Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Winterfold]

"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."

LOL - welcome to the Clinic dude. Doping is the only way. Elite cyclists were already doing all this marginal gains stuff, like warm downs, training to train and racing to win, oh hang on...

 

[Alpehue]

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.

I do not claim to know very much about human physiology, but i do know that "the big rings" arguements make sence, and i do know that he backs up his claims. You dont, you seem to beleive that claiming the big ring to be a lier, and you to be a expert is enough to convince people. If you do have the expert knowledge you claim to have, explain why you are right. So far all we have seen from you is a bunch of claims that sounds a awefull lot like something someone knowing very little about cycling would make. Could you please answer his question, and stop beleiving that going after him personally will convince us.

Share some of that expert knowledge you seem to beleive you have.

 

[Alpehue]

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 am not in a position to say if he is a doper or not, but opening your mind a little goes both ways, Why should he simply take your word as the truth, when your are being just as stuborn claiming any of his arguments are completely wrong. Could it be you both make good points?

 

[the big ring]

I have worked with athletes and coaches whom have won World Championship and Olympic gold medals.

So has the pool cleaner and the bicycle mechanic.

Just sayin'.

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

H'mmm. I don't think the point is that only Sky are doing these things. I think the point is, especially with regards to Wiggins, that he is doing these things now - and he wasn't doing them before. Hence it's interesting to see what he's changed in the last four years, and whether those things could help explain an improvement in performance.

By your own logic, Wiggins was significantly 'behind the 8-ball from the get go' in 2008 ('overweight' (relatively speaking), not training at altitude, racing loads on the track etc). So by extension, if he then starts doing all the passe things that everyone else is already doing (regardless of whether that includes dope), then - by your definition - you would expect to see an improvement in his performance, wouldn't you?

This is the thing that baffles me about your argument. It may well be that one of the things to improve performance that Wiggins has started doing in the last four years is drugs (although when exactly? in 2009? 2011? This year?), but regardless of that why shouldn't all the other changes/improvements had had an effect? What is it - other than your own confirmation bias - that leaves you so eager to dismiss anything other than the argument you believe in?

 

[the big ring]

H'mmm. I don't think the point is that only Sky are doing these things. I think the point is, especially with regards to Wiggins, that he is doing these things now - and he wasn't doing them before. Hence it's interesting to see what he's changed in the last four years, and whether those things could help explain an improvement in performance.

By your own logic, Wiggins was significantly 'behind the 8-ball from the get go' in 2008 ('overweight' (relatively speaking), not training at altitude, racing loads on the track etc). So by extension, if he then starts doing all the passe things that everyone else is already doing (regardless of whether that includes dope), then - by your definition - you would expect to see an improvement in his performance, wouldn't you?

This is the thing that baffles me about your argument. It may well be that one of the things to improve performance that Wiggins has started doing in the last four years is drugs (although when exactly? in 2009? 2011? This year?), but regardless of that why shouldn't all the other changes/improvements had had an effect? What is it - other than your own confirmation bias - that leaves you so eager to dismiss anything other than the argument you believe in?

What is it, other than your own inability to read my entire post, that missed the fact that I pointed out Brad came 4th in 2009, partly because he was already doing those marginal gain things. Something I have pointed out 3 times in the last day in this thread.

4th.

That is not possible unless a rider is doing the things you seem to think Wiggins wasn't doing before (the argument being before Sky).

How do I know he was doing those things at Garmin? Coz JV rode with Postal. He knows about recon and cadence and training camps and altitude. And it showed. Wiggins. TdF. 4th.

Krebs is talking about Brad's time with Sky. Doing those things with Sky. And going from 4th to a dominating 2012, not just 1st at the Tour, but 1st at too many races in a row.

It goes like this, if I can paint a picture.
A = train but not specifically for the tour
B = train for the tour
C = all those little things like cadence, less racing, training camps, altitude work, losing weight etc.

Brad pre-2009:
2008 Training: A Result: meh

Brad @ Garmin
2009 Training: B+C Result: 70th Giro + 4th Tour de France.

Brad joins Sky
2010 Training: B+C-less racing (harder Giro?) Result: 40th Giro + meh Tour de France.

Tim Kerrison joins Sky
2011 Training: B+C Result: 3rd at Vuelta (I said previously, comparable to 4th @ Tour), but Froome puts 30 seconds into him in the TT.
2012 Training: B+C Result: dominate the living snot out of 5 races in a row, including walking away with the Tour de France and Olympic TT gold medal, and putting 1:20 into Froome in the final TdF TT.

Even if in 2012 he is doing other little things (C') that he did not do in 2009, they don't add 5-7%. He is doing the same thing in training and preparation as 2009, but the result is remarkably different. Not marginally. But order of magnitude different.

I believe what I am saying agrees with Krebs in that those things (C) make a difference and you must do them to get anywhere in stage racing. I am disagreeing that they make a bigger difference at Sky than they did at Garmin or that Sky added enough extra marginal gains (C') to make that 5-7% difference. I am disagreeing that Kerrison coming on board makes any difference to anything. That's my best explanation.

 

[RownhamHill]

What is it, other than your own inability to read my entire post, that missed the fact that I pointed out Brad came 4th in 2009, partly because he was already doing those marginal gain things. Something I have pointed out 3 times in the last day in this thread.

4th.

That is not possible unless a rider is doing the things you seem to think Wiggins wasn't doing before (the argument being before Sky).

How do I know he was doing those things at Garmin? Coz JV rode with Postal. He knows about recon and cadence and training camps and altitude. And it showed. Wiggins. TdF. 4th.

Krebs is talking about Brad's time with Sky. Doing those things with Sky. And going from 4th to a dominating 2012, not just 1st at the Tour, but 1st at too many races in a row.

It goes like this, if I can paint a picture.
A = train but not specifically for the tour
B = train for the tour
C = all those little things like cadence, less racing, training camps, altitude work, losing weight etc.

Brad pre-2009:
2008 Training: A Result: meh

Brad @ Garmin
2009 Training: B+C Result: 70th Giro + 4th Tour de France.

Brad joins Sky
2010 Training: B+C-less racing (harder Giro?) Result: 40th Giro + meh Tour de France.

Tim Kerrison joins Sky
2011 Training: B+C Result: 3rd at Vuelta (I said previously, comparable to 4th @ Tour), but Froome puts 30 seconds into him in the TT.
2012 Training: B+C Result: dominate the living snot out of 5 races in a row, including walking away with the Tour de France and Olympic TT gold medal, and putting 1:20 into Froome in the final TdF TT.

Even if in 2012 he is doing other little things (C') that he did not do in 2009, they don't add 5-7%. He is doing the same thing in training and preparation as 2009, but the result is remarkably different. Not marginally. But order of magnitude different.

I believe what I am saying agrees with Krebs in that those things (C) make a difference and you must do them to get anywhere in stage racing. I am disagreeing that they make a bigger difference at Sky than they did at Garmin or that Sky added enough extra marginal gains (C') to make that 5-7% difference. I am disagreeing that Kerrison coming on board makes any difference to anything. That's my best explanation.

Yeah, but you're wrong.

First of all he didn't ride the tour in 2008. So he neither trained for the tour, or had a 'meh' result in it.

But then in 2009 and 2010, according to Wiggins himself, he wasn't doing altitude training, and only started that last year. And he certainly wasn't doing less racing, and using races for racing, and training for training, as witnessed by his participation in the giro. So, in those terms, in 2009 and 2010, he was way behind the eight ball still, according to your earlier post

And what's more, as you point out he came 4th* in 2009. While being way behind the eight ball. And, oh yeah, none of the people who beat him to 4th in 2009 participated in 2012.

So.

Given that he was behind the eight ball in 2009, and still did very well, and his performance in 2012 didn't actually necessarily improve, in the tour at least, relative to the opposition (as he didn't beat anyone in 2012 that he didn't already beat in 2009), and he's apparently made big changes to his training in the meantime. . . why is the only possible answer for an improved finishing position drugs?

Having read your posts over a number of weeks they just simply don't make sense to me.

EDIT: Sorry, apologies for the line above about 2008. As I posted I noticed that I've misread your post, and I've just spotted you never claimed he rode the tour in 2008. Consider it deleted. Although that said, since his results in 2008 were two gold medals in his primary goal, I'm not sure I'd call his 2008 results meh.

 

[armchairclimber]

Don't worry. The Big Ring clearly hasn't learned the difference between sophistication and sophistry. The latter is his speciality.

I for one value the contributions of Krebs Cycle and acoggan. Good sports science, sound physiological knowledge and reasoning. They make visits to the clinic worthwhile.

 

[ferryman]

Yeah, but you're wrong.

First of all he didn't ride the tour in 2008. So he neither trained for the tour, or had a 'meh' result in it.

But then in 2009 and 2010, according to Wiggins himself, he wasn't doing altitude training, and only started that last year. And he certainly wasn't doing less racing, and using races for racing, and training for training, as witnessed by his participation in the giro. So, in those terms, in 2009 and 2010, he was way behind the eight ball still, according to your earlier post

And what's more, as you point out he came 4th* in 2009. While being way behind the eight ball. And, oh yeah, none of the people who beat him to 4th in 2009 participated in 2012.

So.

Given that he was behind the eight ball in 2009, and still did very well, and his performance in 2012 didn't actually necessarily improve, in the tour at least, relative to the opposition (as he didn't beat anyone in 2012 that he didn't already beat in 2009), and he's apparently made big changes to his training in the meantime. . . why is the only possible answer for an improved finishing position drugs?

Having read your posts over a number of weeks they just simply don't make sense to me.

EDIT: Sorry, apologies for the line above about 2008. As I posted I noticed that I've misread your post, and I've just spotted you never claimed he rode the tour in 2008. Consider it deleted. Although that said, since his results in 2008 were two gold medals in his primary goal, I'm not sure I'd call his 2008 results meh.

2008 was a huge year for Wiggins and up until this year his most successful. Now, 2008 was all about track. Which ended late August. My question would be, going into 2009 road mode, how much road did he do in 2008 pre and post Olympics and in between post benders? Virtually nil I would say at any decent level to compensate for the last year and a half of track dedication. And certainly nothing like the base he would need for what he did on the road in 2009.

This guy is simply the most complete cyclist that has ever existed or not.

 

[D-Queued]

2008 was a huge year for Wiggins and up until this year his most successful. Now, 2008 was all about track. Which ended late August. My question would be, going into 2009 road mode, how much road did he do in 2008 pre and post Olympics and in between post benders? Virtually nil I would say at any decent level to compensate for the last year and a half of track dedication. And certainly nothing like the base he would need for what he did on the road in 2009.

This guy is simply the most complete cyclist that has ever existed or not.

If he were a true race horse, we could go the the records in the Breeding shed and review his pedigree. If there is no linkage to Merckx, Anquetil or Coppi, we can reject the runt out of hand.

Dave.

 

[ferryman]

If he were a true race horse, we could go the the records in the Breeding shed and review his pedigree. If there is no linkage to Merckx, Anquetil or Coppi, we can reject the runt out of hand.

Dave.

Oh he is thoroughbread. I should have mentioned the track success in the Worlds in MARCH 2008 to make that point. Not quite a Nijinsky but damn close

 

[D-Queued]

Oh he is thoroughbread. I should have mentioned the track success in the Worlds in MARCH 2008 to make that point. Not quite a Nijinsky but damn close

Perhaps he was a track thoroughbred.

I was just following your logic, however. Somehow he transformed from a thoroughbred in short, single races that concluded early in the year like March to dominating stage races, with individual stages orders of magnitude longer in length, and did so over an entire year.

An amazing physical and mental transformation.

Not normal.

Dave.

 

[ferryman]

Perhaps he was a track thoroughbred.

I was just following your logic, however. Somehow he transformed from a thoroughbred in short, single races that concluded early in the year like March to dominating stage races, with individual stages orders of magnitude longer in length, and did so over an entire year.

An amazing physical and mental transformation.

Not normal.

Dave.

Och. Sometimes on-line words are not the best form of communication. Too many in between inferences. The above summary is EXACTLY what I was getting at bud But add on his (Wiggins) post Olympics benders = no real road training until January 2009 and then... bang! 2009 TDF contender (not really) but up there until the hammer really went down.

 

[D-Queued]

Och. Sometimes on-line words are not the best form of communication. Too many in between inferences. The above summary is EXACTLY what I was getting at bud But add on his (Wiggins) post Olympics benders = no real road training until January 2009 and then... bang! 2009 TDF contender (not really) but up there until the hammer really went down.

I figured that is what you were on to, and you did it well enough that the light bulb went off!

Kind of like Usain Bolt switching over and winning ALL the major marathons next year.

Dave.

 

[ferryman]

I figured that is what you were on to, and you did it well enough that the light bulb went off!

Kind of like Usain Bolt switching over and winning ALL the major marathons next year.

Dave.

Hey he. Fastwhich there fastwhich everywhere. Wiggins has them all

 

[the big ring]

2008 was a huge year for Wiggins and up until this year his most successful. Now, 2008 was all about track. Which ended late August. My question would be, going into 2009 road mode, how much road did he do in 2008 pre and post Olympics and in between post benders? Virtually nil I would say at any decent level to compensate for the last year and a half of track dedication. And certainly nothing like the base he would need for what he did on the road in 2009.
.

With this I would strenuously disagree. At a rough estimate, I would say 60-75% of Brad's 2008 calories were spent on the road, training, with intensity anywhere from Z2-Z5 developing his aerobic engine in preparation for specific track and IP work.

As a guide, see acoggan's IP training program .ppt (can't find a link right now).

 

[sittingbison]

Ahhhh but how many calories went into the post Olympic bender. And at what intensity level

 

[Krebs cycle]

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.

Look, what I'd like to do here is let bygones be bygones and call a truce. I can see that we are both interested and passionate about cycling performance as are many others on this forum. All I want to do is discuss the issues and be as objective and unbiased as possible.

In regards to the above, there are two important factors to consider. Firstly, as RownhamHill stated, what matters is when Wiggins (and Team Sky) introduced specific changes to their program, not whether or not other teams also do those things. Secondly, I do not believe for a nanosecond that every team has the same goals, the same race plan and the same yearly training preparation. You are saying that Team Sky are not the only ones to use Tenerife for training camps.

Well then please answer this... which other teams DID use Tenerife in the exactly the same manner as Team Sky in 2011-12??

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.

I really cannot be bothered arguing this until the end of time. All I'm asking is that you if say both Wiggins and Rogers improved their power output by 5-7% (over what distance/duration btw and over what time period), then prove it. Back it up with real data, not some estimation that contains 5-7% error (ie: error as large as the change you claim was had). I also want you to prove that Rogers was doping and thus that his power output has increased beyond what it was when he was allegedly doping. Because that is a massive assumption also. Maybe Rogers was NOT doping back around 2006-07 which would mean that shock horror, at 32yrs of age he is reaching the peak form of his career.

Lastly, name another team that has structured their TdF prepartion the same way as Sky has this year or any other year. I can name you one at least. BMC last year seemed to do something similar. Low number of race days and target specific 7day stage races about one month to six weeks apart. Look how that turned out for them. Hog likes to make predictions so I will make one too... watch this space, in future any team whose #1 priority is to win the TdF will show good form early and they will adopt a similar approach as what Sky did this year and BMC did last year. This year BMC did not have the same preparation. Cadel did far less training over the winter and it showed come crunch time.

It is a formula that USPS invented and just because those guys were doped to the eyeballs doesn't mean that it doesn't work and it does not mean that every other team is doing the same thing. If you say they are, then PROVE IT.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Thanks also to the various posters who have supported either mine or acoggan's contributions. I've had disagreements in the past with acoggan but I respect and value his contributions.

At the end of the day, its just a bike race and at least we all hope for the same outcome which is clean sport.

 

[the big ring]

I really cannot be bothered arguing this until the end of time. All I'm asking is that you if say both Wiggins and Rogers improved their power output by 5-7% (over what distance/duration btw and over what time period), then prove it. Back it up with real data, not some estimation that contains 5-7% error (ie: error as large as the change you claim was had).

http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=6440

Michael Rogers: “I’ve seen a five to seven per cent increase in my general threshold power. And that’s great. It’s also come from working with Tim Kerrison of Team Sky, as Bradley has – and as have most of the guys in the Tour team… we’ve all been training under his guidance and he’s bringing some fresh thoughts into it for all of us.

Threshold power is FTP, defined as the maximum power sustainable for 1 hour. Rogers has an SRM.

Please tell me Rogers doesn't know what he's talking about, or his SRM is not calibrated right.

When a group of us went training with Cadel years ago, the first thing he did when we got to the midway coffee stop was recalibrate his power meter.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I figured that is what you were on to, and you did it well enough that the light bulb went off!

Kind of like Usain Bolt switching over and winning ALL the major marathons next year.

Dave.

Completely and utterly ridiculous. This little analogy ignores 2 million years of human evolution of the bioenergetic systems. In terms of bioenergetics, a 4min maximal effort is much more similar to a 30-60min effort than a 10sec maximal effort.

A fairer and more realistic comparison would be like Haile Gebrselassie who was the 1500m indoor world champion in 1999 and become the marathon world record holder in 2007. In fact, name pretty much any world class 1500m or 5000m runner and you will find that they are similarly world class at longer distances. You will also find that their PBs in the longer distances generally occur later in their career, not earlier. Endurance performance is like a fine wine that matures with age.

In GTs the time gaps which determine the winners and losers are not decided over the entire 85hrs (although I acknowledge the important role of recovery), but over shorter durations such as the last 20min of a mtn top finish and in ITTs generally lasting <60min. Long before Wiggins turned to road racing he had the engine to sustained very high power outputs for 30-60min. What he obviously lacked was the specific road training preparation that enables a rider to still hit those power output values at the end of a 200km stage. Genetics lays the foundation which enables world class 4min or 30min power outputs, getting to the 200km mark without fatigue and thus being able to utilize that genetic potential takes kms... lots and lots of them. Track endurance riders do high kms (15-25k /yr) but not in the same league as road pros (25-35k /yr).

 

[the big ring]

2008 was a huge year for Wiggins and up until this year his most successful. Now, 2008 was all about track. Which ended late August. My question would be, going into 2009 road mode, how much road did he do in 2008 pre and post Olympics and in between post benders? Virtually nil I would say at any decent level to compensate for the last year and a half of track dedication. And certainly nothing like the base he would need for what he did on the road in 2009.
.

Here's an example of what British Cycling are doing for IP preparation. Note that it's on the road, and involves hills: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/5341/training/british-procycling-training-tips/

3Km / 4 Km Pursuit
The 3Km / 4Km pursuit is still an endurance event, so the riders have been preparing for the Olympics with long training rides where the body gets used to long periods of lactic acid building up in the legs. The idea is to do long hill intervals, where the lactic aside accumulates, enabling the rider to gain improved lactic tolerance.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Perhaps he was a track thoroughbred.

I was just following your logic, however. Somehow he transformed from a thoroughbred in short, single races that concluded early in the year like March to dominating stage races, with individual stages orders of magnitude longer in length, and did so over an entire year.

An amazing physical and mental transformation.

Not normal.

Dave.

Why not?

I asked months ago for anyone to give a scientific explanation to this yet nobody has. Why isn't it possible for a track endurance rider to convert to road and then become a GT contender?

What is not "normal" is Wiggins' track endurance pedigree.

 

[the big ring]

Why not?

I asked months ago for anyone to give a scientific explanation to this yet nobody has. Why isn't it possible for a track endurance rider to convert to road and then become a GT contender?

What is not "normal" is Wiggins' track endurance pedigree.

It's difficult to prove a negative. Impossible, in fact.

As far as we are concerned, you have failed to prove the positive. That a 4km pursuiter can win a GT and dominate an entire season of stage races, "naturally".

 

[the big ring]

Completely and utterly ridiculous. This little analogy ignores 2 million years of human evolution of the bioenergetic systems. In terms of bioenergetics, a 4min maximal effort is much more similar to a 30-60min effort than a 10sec maximal effort.

A fairer and more realistic comparison would be like Haile Gebrselassie who was the 1500m indoor world champion in 1999 and become the marathon world record holder in 2007. .

Disagree. A fairer comparison would be for Haile Gebrselassie to win the 1500m in 1999 and then come 4th in a 20 day ultra-marathon the following year.