Superhuman performance could betray sports drug cheats

[acoggan]

Yes. The only thing is that both are relatively fixed in well-trained endurance athletes.

Is efficiency "relatively fixed"?

Longitudinal studies finding no change:

Roels et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37:138-146

Longitudinal studies finding that efficiency increases with training:

Hintzy et al. Can J Appl Physiol 2005; 30:520-528
Paton and Hopkins J Strength Cond Res 2005; 13:826-830
Majerczak et al. J Physiol Pharmacol 2008; 59:589-602
Sassi et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2008; 33:735-742
Hopker et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41:912-919
Hopker et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2010; 35:17-22
Sunde et al. J Strength Cond Res 2010 (in press)
Ruby et al. unpublished observations

(Despite the fact that it is unpublished, I mention the latter study because it very roughly simulates a Grand Tour, i.e., they measured efficiecny both before and after several weeks of very high intensity/volume training.)

If efficiency is not immutable, do we know just how much of an increase is really possible?

 

[acoggan]

It seems to me the only way for w/kg to go up at constant mass and time is to increase one or the other of vO2max or efficiency. If we believe that gains are the result of doping rather than physiological adaptation, don't we still end up with measurable gains in either the vO2 or the efficiency (or both)?

I am unclear as to the source of your confusion. The proposal is not to track changes in an athlete's power:mass ratio over time, but to compare it against an absolute standard (of, e.g., 6.0-6.2 W/kg for 40 min) regardless of any prior performances by that athlete.

 

[dbrower]

I am unclear as to the source of your confusion. The proposal is not to track changes in an athlete's power:mass ratio over time, but to compare it against an absolute standard (of, e.g., 6.0-6.2 W/kg for 40 min) regardless of any prior performances by that athlete.

I'm not sure that I have a well formulated question, yet. The question I think I'm mulling is the claim that X w/kg is not achievable without doping, wondering which variable, vO2 or efficiency has been affected by the doping. I think this is saying that these terms themselves have "natural" limits, but we're not going to measure them directly, but look at the derivative w/kg. I may be OK with that, or not, I haven't come to a conclusion.

It seems though, that a doped vO2 max (EPO, blood doping) would be measurable and would have leaked somehow into some explicit data, somewhere. That is, if the anecdotal study of Armstrong's claimed efficiency improvement were credible, we'd see some vO2 and efficiency numbers that made sense, leading to the kind of w/kg numbers we've seen claimed and estimated.

If we think w/kg numbers cross into incredulity, should we take them as "proof" by themselves, or should they be triggers that lead to vO2 and efficiency testing?

By way of analogy, say auto series N limits engines to displacement X with Y as an RPM limit, and gives Z gallons of fuel for the race. If we calculate acceleration at some point and conclude it has more HP than should be achieveable at X, Y with Z' fuel consumption, should we declare the engine illegal, or look for what is out of whack?

I think I'd be inclined to use a w/kg marker as a marker of possible shenanigans, not as "proof" by itself. Unfortunately, it's easier to get a static measure of engine displacement than vO2 max or efficiency. We can see how to get reasonably reliable w/kg readings with something like a calibrated/sealed power meter.

And, just to scramble the discussion, my recollection has all of Landis' 2006 Tour climbs at less the 6 w/kg, so I don't know where a 6.2 limit would have told us anything interesting.

-dB

 

[The Science of Sport]

I enjoyed Andrew's post, very well laid out and much appreciated for the balanced views on the data. I do disagree with some of the points, but as I said in my initial posts on this subject, nobody is PROVING doping. So the only section I would completely disagree with is the following:

With these as your starting points, you come up with a value of 6.84 W/kg (I’ll leave it readers to check my math if they wish), which is still well over the limit of 6.0-6.2 W/kg that Dr. Tucker and others have argued is physiologically impossible.

Note that I have said that these performances are suspicious and flags for doping, not impossible. In fact, I went to great lengths to emphasize this in that article on THe Science of Sport (thank you for reading it, and the comments), but it seems that wasn't enough. So let me say again, no one - not Prof Schumacher, not me, not anyone - is saying that these calculations prove anything. They are intended to provoke discussion, and for Prof Schumacher, flag doping. On this note, we'll see what power outputs are produced in the Tour this year. I suspect, if it follows recent trends like the Giro, that all the main GC contenders will be slower than in the past, and that validates Prof Schumacher's approach, which I feel Andrew has taken completely out of context.

Now, depending on your paradigm of science, discussion is either off limits or it is not. I figure that the value of science is to seek data in applied areas and then create discussion around it. Andrew may differ, since he seems more insistent on proof before delivering an opinion. And this is fine, it's a difference in approach, nothing more.

The efficiency assumption

Other than this, the assumptions made by Andrew are fair, though debatable. Note that my assumption of efficiency is based on Coyle's (disputed!) value for Armstrong of 23.12%. Efficiency has the biggest impact on these calculations, so that error is likely important. On that note, the Lucia paper which found the inverse relationship between VO2max and efficiency, which Andrew finds bemusing in that people will use despite criticizing its values - one can still dispute the magnitude of the findings without disputing the pattern. And while Jeukendrup et al did argue efficiency should be much lower, the relationship between VO2max and efficiency is not affected by a systematic error in the VO2, for example.

The relative intensity assumption

The issue about maintaining 90% of VO2max is an interesting one. THe reference provided by Andrew is particularly interesting (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3403447), because that paper showed very clearly that some cyclists, who reached threshold at low intensity could only sustain 88% VO2max for 30 minutes. The cyclists who reached threshold at high intensity could do so for 60 minutes. Quite why the split in the two groups is so large, I'm not sure. What determined that 'gap'? Was it efficiency? Were they selected on this basis? Because the creation of two such different groups seems either by design or by accident of measurement (I can't get this paper right now).

Regardless,the problem with expressing values as a percentage of max is that you're always assuming that maximum is truly maximum, as Andrew alluded to for that subject G in the Coyle study. If this happens, then your relative intensity is 'anchored' against a false, low ceiling, and appears much higher. Therefore, the explanation for their being able to sustain 88% of VO2max is not that they can ride at high intensities, it's that their peak oxygen use is limited by some other factor that does not prevent other riders from achieving an even higher workload. It strikes me that efficiency may once again be in play here - the more efficient rider would presumably ride at this higher percentage - this is pretty well established as the reason why a runner with a lower VO2max often outperforms one who has a higher VO2max.

I bring this up not to discredit Andrew's argument, but because one has to acknowledge that there are explanations for every observation, not only from one direction. The argument will be that a Tour rider must lie on the extreme that allows the ability to sustain high relative intensity, of course. But is that person likely to have a VO2max of 90%? I don't know, there's not data, but again, this means you can neither accept nor dismiss either side. I do believe that an elite cyclist can ride at 88% of VO2max for an hour. But I would question the protocol that produces the VO2max as yet another source of error in both the 'defence' and the 'prosecution' in this particular argument. And, of course, the question is, can they do it on day 18 after 5 hours in the saddle? More on this below.

Power output

On another note, and I bring this up to emphasize the very point that these are not exact numbers (and I hope the implications are obvious to all) - Basset et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10589872) calculated that Obree produced 389W during his one hour record. That's 5.40 W/kg, not the 6.2W/kg suggested by Andrew. I suspect the difference is that the Bassett models looked more at aerodynamics, but the point is, there is a big difference between the estimations. This a) re-inforces why this isn't proof of anything, and b) that science doesn't know all it purports to (even the 'good' ones). The disagreement between "scientific models" is fundamental to this whole argument.

Boardman's power output calculated by Basset was 6.5W/kg, giving a VO2 of 80.2ml/kg/min and an inferred max of 90ml/kg. For a one hour performance when specifically trained for it. I have no problem with this. Question is, what do we expect of a differently trained, differently fatigued Tour rider? Of course, since no one has measured the impact of fatigue on the ability of a cyclist to sustain that intensity, one can either dismiss it and not even bother to try to say what happens (as Andrew has done) or look at it and say "If it is possible for an athlete to maintain 6.5W/kg for one hour when fresh, what is likely after 5 hours on the 18th day of a 3-week race?"

Your answer to that is likely determined by what you wish to believe, and also whether you believe Boardman to have been clean. Incidentally, these are the estimated power outputs in the one-hour records as modelled by Basset:

Name Mass Power W/kg VO2 Predicted VO2max (assume 90%)
Bracke 72 400 5.56 68.55 76.17
Ritter 69 376 5.45 67.23 74.70
Merckx 75 429 5.72 70.57 78.41
Moser 78 401 5.14 63.43 70.48
Moser 78 407 5.22 64.38 71.53
Moser 78 410 5.26 64.85 72.06
Obree 72 369 5.13 63.23 70.26
Boardman 68 409 6.01 74.21 82.46
Obree 72 389 5.40 66.66 74.07
Indurain 78 436 5.59 68.97 76.63
Rominger 62 427 6.89 84.97 94.41
Rominger 62 460 7.42 91.54 101.71
Boardman 68 442 6.50 80.20 89.11

Note that these power outputs are all normalized to sea-level values (since many of them happened at altitude where aerodynamic drag is lower) and also assume similar aerodynamic properties.

it's interesting then that only since the EPO era did power outputs rise above 6W/kg. Before that, the best cyclists in the world actually produced performances which Prof Schumacher and I have argued are entirely feasible. Since that, they're on the border, if not over it. And again, if this is a one hour attempt when fresh, what happens at 5 hours. And just by the way, we don't have to guess at this entirely. We know that a 26:20 10km runner can produce a 28:20 10km at the end of a marathon. Even if that marathon is slow, the ability to maintain the same relative intensity is compromised. So his 10km pace is reduced by about 8% after 90 minutes of running. 300 minutes of cycling? Some of which is over similar mountains, at 80 to 90% of VO2max? Is 90% VO2max possible? I know what I think.

Finally, to comment on "science should be better than that", as Andrew suggests. My take on this is that science is at its best when it inspires these kinds of debates. The whole fatigue issue is a case-in-point. Do we say that since fatigue effects have never been measured, they are not worth discussing? That's not good enough for me, and I would argue that "science should be better than that".

Science, at its very best (and I have a long way to go, I admit), creates this kind of discussion by having a sensible debate, not dismissing other arguments so bluntly. It hypothesizes and then provides theories that can be evaluated. And the fact that Andrew and I can provide power outputs for Obree of 6.2W/kg compared to 5.4W/kg is an indication that the answer is NOT KNOWN, despite his confidence in his facts. Therefore, if it is not known, then nobody as the right to dismiss an argument out of hand, or to insult people's quality. That is arrogant and ignorant. On the whole, I think the facts in Andrew's post were excellent, and contributed to a discussion that I greatly enjoy, and so thank you for taking the time to post them. But the attitude of dismissing people's science as inferior because their assumptions have "errors", well...

And then to say you're not surprised at someone's post "given the level of discussion on this forum" - I find that very unfair and unnecessarily nasty. Just because they don't have three letters behind their name and go by "Dr", doesn't mean they have nothing of value to say. And if someone criticizes a point unfairly, as may have been done in that case, address the criticism, don't go insulting the writer's character AND the intelligence of the entire forum.

Ross

 

[acoggan]

Ithe fact that Andrew and I can provide power outputs for Obree of 6.2W/kg compared to 5.4W/kg is an indication that the answer is NOT KNOWN

Well there you go: apparently you are in agreement with me after all.

(BTW, whose estimate of Obree's power output would you trust more: that of Peter Keen, Boardman's coach, who based his calculations on direct measurements of the effect of the Superman position on the power required to circle the Manchester track at Obree's then-record speed, or my friend Dave Bassett's, who relied primarily on Chet Kyle's back-of-the-envelope approximations? I know which one I think is closer to the truth, especially given how far out-of-line Bassett et al.'s numbers are for those of other riders whose actually power outputs are similarly well-established, i.e., Indurain.)

to say you're not surprised at someone's post "given the level of discussion on this forum" - I find that very unfair and unnecessarily nasty. Just because they don't have three letters behind their name and go by "Dr", doesn't mean they have nothing of value to say. And if someone criticizes unfairly, address the criticism, don't go insulting the writer's character AND the intelligence of the entire forum.

Do you spend much time here? The vast majority of the posts are by anonymous trolls who spout all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories. It was that general tenor to which I was referring (in response to someone who attempted to smear me), not anything you have posted.

 

[acoggan]

I have said that these performances are...not impossible.

BTW, my apologies if I misstated your position. I merely took you literally when you wrote this:

"I'm going to be as direct as possible right now and say the following: A sustained (over 40 minutes) power output of greater than 6.2 W/kg at the end of a Tour stage is simply not physiologically believable..."

 

[131313]

The efficiency assumption

Other than this, the assumptions made by Andrew are fair, though debatable. Note that my assumption of efficiency is based on Coyle's (disputed!) value for Armstrong of 23.12%. Efficiency has the biggest impact on these calculations, so that error is likely important. On that note, the Lucia paper which found the inverse relationship between VO2max and efficiency...

I hate to keep beating this horse, but as you mention, the efficiency assumption is key since impact on the calculations is so high. Lucia found an inverse relationship between VO2 and efficiency, no argument there. However, you seem to infer a causal relationship and I think you're jumping the gun. It's fine to hypothesis that there may be a link but there are a number of issues with doing so

-Lucia's study had 11 subjects

-the subjects were anything but a random sample. By definition, euro pros are going to have high wattage output, so they're going to have high efficiency, high VO2 or some combination of the 2

-the subjects were tested in different relative states of fitness. This affects at least VO2, and possibly efficiency (according to Hopker et. al.). Reputedly the rider with among the lowest VO2 and highest efficiency was Olano, but was the test truly representative of his actual VO2? I don't know, but given the limitations of the study I think it's an open question.

A longitudinal study with more subjects would go a long way towards answering these questions.

It's fine to hypothesize that there's an inverse relationship between efficiency and VO2 based on this study, but providing it as proof is a huge stretch in my book.

Lastly, I'd suggest that the real potential for relating 'superhuman performances' to doping would be for 1) group performance, rather than individual performance, e.g. you have 20 guys going >6.2 w/kg on an extended climb, and/or 2) relative perfomance; say a guy with a history of 5.4 w/kg suddenly doing 6.4 w/kg. Of course, as has been pointed either of the 2 above scenarios already draws suspicion, so the question becomes "what are we really adding here"?

 

[Benotti69]

I enjoyed Andrew's post, very well laid out and much appreciated for the balanc

Name Mass Power W/kg VO2 Predicted VO2max (assume 90%)
Bracke 72 400 5.56 68.55 76.17
Ritter 69 376 5.45 67.23 74.70
Merckx 75 429 5.72 70.57 78.41
Moser 78 401 5.14 63.43 70.48
Moser 78 407 5.22 64.38 71.53
Moser 78 410 5.26 64.85 72.06
Obree 72 369 5.13 63.23 70.26
Boardman 68 409 6.01 74.21 82.46
Obree 72 389 5.40 66.66 74.07
Indurain 78 436 5.59 68.97 76.63
Rominger 62 427 6.89 84.97 94.41
Rominger 62 460 7.42 91.54 101.71
Boardman 68 442 6.50 80.20 89.11

well if this is not accurate what does it tell us????

Obree is believed (and i do) to have been clean and turned down riding as a pro in the peleton because he was asked to dope;

the others????

 

[131313]

Do you spend much time here? The vast majority of the posts are by anonymous trolls who spout all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories.

There's no doubt a lot of wacky stuff pointed on here, but I'd also suggest that it's convenient for you to write it all off as "bizarre conspiracy theory" when members of your own profession are implicated. We could start with Conconi and go from there. I suspect there's more truth than not to a lot of what is theorized (sadly), and I say that based on a lot of direct knowledge.

I appreciate though that you take the time to occasionally respond here. Personally, I think these are discussions worth having, despite their tenor.

 

[acoggan]

I'd also suggest that it's convenient for you to write it all off as "bizarre conspiracy theory" when members of your own profession are implicated. We could start with Conconi

I don't consider Conconi a colleague of mine.

I suspect there's more truth than not to a lot of what is theorized (sadly)

Such as the notion that Armstrong and Bruyneel have decided to embrace the future and form a cabal with amateur bloggers in an attempt to influence public opinion, while forsaking interaction with members of the languishing traditional media? That would be quite believable in a US presidential election campaign (the first part, anyway), but don't these guys have a big bike race they want to win?

More seriously: there is no question that doping goes on in elite sport, and to successfully pull it off despite current anti-doping efforts requires that you either be lucky or very well-organized and funded. Beyond that, though, I have yet to see much evidence of any real truths to be found on this forum.

 

[acoggan]

you (i.e., Ross Tucker - ARC) seem to infer a causal relationship

...despite previously having co-authored a letter to the editor of MSSE making precisely the point you went on to make, i.e., said inverse relationship may very well just reflect a selection phenomenon, and as such has no biological basis. Ironic, eh?

 

[131313]

I don't consider Conconi a colleague of mine.

How about Coyle? I'm not taking a position either way, but there have been suggestions that his Armstrong efficiency paper was either shoddy science or a blatant smokescreen. I'm not asking you to take a position either way, I'm simply pointing out that you have a potential conflict which could potentially bias your view of the discussions.

Such as the notion that Armstrong and Bruyneel have decided to embrace the future and form a cabal with amateur bloggers in an attempt to influence public opinion, while forsaking interaction with members of the languishing traditional media? That would be quite believable in a US presidential election campaign (the first part, anyway), but don't these guys have a big bike race they want to win?

Funny, but I totally believe that one. It should be pretty clear that Armstrong and co. are masters of controlling their image. As far as "having a bike race to win", even Contador was able to put aside the bike race for a bit to manage the media and play some mind games. I give you watchgate as an example! (I must say, a brilliant move by Contador. Maybe he'll be calling up bikesnob next....).

More seriously: there is no question that doping goes on in elite sport, and to successfully pull it off despite current anti-doping efforts requires that you either be lucky or very well-organized and funded. Beyond that, though, I have yet to see much evidence of any real truths to be found on this forum.

Where there we have it. Where we have cheating and criminal activity, we either have evidence or we don't. If we don't have evidence, then there must be some sort of act to conceal that evidence. Also known as a conspiracy. Where we have conspiracies, we have conspiracy theories...

Currently I think a lot of people, from the press to riders to sponsors, have a vested interest in the status quo. That certainly makes uncovering evidence pretty difficult. Hopefully with a federal investigation(s) underway, that could change.

When you have members of the press saying stuff like this, it's hard not to believe the fix is in:

"I’ve sat on some serious revelations, things Bruyneel told me about the inner workings of the sport but also things I’d heard from team directors who assumed that because I was close to Bruyneel I must already know what they were talking about. I was surprised to find out that this information was even easier to keep to myself. I knew things to be true that I wished I’d never been told. I knew many more things that could never be proved true or false, and I wanted even more never to have been told those."

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/7/1556482/tour-de-lance-by-bill-strickland

 

[Benotti69]

....

Such as the notion that Armstrong and Bruyneel have decided to embrace the future and form a cabal with amateur bloggers in an attempt to influence public opinion, while forsaking interaction with members of the languishing traditional media? That would be quite believable in a US presidential election campaign (the first part, anyway), but don't these guys have a big bike race they want to win?

what do you think all those people are doing at Liestrong apart from smoking of course

 

[Rupert]

Power meters

since a problem involves the need to estimate power data, why not require power meters with data downloaded to WADA as part of the bio passport program?

From what I've read, power meters are not absolutely accurate, either. There would be some work required to have them all calibrated, providing consistent numbers (esp. between different types). It wouldn't be eonugh to just require everyone to have them and then believe all the data as absolutely correct.

 

[acoggan]

How about Coyle? I'm not taking a position either way, but there have been suggestions that his Armstrong efficiency paper was either shoddy science or a blatant smokescreen. I'm not asking you to take a position either way, I'm simply pointing out that you have a potential conflict which could potentially bias your view of the discussions.

Reading between the lines a bit, I get the feeling you missed out on much of the previous discussion. So, a quick re-cap:

1) I was actually Ed's first doctoral student, finishing up my degree just a year or two before Armstrong first visited the lab. So, yes, I do have a potential conflict of interest;

2) as I have described many times before, I don't think that there is any question that the paper he wrote on Armstrong has significant limitations (which I have said before I don't think warrant retraction of the paper...I am agnostic on the issue of whether it should have been accepted in the first place, realizing that I can't be objective about the publication process at this point);

3) regardless of #s 1 and 2, I think it is clear from the facts that the claim that Ed wrote the paper to provide "cover" for Armstrong is silly. To wit: the data were first presented at a small conference several years before the SCA lawsuit, and nothing in the data changed between its initial presentation and final publication. To suggest that he wrote it for Armstrong's benefit (as many here seemingly take as the gospel truth) therefore shows very little understanding of the actual timeline, much less of the personalities involved (Ed's, that is - I have never met or communicated with Armstrong).

 

[acoggan]

From what I've read, power meters are not absolutely accurate, either. There would be some work required to have them all calibrated, providing consistent numbers (esp. between different types). It wouldn't be eonugh to just require everyone to have them and then believe all the data as absolutely correct.

You'd also have to assure that they aren't tampered with before, during, or after races, e.g., by impounding the bikes except when riders are actually using them.

Another complication would be sponsorship considerations: until recently, many riders would train with a power meter but not race with one, because they were required to use a different crank (or wheelset) in competition. Now you would be requiring every rider to use the same brand of power meter (presumably, anyway, to help assure the accuracy of the data as well as make life simpler for those charged with administering this hypothetical program)...but what if a rider is sponsored by another power meter manufacturer?

 

[mastersracer]

As a neuroscientist, I would be curious to know how you would factor in an expectation (placebo) effect into this debate, particular wrt notions of physiological plausibility. It's now well-established that expectation can modulate neural function significantly (e.g., expectation-based opioid pain relief; most of the effects of antidepressants in the general population appear due to placebo effects). I think it's safe to assume that a rider who uses a doping regime likely has a strong expectation regarding its efficacy. If central theories of fatigue are correct, expectation-based effects may increase performance significantly even in the short term. Such expectation effects could also have longer-term effects (altering peripheral mechanisms in the same manner as seen with sham surgeries). One reason I ask is because there doesn't seem to be that large a drop in performance (going by the watts/kg chart etc presented here) between the 90s and this decade despite the fact that doping regimes have been more limited.

How do you compare 'physiological plausibility' between groups [those who know they are not doping vs. those who believe they are] when they have very different expectations/beliefs and where a causal path can be traced from those beliefs to altered central nervous function and (likely) peripheral adaptations?

 

[lean mean &green]

Such as the notion that Armstrong and Bruyneel have decided to embrace the future and form a cabal with amateur bloggers in an attempt to influence public opinion, while forsaking interaction with members of the languishing traditional media? That would be quite believable in a US presidential election campaign (the first part, anyway), but don't these guys have a big bike race they want to win?

More seriously: there is no question that doping goes on in elite sport, and to successfully pull it off despite current anti-doping efforts requires that you either be lucky or very well-organized and funded. Beyond that, though, I have yet to see much evidence of any real truths to be found on this forum.

i agree that conspiracy flies around the forum and the bloggergate is reaching more than most but.....

......the bolded statement is reaching equally as much.

 

[131313]

As a neuroscientist, I would be curious to know how you would factor in an expectation (placebo) effect into this debate, particular wrt notions of physiological plausibility.

While I can't find a link, there was a small study that addressed this exact question. As I remember, there was an EPO group, a control group, and a 'fake EPO group'. If memory serves me correctly the fake EPO group was in line with the control group. If I can find the link, I'll post it later.

It's also worth noting that in double blinded studies, which by definition controls for the placebo effect, EPO is quite effective.

As far as comparing the wattages of today versus earlier periods, I think it's difficult given that we have limited wattage data available today, and almost no wattage data from earlier years. Even Boardman's much touted 6.4 w/kg is still just an estimation, albeit one which is based on some solid data and more controlled variables. On the other hand, guessing how many watts LeMond was putting out up a climb is fraught with a lot of inferences.

In short, when talking about power output today versus 15 years ago, I think there's just too much speculation to reach any hard conclusion.

 

[131313]

Thanks for the additional information. I was indeed not fully up to speed. I knew that you had some sort of working relationship with Coyle, but was unaware of your position on the Armstrong paper, so thanks for clarifying.

I think it is clear from the facts that the claim that Ed wrote the paper to provide "cover" for Armstrong is silly. To wit: the data were first presented at a small conference several years before the SCA lawsuit, and nothing in the data changed between its initial presentation and final publication. To suggest that he wrote it for Armstrong's benefit (as many here seemingly take as the gospel truth) therefore shows very little understanding of the actual timeline, much less of the personalities involved (Ed's, that is - I have never met or communicated with Armstrong).

Well, I guess the degree to which you dismiss the argument depends on the degree to which you think Coyle was complicit or influenced.

To the tin foil hat types on here (of which there are certainly a few), the scenario goes like this: Big Tex and Eddie Coyle (Lance calls him Eddie, since they're fellow Texans and all) are hangin' around Big Tex' ranch, playing poker, smoking cigars and being waited on by hot strippers. Big Tex says "Eddie, I've gone from classics to climber, and sooner or later some people are gonna start asking questions. We need a plan!" Big Tex lets him win a couple hands. High fives all around! The rest is history.

Given what I know of Armstrong through former teammates this seems totally plausible. I have enough respect for your profession to think it's pretty unlikely, though (if this were the drug industry and these were research scientists, I'd not only consider it plausible, but likely! That's a different matter, though).

Here's a more likely scenario. Coyle has rare access to one of the sport's greatest superstars, and biggest personalities. He collects a lot of data, and along the way builds as least somewhat of a relationship with Armstrong.

Knowing Armstrong's historical VO2 numbers, and witnessing his rather sudden ascendancy for one-day rider to Tour dominator, he realizes that something must have changed from a physiological perspective. Most likely, his VO2, his ability to ride at a higher % of it, or his efficiency would have changed. The first is somewhat unlikely without doping, and it's always been claimed that he was always able to ride at a high % of VO2.

That last of those seems to be one of the holy grails, changes in efficiency. This not only confirms Armstrong's heartwarming story, but professionally gives Coyle a feather in his cap for documenting the LA's change in efficiency.

That leaves us with the possibility that Coyle was already hypothesizing that Armstrong increased his efficiency, and his interpretation of the data was made to fit this hypothesis due to his cognitive biases (furthered by his conflict of interest in having a relationship with the subject).

Big Tex and Co. then realize that Coyle's conclusions support their contention that "all he's on is his bike 6 hrs a day", so they run with it.

Please note, I'm not saying that this is case! I'm simply saying that I consider the above scenario to be plausible, and not "silly".

Personally, I like the first scenario better. It creates some awesome, and hilarious visual images. The second scenario is at least plausible in my book.

All that said, I'm equally aware that Ashenden seems to have a great deal of disdain for Armstrong, so I view his criticisms of Coyle's study as having the same potential for bias.

 

[acoggan]

Here's a more likely scenario. Coyle has rare access to one of the sport's greatest superstars, and biggest personalities. He collects a lot of data, and along the way builds as least somewhat of a relationship with Armstrong.

Knowing Armstrong's historical VO2 numbers, and witnessing his rather sudden ascendancy for one-day rider to Tour dominator, he realizes that something must have changed from a physiological perspective. Most likely, his VO2, his ability to ride at a higher % of it, or his efficiency would have changed. The first is somewhat unlikely without doping, and it's always been claimed that he was always able to ride at a high % of VO2.

That last of those seems to be one of the holy grails, changes in efficiency. This not only confirms Armstrong's heartwarming story, but professionally gives Coyle a feather in his cap for documenting the LA's change in efficiency.

That leaves us with the possibility that Coyle was already hypothesizing that Armstrong increased his efficiency, and his interpretation of the data was made to fit this hypothesis due to his cognitive biases (furthered by his conflict of interest in having a relationship with the subject).

Big Tex and Co. then realize that Coyle's conclusions support their contention that "all he's on is his bike 6 hrs a day", so they run with it.

Here's an even more plausible scenario:

Coyle has occasional access to Armstrong before he becomes a true superstar, testing him whenever Armstrong happens to be in town (remember, he's from the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, and only moved to Austin later) and happens to hit him up for some free physiological testing.* This contact is fostered for a while when Asker Jeukendrup, who used to work with Rabobank, does a 1 y post-doc in Ed's lab, and Asker and Armstrong get along rather well (Asker and Ed, not so much...which is why Asker left after only 1 y). After Asker leaves and Armstrong wins his first TdF, though, he no longer visits Ed's lab for testing.

*Recall that Armstrong has done VO2max tests in multiple labs, including his well-known, highly impromtu visit to Appalachian State University when training with Bob Roll in the mountains Armstrong succesfully raced up in the Tour DuPont. IOW, reaching out for such assistance with the expectation of receiving it is not a foreign idea to Carmichael/Armstrong.

Time passes, and when the ACSM meetings are in St. Louis someone decides to organize a small symposium (for "insider's only", i.e., everyone there had some connection to Wash U) honoring Ed's (and my) post-doctoral mentor, John Holloszy. Casting about for something to present at the poster portion of the meeting, Ed decides to present Armstrong's data. The focus of the poster becomes efficiency, since Ed has already published several papers addressing its role in cycling performance, and how it seemingly improves over time.

Over drinks, the poster makes for interesting conversation among the few of us interested in cycling, during which Ed asks me point-blank whether I think Armstrong dopes, and scoffs at the notion that sleeping in an altitude tent will significantly increase your hematocrit. For the most part, though, nobody really gives it much thought, in part because of the obvious limitations of the data set and in part because Ed has already made the case for changes in efficiency.

More time passes, and Ed decides to submit the paper to JAP for publication. It is accepted, and while most scientists don't pay much attention (after all, it is just a case study with results that are rather plausible, if not predictable...the only thing that really makes it of interest is who the subject was), the media/public-at-large loves it.

A bit more time passes (I think...not sure on the exact timeline at this point, 'cause I don't pay much attention to pro cycling in general, much less track every detail of every doping allegation/investigation), and Armstrong sues SCA after they refuse to pay him the $1 million bonus. At this point Armstrong's attorneys realize that Ed's paper works in their favor, and we can pick up with your last sentence I quoted above.

Of course, what would I know? I'm only the guy who salvaged and refurbished a mechanically-braked, electronically-controlled Monark ergometer for use in my dissertation that was subsequently (i.e., after I'd left Austin) used for at least some of Armstrong's testing...you know, the ones that the Australians claim to have never existed?

 

[kennedy22]

Thanks for that.

I see it says:

"Pierre Sallet, a physiologist and athletics coach in Lyon, France, has studied this approach for WADA. When analysing one climb in the Tour, Sallet observed a rider who produced an average power in excess of 480 W for more than 30 minutes, a level which he considers "beyond all norms" and reason to investigate further."

I wonder who that was?

Also says,

"Prior to widespread EPO use, Tour winners' average power output was 380 watts on big climbs, with none exceeding 410 W, says Antoine Vayer, a professional cycling coach based in Pordic, France. Riis had an average power output of 445 W on Tour climbs in 1996. From 1994 onwards, Vayer calculated that around six riders per year averaged over 410 W."

Think Horner said in the recent Dauphine that he was maxxing out at about 400 on Alpe d'Huez. Sounds about right.

Jani Brak says he's found 40 watts in the last 2 weeks. Wonder what his levels are.

that means he's added approx 10 % to his capacity in two weeks. When he was already peaking. That's got to be cutting edge training right there

 

[Rip:30]

when they have very different expectations/beliefs and where a causal path can be traced from those beliefs to altered central nervous function and (likely) peripheral adaptations?

Just like any medicine, go double-blind on trials of different PEDs to more accurately ascertain their true efficacy. Also test only the placebo effect by giving sugar pills to a control group who is led to believe they are taking PEDs. Finding a true control group who neither takes nor falsely believes they are taking PEDs maybe hard if your target population is professional cyclists though.

Edit: looks like someone pointed out some examples of this being done already. Oups.

 

[goggalor]

Cyclists’ Alpine Times May Hint at Past Doping: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/sports/cycling/11climb.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=sports&src=me

“When people are put into extreme situations, like when you see when people’s kids are trapped beneath cars and they are able to lift up that car, they can go to unknown depths of human performance,” said Matt Parker, the head of marginal gains for Team Sky. “Performances like that come out in sports once in a while, too. So when someone does something incredible, why not believe it?”

I think Head of Marginal Gains Matt Parker has been watching too much Smallville.

 

[soulor]

error (uncertainty)

And then to say you're not surprised at someone's post "given the level of discussion on this forum" - I find that very unfair and unnecessarily nasty. Just because they don't have three letters behind their name and go by "Dr", doesn't mean they have nothing of value to say. And if someone criticizes a point unfairly, as may have been done in that case, address the criticism, don't go insulting the writer's character AND the intelligence of the entire forum.

Ross

Well said. If I felt science was the only issue here I would have posted a number of questions for Coggan and others about the error figures in their estimates (which seem to be a key issue of debate) rather earlier. Sadly, it really does seem that ad hominem attacks are the order of the day, and I really can't be bothered to deal with that stuff on an internet forum (fortunately most of my scientific competitors seem polite and reasonable by comparison) when I am not paid danger money.

Someone prove me wrong and explain (with a worked example?) how the estimates of measurement error for these inferred power estimates can vary between 2-2.4% (Tucker and Dugas, Le Breton) and 11% (Coggan):

"The estimation of power output is actually quite accurate - an error of 2.4% for this method, validated against SRM devices. So even with that size of error, the physiological implications of the performances are sometimes so outrageous that the difference between them and what is realistic is much higher than the error."

(Tucker and Dugas, blog comment)

The uncertainty on gravity is about 0.5 to 1%, ie at most 0.06 W/kg
The uncertainty on Air resistance is at most about 10%, ie at most about 0.06 W/kg.
The uncertainty on rolling resistance at most 10%, ie at most 0.02 W/kg.

So the total uncertainty is about 0.09 watts/kg – 1.6%

Transmission losses, according to Ed Kyle are about 2.5%, although under ideal conditions they could be as low as 1.5%.

Therefore, on his time trial up AdH in 2004, LA developed 464 + 2.5 % = 476 watts (+/- 6 watts), or more precisely 6.8 W/kg (+/- 0.1 W/kg) during 1263 seconds in the section starting at 1700m and ending at 9150 m.

People seem to like to muddle the issue by introducing microscopic effects which play at a very low level of usually less than 1%, sinking to below 0.1% on a steady climb.

CONCLUSION

EVEN WHEN INCLUDING THE UNCERTAINTY ON TRANSMISSION LOSSES WE END UP WITH A TOTAL UNCERTAINTY ON THE CALCULATION OF THE ORDER OF 2%!

(Le Breton, this forum)

"For example, even if you can estimate air density, mass, rolling resistance, and wind speed to w/in 2%, the overall uncertainty in the final estimated power is nearly 11%."

"The total uncertainty arrived at above is based upon their starting assumptions - my generic calculation (i.e., not aimed at the performance of Armstrong or anyone else in particular) was based upon different values for, e.g., CdA and more importantly by assuming a 2% margin of error in each of the variables and performing a standard propogation-of-error analysis."

(Coggan, this forum)

The combination of measurement uncertainty is not always straightforward (correct me if I am wrong, please), and I feel the need for some clarity on how the total error is being calculated here. Clearly if there are measurement errors as large as 11% for an estimate of power to weight then these may make the whole effort statistically futile (as Coggan argues), but if the different errors are simply down to different methods of error calculation then I am left really confused and rather unenlightened. In my field there have been some very fruitful discussions about measurement error which have helped identify the limits of particular measurement tools. What is interesting is that Tucker and Dugas do state that their error estimates are based on comparison with mechanical measurements. Many apologies if this has been dealt with elsewhere in detail or I am myself just suffering from confusion about error and uncertainty. BTW I hope Tucker and Dugas have not given up on this forum entirely...