Log in:  

Register

Team Sky and BC Books.

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

05 Jul 2018 11:38

fmk_RoI wrote:
Bronstein wrote:
samhocking wrote:I've read 93 in a couple of places but on more investigation, most mentions of him say 84.6 (88.2 in his Tour de France condition). Either way, near the top of the class.


80.2 in fact.
Esquire gave it as 84.6 adjusted to 88.2. It really is a rather meaningless number on its own and a very poor way of ranking athletes. One might as well measure the length of their index finger.


80.2 from the 2007 tests.
Bronstein
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 18:05

Re: Re:

05 Jul 2018 11:44

Bronstein wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
Bronstein wrote:
samhocking wrote:I've read 93 in a couple of places but on more investigation, most mentions of him say 84.6 (88.2 in his Tour de France condition). Either way, near the top of the class.


80.2 in fact.
Esquire gave it as 84.6 adjusted to 88.2. It really is a rather meaningless number on its own and a very poor way of ranking athletes. One might as well measure the length of their index finger.


80.2 from the 2007 tests.
Report
Froome underwent three tests – "Two submaximal efforts, in cool then hot conditions, will measure his sustainable power" – with a max test between the two to determine his VO2 max which was recorded at 84.6.

At his Tour weight, Froome's VO2 correlates to 88.2. Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond, by comparison, had a VO2 max of 92.5.
and
Also published in the Esquire article are the results of Froome's 2007 test in a Lausanne laboratory. In 2007, Froome weighed 75.6kg with a body fat of 16.9 per cent. He produced a higher peak power than his 2015 test, 540 watts, his threshold was 420 watts and his VO2 max was 80.2.
Don't try to be disingenious. Sam doesn't need the company.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,763
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

05 Jul 2018 11:44

fmk_RoI wrote:
Bronstein wrote:
samhocking wrote:I've read 93 in a couple of places but on more investigation, most mentions of him say 84.6 (88.2 in his Tour de France condition). Either way, near the top of the class.


80.2 in fact.
Esquire gave it as 84.6 adjusted to 88.2. It really is a rather meaningless number on its own and a very poor way of ranking athletes. One might as well measure the length of their index finger.


He key being he just lost the fat :exclaim:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,480
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re:

05 Jul 2018 11:47

samhocking wrote:Freeman's actual words were
"A top cyclist might have one of 97.5"
Given a junior cyclist has one of 97.5 already and was a World Champion, I think we can understand a top cyclist 'might' have one of 97.5 too?
If we've been measuring this since at least LeMond's time, name that top cyclist...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,763
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

05 Jul 2018 11:53

fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:Freeman's actual words were
"A top cyclist might have one of 97.5"
Given a junior cyclist has one of 97.5 already and was a World Champion, I think we can understand a top cyclist 'might' have one of 97.5 too?
If we've been measuring this since at least LeMond's time, name that top cyclist...


Good ole Brett Aiken 93.9, best ever recorded in my book. Phenomenal cyclist.

93.9 ml/kg/min VO2 Max done right here in the SASI Lab on bread and water. Like to see Lance beat that drug free!
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,480
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

05 Jul 2018 12:25

A fun game for all the family! Write like Freeman's ghost!
Image
The athlete's heart:
You are born with a heart rate. Athletes naturally have a low heart rate, but training decreases it, as does losing weight. A sedentary adult might have a heart rate of 70. A top cyclist might have one of 28.
The athlete's height:
You are born with height. Athletes naturally have heights, which training will not increase, nor will losing weight. Though shedding a few pounds might make you stand up a bit straighter and so look taller. A sedentary adult might have a height of five foot six and a bit. A top cyclist might have one of six foot nine.
The athlete's temperature:
You are born with a temperature. Athletes naturally have temperatures, which training may increase, though losing weight won't. A sedentary adult might have a temperature of 36.5C. So too will a top cyclist. Unless he's making a lot of effort. In which case it might be higher. Or lower. I don't know. Oh God! Look, I'm only being paid to interview this man a couple of times and write his responses up, filling in the blanks with a lot of Googling, and get all 300 pages of this typed in a couple of months. You should have bought a proper book if you really care about things like this. It's your fault. You gullible fools.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,763
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

05 Jul 2018 13:46

fmk_RoI wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
samhocking wrote:Freeman's actual words were
"A top cyclist might have one of 97.5"
Given a junior cyclist has one of 97.5 already and was a World Champion, I think we can understand a top cyclist 'might' have one of 97.5 too?


That is an incredibly dishonest interpretation of the English of that sentence.
One of the problems with cheap ghosts is shoddy language and a need to convince you of their expertise with undue precision. A wiser writer would simply have said that VO2 Max ranges from the 50s to the 90s and would not have bothered trying to con the reader with the false precision of one place of decimals. Bullshitting is easy to spot when people play with numbers they barely understand. But you get what you pay for. You could call it dumbed down. But if you were honest you'd just call it dumb.

That's a much better way of explaining it, rather than attempting to justify it...
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,371
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

05 Jul 2018 14:19

King Boonen wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
samhocking wrote:Freeman's actual words were
"A top cyclist might have one of 97.5"
Given a junior cyclist has one of 97.5 already and was a World Champion, I think we can understand a top cyclist 'might' have one of 97.5 too?


That is an incredibly dishonest interpretation of the English of that sentence.
One of the problems with cheap ghosts is shoddy language and a need to convince you of their expertise with undue precision. A wiser writer would simply have said that VO2 Max ranges from the 50s to the 90s and would not have bothered trying to con the reader with the false precision of one place of decimals. Bullshitting is easy to spot when people play with numbers they barely understand. But you get what you pay for. You could call it dumbed down. But if you were honest you'd just call it dumb.

That's a much better way of explaining it, rather than attempting to justify it...


Reminds me of Froome’s book which had a glossary at the end of cycling terms. You know, like “chainring”, “pedal” & “peloton”. Perfect for newbie 2012 cycling fan :cool:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,480
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

06 Jul 2018 09:18

Can't believe the clinic can argue over a decimal place and theories of why it exists like that? Most books are geared towards 'new fans' & riders because guess what - they don't own any books yet. No doubt Freeman could have aimed the book for his fellow World Tour Doctor & rider and sold precisely none.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,792
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

06 Jul 2018 09:22

Just from reading some of the excerpts from Freeman's book, it sounds very much like a dummys guide to cycling.
ontheroad
Member
 
Posts: 925
Joined: 10 Oct 2012 18:04

06 Jul 2018 09:37

Not sure about dumb. It's a simple, easy to understand high level overview aimed towards the man on the street who knows nothing about cycling or medical treatment in sport. I learnt several things I didn't know before I read it, mostly about Allardyce and how much came across to BC via his time with Bolton. If that makes me dumb football fan too, so be it, it was worth two pints down the pub anyway.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,792
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

06 Jul 2018 10:46

samhocking wrote:Can't believe the clinic can argue over a decimal place and theories of why it exists like that?
Whose arguing? I've explained. Calmly. Politely. No argument.
samhocking wrote:Most books are geared towards 'new fans' & riders because guess what - they don't own any books yet.
As someone who reads forty or fifty cycling books a year, this is simply not true. The vast majority of cycling books are aimed at a literate cycling audience, in possession of a degree of knowledge of cycling. Only a minority of cycling books are 'Cycling for Dummies,' the sort of books that need to explain what turbo trainers are or note that everyone is born with a VO2 Max.
samhocking wrote:No doubt Freeman could have aimed the book at his fellow World Tour Doctor & rider and sold precisely none.
There you go again, strawdogging. No one has made the asinine suggestion he write a book just the World Tour's four or five hundred riders and the hundred or so doctors employed to care for them. It has simply been noted - with examples from the text - that it has not been written for cycling fans in possession of a brain.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,763
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

06 Jul 2018 12:15

I'm discussing the 'level' Freemans book is aimed at. I just said very explicitly it is not aimed at established pro riders and their doctors in cycling, but the man on the street new to cycling or perhaps even just stumbling across it in Smiths at the airport on a long-haul now you've got me thinking about the target market audience beyond those an@l-enough to know who Freeman even is.
For the content of the book, it is simply general interest so will see the widest sales by dumbing down. Make it too low level details and technical and it becomes specialist book seeing much few sales, that's all.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,792
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

06 Jul 2018 12:47

samhocking wrote: I just said very explicitly it is not aimed at established pro riders and their doctors in cycling
How many cycling books do you think are aimed at that audience of circa 1,000 people Sam? If 'most' cycling books in your informed opinion of the subject are aimed at people who have no other cycling books, you're going to say a minority of a minority? I can actually tell you: none.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,763
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

06 Jul 2018 18:12

samhocking wrote:I'm discussing the 'level' Freemans book is aimed at. I just said very explicitly it is not aimed at established pro riders and their doctors in cycling, but the man on the street new to cycling or perhaps even just stumbling across it in Smiths at the airport on a long-haul now you've got me thinking about the target market audience beyond those an@l-enough to know who Freeman even is.
For the content of the book, it is simply general interest so will see the widest sales by dumbing down. Make it too low level details and technical and it becomes specialist book seeing much few sales, that's all.


the idiots buying Freemans book with already have read G's Hoys' Pendletons, Wiggins and Froomes

they know the basics

Freeman could have added insight...instead....with minimal effort he seeks to financially exploit the current onmishambles that is Team Sky...talking of which, I wonder why May has not got SDB in to advise on Brexit...now there's a book :razz:
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,466
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Back to top