"It's Not About the Drugs"

B. Lafferty wrote:
Coyle has presented a hypothesis [that is, increased efficiency] which
he has failed to adequately test on his subject.

However, it's not a new hypothesis, or one that was expressly invented for
LANCE. Coyle made the same hypothesis in his 1991 paper (possibly earlier,
but it's definitely in that paper). Have you read the paper? Don't jump to
conclusions until you've read the paper.

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
B. Lafferty wrote:

Other than criticising Baker's syntax, you do agree that there is a
good
correlation between VO2Max and climbing, don't you?

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/vo2max-lt.png

Sorta depends on what you mean by "good." There's a reasonable
correlation
between VO2Max and watts/kg, particularly if you don't have any other
measurement around, but it still leaves about half of the variance in
watts/kg unexplained. VO2LT when normalized by weight (so it has the
same
units as VO2Max) explains much more of the variance: around
three-quarters. The best way to interpret Baker's sentence is: "VO2Max
doesn't correlate particularly well with any of the usual metrics of
cycling performance; the performance measurement it does the least
lousy
job of correlating with is watts/kg, and even there it's not as good
as
VO2LT."

All in all, saying that in order to produce wattage Y you have to have
a
VO2Max of X is a pretty weak nail to hang an argument on.

You're flogging one dead horse and preaching to the quoir at the same
time.

Phil H

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
B. Lafferty wrote:
Coyle has presented a hypothesis [that is, increased efficiency]
which
he has failed to adequately test on his subject.

However, it's not a new hypothesis, or one that was expressly invented
for
LANCE. Coyle made the same hypothesis in his 1991 paper (possibly
earlier,
but it's definitely in that paper). Have you read the paper? Don't
jump to
conclusions until you've read the paper.

A dead horse doesn't jump. The quoir waits patiently for the conclusive
evidence.

Phil H

Philip Holman wrote:

You're flogging one dead horse and preaching to the quoir at the same
time.

You've obviously overlooked the subject line in this post:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...= dead+horses