Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Krebs cycle]

So I just did my own homework, read the entire thread about Leinders and followed several of the links to news stories posted there. Out of 4 pages of the usual conspiracy theory garbage the best anyone could come up with was "Leinders gave some guy salt tablets" at a time when the 50% rule was enforced and various comments that the doping was tolerated, the riders chose their own "program" and the Rabo docs were there to ensure the safety and health of the riders. Surely someone can come up with something better than that? There was nothing about overseeing a "program", nothing about investigations by authorities etc etc.

In response to BroDeal I found this from something dr Maserati linked to...

Brailsford’s search for doctors with experience in professional cycling was a frustrating one. Finding experienced, respected doctors with detailed knowledge of the demands placed on athletes by events like the Tour de France who had not worked for professional cycling teams was, Brailsford said, not easy. Dr Leinders came highly recommended.

This is common sense to me, but its probably "code for doping" to you I suppose?

Anyway, this has gone off topic. Thread is about cadence.

 

[BroDeal]

In response to BroDeal I found this from something dr Maserati linked to...

Brailsford’s search for doctors with experience in professional cycling was a frustrating one. Finding experienced, respected doctors with detailed knowledge of the demands placed on athletes by events like the Tour de France who had not worked for professional cycling teams was, Brailsford said, not easy. Dr Leinders came highly recommended.

This is common sense to me, but its probably "code for doping" to you I suppose?

So the scientist, and I use that term very loosely, posts a quote about how hard it was to find a doctor experienced with the demands of the Tour de France. Two posts earlier he was crowing about Lienders not being at the Tour de France. Yet he cannot seem to get his head around the discrepancy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So I just did my own homework, read the entire thread about Leinders and followed several of the links to news stories posted there. Out of 4 pages of the usual conspiracy theory garbage the best anyone could come up with was "Leinders gave some guy salt tablets" at a time when the 50% rule was enforced and various comments that the doping was tolerated, the riders chose their own "program" and the Rabo docs were there to ensure the safety and health of the riders. Surely someone can come up with something better than that? There was nothing about overseeing a "program", nothing about investigations by authorities etc etc.

In response to BroDeal I found this from something dr Maserati linked to...

This is common sense to me, but its probably "code for doping" to you I suppose?

Can you tell me what exactly is common sense in replacing to Doctors (Palfreeman & Hulse) who have years of experience with British cycling have even worked GTs and don't have any sort of dubious past with 2 (Leinders & Bartalucci) who have a dubious past.

Anyway, this has gone off topic. Thread is about cadence.

Well spin is something that BC appear to do very well.

 

[Krebs cycle]

So the scientist, and I use that term very loosely, posts a quote about how hard it was to find a doctor experienced with the demands of the Tour de France. Two posts earlier he was crowing about Lienders not being at the Tour de France. Yet he cannot seem to get his head around the discrepancy.

Hey that's a new one, lets hire a doctor on a part time basis to oversee a team wide systematic doping "program", but we won't take him to the tour to oversee alleged program. We'll tell the critics we hired him because he knows about the demands of pro cycling and just to be sure we'll silence our critics and not take him to the tour, but that was all part of the plan because that will make people THINK we are doping because well since we actually are doping we want to let them know via our secret conspiracy theory code language and... um wait.... wtf planet are we on here again?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Can you tell me what exactly is common sense in replacing to Doctors (Palfreeman & Hulse) who have years of experience with British cycling have even worked GTs and don't have any sort of dubious past with 2 (Leinders & Bartalucci) who have a dubious past.


Well spin is something that BC appear to do very well.

No I can't. I don't work for Team Sky.

Can you tell me why working on lowering your cadence in a long TT could not have any effect whatsoever on performance and can you provide evidence that proves either of the following:

1. Wiggins did not lower his AVERAGE cadence in the past 12 months as he has claimed
2. Spending time training at lower cadences had no effect on efficiency at his observed race cadence

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No I can't. I don't work for Team Sky.

You said you were using "common sense" - so working for Sky or not has nothing to do with that - its just your opinion.

Can you tell me why working on lowering your cadence in a long TT could not have any effect whatsoever on performance and can you provide evidence that proves either of the following:

1. Wiggins did not lower his AVERAGE cadence in the past 12 months as he has claimed
2. Spending time training at lower cadences had no effect on efficiency at his observed race cadence

I responded to your post about the Doc - while its a nice attempt to try and steer it back, your a bit late for that.

 

[BroDeal]

Hey that's a new one, lets hire a doctor on a part time basis to oversee a team wide systematic doping "program", but we won't take him to the tour to oversee alleged program. We'll tell the critics we hired him because he knows about the demands of pro cycling and just to be sure we'll silence our critics and not take him to the tour, but that was all part of the plan because that will make people THINK we are doping because well since we actually are doping we want to let them know via our secret conspiracy theory code language and... um wait.... wtf planet are we on here again?

Wow. You seem to be making progress. You actually appear to be on to the contractiction of telling the public that a dodgy doctor was hired for his expert knowledge of the demands of racing but he was left home when his supposed knowledge would have been valuable.

I am not completely sure you are on to it, though. A post or two hence and you will probably be back to normal.

 

[BroDeal]

Can you tell me why working on lowering your cadence in a long TT could not have any effect whatsoever on performance and can you provide evidence that proves either of the following:

1. Wiggins did not lower his AVERAGE cadence in the past 12 months as he has claimed
2. Spending time training at lower cadences had no effect on efficiency at his observed race cadence

You are the one who wants us to believe that there can be a significant advantage to Wiggins reducing his cadence, but so far you have produced no evidence that Wiggins has in fact reduced it. When members like 131313 have used to video to estimate the change at 2 or 3 RPM, you, as usual, have either dismissed it or ignored it. So let's see your evidence for Wiggins using a lower cadence. Then let's hear a real number for what the possible effects are from the amount of reduction. We don't really need to you to create a strawman by characterizing doubts about whether a slight cadence reduction could cause a meaningful effect as "could not have any effect whatsoever on performance."

 

[Krebs cycle]

You said you were using "common sense" - so working for Sky or not has nothing to do with that - its just your opinion.

And you ignored that point and you used a strawman argument and you are joining in on ridiculous conspiracy theory that once again misses the forest for the trees.

I responded to your post about the Doc - while its a nice attempt to try and steer it back, your a bit late for that.

Nice cop out doc. You're proving yourself to be no better than some of the other looney tunes around here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And you ignored that point and you used a strawman argument and you are joining in on ridiculous conspiracy theory that once again misses the forest for the trees.

Due to the fact those were my first 2 posts on this thread it certainly wasn't me who brought up the Docs - but your refusal to answer it has been noted.

Nice cop out doc. You're proving yourself to be no better than some of the other looney tunes around here.

Wow.

 

[Krebs cycle]

You are the one who wants us to believe that there can be a significant advantage to Wiggins reducing his cadence, but so far you have produced no evidence that Wiggins has in fact reduced it. When members like 131313 have used to video to estimate the change at 2 or 3 RPM, you, as usual, have either dismissed it or ignored it. So let's see your evidence for Wiggins using a lower cadence. Then let's hear a real number for what the possible effects are from the amount of reduction. We don't really need to you to create a strawman by characterizing doubts about whether a slight cadence reduction could cause a meaningful effect as "could not have any effect whatsoever on performance."

No I pointed to scientific evidence that cadence effects cycling energy expenditure in a couple of different ways. You chose to ignore it and thereafter make false assumptions about what "I" am claiming.

Oh wow 131313 posted a snippet of a youtube video from no more than a minute or two of footage from 2 races? And you accuse me of being a "loose" scientist? Are you serious. This is a joke. I've done plenty of video analysis work and we use 50Hz HD quality video as a bare minimum to do any performance analysis on high velocity movements.

I want access to the complete datafiles for every TT Wiggins has done in the past 12months and I would want to analyze those first before I made a judgement about exactly how much Wiggins' has or has not altered his cadence. I want to know exactly what his cadence was for the entire course, not just some estimated crap off a youtube video. That is how a scientist works.

 

[biker jk]

And you ignored that point and you used a strawman argument and you are joining in on ridiculous conspiracy theory that once again misses the forest for the trees.


Nice cop out doc. You're proving yourself to be no better than some of the other looney tunes around here.

A page ago you chastised others for making personal insults.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Due to the fact those were my first 2 posts on this thread it certainly wasn't me who brought up the Docs - but your refusal to answer it has been noted.


Wow.

Oh but you chose to enter the thread on the off topic subject of the doctor.

And your refusal to answer is also noted.

Besides on the subject of doctors, what exactly is it that YOU are a doctor of?

 

[BroDeal]

Oh wow 131313 posted a snippet of a youtube video from no more than a minute or two of footage from 2 races? And you accuse me of being a "loose" scientist? Are you serious. This is a joke. I've done plenty of video analysis work and we use 50Hz HD quality video as a bare minimum to do any performance analysis on high velocity movements.

Well, lawdy da da da. 131313's analysis of a minute or two of Youtube video is a minute or two more video than you used. At least he made an attempt. You have steadfastly refused to make an attempt because if you did then you would quickly run into the big question everyone is asking, which is how much of an effect a tiny change in cadence is likely to have. Instead you hide in generalities by saying it will have an affect but refusing to talk about magnitude.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh but you chose to enter the thread on the off topic subject of the doctor.

And your refusal to answer is also noted.

Besides on the subject of doctors, what exactly is it that YOU are a doctor of?

So - you ignore the Doctors because its "off topic" but wish to bring in the "off topic" Doctors to ask a question?

Ah - its a joke name - Doctor with an Italian car manufacturer name...

 

[Krebs cycle]

Well, lawdy da da da. 131313's analysis of a minute or two of Youtube video is a minute or two more video than you used. At least he made an attempt. You have steadfastly refused to make an attempt because if you did then you would quickly run into the big question everyone is asking, which is how much of an effect a tiny change in cadence is likely to have. Instead you hide in generalities by saying it will have an affect but refusing to talk about magnitude.

Just go away and troll somewhere else. I've posted more factual evidence to support my opinions in this forum in the past month than you have in years.

 

[BroDeal]

Just go away and troll somewhere else. I've posted more factual evidence to support my opinions in this forum in the past month than you have in years.

You have not proven jack. You have posted zero factual evidence of Wiggins' change in cadence. All we have seen from you is some hand waving about Wiggins maybe using 130 RPM on the track. You continually avoid any and all evidence of Wiggins' real world cadence to focus on theoretical gains from large changes in cadence. You focus on single aspects of human performance while ignoring that overall performance is a combination of factors and improving one factor may affect others detrimentally.

You cannot answer the $64K question, which is what is the final number. Due to advice from his wonder coach, a rider drops his average cadence from 100 to 95; how much faster of a time trialist does he become?

Does his speed change at all? If there is any significant effect then why have irders not been doing this for decades? No one in the history of cycling science ever tried to determine what the optimum cadence is for an hour long time trial? It was up to an Australian swim coach to tell Wiggins he was pedaling three RPM too fast?

 

[blackcat]

but should there not have been a market that found an equilibrium in gains from individual cadences.

This would be one of the unique marks of an athletes sporting carerr arc.

Why are they tapping this resevoir of "gain(s)" now.

Was Wigans an idiot to not pursue this well of opportunity before now?

All potential gains that are available freely, in the pro sport market, should reach an equilibrium in the competitor pool (peloton).

So, we are starting with a premise, Wiggins left this "on the shelf" for the previous 10+ careers of his pro career, and being inside the tent with British Cycling.

Thats risible. Even Dimspace would not concede that.

Well, actually, he probably would. Dimspace = House equivalent from Dailypeloton and Armstrong hagiography

 

[sittingbison]

... my viewpoint is that there is absolutely no circumstantial evidence which indicates that they are (doping)...This is in stark contrast to LA. The circumstantial evidence of doping appeared sporadically throughout his entire career... If anyone here had been able to present convincing evidence that wasn't so completely wrong then I would change my opinion in a blood boosted heartbeat...The only so called "evidence" that is factually correct is that...Team Sky hired a doctor who worked for Rabobank when the chicken got busted.

krebs, I think you might be confused as to what "circumstantial evidence" means.

All the issues that have been raised during the Tour about Team Sky ARE "circumstantial evidence".
1) Ditching their own Code by employing several suspect riders (Rogers et al).
2) "Marginal gains" being complete and utter BS (Froome etc)
3) Employing two dodgy doctors without checking their pedigree (and FYI there has been significant investigation by Franklin into Leinders)
4) Using Tenerife as training location
5) Wiggos about stance on doping 2007-2012
6) Not publishing rider data or blood values
7) Dominating team performance
8) Sudden drastic improvements in domestiques
9) Sky in bed with UCI/ASO (ie showing parameters pre TdF, Brads stupid utterances)
10) etc etc etc

Now these can all be debated back and forth, that is why they are circumstantial. The evidence against Lance was ACTUAL evidence, the 1999 saddlesore cream, avoiding OOC testers, 2005 retrospective EPO positives etc etc.

Now, back to topic which our two PhD doctors seem to increasingly ignore in an avalanche of "data" about other issues, namely Wiggos ludicrous utterances viz-a-viz cadence, rolling resistance etc. There has not been the slightest shred of evidence (lol) that he changed his cadence by any detectable or meaningful amount, nor that a change in cadence would in fact lead to improvements.

 

[badboygolf16v]

I don't think any of this guesswork has scientific validity, does it?

sittingbison's post above focuses on the important stuff, real actions by real people that raise alarm bells.

I watched 'Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room' last night. It's interesting to see the behaviour of fraudsters, and very interesting to see the parallels with Team Sky.

 

[Sigmund]

but should there not have been a market that found an equilibrium in gains from individual cadences.

This would be one of the unique marks of an athletes sporting carerr arc.

Why are they tapping this resevoir of "gain(s)" now.

Was Wigans an idiot to not pursue this well of opportunity before now?

All potential gains that are available freely, in the pro sport market, should reach an equilibrium in the competitor pool (peloton).

So, we are starting with a premise, Wiggins left this "on the shelf" for the previous 10+ careers of his pro career, and being inside the tent with British Cycling.

Thats risible. Even Dimspace would not concede that.

Well, actually, he probably would. Dimspace = House equivalent from Dailypeloton and Armstrong hagiography

How exactly is it that you think the world moves forward? Everything is out there from the beginning, no improvements are ever made? Because, obviously, if it isn't done immediately it must be because it has no effect, otherwise someone would have done it before?

This response reminds of the story about the economist who walks past a $100 bill without picking it up, when his friend asks him why he didnt the response it it must be false because otherwise someone else would have picked it up long ago.

I would imagine Wiggins and his team researched what gives results for a time trial, started with the things that would give the most bang for the buck, when having maxed out the big things you move to the samller things.

For what its worth, as I have stated earlier, what Wiggins wrote in his blog is clearly hogwash, and although there certainly are many people who think working on their cadence is worthwhile, I personally dont think it is.

But that doesn't mean you cant try it out. Every successfull person tries out lots of stuff, some of the things you try don't work and some do, you stick with what works and on we go.

What is risible is to suggest that there are no more gains to be had. It is risible to suggest we know all there is to know about training and how to go fast in a TT, no point in trying anything, because if nobody else are doing it it must be because it have no effect.

So, do I think Wiggins will get faster by altering his cadence? As already stated, no not at all, but then Acoggan has put forward a pretty convincing story saying that Wiggins is in fact not getting faster, at least not thorugh higher power production.

 

[the big ring]

Story seems very apt.

 

[acoggan]

Now, back to topic which our two PhD doctors seem to increasingly ignore in an avalanche of "data" about other issues, namely Wiggos ludicrous utterances viz-a-viz cadence, rolling resistance etc. There has not been the slightest shred of evidence (lol) that he changed his cadence by any detectable or meaningful amount, nor that a change in cadence would in fact lead to improvements.

Why do you think I was asking if anyone had a powermeter file for Wiggins pre-2012? Only once it is firmly established that his cadence has changed and by how much can you evaluate the potential consequences re. performance.

BTW, just to be clear: whether Wiggins is innocent or guilty of doping is not really of interest to me...I'm only here because someone mentioned power (and for the endless entertainment, of course).

 

[acoggan]

you would quickly run into the big question everyone is asking, which is how much of an effect a tiny change in cadence is likely to have.

Objection, your Honor: assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[the big ring]

Objection, your Honor: assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled. Defense has claimed numerous facts not in evidence:

presence and type of wind during Olympic TT
presence and impact of lead vehicles in TT
improved CdA of rider and/or bike over wind-tunnel tested CdA
correlation of one rider's CdA based on another, 7cm shorter rider's CdA
no increase in power