Lance vs Cadel: a study of two 22-year-olds

[acoggan]

No one gives a toss about the paint colours.

Except those of us who are experts on paint colors.

 

[acoggan]

As for a stickler for facts? Really? Not interested in ergogenic aids per se? What do you mean we, kimosabe?

"I meant what I said and I said what I meant." - Horton

No conflict of interest in defending your friend and business partner's (Hunter Allen) clients here on the forums?

(that's four)

Who here is a client of Hunter's?

 

[acoggan]

acoggan, you ask "If so, what has swayed you the most?" At a guess, I'd say your insistent support of Krebs Cycle in his mission to discredit any Sky naysayers or propagate the myth that Wiggins and Sky are clean.

I just call 'em like I see 'em.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Who here is a client of Hunter's?

Don't mean you're not a business partner of Hunter's?

 

[acoggan]

Don't mean you're not a business partner of Hunter's?

I recently became a paid consultant to Peaks Coaching Group, if that's what you mean. What I don't understand is what that has to do with this thread.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I recently became a paid consultant to Peaks Coaching Group, if that's what you mean. What I don't understand is what that has to do with this thread.

Establishing your definition of "facts". "Fact-checker" that you are an' all. Unless it's a study on efficiency. We'll let that stand on its own three legs.

 

[acoggan]

lol I took almost the entire article as Dave's not so subtle way of saying "we at the AIS think Armstrong is a doper and have done for a good many years". Ridemedia have very clearly specified to Dave that he steer clear of doping allegations in that article, which means this post deserves to be in the complicit media thread.

So by the standards of this forum, does Dave's compliance with their instructions make him a "doping apologist"?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So by the standards of this forum, does Dave's compliance with their instructions make him a "doping apologist"?

Yeah Krebs CYcle. All you've done is a 180 on Ed Coyle's "study". According to the quid pro quo score I am keeping on you two, you owe acoggan at least 3 more supportive posts, 2 more "lol"s and one more "haha".

 

[acoggan]

Unless it's a study on efficiency.

Did somebody say "efficiency"?

 

[acoggan]

Yeah Krebs CYcle. All you've done is a 180 on Ed Coyle's "study".

You seem to be confused: best as I can tell, Krebs cycle has only revised his opinion on whether or not efficiency may change w/ training, not about Coyle's study.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Oh god it's an image so it must be true.

Your mate John Swanson already pointed out the massive inconsistencies on a few of those studies. The fact that you continue to parrot them is laughable.

Oh, you will fool half the people that read that - possibly more.

But anyone who can be bothered looking at the detail of those studies will soon realise they are not claiming the same thing Ed claimed, they are not testing the same variables, that they are easily debunked as supporting Ed's study.

Doubly laughable you don't even include study titles in a power point presentation slide. What are you scared of people discovering if they actually look at the studies?

You "scientists" are so cute.

 

[Coach Hawk]

Again, what has Lance done that's actually real? He has generated a cloak of superiority, nothing more.

Actually, he was a pretty amazing PRO triathlete by age 15. Possible he was doping then, but unlikely.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Actually, he was a pretty amazing PRO triathlete by age 15. Possible he was doping then, but unlikely.

Who could not run 5 minute miles. Makes you wonder.

 

[acoggan]

Oh god it's an image so it must be true.

Everything on that slide is true.

Your mate John Swanson already pointed out the massive inconsistencies on a few of those studies.

Yet in the end, he folded his tent, acknowledging that he couldn't undermine the conclusion that efficiency does, indeed, appear to be trainable. (Of course, there was really no reason in the first place to think that it is not...in fact, as I once explained to a colleague of mine at the University of Melbourne, when you consider how our skeletal muscle constantly change over the course of our lives it would be shocking if efficiency were a constant.)

The fact that you continue to parrot them is laughable.

And yet, you can

Oh, you will fool half the people that read that - possibly more.

But anyone who can be bothered looking at the detail of those studies will soon realise they are not claiming the same thing Ed claimed, they are not testing the same variables, that they are easily debunked as supporting Ed's study.

Actually, some of them are, albeit not over quite the same length of time. Regardless, they are what they are, i.e., the only longitudinal studies presently available (that I've been able to locate) that have explicitly examined the question at hand.

Doubly laughable you don't even include study titles in a power point presentation slide. What are you scared of people discovering if they actually look at the studies?

1. The titles would have taken up too much room.
2. The journal citations are sufficient for anyone to track down any of the references should they care to read them themselves.

 

[Krebs cycle]

So by the standards of this forum, does Dave's compliance with their instructions make him a "doping apologist"?

Of course, anything less than labelling Armstrong as the cycling Satan in print clearly means that Dave Martin is in league with the devil himself and by extension the entire AIS runs a systematic doping program. In fact it was probably Ashenden himself that told Ferrari how to beat the test he and Dave helped to develop, and the AIS supplied the PEDs to Armstrong.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Of course, anything less than labelling Armstrong as the cycling Satan in print clearly means that Dave Martin is in league with the devil himself and by extension the entire AIS runs a systematic doping program. In fact it was probably Ashenden himself that told Ferrari how to beat the test he and Dave helped to develop, and the AIS supplied the PEDs to Armstrong.

Wouldn't it be more efficient if USADA supplied the PEDs to Armstrong?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Yet in the end, he folded his tent, acknowledging that he couldn't undermine the conclusion that efficiency does, indeed, appear to be trainable. (Of course, there was really no reason in the first place to think that it is not...in fact, as I once explained to a colleague of mine at the University of Melbourne, when you consider how our skeletal muscle constantly change over the course of our lives it would be shocking if efficiency were a constant.)

Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear about my understanding of the references you provided.

- The majority that I looked at did not support your conclusion (efficiency is trainable for an athlete in their sport) mainly because that is not what they were studying.

- There was one highly relevant study that supports the hypothesis, but it raised many more questions than it answered. Among them:

- Since the efficiency was highly trainable under "normal" high intensity workout conditions for cyclists, what is the theoretical limit of improvement?

- Why had these cyclists not already reached this theoretical maximum?

- Can the increases be isolated to a particular mechanism (i.e., is there a theoretical basis)?

- Why isn't there a massive research effort to isolate this mechanism and exploit it (i.e., the sports scientist who can naturally increase GE through training can extract Ferrari level payments from their clients)?

- Are there confounding issues such as time of year, point in season, or cycle of training/preparation?

- And the biggie: can any of the changes be tied to undocumented PED use?

- Why did some riders respond better than others?

And I take exception to the notion that I "folded my tent". I took a critical look at the facts you presented and tried to make an open-minded conclusion based on those facts. Personal bias aside. I agree that you have presented studies which support the hypothesis, but I would hardly call them conclusive. Perhaps (i.e., likely?) there is other information that I'm missing that would support your assertions. The original set of references were lacking though.

John Swanson

 

[Dear Wiggo]

- Why isn't there a massive research effort to isolate this mechanism and exploit it (i.e., the sports scientist who can naturally increase GE through training can extract Ferrari level payments from their clients)?

This is the killer for me.

A researcher desperate for funding every 12-36 months sits on data that allegedly shows an elite rider with 5-6 full-time years of riding, racing and training can continue to improve his efficiency for a further 7 years.

Then when the study is published (just in time for a multi-million dollar lawsuit), all the other physiology researchers either disagree with the original study's findings, or essentially ignore what must be an incredibly lucrative field of research. Then Ed "loses" the data...

One of those subsequent studies shows a 1 percentage point increase in efficiency (ie 19 to 20%) within the first 6 weeks of a 12 week study.

Meh. So what. Next.

Yeah right.

 

[acoggan]

Of course, anything less than labelling Armstrong as the cycling Satan in print clearly means that Dave Martin is in league with the devil himself and by extension the entire AIS runs a systematic doping program.

Well by the standards of this forum...

 

[acoggan]

Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear about my understanding of the references you provided.

- The majority that I looked at did not support your conclusion (efficiency is trainable for an athlete in their sport)

Not my conclusion. My conclusion is that efficiency is, indeed, trainable...a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the words you're attempting to put in my mouth.

mainly because that is not what they were studying.

A-yup. OTOH, you have to start somewhere, and there are no studies that show efficiency to decrease, and only one longitudinal study that found no change.

- There was one highly relevant study that supports the hypothesis, but it raised many more questions than it answered. Among them:

- Since the efficiency was highly trainable under "normal" high intensity workout conditions for cyclists, what is the theoretical limit of improvement?

- Why had these cyclists not already reached this theoretical maximum?

- Can the increases be isolated to a particular mechanism (i.e., is there a theoretical basis)?

- Why isn't there a massive research effort to isolate this mechanism and exploit it (i.e., the sports scientist who can naturally increase GE through training can extract Ferrari level payments from their clients)?

- Are there confounding issues such as time of year, point in season, or cycle of training/preparation?

- And the biggie: can any of the changes be tied to undocumented PED use?

- Why did some riders respond better than others?

None of which (except your unsupported speculation re. PED use) have anything to do with the question of whether, in fact, efficiency is trainable.

And I take exception to the notion that I "folded my tent". I took a critical look at the facts you presented and tried to make an open-minded conclusion based on those facts. Personal bias aside. I agree that you have presented studies which support the hypothesis, but I would hardly call them conclusive. Perhaps (i.e., likely?) there is other information that I'm missing that would support your assertions. The original set of references were lacking though.

John Swanson

Okay, Mr. ScienceIsCool, let's see you support your assertion that efficiency does NOT change.

 

[acoggan]

when the study is published (just in time for a multi-million dollar lawsuit), all the other physiology researchers either disagree with the original study's findings, or essentially ignore what must be an incredibly lucrative field of research.

I don't know what planet you're living on, but if you think that it is possible to get rich - indeed, to even obtain significant (i.e., NIH-level) funding - by pursuing studies of training adaptations in athletes it obviously isn't the one I live on.

One of those subsequent studies shows a 1 percentage point increase in efficiency (ie 19 to 20%) within the first 6 weeks of a 12 week study.

Meh. So what. Next.

An increase in efficiency from 19% to 20% is a 5% (EDIT: 5.26%, to be exact) in a relative sense, and all else being equal would directly translate into a 5% increase in power output. As such, a training-induced improvement in efficiency of such a magnitude would rank right up there as a training-induced increase in LT (relative to VO2max) as a quantitatively important mechanism by which training improves performance.

 

[acoggan]

I take exception to the notion that I "folded my tent".

Let others be the judge - here's your last post:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1035598&postcount=439

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Not my conclusion. My conclusion is that efficiency is, indeed, trainable...a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the words you're attempting to put in my mouth.



A-yup. OTOH, you have to start somewhere, and there are no studies that show efficiency to decrease, and only one longitudinal study that found no change.



None of which (except your unsupported speculation re. PED use) have anything to do with the question of whether, in fact, efficiency is trainable.




Okay, Mr. ScienceIsCool, let's see you support your assertion that efficiency does NOT change.

That's not my assertion at all. "...the words you're attempting to put in my mouth", indeed. I came into this fairly neutral, absent my personal biases. I looked into your claims and followed your references.

I think you can agree that for the purposes of discussion in this forum, when we talk about increases in efficiency the only relevant studies are for trained athletes in their respective sport. Otherwise we get lost in details of adaptation and mechanical efficiency which are highly irrelevant.

For that, I have seen one paper that studies this directly - and for cyclists no less! Highly relevant. However, I have questions. Legitimate or not, attack those or answer them as you see fit. Science is indeed cool. I'll accept, follow, believe and proselytize anything it teaches us.

John Swanson

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't know what planet you're living on, but if you think that it is possible to get rich - indeed, to even obtain significant (i.e., NIH-level) funding - by pursuing studies of training adaptations in athletes it obviously isn't the one I live on.

The real planet. As opposed to the theoretical planet where people have to point to studies to "explain" things.

An increase in efficiency from 19% to 20% is a 5% in a relative sense, and all else being equal would directly translate into a 5% increase in power output. As such, a training-induced improvement in efficiency would rank right up there as a training-induced increase in LT (relative to VO2max) as a quantitatively important mechanism by which training improves performance.

19% to 20% is a 5% increase. Damn. How did I miss that. Here I was thinking it was a 1 percentage point increase. How dense of me.

In 6 weeks.

And noone knows or cares why.

Far too busy researching the effects of pomegranate juice on muscle strength and soreness after eccentric exercise and other earth shattering phenomenon, no doubt.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Let others be the judge - here's your last post:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1035598&postcount=439

What tent?

John Swanson