Nobel Prize for Cycling Sports Science?

All are familiar with Nobel prizes, given for, among other things, outstanding scientific achievement.

This got me pondering. If there was a “Cycling Sports Science” Nobel prize what breakthrough would be worthy of winning it.?

The problem is that I really can’t think of anything, at least recently, that would qualify. So any suggestions?

Few criteria

  • It has to be something from recent history. Say the last 5 years, 10 at a stretch.
  • It has to be about improving the athlete. There have been lots of advances to bikes and equipment but these are just about the practical application of knowledge from other fields like materials management and fluid dynamics.
  • It has to have some sort of universal recognition. So “advances” that require you to be using a specific software product by definition do not qualify since if they were really that good we would all have purchased and be running it.

So as examples

  • FTP would qualify except that it has been around too long
  • mFTP would not qualify as no-one outside WKO uses it
  • Polarised training would not qualify as it has been around too long and also because, while everyone agrees you need to vary training intensity, as a specific protocol it is not in widespread use.
  • The discovery that surprise surprise if a tyre feels more comfortable riding over rough surfaces is may actually be faster does not qualify since it’s basic physics.
1 Like

Actually just to nominate one possible though borderline candidate.

Dan Bigham’s amazing work helping turn the Danish pursuit team into the world’s greatest ever.

He did it via applying the basic science of other disciplines and he isn’t really a sports scientist as such.

However the fact that he managed it by using “old fashioned” gear and the fact that he focused more on the rider than the kit may just push him into qualification.

1 Like

hm interesting question. I can’t think of anything that fits your criteria. Most important changes in cycling come from a variety of fields, as you mentioned, and are often incremental. For instance in terms of nutrition, which is also endurance sport in general and not so cycling specific. The only massive shift or breakthrough I can think of, that is cycling specific is the power meter. But that’s of course around for quite a while now.
Also there is Peter Sagan, who pretty much single handedly eliminated the sprinter lead-out trains… but of course that’s tactics not science.

What he did with Huub Wattbike arguably more impressive given none of those riders were in a national setup.

From what I understand the big change in tactics was planning turns based on rider capability, rather than the ‘traditional’ way of even turns.

1 Like

I’m torn: Frank Day, or perfection?

The next logical nominee would be MVdP who pretty much single handedly invented the single-rider lead-out train/sprinter combo.

“I don’t know why sprinters wait so long! All you have to do is pull for 10km, then do a 300m 850w lead-out, and then finish with a 1,200w sprint!”

2 Likes

EPO?

Probably too old though… but 100% fits the criteria lol

To be more serious…I would say the ever increasing increasing knowledge base of sports nutrition as a whole…but I cant think of a any single item that would be worthy that arent doping pharmceuticals.

1 Like

Pedal based power meters

AI based cycling plans that have a history of all your workouts and give you the next one - oh wait TR didn’t get there yet!

The smart trainer?

1 Like

EPO is a person?

Erm. Good catch. In retrospext I should have named the inventor of EPO. If I knew who that was…

Your kidneys? :wink:

Seriously though, it was first synthesised in the 80s I think, and obviously to treat anaemia so difficult to classify it as part of the sports science realm.

None of the above qualify I’m afraid.

EPO fails on, as already pointed out, being way to old. Oh and for another reason. Its sort of sad that you mention this. One serious intent behind this post is that sports science is a fail area at least when applied to cycling. One fundamental reason for this is that for decades the best minds (and frankly there are not many of these) were employed trying to find ways to cheat not make riders better.

Riders don’t count unless its proven that being able to wheelie up mountains improves your FTP

Nutrition doesn’t count because it’s far too vague. Need a specific fact that sports science has revealed. As far as I am aware everything useful has actually come via basic physiology (witness the best source of info I have found on the subject is Andy Galpin who studies muscular tissue for his real job) Most so called “science” is actually used just to market what folks already know to the gullible in search of a quick buck,

Closest so far

MVdP - He doesn’t qualify but he provides a good example of how mental toughness (matched to a well trained body ofc) can help you perform outstanding feats. As psychology graduate I have always applied this and its one reason that I’m one of the best 60+ riders in the world (/flex). So its disappointing that most every training manual bangs on about zones and intervals but never tells you what to think while doing them in a way that will make you faster. To the contrary many hype up the “pain” which is just moronic. Just talking about something being painful will make it appear worse. It would be much better to say “400W is easy ffs. Pros can hold this for an hour so it should be easy to do it for a couple of minutes”.

Pedal based power meters don’t count because by themselves they are just convenient. However the info they provide could be a candidate and Wattbike, Hunter Allen, Leomo and the chap you wrote the IQ app to show wasted power while riding (sorry I forget his name) could be my nominees. Again its something I have been using since 2009 when I got a wattbike and it may just be coincidence that my wasted power number and dead spot numbers are 0 while my output power is off the scale but I think not. Strangely though most people, including those responsible for WKO, seem to think that pedaling is a unique skill in that every human on the planet is born with an innate ability to do perfectly from birth. Weird how 90% look as if they are pedaling squares then. Credit to Trainerroad on this score, for going against the trend and spending focused time on this. However this is the rare exception that proves the rule and so does not qualify at least yeat yet.

Rant over, any more candidates?