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

[buckwheat]

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

He's trolling himself.

Also, we know that Armstrong previously believed he needed 6.7w/kg to be competitive and according to his files, he was getting that.

 

[buckwheat]

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.

It may be uncertain, indefinitive, and or inaccurate, but misleading?

Armstrong in conjunction with Ferrari has stated that 6.7w/kg was their "magic number" needed for TdF success.

Why are you or is anyone else finding a reason to separate the graph from all the other evidence against these guys? It certainly fits right in.

So my question. Where are you being misled to?

 

[Cozy Beehive]

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.
-dB

Before anyone goes any further, let Escarabajo do a writeup explaining how he calculated these power to weight ratios. Based on the formula used, one can come up with another equation that shows what the total error propagated in the dependent variable is, knowing the errors in the independent variables.

For example, when I wrote my popular blog postelucidating to my readers what this black magic number known as VAM was, I made a point to mention the following. This was with regard to the formula used to find VAM from the time of ascent and the height meters ascended.



where :
δClimbing Rate = Error in climbing rate (meters/hour)
δAscent = Error in ascent (meters)
δTime = Error in time measurement on a device.

Anyone using a stopwatch to measure time of ascent and then to calculate VAM and power to weight ratio from it (dividing VAM by the Ferrari factor of 300) should use the above formula to find out what his error is. You're all right, we need to appreciate the magnitude of error!

 

[Parrot23]

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

Good points. Move the whole data curve down. Doesn't change the essential thrust of what's shown or the basic profile of the curve of who achieved what under what influence (and the latter we know). My take on this whole thing is that it's indicative or suggestive, nothing more or nothing less.

Remember, too, of course, the biopassport blood profiles are curves that are greatly affected by dehydration, other factors, whatever. They have to be interpreted by a committee. That says a LOT. No slam dunk. It's inferential and probabilistic, based on a pattern of evidence with a lot of uncertainty.

The difficulty, of course, is that for obvious reasons the UCI will never discuss the margins of error, which are likely significant.

But the applied exercise physiology guys (the ones with an interest in pro cycling) need to start posing bold hypotheses and proposing research programs any way they can and stick their necks out to have a chance at making progress. Doesn't mean they're not going to be wrong, but it's not scientifically productive if they don't do it. I don't see Coggan, for one, having any research program in this area.

Unfortunately, I think Conconi, Ferrari, Cecchini, and Fuentes etc., the guys on the dark side, are the real "heros" in the science here and have largely "solved" the determinants of high performance (at least on the biochemistry side, and Fuentes in fact boasts of having done so). The rest, I think, are pretty clueless. Can't argue with "success".

 

[dbrower]

Move the whole data curve down. Doesn't change the essential thrust of what's shown or the basic profile of of the curve of who achieved what under what influence (and the latter we know). My take on this whole thing is that it's indicative or suggestive, nothing more or nothing less.

Remember, too, of course, the biopassport blood profiles are curves that are greatly affected by dehydration, other factors, whatever. They have to be interpreted by a committee. No slam dunk. It's inferential and probabilistic, based on a pattern of evidence with a lot of uncertainty.

The difficulty, of course, is that for obvious reasons the UCI will never discuss the margins of error, which are likely significant.

I don't think we're that far apart, except that "move the curve down" misses the point that the shape of the curve is what can be very far off because fo the margins of error. Thus, arguing based on the shape of the curve is misleading.

I'd rather just discuss times on the Alpe than get anywhere near the power estimates when there is no actual power data to examine.

-dB

 

[131313]

It may be uncertain, indefinitive, and or inaccurate, but misleading?

Yes, misleading. Since they are estimations, there should be error bars included. If they were, you'd find that every single effort would fall within the same range; and given the limited data points, the possibility of them doing so is pretty reasonable. The graph does absolutely nothing to communicate the potential variability.

Armstrong in conjunction with Ferrari has stated that 6.7w/kg was their "magic number" needed for TdF success.

what on earth does that have to do with the estimations on this chart?

Why are you or is anyone else finding a reason to separate the graph from all the other evidence against these guys? It certainly fits right in.

Because it's sloppy, and it's potentially misleading.

So my question. Where are you being misled to?

I'm misled to believe that the chart is somehow useful to suggest evidence of Lance and others doping. In my opinion, it's not.

 

[Parrot23]

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.

Exactly. Context and history matter (and any fan knows it, and everyone here would stress they are not spuriously agnostic about it, as if the data drop deus ex machina out of the sky with no provenance).

I think that's what's broadly useful about the names on that graph and it's broad contours (the relationship of one to the other).

 

[Parrot23]

I'd rather just discuss times on the Alpe than get anywhere near the power estimates when there is no actual power data to examine.
-dB

Yes, I couldn't disagree.

 

[buckwheat]

Yes, misleading. Since they are estimations, there should be error bars included. If they were, you'd find that every single effort would fall within the same range; and given the limited data points, the possibility of them doing so is pretty reasonable. The graph does absolutely nothing to communicate the potential variability.



what on earth does that have to do with the estimations on this chart?



Because it's sloppy, and it's potentially misleading.



I'm misled to believe that the chart is somehow useful to suggest evidence of Lance and others doping. In my opinion, it's not.

We already know that 6.7 w/kg is a number achieved by doping.

 

[131313]

We already know that 6.7 w/kg is a number achieved by doping.

??

Sure. But that doesn't mean that we know that 6.7 w/kg isn't achievable without doping. And that cuts right to the reason that I object to the use of the chart; it implies that anyone above a certain number "must be doping". I simply don't believe that's the case.

 

[Le breton]

There are no power meters in xc-skiing.

That's what I assumed and said estimated not measured!

 

[Le breton]

You insulted me a few pages back and I ignored you because I didn't know what you were getting at.. .

I stopped reading here.
Can you tell me when and where I insulted you?

 

[Krebs cycle]

I think the real "haters" are those that will take an off-hand comment pointing out the technical correctness of a particular statement under specific conditions to help illustrate physiological concepts (i.e., the cardiovascular Fick equation) and not only attempt to turn it into something that it is not, but will direct ad hominem attacks at the person who made it. But hey, that's just me...

I'm against doping period. I'm against shoddy science period. I'm deadset against shoddy science when it is used as some sort of diversion or smokescreen or explanation for highly suspicious performances when the weight of evidence clearly indicates that at least some of those performances were in fact, aided by PEDs.

You have attacked myself and some of my collegues who originally raised serious concerns over the shoddy science, and in this thread yet again, a year later, you write an entire paragraph trying to defend a comment about why LA is a superior athlete that is simply not true.

And with the present post, you try to obfuscate the point by saying that it only applies in specific conditions. What specific conditions are you talking about? A higher max HR is not advantageous under ALL (physiological) conditions!! Are you deliberately trying to mislead the readers of this forum? Why did you even bother to repeat that a high max HR would be advantageous in the first place? Surely you knew this to be incorrect?

The irony of this thread is that you seem quite happy to attack shoddy science when it is applied as evidence that LA is a doper (modelling power output), but you defend shoddy science when it is applied as evidence that LA is not a doper (a high max HR).

Pot kettle black Dr Coggan.

 

[acoggan]

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?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with how the power profiling tables were (are) constructed. Until Armstrong lays down an "hour power" of over 6.4 W/kg and provides his power meter file to me, how he managed to win the Tour 7 y in a row is irrelevant.

 

[acoggan]

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

My kids are too young to even understand the concept of a professional athlete, and my wife's "flag shirt" (their words) is framed and hanging on our family room wall - I think they are safe from Armstrong's evil influence.

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?

As I already told you, no, I am not.

 

[Parrot23]

??

Sure. But that doesn't mean that we know that 6.7 w/kg isn't achievable without doping. And that cuts right to the reason that I object to the use of the chart; it implies that anyone above a certain number "must be doping". I simply don't believe that's the case.

I like Sassi on this, a straightshooter who definitely is no egoist egghead, who is heavily involved in the current pro peloton daily, has tons of actual daily SRM data from Basso, Evans, Rogers, etc., up to this very day (i.e., from the Tour stage yesterday):

"If you look at Pantani’s times, the power he produced was very close to 6.8 watts per kilo, and that is something no one can explain if you have physiological normal conditions for any athlete.”

You believe what you want or don't want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/sports/cycling/11climb.html

 

[acoggan]

The irony of this thread is that you seem quite happy to attack shoddy science when it is applied as evidence that LA is a doper (modelling power output), but you defend shoddy science when it is applied as evidence that LA is not a doper (a high max HR).

I did not defend any "shoddy science", but merely pointed out the technical correctness of Ed's answer.

Nonetheless, since you seem to wish to make a big stink about an off-hand comment, I will be back later to discuss the misconceptions re. the physiology of exercise that you promulgated in your initial response. Right now, though, I have a train to catch...

 

[acoggan]

His whole routine is somewhat of a dodge.

On the contrary: I have clearly, consistently, and repeatedly articulated my position on the specific question at hand, and explained in detail how/why I hold that position. The only reason you call it a "dodge" is because you disagree with me but can't marshall any cogent counter-arguments, and/or mistakenly believe that it is a intended as a defense of Armstrong.

Shoot, now I've missed my train!

 

[Digger]

Edited by me not the mods lol

 

[buckwheat]

??

Sure. But that doesn't mean that we know that 6.7 w/kg isn't achievable without doping. And that cuts right to the reason that I object to the use of the chart; it implies that anyone above a certain number "must be doping". I simply don't believe that's the case.

If people here are arguing with acoggan that these estimated power numbers by themselves can conclusively prove doping, I'd have to agree with him that you can't do that, and it seems pretty obvious to me that you can't.

These power numbers are just suggestive of doping. Then we have all the other empirical, eyewitness, testimonial, and anecdotal evidence to combine it with.

I think a lot of people believe in this whole chain of evidence thing, where if one link breaks, you thow out the whole case. Evidence is more like a rope with fibers and strands and you keep adding them to make a rope. Some strands are stronger than others.

As for those who think you can recreate previous events in their totality, well, those people are insane.

As for acoggan compartmentalizing, I think that's kind of odd too. He contributed his little part, now he's done. In his small little way, he's correct.

 

[Tubeless]

That's what I assumed and said estimated not measured!

In cross-country skiing snow conditions, skis & waxing make it impossible to estimate power usage - so this is not even attempted in that sport. Comparing efforts even with timing from day to day on a personal time trial is also complicated for the same reasons. The only practical method is to compare time to winner or others in a race, this is what the Norwegian study concluded.

In the off-season, xc-skiers use a ski-walking (with poles) treadmill test under controlled lab conditions to measure VO2Max. Here power figures would apply, but they're generally not quoted as the ml/kg/min figure is deemed the standard for the sport. Highest measured number is held by a Norwegian skier, 95 ml/kg/min.

 

[buckwheat]

I stopped reading here.
Can you tell me when and where I insulted you?

I didn't say it was a major insult or that I was offended for that matter, but it was a passive aggressive petty little slap. You objected to my use of Feynman and Einstein because technically you didn't think their fields applied to this issue. I was talking more about their way of thinking about issues and in fact, they in no way viewed scientific issues in the extremely specialized, segmented manner Acoggan views them.

 

[buckwheat]

On the contrary: I have clearly, consistently, and repeatedly articulated my position on the specific question at hand, and explained in detail how/why I hold that position. The only reason you call it a "dodge" is because you disagree with me but can't marshall any cogent counter-arguments, and/or mistakenly believe that it is a intended as a defense of Armstrong.

Shoot, now I've missed my train!

Your postion stakes out such a tiny little terrain it's obvious to most and next to meaningless.

 

[buckwheat]

On the contrary: I have clearly, consistently, and repeatedly articulated my position on the specific question at hand, and explained in detail how/why I hold that position. The only reason you call it a "dodge" is because you disagree with me but can't marshall any cogent counter-arguments, and/or mistakenly believe that it is a intended as a defense of Armstrong.

Shoot, now I've missed my train!

The artificial barriers you've erected to avoid discussing what we discuss in the clinic are comical.

We discuss and speculate about doping in cycling and who is likely to be doping.

I concede you're correct on your extremely limited assertion. Now what do you have?

 

[acoggan]

Your postion stakes out such a tiny little terrain it's obvious

If that were true then numerous individuals wouldn't be embracing the proposed approach as an anti-doping measure.