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%]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!!