Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[ChewbaccaD]

Nerd fight....****ing awesome!

But I have to say, the argument that "I am a scientist, and therefore my suppositions are more valid than yours because you are not a scientist" is a bit galling really; I think we can all agree on that, right?

 

[the big ring]

Uh, no: I don't know for a fact what he weighed when he won the IP, nor do I know for a fact what he weighed this year. All I know for a fact is that it is claimed that he lost 10+ kg.

You sound pretty uncertain to me.

 

[acoggan]

You sound pretty uncertain to me.

On the contrary: I am quite certain that I don't know, for a fact, whether Wiggins actually lost any weight or not. If he did, though, that certainly wouldn't have hurt his climbing ability, especially since he reportedly was able to produce as much power as before.

 

[acoggan]

I have to say, the argument that "I am a scientist, and therefore my suppositions are more valid than yours because you are not a scientist" is a bit galling really; I think we can all agree on that, right?

Who do you think is making that argument? Certainly not me - indeed, compared to others I'm the one bending over backwards to avoid making suppositions (e.g., that Wiggins lost significant amounts of weight).

 

[the big ring]

On the contrary: I am quite certain that I don't know, for a fact, whether Wiggins actually lost any weight or not.

In other words: you're uncertain whether he lost weight.

switching from cadence (this thread) to weight for a moment:
1) agoggan is uncertain that wiggo actually lost any weight

Uh, no:

To wit:
acoggan is uncertain that wiggo actually lost any weight == I am quite certain that I don't know, for a fact, whether Wiggins actually lost any weight or not.

 

[acoggan]

In other words: you're uncertain whether he lost weight.

No, I'm quite certain that I don't know. IOW, I neither doubt claims that he did, or claims that he didn't. If he did, though, it would certainly help his climbing ability, especially in light of data indicating that he didn't lose any power.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Nerd fight....****ing awesome!

But I have to say, the argument that "I am a scientist, and therefore my suppositions are more valid than yours because you are not a scientist" is a bit galling really; I think we can all agree on that, right?

I met a creationist once. She said "I find the opinions of scientists galling. I don't believe in science. I don't believe in evolution, the Earth is only 6000yrs old".

But since you think everyone's opinion is equally valid then I suppose you would agree with her too.

 

[sittingbison]

No, I'm quite certain that I don't know. IOW, I neither doubt claims that he did, or claims that he didn't. If he did, though, it would certainly help his climbing ability, especially in light of data indicating that he didn't lose any power.

The problem of course being all the argument that the reason he suddenly transformed from riding the broom wagon to 4th in 2009 behind Contador Schleck and Armstrong (clinbers of some small reknown), was the he lost weight.

So, if he did NOT lose weight, how did he suddenly climb so well? How did he lug his 82kg trackie physique over them thar hills? Why cant Cancellara and Martin do the same? But it explains maintaining the power.

Or we have the claims from various teams and himself, that he went from 77kg to 82kg to 71kg to 69kg between 2007 to 2012. With the 82kg figure being prime beef for winning gold at Beijing. Now I know Beijing is near to Japan, who like their steak wagyu style with lots of yummy fatty marbling. But I doubt that wiggo could have won gold in the IP being wagyu. So he supposedly lost 11kg in in less than a year from a lean muscular physique, suddenly galloped over the Alps with the best of them, but did not suffer any of the expected negatives such as losing power. Still cant win an ITT to save himself though. Then lose another 2kg for this year, which DID allowed him to at long last dominate the ITTs, as well as the mountains.

So we have a conundrum don't we. Having your cake and eating it too comes to mind, although the only ones eating cake are those fatties Canc san and Martin san - obviously wagyu.

But wait!! Krebs knows a lightweight rower who can apparently row for 2 mins at the same pace as he did when 3kg heavier. And the well known elite cyclist nocontest loses and gains 7kg every season between ice cream binges and STILL keeps doing well in crits.

Muscle specific gym training! Thats the answer. Train those pesky useless muscles away in the gym, but keep the good ones. So besides being addicted to gateau, wagyus Canc san and Martin san are obviously not gym junkies or they too could slim down without power deficit and win the TdF.

Now, getting back to the actual thread which is CADENCE....

 

[biker jk]

I met a creationist once. She said "I find the opinions of scientists galling. I don't believe in science. I don't believe in evolution, the Earth is only 6000yrs old".

But since you think everyone's opinion is equally valid then I suppose you would agree with her too.

You're being disingenuous. The posters you argue with are using the scientific method (testable hypotheses, logic arguments, experimentation, etc.). They believe in science. It's just that you are arguing we should believe everything you say because you are a Sports Scientist. This is utter rubbish. As an example, the Neil Craig study you refer uses step wise regression (let's ignore the tiny sample size for the moment) which is prone to data mining and often hides a lack of understanding of why the variables are correlated. Yet you suggest that it's research by a Scientist and so must be right.

 

[sittingbison]

...although efficiency may (or may not) be lower at 100 rpm than at 80 rpm, the relationship between efficiency and myosin expression is unlikely to change.

So finally we have respected scientist acoggan make a statement on cadence and efficiency. And like with wiggos weight, he is also unsure whether there is in fact any correlation between cadence and efficiency. Which probably aligns with empirical evidence.

We also had not quite so respected scientist davidmam claim that wiggo went from 105rpm to 90rpm at the suggestion of wold renowned cycling coach Kerrison. Even though wiggo didnt understand a word that had been said. Or that he would have to abandon the very technique that won him all those gongs on a fixie (said technique being one of the arguments that he would obviously wing a grand boucle after giving up on 4km pursuits).

However 131313 showed there was also empirical evidence that wiggo was unable to count because he still rode at his usual cadence of around 100rpm - there was no observable difference. Or wiggo is incapable of following direction, which is more likly the case given JVs less than flattering onservations on their relationship (or lack of).

 

[the big ring]

I met a creationist once. She said "I find the opinions of scientists galling. I don't believe in science. I don't believe in evolution, the Earth is only 6000yrs old".

But since you think everyone's opinion is equally valid then I suppose you would agree with her too.

Does Brad Wiggins have a low MAOD?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Does Brad Wiggins have a low MAOD?

Why can't an IP rider with a big aerobic engine and a high LT win the tdf?

 

[the big ring]

Does Brad Wiggins have a low MAOD?

Why can't an IP rider with a big aerobic engine and a high LT win the tdf?

So this whole time I've been asking you to explain how a cyclist can generate a higher proportion of their power from aerobic sources than average, and you refused to, it was all irrelevant anyway - because you don't know for sure if it is true for Brad.

Wow, kudos guys. You fooled me entirely.

sophistry: a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

 

[function]

All of the "scientists" excuse Brad's poor showing on the road, riding as a professional, claiming he was "focusing on the IP".

When we ask "what training did he do for that IP", they wave their hands and say oh no no no you have to PROVE he can't win a GT after being Olympic IP champion for years.

We ask again, "what training did he do for the IP?" and get told "there is no contention".

If you truly are interested, his focus on the IP is very clear in his book "In pursuit of glory"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pursuit-Glory-Autobiography-Bradley-Wiggins/dp/0752884034

 

[sittingbison]

If you truly are interested, his focus on the IP is very clear in his book "In pursuit of glory"

So a laser beam focus on the IP. Which correlates with acoggans theory.

Which makes it even more unlikely that 4th in the 2009TdF was simply a matter of switching from track to road.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You don’t remember do you. Vaughters told him to ride every mountain stage as hard as he could but be prepared to lose time on the flat stages and roll. He rode hard. Want a link for that?

So what happened in 2010?

I've not checked the results, but would guess that 71st place would see Wiggo at least 90 minutes behind the podium guys overall. Did he really lose 85 of these minutes on the flat stages? I assume he'd lose 5 minutes to the top guys in the mountain stages. Did he really do that? It would be interesting to see a summary of the stages on which Wiggo lost time, as this would be more solid than something JV said about how he told Wiggo to ride the race.

Anyway, that's sligthly beside the point. The point is that in general terms, riding the Giro flat out is cr*p preparation for the Tour. Some riders may back up hard a Giro better than others, but the overwhelming statistical evidence is that if you go flat out in the Giro, you don't do so well in the Tour.

 

[armchairclimber]

So this whole time I've been asking you to explain how a cyclist can generate a higher proportion of their power from aerobic sources than average, and you refused to, it was all irrelevant anyway - because you don't know for sure if it is true for Brad.

Wow, kudos guys. You fooled me entirely.

sophistry: a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

So, at the very least we've taught you that there's a word for what you do.
Excellent.

 

[the big ring]

So, at the very least we've taught you that there's a word for what you do.
Excellent.

And by "we", which of the following would you exclude?

Krebs Cycle
_frost
function
Davidmam
armchairclimber
acoggan

 

[function]

So a laser beam focus on the IP. Which correlates with acoggans theory.

Which makes it even more unlikely that 4th in the 2009TdF was simply a matter of switching from track to road.

I have no idea what you're on about here, the book is purely a reference for wiggins' training regime for the IP. I'm not interested in attracting vitriol, so shall not be actively participating in the discussion.

 

[function]

And by "we", which of the following would you exclude?

Krebs Cycle
_frost
function
Davidmam
armchairclimber
acoggan

why am I in this list? I have hardly posted in this thread and have no interest in being compartmentalised in whatever factions you believe to be against you.

 

[armchairclimber]

All except acoggan.

 

[armchairclimber]

And by "we", which of the following would you exclude?

Krebs Cycle
_frost
function
Davidmam
armchairclimber
acoggan

All except acoggan....I don't think any of the others have mentioned your sophistry, although they might recognise it.

 

[Krebs cycle]

So this whole time I've been asking you to explain how a cyclist can generate a higher proportion of their power from aerobic sources than average, and you refused to, it was all irrelevant anyway - because you don't know for sure if it is true for Brad.

Wow, kudos guys. You fooled me entirely.

sophistry: a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

Do you want to know why VO2max is higher or lower in different individuals or do you want to know how it is possible that oxygen uptake kinetics can differ between 2 individuals with the same VO2max?

The list of words I provided previously refers a series of possible limitations in the oxygen transport/utilization cascade. A limitation in any one of those factors could result in a limitation to VO2max in a given individual. For example, all else remains the same, someone with a higher total hemoglobin mass would be expected to have a higher VO2max. Higher VO2max = more energy from aerobic sources.

Now if you want to know why someone with the same VO2max could produce more energy from aerobic sources then here is a post from 3 weeks ago where I replied to YOU directly. I even asked you to go learn about it but you ignored that completely and here we are, 3 weeks later and you are still throwing a little hissy fit over it.

whatever it is you think acoggan was trying to explain, it certainly was not anything to do with the non-existence of variation in aerobic/anaerobic contribution between, or even within, individuals. Even you, with your complete lack of understanding of human physiology, know that different people can be more or less aerobic or anaerobic. People who are more "aerobic" demonstrate faster O2 uptake kinetics than people who are anaerobic. This is published far and wide in the scientific literature. So before you make more of a fool of yourself with your school boy understanding, instead of trawling my posts and asking me to explain it for you, why don't YOU go and learn what O2 uptake kinetics means and what the term O2 deficit means. Maybe then you'll figure out why it is possible for some athletes to generate 80&#37]http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1016332&postcount=5402[/url]

Oxygen uptake kinetics during moderate, heavy and severe intensity "submaximal" exercise in humans: the influence of muscle fibre type and capillarisation.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Jun;92(1-2):232.
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to test the hypothesis that muscle fibre type influences the oxygen uptake (.VO(2)) on-kinetic response (primary time constant; primary and slow component amplitudes) during moderate, heavy and severe intensity sub-maximal cycle exercise. Fourteen subjects [10 males, mean (SD) age 25 (4) years; mass 72.6 (3.9) kg; .VO(2peak) 47.9 (2.3) ml kg(-1) min(-1)] volunteered to participate in this study. The subjects underwent a muscle biopsy of the vastus lateralis for histochemical determination of muscle fibre type, and completed repeat "square-wave" transitions from unloaded cycling to power outputs corresponding to 80% of the ventilatory threshold (VT; moderate exercise), 50% (heavy exercise) and 70% (severe exercise) of the difference between the VT and .VO(2peak). Pulmonary .VO(2) was measured breath-by-breath. The percentage of type I fibres was significantly correlated with the time constant of the primary .VO(2) response for heavy exercise (r=-0.68). Furthermore, the percentage of type I muscle fibres was significantly correlated with the gain of the .VO(2) primary component for moderate (r=0.65), heavy (r=0.57) and severe (r=0.57) exercise, and with the relative amplitude of the .VO(2) slow component for heavy (r=-0.74) and severe (r=-0.64) exercise. The influence of muscle fibre type on the .VO(2) on-kinetic response persisted when differences in aerobic fitness and muscle capillarity were accounted for. This study demonstrates that muscle fibre type is significantly related to both the speed and the amplitudes of the .VO(2) response at the onset of constant-load sub-maximal exercise. Differences in contraction efficiency and oxidative enzyme activity between type I and type II muscle fibres may be responsible for the differences observed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12736837

Influence of muscle fibre type and fitness on the oxygen uptake/power output slope during incremental exercise in humans.
Barstow TJ, Jones AM, Nguyen PH, Casaburi R.

Abstract
We recently reported that a higher percentage of type I fibres in vastus lateralis and a greater peak oxygen uptake (O2) were associated with a greater initial rise in O2 (O2 /W, where W is work rate) following the onset of heavy constant power output exercise (above the lactate threshold, LT). It was unclear if these results were true only for heavy exercise, or if the association between fibre type and/or fitness and O2 /W would also be seen for moderate (< LT) exercise. The purpose of the present study was to compare the relationships between fibre type or peak O2 and O2 /W determined for moderate (< LT) and heavy (> LT) exercise intensities during incremental exercise. Nine healthy subjects performed an incremental ramp test on a cycle ergometer. The O2 /Wslope was calculated for the domain of power outputs up to the LT (S1), from the LT towards peak O2 (S2), and over the entire linear portion of the O2 /W response (ST), and compared to fibre type distribution determined from biopsy of the vastus lateralis, and to peak O2 (as ml kg-1 min-1). Significant correlations between O2 /W and the proportion of type I fibres were found for each exercise domain (r is 0.69, 0.71 and 0.84 for S1, S2 and ST, respectively, P < 0.05). S1 ranged between about 9 ml min-1 W-1 for a low proportion of type I fibres and 11 ml min-1 W-1 for a high proportion of type I fibres. Similar correlations were also found between S2 (r = 0.70) and ST (r = 0.76) and peak O2. These results are consistent with our previous findings during > LT constant power output exercise, and suggest that the proportion of type I fibres, and possibly fitness as indicated by peak O2, is associated with greater O2 /W during the initial adjustment to < LT as well as > LT exercise. These results do not appear to be explained by classical descriptions of the kinetics of adjustment of O2 following the onset of ramp or constant power output exercise. They might reflect enhanced motor unit recruitment in subjects with a greater percentage of type I fibres, and/or who are more aerobically fit. However, the underlying mechanism for these findings must await further study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10662900

J Physiol Pharmacol. 2006 Nov;57 Suppl 10:67-84.
Training-induced acceleration of oxygen uptake kinetics in skeletal muscle: the underlying mechanisms.
Zoladz JA, Korzeniewski B, Grassi B.

Abstract
It is well known that the oxygen uptake kinetics during rest-to-work transition (V(O2) on-kinetics) in trained subjects is significantly faster than in untrained individuals. It was recently postulated that the main system variable that determines the transition time (t(1/2)) of the V(O2) on-kinetics in skeletal muscle, at a given moderate ATP usage/work intensity, and under the assumption that creatine kinase reaction works near thermodynamic equilibrium, is the absolute (in mM) decrease in [PCr] during rest-to-work transition. Therefore we postulate that the training-induced acceleration of the V(O2) on-kinetics is a marker of an improvement of absolute metabolic stability in skeletal muscles.

snip

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17242492

do some homework yo.

 

[the big ring]

why am I in this list? I have hardly posted in this thread and have no interest in being compartmentalised in whatever factions you believe to be against you.

Here's why: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1031040&postcount=696

You, Krebs cycle and _frost may as well all be the same person.

You spout this stuff - just like Krebs:

The key here is the time duration for the pursuit which corresponds with Vo2max and the resultant peak power output and of course vo2max is a key component of world class GC guys.

 

[the big ring]

For example, all else remains the same, someone with a higher total hemoglobin mass would be expected to have a higher VO2max. Higher VO2max = more energy from aerobic sources.

Really? Hgb affects VO2 max? Hgb that we learnt about in year 11? The closed life-saver shaped molecule streaming around our body, which contains the iron molecule to which ..... OXYGEN BONDS?

And it affects how much oxygen you can consume? Really?

Such breathtaking insight from a PhD in exercise physiology.

Now if you want to know why someone with the same VO2max could produce more energy from aerobic sources then here is a post from 3 weeks ago where I replied to YOU directly. I even asked you to go learn about it but you ignored that completely and here we are, 3 weeks later and you are still throwing a little hissy fit over it.

Whence you spouted "O2 uptake kinetics" and demanded I teach myself, then posted links to studies.

As useful as your list, which I already had a handle on, if you recall?

But this is all moot anyway, as you have no idea whether this "low MAOD" applies to Brad or not. So, no offense "professor", but I am no longer interested.