Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[BroDeal]

I never said there was any. I'm simply defending science and reason once more against ignorance.

No. You are using your usual methodology, which is to bang on about one point while ignoring everything else including the overall issue. We have seen it time and time again.

Bottom line is this: Rider uses a cadence of 105 RPM to go 50 kph. He drops the cadence to 95. How much speed is gained or lost? Focusing on efficiency is a canard because performance is a complex combination of many factors and bettering one may worsen another.

If Wiggins had focused his track training for many years to produce the best times over 4km with a fixed gear that saw him hitting top speed at 130rpm+, then it would be expected that when he reduced his cadence to 90-100rpm for road TTs, this would be sub-optimal in terms of energetic efficiency for him.

So if he alters his training focus and spends much more time working on becoming efficient at 90-100rpm then please explain how it is impossible to achieve even a 0.5% improvement in torque production or efficiency?

Wiggins has been racing on the road for a decade now. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if I google video from a few years ago of him time trialing that he will be using cadences comparable to everyone else.

So it makes no difference whether or not he actually did change his avg cadence in road TTs.

It damned well matters because that is what the discussion is about. If he did not change his average cadence then his story sounds more and more like a cover story.

 

[blackcat]

Haha, I have to say Wiggins should really keep his mouth shut. I never like to take great perfomances as damning, but once riders start talking like this (and he's turning into a serial offender) it just makes me wonder. Of course, most people who haven't really followed cycling much will lap this rubbish up.
It's one of the reasons why I like Contador so much - he just gets on with it, without the BS.

wiggo does not care about enlightened folk,

hes selling to the rubes

there you need to start the premise....

over 2 u

 

[mastersracer]

No. You are using your usual methodology, which is to bang on about one point while ignoring everything else including the overall issue. We have seen it time and time again.

Bottom line is this: Rider uses a cadence of 105 RPM to go 50 kph. He drops the cadence to 95. How much speed is gained or lost? Focusing on efficiency is a canard because performance is a complex combination of many factors and bettering one may worsen another.

In what world is efficiency a canard? The entire point is that an improvement in gross efficiency would allow a rider to increase power output that would not otherwise be possible. Studies such as the one below demonstrate over a 2% improvement in gross efficiency over a 20 cadence range from 105-85. How could that not be relevant to performance increases in events in which small areodynamic details, for example, are researched and utilized? Also, gross efficiency is just one variable that is dependent on cadence (force effectiveness and others).


Leirdal, Stig, and GertjanEttema. "The relationship between cadence, pedalling technique and gross efficiency in cycling." European journal of applied physiology 111.12 (2011):2885-2893.

 

[BroDeal]

In what world is efficiency a canard? The entire point is that an improvement in gross efficiency would allow a rider to increase power output that would not otherwise be possible. Studies such as the one below demonstrate over a 2% improvement in gross efficiency over a 20 cadence range from 105-85. How could that not be relevant to performance increases in events in which small areodynamic details, for example, are researched and utilized? Also, gross efficiency is just one variable that is dependent on cadence (force effectiveness and others).

Read your last sentence then cross check it with what I wrote.

Let's see the final numbers. Cadence is decreased by 10 RPMs. What is the speed increase? If I tool around at 60 RPM at 20 kph, I'll have great efficiency. I am pretty sure my legs would not last for an hour at 60 RPM at threshold. I don't care about whatever pet point Krebs has decided to divert the debate to. Let's see the final numbers.

 

[Krebs cycle]

No. You are using your usual methodology, which is to bang on about one point while ignoring everything else including the overall issue. We have seen it time and time again.

The OP is about cadence. I'm staying on topic.

My methodology is to use scientific evidence as a basis to form my opinions.

Your methodology, like you have just done here again, is to IGNORE the scientific evidence which is entirely relevant to the topic, then start trolling me instead.

Wiggins has been racing on the road for a decade now. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if I google video from a few years ago of him time trialing that he will be using cadences comparable to everyone else.

So what? That does not disprove the evidence for example, that muscle co-ordination plays a role in cycling efficiency.

It damned well matters because that is what the discussion is about. If he did not change his average cadence then his story sounds more and more like a cover story.

Well for starters, how about instead of "betting doughnuts" you actually prove that he didn't change his cadence, and secondly, where is your evidence that changes in training make no difference to motor coordination and cycling efficiency?

 

[sittingbison]

krebs, you are over egging the custard.

Read the mumbo jumbo that Wiggo actually said. Then look at what you said - namely Wiggo does not understand what Kerrison said (which is the only totally pertinent thing you have actually said).

The point of this thread is NOT whether he changes his cadence up or down a notch (or a lot), or if he has more efficient drive train, or harder tyres bla bla bla. It is that he said something in public to explain a potential increase in performance that he has no understanding of, and laughably happens to be the exact same argument used by Lance fanboys.

What I find intriguing is that after a career on the track, where he won what? 3 gold medals and 8 championships? the guy has zero understanding of the technicalities of riding a bike you have been discussing so forthrightly.

 

[BroDeal]

Awww. Another myth exploded.

2009 Tour: 100 RPM

http://coachrobmuller.blogspot.com/2009/07/bradley-wiggins-3rd-place-time-trial.html

 

[Big Doopie]

Is there a relationship between PEDs and cadence? If lower cadence is a more musclular effort and higher cadence puts the burden on the cardiovascular system, will optimum cadence increase with the use of blood doping?

its more that since your body can process a ton more oxygen than before, then you choose to train and ride at higher cadence -- that way you save your legs while working your lungs that are now quite capable of being over-worked without going into the red.

armstrong introduced the world to his high cadence once he perfected the oxygen vector doping with ferrari. doing it otherwise would have taxed his legs. And his legs, he knew, were only good enough for three DNFs and a 36th place.

 

[mastersracer]

Read your last sentence then cross check it with what I wrote.

Let's see the final numbers. Cadence is decreased by 10 RPMs. What is the speed increase? If I tool around at 60 RPM at 20 kph, I'll have great efficiency. I am pretty sure my legs would not last for an hour at 60 RPM at threshold. I don't care about whatever pet point Krebs has decided to divert the debate to. Let's see the final numbers.

you're misunderstanding the literature - there is no single optimal cadence. The most economical cadences increase with workload and tend to peak around 80 rpm, which is also the peak of time to exhaustion in high workloads (350w).

 

[Krebs cycle]

krebs, you are over egging the custard.

Read the mumbo jumbo that Wiggo actually said. Then look at what you said - namely Wiggo does not understand what Kerrison said (which is the only totally pertinent thing you have actually said).

The point of this thread is NOT whether he changes his cadence up or down a notch (or a lot), or if he has more efficient drive train, or harder tyres bla bla bla. It is that he said something in public to explain a potential increase in performance that he has no understanding of, and laughably happens to be the exact same argument used by Lance fanboys.

What I find intriguing is that after a career on the track, where he won what? 3 gold medals and 8 championships? the guy has zero understanding of the technicalities of riding a bike you have been discussing so forthrightly.

What Wiggins says in his article is that he worked on reducing his cadence over the winter. He doesn't specifically say that this improved his performance but he implies it played a role in his success.

There is a general scientific consensus which supports a physiological rationale for doing this. All pro cyclists spend a great deal of time perfecting their cadence.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[131313]

What is it you are trying to prove? By the looks of your posts it seems as though you are trying to imply that there is no effect, or only an insignificant effect, of cadence on cycling energetics.

within reason (ignoring incredibly high or low cadences), that's exactly my point.

I post the abstract of a recent REVIEW article on this very topic which says that cadence accounts for about 10% of the variability in cycling energy expenditure. You ignore that and say "your science is bogus". ???

I didn't ignore it or say it was bogus, I'm simply pointing out that 1) the research on the subject is both equivocal and 2) subject to limitations. The study to which I linked, while older, also included error bars. The differences fall clearly within the margin of error. The review article doesn't have enough information for me to thoroughly tear it apart, but I'll gladly do that when I have a chance to review the whole thing!

You should know that cadence is an important consideration in cycling performance and it is something that elite cyclists spend a great deal of time perfecting.

I actually don't know that. I don't even believe it's true, on both fronts. I don't believe that cadence really matters that much within reason, nor do I know to many guys who do specific cadence related work. What's funny is that the guys I know who DO cadence-specific workouts are among the least sophisticated when it comes to training. This doesn't surprise me, since most people using a power meter are pretty quick to understand that cadence doesn't actually matter very much. Note, when I say "it doesn't matter", I mean that riders generally self-select the best cadence, even when this cadence may not be the most efficient (say, spinning high RPM at low powers), and at a cadence which is optimal in efficiency (or very, very close) when doing an effort of >90% of vo2.

Why is it so outrageous for Wiggins to suggest that he has been working on it? To a cyclist or a sport scientist it sounds like a normal and obvious thing to do, to the lay public it is probably a little bit informative.

I don't believe all exercise physiologists share you view. In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't. That said, it doesn't surprise me for an athlete to be doing it, talking about it, or even to think it makes a difference. I hear all sorts of nonsense, some much more ridiculous than this! To the lay public, I actually think it's a disservice, since it gives the illusion of efficiency gains which don't really exist.

But to the clinic it is only interpreted as LA propaganda and de facto evidence of doping. This is what really beggars belief.

I understand your point, but I don't see everything to the lens of a conspiracy. I think Dr. Coggan's points are entirely plausible and it's just something they're feeding the athlete to help him break through to another level, which ultimately is the goal of getting him to pedal faster in a bigger gear... What I do strongly believe is that any increase in performance is not due to a change in Wiggin's rate of pedaling. Whether it's an intentional smokescreen or simply Wiggins spouting off nonsense, I really have no opinion.

 

[simoni]

In an interview today he was talking about sacrifices needed for the TDF and said that because of his family " i wont be able to do it 6 times like Lance did".

So while he can never resist taking another pot shot at Contador for 2 atoms of clen, Lance is still a hero.

How so? That looks like a statement of fact to me.

Now I'm as sceptical about Wiggins and Sky as the next man (and I'm a brit) but this kind of gob****e just makes you looks like an obsessed witch-hunter.

 

[blackcat]

I think I'll go with 2.

or

3) making multiple nonsensical claims about additive marginal gains to explain a dramatic increase in performance.

regarding drivetrain efficiency and rolling resistance, people have been riding and racing bikes long enough that I'm willing to believe all of the available avenues have been explored, and since there's no great consensus on optimal cadence and or gear selection outside of a fairly broad range I just don't see it mattering a whole lot. I'm not saying that differences don't exist, just that they're very small, tiny when compared to things like tire selection.

luv the circular reasoning

nonesensical claims re mariginal gains become manifestation of its own marginal gain.

Only Brailsford and Sky ProCycling could be such, such.... genius. (grammar

 

[Mr.38%]

Sebastian Weber is a maniac, he may be strange but his studies are groundbreaking. Weber says:

"Bert has been riding with a lower cadence than most of the others. What role plays the power output in Watts the heart rate and cadence in this strategy?

Cadence is second priority, decicive is the power output. For some riders a high cadence is perfect, for others a lower cadence. That depends on individual physiological predetermination and is easy to evaluate in the lab. What's common: the higher the cadence the worse the aerodynamic."

http://www.srm.de/es/srm-blog/science-blog/245-interview-sebastian-weber

 

[sittingbison]

...That looks like a statement of fact to me....this kind of gob****e just makes you looks like an obsessed witch-hunter.

simoni, one of the big problems with Wiggo has been his apparent change of stance to doping and dopers - and particularly Lance.

In 2007 he came straight out and said anyone with even a 1% liklihood of doping should be banned, and then also opened his trap when Contador got busted.

However, his recent man love professions for and bromance with Lance (who has been charged by his own anti drug agency with the most serious drug allegations in the history of sport up to and including conspiracy), then his outburst during the Tour, have galled many people.

Its nothing to do with hunting witches, everything to do with inconsistency and hypocrisy

 

[simoni]

simoni, one of the big problems with Wiggo has been his apparent change of stance to doping and dopers - and particularly Lance.

In 2007 he came straight out and said anyone with even a 1% liklihood of doping should be banned, and then also opened his trap when Contador got busted.

However, his recent man love professions for and bromance with Lance (who has been charged by his own anti drug agency with the most serious drug allegations in the history of sport up to and including conspiracy), then his outburst during the Tour, have galled many people.

Its nothing to do with hunting witches, everything to do with inconsistency and hypocrisy

I don't disagree. But stating that family pulls will prevent him from winning the tour multiple times like Armstrong is just NOT evidence of that. And that's my point. I'm not predisposed to Wiggins one way or the other but I am all for reasoned logical argument but making that link on the basis of that statement is just ******** and takes us further away from the aforementioned logical reasoned argument.

 

[Sigmund]

I can't believe you are sucking it up hook line and sinker.

this bit "...powering the gear a lot rather than spinning along, and that forward momentum for the same power has helped me go a bit further"

...is clearly wrong and shows that Wiggins doesn't completely understand whatever it is that his physiologist (Tim Kerrison) has explained to him.

Fact remains that a vast array of scientific literature indicates that cadence has some influence on cycling energetics and this would explain why (as 131313 posted) most TT specialists tend to use pretty similar cadences. If they used widely different cadences then it would indicate that rpm is pretty irrelevant. If Wiggins was using a sub-optimal cadence previously because he had adapted that way from his track background, it would make perfect sense to spend time working on that and moving it towards something better suited to long TTs.

To keep my usual high cadence and go faster than Tony, I'd have had to average a power output that would have been mind blowing

This too is clearly wrong, to go faster than Tony he would have to increase his power regardless of cadence. Power is power.

So Wiggins clearly does not know what he is talking about. If he had said something like: we looked at m power output, calculated what increase was necessary to improve by 1:30 and decided that couldn't be done so I went and improved my position, that would have made sense.

But what he did say, that by lowering his cadence he could somehow go faster for the same power is obviously wrong.

 

[the big ring]

You are citing a paper form 1992. I'm looking at a review article from 2009. You appear to have completely ignored the figure that I posted from the paper and you probably didn't bother to click on the link either....


10% is a significant amount. The force/velocity relationship is one of those other factors that effects the energy expenditure. So you can't just look at studies (such as the Sidossis study you linked to) which acutely manipulate the cadence and make definitive conclusions, but even if you do then the relationship has been show to exist....

At 80% VO2max in trained cyclists....

I think what is critical here - and not shown in the graphs - is the self selected cadence. ie typicall what the athletes usually train at.

I also cannot find any video of Wggins riding stage 19 of this year's tour to back up what he is claiming.

 

[the big ring]

Furthermore - if Brad really is pedaling slower in the TT for better efficiency, why the ridiculously high cadence in the mountains?

This smacks of smoke and mirrors.

 

[Montanus]

I also cannot find any video of Wggins riding stage 19 of this year's tour to back up what he is claiming.

Here is over one hour from the same stage in DL this year. The time difference was bigger to Froome in DL and about the same if you compare with LLS. There are some nice sections where you can get a good picture of Wiggo's time trialing.

http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/ciclismo/ciclismo-dauphine-libere-cuarta-etapa-07-06-12/1431023/

 

[Cloxxki]

Well, if aerodynamics are a factor in cadance, then in the moutains it would be less of an issue I suppose. Never could notice myself.

I am a high-cadance TT type of guy, but I like to once in a few minutes get of of the seat, let the juices flow a bit more freely, and then sit down again. This exersize costs energy and aerodynamics obviosuly, but keeps me fresher than sitting like a spinning statue. Everyone is different, your mileage will vary. At LT output my lactate buildup is actually extremely low when trained well. No high pain threshold BS (I'm a sissy), I just have barely any lactate acid showing up in my blood, even though at 10bpm lower I would really feeling the hurt, and getting the good (painful) lactate readings. I do get tired at the same rate (or quicker) as anyone once. Just found a way to ride pain-free at and over LT. And yeah, that means I don't have a real LT, just a more distinct bend in the power/heartrate curve. Lactate readings are all over the place, likely due to specific training in heartrate zones (I liked to do flying start 5k TT's on a 620m closed circuit with 2 corners/lap taken slightly below my cruising speed).

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Too much is being read into what is obviously mumbo-jumbo in Wiggo's article.

My guess is as follows:

a) He's got a lot of time on his hands at the moment

b) He knows what is currently vexing the "Clinic Cynics" and their comrades in arms using other social media

c) He has a quirky sense of humour at the best of times

d) His article is therefore aimed at winding up the Clinic Cynics, purely for a laugh

e) There are plenty of Chinese swimmers to draw fire for unbelievable performances at the moment

f) He knows that most people reading the article will swallow it hook line and sinker, as it tells them what they want to know, so there is no real risk of his article being subject to critical review in a forum (broad context, not just internet) that matters, particularly given the assistance helpfully provided by the aforementioned Chinese swimmers

 

[the big ring]

...

SO now Wiggins is a tactical genius? Uh huh.

 

[Benotti69]

SO now Wiggins is a tactical genius? Uh huh.

It is well known that he keeps his genius in his sideburns

 

[Bumeington]

What Wiggins says is ******** obviously, but Shane Sutton says 459W (at 71kg) for Wiggo in worlds TT last year, Tony Martin went ~ a minute faster (assuming cubic power-speed, and same cdA --> ~490W for Tony). How much does he weigh? If his W/kg are similar to Wiggo where is he in the mountains? Doesn't suprise me Kerrison is studying how Tony can TT so much faster