Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

bazbadger

Dave_1 wrote:

bazbadger wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Bazbadger - Armstrong isn't bigger than cycling, and as has been pointed out above, most of Europe couldn't give a flying f*** about him. If you think the sponsors who have been involved in cycling since, lets say Festina in 98, went in with their eyes closed to doping in the sport then I'm not sure what to say... They sponsor teams to get exposure to cycling fans, who know the sport isn't clean (yet). Who, apart from a few naive American teenagers, is going to turn off the cycling who didn't already turn off in 98? The core audience is still there, in Europe, and won't be in the least bit shocked if Armstrong goes down. The sponsors know that.

You're right Armstrong isn't "bigger than cycling". The point I am making is that this time it's different because for the first time we are not just talking about a cyclist, but a brand (and therefore money, lots of it). Since the introduction of the 'Armstrong brand' cycling has seen a big increase in awareness amongst people not normally interested. It doesn't neccassarily mean those people will become fans (BB thanks for the stats, but maybe my point was missed), but awareness about the sport of cycling goes up. Another example, look at what has happened in the UK since Bejing 2008. If you think sponsors just go for a sport because of the 'core audience' then think again.

Businesses don't invest in sport for the short term as they don't see a return. I doubt very much that 'the core audience' still being there will be very attractive to new businesses looking to invest in sport - and why choose a discredited one? Businesses want to be assured that the sport is on 'the up' with good prospects for increasing awareness and there are plenty of sports to choose from.

I think some just want Armstong out (rightly or wrongly) at any cost. I'm just not convinced that we have considered what 'any cost' might actually mean.

I didn't write the underlined text above but it appears attributed to me. :?

Apologies, ginger moment with quote tag - should read "No tA Doctor wrote". :roll:

Anyway, that's my 2p worth. I'm gonna bog off and wait for my baby to arrive (it's late!).

jimmythecuckoo

Only 11 pages to go for the hundred up on this thread...

Without quotes it would probably only being at 5 pages long.

I wonder how many it will be by the time this is resolved.

mididoctors

nahhhh LA was suppose to signal a new cleaner era... see look at his high cadence which .and the lack of body weight.. proves he is not cheating.

yes we can put it all behind us an move on...

NOT

the retrospective total destruction of this massive sporting legacy t"rd which places the whole notion of "got away with it" into a gigantic dustbin of fail that is then shot into the sun while broadcast live to the embarrassment of just about every pro cyclist and FAN

is for the betterment of the future...

the fact he was singled out by a corrupt system as a poster boy for a new future?

wont stand... move on?

BikingBernie

mididoctors wrote:

LA was suppose to signal a new cleaner era... see look at his high cadence which and the lack of body weight.. proves he is not cheating.

In reality both of those factors provide further evidence that he was doping.

First of all, figures given by Ed Coyle show that Armstrong's weight when was 'winning' the Tour was within a kilo of his pre-cancer weight when he was getting his arse kicked all over France.

Secondly, a high cadence climbing style is actually less efficient than the usual lower cadence one, demanding a higher level of oxygen availability for the same power output. Most riders when on a climb naturally select a lower cadence in order to maximise their power output, usually around 80 Rpm. The 'cost ' of this is the recruitment of significant numbers of more fatiguable 'fast twitch' muscle fibres and an increased level of blood lactate. This lactate is not a waste product but actually provides fuel for the muscles. However, the rider will perceive the effort to be very hard and will probably be suffering like a dog.

On the other hand, if you can somehow provide an excess of oxygen, say via blood doping or Epo use, it is possible to maintain a higher cadence that relies much more on the 'slow twitch' muscle fibres. So instead of gasping like a fish and suffering in a sea of blood lactate you can cruise along 'mouth closed', 'seemingly breathing through the skin'. This is a style that will be recognised by those who ever watched Armstrong and the 'old' Basso on a climb. In addition recovery will be faster and muscle soreness arising from maintaining a low cadence, high pedaling force style will be reduced.

As Willy Voet said 'It's a dream for a cyclist to be able to ride up a hill in a high gear, to breath comfortably and have no pain in his legs. That's what they're addicted to - to making cycling easy'.'

mididoctors

BikingBernie wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

LA was suppose to signal a new cleaner era... see look at his high cadence which and the lack of body weight.. proves he is not cheating.

In reality both of those factors provide further evidence that he was doping.

First of all, figures given by Ed Coyle show that Armstrong's weight when was 'winning' the Tour was within a kilo of his pre-cancer weight when he was getting his arse kicked all over France.

Secondly, a high cadence climbing style is actually less efficient than the usual lower cadence one, demanding a higher level of oxygen availability for the same power output. Most riders when on a climb naturally select a lower cadence in order to maximise their power output, usually around 80 Rpm. The 'cost ' of this is the recruitment of significant numbers of more fatiguable 'fast twitch' muscle fibres and an increased level of blood lactate. This lactate is not a waste product but actually provides fuel for the muscles. However, the rider will perceive the effort to be very hard and will probably be suffering like a dog.

On the other hand, if you can somehow provide an excess of oxygen, say via blood doping or Epo use, it is possible to maintain a higher cadence that relies much more on the 'slow twitch' muscle fibres. So instead of gasping like a fish and suffering in a sea of blood lactate you can cruise along 'mouth closed', 'seemingly breathing through the skin'. This is a style that will be recognised by those who ever watched Armstrong and the 'old' Basso on a climb. In addition recovery will be faster and muscle soreness arising from maintaining a low cadence, high pedaling force style will be reduced.

As Willy Voet said 'It's a dream for a cyclist to be able to ride up a hill in a high gear, to breath comfortably and have no pain in his legs. That's what they're addicted to - to making cycling easy'.'

whoooooossssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

DaveyL

Take your cadence theory over to the Training forum, or the Google Wattage forum, "Bernie", and see how long it lasts...

mididoctors

DaveyL wrote:

Take your cadence theory over to the Training forum, or the Google Wattage forum, "Bernie", and see how long it lasts...

+1

Valverde vs LA cadence comparison

which one is cheating....?

I think they both are

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Take your cadence theory over to the Training forum, or the Google Wattage forum, "Bernie", and see how long it lasts...

The article below show that cadences even lower than those adopted by experienced cyclists give the most power for the available oxygen. And Epo / blood doping certainly boost VO2 max. This, of course, doesn't mean that using Epo or blood doping demands the use of a high cadence. In fact it would still hold true that lowering the cadence would increase the power output, but why hurt yourself more than you need to?

What Determines The Optimal Cadence?

http://www2.bsn.de/cycling/articles/cadence.html

Giro top 10 prediction: How did we do?
1 Ivan Basso
5th

We said: Remember the 2006 Giro? When he rode up every mountain with his mouth shut, breathing through his skin, pursued only by a buffalo on heat?

Verdict: This was not the same Basso as 2006. He struggled to rediscover his effortless high-cadence style and it looked like it hurt.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/gir ... we-do.html

DaveyL

The opinion of those who know much more than me about this is that "cadence is a red herring". Still, I guess you know best, eh?

I suggest you go educate those guys over on Training, this is still Pro Race. Seriously, start a thread on this. See how you get on.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

The opinion of those who know much more than me about this is that "cadence is a red herring".

As an 'explanation' of how Armstrong increased his power output and was transformed from a Tour also-ran to a multiple 'winner', of course it is a 'red herring'. However, there is a lot of research about what constitutes the optimal cadence and this shows that lower cadences are more efficient, but they lead to higher levels of blood lactate (due largely to the increase in the number of 'fast twitch' fibres that are recruited in a low cadence, high force pedalling style) so riders tend to select a higher cadence than the optimum because the perception of effort is less. The science is sound: if you want to maintain the maximal power output for the available oxygen, lower your cadence, rather than raising it. Most riders do this reflexively.

rockmount

Did you hear about the guy recruited to a top team .... realizes he can't cut it, resorts to peds to keep up, gets caught !! ... and says "but everybody does it ! " ...

dennisn

BikingBernie wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

The opinion of those who know much more than me about this is that "cadence is a red herring".

However, there is a lot of research about what constitutes the optimal cadence and this shows that lower cadences are more efficient, but they lead to higher levels of blood lactate (due largely to the increase in the number of 'fast twitch' fibres that are recruited in a low cadence, high force pedalling style) so riders tend to select a higher cadence than the optimum because the perception of effort is less.

+1..........BB is right about perception of effort and lower and higher cadences. Lot of research done on that subject and what he says has merit.

jibberjim

BikingBernie wrote:

However, there is a lot of research about what constitutes the optimal cadence and this shows that lower cadences are more efficient, but they lead to higher levels of blood lactate (due largely to the increase in the number of 'fast twitch' fibres that are recruited in a low cadence, high force pedalling style) so riders tend to select a higher cadence than the optimum because the perception of effort is less.

No, the evidence shows that in terms of Oxygen, lower cadences are more efficient, however oxygen is not the only relevant factor in efficiency of cycling (in terms of ability to produce a particular output over a particular time rather than in simple energy in/out terms)

And it is very much not purely about perception of effort that a particular cadence is chosen.

DaveyL

dennisn wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

The opinion of those who know much more than me about this is that "cadence is a red herring".

However, there is a lot of research about what constitutes the optimal cadence and this shows that lower cadences are more efficient, but they lead to higher levels of blood lactate (due largely to the increase in the number of 'fast twitch' fibres that are recruited in a low cadence, high force pedalling style) so riders tend to select a higher cadence than the optimum because the perception of effort is less.

+1..........BB is right about perception of effort and lower and higher cadences. Lot of research done on that subject and what he says has merit.

Gee, Dennis, when did you discover concepts like "science" and "evidence"?

BikingBernie

jibberjim wrote:

And it is very much not purely about perception of effort that a particular cadence is chosen.

No, not 'purely'. However, the main point I was making is that Armstrong's 'higher cadence' 'explanation' of his amazing increase in sustainable power post cancer / post teaming up with Ferrari is, to use Dave's terminology, 'a red herring'.

DaveyL

No, that's what you said was a red herring, not what I said was.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

No, that's what you said was a red herring, not what I said was.

So, do you think Armstrong's 'high cadence' explanation is a red herring, or do you think it is credible?

DaveyL

I've already stated that I believe those who say cadence is a red herring, so you work it out.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

I've already stated that I believe those who say cadence is a red herring, so you work it out.

Ok, so you are probably just being obtuse for the sake of it, but saying 'cadence is a red herring' makes no sense. One might as well say 'breathing is a red herring'. To make sense one needs to be directly referring to some claim relating to cadence. For example the claim that a lowered cadence gives the maximum power output for the available oxygen is not a red herring, as research has shown this to be true. On the other hand the claim that a raised cadence can in itself account for a 60W increase in sustainable power is a red herring.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

The opinion of those who know much more than me about this is that "cadence is a red herring".

As an 'explanation' of how Armstrong increased his power output and was transformed from a Tour also-ran to a multiple 'winner', of course it is a 'red herring'. However, there is a lot of research about what constitutes the optimal cadence and this shows that lower cadences are more efficient, but they lead to higher levels of blood lactate (due largely to the increase in the number of 'fast twitch' fibres that are recruited in a low cadence, high force pedalling style) so riders tend to select a higher cadence than the optimum because the perception of effort is less. The science is sound: if you want to maintain the maximal power output for the available oxygen, lower your cadence, rather than raising it. Most riders do this reflexively.

.pushing big gears, lower cadences does more muscle damage so higher cadences help in stage races...

dennisn

jibberjim wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

However, there is a lot of research about what constitutes the optimal cadence and this shows that lower cadences are more efficient, but they lead to higher levels of blood lactate (due largely to the increase in the number of 'fast twitch' fibres that are recruited in a low cadence, high force pedalling style) so riders tend to select a higher cadence than the optimum because the perception of effort is less.

And it is very much not purely about perception of effort that a particular cadence is chosen.

My OPINION is that the perception of how hard we are working has a MAJOR effect on how we do things. As we do work, or our jobs, over and over, we tend to try to find the easiest way to do it, and without even really thinking about it we find the pace, our load capacity over a period of time, and other variables that are required to finish the job, and
our brain tries to make us go the way that feels best and easiest. I'm not even sure that made any sense. Oh well, I try. :oops: :oops:

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

pushing big gears, lower cadences does more muscle damage so higher cadences help in stage races...

Yes, but, all else being equal, you go faster pushing big gears and the general idea in a mountain top stage finish is to get to the finish line as quickly as is possible. That's how races are won.

What you say simply repeats what I said about one of the benefits of a higher cadence. It does not explain how a higher cadence could, as was claimed, account for a very substantial increase in threshold power. That claim is the 'red herring', No?

BikingBernie

dennisn wrote:

My OPINION is that the perception of how hard we are working has a MAJOR effect on how we do things. As we do work, or our jobs, over and over, we tend to try to find the easiest way to do it, and without even really thinking about it we find the pace, our load capacity over a period of time, and other variables that are required to finish the job, and our brain tries to make us go the way that feels best and easiest. I'm not even sure that made any sense. Oh well, I try.

One factor that transcends the cycling experience issue is how we perceive the difficulty of a task. It has been suggested that an individual's perception of effort is an important factor when selecting a pedaling rate, and peripheral cues from the active muscles may therefore be given more consideration than economy or efficiency when selecting a preferred cadence. Ekblom and Goldbarg (1971) stated that "muscle strain" may provide feedback to the central nervous system, which strongly influences perceived exertion. In simple terms the hypothesis would be that the feelings we perceive in the legs during cycling lead us to select a pedaling rate so that we minimize the perceived effort of the task, even if we are using more oxygen. Typically a rating scale with values that range from very light effort up to maximal exertion is used to quantify an individual's perceived exertion (Borg, 1975). Using this technique, several studies have recorded perceived exertion at different cadences and constant power output, although it should be noted they were not interested specifically in how perceived exertion might influence cadence selection. Lollgen et al (1975) manipulated cadence from 40 to 100 rpm at power outputs of 50, 100, 150, and 200 W and found perceived exertion in trained and untrained subjects decreased with increases in cadence such that it was minimized at approximately 80 to 100 rpm.

http://www2.bsn.de/cycling/articles/cadence.html

BikingBernie

dennisn wrote:

without even really thinking about it we find the pace, our load capacity over a period of time, and other variables that are required to finish the job, and our brain tries to make us go the way that feels best and easiest.

Of course in a race the ultimate variable is the pace set by the other riders. In such a situation the 'right' cadence is the one that maximises the available power. Unless you are Epo and blood-doped to the gills, in which case you may well have enough metabolic 'headroom' to allow you to select the 'easiest' cadence and let the others do the suffering.

colint

If cadence is potentially an indication of doping, why did Jan insist on turning such a big gear ?

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

pushing big gears, lower cadences does more muscle damage so higher cadences help in stage races...

Yes, but, all else being equal, you go faster pushing big gears and the general idea in a mountain top stage finish is to get to the finish line as quickly as is possible. That's how races are won.

What you say simply repeats what I said about one of the benefits of a higher cadence. It does not explain how a higher cadence could, as was claimed, account for a very substantial increase in threshold power. That claim is the 'red herring', No?

You're wrong on the first point. The general idea is to win the race as slowly as possible,...not get to the finish as quickly as possible, at least when racing in stage races over 3 weeks.. but there is no right or wrong way though...heavier riders will ride round the outside of hairpins in bigger gears as they're physique doesn't suit cutting in to the shortest route of hairpins to kick out, the lighter rider benefits from spinning through the shortest route...many aspects.

BikingBernie

colint wrote:

If cadence is potentially an indication of doping, why did Jan insist on turning such a big gear ?

He probably needed the extra power to be gained from using a relatively lower cadence/ bigger gear in order to keep up with the likes of Armstrong, especially given that he might well have been on quite a modest doping program.

---

Cyclevaughters: once I went to CA and saw that now all the teams got 25 injections every day

Cyclevaughters: hell, CA was ZERO

FDREU: you mean all the riders

Cyclevaughters: Credit Agricole

FDREU: it's crazy

Cyclevaughters: So, I realized lance was full of shit when he'd say everyone was doing it

FDREU: You may read stuff that i say to radio or press, praising the Tour and lance but it's just playing the game

Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%

FDREU: when in 2000-2001

Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001

Cyclevaughters: anyhow - whtever

FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

The general idea is to win the race as slowly as possible,...not get to the finish as quickly as possible, at least when racing in stage races over 3 weeks...

As slow as you can go and still win that is. You still have to match or beat the pace of everyone else, and they are playing the same game, so you will still be forced to ride to the limit, even if this is only in TT's and for the last 5km of the summit finishes, which is where modern Tours are won and lost.

As I said above:

..in a race the ultimate variable is the pace set by the other riders. In such a situation the 'right' cadence is the one that maximises the available power. Unless you are Epo and blood-doped to the gills, in which case you may well have enough metabolic 'headroom' to allow you to select the 'easiest' cadence and let the others do the suffering.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

The general idea is to win the race as slowly as possible,...not get to the finish as quickly as possible, at least when racing in stage races over 3 weeks...

As slow as you can go and still win that is. You still have to match or beat the pace of everyone else, and they are playing the same game, so you will still be forced to ride to the limit, even if this is only in TT's and for the last 5km of the summit finishes, which is where modern Tours are won and lost.

As I said above:

...in a race the ultimate variable is the pace set by the other riders. In such a situation the 'right' cadence is the one that maximises the available power. Unless you are Epo and blood-doped to the gills, in which case you may well have enough metabolic 'headroom' to allow you to select the 'easiest' cadence and let the others do the suffering.

perhaps looks that way on TV , the idea in stage races is to save as much energy as possible...that's why all the racing is done in the last hour and they only race to "the limit" on 4 or 5 days I bet. Spinning or pushing work... but one uses carbs-spinning the other more protein which has an impact on how tired the rider gets over days, that why spinning is probably better...

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

the idea in stage races is to save as much energy as possible...that's why all the racing is done in the last hour and they only race to "the limit" on 4 or 5 days I bet. Spinning or pushing work... but one uses carbs-spinning the other more protein which has an impact on how tired the rider gets over days, that why spinning is probably better...

Yes, but when they are racing to the limit - those occasions when the race is won or lost, as on a summit finish - what counts is putting out the power, and the best way to do that is to adopt a 'traditional' climbing cadence, not twiddle away at a high metabolic cost. Unless of course you are so 'juiced' that you don't need to get out every last watt of power that you are capable of.

I think it is fair to say that everyone Armstrong beat rode to the limit of their abilities. Perhaps you think Armstrong could have gone even faster except for the fact that he was 'saving himself'. If so the margin he had over all the other riders was truly prodigious.