Yes, Pierre Bordry getting fired and the UCI relieving AFLD of their testing duties.If I need to clarify that then: do we believe there have been any changes in cycling that have contributed to increased performances?
Yes, Pierre Bordry getting fired and the UCI relieving AFLD of their testing duties.If I need to clarify that then: do we believe there have been any changes in cycling that have contributed to increased performances?
It's not something I'm seeking to do. I think it's actually impossible to assess as doping in some ways held the sport in general back (not specifically in terms of power outputs more in mindset).How much of an impact compared to doping is always going to be hard to assess.
It's not something I'm seeking to do. I think it's actually impossible to assess as doping in some ways held the sport in general back (not specifically in terms of power outputs more in mindset).
As in, why try hard, you'll never beat the dopers? Or, I don't need to try hard, I'm doping? I would say I don't think either of those would hold the sport back in terms of adopting training techniques. I think what did, and to an extent still does, hold the sport back was the disconnect between teams and riders during the off-season/in-between races.It's not something I'm seeking to do. I think it's actually impossible to assess as doping in some ways held the sport in general back (not specifically in terms of power outputs more in mindset).
It's a bit more complicated than that, as many of those who doped did seek extra advantages elsewhere. Armstrong had his aerodynamics project. Rasmussen was obsessed with weight. But post-ABP these individual obsessions have been embraced more widely. And yes, as you say, there is also the teams being more, well, team-like, more controlling of the individual. More data obsessed, perhaps.As in, why try hard, you'll never beat the dopers? Or, I don't need to try hard, I'm doping?
This seems like a very long thread to say that the racers who can produce the most energy, by varied means which I'll return to, are the best racers. This isn't surprising, we've known that different energy sources play a role at different intensities for a long time and that a greater ability to recycle lactate efficiently is hugely beneficial. Providing the right fuel has always been a focus, whether that was guys eating steak before Paris Roubaix in the 70s, or the recent introduction of ketone drinks, but we've also seen varied success with this. It works for one rider and not another.A long(ish) Twitter thread from an Ineos embed that asks how should we understand metabolic determinants of endurance performance and suggests and that the "paradigm is changing and we are learning that new answers are needed."
View: https://twitter.com/MVAitor/status/1628080940051312656
Trigger warning: it does at one point cite Iñigo San Millán
NB: changes in the way we understand metabolism do not necessarily negate the belief in magic elixirs and all that jazz. It is possible to believe in two impossible things at once, as Alice discovered.
Wasn't even interested in reading the Millan piece simply because there's no chance in hell he's actually gonna give anything groundbreaking away.This seems like a very long thread to say that the racers who can produce the most energy, by varied means which I'll return to, are the best racers. This isn't surprising, we've known that different energy sources play a role at different intensities for a long time and that a greater ability to recycle lactate efficiently is hugely beneficial. Providing the right fuel has always been a focus, whether that was guys eating steak before Paris Roubaix in the 70s, or the recent introduction of ketone drinks, but we've also seen varied success with this. It works for one rider and not another.
As such, one of the big problems here is, does this give you any useful information? Will it allow you to help riders actually improve, or is it essentially giving you a way to find out who might and might not be successful?
And also, how comon is this trend across winners, not just elite athletes. They all exist on the tail of the population performance-wise, but what is common across that group may be different to what makes those few exceptions.
It's a bit of a strawman, but this is a CFD expert hyping up his own relevance a little bit, so its whatever. They have done much more interesting work, and I actually think that the effects of drafting on 6-7% are still very big and definitely explain a lot of the passive racing on 6-7% climbs. I think it's a better counterargument that if you attack uphill you often get the moto draft and uphill the motor often stays too close to you.The thing about drafting in climbs is a strawman. I've never heard anyone say that the advantages of drafting suddenly disappear when the road goes up, it's usually talked about as diminishing returns as the road gets steeper. Hell, it's kind of a cliché to justify the lack of offensive riding by mentioning how much of an advantage drafting provides at 6-7% or whatever.
Oh I didn't mean to say it's not real or that it doesn't play an important role in how a race plays out, just that drafting uphill is such a widely known factor that it pops up almost automatically in any discussion. Come to think of it, I'd say people only play down the importance of drafting on extreme slopes, when it's like 16-18% and people will say "he has X on his wheel but it doesn't matter that much on this kind of climb".I actually think that the effects of drafting on 6-7% are still very big and definitely explain a lot of the passive racing on 6-7% climbs.
deetsThe Maurten Bicarb System is an advanced sports fuel designed to help athletes push the boundaries of effort and power during high-intensity exercise.
The Bicarb System contains a mixing bowl, the hydrogel component, the bicarbonate component, and access to the Bicarb Digital System.