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

[acoggan]

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.

No, we can't agree on that. It is easiest to detect changes in physiological parameters when the changes in said parameters are large...as is the case when studying untrained subjects who then begin training. If you can't detect any improvements under those conditions, it is highly unlikely that you'll be able to detect a change in an individual who is already training.

Otherwise we get lost in details of adaptation and mechanical efficiency which are highly irrelevant.

Now wait a minute...first you're complaining because studies to date haven't firmly established the mechanism, now you're saying we should avoid thinking about such details because they 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.

1. I take it that you didn't take my suggestion to read Hopker's work completely to heart. If you had, some of your questions would be answered.

2. Your questions are all ancillary to the primary issue.

 

[acoggan]

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

Then please, point me towards this huge source of funding for performance-oriented research, 'cause despite having spent >20 y living off of soft money, I've never come across it.

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.

Indeed.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

2. Your questions are all ancillary to the primary issue.

Ed claims his study shows Armstrong's efficiency improved - markedly - over 7 years.

None of your "supporting" studies show anything like what Ed is claiming.

Yet you continue to defend Ed's study - using these other studies.

You didn't answer in the other thread so I'll ask again here: acoggan, do you think Lance doped. Yes or No?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

You're right, I'll start reading Hopker. As for the rest, I'm a bit dumbfounded...

If the only claim is that efficiency increases with training then yes, that is well proven. If the claim is that a pro cyclist can improve his/her efficiency then that's fully undecided, absent my reading of Hopker.

As a scientist, I must say that on a personal note that you come across as very defensive. Maybe physics is different, but if I made the claim that "based on the fact that helium rises, we can make a balloon that can travel to the moon", I would expect:

- A theoretical model.
- Empirical data showing not just that helium balloons rise, but what happens at the edge of space.
- Repeatable tests culminating in a few trips to the moon.

So far all we've got is that helium balloons rise.

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

Ed claims his study shows Armstrong's efficiency improved - markedly - over 7 years.

None of your "supporting" studies show anything like what Ed is claiming.

Yet you continue to defend Ed's study.

Allow me to repeat myself: I am not defending Ed's study. What I am saying is that it is my professional judgement that, contrary to the claims of, e.g., Ashenden (who called it a "holy grail"), efficiency is indeed trainable.

You didn't answer in the other thread so I'll ask again here: acoggan, do you think Lance doped. Yes or No?

As my lab chief put it when the USADA story 1st broke: you'd have to be a really, really nasty person for so many of your former teammates and associates to perjure themselves just to get back at you. (The documented payments to Ferrari are also quite damning.)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As my lab chief put it when the USADA story 1st broke: you'd have to be a really, really nasty person for so many of your former teammates and associates to perjure themselves just to get back at you. (The documented payments to Ferrari are also quite damning.)

Wow. Even when I reinfored the closed nature of the question by offering Yes or No, you answered as if it was open and ignored those 2 options.

Do you think Lance doped, Yes or No?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

As my lab chief put it when the USADA story 1st broke: you'd have to be a really, really nasty person for so many of your former teammates and associates to perjure themselves just to get back at you. (The documented payments to Ferrari are also quite damning.)

As a layman interested in science, what are the effects of PEDs on efficiency?

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

If the only claim is that efficiency increases with training then yes, that is well proven.

Not in some people's eyes.

If the claim is that a pro cyclist can improve his/her efficiency then that's fully undecided

I'd say that the unanswered question is whether it is possible to make gains in efficiency year-over-year, or whether it simply cycles up and down in and out of season.

, absent my reading of Hopker.

Make sure you read the review article, as well as the recent paper in MSSE.

As a scientist, I must say that on a personal note that you come across as very defensive.

So I'm defensive because I vigorously defend my positions based on the published literature? So be it...

Maybe physics is different, but if I made the claim that "based on the fact that helium rises, we can make a balloon that can travel to the moon", I would expect:

- A theoretical model.
- Empirical data showing not just that helium balloons rise, but what happens at the edge of space.
- Repeatable tests culminating in a few trips to the moon.

So far all we've got is that helium balloons rise.

That, plus what happens in the upper atmosphere (i.e., trained but not professional cyclists). You gotta start somewhere, though, and so far no balloons have failed to rise.

 

[acoggan]

Wow. Even when I reinfored the closed nature of the question by offering Yes or No, you answered as if it was open and ignored those 2 options.

I was just explaining what I view as the most definitive evidence.

Do you think Lance doped, Yes or No?

Yes (and I never believed that he didn't).

 

[acoggan]

As a layman interested in science, what are the effects of PEDs on efficiency?

I am not aware of any PED that has been shown to improve efficiency (although AICAR theoretically could).

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I am not aware of any PED that has been shown to improve efficiency (although AICAR theoretically could).

Then the rest of my questions are very relevant, I think. Though I am concerned that you dismissed them out of hand. Consider this a teaching moment...

John Swanson

 

[Dear Wiggo]

yes (and i never believed that he didn't).

ok thanks

since i don't know for a fact whether he doped or not, the only answer answer i could truthfully give is "possibly".

I have no idea.

 

[acoggan]

Then the rest of my questions are very relevant, I think.

I think you need to retake Logic 101.

To wit:

- 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?

- Why did some riders respond better than others?

It is not necessary to be able to answer any of the above questions to conclude that efficiency is trainable.

 

[acoggan]

ok thanks

Considered me swayed by the wealth of information that has come forth recently.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I think you need to retake Logic 101.

To wit:



It is not necessary to be able to answer any of the above questions to conclude that efficiency is trainable.

I really don't understand your reticence. Can you either answer my questions or explain why they are illogical?

John Swanson

 

[swuzzlebubble]

OT
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[Dear Wiggo]

OT
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Potent food for thought. Thank you.

 

[AntiGravityCycling]

John,

Physics IS different. Objectivity is the greatest difference.

I really wanted to like the biopassport...until I read Ashenden's rambling non-explanation of how the physios would peer at the data and say "Hmmmmm...this looks unnatural..." and that is the sole basis for the decisions in the BP. Yikes!

Sorry for the OT rant...back to your ****ing match.

 

[runninboy]

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

Exactly! Not only that, he had been training "seriously" as a runner for years at that point. And yet his best mile times were surpassed by literally hundreds of high school girls every year Yeah that is a Pro athlete
here is another perspective
Lance's best mile time in high school(after training seriously as a runner for 8 years) could not beat an 11 year old who had less training
http://runningentertainment.com/runningshots7.html
in fact Chuck assuma ran 10:05 for 2 miles as an 11 year old
Lance a trained Pro triathlete could not run what this little kid did twice in a row without stopping

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Exactly! Not only that, he had been training "seriously" as a runner for years at that point. And yet his best mile times were surpassed by literally hundreds of high school girls every year Yeah that is a Pro athlete
here is another perspective
Lance's best mile time in high school(after training seriously as a runner for 8 years) could not beat an 11 year old who had less training
http://runningentertainment.com/runningshots7.html
in fact Chuck assuma ran 10:05 for 2 miles as an 11 year old
Lance a trained Pro triathlete could not run what this little kid did twice in a row without stopping

I had read your posts with interest - seemed only fair to precis them here...

 

[Neworld]

Except those of us who are experts on paint colors.

Actually, you seem to be an expert on circumlocution wrt to artificial paint colours from phony paint chips that would manufactured with enhanced but poorly toned replacement dye lots.

Some experts fail to recognize that they too could learn by being a bit more humble. Know of any experts like that?

 

[acoggan]

Actually, you seem to be an expert on circumlocution wrt to artificial paint colours from phony paint chips that would manufactured with enhanced but poorly toned replacement dye lots.

So you think the data from the OTC is made up?

 

[acoggan]

OT
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

I gotta admit, that "holy grail" comments still makes me chuckle...

 

[babastooey]

The famous 2005 Stage 10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1_c8WHOnsY&feature=related

It seems like Cadel is the only one who can hang with the dopers on Courchevel. He is either a doper himself or the greatest cyclist of his generation.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

****ing match over