Reason for Lemond's decline

[acoggan]

What is the used definition of efficiency?

As in any field: thermodynamic efficiency during cycling is calculated as energy out/energy in x 100%. The "energy out" is power output, whereas the "energy in" is calculated from measurements of respiratory gas exchange (i.e., VO2 and RER).

As an extra or bigger engine has definitely different efficiency characteristics.

Don't take the electric motor analogy I made too literally.

 

[acoggan]

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.
-

I see that you took my analogy too literally. To continue down that path, however: the "factory driven" determinants you describe above could be considered comparable to things such as fiber type, mitochondrial coupling, etc., none of which are impacted by EPO...which is why it doesn't alter efficiency.

 

[acoggan]

an increase Hct from 37 to 49.5 will result in a greater then 10% increase in power for some riders.

It would, but not very many male cyclists have a natural hematocrit as low as 37..thus, 10% is about the maximum improvement in power output that one could achieve, on average, under the current hematocrit cap.

 

[acoggan]

But the 2nd motor would add weight, which EPO does not do.

What, red blood cells don't have mass?

But seriously: I never said the "2nd electric motor" was a perfect analogy...but since mass doesn't enter into the calculation of efficiency, it's really a moot point.

 

[acoggan]

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)

I stand by my comments: as a casual observer (albeit one who has been around the block a few times), I don't believe that the opinions that you and Jonathon have expressed are representative of the mainstream of the scientific community. If they were, then, e.g., Coyle's papers wouldn't continue to be cited at the same high rate they were previously. Furthermore, I think that you are doing both yourself and the field a disservice by the way you have approached the issue at hand...there are mechanisms in place in science for dealing with controversial data and publications, which were strongly pursued by, e.g., Ashenden but nonetheless came up short. As I told Dave Martin in some rather lengthy emails we exchanged following the most recent Cyclingnews.com article, at this point it is all really water under the bridge, and to continue to try to fan the flames of controversy does not reflect well on anyone involved. The latter is what I meant by "bite you in the ****", i.e., it seems to me that the attitudes and opinions you have expressed, and the means in which you have expressed them - an approach, I can only assume, inspired by your mentor - are only going to make some journal editor or grant reviewer somewhere look less favorably on your submission, if only unconciously. (Really, the situation is no different what an attorney encounters in daily life, i.e., no matter how hotly they feel about an issue, they must temper their comments so as to not tick off the opposing counsel and/or judges that they must continue to work with in the future.)

As for your claim that I have leveled any "vitriolic attacks" on anyone (especially Noakes), I challenge you to find one instance where I have said anything that even approaches the sort of tone that he has used (or that you have used above). I've definitely always been someone who is free with their opinion, but personal attacks just aren't my style (which is why I would have been a very good attorney, i.e., I've always been able to argue without having it impact me emotionally).

 

[acoggan]

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.

Would it change you opinion any if you knew that:

1) Coyle isn't a cyclist, at least in the usual sense of the word;

2) the data collection started well before Armstrong won his first Tour;

3) they were first written up for an informal poster presentation at a small conference honoring John Holloszy, only after which Ed decided to try to publish them in a formal paper;

4) the "cultural bias" in at least some corners of the scientific community seems to be that cycling efficiency doesn't improve with training (despite reasons to believe that it should), i.e., Coyle's paper might be considered to be challenging the status quo, not reinforcing it;

5) there is absolutely no controversy about the fact that Armstrong's gross efficiency improved over time;

6) I'm not sure that Coyle believes that Armstrong has always been "clean" (although my recollection of any conversations I've had with him on the topic is rather fuzzy).

 

[Escarabajo]

I see that you took my analogy too literally. To continue down that path, however: the "factory driven" determinants you describe above could be considered comparable to things such as fiber type, mitochondrial coupling, etc., none of which are impacted by EPO...which is why it doesn't alter efficiency.

I still disagree, but I don't want to drag this to eternity.
I apreciate your feedback.
Thanks.

 

[The Science of Sport]

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.

No, completely incorrect. We recognized the error immediately and came back to rectify our mistake. Just as you did when you initially suggested we had deleted your comments. Once you realised that this was not the case, you apologized, and that apology was accepted, thank you. This was our apology, which we picked up (not someone else), and it seems most accepted it. Luckily those without minting do such things.

The issue with the study was far more than an incorrectly cited study from the literature. But that is not what this post is about - as you correctly pointed out, everything was said in the initial post.

Ross

 

[cody_57]

?

Okay, so why did Lemond decline?

Man has this thread gotten sidetracked (but in a really good way!!)

I somehow stumbled on the cyclingnews forums, even though I've been following the tours now for several years via the site. Must say the CN forums are really informative, even if (when?) they deviate or degenerate. I find the yahoo-type discussions fascinating for its sheer ignorance and I'm sure somebody can figure out a formula for how many posts it takes before it turns into: f-u. no f-u!! no F-U!!!

And even though most opinions here are biased (as opinions tend to be) at least there's some substance behind it.

 

[elapid]

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.

I know you were not an author on this paper, but one thing that has always interested me is the lack of reaction to Coyle's misrepresentation of the data presented in his paper "Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures" ( J Appl Physiol 98(6):2191-6, 2005).

In the abstract, Coyle states "Therefore, over the 7-yr period, an improvement in muscular efficiency and reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight when cycling at a given Vo(2) (e.g., 5 l/min)."

However, his data is summarized in Table 2, which appears below:

I am not in a position to comment on the muscular efficiency part of the equation, but as you can see from the data in Table 2, Coyle does not and cannot prove that Armstrong had "reduced body fat" when 1. body fat % was not measured in the one data set post-cancer, preseason November 1999; and 2. Armstrong's gross and lean body weight were 1-5 kg and 1-2 kg heavier, respectively, in preseason 1999 compared to preseasons 1992 and 1993. So can you tell me how Coyle can justify this part of his claim when he has not demonstrated "reduced body fat", moreover his data suggests the opposite?

Secondly, his calculations of an 18% improvement in steady state power are also misleading. Again from Table 2, his preseason power-to-weight ratios were 4.74 in 1992, 4.99 in 1993, and 5.07 in 1999. However, instead of comparing apples to apples, for some unexplained reason Coyle uses Armstrong's estimated racing weight of 72 kg to calculate his 1999 power-to-weight ratio (which is inaccurate as Armstrong stated in the SCA Promotions trial that his racing weight was probably 74 kg or higher). How can he do this when he this weight was not measured and he is using a racing weight to compare to a preseason power output, and compare then compare this to 1992 and 1993 preseasons? He should have used Armstrong's preseason weight for the 1999 calculation, or alternatively and less preferably estimated racing weights for 1992 and 1993. If Coyle had used the appropriate data included in Table 2, then the improvement in power-to-weight ratio are actually 6.9% compared to 1992 and only 1.6% compared to 1993.

Why was Coyle's maths so bad and why has no one else pointed these glaring errors out? While Armstrong may have had improved muscular efficiency, and we also know this compensates to some degree for athletes with relatively poorer VO2 max*, the "reduced body fat" and "18% improvement in steady state power-to-weight ratio" are not supported by Coyle's own data.

*Lucía A, Hoyos J, Pérez M, Santalla A, Chicharro JL. Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 34(12):2079-84, 2002.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I somehow stumbled on the cyclingnews forums, even though I've been following the tours now for several years via the site. Must say the CN forums are really informative, even if (when?) they deviate or degenerate. I find the yahoo-type discussions fascinating for its sheer ignorance and I'm sure somebody can figure out a formula for how many posts it takes before it turns into: f-u. no f-u!! no F-U!!!

And even though most opinions here are biased (as opinions tend to be) at least there's some substance behind it.

I know you and I are kind of off-topic here, but I want to say I agree with your post. I am a member of a few other sites, but my posting output is more than 20 times the output here as it is on any other site on cycling. While the last few weeks with the Tour going on and Lance's comeback has filled the main board with too much speculative banter, this is indeed a fantastic message board. Great stuff and a great mix of conversations from all over the world here. I'm hoping when the Tour is over, and the AC/LA talk subsides, you'll stick around. There should be some terrific discussions come Vuelta time.

 

[unsheath]

Mr Coggan, what im failing to understand, and I know this has been bought up in the Ashenden critique is why in fact Coyle cannot provide the raw data files for the entire data set? The only explanation that has been cited is that Coyle has misplaced the data as he was not aware of it's significance, particularly in relation to the test subject. Why is it then that the 93 data was found and not the others? As the protege of the author, should you not be privy such this information?

Care to enlighten us?

 

[Digger]

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.

Okay I want to be civil to you here and respectful, but the reason I'm asking you is that you are defending Coyle's work, regarding the muscular effiency, yet many other questionable findings (at the very least) have been pointed out, thus surely devaluing his paper as a whole. His formulas have already been questioned, as have alot of other aspects by the Science of Sport guys.
You mention the very high VO2 Max. Coyle measured it five times, and then took the highest value, why not the average?
Secondly a VO2 Max of 81.2, in 1993 by the way, is not higher than Miguel Indurain, who was at 88. Coyle claimed it was higher than Miguel. Secondly, Lance's VO2 Max in 1999 was 71.5 - the year he first won. So clearly VO2 Max, which Coyle attribute some of Lance's advantage to, is questionable to say the least.
Coyle has said that Lance's heart is the equivalent to the heart of a seven foot man. Yet Coyle never officially measured it, in the appropriate way. Yet, the medical reports leading up to his cancer treatments note that his heart was within normal limits. There is clearly no basis for Coyle to make such an assumption, that the heart was the equivalent to the size of a seen foot man.
And in relation to his weight, which Coyle attributes so much performance improvements to, the figure show that Lance lost all of one Kilo, approx two pounds). And this figure is arrived at using Coyle's own study and the words of Lance, because Coyle, bizarrely, measures Lance's weight five times, in four different months. These months were January, September, August and November. Surely this cannot be right, in a scientific sense, to measure at different times.

 

[dienekes88]

Does this mean that Greg Lemond is now a jedi?

Hahaha. No. You're thinking of mitichlorians or whatever.

Mitochondria are organelles inside the cell that are responsible for aerobic respiration.

I get the feeling that someone has already said this.

 

[dienekes88]

Okay I want to be civil to you here and respectful, but the reason I'm asking you is that you are defending Coyle's work, regarding the muscular effiency, yet many other questionable findings (at the very least) have been pointed out, thus surely devaluing his paper as a whole. His formulas have already been questioned, as have alot of other aspects by the Science of Sport guys.
You mention the very high VO2 Max. Coyle measured it five times, and then took the highest value, why not the average?
Secondly a VO2 Max of 81.2, in 1993 by the way, is not higher than Miguel Indurain, who was at 88. Coyle claimed it was higher than Miguel. Secondly, Lance's VO2 Max in 1999 was 71.5 - the year he first won. So clearly VO2 Max, which Coyle attribute some of Lance's advantage to, is questionable to say the least.
Coyle has said that Lance's heart is the equivalent to the heart of a seven foot man. Yet Coyle never officially measured it, in the appropriate way. Yet, the medical reports leading up to his cancer treatments note that his heart was within normal limits. There is clearly no basis for Coyle to make such an assumption, that the heart was the equivalent to the size of a seen foot man.
And in relation to his weight, which Coyle attributes so much performance improvements to, the figure show that Lance lost all of one Kilo, approx two pounds). And this figure is arrived at using Coyle's own study and the words of Lance, because Coyle, bizarrely, measures Lance's weight five times, in four different months. These months were January, September, August and November. Surely this cannot be right, in a scientific sense, to measure at different times.

Good ole VO2max. VO2max isn't everything... even though Greg LeMond would like to tell you that it is. He only wants to think that... 'cause - surprise surprise - it would mean that he should've won 15 Tours de France.

Frank Shorter, Olympic Gold in the Marathon in '72 and Silver in '76, had a "pedestrian" VO2max of 72.

Also... there's always some confusion regarding "within limits." The average Left Ventricular End Diastolic diameter of a 7' tall male might be within limits of a 5'9" male if +/- 1.96 standard deviations is used as "within limits."

Just so you know... a 70kg male heart is generally considered a universal donor in size-matching heart transplants.

 

[The Science of Sport]

I stand by my comments: as a casual observer (albeit one who has been around the block a few times), I don't believe that the opinions that you and Jonathon have expressed are representative of the mainstream of the scientific community. If they were, then, e.g., Coyle's papers wouldn't continue to be cited at the same high rate they were previously. Furthermore, I think that you are doing both yourself and the field a disservice by the way you have approached the issue at hand...there are mechanisms in place in science for dealing with controversial data and publications, which were strongly pursued by, e.g., Ashenden but nonetheless came up short. As I told Dave Martin in some rather lengthy emails we exchanged following the most recent Cyclingnews.com article, at this point it is all really water under the bridge, and to continue to try to fan the flames of controversy does not reflect well on anyone involved. The latter is what I meant by "bite you in the ****", i.e., it seems to me that the attitudes and opinions you have expressed, and the means in which you have expressed them - an approach, I can only assume, inspired by your mentor - are only going to make some journal editor or grant reviewer somewhere look less favorably on your submission, if only unconciously. (Really, the situation is no different what an attorney encounters in daily life, i.e., no matter how hotly they feel about an issue, they must temper their comments so as to not tick off the opposing counsel and/or judges that they must continue to work with in the future.)

As for your claim that I have leveled any "vitriolic attacks" on anyone (especially Noakes), I challenge you to find one instance where I have said anything that even approaches the sort of tone that he has used (or that you have used above). I've definitely always been someone who is free with their opinion, but personal attacks just aren't my style (which is why I would have been a very good attorney, i.e., I've always been able to argue without having it impact me emotionally).

Time will tell - it hasn't affected submissions so far, touch wood! And amazingly, editors still ask me to review papers! Luckily, I get a lot of positive feedback from within academic circles (I guess they don't feel as strongly about the opinions). It seems to me (inspired by my mentor, no doubt) that the kinds of biases that result in less favourable reviews happen independently of facts - I'm sure every scientist encounters that! In fact, I recall an article in Nature about that, actually.

So we shall see. As for doing a "disservice to the field of sports science", I guess we have different paradigms there for sure. Once again, as I said, I do use the "mechanisms at hand". I also appreciate that we cannot be sole custodians of "knowledge".

I do believe the interest in this thread (it's actual topic, not these tangents!) indicates that plenty of people are very interested in this topic, even though you might think it is water under the bridge - on Page 19, elapid's post and his pointed questions makes very clear that the "mechanism" of science has apparently failed him, and as result, he has to resort to fanning the flames of controversy. Of course this is not true - he is taking an interest in his sport, and turning to science, to ask some very pointed questions.

In fact, you should be commended for being here and responding to all these posts, because you are engaging with people just as Jonathan and I are trying to through the site. Where we disagree is on our opinion - I believe, like many on this forum (digger, elapsid, escarabajo and others), that Coyle's work has a lot to answer for. elapsid pretty much hits the nail on the head there, so does digger's post above. The issue about gross efficiency vs delta efficiency is actually one of many issues - tried to make that point in the website, but the one that seemed to garner most attention was the actual formula.

And I'm sorry, it's simply not good enough to say that the issue should be dealt with by the "mechanism" of science, because that means 99% of the population never have the chance to discuss it. People are interested, and I think this is commendable, as I'm sure you do. Therefore, to suggest that our overall approach of communicating that science to non-scientists is doing a "disservice" to sports science is a claim I can't believe you actually mean - what you mean is that you disagree with my (Jonathan didn't write the post in question, I did) assessment of the Coyle research and criticisms of it, and the way I wrote it.

So perhaps what it boils down is the approach - you disagree with it, and specifically that post. I wonder what your thoughts are of our marathon analyses or the tennis insights or the running technique posts? Or has the baby gone out with the bath-water? Maybe "doing a disservice" is limited only to posts where our opinions differ. I also will not apologize for allowing passion and emotion into those posts. Sports analysis is dry enough already. And I think most are intelligent enough to discern between a journal debate (which Ashenden and co certainly had - why would I pursue that six months later?) and a discussion to take sports science to a wider audience.

So I am sorry that you feel those posts were poor and will one day bite me in the ****. I guess I should hope you are never the editor of a journal to which I submit an article....!

But, I can't be concerned with that, I believe the site provides a service, and is quite distinct from pursuing a publication record in journals (which, to repeat, I am, as you will see on PubMed, and I would like to think it's going OK )

In any event, the users on this forum have asked some telling questions in their posts above - elapid, digger, unsheath and co - which really does suggest that something has fallen through the cracks. The day that science starts to ignore those people is the day the whole field does itself a disservice!

in fact, the fact that you contribute to this and other forums indicates the same belief. So all we have is a difference in opinion around that one single post. Seems a shame to get personal about it - and really, I don't see how you can say that your first responses were not - criticizing us as reckless, young, heretic, anti-mainstream, from a controversial lab and attacking us and our character (not to mention Tim's inspiration) - that felt pretty personal. Which it needn't be.

Lastly, I've always found it best to let other people decide what one would be good at - people's perceptions have a way of surprising you!

P.S. SOrry to all of you for the dialogue on this thread - no other way to express my responses to Dr Coggan! I'll try to stick to the topic from now on!

 

[acoggan]

No, completely incorrect. We recognized the error immediately and came back to rectify our mistake. Just as you did when you initially suggested we had deleted your comments. Once you realised that this was not the case, you apologized, and that apology was accepted, thank you. This was our apology, which we picked up (not someone else), and it seems most accepted it. Luckily those without minting do such things.

The issue with the study was far more than an incorrectly cited study from the literature. But that is not what this post is about - as you correctly pointed out, everything was said in the initial post.

Coyle admitted that he cited the wrong (note: not incorrect) equation for calculating delta efficiency in his reply to Ashenden et al.'s letter to the editor of JAP.

As for "what this is all about", ask yourself this: would the study in question have received so much attention if it had entailed anyone other than Armstrong? Ashenden himself has stated on more than one occasion that his motivation is attacking Coyle/the study was to try to get proof that Armstrong doped...

 

[acoggan]

I know you were not an author on this paper, but one thing that has always interested me is the lack of reaction to Coyle's misrepresentation of the data presented in his paper "Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures" ( J Appl Physiol 98(6):2191-6, 2005).

In the abstract, Coyle states "Therefore, over the 7-yr period, an improvement in muscular efficiency and reduced body fat contributed equally to a remarkable 18% improvement in his steady-state power per kilogram body weight when cycling at a given Vo(2) (e.g., 5 l/min)."

However, his data is summarized in Table 2, which appears below:

I am not in a position to comment on the muscular efficiency part of the equation, but as you can see from the data in Table 2, Coyle does not and cannot prove that Armstrong had "reduced body fat" when 1. body fat % was not measured in the one data set post-cancer, preseason November 1999; and 2. Armstrong's gross and lean body weight were 1-5 kg and 1-2 kg heavier, respectively, in preseason 1999 compared to preseasons 1992 and 1993. So can you tell me how Coyle can justify this part of his claim when he has not demonstrated "reduced body fat", moreover his data suggests the opposite?

Secondly, his calculations of an 18% improvement in steady state power are also misleading. Again from Table 2, his preseason power-to-weight ratios were 4.74 in 1992, 4.99 in 1993, and 5.07 in 1999. However, instead of comparing apples to apples, for some unexplained reason Coyle uses Armstrong's estimated racing weight of 72 kg to calculate his 1999 power-to-weight ratio (which is inaccurate as Armstrong stated in the SCA Promotions trial that his racing weight was probably 74 kg or higher). How can he do this when he this weight was not measured and he is using a racing weight to compare to a preseason power output, and compare then compare this to 1992 and 1993 preseasons? He should have used Armstrong's preseason weight for the 1999 calculation, or alternatively and less preferably estimated racing weights for 1992 and 1993. If Coyle had used the appropriate data included in Table 2, then the improvement in power-to-weight ratio are actually 6.9% compared to 1992 and only 1.6% compared to 1993.

Why was Coyle's maths so bad and why has no one else pointed these glaring errors out? While Armstrong may have had improved muscular efficiency, and we also know this compensates to some degree for athletes with relatively poorer VO2 max*, the "reduced body fat" and "18% improvement in steady state power-to-weight ratio" are not supported by Coyle's own data.

*Lucía A, Hoyos J, Pérez M, Santalla A, Chicharro JL. Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 34(12):2079-84, 2002.

As you indicated, I was not a coauthor of the paper in question. In fact, I had graduated and moved from Austin before Armstrong ever shifted his focus from triathlons to cycling, much less was tested in the UT-Austin lab. I also wasn't involved in the editorial process that led to publication of the paper. Thus, I can only comment as someone who 1) knows Ed Coyle, and 2) reads (and contributes to) the scientific literature (and thus knows the process).

Anyway, with respect to the questions you raise my take on the subject has always been if I had been a reviewer of the paper, I would have had to weigh the obvious flaws and limitations in the data against the novelty of/interest in the results. Given everything that has happened since, it is impossible for me to say which side of that equation I would have come down on back when the paper was first submitted - however, as I have expressed to various individuals (including Dave Martin, a coauthor with Ashenden on the letter-to-the-editor of JAP) I think the point is now really moot, i.e., the paper was published, various scientists responded, charges were leveled and dismissed, and when the dust settled the paper still wasn't required to be retracted by the journal editors. You can read into that what you may, but the bottom line is that if somebody really wants to refute the general finding (i.e., that efficiency improves over the course of a professional cyclist's career), the way to do that is with additional, contradictory data. Indeed, this is precisely what I told Dave Martin after he said that they had longitudinal data on a number of elite Australian cyclists. Interestingly, however, such data has never been published, whereas other studies have recently appeared which provide support for Coyle's results re. Armstrong....

 

[Digger]

Coyle admitted that he cited the wrong (note: not incorrect) equation for calculating delta efficiency in his reply to Ashenden et al.'s letter to the editor of JAP.

As for "what this is all about", ask yourself this: would the study in question have received so much attention if it had entailed anyone other than Armstrong? Ashenden himself has stated on more than one occasion that his motivation is attacking Coyle/the study was to try to get proof that Armstrong doped...

This study getting so much attention is besides the point. It should be able to stand up to all this attention, regardless of the motives of the scrutiny...surely that's one prerequisite of any scientific finding or paper. God, academics, like many of us on here, have all had to have papers put under the microscope by supervisors. And even at Masters level, if a point is not held to the high enough standard, corrections are required. As should be the case.
Coyle, just because of his experience and status, should not be any different.

 

[acoggan]

Mr Coggan, what im failing to understand, and I know this has been bought up in the Ashenden critique is why in fact Coyle cannot provide the raw data files for the entire data set? The only explanation that has been cited is that Coyle has misplaced the data as he was not aware of it's significance, particularly in relation to the test subject. Why is it then that the 93 data was found and not the others? As the protege of the author, should you not be privy such this information?

Care to enlighten us?

Why should I know what happened to the data when I had graduated and moved away from Austin long before Armstrong ever set foot in the lab?

 

[acoggan]

Okay I want to be civil to you here and respectful, but the reason I'm asking you is that you are defending Coyle's work, regarding the muscular effiency, yet many other questionable findings (at the very least) have been pointed out, thus surely devaluing his paper as a whole.

I am defending not only the muscular efficiency findings, but also the process by which the paper was not only first published, but subsequently reevaluated. As for other aspects of the findings, from where I sit they simply are what they are...that is, it is well-known (especially now) in the scientific community that this was not a formal study, and the dataset was incomplete/inexact. What seems to be missing in many cases, though, is the realization that the "edifice" of science is built over the long haul "brick-by-brick", and whether or not one particular paper is perfect or fatally flawed isn't critical to progress on the whole. Indeed, if nothing else publication of an interesting-but-nonetheless-weak paper can spur further research into a question, as seems to be true in this case (cf. the recent studies of cycling efficiency that I cited previously...none of which, interestingly enough, have come from those who have been so critical of Coyle's conclusions).

 

[Digger]

I am defending not only the muscular efficiency findings, but also the process by which the paper was not only first published, but subsequently reevaluated. As for other aspects of the findings, from where I sit they simply are what they are...that is, it is well-known (especially now) in the scientific community that this was not a formal study, and the dataset was incomplete/inexact. What seems to be missing in many cases, though, is the realization that the "edifice" of science is built over the long haul "brick-by-brick", and whether or not one particular paper is perfect or fatally flawed isn't critical to progress on the whole. Indeed, if nothing else publication of an interesting-but-nonetheless-weak paper can spur further research into a question, as seems to be true in this case (cf. the recent studies of cycling efficiency that I cited previously...none of which, interestingly enough, have come from those who have been so critical of Coyle's conclusions).

I like that 'brick by brick' analogy, and it's a fair point. However, in your opinion, is it right that Coyle gets so much credence, that large sections of his paper were used by the LA defence team, during the SCA trial?
I accept that you're not going to agree with this following point, but it is so apparent, to many people, that Coyle had a desired set of findings, BEFORE some of his study was conducted. He wanted to come up with the magical 18%, which he seemed to pluck from thin air. Maybe he started the study with the best of intentions, but somewhere along the line, the waters became very muddied.
Ultimately, what saddens me about the Coyle paper, is that laypeople are citing examples from same, in their conversations with other cycling fans. This is simply propogating a myth....something which the esteemed author has played his part in doing.

 

[acoggan]

what it boils down is the approach - you disagree with it, and specifically that post.

That is correct. However, I don't think you understand the "why". To put it simply, in my opinion the blog entries in question demonstrate lack of the sort of decorum normally found in scientific exchanges. (Note that I'm not claiming to be perfect in this regard - however, while I often run my mouth on the web, I don't maintain a blog.)

I wonder what your thoughts are of our marathon analyses or the tennis insights or the running technique posts?

I haven't read them.

 

[acoggan]

in your opinion, is it right that Coyle gets so much credence, that large sections of his paper were used by the LA defence team, during the SCA trial?

"Right" in what sense? He certainly is eminent in his field, so if I were an attorney seeking an expert opinion to bolster my case I would be tempted to employ him as such.

it is so apparent, to many people, that Coyle had a desired set of findings, BEFORE some of his study was conducted. He wanted to come up with the magical 18%, which he seemed to pluck from thin air. Maybe he started the study with the best of intentions, but somewhere along the line, the waters became very muddied.

On this point I think I have more insight than most, in that not only was I at the small, informal meeting for which Ed originally wrote up the data as a poster, I think that I know him well enough to have some understanding of his motivations (in general). Based on that, I don't think this paper would have ever come about if Ed hadn't been casting about for something interesting to present at that gathering, and he didn't write it up with any specific outcome in mind except to get the data out there. Considering all the grief that it has brought him, I'm sure he regrets pursuing this path.

Ultimately, what saddens me about the Coyle paper, is that laypeople are citing examples from same, in their conversations with other cycling fans. This is simply propogating a myth....something which the esteemed author has played his part in doing.

I don't think scientists really have much control over how their data is perceived or used by the lay public.

 

[acoggan]

not only was I at the small, informal meeting for which Ed originally wrote up the data as a poster

BTW, I specifically remember conversing with Ed and another eminent scientist (who happens to be a lifelong cyclist) in front of said poster, with Ed asking me point-blank if I thought Armstrong doped. I told them what I truly believe, which is that since I'm not in a position to say with certainty, I didn't (and don't) really have an opinion. What I don't recall is if Ed specifically expressed any opinion one way or another* - however, I'd say that the mere fact that he raised the question means that he was willing to entertain the possibility.

*I do remember him scoffing at the notion that sleeping in an altitude tent would result in a dramatic increase in hematocrit, but that's about it.