Superhuman performance could betray sports drug cheats

[buckwheat]

No, their allegation is/was that Ed's paper represented "shoddy science", with Ashenden himself publically admitting that his primary motivation in doing so was to attempt to prove Armstrong's guilt. It is only when Ed did not come up with the data that they were seeking that allegations of misconduct were made.

(BTW, in the interests of full disclosure: I am good friends with Jim Martin, a co-author on that paper, and at least on friendly terms with Dave Martin, despite our differences of opinion on the matters in question. In fact, just yesterday I received a wheel that I am borrowing from Jim for some aero testing, and I briefly chatted with Dave only ~1 mo ago, when he was visiting Jim in Utah after the ACSM meetings. I haven't spoken to Asker in a number of years, but helped him extensively during his dissertation research, and assume that we are still on good terms despite my pointing out the obvious problems with this paper.)

Right, right. I got the timeline wrong. They said the work was bad, requested the data, and then when Coyle started stonewalling, that was when they alleged misconduct. Thanks.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2.html

In response to it all, Coyle is quoted in the New York Times as saying: “This is a minor waste on my time. However, I don’t understand how they can afford to spend so much time on this. Don’t they have real jobs?”

Getting the data - apparently a problem

Science is, in theory, transparent. It should be, and every scientist should be confident enough in their method and results to make data available at any time for evaluation. If they are not, then the data should not be published. That's why a scientific paper is so particular about its method - every study should be repeatable by others, to confirm or refute what it has found. If the process is legitimate, then the data should be above "reproach". It turns out that getting hold of Lance Armstrong's data was not quite so simple. Apparently, Ashenden and his colleagues were stonewalled when they raised their concerns, and eventually had to lodge a case of scientific misconduct against Coyle, with his University in Texas.



The impact of the change

The change is huge - 8%, and therefore, the rest of the data must be evaluated. In response to this revelation, Coyle has admitted that he made an error. However, he has downplayed the importance of this error, saying that it is minor and makes "no practical difference". I might point out that his error is in fact LARGER than the change in efficiency he found in Lance Armstrong! The 8% change was significant when it was Lance's efficiency, apparently it is not when it is the error he made...

The other defence put forward by Coyle is that the error is reduced in signficance because he calculated efficiency at a high VO2, and so the effect of a resting metabolic rate is expected to be minimal. This is in fact completely incorrect. The higher the VO2, the greater the impact of the calculation on the slope. In otherwords, the slope actually changes by MORE (and hence, the efficiency changes) when you have a high VO2, than a low VO2. So Coyle's defence doesn't hold there either.

 

[acoggan]

Right, right. I got the timeline wrong. They said the work was bad, requested the data, and then when Coyle started stonewalling, that was when they alleged misconduct. Thanks.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2.html

In response to it all, Coyle is quoted in the New York Times as saying: “This is a minor waste on my time. However, I don’t understand how they can afford to spend so much time on this. Don’t they have real jobs?”

Getting the data - apparently a problem

Science is, in theory, transparent. It should be, and every scientist should be confident enough in their method and results to make data available at any time for evaluation. If they are not, then the data should not be published. That's why a scientific paper is so particular about its method - every study should be repeatable by others, to confirm or refute what it has found. If the process is legitimate, then the data should be above "reproach". It turns out that getting hold of Lance Armstrong's data was not quite so simple. Apparently, Ashenden and his colleagues were stonewalled when they raised their concerns, and eventually had to lodge a case of scientific misconduct against Coyle, with his University in Texas.



The impact of the change

The change is huge - 8%, and therefore, the rest of the data must be evaluated. In response to this revelation, Coyle has admitted that he made an error. However, he has downplayed the importance of this error, saying that it is minor and makes "no practical difference". I might point out that his error is in fact LARGER than the change in efficiency he found in Lance Armstrong! The 8% change was significant when it was Lance's efficiency, apparently it is not when it is the error he made...

The other defence put forward by Coyle is that the error is reduced in signficance because he calculated efficiency at a high VO2, and so the effect of a resting metabolic rate is expected to be minimal. This is in fact completely incorrect. The higher the VO2, the greater the impact of the calculation on the slope. In otherwords, the slope actually changes by MORE (and hence, the efficiency changes) when you have a high VO2, than a low VO2. So Coyle's defence doesn't hold there either.

I strongly suggest you (or anyone else reading this) read the earlier exchanges on this forum regarding this topic. To summarize the important points of that discussion, however:

1) Ashenden, Martin, et al. were flat-out wrong to recalculate only some of Armstrong's data (i.e., the only data made available to them) and then compare it to other data that had originally been calculated using a different (but, quite critically, no-less-valid) approach. IOW, what Ashenden et al. provided in their letter-to-the-editor was an apples-to-oranges comparison that was absolutely meaningless, something that Ed called them on in his response and - importantly - something that Dave Martin has privately admitted to being true.

2) Ross Tucker also got it wrong (i.e., completely bass-ackwards) when criticizing Coyle's assertion, something that I pointed out to him either on this forum or in a comment on his blog. He, too, subsequently admitted that he had made a mistake, and retracted his statement above.

(And now, my dear buckwheat, I hope you understand why it is so important to be able to compartmentalize: in complex situations such as this one, it is the only way to keep the facts absolutely straight, and not end up with egg on your face when you screw up.)

EDIT: BTW, at my suggestion Dave Martin has written up and published some of Cadel Evans historical data showing that in his case, gross efficiency hasn't changed over time. He only presented some of Evans' results, however, and Evans is notoriously cautious about any of his data being shared with his competition. So, what do you suppose Dave's response would be if I requested to see all of the raw data? Do you think he would provide it, or do you think he would stonewall me? (I respect Dave too much to put him into such a difficult spot, but nonetheless have to wonder how he'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot.)

 

[buckwheat]

I strongly suggest you (or anyone else reading this) read the earlier exchanges on this forum regarding this topic. To summarize the important points of that discussion, however:

1) Ashenden, Martin, et al. were flat-out wrong to recalculate only some of Armstrong's data (i.e., the only data made available to them) and then compare it to other data that had not been recalculated using a different (but, quite critically, no-less-valid) approach. IOW, what Ashenden et al. provided in their letter-to-the-editor was an apples-to-oranges comparison that was absolutely meaningless, something that Ed called them on in his response and - importantly - something that Dave Martin has privately admitted to being true.

2) Ross Tucker also got it wrong (i.e., completely bass-ackwards) when criticizing Coyle's assertion, something that I pointed out in him either on this forum or in a comment on his blog. He, too, subsequently admitted that he had made a mistake, and retracted his statement above.

(And now, my dear buckwheat, I hope you understand why it is so important to be able to compartmentalize: in complex situations such as this one, it is the only way to keep the facts absolutely straight, and not end up with egg on your face when you screw up.)

EDIT: BTW, at my suggestion Dave Martin has written up and published some of Cadel Evans historical data showing that in his case, gross efficiency hasn't changed over time. He only presented some of Evans' results, however, and Evans is notoriously cautious about any of his data being shared with his competition. So, what do you suppose Dave's response would be if I requested to see all of the raw data? Do you think he would provide it, or do you think he would stonewall me? (I respect Dave too much to put him into such a difficult spot, but nonetheless have to wonder how he'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot.)

Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures",

So, was there improved muscular efficiency displayed by Armstrong?

 

[acoggan]

Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures",

So, was there improved muscular efficiency displayed by Armstrong?

As I have stated ad nauseum, if you believe the raw power and VO2 data, then yes, absolutely, no question about it, and you won't be able to find a single individual who truly understands this area of research who will dispute this assertion (note the qualifier "if").

And while we're on that topic, this statement of Ross and Jonathon's in their blog post that you cited jumped out at me:

"we must point out that the Coyle finding was surprising and challenged for a number of reasons:

The fact that cycling efficiency had never been shown to change so consistently over a period of time as a result of training/maturation. Take the following quote, from Michael Ashenden, one of the paper's authors: “They were really concerned, on a scientific level, that Coyle had been able to perpetuate this myth that cycling efficiency changes.""

In fact, if anyone was perpetuating a myth, it was Ross and Jonathon by implying that cycling efficiency is clearly not changable. At the time of the initial exchange of letters-to-the-editors, only a handful of studies had been published, but by the time of their post in 2008, quite a bit more had emerged (which they seemed to either be unaware of, or choose to ignore). As of just a few weeks ago, here is how the literature stands:

Cross-sectional studies of the effect of training on cycling efficiency:

No difference
Boning et al. Int J Sports Med 1984; 5:92-97
Marsh and Martin Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25:1269-1274
Nickleberry and Brooks Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28:1396-1401
Marsh et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32:1630-1634
Mosely et al. Int J Sports Med 2004; 25:374-379

Higher in trained cyclists
Sallet P et al. J Sports Med Fitness 2006; 46:361-365
Hopker et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2007; 32:1036-1042

Longitudinal studies of the effects of training on cycling efficiency:

No change
Roels et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37:138-146

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)

In exercise physiology, as in all biomedical sciences, more weight is given to studies in which individuals serve as their own controls, since this eliminates or minimizes many sources of experimental error. Thus, my prediction is that Coyle's conclusion that efficiency improves over the long haul in trained cyclists will eventually be fully vindicated, if indeed it hasn't been already. IOW, I expect that history will conclude that he got it right even though he based his conclusions on a retrospective analysis of data collected on a single subject without the idea of testing this hypothesis in mind.

 

[buckwheat]

As I have stated ad nauseum, if you believe the raw power and VO2 data, then yes, absolutely, no question about it.

And while we're on that topic, this statement of Ross and Jonathon's jumped out at me:

"we must point out that the Coyle finding was surprising and challenged for a number of reasons:

The fact that cycling efficiency had never been shown to change so consistently over a period of time as a result of training/maturation. Take the following quote, from Michael Ashenden, one of the paper's authors: “They were really concerned, on a scientific level, that Coyle had been able to perpetuate this myth that cycling efficiency changes."

In fact, if anyone was perpetuating a myth, it was Ross and Jonathon by implying that cycling efficiency is clearly not changable. At the time of the initial exchange of letters-to-the-editors, only a handful of studies had been published, but by the time of their post in 2008, quite a bit more had emerged (which they seemed to either be unaware of, or choose to ignore). As of just a few weeks ago, here is how the literature stands:

Cross-sectional studies of the effect of training on cycling efficiency:

No difference
Boning et al. Int J Sports Med 1984; 5:92-97
Marsh and Martin Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25:1269-1274
Nickleberry and Brooks Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28:1396-1401
Marsh et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32:1630-1634
Mosely et al. Int J Sports Med 2004; 25:374-379

Higher in trained cyclists
Sallet P et al. J Sports Med Fitness 2006; 46:361-365
Hopker et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2007; 32:1036-1042

Longitudinal studies of the effects of training on cycling efficiency:

No change
Roels et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37:138-146

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)

In exercise physiology, as in all biomedical sciences, more weight is given to studies in which individuals serve as their own controls, since this eliminates or minimizes many sources of experimental error. Thus, my prediction is that Coyle's conclusion that efficiency improves over the long haul in trained cyclists will eventually be fully vindicated, if indeed it hasn't been done so already. IOW, I expect that history will conclude that he got it right even though he based his conclusions on a retrospective analysis of data collected on a single subject without the idea of testing this hypothesis in mind.

an 8% improvement in efficiency?

 

[acoggan]

an 8% improvement in efficiency?

That is what Coyle reported, isn't it?

To quote John Holloszy, author of >400 papers on exercise and muscle physiology, metabolism, aging, etc., and winner of an IOC Olympic Gold Medal for his scientific contributions in these areas, a prize carrying with it a $200,000 award:

"You can't reject a paper just because you don't believe the data."

Note that this was something he said to me in the late 1980s.

Also note that my personal efficiency has improved over the years in much the same way that Armstrong's reportedly did. Indeed, as I recently pointed out to a colleague of mine in Australia, when you consider the factors determining cycling efficiency and the ever-evolving characteristics of our motor system throughout life even in the absence of training*, it would be quite surprising if cycling efficiency did not improve over time in trained cyclists. The only real remaining questions, IMO, are just how much of an improvement is possible, and when during a cyclist's development might this occur. As flawed as it may be, Coyle's data on Armstrong at least gives us a hint re. the answers to these questions. (In this context, it is interesting note that the Australian's belief that efficiency cannot improve is apparently based in part on Evans' data...but as I was just reading, Evans grew up in a rural area, and claims to have been riding a bicycle daily since he was 2 y of age. Thus, it is quite possible that his efficiency had already reached a plateau before the AIS ever tested him.)

*Note that I point this out having published two papers on the effects of aging w/ or w/o training on skeletal muscle characteristics that are now Citation Classics, and a third that is on the cusp.

 

[buckwheat]

That is what Coyle reported, isn't it?

To quote John Holloszy, author of >400 papers on exercise and muscle physiology, metabolism, aging, etc., and winner of an IOC Olympic Gold Medal for his scientific contributions in these areas, a prize carrying with it a $200,000 award:

"You can't reject a paper just because you don't believe the data."

Note that this was something he said to me in the late 1980s.

Also note that my personal efficiency has improved over the years in much the same way that Armstrong's reportedly did. Indeed, as I recently pointed out to a colleague of mine in Australia, when you consider the factors determining cycling efficiency and the ever-evolving characteristics of our motor system throughout life even in the absence of training*, it would be quite surprising if cycling efficiency did not improve over time in trained cyclists. The only real remaining questions, IMO, are just how much of an improvement is possible, and when during a cyclist's development might this occur. As flawed as it may be, Coyle's data on Armstrong at least gives us a hint re. the answers to these questions. (In this context, it is interesting note that the Australian's belief that efficiency cannot improve is apparently based in part on Evans' data...but as I was just reading, Evans grew up in a rural area, and claims to have been riding a bicycle daily since he was 2 y of age. Thus, it is quite possible that his efficiency had already reached a plateau before the AIS ever tested him.)

*Note that I point this out having published two papers on the effects of aging w/ or w/o training on skeletal muscle characteristics that are now Citation Classics, and a third that is on the cusp.

I found this vague abstract.

https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/sportsmed/doi/10.1055/s-0029-1237712

 

[acoggan]

I found this vague abstract.

https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/sportsmed/doi/10.1055/s-0029-1237712

I commend you on your attempts to educate yourself. However, rather than relying on the abstracts of review articles, I suggest that you read the primary literature (like I do) - if you need any help tracking down any of the studies I cited, just let me know.

EDIT: In case you missed them, here they are again:

Cross-sectional studies of the effect of training on cycling efficiency:

No difference
Boning et al. Int J Sports Med 1984; 5:92-97
Marsh and Martin Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25:1269-1274
Nickleberry and Brooks Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28:1396-1401
Marsh et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32:1630-1634
Mosely et al. Int J Sports Med 2004; 25:374-379

Higher in trained cyclists
Sallet P et al. J Sports Med Fitness 2006; 46:361-365
Hopker et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2007; 32:1036-1042

Longitudinal studies of the effects of training on cycling efficiency:

No change
Roels et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37:138-146

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)

 

[Krebs cycle]

EDIT: BTW, at my suggestion Dave Martin has written up and published some of Cadel Evans historical data showing that in his case, gross efficiency hasn't changed over time. He only presented some of Evans' results, however, and Evans is notoriously cautious about any of his data being shared with his competition. So, what do you suppose Dave's response would be if I requested to see all of the raw data? Do you think he would provide it, or do you think he would stonewall me? (I respect Dave too much to put him into such a difficult spot, but nonetheless have to wonder how he'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot.)

Reqyesting unpublished confidential data is a completely different thing to asking for data that is published.

Comparing apples with oranges

 

[Krebs cycle]

I commend you on your attempts to educate yourself. However, rather than relying on the abstracts of review articles, I suggest that you read the primary literature (like I do) - if you need any help tracking down any of the studies I cited, just let me know.

EDIT: In case you missed them, here they are again:

Cross-sectional studies of the effect of training on cycling efficiency:

No difference
Boning et al. Int J Sports Med 1984; 5:92-97
Marsh and Martin Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25:1269-1274
Nickleberry and Brooks Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28:1396-1401
Marsh et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32:1630-1634
Mosely et al. Int J Sports Med 2004; 25:374-379

Higher in trained cyclists
Sallet P et al. J Sports Med Fitness 2006; 46:361-365
Hopker et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2007; 32:1036-1042

Longitudinal studies of the effects of training on cycling efficiency:

No change
Roels et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37:138-146

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)

On the studies that increase with training listed above....

Hintsy = untrained subjects
All the rest (except unpublished ones) = short term high intensity training intervention or in season changes and NO changes in DE, only GE or economy.

Ed Coyle's paper = out of season testing over several years showing a gradual increase in DE.

Again, comparing apples with oranges.

So at present, the data remains pretty inconclusive. It certainly shows that short term changes in efficiency can occur with high intensity training (not a theory put forward by Ed Coyle), but there is no evidence to suggest that it keeps going up and up and up year after year.

Now something I feel that we can both agree on. This controversy likely has stimulated an increase in research in this field and in the future I feel we (ie: human knowledge) will arrive at a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms as a result.

 

[buckwheat]

an 8% improvement in efficiency?

That is what Coyle reported, isn't it?

To quote John Holloszy, author of >400 papers on exercise and muscle physiology, metabolism, aging, etc., and winner of an IOC Olympic Gold Medal for his scientific contributions in these areas, a prize carrying with it a $200,000 award:

"You can't reject a paper just because you don't believe the data."

Note that this was something he said to me in the late 1980s.

Also note that my personal efficiency has improved over the years in much the same way that Armstrong's reportedly did. Indeed, as I recently pointed out to a colleague of mine in Australia, when you consider the factors determining cycling efficiency and the ever-evolving characteristics of our motor system throughout life even in the absence of training*, it would be quite surprising if cycling efficiency did not improve over time in trained cyclists. The only real remaining questions, IMO, are just how much of an improvement is possible, and when during a cyclist's development might this occur. As flawed as it may be, Coyle's data on Armstrong at least gives us a hint re. the answers to these questions. (In this context, it is interesting note that the Australian's belief that efficiency cannot improve is apparently based in part on Evans' data...but as I was just reading, Evans grew up in a rural area, and claims to have been riding a bicycle daily since he was 2 y of age. Thus, it is quite possible that his efficiency had already reached a plateau before the AIS ever tested him.)

*Note that I point this out having published two papers on the effects of aging w/ or w/o training on skeletal muscle characteristics that are now Citation Classics, and a third that is on the cusp.

On the studies that increase with training listed above....

Hintsy = untrained subjects
All the rest (except unpublished ones) = short term high intensity training intervention or in season changes and NO changes in DE, only GE or economy.

Ed Coyle's paper = out of season testing over several years showing a gradual increase in DE.

Again, comparing apples with oranges.

So at present, the data remains pretty inconclusive. It certainly shows that short term changes in efficiency can occur with high intensity training (not a theory put forward by Ed Coyle), but there is no evidence to suggest that it keeps going up and up and up year after year.

Now something I feel that we can both agree on. This controversy likely has stimulated an increase in research in this field and in the future I feel we (ie: human knowledge) will arrive at a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms as a result.

Don't forget ACoggan's anecdotal personal experience which is similiar to LA's 8% increase in efficiency.

He's saying it's conclusive.

 

[CoachFergie]

Don't forget ACoggan's anecdotal personal experience which is similiar to LA's 8% increase in efficiency.

He's saying it's conclusive.

It's not an anecdote if he has hard data to prove his efficiency improved, which he has. If he said "I think my efficiency has improved over my many years of cycling" that would be an anecdote.

 

[stephens]

It's still an anecdote if it's just the experience of one person, as opposed to a scientific study with controls, etc.

 

[Krebs cycle]

It's not an anecdote if he has hard data to prove his efficiency improved, which he has. If he said "I think my efficiency has improved over my many years of cycling" that would be an anecdote.

Dave Martin from the AIS has access to some 15-20yrs of efficiency data on elite cyclists. Probably upwards of 100 cyclists have been on scholarship in that period. I would think that someone with that level of data at his disposal would know if cycling efficiency gradually improved year upon year, especially given his involvement in the letters to the editor of JAP. When I pointed this out some 12 months ago on this forum, acoggan said "it doesn't count if its not published". I don't think it is fair to then turn around and cite unpublished data of your own on n = 1 masters level trained subject.

Personally, I don't like the tension that has been created. I admit that I have been party to it and I apologise for that, but I would prefer a calmer respectful debate. It is an internet forum and sure, things sometimes get out of hand, but we're all here because we appreciate the sport of cycling and the spectacle of healthy (honest) competition.

------
Dr Coggan I don't you know personally but I'm sure in real life you're probably a great guy and I undestand that the headbutting here on this forum likely reflects a common passion between us regarding the subject matter, yet simply with a difference of opinion. I am obviously on the side of the Australian scientists, regardless I still don't believe that at present the literature definitively supports the conclusions originally made by Ed Coyle. Only the Santalla paper uses professional cyclists over a several yr period but I don't believe their results can be trusted because they used CPX/D and their data appears to be exactly what you would expect from the increasing error that occurs at higher power output using that method (see Proctor and Beck). ie: if the subjects simply became better trained (or fitter as a result of PEDs) over several years, then as they reach higher power output on the step test, the underestimation of VO2 using CPX/D is magnified, hence leading to the apparent increase in DE. There is nothing in their methods regarding optimization of the method as suggested by Proctor and Beck.

What is interesting though is that the more recent short term studies you posted above (do they use CPX/D however? I haven't checked yet) show changes with high intensity training (or in season which is also higher intensity). So it may very well be that efficiency can change transiently, then when the off season comes and less high intensity training is conducted it goes back down. Traditionally, most testing is done in the off season, especially in Australia because the athletes are away in europe during the in season. This would explain why DTMs data would not show a gradual increase year upon year.

Could this be plausible??

ps. It is a little perplexing that type I fibres are more efficient, yet high intensity training appears to be the stimulus that could increase it.

edit: i just checked, the Hopker group uses Cosmed quark b2. Is it a mixing chamber system or BxB?? Some reservations about the accuracy of that equipment in the literature, so I'll wait until I see the same results coming from a lab that really knows how to measure VO2 properly. First principles ftw.

 

[CoachFergie]

It's still an anecdote if it's just the experience of one person, as opposed to a scientific study with controls, etc.

It's not an anecdote if a person used a valid and reliable test of efficiency. Andy has reported (on Slowtwitch if I'm not mistaken) that he has done the tests on a properly calibrated erg with a calibrated gas analysis and he checked the calibration with a Douglas Bag.

His test is probably more valid and reliable than Coyle's data on Armstrong. That was a case study. There are quite a lot of case studies in the peer review medical, physiological and sports science literature.

I think the issue at hand is whether efficiency can improve. Some say it doesn't but Coyle and Coggan have data (admittedly both n=1) that shows it does and Andy has supplied some other studies showing that it does increase.

 

[Le breton]

Dave Martin from the AIS has access to some 15-20yrs of efficiency data on elite cyclists. ..........
their results can be trusted because they used CPX/D and their data ...........

Very nice post Krebs.
However, could you explain for non native English speakers/professional physiologists like myself what is CPX/D or give a reference, even Wiki reference?

Thanks.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Very nice post Krebs.
However, could you explain for non native English speakers/professional physiologists like myself what is CPX/D or give a reference, even Wiki reference?

Thanks.

CPX/D is a Med Graphics product. It is a metabolic cart system that measures oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and other physiological variables using a breath by breath (BxB) principle. At higher exercise intensity, the breathing frequency and volume is greater overall, and under these circumstances, the CPX/D medgraphics product and any other system that uses a similar principle could underestimate the VO2 unless a special diagnostic system test is performed. The systems are fairly accurate in the low range 1-3 L/min, but once you start getting up into the range achieved by elite athletes eg: >5 L/min the error can be magnified. You MUST run a diagnostic test to optimize the system in order to be certain the errors are not present.

It is conceivable that as an athlete conducts more high intensity exercise and gets fitter within a season, or they get fitter over several years of training, they are able to reach higher exercise intensities and higher breathing frequencies or volumes. If the VO2 system has not been properly optimized, then it could lead to a greater underestimation of the VO2 at the highest power outputs. This would lead to an apparent increase in efficiency.

None of the papers that have reported an increase in efficiency using this methodology have included details of the optimization procedure, which is technically difficult to conduct and may not even be possible in some cases. So they might just be reporting a systematic technical error instead of a real physiological change.

 

[Le breton]

CPX/D is a Med Graphics product. It is a metabolic cart system that measures oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and other physiological variables using a breath by breath (BxB) principle. At higher exercise intensity, the breathing frequency and volume is greater overall, and under these circumstances, the CPX/D medgraphics product and any other system that uses a similar principle could underestimate the VO2 unless a special diagnostic system test is performed. The systems are fairly accurate in the low range 1-3 L/min, but once you start getting up into the range achieved by elite athletes eg: >5 L/min the error can be magnified. You MUST run a diagnostic test to optimize the system in order to be certain the errors are not present.

It is conceivable that as an athlete conducts more high intensity exercise and gets fitter within a season, or they get fitter over several years of training, they are able to reach higher exercise intensities and higher breathing frequencies or volumes. If the VO2 system has not been properly optimized, then it could lead to a greater underestimation of the VO2 at the highest power outputs. This would lead to an apparent increase in efficiency.

None of the papers that have reported an increase in efficiency using this methodology have included details of the optimization procedure, which is technically difficult to conduct and may not even be possible in some cases. So they might just be reporting a systematic technical error instead of a real physiological change.

Many thanks for taking the time to explain, furthermore, very clearly.

 

[buckwheat]

Dave Martin from the AIS has access to some 15-20yrs of efficiency data on elite cyclists. Probably upwards of 100 cyclists have been on scholarship in that period. I would think that someone with that level of data at his disposal would know if cycling efficiency gradually improved year upon year, especially given his involvement in the letters to the editor of JAP. When I pointed this out some 12 months ago on this forum, acoggan said "it doesn't count if its not published". I don't think it is fair to then turn around and cite unpublished data of your own on n = 1 masters level trained subject.

Personally, I don't like the tension that has been created. I admit that I have been party to it and I apologise for that, but I would prefer a calmer respectful debate. It is an internet forum and sure, things sometimes get out of hand, but we're all here because we appreciate the sport of cycling and the spectacle of healthy (honest) competition.

------
Dr Coggan I don't you know personally but I'm sure in real life you're probably a great guy and I undestand that the headbutting here on this forum likely reflects a common passion between us regarding the subject matter, yet simply with a difference of opinion. I am obviously on the side of the Australian scientists, regardless I still don't believe that at present the literature definitively supports the conclusions originally made by Ed Coyle. Only the Santalla paper uses professional cyclists over a several yr period but I don't believe their results can be trusted because they used CPX/D and their data appears to be exactly what you would expect from the increasing error that occurs at higher power output using that method (see Proctor and Beck). ie: if the subjects simply became better trained (or fitter as a result of PEDs) over several years, then as they reach higher power output on the step test, the underestimation of VO2 using CPX/D is magnified, hence leading to the apparent increase in DE. There is nothing in their methods regarding optimization of the method as suggested by Proctor and Beck.

What is interesting though is that the more recent short term studies you posted above (do they use CPX/D however? I haven't checked yet) show changes with high intensity training (or in season which is also higher intensity). So it may very well be that efficiency can change transiently, then when the off season comes and less high intensity training is conducted it goes back down. Traditionally, most testing is done in the off season, especially in Australia because the athletes are away in europe during the in season. This would explain why DTMs data would not show a gradual increase year upon year.

Could this be plausible??

ps. It is a little perplexing that type I fibres are more efficient, yet high intensity training appears to be the stimulus that could increase it.

edit: i just checked, the Hopker group uses Cosmed quark b2. Is it a mixing chamber system or BxB?? Some reservations about the accuracy of that equipment in the literature, so I'll wait until I see the same results coming from a lab that really knows how to measure VO2 properly. First principles ftw.

This discussion requires complete honesty without regard to personal politics.

I don't think that's what we've seen.

We've already seen answers to the questions the clinic is concerned with and these answers can skew physiological data to the point of meaninglessness.

If anyone believes Coyle's Armstrong paper has any merit, well that's their opinion. It seems obvious to me that there are many other factors involved in the presentation of the data in addition to readings from LA's less than pure physiology.

 

[CoachFergie]

While my opinion is Lance is juiced to the gills and should burn for his deception I don't think the errors within and the intent of the Coyle paper is the smoking gun people are looking for as a justification for his performance transformation and an attempt to hide the truth. Witness's with credible testimony and backgrounds is. Sadly people like LeMond and Landis in their fervour to bring Lance down may have used that smoking gun to shoot their own feet in the process.

 

[buckwheat]

While my opinion is Lance is juiced to the gills and should burn for his deception I don't think the errors within and the intent of the Coyle paper is the smoking gun people are looking for as a justification for his performance transformation and an attempt to hide the truth. Witness's with credible testimony and backgrounds is. Sadly people like LeMond and Landis in their fervour to bring Lance down may have used that smoking gun to shoot their own feet in the process.

I think the main conclusion that the Coyle paper proves, is the extent of the cult of personality Pharmstrong presides over.

Overall analysis,

Lance, huge downward arrow.

LeMond has been on an upward trend since the Floyd trials at Pepperdine and Floyd is coming up from absolute rock bottom just prior to TOC and trending sharply upwards.

 

[dbrower]

While my opinion is Lance is juiced to the gills and should burn for his deception I don't think the errors within and the intent of the Coyle paper is the smoking gun people are looking for as a justification for his performance transformation and an attempt to hide the truth. Witness's with credible testimony and backgrounds is. Sadly people like LeMond and Landis in their fervour to bring Lance down may have used that smoking gun to shoot their own feet in the process.

I'm unaware Landis has referenced the Coyle paper anywhere; his claims regarding Armstrong are first-person accounts. I'm very leery of broad-brushes that rhetorically lump things that are different together to make an ideological point.

-dB

 

[CoachFergie]

I think the main conclusion that the Coyle paper proves, is the extent of the cult of personality Pharmstrong presides over.

The peer review for the Coyle paper on Armstrong was apparently turned around in record time of 3 weeks so JAP certainly dropped the ball in their efforts to publish a very marketable paper but I don't see that reflecting part of the conspiracy that (I "think" for what that's worth) surrounds any alleged drug use. I see the Coyle and JAPs actions as just human nature wanting to be part of the cool crowd for a change while I suspect (for what that's worth) the conspiracy to protect an individual and the "corporation" around that individual is going to make Balco look like a storm in a tea cup and give Enron a run for it's money. Fully picking Michael Moore is already salivating over the possibilities.

 

[soulor]

With a bit of digging I found this:

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5184

but it's not a peer-reviewed paper and I can't read French anyway. Even so, it appears that not everyone agrees with Portoleau calculations and assumptions, e.g.:

http://forum.team-saxobank.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5013&whichpage=19

(scroll down to a post by "KD teammate".)

After a bit more digging I found this related example in my search for power meter/estimation comparisons:

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5207

which shows a 2.5% error for a comparison between Portoleau's estimated calculations for Chris Anker Sorensen and his SRM data for the 2009 Verbier climb.

Would still like to see more of these comparisons if anyone has them? Apologies if this is all old news to everyone else on the forum but so far this is all I can find.

 

[acoggan]

Reqyesting unpublished confidential data is a completely different thing to asking for data that is published.

Comparing apples with oranges

What I was actually suggesting was requesting the raw data underlying the summary/derived values that were presented. It might be interesting, though, to request everything, on the basis that it is necessary to determine whether any "cherry-picking" of results had been performed.

Again, not that I would actually do this...but there would sort of delicious sense of irony to it should someone (Coyle?) actually do it, don't you think?