Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Catwhoorg]

Of course I was reading an article the other day about how its no more effective than any other tape.

Helps with minor injuries/niggles.

So its a marginal gain, that everyone is doing, that isn't in fact any sort of marginal gain.

 

[Benotti69]

Wonder will Wiggins get an invite by his man love to use his cadence at the Yellow Rose

 

[jilbiker]

Dejavu.......cadence and LA

Does any one else get the feeling of an LA Dejavu? Where have I heard this whole cadence gamut is the secret to my recent sucess? LA who was a decent rider became super rider and attributed it to a focus on cadence. Then the whole bike world went bonkers on cadence. I bought a cadence meter for my bike and began to train for cadence....ha-ha. What a load. Cadence translates to Juice. I think that is what they train themselves to say...say it well enough you will believe it and suddenly convince yourself..."I have never juiced before!"

 

[Ripper]

Fact remains that a vast array of scientific literature indicates that cadence has some influence on cycling energetics and this would explain why (as 131313 posted) most TT specialists tend to use pretty similar cadences. If they used widely different cadences then it would indicate that rpm is pretty irrelevant. If Wiggins was using a sub-optimal cadence previously because he had adapted that way from his track background, it would make perfect sense to spend time working on that and moving it towards something better suited to long TTs.

Of course, we are assuming he actually has changed his cadence. I guess we could compare by watching video clips of past TTs and this year. I'm not too interested in that right now

Also interesting is that, yes, most TT specialists use similar cadences. Wasn't Brad's already similar?

FWIW, he seems to ride at a pretty speedy cadence!

Also FWIW, not only do I agree with you that he does not really know how to describe this, but that this could also be bunk. It's not the first time semi-plausible (even if weak) theories were thrown out as explanations.

Hey, I'm cool with marginal gains. Yay, UK wins all the notable stage races this year except the Giro. And at least the Olympic TT. It's been a fairy tale, and I'm fine with it (drank the kool aid).

 

[Ripper]

wiggo does not care about enlightened folk,

hes selling to the rubes

there you need to start the premise....

over 2 u

Don't disagree. But is Wiggo himself enlightened or a rube in his thinking? Or is he just a parrot?

Seems like sometimes we think 'cause the athlete's world class, they can also think world class. Truth is, often that is not the case.

 

[Ripper]

In what world is efficiency a canard? The entire point is that an improvement in gross efficiency would allow a rider to increase power output that would not otherwise be possible. Studies such as the one below demonstrate over a 2% improvement in gross efficiency over a 20 cadence range from 105-85. How could that not be relevant to performance increases in events in which small areodynamic details, for example, are researched and utilized? Also, gross efficiency is just one variable that is dependent on cadence (force effectiveness and others).


Leirdal, Stig, and GertjanEttema. "The relationship between cadence, pedalling technique and gross efficiency in cycling." European journal of applied physiology 111.12 (2011):2885-2893.

And yet, not unlike that extremely clear and unargued arena of crank length, most Time Trialists ride at similar cadences. Obviously it is not just GE, otherwise everyone would be riding at much slower cadences than tend to be popular.

Wait a second, are we in a forest?

 

[Ripper]

within reason (ignoring incredibly high or low cadences), that's exactly my point.




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!



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.





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.



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 agree with all your points!

As for the bolded part, I clearly remember Wiggo saying he was not training with power, but with VAM this year! Truly honest and a step forward

 

[taiwan]

Beats me why people are trying make sense out of what Wiggins said, when clearly he either did not understand what he was talking about or was just BSing.

 

[Ripper]

You mean it's Wigans and he has crap coming out of both ends.

He also thinks his fans are idiots, but it's ok, they love him anyway.

Many of his fans are idiots. Just look at some of the posts

 

[JibberJim]

Also interesting is that, yes, most TT specialists use similar cadences. Wasn't Brad's already similar?

Yes, but he was riding a lower cadence in the Olympic TT than Copenhagen on my brief sampling - however I cannot say for sure that the relevant points and wind/gradient were the same to be actually comparable.

I can very much believe higher cadences are worse aerodynamically.

 

[acoggan]

I can very much believe higher cadences are worse aerodynamically.

I am aware of two studies that say otherwise.

 

[acoggan]

No offense Dr. Coggan, but your comment doesn't add much to the discussion if you're not willing to elaborate.

None taken, and I understand why you feel as you do. That said, what do you expect me to do...sit on my hands while misinformation is promulgated? (Note that while I can't say any more than I already have, there are data out there in the public domain for Wiggins' power over various durations.)

 

[Rockets160]

Don't forget the windtunnel and "position"
(although, I must admit, I've never seen a human being who has pedaled more beautifully and smoothly than Wiggans). His position is also better than any person I've seen before him. He's got those two factors absolutely nailed, for sure.

Dave Z position is pretty darn close to perfect...

 

[acoggan]

Nthere are data out there in the public domain for Wiggins' power over various durations.

After just a couple of minutes refreshing my memory:

4 km pursuit (2004) ~570 W
10 mi TT (2009 or before) 482 W
30 min climb (2009 or before) ~475 W
British 10 mi TT champs (2010) 476 W
Worlds ITT (2011) 459 W
TdF prologue (2012) 492 W

Obviously, big gap between 2004 and 2009, so perhaps someone else might care to try to fill that in. Regardless, given his (claimed) 4 km power in 2004, the power he (reportedly) generates now is not surprising, i.e., taking the numbers at face value you can't really make the case that he has suddenly increased his sustainable power (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doping now and/or that he wasn't doping years ago).

EDIT: Here's how things look when you apply the critical power approach:

 

[131313]

None taken, and I understand why you feel as you do. That said, what do you expect me to do...sit on my hands while misinformation is promulgated? (Note that while I can't say any more than I already have, there are data out there in the public domain for Wiggins' power over various durations.)

If you don't have any reasonable rebuttal, then yes! Seriously, if you have access to the actual power he produced that's great, but you're going on the assumption that the numbers are correct. I know it was claimed Wiggins did 476 for 18:XX in a TT, in 2011. Sutton claimed his threshold power was in the neighborhood of 440-460, though frankly I think that's an overestimation, as most riders seem to have a bigger dropoff from 18:00 to 50:00. Note, I didn't even know these numbers, I just googled them: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533967/bradley-wiggins-s-tour-de-france-training.html So, I'm not sure the calculations are really that far off? I did say the numbers were on the low side since I didn't correct for accelerating and decelerating--though I don't know if you're claiming I'm wrong on the high side or low side.

I will say that looking at the power output of a rider who is similar in size and aerodynamics (but significantly slower), the calculations seem fairly reasonable, if a bit low.

That said, my main point was the increase in power necessary to go 2 minutes faster at those speeds more than the raw number, which is just simple math. 12% is roughly what it takes, assuming aerodynamics are unchanged (obviously this will change a bit depending on the raw power, but it's within a couple of percent at the very least). Hard to argue with that one.

Mostly, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the efficiency increase from a 2 RPM change in pedaling rate...

 

[131313]

After just a couple of minutes refreshing my memory:

4 km pursuit (2004) ~570 W
10 mi TT (2009 or before) 482 W
30 min climb (2009 or before) ~475 W
British 10 mi TT champs (2010) 476 W
Worlds ITT (2011) 459 W
TdF prologue (2012) 492 W

Obviously, big gap between 2004 and 2009, so perhaps someone else might care to try to fill that in. Regardless, given his (claimed) 4 km power in 2004, the power he (reportedly) generates now is not surprising, i.e., taking the numbers at face value you can't really make the case that he has suddenly increased his sustainable power (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doping now and/or that he wasn't doping years ago).

EDIT: Here's how things look when you apply the critical power approach:

OK, thanks. I want you to know that I wanted to err on the low side so I didn't get accused by Krebs of trying to sandbag the numbers to look ridiculous. I wanted to use the absolute lower bound. I was also lazy and didn't want to do any more math than necessary. This course had a fair number of twists and turns, so I'm not surprised my numbers were low.

So, he did 460W @ world's last year. Let's change the numbers a bit and assume a CdA of .25 for the entire race (I know this is the lazy way), and increase Crr to .0045 (that may be a bit more realistic, as there were sections that were really rough). 460W puts him 2 minutes slower, which puts his Olympic power @ 510W or so. Am I doing any better?

 

[Parrot23]

Mostly, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the efficiency increase from a 2 RPM change in pedaling rate...

Great work in front of the telly. Is that within +/- 2 standard deviations, is it?

 

[131313]

Great work in front of the telly. Is that within +/- 2 standard deviations, is it?

the modern miracle of youtube and live streaming!

 

[acoggan]

Am I doing any better?

I would suggest forgetting about trying to estimate his power by *** u me ing his CdA, etc., and simply rely upon the data that are available, i.e., his actual power over various durations. Assuming (there's that word again) that these are in fact correct*, then Wiggins should have averaged ~460 W during the TT yesterday. So no, you aren't doing better, you're doing worse.

Another way to look at it: in setting the (still-standing) ultimate hour record, Boardman averaged 84% of the power he produced during his (now-broken) pursuit record ride. Assuming Wiggins could do the same and the 570 W figure from Beijing in 2004 is correct, you'd expect Wiggins to be able to sustain 570 * 0.84 = 479 W for 1 h. That his power is actually lower than this is consistent with his palmares as a TP rider as well as an IP rider (i.e., his power-duration relationship would be expected to be less flat than Boardman's).

*They might be high or low, if Wiggins, Sutton, et al., are attempting to spread propaganda (which I rather doubt, since the data are drawn from multiple sources over many years, yet are still internally consistent), or they might be high, if they aren't properly corrected for the use of a non-round chainring.

 

[131313]

I would suggest forgetting about trying to estimate his power by *** u me ing his CdA, etc., and simply rely upon the data that are available, i.e., his actual power over various durations. Assuming (there's that word again) that these are in fact correct*, then Wiggins should have averaged ~460 W during the TT yesterday. So no, you aren't doing better, you're doing worse.

That of course is assuming that Wiggins is putting out no more power than he was at last year's WC's. I'm not sure that's reasonable, considering he lost the race by 1:15. Of course, there's that word again... Still, if you go back to prior to 2010 and before, the improvement seems to be along the order of 2 minutes (from 2011 to today, it seems more like 1:00 improvement when benchmarked to most other riders). So, if we assume 460W to be an accurate number from the 2011 WC's, it would take roughly 490W to go 1:00 faster on the Olympic course.

Another way to look at it: in setting the (still-standing) ultimate hour record, Boardman averaged 84% of the power he produced during his (now-broken) pursuit record ride. Assuming Wiggins could do the same and the 570 W figure from Beijing in 2004 is correct, you'd expect Wiggins to be able to sustain 570 * 0.84 = 479 W for 1 h. That his power is actually lower than this is consistent with his palmares as a TP rider as well as an IP rider (i.e., his power-duration relationship would be expected to be less flat than Boardman's).

*They might be high or low, if Wiggins, Sutton, et al., are attempting to spread propaganda (which I rather doubt, since the data are drawn from multiple sources over many years, yet are still internally consistent), or they might be high, if they aren't properly corrected for the use of a non-round chainring.

And yet, Wiggins stated power output from the 2011 WC's actually exceeds the numbers of Boardman on your own chart. And he didn't even win the race, and is riding faster now than last year (@ 69kg that puts him around 6.66 w/kg).

As I said, the absolute numbers mean less to me than the percentage of change from 2009/2010 to today. He's riding significantly faster relative to the competition in time events, and he was already riding at a very high level. These points seem pretty clear to me, though maybe I'm missing something.

 

[roundabout]

570W at what? 82kg? 80kg? 77kg?

How much does he weigh now? 70? 71? 69?

 

[131313]

570W at what? 82kg? 80kg? 77kg?

How much does he weigh now? 70? 71? 69?

His claimed weight is 69 kg. If you believe the 460W from last year's WC's, and you believe he's 1:00 faster, and you attribute that difference to power output alone (yes, there are some assumptions there), that will put him at 490W, or roughly 7 w/kg. Then again, that's what Chris Charmichael and Ferrari said it took to win the tour...

 

[hrotha]

570W at what? 82kg? 80kg? 77kg?

How much does he weigh now? 70? 71? 69?

69 kg according to the Sky site, 72 kg when he was at his limit at Garmin in 2009, 77 kg according to the London 2012 site.

 

[roundabout]

Thanks.

Indications point to the 6.5w+ that he did in Copenhagen being considered not enough by his coaches and that an improvement took place.

At least going by that Guardian column pre-TT.

It's possible that 460w is on the low side for Wiggans yesterday and his actual number was higher.

 

[acoggan]

Wiggins stated power output from the 2011 WC's actually exceeds the numbers of Boardman on your own chart.

Which version?

As I said, the absolute numbers mean less to me than the percentage of change from 2009/2010 to today. He's riding significantly faster relative to the competition in time events, and he was already riding at a very high level. These points seem pretty clear to me, though maybe I'm missing something.

If you want to make the argument that he's gotten faster, vs. more powerful, I'm not going to argue with you, simply because I don't follow professional cycling enough to really care/be able to mount a cogent counterargument. Based on the power he is purported to be producing, though, I don't see any major improvements.