• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Superhuman performance could betray sports drug cheats

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
Krebs cycle said:
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All the rest (except unpublished ones) = short term high intensity training intervention or in season changes and NO changes in DE, only GE or economy.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.

Not really, since I'm not the one comparing these results to Ed's paper. My point was simply that the notion that efficiency is immutable is not really supported by the literature..

Krebs cycle said:
Now something I feel that we can both agree on. This controversy likely has stimulated an increase in research in this field

A point I made a long time ago...
 
acoggan said:
Not really, since I'm not the one comparing these results to Ed's paper. My point was simply that the notion that efficiency is immutable is not really supported by the literature..
I think that is a point made only by Mike Ashenden in non-peer reviewed interviews and web publishing. I don't recall DTM or Chris Gore ever making such assertions (unles DTM has said so to you privately). Chris Gore has published numerous papers on changes in efficiency with altitude so he is most certainly in favour of the idea that it is not immutable.

Maybe there is a common link here somewhere? High intensity training v altitude training??


acoggan said:
A point I made a long time ago...
Yes I know, and I'm acknowledging that. The problem however, is that the question still hasn't been answered properly because quite a few of the recent papers on the topic aren't up to scratch IMO. There is a paper by Lucia's group, I think it is in Japanese Journal of Physiology. They present "typical" step test data from a professional cyclist. The VO2-power curve gradually deviates below linearity at higher workloads, which goes against everything we know about slow component of VO2, but is consistent with everything we also know about the error that occurs using the med graphics carts and anything with a similar design principle (I think the cosmed is the same but not 100&#37]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15076799[/url]



Anyway, I would love to see a point-counterpoint debate on the topic in JAP at some point in the future!!
 

TRENDING THREADS