ARE YOU DOING IT WRONG?
COMMON CYCLING MYTHS BUSTED TECHNIQUE
Surf the internet and you’ll be flooded with information showing you how to ride faster, stronger and longer. It’s entertaining, illuminating… and often incorrect. This misguided advice can see you bonk through fasting or adopt a position that might suit Sir Bradley Wiggins but leave you tied up in knots. Thankfully, your trusted training partner, Cycling Plus, is here to help you separate the truth from the myths…
YOU HAVE TO BE ‘OLD’ TO WIN THE TOUR DE FRANCE THE TRUTH
A landmark study into what it takes to win the world’s greatest bike race was published in 2012 in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The research, entitled ‘The Tour de France: An Updated Physiological Review’, dug deep into what it takes to look Parisian street smart in le maillot jaune. One of the standouts was that the ‘average age of a Tour winner is 28 years old’, which rose to 29 between 1984 and when the study finished in 2011. By our own calculations, between Bradley Wiggins’ 2012 triumph and the 2018 victory of Geraint Thomas, that seven-year average jumped to 31 years old.
It cemented the view that while the fast-twitching muscle fibres of sprinters is left to the young guns, general classification winners require the accumulative endurance built over years of 30,000 annual cycling kilometres.
That was until 2019, when 22-year-old Colombian Egan Bernal became the youngest winner since 20-year-old Henri Cornet in 1908. (Cornet finished fifth but was promoted four places due to a quartet of disqualifications.) A staggering performance but an outlier, surely? Maybe not. Come September 2020, 21-year-old Tadej Pogacar made it successive successes for the new youth brigade.
Just what is going on? “In my opinion, the older average of days gone by was based on the long duration that it took riders and teams to figure out how to train effectively,” says Jeroen Swart, medical director at Pogacar’s team, UAE Team Emirates. “These days, with modern analytics, we’re figuring out what works and what doesn’t for a rider much earlier in their careers.”
Or, as pro cycling journalist Andrew Hood writes on Velonews.com, “Better science, nutrition and technology only acts as an accelerant when applied to today’s über-talented youngsters. Lighter frames, aero helmets and skinsuits, calibrated diets and recovery, coupled with the granular attention to detail in training programmes, means young riders can advance their racing development at a staggering rate. If they have the motor, and the skills to back it up, they can expect to perform almost immediately.”
And they are, in their droves. Of Deceuninck-QuickStep’s 27-man roster, 10 are under 25 years old, while Ineos Grenadiers has nine riders aged 24 or younger. Marc Hirschi, who lit up the 2020 Tour and won a stage, is just 22, while recent Giro winner Tao Geoghegan Hart is 25. The fearlessness of youth coupled with fewer responsibilities – kids! – and the empirical, data-heavy world of modern cycling yields success. It’s why instead of age, we should be hitting William Hill based on a rider’s genetics and upbringing. Take Bernal, whose VO2 max is reportedly a breath or two beneath 90ml/kg/min and his dad was a top amateur. Ineos’s exciting 23-year-old Pavel Sivakov has a VO2 max in the mid-80s and his father completed the Tour three times.
In fact, if you’re seeking future Tour stars, just look at a rider’s body. According to that 2012 study, the profile of the winner from the 1990s through to 2011 was similar to a time trial specialist, namely 1.79m tall and weighing 67kg. Pogacar is close at 1.76m and 66kg; Bernal is 1.75m and lighter at 60kg. It turns out that while age is just a number, weight certainly isn’t.
GET AS LOW AS POSSIBLE THE TRUTH
Covid’s disruptive DNA struck again recently when Israel Start-Up Nation’s Alex Dowsett postponed his intended December hourrecord attempt at Manchester velodrome after contracting coronavirus. The British rider was in good form during the truncated and squashed race season, picking up his second-ever Grand Tour stage win at the Giro in October. His first also came at the same race but in his favoured time trial discipline back in 2013.
In fact, the 32-year-old is a TT wizard with six national titles to his name plus a Commonwealth gold. But counter to the doctrine ‘lower equals faster’, Dowsett’s slipstreaming speed stems from a career-changing tweak he made a few years ago. “I used to be really low but came up an inch or so because of the numbers. If you go too low, it’s harder to put down the power,” says Dowsett.
“I think more now about the width of my frontal profile and trying to make it narrower,” Dowsett continues. “If you watch me in a time trial, I’m constantly bringing my shoulders round and forwards. It helps where your arms and elbows are positioned. If, for instance, you have high edges to the outside of your armrests, that can give you something to push against when you’re trying to bring your shoulders in. The sport’s moved on but there are still some riders out there who are so low it’s ridiculous.”
Going too low might churn out good dragreducing numbers in the wind tunnel, but the lower you go, the more you compress your diaphragm. The more compressed your diaphragm, the greater the oxygen cost and breathing frequency, resulting in fatigue and reduced power output.
Dowsett’s aerodynamic template is supported by the work of the University of Birmingham’s Mark Sterling, who led a team that examined the optimum time-trial torso angle. They showed that at speeds over 46kph, aerodynamic losses outweigh power losses but “a fully horizontal position is not optimal”. The team also concluded that at speeds below 30kph “it’s beneficial to ride in a more upright TT position”. You could, say the researchers, have two TT positions: a Metabolic Energy Model for endurance events and a Power Output Model for sprints and variable conditions like wind and an undulating course.
YOUR CRAMPING IS DOWN TO DEHYDRATION THE TRUTH
In the last century, mankind’s desire to evolve and learn has stimulated incredible scientific discoveries. We discovered antibiotics and DNA, and invented the internet, artificial intelligence and the human genome project, which makes it rather staggering that the cause of cramp remains up for debate. ‘Nonsense,’ you retort. ‘Cramp’s down to dehydration and the loss of salts.’ Maybe, but possibly not… in fact, the evidence behind this near-century-old theory is far from convincing.
Despite a survey of 344 endurance athletes published in 2019 finding that 75 per cent of them believed consuming supplemental sodium would prevent cramps, a number of studies over the past decade comparing crampers and non-crampers in cycling, triathlon and marathon running have consistently shown insignificant di erences in athletes’ hydration or electrolyte levels. Another popular cramp-causing theory centres on nerve issues when heavily fatigued. The remedy has long been mooted as that epicurean delight: pickle juice – the idea being that chemicals within revive these nerve endings. Evidence remains equivocal.
Now, according to a recent study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, the key to beating cramp lies in the gym. A team from Spain had 84 runners preparing for the Valencian marathon undertake a battery of physiological and performance tests in an effort to differentiate between crampers and non-crampers. Twenty subjects endured race-day cramp, equating to 24 per cent, but once again there was no discernible di erence between the two groups’ hydration and electrolyte levels. What did di er to rather significant levels was creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase, both muscle-damage markers. Twenty-four hours after the event, the crampers registered 2439 international units per litre compared to 1167 in the cramp-free crew.
Analysis of training loads showed just one exercise strand di ered: 48 per cent of non-crampers did regular lower-body training compared to 25 per cent of crampers. The former had apparently bullet proofed their limbs for the endurance feat to come. The take-home? Doing leg exercises, like squats, a couple of times a week with loads up to 80 per cent of your maximum could lead to cramp-free cycling (qua some sodium-heavy pickle juice, too – just in case!).
75% OF ENDURANCE ATHLETES BEL IEVED THAT CONSUM ING SUPPLEMENTAL SOD IUM WOULD PREVENT CRAMPS
AN OUNCE OFF THE WHEELS IS WORTH A POUND OFF THE FRAME THE TRUTH
This saying is why many riders seek out the lightest carbon hoops possible. But, though not entirely wasting their money, it could be better spent. Before we explain why, let’s get under the skin of the adage and reveal why, for most recreational riders, it’s not that important.
One of the sells of losing wheel weight is to reduce inertia. Inertia is based on the principle that mass away from the centre of rotation takes more energy to rotate than mass close to the centre of rotation. Seen through a cycling lens, the former is the rim, the latter the hub. Newton’s Second Law dictates that the sum of all forces is the same as inertia multiplied by the angle of acceleration. So, if inertia is high, it’ll require greater force to move.
Mind spinning? Dr Marco Arkesteijn, lecturer in sport and exercise biomechanics at Aberystwyth University, clarifies. “Picture a figure skater rotating on the spot with her arms spread out. She rotates around the mid-point of the body
– the part that’s stationary. This is her centre of rotation. She increases her rotation velocity by tucking her hands into her body. What she’s doing is decreasing the mass away from the centre of rotation, which lowers the inertia. As her momentum is constant, it follows from Newton’s Second Law that her angular acceleration increases and so her velocity increases.”
It’s why less rim weight does indeed equate to faster accelerations, which pays o! when you’re leaving traffic lights or shifting into literal and metaphorical gear up a hill. The thing is, these acceleration scenarios are not only rare but the effect is relatively low. And while cutting wheel weight is useful uphill, it’s still relatively minor compared to dropping pounds o! yourself. So, instead of seeking the lightest wheels, go for the most aerodynamic. Any extra weight is easily offset by the greater drag-reducing gains.
SUPERSTITION AIN’T THE WAY THE TRUTH
Laura Kenny reportedly steps on a wet towel before every race, 1988 Giro winner Andy Hampsten would only use an odd number of cogs on climbs, and it’s customary for Tour riders to flip the number 13 on their race jersey. Yes, cyclists are a superstitious lot. And with legitimate performance-propelling reasons, it would appear.
Bryan Saunders, researcher at Sao Paulo University, is an authority on the placebo effect and feels it is one of the most powerful ergogenic aids (energy-production enhancer). And not just because of the idea that believing something will make you faster will actually make you faster. “We now understand that placebo effects are neuro-biological, too,” Saunders says. “A reaction occurs in the brain that generates a physical
“A REACTION OCCURS IN THE BRAIN THAT GENERATES A PHYSICAL RESPONSE LIKE REDUCING PAIN , LEADING TO YOU DIGGING DEEPER”
response like, for example, reducing pain, leading to you digging deeper for improved performance.”
Saunders cites a study by Fabrizio Benedetti of Turin University. Subjects undertook handgrip tests four times over four weeks with a band tightened around their bicep. Week four was a mock competition. Team A, the control group, took no pills. Team B had no pills but were informed they’d swallowed pain-killing morphine before competition day. It wasn’t – it was a placebo. Team C took morphine in weeks two and three but a placebo in week four. Team D mirrored team C but in week four ingested placebo and naloxone. Naloxone is a drug that inhibits the pathways morphine acts on. “Team C tolerated 21 minutes of pain despite that competition placebo,” says Saunders. “They topped the group. Fellow morphine group, team D, were six minutes down because of the naloxone, even though they hadn’t taken it with morphine. But because they thought they had, a catalogue of biological events took place that reduced performance.”
So belief, or placebo, is a very real ‘legal’ performance booster (morphine isn’t, of course). But, a placebo in this format requires deception. That’s both unethical and short-termist – surely, on finding out the deception, an athlete will soon question any performance strategy their coach advises? Maybe not. Saunders suggests placebo responses can be learned through a Pavlovian phenomenon called ‘pre-conditioning’. This ties in to a field called open-label placebo, where the cyclist knows they’re being conned but retains a strong enough belief of potential improvement that they enjoy a neuro-biological helping hand.
CYCLISTS ARE IDIOTS THE TRUTH
We all know humans who choose to travel by bike are clearly intelligent beasts. Now, thanks to some rather smart lab work, there are hard-nosed facts to back this up. Cycling boosts cerebral power by spreading its very own fertiliser through a protein known as BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Harvard psychiatrist Larissa True refers to this as “miracle grow for the brain” and it’s an area that True researched for her dissertation.
“BDNF is secreted in the brain and regenerates neurons (which transmit information between nerve cells and muscles) throughout the neural system. That potentially means we can cycle longer and faster without becoming injured,” True says. “It’s also important in motor learning and long- and short-term memory. The interesting thing is levels are activity dependent; the more active you are, the more BDNF is secreted.”
A German study showed the BDNF benefits of daily aerobic exercise were improved further still with sprint intervals, the researchers noting that the sprinting group learnt vocabulary words 20 per cent quicker than the non-sprinters. BDNF is thought to work by binding to receptors in the synapses to increase voltage and improve voltage strength.