Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Krebs cycle]

snip

what point was that? That cadence "had something to do with rolling resistance and gears and stuff"...

You must be a mind reader if you actually know what point he was trying to make, let alone think it's supported by evidence... The point I'm trying to make is that ultimately guys tend to self-select optimal cadence for the event. This tends to be supported in looking at the TT today vs. last year at worlds, where Wiggins' cadence appears to be, well, the same...right at 100 RPM, just like most of the other guys.

Wiggins specifically says they worked on lowering cadence over the winter. That is the crux of it. All that stuff he says about why it made him faster might be incorrect, which is why it is totally ridiculous to pay any attention to it.

Why would you take the word of a cyclist as your scientific factual evidence of the mechanism? Why not go to the literature and see if indeed there is possible reason to be found there which might explain the effect of cadence on optimal TT performance?

And again, if cadence has so little effect on TT performance and your power meter proves it, then why don't we see large variations in selected cadence? Why is it that that they all tend to gravitate to around 90-100rpm? Why not some pedalling at 70 and others at 115? There is quite clearly an optimal range for certain distances (and this range could be slightly different for different individuals, and this range could potentially change slightly over time with variations in training focus). I don't believe it is child's play to figure out precisely what your optimal cadence actually is, so if you have self selected a cadence that isn't 100% perfect, then you could stand to improve your performance by spending time (ie: months) working on it.

One of the many things that a study strictly on GE doesn't account for is the reality of TT'ing on a course with turns and hills. Minimizing peak forces and reducing muscular load is something that riders with access to gears tend to do, even if it means riding at a less "economical" cadence. Ultimately what matters is the power produced and more so the lowest elapsed time, not what numbers pop up on a metabolic cart. GE/DE do not tell the whole story. The review of the literature makes this very clear, but you seem to be ignoring this point?

I agree. But you do realize that efficiency is directly linked to the power that is produced in a long TT right? Surely you couldn't be making such a schoolboy error as ignoring that fact?

Oh hey, maybe Wiggins did a lot of TT training over the winter in prep for the TdF and he got a little bit better at the technical aspect of riding road TTs? Oh no, someone will say, that is impossible, he has been a pro cyclist for 10yrs, he was already a technical master years ago. The only explanation is doping.

Also, Wiggins seems to be implying that the lower cadence is actually decreasing rolling resistance and improving mechanical (drive train) efficiency. I haven't seen any evidence at all to support this (within the narrow range of cadences we're talking about here).

So really, I don't get his point at all. Of course, it doesn't matter either, because he's now made up about 2 minutes on Martin from last year while pedaling at the same cadence.

Like I said, who cares what he says, why would you listen to anything that Wiggins has to say about a mechanism or a technical explanation? He is a cyclist, not a scientist. Besides, you're the one who said that review article says "more research needed" yada yada. So if the professors can't even fully explain it, then how the hell could Wiggins?

Seriously, this is what makes this whole thread ridiculous. Wiggins makes an error when trying to discuss something about rolling resistance. You guys start jumping up and down like he got caught red handed with the blood bag stuck in his arm.

Again and again, I present scientific evidence and/or any number of non-doping explanations (such as... gee who would have thunk it... TRAINING) to support the marginal gains in performance Wiggins seems to have made over the past 4yrs, and you and others say, nope that's impossible, the only explanation is doping. Well if you or anyone else says so, then PROVE that the scientific explanations are impossible or stfu.

 

[doolols]

The end result, with some rounding, is that he's have to go from about 420 watts to about 470 watts. That's almost 12% more power. So, 10% is actually wrong. It's more than that.

What about the wobbly ring gear? Doesn't that give more power in the non-pushing phase? I know he was using an asymmetric gear last year, but the Osymetric? They claim 10% more power?

Gerald

 

[BroDeal]

Seriously, this is what makes this whole thread ridiculous. Wiggins makes an error when trying to discuss something about rolling resistance. You guys start jumping up and down like he got caught red handed with the blood bag stuck in his arm.

Again and again, I present scientific evidence and/or any number of non-doping explanations (such as... gee who would have thunk it... TRAINING) to support the marginal gains in performance Wiggins seems to have made over the past 4yrs, and you and others say, nope that's impossible, the only explanation is doping. Well if you or anyone else says so, then PROVE that the scientific explanations are impossible or stfu.

What makes this thread ridiculous is you turning a snarky comparison between what Wiggins said and what Armstrong has said into a blizzard of half-assed excuses masquerading as science. It is the same as it always is. You focusing on one tiny thing, refusing to even acknowledge any other issues, then getting in a huff that people are not swayed by your scientist act.

This is not a marginal gain. As 131313 has pointed out, the gain is massive. Wiggins dropped his cadence from 105 to 100 and gained 12%. Is that what you are telling us? I don't want to hear any hypothetical crap about Wiggins being a track cyclist used to pedalling at 130 RPM. He has been a professional road racer for a decade. He has not been doing time trials at 130 RPM. If he actually did decrease his cadence then it was by a very small amount. So let's get the numbers from you. Cyclist decreases his average cadence from 105 to 100 while riding at 50 kph. What is the gain in speed? What is the final number?

Then let's hear the explanation for why the low cadence revolution does not work for climbing.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I present scientific evidence and/or any number of non-doping explanations (such as... gee who would have thunk it... TRAINING) to support the marginal gains in performance Wiggins seems to have made over the past 4yrs, and you and others say, nope that's impossible, the only explanation is doping. Well if you or anyone else says so, then PROVE that the scientific explanations are impossible or stfu.

To anyone who cares....

On this last point, Wiggins is in fact quite irrelevant to my opinions. It makes no difference to me whether it is Wiggins, Cadel Evans, Greg Lemond, that guy we shall not name, or any other pro cyclist in the entire history of the sport.

I am defending the scientific rationale, developed over 40 or 50yrs of research, which could potentially explain small changes in performance that could stem from things such as...

Training
Genetics
Aerodynamics
Optimal cadence range
Nutrition
Altitude
Bodyweight and w/kg changes
Muscle motor control patterns and technical skill
Unforeseen circumstances such as injury, illness

Whether or not someone is a doper is irrelevant. These things matter and not everyone gets them perfect in every year of their career. If you want to dispute the science, then do so and back up your claims with links to factual evidence.

 

[131313]

Wiggins specifically says they worked on lowering cadence over the winter. That is the crux of it. All that stuff he says about why it made him faster might be incorrect, which is why it is totally ridiculous to pay any attention to it.

He's actually lowered his cadence about 2 rpm. I challenge you to show me a single shred of evidence which suggests that a 2rpm difference in cadence can lead to a statistically significant difference.

Why not go to the literature and see if indeed there is possible reason to be found there which might explain the effect of cadence on optimal TT performance?

I have, and I've seen no evidence that a cadence other than a self-selected cadence is optimal for lowest elapsed time.

And again, if cadence has so little effect on TT performance and your power meter proves it, then why don't we see large variations in selected cadence? Why is it that that they all tend to gravitate to around 90-100rpm? Why not some pedalling at 70 and others at 115?

I'm not sure, but my guess is that the best TT specialists are road racers first, and they spend a lot of time riding at "sub-optimal" cadences to reduce muscular fatigue, and that carries over to TT's. But you're talking around the extremes, and ever there the difference seems overstated to a degree. In the case of Wiggins we're talking about a difference of a couple RPM's. I still haven't seen that a difference of that magnitude makes any difference at all.

There is quite clearly an optimal range for certain distances (and this range could be slightly different for different individuals, and this range could potentially change slightly over time with variations in training focus). I don't believe it is child's play to figure out precisely what your optimal cadence actually is, so if you have self selected a cadence that isn't 100% perfect, then you could stand to improve your performance by spending time (ie: months) working on it.

Sure, higher relative powers call for higher cadences. But riders tend to self-select these cadences on their own.

Oh hey, maybe Wiggins did a lot of TT training over the winter in prep for the TdF and he got a little bit better at the technical aspect of riding road TTs? Oh no, someone will say, that is impossible, he has been a pro cyclist for 10yrs, he was already a technical master years ago. The only explanation is doping.

If he made a "small gain", I'd give this more weight. He's putting out significantly more power, an increase which I detailed earlier and I don't really find to be all that believable without doping.

Seriously, this is what makes this whole thread ridiculous. Wiggins makes an error when trying to discuss something about rolling resistance. You guys start jumping up and down like he got caught red handed with the blood bag stuck in his arm.

Again and again, I present scientific evidence and/or any number of non-doping explanations (such as... gee who would have thunk it... TRAINING) to support the marginal gains in performance Wiggins seems to have made over the past 4yrs, and you and others say, nope that's impossible, the only explanation is doping. Well if you or anyone else says so, then PROVE that the scientific explanations are impossible or stfu.

Bottom line, I don't see marginal gains, I see massive improvement. Honestly, I didn't realize how massive until I looked at some hard numbers after this TT.

What's funny is that if you take a look at the first mountain stage of the 2010 tour to Morzine Avoriaz and look at Wiggin's power output there vs. what he was doing in this tour, the increase in power seems to be about the same: 10-12% or so. Granted that's a single data point. But I disagree that his improvement has been "incremental".

 

[Krebs cycle]

What makes this thread ridiculous is you turning a snarky comparison between what Wiggins said and what Armstrong has said into a blizzard of half-assed excuses masquerading as science. It is the same as it always is. You focusing on one tiny thing, refusing to even acknowledge any other issues, then getting in a huff that people are not swayed by your scientist act.

This is not a marginal gain. As 131313 has pointed out, the gain is massive. Wiggins dropped his cadence from 105 to 100 and gained 12%. Is that what you are telling us? I don't want to hear any hypothetical crap about Wiggins being a track cyclist used to pedalling at 130 RPM. He has been a professional road racer for a decade. He has not been doing time trials at 130 RPM. If he actually did decrease his cadence then it was by a very small amount. So let's get the numbers from you. Cyclist decreases his average cadence from 105 to 100 while riding at 50 kph. What is the gain in speed? What is the final number?

Then let's hear the explanation for why the low cadence revolution does not work for climbing.

The bit in bold.

PROVE IT or stfu.

I'm sick of you guys wildly exaggerating the facts far beyond any sense of realism.

 

[131313]

What about the wobbly ring gear? Doesn't that give more power in the non-pushing phase? I know he was using an asymmetric gear last year, but the Osymetric? They claim 10% more power?

Gerald

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/road/article/roa20090723-road-Tour-Watch---Stage-18-0

Well, they definitely aren't responsible for the massive increase, since he's been using them for a long time. As far as the rings themselves I honestly don't know. I do remember seeing on the wattage list that they screw up the measurement at the crank. My gut feeling is that if they offered that sort of competitive advantage everyone would be using them. I've always had equipment sponsors that precluded me from even thinking about them, so I have no firsthand knowledge. The premise seem to violate some basic laws of thermodynamics, though...

 

[Krebs cycle]

snip

Bottom line, I don't see marginal gains, I see massive improvement. Honestly, I didn't realize how massive until I looked at some hard numbers after this TT.
.

PROVE IT or stfu.

 

[131313]

The bit in bold.

PROVE IT or stfu.

I'm sick of you guys wildly exaggerating the facts far beyond any sense of realism.

I detailed this in an earlier response, with numbers, videos and everything. I listed the assumptions. You're free to criticize them if you want, but they're there for you to see.

 

[BroDeal]

I detailed this in an earlier response, with numbers, videos and everything. I listed the assumptions. You're free to criticize them if you want, but they're there for you to see.

He will never acknowledge it. Mr. Wizard does not like inconvenient facts or questions. They are simply ignored.

If he decides in his mind that Wiggins used to ride at 130 RPM then changed to 80 then that is what happened. Period. After that it becomes a simple matter to choose a study, point to some questionable numbers, and start screaming, "Look! There is a difference. It explains everything."

I can go to analyticcycling.com and plug in numbers but Krebs, for some reason, cannot.

 

[BroDeal]

The bit in bold.

PROVE IT or stfu.

I'm sick of you guys wildly exaggerating the facts far beyond any sense of realism.

The old STFU ploy, always popular in the best journals.

You appear to have set the scientific method back a few centuries if not millenia.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I detailed this in an earlier response, with numbers, videos and everything. I listed the assumptions. You're free to criticize them if you want, but they're there for you to see.

You've got no proof whatsoever that Wiggins suddenly increased his absolute power by 10-12% at any point in the last 10yrs.

That is your claim, but you haven't posted any reliable and accurate data (such as power meter data files or results of lab performance tests) to support that. You cite estimation of power from climbs as your "proof". So its ironic that you mentioned acoggan before but I've noticed that he has often disputed the accuracy of estimated power data and says that you can't make definitive conclusions from such estimations. I'll take his word over yours on that one thanks. You cite "estimated power" on climbs but you hypocritical of me for using research on cadence and cycling energetics to support my arguments.

You say that "in the end it doesn't matter what numbers you get on your metabolic cart, its about time to cover distance that matters". Yet what I have done previously is to examine precisely that. In great detail I looked at Wiggins' relative performances in road TTs. When you examine those results results going all the way back to 2005, it is clear as day there has been no magical 10% improvement at any point in time.

No need for assumptions there. Just results. Pure and simple.

 

[Krebs cycle]

The old STFU ploy, always popular in the best journals.

You appear to have set the scientific method back a few centuries if not millenia.

Are you going to discuss the science or continue on with your trolling and half arsed cop outs?

 

[Krebs cycle]

He will never acknowledge it. Mr. Wizard does not like inconvenient facts or questions. They are simply ignored.

If he decides in his mind that Wiggins used to ride at 130 RPM then changed to 80 then that is what happened. Period. After that it becomes a simple matter to choose a study, point to some questionable numbers, and start screaming, "Look! There is a difference. It explains everything."

I can go to analyticcycling.com and plug in numbers but Krebs, for some reason, cannot.

Again with the trolling. I never once said anything about 130 to 80 rpm. Grow up and stop blatantly lying. It serves no purpose except to ruin the discussion.

 

[wannab]

Wigance™ High cadence, weight loss, swim coach! (updated)

 

[red_flanders]

Please debate the post not the poster. Some posts have been deleted.

 

[acoggan]

Assume an average drag of .23 for the entire race, which is pretty low considering the size of Wiggins and the fact that there's a lot of braking/turning moments on the course. Also, assume low wind of 2mph since there was a lot of shelter on the course, and lets just pretend for the sake of simplicity that's there's no accelerating or decelerating and that the race is point-to-point, just to make the maths easier (this will underestimate the actual power values a bit). I'm also going to assume a Crr of .04. That's a touch high, but the course was on pretty bad roads. The end result, with some rounding, is that he's have to go from about 420 watts to about 470 watts. That's almost 12% more power. So, 10% is actually wrong. It's more than that.

Your estimate is significantly off-the-mark.

 

[131313]

You've got no proof whatsoever that Wiggins suddenly increased his absolute power by 10-12% at any point in the last 10yrs.

That is your claim, but you haven't posted any reliable and accurate data (such as power meter data files or results of lab performance tests) to support that. You cite estimation of power from climbs as your "proof". So its ironic that you mentioned acoggan before but I've noticed that he has often disputed the accuracy of estimated power data and says that you can't make definitive conclusions from such estimations. I'll take his word over yours on that one thanks. You cite "estimated power" on climbs but you hypocritical of me for using research on cadence and cycling energetics to support my arguments.

I'm not sure what you're going on about. I've provided the assumption to calculate the data, and it's based on some fairly simple physics. If you want to argue with any of the specific assumptions or calculations, then feel free. As far as hard data from the athlete? At a certain point I actually trust the calculations more than data provided from a source with a reason to lie about it, and I also question the accuracy of a lot of the data provided (though miscalibrated SRM's seem less frequent). And lastly, keep in mind that I'm not banking on the absolute number, which I said is a guesstimation. What is fairly robust is the calculation of what it takes to go 2 minutes faster at those speeds. That's very difficult to argue with that one. Now, if you don't believe he's 2 minutes faster now vs. 2-3 years ago, that's fine. But I think historical results put that estimation on the LOW side. To go from 31.2 to 32.5mph takes roughly 12% more power if drag remains constant.

You say that "in the end it doesn't matter what numbers you get on your metabolic cart, its about time to cover distance that matters". Yet what I have done previously is to examine precisely that. In great detail I looked at Wiggins' relative performances in road TTs. When you examine those results results going all the way back to 2005, it is clear as day there has been no magical 10% improvement at any point in time.

No need for assumptions there. Just results. Pure and simple.

What can I say, I've looked at his historical TT results and I strongly disagree.

 

[131313]

Your estimate is significantly off-the-mark.

No offense Dr. Coggan, but your comment doesn't add much to the discussion if you're not willing to elaborate. What assumptions do you specifically question? And are you questioning that it would take roughly 12% more power to go from 52:39 to 50:39 on that course, or is it the raw number with which you take issue?

 

[Boeing]

sleeping at altitude training at sea level.....

Riding alone in the rain and snow

core body temp training

specific Route reconnaissance training

ummm errrr tourniquet and syringe

 

[Gregga]

By the way, what is this strange blue sticking plaster on Wiggins left groin on this (ugly) picture ?

 

[Cancellator]

By the way, what is this strange blue sticking plaster on Wiggins left groin on this (ugly) picture ?

I think it is something like this:
http://www.kttape.com/product/
Lots of athletes use it, I've seen it a lot in tennis. I imagine he might have pulled a groin muscle when pushing a very high gear or something like that . You could see in the TDF he was wearing a lot of that tape everywhere. Marginal gains I guess...

EDIT: Or it's probably on his quad and that's just the end on his groin obviously.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Seen a lot of it on the divers the last few days.

 

[Gregga]

I think it is something like this:
http://www.kttape.com/product/
Lots of athletes use it, I've seen it a lot in tennis. I imagine he might have pulled a groin muscle when pushing a very high gear or something like that . You could see in the TDF he was wearing a lot of that tape everywhere. Marginal gains I guess...

EDIT: Or it's probably on his quad and that's just the end on his groin obviously.

Thank you for your answer !
Marginal gains + marginal gains + marginal gains = maybe a few watts
(not enough to explain everything anyway)

 

[sittingbison]

...Marginal gains + marginal gains + marginal gains = maybe a few watts...

but once again (scuze the pun), its a marginal gain that EVERYONE is doing, so its not a gain at all.

...Lots of athletes use it...

Seen a lot of it on the divers the last few days.