Thibaut Pinot's training data

[Dear Wiggo]

Honestly, the issue of complaints about a paywall here are nuts. Don't you people understand the advantages accrued by the peer review process? The fact that this power data is published in a respected journal is a good thing. It gives a whole lot of legitimacy to it. It means that not only the reputation of the authors, but the reputation of the independent reviewers and the publisher is on the line. The data presented is a whole lot more legitimate than if it were just uploaded to dropbox for your benefit. This is a huge improvement over the typical internet warrior faceless review of so-called internet experts.

I'd like to introduce you to Dr Coggan and Ed Coyle. And a study on one Lance Armstrong.

Hey if a sample size of one was enough for them...

You're welcome.

Also: as evidenced above, the paywall does not pay for the reviewers or the reviewing. So... uh.

I am so sorry you don't understand. Imagine if you had to pay to access your child - go on. That's a good analogy.

 

[Arnout]

You guys don't understand the scientific world. It's not perfect, like nothing is, but it's a hell of a lot better than internet journalism.

 

[Parker]

Now what matters is to get the debate rolling, to have journalists ask staffs and riders "why don't you do that ?".

You do realise that this is a purely academic publication, don't you? It's not been published for the benefit of the cycling media or cycling fans. And it certainly not been published with any doping debate in mind. It's a long term academic project, dating from before power data became the latest fad in the media.

Grappe's main job is working as a sports scientist for a University (Franche Comte) and J.Pinot is one of his PhD students.

So the answer to 'why don't others do this' is because they are not academics.

 

[veji11]

I'd like to introduce you to Dr Coggan and Ed Coyle. And a study on one Lance Armstrong.

Hey if a sample size of one was enough for them...

You're welcome.

Also: as evidenced above, the paywall does not pay for the reviewers or the reviewing. So... uh.

I am so sorry you don't understand. Imagine if you had to pay to access your child - go on. That's a good analogy.

gee so this is all doodoo then ? You are the type of people that says if it isn't perfect it classifies as bad ?

 

[Almeisan]

In academics, if something is published it is pretty much the freeest form of info out there. No patents possible, for example.

A good library should have access to most important scientific journals. Read them for free there.

As for this journal, it does have articles like the one about asymmetric breast movements in woman while running, so it has a lot of Ig Nobel potential.

Wasn't the Coggan-Armstrong article also peer-reviewed while being 100% bull****? I remember some people desperately tried to get it retracted, because it was total bull on an important theme in physiology, like it giving sports physiology as a whole a bad rap. Especially so since it got through peer-review.

There's pro's and con's about the current system of peer-review and journals in science. I am sure every scientist has her or his own rant about the frustrations they ran themselves in, alongside more objective arguments that can be made. But that is a completely different subject and I don't think many here are qualified to carry out that debate, including myself.

 

[Catwhoorg]

You guys don't understand the scientific world. It's not perfect, like nothing is, but it's a hell of a lot better than internet journalism.

On the contrary, I understand it very well. Being published in academic and trade journals, I understand the differences.

There should be nothing stopping Pinaut offering "reprints" which these days is usually a pdf version, through his personal or team website.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I'd like to introduce you to Dr Coggan and Ed Coyle. And a study on one Lance Armstrong.

Hey if a sample size of one was enough for them...

You're welcome.

You disprove your own argument. You seem to be the gift that keeps giving... Please let's have some more of your expert scientific findings.

 

[acoggan]

I'd like to introduce you to Dr Coggan and Ed Coyle. And a study on one Lance Armstrong.

Hey if a sample size of one was enough for them...

You're welcome.

Also: as evidenced above, the paywall does not pay for the reviewers or the reviewing. So... uh.

I am so sorry you don't understand. Imagine if you had to pay to access your child - go on. That's a good analogy.

1. I wasn't a coauthor on Ed's paper.

2. Case studies are a perfectly valid form of scientific communication.

 

[Parker]

There should be nothing stopping Pinaut offering "reprints" which these days is usually a pdf version, through his personal or team website.

Nothing - apart from copyright laws.

(Grappe originally did have it on his personal website, but took it down)

 

[acoggan]

Wasn't the Coggan-Armstrong article also peer-reviewed while being 100% bull****? I remember some people desperately tried to get it retracted, because it was total bull on an important theme in physiology, like it giving sports physiology as a whole a bad rap. Especially so since it got through peer-review.

You're confused: I wasn't a coauthor on Ed's study of Armstrong.

There's pro's and con's about the current system of peer-review and journals in science. I am sure every scientist has her or his own rant about the frustrations they ran themselves in, alongside more objective arguments that can be made. But that is a completely different subject and I don't think many here are qualified to carry out that debate, including myself.

And yet you opened your mouth and inserted your foot because...

 

[veji11]

You do realise that this is a purely academic publication, don't you? It's not been published for the benefit of the cycling media or cycling fans. And it certainly not been published with any doping debate in mind. It's a long term academic project, dating from before power data became the latest fad in the media.

Grappe's main job is working as a sports scientist for a University (Franche Comte) and J.Pinot is one of his PhD students.

So the answer to 'why don't others do this' is because they are not academics.

Thank you, I hadn't noticed that since it was published in a scientific review as a research paper byt Grappe-Pinot in the general framework of theirs studies, it meant it wasn't really made public and this data was therefore to be considered as "not made public" for the foreseeable future.

This being made clear to me, I understand now as well, that one would have to be stupid to tell other pros / staffs that it would be interesting for them to make their data public "like Pinot did", since obviously Pinot didn't and this data is to remain for ever confined to the delicate sphere of academic studies.

Thank you very much for enlightening me.

 

[acoggan]

What would interest me for example would be to compare what we have from Pinot with the data we could get from a Quintana, a TVG, a Talansky, a Bardet, ie guys of the same generation, and to compare with a guy like Nibali for example.

Nibali would be an interesting case because, although I am not inferring that he is clean, his career arc fits with the more traditional career arc we use to see before the 90/00s : clearly already very good at his beginnings, steady progress to the point where from age 25 onwards (2010), he was riding for the win on all his GTs.

But clearly if we were to see similar data from other riders, it would separate all the guys that fit into the "comparable" bracket, from the "weird, big drop big jump" type of riders....

Given the large variation between individuals in trainability, you'd need quite a large dataset to make that distinction. Even then, just like power at a particular age/point-in-time, you couldn't whether outliers are dopers, or just outliers.

 

[veji11]

Given the large variation between individuals in trainability, you'd need quite a large dataset to make that distinction. Even then, just like power at a particular age/point-in-time, you couldn't whether outliers are dopers, or just outliers.

Sure, I wasn't saying "we this data we could weed out all the dopers", I was merely saying it would be interesting to compare and that we could see the different histories, with riders with a progressive normal growth and the others, but indeed, nothing proves that a rider falling in the "other" category is a doper, he might just be an outlier..

Even if the published data from Pinot is very interesting, in itself this type of measurement cannot garantie that you identify doping, it is just another interesting element in terms of performance analysis, generally, and in the context of cycling's peculiar history.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

gee so this is all doodoo then ? You are the type of people that says if it isn't perfect it classifies as bad ?

You are clearly hard of reading, so let's leave it there.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

1. I wasn't a coauthor on Ed's paper.

You didn't need to be to defend it ad nauseum.

 

[acoggan]

You didn't need to be to defend it ad nauseum.

I didn't. I merely shared my views (as a publishing scientist, journal reviewer, and editorial board member) on the underlying hypothesis, the process that led to its publication, and the aftermath. You may not like them, but I would submit that they are more informed (and hence more informative) than those of some anonymous internet troll.

EDIT: Just to keep the record straight, here are all of the papers that Ed and I co-authored - note that the famous/infamous Armstrong paper is not among them:

Original articles:

Coyle EF, Coggan AR, Hemmert MK, Lowe RC, Walters TJ. Substrate usage during prolonged exercise following a preexercise meal. J Appl Physiol 1985; 59: 429-433.

Coyle EF, Hemmert MK, Coggan AR. Effects of detraining upon cardiovascular responses to exercise: role of blood volume. J Appl Physiol 1986; 60: 95-99.

Coyle EF, Coggan AR, Hemmert MK, Ivy JL. Muscle glycogen utilization during prolonged strenuous exercise when fed carbohydrate. J Appl Physiol 1986; 61: 165-172.

Coggan AR, Coyle EF. Reversal of fatigue during prolonged exercise by carbohydrate infusion or ingestion. J Appl Physiol 1987; 63: 2388-2395.

Hopper MK, Coggan AR, Coyle EF. Exercise stroke volume relative to plasma volume expansion. J Appl Physiol 1988; 64: 404-408.

Coyle EF, Coggan AR, Hopper MK, Walters TJ. Determinants of endurance in well-trained cyclists. J Appl Physiol 1988; 64: 2622-2630.

Coggan AR, Coyle EF. Effect of carbohydrate feedings during high-intensity exercise. J Appl Physiol 1988; 65: 1703-1709.

Coggan AR, Coyle EF. Metabolism and performance following carbohydrate ingestion late in exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1989; 21: 59-65.

Mancini DM, Coyle EF, Coggan AR, Beltz J, Ferraro N, Montain S, Wilson JR. Contribution of intrinsic skeletal muscle changes to 31P NMR abnormalities in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation 1989; 80: 1338-1346.

Coyle EF, Hopper MK, Coggan AR. Maximal oxygen uptake relative to plasma volume expansion. Int J Sports Med 1990; 11: 116-119.

Montain SJ, Hopper MK, Coggan AR, Coyle EF. Exercise metabolism at different time intervals following a meal. J Appl Physiol 1991; 70: 882-888.

Review articles:

Coyle EF, Coggan AR. Effectiveness of carbohydrate feedings in delaying fatigue during prolonged exercise. Sports Med 1984; 1: 446-458.

Book chapters:

Coggan AR, Coyle EF. Carbohydrate ingestion during prolonged exercise: effects on metabolism and performance. In: Holloszy JO, ed. Exercise and Sports Sciences Reviews, Vol. 19. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1991: 1-40.

Coyle EF, Coggan AR. Timing of carbohydrate supplementation during prolonged strenuous exercise. In: Fluid Replacement and Heat Stress, 3rd Ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993: 99-110.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Nothing - apart from copyright laws.

(Grappe originally did have it on his personal website, but took it down)

Looking at where I did my post-doc

http://orca.cf.ac.uk/view/school/CHEMY/2014.html

That's the 2014 publications from the chemistry dept.

Some are full text downloadable, some are not.
Seems it depends on the journal involved.

A quick scan suggests RSC and ACS papers seem to be available and Commercial journals restricted.
Obviously most pdfs on that page are Doctoral theses which are published by Cardiff Uni.


Things have very much changed in University in regards research access from when I was there.

 

[sniper]

On the contrary, I understand it very well. Being published in academic and trade journals, I understand the differences.

There should be nothing stopping Pinaut offering "reprints" which these days is usually a pdf version, through his personal or team website.

what i was saying basically.

 

[acoggan]

Looking at where I did my post-doc

http://orca.cf.ac.uk/view/school/CHEMY/2014.html

That's the 2014 publications from the chemistry dept.

Some are full text downloadable, some are not.
Seems it depends on the journal involved.

It does.

FWIW, below are Taylor & Francis's (the publishers of the journal where Pinot and Grappe's paper appeared) policies. Note that although Pinot and Grappe can freely share electronic reprints, they would need to know that you want one. To avoid that (by opting for open-access) would have cost them $2950.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright and authors' rights

↑Back to top.

To assure the integrity, dissemination, and protection against copyright infringement of published articles, you will be asked to assign us, via a Publishing Agreement, the copyright in your article. Your Article is defined as the final, definitive, and citable Version of Record, and includes: (a) the accepted manuscript in its final form, including the abstract, text, bibliography, and all accompanying tables, illustrations, data; and (b) any supplemental material hosted by Taylor & Francis. Our Publishing Agreement with you will constitute the entire agreement and the sole understanding between you and us; no amendment, addendum, or other communication will be taken into account when interpreting your and our rights and obligations under this Agreement.

Copyright policy is explained in detail here .

Free article access

↑Back to top.

As an author, you will receive free access to your article on Taylor & Francis Online. You will be given access to the My authored works section of Taylor & Francis Online, which shows you all your published articles. You can easily view, read, and download your published articles from there. In addition, if someone has cited your article, you will be able to see this information. We are committed to promoting and increasing the visibility of your article and have provided guidance on how you can help . Also within My authored works , author eprints allow you as an author to quickly and easily give anyone free access to the electronic version of your article so that your friends and contacts can read and download your published article for free. This applies to all authors (not just the corresponding author).

Reprints and journal copies

↑Back to top.

Article reprints can be ordered through Rightslink® when you receive your proofs. If you have any queries about reprints, please contact the Taylor & Francis Author Services team at reprints@tandf.co.uk . To order a copy of the issue containing your article, please contact our Customer Services team at Adhoc@tandf.co.uk .

Open Access

↑Back to top.

Taylor & Francis Open Select provides authors or their research sponsors and funders with the option of paying a publishing fee and thereby making an article permanently available for free online access – open access – immediately on publication to anyone, anywhere, at any time. This option is made available once an article has been accepted in peer review.

Full details of our Open Access programme

Last updated 23/06/2014.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Also within My authored works , author eprints allow you as an author to quickly and easily give anyone free access to the electronic version of your article so that your friends and contacts can read and download your published article for free. This applies to all authors (not just the corresponding author).

So that's the trick these days then. I used to occasionally write to an author, and get a paper copy in the mail.

E-mail the author and they should be able to grant you free access online.

Thanks for that.

 

[acoggan]

E-mail the author and they should be able to grant you free access online.

julienpinot@laposte.net

(And tell him I sent you. )

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I didn't. I merely shared my views (as a publishing scientist, journal reviewer, and editorial board member) on the underlying hypothesis, the process that led to its publication, and the aftermath.

When your views are entirely in line with the results of a study of a doper that were attributed to training alone, in a study as equally full of it and devoid of the rest as that one was, you will have to forgive me for interpreting it as a defense of same.

At least Pinot's data will have some believability.

 

[acoggan]

When your views are entirely in line with the results of a study of a doper that were attributed to training alone, in a study as equally full of it and devoid of the rest as that one was, you will have to forgive me for interpreting it as a defense of same.

It wouldn't be the first time that you have failed to grasp even the simplest concept.

 

[GoodTimes]

I'd like to introduce you to Dr Coggan and Ed Coyle. And a study on one Lance Armstrong.

Hey if a sample size of one was enough for them...

You're welcome.

Also: as evidenced above, the paywall does not pay for the reviewers or the reviewing. So... uh.

I am so sorry you don't understand. Imagine if you had to pay to access your child - go on. That's a good analogy.

Regarding reviewers / reviewing getting pad, you are of course correct and I eat my humble pie . I wrote in haste, and forgot reviewers don't get paid (my academic father has mentioned it from time to time). It was a good little rant, and rants are nothing if not hasty.

Regardless, the original point stands. The paywall is to pay the price the journal demands, and that publishing open access costs the author(s) more.

But I am curious... am I to understand that you discount the usefulness of the peer review process on the basis that a bad paper was published? I agree that poor papers can be published. Further, I agree that papers can be published which then have their conclusions overturned by latter works. But, to throw the baby out with the bathwater and discount the peer review process out of hand...? Not sure that makes sense.

As for the child analogy, I'm afraid I really don't see what access to my child has to do with access to this article. The child is my dependent, and I have the right to access it. Conversely, the journal article is not my property, or my right, and I am fortunate to have the opportunity to pay (or not pay, if I decide not to) to access it. Somebody else might ask me to pay to see their child, but then, I don't really have a right to see that child and so I probably wouldn't complain to much. If you see it differently, please elucidate.

Or, we can move on from this whole argument as I don't really have a big bone to pick here, as it really seems to be more in the realm of philosophy of property and ownership and I have the impression that you and I fundamentally don't see eye to eye here (which is not something that I really want to argue about in a forum ).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It wouldn't be the first time that you have failed to grasp even the simplest concept.

And a quick check through a few threads shows more than a few people saying "Coggan defended the study" - so it's pretty much common knowledge you were doing exactly that.

Sucks to be you.

As for grasping concepts - I grasp them fine. You tried to say I was wrong once but that backfired big time.

I hope you are keeping your injection solutions refrigerated these days, Dr Coggan.