Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[the big ring]

Not true (in that I don't work for TrainingPeaks, and never have).

Trainingpeaks are developing and do sell / own WKO+. You are working on WKO+.

If either of these is false, I welcome clarification.

 

[acoggan]

Magically disappearing posts.

The discussion: is Brad Wiggins' TdF win believable.

For: he won the 4km IP heaps and heaps.

Against: so effing what. He did nothing on the road.

For: But track endurance rider physiology is similar to pro road physiology!!

Against: so name one rider who excelled on the track before winning the tour.

Keep in mind, this is to support the notion that "Brad Wiggins' TdF win is believable".

Keep in mind as well how road and track cycling are structured, i.e., in such a way that talent is largely siphoned away from the track towards the road (meaning that in the vast majority of cases, anyone with sufficient natural ability to excel at pursuiting and road cycling is far more likely to pursue the latter than the former).

 

[the big ring]

That's not the same as working for TrainingPeaks (with whom my relationship is exactly as I described).

Perhaps more to the point, I highly doubt that the success/failure of Team Sky (via doping or marginal gains) has any impact whatsoever on the sales of WKO+.

You are a physiology scientist, so I will forgive your lack of exposure to the real world and understanding of marketing.

If Team Sky success had no bearing on WKO+ sales then Trainingpeaks would not be sponsoring / supplying them.

You are being dishonest to suggest otherwise.

 

[the big ring]

Keep in mind as well how road and track cycling are structured, i.e., in such a way that talent is largely siphoned away from the track towards the road (meaning that in the vast majority of cases, anyone with sufficient natural ability to excel at pursuiting and road cycling is far more likely to pursue the latter than the former).

Which is another point that has not been raised yet. That is: Brad Wiggins won the pursuit but the event itself is very shallow in terms of talent, as you so rightly point out, because people who show potential for it and road racing take up road racing instead.

So in a depleted pool of talent, what looks like a big fish is probably more likely just a normal fish that only looks big because the pond is so damn small.

This dilutes the "Brad is world champion and Olympic gold medallist at IP" argument significantly.

 

[acoggan]

You are a physiology scientist, so I will forgive your lack of exposure to the real world and understanding of marketing.

If Team Sky success had no bearing on WKO+ sales then Trainingpeaks would not be sponsoring / supplying them.

You are being dishonest to suggest otherwise.

No, I'm being practical/am better informed. IOW, while the marketing folks at TrainingPeaks may believe that their association with Team Sky (and other ProTour teams) is beneficial to their overall business, based on user surveys, etc., it is clear that other things are what drive sales of WKO+.

 

[D-Queued]

And of course there is Jacques Anquetil who set the Hour Record
before he won the Tour. So with Eddy, and Greg's world junior
pursuit medal that is at least three for you Dave. Glad to be
of help.

EVERYONE set the hour record on a track. That does not make any of them a trackie. Just ask Indurain.

Thus, delete Anquetil from the list. Maybe there would be some comparison here if Wiggins had set a new hour record prior to winning the Tour. Surely, if we are to buy the argument on an Anquetil comparison, then Wiggins as a pursuit champion should have conquered the hour before attempting the Tour.

LeMond distinguished himself on the Road first. There is a stronger correlation between LeMond as a skier than as a trackie. He was twice a National Junior Road Race champ, and a World Road Champ before his silver in Junior Pursuit.

1977
1st National Road Race Champion (Junior)
1978
1st Overall Vuelta de Bisbee
3rd TTT Junior World Championship
1979
1st World Road Race Champion (Junior)
1st National Road Race Champion (Junior)
1st Nevada City Classic
2nd Track Pursuit, Junior World Championship

Eddy spent a lot of time on the track. No argument there. Ultimately, he was an accomplished track rider.

Eddy, however, had won his first World Road Championship a year before he won his first Six Days of Ghent, and had won two World Road Championship before he won his second Six Days of Ghent... along with two of seven Milan San Remos, a Fleche Wallonne, a Ghent Wevelgem...

As Wikipedia offers:

"Patrick Sercu rode with him in newcomers' and junior races on the track at the Palais des Sports in Brussels. Merckx could not beat him on the track but Sercu said that when he saw Merckx on the road he believed he was looking at a future winner of the Tour de France."

Merckx is the closest of the bunch, but we can strike his name off the list as well.

Dave.

 

[the big ring]

No, I'm being practical/am better informed. IOW, while the marketing folks at TrainingPeaks may believe that their association with Team Sky (and other ProTour teams) is beneficial to their overall business, based on user surveys, etc., it is clear that other things are what drive sales of WKO+.

What is etc exactly?

Here's a marketing hint: companies market products to non-customers, not just users.

An untapped cycling market like the UK means more potential cyclists, and therefore more potential WKO+ sales in that market, helped by the big Team Sky logo and use of their data, etc throughout the Trainingpeaks website.

Even McQuaid is excited about the market currently opening up in the UK thanks to Team Sky dominance this season.

 

[the big ring]

The bottom line is - acoggan you are working on trainingpeaks's software, derive income from it and trainingpeaks are working with Sky. You have hinted that you have Brad Wiggins power files from 2012 - noone else has made that insinuation.

Your confusion of "conflict of interest" is apparent.

My point? W/o seeing the data from Lemond's original test, we have no way of knowing whether he did in fact achieve VO2max, such that it is foolish to even speculate.

(Full disclosure: Lemond once had Hunter and me to come to Seattle to educate him and others at Lemond Fitness re. some of the concepts in WKO+. I got a wonderful meal at a very nice resteraunt out of it, but no $$ changed hands.)

It doesn't have to be money changing hands to be conflict of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favors for family and friends

Friends like Ed Coyle. Or Hunter Allen, for example.

 

[the big ring]

So please do so, then point out where I declined to answer the question.

The contribution of anaerobic metabolism is readily quantifiable, but what that translates into in terms of "potential" is not (even though it is clearly true).

If it helps any, my wife and I tend to fall on opposite extremes re. our aerobic/anaerobic contributions during a 3 km pursuit, with her being 70%/30% and me being 80%/20% (vs. the typical 75%/25%). She was national champion in the pursuit but only top ~10 at nationals in the road TT, whereas I can barely crack the top 10 at master nationals in the pursuit but have made the podium multiple times in the TT.

Applied to some one like Wiggins, if they derived 90% of their power during a 4 km pursuit from aerobic sources, then I'd say that they'd probably be a pretty good TTer/stage racer (vs., say, someone for the classics, or more of an all-rounder).

What does it come back to, physically? Is it mitochondrial density? Muscle fibre types? Something else? Combinations of the above?

The question was in the context of what determines pursuit performance, correct? I recall reading it, but since the best answer I could provide in a forum such as this one was "it's complicated", decided that it wasn't really worth perpetuating that branch of this thread.

NB: "The contribution of anaerobic metabolism is readily quantifiable" via the MAOD test. "derived 90% of their power during a 4 km pursuit from aerobic sources" is determined via the MAOD test.

Yes, it is in the context of pursuit performance. Because that is the argument - the ONLY defensible argument - Krebs Cycle can come up with to defend Brad winning the Tour de France naturally.

Neither you nor the exercise phsyiology lecturer Krebs Cycle will explain the foundation for the only argument you make to explain Brad winning the Tour "naturally".

 

[sittingbison]

Not to mention the fact that no one has claimed that Wiggins winning the TdF once puts him the same league as Lemond, etc.

Sorry acoggan I really do take exception to this comment. It is a throw away quip, and you no doubt think you are being clever, but given your scientific cred you have come over as a smartar$e. Because you, who has a grasp of the nuances of English, realize the implications of the term "league". And have knowingly mislead readers.

Winning a single TdF most certainly does NOT put Wiggo in the same category as LeMond ETC (being Anquetil and Merckx for the sake of this argument). Because as you well know they are in the LEAGUE of people to have won MULTIPLE TdFs, as opposed to those who have won the TdF once (or for that matter twice).

Extremely disengenuous on your part.

 

[sittingbison]

Can we please stop trying to correlate track and GC, it is nonsensical and an insult to our intelligence. There IS no correlation, in the 100years of cycling Wiggo is it, the first, the progenitor. Comparing him to Merckx et al is quite frankly redunculous. And as this is now the fourth time in a month, boring.

Scientist, it might be possible, but it has not (until Wiggo) been done. In 100 years. By legends of the sport. Which should lead your inquisitive scientific minds to query how this has happened, not try to justify it by stretching every known parameter to the max then making assumptions.

 

[the big ring]

Can we please stop trying to correlate track and GC, it is nonsensical and an insult to our intelligence. There IS no correlation, in the 100years of cycling Wiggo is it, the first, the progenitor. Comparing him to Merckx et al is quite frankly redunculous. And as this is now the fourth time in a month, boring.

Scientist, it might be possible, but it has not (until Wiggo) been done. In 100 years. By legends of the sport. Which should lead your inquisitive scientific minds to query how this has happened, not try to justify it by stretching every known parameter to the max then making assumptions.

I understand your argument, but do not agree - as you are essentially dismissing the point, something Krebs Cycle does all the time.

I am prepared to give KC and acoggan the benefit of the doubt, and have asked them to explain it. But they cannot or will not.

All of the performance "evidence" KC has ever presented I have debunked.

His "explanation" of the truly physiological level were merely pointers to studies with no grand tour relevance, or no actual explanation beyond, "read the study".

I am prepared to give KC the chance to explain why it matters a damn. So far, he hasn't.

 

[sittingbison]

Sorry to be confusing, my point was not to deflect scrutiny of Wiggo transforming from IP to TdF winner. The more scrutiny the better, which is what the scientists SHOULD be doing rather than stretching credulity to show it could be done.

No, my rant was to stop tiresome argument "others have done it, well name them then, hmmmm let's try Merckx...or Moser?, nup Merckx road first Moser doped and helicopter with flat parcours, well what about Coppi" bla bla bla.

 

[the big ring]

Sorry to be confusing, my point was not to deflect scrutiny of Wiggo transforming from IP to TdF winner. The more scrutiny the better, which is what the scientists SHOULD be doing rather than stretching credulity to show it could be done.

No, my rant was to stop tiresome argument "others have done it, well name them then, hmmmm let's try Merckx...or Moser?, nup Merckx road first Moser doped and helicopter with flat parcours, well what about Coppi" bla bla bla.

Ah gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. If only others could do likewise...

 

[_frost]

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

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".

I don't know who is "we" but for anyone who understands the basics of human physiology that is quite obvious.

 

[the big ring]

I don't know who is "we" but for anyone who understands the basics of human physiology that is quite obvious.

Ah really. MAOD is basic human physiology is it? Perhaps you can explain why acoggan says, "On this forum it's 'too complicated' to explain".

I mean. It's only basic human physiology, right? None of that complicated mitochondrial density or ATP - ADP process stuff. Not PhD level phsyiology, right? I mean, even your grandma could understand it yeah?

And yet. Beyond posting a link to a study, with no further discussion from said link poster on applicability to grand tour riding success, there is no explanation offered.

It's so simple, that it can't be explained? OR won't be explained?

Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you could explain it. Because so far all you have done is agree with people smarter than you, like a sheep. You've added zero content to the discussion itself.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[_frost]

Ah really. MAOD is basic human physiology is it? Perhaps you can explain why acoggan says, "On this forum it's 'too complicated' to explain".

Well, the energy production processes are quite basic, aerobic/anaerobic energy production and oxygen deficiency are one of the first things that you learn in eg. coaching courses.

I mean. It's only basic human physiology, right? None of that complicated mitochondrial density or ATP - ADP process stuff. Not PhD level phsyiology, right? I mean, even your grandma could understand it yeah?

I have learned about cellular energy production at high school biology. Perhaps there are differences in levels of education in various countries.

Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you could explain it. Because so far all you have done is agree with people smarter than you, like a sheep. You've added zero content to the discussion itself.

I won't hold my breath.

I tend to agree with people who are right and I have no problem admitting that in this matter there are much smarter folks here. However I presented these same issues (pursuiters having large VO2Max, critical power calculation to relate Wiggins' pursuit power and later TdF performances) already 2009 when this first came out so I wouldn't call myself a sheep just for agreeing.

 

[the big ring]

In case you were wondering, that's not an explanation for why someone good at IP, with no results on the road, even though he trained extensively on the road for his IP, can win a grand tour.

Use your vast knowledge of high school biology to explain it, please.

In the interim, I'll keep breathing.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

How about the last cyclist to win the Tour who distinguished themselves, in any way, on the track prior to winning the Tour?

Roger Riviere was current/recent world IP champ and poised to take the MJ late on in the Tour when he crashed out, unfortunately ending his career.

I don't think any of Wiggo's supporters are claiming the IP champ/Tour winner combo is going to happen very often. The whole point is that Wiggo is such an exceptional athlete that he is good enough to do both.

Something else to consider is that since the early 90s, we've had the introduction of open cycling, so the pros can race in the OGs, the demise of the Eastern bloc and the EPO era, all which mean that the old relationships observed in the 60s/70s/80s may no longer apply. Wiggo is actually the first open era world/OG IP champ to be racing on the road in an era of believable climbing performances, so is hard to analyse based on what's gone before. (I am still suspicious of him, so the above is just pointing out why broad comparisons aren't that helpful for this issue.)

On the causation/correlation front, if anyone believes correlation always equals causation, then buy a cheap house and add a lot of windows. If your belief is correct then you should make a sack load of money, as there is a very high correlation between value of a house and the number of windows it has. You won't make much money, though, as the important relationship is between the size of a house and it value: bigger houses tend to be worth more than smaller ones, and bigger houses tend to have more windows than smaller ones.

 

[the big ring]

I tend to agree with people who are right and I have no problem admitting that in this matter there are much smarter folks here. However I presented these same issues (pursuiters having large VO2Max, critical power calculation to relate Wiggins' pursuit power and later TdF performances) already 2009 when this first came out so I wouldn't call myself a sheep just for agreeing.

The Internet is an AMAZING construct.

Here's your very first post on the forum, July 18th, 2009:

2) threshold power on the flat

3) and climbing ability

I am new to cycling and naive, can you tell me what's the difference?

And lo and behold, the second ever post by Krebs Cycle, immediately below yours, answering your "new to cycling" question: July 19th, 2009.

Hi folks I'm new to this forum, but I know lots about exercise physiology hence the geeky username

There is a large body of evidence which suggests that increased endurance training inhibits strength and power gains. So to achieve an increase in TT and climbing ability which requires endurance training is very likely to impair improvement in sprint ability.

The difference between TT on the flat and climbing ability is all about the trade off between absolute engine size, frontal surface area and watts per kg. Bigger cyclists such as Cancellara have bigger aerobic engines (ie: VO2max in L/min), which more than accounts for the detrimental effect of the increase in frontal surface area (ie: increased wind resistance), so these guys have the advantage on the flat. However, once you start going uphill, the velocity is much lower, so the need to overcome wind resistance is less important which means the advantage of the bigger engine is diminished, whereas the amount of weight you need to move uphill against gravity now becomes the limiting factor, so watts per kg is the variable that is required to be a great climber. Smaller cyclists have the advantage here because as you get bigger, the increase in aerobic power is not proportional to the increase in mass since you have a lot more weight to carry that isn't involved in energy production eg: bone, conective tissue etc Therefore, VO2max in ml/kg/min tends to be higher in the smaller guys.

Krebs Cycle has never sounded this smart in any discussion in any Sky thread since.

The coincidence is putting my spidey senses into overdrive. You never thanked Krebs Cycle for filling you in, which is also somewhat rude.

Only 2 days later, you write, 20th July, 2009:

Wiggins is saying 570-580w pursuit power for gold medal in Athens (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/jun/04/cycling.news). 490w for 18 min is very well in line with that.
Add to that in 7-8% climb each kg dropped is roughly 1% increase in performance.

I have no disillusion of Wiggins or any top rider or any professional athlete what so ever being clean but comparing him to Kohl or saying that he came out of nowhere is simply moronic.

Wow. In 2 days you've gone from "new to cycling naivety" to instantaneous calculations of 1% performance increase on a 7-8% climb for each kg dropped.

Not only that, but you can estimate top level cyclist abilty, already know who Khol is, and are prepared to call people who have been following cycling for a long time, moronic for comparing Brad to Khol.

1 day later, you reveal your 3-day expertise:

You do realise that it is exactly the same engine that drives the TT as drives one up the mountain, exactly the same? You do? In a climb the resisting force is (mainly) gravity which means that losing weight leads to improvement whereas in TT the main resisting force is air density which means that better aerodynamics leads to improvement.

You cannot choose to dope to become a better climber or better TT:er. And the very same applies to track endurance btw.

Wow. It's the Tour de France, nothing to do with track cycling, you're lapping up Wiggins' ride (your second ever post: "Wow!Wiggins is really saving this tour!") and now you know everything about physiological performance as it pertains to cyclists - both on the road and on the track.

In 3 days. Incredible.

1 day later, your confidence has grown again, 22nd July, 2009:

Absolutely rubbish. For 450 watts at 90 rpm cadence you need about 50 N-m force which equals roughly 28kg. That is way less than an average person needs to stand up. Oxygen consumption doesn't have anything to do with your maximum strength or power.

I am also really interested to hear the mechanism that causes to lose suistainable power (power over 10 minutes) with (healthy) weightloss.

6 days after your "new to cycling and naive" post, you say this: 24th July, 2009:

If you are comparing a sprinter (limiting factors leg strength/maximun power/anaerobic capacity) and a pursuiter/track enduro (limiting factors maximum aerobic power and anaerobic capacity and lactate threshold (exactly the same as on the road with a different emphasizes)) it only tells that you have absolutely no glue of the cycling or endurance sports physiology.

You write like you're an expert, and insult people who disagree with you, 6 days after asking the difference between climbing ability and threshold power on the flat.

I don't know how I am meant to handle this, but I'd put money on you inhabiting the same physical space as another member of this forum. Unsurprisingly, you agree with that member regularly.

 

[acoggan]

Ah really. MAOD is basic human physiology is it? Perhaps you can explain why acoggan says, "On this forum it's 'too complicated' to explain".

The concept of MAOD is easy to explain. Why one person has a higher or lower MAOD than another, not so much.

 

[acoggan]

Trainingpeaks are developing and do sell / own WKO+. You are working on WKO+.

If either of these is false, I welcome clarification.

I've told you all you need to know: I have never worked for TrainingPeaks, and never will. The only payment I receive from them is the licensing fee I previously described.

 

[the big ring]

I've told you all you need to know: I have never worked for TrainingPeaks, and never will. The only payment I receive from them is the licensing fee I previously described.

so trainingpeaks are lying when they say you are working on the new version of wko+?

 

[acoggan]

The Internet is an AMAZING construct.

Here's your very first post on the forum, July 18th, 2009:



And lo and behold, the second ever post by Krebs Cycle, immediately below yours, answering your "new to cycling" question: July 19th, 2009.



Krebs Cycle has never sounded this smart in any discussion in any Sky thread since.

The coincidence is putting my spidey senses into overdrive. You never thanked Krebs Cycle for filling you in, which is also somewhat rude.

Only 2 days later, you write, 20th July, 2009:



Wow. In 2 days you've gone from "new to cycling naivety" to instantaneous calculations of 1% performance increase on a 7-8% climb for each kg dropped.

Not only that, but you can estimate top level cyclist abilty, already know who Khol is, and are prepared to call people who have been following cycling for a long time, moronic for comparing Brad to Khol.

1 day later, you reveal your 3-day expertise:



Wow. It's the Tour de France, nothing to do with track cycling, you're lapping up Wiggins' ride (your second ever post: "Wow!Wiggins is really saving this tour!") and now you know everything about physiological performance as it pertains to cyclists - both on the road and on the track.

In 3 days. Incredible.

1 day later, your confidence has grown again, 22nd July, 2009:


6 days after your "new to cycling and naive" post, you say this: 24th July, 2009:



You write like you're an expert, and insult people who disagree with you, 6 days after asking the difference between climbing ability and threshold power on the flat.

I don't know how I am meant to handle this, but I'd put money on you inhabiting the same physical space as another member of this forum. Unsurprisingly, you agree with that member regularly.

I don't know who _frost might be, but just because they say they are new to cycling in no way implies that they don't understand exercise physiology. In fact, their very first post (asking Parrot23 to explain the difference between climbing ability and TTing ability on flat roads) appears to be rhetorical in nature, not an actual request to be educated.

 

[acoggan]

Which is another point that has not been raised yet. That is: Brad Wiggins won the pursuit but the event itself is very shallow in terms of talent, as you so rightly point out, because people who show potential for it and road racing take up road racing instead.

So in a depleted pool of talent, what looks like a big fish is probably more likely just a normal fish that only looks big because the pond is so damn small.

This dilutes the "Brad is world champion and Olympic gold medallist at IP" argument significantly.

Except, of course, for the fact that in many regards track cycling is more like athletics (running) or swimming than road cycling, i.e., in timed events such as the pursuit performance can be judged in an absolute sense, not just a relative one. I'll leave it to you to look up Wiggins' IP and TP times and interpret them in proper context given track-to-track differences as well as rule changes (e.g., banning of the Superman position).