• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

New York Times Julie Macur doesn't seem like a fangirl to me

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
I'm sure that many here will attempt to misconstrue this comment, but nonetheless I have to point out that it takes a wind speed of 3.4-5.4 m/s to cause even light flags to extend (I assume that you were referring to the flags in that picture):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale#The_modern_scale

This stage is as good as any for using the watts/kg equation:

- It was a time trial. 100% effort all the time. No drafting. Takes away Brunyeel's objections in the NYT piece.
- The wind seemed to be calm, flags not moving in the pics.
- The route was surrounded by people all the way, shielding the riders from possible wind.
- It's a switchback climb, so headwind one section would become tailwind on the next:

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tour04.php?id=photos/2004/tour04/stage16/alpe_d_huez_07_21_04

And we have lots of direct and anecdotal evidence that Armstrong was juiced up: Landis emails, other US Postal teammates reporting doping in the team. Riders who lost over a minute to Armstrong (Ullrich, Kloden) implicated in blood doping scandals of their own.

So if the calculation comes out to 6.5 watts/kg, it's fair to assume that this number is unachievable when riding clean. The Hkr limit of 50% was in effect in 2004 - but we know riders doped right up to it. Compared to Armstrong's 2009 TdF Hkr of around 43%, the riders of that era had 10% more red blood cells helping carry oxygen. Translate that directly to VO2Max, and you get a figure of less than 6 watts/kg that's achievable without doping.

I am not sure why anyone wants to argue that the past winners were clean. Too many of them have fallen via doping scandals to use even the majority rule. And as we know that getting caught is a professional accident, one should be predisposed to thinking that the top times are all from dopers. NYT has to throw the usual caveats to appear objective given no absolute proof, but the preponderance of the evidence is turning even the mainstream press into accepting the dirty past of cycling.

This paradigm shift is important to have the public at large to accept that the "witch hunt" as referred to by Armstrong is a justified use of taxpayers' money. There's no stopping this train now and perhaps for the first time ever, Brynueel and Armstrong don't have the sound bites that resonate any longer.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
This stage is as good as any for using the watts/kg equation

So if the calculation comes out to 6.5 watts/kg, it's fair to assume that this number is unachievable when riding clean.

By Armstrong, perhaps - but it really tells you nothing about the power output that some other rider(s) might be able to sustain on another occasion.
 
acoggan said:
Doping is rampant in sports, period. As a parent, though, I am far more concerned about that taking place at the high school and often even junior high school level than what takes place in professional cycling.

I agree with you. I know you stated earlier that you don't care about doping or what other people are doing as long as it doesn't affect you. But pro athletes doping certainly does affect the pressure your kids get to dope in high school sports. Like it or not a lot of kids look up to pro athletes as role models to be emulated. Also I'm not really sure how you've managed to make yourself believe that doping in pro cycling doesn't affect your own professional livelihood, but whatever.

Your power meter book is good and has made me faster regardless.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
The Hkr limit of 50% was in effect in 2004 - but we know riders doped right up to it. Compared to Armstrong's 2009 TdF Hkr of around 43%, the riders of that era had 10% more red blood cells helping carry oxygen. Translate that directly to VO2Max

FWIW, he percentage change in VO2max as a result of blood doping is typically only about one-half of the percentage change in hematocrit. Thus, an increase in hematocrit from 43% to 50% (i.e., a relative increase of 16%...I'm not sure how you got 10%) would be expected to increase VO2max by 8%.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
This stage is as good as any for using the watts/kg equation:

- It was a time trial. 100% effort all the time. No drafting. Takes away Brunyeel's objections in the NYT piece.
- The wind seemed to be calm, flags not moving in the pics.
- The route was surrounded by people all the way, shielding the riders from possible wind.
- It's a switchback climb, so headwind one section would become tailwind on the next:

Just to nitpick a little here
-pacing still plays a role. You really can't assume steady power output
-agree on the crowds buffeting the wind
-disagree on the switchback effect. it's not uncommon for the wind to be coming up or down the mountain, so that the switchback has a head/crosswind or a tail/crosswind the whole way

Tubeless said:
we have lots of direct and anecdotal evidence that Armstrong was juiced up: Landis emails, other US Postal teammates reporting doping in the team. Riders who lost over a minute to Armstrong (Ullrich, Kloden) implicated in blood doping scandals of their own.

So if the calculation comes out to 6.5 watts/kg, it's fair to assume that this number is unachievable when riding clean.

I disagree with this, strenuously. I simply don't think that's a fair assumption. Both Merckx and LeMond have either calculated or actual w/kg numbers similar to that, it's fair to think that there's been a gradual increase in performance over generations, and the theoretical max is so much higher, that I just don't think that's a fair assumption.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
I agree with you. I know you stated earlier that you don't care about doping or what other people are doing as long as it doesn't affect you. But pro athletes doping certainly does affect the pressure your kids get to dope in high school sports. Like it or not a lot of kids look up to pro athletes as role models to be emulated.

Sure - but whether Armstrong (or Jani B., etc.) specifically doped/dopes is irrelevant.

BikeCentric said:
Also I'm not really sure how you've managed to make yourself believe that doping in pro cycling doesn't affect your own professional livelihood

Oh, I don't know...maybe it is because I make my living performing research that has absolutely nothing to do with cycling, amateur or professional, and the ~1% royalty that I receive from the sales of our book and WKO+ 1) doesn't amount to very much and 2) comes almost entirely from amateur cyclists such as yourself?
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
By Armstrong, perhaps - but it really tells you nothing about the power output that some other rider(s) might be able to sustain on another occasion.

What I am suggesting is to use this Alpe d'Huez stage from 2004 as a barometer when comparing other such efforts. Sort of a practical calibration of the watts per kg equation. I left a few parameters that make this stage suitable for that:

- Altitude. At 6,000 feet at the top, it's more representative of the climbing efforts of the other TdF stages. VO2Max drops pretty quickly after 4,500 feet as air gets thinner and this drop in VO2Max is not linear as you go up higher.

- Length of effort. At approx. 36 mins, it takes away the argument of being able to perform above your treshold on shorter climbs.

- All riders were perfectly rested and prepared. No 4 hours of riding and passing multiple categorized climbs before the final effort up a big climb. So a watts/kg figure measured on this TT stage should not be achievable at the end of a non-TT stage, doped or not.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
Where you are wrong is in assuming that this automatically means that I am interested in the actions of specific, individual cyclists. In that regard, the only individuals about whom I've given much thought as to whether they have engaged in doping or not are those who have provided the data that forms the top anchor of the power profiling tables.

I would think that if a guy wins the Tour 7 years in a row, you'd be interested in his power output for the purposes of your chart, and that you'd be able to access that information?
 
acoggan said:
Sure - but whether Armstrong (or Jani B., etc.) specifically doped/dopes is irrelevant.

Oh, I don't know...maybe it is because I make my living performing research that has absolutely nothing to do with cycling, amateur or professional, and the ~1% royalty that I receive from the sales of our book and WKO+ 1) doesn't amount to very much and 2) comes almost entirely from amateur cyclists such as yourself?

It's relevent if the kid looks up to that specific athlete.

Anyway, I was thinking the doping would positively (pun intended) skew your source data but if you are not researching pros I was clearly mistaken. Still I have to think there are implications to your own job regarding doping in pro sports. Aren't you in the business of studying human athletic performance? Doesn't doping affect human athletic performance? Do you think doping does not affect amateurs in any way, either directly through a needle in the arm or indirectly for those who choose not to dope and participate or choose to quit due to the problems at the top of the sport? Rhetorical questions really that can be directed to all; you certainly don't need to answer if you don't want to.
 
Tubeless said:
This stage is as good as any for using the watts/kg equation:

- It was a time trial. 100% effort all the time. No drafting. Takes away Brunyeel's objections in the NYT piece.
- The wind seemed to be calm, flags not moving in the pics.
- The route was surrounded by people all the way, shielding the riders from possible wind.
- It's a switchback climb, so headwind one section would become tailwind on the next:

Most times when I have climbed AdH (30-40 times in total maybe, almost always in races) there has been no wind or very little wind. Of course, like most other cyclists I tend not to notice updraft, while being extremely sensitive to downdraft (like occurs quite often on mountain slopes just before and after sunrise).

However, on some occasions I have had to fight the wind in the top part of AdH, specially between hairpin 4 (1553m) and hairpin 3.

On those days the wind was not felt much at lower elevations (or it averaged out).

From testimony I have mentioned before, on the day of the TdF TT up AdH, the wind picked up for the last racers.

As a consequence, a racer like Moncoutié lost more time (compared to LA) in the lower part of the climb than in the second part past km 9.15. Moncoutié had raced before the wind picked up.

Also, there are barriers to protect the racers from spectators on that part of the climb, so that they are not well shielded from the wind by their fans (but more and more every year by photographers whose photographic equipment must be getting worse all the time from the look of it)

That said, I showed earlier (see page 6) that during 21 min, half the TT, LA produced 6.79 W/kg. It is therefore quite likely that over 39min 41s he produced over 6.5 watts/kg.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
FWIW, he percentage change in VO2max as a result of blood doping is typically only about one-half of the percentage change in hematocrit. Thus, an increase in hematocrit from 43% to 50% (i.e., a relative increase of 16%...I'm not sure how you got 10%) would be expected to increase VO2max by 8%.

There are two ways to increase the blood's capacity to carry oxygen. Increase Hkr (past trick with EPO or blood transfusions) or increase blood volume without affecting Hkr (now the favored method). Back in 2004 they did both - transfuse thicker blood than what's on your body, and get both the blood volume and the Hkr to increase.

It of course depends what your starting point is. But let's assume you get 0.5 liters of extra blood (which is 8-10% increase to a typical athlete's blood volume) and get the Hkr to go up from a natural 43% to a doped 50%, you'll be looking at 20% improvement of the blood's ability to carry oxygen.

I picked the 10% just as a hypotetical example, understanding that VO2Max is affected by:

- altitude
- ability for lungs to attach oxygen to blood
- total Hb mass
- ability for muscles to absorb & use oxygen from blood

There is a Norwegian study on a cross-country skier who doped with EPO for the purpose of writing about it, and had his actual time on a 30 min race drop by 10%.
 
Le breton said:
Most times when I have climbed AdH (30-40 times in total maybe, almost always in races) there has been no wind or very little wind. Of course, like most other cyclists I tend not to notice updraft, while being extremely sensitive to downdraft (like occurs quite often on mountain slopes just before and after sunrise).

That said, I showed earlier (see page 6) that during 21 min, half the TT, LA produced 6.79 W/kg. It is therefore quite likely that over 39min 41s he produced over 6.5 watts/kg.

Great stuff here -- do you have any of your own power files for the climb to share? I am quite curious about one of the assumptions made in most of the analysis, that of effectively constant effort. I have heard it said that the Alpe is something of an abnormal climb, being neither constant grade, nor steep switchbacks, but odd in having flattish switchbacks with straight connecting sections. This could place odd demands, or favor certain types of riders who accelerate and recover differently.

Secondly, one of the things that seems dubious to me in all of the estimations are the assumptions of rider weight. It seems unlikely that most of the riders hitting the Alpe at the end of one or two weeks is carrying the mass they did at the start; nor does it seem likely that those hitting it at the end of the day are going to be carrying the full load they had at the beginning of the day.

I'm not saying anything about whether any of the top rides were "assitence"; probably most will. What I can't figure, because of what seems like a lot of uncertainty, is the reliability of any w/kg estimates as potential predictors of assistence.

-dB
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Le breton said:
Why on earth do you feel the need to drag a quantum mechanics physicist (plus Einstein in a recent post!) into a domain where that field is totally irrelevant is beyond me.

Are you trying to impress your fellow forumers? I don't believe it will work.

You should maybe concentrate on being rational and having well thought out arguments expressed in a clear and understanble fashion and I, for one, might pay more attention to what you have to say . Thank you.

You insulted me a few pages back and I ignored you because I didn't know what you were getting at.. FYI Feynman was concerned with all the problems of physics as was the case with Einstein. To them their methods were as important to them as what they were studying and they did not employ anywhere near the methods or exhibit the attitudes that acoggan has exhibited and ascribed to scientists. They relied on their intuitions about the physical natural world and possessed a kinesthetic sense of what's physically real, and what is not, and this was done with objects beyond our direct experience, not something as mundane and commonplace as bikes going up a mountain.

Even though Acoggan has physical phenomena right in front of his face, he wants to participate in the conversation here but will not even venture a guess about what is physiologically real and what is not.

With Einstein and Feynman they almost always started with a guess about the nature of things and then filled in the blanks.

Also, fyi, Feynman showed that classical physics, (what we are discussing here) can be completely derived from QED, so Feynman's intuition is absolutely relevant to our discussion.

Also, acoggans use of terms like definitive and uncertainties, corresponds in no way to REALTY.

As Feynman noted, "Physicists like to think that all you have to do is say, these are the conditions, now what happens next?"

Acoggan is hiding behind the inherently uncertain nature of ALL physical phenomena.

First off, concerning the issues of this thread. ACoggan has been engaging in straw man arguments as I don't believe anyone has suggested sanctioning riders based on power estimates.

What was suggested in the article IIRC, was the times or power numbers could aid our intuition about what's real regarding performances and whats not. Acoggan is apparently above this. Then he incorrectly makes assumptions about a "correct" way of thinking that scientists and judges supposedly adhere to.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
131313 said:
Just to nitpick a little here
-pacing still plays a role. You really can't assume steady power output
-agree on the crowds buffeting the wind
-disagree on the switchback effect. it's not uncommon for the wind to be coming up or down the mountain, so that the switchback has a head/crosswind or a tail/crosswind the whole way

I disagree with this, strenuously. I simply don't think that's a fair assumption. Both Merckx and LeMond have either calculated or actual w/kg numbers similar to that, it's fair to think that there's been a gradual increase in performance over generations, and the theoretical max is so much higher, that I just don't think that's a fair assumption.

No disagreement on pacing, but this TT gives possible the best available real-life application for the watts / kg equation over a distance of 35 mins or so as an average that can then be used to gauge similar climbing efforts.

Regarding higher measured power outputs by other riders, the one obvious possible difference here is altitude (without knowing exactly where Merckx and LeMond had theirs measured).

At 6,000 feet (top of the Alpe d'Huez climb), there's only 81% of the oxygen available as at sea level:

http://www.altitude.org/air_pressure.php

This has an obvious, though hard-to-calculate effect on the power output. VO2Max drops in a non-linear fashion the higher you go, and the drop in air pressure is known to affect some athletes more than others.

My simple suggestion is to use the 2004 Tour de France Alpe d'Huez TT a benchmark when comparing other climbing efforts. As you have seen on this thread, it's too easy to dismiss reasonable arguments with small changes in theoretical calculations (wind resistance, bike's mechanical resistance etc.). This was a TT from the doping era. Anyone matching these numbers on similar climbs, similar altitude should be looked at with great suspicion.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
I agree with you. I know you stated earlier that you don't care about doping or what other people are doing as long as it doesn't affect you. But pro athletes doping certainly does affect the pressure your kids get to dope in high school sports. Like it or not a lot of kids look up to pro athletes as role models to be emulated. Also I'm not really sure how you've managed to make yourself believe that doping in pro cycling doesn't affect your own professional livelihood, but whatever.

His whole routine is somewhat of a dodge.

BikeCentric said:
Your power meter book is good and has made me faster regardless.

With all the analysis on this thread, isn't that kind of an uncritical endorsement?
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
No disagreement on pacing, but this TT gives possible the best available real-life application for the watts / kg equation over a distance of 35 mins or so as an average that can then be used to gauge similar climbing efforts.

Regarding higher measured power outputs by other riders, the one obvious possible difference here is altitude (without knowing exactly where Merckx and LeMond had theirs measured).

At 6,000 feet (top of the Alpe d'Huez climb), there's only 81% of the oxygen available as at sea level:

http://www.altitude.org/air_pressure.php

This has an obvious, though hard-to-calculate effect on the power output. VO2Max drops in a non-linear fashion the higher you go, and the drop in air pressure is known to affect some athletes more than others.

My simple suggestion is to use the 2004 Tour de France Alpe d'Huez TT a benchmark when comparing other climbing efforts. As you have seen on this thread, it's too easy to dismiss reasonable arguments with small changes in theoretical calculations (wind resistance, bike's mechanical resistance etc.). This was a TT from the doping era. Anyone matching these numbers on similar climbs, similar altitude should be looked at with great suspicion.

Which is why it looks kind of suspect that someone with a good feel for the numbers, and how they relate to athletes, who derives a very small amount of their income from anything cycling related, would be so chary about expressing an opinion about a living person, not an abstraction.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
buckwheat said:
Which is why it looks kind of suspect that someone with a good feel for the numbers, and how they relate to athletes, who derives a very small amount of their income from anything cycling related, would be so chary about expressing an opinion about a living person, not an abstraction.

I did not have time to read everything on this thread, but to generalize, I've seen other scientific / academic types to refrain from stating opinions on real athletes or real performances as they probably think that would take away some of their objectivity.

It's hard to relate to and tiring to argue against equations which are affected by unmeasurable real-life parameters - but perhaps there's a point to agree to disagree, and hopefully the totality of the discussion was still worth it?
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
I did not have time to read everything on this thread, but to generalize, I've seen other scientific / academic types to refrain from stating opinions on real athletes or real performances as they probably think that would take away some of their objectivity.

It's hard to relate to and tiring to argue against equations which are affected by unmeasurable real-life parameters - but perhaps there's a point to agree to disagree, and hopefully the totality of the discussion was still worth it?

The one thing I did agree on with Acoggan, aside from his demonstrated expertise, was the idea that one could use these forums as a way to refine one's arguments.

I think the discussion is worth it for each person until the point it's not worth it, not trying to be a jerk. I think people like acoggan reinforce the false idea that there is some kind of certitude we can arrive at, and falling short that unattainable level, something is left unproven.

I also think he has a much closer relationship with some of the people we are discussing here, than he wants to let on.
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Visit site
mastersracer said:
Maybe the debate can do without the sophomoric Randian analysis. Why do you all feel Coggan is somehow duty-bound to have ANY beliefs about Armstrong, or even doping in professional cycling in general? The fact that you all seem so obsessed that he doesn't care about that issue seems awfully puerile.

Coggan says he deals mainly with amateurs like you (who don't dope), so I'll take him at his "word" that he can't express an opinion about the pro peloton (other than to argue that current exercise physiology or performance metrics apparently can't provide reliable indications of doping).

If it can or could, he's done no studies on it, proposed no hypotheses on it or suggested any research programs for it apparently other than to play the skeptic's side of the ledger. It's outside of his bailiwick and doesn't affect his "neighborhood", he says, so it's of no direct professional concern.

The best contribution to the debate remains Escarabajo's graph below, which goes to Macur's essential point in the article: "Riders with at least 7 of the unofficial top 16 times up L’Alpe d’Huez have tested positive, like Floyd Landis and Iban Mayo; have admitted to doping, like Bjarne Riis, Richard Virenque and Alex Zülle; or have been implicated in a doping scandal, like Jan Ullrich."

Not being agnostic, you can draw your own conclusions.

dgmnhs.gif
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
Now, now, now - cut Parrot 23, lean, mean, and green, buckwheat, Kreb's cycle, workingclasshero, Tim_sleepless, et al. some slack. Clearly, they are on the side of righteousness here. In fact, I think it was Kreb's cycle himself who pointed out this very fact. That gives them the right to engage in sophomoric Randian analyses, call people "STUPID", etc., in much the same way that the war on terror gave the Bush administration the right to engage in torture.

(With tongue firmly planted in cheek...)

Nah, transparency.

You're with Bush on secrecy and sophistry?
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
Parrot23 said:
The best contribution to the debate remains Escarabajo's graph below, which goes to Macur's essential point in the article: "Riders with at least 7 of the unofficial top 16 times up L’Alpe d’Huez have tested positive, like Floyd Landis and Iban Mayo; have admitted to doping, like Bjarne Riis, Richard Virenque and Alex Zülle; or have been implicated in a doping scandal, like Jan Ullrich."

Not being agnostic, you can draw your own conclusions.

dgmnhs.gif

The conclusion I reach when looking at that graph is "that graph is really misleading".

Were those guys using power meters, and are their weights known? If not, where are the error bars in the estimations, and are all of those full-out, rested efforts?

We know the answer to the first one. None of them were using power meters.

The best case/easiest estimate is Armstrong's L'Alpe TT, and yet I've seen very thoughtful estimates range from 6.4 to 6.9 w/kg. The other estimations are fraught with much more error, since wind conditions, drafting, road conditions, equipment weight, pacing, and even the exact starting point of the climb are all in question. Then, you have to consider whether or not it was even an all out effort (and according to LeMond, his climb was not since he had to wait for Hinault).

Ultimately, I'm guessing you and I have reached the same conclusion regarding doping, the euro peloton and Armstrong, but certainly not because of this graph.
 
Parrot23 said:
The best contribution to the debate remains Escarabajo's graph below, [/I]."

dgmnhs.gif

I can live with the times as something like objective truth. But I'm going to go with Coggan that the power figures in the graph above are unreliable estimates based on a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true, and for which no confidence bars are shown -- which for a modelled, statistical argument is cheating on its own.

And be careful, because I'm not defending any of the top times as being free of artificial enhancement. I believe Coggan (and I) are saying the power estimates are not reliable without actual data files. Many of the people slagging Coggan here are wanting him to extrapolate based on bogus data. While that can be fun, it is a mugs game. He's not taking the bait.

-dB