Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Krebs cycle]

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!

I can't help it if you're the ones who don't understand the science.

 

[the big ring]

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.

But you didn't start at 5% and increase it to 6%. I would have called that a 1/5th (20%) increase.

You went from 1% to 2%. That is a 100% increase (on 1%).

I am sorry this is hard for you.

 

[V3R1T4S]

Percentage of a percentage

Will you guys please stop arguing over percentage points versus the percentage of a percentage.

200% of 1% is (200/100)*(1/100) = 2*0.1 = 0.2 = 2%

2% is one percentage point greater than 1%.

If something, say x, doubles you get 2x. The increase in x is 2x - x = x. The % increase in x is x * (100/x) = 100%.

 

[the big ring]

Will you guys please stop arguing over percentage points versus the percentage of a percentage.

200% of 1% is (200/100)*(1/100) = 2*0.1 = 0.2 = 2%

2% is one percentage point greater than 1%.

If something, say x, doubles you get 2x. The increase in x is 2x - x = x. The % increase in x is x * (100/x) = 100%.

Quick 200/100 x 1/100 = 2 x 0.01 = .02 = 2%

<3

 

[Krebs cycle]

But you didn't start at 5% and increase it to 6%. I would have called that a 1/5th (20%) increase.

You went from 1% to 2%. That is a 100% increase (on 1%).

I am sorry this is hard for you.

You are removing the context though. Yes, I'm glad we agree that 2 is 100% greater than 1, and 6 is 20% greater than 5, but in both cases the increase was 1 calorie which is 1% out of the total of 100.

I'm sorry that you don't understand this very important reference point and how percentages work. As I stated earlier 2% is not double 1%. Sure the absolute value is, but not the percentage.

 

[the big ring]

You are removing the context though. Yes, I'm glad we agree that 2 is 100% greater than 1, and 6 is 20% greater than 5, but in both cases the increase was 1 calorie which is 1% out of the total of 100.

I'm sorry that you don't understand this very important reference point and how percentages work. As I stated earlier 2% is not double 1%. Sure the absolute value is, but not the percentage.

Question: do you publish results of % improvement in Hct or P @ VO2 or LT or anything like that? You know, as a sports scientist doing a PhD in altitude physiology?

Just curious.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Will you guys please stop arguing over percentage points versus the percentage of a percentage.

200% of 1% is (200/100)*(1/100) = 2*0.1 = 0.2 = 2%

2% is one percentage point greater than 1%.

If something, say x, doubles you get 2x. The increase in x is 2x - x = x. The % increase in x is x * (100/x) = 100%.

Thank you. Someone who understands maths.

End of discussion.

The big ring is using it as an excuse not to justify the stupidity of comparing a TT performed after 17days of TdF racing versus a one off WC TT that is preceded by a training block and taper that is specific to the event.

 

[the big ring]

Thank you. Someone who understands maths.

End of discussion.

He's agreeing with me, Krebs. So by extension so are you.

 

[the big ring]

The big ring is using it as an excuse not to justify the stupidity of comparing a TT performed after 17days of TdF racing versus a one off WC TT that is preceded by a training block and taper that is specific to the event.

Actually, what JV said is the final TdF TT (49') W/kg matched Wiggin's climb test (33') W/kg.

So what I am comparing is a fit and rested, ready to place 4th in the TdF Wiggins doing 33 minute test at 439W to the same Wiggins doing 57' (that's 72% longer) at 453W (14W more) 2 years later.

If we take his power at 69kg, the figures are even more ridiculous.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Question: do you publish results of % improvement in Hct or P @ VO2 or LT or anything like that? You know, as a sports scientist doing a PhD in altitude physiology?

Just curious.

If any scientist anywhere submitted a paper for publication and it contained a result in which the original value was expressed as a percentage, for example 1%, and the final result was also expressed as a percentage eg: 2%, they would say that the value increase by 1%. They would not say that it increased by 100% and they would not say that it doubled. If they did, the paper would not get published until it was revised and the error removed.

 

[Krebs cycle]

He's agreeing with me, Krebs. So by extension so are you.

whatevs Einstein.

2% is only 1% greater than 1%.

2% is one percentage point greater than 1%.

 

[the big ring]

whatevs Einstein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point

A percentage point (pp) is the unit for the arithmetic difference of two percentages.

Consider the following hypothetical example: In 1980, 40 percent of the population smoked, and in 1990 only 30 percent smoked. We can thus say that from 1980 to 1990, the incidence of smoking decreased by 10 percentage points even though smoking did not decrease by 10 percent (actually it decreased by 25 percent) – percentages indicate ratios, not differences.

1% more than 1% is 1.01%
1 percentage point more than 1% is 2%

Doube 1% = 2%.

1 percentage point != 1%

Good.

Grief.

Here's a link that might help you: http://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-points.html

 

[V3R1T4S]

Dudes...

You guys are both "right" as you are arguing over two different concepts. Perhaps the misunderstanding is American English versus Australian English and "percent" vs "percentage point" and in what contexts they are used. I am neither sure nor care.

Look, here's how I see it. In essence I agree with both of you. Yes, I agree that something does not smell right. However, by all objective mathematical analysis it is impossible to make a definitive call one way or the other if something truly fishy is going on - there are too many degrees of freedom with unknown uncertainties. Even the accuracy of the SRM (quoted to within +/- 2%) could be the source of this 20 watts improvement if he changed units. Also the funny rings I believe introduce some source of inflation over round ring watts, even when the slope is properly calibrated and the offset properly zeroed. This is due to the comparative oversampling in the power phase since crank based units assume a constant angular velocity for each revolution in calculating the power output. Did he always use q-rings, even on the track? On all his training bikes? Etc, etc.

The biggest uncertainty, as Andy Coggan identified, is his weight. We have 131313's statement that he knows someone who saw him standing on the scale at the TdF this year at 72kg, so that's probably the best figure to use, although I do remember reading somewhere that in 2011 he came into the TdF at 69kg, his lightest ever. Whether that remained the same for the WC TT that year or not, who knows.

The frustrating thing is obviously at this level 20 watts can be the difference between winning the TdF or not. It is also a gain that can very easily be achieved via micro-dosing and/or other methods. However, as we are seeing, even with published power data 20 watts is still within fundamental uncertainties in the assumptions. IMHO this is why you guys are arguing with equal passion.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Actually, what JV said is the final TdF TT (49') W/kg matched Wiggin's climb test (33') W/kg.

So what I am comparing is a fit and rested, ready to place 4th in the TdF Wiggins doing 33 minute test at 439W to the same Wiggins doing 57' (that's 72% longer) at 453W (14W more) 2 years later.

If we take his power at 69kg, the figures are even more ridiculous.

How do you know that Wiggins test climb was fit and rested? IMO it would be a really bad idea to be rested 3 weeks prior to the start of the TdF. At that point Wiggins should be fairly smashed from the final block of training and just beginning a taper in order to be coming into peak form at the start of the tour. I never met an elite coach once that would allow their athlete to be "rested" just for a test at such a critical phase of preparation. And never in my wildest dreams would they "peak" for a test 3 weeks out from competition in the same way that they plan to peak for the competition itself.

And again, I don't know why anyone would think that the final block of preparation for a GT would be the same as that for a WC ITT??

 

[the big ring]

How do you know that Wiggins test climb was fit and rested? IMO it would be a really bad idea to be rested 3 weeks prior to the start of the TdF. At that point Wiggins should be fairly smashed from the final block of training and just beginning a taper in order to be coming into peak form at the start of the tour. I never met an elite coach once that would allow their athlete to be "rested" just for a test at such a critical phase of preparation. And never in my wildest dreams would they "peak" for a test 3 weeks out from competition in the same way that they plan to peak for the competition itself.

And again, I don't know why anyone would think that the final block of preparation for a GT would be the same as that for a WC ITT??

Le sigh.

So you've been shooting your mouth off without reading. Again.

14 days prior: 10 mile TT UK champs.
5 days later (ie 9 days before the tour, not 3 weeks): 33 minute climb.

9 days. Not 3 weeks.

 

[the big ring]

The frustrating thing is obviously at this level 20 watts can be the difference between winning the TdF or not. It is also a gain that can very easily be achieved via micro-dosing and/or other methods. However, as we are seeing, even with published power data 20 watts is still within fundamental uncertainties in the assumptions. IMHO this is why you guys are arguing with equal passion.

I don't mind the 20W in isolation. It's 20W combined with an increase in duration from 33 minutes to 57 minutes.

That's doing more power for 72% longer.

Then he went quicker in 2012.

 

[the big ring]

The biggest uncertainty, as Andy Coggan identified, is his weight. We have 131313's statement that he knows someone who saw him standing on the scale at the TdF this year at 72kg, so that's probably the best figure to use, although I do remember reading somewhere that in 2011 he came into the TdF at 69kg, his lightest ever. Whether that remained the same for the WC TT that year or not, who knows.

Forum software annoys me sometimes. The "most recent post" stuff is a bit broken. I am following the Wiggins developments with interest, and have completely missed this factoid.

I thought they had done away with the whole "fitness test" in the days leading up to the tour. I'll go look for that post but if you have a link it would be appreciated.

 

[Krebs cycle]

The frustrating thing is obviously at this level 20 watts can be the difference between winning the TdF or not. It is also a gain that can very easily be achieved via micro-dosing and/or other methods. However, as we are seeing, even with published power data 20 watts is still within fundamental uncertainties in the assumptions. IMHO this is why you guys are arguing with equal passion.

What I recognize is that Wiggins' absolute numbers and his improvement in road cycling performances are exactly as you say... "within the level of uncertainty in the assumptions". That is precisely why I cannot sit here and say with 100% belief "Wiggins is doping".

The big ring himself posted power output, but then he got some of the calculations wrong and hence overestimated Wiggins VO2max from a range that IS humanly possible to a range that is probably not humanly possible. If you take a bunch of assumptions and use the worst case scenario in each case, then you multiply the error and so of course you will end up with ridiculous values. It is fudging the data to fit the belief, not the other way around as it should be.

 

[the big ring]

The big ring himself posted power output, but then he got some of the calculations wrong and hence overestimated Wiggins VO2max from a range that IS humanly possible to a range that is probably not humanly possible. If you take a bunch of assumptions and use the worst case scenario in each case, then you multiply the error and so of course you will end up with ridiculous values. It is fudging the data to fit the belief, not the other way around as it should be.

Still waiting for you to do the same "analysis" on the IP.

570W
4:15
82kg

Go.

Show me what a world class IP VO2 looks like.

Boardman allegedly had 90 ml/m/kg and managed 4:24 for the 4k. That's 54.5 vs 56.5 km/hr.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Le sigh.

So you've been shooting your mouth off without reading. Again.

14 days prior: 10 mile TT UK champs.
5 days later (ie 9 days before the tour, not 3 weeks): 33 minute climb.

9 days. Not 3 weeks.

Well you've been shooting your mouth off at me for the last 3months without reading a damn thing so I'm entitled to a single occasion.

Regardless, my point still stands. It is a 20W change over 2yrs. You've got no idea exactly how "rested" Wiggins was during either the UK 10 mile TT nor the 33min climb. You don't know his exact bodyweight. You don't know the exact temperature or humidity on all of those occasions which can make a large effect on power. You don't know what his %LT was in 2009 or 2011. You're making gigantic assumptions all over the place over and over again, and this is what you rely on to come to conclusion that Wiggins must be doping? It's a joke.

I'll repeat it yet again. Wiggins could be doping, but basing this conclusion on flawed calculations and enormous uncertainty is just plain nonsense.

 

[the big ring]

Well you've been shooting your mouth off at me for the last 3months without reading a damn thing so I'm entitled to a single occasion.

Regardless, my point still stands. It is a 20W change over 2yrs. You've got no idea exactly how "rested" Wiggins was during either the UK 10 mile TT nor the 33min climb. You don't know his exact bodyweight. You don't know the exact temperature or humidity on all of those occasions which can make a large effect on power. You don't know what his %LT was in 2009 or 2011. You're making gigantic assumptions all over the place over and over again, and this is what you rely on to come to conclusion that Wiggins must be doping? It's a joke.

I'll repeat it yet again. Wiggins could be doping, but basing this conclusion on flawed calculations and enormous uncertainty is just plain nonsense.

If you can show one post where I say Wiggins is doping, I'll be all ears.

All I have argued is his power has increased. That's it.

 

[the big ring]

Well you've been shooting your mouth off at me for the last 3months without reading a damn thing so I'm entitled to a single occasion.

Nah I've read what you've written very carefully. And then laughed at you, yes, but only because your "analysis" of climbing ability or TT ability is so laughable.

Regardless, my point still stands. It is a 20W change over 2yrs. You've got no idea exactly how "rested" Wiggins was during either the UK 10 mile TT nor the 33min climb. You don't know his exact bodyweight.
.

His bodyweight was relayed by his team manager. I am sure JV didn't know a thing, that's why he's posting it.

JV went to a lot of trouble to point out VDV was unwell and hence riding below his best - yet failed to mention Brad was fatigued!? You'd think JV would be aware of stuff like this. I do at any rate. Hands on team manager that he is and all.

But you carry on in your little Wiggins defense bubble.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Still waiting for you to do the same "analysis" on the IP.

570W
4:15
82kg

Go.

Show me what a world class IP VO2 looks like.

Boardman allegedly had 90 ml/m/kg and managed 4:24 for the 4k. That's 54.5 vs 56.5 km/hr.

What analysis are you waiting for? Months ago I posted links to studies done by Neil Craig examining aerobic and anaerobic indices of track endurance performance. These studies were published in the mid 90s so it has been known for over 15yrs that world class track endurance cyclists possess extremely high VO2max and lactate threshold values... 2 of the 3 vital ingredients for success in endurance sports. That is what I based my original assumption on... ie: that a world class IP rider would likely have the necessary physiological attributes to make the transition to road cyclist.

Citing examples of other track riders that didn't become TdF winners is simply a red herring.

 

[Krebs cycle]

But you carry on in your little Wiggins defense bubble.

Yeah thanks Joseph Goebbels, I'm sure if you keep repeating that lie it will come true for you one day.

 

[Cavalier]

Yeah thanks Joseph Goebbels, I'm sure if you keep repeating that lie it will come true for you one day.

Wow, did you just Godwin the thread? I mean, you've posted some ridiculous red herrings in the past, and whined incessantly about people attacking you personally when you've blatantly displayed that characteristic yourself on a number of occasions, but that's a new level of stupidity entirely. Pull your head in.