Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[function]

I agree. You may as well be them because you sound exactly the same, arguing their ideas verbatim, not because you don't agree with me.

This is the last offtopic post i'll be making on this, but prior to yesterday, i posted in this thread once and that was to agree with Krebs that the level of discourse in here has degraded. I'm not sure whether to take sounding like Kreb's, Coggan et al as a compliment, but i have an engineering background and that may be why we sound similar, my field eschews ambiguous language too.

I mean this sincerely, my apologies if you felt insulted.

 

[acoggan]

This being because there is a greater likelihood of them being able to sustain a high pace for much much longer....and comfortably?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[armchairclimber]

Yes, that is correct.

The way I have understood this, with regards to Wiggins, is that

1. He has (earlier in his career) been able to compete at a very high level on the track and on the road without ever having to fully train his lactate/anaerobic system....this is all relative of course.

2. This would have been his weakness in GTs...he could TT well (ride quickly aerobically) but would be challenged by steep mountains/explosive mountain attacks

3. This would dictate the way his team approached the TDF and other stage races this year. Maintain a high pace that he could manage aerobically whilst limiting the opportunities for explosive (demoralising) "anaerobic" attacks by his opponents (think Nibali). The high pace set by his team would be leaching, over a long period, the anaerobic energy systems of his competitors whilst he could seemingly ride without breaking sweat...aerobically.

4. The tactics on climbs would be to manage anaerobic attacks by not trying to match them anaerobically (aside from one notable exception Mr Froome)...and to reel them in within Brad's exceptional aerobic capacity. (I accept that in the high mountains he'd be dipping into those anaerobic systems heavily but, perhaps, not as heavily as others).

5. To make this possible he'd have to become more efficient...ie. better power to weight ratio in the mountains (the weakness).

6. No way round this...training on long steep hills at altitude to add the peak to the aerobic base.

7. Waste every other rider in the team (including Cav) to drag him up those hills....as aerobically as possible.

This is without going into marginal gains or, conversely, getting lucky with the paucity of competition.

Next year though, they have Contador to contend with. He is betwen Rodriguez (brilliant anaerobic capacity) and Wiggins (brilliant aerobic capacity).

If both turn up fully fit, clean and motivated it should be a corker.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Coz in the end, that's all we want.

Well, it's what I want. I don't rely on elite athletes for my income, though, so it's a bit easier for me to say what I really think.

Yes it is what I want also. I also apologize to you if I have offended you or been condescending to you. I have had to put up with a lot more trolling than you which has come from a core component of aggressive posters who basically bully anyone that disagrees with them.

When I weighed into this debate I already knew from experience and knowing the literature that pursuiters need a high VO2max and %LT and therefore it didn't seem like it was drawing a long bow to suggest that a very talented IP cyclist could make a successful transition to road cycling and here is the caveat.... IF, and only if, they were particularly "aerobic" for an pursuiter.

You asked me to explain how someone could be more "aerobic" than another and I posted links to literature which explains in great detail the physiological mechanisms why this occurs. I cannot understand why you would then turn around and say "that's not an explanation". Just read the articles please. You do know enough about physiology to be able to understand them. The Zoldaz article in particular I had not seen before but it's FREE fulltext and I just downloaded it and printed it out. Going to read it in full today because its quite interesting...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17242492

You and many others pointed out that Wiggins didn't "do anything" on the road prior to 2009, but so what? It does not prove that Wiggins was NOT an aerobic beast by nature and it does not invalidate the science (as per the Zoldaz article), nor does it invalidate my speculation that a cross over from IP to road could be possible. These are possibilities. That is all. I'm not arguing that I believe them to be 100% true so help me god.

All I have asked is for anyone to explain why a transition from IP to TdF is simply not possible. I asked it 2 or 3 months ago and yet there remains no answer. Strawman arguments such as "well nobody else did it" or "Wiggins didn't do anything on the road" do not count, they do not answer the question.

edit: fact is though that many track endurance riders have made successful transitions to professional road cycling, but none of them were as good as Wiggins on the track. Furthermore, using the same argument as above, we don't know if those other track endurance turned pro road cyclists were naturally more aerobic or anaerobic. If they were naturally more anaerobic you would expect them to make a good contender for the green jersey ala Stuart O'Grady. Same logic applies the other way around.... had Cancellara decided to become a pursuiter at age 18 then it is entirely possible that he would have taken away a few of Wiggins' medals in that event over the years.

 

[the big ring]

The way I have understood this, with regards to Wiggins, is that

4. The tactics on climbs would be to manage anaerobic attacks by not trying to match them anaerobically (aside from one notable exception Mr Froome)...and to reel them in within Brad's exceptional aerobic capacity. (I accept that in the high mountains he'd be dipping into those anaerobic systems heavily but, perhaps, not as heavily as others).

Heavily? So a similar argument to the one Vaughters posited previously?

Ok, I know I'm nuts for even bothering here, but here goes:

My major point had to do with the percentage of anearobic work done in a 20 minute efforts vs a 40 min effort. The bike weight, etc etc, probably does only account for 20 watts assuming a perfectly steady effort (which is an invalid assumption if you've ever watched a bike race). However, the amount of power produced beyond what is produced aerobically in a 20 minute effort is considerable, it is not in a 40 minute effort - in my experience!

After all, if you are going to dip "into those anaerobic systems heavily" you'd be wanting to come back with more than 1W yeah - let's say 1% - so 4W on a climb where they're doing 400W? Otherwise your final sentence there seems a bit weird.

Let's substitute in that value.

I accept that in the high mountains he'd be dipping into those anaerobic systems heavily (for that extra 4W) but, perhaps, not as heavily as others (who derive 6W from anaerobic source)).

Now, we've been talking marginal gains, hence why I chose 1% - that's a marginal gain.

Here's an interesting part of this thread:

Either Vaughters was misquoted, or he's confused: it is impossible to determine the source (i.e., aerobic vs. anaerobic) of the power estimated from VAM.

About all that really can be said is that, for the durations of the climbs to which VAM is routinely applied (power is routinely estimated), the contribution of anaerobic energy production to total power output is small.

Intuitively that is what I thought it would be - and hence the question. Would the anaerobic contribution for a 20min vs 40min climb be any more significant, or is it too small to even factor?

Now, not sure if my language is precise enough, but I'm looking at my question there and I am not sure how you can interpret "Would the anaerobic contribution for a 20min vs 40min climb be any more significant, or is it too small to even factor?" when acoggan replies thus:

A 4 km pursuit is, typically, 85% aerobic in nature. By the time you get out to even 20 min, the anaerobic contribution is negligible.

neg·li·gi·ble adj. Not significant or important enough to be worth considering.

Given marginal gains (1 percenters) ARE worth considering, this response indicates "dipping heavily into those anaerobic systems heavily" provides nothing worth considering.

Why do you even mention it? Or why did "precise language" use the word "negligible" if it is 2%?

Regardless, I'm just not seeing 8W making all that much difference, given it's already being provided by the body as a whole.

Or are you implying he can generate extra power anaerobically? That when riding at 420-450W he has some "anaerobic" power on tap? Perhaps you could be more precise because the more I think about what you're trying to say here, the less sense it makes.

 

[the big ring]

You asked me to explain how someone could be more "aerobic" than another and I posted links to literature which explains in great detail the physiological mechanisms why this occurs. I cannot understand why you would then turn around and say "that's not an explanation". Just read the articles please. You do know enough about physiology to be able to understand them. The Zoldaz article in particular I had not seen before but it's FREE fulltext and I just downloaded it and printed it out. Going to read it in full today because its quite interesting...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17242492

It is unfortunate that as well as not being able to explain what you want me to teach myself from a new, previously unmentioned paper (thanks for the link btw, sincerely), you do not understand the fallacy of linking to a paper as an explanation.

You know what an explanation looks like. You did one in 2009 - in your second ever post here.

You have not done a single explanation in this thread.

If I truly do "know enough about physiology to be able to understand them. " then it is also true that I know enough to understand an ad-hoc explanation, as penned by you here and now, nice and fresh and unique.

You and many others pointed out that Wiggins didn't "do anything" on the road prior to 2009, but so what? It does not prove that Wiggins was NOT an aerobic beast by nature

Thank you for agreeing Wiggins did nothing on the road pre-2009. Now we need to help armchairclimber through stage 1 of grief (denial) and hope he can do the same.

 

[the big ring]

The way I have understood this, with regards to Wiggins, is that

1. He has (earlier in his career) been able to compete at a very high level on the track and on the road without ever having to fully train his lactate/anaerobic system....this is all relative of course.

Firstly: the premise that Brad competed "at a very high level on the road" has been debunked. You are being disingenuous to include it in this sentence.

Brad did nothing on the road pre-2009 at the world-class level.

As for not training your lactate/anaerobic system - I would suggest that's exactly what he had to train to perform well at the IP, aerobic engine or not. Standing starts demand anaerobic energy production, and given the IP is ridden at 110-120% of VO2 max - ie well above lactate threshold, regardless of where the majority of the energy comes from, it's coming from the anaerobic system as well, guaranteed.

To say Brad did not train his lactate/anaerobic system whilst training to become the fastest person over 4km every 6-12 months is patently false.

You don't get to choose which system kicks in to provide energy - regardless of any laser-like focus you have.

You guys have already said you have NO IDEA if Brad has low MAOD, but this entire point (only partially trained lactate/anerobic system to ride well on the track) can only be based on the assumption that he did.

I honestly don't mind you claiming things in Brad's defense, based on something you made up, but at least have the balls to say you are fabricating something (low MAOD = true) and then claiming things based on that fabrication.

 

[Krebs cycle]

It is unfortunate that as well as not being able to explain what you want me to teach myself from a new, previously unmentioned paper (thanks for the link btw, sincerely), you do not understand the fallacy of linking to a paper as an explanation.

You know what an explanation looks like. You did one in 2009 - in your second ever post here.

You have not done a single explanation in this thread.

If I truly do "know enough about physiology to be able to understand them. " then it is also true that I know enough to understand an ad-hoc explanation, as penned by you here and now, nice and fresh and unique.

Thank you for agreeing Wiggins did nothing on the road pre-2009. Now we need to help armchairclimber through stage 1 of grief (denial) and hope he can do the same.

Ok here is my ad hoc explanation.

Some people have faster oxygen uptake kinetics that other people. The reason for this comes down to differences between individuals such as muscle fiber type, aerobic enzyme activity, mitochondrial density and probably difference in mitochondrial protein isoforms (for a full and detailed explanation, see the linked article). At the start of a 4km maximal effort the aerobic system increases and levels off at VO2max. The faster it ramps up and the higher it is, the greater the aerobic energy output will be. Now if we compare 2 different hypothetical athletes with the same total energy output during a 4km event (in kilojoules) and assume the same metabolic efficiency, then the athlete who has the higher oxygen uptake kinetics and higher VO2max will have a LOWER accumulated oxygen deficit. Therefore they will have a higher %aerobic contribution to the total energy output and a lower %anaerobic contribution than the athlete with slower oxygen uptake kinetics.

So if a pursuit cyclist was able to generate a very high percent contribution from aerobic sources over 4km, then this would immediately suggest that this individual has a high VO2max. Now if that cyclist was a world record holder, that would suggest they have an exceptionally high VO2max. If they have an exceptionally high VO2max and very fast O2 uptake kinetics that would mean physiologically, they look very similar to past and present GT winners.

Without the appropriate training stimulus and team support however, you would never expect them to perform well in road stage races though. Hence, pre 2008, one should not expect Wiggins to have performed at the same level as up and coming stage racers. However, you might expect that they should be able to perform pretty damn well in road TTs because the necessary training stimulus for that discipline is much closer to that for IP. And so we see good evidence going back to 2005 that Wiggins had the necessary firepower to mix it with the best in the world over 40-50km. Had Wiggins commenced a doping program in 2009, then he should have improved markedly in that discipline, beyond what could be expected from a change in training focus alone. But that didn't happen, he had a "marginal gain" at best.

Furthermore, had he commenced a doping program in 2009 his performance in short TTs such as prologues also should have markedly improved. In fact they probably should have improved moreso than anything else because VO2max has a closer relationship to performance in events that are performed at or near VO2max intensity and as well all know, blood doping increases VO2max... that is precisely how the performance benefit is conferred and there is published science on this very subject by Carsten Lundby.

Pre 2009, in short TTs and prologues Wiggins was very clearly one of the best. He was generally equal to Cancellara or within about 1% of Cancellara's time. After 2009 there was NO CHANGE compared with Cancellara. How is that possible that he didn't get any better if he started a doping program?

The answer which you all point to is the weight change. Well I agree with you that this could be a possible explanation (ie: that he didn't improve despite commencing a doping program). However, I disagree that it is the ONLY explanation. I disagree that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an athlete..... any elite endurance athlete, to go from 77-78kg down to 71-72kg and not be able to stay close to their performance level from 2yrs previously. The only fair comparison here between Wiggins and Cancellara is to compare like versus like.... ie: same prologue. we can't use wiggins 82kg Beijing performance because he never competed against Cancellara at that time. It's highly likely that had Wiggins done a prologue against Cancellara in August-Sept 2008 he would have beaten him soundly. But we'll never know and its just speculation so lets stick to the facts that we do know....

In 2009 @ 71-72kg, Wiggins was 19sec behind Cancellara in the TdF prologue
In 2007 @ 77-78kg Wiggins was 23sec behind Cancellara in the TdF prologue.

That does not look anything like the results of someone who came off a world beating year in 2008 and then commenced a doping program in 2009. I believe it is possible that Wiggins got more powerful through 2008 and then he DID lose some of that power in 2009 with the weight loss, but not so much that he was significantly worse than he was in 2007 at 77-78kg.

 

[the big ring]

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."

Krebbs has been explaining and correcting claims about human physiology and performance.

How in earth educating and stating facts is trolling?

Ok here is my ad hoc explanation.

Some people have faster oxygen uptake kinetics that other people. The reason for this comes down to differences between individuals such as muscle fiber type, aerobic enzyme activity, mitochondrial density and probably difference in mitochondrial protein isoforms (for a full and detailed explanation, see the linked article). At the start of a 4km maximal effort the aerobic system increases and levels off at VO2max.

If this is "educating and stating facts" I am at a loss.

If this is "The precise communication of precise ideas requires the precise use of precise terminology" then we are in real trouble.

There is no rush. Please, take your time.

But do not tell me the "aerobic system increases", it is nonsensical.

 

[sittingbison]

??Your stream-of-consciousness brain dumps are even harder to understand than big ring's.

Which bit didn't you understand?

All I got out of your lengthy screed is that you wished to discuss changes in cadence, not body mass.

IOW, pretty much all of it.

Good grief. Lost in your own little world. Sigh

 

[Krebs cycle]

If this is "educating and stating facts" I am at a loss.

If this is "The precise communication of precise ideas requires the precise use of precise terminology" then we are in real trouble.

There is no rush. Please, take your time.

But do not tell me the "aerobic system increases", it is nonsensical.

Why are you so intent on arguing with me about trivial moot points? Just grow up. I am clearly referring to oxygen uptake kinetics.... see the first sentence in that bit you quoted. I was talking about it weeks ago, I am talking about it here and now and I linked you to detailed review articles on the topic.

If you want precise terminology then I could have said "oxygen consumption increases in a mono-exponential fashion" but then you would say something derogatory about big sciencey words as you have in the past.

here....

 

[sittingbison]

...I disagree that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an athlete..... any elite endurance athlete, to go from 77-78kg down to 71-72kg and not be able to stay close to their performance level from 2yrs previously....

In 2009 @ 71-72kg, Wiggins was 19sec behind Cancellara in the TdF prologue
In 2007 @ 77-78kg Wiggins was 23sec behind Cancellara in the TdF prologue.

That does not look anything like the results of someone who came off a world beating year in 2008 and then commenced a doping program in 2009. I believe it is possible that Wiggins got more powerful through 2008 and then he DID lose some of that power in 2009 with the weight loss, but not so much that he was significantly worse than he was in 2007 at 77-78kg.

This is where we have to agree to disagree, because I most emphatically do not believe an elite level athlete who said he was at 4% body fat at 77-78kg could lose at least 5kg or perhaps 7kg of the very lean muscle mass that provides all his power, and retain all that power.

Then factor in the 2009 71-72kg model has actually just lost at least 10kg in far less than a year from the 2008 82kg model. That is a massive weight loss in a short period of time for an elite athlete who needs all that lean muscle mass to produce the very power on the track that you all claim will make him a GC contender. And retain enough power to suddenly climb for the first time ever with Contador, Schleck and Armstrong.

Then factor in the 2012 69kg version which is far more powerful than any previous version. He totally dominated all and sundry in both prologue and both long ITTs, and again at Olympics, something he has not come close to achieving before. He did not lose a single second in the mountains to known climbers.

Sorry, this does not compute.

 

[the big ring]

Pre 2009, in short TTs and prologues Wiggins was very clearly one of the best.

Here is a direct link to a post I made in this thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1024777&postcount=624
Here's a direct link to the news article referenced: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/jun/04/cycling.news

Brad goes on a camp in Majorca to train specifically for one stage and one stage alone, the 2006 Dauphine prologue:

I spent two weeks in Majorca at a training camp, getting away from the British spring weather. I've had a little team around me, a masseur, a mechanic and some video analysis guys from the English Institute of Sport and it has gone well. The road scene is unpredictable, but like the Paris-Nice race I should be among the favourites.

Look at the specialised team built around one rider, for one stage. This, as far as I am concerned, is Team Sky level support. For this one rider they have:

Masseur
Mechanic
Video analysis guys (plural) from EIS

FOR ONE RIDER. In Majorca. Training camp.

What sort of training is Brad doing for this very short, 4.1km effort? A virtual "IP on the road?"

In Majorca, we did a lot of work based on that one effort today: out for two kilometres, getting the speed straight up to 56 or 58kph to work on my pace judgment, turning round and going back again. And there was a lot of lactic acid tolerance work, which is horrible - 20 seconds at sprint pace on a rig, 10 seconds rest, 20 seconds again, for three-and-a-half minutes, then 20 minutes rest, then another set. It leaves you totally exhausted with a burning sensation in your legs that can't really be described.

Sounds a lot like AWC (+Tabata) efforts to me. Although I do not have a PhD, it is interesting that this supports what I have said a couple of posts up: Brad's anaerobic system is trained just fine.

In this article, Wiggins, in 2006, mentions he is doing 570-580W for 4-5 miute efforts, and that he is confident of winning that year's prologue of only 4.1km.

I know that I have the ability to win today. I don't feel that there can be anyone who is stronger.

Here is Brad's thought process:

Fact: I did 570W to win the gold medal in Athens, beating every other 4km IPer in the world.
Fact: Today is 4.1km in length.
Fact: I can do 570W now.
Conclusion: Therefore I will win by doing 570W.

But this is based on the wrong notion that the IP pool of riders mirrors the global pool of riders on both the road and the track, which clearly, blind-freddy-obviously does NOT equal reality. (Even acoggan acknowledged this, however then came back to say that absolute performance matters, which is weird, because absolute performance can not be used to define "the best IP rider in the world". An absolute "4:24" describes a world champion IP time, but only if you compare it to pre 2000. This goes to the argument that Brad is "world class", but we cannot know that until he competes directly against "the world" - ie relative to his peers.)

The fact Brad has missed in his thought process: All the people that can ride a fast 4km IP competed, on the track, in the IP event at Athens.

Here is a description of the course:

A straight road was chosen with a U-turn. It was dead flat without much wind to interfere. "I like a course like that, for sure," Zabriskie commented after winning. "There weren't so many corners. It was just a question of going as fast as you can go. The legs' speed was the most important."

This is describing the perfect pursuiter's course. (Compare this to the out-n-back training he was doing above.) Brad is lauded for his leg speed.

Here are the results:

1 David Zabriskie (USA) Team CSC 4.35.84 (53.509 km/h)
2 George Hincapie (USA) Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team 0.01.88
3 Stuart O'grady (Aus) Team CSC 0.06.07
4 Sebastian Lang (Ger) Gerolsteiner 0.06.91
5 Joost Posthuma (Ned) Rabobank 0.07.35
6 Stijn Devolder (Bel) Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team 0.07.40
7 Alejandro Valverde (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne-Illes Balears 0.07.61
8 Vladimir Gusev (Rus) Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team 0.07.70
9 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems 0.08.00
10 Andrey Kashechkin (Kaz) Würth 0.08.19
11 Peter Mazur (Pol) Saunier Duval-Prodir 0.08.50
12 Christophe Moreau (Fra) AG2R Prevoyance 0.08.96
13 Bert Grabsch (Ger) Phonak Hearing Systems 0.09.01
14 Thor Hushovd (Nor) Credit Agricole 0.09.32
15 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Würth 0.09.62
16 Ryder Hesjedal (Can) Phonak Hearing Systems 0.09.67
17 Oscar Pereiro Sio (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne-Illes Balears 0.10.26
18 Manuel Quinziato (Ita) Liquigas 0.10.37
19 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas 0.10.46
20 Denis Menchov (Rus) Rabobank 0.10.99
21 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Cofidis, le Credit par Telephone 0.11.02

Just to clarify:

Brad had no significant track results in 2006. He is not distracted by track commitments.
Brad trained in Majorca for this stage alone.
Brad trained with a masseur, mechanic and video analysis tech, all just for him.
Brad is between Olympic Gold medals in the pursuit 2004/2008 and will be pursuit world champion in 2007.
The distance and course are like an out-n-back pursuit: dead flat, no wind, 1 u-turn.

Brad came 21st. His time puts him 4% slower than David Zabriskie. Assuming (pretty darn safely) aerodynamics is the primary limiter for speed here, Brad would have to increase his power by 12% to match Dave Zabriskie's time. Twelve percent.

The conclusion that I come to with this careful analysis of the unassailable facts and data is this:

Although Brad is an Olympic and World champion in 4km pursuit that is only because people who have the ability to beat him, went to the road to earn some money instead. He won those medals and championships because the pool of talent is very, very shallow. If each of those people finishing ahead of Brad above had trained for and ridden the track, I am very confident Brad would have struggled to make the top 10 in a 4km IP Olympic games or World championships.

 

[the big ring]

Why are you so intent on arguing with me about trivial moot points? Just grow up. I am clearly referring to oxygen uptake kinetics.... see the first sentence in that bit you quoted. I was talking about it weeks ago, I am talking about it here and now and I linked you to detailed review articles on the topic.

If you want precise terminology then I could have said "oxygen consumption increases in a mono-exponential fashion" but then you would say something derogatory about big sciencey words as you have in the past.

here....

And once again, you would be incorrect. I don't mind how many sciency words you use as part of an explanation. Just don't give me a list of them and pass off that list as an explanation.

This was not directed at you, but stands for anyone participating in this thread:

Feel free to bring the "big words" in any semblance of an explanation.

Hint: a list of words is not an explanation. Nowhere near.

 

[sittingbison]

...He won those medals and championships because the pool of talent is very, very shallow. If each of those people finishing ahead of Brad above had trained for and ridden the track, I am very confident Brad would have struggled to make the top 10 in a 4km IP Olympic games or World championships.

How dare you. Wiggo is the greatest cyclist ever. He has all those gongs and world championships. He just won the Olympics ITT FFS. AND he demolished all comers in both the prologue and ITTs at this years TdF. He has won the TdF, 2nd or 3rd in some other Tour. In fact nobody else in the 100 year history of cycling has managed to do what wiggo has done, other than maybe Merckx, some unheard of before German and maybe Coppi. But those guys were basically roadies to track, which everyone knows is easier than the other way around (except maybe for the German guy nobody can remember).

AND he has a the largest "engine". I wouldn't be surprised if his heart was almost as large as Lances, and that tube that connects the legs. That is probably three times larger than anybody elses.

Outrageous!

 

[blackcat]

Brad had no significant track results in 2006. He is not distracted by track commitments.
Brad trained in Majorca for this stage alone.
Brad trained with a masseur, mechanic and video analysis tech, all just for him.
Brad is between Olympic Gold medals in the pursuit 2004/2008 and will be pursuit world champion in 2007.
The distance and course are like an out-n-back pursuit: dead flat, no wind, 1 u-turn.

Although Brad is an Olympic and World champion in 4km pursuit that is only because people who have the ability to beat him, went to the road to earn some money instead. He won those medals and championships because the pool of talent is very, very shallow. If each of those people finishing ahead of Brad above had trained for and ridden the track, I am very confident Brad would have struggled to make the top 10 in a 4km IP Olympic games or World championships.

I have said this for many years re: depth. His entire season in 2007 was around the London prologue, and he loses to Hincapie, Hildie (Kloeden) and Canc. And all three of those riders had other objectives throughout the season. But Canc'20 sec margin, I think about 5 seconds minimum, was made up by bike handling in and out of corners, and the start/finish accelerations.

Aldo Sassi and Checcho reckon Canc could lose 7 kgs, and tackle GC in July like Big Mig.

If Wiggo can lose the 7kgs and become a July winner, so could Canc. More naturally talented when the road points up.

 

[Krebs cycle]

This is where we have to agree to disagree, because I most emphatically do not believe an elite level athlete who said he was at 4% body fat at 77-78kg could lose at least 5kg or perhaps 7kg of the very lean muscle mass that provides all his power, and retain all that power.

You are making an error and an assumption here. Your error is that Wiggins said he was 4% at 77-78kg. This is NOT TRUE. He stated that he was 4% at 71kg just before the start of the 2009 TdF. We only have second hand heresay from Eric Boyer that he was 5% bf. People seem to take either or both of those values as gospel but I do not. There is a large margin for error in measuring %bf so this line of reasoning is weak at best.

Then factor in the 2009 71-72kg model has actually just lost at least 10kg in far less than a year from the 2008 82kg model. That is a massive weight loss in a short period of time for an elite athlete who needs all that lean muscle mass to produce the very power on the track that you all claim will make him a GC contender. And retain enough power to suddenly climb for the first time ever with Contador, Schleck and Armstrong.

Factor in the fact that we DON'T know exactly how much more power Wiggins developed with that extra weight in 2008. He could have increased his power in 2008, then decreased it again in 2009.

You are just making a huge assumption that he MUST have markedly decreased his FTP in 2009 compared with 2007. You don't know the answer to that question and so you are basing you conclusions on something you arecompletely in dark about. I'm sorry but that isn't how my brain works. Before I would make such a conclusion I would want to see some hard and fast data that this ALWAYS happens in 100% of cases when an elite endurance athlete loses some weight. But I have seen lots of that data over the years because I have worked with lightweight rowers and yes it does happen, but not ALWAYS. Besides a small loss in VO2max power or supramaximal power (anaerobic) due to weight loss could potentially be offset by an improvement in %LT therefore limiting any loss of FTP. Furthermore, any loss in actual velocity out on the road could be limited by improvements in CdA.

Then factor in the 2012 69kg version which is far more powerful than any previous version. He totally dominated all and sundry in both prologue and both long ITTs, and again at Olympics, something he has not come close to achieving before. He did not lose a single second in the mountains to known climbers.

Sorry, this does not compute.

Another error of fact. The only time Wiggins has stated that he was 69kg was at the TdF in 2011. In 2012 I have read that he put a couple of kgs back on and so was racing at 71-72kg again. Even someone in this forum said they reckon someone saw Wiggins step on the scales at 71.5kg during one of the races THIS YEAR.

And again, you make another assumption about TT performance and this is that FTP is the only variable that matters. Wiggins could have made "marginal gains" in a combination of FTP, efficiency, CdA, and bike handing skills. On their own none would could explain his performance improvement, but lets be realistic, the performance improvement has been very small, he is still only going about 1-2% faster than either Cancellara or Martin compared with 2009 and 2010. Together, improvements in all those things could account for the MARGINAL increase in his TT performances in 2012.

But finally, what about your very own argument that you have used in defense of both Stuart O'Grady and Cadel Evans (an argument that I agree with)? To use your own language, SOG and Cadel have not had a whiff of scandal or shred of evidence linking them to doping. Well neither has Wiggins.

If Wiggins prologue and road TT performances jumped up in 2009 and there were a few more well known anti-doping journalists pointing a strong finger has they did for years and years at Armstrong, then I would be much more inclined to believe that Wiggins is on the gear.

 

[Krebs cycle]

And once again, you would be incorrect. I don't mind how many sciency words you use as part of an explanation. Just don't give me a list of them and pass off that list as an explanation.

This was not directed at you, but stands for anyone participating in this thread:

wtf planet are you on? I've got no idea what you're talking about.


edit: Please explain to me why I am not talking about oxygen uptake kinetics and why "oxygen consumption increases in a mono-exponential fashion" is incorrect.

 

[the big ring]

wtf planet are you on? I've got no idea what you're talking about.


edit: Please explain to me why I am not talking about oxygen uptake kinetics and why "oxygen consumption increases in a mono-exponential fashion" is incorrect.

You said I would complain about you using "big sciency words". This is incorrect. I opened the door for "big sciency words" as long as they were part of an explanation, not simply a list or embedded in an inaccessible study.

 

[Krebs cycle]

You said I would complain about you using "big sciency words". This is incorrect. I opened the door for "big sciency words" as long as they were part of an explanation, not simply a list or embedded in an inaccessible study.

That gawd for that. Since you bolded the bits about oxygen uptake I thought you were saying they were incorrect.

Glad to here it that you're happy for big sciency words to be part of the discussion. Now, are you satisfied that oxygen uptake kinetics can vary in different individuals and this can lead to differences in aerobic vs anaerobic ATP supply during dynamic exercise?

 

[the big ring]

Glad to here it that you're happy for big sciency words to be part of the discussion. Now, are you satisfied that oxygen uptake kinetics can vary in different individuals and this can lead to differences in aerobic vs anaerobic ATP supply during dynamic exercise?

Do you mean (to simplify) different people are different? Because if so, I have a 4.1km Dauphine prologue post I think you should pay very close attention to.

You can look up thread, or click here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1034956&postcount=973

As for being satisfied with your explanation, no I am not. You wrote this,

The reason for this comes down to differences between individuals such as muscle fiber type, aerobic enzyme activity, mitochondrial density and probably difference in mitochondrial protein isoforms (for a full and detailed explanation, see the linked article).

This is exactly the same as a list, ie:

muscle fiber type,
aerobic enzyme activity,
mitochondrial density
mitochondrial protein isoforms

not disimilar to what you wrote previously, to wit:

I'll give you a list of things that would enable one person to produce more power from aerobic sources than another....

small airways diameter and patency
pulmomary diffusing capacity
ventilation/perfusion matching
blood volume
total hemoglobin mass
ventricular compliance
preload
afterload
mitochondrial density
percent type 1 muscle fibres
capillarisation
mitochondrial protein isoforms

The difference being, you are missing more than half of your original list, and your "explanation" is simply putting the list on one line, rather than one term per line then pointing me at a study where the explanation for why those terms are important can allegedly be found.

So no, I am not satisfied with your explanation as to why.

Furthermore, you are still operating under the assumption that Bradley Wiggins may have a low MAOD. You do not know this, so your entire argument is sophistic.

 

[sittingbison]

...But finally, what about your very own argument that you have used in defense of both Stuart O'Grady and Cadel Evans (an argument that I agree with)? To use your own language, SOG and Cadel have not had a whiff of scandal or shred of evidence linking them to doping. Well neither has Wiggins.

If Wiggins prologue and road TT performances jumped up in 2009 and there were a few more well known anti-doping journalists pointing a strong finger has they did for years and years at Armstrong, then I would be much more inclined to believe that Wiggins is on the gear.

I'll leave the weight issue with this: I disagree with you.

Now to the other points, sorry krebs the reason there are 5000+ posts on sky thread, 1000 on this thread, plus thousands on the other Sky, Wiggo, Froome and Leinders threads is because there is a mountain of whiff and shreds of evidence. Its called circumstantial evidence. And we have listed it all over and over and You know very well what it is. None of it is debunked, just disputed depending on opinion. And there ARE well known anti doping journos pointing the finger to whit Kimmage with Sky transparency/tome.

The thing with Sky is has all happened in the past year against Evans and SOG being over the past decade ie old hat. And they have been less than forthcoming when called to explain, in fact some of their utterances fan the flames of suspicion.

Now, this thread is actually about cadence and wiggos monumentally ignorant utterance. And davidmams equally monumental ignorant utterance. And a complete and utter inability by any scientist to quantify a correlation between slowing cadence to improve efficiency (the kernel of wiggos utterance) because there is none. Or that he even DID slow his cadence, given the empirical (see that pesky word again) evidence that he pedaled the TdF and Olympic ITTs at essentially the same cadence as he did the world ITT last year nominally 100rmp.

The joke of this thread is that once again he used an Armstrongism to go with the "we train hard" and all the other stupid comments.

 

[Krebs cycle]

As for being satisfied with your explanation, no I am not. You wrote this,


This is exactly the same as a list, ie:

muscle fiber type,
aerobic enzyme activity,
mitochondrial density
mitochondrial protein isoforms

not disimilar to what you wrote previously, to wit:



The difference being, you are missing more than half of your original list, and your "explanation" is simply putting the list on one line, rather than one term per line then pointing me at a study where the explanation for why those terms are important can allegedly be found.

So no, I am not satisfied with your explanation as to why.

Furthermore, you are still operating under the assumption that Bradley Wiggins may have a low MAOD. You do not know this, so your entire argument is sophistic.

No you are wrong. I did not just write a list I specifically stated the following...

"The reason for this comes down to differences between individuals such as muscle fiber type, aerobic enzyme activity, mitochondrial density and probably difference in mitochondrial protein isoforms (for a full and detailed explanation, see the linked article)".

Get it? Differences in these things could lead to differences in oxygen uptake kinetics. It really only takes a rudimentary conceptual leap to figure out for example, a GREATER aerobic enzyme concentration could lead to an INCREASE in oxygen uptake kinetics.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I'll leave the weight issue with this: I disagree with you.

Now to the other points, sorry krebs the reason there are 5000+ posts on sky thread, 1000 on this thread, plus thousands on the other Sky, Wiggo, Froome and Leinders threads is because there is a mountain of whiff and shreds of evidence. Its called circumstantial evidence. And we have listed it all over and over and You know very well what it is. None of it is debunked, just disputed depending on opinion. And there ARE well known anti doping journos pointing the finger to whit Kimmage with Sky transparency/tome.

Yeah, and I'll happily point out that your "circumstantial evidence" is either weak or completely wrong.

Now, this thread is actually about cadence and wiggos monumentally ignorant utterance. And davidmams equally monumental ignorant utterance. And a complete and utter inability by any scientist to quantify a correlation between slowing cadence to improve efficiency (the kernel of wiggos utterance) because there is none. Or that he even DID slow his cadence, given the empirical (see that pesky word again) evidence that he pedaled the TdF and Olympic ITTs at essentially the same cadence as he did the world ITT last year nominally 100rmp.
.

So you'll take the so called empirical evidence of some random guy on an internet site who watched a few youtube videos of Wiggins doing TTs but you refuse to accept the empirical evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

You guys are so off with the fairies it beggars belief.

 

[armchairclimber]

I'll leave the weight issue with this: I disagree with you.

Now to the other points, sorry krebs the reason there are 5000+ posts on sky thread, 1000 on this thread, plus thousands on the other Sky, Wiggo, Froome and Leinders threads is because there is a mountain of whiff and shreds of evidence. Its called circumstantial evidence. And we have listed it all over and over and You know very well what it is. None of it is debunked, just disputed depending on opinion. And there ARE well known anti doping journos pointing the finger to whit Kimmage with Sky transparency/tome.

The thing with Sky is has all happened in the past year against Evans and SOG being over the past decade ie old hat. And they have been less than forthcoming when called to explain, in fact some of their utterances fan the flames of suspicion.

Now, this thread is actually about cadence and wiggos monumentally ignorant utterance. And davidmams equally monumental ignorant utterance. And a complete and utter inability by any scientist to quantify a correlation between slowing cadence to improve efficiency (the kernel of wiggos utterance) because there is none. Or that he even DID slow his cadence, given the empirical (see that pesky word again) evidence that he pedaled the TdF and Olympic ITTs at essentially the same cadence as he did the world ITT last year nominally 100rmp.

The joke of this thread is that once again he used an Armstrongism to go with the "we train hard" and all the other stupid comments.

I understand very well why there is suspicion of what SKY did this year. There are indeed issues which should be addressed by the team...notably the presence of previously tainted individuals around the team.

However, there was nothing in Wiggins' performance that is physiologically dubious....not his climbing, not his TT and not his progression from IP specialist to TDF winner. The fact that some clinicians don't think he was very good as an IP rider or don't like him or don't understand how he could have made the transition/improvement cleanly is immaterial. The fact is, it could be done clean....which isn't the sam as stating that he did do it clean.

That comes here: Wiggins (and I'm not talking about any other SKY rider here) did it clean. After the last 15 years, I regard that as a good thing, personally...though I do understand why some people may never ever swallow it.