Sky - what training are they really doing?

Trev The Rev

Much talk about reverse periodisation (been around since the 1980s, hardly new), using TrainingPeaks (what were they using before?), training at altitude (Tenerife) and not racing too much or using races to get fit. Maintaining intense work all year round but increasing load and tapering to peak etc etc. Sleeping at simulated altitude. The marginal gains mantra.

How much is bull for the fans how much is truth?

One thing for sure, with so many of the riders / staff leaving or being pushed some other teams will now know what some if not all their secrets are.

danowat

I don't think they are doing anything special or secret, I just think they are tieing it together better, the total is more than a sum of it's parts etc.

Psychological warfare is pretty important in sport (heck, it's rife in amateur sport!), hence all the BS.

SBezza

I think alot of it is having riders coached and monitored by proper in team coaches rather than the traditional way of riders doing their own things perhaps with their own outside of team coach. No doubt having a coach will help even experienced riders, but having a coach within the team planning training around the important races for the team is not just a marginal gain in my eyes, that is a fairly major gain.

I have read Bradley did about 50:50 of endurance and high intensity stuff in his build up to 2012, how that is broken down, and when each takes precident over the other will be based around his targetted events.

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

I don't think they are doing anything special or secret, I just think they are tieing it together better, the total is more than a sum of it's parts etc.

Psychological warfare is pretty important in sport (heck, it's rife in amateur sport!), hence all the BS.

That is the line they would have everyone accept. It could be the case, I was surprised by how haphazard things were in cycling. From recent testimony and events it is clear even the best organised teams were pretty shambolic. I had assumed things were so much more organized in pro cycling, could it be the obsession with drugs caused massive underachievement and minimal progress in training methods?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was surprised by how haphazard things were in cycling. From recent testimony and events it is clear even the best organised teams were pretty shambolic.

I'm surprised that you're surprised.

For many squads for most of the sport's history, the word professional related to the fact that riders/and some staff were paid and sponsors were involved, and not a statement on the concept of professionalism.

There are many local amateur sporting teams in other sports that are far more professional than any cycling outfit.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was surprised by how haphazard things were in cycling. From recent testimony and events it is clear even the best organised teams were pretty shambolic.

I'm surprised that you're surprised.

For many squads for most of the sport's history, the word professional related to the fact that riders/and some staff were paid and sponsors were involved, and not a statement on the concept of professionalism.

There are many local amateur sporting teams in other sports that are far more professional than any cycling outfit.

Yes true. The more I think about it the more I am surprised by how my assumptions about how pro teams operated were so far off the mark. I had assumed all pro teams or at least the biggest and most successful were run along the lines Sky is.

shockedsoshocked

Just because the science exists to support certain approaches doesn't mean athletes, especially endurance athletes, actually understand it, let alone apply it. Sky seem to be the first team to totally embrace it. Last season even people on here were cynical about Sky warming down even, next thing the whole pro-peloton is doing it.

Most endurance athletes are happy to listen to and follow what someone a generation older did, that may have worked for them at that time, but still treat it like gospel now. Prime example, go buy yourself a Dave Lloyd training program that'll be unique to your needs and utilise the most up to date sports science

Alex_Simmons/RST

Some things are evidence based, but many others are dressed up in science sounding talk but may not really have much evidence of their efficacy.

This is not a problem confined to the world of cycling, but to life in general.

briantrumpet

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

[...] but many others are dressed up in science sounding talk but may not really have much evidence of their efficacy.

Good job we don't get any of that here on BR.

Murr X

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Just because the science exists to support certain approaches doesn't mean athletes, especially endurance athletes, actually understand it, let alone apply it. Sky seem to be the first team to totally embrace it. Last season even people on here were cynical about Sky warming down even, next thing the whole pro-peloton is doing it.

Most endurance athletes are happy to listen to and follow what someone a generation older did, that may have worked for them at that time, but still treat it like gospel now. Prime example, go buy yourself a Dave Lloyd training program that'll be unique to your needs and utilise the most up to date sports science

You are 100% correct and there is a great deal of truth in this, especially the bits referring to endurance athletes.

Much (though not all) of the problem is that many simply do not have/use the means to track progress adequately meaning they have no idea of what best works for them (yet will confidently think they are onto something - without having viable means to know).

In relation to non endurance athletes, say weightlifters for example physical progress is easily measured and seen, with this advantage adjustments can be easily made and "professionalism" has traditionally been higher than in endurance sports.

With the advent of powermeters there are no excuses for a cyclist to train blindly anymore and it does not take long to find out that old traditions are seldom the most effective.

Murr X

Herbsman

Murr X wrote:

it does not take long to find out that old traditions are seldom the most effective.

For example?

Trev The Rev

Herbsman wrote:

Murr X wrote:

it does not take long to find out that old traditions are seldom the most effective.

For example?

Old traditions were new and cutting edge back in the past. Today's cutting edge methods are just as likely to be proved bunkum in the future.

okgo

Herbsman wrote:

Murr X wrote:

it does not take long to find out that old traditions are seldom the most effective.

For example?

Have a read of the Tom Simpson book, some of the stuff they did because they thought it was right was totally mental. And I don't just mean the boozing and drugs etc.

Trev The Rev

okgo wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Murr X wrote:

it does not take long to find out that old traditions are seldom the most effective.

For example?

Have a read of the Tom Simpson book, some of the stuff they did because they thought it was right was totally mental. And I don't just mean the boozing and drugs etc.

They still went remarkably fast so some of what they did must have worked.

lochindaal

They still went remarkably fast so some of what they did must have worked.

If you had the time to train all day every day you could probably go remarkably fast as well. It doesn't mean you are performing to the best of your ability though.

bompington

I heard that the secret of their success was obsessive use of power meters ;-)

Trev The Rev

lochindaal wrote:

They still went remarkably fast so some of what they did must have worked.

If you had the time to train all day every day you could probably go remarkably fast as well. It doesn't mean you are performing to the best of your ability though.

Don't see the hour record get broken often these days. As for the Catford Hill Climb, they went as fast in the 1960s and faster in the 1980s on heavier bikes.

Trev The Rev

bompington wrote:

I heard that the secret of their success was obsessive use of power meters ;-)

I'm told they don't even look at heart rate.

shockedsoshocked

bompington wrote:

I heard that the secret of their success was obsessive use of power meters ;-)

I don't even know why it needs the winky face, as it's quite possible with Sky this is the case. If you have the funds behind you to pay for the analysis of all the data and constant testing like Sky do then why not? If you're going to embrace the scientific approach in the same way Brailsford has on the track you may as well go the whole hog.

Scrumple

Trev The Rev wrote:

bompington wrote:

I heard that the secret of their success was obsessive use of power meters ;-)

I'm told they don't even look at heart rate.

Heart rate zones change slightly due to loads of factors - food / coffee / weather...

Power is a constant.

amaferanga

Trev The Rev wrote:

bompington wrote:

I heard that the secret of their success was obsessive use of power meters ;-)

I'm told they don't even look at heart rate.

Oh Trevor.

Trev The Rev

amaferanga wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

bompington wrote:

I heard that the secret of their success was obsessive use of power meters ;-)

I'm told they don't even look at heart rate.

Oh Trevor.

On good authority on timetrialling forum see below.
Quote:
GZA
MTB

Advanced

567 posts
Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:55 AM
QUOTE (TarmacExpert @ Mar 30 2012, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The thing that always amuses me is that this view seems very prevalent in cycling, where power is quite recent. It's as if the introduction of power has caused people to want to change something. But in other sports, such as swimming, where they have always had power (since pace substitutes for power in reproducible pool conditions) they still use HR (as well as pace).

I've spent alot of time running various projects in pools with our Olympic Swimmers in the past few years and have never seen a heart rate monitor in use.

QUOTE (Trev The Rev @ Mar 30 2012, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Have you told Dave Brailsford and Bobby Julich and Shane Sutton those heart rate monitors they are using are a complete waste of money?

Athletes find them hard to give up, the analysts who use the data with the elite squad at BC never user HR. Fact.

Thomo
Hemel Hempstead CC

Advanced

26,271 posts
Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:02 AM
QUOTE (Trev The Rev @ Mar 30 2012, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Can you prove that?GZA works for UK Sport on some of the projects for the Olympic sports (including cycling) - if he says they don't then he knows as he is involved in it. But don't ask him what they do use that isn't already known cos he's not allowed (he won't even tell us down the club!) - but he can tell you simple things like this that they don't use.

Paul End Quote.

Setarkos

Let's wait a one or two more years, shall we? There have been teams in the past who had similarly or even more successful seasons.
Sky dominated the Tour and the time trials but Contador and Schleck were absent from or did not finish the Tour while Cancellara and Martin suffered injuries and had a less than perfect year unlike Wiggo. Their only opposition for the GC was Nibali who had a much weaker team.
Cavendish has been the world's best sprinter before he came to Sky and Bradley has essentially been preparing for the Tour for 5 years long before Sky was started.
No doubt that Sky had a great year and their professionalism helps to avoid mistakes, mishaps etc. but there is not enough evidence to conclude that their methods give them more than a marginal advantage.

Murr X

Herbsman wrote:

Murr X wrote:

it does not take long to find out that old traditions are seldom the most effective.

For example?

The biggest myth being that the athlete needed to engage in a very high volume and low intensity riding over the winter. But there are others too.

Ride with a high cadence to reduce fatigue to the legs. There is no point in saving the legs by "spinning" if power is reduced, lower the cadence if the powermeter indicates that more power is produced that way. Some people are very surprised that "spinning" can induce fatigue quicker than "grinding" at a given power output. This is not always the case but either way let the powermeter decide what is best and NOT your personal perception of what you feel is best.

Change to a lower gear BEFORE you feel you need to. Madness. If holding onto the gear with a lower cadence produces more power than changing early (as it probably will) then do that. Ignore those who teach this practice if you can see for yourself what works best with a PM.

Lift weights in the winter to build strength and develop power Lifting weights is highly effective at developing strength however the results are only ever going to be negative (at least to a reasonably well trained athlete) to aerobic power and this is easy to demonstrate. Do not take seriously anyone who says something along the lines of, "I lifted weights during the winter and definitely feel more powerful on the bike". What has usually happened is that they put on a few pounds of muscle AND lost a few watts from their FTP. Not good yet without a PM they will not see this and will likely be happy with the weights and stick to it, often strongly defending their view as they have no accurate way of knowing they are wrong.

Losing weight will cause you to lose power. Many including myself find the opposite although AWC may be negatively affected if a great deal of muscle is lost, muscle loss is not always a bad thing for aerobic power and thus performance.


Murr X

bahzob

Please don't forget in reading any post from the OP that:
- He also believes that British Cycling as a whole don't really have much of a clue about training.
- That, in his opinion, British riders only did so well in the last 2 Olympics because the rest of the riders were so crap and it had nothing to do with their training methods.

Trev The Rev

bahzob wrote:

Please don't forget in reading any post from the OP that:
- He also believes that British Cycling as a whole don't really have much of a clue about training.
- That, in his opinion, British riders only did so well in the last 2 Olympics because the rest of the riders were so crap and it had nothing to do with their training methods.

What is the motive behind your post? You seem very interested in my alleged opinions. I don't give a damn what yours are.

British Cycling do know what they are doing but I don't think you can believe everything they tell us and there is a lot they keep secret.

There is no great opposition in track cycling. A cycling track medal is not worth as much and is far easier to win than an athletics or swimming medal where there is more real opposition. If other countries had the same sort of funding in cycling on the track we would win far fewer medals.

bahzob

They are not your alleged opinions. They are your clearly stated opinions.

They are of relevance because clearly the credence you place on someone's views depends on their track history. If Stephen Hawking was to issue a warning that the world was about to end I would be more worried than if I heard it from the muttering man on the seat next to me on the bus.

While often disagreeing with Alex I respect his experience and contribution to this forum.

I don't have the same respect for yours because as far as I am aware you have achieved/contributed nothing.

Your final paragraph illustrates this. You make the facile comment that all you need to do to achieve success is spend money. (and its factually wrong btw. Swimming had similar funding to cycling and has even less opposition from other countries).

All the money in the world won't achieve anything if its spend stupidly. You simply don't seem to get that, yes, British Cycling got lots of money but that they only got that after Peter Keen and others demonstrated they could achieve success through the application of sound scientific principles. That was prime cause. The effect of huge achievement on track and road followed through the combination, yes, of more funding but more importantly implementing and building on those principles.

Trev The Rev

bahzob wrote:

They are not your alleged opinions. They are your clearly stated opinions.

They are of relevance because clearly the credence you place on someone's views depends on their track history. If Stephen Hawking was to issue a warning that the world was about to end I would be more worried than if I heard it from the muttering man on the seat next to me on the bus.

While often disagreeing with Alex I respect his experience and contribution to this forum.

I don't have the same respect for yours because as far as I am aware you have achieved/contributed nothing.

Your final paragraph illustrates this. You make the facile comment that all you need to do to achieve success is spend money. (and its factually wrong btw. Swimming had similar funding to cycling and has even less opposition from other countries).

All the money in the world won't achieve anything if its spend stupidly. You simply don't seem to get that, yes, British Cycling got lots of money but that they only got that after Peter Keen and others demonstrated they could achieve success through the application of sound scientific principles. That was prime cause. The effect of huge achievement on track and road followed through the combination, yes, of more funding but more importantly implementing and building on those principles.

I stand by what I said, which was that if other countries had the same level of funding British Cycling would not win as many medals. Give the Australians the same funding and they would win many more medals.

If you divide the funding by medals won you might find British Cycling isn't doing as well as some other countries. I'm not sure you can say the swimmers had less opposition than the cyclists. There are far more swimmers in the world than there are track cyclists.

Alex can look after himself, he does not need your help.

bahzob

I notice you have not actually said why your opinions should be any more respected than a nutter on a bus. What evidence can you cite in terms of what you have actually achieved or contributed?

Swimming: British Swimming and British Cycling were pretty much on par in terms of performance 2008 and had similar resources leading up to 2012. According to your theory swimming should have been able to at least match BC in terms of medals, especially given the huge number on offer in the pool. The lamentable performance of their squad, many failing even to match PBs demonstrates its not just a question of money.

And btw,though hard to believe you probably know less about athletics than cycling. If you listen to a program like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pbjfb/5_live_Sport_5_live_Track_and_Field_US_Super_Coaches/

or read a book like this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gold-Rush-Michael-Johnson/dp/0007411936/ref=la_B0034NJZPG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356005552&sr=1-1

you will find that what often (Usain Bolt is the exception not the rule.) differentiates elite athletes who win gold from those who don't is their approach to training which is pretty much the same in attitude/approach to BC/Sky though obviously details differ (though the Wattbike got a mention in the R5 program ..) You I guess presume that Alberto Salazar and Michael Johnson are also talking rubbish.

Keep posting though you are good for a laugh.

Trev The Rev

bahzob wrote:

I notice you have not actually said why your opinions should be any more respected than a nutter on a bus. What evidence can you cite in terms of what you have actually achieved or contributed?

Swimming: British Swimming and British Cycling were pretty much on par in terms of performance 2008 and had similar resources leading up to 2012. According to your theory swimming should have been able to at least match BC in terms of medals, especially given the huge number on offer in the pool. The lamentable performance of their squad, many failing even to match PBs demonstrates its not just a question of money.

And btw,though hard to believe you probably know less about athletics than cycling. If you listen to a program like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pbjfb/5_live_Sport_5_live_Track_and_Field_US_Super_Coaches/

or read a book like this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gold-Rush-Michael-Johnson/dp/0007411936/ref=la_B0034NJZPG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356005552&sr=1-1

you will find that what often (Usain Bolt is the exception not the rule.) differentiates elite athletes who win gold from those who don't is their approach to training which is pretty much the same in attitude/approach to BC/Sky though obviously details differ (though the Wattbike got a mention in the R5 program ..) You I guess presume that Alberto Salazar and Michael Johnson are also talking rubbish.

Keep posting though you are good for a laugh.

The laugh is on you you little fool. Swimming & Athletics are main stream sports. Track cycling is a minor niche sport.
A track cycling medal can not be compared with a medal in swimming or athletics. You are deluded.

trickydisco

god you don't half spout some rollocks trev. Do you actually do any work? do you have anytime to ride a bike?