Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[the big ring]

What Wiggins says is ******** obviously, but Shane Sutton says 459W (at 71kg) for Wiggo in worlds TT last year, Tony Martin went ~ a minute faster (assuming cubic power-speed, and same cdA --> ~490W for Tony). How much does he weigh? If his W/kg are similar to Wiggo where is he in the mountains? Doesn't suprise me Kerrison is studying how Tony can TT so much faster

le-tour.fr and wiki say 75kg for Martin.

Pretty much the same W/k but W/kg doesn't matter much on the flat. He writes, forgetting completely the TT world's course.

 

[Franklin]

armstrong introduced the world to his high cadence

Truth is, he wasn't the first (and not the first to be wildly successful with it).

 

[Bumeington]

le-tour.fr and wiki say 75kg for Martin.

Pretty much the same W/k but W/kg doesn't matter much on the flat. He writes, forgetting completely the TT world's course.

My point is if Martin is capable of that W/kg then why isn't he up there in the mountains. More logical is his power isn't that much more than Wiggins, so he must be getting some advantage somewhere

 

[Catwhoorg]

I'm a little surprised he didn't go on about crankshaft length to really wind a few folks up here.

 

[taiwan]

My point is if Martin is capable of that W/kg then why isn't he up there in the mountains. More logical is his power isn't that much more than Wiggins, so he must be getting some advantage somewhere

There are only so many advantages you can get - it's either power or drag. difference in rolling resistance has to be negligible. Maybe it's something to do with the drool...

 

[taiwan]

Too much is being read into what is obviously mumbo-jumbo in Wiggo's article.

My guess is as follows:

a) He's got a lot of time on his hands at the moment

Yeah I could see how he'd be at a loose end this week

 

[thehog]

Yeah I could see how he'd be at a loose end this week

Yes. He has also been holidaying in France for 3 weeks.

 

[D-Queued]

What is it you are trying to prove? By the looks of your posts it seems as though you are trying to imply that there is no effect, or only an insignificant effect, of cadence on cycling energetics. I post the abstract of a recent REVIEW article on this very topic which says that cadence accounts for about 10% of the variability in cycling energy expenditure. You ignore that and say "your science is bogus". ???

You should know that cadence is an important consideration in cycling performance and it is something that elite cyclists spend a great deal of time perfecting. Why is it so outrageous for Wiggins to suggest that he has been working on it? To a cyclist or a sport scientist it sounds like a normal and obvious thing to do, to the lay public it is probably a little bit informative.

But to the clinic it is only interpreted as LA propaganda and de facto evidence of doping. This is what really beggars belief.

Really?

Optimizing at 92.35 rpm?

Methinks pro cyclists spend a lot of time perfecting their doping regimes. Any Cadence between 85 & 110 is just fine after these regimes are fully fine-tuned.

Here is an example by analogy.

Analogy #1: Ekimov

Ekimov (remember him?) was convinced that coasting was more aerodynamic with one leg down than with the cranks parallel to the road.

Ok, I can see a Cat 4 being confused. But, a three time world champion, winner of two TT's in the Tour, and winner of the Grand Prix Eddy Merckx, really should know a little more about aerodynamics.

He had to be proven wrong through wind tunnel testing before he believed it.

Now, you obviously don't spend that much time coasting (corners, some descents) in most time trials. And, maybe it was the track background influencing him since you cannot hold your cranks steady.

But, we are talking about a huge degree of basic aerodynamic ignorance here for someone with such enormous experience and accomplishment.

A big engine means you don't have to worry about simple things like perfecting your cadence.

How do you get a bigger engine?

Analogy #2: Indurain

Ok, Indurain was really fast in the TT. But, did you ever look at his TT bike?

The aero tubes (Wow, cool, aero tubes!!) were backwards. Seriously, they are backwards. The bike was an aerodynamic slug.

Hard to tell about the seat tube and down tube in this picture, but readily observable in the head tube.

How much did Indurain have to worry about perfecting his cadence?

Dave

 

[will10]

We should hold a contest to pick which one of Armstrong's cover stories Wiggins will use next.

What have we got left? Matured tubulars for one. Perhaps a Pinarello narrow bike project is in the pipeline?

 

[taiwan]

The aero tubes (Wow, cool, aero tubes!!) were backwards. Seriously, they are backwards. The bike was an aerodynamic slug.

Hard to tell about the seat tube and down tube in this picture, but readily observable in the head tube.

Just to say - having the teardrop shape that way on the headtube probably makes sense where it joins to the top tube and down tube. Giant did something similar on their old TT bike. Doubt the overall effect is worth much though.

 

[mastersracer]

Really?

Optimizing at 92.35 rpm?

Methinks pro cyclists spend a lot of time perfecting their doping regimes. Any Cadence between 85 & 110 is just fine after these regimes are fully fine-tuned.

Here is an example by analogy.

Analogy #1: Ekimov

Ekimov (remember him?) was convinced that coasting was more aerodynamic with one leg down than with the cranks parallel to the road.

Ok, I can see a Cat 4 being confused. But, a three time world champion, winner of two TT's in the Tour, and winner of the Grand Prix Eddy Merckx, really should know a little more about aerodynamics.

He had to be proven wrong through wind tunnel testing before he believed it.

Now, you obviously don't spend that much time coasting (corners, some descents) in most time trials. And, maybe it was the track background influencing him since you cannot hold your cranks steady.

But, we are talking about a huge degree of basic aerodynamic ignorance here for someone with such enormous experience and accomplishment.

A big engine means you don't have to worry about simple things like perfecting your cadence.

How do you get a bigger engine?

Analogy #2: Indurain

Ok, Indurain was really fast in the TT. But, did you ever look at his TT bike?

The aero tubes (Wow, cool, aero tubes!!) were backwards. Seriously, they are backwards. The bike was an aerodynamic slug.

Hard to tell about the seat tube and down tube in this picture, but readily observable in the head tube.

How much did Indurain have to worry about perfecting his cadence?

Dave

Good thing top riders have access to engineers, coaches, and experts on fit to optimize their position. Obree proved that a mediocre engine could beat the best engine with optimized position. Your comment isn't even historically accurate - Indurain paid a great deal of attention to cadence, particularly for his hour record.

 

[D-Queued]

Good thing top riders have access to engineers, coaches, and experts on fit to optimize their position. Obree proved that a mediocre engine could beat the best engine with optimized position. Your comment isn't even historically accurate - Indurain paid a great deal of attention to cadence, particularly for his hour record.

Ok, but do you have wind tunnel data on his bike like I do?

Dave.

 

[webbie146]

I heard RSNT is getting a swimming coach too! He's called Ferrari and he knows a lotttt about swimming yay

 

[Krebs cycle]

I didn't ignore it or say it was bogus, I'm simply pointing out that 1) the research on the subject is both equivocal and 2) subject to limitations. The study to which I linked, while older, also included error bars. The differences fall clearly within the margin of error. The review article doesn't have enough information for me to thoroughly tear it apart, but I'll gladly do that when I have a chance to review the whole thing!

If you really are interested then it is a really good article btw. Well worth a read of the full text. The article states that despite the controversy in the literature and influence of differences in protocols etc, the conclusion is that a small negative relationship between efficiency and cadence exists.

I actually don't know that. I don't even believe it's true, on both fronts. I don't believe that cadence really matters that much within reason, nor do I know to many guys who do specific cadence related work. What's funny is that the guys I know who DO cadence-specific workouts are among the least sophisticated when it comes to training. This doesn't surprise me, since most people using a power meter are pretty quick to understand that cadence doesn't actually matter very much. Note, when I say "it doesn't matter", I mean that riders generally self-select the best cadence, even when this cadence may not be the most efficient (say, spinning high RPM at low powers), and at a cadence which is optimal in efficiency (or very, very close) when doing an effort of >90% of vo2.

Most people using a power meter are not having their power vs efficiency characteristics measured in detail at sports institutes. Elite cyclists are. In that environment, then I can assure you that cadence is most certainly something that is paid attention to.

I agree that cyclists generally select the best cadence for a specific purpose, but that may not mean they always get it correct to within 1% of optimal for a specific distance. If a physiologist can assist the cyclist to select the best cadence then what the hell is the problem here? That is exactly what Wiggins has said he worked on with his sport scientist, Tim Kerrison.

Take a look at this article....

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005 May;94(1-2):188-95. Epub 2005 Jan 19.
The generalized force-velocity relationship explains why the preferred pedaling rate of cyclists exceeds the most efficient one.

The most efficient pedaling rate (lowest oxygen consumption) at a workload of 50-300 W has been reported to be in the range of 42-60 rpm. By contrast, most competitive cyclists prefer a pedaling rate of more than 90 rpm. The reason for this difference is still unknown. We assume that the high pedaling rate preferred by cyclists can be explained by the inherent properties of muscle fibers. To obtain statements which do not depend on muscle's cross-section and length, we generalized Hill's characteristic equations where muscle force and heat liberation are related to shortening velocity. A pedaling rate of f (etamax) yields to maximal efficiency, whereas the higher pedaling rate f (Pmax) leads to maximal power. The ratio f (Pmax)/f (etamax) between these two pedaling rates ranges from 1.7 to 2.4, and it depends on the muscle's fiber-type composition. In sprints and competitions of very short duration, f (Pmax) is more advantageous because energy supply is not the predominant limiting factor. The price to be paid for the most powerful pedaling rate is lower efficiency and higher energy cost. In longer exercises, economy is more important and the optimal pedaling rate shifts toward f (etamax). We conclude that the optimal pedaling rate, representing the fastest race performance, is not fixed but depends on race duration; it ranges between f (etamax) and f (Pmax). Our results are not only of interest for competitive cyclists but also for investigations using cycle ergometers: maximum power might not be reached by using a pedaling rate near the most efficient one.

This article almost exactly describes what Wiggins is talking about.

I don't believe all exercise physiologists share you view. In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't. That said, it doesn't surprise me for an athlete to be doing it, talking about it, or even to think it makes a difference. I hear all sorts of nonsense, some much more ridiculous than this! To the lay public, I actually think it's a disservice, since it gives the illusion of efficiency gains which don't really exist.

Well I can't speak for "all physiologists" but what I can tell you is that in Australia there is a standardized national cycling testing protocol for men and women and in both cases the protocol specifically states that cadence should be controlled for. The other thing I can tell you is that every project I ever worked on in which we did cycling performance testing (which is about 15-20 different projects), cadence was controlled for. When you read the cycling scientific literature on anything to do with efficiency, you will find that cadence is controlled for. So with respect, I think you're wrong when you say that most physiologists don't share my view.

Tim Kerrison obviously shares the same view because he was the one who suggested the idea to Wiggins.

I understand your point, but I don't see everything to the lens of a conspiracy. I think Dr. Coggan's points are entirely plausible and it's just something they're feeding the athlete to help him break through to another level, which ultimately is the goal of getting him to pedal faster in a bigger gear... What I do strongly believe is that any increase in performance is not due to a change in Wiggin's rate of pedaling. Whether it's an intentional smokescreen or simply Wiggins spouting off nonsense, I really have no opinion.

I'm making the simple point that what Wiggins has said in his article is actually quite strongly supported by scientific evidence.

The thing that gets people's alarm bells ringing is that it "sounds like" Lance Armstrong. But this is completely irrelevant to the understanding of cycling energetics.

Was LA are doper? Yes.
Does this invalidate all of the science on cadence and cycling energetics? NO

 

[taiwan]

Let's not forget Wiggins £3k helmet which optimises his field of vision in the aerodynamic position. Marginal gains.

 

[No_Balls]

It is not that he is unbeaten in TT but rather he has been able to held an incredible long form that touches my nerves. How "cadence" could explain the fact that he has been on peak since January is beyond my knowledge. But he is in a position right now (gathering Omertas around him) that he doesnt need to come up with good excuses.

 

[Franklin]

I'm making the simple point that what Wiggins has said in his article is actually quite strongly supported by scientific evidence.

Sorry, no. You can look at the mishmash of ideas and try to get one gist (Lower cadence is better), but that's not what he said. What he said was complete and utter nonsense.

1. Roll rsistance has nothing to do with cadence. This in itself is so idiotic that it invalues most of what follows.
2. Wiggins did not say that his efficiency got better with a low cadence. No; somehow the same power with a lower cadence magically makes you go faster.

Both are complete and utter nonsense. That you are trying to form into something coherent is cool and all that, but don't act like that was what Wiggins said.

 

[Sigmund]

If you really are interested then it is a really good article btw. Well worth a read of the full text. The article states that despite the controversy in the literature and influence of differences in protocols etc, the conclusion is that a small negative relationship between efficiency and cadence exists.



Most people using a power meter are not having their power vs efficiency characteristics measured in detail at sports institutes. Elite cyclists are. In that environment, then I can assure you that cadence is most certainly something that is paid attention to.

I agree that cyclists generally select the best cadence for a specific purpose, but that may not mean they always get it correct to within 1% of optimal for a specific distance. If a physiologist can assist the cyclist to select the best cadence then what the hell is the problem here? That is exactly what Wiggins has said he worked on with his sport scientist, Tim Kerrison.

Take a look at this article....

This article almost exactly describes what Wiggins is talking about.


Well I can't speak for "all physiologists" but what I can tell you is that in Australia there is a standardized national cycling testing protocol for men and women and in both cases the protocol specifically states that cadence should be controlled for. The other thing I can tell you is that every project I ever worked on in which we did cycling performance testing (which is about 15-20 different projects), cadence was controlled for. When you read the cycling scientific literature on anything to do with efficiency, you will find that cadence is controlled for. So with respect, I think you're wrong when you say that most physiologists don't share my view.

Tim Kerrison obviously shares the same view because he was the one who suggested the idea to Wiggins.



I'm making the simple point that what Wiggins has said in his article is actually quite strongly supported by scientific evidence.

Just to nitpick a little bit, you re making the point that what Wiggins should have said, if it was to make any sense, and thus what the physiologist may have actually said to Wiggins, assuming he is no nan idiot, have scientific backing.

What Wiggins actually wrote, is still plain bonkers.

I am willing to accept that optimizing cadence May have some effect on what power a cyclist can produce, though I imagne it to he very small indeed.

I must admit that I still find it slightly disconcerting that Wiggins appear to be so clueless about fairly basic things.

 

[mastersracer]

Ok, but do you have wind tunnel data on his bike like I do?

Dave.

it doesn't mean he discounted aerodynamics - he obviously paid a lot of attention to it, as he did to efficiency, utilizing 190mm cranks for his hour record and a 99.7 average cadence, which he thought was optimal.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Just to nitpick a little bit, you re making the point that what Wiggins should have said, if it was to make any sense, and thus what the physiologist may have actually said to Wiggins, assuming he is no nan idiot, have scientific backing.

What Wiggins actually wrote, is still plain bonkers.

I am willing to accept that optimizing cadence May have some effect on what power a cyclist can produce, though I imagne it to he very small indeed.

I must admit that I still find it slightly disconcerting that Wiggins appear to be so clueless about fairly basic things.

Read between the lines. The stuff he said which is bonkers is irrelevant. I'm not the slightest bit interested in those bits. The stuff which is important is whether or not Wiggins actually did work on reducing his cadence over the winter and whether or not this may have made a tiny difference to his TT performance. The science clearly shows there is a physiological rationale, thus it is entirely plausible.

 

[Cavalier]

This, kids, is the definition of irony. As Tony Martin pedals to an Olympic medal, Millar says admiringly:

Oh god. Tony is pedalling fast. He never does that.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Sorry, no. You can look at the mishmash of ideas and try to get one gist (Lower cadence is better), but that's not what he said. What he said was complete and utter nonsense.

1. Roll rsistance has nothing to do with cadence. This in itself is so idiotic that it invalues most of what follows.
2. Wiggins did not say that his efficiency got better with a low cadence. No; somehow the same power with a lower cadence magically makes you go faster.

Both are complete and utter nonsense. That you are trying to form into something coherent is cool and all that, but don't act like that was what Wiggins said.

Yeah I agree it is nonsense. It is the reason why I'm not even bothering to pay any attention to those comments. If you want to believe its all just code language for doping, then go right ahead.

However, the issue of selecting an optimal cadence in order to maximise TT performance is not complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Bala Verde]

From a snapshot of today's OG ITT, I calculated 31 rotations in 20s for Wiggins on a flat section. So about 90-93 rpm?

 

[D-Queued]

it doesn't mean he discounted aerodynamics - he obviously paid a lot of attention to it, as he did to efficiency, utilizing 190mm cranks for his hour record and a 99.7 average cadence, which he thought was optimal.

He had to adapt to the track... of course he paid attention to cadence. He could barely hold a straight line.

Dave.

 

[montagna lunga]

clearly the audience here cannot even agree on what they read,

cannot begin to see that what they thought they read was written,

and completely misses the irony that none of the above may have actually been said

Here's a joke for you guys

Q: how many elite cyclists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Who cares, as long as the clinicians think they are screwing someone