Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1231  
Old 11-19-12, 15:28
taiwan's Avatar
taiwan taiwan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,477
Default

Over 20min you can sustain ~105% of your FTP (what you can sustain for an hour) from Andy Coggan's site. I wouldn't dare to try and interpolate though, and a climb in a GT is not an isloated effort, so...
__________________
Scientific Expert
Reply With Quote
  #1232  
Old 11-19-12, 15:49
BigBoat's Avatar
BigBoat BigBoat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,255
Default

There's that one forum...to sum it all up.

http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/s...52#post1906952

Thankfully Bradley Wiggins was who weighs about 10 pounds more than Hinault did and 2 pounds more than Lemond did was kind enough to share he rides at 450 watts for TTs of 1 hr.
__________________
"In the field of sports you are more or less accepted for what you do rather than what you are."
Althea Gibson
Reply With Quote
  #1233  
Old 11-19-12, 17:29
Bumeington Bumeington is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
If it helps at all, studies or reviews thereof seem to indicate that EPO usage whilst improving VO2max to a certain extent has a far more significant effect on time to exhaustion. I will find the study if it's of any perceived benefit in what you are doing, but they showed an increase in ~5% VO2max but a ~50% increase in time to exhaustion in one study I read.
Let's say I can hold 378W for 20 mins with a VO2 power of 400W, and an FTP 360W. Now if I increase VO2 and FTP by 5% (I love the drugs) then 420W VO2, 378W FTP, my "time to exhaustion" at 378W has increased threefold (from 20 to 60 mins).

My point? I don't think EPO does anything special on time to exhaustion, just increasing VO2 max a little will mean you can go for a lot longer at lower intensities. I think this would also be the case if you took an untrained individual and then "trained up" their VO2 max by 5%.
Reply With Quote
  #1234  
Old 11-19-12, 19:18
BigBoat's Avatar
BigBoat BigBoat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,255
Default

All your doing with epo is increasing red cells. Increasing red cells=increasing watts. Now if you use testosterone (many cyclists suffer low test) you can increase your actual fitness level.

In the long run EPO may have a permanent increase in power...due to a sort of muscle memory like phenomenon. But it will not be much higher than if the rider rode totally clean and trained to the max.
__________________
"In the field of sports you are more or less accepted for what you do rather than what you are."
Althea Gibson
Reply With Quote
  #1235  
Old 11-19-12, 20:45
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
I think you will find you claimed to be able to calculate someone's FTP based on ONE time for a 4km pursuit. I have never claimed the hyperbolic function to be BS, ever.

Nice try though, I am sure you will fool someone.
No of course you never claimed it was BS because you didn't even know it existed. Why did you say the below in response to ferminal? Did you actually know the answer but you were just foxing and trying to fool the rest of the forum into thinking you're an uneducated idiot instead of a cycling analysis genius?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal
Does anyone have a link to literature which shows the decline in output over exertion time?

Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo
Is there such a thing?
The answer to this question is YES, there is. The fact that you asked this question despite me urging you to learn about it months ago means that you simply don't want to learn about the underlying physiological mechanisms that form the basis of my reasoning that a world class track endurance cyclist (who was highly aerobic as opposed to anaerobic) could successfully convert into a world class GT cyclist.

If I claimed that you could accurately calculate a cyclist's FTP on the basis of one data point at 4min then I was wrong. If I claimed that you could get a ball park figure a cyclist's FTP on the basis of one 4min data point then I was correct and I stand by that position because the critical power model is what predicts the relationship. The other thing that I stand by is the assumption that British Cycling have more than one 4min data point on Brad Wiggins. I assume they have a range of power vs time data points with which they could have constructed a critical power model many years ago. The other thing that I assumed they would know, is whether or not Wiggins was in fact "highly aerobic" for a pursuiter because they would have done AOD measures over 4min. They might have even done some oxygen uptake kinetics measures given that several of the world's leading experts on this topic work at English universities (such as Andrew Jones and David Poole) and have the necessary equipment to conduct those measures accurately.

You are the one who said "no that's impossible" Wiggins could not be highly aerobic because I... yes me... the amazing big ring/dear wiggo.... have debunked the MAOD test measure. It's like you're saying that you debunked the fact that Wiggins is tall because British Cycling measured his height using a tape measure instead of a laser precision stadiometer.

Last edited by Krebs cycle; 11-19-12 at 20:48.
Reply With Quote
  #1236  
Old 11-19-12, 21:34
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 4,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
No of course you never claimed it was BS because you didn't even know it existed. Why did you say the below in response to ferminal? Did you actually know the answer but you were just foxing and trying to fool the rest of the forum into thinking you're an uneducated idiot instead of a cycling analysis genius?

Way to miss the point. Just because there's a common shape to power production over time does not mean you can predict with any sort of accuracy what a rider's drop is going to be - which is what Ferminal is looking for.

Saying "the slope is hyperbolic" is like looking at the WKO+ graph and saying - the shape is hyperbolic. But that tells you far too little information to even guesstimate the drop in power over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
The answer to this question is YES, there is. The fact that you asked this question despite me urging you to learn about it months ago means that you simply don't want to learn about the underlying physiological mechanisms that form the basis of my reasoning that a world class track endurance cyclist (who was highly aerobic as opposed to anaerobic) could successfully convert into a world class GT cyclist.
That WKO+ graph I have been looking at for some number of years now meant I understood the hyperbolic nature of power over duration long before I started posting in the forums.

Please tell me all about the 2 week tapers the TdF riders don't do pre-tour. Please. Go on.

You have already admitted you have no idea of Wiggins' MAOD - I asked you straight out. So how you can claim he was highly aerobic as opposed to anaerobic is beyond me. You have no idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
If I claimed that you could accurately calculate a cyclist's FTP on the basis of one data point at 4min then I was wrong. If I claimed that you could get a ball park figure a cyclist's FTP on the basis of one 4min data point then I was correct and I stand by that position because the critical power model is what predicts the relationship. The other thing that I stand by is the assumption that British Cycling have more than one 4min data point on Brad Wiggins. I assume they have a range of power vs time data points with which they could have constructed a critical power model many years ago. The other thing that I assumed they would know, is whether or not Wiggins was in fact "highly aerobic" for a pursuiter because they would have done AOD measures over 4min. They might have even done some oxygen uptake kinetics measures given that several of the world's leading experts on this topic work at English universities (such as Andrew Jones and David Poole) and have the necessary equipment to conduct those measures accurately.
You don't even know if they do or not. You are carrying on your sophistic argument of "If BC did blah blah blah and if Brad did have blah blah blah blah then he could obviously blah blah blah."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
You are the one who said "no that's impossible" Wiggins could not be highly aerobic because I... yes me... the amazing big ring/dear wiggo.... have debunked the MAOD test measure. It's like you're saying that you debunked the fact that Wiggins is tall because British Cycling measured his height using a tape measure instead of a laser precision stadiometer.
Given you don't actually know whether he does or not, your persistence with this line of reasoning seems strange.

As for what I have debunked, primarily it's been your arguments, or the way you use "data" or "studies", not the content of the studies themselves.

Riddle me this: Luke Durbridge goes ok over 5.7km - beat Brad Wiggins at the Dauphine prologue this year, aged 21. He was a member of the Aussie 4km team pursuit team for a number of years, but did not make the cut some time ago and moved on to dedicate himself to the road.

Why could he not make the grade in the team pursuit? At the time they mentioned the fact that the opening 1:02 for the KM was just too hard for him, even though he is clearly a very capable TTer, even over short distances.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog

Last edited by Dear Wiggo; 11-19-12 at 21:39.
Reply With Quote
  #1237  
Old 11-19-12, 22:13
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 4,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumeington View Post
Let's say I can hold 378W for 20 mins with a VO2 power of 400W, and an FTP 360W. Now if I increase VO2 and FTP by 5% (I love the drugs) then 420W VO2, 378W FTP, my "time to exhaustion" at 378W has increased threefold (from 20 to 60 mins).

My point? I don't think EPO does anything special on time to exhaustion, just increasing VO2 max a little will mean you can go for a lot longer at lower intensities. I think this would also be the case if you took an untrained individual and then "trained up" their VO2 max by 5%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBoat View Post
All your doing with epo is increasing red cells. Increasing red cells=increasing watts. Now if you use testosterone (many cyclists suffer low test) you can increase your actual fitness level.

In the long run EPO may have a permanent increase in power...due to a sort of muscle memory like phenomenon. But it will not be much higher than if the rider rode totally clean and trained to the max.
This is my point:

Krebs Cycle has argued, often, that if Brad really were doping, you would expect his performance over short TTs to be better than they are.

Brad has improved over short TTs - no question. Krebs says not enough to prove doping.

But when you look at his long TTs, he has improved out of this world, smashing all and sundry - the final TdF TT was a prime example of his order of magnitude in increase, followed by other TTs in the earlier races and the Olympic TT.

Just because your Hgb mass improves, does not necessarily mean you can do better at 5-8 minute efforts. There is the oxygen delivery, but also the oxygen consumption to consider.

In 2004 Brad did 4:16 in qualifying for the pursuit. 2006 he came 21st in a 4.1km prologue for which he trained exclusively with a dedicated team of helpers. In 2008, his last pursuit qualifying time was 4:15 - a staggering 1 second improvement over 4 years. That's less than half a percent. [ETA: 2004 was cold, wet, miserable Manchester. 2008 was warm, humid Beijing. That 1 second could easily have come from conditions - haven't checked].

What I am suggesting is this: Brad has already maxed out his oxygen consumption capability. Adding more oxygen does not affect his short-term power as much as Krebs says doping should, as the limit of his mitochondria, etc, etc, has already been reached. As evidenced in his 4km pursuit plateau 2004-2008.

Where the additional oxygen does come in handy is in the fatigue resistance, over the longer distance TTs, where Brad is now a dominant force vs his mediocre showings in the past. He hasn't matched the people who beat him previously, he has dominated them entirely.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog

Last edited by Dear Wiggo; 11-19-12 at 22:26.
Reply With Quote
  #1238  
Old 11-19-12, 23:14
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Just because your Hgb mass improves, does not necessarily mean you can do better at 5-8 minute efforts. There is the oxygen delivery, but also the oxygen consumption to consider.

snip

What I am suggesting is this: Brad has already maxed out his oxygen consumption capability. Adding more oxygen does not affect his short-term power as much as Krebs says doping should, as the limit of his mitochondria, etc, etc, has already been reached. As evidenced in his 4km pursuit plateau 2004-2008.
I simply don't have the time or the inclination to point out every piece of garbage that you write, because there are just so many, so for now I'll just pick out this one.

What you are suggesting here is that peripheral muscle adaptations (eg: mitochondrial density) are what limits VO2max. But this has been clearly and definitively shown to be incorrect from a variety of different experimental approaches from the single leg extensor model, to doping studies to hyperoxia studies and ventilatory unloading studies. There now exists a worldwide general consensus in the scientific literature that oxygen supply (ie: pumping capacity of the heart in conjunction with oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, the very things you are saying above don't make a difference to power production), is the dominant factor that limits whole body VO2. You couldn't have been any further from the truth if you tried.

What is hilarious here is that in your idiotic attempt at trying to prove me wrong, you are basically saying that blood doping doesn't increase VO2max!!

Maybe if you didn't have such a massive ego complex about not always being right you would learn something. Well you might fool some people into thinking you know what you are talking about, but you don't fool me, acoggan or anyone else who actually does know what they are talking about.


edit: oh wait.... maybe you are saying that VO2 is not related to power production? Or maybe you are saying that VO2max is not important over 4min? I can't really tell anymore because you post so much sh!t all the time

Last edited by Krebs cycle; 11-19-12 at 23:39.
Reply With Quote
  #1239  
Old 11-20-12, 00:15
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Where the additional oxygen does come in handy is in the fatigue resistance, over the longer distance TTs, where Brad is now a dominant force vs his mediocre showings in the past. He hasn't matched the people who beat him previously, he has dominated them entirely.
Since you got the other bit completely wrong about oxygen supply, VO2max and power production over 5-8min, then you also have got this part completely wrong. The % of VO2max that can be maintained for 45-60min (ie: lactate threshold) is the thing that appears to be more closely related to peripheral factors that maximize oxygen extraction at the level of the muscle ie: capillary density, myoglobin concentration, mitochondrial density and aerobic enzyme concentrations. These are the sorts of adaptations that result from high volume training and that Wiggins was likely underdone compared to every one of his present GT rivals since they were all road focused from 2004-2008 whereas Wiggins was track focused. Again you repeat a lie that Wiggins was a nobody in long ITTs prior to 2009. He was already world class at long ITTs and switching from track to road it has taken him 3-4yrs to further develop those peripheral adaptations which are most important for longer FTP type efforts. He has not improved massively, but only marginally and that is all it takes to become dominant for a single year.

Poor dear wiggo. If only you had done an exercise science course at uni, you would know this stuff and you would probably be agreeing with me. But you didn't so you aren't and you still don't have a f@#king clue.

Last edited by Krebs cycle; 11-20-12 at 00:18.
Reply With Quote
  #1240  
Old 11-20-12, 00:20
acoggan acoggan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Just because your Hgb mass improves, does not necessarily mean you can do better at 5-8 minute efforts.
Uh, yeah, it pretty much does.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.