|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
B. Lafferty wrote:
A question, if I may. Are you aware of any serious critique of the Vayer analysis found in the Walsh book? If there is, please point me in that direction with a citation. Thanks! Hey Laffhole, How about http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...263931f9c08ad0 Just to refresh, since you seem to have forgotten, that's where you posted an excerpt under an alias and Chung and a few others picked out the bonehead math errors. Can't imagine how you could have forgotten. Bob Schwartz |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
B. Lafferty wrote: A question, if I may. Are you aware of any serious critique of the Vayer analysis found in the Walsh book? If there is, please point me in that direction with a citation. Thanks! The question of the rising average speed of the TdF with time was addressed here, where it's seen that the average speed is most strongly related to the total distance, and once the distance effect is taken out, there is not a convincing trend with time: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...a018ac017d9bf7 That doesn't address the Vayer analysis of hill-climbing, which Bob Schwartz pointed to. From what I've seen Vayer's analyses mostly come down to pointing out that some feat is incredible, and deducing that therefore it is impossible (w/o dopage). This isn't really an argument. To make even a circumstantial argument, one would like to see numbers that (for example) show a sharp jump with time. For example, if everyone before 1990 climbed Alpe d'Huez in 50 minutes and all the winners after climbed it in 30, you would start to wonder - but the actual numbers are Coppi 44' in 1952, Pantani 37.6' in 1997, so it's close enough to never prove anything. We've been over this before here, of course. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
DC wrote:
How is one supposed to prove a negative? This "you can't prove a negative" thingy is totally misguided. Without asserting anything, just for logical discourse: "Lance is a doper." "Lance has never doped." "Lance is clean." "Lance has taken dope once." What of the above is the mythical non-provable negative? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as *all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water. they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer." i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that, on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in vayer's analysis. on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too carefully. The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine, the distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that portion of Vayer's analysis. The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one major climb this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts. *Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like ProCycling pull together several experts for a discussion of what Vayer has done. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Sandy" wrote in message
... The only race Armstrong won, of 20 in this year's tour, was one time trial, and nothing in line. Sandy, I'm sure that you're well aware that the reason for this is that the organizers intended to build a course that played against every Armstrong weakness. The mountain stages often had finishes a long way from the peak, the stages were so long that they had to be raced in survival mode etc. It is actually a compliment to Armstong that they felt it necessary to try to make such a course to defeat him and yet still failed. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message news wrote in message ups.com... vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as *all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water. they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer." i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that, on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in vayer's analysis. on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too carefully. The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine, the distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that portion of Vayer's analysis. The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one major climb this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts. *Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like ProCycling pull together several experts for a discussion of what Vayer has done. Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can develop 6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion can develop 6.62 over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance weighs about 70kg this equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given the same body weight this will result in almost the same proportions in climbing speed. Say 15 mph versus 16 mph. As for FL's unremarkable 370 watts, that's about equivalent to what a UCI division III pro can sustain for 20 minutes. Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he must use drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and estimates thrown in to sway the uninformed. Phil H |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Philip Holman" wrote in message ... "B. Lafferty" wrote in message news wrote in message ups.com... vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as *all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water. they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer." i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that, on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in vayer's analysis. on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too carefully. The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine, the distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that portion of Vayer's analysis. The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one major climb this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts. *Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like ProCycling pull together several experts for a discussion of what Vayer has done. Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can develop 6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion can develop 6.62 over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance weighs about 70kg this equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given the same body weight this will result in almost the same proportions in climbing speed. Say 15 mph versus 16 mph. As for FL's unremarkable 370 watts, that's about equivalent to what a UCI division III pro can sustain for 20 minutes. Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he must use drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and estimates thrown in to sway the uninformed. Phil H Looking at http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v3.gif it appears that the top level Coggan presents at functional threshold is 6.4 Consider that Armstrong is, according to Vayer and Ferrari as quoted in Coyle's book, putting out a ft level of 480-500 watts with a magic number of 6.7 (according to Ferrari) This is all done with a measured VO2Max of 82 or 83. Eddie Coyle speculates that Armstrong *may* have a VO2Max at present of 85 (Coyle has apparently not been able to confirm that speculation with lab tests). Coyle goes through a rather labored attempt to explain this FT power output by speculative muscle fiber conversion theories not supported by muscle biopsy and hyperbaric living. But there are other possible explanations. What Vayer asserts is that Armstrong's FT output is virtually impossible with the VO2Max that he has. BTW, Floyd Landis has a VO2Max of 90 and Ullrich's is 88. I'd like to read a discussion of this by Coggan and others in the field such as Keen. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message news "Philip Holman" wrote in message ... "B. Lafferty" wrote in message news wrote in message ups.com... vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as *all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water. they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer." i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that, on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in vayer's analysis. on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too carefully. The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine, the distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that portion of Vayer's analysis. The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one major climb this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts. *Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like ProCycling pull together several experts for a discussion of what Vayer has done. Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can develop 6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion can develop 6.62 over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance weighs about 70kg this equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given the same body weight this will result in almost the same proportions in climbing speed. Say 15 mph versus 16 mph. As for FL's unremarkable 370 watts, that's about equivalent to what a UCI division III pro can sustain for 20 minutes. Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he must use drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and estimates thrown in to sway the uninformed. Phil H Looking at http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v3.gif it appears that the top level Coggan presents at functional threshold is 6.4 Consider that Armstrong is, according to Vayer and Ferrari as quoted in Coyle's book, putting out a ft level of 480-500 watts with a magic number of 6.7 (according to Ferrari) This is all done with a measured VO2Max of 82 or 83. Eddie Coyle speculates that Armstrong *may* have a VO2Max at present of 85 (Coyle has apparently not been able to confirm that speculation with lab tests). Coyle goes through a rather labored attempt to explain this FT power output by speculative muscle fiber conversion theories not supported by muscle biopsy and hyperbaric living. But there are other possible explanations. What Vayer asserts is that Armstrong's FT output is virtually impossible with the VO2Max that he has. BTW, Floyd Landis has a VO2Max of 90 and Ullrich's is 88. I'd like to read a discussion of this by Coggan and others in the field such as Keen. It's fairly well known that VO2 Max is NOT a good predictor of athletic performance and that power output at anaerobic threshold is. Some athletes can obtain a higher percentage of VO2max at AT. There is plenty of scientific research to support this. VO2 max also does not take into account gross efficiency. I hope Andrew Coggan does chip in with his expert opinion. Phil H |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Philip Holman" wrote in message ... "B. Lafferty" wrote in message news "Philip Holman" wrote in message ... "B. Lafferty" wrote in message news wrote in message ups.com... vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as *all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water. they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer." i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that, on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in vayer's analysis. on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too carefully. The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine, the distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that portion of Vayer's analysis. The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one major climb this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts. *Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like ProCycling pull together several experts for a discussion of what Vayer has done. Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can develop 6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion can develop 6.62 over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance weighs about 70kg this equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given the same body weight this will result in almost the same proportions in climbing speed. Say 15 mph versus 16 mph. As for FL's unremarkable 370 watts, that's about equivalent to what a UCI division III pro can sustain for 20 minutes. Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he must use drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and estimates thrown in to sway the uninformed. Phil H Looking at http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v3.gif it appears that the top level Coggan presents at functional threshold is 6.4 Consider that Armstrong is, according to Vayer and Ferrari as quoted in Coyle's book, putting out a ft level of 480-500 watts with a magic number of 6.7 (according to Ferrari) This is all done with a measured VO2Max of 82 or 83. Eddie Coyle speculates that Armstrong *may* have a VO2Max at present of 85 (Coyle has apparently not been able to confirm that speculation with lab tests). Coyle goes through a rather labored attempt to explain this FT power output by speculative muscle fiber conversion theories not supported by muscle biopsy and hyperbaric living. But there are other possible explanations. What Vayer asserts is that Armstrong's FT output is virtually impossible with the VO2Max that he has. BTW, Floyd Landis has a VO2Max of 90 and Ullrich's is 88. I'd like to read a discussion of this by Coggan and others in the field such as Keen. It's fairly well known that VO2 Max is NOT a good predictor of athletic performance and that power output at anaerobic threshold is. Some athletes can obtain a higher percentage of VO2max at AT. There is plenty of scientific research to support this. VO2 max also does not take into account gross efficiency. Thus the journal article by Eddie Coyle that really doesn't explain (or prove) a natural basis for Armstrong's increased efficiency. .. I hope Andrew Coggan does chip in with his expert opinion. Let's hope so. Phil H |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drugs are Cool. | crit PRO | Racing | 23 | March 22nd 05 02:50 AM |
Decanio Sounding Coherent | B Lafferty | Racing | 93 | February 3rd 05 10:32 PM |
Bettini on drugs? | Gary | Racing | 74 | August 19th 04 01:44 AM |
Doping or not? Read this: | never_doped | Racing | 0 | August 4th 03 01:46 AM |
BBC: Drugs In Sport | B. Lafferty | Racing | 0 | July 28th 03 04:19 PM |