- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,599
- 6,854
- 28,180
acoggan said:
Sorry but I didn't get the analogy. Besides, Lance only has one heart, not two.
Since you are talking about motors we have to refer to how to improve the efficiency of an electric motor. The formula is as follows:
Efficiency = (Input energy - Losses) / Input energy
Note that all efficiencies are measured the same or similar way as the one used in Coyle's paper. Here in order to change the efficiency we would have to minimize the losses, which is what EPO does. Losses for a motor are:
- Heavier copper wire, (Factory Driven)
- Higher Core Steel Grade: (Factory Driven)
- Thinner Core Laminations: (Factory Driven)
- Better bearings: (Factory Driven)
- Reduce Windage design: (Factory Driven).
You can increase efficiency of a motor by changing any of these parameters or just one of them. Of course changing the one with the least impact would be the equivalent, in doping, to doing Testosterone only. Because it would give you less of an improvement as opposed to EPO. Or changing the one with the biggest impact like the heavier copper wire would be the equivalent to doing EPO. Or you can just do the whole package deal, To improve to the maximum the efficiency of the motor which was what Dr. Fuentes used to sell.
As you can see all of this is determined by the factory which would be the equivalent to the way we are made by genetics. You can do an overhaul to the motor and change all the conditions to improve efficiency and that would be the equivalent of doing the whole doping package. That would be like changing your genetics to improve your efficiency: Higher testosterone levels, higher hematocrit level, lower lactic acid production, etc.
So as you can see in my opinion taking drugs is like altering our genetics to be a better athlete, to improve our cycling efficiency.
Same things happened with Lance in Alpe D’Huez. By using EPO he is reducing the energy used by doing the same amount of work. Which in Coyle's formula would be increasing Delta Efficiency = (1/Slope= 1/(Work Done/Energy Used))
Mathematically speaking is very simple.
Thanks.
Note: My apologies if my English writing is not the best, but understand that English is my second language.
-
Escarabajo said:
Thanks Escarabajo, that is exactly what I was going to write.....but I am a ***.
Escarabajo said:
I'm not sure this is quite right. There are a number of variables which will limit total work done and a motor car is a better analogy. The main ones are the availability of fuel and coolant. If you run out of either, it's over, which is why ascent times at the ends of stages improved a lot when water was made freely available to riders post-Simpson and people got the hang of replenishing carbohydrate, both during and between stages.
As many teenage boys know, you get some extra performance by improving the exhaust system - clearing CO2 out in human terms.
You need to make sure that the power of the engine can be coped with OK by the infrastructure - if you put a 450bhp V10 engine into your mum's car, you'll destroy the gearbox, and if you do get up to speed, the tyres will fail. If you want to see this in action, take a very good cyclist and make them take up running. They'll be injured within weeks (I'm a triathlete now, trust me, I know about this
). Cortiosteroids, HGH and testosterone can help with this as they effectively improve the speed at which the mechanics work overnight to do the repairs. By the 1980s this was pretty much endemic in the peloton.However, primates are not designed for long pursuits. We need to be able to escape from predators in short dashes to and up trees, and to migrate - we can walk all day. Wolves have a VO2max in the hundreds because they will pursue prey and wear them out. We have rubbish carburetors. The air intakes (lungs) are actually brilliant - blood on its way back to the heart is fully loaded, but there is a limit on how much oxygen can be delivered due to the power of the pump (heart) and the efficiency of the system. Turns out that even without improving mitochondrial density etc, the machine works better if you deliver more oxygen. Having more oxygen-carrying capacity does this, albeit placing greater strain on the pump and the lines.
How much useful work is done at the back wheel per unit of fuel burned doesn't change, what changes is the total amount of fuel that can be processed per unit of time.
It isn't as simple as that. There are adaptations necessary if you want to use EPO seriously, and not all of it is intuitive. It took a number of years, and some rather unethical "research" before the profession got the hang of it, realised how much gain was to be had and it became widespread. By the early part of this decade, you could get a relatively cheap program that would deliver very good results. If you have a legitimate source, EPO isn't that expensive.
Also worth bearing in mind that to get the full benefit you need to train optimally aswell as using the gear and not get complacent. Clean riders can beat lazy dopers. Simply, if you want to win the tour, you need the right stuff in July AND to be out in December "bustin' your ***" rather than the right stuff in July and sitting around in the Black Forest all winter eating gateaux.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
keen_but_slow said:I'm not sure this is quite right. There are a number of variables which will limit total work done and a motor car is a better analogy. The main ones are the availability of fuel and coolant. If you run out of either, it's over, which is why ascent times at the ends of stages improved a lot when water was made freely available to riders post-Simpson and people got the hang of replenishing carbohydrate, both during and between stages.
As many teenage boys know, you get some extra performance by improving the exhaust system - clearing CO2 out in human terms.
You need to make sure that the power of the engine can be coped with OK by the infrastructure - if you put a 450bhp V10 engine into your mum's car, you'll destroy the gearbox, and if you do get up to speed, the tyres will fail. If you want to see this in action, take a very good cyclist and make them take up running. They'll be injured within weeks (I'm a triathlete now, trust me, I know about this
However, primates are not designed for long pursuits. We need to be able to escape from predators in short dashes to and up trees, and to migrate - we can walk all day. Wolves have a VO2max in the hundreds because they will pursue prey and wear them out. We have rubbish carburetors. The air intakes (lungs) are actually brilliant - blood on its way back to the heart is fully loaded, but there is a limit on how much oxygen can be delivered due to the power of the pump (heart) and the efficiency of the system. Turns out that even without improving mitochondrial density etc, the machine works better if you deliver more oxygen. Having more oxygen-carrying capacity does this, albeit placing greater strain on the pump and the lines.
How much useful work is done at the back wheel per unit of fuel burned doesn't change, what changes is the total amount of fuel that can be processed per unit of time.
It isn't as simple as that. There are adaptations necessary if you want to use EPO seriously, and not all of it is intuitive. It took a number of years, and some rather unethical "research" before the profession got the hang of it, realised how much gain was to be had and it became widespread. By the early part of this decade, you could get a relatively cheap program that would deliver very good results. If you have a legitimate source, EPO isn't that expensive.
Also worth bearing in mind that to get the full benefit you need to train optimally aswell as using the gear and not get complacent. Clean riders can beat lazy dopers. Simply, if you want to win the tour, you need the right stuff in July AND to be out in December "bustin' your ***" rather than the right stuff in July and sitting around in the Black Forest all winter eating gateaux.
is that a reference to cars, or Michael Hutchence and auto-erotic asphyxiation?
acoggan said:
Ross Tucker here, one half of the above-mentioned "newly-minted PhDs from a highly controversial laboratory", and authors of the site in question.
After this thread was brought to my attention last night, I was going to reply immediately, but rather slept on it and woke this morning to discover an apology from Dr Coggan about his statements that we had deleted his comments on that post. This is, as he says, completely untrue. Our policy is to allow every comment with the exception of those with vulgar language or aggressive, defamatory comments. I have deleted comments before, but only if they meet these criteria. I therefore did not delete his comments to the post as he is perfectly entitled to his opinion. Now that it has been cleared up, apology accepted, thank you.
However, I am not posting to debate the Coyle issue - that is what the posts were about. I will however say that the opinions on Coyle were not merely ours, but reflect what was being debated in the scientific literature around that paper - you may have noticed for example, that a complaint of scientific misconduct was brought against Coyle in order to obtain some of the data. Letters were written and the research was widely criticised. Those complaints were brought not by us, but by another group of scientists altogether, presumably also not part of this "mainstream" that Coggan refers to.
In any event, what bothers me most about Coggan's response are the above statements, quoted from his replies on this thread. So, to set the record straight:
"Newly-minted" - yes.
"New to the game" - guilty as charged
Inexperienced - afraid so
"only a handful of papers between them" - untrue, as Coggan can confirm through a Pubmed search. Given that we've only been in the "game" since 2006 with our PhDs, I'd say we're doing OK at "establishing ourselves". Unfortunately, that may not be good enough and perhaps we should hold our opinions for fifteen years. Or maybe not...
However, more to the point, Coggan implies that years in the game and experience are the requirements to possess a credible opinion. He would thus have one believe that education is the same thing as intelligence, or more seriously, that age, experience and education entitle one to a credible opinion. Coggan also confuses "credible opinions" with being part of the mainstream.
These are his beliefs, which he is entitled to, but they are unfortunate, because I've read this thread and others on this site and I believe many people here have even more valuable opinions than mine or those of Coggan. I have read and thoroughly enjoyed this thread because people have posted intelligent, well thought out arguments, which are certainly worthy of serious consideration!
Though it seems that Coggan's view is that serious, credible opinions belong only to those who have established their reputations through years of being part of the mainstream. According to that approach, I'm not sure that everyone here is "qualified" - I wonder what Dr Coggan makes of those who are not even "newly-minted"? Gosh, how dare they have opinions! And how dare anyone listen to them!
This is quite ridiculous, and so to attack our writing on the basis of our age and years in the field is so biased and arrogant, I'm pleased that the readers of this forum have picked it up.
Perhaps the background to Coggan's comment is important - you have probably all noticed that Coggan published extensively with Coyle about 10 to 20 years ago. Tim Noakes, who supervised my PhD, was highly critical of Coyle (and thus Coggan), and in particular, his work on dehydration and heat illness during exercise. One of the first presentations by Noakes that I ever saw used a 1992 study by Coyle and Coggan as an illustration of how science was being applied incorrectly to the public and contributing to a growing problem of hyponatremia and over-drinking. Noakes has offended many, often excessively, but always in pursuit of what he believed to be the truth (and as I mention below, that "truth" is now becoming evident and may one day be part of the "mainstream")! But the point is that there is therefore substantial water under the bridge when it comes to Coggan, Coyle and Tim Noakes.
Fortunately, the "mainstream" are now gradually coming to accept that Tim Noakes' arguments had merit (they were not always 100% correct, of course, such is the nature of science), and research from all around the world has contributed to the position. Even the ACSM have begun the change their fluid replacement guidelines, as a cursory comparison between the 1996 guidelines and the most recent ones will reveal.
Unfortunately for us, we are now being painted by the same brush, which is why Coggan is quick to label the laboratory as "controversial", not worthy of "the mainstream", and to make snide remarks about our inspiration for our site and how it will "bite us in the ****", as though this impacts on the credibility of our statements. What a pity that this educated, well published scientist cannot distinguish his personal biases from his newer readings. I take consolation in the fact that for every Coggan or Coyle, there is a younger (shock! "newly minted" and inexperienced) scientist who, freed from baggage, views things differently. And more important, that those not in academia enjoy reading - I believe people are quite capable of forming their own opinions without being told what to believe.
And just to set the record straight, the site Science of Sport was created because Jonathan and I both love coaching and applying sports science. I also did a Post-graduate in Marketing and Management, and began to see the value of communication and translation of science, and if that could be done in a news-type site, all the better. The site has nothing to do with Noakes' approach to the field, as Coggan implies, but everything to do with our personalities and desire to see sports science made readable. It is indeed a great pity that such immediate resistance is created by his history and biases.
Of course, all are entitled to their opinion. But I feel it necessary to respond to the accusation that we're not worthy of an opinion because of our age or our 'origins' with Tim Noakes. That is arrogant and childish. And to dismiss our contribution because one of us (me, in this case) does not hold an academic position is also very bitter and arrogant - I have, in the last 18 months, had numerous publications - I have just been fortunate to consult in the field of sports business and management as well.
As for comments biting us in the ****, perhaps they already have. But winning over scientists like Coggan, who know everything already is not our objective. Perhaps we will never be part of the mainstream, but when I look at what resides in the mainstream and how it operates, I'm happy to pursue "truth" and not pander to the masses in the middle.
There is still much to be said, of course, but not about this topic any longer - it began as a thread about Lemond, and has turned into a good debate about Armstrong,efficiency and EPO. Hopefully it returns there. Apologies for "hijacking" it to respond to this side-debate!
Thank you to all those who read and provide the incentive for us to write - it is much appreciated.
Ross Tucker (The Science of Sport)
The Science of Sport said:
Thanks you for taking the time to post. I've always admired your 'raison d'etre' as regards your website. Keep up the good work, because it is a fascinating topic, and if simplified into laymen's terms, which you/yee do, then it really can reach such a large audience.
Regards.
acoggan said:
Ross Tucker here, one half of the above-mentioned "newly-minted PhDs from a highly controversial laboratory", and authors of the site in question.
After this thread was brought to my attention last night, I was going to reply immediately, but rather slept on it and woke this morning to discover an apology from Dr Coggan about his statements that we had deleted his comments on that post. This is, as he says, completely untrue. Our policy is to allow every comment with the exception of those with vulgar language or aggressive, defamatory comments. I therefore did not delete his comments to the post as he is perfectly entitled to his opinion. Now that it has been cleared up, apology accepted, thank you.
However, I am not posting to debate the Coyle issue - that is what the posts were about. I will however say that the opinions on Coyle were not merely ours, but reflect what was being debated in the scientific literature around that paper - you may have noticed for example, that a complaint of scientific misconduct was brought against Coyle in order to obtain some of the data. Letters were written and the research was widely criticised. Those complaints were brought not by us, but by another group of scientists altogether, presumably also not part of this "mainstream" that Coggan refers to.
In any event, what bothers me most about Coggan's response are the above statements, quoted from his replies on this thread. So, to set the record straight:
"Newly-minted" - yes.
"New to the game" - guilty as charged
Inexperienced - afraid so
"only a handful of papers between them" - untrue, as Coggan can confirm through a Pubmed search. Given that we've only been in the "game" since 2006 with our PhDs, I'd say we're doing OK at "establishing ourselves". Unfortunately, that may not be good enough and perhaps we should hold our opinions for fifteen years. Or maybe not...
However, more to the point, Coggan implies that years in the game and experience are the requirements to possess a credible opinion. He would thus have one believe that education is the same thing as intelligence, or more seriously, that age, experience and education entitle one to a credible opinion. That is his belief, one which he is entitled to, but it is unfortunate, because I've read this thread and others on this site and I believe many people here have valuable opinions.
Though in Coggan's view, only those who have established themselves through years of experience in the mainstream are entitled to an opinion that is to be believed. I wonder whether anyone on this forum is "qualified" by that definition? What does Dr Coggan makes of those who are not even "newly-minted"? Gosh, how dare they have opinions! And how dare anyone listen to them? This is ridiculous, arrogant and short-sighted - to attack people's opinions on the basis of age and years in the field is so biased and arrogant, I'm pleased that the readers of this forum have picked it up.
Perhaps the background to this comment is important - you have probably all noticed that Coggan published extensively with Coyle about 10 to 20 years ago. Tim Noakes, who supervised my PhD, was highly critical of Coyle (and thus Coggan, it seems...), and in particular, Coyle's work on dehydration and heat illness during exercise. One of the first presentations by Noakes that I ever saw used a 1992 study by Coyle and Scott Montain as an illustration of how science was being applied incorrectly to the public and contributing to a growing problem of hyponatremia and over-drinking. Noakes often offended people, sometimes excessively or unnecessarily, but always in pursuit of what he believed to be the "truth" (as I mention below, that truth is now becoming more and more evident). There is therefore substantial water under the bridge when it comes to Coggan, Coyle and Tim Noakes. There are a number of forums on the internet where Coggan has unleashed vitriolic and personal attacks on Noakes, so this is nothing new.
Fortunately, the "mainstream" are now gradually coming to accept that Tim Noakes' arguments had merit (they were not always 100% correct, of course, such is the nature of science), and research from all around the world has contributed to the position. Even the ACSM have begun the change their fluid replacement guidelines, as a cursory comparison between the 1996 guidelines and the most recent ones will reveal.
Regrettably for us, we are now being painted by the same brush, which is why Coggan is so quick to label the laboratory as "controversial", not worthy of "the mainstream", and to make snide remarks about our inspiration for our site and how it will "bite us in the ****". As though this impacts on the potential validity or accuracy of our statements. What a pity that this educated, well published scientist cannot distinguish his personal biases from his newer readings.
Just to set the record straight, the site Science of Sport was created because Jonathan and I both love coaching and applying sports science. I also did a Post-graduate in Marketing and Management, and began to see the value of communication and translation of science, and if that could be done in a news-type site, all the better. The site has nothing to do with Noakes' approach to the field, as Coggan implies, but everything to do with our personalities and desire to see sports science made readable. It is indeed a great pity that such immediate resistance is created by his history and biases.
Of course, all are entitled to their opinion, as I'm sure Coggan would agree. It seems, however, that Coggan believes some opinions are worth more than others. Those opinions can be wrong of course, but debating the facts is important, not flinging out personal attacks and insults that have little bearing on the validity of one's opinions. And so to suggest that our opinions are unworthy because of age or our 'origins' with Tim Noakes is arrogant and childish. And to dismiss our contribution because one of us (me, in this case) does not hold an academic position is also very bitter and arrogant - I have, in the last 18 months, had numerous publications - I have just been fortunate to consult in the field of sports business and management as well.
As for comments biting us in the ****, perhaps they already have. But winning over scientists like Coggan, who know everything already is not our objective. Perhaps we will never be part of the mainstream, but when I look at what resides in the mainstream and how it operates, I'm happy to pursue "truth" and not pander to the masses in the middle.
There is still much to be said, of course, but not about this topic any longer - it began as a thread about Lemond, and it became a very interesting one about Armstrong and EPO, and hopefully it returns there. Apologies for "hijacking" it to respond to this side-debate!
Thank you to all those who read and provide the incentive for us to write - it is much appreciated.
Ross Tucker (The Science of Sport)
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
I've read through all the expert analysis posted hear by the PHD's (rookies and veterans), Einstein, Newton, Galilleo and JC: all very interesting mind you. Really. Though being a hummanities guy myself in the accademic world, my critical skills are much more biased to the cultural panorama. Much more a Tacitus, Erasmus or Dumas (the father), in my world views and way of thinking, than a Watson or Fermi. While I firmly believe in the intellectual freedom of both approaches, their strenghts and, above all, weaknesses (especially in my own flawed conclusions).
However if you ask me, the so called scientific analysis presented either for or against Coyle's research and conclusions, has as much to do with personal preconception and psychological predispositon, as it does with factual finds, or those we can even say can be pressumed as facts. That said, at the same time though, from my admitted ignorance in the scientific methodologies, there seems to be a much more irrational ideological slant in Coyle's finds, simply due to the cycling culture within which his conclusions are being placed.
Nothing in them would ever allow me to believe, rationally that is, that a 7 time Tour winner during the last decade could have ever done what he did without the most sophisticated blood doping behind it. And to me this is where, at times, this culture of science we live in risks becoming a hindrance to the facts getting out and no more mistifying and, yes, irrational, than organized religion and the most hypnotizing and brainwashing demagoguery.
And it allows anybody to conclude, based on how the data is interpreted, pretty much what they want based largely on their own preconceptions, which, though, has nothing to do with what science sets out to do: namely irrefutably proove something. Which means that science is often tainted with the same ideological and intellectual bias, which in my world is often the alibi used by people in disaccord with a purely cultural and philosophical interpretation because its not "scientific."
Well now I'm glad to know now I can say the same thing about yours.
However if you ask me, the so called scientific analysis presented either for or against Coyle's research and conclusions, has as much to do with personal preconception and psychological predispositon, as it does with factual finds, or those we can even say can be pressumed as facts. That said, at the same time though, from my admitted ignorance in the scientific methodologies, there seems to be a much more irrational ideological slant in Coyle's finds, simply due to the cycling culture within which his conclusions are being placed.
Nothing in them would ever allow me to believe, rationally that is, that a 7 time Tour winner during the last decade could have ever done what he did without the most sophisticated blood doping behind it. And to me this is where, at times, this culture of science we live in risks becoming a hindrance to the facts getting out and no more mistifying and, yes, irrational, than organized religion and the most hypnotizing and brainwashing demagoguery.
And it allows anybody to conclude, based on how the data is interpreted, pretty much what they want based largely on their own preconceptions, which, though, has nothing to do with what science sets out to do: namely irrefutably proove something. Which means that science is often tainted with the same ideological and intellectual bias, which in my world is often the alibi used by people in disaccord with a purely cultural and philosophical interpretation because its not "scientific."
Well now I'm glad to know now I can say the same thing about yours.
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,545
- 28,180
rhubroma said:Nothing in them would ever allow me to believe, rationally that is, that a 7 time Tour winner during the last decade could have ever done what he did without the most sophisticated blood doping behind it. And to me this is where, at times, this culture of science we live in risks becoming a hindrance to the facts getting out and no more mistifying and, yes, irrational, than organized religion and the most hypnotizing and brainwashing demagoguery.
And it allows anybody to conclude, based on how the data is interpreted, pretty much what they want based largely on their own preconceptions, which, though, has nothing to do with what science sets out to do: namely irrefutably proove something. Which means that science is often tainted with the same ideological and intellectual bias, which in my world is often the alibi used by people in disaccord with a purely cultural and philosophical interpretation because its not "scientific."
Well now I'm glad to know now I can say the same thing about yours.
Hear, hear! Well said! It reminds me of an article I read recently in Newsweek - http://www.newsweek.com/id/202791
You're 100% right, the science is sometimes a hindrance! Which is why everyone - newly minted, never minted, yet to be minted, and those whose mint has long worn off - can all arrive at the correct conclusion quite independent of the scientific bluster that all too often shrouds the matter! Sometimes the best evidence is the least 'empirical'!
To conclude with the sentence from that newsweek article: "As common sense (never mind research) shows..."
One probably gets burned at the scientific stake for suggesting that!
And to the others, thanks - came across this forum only last week as a result of an exchange between Escarabajo, Alpe d'Huez and BlackCat on that thread on power outputs on Arcalis! Great reads!
Cheers
Ross
. . .and in particular said:Small correction, the paper in 1992 mentioned was published by Scott Montain and Coyle. .. Ross is excused because his thesis was on fatigue and mine was on fluid balance and temperature!
Kind Regards,
Jonathan
The Science of Sport said:Small correction, the paper in 1992 mentioned was published by Scott Montain and Coyle. .. Ross is excused because his thesis was on fatigue and mine was on fluid balance and temperature!
Kind Regards,
Jonathan
Yup, you're right, my mistake - there was a review article by Coggan and Coyle in 1991 titled Carbohydrate ingestion during prolonged exercise that I mixed up with that one - apologies. I have gone back and corrected the mistake in the original post.
Point remains, there seems to be a history between Coyle, Noakes, Coggan, long before this latest round, and not one that I would claim to understand. Our "controversial" status and "pseudo-academic" positions, along with our labeling as "fringe" (rather than mainstream) in the exercise sciences, the biting of **** and such things is the consequence of that history, I guess. The funny thing is that we were still at junior school back then!
Ross
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,545
- 28,180
Really good detective work there guys!
One thing to note regarding the discussion. Part of what gets left out of discussions on science in our society is philosophy. And I mean that in the literal, classic sense. Philosophy as a study of wisdom, and how we live our lives and think, if you will. Our educational system has pushed philosophy aside and treated it as a specialized study, like, English Literature, or Political Studies, when it's much more encompassing than that. It's what we base our decision making on, our thinking, our lives.
I don't want to write a huge treatise here, so forgive me if I'm too succinct, but how we choose to interpret, implement, or ignore science is not based on the scientific evidence itself without a reference to philosophy, and I think that's what we're seeing here as much as anything else. Not that one person's "philosophy" (a theory based opinion, actually, not a philosophy) is getting in the way of seeing the science objectively, or balancing scientific information, rather their lack of applying philosophical principles.
This is why the lay person who may not have a Ph.D in physiology, but may be a very logical thinker (thus sound in philosophy), can partake in studies and discussions and draw reasonable conclusions that very likely match the truth, or exact facts, trying to be discerned, and are often later proven to be correct by evidence.
Sorry if it seems like I'm rambling here.
One thing to note regarding the discussion. Part of what gets left out of discussions on science in our society is philosophy. And I mean that in the literal, classic sense. Philosophy as a study of wisdom, and how we live our lives and think, if you will. Our educational system has pushed philosophy aside and treated it as a specialized study, like, English Literature, or Political Studies, when it's much more encompassing than that. It's what we base our decision making on, our thinking, our lives.
I don't want to write a huge treatise here, so forgive me if I'm too succinct, but how we choose to interpret, implement, or ignore science is not based on the scientific evidence itself without a reference to philosophy, and I think that's what we're seeing here as much as anything else. Not that one person's "philosophy" (a theory based opinion, actually, not a philosophy) is getting in the way of seeing the science objectively, or balancing scientific information, rather their lack of applying philosophical principles.
This is why the lay person who may not have a Ph.D in physiology, but may be a very logical thinker (thus sound in philosophy), can partake in studies and discussions and draw reasonable conclusions that very likely match the truth, or exact facts, trying to be discerned, and are often later proven to be correct by evidence.
Sorry if it seems like I'm rambling here.
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,599
- 6,854
- 28,180
I think we are saying the same thing here. I think your example could have probably been better, but since acoggan gave me the electric motor I used it.keen_but_slow said:
Remember not to confuse the energy use with the work done. One is the amount of force applied to the pedals to travel a certain distance. The energy used is what is takes to do that work (the current employed in the electric motor, or the fuel in your example). Fixing the weight and time, the amount of energy used when using EPO will be less than when riding clean bacause of the excess O2 delivered. Remember we are fixing everything else and we are talking about the same rider. Now when you include time then you are involving power or watts. In this case the results change when you climb the mountain faster because of the drug use. Energy change in time is called power which is a new variable and not referred by me.
Thanks.
Note: Ross I am glad to stop by this forum. Thanks for the great articles. I have referred some friends of mine to the "Science of Sport" links.
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,599
- 6,854
- 28,180
Alpe d'Huez said:
I am not an expert but it seems like you have kind of blurred the lines between philosophy & psychology. Is not psychology the study of human behaviour ie how we live our lives?
Actually i would like to expand briefly.
I question how & why people come by their information. Someone mentioned a coach who had info on Lemond doping. But even though they previously mentioned that this coach was motivated by money, suddenly the coach has no motivation for releasing this information.
While it might have been in casual conversation, there was a reason for disclosing this. I am not saying the coach had a conscious reason, but since his profession is schooling others, it is to his advantage either monetarily(which correlates to comments made earlier by the poster) or emotionally(for his own self esteem).Just because the poster held the coach in high esteem does not mean the coach felt that way about himself.I am not qualified to make this judgement and from his responses ignoring any sort of introspection i highly doubt the poster is qualified either
However People who become coaches/teachers like to share knowledge and usually get gratification from being respected.In a word sometimes coaches are coaches because they are emotionally needy people.
People usually gravitate to certain jobs that correspond to their needs/personality.Policeman are usually people who like to be in a position of control, Actors are exhibitionists, People studying to become psychologists most likey can be broken down into two distinct types.
a. very smart seekers of knowledge
b. crazy searching for answers.
I told this to my Psychology professor in college who was also a practicing psychiatrist. He laughed then thought about it then basically agreed.
However when i told my psych major girlfriend she did a spit take and did not find it funny in the least(she was case b)
we broke up soon after and unfortunately she is now running the neuropsychiatry dept of a major hospital
anyone who has "inside" information think why anyone would tell you.
I question how & why people come by their information. Someone mentioned a coach who had info on Lemond doping. But even though they previously mentioned that this coach was motivated by money, suddenly the coach has no motivation for releasing this information.
While it might have been in casual conversation, there was a reason for disclosing this. I am not saying the coach had a conscious reason, but since his profession is schooling others, it is to his advantage either monetarily(which correlates to comments made earlier by the poster) or emotionally(for his own self esteem).Just because the poster held the coach in high esteem does not mean the coach felt that way about himself.I am not qualified to make this judgement and from his responses ignoring any sort of introspection i highly doubt the poster is qualified either
However People who become coaches/teachers like to share knowledge and usually get gratification from being respected.In a word sometimes coaches are coaches because they are emotionally needy people.
People usually gravitate to certain jobs that correspond to their needs/personality.Policeman are usually people who like to be in a position of control, Actors are exhibitionists, People studying to become psychologists most likey can be broken down into two distinct types.
a. very smart seekers of knowledge
b. crazy searching for answers.
I told this to my Psychology professor in college who was also a practicing psychiatrist. He laughed then thought about it then basically agreed.
However when i told my psych major girlfriend she did a spit take and did not find it funny in the least(she was case b)
we broke up soon after and unfortunately she is now running the neuropsychiatry dept of a major hospital
anyone who has "inside" information think why anyone would tell you.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,553
- 0
- 0
The Science of Sport said:Small correction, the paper in 1992 mentioned was published by Scott Montain and Coyle. .. Ross is excused because his thesis was on fatigue and mine was on fluid balance and temperature!
The irony here, of course, is that Ross committed the same "crime" that Coyle did: he miscited the literature. Rather than take it as evidence of something nefarious as you two seem to wish to, though, I consider it just a simple mistake.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,553
- 0
- 0
Digger said:
I'm not sure why you are asking me, since I was not a coauthor on the paper in question, and have never even seen Armstrong from a distance.
Anyway, it is widely known that Coyle didn't have accurate data on Armstrong's body mass at peak fitness during his Tour-winning years, but simply relied upon his (Armstrong's) self-report. As for Armstrong heart size, I have not seen any actual data, but it would undoubtly be much larger than average (during exercise, at least), simply due to the fact that he had/has a very high VO2max.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,553
- 0
- 0
blackcat said:
Neither EPO nor blood doping increase efficiency. If you don't believe me, all you need to do is go read the many studies of these interventions that have been performed over the last ~30 y.
blackcat said:
None of my comments should be construed as a defense of Armstrong.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram