Log in:  

Register

The Froome Files, test data only thread

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

15 Jan 2018 17:07

hazaran wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
but your max at 20 mins is not your absolute max...which you canm't possibly sustain for 20 mins...we're talking here about absolute max are we not?


What is "absolute max" supposed to be? The absolute max is probably what you can sprint for 10-12 seconds, but then there is an absolute max for 5 minutes, 20 minutes, 1hr, ... strictly decreasing.

The point is that heart rate only measures aerobic utilization, and for short endurance events, aerobic utilization is more or less 100% all the time. Elite runners do 1 mile runs at the same HR as 3 mile events, but it's not the same level of effort at all because you're missing anaerobic power which HR can't show you.


its the one you puke up at :)

the discussion here is only on the discrepancy between froome's previously reported absolute max i.e. which he's self reported and which has shown on data...i.e. attacks and or hill finishes

the max shown here (above previously reported) sits atop a small triangle of data...that triangle of data forms the top part of a larger triangle....the whole triangle therefore has to be the 'blip' or the 'slippage' which is very unlikely....as it is consistent over some distance/time...and appears to be consistent with the other data set out...or at least is not inconsistent....
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,347
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

15 Jan 2018 17:25

hazaran wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
but your max at 20 mins is not your absolute max...which you canm't possibly sustain for 20 mins...we're talking here about absolute max are we not?


What is "absolute max" supposed to be? The absolute max is probably what you can sprint for 10-12 seconds, but then there is an absolute max for 5 minutes, 20 minutes, 1hr, ... strictly decreasing.

The point is that heart rate only measures aerobic utilization, and for short endurance events, aerobic utilization is more or less 100% all the time. Elite runners do 1 mile runs at the same HR as 3 mile events, but it's not the same level of effort at all because you're missing anaerobic power which HR can't show you.

It's that max that gets you to vrroom away from Alberto for those few seconds.
;)
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,338
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

15 Jan 2018 18:56

gillan1969 wrote:
samhocking wrote:There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.


what I meant was that because of the nature of road riding then your heart rate will always be going up and down due to easing off in tailwinds, pushing a bit in climbs...slowing for cars, junctions, deer, other cyclists, crap road surface, puddles etc etc etc...i.e.the raw data is always going up and down

on a turbo its pretty consistent......


The graph shows two leading HR rate monitors being worn at the same time. The point was to show the discrepancy between HR monitors and how much difference to their accuracy is seen between a turbo and a ride outside on the road. Clearly in a controlled environment they are relatively accurate to each other other than getting on and off the bike it looks like. On the road however, the randomness to their accuracy is introduced and so any realtime observations as peaks and troughs compared to normal known values have to be taken with a pinch of salt really.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,360
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

15 Jan 2018 19:15

The Dawg really is down on his luck :(

Freakish metabolism that can't be repeated in the lab means he's tripped the wire :surprised:

Machine calibration error with his HR strap :rolleyes:

:D
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

15 Jan 2018 19:35

Wiggo's Package wrote:The Dawg really is down on his luck :(

Freakish metabolism that can't be repeated in the lab means he's tripped the wire :surprised:

Machine calibration error with his HR strap :rolleyes:

:D


Crazy adaptive physiology and seated accelerations that only appeared once on Ventoux 2013.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,100
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

15 Jan 2018 20:54

thehog wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:The Dawg really is down on his luck :(

Freakish metabolism that can't be repeated in the lab means he's tripped the wire :surprised:

Machine calibration error with his HR strap :rolleyes:

:D


Crazy adaptive physiology and seated accelerations that only appeared once on Ventoux 2013.


Ha! Reminds me of this quote from JV in 2014 (http://forum.cyclingnews.imdserve.com/viewtopic.php?p=1489435&sid=3f3f5c5551c64c458bd0c02fe0266279#p1489435):

"Ok, he was asking me how it was possible Froome rode at 6.9w/kg up Madone.

There are three possibilities:

1. Motor on his bike.

2. Serious o2 vector doping.

3. 92vo2 max utilizing 92% of which at MSS, and an efficiency of around 85w/liter of o2. All of which, on their own, are plausible. Put together? I've never seen it in an athlete, however, I refuse to discount that it is possible. All the components are possible individually, so there's no absolute reason it's impossible.

Which one is the right answer? I don't know. Chris Froome does.

JV"
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

16 Jan 2018 10:39

Wiggo's Package wrote:
thehog wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:The Dawg really is down on his luck :(

Freakish metabolism that can't be repeated in the lab means he's tripped the wire :surprised:

Machine calibration error with his HR strap :rolleyes:

:D


Crazy adaptive physiology and seated accelerations that only appeared once on Ventoux 2013.


Ha! Reminds me of this quote from JV in 2014 (http://forum.cyclingnews.imdserve.com/viewtopic.php?p=1489435&sid=3f3f5c5551c64c458bd0c02fe0266279#p1489435):

"Ok, he was asking me how it was possible Froome rode at 6.9w/kg up Madone.

There are three possibilities:

1. Motor on his bike.

2. Serious o2 vector doping.

3. 92vo2 max utilizing 92% of which at MSS, and an efficiency of around 85w/liter of o2. All of which, on their own, are plausible. Put together? I've never seen it in an athlete, however, I refuse to discount that it is possible. All the components are possible individually, so there's no absolute reason it's impossible.

Which one is the right answer? I don't know. Chris Froome does.

JV"


4. Kidney malfunction
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re:

16 Jan 2018 11:27

samhocking wrote:In my experience as the sweat builds and your chest is expanding and contracting more under heavy breathing of big efforts, the HR readings can go a bit high sometimes outdoors. I don't race with a Head Unit, but I do at a 1.5hr Tuesday night Training Crit every week in the summer and several times you'll look downand think you're ill as the reading is just way too high. It can last a few seconds or a few minutes. My max HR is 174 and i've regularly seen it peaking around 190bpm and sometimes even 190bmp when i'm not even close to maximum perceived effort or high watts for a sustained period. You really just learn to take HR & Power with a pinch of salt when analysing the data in Training Peaks or whatever and smooth it out to get a more realistic idea. End of the day it's precise enough technology to track your progress if it's repeatable and that's all that matters long-term for training. The whole claim of things being +-2% accurate for HR monitors and Power Meters is based on a snapshot against a known power and HR, not how accurate it is with itself over the duration of a ride.

Here's a comparison between a HR Strap & HR watch on the road in the real world.
Image

Here's the same two HR Monitors indoors on a Turbo Trainer.
Image


Considering the fact that those plots come from an article showing that watch based optical systems are not as accurate as electrical-based chest systems in the real world, using them as examples of different HR monitors showing variation in readings without stating this is highly misleading.

gillan1969 wrote:
samhocking wrote:There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.


what I meant was that because of the nature of road riding then your heart rate will always be going up and down due to easing off in tailwinds, pushing a bit in climbs...slowing for cars, junctions, deer, other cyclists, crap road surface, puddles etc etc etc...i.e.the raw data is always going up and down

on a turbo its pretty consistent......


See my reply above. You are correct, a turbo will give a more consistent change (course dependent obviously) and SH is also right that the reduced movement on the turbo will stop the watch shaking.

The issue here is that when people talk about discrepancy between readings they would generally refer to comparable measurements made with two comparable devices in a similar situation, such as the turbo session. This is not the case here.The plots SH shows are from an article specifically pointing out that those devices are not comparable on the road. It's here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/how-accurate-is-wrist-based-heart-rate-vs-hr-strap-48458/#disqus_thread

As you can see from the data SH posted, under controlled conditions, turbo, they are extremely similar, within a couple of beats of each other. Replace the watch in the on road test with another chest strap and it's likely to look very similar to the chest strap in this data.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,039
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

16 Jan 2018 11:37

King Boonen wrote:
samhocking wrote:In my experience as the sweat builds and your chest is expanding and contracting more under heavy breathing of big efforts, the HR readings can go a bit high sometimes outdoors. I don't race with a Head Unit, but I do at a 1.5hr Tuesday night Training Crit every week in the summer and several times you'll look downand think you're ill as the reading is just way too high. It can last a few seconds or a few minutes. My max HR is 174 and i've regularly seen it peaking around 190bpm and sometimes even 190bmp when i'm not even close to maximum perceived effort or high watts for a sustained period. You really just learn to take HR & Power with a pinch of salt when analysing the data in Training Peaks or whatever and smooth it out to get a more realistic idea. End of the day it's precise enough technology to track your progress if it's repeatable and that's all that matters long-term for training. The whole claim of things being +-2% accurate for HR monitors and Power Meters is based on a snapshot against a known power and HR, not how accurate it is with itself over the duration of a ride.

Here's a comparison between a HR Strap & HR watch on the road in the real world.
Image

Here's the same two HR Monitors indoors on a Turbo Trainer.
Image


Considering the fact that those plots come from an article showing that watch based optical systems are not as accurate as electrical-based chest systems in the real world, using them as examples of different HR monitors showing variation in readings without stating this is highly misleading.

gillan1969 wrote:
samhocking wrote:There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.


what I meant was that because of the nature of road riding then your heart rate will always be going up and down due to easing off in tailwinds, pushing a bit in climbs...slowing for cars, junctions, deer, other cyclists, crap road surface, puddles etc etc etc...i.e.the raw data is always going up and down

on a turbo its pretty consistent......


See my reply above. You are correct, a turbo will give a more consistent change (course dependent obviously) and SH is also right that the reduced movement on the turbo will stop the watch shaking.

The issue here is that when people talk about discrepancy between readings they would generally refer to comparable measurements made with two comparable devices in a similar situation, such as the turbo session. This is not the case here.The plots SH shows are from an article specifically pointing out that those devices are not comparable on the road. It's here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/how-accurate-is-wrist-based-heart-rate-vs-hr-strap-48458/#disqus_thread

As you can see from the data SH posted, under controlled conditions, turbo, they are extremely similar, within a couple of beats of each other. Replace the watch in the on road test with another chest strap and it's likely to look very similar to the chest strap in this data.


Cheers KB (and SH) but is that not obvious? I'm assuming we're talking about measuring the HR at the wrist with the actual wrist unit? Of course it'll be different and the wrist one will perform unfavorably, or at least that would be my intuitive thought...I am talking about the comparison between two different HRMs both using chest straps, if they were sooooo different you wouldn't use it...so agree about that data being used being misleading

and, to be fair, I had misread the graphs in terms of the comparison so thanks for clarification on that point (both KB and SH)
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,347
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

16 Jan 2018 11:41

gillan1969 wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
samhocking wrote:In my experience as the sweat builds and your chest is expanding and contracting more under heavy breathing of big efforts, the HR readings can go a bit high sometimes outdoors. I don't race with a Head Unit, but I do at a 1.5hr Tuesday night Training Crit every week in the summer and several times you'll look downand think you're ill as the reading is just way too high. It can last a few seconds or a few minutes. My max HR is 174 and i've regularly seen it peaking around 190bpm and sometimes even 190bmp when i'm not even close to maximum perceived effort or high watts for a sustained period. You really just learn to take HR & Power with a pinch of salt when analysing the data in Training Peaks or whatever and smooth it out to get a more realistic idea. End of the day it's precise enough technology to track your progress if it's repeatable and that's all that matters long-term for training. The whole claim of things being +-2% accurate for HR monitors and Power Meters is based on a snapshot against a known power and HR, not how accurate it is with itself over the duration of a ride.

Here's a comparison between a HR Strap & HR watch on the road in the real world.
Image

Here's the same two HR Monitors indoors on a Turbo Trainer.
Image


Considering the fact that those plots come from an article showing that watch based optical systems are not as accurate as electrical-based chest systems in the real world, using them as examples of different HR monitors showing variation in readings without stating this is highly misleading.

gillan1969 wrote:
samhocking wrote:There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.


what I meant was that because of the nature of road riding then your heart rate will always be going up and down due to easing off in tailwinds, pushing a bit in climbs...slowing for cars, junctions, deer, other cyclists, crap road surface, puddles etc etc etc...i.e.the raw data is always going up and down

on a turbo its pretty consistent......


See my reply above. You are correct, a turbo will give a more consistent change (course dependent obviously) and SH is also right that the reduced movement on the turbo will stop the watch shaking.

The issue here is that when people talk about discrepancy between readings they would generally refer to comparable measurements made with two comparable devices in a similar situation, such as the turbo session. This is not the case here.The plots SH shows are from an article specifically pointing out that those devices are not comparable on the road. It's here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/how-accurate-is-wrist-based-heart-rate-vs-hr-strap-48458/#disqus_thread

As you can see from the data SH posted, under controlled conditions, turbo, they are extremely similar, within a couple of beats of each other. Replace the watch in the on road test with another chest strap and it's likely to look very similar to the chest strap in this data.


Cheers KB (and SH) but is that not obvious? I'm assuming we're talking about measuring the HR at the wrist with the actual wrist unit? Of course it'll be different and the wrist one will perform unfavorably, or at least that would be my intuitive thought...I am talking about the comparison between two different HRMs both using chest straps, if they were sooooo different you wouldn't use it...so agree about that data being used being misleading

and, to be fair, I had misread the graphs in terms of the comparison so thanks for clarification on that point (both KB and SH)


I think everyone is talking about this, which is why it's so misleading for someone to use data from chest Vs. Watch devices on the road as an example of device variation.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,039
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

07 Jun 2018 15:04

From Brailsford apprent “feeding” strategy for Froome on Stage 19 (from the BBC article) :confused:

Image


Image
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,100
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

09 Jun 2018 16:01

Brailsford & Kerrison go into the details on the latest Bespoke. I think the 360 comes from the fact the human body can only absorb 90 grams of carbs an hour. 90 grams of carbs is 360 calories. You can't absorb more than that, so 360 calories/hour is used to decide feeding strategy usually. The way I work it out for long rides is simply 1g of maltodextrine is 4 calories, so 90g of Maltodextrine X 4 calories = 360 calories / hour maximum intake needed. Anymore is just unused and excreted or makes you fill sick.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,360
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

09 Jun 2018 18:12

Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,347
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

09 Jun 2018 18:18

gillan1969 wrote:Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?


I shouldn't laugh, but :lol:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 680
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

09 Jun 2018 21:12

gillan1969 wrote:Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?


Froome rode for a hour with Swart on a wind trainer. A quick microdose of EPO would have been enough for that session. His numbers were good but not astounding. Not anywhere a person who can win back to back Tour’s or smash it the way he did on Stage 19 of the Giro.

The only consistent aspect was the heartrate data was lost during the testing and naturally lost during Velon’s recording of Stage 19. What are the chances? :cool:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,100
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

10 Jun 2018 01:47

thehog wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?


Froome rode for a hour with Swart on a wind trainer. A quick microdose of EPO would have been enough for that session. His numbers were good but not astounding. Not anywhere a person who can win back to back Tour’s or smash it the way he did on Stage 19 of the Giro.

The only consistent aspect was the heartrate data was lost during the testing and naturally lost during Velon’s recording of Stage 19. What are the chances? :cool:

The amount of data loss is really quite astounding and full of hilarity. I mean, wtf and jfc, most amateurs I know don't have anywhere near this issue with data. Why not just share the truth - we don't want to share it!
User avatar Ripper
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,581
Joined: 14 Sep 2009 03:41
Location: It's a surprise!

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

10 Jun 2018 07:43

brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?


I shouldn't laugh, but :lol:


quite...the question comes not from me 'believing' froome uses a motor (although I'm not ruling it out). It's more a scientist doing his job in removing the variables from the subject matter..

I mean presumably if you're laughing at what I think you're laughing at, then the UCI even attempting to look for motors is laughable ???
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,347
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

10 Jun 2018 10:28

thehog wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?


Froome rode for a hour with Swart on a wind trainer. A quick microdose of EPO would have been enough for that session. His numbers were good but not astounding. Not anywhere a person who can win back to back Tour’s or smash it the way he did on Stage 19 of the Giro.

The only consistent aspect was the heartrate data was lost during the testing and naturally lost during Velon’s recording of Stage 19. What are the chances? :cool:

He didn't even have to worry about microdosing, there was no drug test. Swart is laughable.
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,433
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

10 Jun 2018 13:34

veganrob wrote:
thehog wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?


Froome rode for a hour with Swart on a wind trainer. A quick microdose of EPO would have been enough for that session. His numbers were good but not astounding. Not anywhere a person who can win back to back Tour’s or smash it the way he did on Stage 19 of the Giro.

The only consistent aspect was the heartrate data was lost during the testing and naturally lost during Velon’s recording of Stage 19. What are the chances? :cool:

He didn't even have to worry about microdosing, there was no drug test. Swart is laughable.


quite...Froome reaches out to Swart to help quell the speculation that froome is a fraud

and guess what...the two things which Froome could use to be a fraud, Swart doesn't factor into his 'research'

great work guys :D
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,347
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

10 Jun 2018 21:38

gillan1969 wrote:Apologies for not going through all the pages but did Swart check for a motor on Froomes bike before the test?

Power was measured at the crank arms and at the ergometer load device. A motor would result in different power readings. They were not different.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,181
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mayo from Mayo and 23 guests

Back to top