Thibaut Pinot's training data

[acoggan]

Almesian: the entire training protocol espoused by the big 3 is based on endurance training converting muscle fibre types.[/quote}

??

"Big 3"?

If muscle fibre types are determined via myosin expression and a change in myosin expression is used as evidence of change in muscle fibre type, is it possible to change myosin expression without changing the fibre type?

You're confused. By definition, the answer to your question is no.

Is it possible that the evidence cited in

comes from equally dodgy studies of doped up elite athletes?

I can think of one case study of an elite XC skier detraining as a result of an injury, but for the most part said studies have been of ordinary Joes and Joesephines. For example, one study demonstrating fiber type transformation was based on biopsies of the triceps of explorer scientists who thought it would be fun to pull sledges vast distances through the Arctic on skis.

 

[acoggan]

I rather be wrong like that than be wrong like Coyle&Armstrong.

Wrong is wrong.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

but for the most part said studies have been of ordinary Joes and Joesephines. For example, one study demonstrating fiber type transformation was based on biopsies of the triceps of explorer scientists who thought it would be fun to pull sledges vast distances through the Arctic on skis.

So they took biopsies pre- and post-trip?

 

[Almeisan]

Wrong is wrong.

Not really. I didn't know about Coyle's wild conjectures because, as I already admitted, I never even read the paper. That is me being wrong.

On the other hand, we have Coyle who ruined his scientific credibility.

 

[Almeisan]

A
My question to you, Almesian, is this: approaching it from an analytical, "correlation is not causation" POV. If muscle fibre types are determined via myosin expression and a change in myosin expression is used as evidence of change in muscle fibre type, is it possible to change myosin expression without changing the fibre type?

But muscle type isn't defined by myosin expression, is it?
It is defined by how the tissue appears under the microscope. I don't know all the staining techniques developed for different muscle types beyond myofibrillar ATPase staining and what pitfalls they may all have.
Maybe they measure myoglobin concentration nowadays, I don't even know.

If you define muscle type based on myosin concentration or the dominant variant of myofibrillar ATPase, then you don't define it based on myosin.

Is is possible angiogenic etc manipulation (?) via EPO usage, not to mention testosterone and HgH could also have an impact on myosin expression without any corresponding muscle fibre type changes?

Anything can be a subtle expression factor without us knowing it. EPO and HGH are triggers for receptors, so who knows what all the tiny elements in the overall cascade are that could affect myosin expression. Nothing is a one way street in gene expression and not to mention it is kind of a psuedo-zero-sum game; one gene is expressed less if another gene is expressed more.
But we know the overall mechanisms of these drugs.

That said, the body does have a mechanism for changing a tiny bit of type I to type II and more importantly to make type I or type II develop out of stem cells. So whatever enzyme or receptor or hormone is involved there, it can be abused someday as a drug. We just know it isn't EPO or HGH.

And when we look at the more straightforward testosterone, we don't even know which all the genes are it promotes and which genes it would never touch.

And we didn't even touch upon the splicing of all these dozens of enzymes involved in metabolism. of glycogen in muscles.


And even so, if this happened in Armstrong, it doesn't explain why it didn't happen in all these other doped up athletes. It isn't even the doping that he measured. All that improvement would mostly come from being able to use more oxygen, not to use it more efficiently because of completely different ratios of enzyme-variants being expressed.

If that is what happens it would require a lot of evidence to substantiate.

 

[acoggan]

So they took biopsies pre- and post-trip?

Of course - how else would you determine muscle fiber type?

Anyway, to satisfy your curiosity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6227825

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6218405

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2950727

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2960127

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2932641

Etc.

 

[acoggan]

But muscle type isn't defined by myosin expression, is it?

Yes, it is.

It is defined by how the tissue appears under the microscope.

...which is determined by the (primary) form of myosin that is expressed. (This is true regardless of whether you rely on variable inhibition of ATPase activity via manipulation of ions such as H+ - which is the classic method - or depend upon immunohistochemistry.

I don't know all the staining techniques developed for different muscle types beyond myofibrillar ATPase staining and what pitfalls they may all have.
Maybe they measure myoglobin concentration nowadays, I don't even know.

No comment.

If you define muscle type based on myosin concentration or the dominant variant of myofibrillar ATPase, then you don't define it based on myosin.

Muscle fibers (motor units, actually, since all muscle fibers in a motor unit are identical) fall on a continuum, such that any division into types is somewhat arbitrary. That said, there are clearly 3 major classes, which differ not only in terms of the myosin isoform they express (and hence their contractile properties, since myosin heavy chain composition is a key - albeit not only - determinant of the latter) but also in terms of other properties as well (e.g., mitochondrial content, capillarization, SR protein expression, etc.). Many of these properties change in response to endurance exercise training - for example, the mitochondrial respiratory capacity of a type IIa fiber of a trained athlete can be higher than that of a type I fiber in an untrained individual. Because of this, it is recognized that fibers don't always necessarily fall neatly into any classification scheme...but scientists have tacitly agreed that, at the end of the day, a fiber's type is determined by the primary myosin protein that is expressed.

if this happened in Armstrong, it doesn't explain why it didn't happen in all these other doped up athletes.

How do we know that it didn't?

All that improvement would mostly come from being able to use more oxygen

This is incorrect: VO2max reaches a plateau fairly early in an athlete's career.

 

[Almeisan]

If you want make inferences about myosin you have to use monoclonal antibodies. Traditional staining methods won't do.

 

[Almeisan]

This is incorrect: VO2max reaches a plateau fairly early in an athlete's career.

No comment!

 

[acoggan]

Not really. I didn't know about Coyle's wild conjectures because, as I already admitted, I never even read the paper. That is me being wrong.

No, that is you being intellectually lazy. Hopefully your dissertation adviser will drum that bad habit out of you. (I would, or you'd never finish your degree.)

On the other hand, we have Coyle who ruined his scientific credibility.

Ya think? People have been yammerin' on about the Armstrong paper ever since it was published in 2005. Yet, according to the Web of Science since that time Coyle has been publishing just as frequently and the frequency with which his papers are cited has continued to grow. Guess that's just you being wrong again, eh?

 

[acoggan]

If you want make inferences about myosin you have to use monoclonal antibodies. Traditional staining methods won't do.

Try telling that to Brooke and Kaiser.

 

[Almeisan]

No, that is you being intellectually lazy. Hopefully your dissertation adviser will drum that bad habit out of you. (I would, or you'd never finish your degree.)

Maybe I am home free if I can find someone as sloppy as Coyle.

It isn't my job to clean up your field. This isn't even a scientific forum. I am just here to ridicule you about your eternal Coyle defense.

Why are you here? Not sure you know yourself why.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This is incorrect: VO2max reaches a plateau fairly early in an athlete's career.

I think you're confused here. Armstrong doped with testosterone and EPO, both of which would increase Hgb mass. Increased Hgb mass increases VO2max.

 

[Tonton]

I would respectfully suggest that we stick to the thread and avoid personal attacks. And if we talk about degrees, mine is no PHD, has nothing to do with sports' science or pharma. However, it enables me to guarantee big police activity in July '15. The gov needs social peace at all cost. Hollande experienced it this year. Ensuring a "clean" TdF will give two or three months worth of morphine to the People at a fraction of the cost of creating one or two millions of jobs. That is provided that Pinot can podium. Or JCP, or Bardet, Barguil, or Rolland (question mark, knee, cortisone, Voekler ). That's the magic of the TdF: some of you can't quite understand it. You have to experience it: July in France. Pinot's camp is smart and setting up the stage, thinking that dope-free, Thibaut can be on the podium, close enough to make it breathtaking, and who knows?

 

[acoggan]

I think you're confused here. Armstrong doped with testosterone and EPO, both of which would increase Hgb mass. Increased Hgb mass increases VO2max.

No argument there. I was speaking in generalities (for undoped athletes, anyway).

 

[acoggan]

Maybe I am home free if I can find someone as sloppy as Coyle.

It isn't my job to clean up your field. This isn't even a scientific forum. I am just here to ridicule you about your eternal Coyle defense.

Why are you here? Not sure you know yourself why.

Because unlike you, I have knowledge of the field, and feel a duty to share it.

Also, I'm sadistic (not masochistic).

 

[GoodTimes]

Welll....

I found this article pretty funny, and shed a humbling light on the value of the peer review process

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...-profanity-laced-rant-as-peer-reviewed-paper/

 

[acoggan]

Welll....

I found this article pretty funny, and shed a humbling light on the value of the peer review process

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...-profanity-laced-rant-as-peer-reviewed-paper/

Yeah, academic publishing ain't what it used to be. Between journals created just to make $$ and 'boutique' journals that care only for their own 'brand', lots of crap out there these days. That's why many scientists believe that the best work is to be found in long-standing, mid-level, society-supported journals.

 

[TailWindHome]

Daniel Friebe ‏@friebos · 8m8 minutes ago
Nippo-Fantini (Cunego & Nibali Jnr's new team) claim that they will publish all riders' bio passport test results in 2015. A first.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I checked the link when it first went up and it was a paid paper. It's now freely downloadable - was that always the case and I just missed it? I remember being frustrated that I could not get access - yet again - to a paper.

I've downloaded it, has anyone else? Anyone had a read?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Daniel Friebe ‏@friebos · 8m8 minutes ago
Nippo-Fantini (Cunego & Nibali Jnr's new team) claim that they will publish all riders' bio passport test results in 2015. A first.

Very good news. Add SRM data as well please.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Daniel Friebe ‏@friebos · 8m8 minutes ago
Nippo-Fantini (Cunego & Nibali Jnr's new team) claim that they will publish all riders' bio passport test results in 2015. A first.

Neri Sottoli promised the same thing after 2013's Giro. Just sayin'.

 

[thehog]

Daniel Friebe ‏@friebos · 8m8 minutes ago
Nippo-Fantini (Cunego & Nibali Jnr's new team) claim that they will publish all riders' bio passport test results in 2015. A first.

Good news for the pseudo scientists.

Cookson will have this shutdown. We don't need the public being informed.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Neri Sottoli promised the same thing after 2013's Giro. Just sayin'.

Scinto's team is a complete circus.
The Nippo outfit might be better operated, lets see what they come up with.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Scinto's team is a complete circus.
The Nippo outfit might be better operated, lets see what they come up with.

I would welcome it with open arms, no question, but feel somewhat jaded with the releases to date - Froome, Ryder, and Neri. All lacking in detail.