mastersracer said:
Are training methods optimized?
Does current endurance performance represent the limit of human physiological capacity?
Can a team incorporate a training method that provides competitive advantage?
What value for watts/kg represent the highest physiologically 'plausible' one during a 3-week stage race?
Why aren't these questions as legitimate as suspicions of doping? I've said countless times that there is nothing wrong with suspicion based on base rates, which is what Kimmage is doing. But, I also don't see why Sky's training structure gets dismissed as a PR stunt so quickly.
To answer at least part of your answer: yes, it is possible that current endurance performance is the limit of human capacity. However, looking at the build of Wiggins, it isn't that likely that it is him representing that limit, especially in the climbs.
The value for watts/kg isn't extremely high in this Tour, and could be believable. The problem is that they have four riders suddenly turning out those values, all four new to the scene on this level, with some having past mediocre or outright bad performances in the same conditions.
Also, I think it is very interesting that Cavendish doesn't seem to benefit from the training regime in Sky: he lost weight, but his sprint is arguably weaker now, specially in the first week. When everyone has suffered an equal amount during three weeks, his natural ability is coming back to him, but it is clear that losing weight didn't help him to climb. That's normal, one trades in one thing for another. Of course, it is possible to develop conflicting abilities at once, if one is new to cycling, or didn't train at 100% before. We see this a lot.
However, one has to wonder if Rogers is one of those guys, if Wiggins is one of those guys (with World titles and Olympic titles respectively).
Also, the new way isn't that new. All those talk about watt and riding to own limit is as old as cycling, as everyone will always ride to his limit (in everyone riding to GC, assuming cyclist give it all on the road and assuming one is not able to go over his limit for a long time in a single climb or over three weeks, if you want). Their arguments about new and scientific cycling are so thin that I can see through it.
I know for a fact that Samu Sanchez does exactly the same, with heart rate and power meters. He's always been a gifted cyclist, coming in 6th in LBL in 2003. We saw him develop as a sort of classics specialist with good performances in Zürich (RIP), the WC, Ardennes and Lombardia. Over the years, he transformed himself from classics rider to GC rider, using "scientific" ways. It took him years to do it, but he managed. It came at a cost though, he lost his explosiveness and his results in hilly races got worse (even when he's in good shape, just look at this year's Pays Vasco and the hilly classics after it). Thanks to power meters and wattages he knows how far he can go, which is obvious in a lot of climbs: he often drops at the beginning when pace is high, only to grind back and often get a good result in the end because he did it the "scientific" way.
With Sky though, it's different. Almost overnight the scientific program worked, with not one, but four riders. Riding using wattages apparently makes bad climbers good, without losing other attributes. Losing weight apparently has a positive effect on the flat TT abilities of a Olympic medalist. There's no logic, that's the problem.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram