Climbing Speeds

[Wallace and Gromit]

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 Dear Wiggo - Re-read my previous post, so you can actually understand what it's about...

Here are some helpful hints:

1 - It is not a justification of Wiggins' performances. It's actually nothing to do with Wiggins. It's to do with Hepburn's chances of becoming a top GT rider.

2 - If Wiggins had never existed, the physiological challenge for Hepburn to convert from a 4:15 pursuiter to a GT contender would remain the same.

3 - If Hepburn is a sprinty type pursuiter (a la Clancy) then he has no chance of converting, much as a 100m sprinter is never going to excel at the 800m.

4 - If he's at the other end of the scale, then he's in with a chance, albeit not a very big one.

3 and 4 are just basic physiology. There is a range of physiological make-ups that can give rise to a world-class IP, but only a small subset of these make-ups can possibly give rise to a world class GT performance.

If you took two world class 800m runners, the overwhelming chances are that they would both be relatively better 1500m runners than 400m runners. But every so often, you get a 800m runner who is world class at 400m and poor at 1500m. They are very rare, though. Alberto Juantorena is the best example.

And Wiggins went to Sky because they were able to pay him £4m for 4 years. It was nothing to do with the kit. Though Sky's kit is undoubtedly superior. As is their bus. And their team cars.

 

[JimmyFingers]

And Wiggins went to Sky because they were able to pay him £4m for 4 years. It was nothing to do with the kit. Though Sky's kit is undoubtedly superior. As is their bus. And their team cars.

The Death Star, Rapha and Jags mmmmm

 

[Dear Wiggo]

W&G: I've mentioned it twice now. Hepburn did it off road miles. Not road sprints. I'm going to extrapolate from that that he's doing it aerobically.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And Wiggins went to Sky because they were able to pay him £4m for 4 years. It was nothing to do with the kit. Though Sky's kit is undoubtedly superior. As is their bus. And their team cars.

Sarcasm required a smilie. I was having a dig at the constant story flip flop that goes on when it comes to Wiggins and what he says and what the truth is.

The truth.

Such a slippery fish to hold.

 

[SundayRider]

Bjarne Riis to Carlos Sastre in Riis's book - 'Carlos you are not training at a high enough average speed' so pro riders and managers put more emphasis on speed than some posters in this thread.

 

[Ferminal]

So wiggins was 10% slower. Up which climbs?
.

He was 10% slower than Vinokourov and Mayo's alien Peyresourde (East) attack in 2003

Funny Zubeldia was only 3% slower than those two that day...

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

W&G: I've mentioned it twice now. Hepburn did it off road miles. Not road sprints. I'm going to extrapolate from that that he's doing it aerobically.

He will be doing it primarily aerobically, but any TT over 4 minutes will be, so that's not really telling us much.

Even if you don't specifically train the anaerobic side of things, you will still use it in the final quarter. I've never ridden a pursuit, but I've rowed plenty of TTs on the accursed Concept 2 machine. Standard race distance was 2000m, which took me approx 6.5 minutes, so not a million miles away from the energy demands of an IP. (Though rowing is more painful than cycling over short distances in my experience.)

The aim was to go at an even pace for the first 1500m, and then hopefully pick things up o bit or at least maintain pace in the final 500. The first 500m was always easy. The second less so. The third 500 started really hurting and in the final 500m one was into tunnel vision and hyperventilation. You would finish such an effort so full or lactic acid that you couldn't even hold the pen to sign the scrutineers card!

The majority of the training was aerobic - repeated lots of 10k or 60 minutes at 75% to 85% of heart rate reserve - yet even if you did no "speed" (ie anaerobic) work in training, you'd still finish in a sea of lactic misery when doing a full tilt 2000m TT.

In general, I could row 2000m entirely (*) aerobically 5%-6% slower than a full tilt effort, which means my average power on an aerobic effort was 15% - 18% less than on a full tilt effort. Best guess is that this extra 15% - 18% power was delivered anaerobically.

For some people, the performance gap between aerobic and full-tilt over 2000m was higher and for others lower, and the gap did widen after one had done a few weeks of interval training. In general, though, my 2000m performance after interval training was only around 2% faster than the time I could manage at the end of the purely aerobic training phase.

Conclusion - In a short TT event, such as an IP or a 2000m rowing race, there is a non-trivial amount of energy delivered anaerobically, even if one has not explicitly been training the anaerobic side of things.

(*) As close to entirely as you get - I don't think the body ever works exclusively using one type of energy supply.

 

[The Hitch]

He was 10% slower than Vinokourov and Mayo's alien Peyresourde (East) attack in 2003

Funny Zubeldia was only 3% slower than those two that day...

What times do you have for peyresoudes ?

 

[Ferminal]

What times do you have for peyresoudes ?

No comparable times unfortunately, only VAM. 2003 they came from the bottom in Luchon instead of off Bales which starts 1/5 the way up the climb. Aside from that there are no climbs in 2012 Tour to compare directly with Armstrong era.

 

[acoggan]

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.

Not true: the critical power analysis that I did previously using his publically-available data provides significant insight into this issue.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not true: the critical power analysis that I did previously using his publically-available data provides significant insight into this issue.

Is that like the Ed Coyle analysis of Armstrong's data that said his efficiency improved over time? And that he wouldn't need to dope to win the races he did? The same conclusion that Ferrari reached and published recently?

And is essentially what you say about Wiggins - that you don't know if he was doping or not but he could do what he is doing without doping?

 

[Krebs cycle]

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:



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".

Didn't I just tell you that yes the correct year of the change in blood profiles was 2008 (as shown in the graph) and not 2010 as I previously said? So no, I do not stand by that earlier statement because the year was not correct. I posted that graphic on this forum about 6 months ago, so apologies if my memory is not a perfect photographic record.

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.

I agree, but we have at least 2 consecutive years with very slow climbing speeds indeed compared with previous years. I bet you that we will not see a return to sub 40min times up Alpe d'Huez this year.

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.

Cadel Evans is not a "known and serious doper". Furthermore, you're right, we don't have any way of knowing (unless we work for a pro cycling team) exactly how close a top class rider can get to their best 40-50min w/kg in the 3rd wk of a GT. What we do know from estimates though, is that this number has decreased from several years ago. Since I don't work for a pro cycling team then I base my opinions on the comments of people whose integrity I trust, such as Aldo Sassi, Dave Martin and Marc Quod.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So Craps cycle also has no answers, science seemes to be too slow for the masters of doping.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

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.

This is very true. Jani averaged 358 W for 54 minutes in the 1st ITT of the 2012 TdF.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/tour-de-france/2012/stage-9.aspx#.URQgovJZPJd

His stated weight in this lab test from may 2012 was 60.5kg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHDT7GAMigU

Why then was he dropped by Wiggins, Froome and Nibali? Because they don't ride finishing climbs at FTP. Even the ~24 minute climbs in the 3rd week were most likely done at sub-threshold power, since estimates put the Wig/Froome/Nib-group at like 6.0 W/kg, if I recall correctly. SBW can allegedly sustain 45X W for nearly an hour. Significantly more than 6.0, unless he weighs 75 kg.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

No comparable times unfortunately, only VAM. 2003 they came from the bottom in Luchon instead of off Bales which starts 1/5 the way up the climb. Aside from that there are no climbs in 2012 Tour to compare directly with Armstrong era.

I believe a couple of the final climbs were used in 2006 and 2007, right? Let's see how much slower they really were.

 

[Netserk]

I remember Jens Attacks saying that they (Wiggins, Froome and Nibali) climbed Peyresourde faster in '12, than Rasmussen and Contador did in 2007.

 

[Krebs cycle]

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.

You are entitled to your opinion. Your "opinion" which you are of course entitled to, is 100% diametrically opposed to the opinions of the entire Australian men's and women's national road cycling programs, and most likely also the British and German road cycling programs.

 

[acoggan]

we don't have any way of knowing (unless we work for a pro cycling team) exactly how close a top class rider can get to their best 40-50min w/kg in the 3rd wk of a GT.

That's not the only way.

 

[acoggan]

You are entitled to your opinion, but we all know that it is the opinion of an uneducated internet wannabe expert with no normal formal qualifications, no experience in sport science, no experience as an athlete or coach and has never worked with an elite athlete in your entire life.

Your "opinion" which you are of course entitled to, is 100% diametrically opposed to the opinions of the entire Australian men's and women's national road cycling programs, and most likely also the British and German road cycling programs.

Blunt, but completely true.

 

[Krebs cycle]

So Craps cycle also has no answers, science seemes to be too slow for the masters of doping.

The irony of this forum is that you guys don't want cycling to become cleaner. You've spent hrs upon hrs everyday in here whinging about doping and dopers for so many years that if cycling did become cleaner you'd have nothing left in your sad miserable repetitive lives. The main reason you're all so focused on Wiggins is because Armstrong has been outed.

 

[acoggan]

Is that like the Ed Coyle analysis of Armstrong's data that said his efficiency improved over time?

Worse: I didn't even make any actual measurements. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, though, just like Coyle wasn't wrong when he concluded that efficiency is trainable (a fact 1st demonstrated back in the 1930s, BTW).

what you say about Wiggins - that you don't know if he was doping or not but he could do what he is doing without doping?

That's pretty much it: I don't (can't) know whether he's doping or not, but his publically-stated power outputs do not prove (or even really suggest, unless he's been doping for years and years) that he is.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Worse: I didn't even make any actual measurements. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, though, just like Coyle wasn't wrong when he concluded that efficiency is trainable (a fact 1st demonstrated back in the 1930s, BTW).

That's pretty much it: I don't (can't) know whether he's doping or not, but his publically-stated power outputs do not prove (or even really suggest, unless he's been doping for years and years) that he is.

Except your graph jumps from a track-based 4 minute effort to ... a 2009 effort. Where the people who think he's a doper often believe he started doping.

So, yes exactly the same scenario as Ed Coyle's study of the doper, Lance Armstrong.

AS for your "facts" - it's not what Ed was saying, if you want to be honest. Of course someone who has never ridden a bike can improve their efficiency. "Efficiency is trainable".

Ed was claiming an elite level cyclist with years of training and racing at the elite / pro level, continued to improve his efficiency, based on really dodgy data.

An interesting definition of a fact.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The irony of this forum is that you guys don't want cycling to become cleaner. You've spent hrs upon hrs everyday in here whinging about doping and dopers for so many years that if cycling did become cleaner you'd have nothing left in your sad miserable repetitive lives. The main reason you're all so focused on Wiggins is because Armstrong has been outed.

So you actually again are saying you just don't know. Je vous merci.

Now, come on, be a big Australian scientist and explain why the whole of the top ten of last years Tour was bettering numbers of cyclists like Hinault/Fignon/LeMond/Delgado/Roche etc etc. At least the Giro was below those numbers.

Endulge us, and, please, your bickering tone of voice is just not done. Even your hero Ashenden knows.

And please, I do not want cycling to become cleaner, I want cycling to be clean. Big difference.

That's pretty much it: I don't (can't) know whether he's doping or not, but his publically-stated power outputs do not prove (or even really suggest, unless he's been doping for years and years) that he is.

The numbers are 'believable' I guess. Humanly possible. The Holy Grail of clean cycling. Not disputing your valuations. The grand question is who can hit the Holy Grail of clean cycling. Too many nowadays to my internet wannabe clean cycling warrior ideas.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You are entitled to your opinion

And you have a PhD, worked at AIS, NSWIS, and now lecturing in physiology at a college somewhere? I can go find those posts, but let's take it as a given.

It has much to do with muscle mass. Muscles consume oxygen. Within a given trained individual (ie: oxygen transport system remains the same), the greater the muscle mass, the greater the VO2. Simple concept.

Simple, but completely and entirely incorrect.

Strictly a personal observation, likely stemming from the facts that:
<snip>
3) the times that I have lost significant amounts of weight my absolute VO2max and power have declined in parallel.

I'm confused how a PhD and years experience make things any clearer.

 

[M Sport]

The irony of this forum is that you guys don't want cycling to become cleaner. You've spent hrs upon hrs everyday in here whinging about doping and dopers for so many years that if cycling did become cleaner you'd have nothing left in your sad miserable repetitive lives. The main reason you're all so focused on Wiggins is because Armstrong has been outed.

I can't speak for the 'guys' as I only pop in here now and then but I will address your point about Wiggins and will add in Sky in general.

I wouldn't single out just Wiggins. Wigan, Froome, Porte and Rogers were all dodgy as fck last year. The focus should be on whoever is winning the big races and turning them into a farce.