|
Vuelta Ciclista al Pais Vasco
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 06-04-2013 21:58
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
ThatLlama wrote:
Firstly - How do you know Quintana was an early talent and all the other riders weren't? Do you know Quintana - did you watch him as a youngster or any of the other riders you claimed doped?
Because Quintana has always shown talent? And I really mean it, for instance this is ridiculously awesome:
https://www.cqrank...ceid=13897
That year, other riders couldn't hold a straight line when climbing San Luca di Bologna aged 24.
ThatLlama wrote:
Secondly - If using your frame of mind I could say - Quintana wins L'avenir and then starts somehow winning races at a very young age beating a grand tour winner and talent stage racers. (Looked at past winners of l'avenir - they don't go straight onto winning races)
The history of the sport is full of big talents winning since very early in their careers. And I mean really full.
ThatLlama wrote:
Quintana in an ITT beats a rider who has come fourth at World ITT (Porte while not at Sky may I add) and only loses 17 seconds to world ITT champion.
In a hilly TT with awful weather. But of course that tiny detail doesn't fit with your point so you leave it out.
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 06-04-2013 22:03
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Issoisso translation service to the rescue 
And that means always. Quintana was 19 years old.
kumazan wrote:
That year, other riders couldn't hold a straight line when climbing San Luca di Bologna aged 24.
kumazan means this. Notice Froome in red in the background
https://www.youtub...mp;t=8m12s
That day he had his ass handed to him on a climb by Rubens f***ing Bertogliati. Clearly a talent for the ages that Froome
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 06-04-2013 22:50
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
No, but just like Wiggo winning the TDF thanks to his awesome pursuiting ability is perfectly natural, there's no shame for Froome to be beaten by the great Rubens Bertogliati and his uncountable number of GT success. Erm, wait...
|
| |
|
|
| Smal |
Posted on 06-04-2013 23:28
|
Free Agent
Posts: 122
Joined: 06-09-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Far too many biased posters with agendas who are more than happy to bend the truth to suit their argument on here. |
| |
|
|
| Iguwell |
Posted on 06-04-2013 23:42
|
Domestique
Posts: 423
Joined: 18-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Smal wrote:
Far too many biased posters with agendas who are more than happy to bend the truth to suit their argument on here.
Everyone is using legitimative arguments why Quintana is performing and that SKY is suspcious as hell. But any SKY fanatic will surely refuse to ever understand this. Maybe after they get busted. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 09:37
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 06-04-2013 23:46
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7257
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
Smal wrote:
Far too many biased posters with agendas who are more than happy to bend the truth to suit their argument on here.
Are you talking about that guy that said Quintana hasn't showed big potential before? |
| |
|
|
| ggDonovan |
Posted on 06-04-2013 23:49
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 897
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 06-04-2013 23:57
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Had almost forgotten with the weeks racing that Quintana wasn't even down to ride Pais Vasco. He replaced Lastras at the last minute! Makes it even more impressive. |
| |
|
|
| ruben |
Posted on 07-04-2013 00:09
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7721
Joined: 23-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Smal wrote:
Far too many biased posters with agendas who are more than happy to bend the truth to suit their argument on here.
Brring a fucking counter argument that makes sense instead of only playing the bias card and ignoring the comments on showings of early talent of Quintana compared to Froome/Porte ...
I've seen none. You can only play the bias card, meaning you are the one biased. Not us. Goodbye |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 07-04-2013 00:12
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
As trolls go, Smal is a piss poor one. His attempts are both transparent and unoriginal.
And the main reason he fails as a troll: instead of annoying me he's actually making me have fun pounding on him. A troll can't fail any harder than that 
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| chrica04 |
Posted on 07-04-2013 01:24
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 853
Joined: 23-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
chrica04 wrote:
Aquarius wrote:
Smal wrote:
I don't really get what your point is. It's a fact that VO2 max will have some sort of effect on how good a bike rider can become. It's not everything like select examples show, but it's a factor.
Imagine a x,y chart, with either power, power per weight unit or VO2 as the y axis, and a time logarithm (Neperian one) as the x axis.
For all riders (juniors, pros, tourists, females), if you consider the max power or VO2 they can sustain over defined periods of time, it draws an almost straight line that shows how much performances decrease over time.
The equation would be y= -a.x + b
For a 5 minutes effort it indicates the VO2 max, and draws a point very close to b.
a is the endurance factor, the smaller it is, the lesser the decrease of performances over time.
High VO2max but poor endurance translates badly on the road. Working endurance is sometimes done at the expense of VO2max too.
So, of course VO2 max is a factor, but that barely says anything about a guy's ability to win three weeks stage races.
VO2 Max is one single method of determining performance capability. THAT'S ALL it does. More of a bragging tool then anything. Someone with a VO2 max of 85 could win the Tour over a guy with a 95 as long as he is training to the absolute best of his ability (NO DOPE), and if the guy with a 95 slacks off and doesn't maximize his potential, he will be mediocre based off genetics.
While you are bang on the money with the importance of training, Aquarius' point is that VO2Max doesn't translate to road cycling success because it's measured over a short period of time.
Hinault had "only" 84, but he was arguably the best of all time because he could sustain almost that level for 6 hours if need be, while guys with much higher levels could only sustain it for half an hour.
That is why most teams have moved on and no longer test VO2Max, but VO2 after a sustained effort by "steps" that totals at about an hour or so.
That's a good point. I am an exercise physiologist and we no longer really do VO2 max unless they specifically request it. Our protocol uses the Maximal Lactate Steady State format since threshold is the most desirable number to know. |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 07-04-2013 07:49
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Insane performance from Quintana, probably biggest climbing talent of his generation. Honestly, I never had too much belief in Colombians, but lets wait for some more results and years.
He has to have some "form" to beat reborn Porte like that. Can he suceed at Ardennes though?
|
| |
|
|
| CLURPR |
Posted on 07-04-2013 11:31
|
Domestique
Posts: 452
Joined: 19-01-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Why do people have to be so suspicious? Quintana rode a great race and won it fair and square! The TT wasn't really flat at all so that brought in the chance that people with a better climbing ability could spring a few surprises, like someone said earlier about Weening and Betancur.
Now you also have to factor in the weather, and it had rained and made the roads slick so it was up to the rider on how hard he wanted to push it through the corners, which if you are really going for it you can made up a good amount of time.
Finally, look at the results Quintana has already produced this season, he rode a great race at Catalunya and came 4th overall but the result that relates most what everybody is talking about is: the Stage 7 time-trial during this years Paris-Nice when they went up to Col d'Eze. Quintana came 3rd in that stage, 27 secs down on Porte admittedly, but it shows that this result isn't a freak of nature.
Also, he still had Tony Martin beat him by around 20 secs.
Oh and, theres a thread for doping already!
Edited by CLURPR on 07-04-2013 11:32
|
| |
|
|
| Alakagom |
Posted on 07-04-2013 13:54
|
World Champion
Posts: 10891
Joined: 19-11-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Insane performance from Quintana, probably biggest climbing talent of his generation. Honestly, I never had too much belief in Colombians, but lets wait for some more results and years.
He has to have some "form" to beat reborn Porte like that. Can he suceed at Ardennes though?
He could, Fleche suits him very well. Especially as Valverde is not going to have great form coming in meaning he might be the leader.
However Henao looks to me the bigger threat of the two for a win in the of the 3 classics I'd say. Will be interesting watch though.
Edited by Alakagom on 07-04-2013 13:54
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 07-04-2013 19:23
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
chrica04 wrote:
That's a good point. I am an exercise physiologist and we no longer really do VO2 max unless they specifically request it. Our protocol uses the Maximal Lactate Steady State format since threshold is the most desirable number to know.
Interesting position that you have. I have a few questions for you then. I hope you won't mind answering, either here, in another thread, or in P.M.
What kind of population do you test, and for what purpose(s) ?
I've been reading contradictory statements about this, by Fred Grappe (FDJeux coach) on one hand, and by the sports doctor that used to follow me as a cyclist (in my teens years), and who had worked with Vendée U (Bernaudeau's reserve team) before.
Grappe considers that you enter that zone at 92 % of your max heart beat, whereas "my" doctor considered it could fluctuate much, like between 85 and 97 %.
So, do you reckon the threshold (the "second" one, of course) is reached at a very precise point (either in terms of heart beat, either in terms of power) and that it can fluctuate much between individuals ?
A bit the same question with lactates steady state, are all people equal in terms of lactates at the point they reach their threshold zone ? If yes, how much is the lactate rate at that point ?
Last is more of a remark, but the Conconi test (yes, named after the infamous doctor who taught to the likes of Ferrari, Cecchini and others) is or was considered as almost as accurate, and much less expensive and intrusive than the lactate method.
I've really no idea if Conconi's test is famous world-wide, nor if it's still used, so I can explain how it works if needed.
Any thought on that ?
Edited by Aquarius on 07-04-2013 19:24
|
| |
|
|
| chrica04 |
Posted on 07-04-2013 22:52
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 853
Joined: 23-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
[quote]chrica04 wrote:
What kind of population do you test, and for what purpose(s) ?
I've been reading contradictory statements about this, by Fred Grappe (FDJeux coach) on one hand, and by the sports doctor that used to follow me as a cyclist (in my teens years), and who had worked with Vendée U (Bernaudeau's reserve team) before.
Grappe considers that you enter that zone at 92 % of your max heart beat, whereas "my" doctor considered it could fluctuate much, like between 85 and 97 %.
So, do you reckon the threshold (the "second" one, of course) is reached at a very precise point (either in terms of heart beat, either in terms of power) and that it can fluctuate much between individuals ?
A bit the same question with lactates steady state, are all people equal in terms of lactates at the point they reach their threshold zone ? If yes, how much is the lactate rate at that point ?
Last is more of a remark, but the Conconi test (yes, named after the infamous doctor who taught to the likes of Ferrari, Cecchini and others) is or was considered as almost as accurate, and much less expensive and intrusive than the lactate method.
I've really no idea if Conconi's test is famous world-wide, nor if it's still used, so I can explain how it works if needed.
Any thought on that ?
I coach and do tests on all ability levels, master's to professional. I have some big name normal attendees, such as the current US National Champion who is one of our athletes, and other guys you may know.....TeJay Van Garderen, Lucas Euser, Kiel Reijen, etc 
It's really hard to do anything with JUST heart rate because it can fluctuate from day to day, and even hour to hour. If you are very tired, you won't be able to get your HR up, but if you have 3 shots of espresso before you roll out for a ride, your HR may sky rocket with the easiest of rides.
No one is equal at what point they cross the lactate line as well. There has been a misconception for years that 4m/mol is the standard for where you should look at for wattage/hr zone when taking blood. I have seen levels as great as around 7-9m/mol where the lactate curve started it's upswing, and as little as 2-3m/mol.
There are different versions of the Conconi Test, and different test protocols do different things. I am conducting studies trying to find the most accurate lab test which reflects that of a 60min ALL OUT TT which is your true FTP or HR.
Hope that helps! |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 08-04-2013 21:59
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well yes, it's an interesting reading.
I agree with the heart rate, but 15 years ago, HR monitors were already widespread amongst amateurs, but power meters were not, and they're still extremely expensive (for a reliable device at least). I assume power meters variate less (though they do) than HR ?
I was more or less hoping to read that about the 4 mmol/L too. Thankfully it's being abandoned nowadays, but in the oldest physiology literature I got access too they still had that idea.
I guess the difference between individuals comes from how fast they're able to turn lactates into glycogen again, when producing powers close but inferior to the threshold zone ?
About the 60 minutes all out TT, I'd say it's hard to come up with something relevant and universal. Effort strategy matters much, and the most constant the effort, the best the performance. Not all riders are equal there.
If possible, I'd say establishing a passport of record powers over different lengths of times (what FDJeux does for all its riders) should draw a curb, which should give a relatively good indication of what one individual could produce at best during 60 minutes. Then get the individual to pedal at that power and see how he evolves.
Would something like that be relevant ?
Of course the amount of data collected should be quite important, or the effort will be too intense (or not enough). |
| |
|
|
| fosforgasXIII |
Posted on 08-04-2013 22:56
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 845
Joined: 28-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
MFW people bring up terms as VO2, W/h, Lactade Steady State etc.
 |
| |
|
|
| Welwyn |
Posted on 09-04-2013 00:15
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 375
Joined: 16-07-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
fosforgasXIII wrote:
MFW people bring up terms as VO2, W/h, Lactade Steady State etc.
QIA |
| |
|
|
| chrica04 |
Posted on 09-04-2013 01:48
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 853
Joined: 23-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Well yes, it's an interesting reading.
I agree with the heart rate, but 15 years ago, HR monitors were already widespread amongst amateurs, but power meters were not, and they're still extremely expensive (for a reliable device at least). I assume power meters variate less (though they do) than HR ?
I was more or less hoping to read that about the 4 mmol/L too. Thankfully it's being abandoned nowadays, but in the oldest physiology literature I got access too they still had that idea.
I guess the difference between individuals comes from how fast they're able to turn lactates into glycogen again, when producing powers close but inferior to the threshold zone ?
About the 60 minutes all out TT, I'd say it's hard to come up with something relevant and universal. Effort strategy matters much, and the most constant the effort, the best the performance. Not all riders are equal there.
If possible, I'd say establishing a passport of record powers over different lengths of times (what FDJeux does for all its riders) should draw a curb, which should give a relatively good indication of what one individual could produce at best during 60 minutes. Then get the individual to pedal at that power and see how he evolves.
Would something like that be relevant ?
Of course the amount of data collected should be quite important, or the effort will be too intense (or not enough).
Power meters vary less then HR because it is "actual" work compared with a bodily response. If you're out doing LT or VO2 intervals and can't make power, it indicates right away you should turn around and go home to rest. HR is a response and anything less then 2min you can't really rely on it's number. That's why most people who do TT's don't properly pace with HR because they want to "SPIKE" their HR's at the beginning which means they may actually be working in the 120-150% of threshold (POWER) while trying to raise their HR to threshold in the first 1-2min. Power trumps HR in any training measure, outside of resting HR.
As for the 60min Field Test vs. Power Curves for different lengths. It all depends...most competitive athletes will compete in a 40km TT at some point in their life, which is close to 55-65min for the average person. This is a great indication of power at threshold, but that's why indoor tests can be better because the protocol doesn't require 60min Full Gas effort. Doing a 60min climb Full Gas is also fairly inaccurate, because as you increase the elevation, your body isn't able to maintain the same power as say 500-1000m lower.
That's why I can have a job, there are no "RIGHT" answers |
| |
|
