We're moving to philosophical matters here.
No argument here, that's why I pointed it out.
Few years ago, a famous researcher by the name of Edward Coyle made a comprehensive study on Lance Armstrong.
I remember that article, and the controversy it sparked. The key finding from that article that is relevant to this dicussion -- that Lance's muscular efficiency increased due to training -- has been challenged. Part of the reason it's controversial is because it's anomalous -- most mortals don't change their muscular efficiencies with training.
But this is a red herring.
Prolonged hard training regiments leave a training footprint that never really goes away.
That's surely true. And maybe it makes sense to call that footprint a "base", depending on context. I was just pointing out that we're using the same word in several different contexts.
And the data to support this statement can probably be found in studies of this kind: www.springerlink.com/.../
Although I could not read it (not available for free).
Actually, that study doesn't say anything for (or against) the idea of permanent changes from early training. They just find that body type determines aerobic/anaerobic work capacity, rather than the other way around. None of the subjects in the longitudinal study did any training. I'll send you a copy.
In addition to the letter at the link you provided, see Gore et al, "Delta efficiency calculation in Tour de France champion is wrong", J Appl Physiol 105 1020 '08; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.90459.2008.
Summary here: www.sportsscientists.com/.../coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2.html for those who can't access the journal article.
We're moving to philosophical matters here.
No argument here, that's why I pointed it out.
Few years ago, a famous researcher by the name of Edward Coyle made a comprehensive study on Lance Armstrong.
I remember that article, and the controversy it sparked. The key finding from that article that is relevant to this dicussion -- that Lance's muscular efficiency increased due to training -- has been challenged. Part of the reason it's controversial is because it's anomalous -- most mortals don't change their muscular efficiencies with training.
But this is a red herring.
Prolonged hard training regiments leave a training footprint that never really goes away.
That's surely true. And maybe it makes sense to call that footprint a "base", depending on context. I was just pointing out that we're using the same word in several different contexts.
And the data to support this statement can probably be found in studies of this kind: www.springerlink.com/.../
Although I could not read it (not available for free).
Actually, that study doesn't say anything for (or against) the idea of permanent changes from early training. They just find that body type determines aerobic/anaerobic work capacity, rather than the other way around. None of the subjects in the longitudinal study did any training. I'll send you a copy.
In addition to the letter at the link you provided, see Gore et al, "Delta efficiency calculation in Tour de France champion is wrong", J Appl Physiol 105 1020 '08; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.90459.2008.
Summary here: www.sportsscientists.com/.../coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2.html for those who can't access the journal article.
