Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[D-Queued]

This thread is tbh pretty pitiful and the primary reason why is because no one actually understands in full the reasoning behind Wiggin's startling development as a GT winner.

If they really wanted to understand Wiggins's development then I advise people to check up and study Tim Kerrison and his involvement with Sky, carefully before they come here with their ridiculous proofs based on nothing but supposed theory.

Sky have delibaretly been quiet in stating his involvement as to emphasise his role would be to attract attention which would possibly cause problems, but Wiggins clearly said that Kerrison is the reason he won the Tour (or something very similar) and I would be inclined to believe possibly that he was not reffering to doping methods as people would likely suggest, because Wiggins would never have made that comment if so.

Ok, I get it now.

Kerrison (who has his own thread) is the new Chris Carmichael.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

This thread is tbh pretty pitiful and the primary reason why is because no one actually understands in full the reasoning behind Wiggin's startling development as a GT winner.

If they really wanted to understand Wiggins's development then I advise people to check up and study Tim Kerrison and his involvement with Sky, carefully before they come here with their ridiculous proofs based on nothing but supposed theory.

Sky have delibaretly been quiet in stating his involvement as to emphasise his role would be to attract attention which would possibly cause problems, but Wiggins clearly said that Kerrison is the reason he won the Tour (or something very similar) and I would be inclined to believe possibly that he was not reffering to doping methods as people would likely suggest, because Wiggins would never have made that comment if so.

No one understands but it's not doping? Riiiight.

Sky have delibrately been quite because no one understands. Got it. But it's not doping but no one understands the reasons.

I'm glad you cleared all that up! I feel safe now that there's no doping at Sky. Mainly because no one understands the improvement.

 

[veganrob]

No one understands but it's not doping? Riiiight.

Sky have delibrately been quite because no one understands. Got it. But it's not doping but no one understands the reasons.

I'm glad you cleared all that up! I feel safe now that there's no doping at Sky. Mainly because no one understands the improvement.

A swimming coach turns a quarter horse into Secretariat and no one understands it. What !? What is there to not believe.

 

[Krebs cycle]

1. Thanks!

2. I assume that you are referring to this paper of Asker's?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15241718

If so, have you ever really looked closely at the VO2-power relationship they report? (At least I think that's the paper I'm recalling.)

Yes, you were the one who pointed out it is cross sectional which is an important limitation of the study, and no I haven't looked closely at the VO2-power relationship. I haven't got a copy of the fulltext article. Is the slope different? But also, you know that Asker worked for Rabobank, so I'm assuming that he has had access to unpublished data (same as DTM) that would influence his thinking.

as an aside... did you ever meet 2nd author J Acten? quite a lovely english lass I must say

 

[Krebs cycle]

Ok, I get it now.

Kerrison (who has his own thread) is the new Chris Carmichael.

Dave.

Here is a genuine question. Does anyone really know how much analysis of training power meter datafiles goes on at pro team level? Can anyone say for certain that every other top tier team has employed a fulltime staff member who records and analyses every training session?

has anyone here who uses a power meter religiously databased every training and racing km that you did for 12-24 months? The reason I ask is because this process is what enables an optimal training stimulus to be prescribed. Anyone that has ever done maximal strength training knows that if you carefully monitor your training load, you can use that information to make tiny adjustments to future training load and this process leads to better outcomes. Its not just about how many kilometers your ride. It is about carefully monitoring things such as exactly how long you ride at a certain w/kg during interval sessions or the total work in joules expended per day or per week etc etc. IMO, Tim Kerrison is not the new Chris Carmichael, he is just a guy who measures training load carefully. He applies basic methods that strength experts such as Zatsiorsky or verkhoshansky have been using and writing about for more than 30yrs.

My guess is that the long running doping culture in Europe has overshadowed the importance of such practice. Teams who have always doped relied on doping and so they probably ignored the finer subtleties of training load manipulation. the big ring continually assumes that once a pro cyclist has been pro for 4 or 5yrs then that is it, they can longer improve. They have reached their maximum performance limit and they all have the same training program and so nobody makes improvements after 27-28yrs of age unless they turn to PEDs. Well IMO this is garbage.

I asked the question, did other teams use the same training methods as Sky this year and nobody answered. They just assumed that everyone trains the same which is also garbage. People seem to respect Aldo Sassi and believe that he can prepare riders to the highest level, but then they turn around and say oh no Rogers can't possibly improve at 32yrs of age. Just because Sassi is no longer with us doesn't mean that Rogers forgot everything he taught him and didn't take that knowledge and pass it on to Kerrison.

edit:

"Cycling has improved a lot. Things have really cleaned up. If either Ivan or Cadel win the Giro, we'll have the proof that you can win without doping. I totally trust them and I'm certain they wouldn't do anything to hurt me&#8230]I respect Michael Ashenden's opinions but I also respect Aldo Sassi's and one thing I know for sure is that Sassi has been around pro cycling for a lot longer than Asho.

 

[Telmisartan new]

A swimming coach turns a quarter horse into Secretariat and no one understands it. What !? What is there to not believe.

Pure gold......i assume your from the U.S. with that fantastically accurate analogy,in the country i live in it would be turning a selling plater into Frankel.

 

[the big ring]

If they really wanted to understand Wiggins's development then I advise people to check up and study Tim Kerrison and his involvement with Sky, carefully before they come here with their ridiculous proofs based on nothing but supposed theory.

I did. Or at least, I tried to. Have a look: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18595

In 2009, Brad came 4th at the Tour, while a Garmin rider.

he trained in Girona and Manchester, mainly. He was coached by Rod Ellingworth (sp?)

NB: Brad wasn't at the pre-tour Girona camp with Millar, Pate and Martin.

ie JV basically didn't see him at all for the entire training program for the Tour.

I am wondering now, how JV can be so confident that Brad was not doped for the Tour, as he claims, given they basically did not interact, at all, for the entire time Brad was on the team beyond the team preso in Boulder, November 2008.

 

[sittingbison]

krebs, the average Sat morning round the river rider religiously correlates every piece of data available.

Now, looking at wiggo and kerrison. As I have said previously, it is assumed that wiggo, who is renowned for a laser like focus, especially when casting his cylon like gaze upon the track worlds and olympics for a decade resulting in all those gongs, knows a thing or two about riding a bike. About cadence seeing as he is strapped onto a fixie. And about training. I would hazard a guess that wiggo has been subject to extreme scrutiny for more than ten years.

Now, are you going to admit that although very interesting, every single scrap of information you have described has precisely nothing to do with what wiggo said about cadence? That you are in fact trying to turn a sows ear into a silk purse??

 

[Krebs cycle]

krebs, the average Sat morning round the river rider religiously correlates every piece of data available.

Now, looking at wiggo and kerrison. As I have said previously, it is assumed that wiggo, who is renowned for a laser like focus, especially when casting his cylon like gaze upon the track worlds and olympics for a decade resulting in all those gongs, knows a thing or two about riding a bike. About cadence seeing as he is strapped onto a fixie. And about training. I would hazard a guess that wiggo has been subject to extreme scrutiny for more than ten years.

Now, are you going to admit that although very interesting, every single scrap of information you have described has precisely nothing to do with what wiggo said about cadence? That you are in fact trying to turn a sows ear into a silk purse??

What a load of crap. I sometimes ride in bunches with open grade riders racing in the national series and maybe only 5 or 10% of those guys have powertaps or SRMs. Heart rate and GPS data do not give you the same information as work done in kilojoules. Take a look on strava and see how many of the top 100 or 200 times on standard climbs around town have actual power data and not the silly estimated value. Have you ever worked with athletes before, do all of them pay very close attention to recording everything you asked of them? No they don't, so I don't believe for a second that every pro rider and every pro team does either.

Regarding the cadence business you are basically saying..... Wiggins has a team of staff members that scrutinize his every pedal stroke, therefore I ASSUME they optimized his cadence before 2012, but when Wiggins himself says, my team analysed my cadence in 2011 and we worked on it over the winter, you just turn around and say, oh that is BS, I don't believe it.

Talk about having your cake and eating it.

edit: Besides, who said Wiggins was ALWAYS renowned for his laser like focus? I heard he was pretty loose as an athlete in his early career and would sometimes go on benders and go off the rails wrt to training. If that were true it would go a long way to explain why he "showed ZERO road racing potential" in those early years.

also, I already told you that whatever Wiggins said about cadence is a moot point. If Wiggins said working on cadence made pigs fly backwards would you still believe him? What is important is whether or not working on cadence could possibly effect performance by any means, not whether whatever Wiggins said about the subject was accurate or not.

 

[sittingbison]

What a load of crap. I sometimes ride in bunches with open grade riders racing in the national series and maybe only 5 or 10% of those guys have powertaps or SRMs. Heart rate and GPS data do not give you the same information as work done in kilojoules. Take a look on strava and see how many of the top 100 or 200 times on standard climbs around town have actual power data and not the silly estimated value. Have you ever worked with athletes before, do all of them pay very close attention to recording everything you asked of them? No they don't, so I don't believe for a second that every pro rider and every pro team does either.

Regarding the cadence business you are basically saying..... Wiggins has a team of staff members that scrutinize his every pedal stroke, therefore I ASSUME they optimized his cadence before 2012, but when Wiggins himself says, my team analysed my cadence in 2011 and we worked on it over the winter, you just turn around and say, oh that is BS, I don't believe it.

Talk about having your cake and eating it.

edit: Besides, who said Wiggins was ALWAYS renowned for his laser like focus? I heard he was pretty loose as an athlete in his early career and would sometimes go on benders and go off the rails wrt to training. If that were true it would go a long way to explain why he "showed ZERO road racing potential" in those early years.

haha you are funny. Who ever mentioned power taps and SRMs? I said "every piece of data available". SO, lets forget that cyclists go out and buy every gadget, widget, meter available and all the software they can get their hands on, and sit around in the coffee shop chattng about it.

Annnnndddddd nup, of course his performance wasnt optimised before 2012. It was a pure fluke he won all those gongs waddling around the track, its lucky he didnt fall off like his German friend.

Now jokes aside, once again you have not answered a very simple question. Do you agree that not a single syllable of what you rabbited on about cadence has precisely nothing to do with what wiggo actually said? You know, what this thread is about? Of course you can't answer that question, because then all the jimmy fingers et al will realise it is all BS and blather. Self important twaddle.

To make it easy for you, I will once again show what wiggo said:

"Tim studied it over the winter and decided maybe it was the cadence which was the problem. They worked out Tony's rpm compared to mine and something to do with rolling resistance and with the gears."

And I already talked about having cake and eating it too, being those fat wagyu Cancellara and Martin. But that is not for this cadence thread

And who said anything about his EARLY career. Seen any pics of him lighting up a spliff recently? Anyway, its great that you can pick and choose which bits of his career he went on benders, seeing as he would have to be dedicated post 2008 to loose all that weight etc. But not dedicated before 2009. After all, any undedicated fat lazy bone idle wonker can win Olympic gold in same event, and multiple world championships

 

[the big ring]

Regarding the cadence business you are basically saying..... Wiggins has a team of staff members that scrutinize his every pedal stroke, therefore I ASSUME they optimized his cadence before 2012, but when Wiggins himself says, my team analysed my cadence in 2011 and we worked on it over the winter, you just turn around and say, oh that is BS, I don't believe it.

Check it, yo. Team Sky have never mentioned Video analysis techs so they are behind on 2006 support team for Wiggins.

Just to clarify:

Brad had no significant track results in 2006. He is not distracted by track commitments.
Brad trained in Majorca for this stage alone.
Brad trained with a masseur, mechanic and video analysis techs, all just for him.
Brad is between Olympic Gold medals in the pursuit 2004/2008 and will be pursuit world champion in 2007.
The distance and course are like an out-n-back pursuit: dead flat, no wind, 1 u-turn.

Brad came 21st. His time puts him 4% slower than David Zabriskie. Assuming (pretty darn safely) aerodynamics is the primary limiter for speed here, Brad would have to increase his power by 12% to match Dave Zabriskie's time. Twelve percent.

The conclusion that I come to with this careful analysis of the unassailable facts and data is this:

Although Brad is an Olympic and World champion in 4km pursuit that is only because people who have the ability to beat him, went to the road to earn some money instead. He won those medals and championships because the pool of talent is very, very shallow. If each of those people finishing ahead of Brad above had trained for and ridden the track, I am very confident Brad would have struggled to make the top 10 in a 4km IP Olympic games or World championships.

 

[D-Queued]

Here is a genuine question. ...

My guess is that the long running doping culture in Europe has overshadowed the importance of such practice. ...

Nail, meet hammer.

aka - Mountain >>> Molehill

Now, that is flippant.

But, it is also true.

Squeezing out a fraction of a percent by climbing at 90 versus 85, improving your pedaling efficiency, or whatever, cannot amount to a rounding error on the gains available through sophisticated doping programs.

I am sure you know all about hydration.

What is the point of massive data from a finely tuned power meter if you don't pay attention to your hydration?

How many professional cyclists regularly check hydration levels?

And, yes, HR is far more important. It is the only reasonable way to tell if you are overtrained (also a clue to dehydration) and/or if your periodization is on track.

Power meters aren't very good at that.

The use of Power meters can easily lead to myopic focus, which can exacerbate the problems of both dehydration and overtraining.

Dave.

 

[acoggan]

has anyone here who uses a power meter religiously databased every training and racing km that you did for 12-24 months?

Well, I'm approaching 12 years now, but I'm sure your semi-rhetorical question wasn't really directed at me.

Joking aside, I agree with your general point, i.e., people routinely grossly overestimate the level of technical sophistication that exists at the pro level.

 

[sittingbison]

Well, I'm approaching 12 years now, but I'm sure your semi-rhetorical question wasn't really directed at me.

Joking aside, I agree with your general point, i.e., people routinely grossly overestimate the level of technical sophistication that exists at the pro level.

"Tim studied it over winter..."

 

[acoggan]

I haven't got a copy of the fulltext article. Is the slope different?

If it is the paper I'm thinking of, the slope is way too high (hence explaining the low efficiencies).

as an aside... did you ever meet 2nd author J Acten? quite a lovely english lass I must say

I have not had the pleasure. In fact, I don't think I've seen Asker since he gave me one of Ekimov's Rabobank jerseys at an ACSM meeting in the early 1990s (a gift for helping him get fully up-to-speed w/ the stable isotope methods he used in his dissertation).

 

[acoggan]

"Tim studied it over winter..."

Sounds like Sky is fortunate to have someone with such strong analytical skills on their staff.

 

[Runitout]

Regarding the cadence business you are basically saying..... Wiggins has a team of staff members that scrutinize his every pedal stroke, therefore I ASSUME they optimized his cadence before 2012, but when Wiggins himself says, my team analysed my cadence in 2011 and we worked on it over the winter, you just turn around and say, oh that is BS, I don't believe it.
...


also, I already told you that whatever Wiggins said about cadence is a moot point. If Wiggins said working on cadence made pigs fly backwards would you still believe him? What is important is whether or not working on cadence could possibly effect performance by any means, not whether whatever Wiggins said about the subject was accurate or not.

I recall Wiggins talking about cadence and gearing (and possibly crank length?) in an interview with Ride magazine in around 2005.

 

[blackcat]

Edit: To be fair to you and distance myself from the merry band of holier-than-thou scientists, I'm going to say I think the anaerobic stuff is rubbish. Luke Durbridge was dropped from the australian team pursuit squad this year because he couldn't handle a 1st km in 1:02, the team pursuit surely has high demands on the anaeorbic system, and Wiggins clearly excelled in the team pursuit.

thnx for this info. did not know. and dale parker retires after delhi, well, after another year in the US with Livestrong

 

[the big ring]

What is important is whether or not working on cadence could possibly effect performance by any means, not whether whatever Wiggins said about the subject was accurate or not.

Just curious if you meant "effect performance" or "affect perfomance". Coz as a verb, effect means [cause] as in "cause performance" and the other means [cause change] as in "cause a change in performance".

I mean.

You're a PhD used to expressing precise ideas with precise terminology who lectures in exercise physiology for the past 2 years and I assume you have plenty of time to write these posts without having to rush for any reason...

 

[blackcat]

I recall Wiggins talking about cadence and gearing (and possibly crank length?) in an interview with Ride magazine in around 2005.

playing the long game for the plausible performance justification.

 

[the big ring]

I recall Wiggins talking about cadence and gearing (and possibly crank length?) in an interview with Ride magazine in around 2005.

If you can find a link - although 7 years ago is probably going to require a scan.

 

[Krebs cycle]

haha you are funny. Who ever mentioned power taps and SRMs? I said "every piece of data available". SO, lets forget that cyclists go out and buy every gadget, widget, meter available and all the software they can get their hands on, and sit around in the coffee shop chattng about it.

So if your mate who you ride with on the weekend bought a $50000 Lotus bike with integrated computer and strain gauges all over it and he recorded every training ride and analysed every byte of data, how exactly does that prove that all of the major pro teams are recording and analysing powermeter datafiles and using that information on a daily basis to make decisions about training load?

Annnnndddddd nup, of course his performance wasnt optimised before 2012. It was a pure fluke he won all those gongs waddling around the track, its lucky he didnt fall off like his German friend.

Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that optimal track cadence is up around 120rpm+ whereas optimal road TT cadence lies between 90-100rpm or do you just not know?

Wiggins also said something about his cadence always being "high" due to his track training focus.

Now jokes aside, once again you have not answered a very simple question. Do you agree that not a single syllable of what you rabbited on about cadence has precisely nothing to do with what wiggo actually said? You know, what this thread is about? Of course you can't answer that question, because then all the jimmy fingers et al will realise it is all BS and blather. Self important twaddle.

To make it easy for you, I will once again show what wiggo said:

Again, are your purposefully ignoring the fact that I've been talking about the relationship between efficiency and CADENCE (ie: what the thread is about) or did you just skim over my posts and miss all that? What I do agree with is that Wiggins didn't say anything about the relationship between cadence and efficiency, but so what? What does that prove? What meaning are you searching for in Wiggins off the cuff remark about cadence? It certainly doesn't disprove the mountain of empirical evidence that shows cadence effects efficiency, which is a potential mechansim which could lead to a "marginal gain" if you spent time optimizing this for road TT (not track).

You guys are so focused on what Wiggins said that you are totally missing the real point, which has nothing to do with rolling resistance, but is whether or not working on optimising cadence over the winter could have improved TT performance. You all scoff and laugh and say "as if" but where is your evidence? If you say "no its not possible" then prove it and back it up with some hard and fast data.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Just curious if you meant "effect performance" or "affect perfomance". Coz as a verb, effect means [cause] as in "cause performance" and the other means [cause change] as in "cause a change in performance".

I mean.

You're a PhD used to expressing precise ideas with precise terminology who lectures in exercise physiology for the past 2 years and I assume you have plenty of time to write these posts without having to rush for any reason...

You've got a real ego complex about the PhD thing haven't you? You are the one who continually refers to it, not me.

And no, I am often rushing to write these possts hence the spelling erros sometimes. But really, can you scrap the bottom of the barrell any lower? down to spelling mistakes in your attempt to "win" the internet and prove to the world that you're smarter than some guy on the internet? sad life you must lead.

 

[the big ring]

You've got a real ego complex about the PhD thing haven't you? You are the one who continually refers to it, not me.

I would beg to differ: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1035915#post1035915 and that's not even all of them. I don't think acoggan has mentioned his PhD once.

And no, I am often rushing to write these possts hence the spelling erros sometimes. But really, can you scrap the bottom of the barrell any lower? down to spelling mistakes in your attempt to "win" the internet and prove to the world that you're smarter than some guy on the internet? sad life you must lead.

Why the rush? I am honoured that you feel I am smarter than you, but that has never been my aim - stated or otherwise.

I simply analyse your claims ("there is no evidence of Brad doping") and find them lacking.

 

[blackcat]

how many Phd's does it take to change a light bulb?

last one out of the clinic, please turn off the light will you