The Secret to Winning the Tour

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:

> Quoting Coyle, "To our knowledge, there have been no longitudinal studies
> performed over years on humans directly testing the hypothesis that type II
> fibers can be converted to type I muscle fibers with continued intense
> endurance training."
>
> And Coyle noted other factors that could contribute to increased efficiency,
> "Other factors that have been reported to increase cycling efficiency and
> running economy are intermittent exposure to hypoxia for several weeks as
> encountered by athletes who spend periods living at high altitude or in
> hypoxic environments. Like many endurance athletes, this individual has
> incorporated hypoxic exposure into his annual plan, which may be another
> factor contributing to improved cycling efficiency."
> Dare we point out that EPO, as found in Armstrong's urine in the 1999 Tour,
> increases efficiency without the need for hypoxic exposure?

Laff, you and Coggan have been over this before, and you
haven't learned what efficiency means.
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/5e9418f3e9dccd08/e6dd219fcfec1459#e6dd219fcfec1459>

Efficiency is power divided by oxygen uptake. (In Coyle's study
of Armstrong, both of these numbers were measured.) EPO works
by increasing the amount of oxygen the cardio system can deliver.
It increases the supply of fuel to the engine, not the efficiency with
which the engine turns the fuel into usable power. As Coggan said,
EPO use would increase the amount of oxygen respired
(VO2max or VO2 at LT).

If you have a citation which shows that EPO or other doping agents
can increase efficiency - not total power, but efficiency as defined
above - I'd be happy to read it.

IMO, Coyle's paper doesn't prove anything about Armstrong's use
or lack of doping; but your reading of it does prove something.

Ben

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> IMO, Coyle's paper doesn't prove anything about Armstrong's use
> or lack of doping; but your reading of it does prove something.

FWIW, I don't think it does either...which I was a bit surprised to
learn that Ed was called to testify on Armstrong's behalf. Then again,
just because you are an attorney doesn't mean that you have any grasp
of physiology, much less logic. ;-)

Andy Coggan

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>> >> [email protected] wrote:
>> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>"Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:[email protected]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> From the LA Times article:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>"Allegations Trail Armstrong Into Another Stage
>> >> >>>>By Alan Abrahamson, Times Staff Writer
>> >> >>>>July 9, 2006
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Edward Coyle, a University of Texas sports performance researcher
>> >> >>>>retained as an expert by Armstrong's lawyers, testified that
>> >> >>>>Armstrong
>> >> >>>>had, post-cancer, not only lost weight, resculpting his body, but
>> >> >>>>simultaneously improved his power output - thereby producing a
>> >> >>>>"huge"
>> >> >>>>power surge."
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>All you need to do is simultaneously lose weight and increase your
>> >> >>>>power
>> >> >>>>outpout - simple, see.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Simple, but also wrong. The correct method involves pedaling
>> >> >>>faster
>> >> >>>while
>> >> >>>in a higher gear.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And a way to deliver more oxygen to the muscles.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > No increase in O2 delivery, or even in O2 utilization, would be
>> >> > required to explain the magnitude of the increase in Armstrong's
>> >> > absolute power output.
>> >> >
>> >> > Andy Coggan
>> >> >
>> >> What would? Just curious really.
>> >
>> > Increased efficiency (see
>> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15774697&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum).
>> >
>> > Andy Coggan
>>
>> Close your eyes Coggan before the **** falls out.
>
> Have you got any evidence to refute the contentions in the article Andy
> cited? I mean, other than your unfounded allegations of doping?
>
> Fred

Laff@me??? Surely you gest! How long have you been on this site? Brian is a
loser and he thinks that anyone that wins has to have had some sort of
unfair advantage. Why do you suppose as a lawyer he can barely make a
living? He's already had to flee a couple of states.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Read the Coyle paper. I'll send it to you if you can't locate it.
> Coyle premises greater efficiency in Armstrong by hypothesizing a
> conversion of the type of muscle fibers in Armstrong. Such muscle fiber
> conversion has been found in one study involving rats and at the time of
> the article's publication, no such findings had been found in humans.
> Also, the only way to tell if such conversion was in fact the reason for
> Armstrong's achievements, a muscle biopsy would have had to have been
> performed on Armstrong. That was not done. Thus, the entire paper as to
> Armstrong is little more than unproved speculation. Of course we know
> that such increases in power output and endurance can be attributed to
> other means--like the EPO found in his urine from the 1999 Tour and the
> use of other preparations alluded to in the testimony of the Andreus and
> the published statements of Emma O'Reilly. What did she deliver to him in
> the carpark in Nice; what was in the blue coolers delivered to the
> Discover hotel; and who were those Spanish doctors who the Dutch
> Postal(Discovery) masseur said followed the team staying each night in the
> team's hotels but on a different floor? Efficiency experts, no doubt.

Thanks Brian, I've forwarded this statement of yours to the LAF for their
perusal. I'm sure that you'll be hearing from them soon.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Read the Coyle paper. I'll send it to you if you can't locate it.
>> Coyle premises greater efficiency in Armstrong by hypothesizing a
>> conversion of the type of muscle fibers in Armstrong. Such muscle fiber
>> conversion has been found in one study involving rats and at the time of
>> the article's publication, no such findings had been found in humans.
>> Also, the only way to tell if such conversion was in fact the reason for
>> Armstrong's achievements, a muscle biopsy would have had to have been
>> performed on Armstrong. That was not done. Thus, the entire paper as to
>> Armstrong is little more than unproved speculation. Of course we know
>> that such increases in power output and endurance can be attributed to
>> other means--like the EPO found in his urine from the 1999 Tour and the
>> use of other preparations alluded to in the testimony of the Andreus and
>> the published statements of Emma O'Reilly. What did she deliver to him
>> in the carpark in Nice; what was in the blue coolers delivered to the
>> Discover hotel; and who were those Spanish doctors who the Dutch
>> Postal(Discovery) masseur said followed the team staying each night in
>> the team's hotels but on a different floor? Efficiency experts, no
>> doubt.
>
> Thanks Brian, I've forwarded this statement of yours to the LAF for their
> perusal. I'm sure that you'll be hearing from them soon.

I look forward to it.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>>> >> [email protected] wrote:
>>> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>"Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >> >>news:[email protected]...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>> From the LA Times article:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>"Allegations Trail Armstrong Into Another Stage
>>> >> >>>>By Alan Abrahamson, Times Staff Writer
>>> >> >>>>July 9, 2006
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>Edward Coyle, a University of Texas sports performance researcher
>>> >> >>>>retained as an expert by Armstrong's lawyers, testified that
>>> >> >>>>Armstrong
>>> >> >>>>had, post-cancer, not only lost weight, resculpting his body, but
>>> >> >>>>simultaneously improved his power output - thereby producing a
>>> >> >>>>"huge"
>>> >> >>>>power surge."
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>All you need to do is simultaneously lose weight and increase
>>> >> >>>>your
>>> >> >>>>power
>>> >> >>>>outpout - simple, see.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>Simple, but also wrong. The correct method involves pedaling
>>> >> >>>faster
>>> >> >>>while
>>> >> >>>in a higher gear.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>And a way to deliver more oxygen to the muscles.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > No increase in O2 delivery, or even in O2 utilization, would be
>>> >> > required to explain the magnitude of the increase in Armstrong's
>>> >> > absolute power output.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Andy Coggan
>>> >> >
>>> >> What would? Just curious really.
>>> >
>>> > Increased efficiency (see
>>> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15774697&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum).
>>> >
>>> > Andy Coggan
>>>
>>> Close your eyes Coggan before the **** falls out.
>>
>> Have you got any evidence to refute the contentions in the article Andy
>> cited? I mean, other than your unfounded allegations of doping?
>>
>> Fred
>
> Laff@me??? Surely you gest! How long have you been on this site? Brian is
> a loser and he thinks that anyone that wins has to have had some sort of
> unfair advantage. Why do you suppose as a lawyer he can barely make a
> living? He's already had to flee a couple of states.

Got that Merckx quote yet?

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> Describe how the electrical stimulation was acheived in these various
>> animal
>> models.
>
> It doesn't matter: my point in mentioning such studies is simply to
> demonstrate that fiber type conversion *is* possible.
>
>> >as well other studies showing
>> > fiber type conversion resulting from disuse, e.g., spinal cord injury
>> > (including studies of humans).
>>
>> You're still left with having to come up with studies showing muscle
>> fiber
>> conversions of the type alleged in Coyle's paper from use.
>
> Oh, you want to play the citation game? Sure!
>
> Training (activity)-induced changes in fiber type distribution in
> animals:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=6236180&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=2146243&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=7874535&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=9659677&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=11193205&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> Training (activity)-induced changes in fiber type distribution in
> humans:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=6218405&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=2938085&query_hl=49&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=3733313&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=6227825&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=4065109&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=11774064&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> Note that the above is by no means an exhaustive search of the
> literature, nor am I claiming that the above studies aren't outnumbered
> by others that fail to show a change in fiber type distribution with
> training. They are merely offered in support of my contention that
> there is evidence in the literature that changes in fiber type
> distribution due to training/(in)activity are indeed *possible*.
>
> Also note that I deliberately have *not* cited cross-sectional studies
> or studies of patient populations or the elderly, as such do not
> provide as much evidence that changes in fiber type distribution may
> occur in athletes training for competition. However, here is a
> cross-sectional study that seems worthy of mention, in that it involved
> professional cyclists:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=12172517&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> Finally, note that I have also focussed on studies using the classical
> myosin ATPase technique for determining fiber type composition, since
> this is has what has been employed in the vast majority of studies. It
> is widely recognized, however, that this is a rather crude technique,
> and other, more modern/sensitive methods would better enable one to
> detect small, or even moderate, changes in fiber type distribution
> (i.e., use of the classical myosin ATPase method enhances the odds of
> making a type I error).
>
>> > Thus, it is clear that such
>> > interconversion is possible, the only real question is, can you achieve
>> > enough of a "dose" of activity via endurance exercise training to
>> > induce them? As you state, there is at least one study of rats showing
>> > that the answer to this question is clearly "yes", as well as various
>> > reports in the literature in humans also suggesting that it is
>> > possible.
>>
>> Which reports? Suggesting?
>
> See above.
>
>> Don't you wonder why Coyle didn't cite those
>> reports?
>
> Probably because he had no need to: an increase in efficiency due to
> alterations in functional myosin ATP activity (which is the primary
> determinant of the speed of muscle shortening) are possible even in the
> *absence* of a change in histochemically- (or even
> electrophoretically-) demonstrable change in myosin expression. Thus,
> he addressed the issue much more directly with this paragraph and
> associated citations:
>
> "It has been recognized for decades that endurance training of rats
> increases the myosin ATPase activity of type I fibers while decreasing
> it in type II fibers (2). More recent studies on humans by Fitts,
> Costill, and colleagues (17, 32, 33) directly measured maximal velocity
> of shortening of isolated single muscle fibers (i.e., using the slack
> test) obtained from biopsy samples. Ten weeks of intense swimming
> (e.g., 4-5 km/day) increased the maximal velocity of type I fibers,
> whereas in type II fibers it was decreased (17). Furthermore, Widrick
> et al. (32, 33) found that men who performed high levels of physical
> activity for 20-25 yr and who were elite master runners also
> displayed increased maximal velocity of type I fibers that was
> associated with altered myosin type (i.e., 28% greater myosin light
> chain 3 vs. 2). Therefore, intense endurance training performed for
> prolonged periods results in alterations in myosin ATPase activity
> whereby type II become more like type I fibers and type I fibers
> increase ATPase activity and alter myosin type and increase maximal
> velocity of shortening."
>
>> >> Also, the only way
>> >> to tell if such conversion was in fact the reason for Armstrong's
>> >> achievements, a muscle biopsy would have had to have been performed on
>> >> Armstrong. That was not done.
>> >
>> > That doesn't, in any way, impact the validity of the *observations* -
>> > see below.
>> >
>> >> Thus, the entire paper as to Armstrong is
>> >> little more than unproved speculation.
>> >
>> > You're wrong: Coyle presented actual *data* indicating that an increase
>> > in efficiency resulted in an 8% increase in Armstrong's absolute power
>> > output when exercising at a VO2 of 5 L/min. His *hypothesis* that this
>> > was due to an increase in the percentage of type I fibers may or may
>> > not be correct, but this in no way undermines the accuracy of the data
>> > themselves.
>>
>> I never said it did.
>
> No? Then what did you mean by this:
>
> "...the entire paper as to Armstrong is little more than unproved
> speculation."?
>
>> However, the 8% increase could well be attributed to
>> EPO, blood boosting, etc.
>
> As I just said, no, it could not. EPO and/or blood doping would have
> resulted in an increase in VO2max and in VO2 at LT, but no change in
> efficiency. Instead, VO2max and VO2 at LT did not change, whereas
> efficiency increased.
>
>> >> Of course we know that such
>> >> increases in power output and endurance can be attributed to other
>> >> means--like the EPO
>> >
>> > If EPO or blood doping were responsible for Armstrong's slight (but
>> > nonetheless significant, at least in the world of high level sport)
>> > improvement in absolute performance power, then his VO2max and VO2 at
>> > LT would have increased, his LT as a percentage of his VO2max would
>> > have decreased, and his efficiency would not have changed. None of
>> > these things happened: his VO2max and his LT (in absolute terms and
>> > relative to VO2max) were essentially constant, whereas his efficiency
>> > improved. Thus, there is absolutely nothing at all in Coyle's paper to
>> > support the claim that Armstrong doped.
>>
>> I never said that there was anything in Coyle's paper that supported the
>> claim that Armstrong doped.
>
> No, but you claimed that Coyle's explanation couldn't possibly be
> correct, which in the alternative supports your contention that
> Armstrong doped. As I have laid out in detail, however, your contention
> is clearly wrong, which means that there is no requirement to invoke
> doping to explain Armstrong's improvement in performance ability.
>
>> I've stated that Coyle's hypothesis for the
>> improvement in Armstrong's persormance is suspect and, absent a muscle
>> biopsy, is conjecture on his part.
>> Why wasn't that biopsy done? Ask Eddie next time you speak with him and
>> get
>> back to us.
>
> I don't need to ask, because I know what his answer would be: the data
> were collected as a service to Armstrong, not with the intention of
> eventually publishing them - the utility of biopsy data for completing
> the picture was therefore only evident in hindsight. (Moreover, even if
> it could have been predicted in advance that Armstrong would go on to
> win the Tour seven times and that this would appear to be due, at least
> in part, to an increase in efficiency, there's no guarantee that
> Armstrong would have consented to multiple biopsies.)
>
>> > Andy Coggan (who could kick Laffatme's ass in a courtroom as well)
>>
>> We don't act like that in courtrooms.
>
> Wimp.

Remember that what Laf@me is saying is that you are BORN as complete as you
will ever be. That no amount of training will EVER change the makeup of your
body, only enhance what you were given by genetics. By now no reputable
scientist would ever say anything that stupid.

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Who is this Tooth Fairy to whom you keep alluding??

Let us remember that Brian was teaching children to ride bikes......

 

[Tom Kunich]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You your position is that it's either/or?

Dang! I could have sworn that if you look at the O2 input and it stays the
same and you look at the power output and it increases that you MUST admit
an increase in efficency unrelated to Hct. But surely even you are smart
enough to know that and are simply BSing as is your wont.

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> > Increased efficiency (see
>> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15774697&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum).
>>
>> The VO2 max that Coyle attributes to Lance is 61/min - I always thought
>> a competitive number was 80+/min (assuming we're talking liters per
>> minute). Is he using another metric?
>
> The abstract says about 6 l/min (liters/min) - "6 l" looks like 61
> in some fonts. The number you're thinking of is ml/min/kg
> of body weight - 6 l/min / 70 kg is 86 ml/min/kg, but since
> both the 6 and the 70 are approximate, it could be anywhere
> in the 80-90 range.

It was always said that there was nothing exceptional about Armstrong except
his ability to maintain lower than normal levels of lactic acid during
extreme stress. That allowed him to ride harder longer than others who had
his same power output. And what was his usual modus operandi? Why to make a
jump on the last climb when everyone was dying already or to hold power
outputs longer than others.

The idea that somehow Armstrong's accomplishments were super human is simply
a farce.