Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Krebs cycle]

http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=6440


Threshold power is FTP, defined as the maximum power sustainable for 1 hour. Rogers has an SRM.

Please tell me Rogers doesn't know what he's talking about, or his SRM is not calibrated right.

When a group of us went training with Cadel years ago, the first thing he did when we got to the midway coffee stop was recalibrate his power meter.

I asked for you to tell me over what time frame.

Rogers says “I’ve seen a five to seven per cent increase in my general threshold power." and then you and everyone else immediately ASSUMED that he means above his best ever in his entire career. He could be referring to his 2011 season in which he was struck down with mononucleosis or something, or maybe he was referring to early in the base prep phase (which is a common time frame for athletes to discuss changes in power btw) or maybe he was referring specifically to the time he has been working with Kerrison for?

Why did you assume that he is referring to a 5-7% increase above his FTP career PB? Well because you want to believe that he is doping of course. I'm pointing you to the fact that we DON'T KNOW what he is comparing to so we can't make a strong conclusion about doping. I would agree with you 100% and I would have flown to France just so I could boo Rogers myself if he had said the following...

"my 30min PPO was 5-7% higher this year than it ever has been in my entire pro cycling career".

But he didn't say that now did he?

Secondly, when Rogers says "general threshold power" is he specifically referring to the FTP definition of 60min? We don't know if he is talking about 35min or 60min. The Dauphine climb was 34min or something, so it is possible he was talking about that in particular (since the interview was just after that race).

 

[Krebs cycle]

It's difficult to prove a negative. Impossible, in fact.

No it isn't. It would be a peace of cake in fact. You would go to the literature and look for studies which examine the physiological characteristics of elite track endurance cyclists and compare them with studies which examine the physiological characteristics of pro road cyclists.

You find studies that show track endurance riders have vastly different physiological characteristics to those of pro road riders and then you post those links here.

As far as we are concerned, you have failed to prove the positive. That a 4km pursuiter can win a GT and dominate an entire season of stage races, "naturally".

Well you can say herdy her Lance Armstrong haha rolls eyes "never tested positive" all you like, but the fact is that you haven't proven that Wiggins is doping and yet he just did win the TdF.

And for about the 10th time now I repeat.... Neil Craig proved it nearly 20yrs ago that elite track endurance cyclists have very similar physiological characteristics as pro road cyclists.

 

[the big ring]

I asked for you to tell me over what time frame.

Rogers says “I’ve seen a five to seven per cent increase in my general threshold power." and then you and everyone else immediately ASSUMED that he means above his best ever in his entire career. He could be referring to his 2011 season in which he was struck down with mononucleosis or something, or maybe he was referring to early in the base prep phase (which is a common time frame for athletes to discuss changes in power btw) or maybe he was referring specifically to the time he has been working with Kerrison for?

Why did you assume that he is referring to a 5-7% increase above his FTP career PB? Well because you want to believe that he is doping of course. I'm pointing you to the fact that we DON'T KNOW what he is comparing to so we can't make a strong conclusion about doping. I would agree with you 100% and I would have flown to France just so I could boo Rogers myself if he had said the following...

"my 30min PPO was 5-7% higher this year than it ever has been in my entire pro cycling career".

But he didn't say that now did he?

Secondly, when Rogers says "general threshold power" is he specifically referring to the FTP definition of 60min? We don't know if he is talking about 35min or 60min. The Dauphine climb was 34min or something, so it is possible he was talking about that in particular (since the interview was just after that race).

I am going to make a relatively safe assumption that Aldo Sassi knows what "threshold power" means, and that by extension, the rider coached by Aldo Sassi knows what "threshold power" means, given he was deliberately training with an SRM in 2010 as an Aldo Sassi client.

 

[the big ring]

And for about the 10th time now I repeat.... Neil Craig proved it nearly 20yrs ago that elite track endurance cyclists have very similar physiological characteristics as pro road cyclists.

And yet (for the 10th time) Wiggins could not do anything on the road. Huh. That's so weird.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I am going to make a relatively safe assumption that Aldo Sassi knows what "threshold power" means, and that by extension, the rider coached by Aldo Sassi knows what "threshold power" means, given he was deliberately training with an SRM in 2010 as an Aldo Sassi client.

Well that is your entire problem with this entire debate.

You assume way too much about a whole lotta stuff you don't actually know anything about. I'm saying that those uncertainties make it exceedingly difficult to make strong definitive conclusions about whether Rogers is or is not doping in 2012.

edit: I see here that you ignored my query about what date range Rogers is referring to which is actually the far more important unknown variable in Roger's statement.

Disagree. A fairer comparison would be for Haile Gebrselassie to win the 1500m in 1999 and then come 4th in a 20 day ultra-marathon the following year.

Except in the real world Haile Gebrselassie never entered a 20 day ultra-marathon in the yr 2000 so we can't make such a comparison. However, he did win gold in the 10,000m at the Sydney Olympics in a time of 27:18 which is remarkably similar to the duration of various HC and cat 1 climbs in the TdF and a little shorter that ITTs, the 2 main places in which the time gaps appear in cycling GTs.

 

[Krebs cycle]

And yet (for the 10th time) Wiggins could not do anything on the road. Huh. That's so weird.

It's weird that when a cyclist doesn't train to win road races they don't win road races?

edit: It is comments like these that make me wonder how you could possibly be a cyclist. Surely you understand that there are 2 main ingredients for success... genetics and environment. Wiggins always had the genetics to "do something" on the road, but pre 2008 he never had "the environment". Post 2008 that changed. This is why comparing road results only pre and post 2008 is a flawed and misguided approach to the debate.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Why would you think that the overall training preparation for IP and the TdF is the same?

By the same token, why would you think they are 100% mutually exclusive?


Why don't you explain to me the training preparation characteristics of 4km pursuit versus road racing?

 

[function]

I came into this forum because I thought there might be some mature performance related discussion that may or may not cross over into effects of doping. But its people like you that ruin it for everyone with your faux exercise physiology knowledge and obsessive compulsive trolling of anyone that disagrees with your crackpot theories and points you in the direction of the real science.

I agree with the above.

 

[the big ring]

Why would you think that the overall training preparation for IP and the TdF is the same?

By the same token, why would you think they are 100% mutually exclusive?


Why don't you explain to me the training preparation characteristics of 4km pursuit versus road racing?

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/5341/training/british-procycling-training-tips/

3Km / 4 Km Pursuit
The 3Km / 4Km pursuit is still an endurance event, so the riders have been preparing for the Olympics with long training rides where the body gets used to long periods of lactic acid building up in the legs. The idea is to do long hill intervals, where the lactic aside accumulates, enabling the rider to gain improved lactic tolerance.

 

[biker jk]

I agree with the above.

I see KC as the real troll. It's a real turnoff to reading this thread. In contrast I have learnt a great deal from the big ring.

 

[the big ring]

And for about the 10th time now I repeat.... Neil Craig proved it nearly 20yrs ago that elite track endurance cyclists have very similar physiological characteristics as pro road cyclists.

Which study is that?

 

[the big ring]

It's weird that when a cyclist doesn't train to win road races they don't win road races?

That's not what you said.

What's weird is a cyclist with "very similar physiological characteristics as pro road cyclists" cannot compete successfully as a pro road cyclist.

 

[Ferminal]

It's weird that when a cyclist doesn't train to win road races they don't win road races?

Most top pursuiters have put in reasonable performances on the road whilst still active on the track.

 

[D-Queued]

Completely and utterly ridiculous. This little analogy ignores 2 million years of human evolution of the bioenergetic systems. In terms of bioenergetics, a 4min maximal effort is much more similar to a 30-60min effort than a 10sec maximal effort.

...

Of course it was completely and utterly ridiculous. Glad you got the point.

Even if it wasn't, all analogies break down quickly.

You appear to have no sense of humor or for the absurd.

Please cite your sources on your assertion for 2 million years of human evolution of the bioenergetic systems. Where is your data?

This would be an interesting study if it existed. Perhaps you have collected the results yourself, and can share them with us.

If my comment was an overstatement, yours is.... Out in left field? Over the top? Grasping at straw?

Why not?

I asked months ago for anyone to give a scientific explanation to this yet nobody has. Why isn't it possible for a track endurance rider to convert to road and then become a GT contender?

What is not "normal" is Wiggins' track endurance pedigree.

You ask for a scientific explanation. Such explanations typically rely upon or utilize statistical proofs.

Anything is possible. Just not probable.

You want a scientific argument? The data suggests that your hypothesis is improbable.

If it were probable, in other words if your assertions had merit, we would have seen this many times over.

Here are the Tour winners for the last twenty years (multiple winners named once):

Wiggins, Evans, Schleck, Contador, Sastre, (Landis), Pereiro*, (Armstrong), Basso*, Kloden*, Beloki*, Ullrich*, Zulle*, Pantani, Riis, Indurain

Please identify one of these, other than Wiggins, that had any sort of success on the track.

The magical formula, aka the common denominator, statistical probability or scientific explanation, appears to be tied to EPO and blood transfusions, not a conversion from endurance track riding.

It is a misapplication of statistics, of course, but a loose interpretation of this data set suggests that there is a 95% confidence (1 in 20) of a confirmation of the null hypothesis: Endurance track cycling does not yield Tour champions.

Another factor is at play.

Now, if Wiggins had taken EPO and performed blood transfusions he would fit into the realm of probability.

Dave.

 

[gheizhwinder]

Correlation does not equal causality.

 

[Gregga]

About Wiggins/cadence/weight, did you notice this in Hamilton's book :

"I tapped Ferrari for informations/.../He taught me why hemoglobin was a better measure of potential than hematocrit/.../He explained how a faster cadence put less stress on the muscle, transferring the load from the physical (the muscle fibers) to a better place: the cardiovascular engine and the blood/...Michele was obsessed about weight-and I mean totally obsessed. he talked about weight more than he talked about wattage or hematocrit..."

According to several trainers "normal" cadence for climbing is in the range 70-85 rpm. In the LA era - and also this July in the Sky train - we saw skinny riders spinning 95-100 rpm in the climbs... maybe just "transferring load" the Ferrari way...

 

[D-Queued]

Correlation does not equal causality.

Agreed.

However, as known dopers are still actively competing, it is impossible to support a case that the 'level' of the playing field has shifted.

Thus, Newton's first law of motion still governs.

A sport that is headed in a given direction will continue in that direction in a straight line at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force.

Now that is a scientific proof.

Dave.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Correlation does not equal causality.

Which indicates that you know little about correlation or causality.

For example - a measure of weak statehood is a high degree of corruption. In other words a correlation between corruption and weak statehood. Corruption in itself is a cause of weak statehood as it prevents the state from fulfilling all of its duties. So correlation does also indicate or equal causality.

Likewise, there is a correlation between people who repeat glib phrases and not knowing that they are talking about. Not knowing what you are talking about causes you to repeat glib phrases. Correlation = causality.

 

[noddy69]

Which indicates that you know little about correlation or causality.

For example - a measure of weak statehood is a high degree of corruption. In other words a correlation between corruption and weak statehood. Corruption in itself is a cause of weak statehood as it prevents the state from fulfilling all of its duties. So correlation does also indicate or equal causality.

Likewise, there is a correlation between people who repeat glib phrases and not knowing that they are talking about. Not knowing what you are talking about causes you to repeat glib phrases. Correlation = causality.

Correlation does not = causality, a first year student learns that and with scientists galore on here your not gonna win that one im afraid, your argument has so many holes its a sponge....here think on this, did the corruption cause the state to be weak or was the corruption due to the state being weak in the first place,thatll set you on the road.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

It isn't about 'winning' anything. If you want a **** comparing competition then I suggest you try someone else.

And the argument doesn't have holes in it because the point is to demonstrate the blanket statement that correlation does not equal causality is false.

A correlation can also be a cause.

Weak statehood has many causes including corruption and many indicators of it - including corruption. Look at the FSI and the measures used there and then compare it to the CPI and the measures used there.

Your last point is irrelevant as nobody would ever claim that the relationship between corruption and weak statehood is a one way street. Hence the intractability of the problems of weak states.

 

[Shardi]

About Wiggins/cadence/weight, did you notice this in Hamilton's book :

"I tapped Ferrari for informations/.../He taught me why hemoglobin was a better measure of potential than hematocrit/.../He explained how a faster cadence put less stress on the muscle, transferring the load from the physical (the muscle fibers) to a better place: the cardiovascular engine and the blood/...Michele was obsessed about weight-and I mean totally obsessed. he talked about weight more than he talked about wattage or hematocrit..."

According to several trainers "normal" cadence for climbing is in the range 70-85 rpm. In the LA era - and also this July in the Sky train - we saw skinny riders spinning 95-100 rpm in the climbs... maybe just "transferring load" the Ferrari way...

Epo + high cadence is quite reciprocal in that sense. Try it while biking to work, go by 60 rpm at high speed, ur wear out your muscle fibers,, change to higher (95) rpm with a lower gear yielding maintained speed and u will run out of breath instead.

By enhancing the oxygenation beyond whats humanly possible, the sole gain will differ for high and low cadence.

 

[noddy69]

Mrs J Murphy a correlation is what it is, a correlation, it does not equal causality, that statement is 100% true and you saying different does not change what is a fact known and studied. Many minds greater im sure than yours have figured this out, many have studied the fact and not been able to dispute it ,it still remains a fact and I doubt greatly whether you could change the academic communities minds.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Thank you Jesus, but you appear to have misunderstood what was being said.

A correlation is a correlation and can also be (as the example of weak statehood demonstates) a cause. To trot out the line that correlation does not equal causation demonstrates a simplistic understanding of the relationship between variables especially when examining social phenomena.

If you disagree so strongly with such a view on weak statehood then I suggest you take it up with the authors of the FSI. They obviously would benefit greatly from your years of analysing weak states and the relationship between corruption and weak statehood.

 

[noddy69]

Thank you Jesus, but you appear to have misunderstood what was being said.

A correlation is a correlation and can also be (as the example of weak statehood demonstates) a cause. To trot out the line that correlation does not equal causation demonstrates a simplistic understanding of the relationship between variables especially when examining social phenomena.

If you disagree so strongly with such a view on weak statehood then I suggest you take it up with the authors of the FSI. They obviously would benefit greatly from your years of analysing weak states and the relationship between corruption and weak statehood.

Your example of weak statehood does not demonstrate it whatsoever. And even in the social sciences correlation does not equal causation.

Again, even when corruption is evident in every weak state you cannot from the correlation gather which caused which, it just is not possible, its only a correlation. You can probably say without a pause that in a weak state there is corruption, the challenge is to find causation. Which caused the other, you cannot do that and you have not demonstrated that in your example.
The highlighted bit is nonsense,it shows 100% accurate understanding .

 

[gheizhwinder]

A correlation is a correlation and can also be (as the example of weak statehood demonstates) a cause. To trot out the line that correlation does not equal causation demonstrates a simplistic understanding of the relationship between variables especially when examining social phenomena.

Well, the reason I said that was because no evidence was being given for causality other than correlation. So the fact that they do not always coincide was what was needed to dispute the argument given. The fact that correlation CAN be a result of causality is completely irrelevent in this case.