Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Dear Wiggo]

Any mountaineering guide will emphasise the importance of reacclimatising to high altitude each year, even if you've successfully climbed Everest without bottled oxygen in the past. By this logic, Wiggo's acclimatisation to altitude in 2009 would have no impact for 2010.

Physically, yes, no impact. Mentally? Preparation protocol wise? Knowing what works coz you did it vs doped riders 12 months ago?

Good grief.

Do those mountaineers get it wrong the second time around and suffer as badly as Wiggins does? I'd like to hear about that.

 

[Franklin]

My god, don't you love this D*ck measuring? Of course I did not call myself expert, but hey, strawmen are nice to =erect^^ I said I'm quite comfortable with modern training and amazing enough, nothing so far has shown how basic physiolgy rules can be broken

Still no comment on Levine?
No comment on the Live High - Train Low conundrum if combined with Wiggo's numbers?

As you are THE expert who trains an amateur who is able to do 1000km a week I await your enlightning response. I rather not see another strawman as that is something that is pushing my BS button. Hard.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'd also like to see some study or verification of the whole "suffers at altitude due to lack of acclimation" - I call BS on that too.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As you are THE expert who trains an amateur who is able to do 1000km a week I await your enlightning response. I rather not see another strawman as that is something that is pushing my BS button. Hard.

No. I train someone day to day based on their recovery. 6 or 4 week plans do not work when someone is on a bit of a knife edge for whatever reason.

The 1000km dude is someone I know / have raced against, don't train him.

 

[Franklin]

While it is certainly not the final word on the subject,
my learned friend, a very small study by Nishimura et
al published in the International Journal of Sports and
Performance (Dec/2010) suggests that resistance
training under hypoxic conditions can increase muscle
strength and induce muscle hypertrophy.

Of course, all nutritional requirements must be met, and
they may be different than nutritional requirements
under normoxic conditions.

Interesting... but resistance training is not 12 minutes at treshold.

 

[Franklin]

I'd also like to see some study or verification of the whole "suffers at altitude due to lack of acclimation" - I call BS on that too.

Here is one:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a571145.pdf

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Do those mountaineers get it wrong the second time around and suffer as badly as Wiggins does? I'd like to hear about that.

High altitude mountaineers tend not to, as the implications are a lot more serious than messing up your preparations for a bike race. They certainly very rarely get the chance to get it wrong for a second time! A cerebral or pulmonary odema in the "Death Zone" can't be dealt with by getting into the team car and focusing on the Vuelta instead.

A cursory reading of the literature of high altitude mountaineering shows us that such complications are all too common, sadly, even amongst proven high altitude operators if they don't get their preparations right.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Here is one:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a571145.pdf

Cool. Please remind me which mountain it was that they rode to 4300m on? I forget it now.

Or even the highest mountain in 2010?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

2100 m looks like the highest peak.

Calling BS even louder now.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Wasn't the issue in 2010 that Wiggo hadn't done enough altitude work and was simply not acclimatised to riding at the higher altitudes?

I remember that article, not looked for it again though. It was about as sensible as his "something to do with the gears and rolling resistance" quote when explaining how he won every TT he tried in 2012.

Utter drivel.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Cool. Please remind me which mountain it was that they rode to 4300m on? I forget it now.

Or even the highest mountain in 2010?

I think the significance of 4300m in the paper is simply that it's high enough to generate very significant adverse impacts if you head up there without acclimatisation (and so makes for a good test) and that it's the height of where the testing took place.

The impacts of decreasing oxygen pressure aren't binary i.e. you're not completely OK at one altitude and suffering like a dog 1m higher. The impacts kick in gradually, and plenty of folk start suffering at what seems like low altitudes e.g. 2000m. The effects aren't life-threatening, but they would be enough to reduce performance by a few % relative to performance when acclimatised or at sea level.

 

[red_flanders]

If I find a moment, I'll post 3 photos, all the same shot, but each one formatted slightly differently.

Hopefully that'll end this fatuous nonsense about judging weight by a photo on a webpage.

How do you feel about judging rider weight based on watching them for hours in a race on TV or seeing them in person and for hours in a race on TV?

I think the only person talking about photos is the person telling us you can't judge weight by photos. For some unknown reason this person is posting photos of Ulrich to dispute a point no one was making about Wiggins.

Par for the course, sadly.

 

[thehog]

How do you feel about judging rider weight based on watching them for hours in a race on TV or seeing them in person and for hours in a race on TV?

I think the only person talking about photos is the person telling us you can't judge weight by photos. For some unknown reason this person is posting photos of Ulrich to dispute a point no one was making about Wiggins.

Par for the course, sadly.

Yes I was told the same a few days ago with same sets of photos presented. I wasn't even trying to estimate Wiggins weight.

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[red_flanders]

Yes I was told the same a few days ago with same sets of photos presented. I wasn't even trying to estimate Wiggins weight.

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

I find it interesting how hard people will try and argue against the obvious. Except Wiggins himself, actually. He's rather up front about it.

Bradley Wiggins says that he's gained three to four kilos since 2012 Tour de France to increase his power to challenge in Paris-Roubaix
- Will only race in Scheldeprijs before Paris-Roubaix on April 13
- Aims to lose weight after Roubaix to get back into Grand Tour condition

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/raci...iggins-gains-weight-take-paris-roubaix-118741

 

[stutue]

How do you feel about judging rider weight based on watching them for hours in a race on TV or seeing them in person and for hours in a race on TV?

I think the only person talking about photos is the person telling us you can't judge weight by photos. For some unknown reason this person is posting photos of Ulrich to dispute a point no one was making about Wiggins.

Par for the course, sadly.

Riiiight so you think TV gives an accurate representation of reality.

You do realise that lenses distort, and different lenses distort differently, don't you.

Snort.

 

[oldcrank]

Interesting... but resistance training is not 12 minutes at treshold.

I apologise, my learned friend, for not providing you with
a clearer and more complete response to your post which
stated 'it's well known that training at altitude is inefficient
as you will lose muscle strength.'

For many athletes, you are 100% correct. My perhaps poorly
presented point was that 'it need not be so.'

A hypoxic environment may affect one's appetite regulatory
hormones (ghrelin and leptin) resulting in a reduced consumption
of the nutrients necessary to maintain muscle. If an athlete
continues to consume the proper levels of the necessary
nutrients there may not be any loss of muscle.

I mentioned the small study suggesting resistance training
under hypoxic conditions can result in increased muscle strength
only to illustrate the possibility that it is one's diet at altitude,
rather than the altitude itself, which causes the loss of strength.
That is why Froomey and Wiggo rely on products such as
CNP PRO PEPTIDE while training at altitude.

 

[Bexon30]

I apologise, my learned friend, for not providing you with
a clearer and more complete response to your post which
stated 'it's well known that training at altitude is inefficient
as you will lose muscle strength.'

For many athletes, you are 100% correct. My perhaps poorly
presented point was that 'it need not be so.'

A hypoxic environment may affect one's appetite regulatory
hormones (ghrelin and leptin) resulting in a reduced consumption
of the nutrients necessary to maintain muscle. If an athlete
continues to consume the proper levels of the necessary
nutrients there may not be any loss of muscle.

I mentioned the small study suggesting resistance training
under hypoxic conditions can result in increased muscle strength
only to illustrate the possibility that it is one's diet at altitude,
rather than the altitude itself, which causes the loss of strength.
That is why Froomey and Wiggo rely on products such as
CNP PRO PEPTIDE while training at altitude.

Really with the CNP again.

 

[red_flanders]

Riiiight so you think TV gives an accurate representation of reality.

You do realise that lenses distort, and different lenses distort differently, don't you.

Snort.

I sell photos professionally. Very clear on the topic.

Also an avid reader. I'm able to read unequivocal statements an see when they do and don't match reality. As in this case.

Are you claiming he didn't gain then lose some kilos before and after Roubaix? Or just arguing? It's obvious and confirmed by the rider in question.

 

[stutue]

I sell photos professionally. Very clear on the topic.

I don't think you are.

Also an avid reader. I'm able to read unequivocal statements an see when they do and don't match reality. As in this case.

Are you claiming he didn't gain then lose some kilos before and after Roubaix? Or just arguing? It's obvious and confirmed by the rider in question.

No to both. I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of trying to compare different photos taken on different cameras at different distances and then trying to cite it as some kind of evidence.

As to whether Wiggins is inconsistent in his statements on his weight, I couldn't care less.

What is certain is that he knows what he weighs to the ounce. Whether he wants you to know that is another matter.

 

[red_flanders]

Honestly, let's talk about why you're arguing that he hasn't rapidly gained and lost weight.

It's apparent from looking at him. He has said he was going to do it, and tweeted that he was doing it without drugs. So on at least two (and probably more) occasions he has confirmed what I have seen on TV and in person. It's not a maybe, it's an obvious change. I was very, very surprised to see how much he'd lost so quickly.

Since he's confirmed it, there isn't really an argument to have (not a logical one anyway), so I really don't get why the reaction to a fairly innocuous and simple set of confirmed observations.

Feels like an agenda. Feels like you're concerned that people have and/or will use this to further speculate about doping, and you're here to fight some kind of warped conclusion I certainly haven't arrived at. And talking about lenses and my knowledge of them is just making you look either angry or foolish.

I don't necessarily think it's an indication of his doping. It's certainly worth asking questions about, but I don't see how any conclusions could be reached.

So why the reaction? Don't get it.

 

[stutue]

Honestly, let's talk about why you're arguing that he hasn't rapidly gained and lost weight.

Awoogah awoogah! Strawman alert!!

Feels like an agenda. Feels like you're concerned that people have and/or will use this to further speculate about doping, and you're here to fight some kind of warped conclusion I certainly haven't arrived at. And talking about lenses and my knowledge of them is just making you look either angry or foolish.

I don't necessarily think it's an indication of his doping. It's certainly worth asking questions about, but I don't see how any conclusions could be reached.

So why the reaction? Don't get it.

It doesn't matter whether it is used as an argument to show doping or an argument to claim cleanliness. Drawing conclusions by comparing internet photos is a dead end. You have no idea how those photos have been taken, processed, or formatted for the web.

Look, you have an emotional investment in this thread/sub-forum. That is clear by the amount of time you put into posting here and the historical backlog of your posts to which I have access.

I don't. So if you try to interpret my mood or agenda you are almost certain to be wrong. So let's just leave the personal stuff out shall we.

For what its worth, I don't count you as an idiot.

 

[Granville57]

Look, you have an emotional investment in this thread/sub-forum. That is clear by the amount of time you put into posting...

Oh jesus f'cking christ, could you at least try out something more original than that? I mean, really.

 

[stutue]

Don't worry about it. You either didn't read what I wrote in context, or you didn't understand it. Trying to be a smarta$$ in this situation isn't a wise move, pal.

 

[red_flanders]

Awoogah awoogah! Strawman alert!!

Not getting what the strawman is. I am stating that he has gained and lost weight, you are arguing with me about it. I see no strawman but welcome clarification.

It doesn't matter whether it is used as an argument to show doping or an argument to claim cleanliness. Drawing conclusions by comparing internet photos is a dead end. You have no idea how those photos have been taken, processed, or formatted for the web.

As I have repeatedly stated, for those of you unwilling to read, I never compared photos nor brought it up. I saw him race at Roubaix for hours, and saw him for days in Cali, on tv and in person. So your points must be directed at someone else.

Look, you have an emotional investment in this thread/sub-forum. That is clear by the amount of time you put into posting here and the historical backlog of your posts to which I have access.

I don't. So if you try to interpret my mood or agenda you are almost certain to be wrong. So let's just leave the personal stuff out shall we.

So...the number of posts is a critique of my statements...how? Logic fail 101. And then a personal critique of my emotions, followed by a statement that you want to leave out "personal stuff". Come on.

For what its worth, I don't count you as an idiot.

It doesn't interest me either way. Addressing my questions or statements or the topic would.