Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[sittingbison]

Thanks Krebs, that's all very interesting. But you see, although it makes sense, and is scientifically based, it has precisely nothing to do with what Wiggo said. And from his inane comment, nothing to do with what Kerrison could possibly have said.

To clarify and remind us all including jimmy fingers exactly what we are talking about, this is what was said. And discussed at length already, but lost in the wash:

"Tim studied it over the winter and decided maybe it was the cadence which was the problem. They worked out Tony's rpm compared to mine and something to do with rolling resistance and with the gears."

Hmmm...doesn't sound at all like your sensible thoughts. Because it is complete and utter drivel, straight from the mouth of a track champion who one supposed knows a thing or two about cadence seeing as he spent a decade strapped to a fixie.

 

[veganrob]

Could mean that they have to keep doping to keep the passport figures from being suspicious perhaps = same performance for those doping who didnt stop with passport introduction.

Well now you are making too much sense for some

 

[the big ring]

Well, this is not exactly the same, but I do know one pro rider, whos one leg is 5mm shorter than other. This diffrence, though small and not unusual, had many consequences. Knee, ankle and hip had different pedalling angle (3-4 degrees difference) , this influenced movements of heel, muscle and even upperbody. Changes in saddle position only increased these diffrences. Also, peddaling over 350 watts, increased these differences.

Was he multiple IP world champion and IP olympic gold medal whilst being anything but world class on the road before 2009?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I only skim through this thread occasionally, but that paragraph jumped out.

You use the word strawman, in a strawman arguement.
We all witnesses Brad win the TdF, he also did ride IPs, so it is not only possible - it actually happened. The real question is how did it happen?
And you have received the answer - but you do not like it.
PEDs or some other forms of doping.

Is it the only answer? No.
But I can certainly see why it would be the default or most obvious answer given that for Brad to have won clean would be going against almost every other winner of the Tour.

 

[the big ring]

1. Very roughly, I wouldn't be suprised if Wiggins is 12% heavier than Porte. Whereas Vino 2007 vintage is lighter than Wiggins, so that 10% means vino's power:weight is much much better than Wiggins (we could even say 10% - blood bag).

I have no intention of convincing you, apologies if it came across that way. Whenever someone says, "ah yes but look at this performance", that's what I do.

Position at the finish is not as good an indicator (for me) as looking at how big the difference was in time (and a rough guess at power for flat circuits).

Porte is also 18cm shorter than Wiggins, and you're right @ 63kg he's 10% lighter than Wiggins. He comes from triathlon so I will take a stab and say his background means he has good, aero position on the bike.

So Wiggo is pushing a bigger frontal area.

Which brings us back to the beginning.

I'm happy for anyone to provide examples of Wiggo as proof of his world-class ability. So far nothing is convincing me he was anything but a 4th+ placed (non world-class for my definition) TTer who was missing 10%+ power to be truly world class, even when he was winning IP world championships and Olympic Gold medals.

World class on the road? Nada. World class in a tour? Nyet.

 

[Von Mises]

Was he multiple IP world champion and IP olympic gold medal whilst being anything but world class on the road before 2009?

No, he was not. But my point was. a) even small things can sometimes make a big difference ; b) indivual cases are individual cases, I am not sure that it is wise to make generalizations, no matter is it case of Alex Simmons, Wiggins and so on.

My personal view is that both theories are possible. That Wiggins is doper, who achieved his 2009+ results with drugs. But second theory (big aereobic engine, concentrated on track, peloton got cleaner and slower, Wiggins at the same time got leaner, concentrated on road) is also not impossible.

 

[the big ring]

Cleaner = bio-passport i.e. less advantage for the dopers.

Ryder Hesjedal bio passport figures, ignoring the Hct, Hgb and Ret, as released by JV to Captain Bag: http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/31367299894/expert-analysis-ryder-hesjedal-2012-giro-blood

Dates in bold are when he was tested.

November 14th, 2011

(9 weeks)

Jan 17th, 2012

(6 weeks)

Feb 29th

(9 weeks)

May 3rd

Giro starts 5th May

Rest day May 8th

Leader of Giro: 12th May
Leader of Giro: 13th May
Leader of Giro: 14th May

May 14th
May 18th

Leader of the Giro: 19th May

Rest day May 21st

Giro winner: 27th May
May 27th AM/PM

Can you see any gaps leading up to the Giro?
Can you see any gaps within the Giro?

The rider in this instance is irrelevant.

The bio-passport is an effective tool, like a hammer. Unless you are attempting brain surgery. Who is tested, and when, I believe, will have a significant impact on its effectiveness.

 

[the big ring]

No, he was not. But my point was. a) even small things can sometimes make a big difference ; b) indivual cases are individual cases, I am not sure that it is wise to make generalizations, no matter is it case of Alex Simmons, Wiggins and so on.

I was not clear.

Krebs is arguing that if Brad, an IP world champion and gold medallist, rode a left / right feedback bike every day for an hour for 6 months, it is not impossible (check the likelihood when words are used in this way) of a 0.1% (!!) increase in <something> that would make him go faster...

Left / right balance is a furphy.

If your mate rode a left / right balance feedback bike, without changing his set up, he would still ride poorly.

 

[Von Mises]

Which brings us back to the beginning.

I'm happy for anyone to provide examples of Wiggo as proof of his world-class ability. So far nothing is convincing me he was anything but a 4th+ placed (non world-class for my definition) TTer who was missing 10%+ power to be truly world class, even when he was winning IP world championships and Olympic Gold medals.

World class on the road? Nada. World class in a tour? Nyet.

I think that counterargument what Wiggisn defenders are using is that riders before him got slower. Have you tried to estimate Wiggins power in 2007 timetrials compared to tiemtrials of 2012?

 

[the big ring]

I think that counterargument what Wiggisn defenders are using is that riders before him got slower. Have you tried to estimate Wiggins power in 2007 timetrials compared to tiemtrials of 2012?

Not 2007, no.

His power reported for 2011 WC TT was 453W (from wattage group).
His power calculated by cyclingpowermodels.com for both Stage 19 2012 TdF and Olympic TT is ~480W.

CPM include rider height and weight, weather data and elevation. Not all the values calculated match with (very little) published data on trainingpeaks.com, but they did 2 things very accurately:

1. estimated Brads WC TT power (they estimated 447W vs 453W actual)
2. estimated the winning Olympic time within 15 seconds (est 50:24 vs 50:39 actual)

http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/OlympicTimeTrial.aspx
http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/ProRaceAnalysis.aspx

 

[Bumeington]

As we know the UCI makes positives disappear, who is to say whether bio passport has any effect on those rich teams who can afford to influence UCI?

Which would mean greater advantage to certain (rich team)dopers.

Valid point of course. It could be happening but we don't know that it is.

 

[acoggan]

I think that you are confusing neuromuscular power with anaerobic capacity.

Bumeington's comment about Wiggins being a handy TP (which led to my reply above) got me to thinking...

Boardman was another exception IPer who also did well in prologues and road TTs (e.g., bronze at Atlanta Olympics, at least IIRC), and who also had GT aspirations (that invariably fell apart in the mountains). Boardman is also well-known to have had a very low neuromuscular power (meaning that unlike Wiggins, he probably wouldn't have made a great TPer, at least in this day-and-age) and an exceptionally-high VO2max (i.e., 90 mL/min/kg).

The question then becomes, how do Wiggins' and Boardman's data compare when you subject them to the same critical power analysis? In particular, how do their estimated anaerobic work capacities compare? The answer is, Boardman's was 72% higher, i.e., 393 J/kg vs. 229 J/kg. This fits w/ Vaughter's assertion that Wiggins achieved his exceptional pursuit performances via a greater-than-average aerobic contribution.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Boardman is also well-known to have had a very low neuromuscular power (meaning that unlike Wiggins, he probably wouldn't have made a great TPer, at least in this day-and-age) and an exceptionally-high VO2max (i.e., 90 mL/min/kg).

Entirely off-topic, but I'm sure I recall that round 1994-96, Boardman's IP best was not far short of the GB TP record, so he didn't need to faff around with team-mates!

 

[the big ring]

I was going to call that an exaggeration, but jeez, you're right, it's been 18 y since Labros' paper in IJSM.

Anyway, where do you now stand on the issue of training-induced changes in efficiency? Obviously you were quite skeptical when you started this thread 3 y ago, but now you seem to have changed your opinion. Is that correct? If so, what has swayed you the most?

(Back later...got to go beg the NIH for more money.)

having a common agenda.

 

[D-Queued]

...

The rider in this instance is irrelevant.

The bio-passport is an effective tool, like a hammer. Unless you are attempting brain surgery. Who is tested, and when, I believe, will have a significant impact on its effectiveness.

Can an irrelevant rider pause for a shower before a bio-passport test?

Dave.

 

[the big ring]

Can an irrelevant rider pause for a shower before a bio-passport test?

Dave.

not sure. let me check with Hein. brb.


el oh el.

 

[sittingbison]

"show me the money"

 

[Krebs cycle]

I was not clear.

Krebs is arguing that if Brad, an IP world champion and gold medallist, rode a left / right feedback bike every day for an hour for 6 months, it is not impossible (check the likelihood when words are used in this way) of a 0.1% (!!) increase in <something> that would make him go faster...

Left / right balance is a furphy.

If your mate rode a left / right balance feedback bike, without changing his set up, he would still ride poorly.

WRONG AGAIN!! I was using the L/R thing as an analogy to the stated contention that "working on cadence" could not possibly have any effect whatsoever on motor control patterns. See this is your problem. You have really really bad comprehension. You just make sh!t up out of nowhere. You assume. You lie. You make errors of fact. You distort and twist the statements myself and others make. You make errors in your calculations. You pestered me for a month to give you an "explanation" as to why some individuals could get more energy from aerobic sources than others and continually when I pointed you in the direction of studies and also when I gave you a laymans explanation you replied with childish troll posts over and over saying "oh that's not an explanation herdy her" or "oh I already knew that cause I'm so awesome" or "der professor, I'm SOOOOO smart because I know that hemoglobin BONDS to oxygen". You are the one who continually refers to my PhD, not me. You act like a child but you're a grown adult.

You laugh at this idea of "marginal gains" but you clearly don't even understand what it means. You keep laughing at each individual thing on its own and say "as if a 0.1% improvement can make you go faster" and then throw in the mandatory troll.... "and you call yourself a PhD". But you MISSED THE POINT. If you did 10 things that each improved velocity by 0.1%, well that becomes a 1% improvement in velocity, and that could mean several minutes of difference over 3 wks.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I only skim through this thread occasionally, but that paragraph jumped out.

You use the word strawman, in a strawman arguement.
We all witnesses Brad win the TdF, he also did ride IPs, so it is not only possible - it actually happened. The real question is how did it happen?
And you have received the answer - but you do not like it.
PEDs or some other forms of doping.

WRONG AGAIN!! See this is also your problem (all of you). The answer that Wiggins IS doping would actually please me. I would be quite happy for Wiggins to test positive. In fact, I really hope he does.

This is why the lot of you FAIL so hard at your attacks on me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

WRONG AGAIN!! See this is also your problem (all of you). The answer that Wiggins IS doping would actually please me. I would be quite happy for Wiggins to test positive. In fact, I really hope he does.

This is why the lot of you FAIL so hard at your attacks on me.

I didn't attack you - I highlighted the poor part of your argument, which is that your question has been answered.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I didn't attack you - I highlighted the poor part of your argument, which is that your question has been answered.

You didn't but many others have. You assumed something that was incorrect ie: that I don't like the idea of Wiggins using PEDs. The Big ring has the same assumption, ie: that I have an "agenda" which is to prove Wiggins is clean.

This is WRONG! My agenda is to defend spurious attacks on scientific rationale and common sense from ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Froome19]

This thread is tbh pretty pitiful and the primary reason why is because no one actually understands in full the reasoning behind Wiggin's startling development as a GT winner.

If they really wanted to understand Wiggins's development then I advise people to check up and study Tim Kerrison and his involvement with Sky, carefully before they come here with their ridiculous proofs based on nothing but supposed theory.

Sky have delibaretly been quiet in stating his involvement as to emphasise his role would be to attract attention which would possibly cause problems, but Wiggins clearly said that Kerrison is the reason he won the Tour (or something very similar) and I would be inclined to believe possibly that he was not reffering to doping methods as people would likely suggest, because Wiggins would never have made that comment if so.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You didn't but many others have. You assumed something that was incorrect ie: that I don't like the idea of Wiggins using PEDs. The Big ring has the same assumption, ie: that I have an "agenda" which is to prove Wiggins is clean.

This is WRONG! My agenda is to defend spurious attacks on scientific rationale and common sense from ignorance and stupidity.

You can capslock that I am wrong all you wish - but I assumed no such thing.

If you feel someone else has addressed you wrongly, then address them - do not address it at me.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I was going to call that an exaggeration, but jeez, you're right, it's been 18 y since Labros' paper in IJSM.

Anyway, where do you now stand on the issue of training-induced changes in efficiency? Obviously you were quite skeptical when you started this thread 3 y ago, but now you seem to have changed your opinion. Is that correct? If so, what has swayed you the most?

(Back later...got to go beg the NIH for more money.)

haha well a few things have influenced my thinking on this topic. For starters you have because you've pointed to a number of places in the literature now that seem to indicate that cycling efficiency is not "immutable". Secondly, this paper got me thinking more about the fact that running efficiency most certainly IS affected by motor coordination so why should cycling be immune to it?

J Exp Biol. 2010 Feb 1;213(3):487-92.
Muscle coordination is key to the power output and mechanical efficiency of limb movements.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086134

Thirdly, I have always believed that cycling efficiency could change, but just not as much as what Ed shows in his LA paper which was 2-3% or thereabouts. I have always assumed that if any changes to efficiency occur they are probably within the limits of detection, which is why people like DTM and Asker (whom have had access to VO2 data from pro level cyclists) couldn't find such an effect.

 

[acoggan]

haha well a few things have influenced my thinking on this topic. For starters you have because you've pointed to a number of places in the literature now that seem to indicate that cycling efficiency is not "immutable". Secondly, this paper got me thinking more about the fact that running efficiency most certainly IS affected by motor coordination so why should cycling be immune to it?

J Exp Biol. 2010 Feb 1;213(3):487-92.
Muscle coordination is key to the power output and mechanical efficiency of limb movements.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086134

Thirdly, I have always believed that cycling efficiency could change, but just not as much as what Ed shows in his LA paper which was 2-3% or thereabouts. I have always assumed that if any changes to efficiency occur they are probably within the limits of detection, which is why people like DTM and Asker (whom have had access to VO2 data from pro level cyclists) couldn't find such an effect.

1. Thanks!

2. I assume that you are referring to this paper of Asker's?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15241718

If so, have you ever really looked closely at the VO2-power relationship they report? (At least I think that's the paper I'm recalling.)