Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Mellow Velo]

Which is even more startling. It’s just focus that is all. That what makes the difference. Focus. Can one change their focus at 31 and become the best in the world by a clear margin? Focus on your event.

Looks like they can. Take note.

Focus; You could do with some, for a start.
4 years out, with your only "fact".
Oldcrank supplied "facts".

Take note.

 

[thehog]

Focus; You could do with some, for a start.
4 years out, with your only "fact".
Oldcrank supplied "facts".

Take note.

If only you knew. If only you knew.

 

[Mellow Velo]

If only you knew. If only you knew.

Back at you.

 

[Mellow Velo]

If only you knew. If only you knew.

I was being very specific. Just the "facts" about 1997/8.
As to why? Well, keeping it cryptic, right back at you.

 

[the big ring]

Big Ring:
In 1997 Brad was the World Junior Pursuit Champ.
In 1998 his main focus was the Commonwealth Games
Team Pursuit. In fact he was a naturally talented young
rider but his focus was never on the World Junior TT as
it was for Cancellara. Very simple for anyone to see.

that only proves the point.

ETA: to those of you just joining us.

This is what pursuit looks like:

Here's what time trialing looks like:

Do you notice any similarities?

Now then. The pursuit. Only a 4km event. But it's considered an endurance event on the track. Why? Because sprinting (the other "type" of track race) is predominantly anaerobic (you can do it holding your breath) and requires 10-13 seconds of effort. The pursuit is predominantly aerobic (somewhere from 70/30 to 85/15 aerobic / anaerobic) and you definitely have to breathe.

So you have 2 elements to train: your aerobic engine and your lactate tolerance. Put simply:
* the bigger your engine, the better you go for the entire distance.
* the better your lactate tolerance, the better you finish the pursuit - the final km is usually the bit where people go pear shaped.

How do you develop your aerobic engine? Long rides, long intervals.
How do you develop your lactate tolerance? Short to VO2 max intervals, with limited recovery.

This is the background preparation for IP, not the IP specific stuff like flying 1-2km efforts, Tabata efforts, standing starts, standing km starts, etc.

Finally there's the Olympic cycle. Effectively, an athlete targeting the Olympics ramps up their training "mileage" for 3 years, then trims it back for the Olympic year, in order to gain supercompensation benefits over the 4 year macro cycle.

This means Wiggins was definitely riding on the road, was definitely doing longer intervals (10-20 minutes), and lots of them, and his yearly mileage (probably) would have been elevated due to it being 2 years out from the 2000 Olympics.

If we look at the timing we have the Comm Games in September 11-21 (can't find the exact date for team pursuit) and the WC TT is October 7th.

So worst case scenario, Wiggins had 2 weeks for training, off a block of fine-tuning for 4km efforts, wtih all the fitness and FTP / VO2max that would entail and has to TT (his alleged specialty) 23.5km.

Given the prevalence of the TT event in the UK, I can almost guarantee Wiggins had a steady diet of 10 mile TTs - he still does them now as part of his taper for the Tour de France.

So a steady diet of 16km TTs, all year. World class (silver medallist) track team pursuiter over 4km. Has to do a 23.5km TT. Goes 1:46 slower than Cancellara. To go the same speed as Cancellara, assuming the difference is down to aerodynamics, he would have to increase his power ~19%.

This is before we even look at the claim that due to a MAOD test, Wiggins has been shown to generate more of his power aerobically than the typical pursuiter. ie his engine is geared towards longer (aerobic) efforts. As I say - this is only a claim.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/worlds98/results/jmttresults98.html

Curiously, 13 years later, Brad is still slower than the WC TTer. In 2011, Tony Martin beat Wiggins by 1:20 over 46km.

 

[RownhamHill]

which was?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Krebs Cycle and acoggan are trying to convince us all that MAOD and a good 4km IP = a season long domination by someone who did nothing worth writing home about on the road for the first 8 years of his professional career.
.

No that isn't what we've been saying. Neither myself or acoggan ever said anything like this. Once again you go for the Joseph Goebbels approach and keep repeating a lie. Maybe this one will come true for you one day too??

 

[the big ring]

Krebs Cycle and acoggan are trying to convince us all that MAOD and a good 4km IP = a season long domination by someone who did nothing worth writing home about on the road for the first 8 years of his professional career.

No that isn't what we've been saying. Neither myself or acoggan ever said anything like this. Once again you go for the Joseph Goebbels approach and keep repeating a lie. Maybe this one will come true for you one day too??

I can pull up the posts if you like. But here goes the argument in precis form:

The Clinic

tbr: Wiggins' performances are dodgy as. He was autobus at the tour, couldn't climb worth a damn. Rarely did any good in a proper TT. wtf. Dodgy as.
KC: Ah yes but Wiggins is a world champion on the track, gold medal and WC at 4km IP!!!!
tbr: 4km IP!? So effing what. That does not translate to 3,500 km domination of the best cyclists in the world.
KC: Ah yes but he's always been a world class TTer! 7th then 10th at World champs.
tbr: 16th as a junior! That's not world class. 7th then 10th? ie going backwards!?
KC: Ah yes but in 2011 he nearly rode as quick as Tony Martin
tbr: Martin road in the rain - Wiggins had dry roads.
KC: Ah yes but look at the Tour de l"Avenir, Wiggins won a hilly stage!!!!
tbr: He was in a breakaway - with the green (sprinter's) jersey ffs. His teammate gifted the stage.
KC: Ah yes but Kate Bates said he's a good bloke and is supremely dedicated and focused and *swoon*
tbr: He's racing Tour of Denmark in a week and getting drunk and smoking ffs.
KC: Ah yes but Brad generates more power from aerobic energy sources than anaerobic sources. What he is doing now is entirely believable!!!!
tbr: Will you explain the mechanics of this, and its relevance to dominating an entire season in 2012 of multi-stage racing?
KC: No.

Now Krebs, allow me to give you an English lesson.

If Person A (you) goes out of their way to find (dubious) "evidence" that what Person B (Wiggins) is doing is believable, or "within the limits of human potential", over and over and over again, they are not simply "defending truth and science". They are not "analysing the data".

You can scream all you want that you are not defending Wiggins.
You can deny all you want that the unexplained MAOD defense allows you to claim what he is doing is believable.

But if I say, (and I am saying it, make no mistake), "Brad Wiggins' performances are not believable. They are dodgy and make no sense", anything you say. ANYTHING. In response to this, is your attempt to provide "evidence" to the contrary.

You have never agreed with anything I have written. You have only berated it, dismissed it, or disagreed with it.

And every time you do so - the implication, because we are communicating in English - is that you think his performance is real, natural and unassisted.

No, you won't come right out and say, "Brad did/does not dope". But everything you have written in this and other threads screams that message loud and clear.

In a nutshell:

Claim: Brad did nothing worth writing home about for the first 8 years of his professional road career. His 2012 season is not believable.
Counter claim: World champ and Olympic gold medallist in IP + MAOD aerobic superior result means Brad's 2012 season is believable.

You have tried to disagree with the claim, but found no evidence to back up your disagreement. It currently stands undefeated.

Let's break this down, shall we?

1. Do you agree Brad did nothing worth writing home about in the first 8 years of his professional road career?
2. Do you think that Brad being World champ and Olympic gold medallist in IP + "MAOD aerobic power production superior to average" result means Brad's 2012 season is believable?

You can dismiss this post (expected), put me down, rant and rave. I don't mind. But let's pin you down to an actual position once and for all.

2 closed questions. I want 2 yes or no answers.

Go.

 

[sittingbison]

...Wiggins is good enough, at 18, to attend the World Champs for TT to represent Britain. TT: the closest thing you will get to pursuiting on the road. The thing Wiggins is so good at...Fabian Cancellara [17 years old] won the junior men’s time trial; Bradley Wiggins [18 years old] was 16th...2 years later Brad won bronze in the individual pursuit at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Big Ring:
In 1997 Brad was the World Junior Pursuit Champ.
In 1998 his main focus was the Commonwealth Games
Team Pursuit. In fact he was a naturally talented young
rider but his focus was never on the World Junior TT as
it was for Cancellara. Very simple for anyone to see.

So as a young man great at IP, crap at ITT.

This seems to demonstrate ONCE AGAIN that wiggos ability in the IP should not be used as an argument to defend his new found ability on the road. And I do say "new found" because to all arguments to the contrary he has demonstrated xero ability to be a GC contender or totally dominant ITTer over his entire career until this year. In fact he HAS demonstrated a clear ability to be near the broom wagon.

As to "FOCUS"? Good grief, lets introduce ANOTHER element to the argument. One which falls into the "how many other riders in contrary disciplines have changed focus late in career (or even early) and so dramatically succeeded IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF CYCLING" which has been the subject of considerable debate and the answer is basically NO ONE because Merckx/Coppi were always focused on the road from youth and did the track/hour in reverse, Moser was a blood doper and had a cheat Giro parcours plus help from a helicopter etc etc. sorry I cannot be bothered finding my numerous posts on this subject to clarify the names exactly. The other was Berzin? Eki?? Right.

 

[Cavalier]

If I could quote Lance for a second, to describe Wiggins: "NOT NORMAL!"

 

[Krebs cycle]

I can pull up the posts if you like. But here goes the argument in precis form:

massive nonsensical rant snipped

I came into this forum because I thought there might be some mature performance related discussion that may or may not cross over into effects of doping. But its people like you that ruin it for everyone with your faux exercise physiology knowledge and obsessive compulsive trolling of anyone that disagrees with your crackpot theories and points you in the direction of the real science.

Any decent human being that is interested in human physiology and performance might want to learn something from someone such as myself or acoggan, but you're not. Instead of asking questions as someone who is genuinely interested would, you're intent of arguing like a spoilt child and trying to prove us wrong on topics that you clearly know very little about. Even just above you said "Krebs Cycle and acoggan are trying to convince us all that MAOD and a good 4km IP = a season long domination" which is the complete opposite in fact of what I stated months ago. Wiggins would NOT have a high MAOD over 4km. He would be expected to have a LOW MAOD for a pursuit rider.

You can't even get basic concepts like this correct, yet you slander Tim Kerrison, a man you know nothing about, and you accuse me repeatedly of being a fraud even though I have worked with athletes and coaches whom have won World Championship and Olympic gold medals.

 

[Cavalier]

you accuse me repeatedly of being a fraud even though I have worked with athletes and coaches whom have won World Championship and Olympic gold medals.

And yet despite throwing around that claim repeatedly you're completely unwilling to verify it. Don't claim a credibility level you're not willing to back up.

 

[the big ring]

Even just above you said "Krebs Cycle and acoggan are trying to convince us all that MAOD and a good 4km IP = a season long domination" which is the complete opposite in fact of what I stated months ago. Wiggins would NOT have a high MAOD over 4km. He would be expected to have a LOW MAOD for a pursuit rider.

You can't even get basic concepts like this correct, yet you slander Tim Kerrison, a man you know nothing about, and you accuse me repeatedly of being a fraud even though I have worked with athletes and coaches whom have won World Championship and Olympic gold medals.

Wow. You are really confused. I never said he would have a high MAOD. MAOD is the name of the test you are claiming Wiggins did, which showed he had a higher % of aerobic vs anaerobic power production than average for his pursuit.

How about it. We're talking performance here:

1. Do you agree Brad did nothing worth writing home about in the first 8 years of his professional road career?

2. Do you think that Brad being World champ and Olympic gold medallist in IP AND (reworded so I don't confuse you again) the results from Brad's MAOD test indicating a higher proportion of his IP power was generated aerobically than average" means Brad's 2012 season is believable?

 

[the big ring]

Any decent human being that is interested in human physiology and performance might want to learn something from someone such as myself or acoggan, but you're not.

ETA: this is typical passive aggressive behaviour; implying I am not a decent human being because I do not want to learn something.

This is patently false. Again, I can find the post if you want, but I asked you to explain why a MAOD test has any bearing on Brad's ability on the road.

Both you and acoggan declined.

If your method for teaching someone is, "Here's the conclusion. Do not question me", then I feel very, very sorry for the students that enter your classroom. That is not learning. That is dictating.

 

[the big ring]

I came into this forum because I thought there might be some mature performance related discussion that may or may not cross over into effects of doping.

Ah so what was the hill climber claim about then? Or Kate Bates op-ed on Wiggins focus and dedication? Or comparing Tony Martin on wet roads to Brad Wiggins on dry roads? Or claiming world class TT performance of a rider who was 7th then 2 years later, an improvement of -3 places to 10th.

 

[DirtyWorks]

And yet despite throwing around that claim repeatedly you're completely unwilling to verify it. Don't claim a credibility level you're not willing to back up.

In one way, you are wasting some energy on Krebbs and Coggan. They have a special language to discuss athletic performance to which they allude that you are not privvy. Also, they are scientists, and even though there may be doping at Sky, they are still interested in the topic and mostly ignore doping to keep examining their performances as part of their intellectual pursuits. It's a waste of CPU cycles, but that's me.

I have to give Krebbs some respect here because while I think he's going to be found badly wrong after some confessions years from now, he's been halfway honest while entertaining mere sports fans. It isn't trolling like the usual faithful that come and go. It's more a kind of slumming. It's okay though. We all do it once we have some legitimate expertise.

I think if you take a "agree to disagree" and wait for the inevitable Sky doping scandal, then I think/hope Krebbs will leave it there. Now, if Krebbs keeps fanning the flames, then I think we're into a more sophisticated form of trolling.

Don't disappoint me Krebbs!

 

[Cavalier]

I have a suspicion who he is, but I'm waiting to see if he's going to quantify his repeated claims first.

 

[Mr.38%]

In one way, you are wasting some energy on Krebbs and Coggan. They have a special language to discuss athletic performance to which they allude that you are not privvy. Also, they are scientists, and even though there may be doping at Sky, they are still interested in the topic and mostly ignore doping to keep examining their performances as part of their intellectual pursuits. It's a waste of CPU cycles, but that's me.

I have to give Krebbs some respect here because while I think he's going to be found badly wrong after some confessions years from now, he's been halfway honest while entertaining mere sports fans. It isn't trolling like the usual faithful that come and go. It's more a kind of slumming. It's okay though. We all do it once we have some legitimate expertise.

I think if you take a "agree to disagree" and wait for the inevitable Sky doping scandal, then I think/hope Krebbs will leave it there. Now, if Krebbs keeps fanning the flames, then I think we're into a more sophisticated form of trolling.

Don't disappoint me Krebbs!

Simply lovely!

 

[RichWalk]

Simply lovely!

+1 eloquently put

 

[the big ring]

I think it bears mentioning acoggan is working with a supplier to Team Sky.

 

[_frost]

In one way, you are wasting some energy on Krebbs and Coggan. They have a special language to discuss athletic performance to which they allude that you are not privvy. Also, they are scientists, and even though there may be doping at Sky, they are still interested in the topic and mostly ignore doping to keep examining their performances as part of their intellectual pursuits. It's a waste of CPU cycles, but that's me.

If you are arguing doping based on performance and physiology, then you better use that "special language" of science or to quote acoggan "The precise communication of precise ideas requires the precise use of precise terminology."

I have to give Krebbs some respect here because while I think he's going to be found badly wrong after some confessions years from now, he's been halfway honest while entertaining mere sports fans. It isn't trolling like the usual faithful that come and go. It's more a kind of slumming. It's okay though. We all do it once we have some legitimate expertise.

Krebbs has been explaining and correcting claims about human physiology and performance. I can not see that being wrong in years to come regardless of what confessions will or will not be. Pursuiters still are going to have high oxygen consumption and that still will be important for success in road riding as well as being light weight will help in climbs and being aerodynamic in TT. Any confession will not change the critical power paradigm.

Now, if Krebbs keeps fanning the flames, then I think we're into a more sophisticated form of trolling.

How in earth educating and stating facts is trolling?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Wow. You are really confused. I never said he would have a high MAOD. MAOD is the name of the test you are claiming Wiggins did, which showed he had a higher % of aerobic vs anaerobic power production than average for his pursuit.

No that is what you are claiming I said. See here -> "Krebs Cycle and acoggan are trying to convince us all that MAOD and a good 4km IP = a season long domination". Those are your words not mine. Maybe I am confused because the bit about MAOD in this sentence makes no sense.

How about it. We're talking performance here:

1. Do you agree Brad did nothing worth writing home about in the first 8 years of his professional road career?

2. Do you think that Brad being World champ and Olympic gold medallist in IP AND (reworded so I don't confuse you again) the results from Brad's MAOD test indicating a higher proportion of his IP power was generated aerobically than average" means Brad's 2012 season is believable?

1. If you are talking about road racing then yes, I do agree. If you are talking about road TT then no, I do not agree because Wiggins came 7th in the WC ITT and in 2007 he was 10th. I also do not believe that his road racing results pre 2008 are very meaningful wrt to his potential to win a GT because he didn't train to win road races pre 2008.

2. As stated previously.... in 1996 Neil Craig published a study on elite IP riders and showed that they have a high VO2max and a high LT.... 2 of the 3 most important ingredients for endurance performance.

therefore...

What I speculated a LONG time ago was that if a world class IP rider had a higher than average aerobic contribution over 4km then it would suggest that a successful cross-over to raod cycling could be achieved. I then also speculated that British Cycling would likely have conducted an MAOD test on Wiggins and so they would know better than anyone in this forum if that were the case.

Wrt to Wiggins 2012 season there are many many other factors that are important, so no, a big aerobic engine does not fully explain it but it lays the foundation. Without the engine to begin with, it would not be possible no matter how good everything else fell into place. Even WITH the big engine, many other things need to be done correctly.

From a performance perspective, what those other factors are, is what interests a sport scientist. I want to learn and understand how it might be possible for 10 little things that on their own seem to be insignificant, but when added together they produce a "marginal gain". You don't seem to want to learn or understand how anything that Wiggins' says he has done over the past 4yrs could possibly result in enhanced performance because you believe he is doping and therefore you dismiss it with some sarcastic "as if" or "rolls eyes" comment without bothering to see if it actually has some scientific rationale or merit.

I credit you for your passion and dedication to this debate but I think you would learn a lot more if you opened your mind a little and accepted that some of the things we have been discussing such as underlying genetic potential, altitude training in the heat (Tenerife), nutritional interventions designed to reduce bodyweight, specific cadence training, racing less and doing more training camps etc etc actually do have merit. If you simply decide that Wiggins is a doper and you dismiss all those things, well maybe you dismiss something that could even improve your own performance if you tried it out and worked on it.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I have a suspicion who he is, but I'm waiting to see if he's going to quantify his repeated claims first.

Well if you think you know who I am then you wouldn't carry on with this garbage about me lying to the forum when I said I did a PhD in exercise physiology and worked in the SIS/SAS system for 10yrs.

I choose not to reveal my identity on this forum because the internet can be a dirty place. Just take a look at the slanderous thread about Tim Kerrison for example. How do I know that people reading these forums won't go and slander me to people in the industry without ever having met me or having a face to face conversation with me? Maybe it doesn't come across in text, but in person I'm actually a pretty nice bloke you know.

Besides, I don't really know why you're so fixated on knowing who I am and whether I am qualified or not. Everything I have posted stands on its own scientific merit. It wouldn't make it any less credible even if a poodle posted it.

 

[thehog]

If I could quote Lance for a second, to describe Wiggins: "NOT NORMAL!"

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

One team dominating an entire 3 week Tour from start to finish, never in doubt of losing and riding at such speeds no other rider from any other team could attack. Very normal.

Then "BOOM". Its over. They're no longer the strongest team.

 

[the big ring]

I credit you for your passion and dedication to this debate but I think you would learn a lot more if you opened your mind a little and accepted that some of the things we have been discussing such as underlying genetic potential, altitude training in the heat (Tenerife), nutritional interventions designed to reduce bodyweight, specific cadence training, racing less and doing more training camps etc etc actually do have merit. If you simply decide that Wiggins is a doper and you dismiss all those things, well maybe you dismiss something that could even improve your own performance if you tried it out and worked on it.

I have no problem with doing bits and pieces that add bits and pieces. I do have a problem with any suggestion that training at altitude, in Tenerife, in the heat, is only done by Sky. Or that losing weight is only done by Sky. Or that specific cadence training is only done by Sky. Or that racing less is done by Sky. Or that training camps are only done by sky. I personally already do all these things myself (Aussie Alps not Tenerife, but still). They are not rocket science. They are not ground breaking. They are passe.

I simply ask, "so what?".

Because everyone else does it too. Don't do these things, and you are behind the 8-ball from the get go. That paragraph honestly sounds like Chris Carmichael.

To wit:

1 Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Astana 85:48:35
2 Andy Schleck (Lux) Team Saxo Bank 0:04:11
3 Lance Armstrong (USA) Astana 0:05:24
4 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Garmin - Slipstream 0:06:01

If a 2-bit team like Garmin-Slipstream can do it then anyone can.

To say that it is Kerrison that is the difference between 2010 and 2011/2012 is wrong. Plain and simple. Yes they train hard, yes they are elite, world class athletes. But the same is true for everyone else.

I have not slandered Kerrison, unless saying he is superfluous to Sky's performance is slanderous.

To dominate 2012 the way they have, to increase Rogers and Brad's power 5-7% the way they have, is not normal. Is not down to marginal gains. Is not reverse periodisation via Tim Kerrison. Is not believable in already highly trained elite athletes.

I've pointed to Cancellara as a TTer or Haas as a roadie for example of natural talent. It's evident as soon as they step on the road. Brad trained a lot for his IP medals, on the road, but it never translated into road performance. Not because it was for the IP.

But because he didn't have it.