Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[BroDeal]

How many data points, some from Wiggums himself, does Krebs Cycle need before he can accept that Wiggums is pushing 6.5 W/kg, a figure that completely destroys his assertion that power levels are down?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

How many data points, some from Wiggums himself, does Krebs Cycle need before he can accept that Wiggums is pushing 6.5 W/kg, a figure that completely destroys his assertion that power levels are down?

It's nearly a year since Wiggins did that, and then wrote about it. These scientists stepping up to the plate is a new spin, that's for sure.

Best Lance managed was Coyle.

 

[blackcat]

that quote, from someone whose title is head of marginal gains.
<neoplasm>comical

thats a tautology. brailsford is just playing with us.

herez a hamilton chimera 4 ya

 

[ebandit]

confusion

When you get access to all of the SRM files and lab testing results for the past 10yrs then I'll start listening to you. Until then, you've got nothing and so your wannabe expert analyses mean nothing.

krebs.........you're confused.........expecting factual analysis.......the forum

is for taking the peessss out of team sky mocking team sky personnel for

their appearance / dogma etc

i'm no clever scientist but it appears so obvious that calculations with

unconfirmed data is merely guessing

Mark L

 

[Netserk]

krebs.........you're confused.........expecting factual analysis.......the forum

is for taking the peessss out of team sky mocking team sky personnel for

their appearance / dogma etc

i'm no clever scientist but it appears so obvious that calculations with

unconfirmed data is merely guessing

Mark L

How about confirmed data?

 

[iZnoGouD]

you're all brain ****ed, you can't see anyone performing well they're automatically dopers

 

[BroDeal]

you're all brain ****ed, you can't see anyone performing well they're automatically dopers

When their FTP is 6.5 W/kg, they're doperz.

 

[iZnoGouD]

So, why is the limit 6.5? I'am pretty sure it's possible to do that clean

 

[goggalor]

It's strange how Wiggins needs to tell everyone that he's pushing these suspiciously massive wattages. Like when he said Rogers was riding at 450 watts on the front, and that no one could attack at that pace without blood doping. I guess it's because pushing big numbers is what defines Wiggins as a bike rider, and he doesn't want to adhere to some bull**** clean limit set by Greg Lemond. Greg Lemond was a racer as well, Wiggins doesn't really have that, so he wants everyone to know what a stud he is, pushing huge numbers like his idol Miguel Indurain.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So, why is the limit 6.5? I'am pretty sure it's possible to do that clean

Based on what?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Nah, creating some crack pot theory about the limits to performance and then cherry picking numbers to match the tinfoil hat is what the clinicbots do around here day in day out.

What I do is look at the numbers first, then examine what sources of ERROR could be affecting those numbers, then make a judgement call thereafter.

PEDs or no PEDs, sustaining 30-40W more at threshold on the flat compared to a climb seems pretty unreal to me. I'm not the gullible fool who is taking that paradox seriously.

Self awareness isn't your bag I see.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

When you get access to all of the SRM files and lab testing results for the past 10yrs then I'll start listening to you. Until then, you've got nothing and so your wannabe expert analyses mean nothing.

Lol.

So, lets make things clear.

First you keep on nagging on the lack of verified numbers. Now you have publicized numbers by the Sky PR machine David Walsh and now you want access to all of the SRM files and lab testing results for the past 10yrs?

Your disguise is getting hard to keep up with I suppose.

Your personal attacks on various people must be due to lack of arguments on your part? Or are you just a gullible fellow.

 

[sublimit]

Nah, creating some crack pot theory about the limits to performance and then cherry picking numbers to match the tinfoil hat is what the clinicbots do around here day in day out.

What I do is look at the numbers first, then examine what sources of ERROR could be affecting those numbers, then make a judgement call thereafter.

PEDs or no PEDs, sustaining 30-40W more at threshold on the flat compared to a climb seems pretty unreal to me. I'm not the gullible fool who is taking that paradox seriously.


oh yeah coz pro cyclists NEVER lie about their weight or power numbers :rollseyes:

The more events don't suit the prevailing mentality that nothing has changed in pro cycling wrt to doping, the more outlandish and bizarre the crackpot theories get to explain it.

Nobody takes it seriously, well I dont. These are club and sportiff riders coming out with the "expert number stuff" so who gives a crap anyway.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

A TT is ridden entirely differently to a road race. There are other riders for starters. Your example of PBing 20 minutes in the "latter stages" of a road race that was longer than the hour+ of Wiggin's TT seems highly suspect for someone as knowledgeable and experienced in this area as yourself.

I think you know I know what a TT involves, given what many riders I've coached have achieved. As for the PB after a period of hard riding, well it's certainly not the first time I've seen it in some of the 20+thousand power meter files I've examined.

If I didn't know better, I'd think your posting in this instance is an attempt to argue Wiggins' FTP is less than 95% of that 20 minute effort, and not more.

Given he did 450W for the final 64minute TT in last year's TdF, at 69kg, I am pretty darn confident his FTP is around 6.5W/kg.

All I'm arguing is that people not make claims of precision they are not justified in making based on the "evidence" they have (which in here is usually third hand, estimated or anecdotal).

Same principle goes for the W/kg estimates from climbs in that other thread.

I have no idea if Sir Brad is/is not a doper, but the use of imprecise and unsubstantiated W/kg data as prima facie evidence of doping is most unsatisfactory in any case.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I have no idea if Sir Brad is/is not a doper, but the use of imprecise and unsubstantiated W/kg data as prima facie evidence of doping is most unsatisfactory in any case.

So despite the fact that Brad himself has admitted to doing 450W for over an hour, which matches my estimated 6.5w/kg based on the recent Giro TT 20 minute effort, you are going to continue this dismissive tone.

Gotcha.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

All I'm arguing is that people not make claims of precision they are not justified in making based on the "evidence" they have (which in here is usually third hand, estimated or anecdotal).

~ = approximately.

If you can point out any claim to precision in my post, I'd welcome it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think you know I know what a TT involves, given what many riders I've coached have achieved. As for the PB after a period of hard riding, well it's certainly not the first time I've seen it in some of the 20+thousand power meter files I've examined.

If you have examined 20,000 power meter files I would have thought you'd say you'd seen plenty of examples of riders doing 20 minute PBs as the final 20 minutes of their hour-long TT.

Instead, your example was yourself, hitting a 20 minute power PB in the latter stages (not the last 20 minutes) of a road race.

Gotcha.

 

[python]

Now officially retired, the ‘silent killer’ loosened up a bit …
on wiggins‘ double tour claims:

- Win two "Grand Tour" in a row is almost impossible, even for a professional level Wiggins. Four weeks break between the stage race is very difficult to recover. I think such statements Wiggins tried more "intimidate" opponents and raise their morale, rather than seriously going to fight for the lead in the general classification on the "Giro" and "Tour de France".

…on uci vindictiveness:

Q: After last year's "story of Lance Armstrong" noticed some changes to the races? There is no sense that all veloprofi now under the gun?

A: Clearly felt more attention to cycling, especially in regard to disclosures and investigations of bygone days. And by "Katyusha", I think, even more attention. I could be wrong, but I think it has to do with the history of getting the license, "World Tour".

 

[iZnoGouD]

Based on what?

Based on my deep knowlodge about training and training of the peloton

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Based on my deep knowlodge about training and training of the peloton

Oh. I see.

Well then, that's settled.

Next.

 

[iZnoGouD]

In a matter of years i will be the one riding 6.5w/kg

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Also: pretending to know the limits of human performance, based on your knowledge of training, is like a fuel expert pretending to know how much power a car can generate based on the Octane value of the fuel.

#fail.

 

[iZnoGouD]

Dude i know how to train and i know the peloton are training.
They're not training anywhere close to what they could train so these limits are fairly low

 

[ROFLCOPTER]

You are the know telling that there are limits, i agree with him

 

[romnom]

All I'm arguing is that people not make claims of precision they are not justified in making based on the "evidence" they have (which in here is usually third hand, estimated or anecdotal).

Same principle goes for the W/kg estimates from climbs in that other thread.

I have no idea if Sir Brad is/is not a doper, but the use of imprecise and unsubstantiated W/kg data as prima facie evidence of doping is most unsatisfactory in any case.

I don't really disagree with what you say, but I can't see the point of being critical. Isn't the original claim in this discussion the one made by the promoters of the current clean era of cycling? You know, that speeds are down and performances are much more human? This should be an easy enough claim to prove for the ones making it, but for whatever reason the people trying to discuss these things are left calculating estimates and relying on third hand information.

As it is, it just looks bad. You have one set of 'experts' making fairly big claims with little public evidence to back it up. And when people discuss the issue with what little information is available to them, another set of 'experts' steps into the discussion to educate the ignorant layman on how poor their evidence is. I guess it's only logical though, who cares what people say to promote a sport as long as the science is solid in the forum discussions.