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

[acoggan]

I will, though, dig through the files that have been sent to me to see what is actually there.

For a man, it looks to be about 6.2 W/kg for not quite an hour (but I don't have any files from anyone who has won a Grand Tour).

 

[buckwheat]

For a man, it looks to be about 6.2 W/kg for not quite an hour (but I don't have any files from anyone who has won a Grand Tour).

Call LeMond, I'm sure he will cooperate in the name of science!

 

[Escarabajo]

Not really. I mean, why would it matter to me?

Your data files could be tainted. It is a probability that you should consider when doing some research.

 

[acoggan]

Your data files could be tainted. It is a probability that you should consider when doing some research.

It is certainly a possibility that I have considered when developing the power profiling tables. As I previously indicated, however, whether this particular rider was or was not doped is irrelevant to that endeavor - ergo, I don't really care.

 

[lean mean &green]

Many - but then again, I might have viewed things your way before I had significant exposure to track cycling/cyclists (focussing only on road racing is much like thinking about running without considering any of the track-and-field events).

except that this is in reference to a road cyclist and it's clearly implied that he is asking if you frequently see a pattern in road cyclists. for whatever reason you are again evasive rather than straightforward. an appropriate response is "yes, i see it often in road cyclists" or "no, i rarely see it in this population". you are guilty of this quite frequently and i can find numerous other examples. ie the first example from this thread. i am at a total loss as to why you would approach discussions this way. this results in more work for yourself and does more to cast doubt and confusion about scientific understanding rather than it does to bring it into sharper focus. whether or not you possess prowess, you do not advocate very well for science.

 

[Realist]

except that this is in reference to a road cyclist and it's clearly implied that he is asking if you frequently see a pattern in road cyclists. for whatever reason you are again evasive rather than straightforward. an appropriate response is "yes, i see it often in road cyclists" or "no, i rarely see it in this population". you are guilty of this quite frequently and i can find numerous other examples. ie the first example from this thread. i am at a total loss as to why you would approach discussions this way. this results in more work for yourself and does more to cast doubt and confusion about scientific understanding rather than it does to bring it into sharper focus. whether or not you possess prowess, you do not advocate very well for science.

The metabolic characteristics of endurance track cyclists are only subtly different to those of road cyclists. A pronounced taper is more common in track cyclists. Ergo, it is reasonable to analyse a road cyclist's performance after tapering not just with reference to other road cyclists, but also with reference to other athletes who have similar characteristics and training patterns but may evince the particular pattern you are looking at more commonly (in this instance, a pronounced taper prior to competition/PB). I don't think this was an attempt at evasion as much as clarification.

 

[acoggan]

except that this is in reference to a road cyclist and it's clearly implied that he is asking if you frequently see a pattern in road cyclists. for whatever reason you are again evasive rather than straightforward. an appropriate response is "yes, i see it often in road cyclists" or "no, i rarely see it in this population". you are guilty of this quite frequently and i can find numerous other examples. ie the first example from this thread.

You call this evasive??

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=269356&postcount=5

Me, I call it being about as blunt as one can be...

Anyway, back to the question at hand: as anyone who has used a powermeter much probably knows from personal experience, power at shorter durations frequently increases significantly (primarily due to an increase in neuromuscular power and anaerobic capacity) when any cyclist, regardless of their discipline (i.e., track or road), markedly reduces their training load for a few days to a week. As realist points out, however, it is more common for track cyclists than road cyclists to deliberately taper for specific events, such that apparent "spikes" in performance occur more often in such athletes (for an example, see my wife's data in the third-to-last slide of my presentation on pursuiting hosted at http://www.fixedgearfever.com).

 

[lean mean &green]

The metabolic characteristics of endurance track cyclists are only subtly different to those of road cyclists. A pronounced taper is more common in track cyclists. Ergo, it is reasonable to analyse a road cyclist's performance after tapering not just with reference to other road cyclists, but also with reference to other athletes who have similar characteristics and training patterns but may evince the particular pattern you are looking at more commonly (in this instance, a pronounced taper prior to competition/PB). I don't think this was an attempt at evasion as much as clarification.

your wording = clear
coggan = vague, he never actually says that he sees it, or with what frequency he sees it, in tapering road cyclists.

straightforward answer: "i rarely see it in road cyclists but..."

 

[acoggan]

your wording = clear
coggan = vague, he never actually says that he sees it, or with what frequency he sees it, in tapering road cyclists.

straightforward answer: "i rarely see it in road cyclists but..."

Sorry, I mistakenly *** u med that people could read between the lines.

Regardless, rather than accusing me of being evasive, why not just ask for clarification??

 

[workingclasshero]

Sorry, I mistakenly *** u med that people could read between the lines.

Regardless, rather than accusing me of being evasive, why not just ask for clarification??

oh come on, you bring it on yourself as you seem intent on being awkward

what you do is end up coming across as an arrogant lab rat who does nothing to apply common sense to his opinions (of which you have none, as nothing is interesting enough for you, and if they are, there are too many uncertainties to say owt anyway). Probably the way it should be done in the lab, but on a msg board like this it works quite an other way.

Like the insane 9w/kg suggestion of yours and the continued defending of your mate coyle's work on LA. Baffling. BTW does he still regard LA's high max HR as an advantage over other cyclists?

Honestly, it would be better for you to go anonymous on this msg board and other places i see your name pop up and you could say what you wanted, instead of being held back and made look like a grumpy and naive fella.

and re: reading between the lines - you've said before that we should take your word like it is put, not read anything more into it

 

[acoggan]

oh come on, you bring it on yourself as you seem intent on being awkward

Yet ironically, my colleagues typically consider my writing to be exceedingly logical and clear - in fact, I've even had other scientists tell me that they have given some of my non-scientific writings (e.g., the chapter that I wrote for USA Cycling) to their post-docs as an example of how to write well.

what you do is end up coming across as an arrogant lab rat who does nothing to apply common sense to his opinions (of which you have none, as nothing is interesting enough for you, and if they are, there are too many uncertainties to say owt anyway). Probably the way it should be done in the lab, but on a msg board like this it works quite an other way.

While I am definitely arrogant, I don't think anybody who knows me would accuse me of lacking "common sense".

Like the insane 9w/kg suggestion of yours

Nothing "insane" about it: that is simply the value you arrive at if you use the same approach employed by Mike Joyner in his article on marathoning.

and the continued defending of your mate coyle's work on LA. Baffling.

All I have ever done is state my opinion of how I think the paper should be properly viewed.

BTW does he still regard LA's high max HR as an advantage over other cyclists?

I don't know, but all else being equal, having a higher maximal heart rate is advantageous (and Armstrong's is a wee bit higher than you might expect for someone of his training status/build, though given the variability in maximal heart rate between individuals obviously the same could be said for many others...for example, if memory serves me correctly Bradley McGee also had a maximal heart rate of over 200 beats/min, despite not being built like a climber).

Honestly, it would be better for you to go anonymous on this msg board and other places i see your name pop up and you could say what you wanted, instead of being held back and made look like a grumpy and naive fella.

and re: reading between the lines - you've said before that we should take your word like it is put, not read anything more into it

Indeed, the problem here seems to be that you attempting to read far more into anything I have written than you should.

 

[smaryka]

For a man, it looks to be about 6.2 W/kg for not quite an hour (but I don't have any files from anyone who has won a Grand Tour).

A recent Training Peaks posting with data from Chris Anker Sorensen suggests that he -- merely a domestique, not a GC contender -- has an FTP of 390w or 6.1w/kg. http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/2010-tour-de-france-srm-power-filesteam-saxo-bank/stage-9.aspx

So is that FTP overestimated or is the SRM not calibrated or is Anker Sorensen the next great thing in cycling?

I'm guessing Hunter Allan shares these files with you so you may have already seen it.

6.1w/kg... hmmm....

 

[workingclasshero]

I don't think anybody who knows me would accuse me of lacking "common sense".

really? yet you keep saying stuff like this (about 9watts/kg)

Nothing "insane" about it

 

[acoggan]

really? yet you keep saying stuff like this (about 9watts/kg)

Allow me to repeat myself: 9 W/kg (actually, 9.02) is the value you derive by following an approach that parallels that taken by Mike Joyner in his article on marathoning. As I said when I first discussed it, I don't really believe such a number, but provided it merely for sake of illustration.

If you can't understand that, well, then I guess we will never be able to adequately communicate via this medium.

 

[131313]

On a certain level, I agree with a lot of what you say. There are huge limitations in linking performance to doping. The theoretical max for a clean rider is most likely higher than we've ever seen doped.

The fact that we haven't actually seen riders at 8 w/kg or 7.5 w/kg makes me believe the theoretical limit based on incomplete information about how the variables are linked (though unlike Dr. Tucker, I won't claim an inverse relationship between two of them when it isn't sufficiently supported).

However, here's the reality, what we KNOW:

-estimated power levels seemed to increased in a non-linear way after the advent of blood-boosting drugs

-there has been widespread, systematic doping in the professional, European peloton

-times up mountain passes have also increased in a non-linear fashion

So, going way back to the original post and linked article, I don't understand why you consider it an "exercise in futility". Here again is the title of the article: "Cyclist's Alpine Times May Hint at Past Doping".

It seems as though you're disagreeing with that premise simply to disagree, and to make light of colleagues such as the "newly minted Australians" who believe that one can draw a reasonable correlation between performance and doping.

Note, I'm saying "draw a reasonable conclusion", not "sanction riders".

If the front group going up the Colombiere goes up 10 minutes faster than historical norms, I think it's reasonable to start asking questions (starting with "what were the conditions" and "what was the race situation"). That doesn't mean that it's completely futile to exam the times up various passes, at least in my book.

It's fine for you to take a dismissive attitude about it. Suggesting that others be dismissive as well though seems less-than-fine to me. I just think people need to be aware of the many limitations.

 

[acoggan]

A recent Training Peaks posting with data from Chris Anker Sorensen suggests that he -- merely a domestique, not a GC contender -- has an FTP of 390w or 6.1w/kg. http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/2010-tour-de-france-srm-power-filesteam-saxo-bank/stage-9.aspx

So is that FTP overestimated or is the SRM not calibrated

Well, it is consistent with the fact that he was able to maintain 105% of his functional threshold power for at least 10 min ("at least", because presumably he might have been able to keep going at least a little bit longer if he were willing to fall off his bike and collapse after the effort, rather than continue to make progress uphill). However, that doesn't prove that his SRM was properly calibrated, as it could be that both the 6.4 W/kg for 10 min and the 6.1 W/kg at functional threshold power are overestimates.

I'm guessing Hunter Allan shares these files with you so you may have already seen it.

Hunter does occasionally send me files, but only with the athlete's permission. He hasn't sent me any of Anker-Sorensen's data, though - I've only seen what has been posted online.

 

[acoggan]

However, here's the reality, what we KNOW:

-estimated power levels seemed to increased in a non-linear way after the advent of blood-boosting drugs

-there has been widespread, systematic doping in the professional, European peloton

-times up mountain passes have also increased in a non-linear fashion

Or you could just say:

-there has been widespread, systematic doping in the professional, European peloton

-times up mountain passes have also increased in a non-linear fashion

and not try to make a pseudo-scientific argument based on crude estimates of power output.

So, going way back to the original post and linked article, I don't understand why you consider it an "exercise in futility". Here again is the title of the article: "Cyclist's Alpine Times May Hint at Past Doping".

Because (for the 99th time) this approach:

1) doesn't enable you to definitely identify who has or hasn't doped,

2) provides little or no value as a screening tool prior to other tests (since anyone climbing at a "physiological impossible" rates will almost certainly be subjected to such tests anyway), while

3) casting unwarranted suspicion upon any clean athletes who happen to exceed some pre-determined value for estimated power output.

It seems as though you're disagreeing with that premise simply to disagree, and to make light of colleagues such as the "newly minted Australians" who believe that one can draw a reasonable correlation between performance and doping.

Note, I'm saying "draw a reasonable conclusion", not "sanction riders".

So if you're not going to sanction anyone, what purpose does this "reasonable conclusion" serve?

I just think people need to be aware of the many limitations.

Me too (obviously).

 

[131313]

So if you're not going to sanction anyone, what purpose does this "reasonable conclusion" serve?

I think it can potentially give the governing body of the sport (and the fans at large) a rough indication of the efficacy of its anti-doping measures.

 

[Benotti69]

.....

However, here's the reality, what we KNOW:
......

-times up mountain passes have also increased in a non-linear fashion

should this not read 'times have decreased' i.e. gotten quicker so instead of 30 mins, its now 25 mins up a mountain...

 

[Benotti69]

I think it can potentially give the governing body of the sport (and the fans at large) a rough indication of the efficacy of its anti-doping measures.

as if the current group give a damn

 

[mastersracer]

why aren't the defenders of the modeling estimation approach forthcoming with any peer-reviewed validation studies? I see none on Pubmed. There must be substantial power-meter data to perform a validation study. Show us that assumed values for various parameters are harmless, that the estimation errors don't render the approach unrevealing (leaving aside the issue of what is the appropriate upper limit on watts/kg). This is reasonable for any other doping test (Ljungqvist, A., Horta, L., & Wadler, G. (2008). Doping: world agency sets standards to promote fair play. Nature, 455(7217), 1176-1176).

 

[acoggan]

why aren't the defenders of the modeling estimation approach forthcoming with any peer-reviewed validation studies? I see none on Pubmed. There must be substantial power-meter data to perform a validation study. Show us that assumed values for various parameters are harmless, that the estimation errors don't render the approach unrevealing (leaving aside the issue of what is the appropriate upper limit on watts/kg). This is reasonable for any other doping test (Ljungqvist, A., Horta, L., & Wadler, G. (2008). Doping: world agency sets standards to promote fair play. Nature, 455(7217), 1176-1176).

Ross Tucker did in fact allude to such a validation study, in the other thread on "superhuman performances". I haven't, however, been able to locate it, perhaps because it is as of yet unpublished, or perhaps because of a typo in the primary author's name.

In any case, taking his word for things the 95% confidence interval would be about +/- 0.4 W/kg...which means that a clean rider's actual power could be well under any particular "line in the sand", but their performance would still be labeled physiologically impossible without doping.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I don't know, but all else being equal, having a higher maximal heart rate is advantageous (and Armstrong's is a wee bit higher than you might expect for someone of his training status/build, though given the variability in maximal heart rate between individuals obviously the same could be said for many others...for example, if memory serves me correctly Bradley McGee also had a maximal heart rate of over 200 beats/min, despite not being built like a climber).

All through this thread you a critical of the shoddy science involved in modelling power output as a method of doping detection yet here you defend shoddy science to the death. For starters, "all else being equal" is an *** u me of the highest order because no two individuals are equal. Secondly, max heart rate is an example of the principle of symmorphosis in action. Max heart rate is whatever it is in order to optimize VO2max. This is textbook physiology. The idea that LA is a superior athlete because his max HR is higher, is one of the most ridiculous physiological assertions to be put forward by any scientist worth his own name.

How is anyone reading these forums supposed to believe anything you say when you peddle such poor science? I want to believe what you write about power output measurement in cycling, but I find it difficult to be able to trust your comments and opinions when it seems so clear that you have a biased agenda.

 

[Realist]

All through this thread you a critical of the shoddy science involved in modelling power output as a method of doping detection yet here you defend shoddy science to the death. For starters, "all else being equal" is an *** u me of the highest order because no two individuals are equal. Secondly, max heart rate is an example of the principle of symmorphosis in action. Max heart rate is whatever it is in order to optimize VO2max. This is textbook physiology. The idea that LA is a superior athlete because his max HR is higher, is one of the most ridiculous physiological assertions to be put forward by any scientist worth his own name.

How is anyone reading these forums supposed to believe anything you say when you peddle such poor science? I want to believe what you write about power output measurement in cycling, but I find it difficult to be able to trust your comments and opinions when it seems so clear that you have a biased agenda.

No two humans are exactly alike (except monozygotic twins). But we're all within about 0.5% of the same...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation


I can't speak for the good Dr Coggan, but it seems you are missing his point here. He is not saying Lance Armstrong is a good cyclist because of his maximum heart rate. He is saying that, were Lance Armstrong to have otherwise equivalent characteristics to his closest competitor, but a slightly higher max heart rate, that would render him slightly better. That is, if your cardiac output (which corresponds with VO2max) is limited by stroke volume and rate, a higher rate is an advantage. This is not the same as saying max HR is a good measure of performance in athletes, precisely because, as you say, humans are not precisely alike in other respects. But the good doctor never said they were and was not inferring anything from the assumption that people were identical apart from their max HR's. His tone was what we could call, um, 'scientist playing with annoying questioner at conference'. He's playing with the models.

 

[lean mean &green]

But we're all within about 0.5% of the same...

athletic potential varies by only .5%? that's beautiful, absolutely beautiful.

krebs cycle is a knowledgeable poster. it's safe to say he understands HR, SV, CO etc. if you're new to the forum you need to start using the search function, also try going to user pages and reading "all posts by user" to get a feel for them.