Sky's "secret"

[Jgrooms]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/03/12/behind-the-scenes-with-tim-kerrison---the-team-sky-visionary-beh/

So they have a super secret training program that will surpass oxygen vector doping (10% pop min) & the rest of the cocktail- T, HGH, cortisone, etc.

Count me as skeptical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BdaGhisallo]

Fair enough, but if they were doing anything untoward, they'd be pretty stupid to shine a light on themselves like this. If the had something to hide, I would imagine they would keep their lips sealed.

[MattTuck]

cycling news or velonews had a story on this.

The story made it pretty clear that they had not yet achieved those gains, but that they thought such gains were possible.

I tend to believe there is still progress to be made. Read Gino Bartali's biography, in the 1940's, they were telling the riders to eat red meat for energy, and smoke cigarettes to relax their lungs.

As scientists learn more and more about the human body, there's no reason to think we won't see additional gains in human performance. I think the flip side of this is that there needs to be near 100% confidence in anti-doping controls or else the increases in performance will not be credible, especially if it is just one team and their methods are 'secret'.

[Jgrooms]

While I agree there is always potential, 10-15%?

And frankly it all sounds familiar to some teams in the past, who need no intro & their 'we just train harder & smarter' schtick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MattTuck]

While I agree there is always potential, 10-15%?

And frankly it all sounds familiar to some teams in the past, who need no intro & their 'we just train harder & smarter' schtick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

haha, you mean like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U)?

But yeah, there are multiple energy systems at play. Is it possible that you get each one 2 or 3% more efficient, and you get a cumulative boost? I guess it is possible. Like I said, without credible doping controls, then all we really have is, "well, Lemond climbed it in x minutes." Are we still comparing the 100 meter results to some guy in the 80's to gauge credibility?

[Mikej]

While I agree there is always potential, 10-15%?

And frankly it all sounds familiar to some teams in the past, who need no intro & their 'we just train harder & smarter' schtick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I know. I remember The Brit David Millar talking about how he has everything dialed in, right down to how much sugar he could put in his coffee...oh and the dope, but that's on the down low, I never tell people about that...And 10-15% is way to much of a spread, I mean, who gets a 5% swing? That type of an increase would mean that prior to the training, they would t even be looked at as a continental uci pro.

[fiamme red]

While I agree there is always potential, 10-15%?Maybe they've hired Ti Designs to teach them correct pedaling technique? ;)

[Macadamia]

I like their philosophy that they can beat the previous cheats. Pushing the human body to new levels.

I'm sure there's lots of people rolling their eyes though.

[teleguy57]

Maybe they've hired Ti Designs to teach them correct pedaling technique? ;)
+1. I like your thinking!

[saab2000]

Maybe they've hired Ti Designs to teach them correct pedaling technique? ;)


+1. I like your thinking!

+2. I was about the say something quite similar :beer:

[bewheels]

Personally, I think it is a good article.

Here is another way to think about it...

Why would I hire a guy who's goal it is to be able to deliver average results. I want people on my team* who are reaching, who believe things can be better, who are willing to explore and try different things, who are willing to challenge the status quo.

I get that this quickly goes down the 'doping' drain. But does everyone honestly believe that nothing will be discovered or change over the next 20 years (outside of doping and equipment) that improves cycling performance?

*I happen to be talking about my work teams but this can be applied to anything.

[MattTuck]

Personally, I think it is a good article.

Here is another way to think about it...

Why would I hire a guy who's goal it is to be able to deliver average results. I want people on my team* who are reaching, who believe things can be better, who are willing to explore and try different things, who are willing to challenge the status quo.

I get that this quickly goes down the 'doping' drain. But does everyone honestly believe that nothing will be discovered or change over the next 20 years (outside of doping and equipment) that improves cycling performance?

*I happen to be talking about my work teams but this can be applied to anything.

Not to bring economics (in the pure sense of the word) into it, but one has to wonder whether resources flowed into doping because it was a bigger bang for the buck than advancing training methods. Ethics aside, and with the perception that there was a small chance of getting caught, it would seem that focusing on doping was probably the way teams got the most performance gains for each dollar spent. Perhaps ignoring (or atleast neglecting) legitimate training advances for a decade or more means that we'll have some 'catch up' innovation now that the costs for doping are being priced into the market.

One has to wonder whether the all time greats would be able to perform at a higher level if they had access to modern training methods. No reason to think that training methods of the future wouldn't be relatively better than the training methods available today.

[fuzzalow]

Why would I hire a guy who's goal it is to be able to deliver average results. I want people on my team* who are reaching, who believe things can be better, who are willing to explore and try different things, who are willing to challenge the status quo.

I get that this quickly goes down the 'doping' drain. But does everyone honestly believe that nothing will be discovered or change over the next 20 years (outside of doping and equipment) that improves cycling performance?

*I happen to be talking about my work teams but this can be applied to anything.

Dunno what line of work your teams do, but athletics and workplace creativity is apples and frogs legs. Intellectual capital is unconstrained and infinitely malleable. Human athletic output is incrementing forwards in small steps over years and decades, if much at all.

Some of this progress has the driver of pro sports with give all the incentives to find and invent to next big thing. With the human body as the limiter there ain't no quantum leap unless you cheat. Modernity has split the atom and mapped the human genome. And Team Sky has discovered a legitimate way to increase performance? I'll bet they have.

[benb]

Apparently one guy on Sky can review all their data?

You'd think financially doping would be more expensive than what they are saying they can do.

I bet US Postal/Discovery had more than 1 doctor pouring over the pharmaceutical/blood testing data and doctor's probably get paid more than coaches.

[jlwdm]

Maybe they've hired Ti Designs to teach them correct pedaling technique? ;)

That would be tough since there is no one correct pedaling technique.

Jeff

[numbskull]

If they are not cheating, then a training program designed to improve pedaling efficiency based on detailed power meter data seems the most likely area to offer meaningful functional gains. Almost all sports (and top athletes) have found important benefit from technique coaching and there is no reason to think cycling would be different.

As far as magic training or diet regimens to produce 10% gains of physiologic parameters I think that highly unlikely. When you look at track records (100yd dash or marathon) there is nothing like that sort of incremental improvement. Gains in recent decades have been much smaller (and possibly PED aided as well). The flattening of the curve suggests that current records are approaching what is physiologically possible for humans.

[CunegoFan]

The funny thing about this is Froome in his book and interviews that surrounded its release said he ignored Kerrison's training plans. For example, when Kerrison would assign a four hour training ride, Froome and Porte would ride for four hours then turn off their power meters and give Kerrison bogus data. Froome seems to self-aggrandize himself by not following Kerrison's training plans.

Sky had been using its on staff nutritionist and the team's scientific approach to diet and nutrition to explain Froome's weight loss, but his girlfriend (now wife) takes credit for the loss by her management of his diet. According to her, it was all her idea. It doesn't really help Sky's case when it was using David Walsh to bamboozle the public with tales of riders being offended that someone would eat Nutella at their training table while floating around social media were pictures of huge stockpiles of Nutella on the shelves of Sky's service course

Tim Kerrison appears to be Sky's version of Chris Carmichael, the beard the team uses to explain sketchy performances while the star riders do their own thing.

It is interesting that after a disappointing 2010 season, Sky hired the doctor who managed Rabobank's doping program and who had a record of tip-offs by his friends in the UCI's anti-doping program. The subsequent year showed huge gains. I am sure that it just a coincidence.

[benb]

Tim Kerrison appears to be Sky's version of Chris Carmichael, the beard the team uses to explain sketchy performances while the star riders do their own thing.


+1

Can't believe it took so long for that name to get mentioned. The hysterical thing is Chris Carmichael's book (at least the first one that came out when Lance was on the rise) didn't seem to have any specifics in it, at least not compared to say "The Cyclist's Training Bible".

I feel like there is more possibility of clever training methods today now that power meters and their use are so well studied, it was really fishy 10-15 years ago.

[72gmc]

It's always comforting to know a guru is on the scene.

[FlashUNC]

The secret is probably drugs.

Or something in the Tenerife soil. Which is also probably drugs.

[livingminimal]

Insert the eye roll emoji here.

Gave up on these kooks when Gerraint Thomas went from classics wunderkind to a climber that could beat Alberto Contador.

[malcolm]

Dunno what line of work your teams do, but athletics and workplace creativity is apples and frogs legs. Intellectual capital is unconstrained and infinitely malleable. Human athletic output is incrementing forwards in small steps over years and decades, if much at all.

Some of this progress has the driver of pro sports with give all the incentives to find and invent to next big thing. With the human body as the limiter there ain't no quantum leap unless you cheat. Modernity has split the atom and mapped the human genome. And Team Sky has discovered a legitimate way to increase performance? I'll bet they have.


agreed except at the elite level the gains are minuscule even cheating. For elite endurance athletes at the top of their game 10% would be huge.

[Drmojo]

Insert the eye roll emoji here.

Gave up on these kooks when Gerraint Thomas went from classics wunderkind to a climber that could beat Alberto Contador.

Looks like fish
Swims like fish
Smells like fish
Love the Beard comment about Carmichael, too. Lance rarely EVER spoke to him, turns out. I saw him at Bottega Gran Fondo 2 years ago---I had to bite my tongue so hard I bled

[soulspinner]

The secret is probably drugs.

Or something in the Tenerife soil. Which is also probably drugs.

for those increases? ahhhh yeah drugs...:beer:

[jimoots]

Fair enough, but if they were doing anything untoward, they'd be pretty stupid to shine a light on themselves like this. If the had something to hide, I would imagine they would keep their lips sealed.

It's not stupid, it's a puff PR piece to divert attention.

Essentially setting up for whatever new undetectable drug (gene doping?) is going to give significant gains - then they can say "see, that training we did a few years back, told ya it would get gains".

Having said that, suggesting the best in the world can simply train and eat better to climb as fast as the EPO generation is a laugh.

[bobswire]

Not to bring economics (in the pure sense of the word) into it, but one has to wonder whether resources flowed into doping because it was a bigger bang for the buck than advancing training methods. Ethics aside, and with the perception that there was a small chance of getting caught, it would seem that focusing on doping was probably the way teams got the most performance gains for each dollar spent. Perhaps ignoring (or atleast neglecting) legitimate training advances for a decade or more means that we'll have some 'catch up' innovation now that the costs for doping are being priced into the market.

One has to wonder whether the all time greats would be able to perform at a higher level if they had access to modern training methods. No reason to think that training methods of the future wouldn't be relatively better than the training methods available today.

I kinda agree with that though LA was taking advantage of both training and Peds. He was the one that really took advantage of aero/wind tunnels, diet ,cross training and best use of Peds.

[fuzzalow]

I kinda agree with that though LA was taking advantage of both training and Peds. He was the one that really took advantage of aero/wind tunnels, diet ,cross training and best use of Peds.

HaHa! Yeah LA sure did. Sounds great until you breakdown the performance attribution on the component parts:

Aero/wind tunnels: +1.00%
Diet: +0.75%
Cross training: +0.05%
PED: +300.00%

What's the secret sauce to this recipe for success? That whole fraud hadda be explained by something then, just like Team Sky is doing now.

Hey, I don't care 'cos I was born yesterday but early in the day so this is neither news nor worth agitating over. Just gimme a good race.

[Chris]

HaHa! Yeah LA sure did. Sounds great until you breakdown the performance attribution on the component parts:

Aero/wind tunnels: +1.00%
Diet: +0.75%
Cross training: +0.05%
PED: +300.00%

What's the secret sauce to this recipe for success? That whole fraud hadda be explained by something then, just like Team Sky is doing now.

Hey, I don't care 'cos I was born yesterday but early in the day so this is neither news nor worth agitating over. Just gimme a good race.

No doubt, but at the same time, lots of guys were doping heavy. I was an LA detractor from the beginning, but you can't dismiss the work ethic, attention to detail and willingness to adopt modern training. All of that played a role as well.

[Shoeman]

You can believe the old saying, Where There Is Smoke There Is Certainly Fire. Public Relations is to get out in front of the story to deflect the real truth.

[Jgrooms]

No doubt, but at the same time, lots of guys were doping heavy. I was an LA detractor from the beginning, but you can't dismiss the work ethic, attention to detail and willingness to adopt modern training. All of that played a role as well.


And you don't believe the other big budget teams had the same? For example, every time Phil & Paul would wax on about LA & co doing course recon like nobody else was 👌.

And yes I am a firm believer in dope doesn't turn a mule into a thoroughbred, but Sky is the new 'we just do it better' switched to UK media (who btw have vested interest in the myth).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[unterhausen]

And you don't believe the other big budget teams had the same? For example, every time Phil & Paul would wax on about LA & co doing course recon like nobody else was.
That's an interesting point, but everyone had the same dope, so something made the difference. Course recon is one thing, but making people train in a particular way if they aren't convinced it's worth it might be hard to do, see the above references to Sky riders. People are weird about training, particularly if the idea is to do less training than people are used to doing.

Sky's stories about why their riders are doing well have always made me wary. Oh, he's been sleeping at altitude -- right next to a known doping doctor.

[MattTuck]

And, so what should they say?

"We've achieved everything that is possible, it's time to discontinue the further development of training methods in 2016 because there is no hope of future advances."

Ok, then what are we paying you for?

That has the ring of "Everything that can be invented, has been invented." (which, for the record is not a real quote.)

Maybe they are using drugs, who knows.

On the other hand, the 100 meter dash times have come down by about 2.5% since the 1970's. And that is an event that focuses on anaerobic power production. Why do we not believe such gains are also possible for aerobic efforts?

And, let's also point something out. The traditional European pro peloton is not exactly a place of great genetic diversity. Looking at the elite levels of other endurance sports, you tend to see more Africans. They are mostly absent in cycling. Does it make any sense whatsoever that Europeans are genetically advantaged when it comes to riding a bicycle? You do have Quintana, who is quite genetically different from modern Europeans.

I'm not so quick to write off the possibility that we'll see faster times in the future.

[Jgrooms]

That's an interesting point, but everyone had the same dope, so something made the difference. Course recon is one thing, but making people train in a particular way if they aren't convinced it's worth it might be hard to do, see the above references to Sky riders. People are weird about training, particularly if the idea is to do less training than people are used to doing.

Sky's stories about why their riders are doing well have always made me wary. Oh, he's been sleeping at altitude -- right next to a known doping doctor.


Oh I agree 100%! It was a level field & they were just better. Just take LA's power to weight post cancer as an example. Nowadays nobody recalls that. It was just all dope. Come on!

However, this article seemed so deja vue to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jgrooms]

And, so what should they say?



I'm not so quick to write off the possibility that we'll see faster times in the future.


I agree. History has proven this.

However, the tone & the way the article is being reviewed is that Froome is as fast as the unmentionable now. And this is because we (Sky) have reinvented the wheel already. That's not incremental. That's we are just as fast as the turbocharged era now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cmbicycles]

On the other hand, the 100 meter dash times have come down by about 2.5% since the 1970's. And that is an event that focuses on anaerobic power production. Why do we not believe such gains are also possible for aerobic efforts?


this increase of speed on the track has largely been attributed to changes in track surfaces. I don't doubt that training methods have and will improve, but... at the end of the day it's sports entertainment/business with money on the line for a long list of people who want results.

[Ti Designs]

Maybe they've hired Ti Designs to teach them correct pedaling technique? ;)

Nope. The true natural athletes don't need me, the want their body to do something, it does it. It's the other 99.9% who can't do that who could use the help in closing that gap.

I see two issues with "Team Sky's secret":

1) It does sound a lot like the press conferences that US Postal would have. There's no way of knowing for certain if they're cheating. If I cared the least about pro racing I might care about that, but I don't.

2) People look at what the pros do as a method for their own improvement. They overlook a few things. First, the pros are the ones who have a really easy time with technique. As a result they can skip much of the learning process, and they can't teach how to do things 'cause they've never seen the learning process first hand. Second, they don't know if they are adaptors or non-adaptors for the given training method.

Early on in the article it says they have switched from lots of slow base mileage to shorter, more intense workouts. I'm sure there will be a flood of average riders doing the same, 'cause Sky does it. Here's the problem: with any training method there are those who respond and those who don't. I've been looking at Stephen Seiler's data on what he calls "training dose" and it's hard not to notice that the population of non-responders is almost as large as the responders. The study is done on a population, so it can't say to any individual "this is going to work for you", but it can shed some light on the chances of success. I sorted the data based on age and number of years in the sport, and found the polarized model gave me the best chance (I'm in my 50's and I've been in cycling well over 10 years).

The article says they're going to reach new highs by finding incremental improvements in training. Seems to me the first (and largest) improvement to be made would be in taking the time to see which method you respond to the best, and not assume that what the pros do is best.


Beyond that, I do agree that there are improvements to be found and gains to be made based on them. My fitness will never see the levels it did 20 years ago, but in many ways I'm faster. Even after 35 years I'm finding significant gains in training each off season, and using them to my advantage during the year. Sadly, I have to teach that to the kids I coach the next eay, and they never get any older...

[Jgrooms]

^ you are a sage!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris]

And you don't believe the other big budget teams had the same? For example, every time Phil & Paul would wax on about LA & co doing course recon like nobody else was 👌.

And yes I am a firm believer in dope doesn't turn a mule into a thoroughbred, but Sky is the new 'we just do it better' switched to UK media (who btw have vested interest in the myth).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're absolutely correct. That wasn't my implication. Look at his competitors though. Primarily, Ullrich. How many times did he come into the winter overweight? It wasn't until the later Armstrong era and beyond that guys were racing and training year-round. As much as I dislike Armstrong for the things he did, you can't question his work ethic an seriousness in training.

[FlashUNC]

Do they bury their drugs in Tenerife and dig them up like Curly's gold each offseason or just bring them to the island each year?

The mind wonders.

[PQJ]

They're probably on something that nobody knows about and / or isn't (yet) on the list of banned substances. See, e.g., Sharapova, Maria and the hundreds of other athletes reportedly on whatever she's on (Djoker?).

[KWalker]

Maybe I completely missed the point of the article, but it seems that their "method" is basically eschewing the typically cycling team and training b/s and focusing only on what produces both mental and physical results.

Look at their climbing, for example:

On TV they look like robots and tap out a pace they know they can hold and have held in a billion situations in training. It works most of the time.

Half of that is surely science, metrics, power, etc., but there is a strategic and mental component as well. Its definitely not easy to sit there and ride one speed while other teams fling rivals off the front and open up huge gaps. In training they train for such situations both mentally and with specific workouts so come race time they have confidence in their strategy.

Traditionally training camps were about just riding as much as possible, doing some hard climbs, and probably some drugs involved. If you read the recent interview with some of the Garmin riders, it was only this year or maybe last to where they brought on specialists to come to the camps and make sure that they didn't go too hard while adapting, didn't end up burning out their adrenal systems, and adjusted their training to the lack of oxygen. You would think this is common sense, but cycling teams often defy logic for inane tradition.

[KWalker]

If they are not cheating, then a training program designed to improve pedaling efficiency based on detailed power meter data seems the most likely area to offer meaningful functional gains. Almost all sports (and top athletes) have found important benefit from technique coaching and there is no reason to think cycling would be different.

As far as magic training or diet regimens to produce 10% gains of physiologic parameters I think that highly unlikely. When you look at track records (100yd dash or marathon) there is nothing like that sort of incremental improvement. Gains in recent decades have been much smaller (and possibly PED aided as well). The flattening of the curve suggests that current records are approaching what is physiologically possible for humans.

I cannot say how I know or delve into details, but your first paragraph is spot on.

Usually if you catch them right as they upload and before they delete their data, you can get Strava info about what they did. I did this with Froome and a few others for a while and they seem to do A LOT of rides with low cadence tempo and threshold work interspersed with ultra high cadence suprathreshold work. One ride Froome would do 380W@50RPM for 8min, then go right into 430-450W@100-110RPM or higher for 5min on a climb for repeats.

[PaulE]

Smoking is like high altitude training, it will raise your hematocrit because the smoke displaces oxygen that would otherwise go into your lungs. Doesn't relax the lungs but they may have been on to something. Not sure about oxygen uptake from your lungs to your circulatory system though once all that tar has clogged them up!

[MattTuck]

I cannot say how I know or delve into details, but your first paragraph is spot on.

Usually if you catch them right as they upload and before they delete their data, you can get Strava info about what they did. I did this with Froome and a few others for a while and they seem to do A LOT of rides with low cadence tempo and threshold work interspersed with ultra high cadence suprathreshold work. One ride Froome would do 380W@50RPM for 8min, then go right into 430-450W@100-110RPM or higher for 5min on a climb for repeats.

Aldo Sassi also had his riders doing this kind of low cadence work.

[KWalker]

Most pro coaches did or do still. Its the Wattage list coaches that seem to have missed the boat and/or don't believe in it.

[Jgrooms]

The perspective from a guy in the trenches so to speak.

His opinion on Sky coach: "I think he is full of sh*t" is the quick summary.

http://stevetilford.com/2016/03/15/clean-riders-can-be-better-than-doped-riders/#comments




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KWalker]

I like Tilford's commentary, but the dude hasn't raced at that level in, well, ever in the modern era. It gets old hearing "all pros are in a doping ring" by guys that, while great racers, have no perspective.

[milkbaby]

Maybe they are using drugs, who knows.

On the other hand, the 100 meter dash times have come down by about 2.5% since the 1970's. And that is an event that focuses on anaerobic power production. Why do we not believe such gains are also possible for aerobic efforts?

I'm not so quick to write off the possibility that we'll see faster times in the future.

I agree with this and what KWalker wrote. Cycling is very tradition bound, and there is probably a lot of room to advance training and racing methods over what is current dogma. The interesting thing is that triathlon is quick to embrace trying new things and giving up old traditions that are found to be ineffective or wrong.

As mentioned, some people may decry Sky for riding like robots without any panache, but in the end Sky only cares if they win.

[CunegoFan]

I agree with this and what KWalker wrote. Cycling is very tradition bound, and there is probably a lot of room to advance training and racing methods over what is current dogma. The interesting thing is that triathlon is quick to embrace trying new things and giving up old traditions that are found to be ineffective or wrong.

The men's record at Kona has been lowered by 12 seconds since 1996. The run record was set in 1989 and that record included the transition time, which is not included today. The fastest IM time was set in 1996. Factor out the aero improvements in bikes and elite times have been pretty much static for twenty-five years. There is certainly no 10-15% improvement in FTPs.

The idea that modern professional cyclists are too lazy to train or too stupid to take advantage of new training methods is ludicrous. Cycling has led the way for power based training. The literature is freely available, and cyclists are obsessive about it just like triathletes.


As mentioned, some people may decry Sky for riding like robots without any panache, but in the end Sky only cares if they win.

And like other teams it doesn't care how those wins are achieved as long as it has plausible deniability.