• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

"Everyone has structured training now."

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Yes. It can be seen across all sport and all levels. How much of an impact compared to doping is always going to be hard to assess. Training has changed to the point now where even cyclists who don't race have coaches, are more aware of the impact of nutrition etc. and understand how to get the best out of the training time they have. Advances in training equipment, such as turbos, power meters etc., have made these things much more accessible and it seems these days everyone apart from the retro-grouches like me have a direct drive turbo, power meters, multiple bikes, planned seasons across different disciplines and so on (and even I have succumbed to the draw of the power meter).
 
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).

Kudos for trying. I've read and re-read your posts trying to figure out what the hell you're on about, and it seems you've provided a clue.
Correct me if I've missed the point (I'm sure you will!), but let me ask if you're trying to say that cycling in a post-doping world has had a positive or negative effect on the mindset of a rider going into competition.
Assuming rider's don't dope (Ha! Good one!), are you suggesting that perhaps power output results posted by riders have an effect (either positive or negative) on how they perceive their opponent?
Help me here, fmk-rol. I'm genuinely curious.
 
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.
 
As in, why try hard, you'll never beat the dopers? Or, I don't need to try hard, I'm doping?
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meat puppet
Another interesting Twitter thread, some notes on the benefits bestowed by the magic drafting pixie:

View: https://twitter.com/realBertBlocken/status/1628872230254804992


Most of it is common sense, some of it uncommon: "Statements that aero is not important in climbing is old school nonsense."

View: https://twitter.com/realBertBlocken/status/1628891941222993921


NB: belief in the powers of the magic drafting pixie does not negate belief in the power of the magic salbutamol puffer or other pills, potions and magic lotions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Monte Serra
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
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.

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.
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 annoyance I have is if you reduce it to 30-40% drafting then you're basically only looking at the draft in 2nd wheel, and not the draft in larger groups, which is gonna be even bigger. A lot of the crazy high W/kg estimates are from climbs where they start in very large groups where the first phase of the climb is gonna have much more than 30-40% drafting, which can have a huge effect on estimates on like 6-7% clibms.

Furthermore, I've never really seen in depth analysis on the effect of accelerations and uneven power output on the overall performance, which would also drive strategy very heavily. I don't think there's an easy way to punish a negative split on a 7% climb if you have a strong team.
 
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.
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".
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob and Red Rick
Talk about back to the future ... TJV are going back to basics by reinventing ... bicarb.

View: https://twitter.com/JumboVismaRoad/status/1630250918217408512


My fridge is always running faster when I pop a small bowl of bicarb in it.

The 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.
deets

If nothing else, it does solve the Daryl Impey problem.