Critical Power Study of GT Winners

[King Boonen]

if it isnt against the rules yet then game on....be it new drug compounds

Good post, the clinic has been like that for a long time. It seems that some members will just accuse everyone who wins, then when one goes down they can be smug that they called it, regardless of the fact that they call out everyone.

The bit I've left, I just want to point out that all drugs that have not been cleared for use in humans and licensed by the appropriate bodies are banned.

 

[deviant]

Cool, i was more leaning towards things like Telmisartan and Sodium Bicarb....both of which have some evidence as useful PEDs but arent banned or thought of as conventional PEDs....if riders are using things like this and they arent illegal or banned then i dont have a problem after all we're not talking about exclusive, hard to find and expensive to buy substances.

Maybe the boring and mundane answer to decent modern performances are that riders have ditched the drugs like testosterone and EPO which are easy to detect and are instead using a combination of substances that are right under our noses, not banned yet and available to us all?

 

[King Boonen]

Cool, i was more leaning towards things like Telmisartan and Sodium Bicarb....both of which have some evidence as useful PEDs but arent banned or thought of as conventional PEDs....if riders are using things like this and they arent illegal or banned then i dont have a problem.

Yeah, pretty difficult to ban baking soda in France!!

Telmisartan is an interesting one because technically it is banned under S4.5 b) Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor (sigma) agonists. They list GW 1516 as an example but all PPAR agonists are banned.


So while it is not named on the list, from my understanding, it is a banned substance based on the current research. I'm guessing they don't test for it and there is some ambiguity around it as it is mainly an angiotensin II receptor antagonist.

 

[The Hitch]

It's like if some people had no idea that the vast majority of athletes who doped under a) the east German doping programme b) the balco doping programme, c) Fuentes's doping programme, never tested positive.

Not testing positive means you aren't taking the banned drugs? Pff people should at least do some background reading before posting the clinic.

 

[Merckx index]

Isn't the whole thing an extrapolation of the data? That's how you get AWC v CP in the first place?

Yes, but those are determined by extrapolation to infinite time, and are likely to be more accurate than extrapolation to zero time.

All VC did was grumble about the big difference in two minute power between Froome and Horner. I still haven't found in the paper where he gives the two minute estimates of power,and he specifically points out that fifteen minutes is the shortest time period in the data used. The question is whether the values between fifteen minutes and about an hour can meaningfully be analyzed to provide some estimate of AEC.

And the other issue, as I noted before, is selection, whether the climbs are representative of the riders' best efforts.

 

[The Hitch]

A link to this study has already been posted here, and some discussion of it has begun, but I think it deserves its own thread. I found it very interesting. Among the more provocative conclusions:

1) Contador and Froome had essentially equal critical power (CP), a measure of aerobic capacity and derived power, in the 2013 TDF. The distinguishing factor was anaerobic energy/reserves (AEC in the paper). Froome’s was > 80% higher.

2) Contador in 2009 had 4% higher CP than he did in 2013, and more than double AEC. Contador in 2009 would have easily beaten Froome in 2013.

3) Froome’s CP in 2013 TDF was relatively low compared to that of past winners, including Lemond and others assumed to be clean (though no figures are provided for these).

4) Horner’s 2013 Vuelta CP was higher than that of any other rider in this study except Indurain in the height of the EPO era. His V02 max calculated from his CP was almost 90, and if not for a relatively low AEC, his numbers suggest he would blow Froome and just about anyone else out of the water.

Though the author does not make any definitive doping conclusions, it’s pretty clear he thinks his analysis is consistent with Froome being clean, while Horner looks very suspicious. However, these conclusions are based on their CPs, which as measures of aerobic power, are mostly relevant to blood doping. He shows AEC to be a key factor, and this certainly raises the question of whether certain doping methods could be used to enhance this. One would also love to see this kind of analysis on Froome pre-2011 Vuelta.

To play the devil's advocate here, if I were to assume everyone here is doping, it would seem that:

1) Froome has avoided blood doping in favor of some other program than enhances anaerobic reserves (AEC)
2) Horner has stayed with blood doping but hasn't tried/isn't aware of enhancement of AEC
3) Contador in 2009 was using both methods. In 2013 he was using blood doping less, and AEC enhancement not at all.

If these scenarios don't seem entirely consistent or make sense, that's my point. Contador, in particular, as noted above, had a much higher AEC in 2009 than in 2013. Why? If this can be enhanced by doping, and if Froome were doing it in 2013, why wasn't Contador? And Horner? If it can't be enhanced much, and is mostly a natural trait, why did AC experience such a huge dropoff between 2009 and 2013, much more than his decrease in CP?

Finally, it should be emphasized that the author necessarily engaged in a selection process in picking out climbs he thought were representative of the rider's maximal efforts. The climbs also were assumed to be relatively free of weather factors that could affect times. So usual reservations apply.

would, under this analysis, Thomas Frei for example.come back 100% clean.

 

[Ferminal]

Yes, but those are determined by extrapolation to infinite time, and are likely to be more accurate than extrapolation to zero time.

But it's all the same line. If the 2min AWC value is invalid then the corresponding CP value means nothing either. For a given set of data and fixed CP there is only one solution for AWC, you can't not accept that number but pretend the CP value still holds. You wouldn't use CP if you were trying to disregard the anaerobic component, there are easier ways to get a rough idea of what someone is capable of for an hour. Obviously when Froome does 6.2 in a 40km in 2011 you'd think his aerobic ability is better than what this indicates. Either that or the anaerobic component is true...

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

A link to this study has already been posted here, and some discussion of it has begun, but I think it deserves its own thread. I found it very interesting. Among the more provocative conclusions:

1) Contador and Froome had essentially equal critical power (CP), a measure of aerobic capacity and derived power, in the 2013 TDF. The distinguishing factor was anaerobic energy/reserves (AEC in the paper). Froome’s was > 80% higher.

2) Contador in 2009 had 4% higher CP than he did in 2013, and more than double AEC. Contador in 2009 would have easily beaten Froome in 2013.

3) Froome’s CP in 2013 TDF was relatively low compared to that of past winners, including Lemond and others assumed to be clean (though no figures are provided for these).

4) Horner’s 2013 Vuelta CP was higher than that of any other rider in this study except Indurain in the height of the EPO era. His V02 max calculated from his CP was almost 90, and if not for a relatively low AEC, his numbers suggest he would blow Froome and just about anyone else out of the water.

Though the author does not make any definitive doping conclusions, it’s pretty clear he thinks his analysis is consistent with Froome being clean, while Horner looks very suspicious. However, these conclusions are based on their CPs, which as measures of aerobic power, are mostly relevant to blood doping. He shows AEC to be a key factor, and this certainly raises the question of whether certain doping methods could be used to enhance this. One would also love to see this kind of analysis on Froome pre-2011 Vuelta.

To play the devil's advocate here, if I were to assume everyone here is doping, it would seem that:

1) Froome has avoided blood doping in favor of some other program than enhances anaerobic reserves (AEC)
2) Horner has stayed with blood doping but hasn't tried/isn't aware of enhancement of AEC
3) Contador in 2009 was using both methods. In 2013 he was using blood doping less, and AEC enhancement not at all.

If these scenarios don't seem entirely consistent or make sense, that's my point. Contador, in particular, as noted above, had a much higher AEC in 2009 than in 2013. Why? If this can be enhanced by doping, and if Froome were doing it in 2013, why wasn't Contador? And Horner? If it can't be enhanced much, and is mostly a natural trait, why did AC experience such a huge dropoff between 2009 and 2013, much more than his decrease in CP?

Finally, it should be emphasized that the author necessarily engaged in a selection process in picking out climbs he thought were representative of the rider's maximal efforts. The climbs also were assumed to be relatively free of weather factors that could affect times. So usual reservations apply.

what bull**** about horner and after a quick sna no idea where they got his numbers from either. horners wattages were lower than those in the tour 2013 by froome and quintana I read during the vuelta. what kind of idiotic numbers did this guy use to calculcate horner?

 

[Ferminal]

So Froome is an anaerobic freak and has an FTP of 5.6.. or his FTP is close to 6 like we already know and anaerobically Purito would make him ****. Though Purito was average Bonascre so of course he wouldn't...

Wiggins would probably crush him due to PdBF.

 

[Dave_1]

You are aware of the fact that those record times were all set on time trials up Ventoux, right? Froome's time was set on a 240km stage. As for Alpe d'Huez, Froome never attacked because the GC was in the bag, and he ended up bonking near the top too. Had he gone hard like on Ax-3-Domaines or Ventoux that time would look very different. In other words, comparing times means nothing, because of all the variables.

You don't like having your doping thread fun spoiled with some hard facts it seems

 

[King Boonen]

So Froome is an anaerobic freak and has an FTP of 5.6.. or his FTP is close to 6 like we already know and anaerobically Purito would make him ****. Though Purito was average Bonascre so of course he wouldn't...

Wiggins would probably crush him due to PdBF.

Shistosoma Manosi exhibit anaerobic metabolism...

 

[Race Radio]

The point of the study is to compare riders from different eras. It is certainly possible the calculations are off, but they would be off for all riders. The comparison still stands. There are multiple other data points and calculations that support the idea that Horner's Vuelta performance was historic.

Froome's sudden transformation into a GT winner has been discussed to death, as has his erratic performances.....but his historical position is still up in the air, largely due to lack of data points. This is changing fast. It used to be hard to get power files, now they are readily available from dozens of riders. Froome may not provide them but it is increasingly easy to accurately calculate based on multiple files from other riders. The part that is hard to calculate are the insane accelerations, like on Ventoux.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

insane accelrations? you mean the one contadcor followed with ease until he burned himself? froome has almost no accelration in him. he's as diesel as they get.

 

[zigmeister]

For me there are two questions that haven't been answered about Froome that are more important than any other:

1) How did he go from 47th overall in Tour de Suisse and 85th overall in Tour de Pologne to 2nd overall in the Vuelta in the space of less than three months in 2011? It's unlike anything anyone has ever done and it's not like his results beforehand showed any sign of him being able to pull off a podium finish in a Grand Tour.

2) How is he able to keep up with (or even beat) riders like Tony Martin, Cancellara and Phinney on flat time trials, while being skinny as a stick and not dedicating hours in a wind tunnel to perfect his position on the bike?


Those are the two things that will continue to baffle me more than anything else. I can't see how anyone can give a convincing answer to those two questions even if the math shows that his output is less than that of other GT winners.

Excellent questions.

The only way to explain froome is if you believe the following:

1. He is a natural athletic uber-talent on a level with Lemond.
2. That uber-talent remained hidden as long as he was affected by a parasite that specifically targeted his oxygen carrying ability -- something other riders were actually adding to with o2 vector doping.
3. (to a lesser degree of importance because it would have been gradual while his ascendency was not) the peloton became somewhat cleaner. Remember that even a clean uber-talent such as Lemond was completely destroyed by lesser riders on epo. So the only way froome is clean is if the general level of doping - particularly at the upper end -- is less pervasive or extreme than the early 90s.

So the only way I see someone believing froome is clean is if they believe all three above components of the narrative.

It is real easy to go from top 5 to 80th place on the pro tour. Doesn't take much. Mechanical and you can't get back on at an very poor place at the race.

Race director says Hey, Chris, stop goofing around, you are riding for the Schlecks, not yourself, carry some bottles up there and pull.

It goes on and on.

 

[zigmeister]

As far as Horner's VO2max being around 90 at age 40-41, un-possible.

You can't accurate determine VO2 max via some performance calculations that aren't even accurate to begin with.

Direct testing with equipment, under the proper conditions is the only way.

And at his age, even if we could use some basic calculations of his age and resting heart rate to determine VO2 max, he would need to have a 1 minute rate of approximately 30bpm. That isn't possible.

I know a pro cyclist who is nearing 30yrs old, rides for a World Tour squad, known clean athlete, proven. He has an 88 VO2 max, resting HR of 38bpm.

So throw that who conversation out the window.

 

[Race Radio]

what bull**** about horner and after a quick sna no idea where they got his numbers from either. horners wattages were lower than those in the tour 2013 by froome and quintana I read during the vuelta. what kind of idiotic numbers did this guy use to calculcate horner?

It has been well reported and discussed that Horner's W/kg and VAM were higher then Froome/Quintana on multiple climbs in the Vuelta. His climbing times also set new record on Peña Cabarga and 2nd on the Angrilu.....

 

[kingjr]

It has been well reported and discussed that Horner's W/kg and VAM were higher then Froome/Quintana on multiple climbs in the Vuelta. His climbing times also set new records on Peña Cabarga and the Angrilu.....not by a little but by a lot

On the Angliru? afaik that one is still owned by Heras?

 

[The Hitch]

Horner was 1 minute 10 or so slower than Heras but faster than everyone else.

 

[kingjr]

Horner was 1 minute 20 or so slower than Heras but faster than everyone else.

So it's not a new record

 

[Race Radio]

On the Angliru? afaik that one is still owned by Heras?

Doh, sorry. You are right. Horner is 2nd fastest on the Angrilu. Faster then Contador, Tonkov, Rumsas, Cobo, Froome, Escartin, Menchov, etc.

 

[Le breton]

As far as Horner's VO2max being around 90 at age 40-41, un-possible.........
And at his age, even if we could use some basic calculations of his age and resting heart rate to determine VO2 max, he would need to have a 1 minute rate of approximately 30bpm. ...........
.

Do your friends suggest your name for the 2014 Nobel prize in Medicine (Physiology) ?

 

[red_flanders]

insane accelrations? you mean the one contadcor followed with ease until he burned himself? froome has almost no accelration in him. he's as diesel as they get.

For reals? You must have missed this minor little surge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52xv2Hg2fkI

 

[Dave_1]

For reals? You must have missed this minor little surge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52xv2Hg2fkI

Froome went up Ventoux in 59 minutes..4 minutes slower than Mayo, JV, and a minute slower than Pantani in 1994.

 

[BYOP88]

Froome went up Ventoux in 59 minutes..4 minutes slower than Mayo, JV, and a minute slower than Pantani in 2004.

Mayo's time was from a ITT not a full stage.

 

[Ferminal]

The point of the study is to compare riders from different eras. .

Again , there are far less unreliable ways to do that than CP.