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

[131313]

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

Sorry, I stopped reading right here after this ridiculous obfuscation. With regards to the parameters which are responsible for and related to athletic endurance (which is the whole purpose of this discussion), this is unequivocally false.

 

[Krebs cycle]

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.

The good Dr Coggan is defending a comment made by Ed Coyle along those lines. It is simply incorrect because when an elite endurance athlete is performing at VO2max (and all else remains the same), then an increase in max HR will likely result in one or both of the following: 1. decreased pulmonary capillary transit time which will decrease %SaO2 and CaO2, thereby offsetting any increase in cardiac output, resulting in no change to VO2max, or 2. it will decrease ventricular filling which will decrease preload on the heart resulting in decreased max SV and no change in CO and therefore no change in VO2max.

The only way you can beat the system is for something else, such as pulmonary diffusing capacity, to change (thereby maintaining the principle of symmorphosis in balance), but in that case, not all else remains equal does it?

 

[Realist]

The good Dr Coggan is defending a comment made by Ed Coyle along those lines. It is simply incorrect because when an elite endurance athlete is performing at VO2max (and all else remains the same), then an increase in max HR will likely result in one or both of the following: 1. decreased pulmonary capillary transit time which will decrease %SaO2 and CaO2, thereby offsetting any increase in cardiac output, resulting in no change to VO2max, or 2. it will decrease ventricular filling which will decrease preload on the heart resulting in decreased max SV and no change in CO and therefore no change in VO2max.

The only way you can beat the system is for something else, such as pulmonary diffusing capacity, to change (thereby maintaining the principle of symmorphosis in balance), but in that case, not all else remains equal does it?

I basically agree with you on physiology and I'm not having a serious argument here. But you just agreed with all else being equal and then posited two things that would not remain equal. It's not a big deal. Max HR is a red herring.

 

[Realist]

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.

You are getting totally waylaid by a piece of academic trickery. Again. First by Andy, now by me. Feel free to read the substance of my post. Or not. But I like logic games and thought experiments, so I don't find Andy's approach (or mine) particularly troubling. Maybe you like a more direct approach. Good for you.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I basically agree with you on physiology and I'm not having a serious argument here. But you just agreed with all else being equal and then posited two things that would not remain equal. It's not a big deal. Max HR is a red herring.

Well if all else remained equal and Lance farted a jet of high powered gas out his ar$e then it would be advantageous aswell.

What is the point in saying that something would be advantageous if it simply doesn't occur?

You are missing the point and it goes back to making completely unscientific statements bordering on outright lies in order to perpetuate the myth that LA was physiologically superior to his competitors and this is the reason why he was so dominant as opposed to having been a doper. Ed Coyle was called in as an expert witness in the SCA court case and testified as much. It is a big deal IMO because it gets to the heart of the matter (sorry about the pun), which is basically about honesty in the end.

edit: As far as I can see, the people who love cycling the most on this forum are all the people that want doping gone from the pro peloton. Wtf is wrong with that? What is there to hate about honesty, sportsmanship and ethical behaviour? The real "haters" out there are the people that are Lance fanboys and doping apologists who would rather turn a blind eye to the dishonest reality of professional sport (not just cycling), rather than see the truth come out and have a clean level playing field.

 

[Benotti69]

edit: As far as i can see, the people who love cycling the most on this forum are all the people that want doping gone from the pro peloton. Wtf is wrong with that? What is there to hate about honesty, sportsmanship and ethical behaviour? The real "haters" out there are the people that are lance fanboys and doping apologists who would rather turn a blind eye to the dishonest reality of professional sport (not just cycling), rather than see the truth come out and have a clean level playing field.

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

[smaryka]

edit: As far as I can see, the people who love cycling the most on this forum are all the people that want doping gone from the pro peloton. Wtf is wrong with that? What is there to hate about honesty, sportsmanship and ethical behaviour? The real "haters" out there are the people that are Lance fanboys and doping apologists who would rather turn a blind eye to the dishonest reality of professional sport (not just cycling), rather than see the truth come out and have a clean level playing field.

Worse than the fanboys and apologists are the old pros, insiders and scientists who know in their hearts and minds exactly what's been going on (and what continues to go on) and still insist that it's clean, no need to dig up the past, "there's never been a positive test" etc. etc. etc.

For shame.

 

[Roland Rat]

edit: As far as I can see, the people who love cycling the most on this forum are all the people that want doping gone from the pro peloton. Wtf is wrong with that? What is there to hate about honesty, sportsmanship and ethical behaviour? The real "haters" out there are the people that are Lance fanboys and doping apologists who would rather turn a blind eye to the dishonest reality of professional sport (not just cycling), rather than see the truth come out and have a clean level playing field.

Amen brother.

I've even altered my signature in honour (although due to word limits had to delete a small part).

 

[acoggan]

The real "haters" out there are the people that are Lance fanboys and doping apologists who would rather turn a blind eye to the dishonest reality of professional sport (not just cycling), rather than see the truth come out and have a clean level playing field.

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...

 

[buckwheat]

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...

This is the clinic you realize, and you've been trolling with a tiny tangential point for a while.

Now you've strayed into speculative psychological analysis where previously you wouldn't speculate whether any prominent named riders are jacked.

Power can't be used to definitively tell who's doping and you have no idea whether Pharmstrong is doping. Thanks.

 

[mastersracer]

This is the clinic you realize, and you've been trolling with a tiny tangential point for a while.

Now you've strayed into speculative psychological analysis where previously you wouldn't speculate whether any prominent named riders are jacked.

Power can't be used to definitively tell who's doping and you have no idea whether Pharmstrong is doping. Thanks.

instead of piling on the personal attacks, could you outline a case for how power estimates can be used to definitively tell who is doping? In particular:

1. a method for obtaining accurate watt/kg estimates based on indirect measurement, along with a validated confidence interval

2. a watt/kg threshold that is a reliable indicator of PEDs. Could you estimate the false +/- rate for this threshold and a process for validating this method along the lines WADA outlines in the Nature letter I referenced before?

So far, this thread has had almost a complete lack of substantive responses to these questions.

 

[buckwheat]

instead of piling on the personal attacks, could you outline a case for how power estimates can be used to definitively tell who is doping? In particular:

1. a method for obtaining accurate watt/kg estimates based on indirect measurement, along with a validated confidence interval

2. a watt/kg threshold that is a reliable indicator of PEDs. Could you estimate the false +/- rate for this threshold and a process for validating this method along the lines WADA outlines in the Nature letter I referenced before?

So far, this thread has lacked almost a complete lack of substantive responses to these questions.

Exact power calculations are a very small part of the problem.

An avalanche of anecdotal and testimonial evidence exists that the sport is a cesspool.

As for the power estimates, I think powermeters and telemetry should be required on every bike in big pro races.

I didn't make this personal. Coggan's willful ignorance of the obvious did.

His persistence in advancing all of these "uncertainties" is insulting.

Until we can build models which contain all important intial conditions that have an effect on the outcomes, we wil always have uncertainties.

That will never happen until we can build parallel universes.

At that point the model will replicate exactly the original circumstances.

The important fact he refuses to recognize, because it gives him and out, is that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Tiny differences in input make gigantic differences in output.

Anyone who thinks we can create this fantasy world where we can almost replicate these initial conditions to meet their skewed vision of "definitive," is delusional.

His invocation of uncertainties is a juvenile tactic.

 

[acoggan]

This is the clinic you realize, and you've been trolling with a tiny tangential point for a while.

"...trolling...for a while"? I made one off-hand comment about the theoretical correctness of Coyle's assertion under specific conditions after someone else brought it up.

Now you've strayed into speculative psychological analysis where previously you wouldn't speculate whether any prominent named riders are jacked.

I merely offered my opinion on the decorum of certain individuals - why they choose to behave that way is not something I speculated upon (or care to speculate upon).

Power can't be used to definitively tell who's doping and you have no idea whether Pharmstrong is doping.

Isn't that what I have been saying all along??

 

[acoggan]

Exact power calculations are a very small part of the problem.

An avalanche of anecdotal and testimonial evidence exists that the sport is a cesspool.

As for the power estimates, I think powermeters and telemetry should be required on every bike in big pro races.

I didn't make this personal. Coggan's willful ignorance of the obvious did.

His persistence in advancing all of these "uncertainties" is insulting.

Until we can build models which contain all important intial conditions that have an effect on the outcomes, we wil always have uncertainties.

That will never happen until we can build parallel universes.

At that point the model will replicated exactly the original circumstances.

His invocation of uncertainties is a juvenile tactic.

Yet based on the first statement I have bolded above, it seems to me that you also believe that such uncertainties are significant.

 

[buckwheat]

Yet based on the first statement I have bolded above, it seems to me that you also believe that such uncertainties are significant.

BTW, I have added to my post which you have quoted above, fyi.

I don't know if that makes any difference to you whatsoever because my thought processes seem to evidently be very unlike yours for better or worse.

We're generally talking about doping in the clinic.

I'm as certain as can be that all the evidence, including observed and reported power measurements of the riders in question, points overwhelmingly toward proving they are doping.

You OTOH say you have no idea about whether people like Armstrong are doping, which I believe to be an absolutely ludicrous poisition.

I like my position to paraphrase Pharmstrong.

 

[buckwheat]

Yet based on the first statement I have bolded above, it seems to me that you also believe that such uncertainties are significant.

And I've never stated that power calculations by themselves with or without direct measurement are by themselves conclusive evidence of doping.

So from your very limited point of view, which you are holding to. Yes, you're correct there.

 

[buckwheat]

"...trolling...for a while"? I made one off-hand comment about the theoretical correctness of Coyle's assertion under specific conditions after someone else brought it up.



I merely offered my opinion on the decorum of certain individuals - why they choose to behave that way is not something I speculated upon (or care to speculate upon).



Isn't that what I have been saying all along??

Right, I'm paraphrasing your position with the bolded parts.

That's a very small part of the conversation here. You've given the testimony which takes only about 5 minutes of the trial.

Thanks.

 

[acoggan]

BTW, I have added to my post which you have quoted above, fyi.

You mean this statement?

"The important fact he refuses to recognize, because it gives him and out, is that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Tiny differences in input make gigantic differences in output."

How can you possibly claim that I refuse to recognize that fact when it has been the point that I have been attempting to get across all along??

I don't know if that makes any difference to you whatsoever because my thought processes seem to evidently be very unlike yours for better or worse.

We're generally talking about doping in the clinic.

I'm as certain as can be that all the evidence, including observed and reported power measurements of the riders in question, points overwhelmingly toward proving they are doping.

You OTOH say you have no idea about whether people like Armstrong are doping, which I believe to be an absolutely ludicrous poisition.

I like my position to paraphrase Pharmstrong.

Yes, your thought processes are clearly unlike mine. When I am discussing a specific point, I am discussing that specific point, period. I do not let my thought processes or opinions become clouded by tangential matters that only serve to obfuscate the specific issue at hand. Not coincidentally, this is a trait that is characteristic of all good scientists, good judges, etc.

 

[acoggan]

Right, I'm paraphrasing your position with the bolded parts.

That's a very small part of the conversation here. You've given the testimony which takes only about 5 minutes of the trial.

Sorry, but you have totally lost me here...it appears to me, however, that you are attempting to read far - FAR! - more into my words than you should.

 

[Tim_sleepless]

To what end? That is, what purpose does such discussion serve? At the end of the day, the only thing that can be said with certainty is how fast various rider have made it up any particular climb (*** u ming, of course, that the timing/distance measurement is accurate).

Hey... hang on a minute....


"Hmm, let's see:

Average pace: 42.2 km in 2 h 36 min = 270 m/s

Estimated submaximal VO2: 270 m/s x 0.18-0.20 mL/min/kg per m/s = 49-54 mL/min/kg

Required VO2max: 49-54 mL/min/kg x 1/0.80-85 = 58-68 mL/min/kg

Yeah, pretty impressive! "


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2191177#2191177

 

[buckwheat]

You mean this statement?

"The important fact he refuses to recognize, because it gives him and out, is that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Tiny differences in input make gigantic differences in output."

How can you possibly claim that I refuse to recognize that fact when it has been the point that I have been attempting to get across all along??



Yes, your thought processes are clearly unlike mine. When I am discussing a specific point, I am discussing that specific point, period. I do not let my thought processes or opinions become clouded by tangential matters that only serve to obfuscate the specific issue at hand. Not coincidentally, this is a trait that is characteristic of all good scientists, good judges, etc.

Yes, but you're taking your very small point and letting it take over the entire issue. The issue being doping in cycling which we are discussing in the clinic. Your position seems to be because some may have overly relied on power calculations in their accusations, this seems to color the whole issue.

You act like there is unanimity in the thought processes of what you call a "trait that is characteristic of all good scientists, good judges, etc.

Unfortunately for you, you have no clue that some prominent and revered scientists dispute your above opinion which I've bolded."

Two of those are Einstein and Feynman. The exact reason they became prominent is that their thinking was not characteristic of the traits you seem to believe are important.

Your position has been noted with regard to power calculations. You've performed your function as you have noted you have nothing to add regarding the other evidence of doping. Thanks again.

 

[acoggan]

Hey... hang on a minute....


"Hmm, let's see:

Average pace: 42.2 km in 2 h 36 min = 270 m/s

Estimated submaximal VO2: 270 m/s x 0.18-0.20 mL/min/kg per m/s = 49-54 mL/min/kg

Required VO2max: 49-54 mL/min/kg x 1/0.80-85 = 58-68 mL/min/kg

Yeah, pretty impressive! "


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2191177#2191177

Note the 15-20% range in the estimate of the required VO2max...and that's for running, where variations in wind, pace, terrain, etc., have less impact on the certainty of any such estimates.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

When I am discussing a specific point, I am discussing that specific point, period. I do not let my thought processes or opinions become clouded by tangential matters that only serve to obfuscate the specific issue at hand. Not coincidentally, this is a trait that is characteristic of all good scientists, good judges, etc.

Sorry to b-u-t-t in your conversation with someone else, but if you're a "good scientist", I suggest you stop bickering with these people and press onto important matters. I was curious to see the 9 W/kg reference you made to earlier. Also, lets discuss power to weight ratio in the "General" section...I was hoping to get your thoughts and opinions there.

 

[buckwheat]

Note the 15-20% range in the estimate of the required VO2max...and that's for running, where variations in wind, pace, terrain, etc., have less impact on the certainty of any such estimates.

Nothing is certain.

Richard Feynman


have less impact on the certainty of any such estimates

acoggan

 

[acoggan]

Yes, but you're taking your very small point and letting it take over the entire issue. The issue being doping in cycling which we are discussing in the clinic.

That may be the issue you have been discussing, but it most certainly is not the issue I have been discussing. The issue that I have been discussing is whether or not you can estimate both actual power output and absolute physiological limits with sufficient accuracy and precision for this approach to be useful as an anti-doping measure in the context of other anti-doping efforts. In my opinion, you cannot.

Your position seems to be because some may have overly relied on power calculations in their accusations, this seems to color the whole issue.

That is not my position in the least.

Your position has been noted with regard to power calculations. You've performed your function as you have noted you have nothing to add regarding the other evidence of doping. Thanks again.

Now who is being "dismissive"? Your next step is to trot out the old line about "sorry, I'm done debating with you, I've got better things to do".