The Secret to Winning the Tour

[Gabe Brovedani]

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.

Gabe Brovedani

[Scoot]

Gabe Brovedani wrote:
> All you need to do is simultaneously lose weight and increase your power
> outpout - simple, see.
>


It's so easy when you strip it down to its base elements....

Scoot
SDG

[Tim Lines]

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.

There's a Miller Lite commercial in here somewhere.

[B. Lafferty]

"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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.

>
> There's a Miller Lite commercial in here somewhere.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:19:50 -0700, Tim Lines > wrote:

>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.

I thought it was get to the finish line ahead of your opponents.
Simple really.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[[email protected]]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:19:50 -0700, Tim Lines > wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> I thought it was get to the finish line ahead of your opponents.
> Simple really.

Ya beat me to it!

Kind of like Robbie McEwan saying it's not the energy you expend, it's
the energy you save.

Once on Eurosport a reporter asked Marcus Grunholm what his plan was to
win the rally in question. His reply: "I will drive faster than them."

Joseph

[Scott]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Tim Lines" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > 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.

If there is ever any doubt about your obsession with doping, just
review this thread. Something as simple and silly as this thread, and
YOU have to bring doping into it.

Let it go, or barring that, at least keep your comments restricted to
more appropriate, serious discussions on the issue. You're like a damn
parrot squawking about dope all the time, and it's damn tiresome.

Scott

p.s. and before you fire back some snappy retort, try taking a serious
look at what I'm suggesting. If you're serious about your concerns
over doping, and not just trying to annoy people, you'll see that your
obsessive harping on it is not helping. Seriously, think about it.
There's a time and place for everything, but not every time and place
is appropriate for just anything.

[Tim Lines]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:19:50 -0700, Tim Lines > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I thought it was get to the finish line ahead of your opponents.
> Simple really.
>

Uncle.

[[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."

Hmm...I did not know that Ed had been called to testify.

Anyway, the quotes around "huge" are probably appropriate, because by
Ed's estimates Armstrong's absolute power was only slightly higher
during his Tour-winning years compared to what it was when he was
younger (and heavier).

Andy Coggan

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Tim Lines" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > 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

[Andre]

Tim Lines wrote:
> 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.
>
> There's a Miller Lite commercial in here somewhere.

Winning and Miller beer should not be in the same sentence or paragraph.

[Gabe Brovedani]

Andre wrote:
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>There's a Miller Lite commercial in here somewhere.
>
>
> Winning and Miller beer should not be in the same sentence or paragraph.
>
I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.

[Gabe Brovedani]

wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>>"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>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.

Gabe Brovedani

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Gabe Brovedani > wrote:

> Andre wrote:
> > Tim Lines wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >>
> >>There's a Miller Lite commercial in here somewhere.
> >
> >
> > Winning and Miller beer should not be in the same sentence or paragraph.
> >
> I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.

"Quantity *is* quality!"

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Tim Lines]

Andre wrote:
> Tim Lines wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> There's a Miller Lite commercial in here somewhere.
>
> Winning and Miller beer should not be in the same sentence or paragraph.
>

Millar beer?

[Donald Munro]

Gabe Brovedani wrote:
> I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.

I drink therefore I was ?

[Stu Fleming]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>
>>I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.
>
>
> I drink therefore I was ?
>

I drink therefore I forget.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Donald Munro > wrote:

> Gabe Brovedani wrote:
> > I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.
>
> I drink therefore I was ?

Let me handle this one.

To LIVEDRUNK is to understand that you could get nut cancer at any time,
and therefore you shouldn't waste your life away on sobriety.

Also, there's something about riding your bike. I can't remember what.

Our hero is Mark-Paul "Zak from Saved by the Bell" Gosselaar, a Cat 3
bike racer with an enormous custom-built liquor cabinet.

Feeling bummed because I got dropped during yesterday's Tuesday Nighter,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:53:44 +0200, Donald Munro
> wrote:

>Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>> I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.
>
>I drink therefore I was ?

I drank, therefore I whiz.


Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[[email protected]]

Gabe Brovedani wrote:
> wrote:
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >
> >>"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>
> >>>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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15774697&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum).

Andy Coggan

[B. Lafferty]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>
>> >>>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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15774697&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum).
>
> Andy Coggan

Close your eyes Coggan before the **** falls out.

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Gabe Brovedani wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> >>
> >> >>>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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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

[Donald Munro]

Andy Coggan wrote:
>> Increased efficiency (see
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15774697&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum).

B. Lafferty wrote:
> Close your eyes Coggan before the **** falls out.

He's got brown eyes ?

[B. Lafferty]

"Donald Munro" > wrote in message
. com...
> Andy Coggan wrote:
>>> Increased efficiency (see
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15774697&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum).
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Close your eyes Coggan before the **** falls out.
>
> He's got brown eyes ?
>
No doubt.

[B. Lafferty]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
>> >> . ..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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
>
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.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > > 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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?

Thanks,
WaltA

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Stu Fleming
') wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
>> Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.
>>
>>
>> I drink therefore I was ?
>>
>
> I drink therefore I forget.

I dringk zherefore... zherefore... no, lishen, 's'ver' intrestin'...
zherefore... zherefore...

I dringk zherefore I drungk. I thingk. Hic!

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > Gabe Brovedani wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
> >> >> . ..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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
> >
> 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.

This is a distortion of the facts. There are dozens, if not hundreds,
of studies showing fiber type conversion due to chronic electrical
stimulation in various animal models, as well other studies showing
fiber type conversion resulting from disuse, e.g., spinal cord injury
(including studies of humans). 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Andy Coggan (who could kick Laffatme's ass in a courtroom as well)

[B. Lafferty]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> > Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
>> >> >> . ..
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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
>> >
>> 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.
>
> This is a distortion of the facts. There are dozens, if not hundreds,
> of studies showing fiber type conversion due to chronic electrical
> stimulation in various animal models,

Describe how the electrical stimulation was acheived in these various animal
models.

>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.

> 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? Don't you wonder why Coyle didn't cite those
reports?

>
>> 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. However, the 8% increase could well be attributed to
EPO, blood boosting, etc. Not that we have any indications that that was
done, do we. ;-)

>
>> 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. 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.
>
> Andy Coggan (who could kick Laffatme's ass in a courtroom as well)

We don't act like that in courtrooms. Now be a good boy, go to bed early
tonight and maybe the Tooth Fairy will visit you too. :-)

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Gabe Brovedani > wrote:

> I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.

I'm an occasional drinker. I go out for a beer, and wake
up in Singapore with a full beard.

--
Michael Press

[B. Lafferty]

"Michael Press" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Gabe Brovedani > wrote:
>
>> I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.
>
> I'm an occasional drinker. I go out for a beer, and wake
> up in Singapore with a full beard.

And no tattoos?!

[[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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6236180&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2146243&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7874535&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9659677&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6218405&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2938085&query_hl=49&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3733313&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6227825&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=4065109&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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.

Andy Coggan

[Stu Fleming]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Gabe Brovedani > wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think you really understand the LiveDrunk(TM) philosophy.
>
>
> I'm an occasional drinker. I go out for a beer, and wake
> up in Singapore with a full beard.
>

I had a friend that that happened to as well.
It's important to use the Hogan Technique in bars to sort out the boys
from the ladyboys.

[B. Lafferty]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6236180&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2146243&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7874535&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9659677&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6218405&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2938085&query_hl=49&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3733313&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6227825&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=4065109&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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*.


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?

>
> 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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.

No. I haven't said that his explaination isn't possible. I've said it is
not ultimnately supported and Coyle agrees with that position stating,
"Muscle samples were not surgically obtained from this athlete to directly
test the hypothesis that muscle fiber-type conversion contributed to the
large increases in mechanical or muscular efficiency when cycling.
Therefore, this hypothesis that the percentage of type I muscle fibers
increased in this individual requires identification of other performance
characteristics that clearly changed in this individual over that 7-yr
period with discussion as to whether they are consistent with the hypothesis
of increased percentage of type I muscle fibers." Other performance
characteristics, indeed. But the cause of those changes?

Of course Coyle, in discussing myosin ATPase activity, cites to a number of
the studies that you note above. And once again, that word "possibility"
pops up, whith Coyle writing, "These observations support the possibility
that in the subject of the present study, 7 yr of extremely intense
endurance training and improved muscular efficiency when cycling was related
to altered myosin type that allowed more of the energy released from ATP
hydrolysis during contraction to be converted to power production."

>
>> 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.

Interesting conjecture on your part, but unsupported. Go ahead and ask him
to confirm your conjecture.

> (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.)

I love your use of the phrase "at least in part." And the other part? :-)

>
>> > Andy Coggan (who could kick Laffatme's ass in a courtroom as well)
>>
>> We don't act like that in courtrooms.
>
> Wimp.

LOL! Big hug. Say hello to the Tooth Fairy tonight.

>
> Andy Coggan
>

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6236180&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2146243&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7874535&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9659677&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6218405&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2938085&query_hl=49&itool=pubmed_docsum
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3733313&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_DocSum
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6227825&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=4065109&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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*.
>
>
> 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."

He's right, there aren't - so what?

> 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?

No, we don't dare do that, because the increase in efficiency due to
exposure to hypoxia is seemingly unrelated to the actions of EPO.

> > 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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.
>
> No. I haven't said that his explaination isn't possible. I've said it is
> not ultimnately supported and Coyle agrees with that position stating,
> "Muscle samples were not surgically obtained from this athlete to directly
> test the hypothesis that muscle fiber-type conversion contributed to the
> large increases in mechanical or muscular efficiency when cycling.
> Therefore, this hypothesis that the percentage of type I muscle fibers
> increased in this individual requires identification of other performance
> characteristics that clearly changed in this individual over that 7-yr
> period with discussion as to whether they are consistent with the hypothesis
> of increased percentage of type I muscle fibers." Other performance
> characteristics, indeed. But the cause of those changes?

Does it really matter, at least relevant to the question at hand?
Clearly, they do not: it is sufficient to know that Armstrong's
improvement in absolute power was due to an increase in efficiency, and
not due to changes in oxygen delivery/utilization (as one would expect
if it were due to EPO use/blood doping).

> Of course Coyle, in discussing myosin ATPase activity, cites to a number of
> the studies that you note above. And once again, that word "possibility"
> pops up, whith Coyle writing, "These observations support the possibility
> that in the subject of the present study, 7 yr of extremely intense
> endurance training and improved muscular efficiency when cycling was related
> to altered myosin type that allowed more of the energy released from ATP
> hydrolysis during contraction to be converted to power production."

Again, what Ed said in the discussion is really irrelevant...what
matters are the *data*.

> >> 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.
>
> Interesting conjecture on your part, but unsupported. Go ahead and ask him
> to confirm your conjecture.

I will - but what difference does it make? (Given your obvious lack of
understanding of the physiology of exercise and training, you probably
mistakenly believe that EPO use can be diagnosed from looking at a
biopsy sample.)

> > (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.)
>
> I love your use of the phrase "at least in part." And the other part? :-)

Oh, how about things like, say, luck (in avoiding any significant
illnesses or debilitating crashes during his 7 wins)?

> >> > Andy Coggan (who could kick Laffatme's ass in a courtroom as well)
> >>
> >> We don't act like that in courtrooms.
> >
> > Wimp.
>
> LOL! Big hug. Say hello to the Tooth Fairy tonight.

Who is this Tooth Fairy to whom you keep alluding??

Andy Coggan

[Donald Munro]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> 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.

What about Mayo ? He seems to have been transformed into a sprinter
finishing in the autobus.

[B. Lafferty]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:

[snip]
>> No. I haven't said that his explaination isn't possible. I've said it is
>> not ultimnately supported and Coyle agrees with that position stating,
>> "Muscle samples were not surgically obtained from this athlete to
>> directly
>> test the hypothesis that muscle fiber-type conversion contributed to the
>> large increases in mechanical or muscular efficiency when cycling.
>> Therefore, this hypothesis that the percentage of type I muscle fibers
>> increased in this individual requires identification of other performance
>> characteristics that clearly changed in this individual over that 7-yr
>> period with discussion as to whether they are consistent with the
>> hypothesis
>> of increased percentage of type I muscle fibers." Other performance
>> characteristics, indeed. But the cause of those changes?
>
> Does it really matter, at least relevant to the question at hand?
> Clearly, they do not: it is sufficient to know that Armstrong's
> improvement in absolute power was due to an increase in efficiency, and
> not due to changes in oxygen delivery/utilization (as one would expect
> if it were due to EPO use/blood doping).

You your position is that it's either/or?

>
>> Of course Coyle, in discussing myosin ATPase activity, cites to a number
>> of
>> the studies that you note above. And once again, that word "possibility"
>> pops up, whith Coyle writing, "These observations support the
>> possibility
>> that in the subject of the present study, 7 yr of extremely intense
>> endurance training and improved muscular efficiency when cycling was
>> related
>> to altered myosin type that allowed more of the energy released from ATP
>> hydrolysis during contraction to be converted to power production."
>
> Again, what Ed said in the discussion is really irrelevant...what
> matters are the *data*.

Oh, I see. It doesn' matter what he or any researcher writes as long as
there's data?


>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Interesting conjecture on your part, but unsupported. Go ahead and ask
>> him
>> to confirm your conjecture.
>
> I will - but what difference does it make? (Given your obvious lack of
> understanding of the physiology of exercise and training, you probably
> mistakenly believe that EPO use can be diagnosed from looking at a
> biopsy sample.)

Now Andy, we all know you can't test for EPO use with muscle biopsy any more
than you can check the validity of an NIH researcher's credentials by
looking in Martindale-Hubble.

>
>> > (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.)
>>
>> I love your use of the phrase "at least in part." And the other part?
>> :-)
>
> Oh, how about things like, say, luck (in avoiding any significant
> illnesses or debilitating crashes during his 7 wins)?

Or using EPO before there was a test for it. But, that wouldn't be luck,
would it?

>
>> >> > Andy Coggan (who could kick Laffatme's ass in a courtroom as well)
>> >>
>> >> We don't act like that in courtrooms.
>> >
>> > Wimp.
>>
>> LOL! Big hug. Say hello to the Tooth Fairy tonight.
>
> Who is this Tooth Fairy to whom you keep alluding??

The answer to that can be found in another poster's writings. Do your
research.

>
> Andy Coggan
>

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >> No. I haven't said that his explaination isn't possible. I've said it is
> >> not ultimnately supported and Coyle agrees with that position stating,
> >> "Muscle samples were not surgically obtained from this athlete to
> >> directly
> >> test the hypothesis that muscle fiber-type conversion contributed to the
> >> large increases in mechanical or muscular efficiency when cycling.
> >> Therefore, this hypothesis that the percentage of type I muscle fibers
> >> increased in this individual requires identification of other performance
> >> characteristics that clearly changed in this individual over that 7-yr
> >> period with discussion as to whether they are consistent with the
> >> hypothesis
> >> of increased percentage of type I muscle fibers." Other performance
> >> characteristics, indeed. But the cause of those changes?
> >
> > Does it really matter, at least relevant to the question at hand?
> > Clearly, they do not: it is sufficient to know that Armstrong's
> > improvement in absolute power was due to an increase in efficiency, and
> > not due to changes in oxygen delivery/utilization (as one would expect
> > if it were due to EPO use/blood doping).
>
> You your position is that it's either/or?

That's the only interpretation that is compatible with the available
data.

> >> Of course Coyle, in discussing myosin ATPase activity, cites to a number
> >> of
> >> the studies that you note above. And once again, that word "possibility"
> >> pops up, whith Coyle writing, "These observations support the
> >> possibility
> >> that in the subject of the present study, 7 yr of extremely intense
> >> endurance training and improved muscular efficiency when cycling was
> >> related
> >> to altered myosin type that allowed more of the energy released from ATP
> >> hydrolysis during contraction to be converted to power production."
> >
> > Again, what Ed said in the discussion is really irrelevant...what
> > matters are the *data*.
>
> Oh, I see. It doesn' matter what he or any researcher writes as long as
> there's data?

In the present context, it doesn't matter how Ed *interpreted* the data
or what hypotheses he put forth to explain it, because the data
*themselves* are inconsistent with your arguments.

Andy Coggan

[[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]]

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]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
>> >> . ..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> 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" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> 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" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>> > Gabe Brovedani wrote:
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
>>> >> . ..
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6236180&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2146243&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7874535&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9659677&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6218405&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2938085&query_hl=49&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3733313&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6227825&query_hl=51&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=4065109&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> 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" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> 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]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> wrote:
>> wrote:
>
>> > Increased efficiency (see
>> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_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.