Climbing Speeds

[Krebs cycle]

But 2008 Evans Kohl Vandevelde were 41'ish, they weren't exceptional on Hautacam, then look what happens the next year. Even Contador was comparably average in the Giro. For whatever reason the "climbing speeds" of 2008 were slower, but if you looked at it in 2010 wouldn't have said it (2008) was a year where a slowing trend began.

The real problem for me is the link between slower climbing speeds and "clean(er)" podiums. Most of our estimates of climbing speeds/performances are rough and a very general guide to what actually happened. There are a whole raft of reasons why any one day, or week, or GT may have slower climbing times. So if all we are going on are the rough numbers, I feel we can only say that they are slower/faster and nothing more. Slower times may be the result of "clean(er)" riders but that is just one potential explanation. Additionally, if we're going to hypothesise that slower numbers are in fact the result of less doping, we should be providing additional explanation as to why there may have been a reduction in doping. In 2011 we have Contador Scarponi Schlecks Cobo... if we are going to say that slower times in 2011 are the result of less doping we would want to provide reasons as to why these names reduced their doping from previous years.

Sure. The incidence of extreme blood profiles dropped suddenly around 2010 too. You guys all seem to think the biopassport has been a complete an utter failure because it hasn't produced any (or very few) positives. That is the evidence that it IS working. The biopassport may not stop blood doping all together but it limits its effectiveness.

edit: I also happen to believe people like Anne Gripper when they say they've spent time conversing with many pro cycling teams behind closed doors and thereafter concluded that the culture is gradually changing. Since the culture has been so positively doped for so long, nobody was willing to take the risk of competing clean for fear of getting beaten up by those who continued to dope. But if the belief that other teams are doping less begins to invade the sport then this is when teams do start to take the risk of competing clean. funny way to put it hey? risk of competing clean?

 

[Ferminal]

Sure. The incidence of extreme blood profiles dropped suddenly around 2010 too. You guys all seem to think the biopassport has been a complete an utter failure because it hasn't produced any (or very few) positives. That is the evidence that it IS working. The biopassport may not stop blood doping all together but it limits its effectiveness.

Link? The ABP began in 2008, wouldn't it have been effective by 2009/2010?

By coaches in training and in lab tests for the past 20yrs all over the world. And if you think everyone shows up for lab testing totally fresh, well then you probably haven't been involved in much lab testing.

You would say the conditions of a 60 min lab test are directly comparable with what a GT winner goes through? What a GT winner is able to do after 15 days of racing? Why then, will Rohan Dennis and Luke Durbridge not be winning GTs this year?

 

[Krebs cycle]

I'm just less of a skeptic than many around here. I believe there is a movement occurring and there is critical mass at present towards cleaner pro cycling. There are 3 gigantic investigations that have chopped one or two heads off the dragon, there are improvements occuring in anti-doping tests, WADA is gradually becoming more powerful. You have influential people in pro cycling such as the late Aldo Sassi and various anti-doping experts saying that they believe the sport is getting cleaner. The next job is to chop the last remaining head off the dragon and kill the beast itself which of course is the UCI in its current form.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Link? The ABP began in 2008, wouldn't it have been effective by 2009/2010?

I've posted a link numerous times to the data a summary of which can be found at sportsscientists.com. I'm not going to waste my time going around in circles.

You would say the conditions of a 60 min lab test are directly comparable with what a GT winner goes through? What a GT winner is able to do after 15 days of racing? Why then, will Rohan Dennis and Luke Durbridge not be winning GTs this year?

No, and yet it's a remarkable coincidence don't you think that some of the best ever lab test results in Australia belong to a TdF winner?

 

[Ferminal]

I've posted a link numerous times to the data a summary of which can be found at sportsscientists.com. I'm not going to waste my time going around in circles.



No, and yet it's a remarkable coincidence don't you think that some of the best ever lab test results in Australia belong to a TdF winner?

Well I can try and find it for you then, was it this one that mentions nothing about a decline around 2010/11?

So why not then? Dennis sits at the top of Rabo testing and that was two years ago. If lab power is directly comparable to our rough estimates from GT stages, why can't someone who has lab power >6 win a GT where average estimated power on the climbs is <6?

re: Evans, you actually still think he is clean after finding out what Rasmussen was using in 2007?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The estimated power has just gone back to where it was in the 1980s.

Is cycling more believable when the top ten is able to match/better the powers of the greats of the eighties? You might agree there were some very talented riders back then.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What Lance? Even at his best e.g. 2004 ITT he's estimated around 6.3 with par being around 6 for all climbs of his 7 years.

The speeds quoted for current performances represent the maximum levels. The "par" performances are lower I assume. (This is an assumption, so could be wrong.)

The thing was Lance though was that when he needed to, he could throw in a 6.3 w/kg climb. He was at that level on ADH in 2001 (The "Look") and in his other decisive attacks. His "MO" was to dish it out on the first major MTF, to establish chronological and psychological dominance over his rivals.

Lance's edge over the opposition was more relative than absolute though. He operated mainly in the post EPO test era and this made a big difference compared to the pre EPO test era. Lance enjoyed a big margin when it mattered over the opposition, but the opposition's level was collectively lower after EPO testing was introduced. If memory serves, something like 7 of the 11 fastest ascents of Alpe D'Huez occurred in 1994-1997, with only Lance (2001 and 2004) and Landis/Kloden (10th and 11th fastest in 2006) from outside this narrow time band. Pantani did some further unbelievably fast climbing in 1998 and 1999, and we've not consistently seen such performances since. I assume this is due to the impact of EPO testing, which though imperfect, does force changed (ie less effective) usage patterns. The impact of the Passport reinforces this downwards pressure on performance levels.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Is cycling more believable when the top ten is able to match/better the powers of the greats of the eighties? You might agree there were some very talented riders back then.

It's certainly more believable than the EPO era when the top 10 was ~10% faster up climbs than in the 80s.

 

[Ferminal]

So why not then? Dennis sits at the top of Rabo testing and that was two years ago. If lab power is directly comparable to our rough estimates from GT stages, why can't someone who has lab power >6 win a GT where average estimated power on the climbs is <6?

re: Evans, you actually still think he is clean after finding out what Rasmussen was using in 2007?

We may as well use Evans to illustrate my point.

Evans tested at AIS for threshold power of 6.0 W/kg, correct? (got it from the RIDE Evans v Lance thingy)

If we take relative power estimates at face value, he's broken through 6 two or three times on long climbs. His career average is <5.8. He won the Tour <5.7 average.

So either Evans shows up in better form to the AIS than to GTs, or the rough estimates we take from GT climbs cannot be compared to power output measured in a lab.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Well I can try and find it for you then, was it this one that mentions nothing about a decline around 2010/11?

Yep that's the one. The sudden drop occurred in 2008. What another amazing coincidence, the very same year the biopassport was introduced!

Oh let me guess, you're going to ask why the climbing speeds didn't suddenly drop that year? Good question and I don't have an answer except that we have been focussing on the top 1 or 2 climbers whereas the data in the graph are across the entire peloton. Furthermore, it was always known that it would take a couple of years of data collection before the biopassport would be effective or not. The year the climbing speeds did drop at the top end are the very same year the first 2 biopassport cases were launched.

So why not then? Dennis sits at the top of Rabo testing and that was two years ago. If lab power is directly comparable to our rough estimates from GT stages, why can't someone who has lab power >6 win a GT where average estimated power on the climbs is <6?

I didn't say it was directly comparable. You assumed that's what I meant and you would be wrong. It takes years of high volume endurance training before a cyclist can produce near the same power in the 3rd week of a GT as they can in a lab when fresh or semi-fresh. Dennis clearly isn't there yet. He is only 22, so we'll have to wait and see a good 2 or 3 yrs before we really know what he is capable of. Some riders may never get there because the high volume of training ends up causing overtraining instead and so they go backwards.

Anyway, it is you who is trying to prove some point here. As far as I can tell, you're saying that it is impossible for a human being to produce 6.0 w/kg for 30min in the 3rd week of GT without PEDs. But unless you work for a pro cycling team and have access to all of the numbers, then we are just left with estimates. I'm just going off what the late Aldo Sassi and other experts such as Dave Martin have said over the years.

re: Evans, you actually still think he is clean after finding out what Rasmussen was using in 2007?

I don't know if Evans is clean or not, but his performances suggest that he has never gone beyond what he should be capable of based on his lab testing history over many years.

 

[Krebs cycle]

We may as well use Evans to illustrate my point.

Evans tested at AIS for threshold power of 6.0 W/kg, correct? (got it from the RIDE Evans v Lance thingy)

If we take relative power estimates at face value, he's broken through 6 two or three times on long climbs. His career average is <5.8. He won the Tour <5.7 average.

So either Evans shows up in better form to the AIS than to GTs, or the rough estimates we take from GT climbs cannot be compared to power output measured in a lab.

Comparing applies with oranges ie: estimates with real data. Again, the best source of reliable data IMO comes from the words of Aldo Sassi. Other than that you need to have access to all of the SRM datafiles. I don't work for a pro cycling team so I can't help you there.

 

[Krebs cycle]

We may as well use Evans to illustrate my point.

Evans tested at AIS for threshold power of 6.0 W/kg, correct? (got it from the RIDE Evans v Lance thingy)

If we take relative power estimates at face value, he's broken through 6 two or three times on long climbs. His career average is <5.8. He won the Tour <5.7 average.

So either Evans shows up in better form to the AIS than to GTs, or the rough estimates we take from GT climbs cannot be compared to power output measured in a lab.

Regarding performance, my opinion (as discussed above re. Dennis) is that it takes years of high volume endurance training before a world class cyclist can produce the same or near the same w/kg in the 3rd week of a GT as they can in a lab when fresh or semi-fresh.

So with that in mind, if we took 30 or 40 pro level cyclists whom all have 5yrs experience riding GTs, then I guarantee you will find a relationship between w/kg at threshold in the lab and w/kg on big climbs in the 3rd week. There are many factors of course which can affect that relationship so it won't be super tight, but it will likely be statistically significant. That implies that the results of lab testing do have predictive value for climbing performance in a GT.

 

[Ferminal]

Yep that's the one. The sudden drop occurred in 2008. What another amazing coincidence, the very same year the biopassport was introduced!
.

Nowhere have I said the biopassport has not reduced extreme blood values, nowhere have I said that biopassport has been completely ineffective in real terms.

You earlier posted this:

Sure. The incidence of extreme blood profiles dropped suddenly around 2010 too.

So do you stand by this statement, and if that is the case, where do I find that information?

Otherwise you may need to rethink the "cycling became clean(er) at 2010/2011".

Oh let me guess, you're going to ask why the climbing speeds didn't suddenly drop that year?

Well, I said in my post I think 2008 was "slower". Point being, 2009 Giro and Tour were very "fast", I think we should be careful about drawing general conclusions from one year to the next based on unreliable data.

Anyway, it is you who is trying to prove some point here. As far as I can tell, you're saying that it is impossible for a human being to produce 6.0 w/kg for 30min in the 3rd week of GT without PEDs.

I'm not trying to prove anything, the estimates speak for themselves... most riders who hit 6 (estimated) in the conditions I talk about are known to be serious dopers and none of them are "verified" non-dopers. It may be possible that a clean rider can achieve this (we have no way of knowing) but they'd be a very rare talent indeed.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It's certainly more believable than the EPO era when the top 10 was ~10% faster up climbs than in the 80s.

To be fair, that was not exactly the question.

Lets just assume Hinault/Fignon/Hampsten/Herrera/Delgado/Roche etc etc were also in that neighbourhood of power output, they were no little boys we might say, is there an explanation how every top ten rider nowadays is bettering those power outputs? LeMond himself has stated he and Hinault climbed at 380-390W, being around 67Kilo.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Lets just assume Hinault/Fignon/Hampsten/Herrera/Delgado/Roche etc etc were also in that neighbourhood of power output, they were no little boys we might say, is there an explanation how every top ten rider nowadays is bettering those power outputs?

That is the question that needs to be addressed. It's pointless trying to deny the reduced climbing speeds of the last 2-3 years, but the number of riders now at semi-believable levels is a rich source of "red flags", I would think.

As I've said before, if something sounds too good to be true then it probably is!

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

To be fair, that was not exactly the question.

Lance did not climb ADH at 6.97 watts in 2004.

He is reliably clocked at 37:30 from the bottom of the climb which equates to circa 6.4 watts. (He did 38:00 in 2001, when giving the "Look" to Ullrich.)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So given that Wiggo was a superior pursuiter to McGee in terms of one-off performances and the ability to back them up, how did McGee achieve what he achieved on the road?

He can't have relied on natural talent, as his pursuiting ability is undeniably inferior to Wiggo's and by your own assessment, Wiggo's ability is nothing special.

Hepburn just did 4:15 pursuit at Aussie titles off road-based training miles. He's 21, 77kg, 1.86m. Should be spanking Wiggins soon, right?

Pursuit, IMO, means squat when it comes to road racing potential.

When people use the word, "surprised", I sit up and take notice.

"Surprised" at how well Bernard Kohl time trialled in that epic Tour de France.
"Surprised" at Floyd's recovery and subsequent peloton smashing ride.
"Surprised" that Brad did not make the final for the pursuit the final year he rode it.

I am simply saying: explaining Brad's 2012 performance based on his pursuit times, when you take into consideration his road palmares pre-2009 and his inability to climb at all, is illogical.

McGee could at least climb to an extent. He had more physical issues trying to get into the GT world and that's what did him in in the end. But he was a better rider than Wiggins on the road. That's how he did better on the road.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As far as I can tell, you're saying that it is impossible for a human being to produce 6.0 w/kg for 30min in the 3rd week of GT without PEDs.

Wiggins did ~450W for ~63 minutes in the final TT.

That's 450/69 = ~6.5W/kg for over an hour.

Bit more than 6W/kg for 30 minutes.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

That is the question that needs to be addressed. It's pointless trying to deny the reduced climbing speeds of the last 2-3 years, but the number of riders now at semi-believable levels is a rich source of "red flags", I would think.

As I've said before, if something sounds too good to be true then it probably is!

That is what I am saying all along, the experts have not given an answer. Explain why who is doing what.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Hepburn just did 4:15 pursuit at Aussie titles off road-based training miles. He's 21, 77kg, 1.86m. Should be spanking Wiggins soon, right?

"Surprised" that Brad did not make the final for the pursuit the final year he rode it.

Re Hepburn, doesn't this depend on the proportion of energy that is delivered from aerobic as opposed to anaerobic sources? If the aerobic proportion is high, then he's in with a chance (though realistically, he'd need a few years to build endurance, even if the capability is there). If he's more a sprinty type pursuiter e.g. a faster version of Ed Clancy, then he's got no chance at all.

Which Brad are you surprised about re not making the pursuit final? And which year? And which competition, come to think of it!

In general terms, I don't actually think there's much to be gained from an analysis of Wiggo's pursuit times. They tell us that he's got a big engine for shorter efforts but tell us nothing about how this might translate into stage racing. There are enough successful stage racers who have also been successful pursuiters for us to conclude that GT competitiveness off a pursuiting background is not impossible, even if it is highly unlikely. (Unlike, for example, climbing unassisted at the speed of Pantani. That is unambiguously impossible.)

The key point is that even allowing for the track focus, greater weight etc. Wiggo was indeed poor on the road in up to 2008. The transformation since then definitely falls into the "too good to be true" category, but is not conclusive in its own right.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

That is what I am saying all along...

I think we only differ in our interpretations, to be honest. My conclusion is that this is suspicious but not definitive. So on balance I think something dodgy is going on, but with a significant level of doubt. You seem to have much less doubt!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re Hepburn, doesn't this depend on the proportion of energy that is delivered from aerobic as opposed to anaerobic sources? If the aerobic proportion is high, then he's in with a chance (though realistically, he'd need a few years to build endurance, even if the capability is there). If he's more a sprinty type pursuiter e.g. a faster version of Ed Clancy, then he's got no chance at all.

Seriously. This MAOD bandwagon that you are now jumping on, that JV claims to know all about, that coggan and krebs cycle mentioned as one possible explanation.

No.

Just. No.

Get some data, get someone from BC to publish something, otherwise, please, for the sake of the children, drop it. Noone knows diddly squat about Brad or his testing or his aerobic vs anaerobic power production.

Does he mention it anywhere in his biographies?

He rode like a pauper all those years in the autobus with this incredible aerobic engine, capable of earning him millions in income and just what, squandered it for a cruisy 75k pa as a pursuiter?

And moved to Sky coz they had better looking kit than Garmin?

Please.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re Hepburn, doesn't this depend on the proportion of energy that is delivered from aerobic as opposed to anaerobic sources? If the aerobic proportion is high, then he's in with a chance

At a guess, if you are pursuiting well from road miles, it's not road miles chock full of anaerobic work.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I think we only differ in our interpretations, to be honest. My conclusion is that this is suspicious but not definitive. So on balance I think something dodgy is going on, but with a significant level of doubt. You seem to have much less doubt!

When I put it in historic perspective it just doesn't add up.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html

''Back to the 2012 race, the assumptions one might make for a 17 min climb are that a rider with efficiency 23% (high case assumption) can sustain 90% - 95% of maximal intensity for this short duration. Then, you can estimate that riding at 6.2W/kg (again, this is Brajkovic), the VO2 on the climb will be 77 ml/kg/min. Given the 90-95% of max estimate, this rider has a predicted VO2max between 81 ml/kg/min and 85 ml/kg/min (I realise there are 'errors' in the assumption, but I compare across generations to illustrate a point)

If you take lower case assumptions (efficiency of 24%, which I think is probably a more reasonable assumption), then the estimated VO2max falls to between 77 and 81 ml/kg/min.

Obviously, you can infer from these numbers what the implications are for the top 5 on the day, and you'll see that they're not too different. You're predicting physiology that says that the world's best cyclists have a VO2max of 85 to 87 ml/kg/min, that they're 23% efficient, and riding at 90% of maximum. Or, they could be 24% efficient with a VO2max of 81 ml/kg/min. That is, on paper, normal physiology for the best cyclists in the world in peak condition.

The "abnormal" physiology of years gone by came from guys who were sustaining 6.4W/kg for 45 minutes. That points to a human that has a VO2max of 97 ml/kg/min on the bike, or an efficiency of 28%, or can sustain 95% of max for 45 min at the end of five hours of racing. That just doesn't happen.''

And do note the comparisson to the EPO years, bad comparison.

The riders in front of Jani all should be having Hinault/LeMond like VO2maxxes.

And then the Science of Sport site went quiet on the Tour. Have they lost interest in cycling this year or what? Given their interest in the years before I think that is a bit strange.

 

[The Hitch]

Bro - As you well know, the current climbing speeds are not down by a little vs Pantani and Lance. They are down by a lot ie circa 10%. This is hugely significant as is the fact that you pretend not to know just how much slower the climbs are being undertaken now.

According to wikipedia jelle vanendert did 46.08 on plateau de beile. If that is true and it would be surprising because vanendert is hardly a great climber, that would be only 25 and 45 seconds off lance armstrongs 2 pdb .times.

Hitch - There's a thread somewhere in the Clinic that contains estimates of power on lots of climbs undertaken recently, including plenty by Wiggo since the start of stage race success. Of those in the "1000m ascent at the end of a long stage" category (ie the most commonly used benchmark) there a few, if any, where more than 6.0w/kg has been achieved. The one that does stick in the mind was the Angliru in the 2011 Vuelta, where Cobo was estimated at 6.2, Froome 6.1 with Wiggo/Menchov at 5.9.

How many times did Armstrong achieve his top scores outside the tour? Or Andy schleck or cadel evans or plenty of tour only winners?

Wiggins was at his best in the 2012 tour, not the 2011 vuelta when he was coming back from an injury.

And its irrelevant how fast or slow they were going up tourmalet or aubisque when these climbs were hours before the stage finish. Times get compared up hc mountains when they are the mtf because that's when people go all out up the mountain. So wiggins was 10% slower. Up which climbs?

Maybe they would have been, i don't know but its speculation to say they would have been slower. And with the time advantages they had they never even needed to.go.to.the limit.in the.first place.