Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Krebs cycle]

I made efficiency a variable to explore various VO2 results. I was looking for a value that said "world champion".

Anaerobic energy yield over a 57 minute TT? I am guessing if his 4:15 IP is 90% aerobic, his 57 minute TT is going to be significantly less. acoggan mentioned previously the anaerobic contribution to a 20 / 40 minute climb is negligble. I am guessing a 57 minute TT even less of a factor.

I am not looking at only one result - the 2011 WC TT in isolation - but the IP - 10 mile - 33 minute climb values. Then comparing them to the 2011 WC TT. That's where things start to look weird.

A mathematical model of running performance estimates 0.9% of the energy yield for a 1hr long event comes from anaerobic energy sources, so a 1% value is entirely possible.

You won't find that value in the abstract but it is located in table 1 of the fulltext article.

J Appl Physiol. 1989 Jul;67(1):453-65.
Mathematical analysis of running performance and world running records.
Péronnet F, Thibault G.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2759974

 

[the big ring]

A mathematical model of running performance estimates 0.9% of the energy yield for a 1hr long event comes from anaerobic energy sources, so a 1% value is entirely possible.

You won't find that value in the abstract but it is located in table 1 of the fulltext article.

J Appl Physiol. 1989 Jul;67(1):453-65.
Mathematical analysis of running performance and world running records.
Péronnet F, Thibault G.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2759974

This is almost like JV's attempt to have Brad's "aerobic cake" and eat it as well.

If someone (Brad) is less anaerobically powered than average over a time of 4:15, the extension of that effort out to 57' would lead me to believe he is less anaerobically powered than average there as well. So I'd be taking that 0.9% and reducing it.

If we bumped up the anaerobic energy yield to 2%, then at 90% VO2 and 23% efficiency the VO2max becomes 84.6 ml/kg/min.

I certainly would not be doubling it to 2%.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Anyway, given that it was a training effort, another possibility is that Wiggins simply didn't give it "full stick".

I guess the big ring has never actually raced a day in his entire life.

It it well known across many sports that race day performances often exceed maximal effort training or "testing" performances.

If JVs testimony is 100% correct and indeed Wiggins training best effort matches his world championship best effort, then it is a 20W increase in power over a 3yr period. Big Ring wants to ignore yet again the fact that Wiggins' priority was the IP and only switched this priority to road racing in earnest in 2009, but instead keeps bringing up the white elephant that he turned road pro 5-6yrs earlier.

Just call a spade a spade big ring. If an IP specialist spends a lot more time dedicated on improving long road TTs then a 20W increase over a 3yr period is quite marginal indeed.

 

[Cyivel]

ugh

......

 

[the big ring]

And once again, KC, your post sounds (mostly) reasonable until you look at it carefully...

I guess the big ring has never actually raced a day in his entire life.

Pretty sure that's called playing the man.

It it well known across many sports that race day performances often exceed maximal effort training or "testing" performances.

And yet his race day performance matched his "testing" performance perfectly. 434W (race) vs 439W (test).

If JVs testimony is 100% correct and indeed Wiggins training best effort matches his world championship best effort, then it is a 20W increase in power over a 3yr period.

434W for 49' @ July 23, 2009
453W for 57' @ September 21, 2011

That's 2 years and 2 months for an increase of 20W for an increase of 16% in duration.

Big Ring wants to ignore yet again the fact that Wiggins' priority was the IP and only switched this priority to road racing in earnest in 2009, but instead keeps bringing up the white elephant that he turned road pro 5-6yrs earlier.

I am pretty sure you brought up the white, polka-dotted elephant of Brad being a climber long before anyone else mentioned Brad's breath-taking road palmares.

Just call a spade a spade big ring. If an IP specialist spends a lot more time dedicated on improving long road TTs then a 20W increase over a 3yr period is quite marginal indeed.

20W over a 2 year period for a 16% increase in duration, yes. But hmmm now he's going quicker again, in 2012, because of a side-wind. Non-stop from March to August.

Righto.

 

[Krebs cycle]

This is almost like JV's attempt to have Brad's "aerobic cake" and eat it as well.

If someone (Brad) is less anaerobically powered than average over a time of 4:15, the extension of that effort out to 57' would lead me to believe he is less anaerobically powered than average there as well. So I'd be taking that 0.9% and reducing it.



I certainly would not be doubling it to 2%.

Just give up on this stuff. You are way out of your league. That modelling paper took data world class performances at various distances so the value of 0.9% is ALREADY an estimate from highly aerobic athletes.

Furthermore, this paper gives a value of 87.8% of max aerobic power for an hour long event, so their analysis (which had an average performance prediction error of 0.7%) is also consistent with what acoggan has been saying about realistic values for world class athletes.

So using 1% anaerobic energy yield and 88% MAP gives a VO2max of 87.4ml/kg/min.

I'm posting links to published science, you are taking a guess out of your a$$

 

[the big ring]

So using 1% anaerobic energy yield and 88% MAP gives a VO2max of 87.4ml/kg/min.


I'm posting links to published science, you are taking a guess out of your a$$

So where did you pull this hypothetical from?

If we bumped up the anaerobic energy yield to 2%, then at 90% VO2 and 23% efficiency the VO2max becomes 84.6 ml/kg/min.

Is that in the published paper too? Or did you have to stand up?

 

[the big ring]

Just give up on this stuff.

You mean like Lance? Sorry. I'm not a quitter.

 

[Krebs cycle]

And yet his race day performance matched his "testing" performance perfectly. 434W (race) vs 439W (test).


20W over a 2 year period, yes. But hmmm now he's going quicker again, in 2012, because of a side-wind. Non-stop from March to August.

Righto.

sorry 2yrs. woopee 20W in 2yrs. Regardless, the figure of a 20w improvement relies on way too many assumptions. A good taper can improve 40min TT performance by about 3-4% in a few weeks. I would assume that he was properly tapered for the WC TT, but how do you know that Wiggins was properly tapered for that "test"? The July 23 results came after nearly 3 weeks of TdF racing. You cannot seriously begin to believe that it's not possible to raise your power for a single World Championship ITT following a specific taper compared with a TT at the end of the TdF?

You got the VO2 calcs wrong, you got the %VO2max wrong. You got the assumption about anaerobic energy yield wrong. And now you are comparing a TT at the end of the TdF with the UCI world championships 2yrs later and you reckon a 20W improvement is some sort of magical increase far beyond a "marginal gain"?

Mate you are a rank amateur when it comes to this stuff.

 

[Krebs cycle]

So where did you pull this hypothetical from?

the exact figure was 87.4% for a 1hr event, and it's also from table 1 in that paper. Re the anaerobic energy yield, my first guess was 1% and that was almost identical to what is published in that paper. The data table I posted uses the 1% anaerobic energy yield, not a 2% yield. Go with the 1% value.

 

[the big ring]

the exact figure was 87.4% for a 1hr event, and it's also from table 1 in that paper. Re the anaerobic energy yield, my first guess was 1% and that was almost identical to what is published in that paper. The data table I posted uses the 1% anaerobic energy yield, not a 2% yield. Go with the 1% value.

Did you just admit you were wrong?

At least I don't claim to be an expert eh?

 

[Krebs cycle]

And again Big Ring since you clearly don't get it..... I am not defending Wiggins. I'm pointing out that your conclusion that Wiggins MUST be doping is based on dodgey calculations and a long list of unknown assumptions.

He could be doping, but that still wouldn't make your entire analysis any less bogus.

 

[the big ring]

He could be doping, but that still wouldn't make your entire analysis any less bogus.

Like Schrodinger's cat, it would be existing in 2 states simultaneously: bogus and correct. That is far more impressive than just being correct.

Let's see if I can't get the wave form to collapse a little more eh?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Did you just admit you were wrong?

At least I don't claim to be an expert eh?

I never claimed to be an "expert". You're the one claiming that I am but you're also the one claiming that I am not, so like Schrodinger's cat, then I would be existing in 2 states simultaneously: bogus and correct. That is far more impressive than just being correct.

 

[the big ring]

I never claimed to be an "expert". You're the one claiming that I am but you're also the one claiming that I am not,

My apologies, I thought the following was a claim to expertise:

Whatevs dude. I've got over 10yrs experience working at the AIS and NSWIS with elite athletes and coaches as a sport scientist and for the last 2yrs I've been teaching exercise physiology at tertiary level.

I have never said you are not an expert, I have simply expressed sincere doubt as to this claim, as your debating style accelerates quickly to name calling and put-downs. Your oral presentation to get your PhD must have been a hoot.

so like Schrodinger's cat, then I would be existing in 2 states simultaneously: bogus and correct. That is far more impressive than just being correct.

Ah yes imitation. The sincerest form of flattery. You honour me.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I certainly would not be doubling it to 2%.

Seriously, I really have to laugh hard at this. You actually once said about yourself "pretend I'm really good at maths" or something of the like and here you are saying that 2% is "double" 1%.

A value of 2 is double a value of 1 but 2% is only 1% greater than 1%.


I also have to laugh at the fact that everytime you get owned hard and have no comeback (eg: the stupidity of comparing a TT at the end of a TdF with a WC TT) then you abandon and look for something else to clutch straws at.

 

[Krebs cycle]

My apologies, I thought the following was a claim to expertise:

Apologies accepted, but you thought wrong again. An expert would be someone who has dedicated their entire career to the analysis of cycling performance and has worked for many years directly with pro level cyclists. Probably someone like Andy Coggan, Peter Keen, David Martin, Jim Martin, Asker Jeukendrop, Inigo Mujika etc.

I did not claim to be an expert. I merely stated my qualifications and industry experience. YOU imagined that out of thin air just like a great deal of other stuff you post on these forums.

 

[the big ring]

Seriously, I really have to laugh hard at this. You actually once said about yourself "pretend I'm really good at maths" or something of the like and here you are saying that 2% is "double" 1%.

A value of 2 is double a value of 1 but 2% is only 1% greater than 1%.


I also have to laugh at the fact that everytime you get owned hard and have no comeback (eg: the stupidity of comparing a TT at the end of a TdF with a WC TT) then you abandon and look for something else to clutch straws at.

If I produce 100 calories of work, and 1% comes from anaerobic sources, that's 1 calorie.

If I produce 100 calories of work, and 2% comes from anaerobic sources, that's ...... 2 calories!

Twice as much!

2 x 1% = 2%

Double: verb; become twice as much or as many.similar parts or things.

Just.

Wow.

 

[the big ring]

I did not claim to be an expert. I merely stated my qualifications and industry experience. YOU imagined that out of thin air just like a great deal of other stuff you post on these forums.

Are your experience and qualifications relevant to the discussion? I am curious why you mentioned them.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Schrodinger's cat is not in two states, it just died laughing at the idea that that 2x/100 is not double x/100.

Krebs I understand that there is context and "not double" must be e.g. in reference to whatever x is, but every time your express your points so loosely a kitten dies!

 

[BigBoat]

What is Wiggin's weight? I keep seeing 69 kg.

 

[the big ring]

What is Wiggin's weight? I keep seeing 69 kg.

I left it at 72kg as it's the last (2009) figure JV mentioned in relation to Wiggins 6.1W/kg believable power outputs. Even though Mick Rogers (2012) reckons thanks to Kerrison and their training etc, he's as light as he was back when he was 16. Oh. And putting out 5-7% more power at FTP.

The Sky website lists him at 69kg. I haven't introduced this into the discussion with KC yet, but if it's true (and Sky have no reason to lie on their site, right? transparency and honesty and all that toodle pip tally ho eh what!?) then the figures get worse or better, depending on your slant on things.

 

[Krebs cycle]

If I produce 100 calories of work, and 1% comes from anaerobic sources, that's 1 calorie.

If I produce 100 calories of work, and 2% comes from anaerobic sources, that's ...... 2 calories!

Twice as much!

2 x 1% = 2%

Double: verb; become twice as much or as many.similar parts or things.

Just.

Wow.

Math fail.

You said "double" 1% to 2%. As stated previously, 2% is only 1% more than 1%, not "double" which means 100% greater.

If the total calories was 100 and anaerobic energy yield was 5% and we increased that by 1%, up to 6% then we get an increase of 5 up to 6. A value of 6 is not DOUBLE 5.

 

[acoggan]

What is Wiggin's weight? I keep seeing 69 kg.

As I said once before, I think that is a bigger unknown than his actual power output.

 

[acoggan]

An expert would be someone who has dedicated their entire career to the analysis of cycling performance and has worked for many years directly with pro level cyclists.

I guess that leaves me out, then, since my research focus has (foci have?) been elsewhere, and I've never even met a male professional cyclist (not that I recall, anyway...although come to think of it, I did once go on a small group ride w/ Marty Jemison).