Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[Dear Wiggo]

Awesome! More comedy gold from you in that thread.

You cherry pick a handful of studies and in the space of about 10mins you totally debunk altitude training and all its variants!! Damn somebody better get their outrage-o-meter dialed up to max because since those studies were conducted the AIS has spent literally millions on altitude training camps, LHTL, LLTH and dozens of research studies ALL paid for by your tax dollars.

Actually I didn't debunk altitude training at all. I simply showed that if you didn't do it properly, it was worthless, and that there were risks involved with staying at altitude regardless of the training protocol.

When you link to studies it's an "explanation", but I link to studies and it's comedy gold.

So strange. You didn't recognise any of the studies I linked? I chose them very carefully....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

For the sake of the country and all of us taxpayers, I think you better write to the Minister for Sport and inform her that OUR tax dollars are being wasted on useless research and that the AIS is using altitude training to hide a massive doping conspiracy.

Given what Lundy said about Kelly after the first time this happened, it would be incredibly ironic if Lundy turned around and did the same thing, don't you think?

 

[Krebs cycle]

And EACH TIME. It is very simple to show that the explanation or what have you is flawed or plain wrong.

This is yet another example. This time, Krebs Cycle guesses someone's CdA based on someone else's CdA based on the weight he thinks a rider is being similar to someone else's weight, plugs them into a calculator on a website and says "LOOK! NORMAL! CLEAN!".

What a massive load of rubbish. The point that I have been making for months is that as far back as 2005 Wiggins has been placing top 10 at world level in long ITTs and on many occasions he has been top 5 in prologues. From 2009 onwards he hasn't improved at all in prologues and he has gradually improved by no more than 1% per year in long TTs. There is NO magical extraterrestrial performance jump. His climbing ability has gone up significantly because he lost weight. And as I have explained, losing weight makes a bigger improvement on climbing ability than it causes a detriment to TT performance.

You are the one who cherry picked a single result and then ignored the majority of his TT race results and you are the one who compares Wiggins power from when he was 77.5kg versus 71.5kg but you think that you should use the SAME CdA?? What a complete and utter joke that is to the concept of cycling performance analysis. You are the one who does not understand exercise physiology and you are the one who makes mistakes and errors and uses false assumptions in every post you make.

I used cyclingpowermodels.com which I have noticed that you and others have used (or analyticalcycling.com) on many occasions, so you can't cry ASSUMPTION! ZOMG debunked now because then you are simply being a massive hypocrite. I understand that the assumption when comparing Wiggins 2007 TT performance to 2012 is that the course profile is different and there could have been different ambient conditions which affect the velocity and hence estimated power. This is the reason why you must include other riders such as Cancellara to get a feel for relative changes in performance. This is also the reason why you CANNOT and I repeat you simply CANNOT determine whether anyone is doping based on performance especially when the maximal efforts are well within what can be achieved without doping. In Armstrong's case it was completely different because he was performing at a level outside what is considered humanly possible.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Actually I didn't debunk altitude training at all. I simply showed that if you didn't do it properly, it was worthless, and that there were risks involved with staying at altitude regardless of the training protocol.

When you link to studies it's an "explanation", but I link to studies and it's comedy gold.

So strange. You didn't recognise any of the studies I linked? I chose them very carefully....

yep and you're walking a slippery slope there mister because according to the community guidelines of this site, I wish my right to privacy be respected. If you start trolling me personally then I will be making some pretty heavy complaints about you in particular and I will take it to the police.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What a massive load of rubbish. The point that I have been making

No. It's a point you have TRIED to make, and failed. Have a look, it might refresh your memory:

Ok I will have one last stab at this....

Wiggins has not improved his performance in short ITTs such as prologues compared with Cancellara from 2007 through 2012.

Compare:
TdF prologue 2007 (7.9km)
Cancellara = 8:50
Wiggins @ 23sec
ie Wiggins needs to produce 13.5% more power to match Cancellara - and has the same (or more) weight as Cancellara
Type this into google: (60*7.9/(8+50/60))/(60*7.9/(8+73/60)))^3

Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 17:55
Fabian Cancellara (Swi) Team CSC 18:06

TdF prologue 2012 (6.4km)
Cancellara = 7:13
Wiggins @ 7sec
ie Wiggins needs to produce 4.9% more power to match Cancellara - and now weighs ~10% less than Cancellara
More google math: (60*6.4/(7+13/60))/(60*6.4/(7+20/60)))^3

188 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling 17:07:00
197 Fabian Cancellara (Swi) RadioShack-Nissan 17:16:00

I cannot believe you post an example comparing Wiggins to Cancellara in a prologue and then when I disagree with it, and show you're wrong, write about losing weight and going uphill.

You are either very confused, or trying way too hard to handwave yet another failed example away from the thread.

 

[JimmyFingers]

It's like ying versus yang...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

yep and you're walking a slippery slope there mister because according to the community guidelines of this site, I wish my right to privacy be respected. If you start trolling me personally then I will be making some pretty heavy complaints about you in particular and I will take it to the police.

They're studies about altitude training - and its effects on sleep, etc. ie specific to the topic at hand.

Why did you write I had debunked altitude training when I had done nothing of the sort?

 

[Krebs cycle]

It's like ying versus yang...

More like trying to teach a monkey how to use a knife and fork

 

[Dear Wiggo]

More like trying to teach a monkey how to use a knife and fork

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what your mate armchairclimber meant here:

The way I have understood this, with regards to Wiggins, is that

6. No way round this...training on long steep hills at altitude to add the peak to the aerobic base.

Not LHTL, but actually training on steep mountains, at altitude, adds to Wiggins peak something or other.

Go.

 

[JimmyFingers]

apparently if you give a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters and an infinite amount of time eventually by chance they will write the complete works of Shakespeare. I often see this forum as the early stages of that theorum

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually I didn't debunk altitude training at all. I simply showed that if you didn't do it properly, it was worthless, and that there were risks involved with staying at altitude regardless of the training protocol.

When you link to studies it's an "explanation", but I link to studies and it's comedy gold.

So strange. You didn't recognise any of the studies I linked? I chose them very carefully....

yep and you're walking a slippery slope there mister because according to the community guidelines of this site, I wish my right to privacy be respected. If you start trolling me personally then I will be making some pretty heavy complaints about you in particular and I will take it to the police.

What are you going to take to the Police, and what exactly has Dwiggo done to not respect your rights?

 

[Tom375]

apparently if you give a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters and an infinite amount of time eventually by chance they will write the complete works of Shakespeare. I often see this forum as the early stages of that theorum

Your joking aren't you - I see at as some sort of cycling parallel to Godwin's Law. Evidenced recently by the collapse of a thread supposedly about doping in cycling (Sky specifically) into a postcode war argument..
I think you were, weren't you?

If you give a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters you end up with a thousand broken typewriters..

 

[JimmyFingers]

Your joking aren't you - I see at as some sort of cycling parallel to Godwin's Law. Evidenced recently by the collapse of a thread supposedly about doping in cycling (Sky specifically) into a postcode war argument..
I think you were, weren't you?

If you give a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters you end up with a thousand broken typewriters..

You're......

 

[JimmyFingers]

Your joking aren't you - I see at as some sort of cycling parallel to Godwin's Law. Evidenced recently by the collapse of a thread supposedly about doping in cycling (Sky specifically) into a postcode war argument..
I think you were (there?), weren't you?

If you give a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters you end up with a thousand broken typewriters..

If you are going to try to say something sagacious, proof reading is your friend

 

[Krebs cycle]

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what your mate armchairclimber meant here:



Not LHTL, but actually training on steep mountains, at altitude, adds to Wiggins peak something or other.

Go.

I don't know armchairclimber personally, but what I can say is that there is a very clear and very strong consensus in the scientific literature which stretches back 40yrs that shows if you train at altitude, then you perform better at altitude. Since many of the critical stages of the TdF where time is won and lost are performed at altitude, then it is pretty much imperative to train at altitude if you want to win the TdF. Anything that you can possibly say or fantasize which disputes this fact I won't bother to argue with because you are simply going to be wrong.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't know armchairclimber personally, but what I can say is that there is a very clear and very strong consensus in the scientific literature which stretches back 40yrs that shows if you train at altitude, then you perform better at altitude. Since many of the critical stages of the TdF where time is won and lost are performed at altitude, then it is pretty much imperative to train at altitude if you want to win the TdF. Anything that you can possibly say or fantasize which disputes this fact I won't bother to argue with because you are simply going to be wrong.

Ah so before when I pointed out you lose power at altitude, and you replied by shouting LHTL!!!! I was wrong, but now that your mate says LHTH, you agree with him.

Righto.

Just wanted to check your consistency.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ah yes here we go:

I cannot be certain of this but my general feeling is that pretty much every pro-cyclist these days would own their own altitude tent. They cost about as much as an intermediate sprint bonus.

A PhD student at the AIS did a study a few years ago where they examined LHTL, LLTH, LHTL + TH, and control. The LHTL + TH added 3 or maybe 5 sessions per week x 60min in hypoxia.

The best performance and VO2max responses came from the LHTH group with the LHTL coming in a close second.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503055

That study you linked? says

The LH/TL+TH group substantially improved VO2max (4.8%; +/-2.8%, mean; +/-90% CL), Hb(mass) (3.6%; +/-2.4%) and 3-km time trial performance (-1.1%; +/-1.0%) immediately post-altitude. There was no substantial improvement in time trial performance 2 weeks later. The TH group substantially improved VO2max (2.2%; +/-1.8%), but had only trivial changes in Hb(mass) and 3-km time-trial performance.

LH/TL+TH VO2max increase: 4.8% +/-
LLTH VO2max increase: 2.2% +/-

The best performance and VO2max responses came from the LHTH group with the LHTL coming in a close second.

And this from a review of multiple altitude training protocol studies:

High altitude training is known to decrease athletic capacity because maximal aerobic power decreases about 1% for every 100 meters above 1,500 m (Levine and Stray-Gundersen). If elite athletes are training at a lower capacity than normally possible, their training will not necessarily improve or even maintain the athlete’s competitive fitness. As mentioned previously, every split second is of utmost importance in the world of elite sports. If these athletes choose to train at a level below maximum capability they will not maintain or improve performance compared to those placing 100% into training at lower altitudes.

And what Lance said in his affidavit, about having no top end in 2009. The reply from Stefano (ie Dr Ferrari) was - altitude training does that to you.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Ah so before when I pointed out you lose power at altitude, and you replied by shouting LHTL!!!! I was wrong, but now that your mate says LHTH, you agree with him.

Righto.

Just wanted to check your consistency.

I don't know what you are talking about but clearly you don't get the obvious.....

When you first arrive at altitude, you lose power (due to the decrease pO2).

After you spend 1-3 weeks acclimatizing to altitude you recover some of that lost power and you perform better.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't know what you are talking about but clearly you don't get the obvious.....

When you first arrive at altitude, you lose power (due to the decrease pO2).

After you spend 1-3 weeks acclimatizing to altitude you recover some of that lost power and you perform better.

Only some? Not all?

So the effect would still be diminishing your power production, and you will still be training ineffectively at reduced power.

 

[Tom375]

If you are going to try to say something sagacious, proof reading is your friend

Ahh see what you mean, thanks for the tip!
Don't see any need for sagaciousness in the forum its positively bereft of it. As for proof reading, well most of the rubbish i've read today - i think once is enough anyway back the thread!

 

[peterst6906]

Ah yes here we go:

That study you linked? says "There was no substantial improvement in time trial performance 2 weeks later."

I think you're arguing something different to Krebs.

Having read only back through the last few posts, Krebs appears to be referring to the benefits of performance at altitude, when you train at altitude.

Your quote from the study though refers to lower altitude performance affects from different training regimes.

It isn't referring to performance in the Alps after training in the Alps.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think you're arguing something different to Krebs.

Having read only back through the last few posts, Krebs appears to be referring to the benefits of performance at altitude, when you train at altitude.

Your quote from the study though refers to lower altitude performance affects from different training regimes.

It isn't referring to performance in the Alps after training in the Alps.

But if there's 1.1% improvement in 3km TT, and no improvement after 2 weeks, what improvement do you honestly expect after 2 week taper + 1 week of flat land riding at the Tour?

 

[peterst6906]

But if there's 1.1% improvement in 3km TT, and no improvement after 2 weeks, what improvement do you honestly expect after 2 week taper + 1 week of flat land riding at the Tour?

Don't know as I haven't looked at the literature (it's not my area of science, so just a layman like everyone else when it comes to physiology).

Find a study that compares LHTH vs LLTL on performance at altitude and you'll have a quantitative answer.

Qualitatively though, at least the teams believe there is some adaptation advantage of the LHTH approach to performance at altitude, because it's done every year.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I think you're arguing something different to Krebs.

Having read only back through the last few posts, Krebs appears to be referring to the benefits of performance at altitude, when you train at altitude.

Your quote from the study though refers to lower altitude performance affects from different training regimes.

It isn't referring to performance in the Alps after training in the Alps.

DW is using the same tactic that he always does when he knows he hasn't got a clue and/or has no comeback because he knows myself or anyone else that he disagrees with is right and he is wrong.....

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

Regardless, he is still wrong even when it applies to sea level performance. LHTH, LHTL and LLTH may not always improve sea level performance however the AIS and various other experts in the field have many years of experience using these methods now and they know how to periodize those methods in order to optimize the benefits. DW is pushing sh!t uphill with a stick. Altitude training methods work and that is why thousands upon thousands of elite endurance athletes worldwide have been doing it for the last 30-40yrs and still do and it remains a growing industry.

here is a good recent study on the subject.....

Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2009 Mar;4(1):134-8.
Improved race performance in elite middle-distance runners after cumulative altitude exposure.
Saunders PU, Telford RD, Pyne DD, Gore CJ, Hahn AG.

We quantified the effect of an extended live high-train low (LHTL) simulated altitude exposure followed by a series of training camps at natural moderate altitude on competitive performance in seven elite middle-distance runners (Vo2max 71.4 +/- 3.4 mL.min-1.kg-1, mean +/- SD). Runners spent 44 +/- 7 nights (mean +/- SD) at a simulated altitude of 2846 +/- 32 m, and a further 4 7- to 10-d training at natural moderate altitude (1700-2200 m) before racing. The combination of simulated LHTL and natural altitude training improved competitive performance by 1.9% (90% confidence limits, 1.3-2.5%). Middle-distance runners can confidently use a combination of simulated and natural altitude to stimulate adaptations responsible for improving performance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19417235

And here are a few recent reviews on the topic....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805094

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19519223

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20020784

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19203133

 

[Krebs cycle]

But if there's 1.1% improvement in 3km TT, and no improvement after 2 weeks, what improvement do you honestly expect after 2 week taper + 1 week of flat land riding at the Tour?

A 2 week taper you say? You simply and utterly are totally clueless regarding elite cycling preparation. This is what is so laughable about everything you write on this forum, you act as if you're gods gift to cycling performance analysis but you don't know sh!t. I lecture exercise physiology at tertiary level and I can honestly say that out of the hundreds of undergrad students I've taught over the past 2-3yrs, you would have to be in the bottom 10%. Biggest tryhard wannabe cycling expert on this entire forum, probably the entire internet.