weight in 1999 to preseason data in 1992 and 1993.

Can you fault me for calling Coyle's research BS when Coyle concludes "reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight" despite the fact that body fat was not measured (and body weight was in fact heavier) in 1999 and the 18% improvement is based on completely flawed calculations?
 
Mar 11, 2009
104
0
0
I love this Soap Opera...er...Circus

...I really do.

But any Manager who is interested in winning has to go with his strongest rider, and that HAS to be Contador.

Lance stirs up the press and gets sponsors lined up and money rolls into a team who has a broken sponsor since cheap oil = Borat-land in the crapper

Am I the only one who sees this?

It's all a show! Hype!

Bruyneel = P.T. Barnum
Lance = Joe Jackson - famous tramp clown with a breakaway bicycle
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
Can you really be this dense? Look at the picture. Look at the arms, tricep bulging out of the skinsuit, shoulders, traps, and the overall thickness everywhere. Then compare to the pics Alpe posted of Leipheimer and Contador. It has nothing to do with his belly.

and you think rod serling was six foot two right?
lance is bigger than levi and contador, always has been. someone on here said levi isn very small. at 5'8 136 i'd call him small.
really, after i first responded to you on this is i thought. "damn, he got me, he's not really that stupid".
why are you obsessing about this? what do you think he weighs?
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
2
0
You guys are cracking me up seriously this is one of the funniest threads, you guys are arguing about Lance's muscles, you sound like 16 year old girls talking about who's boyfriend has bigger muscles, as for the whole pain so better on the bike thing, I wouldn't say it makes you deal with pain easier but probably makes you more resilient to the many obstacles that you face.
 
jackhammer111 said:
why are you obsessing about this?

Oh...maybe because how heavy he is relative to 1999-2005 is a pretty big clue as to how well he will be able to climb, even if he were to be able to put out the same power. I know it sounds fanastic, but a simple formula of power divided by weight just might have a tiny small little wee bit of relevance.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
elapid said:
Can you fault me for calling Coyle's research BS when Coyle concludes "reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight" despite the fact that body fat was not measured (and body weight was in fact heavier) in 1999 and the 18% improvement is based on completely flawed calculations?

i see what you are talking about and i thank you for you patience in going through it.
please induldge me and help me make sense of it.
if this is as it appears, and i admit that's how it appears, it shouldn't have made it past a high school science teacher, let alone a peer review process. i didn't look at the table when i first read it. i think i had the right to assume that the basic math would be right.
i guess i'm expecting the publishing process to be way better than what you are telling me it is.
what you are showing wouldn't just be opening their research to critical evaluation, it would be opening it to ridicule.
there has to be more to this story.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
Oh...maybe because how heavy he is relative to 1999-2005 is a pretty big clue as to how well he will be able to climb, even if he were to be able to put out the same power. I know it sounds fanastic, but a simple formula of power divided by weight just might have a tiny small little wee bit of relevance.

ok, of course that's true.
i just think you're seeing more in that picture than is really there.
Miguel Indurain weighed more than lance. why are his results more believable than lance's?
do you think he's over the 170 that he's been before?
but going back to what this thread is actually about, contador is the leader of astana in the tour. i hope to hear less about lance
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
jackhammer111 said:
i see what you are talking about and i thank you for you patience in going through it.
please induldge me and help me make sense of it.
if this is as it appears, and i admit that's how it appears, it shouldn't have made it past a high school science teacher, let alone a peer review process.
i guess i'm expecting the publishing process to be way better than what you are telling me it is.
what you are showing wouldn't just be opening their research to critical evaluation, it would be opening it to ridicule.
there has to be more to this story.

Coyle's paper was widely ridiculed in the scientific literature and, according to other posts in this thread, by other researchers at his institution. You are correct - it shouldn't have gotten past the review process and it should never have been published. However, it did for whatever reasons. Ashenden has more to say and his criticisms are of a much more scientific nature. But as you said, the errors in this paper are rather obvious.
 
Jun 4, 2009
7
0
0
Contador will be their GC for sure. A super climber coming into his prime and a TT that can limit too much damage. I cannot beileve anyone would think otherwise, assuming the same team operations are there by July.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
jackhammer111 said:
ok, of course that's true.
i just think you're seeing more in that picture than is really there.
Miguel Indurain weighed more than lance. why are his results more believable than lance's?
do you think he's over the 170 that he's been before?
but going back to what this thread is actually about, contador is the leader of astana in the tour. i hope to hear less about lance

Lance is probably about 165 right now... 4-5 pounds off in June, then another 2 pounds off during the Tour and he's back down to his old weight. Granted most riders his height would be 150-155.

If Lance is 170 right now than I'm 165... He's not that heavy. Pictures and cameras make you look bigger. Lance is about 5-9 or 5-10.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
You don't have to be scared of me. I will be flying over Ohio in a couple of weeks, but I would never stop there.

that's not at all what i meant. LMAO
 
May 14, 2009
151
0
0
jackhammer111 said:
ok, of course that's true.
i just think you're seeing more in that picture than is really there.
Miguel Indurain weighed more than lance. why are his results more believable than lance's?
They are not! Like Lance but with probably a bigger natural engine. Probably one of the first to benefit of an elaborated doping program through many years.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BigBoat said:
Lance is probably about 165 right now... 4-5 pounds off in June, then another 2 pounds off during the Tour and he's back down to his old weight. Granted most riders his height would be 150-155.

If Lance is 170 right now than I'm 165... He's not that heavy. Pictures and cameras make you look bigger. Lance is about 5-9 or 5-10.

wiki lists him at 5'10 1/2"
you're right though. 170 was pre cancer.
contador says he needs to lose one last kilo.
 
Mar 11, 2009
267
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
As those wallposters of yours, no doubt, clearly show.;)


I don't get it:confused:! I don't have any posters:p

By that i meant his body is more massive! The're the same hight,only Conti is leaner!
 
Apr 19, 2009
140
0
0
Nikoloz said:
and what about Andreas Kloden? I don't want to see him working for alberto any more...

)-:
Well, it's kind of uncertain if he'll be working for anyone anymore.
Until that's resolved, no team will touch him.