Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Krebs cycle]

So go ahead. Bradley wiggins sustained 570W for 4:15. What's his FTP? And to what degree of accuracy are you claiming. Pretend I'm really good at math and I can understand any formulae / working you present.

ETA: I am still amazed you can predict a trend based on one value.

Ok you got me. I over-exaggerated here slightly because I was trying to get you to accept the fact that a hyperbolic function describes the relationship between power output and time in human beings. Over 15yrs ago I learnt about the critical power model (and its limitations), so from the very beginning of this discussion I assumed that Brad Wiggins 4min power output would fit along his maximal power vs time curve (which I repeat, is hyperbolic in shape for all human beings). The EXACT shape of this curve differs for all individuals and the more data points along the power/time continuum you have, the more accurate your estimation of CP will be.

The other thing that I knew (since there is a paper published in 1993 by Neil Craig) is that VO2max is related to successful 4km track cycling performance and if you add in LT power and MAOD then the multiple regression prediction becomes more accurate.

Since I also know that VO2max and LT are 2 of the 3 important variables required for successful endurance performance in events >30min, then it didn't seem like such a great leap for me to assume that if a world class IP cyclist generated a higher than average (ie: average of elite IP cyclists) proportion of their 4min average power output from aerobic sources, then there is a good chance they could make a successful transition to road cycling.

The bit in italics is the important point (which I note Catwhoorg just mentioned a few posts back that JV was talking about, and is also something that I stated on this forum about a month ago).

What this means is that as you extend the hyberbolic curve out towards longer durations, it will not drop as much as another cyclist with the same 4min power but who uses a higher contribution from anaerobic sources over 4min. If you do a test called an MAOD then you can estimate the aerobic vs anaerobic contribution. I have performed this test on many occasions on rowers, runners, sprint kayakers and cyclists, so I have NO DOUBT whatsoever that British Cycling has this data on Wiggins and are thus able to make informed decisions about his potential to compete successfully on the road.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Basically, VO2max indicates your potential, whilst aerobic threshold indicates your current level of fitness (or the amount of VO2 max power you can sustain for a prolonged period - typically 1 hour).

So if VO2max is highly related to IP performance, that would probably indicate that Brad Wiggins has a very high VO2max right? So according to you (and the science which I agree with), that would mean that he HAS POTENTIAL.

I've been saying this from the get go and people like you want to keep disputing it, but here you are agreeing with me. Why the sudden paradoxical reasoning?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Can you explain when Brad Wiggins became a world class road time trialist?

Why don't you do some of that "quality investigative journalism" which apparently you are so awesome at?

I can't tell you exactly when Wiggins become "world class" but it is a matter of public record that as far back as 2005 he placed 7th at the UCI world TT championships and was about 1:10 behind Cancellara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_UCI_Road_World_Championships_–_Men's_time_trial

Now can you please explain WHEN Wiggins started his doping program and had a miraculous improvement in performance? This is what makes no sense. Everyone keeps pointing to 2009 as the year that Wiggins suddenly improved performance which is attributed to doping.

As discussed above however, VO2max is an important parameter for SHORT high intensity cycling performance such as the IP. Blood doping improves VO2max. Therefore, if Wiggins started a doping program in 2009 we would expect to see a marked improvement in his short high intensity performances such as PROLOGUES compared with his nearest rivals. But this just didn't happen. Compared with Cancellara his prologue performances were almost identical before and after 2009.

oh the weight loss the weight loss. Here we go again. If you say that Wiggins MUST have decreased his absolute VO2max or his average power output over those distances (eg: 6-10km) due to losing about 6-7kg of total body mass, then PROVE it. I realize we cannot access Wiggins' actual data, so show me a study, any study that says it is impossible for an athlete (in any sport) to lose weight and maintain performance over distances typical of prologues.

here is one in rowers that says (it is difficult) but it CAN be done....

Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Feb;16(1):108-21.
Preparation of former heavyweight oarsmen to compete as lightweight rowers over 16 weeks: three case studies.
Slater GJ, Rice AJ, Jenkins D, Gulbin J, Hahn AG.
Source
Dept of Physiology, Australian Institute of Sport, Belconnen, Australian Capital Territory.
Abstract
To strengthen the depth of lightweight rowing talent, we sought to identify experienced heavyweight rowers who possessed physique traits that predisposed them to excellence as a lightweight. Identified athletes (n = 3) were monitored over 16 wk. Variables measured included performance, anthropometric indices, and selected biochemical and metabolic parameters. All athletes decreased their body mass (range 2.0 to 8.0 kg), with muscle mass accounting for a large proportion of this (31.7 to 84.6%). Two athletes were able to maintain their performance despite reductions in body mass. However, performance was compromised for the athlete who experienced the greatest weight loss. In summary, smaller heavyweight rowers can successfully make the transition into the lightweight category, being nationally competitive in their first season as a lightweight

So in only 4months, 2 out of 3 rowers could lose muscle and maintain performance. Rowers require both upper body and lower body muscle mass for locomotion but cyclists DO NOT. So its harder to lose upper body muscle mass in a rower and maintain performance, but 2 out of 3 still did it. So for a cyclist (do not use the 82 to 69kg figure because for the purpose of comparing road prologues pre and post 2008 that is incorrect. we need to use Wiggins' own testimony that his road race weight was 77-78kg and he lost 6-7kg over a period of 9months leading into the 2009 TdF) it would be possible to lose more of the muscle mass from the upper body without sacrificing performance.

What I believe could have happened in 2009 (not saying it did, but just that the possibility is real) is that compared with 2007 when he was allegedly 77kg and 5% bf (according to Boyer), Wiggins lost 6-7kgs from a combination of upper body muscle mass (3-4kgs), whole body fat mass (1kg), lower back and core (1kg) and lower body (2kgs). Yes, this is a massive bit of speculation here. Maybe he lost 7kgs from lower body muscle and dropped absolute power, but maybe he lost 7kgs from his upper body and lost no power. We don't know so its not worth arguing over or pretending that you do know.

Maybe his absolute power decreased slightly, but his decrease in CdA partially offset that and he maintained velocity, but we are now starting to talk about subtle differences when looking at performance on the flat. Doping produces big, noticable differences, but again, that never happened.

What this doesn't rule out is the possibility that Wiggins did in fact lose absolute power when he lost weight, but then started a doping program and achieved a small and unremarkable gain in performance which makes it look like his prologue performance didn't change. That would be the explanation that someone who WANTS Wiggins to be a doper would look for. All I am doing is pointing out the fact that its not the ONLY explanation, but that just seems a little bit too much for some to handle.

Believe what you want to believe, but don't start claiming that fundamental aspects of the human energetic systems are wrong because it doesn't fit your opinion about Wiggins and Team Sky.

 

[131313]

This is WRONG WRONG WRONG. If you know how much power someone can produce over 4min then you can predict with a high degree of accuracy how much power they can sustain for 40min.
If you cannot understand or refuse to even try to understand the relevance that the critical power model has to this discussion then I cannot help you. That IS the physiological explanation.

Define "high degree of accuracy"? If you mean "within 10-15%", then we're in agreement.

It's certainly possible for two riders of identical height/weight to have identical 4MP, with one rider having grand tour potential threshold power and one being pack fill. Surely as an exercise physiologist, you should understand why this could be the case. Right?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Define "high degree of accuracy"? If you mean "within 10-15%", then we're in agreement.

It's certainly possible for two riders of identical height/weight to have identical 4MP, with one rider having grand tour potential threshold power and one being pack fill. Surely as an exercise physiologist, you should understand why this could be the case. Right?

Can you do me a tiny favor and at least read my posts before responding? I commented on this in detail already above.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=987978&postcount=4767

but suffice it to say, yes we are in agreement

 

[Ripper]

oh the weight loss the weight loss. Here we go again. If you say that Wiggins MUST have decreased his absolute VO2max or his average power output over those distances (eg: 6-10km) due to losing about 6-7kg of total body mass, then PROVE it. I realize we cannot access Wiggins' actual data, so show me a study, any study that says it is impossible for an athlete (in any sport) to lose weight and maintain performance over distances typical of prologues.

here is one in rowers that says (it is difficult) but it CAN be done....



So in only 4months, 2 out of 3 rowers could lose muscle and maintain performance. Rowers require both upper body and lower body muscle mass for locomotion but cyclists DO NOT. So its harder to lose upper body muscle mass in a rower and maintain performance, but 2 out of 3 still did it. So for a cyclist (do not use the 82 to 69kg figure because for the purpose of comparing road prologues pre and post 2008 that is incorrect. we need to use Wiggins' own testimony that his road race weight was 77-78kg and he lost 6-7kg over a period of 9months leading into the 2009 TdF) it would be possible to lose more of the muscle mass from the upper body without sacrificing performance.

What I believe could have happened in 2009 (not saying it did, but just that the possibility is real) is that compared with 2007 when he was allegedly 77kg and 5% bf (according to Boyer), Wiggins lost 6-7kgs from a combination of upper body muscle mass (3-4kgs), whole body fat mass (1kg), lower back and core (1kg) and lower body (2kgs). Yes, this is a massive bit of speculation here. Maybe he lost 7kgs from lower body muscle and dropped absolute power, but maybe he lost 7kgs from his upper body and lost no power. We don't know so its not worth arguing over or pretending that you do know.

Maybe his absolute power decreased slightly, but his decrease in CdA partially offset that and he maintained velocity, but we are now starting to talk about subtle differences when looking at performance on the flat. Doping produces big, noticable differences, but again, that never happened.

What this doesn't rule out is the possibility that Wiggins did in fact lose absolute power when he lost weight, but then started a doping program and achieved a small and unremarkable gain in performance which makes it look like his prologue performance didn't change. That would be the explanation that someone who WANTS Wiggins to be a doper would look for. All I am doing is pointing out the fact that its not the ONLY explanation, but that just seems a little bit too much for some to handle.

Believe what you want to believe, but don't start claiming that fundamental aspects of the human energetic systems are wrong because it doesn't fit your opinion about Wiggins and Team Sky.

Just a few points to add to the mix:

1. Weight loss that takes you to the edge Wiggo is supposedly at has a negative impact on the immune system and can negatively impact recovery, yet Wiggo (if believed) keeps on losing weight. And in fact seems to get stronger as a stage race progresses.

2. The example of rowers points out the one who made the greatest loss (8kg) did experience diminished performance. The piece suggests some people can maintain performance with minor weight loss. Wiggo's reported weight loss is more than minor.

3. The whole issue of weight loss is, of course, the money shot. It is the secret. How much does he really weigh? Racers are pretty close about this one.

Of course, that is only in reflection about Wiggo. Sky's credibility is eroding due to the accumulation of marginal evidence

 

[BroDeal]

Of course, that is only in reflection about Wiggo. Sky's credibility is eroding due to the accumulation of marginal evidence

And that is the problem with Mr. Wizard. He refuses to deal with the body of evidence. Instead he concentrates on the plausibility of individual pieces while side stepping the implausibility of so many barely plausibles

 

[The Cobra]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-cavendish-should-probably-leave-sky

''At Sky we have set a precedent now," Wiggins continued. "If we are going to dominate cycling and win three grand tours in a year, we have to start building to that GC thing.''

3 in a year from Sky!! Oh boy!

 

[Ferminal]

Possible if Geert Cataldo > Jose Cataldo.

I don't think Uran/Henao are able to win a GT just yet (Uran possible leaving too?). Porte is a bit of an unknown. So at the moment it would require Wiggins or Froome doing the Giro which can't happen unless one forgoes their chance to win the Tour.

 

[armchairclimber]

Just one note, knowing a given athlete's VO2 Max figure is one thing....the more critical figure is vVO2 max. ...velocity at VO2 max.

This is important where Wiggins' (and Froome's) improvements are concerned.
The numbers suggested potential for improvement with an altered training regime. The VO2 Max figure needn't necessarily be a limit to performance if economy could be improved.

This improved economy can be achieved in any number of ways.....weight loss being just one of the areas where efficiency gains can be made. Cadence too is important...finding the cadence that suits a given athlete's LT and VO2 Max.

If what JV said is true....and I have no reason to doubt him, Wiggins was riding his 4K IP predominantly aerobically. If you can see the numbers that support this, which Sky oviously did, then you know that you have a GC contender. You just need to adjust their training and then you have someone who can effectivelt time-trial their way to GC victories.

This is all very consistent with the way Sky decided to ride the tour. Keep Bradley aerobic....especially in the mountains. Ignore sharp attacks...just reel them in aerobically. With Froome's wheel to suck on, when the going got tough, Wiggins was able to stay aerobic enough to finish "appearing" comfortable.

There is nothing at all in his performances this year to suggest doping, just really good disciplined appliance of sports science, a strong team, a course that suited a particularly gifted athlete and a paucity of top quality opposition.

I have no doubt that the presence of A Schleck and Contadorwould have made life much more difficult.

 

[Krebs cycle]

3. The whole issue of weight loss is, of course, the money shot. It is the secret. How much does he really weigh? Racers are pretty close about this one.

Of course, that is only in reflection about Wiggo. Sky's credibility is eroding due to the accumulation of marginal evidence

Yes I agree. The weight loss issue has the potential to explain the transformation entirely or it could blow it out of the water if it could be proved that Wiggins lost so much power that his performances in prologues and TTs should have suffered a great deal more.

 

[Krebs cycle]

And that is the problem with Mr. Wizard. He refuses to deal with the body of evidence. Instead he concentrates on the plausibility of individual pieces while side stepping the implausibility of so many barely plausibles

Its not a problem because I'm focusing on the main key indicator which is performance. Tell me what I am side stepping that is more important than the performance and that would strongly indicate that a rider (any rider) is doping?

Your problem is that you are emotionally bonded to the belief that Wiggins is doping. To me he is a faceless man, he could be anyone or he could be no-one. I'm looking at this debate as if he is a random barcode number and nothing more.

 

[JRanton]

I thought you guys would be interested in this:

Bradley Wiggins and co. pedal onto Sky Atlantic HD

Following the Tour de France finale and Team GB's Olympic success, Sky Atlantic HD announce that on Thursday 30 August at 8pm, five part series British Cycling: Road To Glory will debut on the channel. Forming part of Sky’s investment in home grown content, the Twofour produced series will focus on the world of cycling, following some of the most high profile names in the sport, including Tour de France 2012 winner and Olympic Gold medallist Bradley Wiggins.

British Cycling: The Road To Glory will offer an insight into the inner workings and stars of both the professional road outfit Team Sky and the national British Cycling team. It will lay bare the extraordinary physical, psychological and tactical dimensions of both professional cycling and the bid for continued Olympic success at London 2012. The series will also feature key coaches behind the bid, including Dave Brailsford, Performance Director of British Cycling and Team Principal for Team Sky.

Also airing later this year will be one-off documentary Bradley Wiggins: Tour Of Duty, which will give a no-holds barred look at how one of Britain’s brightest sport stars balances his professional and personal life. Cameras will follow Wiggins across some of Europe’s toughest races as he trains for the Tour De France and succeeds in becoming the first British rider to win cycling’s most iconic professional race. The documentary will also look to capture the personality of Wiggins as he trains and competes for the Tour, following his journey and speaking to those closest to him. The film will be directed by John Dower (Thriller in Manila).

Sky has been the principal partner of British Cycling since early 2008 and is committed to the partnership until the end of 2016. The main aim of this partnership is to get one million more people cycling regularly (once a month or at least 12 times per year) by 2013. Sky and British Cycling have a shared vision to build an epic success story for British sport for today and in the future.

British Cycling: Road To Glory will exclusively air on Sky Atlantic HD and Sky Atlantic from Thursday 30 August at 8pm while Bradley Wiggins: Tour Of Duty will follow later in the year.

http://skyatlantic.sky.com/bradley-...gins-tour-of-duty-pedals-onto-sky-atlantic-hd

 

[maxmartin]

Possible if Geert Cataldo > Jose Cataldo.

I don't think Uran/Henao are able to win a GT just yet (Uran possible leaving too?). Porte is a bit of an unknown. So at the moment it would require Wiggins or Froome doing the Giro which can't happen unless one forgoes their chance to win the Tour.

No, Porte is leading giro next year, that is set. weather he can win or not I don't know, he has to battle with Nibali and possible a " strong" astana too. It is interesting to see who has the best "training" programe

 

[sittingbison]

J...when the going got tough, Wiggins was able to stay aerobic enough to finish "appearing" comfortable.

There is nothing at all in his performances this year to suggest doping, just really good disciplined appliance of sports science, a strong team, a course that suited a particularly gifted athlete and a paucity of top quality opposition...

so lets just ignore about 3000 posts that seriously queries the performance of the Sky team, including Leinders, Rogers happily proclaiming he was 7% better (at age 32) than he was at age 26 in Telekom under the auspices of Freiburgenstein, Porte suddenly imitating a mountain goat (much to the chagrin of Contador), Vroome being Vroome, Basso suggesting they were putting out more than 420W continuously up the Pyrenees, comfortably reeling in EVERY attack by a GC, exploding the yellow jersey group at will, yada yada yada, and thats not even looking at Wiggo himself (weightloss, power etc which is STILL subject to all forms of analysis and argument)...

There is nothing at all to suggest doping

 

[armchairclimber]

so lets just ignore about 3000 posts that seriously queries the performance of the Sky team, including Leinders, Rogers happily proclaiming he was 7% better (at age 32) than he was at age 26 in Telekom under the auspices of Freiburgenstein, Porte suddenly imitating a mountain goat (much to the chagrin of Contador), Vroome being Vroome, Basso suggesting they were putting out more than 420W continuously up the Pyrenees, comfortably reeling in EVERY attack by a GC, exploding the yellow jersey group at will, yada yada yada, and thats not even looking at Wiggo himself (weightloss, power etc which is STILL subject to all forms of analysis and argument)...

There is nothing at all to suggest doping

3000 clinic posts mean diddly squat. The fact is that his performance is entirely explicable in terms of physiology and sports science.
There are people in the clinic who are fundamentalists...they will never, ever, be swayed from their "dirty" view of the sport or given athletes/teams, regardless of the facts presented to them.

So I repeat, there is nothing in Wiggins' performance to suggest doping....unless you think he has been juicing since he was 15.

 

[the big ring]

Your problem is that you are emotionally bonded to the belief that Wiggins is doping. To me he is a faceless man, he could be anyone or he could be no-one. I'm looking at this debate as if he is a random barcode number and nothing more.

You say this (and other things) but ... I dunno. Compare what you were saying 3 years ago:

It is very difficult to loose a lot of weight and maintain absolute power. Cadel tried this approach mid way through his world cup mtb career and he went from about 66-67kg down to about 62-63kg over a period of at least 6 months (I think it was more like 8 or 9 though). He lost absolute power but managed to slightly increase w/kg.

If Wiggins has lost upwards of 5-7kg in less than 4 or 5 months, then it is nigh on impossible that he has been able to maintain his absolute power at what it would have been during the olympics. He must have lost some muscle mass. You don't become a world class pursuit rider with an excess of 5kgs bodyfat waiting to be lost when you decide to ride a GT!!

with the very detailed, complex process you come up with today:

What I believe could have happened in 2009 (not saying it did, but just that the possibility is real) is that compared with 2007 when he was allegedly 77kg and 5% bf (according to Boyer), Wiggins lost 6-7kgs from a combination of upper body muscle mass (3-4kgs), whole body fat mass (1kg), lower back and core (1kg) and lower body (2kgs). Yes, this is a massive bit of speculation here. Maybe he lost 7kgs from lower body muscle and dropped absolute power, but maybe he lost 7kgs from his upper body and lost no power. We don't know so its not worth arguing over or pretending that you do know.

Something happened between 2009 and 2012, because your tune has changed dramatically.

For reference, here's a shot of Wiggins in pursuit mode at the Athens Olympics. Pretty sure I can see ribs.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/phot.../bradley_wigginsoct07/WigginspurswinOG804-091

 

[taiwan]

Its not a problem because I'm focusing on the main key indicator which is performance. Tell me what I am side stepping that is more important than the performance and that would strongly indicate that a rider (any rider) is doping?

Your problem is that you are emotionally bonded to the belief that Wiggins is doping. To me he is a faceless man, he could be anyone or he could be no-one. I'm looking at this debate as if he is a random barcode number and nothing more.

Come now, you're entirely detached from the argument? That's BS - your position is as entrenched as anyones. You're failing to see the wood for the trees, focusing on the theoretical possibility of Wiggins becoming a Tour winner, while ignoring the general odour.

 

[BroDeal]

So I repeat, there is nothing in Wiggins' performance to suggest doping....unless you think he has been juicing since he was 15.

Yeah. It is perfectly normal for someone who could not crack the top 100 in the Tour to suddenly win every stage race he enters near the end of his career.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[the big ring]

So if VO2max is highly related to IP performance, that would probably indicate that Brad Wiggins has a very high VO2max right? So according to you (and the science which I agree with), that would mean that he HAS POTENTIAL.

I've been saying this from the get go and people like you want to keep disputing it, but here you are agreeing with me. Why the sudden paradoxical reasoning?

I can go get the posts if I really have to, but you have been saying Brad's IP means he should be able to win a GT.

I have never argued he can ride quick over 4km, it's the extrapolation to 3,000km that I have trouble with.

 

[the big ring]

Since I also know that VO2max and LT are 2 of the 3 important variables required for successful endurance performance in events >30min, then it didn't seem like such a great leap for me to assume that if a world class IP cyclist generated a higher than average (ie: average of elite IP cyclists) proportion of their 4min average power output from aerobic sources, then there is a good chance they could make a successful transition to road cycling.

Firstly, JV is the only person who has mentioned this "aerobic sources" thing so far. You know, JV? The guy that doped when he was racing. Now you are using it as gospel to prove Brad's ability to win GTs.

Please provide a link to the protocol that explains the difference between aerobic AND anaerobic sources of power production in IP events, and how you would measure them accurately enough to be able to state that a person (ie Brad) is doing it more aerobically than the average world IP pursuiter?

Secondly, noone, at all, is arguing that a track rider CANNOT make a successful transition to the road. What we ARE arguing is that being good at IP does not mean you can win GTs. What we ARE saying is that Brad had the kind of road career we expected of a track rider - nothing special. But then in 2009 WHAM 4th place at the Tour de France, out of NOWHERE.

The bit in italics is the important point (which I note Catwhoorg just mentioned a few posts back that JV was talking about, and is also something that I stated on this forum about a month ago).

I just searched "aerobic sources" and this is the first time you've mentioned it.

 

[Mr.38%]

As discussed above however, VO2max is an important parameter for SHORT high intensity cycling performance such as the IP. Blood doping improves VO2max.

Krebs, it's getting worse...

Blood doping improves the full range of power output, it will even improve a sprint because a real world sprint over 10-30 sec (not even taking in account the rider is fresher in the finale) is aerobic for a good portion. The second best thing (heck maybe even the best thing) about blood doping is the incredibly enhanced time to exhaustion which in the real world of a highly trained athlete is even more pronounced than in clinic trials with Average Joe cyclists. So the delta of maximum sustained power over an hour will be proportionally higher than the delta of VO²Max.

 

[the big ring]

Now can you please explain WHEN Wiggins started his doping program and had a miraculous improvement in performance? This is what makes no sense. Everyone keeps pointing to 2009 as the year that Wiggins suddenly improved performance which is attributed to doping.

As discussed above however, VO2max is an important parameter for SHORT high intensity cycling performance such as the IP. Blood doping improves VO2max. Therefore, if Wiggins started a doping program in 2009 we would expect to see a marked improvement in his short high intensity performances such as PROLOGUES compared with his nearest rivals. But this just didn't happen. Compared with Cancellara his prologue performances were almost identical before and after 2009.

I am a little surprised that someone claiming to be a PhD in exercise physiology is actually saying this

Are you sure you want to post this? Did you perhaps get something wrong (again) and mean something else? Read it carefully - they are your words.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I took the liberty to 'dig' into your posts, please explain this:

My thoughts exactly. It just isn't possible to peak consistently throughout an entire season. Just another reason why Contador's shortest ever cycling "grand slam" should be viewed with suspicion.

and compare this to Wiggo's season.

Double standard bust or have you come to the conclusion Contadope was clean after all? And I would like to note Contador had shown 'some' potential in the past in comparison to good old Wiggins.

 

[Ferminal]

I think plenty of us would disagree with things we wrote three years ago.