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

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
acoggan said:
From the article:

"Cadel’s highest VO2max of 87 ml.kg-1.min-1 is 7.4 per cent higher than Lance’s highest recorded value"

In fact, Armstrong's VO2max has been reported to be as high as 84 mL/min/kg, which makes the difference only 3.6%.
The forum has already been over your boy Coyle's BS paper...3 YEARS AGO. Leave it in the past. The numbers were fudged and you know this. Do everyone a favour and go crawl back into your hole. Your mentor backed the biggest fraud in history and yet you are still here sprouting his fabrications. Nobody believes a Lance lackey on this forum, other than a fanboy and that is exactly what Ed Coyle is. A bought and paid for hack that perpetuated the myth of Lance. Lance never ever went over 81mL/min/kg that can be validated by someone he didn't have in his pocket.

Everyone here should remember this when Coggan posts. He is here to back his buddy Coyle and yes they are good friends. That is all he has ever been here for. Just like Krebs, he is looking to get his jollies in academic talk...ignore them it is obvious what both are. This has been brought up multiple times in the past and everytime Coggan returns to deflect and misconstrue what is by now, very well known to be a load of codswallop.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Galic Ho said:
The forum has already been over your boy Coyle's BS paper...3 YEARS AGO. Leave it in the past. The numbers were fudged and you know this. Do everyone a favour and go crawl back into your hole. Your mentor backed the biggest fraud in history and yet you are still here sprouting his fabrications. Nobody believes a Lance lackey on this forum, other than a fanboy and that is exactly what Ed Coyle is. A bought and paid for hack that perpetuated the myth of Lance. Lance never ever went over 81mL/min/kg that can be validated by someone he didn't have in his pocket.

Everyone here should remember this when Coggan posts. He is here to back his buddy Coyle and yes they are good friends. That is all he has ever been here for. Just like Krebs, he is looking to get his jollies in academic talk...ignore them it is obvious what both are. This has been brought up multiple times in the past and everytime Coggan returns to deflect and misconstrue what is by now, very well known to be a load of codswallop.
I have no connection to either so objectively I can say you are an idiot and your statements are wrong and have been disproven.
 
Galic Ho said:
The forum has already been over your boy Coyle's BS paper...3 YEARS AGO. Leave it in the past. The numbers were fudged and you know this. Do everyone a favour and go crawl back into your hole. Your mentor backed the biggest fraud in history and yet you are still here sprouting his fabrications. Nobody believes a Lance lackey on this forum, other than a fanboy and that is exactly what Ed Coyle is. A bought and paid for hack that perpetuated the myth of Lance. Lance never ever went over 81mL/min/kg that can be validated by someone he didn't have in his pocket.

Everyone here should remember this when Coggan posts. He is here to back his buddy Coyle and yes they are good friends. That is all he has ever been here for. Just like Krebs, he is looking to get his jollies in academic talk...ignore them it is obvious what both are. This has been brought up multiple times in the past and everytime Coggan returns to deflect and misconstrue what is by now, very well known to be a load of codswallop.
Very stupid post. Yes I know that Coggan and Coyle know each other, maybe they are even firends, and true, when accogan speaks about Coyle I muself make a small mental asterix, but overall I think that Coggan´s posts and interesting and valuable.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
It seems their using anaerobic finishing wattages at the end of the test to determine V02 max power.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
acoggan said:
I am not aware of any PED that has been shown to improve efficiency (although AICAR theoretically could).
Well, assistant professor you may want to hit the books again or go and ride a bike and experience the thrill of pushing on pedals.

Try riding your bike at a easy pace say 200 watts on the flats, and then, at near maximum and see which is more efficient. Now take a really large leap and ask yourself if when you used PEDs, would the PEDs delay the onset of near maximal effort, could you hold higher watts for longer on PEDs, could you train longer on PEDs? The answer is yes, and so dopers are more efficient when using PEDs and they do improve efficiency. I bet even you could ride smoother, more efficiently at 200W than at 500W. This directly impact on points 1, 2 and 3 that I eluded to 7 pages ago. PEDs influence the data, the research and one's efficiency.

What you don't know, or any evidence that Ed put forth, and subsequently and shockingly through out, is what Lance or any of Ed's dubious research outcomes are real; full stop. Your stream of argumentative comments about items that are beyond research critical appraisal are so wrong you need to go back to research methodology 101.
 
Oct 16, 2012
3
0
0
Neworld said:
Well, assistant professor you may want to hit the books again or go and ride a bike and experience the thrill of pushing on pedals.

Try riding your bike at a easy pace say 200 watts on the flats, and then, at near maximum and see which is more efficient. Now take a really large leap and ask yourself if when you used PEDs, would the PEDs delay the onset of near maximal effort, could you hold higher watts for longer on PEDs, could you train longer on PEDs? The answer is yes, and so dopers are more efficient when using PEDs and they do improve efficiency. I bet even you could ride smoother, more efficiently at 200W than at 500W. This directly impact on points 1, 2 and 3 that I eluded to 7 pages ago. PEDs influence the data, the research and one's efficiency.

What you don't know, or any evidence that Ed put forth, and subsequently and shockingly through out, is what Lance or any of Ed's dubious research outcomes are real; full stop. Your stream of argumentative comments about items that are beyond research critical appraisal are so wrong you need to go back to research methodology 101.
With a reasonably high Vo2max (clean or doped) your gross efficiency would be higher at 500W than 200W. Just sayin'
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
JoshuaL said:
With a reasonably high Vo2max (clean or doped) your gross efficiency would be higher at 500W than 200W. Just sayin'
Actually, Delta Efficiency (a better metric than GE) improves with work load.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Neworld said:
Well, assistant professor you may want to hit the books again or go and ride a bike and experience the thrill of pushing on pedals.
My bet is that AC is a more accomplished cyclist than you; he is obviously more educated.

What AC is saying is that there are no known PEDs that directly increase efficiency. However, this does not mean an indirect effect may not exist, either as a result of muscle fiber transformation, be it from training or an effect of the PED.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
2
0
Turner29 said:
Actually, Delta Efficiency (a better metric than GE) improves with work load.
I just finished reading a paper on the accuracy of measuring efficiency. Of course I lost the author's name and citation... so please forgive me. However, the authors looked at GE, DE and EC across a few dozen riders. Each was measured three times across several weeks.

The conclusion was that the CV for GE was 3.2% and the CV for DE was 5%! So although the DE is a better metric, it is more difficult to measure. It also means that it impossible to measure changes in GE of less than 3% (i.e., baseline 20% and a 0.6% change) and changes in DE of less than 5% (i.e., baseline 20% and a 1.0% change).

John Swanson
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Turner29 said:
My bet is that AC is a more accomplished cyclist than you; he is obviously more educated.
Clearly Turner29, because you said so. Thank you for putting me in my place.

What AC is saying is that there are no known PEDs that directly increase efficiency. However, this does not mean an indirect effect may not exist, either as a result of muscle fiber transformation, be it from training or an effect of the PED.
He didn't say that, but thank you for sticking up for him

What I am saying is
1. Ed C's nefarious study used stats from a known doper
2. Doping bad
3. Doping artificially enhances performance
4. Research based on Doping bad and completely nullifies all other data sets, unless that specific research is based on cycling efficiencies related to Dopers.
5. Beyond that, critical appraisal of Eds research is not possible and further discussing anything about it is sum zero. You and Acog, being superior cyclists and intellectuals, appear to enjoy talking about irrelevant nuances of dead data. No doubt you are leaders in your 'academic' field, but maybe you should revisit the basic premise of whether Ed project has any value and where did it go?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turner29
Actually, Delta Efficiency (a better metric than GE) improves with work load.

http://media.wiley.com/mrw_images/co...nc11000722.jpg

This link shows that amoungst endurance runners efficiency drops with increased work load. Turner do you agree?
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Neworld said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turner29
Actually, Delta Efficiency (a better metric than GE) improves with work load.

http://media.wiley.com/mrw_images/co...nc11000722.jpg

This link shows that amoungst endurance runners efficiency drops with increased work load. Turner do you agree?
Speaking not for Turner but for myself i can tell you that running efficiency does drop with workload. As a runner, especially a distance runner, gets closer to their maximum workload their form rapidly falls apart. They become grossly more inefficient and tend to strain to regain form. Especially for African runners who basically train solely by running long distances. They are very lightly muscled outside of their legs and thus are very light resulting in a great strength to weight ratio.Their supporting muscle groups such as abdominals are only trained as much as they are used in running. Then when they get to a high workload, those muscles start straining to maintain the workload and their hips tend to rotate so their back becomes swayed. At this point their stride becomes grossly inefficient as their foot placement starts landing too far under their body, so they only get a short push off of power from each stride. A shortened stride is the result. They then tend to try to maintain their momentum and compensate by increasing their rate of leg turnover and at the same time push harder. this happens with the foot too far BEHIND the center of gravity when the effort does not increase forward momentum but instead results in a high but relative useless rear leg kick. The amount of energy used increases as more muscles in the body are used to try to regain form or compensate for the lack of form, ie high leg turnover to compensate for the loss of power. A good runner should always be more efficient at sub maximal output. a 4 minute miler for example will be far more efficient running a 4:30 pace and thus can continue on and run two miles instead of one due to efficient use of resources.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Galic Ho said:
The forum has already been over your boy Coyle's BS paper...3 YEARS AGO. Leave it in the past.
Your diatribe is misdirected: the value that I cited in my original post doesn't come from Coyle's paper.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
I just finished reading a paper on the accuracy of measuring efficiency. Of course I lost the author's name and citation... so please forgive me. However, the authors looked at GE, DE and EC across a few dozen riders. Each was measured three times across several weeks.

The conclusion was that the CV for GE was 3.2% and the CV for DE was 5%! So although the DE is a better metric, it is more difficult to measure. It also means that it impossible to measure changes in GE of less than 3% (i.e., baseline 20% and a 0.6% change) and changes in DE of less than 5% (i.e., baseline 20% and a 1.0% change).
1. Gross efficiency is indeed a less variable measurement - moreover, it and not delta efficiency is what matters from a performance perspective.

2. That said, the numbers you provide for the reproducibility of either measurement are way too high (at least when such measurements are made carefully):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21796054
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
A couple of other points:

1) I just calculated the CV in measuring gross efficiency in a study we are presently performing. Even in non-cyclists and at a power output of only 60 W (therefore lower signal:noise), the CV is only 1.8%, i.e., comparable to 1.5% reported by Hopker et al. for trained cyclists exercising at much higher power outputs. So, don't let anyone fool you into thinking that it isn't possible to reliably detect small changes in efficiency when studying a small number of subjects...it clearly is, at least if you know what you are doing.

2. I spent my lunch hour digging into the literature to try to find the earliest longitudinal study to report that cycling efficiency increases with training. Although there are cross-sectional studies comparing cyclists with non-cyclists as well as longitudinal studies of other modes of exercise dating back to ~1900 supporting the conclusion that efficiency is trainable, the oldest study of cycling that I have found is this one:

Gemmil, Booth, and Pocock. Muscular training. I. The physiological effect of daily repetition of the same amount of light physical work. Am J Physiol 1930; 92:253-270.

Holy grail my ***...
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Neworld said:
Well, assistant professor
Please. I haven't held that title in 20 y.

Neworld said:
Try riding your bike at a easy pace say 200 watts on the flats, and then, at near maximum and see which is more efficient.
You don't seem to understand the concept of efficiency. Here's a hint: it's not something you can feel.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
2
0
Dr. Coggan, I searched again for the paper I cited above. The correct citation is: MOSELEY, L., and A. E. JEUKENDRUP. The reliability of cycling efficiency. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 33, No. 4, 2001, pp.621– 627.

Their study was specific to measuring the reliability of DE, GE, and EC measurements. They are quite thorough in outlining their methodology and sources of error/variation. They used a large sample population.

Their conclusion is CV is 3.2% for GE and 5% for DE.

Where did they go wrong?

John Swanson
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
Dr. Coggan, I searched again for the paper I cited above. The correct citation is: MOSELEY, L., and A. E. JEUKENDRUP. The reliability of cycling efficiency. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 33, No. 4, 2001, pp.621– 627.

Their study was specific to measuring the reliability of DE, GE, and EC measurements. They are quite thorough in outlining their methodology and sources of error/variation. They used a large sample population.

Their conclusion is CV is 3.2% for GE and 5% for DE.

Where did they go wrong?
By using 1) stages that weren't long enough to allow a steady-state in VO2 *and* RER to be achieved, and/or 2) a finicky breath-by-breath metabolic cart (bxb systems are notoriously problematic due to the need to precisely temporally align the ventilation and expired gas concentrations measurements).

EDIT: BTW, if you want to have a bit of fun try plotting the data from this related study of Asker's against the ACSM prediction equation:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15241718

EDIT 2: The editorial accompanying Hopker's Feb 2012 paper in MSSE is also well worth reading:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22251923
 
Oct 16, 2012
3
0
0
runninboy said:
Speaking not for Turner but for myself i can tell you that running efficiency does drop with workload. As a runner, especially a distance runner, gets closer to their maximum workload their form rapidly falls apart. They become grossly more inefficient and tend to strain to regain form. Especially for African runners who basically train solely by running long distances. They are very lightly muscled outside of their legs and thus are very light resulting in a great strength to weight ratio.Their supporting muscle groups such as abdominals are only trained as much as they are used in running. Then when they get to a high workload, those muscles start straining to maintain the workload and their hips tend to rotate so their back becomes swayed. At this point their stride becomes grossly inefficient as their foot placement starts landing too far under their body, so they only get a short push off of power from each stride. A shortened stride is the result. They then tend to try to maintain their momentum and compensate by increasing their rate of leg turnover and at the same time push harder. this happens with the foot too far BEHIND the center of gravity when the effort does not increase forward momentum but instead results in a high but relative useless rear leg kick. The amount of energy used increases as more muscles in the body are used to try to regain form or compensate for the lack of form, ie high leg turnover to compensate for the loss of power. A good runner should always be more efficient at sub maximal output. a 4 minute miler for example will be far more efficient running a 4:30 pace and thus can continue on and run two miles instead of one due to efficient use of resources.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I-Pj_jhBwnA/T44XFuogPjI/AAAAAAAAAL4/D7rzV2zOWr0/s1600/running+energy.gif
 
acoggan said:
Regardless, Dave's statement isn't really correct (and given that he interned at the US OTC in the early 1990s, when/where Armstrong's VO2max was measured at 84 mL/min/kg - at 6000 ft altitude, no less - I'm a bit surprised he made it).
Although I have seen before a value of 83.8 ml/min.kg quoted for L.A. (don't remember where), you will remember that in the Scientific American of June 1996, Jay Kearney says that his VO2 max was 80 ml/min.kg at age 15 and remained at that value up to the age of 24.(see page 46)

BTW, the Sci Am paper says that his 80 ml value puts him in the top 1-2% of athletes worldwide, i.e. very good but not outstanding, definitely not better than you Andy.

Presumably, if in the preolympic tests at Colorado Springs they had measured a value higher than 80 ml/min.kg it would have been mentioned in the paper.

So I'm justified to assume that in 1996 L.A. had a VO2 max of 80 ml in Colorado Springs.

I remember than once you wrote (on wattage forum?) that L.A.'s VO2 max was not very sensitive to altitude ( I assume you were comparing data from Austin and from Colorado Springs) it therefore seems strange that you would now in this thread use the altitude argument to suggest that L.A.' sea-level VO2m could have been even higher than 84 ml.

I also remember reading that his VO2 was 6.1 liters/mn (was it in Ed Coyle's paper?), which, considering his lowest competing weight of 73 kg corresponds in fact to 83.6 ml/min.kg.

Presumably it would have decreased slightly later on.

Of course I know, thanks in part to Ed Coyle, that on l'Alpe d'Huez L.A. displayed several times a VO2 performance consistent with a VO2 max of at least 94 ml/min.kg. in line with Vaughters' estimate.

Since in all likelihood L.A. was already doped up - including with EPO - in 1996 and before, it seems clear to me that he was gaining more than 15% of additional power through the use of PEDs ( I am comparing 94 ml with an upper limit of 80 ml pre-cancer)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS